Siri

M O N A S H U N I V E R S I T Y
D E P A R T M E N T O F C H E M I C A L E N G I N E E R I N G
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
CHE4117: Design Project (1999)
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
F ORMALDEHYDE FROM M ETHANOL

m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
Author: David VERRELLI

fu IO
Monash Identification Number: 11911603

ad T
lo LU
Group Number: 8
wn SO
Group Members: Ho Hai HUYNH

Sasha TRANDAFILOVIC
Do E
David VERRELLI
Rachel WELDON
-R
Michael WHITEMAN
W
Saiful ZAINAL ABIDIN

LO
Date Submitted: Monday, 18th October 1999

CHE4117: Design Project David VERRELLI (Group 8)
Formaldehyde
Summary
S.
In early 1999 MonMark Consulting Services was contracted by Rhonnan Worldwide to investigate the
potential formaldehyde market in the local region as part of their diversification strategy. That preliminary
.au NT
report, reinforced by the recent closure of a 100t.y–1 Australian formaldehyde plant, led to Rhonnan’s decision
to invest in a new formaldehyde plant. The plant would produce 90% “Grade A” product (54% formaldehyde
and 1% methanol by mass) from methanol feedstock, for a neighbouring resins plant. The remaining 10% would
om FO
be “Grade B” (37% and 7% respectively). MonMark were again invited to advise. Investigations commenced
/
soon after the start of the 1999–2000 financial year.
1.c D
Initial indications suggested that the best site for such a set up would be Bathurst, N.S.W.. Production of around
125,000t.y–1 of Grade A product appeared to be the optimum capacity.
iv E
Rhonnan had not ventured into this market before, and so the technology had to be bought into. As the product
.d D
was to go to resins manufacture, the most favourable production route was identified as the metal oxide process.
ch ED
Following talks with BASF AG, Rhonnan advised at this stage that a plant in Bontang, Kalimantan, producing
the equivalent of 80,000t.y–1 of Grade A solution was more in keeping with their Synchronised Operations
Paradigm. If possible, a silver catalyst process, similar to that developed by BASF, was to be used.
ar B
se M
From this new starting point, more information was sought on BASF’s process, in which recycled off-gases are
mixed with the reactor feed and passed over a silver catalyst. The equipment items required led to the
re E
development of mass and energy balances. Difficulties were encountered in modelling the aqueous formalde-
hyde system using a computer simulation package, largely due to the tendency of formaldehyde to undergo
:// T
hydration, but these were overcome by independent spreadsheet calculations. The balances showed that the
plant would be self-sufficient in steam, but a consumer of recirculated cooling water (RCW).
tp U
The information gathered confirmed that the BASF process was the preferred type of silver catalyst process.
ht HO
Some changes were made in MonMark’s suggested optimisation of the process. For example, MonMark
recommends that the blower be driven by a steam turbine so as not to be dependent on outside supply.
m IT
Based on the mass and energy flows obtained, all the equipment items were specified in sufficient detail to allow
economic feasibility studies to go ahead, as well as for piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) purposes.
fro W
It was felt that the absorber was the key component in the process, given that no distillation column will be
present, and so a detailed design of this unit was undertaken. This included both mechanical and process design.
n n
As this was to be essentially the final design, subject to approval, much time was spent looking at the vapour–
liquid equilibria. In the end a conservative approach was taken, and subsequent safety factors omitted.
io io
Details worked out at this stage of the project indicated that a trayed section would be required at the top of the
rs rs
tower, with cooling coils, to achieve high levels of absorption. This made the column over 30m in height.
ve ve
Following the detailed design of the absorber, a P&ID for that item was drawn up, which also included the
recirculation stream equipment. (The recirculation streams must be cooled due to the high heat of absorption.)
ll N
A hazards and operability (HAZOP) study was conducted on the methanol vaporiser. This was seen as one of the
priorities, because it contains a significant inventory of methanol, which is flammable. The HAZOP meeting was
fu IO
conducted in a small group, and uncovered around 100 possible improvements to the draft P&ID.
ad T
Some confusion in the board room resulted in a move to clarify MonMark’s position on parallel streaming.
Parallel streaming is generally to be avoided, due to increased capital and operating costs as well as maintenance
lo LU
issues. However in this case the catalytic reactors (and associated items) are specified in parallel to cope with
Rhonnan’s condition that the plant be capable of operating effectively at only 60% of the design rates. Parallel
wn SO
specification of the reactors, in the ratio 40:60, allows the contact time to remain at the design value.
Parallel streaming can also be required for safety reasons, or due to size limitations.
Do E
After the plant layout was determined, it was discovered that the site required only 0.87ha of land, of which the
processing plant comprised 18% and the storage area 28%.
-R
Economic evaluation showed that the fixed capital investment required would be approximately 13.4 million US
W
dollars, with an additional 2.4 million working capital. Local financial volatility meant that the contingencies
that have been included are higher than normal. However with an annual operating cost of only 10 million
LO
compared to expected sales revenues of 24 million at full capacity, the payback time, net present value (NPV)
and discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFRR) were all very favourable. And the assumptions made tended to
err more on the conservative side. (Note: Costs are in 1999 dollars.)
MonMark Services conclude that the plant is likely to be highly profitable, and recommend investment.
Further studies would tie up any ‘loose ends’ with regard to the specification of items and more accurate
economic evaluation. MonMark Services would be p l ea s ed to provide further consultation on the project.
13:29 page i
17/10/99
Formaldehyde
Declaration of Authorship
S.
I, Dav id Ve r r el li , hereby declare that all of the work presented in this report is due to my o wn unstinting
efforts, e xc ep t in the various instances in which the work of others has been d u l y a c k n o wled g ed and fu ll y
.au NT
refere n ced , or otherwise specified. Any contributions made by group members, classmates or lecturers are
indicated as such.
om FO
Every effort has been made to trace and fu ll y ac k n o wled g e copyrighted material, patents held and
/
intellectual property. However any omissions do not have the effect of negating any such rights. Information
from persons who believe they hold such rights would be welcomed.
1.c D
iv E
All rights are reserved under the Copyright Act. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act, copying or
storage of this work by any means, without the prior approval of the author and publisher, is prohibited.
.d D
ch ED
David Verrelli
David VERRELLI
ar B
se M
Melbourne, 18th October, 1999.
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
© The Author, 1999
12:32 page ii
18/10/99
Formaldehyde
Preface
S.
This report is the culmination of five years of undergraduate study at Monash University, Clayton. It is therefore
only just that any credit associated with this report be distributed to not only myself, but also the lecturers who
.au NT
advised me, other staff who assisted me, the friends who counselled me and provided welcome diversion, and
my parents who supported me.
om FO
Of course, any errors in fact or omissions remain my own responsibility.
/
1.c D
I wish in particular to thank Anthony, Susan, Sylvia, Hasan, Hanny, Juliana, Jo, Angela, Makoto, Mong, Lan, Li
iv E
Ling, Gareth, Helen, Tu, Katrina, Jeremy, Mary, Manual, Adrian and Yuki.
.d D
Also Dr. Peter Uhlherr, Dr. Ross Nicol, Dra. Yacinta Kurniasih, Tina Weller, Dr. W. Erich Olbrich, Dr. Joe
ch ED
Mathews, Dr. Philip Thomson, Dr. Steve Siems, Dr. Paul Webley, Dr. John Andrews, Dr. Tamarapu Sridhar and
Nick.
ar B
I would like to recognise various of the staff at Wheelers Hill Secondary College and Waverley Meadows
se M
Primary School.
re E
Finally a word for all those people who have entertained me – through music, through television and through
literature.
:// T
tp U
David Verrelli
ht HO
David VERRELLI
Melbourne, 18th October, 1999.

m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
13:38 page iii

17/10/99
Formaldehyde
Overview of Contents
S.
Part 1: Project Option Considerations
.au NT
1. Recommendations on Capacity, Location and Process Route
Part 2: Plant Design for Nominated Capacity, Location and Process Route
om FO
2. Problem Definition
/
3. Process Synthesis and Flowsheet Development
4. Process Flowsheet
1.c D
5. Mass and Energy Balances & Process Simulation
iv E
6. Specification of Equipment Items
7. Detailed Design of Formaldehyde Absorber
.d D
8. Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) around Formaldehyde Absorber
ch ED
9. Hazard and Operability Study for Vaporiser
10. Parallel Streaming
ar B
11. Plant Layout
12. Economic Evaluation
se M
13. Conclusions
re E
14. References
Drawing Annex
:// T
tp U
Appendices
ht HO
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
16:15 page iv
11/10/99
Formaldehyde
Contents
S.
Part 1: Project Option Considerations
.au NT
1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON CAPACITY, LOCATION AND PROCESS ROUTE............ 1-1
om FO
/
1·1 PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1·2 CAPACITY ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.c D
1·3 PROCESS ROUTE ................................................................................................................................ 1-2
iv E
1·4 LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 1-2
.d D
1·5 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3
ch ED
ar B
Part 2: Plant Design for Nominated Capacity, Location and Process Route
se M
re E
2 PROBLEM DEFINITION ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2·1
:// T
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 2-1
tp U
2·2 PLANT................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
ht HO
2·2·1 Process Route ................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2·2·2 Location Details ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2·2·3 Capacity............................................................................................................................................ 2-2
m IT
2·2·4 Other Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 2-2

2·3 FEEDSTOCK AND PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................................... 2-2
fro W
2·3·1 Methanol Feedstock ......................................................................................................................... 2-2

2·3·2 Formaldehyde Product ..................................................................................................................... 2-2
n n
2·4 UTILITIES PROVIDED ........................................................................................................................ 2-3

io io
2·5 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................... 2-3

rs rs
2·6 TERMINAL POINTS ............................................................................................................................ 2-3

2·7 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 2-3
ve ve
3 PROCESS SYNTHESIS AND FLOWSHEET DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 3-1

ll N
3·1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ‘SILVER CATALYST PROCESSES’ ........................................................ 3-1

fu IO
3·1·1 Reactor ............................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3·1·2 Cooling ............................................................................................................................................. 3-2
ad T
3·1·3 Vaporiser & mixer ............................................................................................................................ 3-3

lo LU
3·1·4 Absorber ........................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3·2 VARIATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO SILVER CATALYST TYPE PROCESSES ............................ 3-4
3·2·1 With distillation ................................................................................................................................ 3-4
wn SO
3·2·2 Without distillation ........................................................................................................................... 3-5

3·2·3 That is the question........................................................................................................................... 3-6
Do E
3·2·4 Additions .......................................................................................................................................... 3-7

-R
3·3 SEPARATION ....................................................................................................................................... 3-9

3·4 RECYCLE ............................................................................................................................................. 3-9
W
3·4·1 Introduction to recycling philosophy ................................................................................................ 3-9

3·4·2 Recycling as it applies to the current project .................................................................................... 3-9
LO
3·5 PROCESS INTEGRATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY ................................................................ 3-9

3·5·1 Process integration ........................................................................................................................... 3-9
3·5·2 Start-up issues ................................................................................................................................ 3-11
3·5·3 Other issues .................................................................................................................................... 3-11
13:36 page v
17/10/99
David VERRELLI (Group 8) CHE4117: Design Project
Formaldehyde
3·6 ECONOMIC, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ 3-12

3·6·1 Economic factors ............................................................................................................................ 3-12
S.
3·6·2 Safety factors .................................................................................................................................. 3-12
3·6·3 Environmental factors .................................................................................................................... 3-13
.au NT
3·7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 3-13
om FO
4 PROCESS FLOWSHEET ......................................................................................................... 4-1
/
4·1 EXHORTATION ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
1.c D
4·2 PROCESS FLOWSHEET DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 4-1
4·2·1 Reactor feed system – Part 1 ............................................................................................................ 4-1
iv E
4·2·2 Reactor feed system – Part 1 ............................................................................................................ 4-3
.d D
4·2·3 Reaction system................................................................................................................................ 4-3
4·2·4 Absorption ........................................................................................................................................ 4-4
ch ED
4·2·5 Tail-gas treatment ............................................................................................................................. 4-4
4·2·6 Storage.............................................................................................................................................. 4-5
ar B
4·3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 4-5
se M
5 MASS AND ENERGY BALANCES & PROCESS SIMULATION ....................................... 5-1
re E
5·1 THE IMPORTANCE OF MASS AND ENERGY BALANCES............................................................ 5-1
:// T
5·2 MASS BALANCES ............................................................................................................................... 5-1
tp U
5·2·1 Development .................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5·2·2 Verification....................................................................................................................................... 5-4
ht HO
5·3 ENERGY BALANCES ......................................................................................................................... 5-5
5·3·1 Development .................................................................................................................................... 5-5
m IT
5·3·2 Verification....................................................................................................................................... 5-6

5·4 PROCESS SIMULATION ..................................................................................................................... 5-6
fro W
5·4·1 Property package .............................................................................................................................. 5-7

5·4·2 The model ......................................................................................................................................... 5-8
5·4·3 Optimisation ..................................................................................................................................... 5-9
n n
5·4·4 Sensitivity analysis ........................................................................................................................... 5-9

io io
5·4·5 Failings of the simulation ............................................................................................................... 5-10

rs rs
5·5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 5-11

ve ve
6 SPECIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT ITEMS ......................................................................... 6-1

ll N
6·1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIFICATION SHEETS ...................................................................... 6-1

fu IO
6·1·1 Flowrates .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6·1·2 Fluid characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6·1·3 Branch sizes...................................................................................................................................... 6-1
ad T
6·1·4 Power requirements: Pumps and Blower ......................................................................................... 6-1

lo LU
6·1·5 Volumes ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6·1·6 Heat transfer ..................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6·1·7 Mass transfer .................................................................................................................................... 6-2
wn SO
6·1·8 Reaction ............................................................................................................................................ 6-2

6·1·9 Design temperature and pressure ...................................................................................................... 6-2
6·1·10 Materials of construction .................................................................................................................. 6-2
Do E
6·1·11 Quantity ............................................................................................................................................ 6-3

-R
6·2 SPECIFICATION SHEETS................................................................................................................... 6-3

6·3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 6-4
W
LO
7 DETAILED DESIGN OF FORMALDEHYDE ABSORBER................................................. 7-1

7·1 PROCESS DESIGN ............................................................................................................................... 7-1
7·1·1 Column characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 7-1
7·1·2 Outline of methods used ................................................................................................................... 7-2
page vi 13:36
17/10/99
Formaldehyde
7·1·3 Vapour pressures .............................................................................................................................. 7-7

7·1·4 Other physical property data .......................................................................................................... 7-10
S.
7·1·5 Application of the method .............................................................................................................. 7-12
7·2 MECHANICAL DESIGN.................................................................................................................... 7-13
.au NT
7·2·1 Materials and fabrication ................................................................................................................ 7-13
7·2·2 Internals .......................................................................................................................................... 7-13
om FO
7·2·3 Shell, ends and supports ................................................................................................................. 7-16
7·3 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 7-20
/
1.c D
8 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM (P&ID) AROUND FORMALDEHYDE
ABSORBER ................................................................................................................................ 8-1
iv E
.d D
8·1 PIPEWORK ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8·1·1 Pipes ................................................................................................................................................. 8-1
ch ED
8·1·2 Joints ................................................................................................................................................ 8-1
8·1·3 Valves ............................................................................................................................................... 8-2
ar B
8·2 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL ............................................................................................ 8-4
se M
8·2·1 Instrumentation scheme .................................................................................................................... 8-4
8·2·2 Process control scheme .................................................................................................................... 8-5
re E
8·3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 8-6
9
:// T
HAZARD AND OPERABILITY STUDY FOR VAPORISER ............................................... 9-1
tp U
9·1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 9-1
ht HO
9·2 RESULTS OF THE HAZOP STUDY .................................................................................................... 9-1
9·3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 9-2
m IT
10 PARALLEL STREAMING............................................................................................................. 10-1

fro W
10·1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 10-1

10·1·1 Scope of the task ............................................................................................................................ 10-1
n n
10·1·2 Definition of parallel streaming ...................................................................................................... 10-1

io io
10·2 CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 10-2

rs rs
10·2·1 Cost ................................................................................................................................................ 10-2

10·2·2 Reliability and risk ......................................................................................................................... 10-6
ve ve
10·2·3 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................... 10-6

10·2·4 Operation ........................................................................................................................................ 10-7
ll N
10·3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................. 10-8

fu IO
10·4 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 10-8

ad T
11 PLANT LAYOUT ..................................................................................................................... 11-1

lo LU
11·1 PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................................................... 11-1

11·1·1 Starting point .................................................................................................................................. 11-1
wn SO
11·1·2 Philosophy ...................................................................................................................................... 11-1

11·2 DETAIL OF LAYOUT ........................................................................................................................ 11-2
11·2·1 Buildings ........................................................................................................................................ 11-2
Do E
11·2·2 Storages .......................................................................................................................................... 11-3

-R
11·2·3 Processing plant .............................................................................................................................. 11-3

11·2·4 Other ............................................................................................................................................... 11-4
W
11·3 AREA REQUIRED .............................................................................................................................. 11-4

11·4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 11-4
LO
12 ECONOMIC EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 12-1

12·1 CAPITAL COST .................................................................................................................................. 12-1
13:36 page vii

17/10/99
Formaldehyde
12·1·1 Definition of boundaries ................................................................................................................. 12-1

12·1·2 Initial estimates .............................................................................................................................. 12-1
S.
12·1·3 Detailed estimate ............................................................................................................................ 12-2
12·2 OPERATING COST ............................................................................................................................ 12-6
.au NT
12·2·1 Preliminary estimate ....................................................................................................................... 12-6
12·2·2 Detailed estimates........................................................................................................................... 12-6
om FO
12·3 WORKING CAPITAL ......................................................................................................................... 12-8
/
12·4 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT PROFITABILITY .................................................................................... 12-9
12·4·1 Return on investment...................................................................................................................... 12-9
1.c D
12·4·2 Cash flow........................................................................................................................................ 12-9
iv E
12·5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 12-12
.d D
12·6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 12-12
ch ED
DRAWING ANNEX
1. FORMALDEHYDE PLANT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
ar B
2. COMPUTER SIMULATION OUTPUT
se M
3. DRAWING 7001: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF BUBBLE CAP
re E
4. DRAWING 7002: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF BUBBLE CAP TRAYS – COLUMN INTERNALS
:// T
5. DRAWING 7003: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE BASE OF THE ABSORBER (ABS-1)
tp U
6. DRAWING 7004: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE ABSORBER (ABS-1) – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
ht HO
7. DRAWING 8001: PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM (P&ID) OF THE ABSORPTION SECTION OF THE
PLANT
8. PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM (P&ID) OF THE VAPORISER SECTION OF THE PLANT, VERSION
m IT
“A” (BEFORE HAZOP)

fro W
“C” (AFTER HAZOP)

10. DRAWING 1101: PLANT LAYOUT – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING OF MAIN FORMALDEHYDE PLANT
n n
– PLAN VIEW
io io
11. DRAWING 1102: PLANT LAYOUT – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING OF MAIN FORMALDEHYDE PLANT
– ELEVATION = LOOKING WEST
rs rs
ve ve
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 3 – PROCESS SYNTHESIS AND FLOWSHEET DEVELOPMENT
ll N
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 5 – MASS AND ENERGY BALANCES & PROCESS SIMULATION

fu IO
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 6 – SPECIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT ITEMS

ad T
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 7 – PART 1: VAPOUR–LIQUID EQUILIBRIA

lo LU
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 7 – PART 2: DETAILED PROCESS DESIGN

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 7 – PART 3: DETAILED MECHANICAL DESIGN
wn SO
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 9 – RECORD OF HAZOP MEETING

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 11 – ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Do E
-R
W
LO
page viii 13:36

17/10/99
Formaldehyde
PART 1: Project Option Considerations
S.
1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON CAPACITY, LOCATION AND
.au NT
PROCESS ROUTE
om FO
/
1·1 Problem Statement
1.c D
Part 1 of the Design Project looks at the hypothetical situation in which a shortfall in the Australian formalde-
iv E
hyde1 (HCHO) market of 1×105t.y–1 at 54%(m/m) is to occur due to an imminent plant closure. The task is then
to specify relevant plant information in order to meet this new demand, namely initial capacity, location (in
.d D
Australia) and process route.
ch ED
The plant will be part of a complex in which the formaldehyde that is produced from methanol will in turn be
used to make amino and phenolic resins.
ar B
Two grades of formaldehyde are to be produced: “Grade A,” containing 54%(m/m) formaldehyde and 1%(m/m)
se M
methanol (CH3OH), and “Grade B,” containing 37%(m/m) formaldehyde and 7%(m/m) methanol.
Other practical limits on such impurities as formic acid 2 (HCOOH) are implicit in the nature of the end use of the
re E
resins as adhesives in engineered wood products.
There is a requirement to produce nine (9) times more Grade A than Grade B.
:// T
Forecast Australian growth rates for formaldehyde over the following five years are said to range from +2%.y –1
tp U
to +6%.y–1. This growth is of the entire Australian formaldehyde industry, being (initially) approximately
ht HO
2×105t.y–1.
1·2 Capacity
m IT
The following assumptions are made in calculating the initial optimal capacity:
fro W
 the calculation will be based on a plant life of 10 years (minimum)

 our plant will come on line just as the other plant closes
n n
 our plant will hold half the market share for the duration of its operating life
io io
The last assumption has been forced due to a lack of information. In a real scenario consideration could be made
rs rs
of the preferences of various buyers according to, for example, their location. However in this situation nothing
is known about the competitor(s), except that they produce 1×10 5t.y–1.of 54%(m/m) formaldehyde in year 1.
ve ve
There is no reason to assume that they will be unable to increase their market share (particularly being
established companies). In fact, it is known that existing plants often operate at low capacity utilisation rates [7],
ll N
[4].
fu IO
The market increase will be estimated at 4%.y–1 for the first five (5) years, neither overly conservative nor overly
optimistic. However since details of the increase in demand are unknown for years 6 to 10 a conservative
ad T
estimate of 2%.y–1 is appropriate. Since the market cannot be predicted for this period with any great confidence
lo LU
a cautious approach will be pursued. The total market demand compared with our share of the market is shown
in Table 1-1 below (based on 54%(m/m) formaldehyde):
wn SO
Criteria used in the selection were that the capacity utilisation should not drop below, say, 75% of the design rate
at any stage in the project, as this would be highly uneconomical. (It is impracticable to stockpile formaldehyde
due storage limitations).
Do E
It is known that in practice formaldehyde plants often operate for up to (around) 30 years [7]. However, in order
-R
to operate at reasonable capacity utilisation in early years and to minimise capital investment risk, extra capacity
which may be required after the initial 10 year period considered would be added on at a later date (depending
W
on market growth).
It is also usually possible to ‘squeeze’ more production out of a plant after it has been operating for a number of
LO
years by ‘fine-tuning’ or ‘debottle-necking’.
1 The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recognises both “formaldehyde” and “methanal” as
acceptable names for the molecule HCHO [8].
2 The IUPAC recognises both “formic acid” and “methanoic acid” as acceptable names for HCOOH [8].
10:00 page 1-1

27/09/99
Chapter 1: Capacity, Location and Process Route Recommendations Formaldehyde
Year Potential Market Total Market Estimated Market Capacity

Share [t.y–1] Capacity [t.y–1] Increase [%.y–1] Utilisation [%]
S.
1 100,000 200,000 4 80
2 104,000 208,000 4 83
.au NT
3 108,000 216,000 4 87
4 112,000 225,000 4 90
om FO
5 117,000 234,000 4 94
6 119,000 239,000 2 96
/
7 122,000 243,000 2 98
8 124,000 248,000 2 99
1.c D
9 127,000 253,000 2 100
iv E
10 129,000 258,000 2 100
.d D
Table 1-1: Market Forecasts for Australian Formaldehyde Sales.
ch ED
Based on the above, a plant capacity of 125,000t.y–1 of 54%(m/m) formaldehyde has been selected.
ar B
Since the product to be made is a mixture of Grade A and Grade B, the above estimate of 125,000t.y –1 accounts
for only 90% of the product mix. The total amount of product that is required is approximately 139,000t.y–1.
se M
Thus the capacity of the plant will be 1 3 9 ,0 0 0 to n ne s p e r year .
re E
1·3 Process Route
:// T
tp U
The main alternatives are ‘silver catalyst type process(es)’ and the ‘metal oxide [catalyst] type process’ [9], [5].
The preferred process is that using a me ta l o xid e c ata l y st for the reasons described below:
ht HO
 The silver catalyst process uses methanol in excess whereas the metal oxide catalyst process uses air in
excess. As methanol is toxic and highly flammable, the reduced inventory of the latter process constitutes a
lower hazard.
m IT
 The metal oxide process may more conveniently produce formaldehyde that is lower in methanol concentra-
tion, making it more suitable for resins manufacture [7].
fro W
 The metal oxide catalyst process, unlike the silver catalyst process, does not require external steam for start
up, which would mean additional expense.
n n
 The yield obtained in the Formox process, 88 to 92%, is higher than the 86 to 90% attainable in the silver
catalyst process.
io io
 The metal oxide catalyst process runs at lower temperatures (300 to 400C) to the silver catalyst processes
rs rs
(600-650C), requiring less heat energy.

 The metal oxide catalyst process has generally the higher catalyst selectivity.
ve ve
It is believed that these advantages outweigh the following disadvantages for the metal oxide catalyst process:
ll N
 The off-gas is non-combustible, causing substantial costs in controlling environmental pollution.

fu IO
 The catalyst replacement time is substantially longer (around one (1) week, compared with one (1) day for
the silver catalyst process).
 The investment costs for the metal oxide catalyst process are slightly higher.
ad T
 The equipment items in the metal oxide catalyst process are larger, due to the large volume of air flowing
lo LU
through the system, and thus more expensive – although there may be fewer items in total.
 The larger volumetric flow rate also leads to larger power consumption by the blower, thus contributing to
higher overall operating costs.
wn SO
1·4 Location
Do E
-R
The recommended location3 for our formaldehyde production facility is B a t h ur st, N SW .

W
The main reason behind this decision is the close proximity of MDF (medium-density fibreboard) producers
CSR and Boral [3], [2]. These companies produce their wood products from radiata pine harvested from nearby
LO
plantation forests. CSR is the largest producer of timber products in Australia. They are the leading supplier of
3 One option that could have been considered i f t h e s c e n a r i o h a d b e e n mo r e d e t a i l e d is to operate smaller plants
at more than one location.
page 1-2 10:00

27/09/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 1: Capacity, Location and Process Route Recommendations
solid timber, particleboard, door skins and hardboard. They also produce large amounts of medium density
fibreboard panels and decorative laminates.
S.
In terms of other raw materials, methanol can be brought in by rail following shipment to Sydney. Urea will
come from Newcastle by road and phenol is available from Huntsman [6] in Victoria.
.au NT
With 29,000 inhabitants in Bathurst, accommodation and facilities for employees are readily available [1].
Similarly, all of the required utilities are accessible locally. The land is suitable for plant construction.
om FO
Specialist labour will be available from Sydney if required.
/
Local community attitudes are expected to be favourable as the proposed plant will be a major new source of
1.c D
employment. Furthermore, it is anticipated that protests against logging will not be vigorous as this is a pre-
existing industry.
iv E
Emissions from the plant will be tightly controlled and the plant will be operated according to stringent
.d D
environmental guidelines.
ch ED
1·5 References
ar B
1. Bathurst internet site; http://www.bluemt.com.au/hwt/walkabouts.htm 4
se M
2. Boral internet site; http://www.boral.com.au/timber/facts/softwood.htm
3. CSR internet site; http://csr.com.au/product_homeswork/timber/timber_home.asp
re E
4. James R. FAIR and Richard C. KMETZ; “Formaldehyde” in: John J. McKETTA (Exec. Ed.); Encyclope-
dia of Chemical Processing and Design; Marcel Dekker; New York; 1985.
5.
:// T
H. Robert GERBERICH and George C. SEAMAN; “Formaldehyde” in: Jacqueline I. KROSCHWITZ (Exec.
tp U
Ed.); Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th edition, Vol. 11; John Wiley & Sons;
New York; 1994.
ht HO
6. Huntsman internet site; http://www.huntsman.com
7. Presentation by Mr. Eric JACOBSEN (Orica Adhesives and Resins, Deer Park) at Monash University,
21/07/1999. He stated that the current capacity utilisation of the Deer Park plant was of the order of, “50
m IT
to 60 percent.”
8. John MCMURRY; Organic Chemistry, 3rd edition; Brooks/Cole; Pacific Drive, California; 1992.
fro W
9. Günther REUSS, Walter DISTELDORF, Otto GRUNDLER and Albrecht HILT; “Formaldehyde” in:
Wolfgang GERHARTZ (Exec. Ed.); Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 5th edition, Vol.
n n
A11; VCH; Weinheim; 1988.

io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
4 Credit is due to other members of Group 8, and in particular M i s s . R a c h e l W E L D O N , for Ref’s [1], [2], [3] and [6].
10:00 page 1-3

27/09/99
Formaldehyde
PART 2: Plant Design for Nominated Capacity, Location and

Process Route
S.
.au NT
2 PROBLEM DEFINITION
om FO
2·1 Introduction
/
1.c D
Similarly to the scenario in Part 1 of this report, the requirement in Part 2 is to satisfy a perceived demand for
formaldehyde (HCHO). However in this case the capacity, location and process route have all been fixed, and it
iv E
is up to the individual and the group to investigate the best means of achieving the set objective.
.d D
Not only is it necessary to specify process details, but also other required infrastructure such as utility require-
ch ED
ments.
2·2 Plant
ar B
se M
2·2·1 Process Route
re E
The plant is to produce formalde-
hyde from methanol (CH3OH) via a
:// T
tp U silver catalyst type process. No
further restrictions were made in
this regard.
ht HO
2·2·2 Location Details

m IT
The site is located in on the island

of Borneo in Bontang, East
fro W
Kalimantan (Kalimantan Timur)

province, Indonesia (see Figure 2-1
at left).
n n
Bontang is located at 0.05° North

io io
(latitude) and 117.31° East

rs rs
(longitude) – i.e. essentially directly

on the equator. The population was
ve ve
said to be under 10000, although

this may not include an ever
ll N
growing number of expatriate

workers at the local petrochemical
fu IO
complex. [4]
ad T
The site is flat and there are no

space constraints other than those
lo LU
imposed by safety and economic

considerations and practicalities of
wn SO
construction, operation and

maintenance.
Do E
Ambient air temperatures range

-R
from 20 to 37°C 1 and cooling water

is available at a “maximum summer
temperature” of 30°C.
W
Natural gas is available to meet fuel

LO
Figure 2-1: Map of Bontang, Indonesia; 1:1500000. [5]

needs.
1 Note that this has been changed from the initial 10 to 47°C range (adjusted by 10°C at each end of the range) that was
initially specified, which was judged to be unrealistic on the basis of Ref’s [1] and [2].
10:09 page 2-1

27/09/99
Chapter 2: Problem Definition Formaldehyde
2·2·3 Capacity
S.
The plant is required to produce “Grade A” product and “Grade B” product in the same 9:1 ratio as before,
except that now the total capacity is to be 80×10 3t.y-1, calculated as the equivalent of 54%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde
.au NT
solution.
It may be shown that this equates to 74.3×t.y-1 of Grade A product and 5.7×t.y-1 of Grade B on a 54%(kg.kg–1)
formaldehyde basis.
om FO
Equivalently this may be expressed as 8.2×t.y-1 of Grade B product as 37%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde basis, giving
/
a total of 82.6×t.y-1 of formaldehyde solution of the two grades (the apparent discrepancy is due to rounding).
1.c D
2·2·4 Other Characteristics
iv E
The plant is expected to be in operation for 350 days of the year. It must also be able to cope with turn-downs to
.d D
60% of the design capacity.
ch ED
Heat recovery is to be maximised as far as is economical, with any surplus steam generated able to be used
elsewhere in the factory complex.
ar B
2·3 Feedstock and Product Specifications
se M
2·3·1 Methanol Feedstock
re E
Methanol is supplied by pipeline to the formaldehyde plant and complies with British Standard BS-506(1987),
:// T
which includes the following specifications.
tp U
Density: 791 to 794kg.m–3
Acidity: < 0.003%(kg.kg–1) as formic acid (HCOOH)
ht HO
Water content: < 0.1%(kg.kg–1)
Methanol is “an internationally traded commodity currently selling on the international market for $100 US per
tonne FOB [freight on board] US Gulf Coast” [3].
m IT
2·3·2 Formaldehyde Product

fro W
Formaldehyde solutions of 37%(kg.kg–1) strength are said to be selling at $286 US per tonne of solution FOB US
Gulf Coast [3]. However it is unclear whether this is true 37%(kg.kg–1) solution, or rather the price of
n n
54%(kg.kg–1) solution on a 37%(kg.kg–1) equivalent basis.

io io
For capacity data please refer to section 2·2·3, above.

rs rs
2·3·2·1 Grade A
ve ve
“Formaldehyde 54” is to satisfy the following constraints:

Formaldehyde content: 53.8 to 54.2%(kg.kg–1)
ll N
Formic acid content:  0.06%(kg.kg–1)

fu IO
Methanol content: 0.5 to 1.5%(kg.kg–1) [maximum]

Turbidity  5NTU (Nominal Turbidity Units)
Temperature 60 to 67°C
ad T
lo LU
2·3·2·2 Grade B
“Formaldehyde 37/7” is to satisfy the following constraints:
wn SO
Formaldehyde content: 37.0 to 37.4%(kg.kg–1)

Formic acid content:  0.03%(kg.kg–1)
Methanol content: 6.5 to 7.5%(kg.kg–1) [maximum]
Do E
-R
2·3·2·3 Overall requirements

While it is not, strictly speaking a requirement to produce the Grade B formaldehyde solution by appropriate
W
dilution of Grade A product, it is convenient to here discuss some of the ramifications of such a decision.
Namely, assuming no formic acid in additional methanol or water, and further assuming no ion-exchange
LO
treatment, the Grade A formaldehyde should be produced with a formic acid content of  0.0432%(kg.kg–1),
rather than the  0.06%(kg.kg–1) quoted above (taking into account the ranges of acceptable formaldehyde in
each).
page 2-2 10:09

27/09/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 2: Problem Definition
2·4 Utilities provided
S.
The following utilities are provided outside of the ‘battery limits’ of the plant:
.au NT
Utility Description Price [1999 Australian dollars]
Natural gas (NG) Lower calorific value = 46.7MJ.kg–1 4GJ-1
om FO
Composition:
91%CH4, 6%C2H6, 1%C3H8, 1%N2
/
and 1%CO2 (by mass)
Electricity (Elec.) Directly available at 50Hz and 11kV, 45(MW.h)-1
1.c D
3.3kV and 415V as three-phase
iv E
Nitrogen (N2) Dry, Pressure = 1000kPa(g) 0.3(Nm3)–1
.d D
Demineralised water (DMW) Ambient temperature, p = 300kPa(g) 2.5t–1
Towns water (TNW) Ambient temperature, p = 300kPa(g) 0.60t–1
ch ED
Steam Saturated at 1100kPa(g) 12t–1
Recirculated cooling water (RCW) 300kPa(g) ex-cooling tower 0.06m–3
ar B
Table 2-1: Details of utilities provided.
se M
re E
2·5 Scope
:// T
The plant design must not only cover production of formaldehyde in accordance with the preceding require-
tp U
ments, but it must also specifically cover:
 consideration of safety and environmental hazards
ht HO
 methanol storage (if any)
 formaldehyde storage ( equivalent to 3 days and 7 days at the design production rate for grades A and B
respectively)
m IT
 steam generation b y ‘r eco v er y’ o f p r o c es s h ea t

 effluent treatment facilities to enable disposal of gaseous and aqueous effluents.
fro W
2·6 Terminal Points

n n
io io
The terminal points of the project are in some part related to the scope. For this project design begins at the
rs rs
point at which methanol, water, natural gas and any other ‘raw materials’ enter the plant.
At the other end of the design, formaldehyde product as well as any surplus utilities will be exported to the
ve ve
neighbouring resins plant (or another user in the complex), which point of interface constitutes a terminal point.
The storage tank farm for formaldehyde is included inside the ‘outside battery limits’ section of our plant.
ll N
2·7 References
fu IO
1. Weather reports on the Indonesian News Report (Siaran Berita, Monday to Saturday, 11:00a.m., SBS
ad T
television, Australia); 1997–1999.

lo LU
2. Indonesian international student Mr. Kowil TANRANG (expert opinion); private communication; August
1999.
3. Dr. David J. BRENNAN; Problem statement; 28/07/1999.
wn SO
4. K. M. WRIGHT (Cartographic Manager); The Jacaranda Atlas, 4th edition; The Jacaranda Press; Milton,
Queensland; 1992.
5. –; Map No. 4, “Kalimantan;” in: ‘Indonesia’ Series; Nelles; München; circa 1980’s.
Do E
-R
W
LO
10:09 page 2-3

27/09/99
Formaldehyde
3 PROCESS SYNTHESIS AND FLOWSHEET DEVELOPMENT
S.
3·1 Characteristics of ‘Silver Catalyst Processes’
.au NT
The process by which formaldehyde is produced from methanol over a silver catalyst – commonly abbreviated to
‘the silver process’ – is described in the standard chemical engineering reference texts in reasonable detail (e.g.
om FO
[17], [7] and [9]). The silver process was also alluded to in section 1·3.
/
This section presents characteristics that are common to all silver processes.
1.c D
The silver process has fo ur a b so l u te l y es s e nti al o p er atio n s , which are outlined in sections 3·1·1 to 3·1·3
iv E
below. See also Figure 3-1.
.d D
ch ED
Off-gases
Reaction
Water
ar B
se M
Rapid Cooling
Raw materials:
re E
Oxygen (air),
methanol and
Aqueous
:// T
water Vaporisation formaldehyde
tp U
& mixing Absorption
ht HO
Figure 3-1: Essential process operations in the manufacture of formaldehyde from methanol.
m IT
3·1·1 Reactor
fro W
To paraphrase SMITH (Ref. [23]), the reactor is always at the heart of any process in which a chemical reaction is
to take place. All other unit operations are present to provide support in one way or another for this key unit
n n
operation.
io io
3·1·1·1 Physical characteristics

rs rs
The reactor consists of s il v e r ca tal ys t in the form of either a gauze or small particles (crystals). These are of
ve ve
necessity very shallow in order that the contact time between process gas and catalyst be very short. The contact
time must be very short (e.g.  0.02s [4]) in order to avoid decomposition of the formaldehyde (HCHO) into
ll N
formic acid (HCOOH), which is said become significant at temperatures above 350°C [17] (or possibly 500°C
[8], or possibly 350 to 450°C[16]), whereas the reaction temperature is typically 590 to 720°C 1. Typical contact
fu IO
time constraints have given rise to very shallow beds – of the order of a couple of centimetres deep. This means
that beds may be up to 4m wide [11].
ad T
The variation in terms of physical reactor bed design does not seem to vary much except in terms of details, such
lo LU
as the use of an incolloy catalyst shelf [21], baffle plate on which are deposited impurities by the impinging
vapour before entering the catalyst zone [20], and particularly variation in terms of the number and dimensions
of catalyst beds.
wn SO
The most significant variation is probably in terms of the catalyst used, including size distributions for crystals
[11], [2].
Do E
3·1·1·2 Reactions
-R
The cen tra l r e act io n s are as follows:

1. CH3OH(g) + 0.5 O2(g)  HCHO(g) + H2O(g) H = –159kJ.mol–1 (oxidation)
W
2. CH3OH(g) = HCHO(g) + H2(g) H = +84kJ.mol–1 (dehydrogenation)

3. H2(g) + 0.5O2(g)  H2O(g) H = –243kJ.mol–1
LO
1 Note that this would most probably refer to the temperature of the gases i m m e d i a t e l y e xi t i n g the catalyst bed.
The catalyst surface temperature would be expected to be greater than that of the bulk gas, and clearly a temperature profile
must also exist over the bed (however shallow) to account for the incoming process gases at low temperature. Somewhat
surprisingly, Ref. [15], pp. 141, 145, teaches that the maximum catalyst temperature occurs closer to the forward end.
10:23 page 3-1

27/09/99
Chapter 3: Process Synthesis and Flowsheet Development Formaldehyde
These are carried out at ambient pressure. The precise reaction temperature obtained depends upon the extent to
S.
which methanol is in excess in the methanol–air feed mixture.
The endothermic dehydrogenation reaction (2.) is highly temperature dependent in terms of equilibrium constant.
.au NT
Conversions vary from 50% at 400°C, to 90% at 500°C and around 99% at 700°C [17]. Ref. [5] also shows this
in graphical form (p. 496), in which plot it is evident that other significant reactions (including those below) are
essentially irreversible, with equilibrium constants quoted for some reactions, under certain conditions as up to a
om FO
whopping 1025.
/
The formation of (other) b y- p r o d uc t s may be represented as follows [17], [24]:
1.c D
4. HCHO(g)  CO(g) + H2(g) H = +12.5kJ.mol–1
CH3OH(g) + 1.5 O2(g)  CO2(g) + 2H2O(g) H = –674kJ.mol–1
iv E
5.
6. HCHO(g) + O2(g)  CO2(g) + H2O(g) H = –519kJ.mol–1
.d D
and2
ch ED
7. HCHO(g) + 0.5O2(g)  HCOOH(g) H298K = –263kJ.mol–1
8. HCHO(g) + 0.5O2(g)  CO(g) + H2O(g) H298K = –237kJ.mol–1
ar B
Reactions such as:
se M
9. CH3OH(g) + 0.5 O2(g)  + H2O(g) + H2(g) + CO(g) H = –150kJ.mol–1
are not considered, as they have only been referred to by Ref. [5], and can be considered to be accounted for by
re E
combination of the other reactions above.
:// T
Reactions such as [5]: tp U
10. 2HCHO(g)  CH3OCHO(g) H = –118kJ.mol–1
were not incorporated in the analysis, on the basis that the by-products so produced could equally well be
ht HO
approximated by by-product formation and formaldehyde degradation from the other reactions considered.
Further, the conversion of such reactions appears to be quite small compared to the other by-product reactions3.
Methane (CH4) is another example of a ‘ mi n o r ’ by-product.
m IT
The hydrolysis and polymerisations referred to in Ref’s [25] and [10]:

fro W
11. HCHO(aq) + H2O(l) = CH2(OH)2(aq) H298K < 0kJ.mol–1

12. CH2(OH)2(aq) + HO(CH2O)n–1H(aq) = HO(CH2O)nH(aq) H298K < 0kJ.mol–1 (2  n  nmax)
n n
were assumed to be not relevant to the reactor as such, by implication from e.g. Ref. [17], in which these
io io
reactions were entirely omitted from discussion with regard to the reactor.
However p. 623 of the same reference does include mention of apparently significant polymerisation in the gas
rs rs
phase. It is assumed that neglecting this detail will not introduce significant errors into the process design
procedure4.
ve ve
The assumption that these reactions only have a significant effect when formaldehyde is in the liquid phase, such
as in the absorption operation (see section 3·1·3 following), is supported by Ref. [24] (p. 55).
ll N
fu IO
3·1·2 Cooling
As noted in the previous section, there is a need to cool the process gases down rapidly following reaction – e.g.
ad T
within less than 0.1s [11]. The exit temperature should be below 300°C [].
lo LU
3·1·2·1 Waste-heat boiler

The most common means of achieving this quick reduction in temperature is by means of a simple waste-heat
wn SO
boiler, with a typical steam pressure being 500kPa(abs), corresponding to a temperature of approximately 150°C
[17]. It was not thought wise to change this parameter in the absence of solid supporting information. There
Do E
may be disadvantages in terms of reaction by-products if this were changed, and also material costs may
increase.
-R
This is generally a ‘standard’ unit5, with process gases flowing through in a single pass on the tube-side. The
main difference to ‘normal’ units would be that it is typically fabricated as an i n te gr al p art of the complete
W
‘reactor unit’.
LO
2 Heats of reaction from Ref. [18].

3 This contrasts with the very low conversion to formic acid. However that reaction mu st be incorporated, due to the
importance of formic acid in terms of the quality of the final product.
4 Although it would be important to be aware of for more detailed, on-site chemical analyses and assays, for example.
5 With typical features, such as an absence of (shell-side) b a f fl e s .
page 3-2 10:23

27/09/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 3: Process Synthesis and Flowsheet Development
3·1·2·2 Quench column

The other common means of achieving a rapid decrease in temperature is to send the reactor effluent into a
S.
quench column immediately after the reactor.
While this can offer the fastest means of cooling the process gas mixtures in some situations, due to the
.au NT
extremely rapid mechanism of ‘d ir ect he at e xc h a n ge ’ , the disadvantage lies in the concentration of the final
product. That is, in order to sufficiently cool down the mixture it may be necessary to introduce such a large
om FO
quantity of water that the product would end up being too dilute. This is a particular concern for this Project,
which is the reason this technique was not adopted.
/
3·1·2·3 Novel cooling operations
1.c D
Ref. [16] outlines a novel procedure whereby the cold process off-gases are, “at least partly,” re-injected into the
iv E
gaseous mixture leaving the catalyst layer. Conceptually this is quite similar to the quench column, except that
.d D
the quench water is replaced by cold process off-gases.
ch ED
For reasons that will be made clear later in this chapter, this process was not adopted (see section 3·2·2·2, page
3-6, and following).
ar B
3·1·3 Vaporiser & mixer
se M
It is also clear from the section describing the reactor (section 3·1·1, page 3-1), that the relevant reactions take
place in the gas phase. To obtain the essentially homogeneous gas-phase mixture, it is necessary to heat the
re E
liquid components. This might be achieved by either conventionally by indirect heat transfer, or possibly by
:// T
direct heat transfer. tp U
In some cases it is seen that the liquid reactants (which m a y no t i ncl ud e wa ter ) are heated separately and
ht HO
then the vapour generated blended with an oxygen-containing stream. The mixing may simply be accomplished
by their turbulent flow through ductwork (see e.g. Ref. [24], p. 20).
m IT
In a variation on this idea the oxygen-containing gas is heated to high temperature such that methanol sprayed
into that stream can abstract sufficient (thermal) energy to be completely vaporised [3].
fro W
Another variation has circulating methanol-containing l i q ui d being heated and ‘refluxed’ into a packed
column, with the oxygen-containing gas flowing counter-currently [17].
n n
This was the technique adopted, for the following reasons:

io io
 It is felt that this process would give the b e s t mi x i n g of the vapours and gas, which is said to be a crucial
element of this unit operation [8]. However the other processes considered would probably also be ade-
rs rs
quate.
ve ve
 The size of the heater will be smaller, as it involves a liquid-phase on the process side, which has both a
higher density, as well as a greater mass transfer coefficient than a gas.
 The size of the heater will be smaller than it would if the liquid were sprayed into heated gas, due to the
ll N
larger temperature driving force that will be available. In addition, the large specific change in enthalpy
fu IO
upon vaporisation would necessitate a ‘very high’ gas temperature, which may be difficult to achieve with-
out steam of pressure higher than the ‘standard plant supply pressure’ of 1200kPa(abs).
ad T
 Only one (series of) heat exchanger(s) is required, whereas heating the individual streams separately would
require a greater number of units.
lo LU
 By carrying out the actual heating of aqueous methanol liq u id in the ab se n ce o f a n y o x yg e n -

co n ta i ni n g ga s str ea m it is believed that risks associated with flammability and explosiveness of the
wn SO
mixture would be reduced.

 Two-phase flow in the pipework was avoided.
Do E
3·1·4 Absorber
-R
The purpose of the absorber is to extract the formaldehyde from the reactor effluent (vapour phase) into an
aqueous liquid phase. In doing so, some amount of methanol will also condense into solution, as well as
W
contaminant species such as formic acid.

Methanol is not considered a contaminant as such, because it also acts as a stabiliser, although it is undesirable in
LO
too great a concentration.
As will become apparent to the reader in Chapter 7 of this report, in which the detailed design of this unit is
examined, at this preliminary stage of the design there were too many unknown quantities and complicating
10:23 page 3-3

27/09/99
factors for the system to be designed ‘from first principles’. Thus, much as was done for the reactor (for which
an extensive literature search failed to uncover relevant kinetic data) the first approach was to investigate current
S.
industry practice.
.au NT
Looking first at features common to all industrial formaldehyde absorbers, they all had more than one stage, and
all had liquid pump-arounds for at least the bottom stages (e.g. Ref’s [17], [7] and [9]).
In all cases the bottom pump-arounds were cooled, while the top stage pump-around never was. This cooling is
om FO
required due to the significantly exothermic process that occurs when formaldehyde gas passes into solution.
/
The heat of solution in water is quoted as 62kJ.mol(HCHO) –1 at 23°C [17].
1.c D
The key differences were:
 T he n u mb e r o f s ta ge s : Some columns were shown as having two stages, e.g. Ref. [9]; some three, e.g.
iv E
Ref. [7]; and some four, e.g. Ref. [17].
.d D
The value of four was taken preliminarily as it was believed this could accomplish a higher absorption duty
ch ED
(albeit at a higher cost), for a given total height of packing.
 T he n u mb er o f co l u mn s : In some cases the absorption is broken up between two columns i n seri e s
[8], [11], although use of a single column appears to be more wide-spread.
ar B
A single column was chosen for simplicity, as meaningful benefits of operating two columns in series were
se M
not evident at this point.
 T o p -s ta ge p u mp -ar o u nd : Some references showed a pump-around over the top stage [17], while many
re E
did not [9], [7].
The decision was to pump around the top stage too, because the rate of fresh water to the column would
:// T
have to be low in order to obtain a sufficiently concentrated product wit ho u t t he ne ed fo r d i st il la tio n
tp U
(see section 3·2).
 T yp e o f i n ter na l s : Although packing of some description (usually dumped) was common for all
ht HO
references in the bottom sections, some showed a trayed top stage [17], [3] to act as an ‘off-gas scrubber’.
It was felt that a more uniform approach was best, with either dumped packing (or structured packing if
necessary) preferred for the top stage. Benefits could include lower pressure drop; ease of replacement;
m IT
probable cheaper cost due to the need to specify resistant materials; and low liquid hold-up, which would
reduce hazards associated with formaldehyde and methanol inventories 6 [22].
fro W
It was later seen that trays were required to handle the low liquid flows arising from not recirculating about
the top of the column (Chapter 7).
n n
3·2 Variations and Additions to Silver Catalyst Type Processes

io io
rs rs
It is important for the reader to realise that the four essential operations presented here will not necessarily result
in a product of a given purity or ‘quality’. Rather, these four operations represent the minimum number of major
ve ve
unit operations necessary to produce some kind of aqueous formaldehyde product (which will also contain
certain concentrations of methanol, formic acid et cetera), from the raw materials water, air and methanol, with
ll N
off-gas of a certain composition exiting from the absorber. Other operations are required to meet desired
fu IO
composition criteria, and these are now described (section 3·2·4, page 3-7).
There are two main classes of silver catalyst processes for the manufacture of formaldehyde from methanol:
ad T
those that do not include a distillation column, and those that do. One of the main varieties of the former process
lo LU
is the so-called ‘BASF process’7 [17].
3·2·1 With distillation

wn SO
Ref. [17]8 terms the class of silver catalyst process that incorporates a distillation column as “Incomplete
Conversion.” This extent of (primary) conversion – around 77 to 87% – leads to the need to distil the product
Do E
and recycle unreacted methanol.

-R
W
LO
6 Though, according to the d e s i g n , the material at the top of the column would be reasonable dilute.
7 After the German company Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik AG, who started production using a crystalline silver
catalyst circa 1905, who were the largest manufacturers of formaldehyde “in the Western world” (1983) and hold several
patents in production technologies [17].
8 One thing to be wary of is the authorship of various of the standard references. One may note, for example, that three
of the four authors of Ref. [17], in which BASF and the “BASF process” are ‘talked up’, are BASF employees.
page 3-4 10:23

27/09/99
For this process the reaction clearly takes place at a high excess of methanol to oxygen: the primary reaction
being oxidation (reaction 1. of section 3·1·1·2, page 3-1). This occurs at between 590 and 650°C, and at
S.
pressure just above atmospheric.
.au NT
The o ver al l yield is said to be of the order of 91 to 92%(mol.mol –1), however it is important to realise that this
will vary from plant to plant.
om FO
A distillation column usually is accompanied with a ‘deacidification unit’, typically an ion-exchange resin, as
/
levels of formic acid increase at the normal operating temperatures of distillation columns.
This combination is capable of producing solutions of up to 55%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde concentration, with less
1.c D
than 1%(kg.kg–1) methanol and under 0.005%(kg.kg–1) formic acid9.
iv E
3·2·2 Without distillation
.d D
ch ED
If the silver catalyst process is run at higher temperatures (e.g. 680 to 720°C), and with only a slight excess of
methanol to oxygen (97 to 98% methanol conversion), then it is possible to produce high concentrations of
formaldehyde with low methanol levels, without the need for a distillation column [17].
ar B
When operating with the correct catalyst contact time, formic acid levels are also low enough to make an ion-
exchange unit redundant.
se M
In this process o ver a ll yields are o f t he o rd er o f 89.5 to 90.5%(mol.mol–1). The final product may contain
re E
ap p ro x i ma te l y 40 to 55%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde, an “average” of 1.3%(kg.kg–1) methanol and
:// T
0.01%(kg.kg–1) formic acid [17].
tp U
There are two principal means of operating a non-distillative silver process, recycling either off-gases or dilute
ht HO
formaldehyde solutions from the absorber. These are shown in Figure 3-2 following.
Both are made possible by altering the flammability characteristics of the mixture (see section 3·6·2, page 3-12).
m IT
Off-gas recycle
fro W
Off-gases
Reaction
n n
Water
io io
rs rs
Rapid Cooling
Liquid
ve ve
Raw materials: recycle

Oxygen (air),
Aqueous
ll N
methanol and Vaporisation

water formaldehyde
fu IO
& mixing Absorption

ad T
Figure 3-2: Key process flow routes in non-distillative manufacture of formaldehyde from methanol10.
lo LU
3·2·2·1 Liquid recycle

wn SO
In this configuration part of the pump-around liquid from either the third or fourth stage of the absorber is
recycled back to a vaporiser [17], [1], and thence into the reactor.
Yields are from 89 to 91% of the theoretical for a si n g le p as s . Formaldehyde product solutions obtained from
Do E
the absorber contain from 50 to 65%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde and “only” 0.8 to 2.0%(kg.kg–1) methanol [1].
-R
Formic acid is “low, as a rule less than 0.015%”(kg.kg–1).11

Benefits12 are said to include that the configuration [1]:
 is “simpler” and “less trouble prone”
W
 “gives a higher and more constant conversion of the starting mixture”

LO
9 I.e. Below 50ppm (by mass).

10 Note: Only o n e o f t h e t wo alternatives is used at any one time (at a given plant).
11 Based on 50%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde solution.
12 These benefits are in comparison to nominal “conventional processes.”
10:23 page 3-5

27/09/99
 gives a longer catalyst life

 permits the use of a large catalyst bed cross-section
S.
 does not require “special measures” to “prevent temperature fluctuations in the catalyst”
 causes less pollution, due to lower entrainment of formaldehyde in off-gas and wastewater.
.au NT
The key to all but the last of these would seem to be the concept of “t her mal b a lla s t, ” which is mentioned in
Ref. [9] with regard to the recycling of tail gas. The idea is based in the addition of what may be considered
om FO
‘inerts’ (in that they do not react to a great extent) to the reactor feed. Given that the n e tt feed of raw materials
/
to the system as a whole is more or less constant, then by doing this the enthalpy of reaction that is released
(remembering that the reaction is nett exothermic) is distributed over a larger mass. This means that the
1.c D
temperature change induced must be lower for a given change in enthalpy (viz. heat release), and hence
iv E
fluctuations are reduced and the operation becomes more stable.
.d D
It is also said to be more economical.
ch ED
3·2·2·2 Off-gas recycle
ar B
This configuration appears to be more common, and is used by: BASF [17], [11]; the Mitsubishi Gas Chemical
Company [14]; and possibly E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company [9]. It consists of the recycling of a portion
se M
of the off-gas from the top absorber stage back to the vaporiser.
Again, the key to the advantages of this process lies in the concept of t h er ma l b a lla s t , outlined in the
re E
previous section.
:// T
The following information is abstracted from the patent taken out by BASF with regard to this process [11].
tp U
ht HO
Preferably running at 650 to 730°C, yields are 89 to 92% of the theoretical 13. The aqueous formaldehyde
product may contain from 50 to 60%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde, 0.5 to 1.1%(kg.kg–1) methanol and, “as a rule,” less
than 0.015%(kg.kg–1) of formic acid14.
m IT
Compared to “the conventional processes”, benefits of this configuration are that it:
 is simpler and “permits more trouble-free running”
fro W
 has a “higher and more constant conversion of the starting mixture”

 gives a longer working life of the catalyst
n n
 has a large catalyst bed cross-section

io io
 does not require “special measures” to “avoid temperature fluctuations in the catalyst”
 is more economical.
rs rs
ve ve
The astute reader will already have observed that the claimed benefits for this configuration are almost identical
to that for the case of liquid recycle.
ll N
3·2·3 That is the question

fu IO
T o d isti l, o r no t to d is ti l .... Distillation does have some pros, in that the anion-exchange unit allows for a
ad T
product that could be lower in formic acid, and the system is most probably quite ‘forgiving’, in the sense that
operational ‘goofs’ in the reactor or absorber might still be able to be ‘rectified’ in the absorber15.
lo LU
However the information that has been presented demonstrates that it is still possible to satisfy the product
requirement constraints, defined in Chapter 2 of this report, wi t h o ut distillation.
Distillation columns are control-intensive units, which are relatively expensive compared to the blower and
wn SO
ductwork that would replace it. Ion-exchange resins are a further cost, and may require specialised knowledge to
operate. For the sake of minimising costs16, a no n -d i st il la ti ve p ro ce s s i s p r e fer r ed .
Do E
T o rec yc le liq u id , o r t o r ec yc le o f f - ga s.. .. As noted earlier, the advantages of the two recycle
-R
processes are very similar: 54%(kg.kg–1) methanol is well within the range of capabilities of both classes, and
they both have low product formic acid concentrations. While the liquid recycle is said to have an environmen-
W
LO
13 Ref. [14] claims 440kg of methanol produce 370kg of (100%) formaldehyde: i.e. an overall yield of 89.7%.
14 Ref. [14]: 37 to 55%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde; 0.5 to 8%(kg.kg–1) methanol; less than 0.005%(kg.kg–1) formic acid.
15 If the reader will excuse this brief moment of punniness.
16 Capital costs would certainly be reduced, while operating costs would require further, more detailed assessment.
M a i n t e n a n c e of (and operating labour for) a distillation column and ion-exchange unit would be a significant cost, and
additional cooling and heating would be needed, while recycling would require heating and pumping xor compressing.
page 3-6 10:23

27/09/99
tal advantage, it is believed that this is not a deciding factor, because the off-gas that is not recycled is to undergo
combustion in any case (see section 3·2·4·4).
S.
Clearly recycling a liquid will induce lower operating costs in terms of pumping (rather than compressing), and
also lower capital costs in terms of the piping. However the concern is that recycling a stream with a non-
.au NT
negligible amount of formaldehyde in it will simply cause that formaldehyde to decompose when it passes
through the reactor again, thereby reducing the efficiency (although apparently there is not a great difference in
the overall yields).
om FO
The process in which the off-gas was recycled was also more common. It was also described by Ref. [25] in
/
generic terms as the “silver process,” and one reference even claimed that off-gas recycle processes will, “play a
significant role,” and will, “continue to dominate the mainstream” of formaldehyde production [14].
1.c D
Finally, the principal factor was the methanol content that could be achieved in the product. Although it is true
iv E
that both processes were capable of achieving the 1%(kg.kg –1) methanol required, this was at the h i g h end of
.d D
achievable concentrations for off-gas recycle, but at the lo w end for liquid recycle. Thus, so as to increase the
ch ED
margin between the design value and the ‘best possible’, the o ff - ga s rec yc l i n g co n fi g ura tio n wa s
se lec ted .
ar B
3·2·4 Additions
se M
3·2·4·1 Vapour superheater
re E
In order to operate at the optimum reaction temperature (and to exercise more control over this), a vapour
superheater is installed following the vaporiser.
:// T
This also further reduces the possibility of condensation of liquid (water) onto the catalyst.
tp U
3·2·4·2 Absorber feed cooler
ht HO
The vapours entering the absorber should enter at a temperature below the (approximately) 170°C at which they
exit the waste-heat boiler in order to reduce the vapour pressure exerted by the condensable components.
m IT
As will be discussed later (section 3·5), for heat-integration reasons it was decided no t to go as far as partially
condensing the absorber feed, as shown in Ref. [25]. This would also have engendered two-phase flow, which is
(apparently17) something to avoid.
fro W
3·2·4·3 Pump-arounds
n n
As mentioned earlier, the absorber unit has pump-arounds which are also cooled by passing through heat
io io
exchangers. Thus each would require a ‘standard’ pump and shell-and-tube heat exchanger.
rs rs
3·2·4·4 Off-gas burner

ve ve
There are stringent guidelines around the world to limit the quantities of formaldehyde emissions. For this
reason some processes run their absorbers at high ‘duties’ to remove as much as possible, while catalytic
ll N
converters are common in metal-oxide plants.

fu IO
However in this case the most advantageous option is to fully combust the off-gas leaving the absorber. This
means that there is no panic if gas-phase concentrations at the top of the absorber rise 50% above the emission
limits, as the high-temperature combustion will certainly handle that.
ad T
The other main reason is related to the hydrogen that is present in the off-gases in significant levels. This is
lo LU
highly flammable, and it is more economical to recover this stored energy by liberation in the form of heat,
which is used to raise steam. In this case it is not necessary to add any extra fuel to aid combustion (only
oxygen/air is required).
wn SO
This must also have facility for the addition of natural gas, on the occasion of start-up, at which time there would
Do E
be negligible hydrogen-containing off-gas, as would normally be combusted to raise the steam.

-R
3·2·4·5 Pressurising units

W
The blower has already been mentioned in passing. This is necessary to overcome the pressure drop through the
process. While Ref’s [17] and [11] teach that two separate blowers are used, in this instance a single blower is
LO
specified, as it is believed that adequate control can be maintained by appropriate use of valves in the two gas
lines18.
17 According to, for example, Dr. Andrew HOADLEY.

18 This idea was originally due to Dr. Paul A. WEBLEY.
10:23 page 3-7

27/09/99
Various pumps are also required around the plant in order to overcome pressure drops through equipment on
both the process and utility sides.
S.
3·2·4·6 Turbine
.au NT
The cost of supplying electricity to the blower is a significant operating cost. Given that the process is a nett
exporter of steam, consideration was given to installing a turbine to run.
om FO
One may evaluate the change in enthalpy upon bringing steam saturated at 1200kPa(abs) down to atmospheric
pressure in an isentropic manner [19]19. Taking a hypothetical basis of 1t of steam, from the costs given in
/
Chapter 2 this would, therefore, equate to alternatively an income of $12 for the steam xor a cost reduction of
$5.26 by supplying energy to the blower directly. With our ‘bean counting’ hats on we realise the financial folly
1.c D
of such an investment (which would also have to bear the cost of a turbine). However other pertinent issues
iv E
arise.
.d D
For example, there is a perception that electricity supplies in Bontang may be less reliable than Australian
process plant workers are accustomed to [8] (despite the fact that Bontang already has a reasonably developed
ch ED
chemical processing infrastructure). For this operability reason it may be better to have a reliable source of
electricity, rather than short-sightedly leaping at the superficially more profitable option.
Now the dollar ratio of the two rough calculations carried out may engender some disbelief that it is not simply
ar B
more economical to run the turbine only in the event of a blackout. Or that it is not more financially sound to
se M
run off, say, diesel. To repudiate these beliefs it would be necessary to have more detailed figures available on
the frequency and duration of power outages, et cetera. There is one more relevant factor to be considered
re E
though.
The same quantity of steam, 1t, at 500kPa(abs) would save $2.50 in electricity costs 20. However it is, apparent-
:// T
ly, u n sa leab le . Given that the decision has been made to raise steam at this pressure from the waste-heat
tp U
boiler following the reactor (section 3·1·2), it may be seen (see section 3·5) that the more effective use of this
energy is to drive the turbine, rather than to be used for heating.
ht HO
3·2·4·7 Storage
m IT
The definition of the terminal points of the process also required storage tanks to be included. Separate tanks
would be required for the two grades of formaldehyde produced during normal operation.
fro W
At this point, the flowsheet has begun to take the form of Figure 3-3, below.
n n
io io
Raw material: Boiler Burner

Steam Flue gases
rs rs
Oxygen (air) Off-gas recycle

ve ve
Superheater Off-gases
Blower
ll N
Steam Reaction Water

fu IO
Turbine Steam
Rapid Cooling H/Ex
ad T
Steam
Boiler
lo LU
Raw materials:
methanol and H/Ex
Vaporisation Cooler
water Aqueous
wn SO
& mixing Absorption formaldehyde

Do E
Figure 3-3: A more developed flowsheet. Note: Pumps, boiler feed water, condensate, cooling water
-R
omitted. “H/Ex” = Heat Exchanger. Not all stages shown for absorber.
W
LO
19 The starting condition is hg = 2784kJ.kg–1, sg = 6.523kJ.kg–1.K–1, and the end condition h = 2363kJ.kg–1 ( by linear
interpolation)  h = 421MJ.t–1.
20 The starting condition is hg = 2749kJ.kg–1, sg = 6.822kJ.kg–1.K–1, and the end condition h = 2475kJ.kg–1 ( by linear
interpolation)  h = 200MJ.t–1.
page 3-8 10:23

27/09/99
3·3 Separation
S.
The main separation in this process is carried out in the absorber, without the need for a distillation column.
This has been discussed in section 3·1·4, page 3-3.
.au NT
3·4 Recycle
om FO
/
3·4·1 Introduction to recycling philosophy
1.c D
While the increasing environmental awareness among chemical engineers is unquestionably a great thing, there
is a disturbing element of ignorance on some matters. In particular related to ‘buzzwordism’ 21.
iv E
While no knowledge is no good, a little bit a knowledge can also be dangerous: contrary to popular perception
.d D
th ere i s no i n he r e nt e n v i r o n me n tal o r o t her ad v an ta ge to b e g ai n ed ip s o fa c to si mp l y b y
th e a ct o f rec yc l i n g .
ch ED
For example, if one considers a process in which 50% conversion is achieved, with half of that conversion being
by-products. At lea st two expensive separations would have to be undertaken, to separate product, by-product
ar B
and reactant. Then there are the piping or ductwork and pumps or blowers required to return the relevant
materials.
se M
And yet, the naïve reader of that process plant’s brochures may view this process – in which around 50% of the
materials are recycled – more favourably than a competitor’s process, operating at close to 100% conversion
re E
with minimal by-product formation22 – and hence no recycle to speak of.
:// T
3·4·2 Recycling as it applies to the current project
tp U
ht HO
Due to the desire to render distillation superfluous, no unreacted methanol is recycled. Instead it all remains as
the stabiliser in the final solution23.
However recycling is an integral component of this project, as the thermally-stabilising effect, which the inerts in
the process stream have, allows operation at a lower excess of methanol. At the same time, the mixture remains
m IT
outside of the flammability limits.

This recycling has been discussed under sections 3·2·1 to 3·2·3 (pages 3-4ff.).
fro W
In terms of materials other than the product methanol, there is certainly scope to return the majority of the
n n
condensate and recirculated cooling water for reuse. This is subject to the need for blow-down, with any ensuing
io io
deficiencies being made up with make-up water.

rs rs
The pump-arounds on the absorber could possibly also be thought of as recycle streams, though on a more
‘local’ scale. As noted, these were required in order to remove heat. They also ensured that the packing was
ve ve
more easily wetted. (See sections 3·1·4, page 3-3 and 3·2·4·3, page 3-7.)
ll N
3·5 Process Integration and Energy Efficiency

fu IO
3·5·1 Process integration

ad T
For this process, the relevant areas in which potential for process integration exists are in terms of heat energy
lo LU
and mechanical or electrical energy.
3·5·1·1 Composite curves

wn SO
One of the steps24 that was taken to decide where profitable integrations might lie was to construct the ‘compo-
site curves’ of Linnhoff and co-workers [23]. This resulted in the graphs in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 of
Do E
temperature versus ‘flow enthalpy’ for the sink and source 25 streams.
-R
W
21 To coin a new term.

LO
22 Obviously a hypothetical construct for illustrative purposes only.

23 Assuming that we neglect the vanishingly small quantities passing up out of the absorption tower in the off-gas.
24 Of course, the first step was to construct a preliminary flowsheet, of the sort shown in Figure 3-3, based on guidelines
gleaned from the various references – and then perform some mass and energy balances. These are the subject of discussion
in later chapters.
25 Source streams being, generally, the hotter.
10:23 page 3-9

27/09/99
S.
Composite curves
.au NT
1000
om FO
900
/
800 Source Burner stream
Sink
1.c D
700
iv E
Temperature [°C]
600
Burner &
.d D
500
Boiler streams
ch ED
400
ar B
300
se M
Boiler steam
200
re E
100
:// T 0
tp U 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
H [kW]
ht HO
Figure 3-4: Composite curves.

m IT
fro W
Composite curves - DETAIL

n n
Source
io io
300 Sink (Option 1)

Burner &
rs rs
Sink (Option 2) Boiler streams

ve ve
250
ll N
fu IO
Temperature [°C]
Boiler steam
200
ad T
lo LU
150 Heat
Absorber feed
exchange
wn SO
Shift
100
Do E
TMIN,2
Pump-arounds Superheater
-R
TMIN,1 Vaporiser steam steam

50
W
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
 H [kW]
LO
Figure 3-5: Detail of composite curves.
page 3-10 10:23

27/09/99
To begin with the curves looked significantly different. Those curves shown are, more or less, the refined
version.
S.
The first thing that becomes clear is that the sink curve should be shifted as far to the left as possible in order to
.au NT
use the higher grade heat for raising steam. The nature of this system means that a ‘threshold’ problem is to be
considered, in which only cold utilities are required (nett). However, in this case the low temperatures of the
source stream at the top of the absorber (i.e. the pump-around) mean that the sink curve cannot be shifted far
om FO
enough left to avoid using cooling utilities on either side of the (process) sink curve.
/
Initially it was considered advantageous to p ar tia ll y c o nd e n se the absorber feed b efo re it entered the
1.c D
column, as taught by Ref. [25]. However this meant that the temperature of the absorber feed was of the order of
60°C. Hence the only way that the cooler on the absorber feed line could be integrated with the vaporiser would
iv E
be to use one exchanger between those two streams, with t wo ad d it io nal e xc ha n g ers to further cool the
.d D
absorber feed and further heat the vaporiser stream. Thus this option was not attractive.
ch ED
A further reason not to partially condense the absorber feed26 is found in Ref. [13], wherein it is stated that such
an operation will likely lead to paraformaldehyde forming on the heat transfer surface.
ar B
Therefore the temperature of the absorber feed was adjusted upward to 90°C. A higher temperature was no t
selected, in order to avoid excessive cooling duty in the absorber pump-arounds.
se M
The minimum temperature of approach was set higher than 10°C, at almost 30°C, because the source transfer
re E
fluid is a gas.
:// T
It was also found that the off-gases exiting the absorber should be ‘reasonably cool’ (preferably below 50°C).
While this does have some beneficial effect on the equilibrium of absorbing formaldehyde, the main reason is to
tp U
keep the saturation water content of the gas low.
ht HO
3·5·2 Start-up issues

m IT
On start-up the plant will be cold. Thus any process-to-process heat transfer will have to be supplemented by a
heating utility on start-up. A separate cooling utility is not required. This is most easily accomplished by the
fro W
following:
 An ability to raise the desired amount of 1200kPa(abs) steam from the burner by combustion of natural gas.
Any 500kPa(abs) steam that is then required may be obtained by letting this steam down in pressure.
n n
 The design heating of the vaporiser and superheater lines should each have one contribution from an
io io
independent utility, namely steam. In this way, when process–process heat transfer is inoperable (i.e. on
rs rs
start-up), the utility can take over the f u ll duty in an e xi s ti n g exchanger.

ve ve
Relevant start-up schemes are described in Ref’s [11] and [13].
3·5·3 Other issues

ll N
fu IO
As noted, the steam generated from the waste-heat boiler was specified as saturated at 500kPa(abs), in order to
avoid any product quality problems. The steam generated in the burner was set at 1200kPa(abs), because this
ad T
was the export pressure.

An attempt to produce high pressure steam in the burner, pass this through the turbine (attached to the blower),
lo LU
and then come out at 1200kPa(abs) failed. Even for steam entering at 5960kPa(abs) and 482°C [6] there was
insufficient power obtained from the turbine to drive the blower. On top of this are the extra costs and hazards
associated with high pressure steam.
wn SO
The 500kPa(abs) that is produced is too low to heat anything other than (some of) the vaporiser loop, and it
Do E
cannot be exported. However it is just the right quantity to run the turbine. It should be noted that Ref. [6] also
states that, for turbines that are running, “erosion corrosion is pretty much confined to units that are operating on
-R
saturated steam wi t h i nad e q ua te b o i ler - wa ter trea t me n t .”27 As we will be using demineralised water
for make-up, this should not be a problem.
W
A requirement also exists to ensure that formaldehyde-containing solutions are not cooled to too low a
LO
temperature, at which paraformaldehyde may be precipitated.
26 Apart from the dogmatic advice of Dr. Andrew HOADLEY.

27 Emphasis added.
10:23 page 3-11

27/09/99
3·6 Economic, Safety and Environmental Considerations
S.
3·6·1 Economic factors
.au NT
The primary economic issue considered was whether or not to include a distillation column, and complementary
anion-exchange unit. While it was relatively easy to find the advantages of omitting these items in terms of
costs, the disadvantages that might arise were not so apparent. However it was judged that these would be
om FO
minor.
/
As discussed, savings can be made with some heat integration of the process. However, heat integration was
1.c D
only considered in case in which the number of heat exchangers would not be increased excessively.
iv E
Along with heat integration, some power integration was incorporated, with a steam turbine used to drive the
blower. Although the turbine may have appeared an uncertain proposition on purely monetary terms, the
.d D
advantage of having a secure supply of power was the determining factor.
ch ED
Probably the major saving is in the use of the large quantity of steam that is raised in our process. This may be
considered the recovery and reuse of waste heat.
ar B
Another saving was made in combining the recycle and fresh air streams so as to be able to pass them through a
se M
single blower. It is believed that adequate control will still be possible through the use of appropriate control
valves.
re E
Similarly, the absorption duty was combined into a single column.
:// T
The height of the absorption column will determine how much of the formaldehyde (and methanol) are
tp U
recovered in the liquid product stream. Increasing the height of the tower will have a capital cost penalty, but
allows for higher efficiency of operation in terms of yields. If we assume that the burner is always on-line when
ht HO
needed, then environmental penalties for excessive releases of formaldehyde are not a major consideration,
although lower quantities are inherently safer. The height of the column, implied by a specified absorption
‘duty’, is not decided at this stage. However, initially, it is to be selected based on reported industrial practice.
m IT
Due to the turn-down requirement for an ability to operate at 60% of the design flows, and due to the importance
fro W
of contact time on the reaction, it was considered necessary to operate two reactors. The ratio of capacities
would be 60:40. Although this will be a more expensive option in terms of initial capital expenditure, it is
essentially a prerequisite in this case. There will also be some operability benefits: if one reactor is off-line for
n n
maintenance or other reasons then that still leaves one reactor operational.
io io
rs rs
3·6·2 Safety factors

ve ve
Both methanol and formaldehyde are flammable, as is the hydrogen that is produced (section 3·1·1·2, page 3-1).
ll N
The ability to operate without a distillation column is predicated on feeding a mi n i ma l e xc es s of methanol to

the reactor. Given that this process operates on the rich side of the flammability limits, this is only possible if
fu IO
inerts are added to the feed, because clearly a certain amount of oxygen is required for the reaction.
ad T
Addition of water is effective in this regard, but has the disadvantage of diluting the product, and so it cannot be
used on its own. Therefore the oxygen-lean off-gases from the absorber are recycled and combined with the
lo LU
reactor feed stream. A ratio of flows is selected to operate at a safe margin outside of the flammability envelope
(see e.g. Ref. [14]).
wn SO
Flame speed data [5], [12] indicate that the ma x i mu m burning velocity of methanol is under 0.5m.s–1, which is
much lower than the design gas flowrate. As a consequence, provided the reactant mixture is flowing at around
Do E
the design flowrate, the reaction will be contained at the catalyst surface. Nevertheless it was thought prudent to
-R
include a flame trap on the line between the reactor and the superheater to minimise the hazards of flashback.
This is particularly important when there is no forward flow of reactant gases, such as occurs under shut-down
and start-up conditions.
W
Elsewhere in the process, flammable mixtures are avoided by the virtue of the low oxygen availability.
LO
It has been stated that the lower liquid hold-up of packed beds in the absorber is one advantage, because of the
reduction in inventory in that vessel. While trays may be used at the top of the column, this is less important, as
solutions will be much more dilute there.
page 3-12 10:23

27/09/99
Other issues, such as locating the burner away from methanol stores, are no t considered at the flowsheet
S.
development stage.
.au NT
3·6·3 Environmental factors
Formaldehyde is a suspected carcinogen, which demands that care be taken to minimise emissions and exposure.
om FO
/
It has been mentioned that the absorber will be designed to remove the maj o r it y of the formaldehyde, which is
inherently better in environmental terms. However, in any case, the off-gases that are to be released first
1.c D
undergo combustion in a burner–waste heat boiler. This is expected to deliver almost complete oxidation of the
formaldehyde to mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), with some amount of carbon monoxide (CO) formed, along with
iv E
water (H2O).
.d D
Thus, all gaseous emissions28 will be within world guideline values (see e.g. Ref. [17]).
ch ED
There will be only very limited quantities of liquid waste generated during normal operation. Product material
from start-up that is slightly out of the specified ranges can be stored in a separate tanks and gradually blended in
ar B
with product produced after steady operation is realised.
Blow-down from boilers and the cooling water circuit should contain negligible levels of formaldehyde, and can
se M
be directed to trade waste.
re E
Low concentrations of formaldehyde may be discharged with wastewaters, as formaldehyde is readily degraded
by bacteria (e.g. Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens) in non-sterile, natural water to form carbon dioxide
:// T
and water. tp U
Solid waste is desirably very small. In particular the valuable silver catalyst will be regenerated. Small
ht HO
quantities of waste from filters and the like do not pose an especial risk, and can be disposed of as normal.
Again, although issues such as providing for detection of leaks and operator education are important, they are
m IT
no t considered during development of the flowsheet.

fro W
3·7 References
n n
1. Albrecht AICHER, Hans HAAS, Hans DIEM, Christian DUDECK, Fritz BRUNNMUELLER and Gunter
LEHMANN (all BASF AG); “Manufacture of Concentrated Aqueous Solutions of Formaldehyde;” in: US
io io
Patent 4119673; 10 October, 1978. Note: Original patent lodged in Germany (2444586).
rs rs
2. Albrecht AICHER, Hans HAAS, Heinrich SPERBER, Hans DIEM, Matthias GUENTER and Gunter LEHMANN
(all BASF AG); “Production of formaldehyde;” in: US Patent 4010208; 01 March, 1977. Note: Origi-
ve ve
nal patent lodged in Germany (2322757).

3. Anecdotal information received on the operation of Orica’s Deer Park facility, August 1999. 29
ll N
4. V. I. ATROSHCHENKO and I. P. KUSHNARENKO; “Kinetics of the catalytic oxidation of methanol to

formaldehyde over a silver catalyst;” in: International Chemical Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 581–585;
fu IO
October 1964. Note: Translated from the original Russian in Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebn, Zavedenii,
Khimiya i Khimicheskaya Tekhnologiya, No. 5, pp. 774–780; 1963.
ad T
5. P. DAVIES, R. T. DONALD and N. H. HARBORD; “Catalytic Oxidations;” in: Martyn V. TWIGG (Ed.);
lo LU
Catalyst Handbook, 2nd edition; Wolfe Publishing; London; 1989.30

6. Frank J. EVANS (Ed.) and J. S. SWEARINGEN; “Process Machinery Drives – Steam Turbines;” in: Robert
Howard PERRY and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition;
wn SO
McGraw-Hill Inc.; New York; 1984.

dia of Chemical Processing and Design; Marcel Dekker; New York; 1985.31
Do E
8. Presentation by Mr. Simon FARRAR (Orica Adhesives and Resins, Deer Park; ex-West Kalimantan,
-R
Indonesia) at Monash University, 04/08/1999. He stated that they had achieved formic acid concentra-
tions of, “0.01 to 0.02%,” in their silver catalyst process, “by cooling to below 500°C very rapidly.” He
W
also stated that mixing was required along with vaporisation, and that the process gases fed to the reactor
LO
28 This would include fumes from handling areas (e.g. loading zones), relief valves and venting of process equipment.
29 The author wishes to acknowledge Miss. Michelle HILL and Miss. Jayne BORENSZTAJN for kindly providing this
information.
30 This reference due to Dr. David J. BRENNAN.
10:23 page 3-13

27/09/99
should be “well-mixed.” Also that it was common for some silver processes to run with two absorption
columns, because, having lower volumetric gas flows than metal oxide type processes, “they can afford to
S.
do it.”
9. H. Robert GERBERICH and George C. SEAMAN; “Formaldehyde” in: Jacqueline I. KROSCHWITZ (Exec.
.au NT
New York; 1994.
10. I. HAHNENSTEIN, H. HASSE, Y.-Q. LIU and G. MAURER; “Thermodynamic Properties of Formaldehyde
om FO
Containing Mixtures for Separation Process Design;” in: Theodore B. SELOVER and Chau-Chyun CHEN
/
(Vol. Ed’s); Thermodynamic Properties for Industrial Process Design, AIChE Symposium Series [298],
Vol. 90; American Institute of Chemical Engineers; 1994.32
1.c D
11. Guenter HALBRITTER, Wolfgang MUEHLTHALER, Heinrich SPERBER, Hans DIEM, Christian DUDECK and
Gunter LEHMANN (all BASF AG); “Manufacture of formaldehyde;” in: US Patent 4072717; 07 Febru-
iv E
ary, 1978. Note: Original patent lodged in Germany (2442231).
.d D
12. Elwyn JONES and G. G. FOWLIE; “Thermodynamics of Formaldehyde Manufacture from Methanol;” in:
ch ED
–; Journal of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 3, pp. 206–209; Society of Chemical Industry; London; May,
1953.
13. Shigeo KIMURA and Kouichi KURATA (both Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co.); “Process for Recovering
ar B
Waste Heat from Formaldehyde Product Gas;” in: US Patent 4691060; 01 September, 1987.
14. Yasuo KURAISHI and Kyugo YOSHIKAWA; “A New Process for the Manufacture of Formalin via Excess
se M
Methanol Process (Introduction of Waste Gas Recycle developed by Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company,
re E
Inc. “MGC”);” in: Chemical Economy & Engineering Review, Vol. 14, No. 6 (No. 159), pp. 31–34;
June 1982.33
:// T
15. L. F. MAREK and Dorothy A. HAHN; Catalytic Oxidation of Organic Compounds in the Vapour Phase,
American Chemical Society Monograph Series #61; The Chemical Catalogue Co.; New York; 1932.
tp U
16. Raymond MAUX (Societe Chimique des Charbonnages); “Preparation of Formaldehyde;” in: US Patent
ht HO
3728398; 17 April 1973. Note: Original patent lodged in France.
m IT

18. Robert C. REID, John M. PRAUSNITZ and Bruce E. POLING; The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 4th
fro W
edition; McGraw-Hill; New York; 1987.

19. G. F. C. ROGERS and Y. R. MAYHEW (‘Arrangers’); Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Fluids,
SI Units, 5th edition; Basil Blackwell; Oxford; 1995.
n n
20. Karl SEITHER, Guenter MATTHIAS, Hans DIEM, Oskar HUSSY and Hans HAAS (all BASF AG);
io io
“Manufacture of Formaldehyde;” in: US Patent 3932522; 13 January 1976. Note: Original patent
lodged in Germany (2114370).
rs rs
21. Hosaka SHINGO and Sakaguchi YASUHIKO (both Mitsui Toatsu Chem. Inc.); “Production of Formalde-
ve ve
hyde;” in: Japanese Patent 06184035; 05 July, 1994.

22. R. K. SINNOTT; Chemical Engineering Design,” 2nd edition; in: J. F. RICHARDSON and J. M. COULSON;
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 6; Butterworth-Heinemann; Oxford; 1997.
ll N
23. Robin SMITH; Chemical Process Design, International edition; McGraw-Hill; New York; 1995.34
fu IO
24. J. Frederic WALKER; Formaldehyde, [American Chemical Society Monograph series], 3 rd edition;
Rheinhold Publishing; New York; 1964.
ad T
25. J. G. M. WINKELMAN, H. SIJBRING and A. A. C. M. BEENACKERS; “Modeling and Simulation of

Industrial Formaldehyde Absorbers;” in: Liang-Shih FAN et alii (Ed’s); Chemical Engineering Science,
lo LU
Vol. 47, No. 13/14, The First International Conference on Gas-Liquid and Gas-Liquid-Solid Reactor En-
gineering [Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.], Session E: Reactor modeling, dynamics, and control, pp. 3785–
3792; Pergamon Press; Oxford; 1992.
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
32 The author wishes to acknowledge Mr. Adrian DIXON for kindly providing access to this reference.
34 This reference kindly made available by Mrs. Hsu-San WARE.
page 3-14 10:23

27/09/99
Formaldehyde
4 PROCESS FLOWSHEET
S.
4·1 Exhortation
.au NT
The d eve lo p me n t of the process flowsheet has been examined in great detail in the preceding chapter. The
reader is exhorted to not read any further without having read Chapter 3!
om FO
This chapter describes the process that was finally arrived at, wit ho u t further j us ti fic a tio n of the major unit
/
operations selected. However some discussion on process variables such as temperature and flowrate is entered
into, as well as insertion of minor equipment items.
1.c D
iv E
While reading this chapter, please look to the first drawing in the Drawing Annex (preceding the Appendices),
entitled, “Formaldehyde Plant Process Flow Diagram.”
.d D
ch ED
4·2 Process Flowsheet Description
ar B
4·2·1 Reactor feed system – Part 1
se M
At the front end of the process, methanol, air, recirculated off-gases and water are fed into the vaporiser unit.
This comprises:
re E
 the “Methanol Feed Vaporiser,” HX-1,
 the “Liquid Recirculation Pump,” P-2,
:// T
and a heat exchange duty split between two exchangers:
tp U
 HX-5, the “Reactor Effluent Cooler”
ht HO
followed by
 HX-10, the “Vaporiser Recycle Heater.”
m IT
4·2·1·1 Heat exchange

As discussed in Chapter 3, the configuration chosen was a packed bed over which a large flow of heated aqueous
fro W
methanol flows. A lesser amount then vaporises in the gas stream flowing counter-currently, achieving good
mixing. Conceptually one may equate the small specific sensible heating duty over a large flow to the large
specific latent heating duty spread over the lesser flow.
n n
A demister then knocks out any liquid droplets.

io io
rs rs
Thus we see that no (indirect) heat exchange takes place in HX-1.

ve ve
It is clear from the description of HX-5 that the primary function of this heat exchanger is to cool down the
stream exiting the reactor. To be more precise, the stream exiting the waste-heat boiler integral with the catalytic
ll N
reactor bed. Given that the reactor process gases are already flowing orthogonally to the catalytic bed, it is
commonsense to assume that the reactor effluent will flow on the tube side 1.
fu IO
As the (equivalent) vaporising duty cannot be achieved exclusively by heat transfer in HX-5, HX-10 is installed
ad T
following. This is heated by 1200kPa(abs) steam generated in the “Tail Gas Burner,” RXN-1. The reason for
installing the exchangers in this order is evident from the composite curve construction of Chapter 3. Its
lo LU
presence makes an allowance for the reduced transfer in HX-5 on start-up2.

wn SO
4·2·1·2 Liquid flow

Just as P-2 is required to build up head in stream 10 in order to pass through HX-5 and HX-10, the methanol
must be increased in pressure to match that at which the vaporiser is run 3.
Do E
It is reasonable to assume that methanol supply will be intermittent 4 [2]. Thus the methanol (supplied by
-R
pipeline [1], exiting at just above atmospheric) will be stored in ST-1, which will have a capacity equivalent to 3
W
1 I.e. t h r o u gh the tubes.

LO
2 It would not be feasible to pass steam through the tube side of HX-5 on start-up, and then switch back to the reactor
effluent once steady-state operation was established.
3 In turn, the vaporiser pressure specified is consequent on the exit pressure of the combusted tail-gas (stream 40) – being
namely atmospheric – at the ‘back end’ of the process and the pressure drops specified on the units that the process fluid
must flow through.
10:12 page 4-1

27/09/99
Chapter 4: Process Flowsheet Formaldehyde
days usage at design flowrates. Higher capacities are precluded by the hazards associated with increased
inventories of flammables, as well as the increased cost.
S.
It may be assumed that this storage tank always has some head of methanol, conservatively taken at
110kPa(abs), whereas stream 6 is at 185kPa(abs).
.au NT
The water is available at 400kPa(abs), which is more than enough to enter HX-1. For this reason a pressure let-
down valve, V-1, is shown on the Process Flow Diagram (see Drawing Annex).
om FO
/
The ratio of water flow to methanol flow may be estimated from Ref. [13]. However the final value is derived
from the mass balance, where attention is paid to the need to maintain a minimum liquid flow in the absorber
1.c D
(ABS-1) while avoiding excessive dilution of the product stream.
In fact there is some cause to consider the need to have water feed at all. The main advantage would appear to
iv E
be the reduction in flammability of the mixture.
.d D
ch ED
4·2·1·3 Gas flow
The air and recycled off-gas streams join at a tee and both are raised in pressure from atmospheric by a blower,
CP-1. The blower is driven by a steam turbine, TRB-1.
ar B
The ratio of these two streams is a complicated mixture of factors: mass and energy balances, as well as
se M
guidelines on desirable ratios between the feed methanol [7].
re E
4·2·1·3·1 Flammability
:// T
Another key criterion is the flammability of the mixture. Representative flammability envelopes for a waste-gas
recycle process are shown in Figure 4-1 below.
tp U
ht HO
(a) (b)
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
Figure 4-1: (a) Explosion limits for the Methanol –Air–Recycle-gas system; (b) Explosion limits for the
W
Methanol –Air–Water system. [9]

LO
4 Or, at least, ‘occasionally intermittent’! That is, although the methanol may even be sourced from within the Bontang
complex, it is nice to not be at the mercy of another plant’s down-time and the vagaries of the policies of another com-
pany.
page 4-2 10:12

27/09/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 4: Process Flowsheet
When the methanol is fed from storage it is not flammable as long seal integrity is maintained so that oxygen
ingress is not possible. Once the methanol (and water) enters the vaporiser oxygen is present in the incoming
S.
fresh air. This would ordinarily be flammable at the ratio of methanol to oxygen specified (with the lower
excess of methanol required to operate without a distillation column). However the addition of the oxygen-lean
.au NT
off-gas keeps the point of operation outside of the flammability envelope. This is marked on Figure 4-1.
It is difficult to discover how well the additional complication of the presence of hydrogen in the recycled off-
om FO
gas affects the flammability of the mixture in the vaporiser, and in the reactor feed. However an independent
/
calculation based on Le Chatelier’s Rule may be carried out along the lines of:
1.c D
Lmixture = {  (vi / Li) }–1,
iv E
where L is alternatively the lower explosive limit (lel), xor upper explosive limit (uel), v is the volume (i.e. mole)
.d D
fraction of the fl a m mab le co n s ti t ue nt s o nl y , and subscript i is the summation index, being taken over all
of the flammable components [11].
ch ED
Given that the upper flammability limit of hydrogen may be taken as 76% at atmospheric pressure and 20°C [6],
while that of methanol may be 36% [4] or 44% [5]5 (all by mole). Methanol is present at a mole fraction of
ar B
around 0.18, with hydrogen approximately 0.06. This gives a value for the mixture of 24% flammables on a
se M
mole (i.e. volume) basis. Hence the uel of the mixture is around 47% (by mole).
If the mixture were in air then it would indeed be explosive. However the mixture is enriched in nitrogen and
re E
water: By stoichiometry6 the above mixture would require 28% (pure) oxygen for complete combustion, on a
molar basis. The actual oxygen content has been arranged to be 7.7% by mole, and so the mixture should not be
:// T
flammable – at least not at the moderate temperatures outside of the catalyst bed. 7
tp U
ht HO
4·2·1·4 Filtering
Due to the sensitivity of the catalyst to impurities, which has necessitated the use of stainless steel in the plant,
filters have been installed on all of the feed streams. That for the water is not shown, as demineralised water has
m IT
been specified, and therefore purification takes place outside of the battery limits of the plant8.
fro W
4·2·2 Reactor feed system – Part 1

4·2·2·1 Further heat exchange
n n
io io
Once the well-mixed vapour stream containing oxygen, formaldehyde and several other chemicals has passed
out of the vaporiser, HX-1, it is superheated in HX-2. This is a steam-heated exchanger operating at
rs rs
1200kPa(abs) on the shell side.

ve ve
4·2·2·2 Flame trap

A flame trap, FT-1, is installed on the reactor feed line as a relatively cheap means of further reducing the risk of
ll N
explosive combustion in the reactor. The aim is to contain any such accident so that it does not flash back to the
fu IO
significant9 methanol inventory in the v ap o r i se r , HX-1.

ad T
The mechanism of this device is discussed in e.g. Ref. [6]: “explosions cannot occur in spaces occupied by
packing material,” such as Raschig rings, capillaries or parallel plates.
lo LU
4·2·3 Reaction system

wn SO
4·2·3·1 Reactor unit

The reactor system consists of the catalyst bed integral with a waste-heat boiler. The catalyst bed is very
Do E
shallow, and contains silver crystals with certain size distributions. Due to the turndown requirement (see
-R
5 This was the only reference found quoting the higher figure. All other references quoted 36% by mole, 36.5% by mole
W
et cetera.
6 CH3OH(g) + 1.5 O2(g)  CO2(g) + 2H2O(g) and H2(g) + 0.5O2(g)  H2O(g).
LO
7 Further information on the relationship of methanol and hydrogen flammability with temperature is presented in Ref’s
[3] and [8] (respectively).
8 And outside of the scope of treatment of this report!
9 Although the inventory would be less than for a kettle-type reboiler, which would also have methanol at a higher
concentration.
10:12 page 4-3

27/09/99
Chapter 2) and the importance of space velocity10 through the bed [7] two parallel paths were specified. The
first combination of RXN-1 and HX-4 handle 40% of the design flow, while the second stream (60% of the
S.
design flow) passes through RXN-2 and HX-3.
Both are cooled to 170°C, being approximately 20°C above the saturation temperature of the 500kPa(abs) steam.
.au NT
4·2·3·2 Steam system
om FO
The steam is generated from water fed from a steam drum (D-1 and D-2). This comes in at the saturation
temperature and is vaporised. However OLBRICH indicates that the flow immediately exiting the boiler will not
/
be a saturated vapour by any means, but will be in the two-phase region11. Thus this two-phase mixture passes
through a steam drum in which any liquid water is captured, with only the vapour passing out into the steam
1.c D
distribution pipework. As noted above, this 500kPa(abs) steam is used to run the turbine (TRB-1) that drives the
iv E
compressor (CP-1). On start-up it would be possible to supply steam generated in the burner (RXN-3)12, suitably
.d D
let down in pressure.
The boiler feed water (streams 100 and 106) is assumed to come from recycled condensate that has undergone
ch ED
purification as needed. Thus the temperature is taken as 100°C.
4·2·4 Absorption
ar B
se M
4·2·4·1 The column
Absorption takes place in a single column, ABS-1. This consists of four stages: stages 1 to 3 at the base of the
re E
column are packed, while the top half of the column has trays.
:// T
This enables high liquid flowrates, high cooling duties and large amounts of mass transfer to occur in the bottom
half of the column, while at the top the saturation vapour pressure is lowered so that removal down to ppm levels
tp U
is plausible.
ht HO
4·2·4·2 The rest

Demineralised water is available at 400kPa(abs). However the height of the column means that a pump is
m IT
required to attain the necessary head. This is P-10 in the Process Flow Diagram (Drawing Annex).
fro W
There are three pump-arounds corresponding to the three packed sections of the absorber. Each of these is
cooled to remove the heat of absorption13: units HX-8, HX-7 and HX-6 going up the column. Pressure drops
n n
across these exchangers necessitates centrifugal pumping to keep the inlet and outlet pressures of the column
similar. This job is done by pumps P-4, P-6 and P-7 (corresponding to the three heat exchangers listed).
io io
rs rs
After being cooled from 75°C to 60°C with the recirculation flow around the bottom stage (stage 1), the product
stream (stream 25) is then drawn off. This flow is set by the design requirements of Chapter 2: 2.646kg.s –1 of
ve ve
aqueous 54%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde solution

ll N
An energy balance14 on the trayed section (stage 4) reveals that cooling is required to obtain maximum levels of
formaldehyde recovery from the exiting gas stream. For this reason ‘serpentine’ cooling coils are installed on
fu IO
each tray. As for the demineralised water, the recirculated cooling water must undergo an increase in pressure to
reach the top of the column. Pump P-8 is responsible for this task.
ad T
lo LU
4·2·5 Tail-gas treatment

4·2·5·1 Burner
wn SO
In the “Tail Gas Burner,” RXN-3, the off-gas that is to be ‘purged’ from the system undergoes almost complete
combustion to remove traces of formaldehyde before release to the atmosphere, and to liberate the heat
Do E
associated with the hydrogen gas present in the stream (stream 39).
-R
W
10 Ref. [13] was unique in that “The silver catalyst was characterised by the fact that large variations in gas speed had little
effect on the reaction at constant mixture compositions in spite of apparently large temperature differences at the cata-
LO
lyst.” However FARRAR also indicated the system was robust in terms of handling turndown [2].
11 And LEHRER suggests a vapour fraction of less than one half for thermosyphon reboilers [10]!
12 Running on natural gas.
13 Equivalently: the heat of condensation p l u s the heat of dissolution.
14 Refer to the Detailed Design of the Absorber in Chapter 7.
page 4-4 10:12

27/09/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 4: Process Flowsheet
Release of the combusted off-gas is then through a stack at a high level (likely to be attached to the absorber
support structure).
S.
As noted, the remainder of the off-gas is recycled (stream 38) back to the vaporiser (HX-1) by way of the blower
.au NT
(CP-1).
4·2·5·2 Steam system
om FO
Boiler feed water is assumed available at 100°C and 400kPa(abs) from condensate return. This is then pumped
/
up to 1240kPa(abs)15 by unit P-5, followed by increase of the temperature up to that of the saturated liquid in an
economiser, HX-9.
1.c D
In fact this “Economiser” is simply a series of coils in the burner enclosure which the boiler feed water passes
iv E
through prior to reaching the steam drum, D-3. The economiser is usually located at the hottest position because
.d D
the lower temperature of its contents implies a reduction in the tube wall temperature, meaning that materials of
construction costs are minimised [12].
ch ED
Saturated liquid water at 1200kPa(abs) then flows from the base of the steam drum, D-3, to the boiler section of
unit RXN-3 where steam is generated. This passes back through D-3 before entering the distribution system.
ar B
In the distribution system the steam is diverted in three directions, with flows of similar magnitudes:
se M
 to the “Methanol Superheater,” HX-2;
 to the “Vaporiser Recycle Heater,” HX-10;
re E
 and the remainder to neighbouring plants within the complex.
4·2·6 Storage
:// T
tp U
ht HO
There are two grades of formaldehyde produced: the “54/1” Grade A and the “37/7” Grade B (see Chapter 2).
Each of these will clearly require separate storage. Thus the two main items in the ‘tank farm’ are ST-5 and
ST-3 for Grades A and B, respectively.
These tanks must be heated and kept agitated in order to ensure there is minimal deposition of paraformalde-
m IT
hyde. From ST-3 and ST-5 the formaldehyde product goes to the customer, being the terminal point of this
project.
fro W
However the additional requirement to manufacture Grade B formaldehyde which is more dilute in formalde-
n n
hyde, but with a higher methanol mass fraction, means that a buffer tank is required to add the extra water and
io io
methanol (streams 41 and 48). This is item ST-2.

rs rs
A buffer tank is also provided before ST-5. This makes use of the second function of buffer tank ST-2, which is
to act as an aid to quality control. The buffer tanks provide a significant residence time which prevents all of the
ve ve
product stream from immediately entering the main storage tanks.

The benefit of this is realised in the event that the product streams (streams 43 and 44) go out of specification.
ll N
Without the buffer tanks this poor quality material would enter the main storage straight away, possibly causing
fu IO
the entire contents to be corrupted and lost. However with a regular sampling regime in place such deviations
out of specification could be detected in time to minimise the risk of contaminating the main storage inventory.
In that instance the poor quality product could be diverted to a third storage tank temporarily, while the process
ad T
was either adjusted or shut-down, as appropriate. The material in this third storage tank may have to be disposed
lo LU
of, but it is hoped that it could be blended in with the high quality product over a period of several days – rather
than a few hours, if it had not been diverted. This third storage tank, and other ‘spare’ tanks, are no t shown on
the Process Flow Diagram because they are not considered to be a part of normal operation.
wn SO
4·3 References
Do E
1. Dr. David J. BRENNAN; Problem statement; 28/07/1999.

-R
Indonesia) at Monash University, 04/08/1999. He stated that at their plant methanol was shipped in
W
“from the Bontang area.”

3. P. DAVIES, R. T. DONALD and N. H. HARBORD; “Catalytic Oxidations;” in: Martyn V. TWIGG (Ed.);
LO
Catalyst Handbook, 2nd edition; Wolfe Publishing; London; 1989.16

15 This includes an allowance for pressure drop in HX-9 and RXN-3.
10:12 page 4-5

27/09/99
4. Alan ENGLISH, Jerry ROVNER and Simon DAVIES; “Methanol” in: Jacqueline I. KROSCHWITZ (Exec.
S.
New York; 1994.
5. Eckhard FIEDLER, Georg GROSSMAN, Burkhard KERSEBOHM, Günter WEISS, Claus WITTE; “Methanol;”
.au NT
in: Barbara ELVERS, Stephen HAWKINS and Gail SCHULZ (Ed’s); Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, 5th edition, Vol. A16; VCH; Weinheim; 1990.
6. Gerhard FRANZ and Roger A. SHELDON; “Oxidation;” in: Barbara ELVERS, Stephen HAWKINS and Gail
om FO
SCHULZ (Ed’s); Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 5th edition, Vol. A18; VCH; Wein-
/
heim; 1991.
1.c D
iv E
8. Peter HÄUSSINGER, Reiner LOHMÜLLER and Allan M. WATSON; “Hydrogen;” in: Barbara ELVERS and
.d D
Stephen HAWKINS (Ed’s); Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 5th edition, Vol. A13; VCH;
ch ED
Weinheim; 1989.
9. Yasuo KURAISHI and Kyugo YOSHIKAWA; “A New Process for the Manufacture of Formalin via Excess
Methanol Process (Introduction of Waste Gas Recycle developed by Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company,
ar B
Inc. “MGC”);” in: Chemical Economy & Engineering Review, Vol. 14, No. 6 (No. 159), pp. 31–34;
June 1982.17
se M
10. Harry LEHRER; Private communication; August 1999.
re E
11. Ernest E. LUDWIG; Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants, 3rd edition, Vol. 1;
Gulf Publishing; Houston; 1977.
:// T
12. Alan MANZOORI; “Notes on Steam-Power Systems;” in: Martin J. RHODES; CHE3108 Lecture Notes;
Monash University; 1998
tp U
13. L. F. MAREK and Dorothy A. HAHN; Catalytic Oxidation of Organic Compounds in the Vapour Phase,
ht HO
American Chemical Society Monograph Series #61; The Chemical Catalogue Co.; New York; 1932.
14. W. Eric OLBRICH; Private communication; August 1999.
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
page 4-6 10:12

27/09/99
Formaldehyde
5 MASS AND ENERGY BALANCES & PROCESS SIMULATION
S.
5·1 The Importance of Mass and Energy Balances
.au NT
Mass and energy balances play a pivotal role in the development of a process design. While it is all well and
good to propose to produce certain quantities of ‘stuff’ by feeding in certain quantities of ‘other stuff’, it is even
om FO
nicer to know that the proposal is physically possible. Therein lies the importance of performing self-consistent
/
mass and energy balances.
1.c D
5·2 Mass Balances
iv E
.d D
5·2·1 Development
ch ED
5·2·1·1 On the problem of reaction mechanisms, or, How come we don’t know much?
The relevant reactions have been given in Chapter 3. However we also realise that very little is known – on a
ar B
fu nd a me nt al level – about the reaction mechanisms in the production of formaldehyde from methanol. At this
se M
point it is instructive to quote some relevant comments from the references.
“Much attention is being paid to the oxidation of methanol on silver [citing references from 1941
re E
to 19611], but many aspects of the process are still unclear. Almost all researchers have studied
the reaction in the temperature region below the industrial temperatures [...]. No indications of the
:// T
system of the process under industrial conditions are cited [in the references given].” [4]
While this reference did give a couple of data points up to 920K (647°C), this is only just approaching the
tp U
temperature at which our reactor is designed to be operated – namely 700°C.2
ht HO
If the mechanism were simple then this would not be a problem. However, “the kinetic principles of the process
are different in the regions of high and low temperature.” [4] While the other main reactions are essentially
m IT
irreversible, the tendency towards dehydrogenation “increases rapidly with rising temperature.” [8]
To emphasise that equilibrium data cannot be used exclusively (which would result in a much simpler calcula-
fro W
tion procedure):
There is a “danger of arguing from chemical-equilibrium data without taking the physical condi-
tions into account. Endothermic reactions, unlike the exothermic kind, can proceed only at a rate,
n n
and to an extent, dictated by the heat supplied.” [8]

io io
Again, some progress could be made at this point if the relative proportion in which the endothermic dehydro-
rs rs
genation (and accompanying combustion of hydrogen) and the exothermic oxidation reactions (see below) occur:
ve ve
1. CH3OH(g) + 0.5 O2(g)  HCHO(g) + H2O(g) H = –159kJ.mol–1 (oxidation)

2. CH3OH(g) = HCHO(g) + H2(g) H = +84kJ.mol–1 (dehydrogenation)
H2(g) + 0.5O2(g)  H2O(g) H = –243kJ.mol–1
ll N
3.
fu IO
One of the first ports of call was Ref. [2], which gave a table showing, or claiming to show, a typical mass
balance. The data presented there could be ‘regressed’ to fit extents of the various reactions. The finding of this
ad T
calculation was that reactions 1. and 2. occur roughly in the ratio of 1:1 3, with around 20 to 25% conversion4 of
lo LU
1 It is the considered opinion of the author that because the reaction to produce formaldehyde from methanol over a silver
catalyst is a relatively old technology, new research in this area has been diminished in quantity in favour of newer,
wn SO
‘trendier’ technologies. Further, a mammoth store of proprietary (empirical) knowledge remains ‘in-house’ with the
major commercial producers.
2 There is also some concern over the temperature recorded, as a profile exists in the catalyst bed. Ref. [4], for example,
Do E
claims to have measured the “maximum temperature in the reaction zone” – though this is n o t the catalyst surface
-R
temperature.
3 Consistent with the statement made in the body of that text.
4
W
In fact the ratios varied depending on h o w the regression was performed. For example the following results have been
obtained by various colleagues (to whom thanks are expressed), b a s e d o n t h e d a t a i n R e f. [ 2 ] o n l y:
Worker Result for the ratio of reaction 2. to 1. Result of the proportion of H2 reacted
LO
Miss. Jayne BORENSZTAJN 50:50 (= 1:1) ~20 to 25%

Mr. Saiful ZAINAL ABIDIN ~60:38 (= 1.58:1) (25%?)
Mr. Michael WHITEMAN 47.5:47.5 (= 1:1) 25%
WHITEMAN and VERRELLI ~55:46 (= 0.84:1) 23%
09:22 page 5-1

07/10/99
Chapter 5: Mass and Energy Balances & Process Simulation Formaldehyde
the hydrogen (reaction 3.). The major problem with this was that it was for a d i st i lla ti v e silver catalyst
process5, which was producing formaldehyde at only 37%(kg.kg–1), though intriguingly with a methanol content
S.
of only 0.5%(kg.kg-1).
Further darkness was shed on the subject by Ref. [1]:
.au NT
“The conversion of methanol to formaldehyde has been the subject of a number of papers, but to
this date the process has not been studied thoroughly. The problem of the mechanism has been
discussed from t hr ee v ie wp o i nt s . So me a ut ho r s [3 references from 1935 to 1958] believe
om FO
that the primary reaction is the endothermic decomposition of methanol into hydrogen and formal-
/
dehyde, the heat required for this reaction being supplied by the exothermic oxidation of hydrogen
(secondary process). O n t h e o t her ha nd , the investigations of Vladovets and Pshezhetskii
1.c D
[1951] co n fir me d the view that the formation of formaldehyde is a direct oxidation of methanol
with oxygen. [Their experiments were carried out temperatures] not in excess of 450–500°C.
iv E
So me a ut ho r s [1952 & 1961] have combined the two viewpoints and regard oxidation and de-
.d D
hydrogenation as equally important [...].”6
ch ED
There is also a suggestion that the reaction may change from kinetic control to diffusion control above 600°C.
From the various opinions given in the literature (see References, section 5·5, page 5-11), the author decided that
ar B
while a 50:50 ratio between the two main reactions may be relevant for lower-temperature silver catalyst
processes, at the elevated temperature chosen (700°C), the dehydrogenation reaction would be likely to become
se M
more dominant (e.g. Ref. [18]). Therefore a ratio of approximately 60:40 was selected for reactions 2. and 1.,
re E
respectively.
:// T
5·2·1·2 That’s one small step for a man....
tp U
The author decided that the best way to s tar t a mass balance would be to take a mass balance over the entire
plant, because in this way information about the recycle streams would not have to be assumed.
ht HO
Initially the model was simple, assuming that only the oxidation and dehydrogenation reactions occurred, and in
the ratio of 1:1, with all of the condensables recovered in the absorber except for 10% of the water. These
m IT
assumptions essentially followed Ref. [2].

fro W
This was performed using a spreadsheet program, and allowed back-calculation of a required feed for given
reactor specifications (including a 98.5% consumption of the oxygen fed), given absorber operating characteris-
n n
tics and the known product requirements. Thus six chemical species (including nitrogen) and three simplified
streams were considered: “Fresh feed,” “Off-gas” and “Product.”
io io
rs rs
5·2·1·3 The development continues

ve ve
The next step was to incorporate more of the relevant side reactions, as well as adjusting the extents of reaction
for each, as described in section 5·2·1·1. The presentation of the reactions was also made more explicit, due to
the increased complexity, and showed exactly how much of each species was consumed in a given reaction.
ll N
fu IO
The other major development from the preliminary stage was the inclusion of some recycle flows. Now the
reader will be aware that a n o n -d is ti ll at i ve , o ff - ga s r ec ycl e process was selected. However at the time
ad T
that this mass balance was being computed discussion was still on-going within the group as to which of the two
recycling processes were better (judging that they were both better than a distillative process).
lo LU
SMITH [17] presents two different extremes in the way of possible approaches to process flowsheet design:
 “B u ild i n g a n ir r ed u cib le str uc t ur e .” This involves following the logic of the “onion model” (briefly
wn SO
described in Chapter 3), starting with the specification of key units in the process and working ‘outwards’ to
the ancillaries and utilities. The first specifications must therefore be made from prior experience (either of
Do E
the designer themself or extracted from the literature) which suggests to the designer what the effects of
certain specification of the central unit operations will have on the supporting equipment items. In some
-R
cases several designs may be taken to completion if a decision cannot be made at an earlier stage.
The problems with this strategy lie in the impossibility of making exact predictions and the impracticality of
W
evaluating every possible permutation.

and
LO
5 Presumably operating at a lower temperature than our process.

6 Emphasis added.
page 5-2 09:22

07/10/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 5: Mass and Energy Balances & Process Simulation
 “Cr eat i n g a nd o p ti mi s i n g a r ed uc ib le str u ct ure .” This involves the creation of a ‘superstructure’

or ‘hyperstructure’ that has embedded within it a ll of the feasible operations and interconnections. The
S.
decisions as to which of these operations and interconnections will remain in the final design is made by
expressing the superstructure mathematically using design equations, and then optimising it using standard
.au NT
reduction techniques.
There are two main disadvantages of this process 7. A compromise must be reached in terms of the number
of options initially included: increasing this will increase the likelihood of the optimal structure being con-
om FO
tained somewhere within the hyperstructure, but will also increase the complexity of the problem. Also, the
/
many intangibles of design, such as safety and layout are difficult to express mathematically.8 For example
if the composite curve method had been used exclusively to optimise the heat exchanger network, then the
1.c D
process may have been difficult to start up.
Usually a combination of the two is used in practice.
iv E
.d D
Given that only two options (the two types of recycle) were to be evaluated, the author decided to attempt to
ch ED
model a ‘reducible’ process in which b o t h a dilute liquid stream a nd a portion of the off-gases were recycled,
with the two parameters representing the proportions of each stream that was recycled. The hope was that
optimisation would result in one of the recycle flows (or even both!) being set to zero.
ar B
Unfortunately this task was beyond the capabilities of the author in the time available, and so the arguments
se M
presented in Chapter 3 were ultimately used to select the off-gas recycle process.
re E
5·2·1·4 Land ho!
The big breakthrough came when a flashback from Ref. [7] struck. Once the “iterate” option in the spreadsheet
:// T
program was selected, the problem of either creating circular references xor creating practically insoluble
tp U
optimisation problems (in order to satisfy every component mass balance) was resolved!
ht HO
With the spreadsheet now working perfectly, and to a surplus number of significant figures, the time was ripe to
adjust the reaction scheme parameters in order to satisfy the following guidelines and constraints:
 the p ro d uc t s tr ea m must be at 2.6455kg.s–1, with mas s fractions of 0.540 formaldehyde (HCHO), 0.010
m IT
methanol (CH3OH), approximately 0.0002 formic acid (HCOOH) and the remainder water (H 2O) – from the
problem statement (see Chapter 2) and Ref. [6].
fro W
 the o ff - ga s should contain mo le fractions of from 0.0025 to 0.010 carbon monoxide (CO), 0.035 to 0.10
carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.10 to 0.25 H2, 0.0002 to 0.001 HCHO and “substantial amounts of nitrogen [N 2]
n n
and small amounts of steam, methanol vapour, argon and other rare gases” [6].
io io
 The oxygen consumption in the reactor was initially specified as 98.5% of the fresh feed (after Ref. [2]).
This was later increased to 99.5% of the oxygen fed to the reactor [3].
rs rs
 The co n ver s io n o f me t ha no l is between 97 and 98% [14].

ve ve
 The yi eld of formaldehyde production from methanol is from 89.5 to 90.5% (by mole) [14]9.
 The ratio o f r e c yc led o f f - ga s to fr e s h methanol feed will be from 90 to 180% by mass, “preferably”
from 105 to 158% [14].
ll N
 The water content of the off-gases leaving the absorber, ABS-1, must be essentially saturated, due to the
fu IO
intimate contact and extended contact time. Water vap o ur will not be removed by demisters or filters 10.
ad T
There are a number of points to be made with regard to the preceding... points:
 While it is physically self-evident that not all of the formaldehyde and methanol can be removed from the
lo LU
gas stream in the absorber (ABS-1), the figures above demonstrate that the concentrations become very
small. So while, for example, the formaldehyde concentration at the levels quoted may be important on an
environmental level, say, it is negligible in the context of an overall mass balance. Therefore the mass bal-
wn SO
ance computed here assumes zer o formaldehyde and methanol in the off-gas exiting ABS-1. The precise
figures are left to calculation as part of the detailed design assignments (see Chapter 7), but have turned out
Do E
to be small enough to be recorded as simply “trace” on the stream table accompanying the Process Flow
Diagram (stored in the Drawing Annex) discussed in Chapter 4.
-R
 While argon makes up almost 1% of air (by mole) conventional engineering practice treats argon as nitrogen
for the purposes of mass and energy balances, given that they are both inert and have similar physico-
W
chemical properties. This simplification is also made here.

LO
7 A further disadvantage is the risk of finding a local extremum, rather than the ‘global’ extremum sought.
8 And probably difficult to remember to express mathematically!
9 Or 89 to 92% according to Ref. [6].
10 Assuming that these do not have any heat transfer effects. Thanks to Dr. Paul A. WEBLEY.
09:22 page 5-3

07/10/99
The keen investigator may wish to know the argon content of some of the streams. This is relatively simple:
as neither undergo any chemical reaction, their relative concentrations in a given gas stream remain essen-
S.
tially constant and equal to that of the inlet air 11.
 It was initially assumed that the ratio of water e x it i n g the system in the off-gas and product would be in
.au NT
the ratio of 10:90 (after Ref. [2]). However this assumption proved to be inconsistent with the above con-
straint, and corrections were (eventually) made 12. These corrections included inclusion of water v ap o ur in
the incoming air streams (streams 1 and 49).
om FO
/
One final constraint, which was not mentioned explicitly in any reference, was the need for the reaction to be
sufficiently exothermic. That is, there was an allowable change in enthalpy per kilogram of to tal feed to the
1.c D
catalytic reactors, because if the reaction were insufficiently exothermic, then that would imply that the methanol
superheater (HX-2) on the feed line (stream 15) was heating to an unrealistically high temperature. Unrealisti-
iv E
cally high means a temperature that could not be achieved by the moderate steam heating that was known to be
.d D
in place.
ch ED
This constraint was satisfied by computer simulation using a commercial package, which was known to give
results of sufficient accuracy to satisfy this requirement.
ar B
5·2·1·5 The finished article
se M
No w would be a good time to refer to the completed mass balance (A3-sized insert).
re E
The columns in lighter print headed “FRACTION:” give the mole fraction or mass fraction as appropriate.
Values in a box represent adjustable input parameters. Comments in italics generally give a reference as to the
:// T
determination of a parameter or physical data.
tp U
Note that “Off-gas” denotes o nl y the tail-gas which is purged from the system.
ht HO
The shaded box in the bottom right quadrant headed “CHECK!” verifies the integrity of the mass balance, as do
the bottom rows (“TOTAL”) of the “REACTIONS:” columns. These are explained in the following section.
m IT
While every stream is not listed, this is because either calculation is trivial (e.g. stream 14 passes through HX-2
and becomes stream 15), requires a detailed design (e.g. the absorber pump-arounds), or is based on an energy
fro W
balance (i.e. the utilities). The completed stream tables have been presented accompanying the Process Flow
Diagram in the Drawing Annex.
n n
io io
5·2·2 Verification
rs rs
The mass balances presented have been checked for self-consistency and no discrepancies are present.
ve ve
Under the heading “CHECK!” the shaded columns calculate the familiar equation
ACCumulation = IN – OUT + GENeration – DISappearance
ll N
The disappearance term is subsumed into the generation term (being identical except for sign), and the accumu-
lation set equal to zero, as must be the case at steady-state.
fu IO
In the first column the calculation is taken over the whole system (excluding the burner). Thus the equation
ad T
becomes
lo LU
ACC = {Fresh feed + Absorber water in} – {Off-gas + Product} + {NETT reaction}.
This is calculated for every component and for the total, on both a mass and mole basis. In all cases zero
accumulation is attained as the result.
wn SO
In the second column under the heading “CHECK!” the reactor–vaporiser section of the plant is excluded from
the mass balance, so that the relevant equation is now
Do E
ACC = {Reactor effluent + Absorber water in} – {Recycled off-gas + Off-gas +Product} + {0}.
-R
Again all zeros are returned, confirming the veracity of the mass balance 13.
W
11 Discrepancies are due to minor differences in the solubilities of the two species, which is why the same approximation
LO
does n o t apply to liquid streams. However the argon or nitrogen content of liquid streams would be so small as to be...
academic!
12 Thanks due to Dr. Paul A. WEBLEY, who shared the author’s surprise at the high saturation water content of the off-gas.
13 Because the mass balance over the vaporiser–reactor section of the plant is not independent of those taken over the
whole plant and over the absorber section, this mass balance is verified too (by implication).
page 5-4 09:22

07/10/99
S.
CHE4117: Design Project Formaldehyde David Verrelli (Group 8)
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
c h ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
Using the spreadsheet's "iterate" function REACTIONS: (Absorber feed) CHECK !
tp U
Stream: Fresh feed Recycled off-gas Total reactor feed (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) NETT Reactor effluent Absorber water in Off-gas Product ACC = 0 = IN+GEN-OUT: Additional fuel/air Combusted off-gas
-1 -1
MOLAR FLOWS [mol.s ] FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: 51.3882561 51.3882561 51.3882561 =Total HCHO formed pre-degradation FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: [mol.s ]
CH3OH 54.35507 0.3008 0 0.0000 54.3551 0.1837 -19.2706 -32.1177 0 0 -2.14118 0 0 0 -53.52943 CH3OH 0.8256 0.0025 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.8256 0.0072 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CH3OH
ht HO
HCHO 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 19.2706 32.11766 0 -0.47476 0 -3.31545 -0.01028 -0.01028 47.5775 HCHO 47.5775 0.1430 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 47.5775 0.4156 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 HCHO
O2 22.65455 0.1254 0.0553 0.0005 22.7099 0.0768 -9.6353 0 -6.423532 0 -3.21177 -3.31545 -0.00514 -0.00514 -22.59632 O2 0.1135 0.0003 0 0.0000 0.0582 0.0005 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 12.0800 0.1991 2.0230 0.0118 O2
N2 85.48174 0.4731 81.2076 0.7050 166.6894 0.5634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N2 166.6894 0.5010 0 0.0000 85.4817 0.7050 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 45.5811 0.7513 131.0628 0.7628 N2
H 2O 18.18057 0.1006 9.5298 0.0827 27.7104 0.0937 19.2706 0 12.84706 0 4.282355 3.315448 0 0.010278 39.72574 H2O 67.4361 0.2027 18.18057 1.0000 10.0314 0.0827 66.0555 0.5771 0.0000 0.0000 --- 3.0092 0.0496 32.7859 0.1908 H 2O
m IT
H2 0 0.0000 18.7581 0.1628 18.7581 0.0634 0 32.11766 -12.84706 0.474756 0 0 0 0 19.74535 H2 38.5034 0.1157 0 0.0000 19.7454 0.1628 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 H2
CO2 0 0.0000 5.1838 0.0450 5.1838 0.0175 0 0 0 0 2.141177 3.315448 0 0 5.456626 CO2 10.6404 0.0320 0 0.0000 5.4566 0.0450 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 5.9417 0.0346 CO2
CO 0 0.0000 0.4608 0.0040 0.4608 0.0016 0 0 0 0.474756 0 0 0 0.010278 0.485033 CO 0.9458 0.0028 0 0.0000 0.4850 0.0040 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CO
fro W
HCOOH 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.010278 0 0.010278 HCOOH 0.0103 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0103 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 HCOOH
TOTAL 180.6719 1.0000 115.1954 1.0000 295.8674 1.0000 9.635298 32.11766 -6.423532 0.474756 1.070589 0 -0.00514 0.005139 36.87477 332.7421 1.0000 18.18057 1.0000 121.2584 1.0000 114.4689 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 60.6703 1.0000 171.8134 1.0000
( N O T Z E R O ) ( N O T Z E R O ) (NOT ZERO) Total out: 235.727267 (SHOULD BE ZERO)
-1 -1
MASS FLOWS [kg.s ] FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) NETT FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: [kg.s ]
n n
CH3OH 1.7416 0.3357 0 0.0000 1.7416 0.2200 -0.61747 -1.02911 0 0 -0.06861 0 0 0 -1.71519 CH3OH 0.0265 0.0033 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.026455 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CH3OH
HCHO 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.578623 0.964371 0 -0.01426 0 -0.09955 -0.00031 -0.00031 1.428571 HCHO 1.4286 0.1805 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 1.428571 0.5400 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 HCHO
io io
O2 0.7249 0.1397 0.0018 0.0006 0.7267 0.0918 -0.30832 0 -0.205545 0 -0.10277 -0.10609 -0.00016 -0.00016 -0.723055 O2 0.0036 0.0005 0 0.0000 0.0019 0.0006 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0.3865 0.2250 0.0647 0.0141 O2
N2 2.3946 0.4615 2.2749 0.8341 4.6695 0.5899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N2 4.6695 0.5899 0 0.0000 2.3946 0.8341 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 1.2769 0.7434 3.6715 0.8002 N2
H 2O
H2
CO2
0.3275
0
0
0.0631
0.0000
0.0000
0.1717
0.0378
0.2281
0.0630
0.0139
0.0837
0.4992
0.0378
0.2281
0.0631
0.0048
0.0288
rs rs
0.347164
0 0
0 0.231442
0 0.064743 -0.025897 0.000957
0
0 0.077147 0.059728
0
0 0.094233 0.145912
0
0
0 0.000185
0
0 0.240145
0
0.715667
0.039803
H2O
H2
CO2
1.2149
0.0776
0.4683
0.1535
0.0098
0.0592
0.3275
0
0
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1807
0.0398
0.2401
0.0630
0.0139
0.0837
1.190003 0.4498
0
0 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
---
---
---
0.0542
0
0
0.0316
0.0000
0.0000
0.5906
0
0.2615
0.1287
0.0000
0.0570
H 2O
H2
CO2
ve ve
CO 0 0.0000 0.0129 0.0047 0.0129 0.0016 0 0 0 0.013298 0 0 0 0.000288 0.013586 CO 0.0265 0.0033 0 0.0000 0.0136 0.0047 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CO
TOTAL 5.1887 1.0000 2.7272 1.0000 7.9159 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.9159 1.0000 0.3275 1.0000 2.8707 1.0000 2.645503 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7176 1.0000 4.5884 1.0000
( S H O U L D B E Z E R O ) ( S H O U L D B E Z E R O ) (SHOULD BE ZERO) Total out: 5.51625088 (SHOULD BE ZERO)
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
2:24 PM, 10/5/99 1 of 1 DP#MEB19.XLS (Complete Mat. Bal. (2))

In the third column a verification of the off-gas burner (RXN-3) is performed. Due to space limitations the
S.
individual reactions are not presented in the burner (though they are listed as (1) to (5) immediately above two of
the columns pertaining to the mass balance over RXN-3.
.au NT
Here the equation is
ACC = {Off-gas + Additional fuel/air} – {Combusted off-gas}.
Given that the total mass has balanced (to four decimal places), it may be assumed that the mass balance over the
om FO
burner is verified.
/
Finally, each reaction that occurs in the catalytic reactors (RXN-1 and RXN-2) is presented separately, allowing
1.c D
detailed analysis. It may be seen that for each reaction the sum of the changes in mass (by generation or
disappearance) of the component species summed to zero. This verifies the self-consistency of the reactions
iv E
presented.
.d D
ch ED
As a note to the reader, the computer simulation program used (see section 5·4, page 5-6) did not violently object
to the equality of the mass balances presented here. It is left to the reader to decide whether this would constitute
verification of the mass balances.
ar B
se M
5·3 Energy Balances
re E
5·3·1 Development
:// T
Energy balances were computed aft er the mass balances were essentially complete, as they depended on mass-
tp U
balance data for their basic input. The reason their i nd ep end e nt calculation could be delayed was that they
primarily affected utility streams that were not central to the process, in terms of having other items dependent
ht HO
upon them, and that the computer simulation program (see section 5·4 following) gave adequate results where
estimations of recycle flows were required.
m IT
5·3·1·1 The early stages

The first step in performing the energy balance was to obtain the needed physico-chemical properties, such as
fro W
specific heats – as functions of temperature – and (specific) heats of formation. These were obtained from Ref’s
[13], [5], [10], [12], [14], [15] and [16], and the relevant data is presented in the Appendix.
n n
io io
As enthalpy is a ‘state’ property – i.e. it is i nd ep e nd e n t o f

p at h – it is possible to calculate a change in enthalpy by
rs rs
constructing a h yp o t h et ica l path. The method used here A = Hreaction

ve ve
took h eat s o f fo r ma tio n 14 of each species, in the relevant

phase, at 25°C (298K) and then made adjustments using
av era ge sp eci f ic h eat s . This is shown schematically in B = HB D = HD
ll N
the drawing at right, Figure 5-1.

fu IO
The average specific heats used were obtained by integrating

over the domain from 298K to the temperature of interest.
While this was of negligible benefit for moderate tempera-
ad T
tures, and of limited benefit for the liquid and aqueous species C = Hreaction, 298K
lo LU
at any temperature, the computerisation of this process meant

that it was not a prohibitively laborious task. Figure 5-1: Schematic of the evaluation of
a change in enthalpy. A = B + C + D.
wn SO
As mentioned, the energy balances were begun using

information found from the mass balances. In most cases the
Do E
temperatures were all known – either from assumption or by (approximate) calculation using the commercial
computer simulation program – and the energy balance allowed the heat transfer in a unit to be found. In some
-R
cases not all of the temperatures were known, for a process assumed adiabatic, and so calculation of the energy
balance proceeded in a way to set the change in to tal enthalpy over that unit to zero.
W
5·3·1·2 The final result

LO
Energy balances for key items in the formaldehyde plant are presented in the Appendix at the end of this report.
14 Implying heats of reaction and dissolution.
09:22 page 5-5

07/10/99
Included are the Vaporiser (HX-1), the Absorber (ABS-1), the catalytic reactors (RXN-1 and RXN-2) and the
S.
tail-gas burner (RXN-3). Other, minor energy balances are performed as part of the specification of each item,
covered in Chapter 6.
.au NT
5·3·2 Verification
om FO
For all of the energy balances the masses input and output are self-consistent, as demonstrated by the mass
/
balances presented earlier (section 5·2, page 5-1) and also independent checks.
1.c D
The energy balances were also checked to ensure that the sums of the enthalpies of each species in and out added
to zero as appropriate, which was the case (within acceptable error ranges). Results were also compared with
iv E
results from the computer simulation package (see section 5·4, page 5-6), where possible.
.d D
ch ED
The vap o r is er calculation has been verified. For all except the recycle streams it is within 1.0%. This figure
compares that changes in enthalpy from the feed streams in (streams 3, 6 and 9) to the process vapour that exits
(stream 14). An agreement of 99% is very good, and confirms that both methods (spreadsheet and commercial
ar B
simulator) have performed this portion of the energy balance correctly.
For the recycle streams there is a mismatch of –10%, which is entirely unacceptable. However it is easily seen
se M
from the stream table printed out by the computer simulator that the si mu la to r ’s result is no t self-consistent.
re E
Due to time constraints this was not recalculated per se (see also section 5·4·5, page 5-10), however allowance
for the different flows gave a mismatch of +7.6%. This is probably not close enough on its own, but given that
:// T
the real figure calculated (on the spreadsheet) lies in the middle of the range, this is not enough to discredit the
spreadsheet results15.
tp U
ht HO
The ab so rb er energy balance calculation given in the Appendix is correct. However is does not match up with
the values from the simulator. For the recirculating liquid the error is only 1.6%, but this rises to –28% for the
other streams into and out of the absorber, which is unacceptable. The reason for this is apparently related to the
m IT
heat loss.
Using the HYSIM simulator (section 5·4) the absorber streams were adjusted to give operation that was
fro W
essentially adiabatic. However the recalculated result has shown that in fact the values chosen would require an
ad d it io na l 1528kW cooling duty. Because the HYSIM values were only used as preliminary indicators this
does not adversely affect any other units – the correct heat duty has been used in both the specification of items
n n
(see Chapter 6) and the detailed design of the absorber (see Chapter 7).
io io
Once the extra cooling duty was incorporated –28% error fell (in magnitude) to +4.8%, which is within the
expected range of accuracy.
rs rs
ve ve
For the ca tal yt i c r e acto r s (calculated together) a good result was obtained. Using the values in the
simulation for adiabatic operation gave a total change in enthalpy of only –24.6kW when the energy balance was
recalculated independently in the spreadsheet (see Appendix). To demonstrate how close that result is to
ll N
adiabatic, if operation were truly adiabatic, then the exit temperature of the catalyst bed would have been 975.0K
fu IO
rather than 973.2K, which represents an initial error of only –0.19%.

Care must be taken: the enthalpy values in the simulator package are taken with respect to arbitrary reference
points, and will no t sum to zero across an adiabatic reactor16.
ad T
lo LU
Of all the energy balances, that taken over the ta il - g a s b ur ner is most consistent with the simulator.
Proceeding as for the previous case, a heat loss of only –8.3kW was obtained for the assumed adiabatic
operation. This is equivalent to adjusting the exit temperature of the adiabatic unit from 1180.8K to 1182.2K – a
wn SO
discrepancy of only –0.11%.

Do E
5·4 Process Simulation

-R
Steady-state operation of the formaldehyde plant was simulated on a computer using the commercial package
W
HYSIM, version C2.54.

LO
15 Furthermore, the spreadsheet calculations were correct in the other cases, and the same method was used in all cases.
16 It may be noted that the difference in enthalpy for the streams in HYSIM are n o t heats of reaction – they cannot be. A
heat of reaction are usually only defined for isothermal processes, and have no meaning for adiabatic processes, except
in hypothetical constructs, as described by Figure 5-1.
page 5-6 09:22

07/10/99
5·4·1 Property package
S.
It would be true to say that specification of an appropriate ‘property package’ is crucial in implementing an
accurate and meaningful simulation. Property package is used to mean a mathematical model or expression that
.au NT
is used to describe vapour–liquid equilibria. An example would be an equation of state.
SINNOTT [16] provides a helpful review of many of the equations of state and activity coefficient models. The
om FO
aqueous formaldehyde mixture may be taken as both the most important system to model accurately as well as
/
the most difficult to model satisfactorily17.
This fits within “Class V” of the reference, “Hydrogen bonding” in which the principle interactions are hydrogen
1.c D
bonds such as in alcohols and water. Given that the pressure is “low” (well under 300kPa), it is acceptable,
according to SINNOTT, to use an activity coefficient model to describe the liquid phase fugacity, while the vapour
iv E
phase may be adequately described by assuming that it behaves as an ideal gas 18 (i.e. pV = nRT, such that pi = fi,
.d D
the fugacity).
ch ED
Suggested activity coefficient models include Wilson, NRTL, UNIQUAC and UNIFAC. These and other
models are now examined. It is possible for all of the models for binary systems to be expanded to handle multi-
ar B
component systems.
se M
5·4·1·1 Equations of state
re E
The Modified Antoine, PRSV, Virial, Redlich-Kwong and Soave-Redlich-Kwong equations of state were trialed.
They were selected because HYSIM supported all of the relevant components for those equations.
:// T
tp U
5·4·1·2 Margules
ht HO
This is the simplest of the activity coefficient equations –its advantage lies in its ease of use. It is generally only
acceptable for use with “moderately nonideal” mixtures. In particular use of the so-called “two-suffix (one
parameter) Margules equation is only justified for simple, binary mixtures in which the components are similar
m IT
in chemical nature and size[13]. It is not expected to be useful here.

fro W
5·4·1·3 Van Laar

This is only slightly more complicated than the Margules equation, but is generally more accurate. It has two
n n
parameters [13].
io io
5·4·1·4 Wilson
rs rs
This is a more complicated equation than that of Margules or van Laar, but can still be handled reasonably
ve ve
easily. It also has two parameters. Ref. [13] states:

“For strongly non-ideal binary mixtures, e.g. solutions of alcohols with hydrocarbons, the equation
of Wilson is probably the most useful because, unlike the NRTL equation, it contains only two ad-
ll N
justable parameters, and is mathematically simpler than the UNIQUAC equation. For such mix-
fu IO
tures the three-suffix [two parameter] Margules equation and the van Laar equation are likely to
represent the data with significantly less success, especially in the region dilute with respect to the
alcohol, where the Wilson equation is particularly suitable.”
ad T
lo LU
5·4·1·5 NRTL (Non-random two-liquid)

This is a more complicated, three-parameter equation. This is said to be better than the four-suffix (three-
wn SO
parameter) Margules equation [13].
5·4·1·6 UNIQUAC (Universal quasi-chemical)

Do E
While this set of equations only contains two independent parameters, it is by far the most complicated of all the
-R
models treated here. It has a reputation for being extremely accurate [9], although this may be due in part to
deduction from its complexity [13].
W
LO
17 As will rapidly become evident, and as noted by OLBRICH [11].

18 This is in agreement with LI [9].
09:22 page 5-7

07/10/99
5·4·1·7 UNIFAC
This is no t a model to describe vapour liquid equilibria. It is a so-called group-contribution me t ho d that
S.
enables parameters used in such models to be calculated, based on regression of all chemical species into
representative substituent contributions. It has been found to be quite accurate and reliable, and is normally used
.au NT
with the UNIQUAC model [13], [16].
om FO
5·4·1·8 Comparison and selection
/
The first indication that something was amiss was when the computer simulation package reported vapour in the
product pump, which was operating at 75°C, which should have been acceptable 19. The following results were
1.c D
obtained in HYSIM for a 54%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde, 1%(kg.kg–1) methanol and 45%(kg.kg–1) water mixture:
iv E
At 120kPa(abs)
.d D
Property package Bubble point [°C] Enthalpy20 at b.p. Vapour fraction at 75°C Enthalpy21 at 75°C
ch ED
Modified Antoine –15.0520 –3218.8765 0.6232 –568.9592
PRSV – – 0.6198 –550.3831
Wilson (I) – – 0.1327 –2108.8987
ar B
NRTL (RK) +157.0677 –1715.1731 – –
se M
NRTL (RK-P) +148.4017 –1648.1615 0.0000 –2378.9518
NRTL (Virial-P) +156.2768 –1654.3030 0.0000 –2378.9514
re E
UNIQUAC (I-P) +42.6327 –2684.7234 0.1436 –2084.7679
UNIQUAC (SRK-P) +45.8462 –2655.1006 0.1232 –2128.0523
Van Laar (Virial-P)
:// T
+90.0567 –228.1504 0.0000 –2378.9437
tp U
I = ideal gas; RK = Redlich-Kwong; SRK = Soave-RK; P = Poynting correction (see Ref. [13] or [16]).
ht HO
Note that the widely varying enthalpy would be mostly dependent on the vapour fraction. It is believed that the
enthalpy determination within each model is, at least, reasonably self-consistent.
m IT
At 101.325kPa(abs)
With Poynting correction Without Poynting correction
fro W
Property package
Bubble point [°C] Dew Point [°C] Bubble point [°C] Dew Point [°C]
Van Laar (I) 81.0377 147.4922 70.0529 137.9438
n n
NRTL (I) 127.0381 175.6683 – –

io io
The NRTL equation, with ideal gas phase for the low pressure, was initially favoured for its added complexity
rs rs
(from which accuracy is deduced), and to ensure that no vapour was present where it ‘should not’ be.
ve ve
Conversely, the van Laar equation (with ideal gas phase) was finally settled on, because it appeared to be closest
to the real boiling point22. HYSIM constants for these equations are in the Appendix.
ll N
Both had some quirks, including calculation of 700°C streams of two phases – with the liquid phase being
fu IO
mostly carbon dioxide! Obviously such errors were not used for any calculation.
ad T
5·4·2 The model

lo LU
After spending twenty days and twenty nights continually adding – and occasionally deleting – new units and
streams from the simulation, the final result given in the Drawing Annex was obtained.
wn SO
Drawbacks included:
 only one of the four recycle blocks automatically converged all of the time (another converged most of the
Do E
time) – the others were ‘forced’ to converge to a consistent result by manually inputting the correct data.
 it was not possible to back-calculate feeds from known product and effluent streams – this too was ‘forced’
-R
by using the spreadsheet values calculated independently (see section 5·2·1, page 5-1).
 similarly, the absorber could not be specified as adiabatic – instead the recycle flow had to be adjusted to
W
‘force’ the energy stream “Q_Abs” to approach zero (while not going positive).
LO
19 E.g. boiling points [bubble points] from 96 to 100°C (at 101.325kPa(abs)) are quoted for typical solutions [2], [14].
20 In kW, for a mass flow of 2.600kg.s–1 of the mixture.
21 In kW, for a mass flow of 2.600kg.s–1 of the mixture.
22 It was also easier to use for independent spreadsheet calculation, and consistency was an objective.
page 5-8 09:22

07/10/99
5·4·3 Optimisation
S.
One of the apparent uses of the computer simulation was to optimise the process. This was no t a major
undertaking in this case because there was really little scope for broad optimisation of the process.
.au NT
What wa s done was to adjust flows through individual units as substitute short-cut energy balances.
An example of optimisation was in the vaporiser, HX-2. The computer package was expected to allow rapid
om FO
variation of operating variables in order to optimise the unit 23. The optimisation took the form mainly of
/
deriving a recirculant flow such that it would be of only one phase (namely liquid).
1.c D
Another use of the simulation was in rapidly assessing the feasibility of using a steam turbine to drive the blower
(CP-1). This showed that very high pressure steam from the off-gas burner, let down to 1200kPa(abs) through a
iv E
turbine, was still insufficient to supply the energy needs of the blower.
.d D
ch ED
HYSIM was also used to help optimise the absorber temperature, as described in the following section. The
conclusion was that the top of the column should be as cold as could be achieved using recirculated cooling
water (to minimise water content in the off-gas), and the product should be at a temperature close to its storage
ar B
temperature (say 65±10°C – see Chapter 2).
se M
5·4·4 Sensitivity analysis
re E
Probably the most sensitive ‘variable’ identified in the simulation was the ‘property package’ that was selected,
:// T
as described in full in section 5·4·1, page 5-7.
tp U
Another sensitive element was the
ht HO
Saturation water vapour pressure water vapour content of the off-gas.
When this was assumed to be zero, it
was relatively easy to match all of the
m IT
100 constraints listed in point form under

Saturation vapour pressure
section 5·2·1·4, page 5-3. It should be

fro W
80 noted that the off-gas recycle process

that was followed is that of BASF,
[kPa(abs)]
60 who operate primarily in Germany,

n n
where one may expect the tempera-

io io
40
tures and relative humidities to be far
less than equatorial Bontang, where
rs rs
20
our plant is located. Thus it is likely
ve ve
0 that the absolute humidity of both the

0 20 40 60 80 100 incoming air and also the purged off-
gases (stream 39 in the Process Flow
ll N
Temperature [°C] Diagram shown in the Drawing

fu IO
Annex) would be comparatively

higher for our plant than those values
Figure 5-2: Saturation water vapour content of a gas [15]. quoted in the references cited
ad T
(especially Ref. [6]).

lo LU
The saturation water content of a carrier gas stream a s a fu nc tio n o f t e mp era t ure is a highly non-linear, as
may be seen from Figure 5-2.
wn SO
The immediate effect of changing the temperature at the top of the absorber, and hence the water content of the
Do E
off-gases, was to dramatically affect the amount of demineralised water required to be fed to the absorber (ABS-
1) in order to meet product specifications, as well as the reactor feed temperature. See Table 5-1 following.
-R
W
LO
23 Although the HYSIM model of aqueous formaldehyde was poor, this stream contained only methanol and water, and
was well modelled. However the recycle block “VapRec” and mixer “Mixer4” did not converge automatically.
09:22 page 5-9

07/10/99
Situation Absorber feed water required Reactor feed temperature
S.
First assumption: off-gases purged
contain 10% of the water leaving 0.392kg.s–1 462°C
.au NT
the system (process-side)
Off-gases contain negligible water 0.249kg.s–1 164 to 166°C
Top of absorber at approx. 65°C:
om FO
Off-gases contain 30.8% of the 0.483kg.s–1 (>>180°C)
/
water exiting the system
Top of absorber at approx. 44°C:
1.c D
Off-gases contain 13.2% of the 0.328kg.s–1 158°C
iv E
water exiting the system
.d D
Table 5-1: Variation in demineralised water requirement with off-gas water content.
ch ED
The reactor feed temperature is based on the assumption of a 700°C exit temperature of the effluent gases from
the catalyst bed.
ar B
se M
From the second to the third row, the yield of formaldehyde for the plant dropped from 90.1% to a maximum of
around 87.5%, which was obtained after adjusting variables in line with the prerequisites 24 given in section
re E
5·2·1·4, page 5-3.
However the temperature increase over the reactor was still nowhere near great enough, and so the water content
:// T
in the off-gases was reduced, by assuming a lower top-stage temperature.
tp U
Eventually the result in the final row was obtained, which met all of the specifications, but with the new off-gas
ht HO
water content. The yield was then 88.9%.
5·4·5 Failings of the simulation

m IT
In retrospect it is easy to wonder whether perhaps time could have been spent more productively in generating a
fro W
full sp re ad s hee t simulation (i.e. not just the mass balance) in ste ad o f dogmatically continuing to attempt to
‘force’ the available commercial package to match hand calculations that were known to be correct.
n n
The simulator was of only limited assistance in terms of optimising the process. While it was used to estimate
io io
vaporiser recycle flows, this could equally well have been set up in a spreadsheet – which would also allow
rs rs
interaction and would produce essentially instantaneous results – and with greater accuracy25 in the calculation!
It was also used to aid in the design of the absorber. However the main contribution was again the independent
ve ve
spreadsheet mass balance, with the simulator only serving in place of short-cut energy balances.
ll N
Additionally, the process in question has already had a large number of operating variables specified, either
explicitly or by implication (see section 5·2·1·4, page 5-3), and so few variables remained to be optimised.
fu IO
With respect to sensitivity, the simulator was not particularly helpful. This is largely because insufficient
ad T
information was known about the reactor, and so the only option was to assume certain reaction mechanisms that
fitted known data provided in the references. Hence there was no way of simulating operation of a catalytic at a
lo LU
temperature far from the design operating temperature, for example, such as may occur as the catalyst ages.
wn SO
The problems of finding an appropriate property package have already been discussed (section 5·4·1, page 5-7).
It will be seen later (Chapter 7) that this is because in an aqueous solution formaldehyde exists as a series of
hydrolysed polymers, which are far less volatile than formaldehyde.
Do E
HYSIM’s main failings involved non-ideal liquid mixtures, which it did not model well, including the energy
-R
calculations it performed. This did not effect pure components or gas-phase streams26.
W
LO
24 But with an off-gas recycle at the high end of the suggested range.
25 Another popular mi s c o n c e p t i o n is that numerous significant figures should be shunned in process design. However
they are extremely useful for verification of calculations, and have the advantage of not causing significant b u i l d - u p
of rounding errors. Of course, they are less practical for calculations by hand.
26 As the ideal gas equation was selected to model the gas phase.
page 5-10 09:22

07/10/99
5·5 References
S.
1. V. I. ATROSHCHENKO and I. P. KUSHNARENKO; “Kinetics of the catalytic oxidation of methanol to
formaldehyde over a silver catalyst;” in: International Chemical Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 581–585;
.au NT
October 1964. Note: Translated from the original Russian in Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebn, Zavedenii,
Khimiya i Khimicheskaya Tekhnologiya, No. 5, pp. 774–780; 1963.
om FO
/
Indonesia) at Monash University, 04/08/1999. He stated oxygen was only present at “trace” levels upon
1.c D
exiting the reactor.
iv E
4. V. N. GAVRILIN and B. I. POPOV; “Oxidation of Methanol to Formaldehyde on a Silver Catalyst. I. On
the Conditions of the Process;” in: G. K. BORESKOV (Ed. in Chief); Kinetics and Catalysis, Vol. 6, No.
.d D
5, pp. 799–803; September–October, 1965. Note: Translated from the original Russian in Kinetika i
ch ED
Kataliz, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 884–888; September–October, 1965.
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
7. Peter HAWKINS; ECS1610 Lecture Materials; 1995.
tp U
8. Elwyn JONES and G. G. FOWLIE; “Thermodynamics of Formaldehyde Manufacture from Methanol;” in:
–; Journal of Applied Chemistry, Vol. 3, pp. 206–209; Society of Chemical Industry; London; May,
ht HO
1953.
9. Chun-Zhu LI; Private communication; August, 1999.
10. Peter E. LILEY, Robert C. REID and Evan BUCK; “Physical and Chemical Data;” in: Robert Howard
m IT
PERRY and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill
Inc.; New York; 1984.
fro W
11. W. Eric OLBRICH; Private communication; August 1999.

12. David W. OXTOBY and Norman H. NACHTRIEB; Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd edition; Saunders
College Publishing; Philadelphia; 1990.
n n
io io

rs rs
ve ve

ll N

16. R. K. SINNOTT; “Chemical Engineering Design,” 2nd edition; in: J. F. RICHARDSON and J. M.
fu IO
COULSON; Chemical Engineering, Vol. 6; Butterworth-Heinemann; Oxford; 1997.

17. Robin SMITH; Chemical Process Design, International edition; McGraw-Hill; New York; 1995.29
ad T
lo LU

wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO

29 This reference kindly made available by Mrs. Hsu-San WARE.
09:22 page 5-11

07/10/99
Formaldehyde
6 SPECIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT ITEMS
S.
6·1 Development of the Specification Sheets
.au NT
Specifications for plant items were developed in accordance with the mass and energy balances. Where
additional information was required this was mostly obtained from standard chemical engineering conventions.
om FO
These conventions are generally empirically based on finding economic optima.
/
A brief discussion of some of the representative decisions and calculations follows. Samples of the relevant
calculations may be found in the Appendix.
1.c D
iv E
6·1·1 Flowrates
.d D
All of the mass flowrates have been obtained from mass and energy balances, as described in Chapter 5. The
ch ED
values for the absorber have been updated based on calculations presented in Chapter 7.
6·1·2 Fluid characteristics
ar B
se M
Fluid characteristics such as temperature and pressure were mostly set by the process development summarised
in Chapters 3 and 4. From this starting point other properties, such as densities and specific heats, were able to
re E
be evaluated in consultation with standard texts [2], [5], [11], [12], [13], [15], [17] as well as some specialised
references [6], [7], [18].
:// T
tp U
6·1·3 Branch sizes
ht HO
Nominal branch sizes were evaluated on the recommendation of a 2m.s –1 flow of liquids, or half that for liquids
under gravity flow, and around 25m.s–1 for gases (for this plant only low gauge pressures are used) [3], [17].
However the conventional sizing based on the imperial system of measurement (i.e. inches et cetera) was
m IT
recognised, and so sizes are given in millimetric equivalents of integer measurements in inches 1 [4], [17]. The
flanges will be manufactured to the appropriate standard 2.
fro W
Socket welding flanges are specified in all instances [9].
6·1·4 Power requirements: Pumps and Blower

n n
io io
The power required for pumping a liquid may be evaluated by the equation
rs rs
Pump power = {Volumetric flowrate} × {Pressure differential} ÷ {Pump efficiency}.

Pump efficiencies were estimated from typical values in Ref’s [14] and [17].
ve ve
Following this a standard-sized motor was selected by rounding up, after accounting for motor efficiency [14].
All of the pumps were specified as centrifugal as this is the most commonly used type of pump, which is capable
ll N
of handling the required flowrates and differential pressures [4]. The motors are all totally-enclosed (and fan-
fu IO
cooled) to reduce the flammability hazard.

ad T
The blower will be centrifugal also. Although Orica use a Rootes-type blower at their Deer Park facility, both
Ref’s [4] and [17] suggest that this is not the most appropriate type for the flowrate and pressure differential
lo LU
required. Multiple stages may be required.

wn SO
6·1·5 Volumes
The vessel volumes have been sized based on rules-of-thumb for residence times that take into consideration
Do E
control and operability as well as safety concerns. Appropriate safety factors are then applied to allow some
contingency volume for uncertainties and abnormal operation.
-R
6·1·6 Heat transfer

W
Heat transfer is calculated according to the design equation

LO
1 Two inch increments above 10inches, five inch increments above 25, and so on.
2 Probably depending upon the country of purchase, as the plant site is in Bontang, Indonesia.
09:23 page 6-1

07/10/99
Chapter 6: Specification of Equipment Items Formaldehyde
Q = U.A.Tlog mean.FT
where Q is the heat transfer [kW], U the overall heat transfer [W.m–2.K–1], A the heat transfer area, Tlog mean, the
S.
logarithmic mean of the temperature difference 3 and FT a temperature-difference correction factor. FT is
evaluated from standard charts [10], while Ref. [17] gives typical values for U.
.au NT
Ref. [16] was used in selecting an outside-packed heat exchanger configuration. Although this is relatively
expensive, selection was based on:
om FO
 need for a removable tube bundle  cannot be fixed tube sheet
/
 ease of cleaning (including shell side)  preferably not U-tube
 safety considerations  cannot be packed lantern-ring floating head.
1.c D
The last constraint is present because any leakage through the rings of packing will drop to the floor. Given that
iv E
the exchangers are operating on flammable materials this is proscribed.
.d D
6·1·7 Mass transfer
ch ED
The packed and trayed sections of the absorber have been designed in Chapter 7 using fundamental rules
governing mass transfer, such as mass transfer coefficients, as well as empirical correlations. A full description
ar B
is to be found in Chapter 7, including the factors influencing the choice of internals.
se M
6·1·8 Reaction
re E
Design of the catalytic reactors, and in particular the catalyst layers, follows the guidelines set out in Ref. [8].
:// T
tp U
6·1·9 Design temperature and pressure
ht HO
The maximum design temperatures and pressures were evaluated in a manner similar to that recommended by
Ref. [17].
Maximum design was taken as the greater of ten percent of the operating pressure or 50kPa(abs), except that in
m IT
some cases a higher pressure was selected to allow for the possibility of a ‘flow-through’ of pressure from one
item to another. For example due to by-passing, dead-heading of a pump, or even vapour expansion due to
fro W
abnormal heating effects 4.

Maximum temperatures were generally recorded as approximately 50°C above the design operating temperature.
This allows for a change in the design operating conditions (e.g. as might be recommended after a post-
n n
commissioning optimisation study) and gives a safety margin to account for uncertainty. In some places
io io
maximums were upgraded to account for the possibility of heat-exchanger failures upstream. For example the
rs rs
column (ABS-1) is rated to withstand 170°C, which is the design temperature exiting the waste-heat boilers
(HX-3 and HX-4), despite normal operation being for the reactor effluent to be further cooled (to 90°C) in HX-5.
ve ve
In no case was the maximum design temperature specified below 100°C.

ll N
None of the items are designed to operate at negative gauge pressures. Due to the design to withstand internal
pressure, the items will have a limited ability to withstand some external pressure (i.e. an internal vacuum), but
fu IO
this has not been calculated.

None of the items operates at sub-zero (Celsius) temperatures, and certainly not in cryogenic regions. Thus
ad T
minimum design temperatures are specified as 10°C or the lowest environmental temperature likely to be
encountered. This is recorded only for completeness, to indicate that the minimum temperature requirement
lo LU
does no t dictate the (mechanical) design.

wn SO
6·1·10 Materials of construction

Type 316 stainless steel (316SS) is used throughout the plant, which minimises any poisoning of the catalyst5.
Do E
Stainless6 also allows longer storage of formaldehyde solutions without deterioration such as yellowing [18].
-R
W
3 Taken on a counter-current basis.

4 Only a limited allowance is made for this – the equipment is n o t explosion-proof! Rather, provision of safety valves
LO
and bursting discs is made.

5 Although modern plants commonly use stainless b o t h before a n d after catalytic reactor, in our case there is an extra
incentive with the recycling of off-gases (though not of methanol).
6 Mild steel will cause commercial formaldehyde solutions to yellow in around 2 days. All stainless steels (including
types 302, 304 and 316) appear to give inert storage for in excess of 60 days.
page 6-2 09:23

07/10/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 6: Specification of Equipment Items
Type 316 is more expensive than the commonly used type 304, but has superior corrosion resistance. It is also
used throughout Orica’s formaldehyde plant in Deer Park.
S.
While type 310 steel gives greater resistance to oxidation at high temperatures, it is prone to forming sigma
phases. Both type 310 and type 321, which is also recommended for high temperature use, appear to have
.au NT
lo wer design tensile strengths than type 316 at the temperature of operation of the reactor, for example, (around
700°C) [1].
Hydrogen embrittlement is another consideration (see Ref. [17]).
om FO
/
For gaskets Teflon is specified due to its resistance to degradation 7.
1.c D
6·1·11 Quantity
iv E
Generally speaking only one item was specified for each unit. There were a number of exceptions, however.
.d D
ch ED
Some of the pumps are required for safe and continued operation, and so these were specified with an active
pump and a stand-by pump. Other pumps, particularly on low-duty absorber pump-arounds, are not essential,
and operation could continue without them. This is made clear on each specification sheet (see section 6·2,
ar B
pages 6-3ff.).
The blower (CP-1) is needed for operation, but it would be too costly and impractical to install a stand-by blower
se M
(driven by steam-turbine).
re E
The catalytic reactors (RXN-1 and RXN-2) as well as the associated steam systems are specified separately,
:// T
although these essentially correspond to two parallel streams in the ratio 40:60, in order to optimise the process
to cope with a 60% turndown requirement (as stated in Chapter 2).
tp U
ht HO
The two storage tanks (ST-3 and ST-5) are specified in duplicate because of the potential need to cope with
slightly out-of-specification product, as well as unscheduled down-time in the resins plant et cetera.
m IT
6·2 Specification Sheets

fro W
Specification sheets for all of the items named in the process flow diagram (Drawing Annex) are presented in
alphanumeric order on the following pages.
n n
While reviewing the specification sheets, the reader is asked to remember that for this section it is considered
io io
sa ti s fa cto r y is to provide o nl y e no u g h i n fo r ma t io n to e nab l e ap p ro x i ma te ut il it y a nd cap ita l

rs rs
co s ti n g, a nd – where relevant – to e nab le t he p ro ces s a nd i n st r u me n tat io n d ia gra m (P&ID –

covered in Chapter 8) to b e co mp le ted . Thus the specifications presented here may be taken as p reli mi -
ve ve
nar y only.
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
7 Polytetrafluoroethylene; as recommended by staff at Orica’s Deer Park facility.
09:23 page 6-3

07/10/99
Chapter 6: Specification of Equipment Items Formaldehyde
6·3 References
S.
1. Australian Standard 1210; SAA Unfired Pressure Vessels Code; 19898.
.au NT
om FO
3. David J. BRENNAN; CHE3109 Lecture Materials; Monash University; Melbourne; 1998.
4. Raymond P. GENEREAUX, Charles B. MITCHELL, C. Addison HEMPSTEAD and Bruce F. CURRAN;
/
“Transport and Storage of Fluids;” in: Robert Howard PERRY and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s
Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill Inc.; New York; 1984.
1.c D
iv E
.d D
New York; 1994.
6. Douglas C. GIANCOLI; Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, 2nd edition; Prentice
ch ED
Hall; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 1989.
ar B
se M
re E
9.
:// T
Ernest HOLMES; Handbook of Industrial Pipework Engineering; McGraw-Hill; London; 1973.
10.
tp U
James G. KNUDSEN, Kenneth J. BELL, Arthur G. HOLT, Hoyt C. HOTTEL, Adel F. SAROFIM, F. C.
STANDIFORD, David STUHLBARG and Vincent W. UHL; “Heat Transmission;” in: Robert Howard
ht HO
m IT
fro W
n n
io io

rs rs
14. Martin J. RHODES; CHE3108 Lecture Materials; Monash University; Melbourne; 1998.
ve ve

16. Frank L. RUBIN, Herbert A. MOAK, Arthur D. HOLT, F. C. STANDIFORD and David STUHLBARG; “Heat-
ll N
Transfer Equipment;” in: Robert Howard PERRY and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engi-
neers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill Inc.; New York; 1984.
fu IO
ad T
18. J. Frederic WALKER; Formaldehyde, [American Chemical Society Monograph series], 3rd edition;
lo LU

wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
8 Third amendment is most recent, dated December 1993.

page 6-4 09:23

07/10/99
CHE4117: Design Project Formaldehyde Group 8
SPECIFICATION SHEET: COLUMN
S.
Equipment item ABS-1
.au NT
Description Formaldehyde absorption column
Quantity 1 (one)
Vapour process fluid Reactor effluent (cooled) — Off-gas
om FO
Liquid process fluid Demineralised water — 54%(kg.kg-1) HCHO product
/
Stages 4 (four), all cooled
Pump-arounds On bottom three (3) stages
1.c D
PROCESS DETAILS
Pressure at base [kPa(abs)] 130
iv E
Pressure at top [kPa(abs)] 110
.d D
Liquid Vapour
Inlet temperature [°C] 37 90
ch ED
Outlet temperature [°C] 75 38
Inlet mass flow [kg.s-1] 0.3275 7.92

Outlet mass flow [kg.s-1] 29.7 5.60
ar B
Inlet density [kg.m-3] 995 1.04
Outlet density [kg.m-3] 1132 1.01
se M
Pump-around details Flow [kg.s-1] TIN [°C] TOUT [°C]
Stage 1 (base) 29.04 60 75
re E
Stage 2 41.99 48 63
Stage 3 13.83 40 51
:// T
Stage 4 (top) 0 - -
tp U
MECHANICAL DATA
Maximum design pressure [kPa(g)] 328
ht HO
Minimum design pressure [kPa(g)] -3
Maximum design temperature [°C] 170
Minimum design temperature [°C] ambient / 10
Internal diameter [mm] 1800

m IT
Total column height (excluding support) [mm] 32600

Stage height [mm]
Stage 1 (base) 2900
fro W
Stage 2 2200
Stage 3 2500
Stage 4 (top) 16970
n n
Wall thickness [mm] 7

io io
Liquid Vapour
Main inlet branch nominal diameter [mm] 19 635
rs rs
Main outlet branch nominal diameter [mm] 203 559

Connection type Socket welding flanges
ve ve
SUPPORT
Type of support structure Skirt - see Notes
ll N
Height of support structure [mm] 1500
INSULATION
fu IO
Thickness [mm] 25
Extent of coverage Stage 1 (one) only
ad T
INTERNALS
Configuration Bottom 3 (three) stages packed; Stage 4 (four) trayed
lo LU
Packing type 50mm pall rings

Tray type Bubble-caps on reverse-flow trays with serpentine cooling
MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
wn SO
Shell and branches Type 316SS

Lining None
Insulation Fibre-glass blankets
Do E
INTERNALS
Packing Type 316SS
-R
Liquid and gas distributors & plates Type 316SS
Trays Type 316SS

W
Gaskets Teflon
LO
NOTES
Support is also provided by scaffolding, incorporating the stair-way.
REVISION: "E"
Designed: David Verrelli Checked: David Verrelli Authorised: —
Date: 01/09/1999 Date: 06/10/1999 Date: —
11/10/99, 16:46 1 of 1 DP_SPEC4.xls(ABS-1)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: COMPRESSOR
S.
.au NT
Equipment item CP-1
Description Feed gas blower to vaporiser
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Quantity 1 (one) - see Notes
1.c D
Duty [kW] 539
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
Fluid description Fresh air feed and recycled off-gas
ch ED
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Nitrogen 78.5
Oxygen 12.2
ar B
Water 4.6
Carbon dioxide 3.8
se M
Methanol trace
Formaldehyde trace
re E
Other (including hydrogen) 79.3
:// T
-1
Mass flowrate [kg.s ] 5.95
tp U
Suction Delivery
ht HO
Temperature [°C] 44 122
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 101 185
-3
m IT
Density [kg.m ] 1.00 1.46

fro W
POWER
Compressor efficiency [%] 75
Drive type Mechanical – connection to shaft of TRB-1
n n
io io
Motor type none

Motor efficiency [%] -
rs rs
Motor power [kW] -

ve ve
MECHANICAL DATA
Maximum design pressure [kPa(abs)] 210
ll N

fu IO

ad T
Suction Delivery
lo LU
Branch nominal diameter [mm] 635 635

wn SO
Casing Type 316SS
Lining None
Do E
Impellor Type 316SS

-R
NOTES
W
Only one item is specified, as a stand-by compressor is impractical and uneconomical.

LO
REVISION: "B"
Designed: Sasha Trandafilovic Revised: David Verrelli Authorised: —
Date: 10/01/1999 [sic!] Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:14 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(CP-1)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: SMALL VESSEL
S.
.au NT
Equipment item D-1
Description Steam drum
om FO
Type Closed
/
Quantity 1 (one)
1.c D
3
Volume [m ] 1.4
iv E
Residence time [s] 300
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Feed 1 Feed 2 Exit 1 Exit 2
Fluid description BFW Steam BFW Steam
ar B
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Water 100 100 100 100
se M
Vapour fraction 0 0.35 0 1
Temperature [°C] 100 152 152 152
re E
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 500 500 500 500
-3
Density [kg.m ] 902 7.2 902.0 0.63
-1
:// T
Flowrate [kg.s ]
tp U 1.2 3.5 3.5 1.2
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
Height [mm] 1500

n n
Diameter [mm] 1100

io io

rs rs
Branch nominal diameter [mm] 25 254 51 356

ve ve
SUPPORT
ll N
Type of support structure Scaffolding

fu IO
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 51
ad T
Extent of coverage Complete

lo LU
wn SO
Lining None
Insulation Rock-wool
Do E
-R
NOTES
One (1) drain and one (1) vent connection are present at the lowest and highest points.
W
BFW = Boiler feed water

LO
REVISION: "D"
Designed: Rachel Weldon Revised: David Verrelli Authorised: —
Date: 14/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:27 AM 1 of 1 DP_RW-S2.XLS(D-1)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item D-2
om FO
Type Closed
/
Quantity 1 (one)
1.c D
3
Volume [m ] 2.2
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
ar B
se M
Temperature [°C] 100 152 152 152
re E
-3
Density [kg.m ] 902 7.2 902.0 0.63
-1
:// T
Flowrate [kg.s ]
tp U 1.9 5.3 5.3 1.9
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
Height [mm] 1500

n n
Diameter [mm] 1300

io io

rs rs

ve ve
SUPPORT
ll N

fu IO
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 51
ad T

lo LU
wn SO
Lining None
Do E
-R
NOTES
W

LO
REVISION: "D"
Date: 14/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:14 AM 1 of 1 DP_RW-S2.XLS(D-2)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item D-3
om FO
Type Closed, horizontal
/
Quantity 1 (one)
1.c D
3
Volume [m ] 12
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
ar B
se M
Vapour fraction 0.10 0.15 0 1
Temperature [°C] 188 188 188 188
re E
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 1200 1200 1200 1200
-3
Density [kg.m ] 835 748 878 6.1
-1
:// T
Flowrate [kg.s ]
tp U 1.7 29.1 29.1 1.7
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
Height [mm] 4000

n n
Diameter [mm] 2000

io io

rs rs

ve ve
SUPPORT
ll N

fu IO
INSULATION
Thickness [mm]
ad T

lo LU
wn SO
Lining None
Do E
-R
NOTES
W

LO
REVISION: "C"
Designed: Michael Whiteman Revised: David Verrelli Authorised: —
Date: 07/10/1999 Date: 09/10/1999 Date: —
11/10/99, 16:38 1 of 1 DP_MW-S2.xls(D-3)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: COLUMN
S.
Equipment item HX-1
.au NT
Description Methanol feed vaporiser
Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Vapour process fluid Air and recycled off-gas — Hot reactor feed
Liquid process fluid Cool aq. methanol — (Hot aq. methanol)
/
Stages 1 (one)
Pump-arounds 1 (one)
1.c D
PROCESS DETAILS
iv E
Pressure at base [kPa(abs)] 185
.d D
Pressure at top [kPa(abs)] 185
Liquid Vapour
ch ED
Inlet temperature [°C] 37 122
Outlet temperature [°C] 62 62
Inlet mass flow (excl. pump-around) [kg.s-1] 1.97 5.95
ar B
Outlet mass flow [kg.s-1] 23.9 7.92
Inlet density [kg.m-3]
se M
Outlet density [kg.m-3]
re E
Pump-around details Flow [kg.s-1] TIN [°C] TOUT [°C]
Stage 1 23.9 87 62
:// T
MECHANICAL DATA
tp U
Maximum design pressure [kPa(g)] 200
ht HO
Internal diameter [mm] 1800

m IT
Total column height (excluding support) [mm] 3000

Stage height [mm]
Stage 1 1000
fro W

Liquid Vapour
n n
Main inlet branch nominal diameter [mm]

io io
Main outlet branch nominal diameter [mm]

rs rs
SUPPORT
ve ve
Type of support structure Skirt

Height of support structure [mm] 1000
INSULATION
ll N
Thickness [mm]
Extent of coverage
fu IO
INTERNALS
Configuration Packed
ad T
Packing type 50mm Pall rings

lo LU
Tray type N/A
wn SO
Lining None
Insulation Fibre-glass blankets
INTERNALS
Do E
Packing Type 316SS

Liquid and gas distributors & plates Type 316SS
-R
Trays N/A
W
Gaskets Teflon
NOTES
LO
aq. = aqueous
REVISION: "A"
Designed: David Verrelli Checked: Authorised: —
Date: 06/10/1999 Date: Date: —
11/10/99, 16:38 1 of 1 DP_SZ-S2.xls(HX-1)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: HEAT EXCHANGER
S.
Equipment item HX-2
.au NT
Description Methanol superheater
Type Horizontal shell-and-tube

Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Duty [kW] 963
/
Log-mean temperature difference [K] 65
Temperature correction factor, FT [-] 0.98
1.c D
Overall heat transfer coefficient [W.m -2.K-1] 111
Heat transfer area [m2] 148
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
Tube-side Shell-side
ch ED
Fluid description Reactor feed Steam circuit
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Methanol 22.0 -
Formaldehyde trace -
ar B
Oxygen 9.2 -
Water 6.3 100
se M
Other (including nitrogen) 62.5 trace
Flowrate [kg.s-1]
re E
7.916 0.484
In Out In Out
:// T
Vapour fraction 1 1 1 0
Temperature [°C] 62 158 187 187
tp U
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 185 170 1200 1185
ht HO
Density [kg.m-3] 1.78 1.27 5.6 867
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

Minimum design temperature [°C]
fro W
ambient / 10
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
Front end head type (TEMA code) Bonnet [integral cover] (B)
n n
Shell type (TEMA code) One pass shell (E)

io io
Rear end head type (TEMA code) Fixed tubesheet [like "B" stationary head] (M)
Number of tube passes 1 (one)
rs rs
Inlet branch nominal diameter [mm]
ve ve
Outlet branch nominal diameter [mm]

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
Type of support structure
INSULATION
ad T
Thickness [mm]
lo LU
wn SO
Lining None
Insulation Fibreglass blanket
Cladding on insulation
Do E
Channels Type 316SS

Tube-sheet Type 316SS
-R
Tubes Type 316SS

W
NOTES
One (1) drain and one (1) vent connection are present on each of the shell side and channels,
at the lowest and highest points respectively - in accordance with BS3274(1960).
LO
Safety relief valves are also present.
REVISION: "B"
Designed: Ho Hai Huynh Revised: David Verrelli Authorised: —
Date: 03/10/1999 Date: 06/10/1999 Date: —
11/10/99, 16:39 1 of 1 DP_HH-S.xls(HX-2)

S.
Equipment item HX-3
.au NT
Description Waste heat boiler for RXN-2
Type Vertical shell-and-tube

Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Duty [kW] 3918
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Fluid description Reactor effluent Steam circuit
Formaldehyde 18.1 -
ar B
Oxygen 0.1 -
Water 15.4 100
se M
Flowrate [kg.s-1]
re E
4.74 5.14
In Out In Out
:// T
Vapour fraction 1 1 0 0.35
Temperature [°C] 700 170 152 152
tp U
ht HO
Density [kg.m-3] 0.5 0.9 902 7.2
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
ambient / 10
n n

io io
rs rs
Inlet branch nominal diameter [mm] 762 51
ve ve
Outlet branch nominal diameter [mm] 610 305

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
INSULATION
ad T
Thickness [mm] 0
Extent of coverage -
lo LU
wn SO
Lining None
Insulation None
Cladding on insulation -
Do E
Channels Type 316SS

-R
Tubes Type 316SS

W
NOTES
LO
REVISION: "C"
Date: 14/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:13 AM 1 of 1 DP_RW-S2.XLS(HX-3)

S.
Equipment item HX-4
.au NT
Description Waste heat boiler for RXN-1

Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Duty [kW] 2612
/
1.c D
Heat transfer area [m2] 87.2
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Fluid description Reactor effluent Steam circuit
Formaldehyde 18.1 -
ar B
Oxygen 0.1 -
Water 15.4 100
se M
Flowrate [kg.s-1]
re E
3.16 3.43
In Out In Out
:// T
Vapour fraction 1 1 0 0.35
Temperature [°C] 700 170 152 152
tp U
ht HO
Density [kg.m-3] 0.5 0.9 902 7.2
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
ambient / 10
n n

io io
rs rs
ve ve

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
INSULATION
ad T
Thickness [mm] 0
lo LU
wn SO
Lining None
Insulation None
Do E
Channels Type 316SS

-R
Tubes Type 316SS

W
NOTES
LO
REVISION: "B"
Date: 14/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:13 AM 1 of 1 DP_RW-S2.XLS(HX-4)

S.
Equipment item HX-5
.au NT
Description Reactor effluent cooler

Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Duty [kW] 801
/
Log-mean temperature difference [K] 35.2
1.c D
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Fluid description Aqueous methanol Reactor effluent
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Methanol 31.5 0.3
Water 68.5 15.4
ar B
Formaldehyde - 18.1
Nitrogen - 59.0
se M
Other trace 7.3
Flowrate [kg.s-1]
re E
23.9 7.92
In Out In Out
:// T
Temperature [°C] 73 81 170 90
tp U
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 185 175 1200 1185
ht HO
Density [kg.m-3] 889 882 1.0 1.0
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
ambient / 10
n n

io io
Rear end head type (TEMA code) U-tube bundle (U)

Number of tube passes 6 (six)
rs rs
ve ve

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
INSULATION
ad T
Thickness [mm]
lo LU
wn SO
Lining None
Do E
Channels Type 316SS

-R
Tubes Type 316SS

W
NOTES
LO
REVISION: "B"
Designed: Saiful D. Zainal Abidin Revised: David Verrelli Authorised: —
Date: 30/09/1999 Date: 09/10/1999 Date: —
11/10/99, 16:38 1 of 1 DP_SZ-S2.xls(HX-5)

S.
Equipment item HX-6
.au NT
Description Stage 3 recirculation cooler
om FO
Quantity 1 (one)
/
Duty [kW] 590
1.c D
-2 -1
Overall heat transfer coefficient [W.m .K ] 800
iv E
2
Heat transfer area [m ] 75
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Fluid description Stage 3 recirculant Recirculated cooling water
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Water 79.8 100
ar B
Formaldehyde 19.9 -
Other (including methanol) 0.3 trace
se M
-1
Flowrate [kg.s ] 13.7 12.8
re E
In Out In Out
:// T
tp U -3
Density [kg.m ] 1050 1050 1000 1000
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
Front end head type (TEMA code) Channel integral with tube-sheet and removable cover (C)
n n
Rear end head type (TEMA code) Outside-packed floating-head (P)

io io
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
SUPPORT
Type of support structure Saddles
fu IO
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 0
ad T
lo LU
Lining None
wn SO
Insulation None
Channels Type 316SS
Do E

Tubes Type 316SS
-R
NOTES
W
LO
REVISION: "B"
Date: 22/09/1999 Date: 23/09/1999 Date: —
27/09/1999, 10:40 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(HX-6)

S.
Equipment item HX-7
.au NT
om FO
Quantity 1 (one)
/
Duty [kW] 2349
1.c D
-2 -1
iv E
2
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Water 70.6 100
ar B
Formaldehyde 28.9 -
se M
-1
re E
In Out In Out
:// T
tp U -3
Density [kg.m ] 1100 1100 1000 1000
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
n n

io io
Number of tube passes 2 (two)
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 0
ad T
lo LU
Lining None
wn SO
Insulation None
Channels Type 316SS
Do E

Tubes Type 316SS
-R
NOTES
W
LO
REVISION: "B"
Date: 22/09/1999 Date: 23/09/1999 Date: —
27/09/1999, 10:40 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(HX-7)

S.
Equipment item HX-8
.au NT
om FO
Quantity 1 (one)
/
Duty [kW] 1620
1.c D
-2 -1
iv E
2
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Water 45.0 100
ar B
Formaldehyde 54.0 -
se M
-1
re E
In Out In Out
:// T
tp U
Density [kg.m-3] 1150 1150 1000 1000
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
n n

io io
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 0
ad T
lo LU
Lining None
wn SO
Insulation None
Channels Type 316SS
Do E

-R
Tubes Type 316SS
NOTES
W
Co-current flow.
LO
REVISION: "A"
27/09/1999, 10:40 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(HX-8)

S.
Equipment item HX-9
Description Economiser (Radiant section of RXN-3)
.au NT
Type Fired boiler (radiant section)
Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Duty [kW] 1478
/
Temperature correction factor, FT [-] N/A
1.c D
Overall heat transfer coefficient [W.m -2.K-1] N/A
2
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
ch ED
Fluid description Steam circuit Combusted off-gas
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Methanol - trace
Formaldehyde - trace
Oxygen - 1.4
ar B
Water 100 12.9
se M
Nitrogen - 80.0
Other (including CO2) trace 5.7
re E
-1
:// T
In Out In Out
tp U
Temperature [°C] 188 188 1000 760
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 1300 1250 110 106
ht HO
Density [kg.m -3]
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
n n
io io
Rear end head type (TEMA code) To stack (-)

rs rs
ve ve

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
INSULATION
ad T
Thickness [mm]
lo LU
wn SO
Lining Insulated firebrick

Do E
Channels N/A
Tube-sheet N/A
-R
Tubes Type 316SS

W
NOTES
LO
REVISION: "C"
Date: 07/10/1999 Date: 09/10/1999 Date: —
11/10/99, 16:39 1 of 1 DP_MW-S2.xls(HX-9)

S.
Equipment item HX-10
.au NT
Description Methanol recycle heater
om FO
Quantity 1 (one)
/
Duty [kW] 1353
1.c D
-2 -1
iv E
2
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Fluid description Aqueous methanol Steam circuit
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Methanol 31.5 -
ar B
Water 68.5 100
Other trace trace
se M
-1
re E
In Out In Out
:// T
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 185 185 1200 1185
tp U -3
Density [kg.m ]
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
n n
io io
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
SUPPORT
fu IO
INSULATION
Thickness [mm]
ad T

lo LU
Lining None
wn SO

Channels Type 316SS
Do E

Tubes Type 316SS
-R
NOTES
W
LO
REVISION: "B"
Date: 06/10/1999 Date: 09/10/1999 Date: —
11/10/99, 16:38 1 of 1 DP_SZ-S2.xls(HX-10)

S.
Equipment item HX-11
.au NT
Description Serpentine cooling coil
Type Serpentine cooling coil

om FO
Duty [kW] 153
/
1.c D
Overall heat transfer coefficient [W.m-2.K-1] 1000
2
Heat transfer area [m ]
iv E
21
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
"Shell"-side Tube-side
ch ED
Fluid description Stage 4 process fluid Recirculated cooling water
In Out In Out
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Water 100.0 84 100 100
ar B
Formaldehyde 0.0 15 - -
Other (including methanol) 0.0 trace trace trace
se M
Flowrate [kg.s-1] 0.33 0.40 7.32 7.32
re E
In Out In Out
:// T
Temperature [°C]
tp U 37 42 30 35
-3
Density [kg.m ] 1000 1000 1000 1000
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
Front end head type (TEMA code) N/A
Shell type (TEMA code) N/A
n n
Rear end head type (TEMA code) N/A

io io

rs rs
Inlet branch nominal diameter [mm] 25 N/A
ve ve
Outlet branch nominal diameter [mm] 25 N/A

ll N
SUPPORT
Type of support structure None (rests directly on bubble-cap tray)
fu IO
INSULATION
ad T
Thickness [mm] 0
lo LU
Shell and branches N/A
wn SO
Lining None
Insulation None
Do E
Channels N/A
Tube-sheet N/A
-R
Tubes Type 316SS

W
NOTES
Although only one unit is specified, the duty is split between seven (7) trays in each
of three (3) sections in stage 4 of the absorber (ABS-1).
LO
No one flow or composition can be given for the process fluid in stage 4 of the absorber,
because two phases are present and both vary – see the specification of item ABS-1.
REVISION: "A"
11/10/99, 16:48 1 of 1 DP_SPEC4.xls(HX-11)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: PUMP
S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-1
Description Methanol feed pump
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Quantity 2 (two) - see Notes
1.c D
Duty [kW] 0.32
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
ch ED
Fluid description Boiler feed water
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Methanol 100
ar B
Other trace
se M
-1
3 -1
Volumetric flowrate [m .h ] 7.93
re E
Suction Delivery
Temperature [°C]
:// T 37 37
tp U
ht HO
Total delivered head, "TDH" [m] 9.7
POWER
m IT
Pump efficiency [%] 70

Drive type Electric
fro W
Motor type T.E.F.C., 50Hz, flange-mounted, 2 pole

Motor efficiency [%] 80
n n
Motor power [kW] 0.50

io io
MECHANICAL DATA
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
wn SO
Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
NOTES
-R
One spare pump is required to be on stand-by for continued operation:

this sheet applies to BOTH.
W
T.E.F.C. = Totally-enclosed, fan-cooled.

Provision of pressure let-down valve is included in specification of unit.
LO
REVISION: "B"
5/10/99, 9:14 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(P-1)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-2
Description Vaporiser recycle pump
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Duty [kW] 2.55
1.c D
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
ch ED
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Methanol 32
Water 68
ar B
Other trace
se M
-1
re E
3 -1
:// T
Suction Delivery
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT

Drive type Electric
fro W
Motor type T.E.F.C., 50Hz, foot-mounted, 2 pole

n n

io io
rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
wn SO
Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
NOTES
-R
One spare pump is required to be on stand-by for continued operation:

this sheet applies to BOTH.
W

LO
REVISION: "B"
5/10/99, 9:24 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(P-2)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-3
Description Boiler feed water pump
om FO
/
Type Centrifugal
1.c D
Duty [kW] 0.22
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Water 100.0
ar B
-1
se M
3 -1
re E
Suction Delivery
:// T
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT
Drive type Electric

fro W

n n
io io
MECHANICAL DATA
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
Suction Delivery
fu IO

ad T
lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
Lining None
wn SO
Impellor Type 316SS

Do E
NOTES
One spare pump is required to be on stand-by for safety purposes: this sheet applies to BOTH.
-R

W
LO
REVISION: "B"
Designed: David Verrelli Checked: Trandafilovic, Weldon Authorised: —
Date: 30/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:23 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(P-3)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-4A
Description Stage 1 recirculation pump
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Duty [kW] 2.07
1.c D
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
Fluid description Stage 1 recirculant
ch ED
-1
Formaldehyde 54.0
ar B
Other (including methanol) 1.0
se M
-1
re E
3 -1
Volumetric flowrate [m .h ] 93
:// T
Suction Delivery
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT

Drive type Electric
fro W

n n

io io
rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
wn SO
Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
NOTES
-R
Installation is configured such that P-4B may act as a stand-by for either of P-4A xor P-6.
W

LO
REVISION: "B"
Date: 23/09/1999 Date: 24/09/1999 Date: —
27/09/1999, 10:40 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(P-4A)

S.
Equipment item P-4B
.au NT
Description Absorber stand-by pump (for P-4A xor P-6)
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Duty [kW] 3.00
1.c D
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
Fluid description Stage 1 recirculant Stage 2 recirculant
ch ED
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Water 45.0 70.6
Formaldehyde 54.0 28.9
ar B
Other (including methanol) 1.0 0.5
se M
-1
Mass flowrate [kg.s ] 29.7 41.2
3 -1
Volumetric flowrate [m .h ] 93 135
re E
Stage 1 recirculant Stage 2 recirculant
:// T Suction Delivery Suction Delivery

tp U
ht HO
Total delivered head, "TDH" [m] 3.56 3.72
m IT
POWER
fro W
Drive type Electric

n n

io io

rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
wn SO
Casing Type 316SS

Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
-R
NOTES
W

LO
REVISION: "B"
Date: 24/09/1999 Date: 05/10/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:12 AM 1 of 1 DP_SPEC4.XLS(P-4B)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-5
om FO
/
Type Centrifugal
1.c D
Duty [kW] 2.76
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
-1
ar B
-1
se M
3 -1
re E
Suction Delivery
:// T
tp U
Total delivered head, "TDH" [m] 82
ht HO
POWER
m IT
Drive type Electric

fro W

n n
io io
MECHANICAL DATA
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
Suction Delivery
fu IO

ad T
lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
Lining None
wn SO
Impellor Type 316SS

Do E
NOTES
-R

W
LO
REVISION: "A"
Designed: David Verrelli Checked: Sasha Trandafilovic Authorised: —
Date: 30/09/1999 Date: 10/01/1999 [sic!] Date: —
5/10/99, 9:15 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(P-5)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-6
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Duty [kW] 3.00
1.c D
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
ch ED
-1
Formaldehyde 28.9
ar B
se M
-1
re E
3 -1
:// T
Suction Delivery
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT

Drive type Electric
fro W

n n

io io
rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
wn SO
Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
NOTES
-R
W

LO
REVISION: "A"
27/09/1999, 10:40 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(P-6)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-7
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Duty [kW] 1.00
1.c D
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
ch ED
-1
Formaldehyde 19.9
ar B
se M
-1
re E
3 -1
:// T
Suction Delivery
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT

Drive type Electric
fro W

n n

io io
rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
wn SO
Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
NOTES
-R
This pump is not critical; extra cooling can be achieved in the lower stages if necessary.
W

LO
REVISION: "A"
27/09/1999, 10:41 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(P-7)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-8
Description Stage 4 coolant pump
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Duty [kW] 1.30
1.c D
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
Fluid description Recirculated cooling water to stage 4
ch ED
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Water 100
Formaldehyde -
ar B
Other (including methanol) trace
se M
-1
re E
3 -1
:// T
Suction Delivery
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT

Drive type Electric
fro W

n n

io io
rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
wn SO
Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
NOTES
-R
This pump is not critical; extra cooling can be achieved in the lower stages if necessary.
W
LO
REVISION: "C"
Date: 24/09/1999 Date: 24/09/1999 Date: —
27/09/1999, 10:41 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(P-8)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-9
om FO
/
Type Centrifugal
1.c D
Duty [kW] 0.32
iv E
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
-1
ar B
-1
se M
3 -1
re E
Suction Delivery
:// T
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT
Drive type Electric

fro W

n n
io io
MECHANICAL DATA
rs rs

ve ve

ll N
Suction Delivery
fu IO

ad T
lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
Lining None
wn SO
Impellor Type 316SS

Do E
NOTES
-R

W
LO
REVISION: "B"
Designed: David Verrelli Checked: Trandafilovic, Weldon Authorised: —
Date: 30/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:23 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(P-9)

S.
.au NT
Equipment item P-10
Description Absorber water pump
om FO
Type Centrifugal
/
Duty [kW] 0.05
1.c D
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
Fluid description Demineralised water feed to absorber
ch ED
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Water 100
Formaldehyde -
ar B
Other (including methanol) -
se M
-1
re E
3 -1
:// T
Suction Delivery
tp U
ht HO
POWER
m IT

Drive type Electric
fro W

n n

io io
rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
ad T

lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
wn SO
Lining None
Impellor Type 316SS
Do E
NOTES
-R
Although this is a critical pump to have running, it is small enough for 1 (one) SPARE
to be kept ON-SITE, without necessitating the extra pipework of parallel installation.
W

LO
REVISION: "A"
27/09/1999, 10:41 1 of 1 DP_SPEC3.xls(P-10)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: REACTOR
S.
Equipment item RXN-1
.au NT
Description Methanol converter
Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Type Catalytic
/
PROCESS DETAILS
Inlet Outlet
1.c D
Fluid description Process Gas Process Gas
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]:
iv E
Methanol 22.0 0.3
Formaldehyde trace 18.1
.d D
Oxygen 9.2 0.1
ch ED
Water 6.3 15.4
Other (including nitrogen) 62.5 66.2
Mass flow [kg.s-1] 3.16 3.16
ar B
Vapour fraction 1 1
se M
re E
-3
Density [kg.m ] 1.2186 0.4854
:// T
CATALYST DETAILS
tp U -1 -2
"Duty" [t(CH3OH).h .m ] 2
2
Area of catalyst bed [m ] 1.36
ht HO
Catalyst bed height [mm] 40
Residence time [s] 0.02
Type of catalyst 0.187 part silver granule
m IT
Catalyst support Copper gauze
BED ARRANGMENT
fro W
Number of catalyst layers 5

Particle size distribution Particle size [mm] Proportion [%(kg.kg-1)]
Layer 1 0.6 12.9
n n
Layer 2 0.3 1.2

io io
Layer 3 0.85 5.3

Layer 4 1.5 14.1
rs rs
Layer 5 2 66.5
ve ve
MECHANICAL DETAILS
ll N

fu IO
Height [mm] 300

ad T
Diameter [mm] 1300

lo LU

Head Type Torispherical
Inlet Outlet
wn SO
Vent Directly-actuated safety valve

Do E
Emergency vent Bursting disc

-R
Internals Gas distributor and catalyst

Insulation thickness [mm] 75
W
MATERIAL OF CONSTRUCTION
LO
Insulation Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (BOS) furnace-brick lining
REVISION: "E"
Date: 14/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:12 AM 1 of 1 DP_RW-S2.XLS(RXN-1)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: REACTOR
S.
.au NT
Description Methanol converter
Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Type Catalytic
/
PROCESS DETAILS
Inlet Outlet
1.c D
Fluid description Process Gas Process Gas
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]:
iv E
Methanol 22.0 0.3
Formaldehyde trace 18.1
.d D
Oxygen 9.2 0.1
ch ED
Water 6.3 15.4
Other (including nitrogen) 62.5 66.2
Mass flow [kg.s-1] 4.74 4.74
ar B
Vapour fraction 1 1
se M
re E
-3
Density [kg.m ] 1.2186 0.4854
:// T
CATALYST DETAILS
tp U -1 -2
"Duty" [t(CH3OH).h .m ] 2
2
Area of catalyst bed [m ] 2.04
ht HO
Catalyst bed height [mm] 40
Residence time [s] 0.02
Type of catalyst 0.187 part silver granule
m IT
Catalyst support Copper gauze
BED ARRANGMENT
fro W
Number of catalyst layers 5

Particle size distribution Particle size [mm] Proportion [%(kg.kg-1)]
Layer 1 0.6 12.9
n n
Layer 2 0.3 1.2

io io
Layer 3 0.85 5.3

Layer 4 1.5 14.1
rs rs
Layer 5 2 66.5
ve ve
MECHANICAL DETAILS
ll N

fu IO
Height [mm] 300

ad T
Diameter [mm] 1600

lo LU

Head Type Torispherical
Inlet Outlet
wn SO
Vent Directly-actuated safety valve

Do E
Emergency vent Bursting disc

-R
Internals Gas distributor and catalyst

Insulation thickness [mm] 75
W
MATERIAL OF CONSTRUCTION
LO
Insulation Basic Oxygen Steelmaking (BOS) furnace-brick lining
REVISION: "E"
Date: 14/09/1999 Date: 30/09/1999 Date: —
5/10/99, 9:12 AM 1 of 1 DP_RW-S2.XLS(RXN-2)

S.
.au NT
Description Tail-gas burner
Type Fired boiler (convective section + shield bank)

Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Convective section Shield bank
/
Duty [kW] 1866 251
Log-mean temperature difference [K] 239 466
1.c D
Temperature correction factor, FT [-] ~1 ~1
Overall heat transfer coefficient [W.m-2.K-1] 36.5 98
iv E
Heat transfer area [m2] 116 3.3
.d D
PROCESS DETAILS
ch ED
Fluid description Steam circuit Combusted off-gas
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Methanol - trace
Formaldehyde - trace
ar B
Oxygen - 1.4
se M
Water 100 12.9
Nitrogen - 80.0
Other (including CO2) trace 5.7
re E
Flowrate [kg.s-1] 1.7 4.6
:// T
tp U In Out In Out
Temperature [°C] 100 188 616 240
ht HO
Pressure [kPa(abs)] 1250 1200 106 102
Density [kg.m-3]
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
n n
io io
Rear end head type (TEMA code) To stack (-)

Convective section Shield bank
rs rs
Number of tube passes 24 16

ve ve
ll N

fu IO
SUPPORT
ad T
INSULATION
Thickness [mm]
lo LU
wn SO

Lining Insulated firebrick
Do E
Channels N/A
-R
Tube-sheet N/A
Tubes Type 316SS
W
NOTES
LO
REVISION: "C"
Date: 07/10/1999 Date: 09/10/1999 Date: —
11/10/99, 16:45 1 of 1 DP_MW-S2.xls(RXN-3)

SPECIFICATION SHEET: LARGE VESSEL
S.
.au NT
Equipment item ST-1
Description Methanol feed storage
om FO
Type Closed
/
Quantity 1 (one)
1.c D
3
Volume [m ] 190
iv E
PROCESS DETAILS
.d D
Inlet Outlet
ch ED
Fluid description Methanol feed Methanol feed
-1
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg )]: Methanol 100 100
ar B
Other trace trace
se M
Vapour fraction 0 0
re E
-3
Density [kg.m ]
:// T
tp U 791 791
-1
Mean flowrate [kg.s ] 1.74 1.74
ht HO
MECHANICAL DATA
m IT

fro W
Height [mm] 5000

n n
Diameter [mm] 7000

io io
Inlet Outlet
rs rs

ve ve
SUPPORT
ll N
Type of support structure Bolted to concrete slab foundation

fu IO
INSULATION
ad T
Thickness [mm] None

lo LU
wn SO

Lining None
Insulation None
Do E
-R
NOTES
W
Keep away from possible ignition sources.

LO
REVISION: "C"
5/10/99, 9:23 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(ST-1)

S.
Equipment item ST-2
.au NT
Description Grade B formaldehyde buffer tank
Type Closed
Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Volume [m3]
/
183
PROCESS DETAILS
1.c D
Inlet 1 Inlet 2 Inlet 3 Outlet
iv E
Fluid description Grade A Methanol Water Grade B
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Formaldehyde 54 0 0 37
.d D
Methanol 1 100 0 7
ch ED
Water 45 0 100 56
Other (including formic acid) trace trace trace trace
ar B
Temperature [°C] - see Notes 60 37 37 65
se M
Density [kg.m-3] 1100 790 1000 1100
re E
Mean flowrate [kg.s-1] 0.187 0.017 0.069 0.273
:// T
MECHANICAL DATA
tp U
ht HO
Height [mm] 5700

m IT
Diameter [mm] 6400

fro W

n n
SUPPORT
io io

rs rs
AGITATOR
ve ve
Type Turbine pitched blade impeller

W/D ratio 1/8
Process requirements 10 minutes mixing per hour
ll N
Required power output [kW]

Mixing speed [rev.min-1]
fu IO
HEATING COIL
ad T
Duty [kW] 2.7

lo LU
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 75
wn SO
Do E
Lining None
-R
Insulation Mineral wool
NOTES
W
LO
Must be well-agitated and insulated at 65 ± 5°C.
REVISION: "E"
5/10/99, 9:15 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(ST-2)

S.
Equipment item ST-3
.au NT
Description Grade B formaldehyde storage tank
Type Closed
om FO
Volume [m3]
/
330
PROCESS DETAILS
1.c D
Inlet 1 Outlet
iv E
Fluid description Grade B Grade B
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Formaldehyde 37 37
.d D
Methanol 7 7
ch ED
Water 56 56
Other (including formic acid) trace trace
Vapour fraction 0 0
ar B
Temperature [°C] - see Notes 65 65
se M
Density [kg.m-3] 1100 1100
re E
Mean flowrate [kg.s-1] 0.273 0.273
:// T
MECHANICAL DATA
tp U
ht HO
Height [mm] 8600

m IT
Diameter [mm] 7000
Inlet 1 Outlet
fro W

n n
SUPPORT
io io

rs rs
AGITATOR
ve ve

W/D ratio 1/8
ll N

fu IO
HEATING COIL
ad T
Duty [kW] 4
lo LU
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 75
wn SO
Do E
Lining None
-R
NOTES
W
LO

Two tanks provided as contingency for abnormal operation.
REVISION: "B"
5/10/99, 9:23 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(ST-3)

S.
Equipment item ST-4
.au NT
Description Grade A formaldehyde buffer tank
Type Closed
Quantity 1 (one)
om FO
Volume [m3]
/
507
PROCESS DETAILS
1.c D
iv E
Fluid description Grade A Methanol Water Grade A
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Formaldehyde 54 0 0 54
.d D
Methanol 1 100 0 1
ch ED
Water 45 0 100 45
Other (including formic acid) trace trace trace trace
ar B
Temperature [°C] - see Notes 60 37 37 65
se M
Density [kg.m-3] 1100 790 1000 1100
re E
Mean flowrate [kg.s-1] - see Notes 2.458 0.000 0.000 2.458
:// T
MECHANICAL DATA
tp U
ht HO
Height [mm] 8000

m IT
Diameter [mm] 9000

fro W

n n
SUPPORT
io io

rs rs
AGITATOR
ve ve

W/D ratio 1/8
ll N

fu IO
HEATING COIL
ad T
Duty [kW] 23
lo LU
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 75
wn SO
Do E
Lining None
-R
NOTES
W
LO

No methanol or water addition is required for normal operation and designated usage.
REVISION: "D"
5/10/99, 9:23 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(ST-4)

S.
Equipment item ST-5
.au NT
Description Grade A formaldehyde storage tank
Type Closed
om FO
Volume [m3]
/
1120
PROCESS DETAILS
1.c D
Inlet 1 Outlet
iv E
Fluid description Grade A Grade A
Fluid composition [%(kg.kg-1)]: Formaldehyde 54 54
.d D
Methanol 1 1
ch ED
Water 45 45
Other (including formic acid) trace trace
Vapour fraction 0 0
ar B
Temperature [°C] - see Notes 65 65
se M
Density [kg.m-3] 1100 1100
re E
Mean flowrate [kg.s-1] 2.458 2.458
:// T
MECHANICAL DATA
tp U
ht HO
Height [mm] 11800

m IT
Diameter [mm] 11000
Inlet 1 Outlet
fro W

n n
SUPPORT
io io

rs rs
AGITATOR
ve ve

W/D ratio 1/8
ll N

fu IO
HEATING COIL
ad T
Duty [kW] 4
lo LU
INSULATION
Thickness [mm] 75
wn SO
Do E
Lining None
-R
NOTES
W
LO

Two tanks provided as contingency for abnormal operation.
REVISION: "B"
5/10/99, 9:16 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(ST-5)

S.
.au NT
SPECIFICATION SHEET: TURBINE
om FO
Equipment item TRB-1
/
Description Turbine to drive CP-1
1.c D
Type Centrifugal (multistage condensing)
iv E
.d D
Duty [kW] 539
ch ED
PROCESS DETAILS
Fluid description Steam circuit
ar B
-1
se M
Other trace
-1
re E
Suction
:// T
Delivery
tp U
ht HO
-3
Density [kg.m ]
POWER
m IT
Turbine efficiency [%] 75

Drive type Mechanical – connection to shaft of CP-1
fro W
Generator type none

Generator efficiency [%] -
n n
Generator power [kW] -

io io
rs rs
MECHANICAL DATA
Maximum design pressure [kPa(abs)] 1300 - see Notes
ve ve

ll N

fu IO
Suction Delivery
Branch nominal diameter [mm]
ad T
lo LU
Casing Type 316SS
Lining None
wn SO
Internals (blades, shaft, et cetera ) Type 316SS

Do E
NOTES
Only one item is specified, as a stand-by turbine is impractical and uneconomical.
-R
High design pressure to allow safe operation on HP steam that "should" be let down.
REVISION: "A"
W
Designed: David Verrelli Revised: Authorised: —

LO
11/10/99, 16:39 1 of 1 DP_ST-S4.xls(TRB-1)

S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
SPECIFICATION SHEET: VALVE
iv E
.d D
Equipment item V-1
ch ED
Description Water let-down valve
Type Restriction in line; Isenthalpic
ar B
Quantity 1 (one)
se M
PROCESS DETAILS
re E
Fluid description Fresh demineralised water feed
-1
Mass flowrate [kg.s-1]

:// T
tp U 0.226
ht HO
Inlet Outlet
m IT
-3
Density [kg.m ] 998 998
fro W
MECHANICAL DATA
n n

io io

rs rs
Inlet Outlet
ve ve

ll N
fu IO
Casing and restriction Type 316SS

Lining None
ad T
NOTES
lo LU
Mains water is available at 400kPa(abs), which is too high for the vaporiser (HX-1) feed.
wn SO
REVISION: "B"
Do E
-R
W
LO
5/10/99, 9:24 AM 1 of 1 DP_ST-S3.XLS(V-1)

Formaldehyde
7 DETAILED DESIGN OF FORMALDEHYDE ABSORBER
S.
This chapter deals with the detailed design of one plant item, namely the formaldehyde absorber, ABS-1. The
.au NT
reader may find it helpful to refer to the process flow diagram in the Drawing Annex following this report.
Useful calculations are presented in the Appendix (following the Drawing Annex), which may be referred to
from time to time.
om FO
/
It might also be helpful for the reader to refer back to the Specification Sheet for ABS-1 that was presented in
Chapter 6 of the report. It contains many of the results described in this chapter.
1.c D
The reader should note that the stages are numbered in ascending order as altitude increases, while the trays are
iv E
numbered in the opposite direction, in accordance with convention. The three sections into which stage four is
.d D
divided are labelled A to C as altitude decreases.
ch ED
7·1 Process Design
ar B
Process design essentially deals with sizing the absorber, as well as the specification of additional details, such as
se M
inter-stage compositions, temperatures, flows et cetera.
re E
7·1·1 Column characteristics
:// T
This characterisation of the internals in the absorber could not really take place until the mass and energy
tp U
balances were commenced. However the following will make more sense if the characteristics of the absorber
are presented first. The reader must simply bear in the mind that several processes occurred in parallel.
ht HO
7·1·1·1 Packing
m IT
Random packing is selected for its economical price in comparison to structured packing. Also, trays are
avoided in the lower sections because:
 of the difficulty in removing
fro W
sufficient heat1
 of the small diameter of the
n n
column
io io
 of the corrosive nature of the

process fluid
rs rs
 industry experience should not

ve ve
be completely ignored!
Metal Pall rings2 are selected due to

ll N
their superior mass transfer qualities

fu IO
in comparison to Raschig rings.

They are cheaper than Intalox or
super Intalox saddles. Ref. [6]
ad T
indicates that the relative “mass

lo LU
transfer capacity,” Ky.a, of super

Intalox saddles is o nl y mar gi n al l y
better than for Pall rings3. In fact
wn SO
Ref. [3] presents a graph indicating

that metal Pall rings have a superior
Do E
“efficiency” to ceramic Intalox

saddles at any given nominal packing
-R
size from approximately 15mm or Figure 7-1: Metal Pall ring [35].
below, to above 50mm.
W
LO
1 Although plates are generally recommended for the removal of heat due to the ability to install cooling coils on the
plates, the unusually large heat of absorption of formaldehyde makes this option seem impractical here.
2 Interestingly these were also developed by BASF AG [35].
3 At a lat e stage in the design SHARMA indicated that (super) Intalox saddles would normally be specified, as their
superior mass transfer qualities off-set their higher initial cost.
10:01 page 7-1

07/10/99
Chapter 7: Detailed Design of Formaldehyde Absorber Formaldehyde
Type 316 stainless steel is to be used, as elsewhere in the plant, due to its inertness. Also, metal will not be
S.
easily broken by attrition (or the initial filling of the column). A metal Pall ring is shown in Figure 7-1.
The size chosen is 50mm for the relatively large diameter column (calculated in the Appendix), on the recom-
.au NT
mendation of Ref. [33].
7·1·1·2 Plate sections
om FO
Reverse-flow bubble-cap trays were specified in stage 4, due to the extremely low liquid flow [11], [33].
/
Initially there was a reluctance to use trays at all – the packed sections appeared to be a simpler means of doing
1.c D
the job more efficiently, with lower liquid hold-up (and hence inventory) and lower pressure drop. However the
iv E
mass balance showed that it would be difficult to remove formaldehyde down to the very low levels achieved
.d D
here if recycle was present.
The recycle causes a massive increase in the concentration of formaldehyde in the liquid phase that is entering a
ch ED
stage. Mass transfer is only significant due to the shifting of equilibrium at the reduced temperature. Therefore
it seemed that there should be no recycle around the top stage, in order to ‘scrub’ the maximum amount of
formaldehyde. This arrangement is shown in, for example, Ref [14].
ar B
It may be noted that the decision to remove formaldehyde to around 0.01%(kg.kg–1) in the off-gases was
se M
supported by SHARMA, on economic grounds [32].
re E
Once the recycle was removed, the liquid flow was reduced by a factor of aro u nd 1 0 0 compared to stages 1
and 2 at the base of the column. This was cause enough to consider using a structured packing such as Sulzer
:// T
Chemtech’s type BX plastic gauze packing, which is claimed to be especially suitable for “processes with small
tp U
or extremely small liquid rates,” including “formaldehyde absorbers.” [36].
ht HO
However the energy balance revealed that there was still 153kW of heat to be removed from the system. Thus
the decision was made that trays would have to be installed in stage 4 of the absorber (top), similar to the
serpentine cooling coils installed in Orica’s absorber in Deer Park.
m IT
This decision was made despite few references alluding to cooling coils on trays in the literature as well as
comments by DUSS to the effect that
fro W
“Cooled trays with serpentines were used in former designs. Our experience [at Sulzer Chemtech
AG] is that new designs of [formaldehyde]-absorbers are with packing [...], either with structured
n n
or dumped packing. This holds [...] for the silver catalyst (or BASF) process.” [8]
Nevertheless the results of the energy balance could not simply be ignored altogether.
io io
rs rs
Even for trays, the liquid flux (compared to the gas flux) is very low, and reverse-flow trays are recommended
[11], [33]. These have a central baffle that the liquid must flow around, such that all of the downcomers are on
ve ve
the one side of the column. The downcomers only lie on one side of the baffle, however, which alternates down
the column. This will be clearer with reference to Drawing Number 7002 in the Drawing Annex preceding the
ll N
Appendix.
Sieve trays and valve trays may have become more popular (and are generally cheaper) than bubble-cap trays.
fu IO
Bell caps will still be specified to handle the low liquid flow [11]. This ensures that sufficient liquid hold-up is
available to allow for heat transfer via a cooling coil.
ad T
The specific bubble cap used is shown in Drawing Number 7001 in the Drawing Annex.
lo LU
7·1·1·3 Pressure drop

This was estimated as 20kPa over the entire column using guideline values in Ref. [33]. This corresponds to a
wn SO
pressure drop per linear metre that is relatively low, to avoid high energy demand by the blower (CP-1), but not
low enough to demand the use of expensive, specialised packings. The preliminary guess of the column height
Do E
was 50m – corresponding to the maximum expected value, and therefore yielding a more conservative estimate
of the total pressure drop.
-R
The design proceeded in such a way as to attempt to stick to this preliminary value if feasible (so as to avoid a
flow-on effect of inconsistencies to other units in the flowsheet), and this was achieved.
W
7·1·2 Outline of methods used

LO
Several methods were used in conjunction with one another.
page 7-2 10:01

07/10/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 7: Detailed Design of Formaldehyde Absorber
7·1·2·1 Mass and energy balances

The overall mass and energy balances presented in Chapter 5 are not sufficient to fully identify all of the
S.
absorber streams. Further mass and energy balances were required. However in order to perform these balances
some assumptions had to be made.
.au NT
Assumptions that were made included:
om FO
 the pressure varies approximately linearly with altitude in the absorber. This was checked once the various
stages were designed, and found to be reasonable. Initial pressure drops per linear meter were estimated
/
from Ref. [33].
 The temperature varies approximately linearly with altitude in the absorber. This was revised due to
1.c D
limitations on the minimum process-side temperature in the absorber.
iv E
 Temperature drop in each pump-around would be 15°C. This was chosen to reduce the flow (increase T)
.d D
without causing deposition of formaldehyde on tube-walls (decrease T). For stage 3 this had to be lowered
due to the need to maintain sufficient temperature driving force across the exchanger (HX-6).
ch ED
In HX-8 a cocurrent profile was chosen to increase the (minimum) tube-wall temperature. This was
achieved with only a ‘penalty’ FT of 0.91.
 At the top of each stage the vapour would be a l mo st at equilibrium with the liquid. This required
ar B
estimation of temperature and compositions of both phases. The formaldehyde mole fraction in the vapour
se M
exiting each stage was assumed to be such that the ratio of (yIN – yOUT) to (yIN – y*) would be 99.5%4, where
y is the vapour mole fraction, and the superscripted asterisk signifies saturation.
re E
:// T
7·1·2·2 Column diameter calculation
tp U
The diameter of the column may be found with relative simplicity by assuming a certain approach to ‘flooding’ 5.
It is related to the design pressure drop described in 7·1·1·3.
ht HO
While Ref. [3] gives 17 to 33mm(H2O).m–1 as a rule of thumb, Ref. [33] suggests values b elo w 80, based on
the assumption that this will lead to gas flows that are approximately 80% of the flooding velocities. And 66%
is “satisfactory.”
m IT
42mm(H2O).m–1 was chosen to avoid excessive pressure drop (requiring added cost in driving the blower, CP-1),
while still operating reasonably close to flooding.
fro W
The need to operate close to flooding was apparent from the specification of the column as being of constant
diameter (to reduce the cost of fabrication). In the bottom stage, stage 1, the flow is closest to flooding, and so
n n
this will give the minimum diameter for the column. The higher stages must operate at lower percentages of
io io
flooding.
rs rs
On top of this, the turn-down to 60% of design rates will decrease the approach to flooding. Therefore the
flooding at the design rates is chosen to be at the high end of the normally accepted range.
ve ve
The percentage of flooding can be found by evaluating the square root of the ratio of the constant K 4 at the
ll N
design pressure drop to K4 at flooding. Charts of K4 versus (L/G).(G/L)0.5 for various pressure drops are
available [33]6. L and G are the liquid-phase and gas-phase mass fluxes [kg.m–2.s–1]; G and L are the gas and
fu IO
liquid densities [kg.m–3].

ad T
The calculation is shown in the Appendix.

lo LU
7·1·2·3 Stage height calculations

7·1·2·3·1 Packed beds
wn SO
The height of a packed bed may be evaluated from the product of the height of a (theoretical) transfer unit and
the number of (theoretical) transfer units 7. For mass transfer operations in which the gas phase resistance is
Do E
controlling [9], this is expressed:

-R
hbed = HOG.NOG [m] (i)

W
4 Initially 99% was selected arbitrarily: 100% would imply infinite packed height, while low values would require to
many stages. Only a small alteration was felt to be needed.
5 This may be defined, after ECKERT, as “that point in gas–liquid loading where the liquid phase becomes continuous in
LO
the voids and the gas phase becomes discontinuous in the same voids of the bed.” [3]
6 K4  13.1V2.FP.(L/L)0.1 ÷ {G.(L – G)}, where FP is the packing factor, characteristic of the size and type of packing.
7 The adjective “theoretical” is used to denote that the division into units is h yp o t h e t i c a l . It does n o t imply ‘perfect’
efficiency.
10:01 page 7-3

07/10/99
or
hbed = HOy.NOy [m] (ii)
S.
in which the subscript OG indicates calculation based on the overall gas-phase mass transfer coefficient, KG
[mol.m–2.s–1.Pa–1] based on partial pressures as the driving force, while Oy indicates use of Ky [mol.m–2.s–1] as
.au NT
the basis, with mole fractions, y, as the driving force 8. H is the height [m], N the number of units [–].
Description of methods to obtain HOy and NOy are contained in subsequent sections.
om FO
/
The calculation is based on a ‘key component’, namely formaldehyde, with minor transferring components being
considered after the initial calculation [12]9.
1.c D
7·1·2·3·2 Trayed sections
iv E
.d D
The same value of NOy can also be used to estimate the n u mb e r o f tr a ys required in stage 4 of the column
(roughly the top half of the column). Ref. [37] presents KREMSER’s equation for estimating the number of id ea l
ch ED
plates:
NP' = {log10( (yNP+1 / y1).(1-1/AE) + 1/AE)} ÷ {log10(AE)} [–] (iii)
The gas phase mole fractions, yNP+1 and y1, are evaluated entering (bottom) and exiting (top), respectively. A is
ar B
the so-called absorption factor,
se M
A = 1 / (m.GM/LM) [–] (iv)
where GM and LM are the superficial10 gas and liquid molar fluxes, and m is the Henry’s law equilibrium constant
re E
defined by
yequilibrium  y* = m.x [–] (v)
:// T
with x being the liquid-phase mole fraction of the relevant component.
tp U
In fact the first reference used simply A, but to a cco u nt fo r no n - li n ear it ie s a weighted average was used:
ht HO
AE = [ABOTTOM.(ATOP + 1) + 0.25]0.5 – 0.5 [–] (vi)
The subscript E may be taken as ‘effective’ or ‘Edmister’, who first applied this average, for tray-type absorbers
and strippers (1943) [12].
m IT
It was not considered necessary to use a more sophisticated 11 method of calculation, because the heat effects are
relatively small, with temperature only varying by 5°C in the liquid phase, and the solution is relatively dilute at
fro W
the top of the column.

n n
Once the ideal value, NP', is found, this can be corrected by use of an efficiency, , to give the true number of
io io
plates, viz.
NP = NP' /  [–] (vi)
rs rs
Ref. [33] reproduces O’Connell’s chart (1946) for the determination of plate efficiencies in absorbers. It is
pointed out that “appreciably lower plate efficiencies are obtained in absorption than in distillation.”
ve ve
However, Ref’s [9] and [11] indicate that for this system, in which the transferring component is highly soluble,
ll N
efficiencies may be higher than average. Furthermore, a conservative equilibrium relationship was assumed.
fu IO
Therefore the original efficiency obtained was adjusted upwards by a small amount to make it more realistic.
7·1·2·4 Number of transfer units, NOy

ad T
Ref. [9] quotes Colburn’s 1939 formula for the number of theoretical transfer units
lo LU
NOy = ln{(1 – (m.GM/LM)) × (y1 – y*2)/(y2 – y*2) + m.GM/LM} ÷ {1 – (m.GM/LM)} [–] (vii)
where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the bottom and top of the bed, respectively.
wn SO
This equation is, strictly speaking, only valid for simple systems where the operating and equilibrium lines are
linear. Initially this equation was only to be used to get a preliminary value. To do so, simple arithmetic
averages of each variable were used.
Do E
-R
W
8 The difference between overall and individual mass transfer coefficients lies in the driving force: for overall coefficients
the difference between bulk and saturation (relative to the bulk) values is used, while the difference between interfacial
LO
and bulk values are used for the individual coefficients.

9 In fact, calculation in spreadsheet form permitted essentially simultaneous treatment.
10 Based on the e mp t y column cross-sectional flow area.
11 I.e. a more complicated method that could not have been justified, based on inaccuracies in the physical data (see
sections 7·1·3 and 7·1·4, from page 7-7 onwards).
page 7-4 10:01

07/10/99
The reader may be somewhat sceptical about the accuracy of applying the above equation – and rightly so. Ref.
[12] presents more advanced methods for dealing with heats of absorption and non-linearities.
S.
The rigorous calculation would be too time-consuming for this project, and probably not justified in view of the
uncertainties that exist in various of the physical data (see section 7·1·3, page 7-7 and following).
.au NT
Two short-cut methods were also presented: one using a ‘simple approach’, and the other using an ‘Edmister-
type approach’. While the latter was only slightly more complicated than the former, it is said to yield consider-
ably better results, and so it was the method chosen here.
om FO
The method makes use of the Edmister average absorption factor, AE, previously described in section 7·1·2·3·2,
/
page 7-4.
The formula for NOy is then
1.c D
NOy = ln{((y1 – y2*)/(y2 – y2*)).(1 – 1/AE) + 1/AE} ÷ (1 – 1/AE) [–] (viii)
iv E
When a comparison is made of this Edmister-type approach and Colburn’s formula, the two methods are in
.d D
ver y c lo s e a g r ee me n t . Despite apparently large differences between the values of A TOP and ABOTTOM, their
ch ED
arithmetic averages are quite similar to the values of AE calculated.
7·1·2·5 Height of a transfer unit, HOy
ar B
Two different methods for estimating the (overall) height of a gas-phase transfer unit were examined.
se M
7·1·2·5·1 Fundamental mass transfer correlations of ONDA, TAKEUCHI and OKUMOT
re E
In 1968 ONDA, TAKEUCHI and OKUMOT published a paper [27] giving correlations for the i nd i vid u al g a s
:// T
and liq u id p ha se ma s s tr an s f er co e f f ic ie n ts kG [mol.m–2.s–1.Pa–1] and kL [m.s–1]. A correlation for the
we t ted s ur face ar e a , aw [m2.m–3], was also included. These correlations were found so useful that they have
tp U
been cited and used ever since.
ht HO
Analysis of the original paper reveals that a better estimation of the individual mass transfer coefficients
pertaining to the larger sizes of packing might be made by taking the values around the upper quartile of the
m IT
range, rather than the mean value12. This is reflected in the values of the constants used.
fro W
The equations eventually used are given below:

{(kG.R.T)/(at.DG)} = 6.00{G/(at.G)}0.7.{G/(G.DG)}1/3.{at.Dp}–2.0 [–] (ix)
where G is the superficial mass flux of the gas [kg.m–2.s–1]; at is the to ta l surface area of the packing [m2.m–3],
n n
obtained from the manufacturer; DP is the nominal packing size [m]; DG is the gas-phase diffusivity [m2.s–1]
io io
and the other symbols have their usual meaning, in dimensionally-consistent units13.
rs rs
{kL.(L/(L.g))1/3} = 0.0060{L/(aw.L)}2/3.{L/(L.DL)}–1/2.{at.Dp}0.4 [–] (x)

ve ve
where L is the superficial mass flux of the liquid [kg.m–2.s–1]; aw is the wet ted surface area of the packing
[m2.m–3], obtained from the equation below; DL is the liquid-phase diffusivity [m2.s–1] and the other symbols
ll N
have their usual meaning, in dimensionally-consistent units.

fu IO
aw/at = 1 – exp{–1.45(c/)0.75.(L/at.L)0.1 × (L2.at/(L2.g))–0.05.(L2/(L..at))0.2} [–] (xi)

where  is the surface tension of the liquid [mN.m–1], and c the ‘critical surface tension’ of the packing material
ad T
[mN.m–1]14. This latter is given by Ref. [33] as 75mN.m–1 for steels.

lo LU
Some constraints for the applicability of these relations were recorded by Ref. [4]:
 0.04 < ReL = {L/(aw.L)} < 500
wn SO
 1.2 × 10–8 < WeL < 0.27

 2.5 × 10–9 < FrL < 1.8 × 10–2
Do E
and
 0.3 < (c/) < 2
-R
All of these conditions are satisfied for the calculations performed in the Appendix.
W
The individual coefficients may be related back to an overall coefficient by:

LO
12 Strictly speaking there is no reason to interpret values corresponding to the line-of-best-fit as averages or means. It
would be interesting to see the result of analysis of the data in Ref. [27] using a modern curve-fitting computer package.
13 Each term in braces is dimensionless.
14 Please note that this is numerically equal to the commonly quoted [dyn.cm–1].
10:01 page 7-5

07/10/99
1/Ky = 1/ky + m/kx (xii)

where ky and kx may be related to kG and kL by
S.
ky = kG.P [mol.m–2.s–1] (xiii)
kx= kL.L [mol.m–2.s–1] (xiv)
.au NT
in which P is the total pressure [Pa] and L the molar density of the liquid phase [mol.m–3] [38].
Ky does not need to be corrected, by means of a Hatta number [34], for reaction that is taking place (see section
om FO
7·1·3), because the mass transfer is dominated by the gas phase resistance, whereas the reaction is occurring in
/
the liquid phase [32]. The correction would therefore have little effect.
It is, however, reputed to be a very interesting correction in which the reaction causes a “negative enhance-
1.c D
ment”15 of the mass transfer [32], [40].
iv E
The overall gas-phase mass transfer coefficient, Ky, obtained can then be used to determine the height of a gas-
.d D
phase transfer unit by the formula
ch ED
HOy = GM/{(Ky.aw).y*BM} [m] (xv)
in which y*BM is the “logarithmic mean inert-gas concentration between bulk-gas value and value in equilibrium
with bulk liquid” given by [9]
ar B
y*BM = {(1 – y) - (1 – y*)} / ln{(1 – y)/(1 – y*)} [–] (xvi)
se M
This is a point average, and here it has been evaluated at the top and bottom of each bed and the a ver a ge o f
tho s e two (mean) values used. y*BM is used to correct for convection in concentrated systems [38].
re E
A comparison may be made with the value calculated based on the tabulated Ky.aw.y*BM given by Ref. [9].
:// T
Although this is specifically for formaldehyde absorption, the conditions under which it was evaluated may not
be representative of the conditions prevailing in ABS-1.
tp U
ht HO
Thus HOy is known and can be used with NOy to find hbed as described in the preceding sections.
7·1·2·5·2 Empirical correlations of CORNELL, KNAPP and FAIR

m IT
“Cornell’s method” (1960) is presented in Ref. [33]. While the previous method was also empirical, the
distinction is made that this method is less closely related to mass transfer fundamentals16.
fro W
CORNELL, KNAPP and FAIR described a method in which the overall height of a gas-phase transfer unit, HOy, is
n n
calculated from the i nd i v id u al film transfer unit heights, Hy [m] and Hx [m]17. The applicable formula is18
io io
HOy = Hy + (m.GM/LM).Hx [m] (xvii)

rs rs
The correlations presented express the individual transfer heights

Hy = 0.0190283.h.(Sc)G0.5.(Dc/0.3048)1.24.(Z/3.048)(1/3) ÷ {L.(L/w)0.16.(w/L)1.25.(w/L)0.8}0.6
ve ve
[m] (xviii)
and
ll N
Hx = h.(Sc)L0.5.K3.(Z/3.048)0.15 [m] (xix)

fu IO
Care must be taken when using these correlations, as the original correlations were given entirely in imperial
units (i.e. feet et cetera)19.
ad T
The correction for the height of the bed, Z  hbed [m], is to be included only when “the distance between liquid
lo LU
redistributors is greater than 3m.”20 For the calculations in the Appendix it was included in some cases and
excluded in others.
wn SO
15 This is a misleading term, which actually indicates that the Hatta number is l e s s t h a n u n i t y – certainly n o t negative
[32]!
Do E
16 Fundamental methods are to be preferred o n p r i n c i p l e as providing more insight into the processes occurring. This
method appears to at least be more soundly based in principle than equilibrium-stage methods. The HETP (Height
-R
Equivalent to a Theoretical Plate) model requires the assumption that gas and liquid temperatures in any horizontal
section be identical [7], which clearly will not be the case here [41] (though it will be approached in the trayed stage).
W
17 Some of the notation has been changed to be more consistent. The recommended notation is that used by UHLHERR
[38], which differentiates between kx and kL in the liquid phase, and ky and kG in the gas phase. Generally the former of
LO
each pair are preferred, as they use (dimensionless) mole fractions to express the driving force. (Use of mass fractions is
possible but is generally to be avoided.)
18 Ref. [3] adds a factor to account for the “degree of wetting.”
19 The additional significant figures have come from a re-evaluation of the conversion factors.
20 This is not mentioned in Ref. [4].
page 7-6 10:01

07/10/99
Dc [m] is a “corrected” diameter: the le s ser of the actual diameter of the column or (2 × 0.3048).
The subscript w refers to the physical properties of water at 20°C.
S.
K3 is a “percentage flooding correction factor,” for which a chart is provided of K 3 versus the percentage
flooding. The percentage of flooding can be found by evaluating the square root of the ratio of the constant K 4 at
.au NT
the design pressure drop to K4 at flooding. A chart giving values of K4 versus (L/G).(G/L)0.5 for various
pressure drops is given21. Recall that L and G are the liquid-phase and gas-phase mass fluxes [kg.m–2.s–1].
Charts are also provided for the Hy factor, h [m], and the Hx factor, h [m]22. These are specific to a certain type
om FO
of packing, and unfortunately Ref. [33] only gives the original charts for Berl saddles.
/
All other symbols have their usual meanings, in consistent dimensions.
1.c D
For the calculations in this report the up d ated charts of Ref. [4] were used for K3, h and h. These are
iv E
specifically relevant to metal Pall rings of 50mm diameter, as used in the absorber, ABS-1, in our plant.
.d D
It is interesting to quote from that reference on accuracy:
ch ED
Of the two previously available mass transfer models [...] the improved mass-transfer model is bet-
ter yet, having a safety factor of 1.70. [...] [This] means that commercial columns designed with
this model must, on average, have packed heights 70% larger than are really necessary, assuming
ar B
one wishes a 95% probability of success.”
se M
A safety factor of 1.70 was certainly no t used here, and is seldom used in practice. The reason is that most
re E
designers introduce ‘individual’ safety factors, which seem to be inherent in the design, at each stage. For
example, in this design the equilibrium relationship used was very conservative (see section 7·1·3 following).
:// T
tp U
7·1·3 Vapour pressures
ht HO
The vapour pressures play a key part in the design of the formaldehyde absorber, because they are the basis upon
which equilibrium mole fractions, y*, are calculated. (The previous sections demonstrate the importance of the
y* to the design.)
m IT
7·1·3·1 On the state of aqueous formaldehyde

fro W
Aqueous formaldehyde solutions are very complicated things. Formaldehyde exists only in very low proportions
as the monomer, HCHO. For the most part, in solutions of any significant concentration, “formaldehyde” exists
n n
as the monohydrate, methylene glycol (CH2(OH)2), low molecular mass polymeric hydrates or
io io
poly(oxymethylene) glycols (HO-(CH2O)n-H).23 The formation of these products is reversible [39].

These hydrates, with their higher molecular masses, are mu ch le s s vo lat il e than monomeric formaldehyde.
rs rs
In the gas phase formaldehyde is present predominantly as the monomer [39].

ve ve
It is true that the initial reaction of the monomer to monohydrate is relatively fast [10]. However the reactions to
ll N
form higher mass hydrates are slower. This has an impact upon the length of time required for a reasonably
fu IO
concentrated aqueous formaldehyde solution to come to (practical) equilibrium.

A quote from Ref. [39] is pertinent:
“Equilibrium values for formaldehyde [...] solution are readily obtained at room temperatures and
ad T
above. However, these equilibria are functions of a solution composition which may itself be met-
lo LU
astable. The disagreement so often noted in formaldehyde solution data as reported by various in-
vestigators is due to the fact that reaction kinetics rather than true equilibria often govern the data
obtained.”
wn SO
Workers in the field have gone to great lengths to ensure their solutions essentially reached equilibrium. For
example ILICETO and BEZZI (1951) maintained their solutions at 35°C for at l ea st o n e mo n t h . At around
Do E
35°C and below, and normal solution pH values (i.e. 3 to 5), the reactions are “slow.” [39]
-R
A quick calculation based on the assumption that liquid hold-up on each tray is equal to the column cross-section
W
multiplied by the weir height (calculated in the Appendix – see also section 7·2, page 7-13). This gives a
LO
21 K4  13.1V2.FP.(L/L)0.1 ÷ {G.(L – G)}, where FP is the packing factor, characteristic of the size and type of packing.
22 In fact the charts are presented in feet, but values have been converted by the author.
23 And various other minor constituents such as hemiformals [10].
10:01 page 7-7

07/10/99
volume of ~2.6m3. The ne tt liquid flowrate may be taken as 1dm3.s–1 for this calculation. This gives a
residence time of just 45 minutes.
S.
While there is significant liquid hold-up in the packed sections, and the pipes and heat-exchangers of the pump-
arounds, this does not appear likely to amount to a combined residence time of more than one day. This means
.au NT
that there must be so me d o u b t a s to t he e xt e nt to wh ic h eq u il ib ri u m ha s b e e n ap p ro ac h ed 24.
It is briefly noted that the statement of DUSS [8] that formaldehyde “shows a maximum boiling azeotrope with
om FO
water (and methanol)” was not taken into account, due to a lack of detailed information, and a failure to find any
/
other reference to this phenomenon in the literature.
1.c D
7·1·3·2 Implications for partial pressures
iv E
Clearly the formation of less-volatile components in the liquid phase will decrease the partial pressure of
.d D
condensables in the gas phase. Moreover, the reaction causes a dramatic decrease in the mole fraction of
monomeric formaldehyde in the liquid, which leads to the lower saturation partial pressure of formaldehyde.
ch ED
In some of the literature a distinction is made between “apparent” and “actual” concentrations (or mole fractions
et cetera) of formaldehyde. Apparent concentrations hypothetical values obtained by calculating the concentra-
ar B
tion that would exist if all of the hydrates of formaldehyde (as well as minor constituents, such as the hemi-
se M
formals) reverted back to purely monomeric formaldehyde.
In this report apparent concentrations are used for all of the calculations (including mass and energy balances,
re E
and mass transfer computations). Actual concentrations are only considered implicitly insofar as they affect the
saturation partial pressures, as discussed in the following section.
:// T
tp U
7·1·3·3 Modelling of saturation partial pressures of methanol
ht HO
The vapour–liquid equilibrium of the binary system methanol(1)–water(2) was investigated as a precursor to
examining the more important formaldehyde vapour–liquid equilibria. The purpose was twofold: this calcula-
tion provided a means of evaluating the method to be used against reliable experimental data; and it served to
m IT
generate parameters for binary activity coefficient models. In theory the binary model parameters for each of the
systems methanol–water, formaldehyde–water and formaldehyde–methanol could be combined to estimate the
fro W
activity coefficients in the ternary system formaldehyde–methanol–water [28].

The possibility of the solution being ideal was not considered realistic.
n n
One v er y co n ve n ie n t method for estimating the activity coefficients was to interpolate from the activity
io io
coefficients at infinite dilution. Correlations exist for n-primary alcohol(1)–water(2) and water(1)–n-primary
alcohol(2) systems [28]. These correlations include temperature dependency.
rs rs
The van Laar equation was used to model the variation of the activity coefficients with composition, because it is
ve ve
simple to solve for its two parameter from infinite-dilution activity coefficient data, and also because it would
give consistency with the HYSIM simulator, in which the van Laar equation was also used 25.
ll N
To use the van Laar model (and indeed any activity coefficient model), pure-component saturation vapour
fu IO
pressures are needed. These were taken from Ref. [28] in preference to Ref. [33], as the former used the
relatively advanced Wagner equation26 (described as “particularly successful”), rather than the Antoine equation.
ad T
A comparison of the two (see Appendix) shows that the two give significantly different results at higher
temperatures: in the absorber either would probably suffice.
lo LU
Solving for the parameters, using the infinite-dilution data, gave A = 1840 and B = 1530 at 60°C. This
compared to ‘experimental’ values of A = 2360 and B = 1470 in Ref. [16].
wn SO
The van Laar parameters used by HYSIM were difficult to determine, however at 60°C they ap p ear to be A =
0.764 and B = 0.626 (refer to the appendix to Chapter 5). These are clearly completely different from the values
Do E
given by the other two sources.

-R
W
24 Though temperatures are higher at the base of the column: it may be that the approach to equilibrium in the liquid phase
LO
varies throughout the absorber system.

25 As noted in Chapter 5, the NRTL model was used for much of the original HYSIM work. The problem with using this
model, apart from its added complexity, is that it has t h r e e parameters instead of two, although the third parameter may
be taken as a fixed constant if no other reliable data can be found (or time is short) [28].
26 Though in its “simplest” form.
page 7-8 10:01

07/10/99
The three pairs of parameters were substituted, in turn, into the van Laar equation, and a y–x diagram plotted,
which may be seen in the Appendix. For comparison and verification, some experimental data at 59.6°C [22]
S.
was also plotted.
The best agreement was between the curve based on the infinite-dilution data and the curve based on ‘experi-
.au NT
mental’ parameters, despite the apparently significant differences between their parameters. Both of these
curves also matched the experimental data quite well.
Surprisingly, even the very low HYSIM parameters yielded a reasonable match with the other curves –
om FO
particularly in the region of higher methanol mole fraction. The reason for this is probably that the van Laar
/
equation is not capable of modelling extreme non-ideality, and also that methanol has a high volatility relative to
water, and so the activity coefficients would have to be very different from unity to be seen to have a major
1.c D
effect on the relative volatility.
iv E
7·1·3·4 Modelling of saturation partial pressures of formaldehyde
.d D
7·1·3·4·1 What was done
ch ED
As mentioned in the previous section, the initial aim was to correlate the three combinations of binary mixtures
in order to estimate the vapour–liquid equilibrium of the ternary mixture (ignoring the effect of minor contami-
ar B
nants such as formic acid, HCOOH).
se M
Continuing in the same vein as the previous section on methanol(1)–water(2), activity coefficients at infinite
re E
dilution were estimated for the binary formaldehyde(1)–water(2). While a correlation for n-aldehydes(1)–
water(2) was available [28], unfortunately there was no correlation for the infinite-dilution activity coefficient
:// T
for water(1)–n-aldehydes(2).
tp U
To get around this problem the idea of modelling formaldehyde (methanal) as a h yp o t he ti cal single-carbon
ht HO
ketone was hit upon (i.e. *methanone). This is justified by the statement that “aldehydes and ketones behave
similarly and undergo many of the same reactions.” [24] On the other hand, the results of this approximation
may no t be as good as first assumed, because the values of the parameter A calculated for both the system n-
m IT
aldehydes(1)–water(2) and the h yp o t he tic al system n-ketones(1)–water(2) were significantly different at

60°C and above. This is shown in the Appendix (worksheet “van Laar VLE” in “DP_VLAR4.XLS”).
fro W
Good experimental data was available from Ref. [1]. Comparison showed that the van Laar model based on the
infinite-dilution parameters was a v er y p o o r approximation of the experimental results.
n n
Both the HYSIM parameters and Raoult’s law gave similar results to the infinite-dilution parameters, and all
io io
indicated that formaldehyde was far more volatile than water. The difference in saturation partial pressures for
the two components clearly dominated the discrepancies in van Laar parameters.
rs rs
ve ve
The main problem lies in the model and the inherent assumption that the apparent mole fraction (see section
7·1·3·2) of formaldehyde can be used. The equilibrium partial pressure data for the pure components, water and
formaldehyde, indicate conclusively that the relative volatility of formaldehyde to water should be greater than
ll N
unity. However the experimental data points clearly lie in such positions as to imply that it is the wa ter which
fu IO
is the mo re vo lat il e of the two substances, based on apparent mole fractions.
The first attempt to fit the parameters of the van Laar model to the experimental points demonstrates the flaws in
ad T
the application of this to the system. The method used to fit the vapour–liquid equilibrium curve to the data was
lo LU
to minimise the sums of two sets of numbers. The first set of values contained the squares of the difference (i.e.
error) between the activity coefficient for the formaldehyde partial pressure based on the fitted parameters and
that calculated from the experimental data. The second set of values contained the same squares of errors, but
wn SO
for the activity coefficient of the water partial pressure. These two sets were weighted 27.
The result of this fitting was a poor match of the experimental line – essentially the equation y = x was obtained,
Do E
though in an unrecognisable form.

-R
The first attempt at fitting parameters was unsatisfactory, and so a second attempt was made. This followed the
example of Ref. [28], in which a linearised form of the van Laar equation was obtained, and the experimental
W
data fitted by minimising the sum of squares of the errors in the relation thus obtained. This gave a value of A
that was similar to the previous regression (around –11900 compared to –12200), but the value for B was
LO
markedly different (roughly +1.7×10 +5 compared to –1.1×10+10).
27 This was required to give results which both were physically reasonable, as well as close to the experimental results.
10:01 page 7-9

07/10/99
The results of this second fitting may possibly fit the experimental data better below a formaldehyde mole
fraction of 0.5, but above that the model becomes physically unrealistic, predicting zero partial pressure of
S.
formaldehyde over pure formaldehyde (see Appendix).
In fact the regression is inherently unreliable in this case, because the value of B is found by the difference
.au NT
between two similar numbers, which were obtained by curve-fitting.
A final attempt to fit parameters to the van Laar model was made using the occasionally vaunted UNIFAC
om FO
method (briefly described in Chapter 5). The calculation is presented in the Appendix. The value of A and B
/
computed were different to those found by all of the previous methods, but again the curve that resulted was
most similar to the van Laar curve from infinite-dilution data and from Raoult’s law, all of which were very
1.c D
different to the experimental data.
iv E
The failure of the above methods and the lie of the experimental data points suggested a linear curve fitting. At
.d D
70°C this resulted in y = 0.7514x, with an R2 value of 0.96. An added advantage of this is its simplicity.
ch ED
T hi s wa s t he ‘ mo d el ’ u s ed fo r t h e d e si g n o f t h e ab so rb er.
7·1·3·4·2 What wasn’t done
ar B
As mentioned, one serious flaw in the van Laar model was its form. Many of the references present empirical
se M
correlations directly relating the saturation partial pressure of formaldehyde to the apparent mole fraction of
formaldehyde in the liquid.
re E
The formula obtained by LACY based on the data of LEDBURY and BLAIR (1925) [10] was rejected as it did not
:// T
yield zero partial pressures of formaldehyde over pure water!28 Ref. [39] gives additional information on the
tp U
original Lacy equation as well as variants of the Lacy equation. These all share the previous fault. Also, the
original equation is said to be accurate only for solutions between 10 and 40%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde, while the
ht HO
variants claimed to be accurate “for solutions of all concentrations below 60°C,” but only for solutions below
20%(kg.kg–1) up to 100°C.
m IT
Ref. [29] presents a further equation based on the work of LEDBURY and BLAIR, LACY and WALKER. This
equation d o es cause the formaldehyde partial pressure go to zero when there is none present in the liquid.
fro W
However it was not used for the design of the absorber.

The reasons for not using the equation are that:
n n
 It is more complicated than the straight-line, Henry’s law type equation (y = 0.75x) derived in the previous
io io
section29.
 It is less conservative. It may be shown (see Appendix) that this formula yields partial pressures that are
rs rs
roughly half those taken from the linear approximation (which was from data at 70°C).
 It implies that equilibrium exists between the liquid and vapour, which may not be a reasonable assumption
ve ve
(see section 7·1·3·1, page 7-7).

ll N
As noted, the decision was made to use very conservative vapour–equilibrium data and therefore avoid using a
fu IO
‘safety factor’30 at the end.
7·1·4 Other physical property data

ad T
lo LU
7·1·4·1 Densities
Densities were obtained as follows:
 Densities of water were obtained from a tabulation in Ref. [31].
wn SO
 The gas was assumed to be ideal, following the law pV = nRT.

 Densities of the aqueous formaldehyde solution were evaluated from the formulae presented in Ref’s [14]
Do E
and [29]31. These gave similar results, and agreed with the data of Ref’s [10] and [39]. The formulae are
-R
quoted in the Appendix, where the calculation is performed (under the heading “Diameter computation”).
W
LO
28 Credit is due to Mr. Adrian DIXON, who first noticed this peculiarity.
29 But then again, it was calculated in any case for the purposes of comparison!
30 Please note that the tray efficiency used is n o t a safety factor.
31 Whose formula contained a misprint.
page 7-10 10:01

07/10/99
7·1·4·2 Viscosities
7·1·4·2·1 Liquid viscosities
S.
Liquid viscosities were obtained from an empirical correlation against temperature and proportions of formalde-
.au NT
hyde and methanol [14]. For dilute solutions this gave results that were up to (approximately) half those of pure
water [31], at the same temperature. These values were considered to be highly dubious, and so for the top stage
(Stage 4) the values of pure water were taken, and for Stage 3 the two values were averaged.
om FO
/
7·1·4·2·2 Gas viscosities
The gas mixture was assumed to consist of only four components in order to make the computation easier.
1.c D
These were water, formaldehyde, hydrogen and nitrogen. The mole fractions of the first three were exactly as
iv E
calculated from mass balances et cetera, while all other components were taken as nitrogen. However it should
.d D
be noted that while this assumption will tend to i ncre a s e the mole fraction of nitrogen recorded, the values
were all taken at the bottom of each stage, which has the effect of d ecr ea si n g the value.
ch ED
Pure component data were taken from Ref’s [22] and [31]. Formaldehyde was assumed to have the same pure
component viscosity as methanol. Each of the four pure components, except nitrogen, was found to have very
ar B
similar gas viscosities (around 1×10–5Pa.s), which varied little with temperature. Nitrogen had a viscosity that
se M
was approximately double that of the other components – again relatively invariant with temperature – and so it
was an important constituent.
re E
In order to estimate the viscosity of the gas mixture Ref. [28] was consulted. This detailed the method of WILKE,
:// T
which apparently yields results that are no wo r s e t ha n ±12% (compared to experimental values). This was
tp U
not a particularly simple method to apply, but it was nevertheless chosen for calculation. REICHENBERG’s
procedure may be the “most consistently accurate,”32 but it is far too complicated 33 for use in this report.
ht HO
The results of the computation yielded mixture viscosities that were essentially constant over the range of
temperatures in the column, and so the average was taken and used throughout the column.
m IT
For comparison the gas viscosity of the mixture was computed by taking an average of the pure-component
fro W
viscosities that was we i g hte d by the mole fraction of each constituent. Interestingly enough, this gave results
that were only around 4% below those calculated by WILKE’s method. While this indicates that the values used
n n
are at least reasonable, it must surely also demonstrate that some ‘sophisticated’ calculations – given the
uncertainties in physical data – are simply not worth performing!
io io
rs rs
The calculation is presented in the Appendix (under the heading “Viscosity computation”).
ve ve
7·1·4·3 Diffusivities
Due to uncertainties in the data, and even a lack of data altogether for some components, and the complexity of
ll N
evaluating diffusion in a multi-component mixture34, binary diffusion is assumed. Further, the effect of
fu IO
concentration on diffusivity coefficients is not considered.
7·1·4·3·1 Liquid-phase diffusivity

ad T
lo LU
For the liquid the two components were assumed to be formaldehyde and water.
The correlation of HAYDUK and MINHAS is used. This is recommended by Ref. [28] as generally yielding the
wn SO
lowest errors35, as well as being reasonably simple to apply. This required the molar volume of formaldehyde at
its normal boiling point, which was deduced from Ref. [29].
Do E
The value obtained for the liquid diffusivity was found to vary in the column, and could not be taken as constant.
-R
In reviewing the value in Stage 1,36 SHARMA [32] commented that he would expect a value of around 2 ×
10-5cm2.s–1 or less, rather than the 3.5 × 10 –5 calculated. This is close to the value calculated in the cooler Stage
W
4 (at the top of the column), namely 2.2 × 10 –5cm2.s–1.

LO
32 Errors of n o mo r e t h a n ±4.8% were recorded.

33 Requiring, for example, dipole moments of each constituent.
34 “The equations for diffusion in multicomponent systems become very complicated.” [37]
35 Average absolute error approximately ±10%.
10:01 page 7-11

07/10/99
The calculation is presented in the Appendix (under the heading “Liquid-phase diffusivity computation”).
S.
7·1·4·3·2 Gas-phase diffusivity
.au NT
The gas phase was taken as a binary mixture composed of formaldehyde and nitrogen for the purposes of this
calculation.
om FO
Two similar methods were tried, which both use the concept of atomic and molecular ‘diffusion volume’
/
increments, which are additive.
1.c D
The first method was that of FULLER, GIDDINGS and co-workers (1965–1969) [28]. This was recommended,
iv E
above all other methods presented, as yielding “the smallest average error.”37 Applying the method yielded a
.d D
value of approximately 0.174cm2.s–1, which was essentially invariant over the column.
ch ED
The second method was described as that of GILLILAND (1934), recommended as “convenient” [20]. This
yielded a values in the column that were all close to 0.127cm2.s–1. The discrepancy would be largely due to the
different ‘diffusion volume’ values presented.
ar B
se M
Due to the reputation of Ref. [28] and its more comprehensive treatment, and the fact that it presented a more
recent ‘method’, the first value was accepted, rather than attempt a verification by one (or more) independent
re E
means.
7·1·4·4
:// T
Surface tension
tp U
The estimation of the liquid surface tension, , was difficult due to a paucity of relevant data, in particular that
ht HO
for formaldehyde.
For water at 20°C a value of 70mN.m–1 was taken, being an amalgam of values from Ref’s [22], [28] and [33].
m IT
It was apparent that the surface tension of water was far higher than that of low-molecular-mass hydrocarbons
fro W
such as methanol, acetone, formamide and methyl formate [28]. It was assumed that formaldehyde would fit in
with this group of chemicals – at least having a surface tension that is closer to those of other similar hydrocar-
bons than to water.
n n
Furthermore, it was observed that surface tension tended to decrease with increasing temperature [28].
io io
For the aqueous formaldehyde solution a value of 60mN.m–1 was therefore settled upon.
rs rs
As the surface tension of the aqueous formaldehyde is only used in the computation of Hy, in which it is first
ve ve
divided by the water surface tension and then raised to the power of –0.4, this assumption is reasonable.
7·1·5 Application of the method

ll N
fu IO
Once values for all of the required physical properties has been estimated, as described above, the methods
outlined in section 7·1·1, pages 7-1ff., could be applied.
ad T
The diameter of the column was taken as 1800mm. This gave flooding of 73% at the bottom stage under normal
lo LU
operating conditions.
The values taken for the packed heights ( wh i c h ar e s ho wn i n t he Sp eci fic a t io n S hee t o f AB S -1 i n
wn SO
C hap ter 6 ) were taken as those from ONDA, TAKEUCHI and OKUMOT. These were generally more conservative
than the values of CORNELL, KNAPP and FAIR, though not so conservative as the value derived from Ref. [9].
Do E
Again, the more fundamental nature of the approach was also preferred. This selection was another reason not to
apply final safety factors.
-R
The heights were also below the maximums recommended by SINNOTT [33].
W
For the top stage (Stage 4), in which bubble-cap trays were used, the number of ideal trays required for the
design separation was 13.5.38 With an efficiency of 65% this became 21 real trays.
LO
36 By implication, the values of the other constants are probably reasonable, as no comment was made on other inaccura-
cies as they were reviewed.
37 The average absolute error is around ±5%.
page 7-12 10:01

07/10/99
The mass fraction of formaldehyde in the vapour exiting is only 0.0001, or 100ppm. This is small enough to be
S.
described as “trace.” The product fulfils the requirements of the problem statement (given in Chapter 2).
Further details of the compositions of each phase at any point in the absorber may be found in the Appendix,
.au NT
under the heading “(Mass &) Energy Balance over Absorber,” or by deduction from the Specification Sheets of
items upstream and downstream of the absorber (see Chapter 6 as well as the Process Flow Diagram in the
Drawing Annex).
om FO
/
7·2 Mechanical Design
1.c D
The reader will find it helpful to refer to drawings 7001 to 7004 in the Drawing Annex while reviewing this
iv E
section.
.d D
7·2·1 Materials and fabrication
ch ED
As before, all of the construction will be of type 316 (see Chapter 6). The majority of the fabrication will be the
welding together of formed sections. These joints will undergo full radiographic or ultrasonic examination in
ar B
accordance with the Australian Standard [2], to allow a joint efficiency of unity to be valid. Generally the design
se M
tensile strength was taken at around 170°C (100MPa).
Teflon will be used for gaskets (as used at Orica’s Deer Park facility), and also for the demister at the top of the
re E
tower [37].
Further details and exceptions are given in the following sections.
:// T
tp U
7·2·2 Internals
ht HO
7·2·2·1 Bubble-cap trays
m IT
7·2·2·1·1 Tray layout

As noted, the trays are reverse flow type to accommodate the low liquid flowrates. Due to the presence of the
fro W
baffle, the serpentine cooling coils and the bubble-caps, it was decided that employee comfort would dictate a
tray spacing of 750mm [3], [33].
Provision was made for a manway in each tray, so that manholes would no t have to be installed in the side of
n n
the column between e ver y tray. However it is unlikely that many people would enjoy crawling through 21
io io
trays in a row, and so this was split into three sections of 7 trays (A, B and C), with manholes in the shell
rs rs
between each section.

ve ve
Ref. [11] states that equilateral triangular layouts of bubble-caps are the common arrangement, with spacings
between cap centres of 25 to 50mm in excess of the cap diameter. A typical cap diameter is said to be 100mm
ll N
for a 1.8m column, although there is significant periphery wastage for this configuration. Along with this, there
is also a reduction in ‘active area’ due to the presence of the central baffle (and manway), and so 75mm caps will
fu IO
be used on a 125mm equilateral layout.

ad T
The cooling coil will fit between the bell caps at the pitch chosen. The required length of the coil (at 25mm
diameter) was calculated in Chapter 6 to be 273m, which comes to 13m per tray. The orientation of the coil will
lo LU
be parallel to the central baffle. This gives 8 runs of straight tube, of varying lengths, on each side of the baffle.
wn SO
7·2·2·1·2 Bubble-caps and pressure drop

In order to evaluate the plate pressure drop, it was found necessary to design the bubble caps. Due to the low
liquid flowrate and the need to maintain a height of liquid in the tray, bell caps rather than tunnel caps will be
Do E
used [11].
-R
By trial and error (see Appendix), the caps were designed to have 40 slots each, of width 3mm and height 10mm.
W
Estimating the typical active area from Ref. [11] resulted in an estimate of 100 caps per tray (rounded down from
124, which was calculated first). It may be seen from Drawing Number 7002 (in the Drawing Annex), that the
LO
true number of caps is between 100 and 124, so 100 was a reasonable, slightly conservative estimate.
38 Given that ideal trays are a hypothetical concept, there is no physical reason to round values to integers.
10:01 page 7-13

07/10/99
In order to decrease the pressure drop, a value of 1.0 was taken for the ratio of annular area to riser area for the
caps (at the lower end of the range presented by Ref. [11]), with the reversal area equal to 1.35 times the average
S.
of the riser and annular areas (equal here).
This meant that the riser diameter would be 53mm.
.au NT
Ref. [33] recommends 40 to 50mm for the weir height. Given the need to have adequate liquid coverage of the
cooling coils, 50mm is specified. Given the low liquid flow, the ratio of weir length to column diameter was
om FO
taken as 0.70 [33]39.
/
Taking the height of the slot above the plate floor as 10mm, a total pressure drop of 58mm(H2O) per plate was
1.c D
calculated. For 21 plates this is 12kPa, which is entirely acceptable, and within the range of the initial assump-
tion (20kPa for the whole column).
iv E
.d D
7·2·2·1·3 Downcomer design
ch ED
Some of the information need to calculate the downcomer was found in the previous section. Segmental baffles
will be installed [3].
ar B
The liquid-seal depth is taken to be 25mm, compared with a design liquid height on the trays of 50mm 40. Taking
se M
foaming into account, the height of aerated liquid in t he d o wn co mer is found to be approximately 240mm.
This means that the assumed value of 750mm for the plate spacing is more than sufficient.
re E
This compares to the foam height of only 112mm o n t he tr a ys , so that the baffle height of 200mm is ample.
:// T
Finally the residence time in the downcomer is checked: it should be greater than 3 seconds for adequate
tp U
disengagement [3], [33]. In this case the value calculated was 44s, so this guideline was satisfied too.
ht HO
It is noted that the downcomer apron will no t be sloped, as this will increase the cost unnecessarily – the design
given above is valid.
m IT
7·2·2·1·4 Tray support

fro W
A peripheral support ring welded to the inside of the vessel provides a ‘bracket’ for the bubble cap trays [3],
[33]. (A similar ring will also support the packed column plates.) The width of this ring will be 50mm. It will
no t extend into the downcomer area [33].
n n
io io
The trays are to be designed to support a mass of 1000N (102kg) acting over an area, in the centre of the plate,
that is of a much smaller diameter than the plate (1800mm). This is considered to be a more realistic and more
rs rs
demanding situation than analysing the case of uniform loading over the entire plate. The formula used is taken
ve ve
from MORLEY [23].
A tray thickness of 3mm (“12gauge”) was considered reasonable [33], to avoid excess weight. However the
ll N
deflection under the above load would then be 82mm, which is too great. Therefore two schedule 40 steel pipes
fu IO
(type 316), of 19mm nominal diameter, are welded to the underside of the peripheral support.
The calculations are presented in the Appendix.
ad T
It may be noted that the effect of folding the sections of the tray under into a C-beam type of form, in addition to
lo LU
the overlapping of joints, is likely to increase the strength of the trays more than the weakening effect of the
holes made for the bell caps.
wn SO
7·2·2·2 Packed sections

This section begins with a comment on the importance of additional internals that bolster the packed beds:
Do E
“The choice [...] can greatly affect the performance of the selected packing. [...] a greater degree
-R
of importance is now attached t the design of individual items of equipment within the tower. For
example, a support plate is now accepted as a more important component than a mere support for
W
the packing above it – its design can vitally affect the performance of the tower. Similar consider-
ation must be given to distributors and redistributors [....]” [3]
LO
39 There is an error in the chart presented by this reference. The correct relationships may be found in Ref. [17].
40 Although the actual height of liquid on the trays will be higher – around 53mm, by the Francis weir equation [11], [33].
page 7-14 10:01

07/10/99
The type of packing (50mm metal Pall

rings) has already been specified.
S.
7·2·2·2·1 The bottom of the bed
.au NT
The packing support plate must possess a
high percentage of void area in order to
om FO
permit free upward flow of the gas. For ease
of construction and handling, the plate
/
should be available in sections. Recom-
mended is the gas-injection type of support
1.c D
plate [3]. This will be used below Stage 1,
iv E
where the liquid collects in the base of the
.d D
column. However it will not suffice below
Stages 2 and 3, as liquid must be drawn off
ch ED
at these points.
For this reason a liquid redistributor– Figure 7-2: Multibeam gas-injection support plate [11].
collector plate may be used in co nj u nc -
ar B
tio n wi t h a gas-injection support plate.
se M
The risers on the plate allow liquid to be
drawn off [3], while the gas-injection plate
re E
avoid the difficulty of trying to pass two
phases in opposite directions through the
same openings [35].
:// T
tp U
The type of gas-injection plate to be
installed is a multibeam gas injection
ht HO
packing support plate. This has been tested
with metal Pall rings, and found to give
improved pressure drops. Its modular
m IT
design allows it to be installed through

standard manholes (450mm or larger), while
fro W
the beam style gives high mechanical

strength [35].
n n
Although it is recommended that the

redistributor be installed from 150 to
io io
460mm above the packed section below, this

rs rs
is not important in this case, as it is being

used primarily for its ability to hold a certain
ve ve
head of liquid to allow draw off.

The liquid collector plate must be of
ll N
gasketed construction (Teflon will be used)

so that it can be sealed to the supporting
fu IO
ledge and be liquid-tight. To provide Figure 7-3: Liquid redistributor–collector plate [3].
sufficient head with minimum load a sump
ad T
is provided.
lo LU
A multibeam gas-injection support plate is shown in Figure 7-2, and a liquid redistributor in Figure 7-3.
7·2·2·2·2 The top of the bed

wn SO
The use of a hold-down plate on top of a packed section to restrain the bed under conditions of high gas rates or
fluctuating gas flows is no t cr u ci al for steel packings [3]41. A light-weight bed limiter with a mesh backing,
Do E
resting directly on top of the packed bed, will be sufficient to prevent bed expansion and to keep the top of the
bed level [35].
-R
The bed limiter will be restrained by the liquid distributor immediately above it. The construction will be
sectional, as for the other internals [35].
W
LO
41 For carbon or ceramic packings the plate minimises breakage. For plastic packings the plate acts as a bed-limiter,
preventing carry-over with the gas.
09:52 page 7-15

07/10/99
A liquid distributor is needed to prevent maldistribution in the

column. The most popular type is the weir type, as it overcomes
S.
the propensity of orifice type distributors to block (which is a
serious consideration due to the possibility of paraformaldehyde
.au NT
formation), while retaining a high free area for gas flow. It
provides uniform, controlled distribution of liquid flowrates
between 0.0014 and 0.034m3.m–2.s–1 [3]. Thus it is suitable for
om FO
use in all of the packed beds (Stages 1 to 3).
/
Because the liquid flow into each packed section is almost
entirely made up of the recirculant flow, a liquid distributor will
1.c D
Figure 7-4: Weir-trough liquid suffice even above Stages 1 and 2. While gravity-fed distributors
distributor [11]. are more limited in their capacity to operate at low turn-down
iv E
ratios than pressure-fed distributors, a turndown to 60% should be
.d D
okay [35].
ch ED
A weir type liquid distributor is shown in Figure 7-4.
As the liquid distributor has little weight to support, fixing may be made to a continuous support ring around the
ar B
inside of the column. Care must be taken to ensure that the final assembly is completely level [3]. As for the
trayed sections, the width of the support ledges will be 50mm [35].
se M
re E
7·2·3 Shell, ends and supports
:// T
This sections follows that on the internals, because the internals determine the mass of the vessel to be borne.
tp U
7·2·3·1 Shell
ht HO
7·2·3·1·1 Shell wall
The number of plates, the plate spacing, the manway dimensions (see the following section), the packed bed
m IT
heights and the distance required between packed stages allowed the height of the vessel to be found. Also
included were allowances for some liquid hold-up in the base and a vapour disengagement space above the top
fro W
tray.
To begin with the “minimum practical wall thickness” of SINNOTT [33] was used to estimate the thickness of the
n n
shell wall. This was 7mm, including a 2mm corrosion allowance 42.
io io
This initial estimate was tested against a number of (extreme) conditions:

rs rs
 No r ma l o p er at io n d ur i n g a c yc lo ne . The design pressure was taken as 150kPa(abs), from the

ve ve
normal operating pressure of 130kPa(abs) at the base. The wind speed is taken as 27m.s –1 (i.e. 100km.h–1),
uniform over the vessel wall.
 H yd ro s ta tic t e s ti n g. It is assumed that hydrostatic testing would not be approved under cyclone or
ll N
earthquake conditions. The wind speed is taken as 10m.s –1 (uniform), but with the vessel now completely
fu IO
filled with water.

 No r ma l o p er at io n d ur i n g an ear t hq ua ke . The design is for winds at 10m.s–1, with a horizontal force
ad T
acting due to the earthquake. The data of BROWNELL and YOUNG (1959), as presented by Olbrich [26], are
used, and the assumption is that the region is in seismic zone 2 to 3 (medium to high risk).
lo LU
 Inco rrec t i n st al lat io n . Installation of the column, when empty, by lifting it from one end, with the
other end resting on the ground, in an almost horizontal position. Evaluated at 150°C.
wn SO
While the cyclone and earthquake loading are not relevant to design in many Australian areas, our site is situated
on the Eastern coast of Kalimantan, where such factors should be taken into consideration.
Do E
-R
Calculations given in the Appendix treat the vessel as a cantilever, fixed to its foundation. The strengthening
effects of scaffolding, closures, peripheral support rings and the like are not considered. As required by the
standards, the 2mm corrosion allowance was not included in the strength analysis.
W
The moment due to small fittings such as ladders, pipes and manways will be small, and is neglected [33].
LO
42 Because it is unlikely that significant corrosion of the type 316 steel would occur, this c o u l d alternatively be
interpreted as a 6 m m thick shell wall p l u s 1 m m corrosion allowance.
page 7-16 09:52

07/10/99
It was found that the maximum tensile strength of the shell wall, as taken from the Standard [2], was no t
exceeded in any of the above cases. Also, the buckling criterion given by Ref. [33] for vessels under internal
S.
pressure was found to be satisfied for the first, and most extreme, case.
.au NT
For the last case, the design maximum tensile stress was approached, though not exceeded. This should not be a
cause for concern, because correct installation would be at under 50°C, and would not be from a single point at
the extreme end of the vessel (a sling would (also) lift from the middle). On top of this, when the column is
om FO
installed it is reasonable to assume that the extra 2mm corrosion allowance will still be present!
/
From the above results the shell wall was set to be 7mm, including corrosion allowance.
1.c D
An attempt to evaluate the suitability of the shell for negative internal gauge pressures (i.e. vacuum) was made,
iv E
on the grounds that someone might accidentally isolate the vessel with hot condensables in it. When they cool,
.d D
they would condense, decreasing the internal pressure. Calculations were inconclusive, but indicated that the
ch ED
vessel was not suitable for substantial external overpressures (see Appendix).
This is not a major issue, as the vessel is not really designed to withstand external pressure. The remedy would
be proper and ongoing training of employees to avoid the damaging situation.
ar B
se M
7·2·3·1·2 Manholes and flanges
The manway size is taken from Ref. [3]. This reference presents an intriguing table claiming to be based on
re E
British Standard 1500 (1959), which gives standard diameters of manholes from 370mm (14 inches) to 610mm
(24 inches). It may be that people were smaller back then, but the author believes that the upper value given is
:// T
most reasonable. This belief is based on the size of typical maintenance and commissioning crews, as well as the
tp U
need for ease of access in installing internals and carrying materials in and out – in particular the sections of the
bubble-cap trays. The tray sections must fit through the manways, but if they are too small they become
ht HO
impractical.
The height of the manhole – that is, the amount by which it protrudes from the column – is taken as 200mm,
which is we ll b elo w the ma x i mu m height given ( which is 1070mm for the diameter chosen). The low
m IT
value is chosen to reduce material costs, as well as to aid in the accessibility43.

The thickness of the manhole walls is taken as equal to that of the shell (i.e. 7mm, inclusive of corrosion
fro W
allowance) [3].
The manways are shown on Drawing Number 7004 in the Drawing Annex.
n n
Just as for the pipes, the flanges are given nominal dimensions in integer multiples of inches 44 (expressed in
io io
millimetres).
rs rs
The type of flange used will be socket-welding, which, “is used fairly extensively in chemical process piping.”
[21] The advantages of this type of flange are that:
ve ve
 smooth, pocketless bore conditions can be obtained by grinding the internal weld flush
 their static strength is equal to that of welded slip-on flanges, but they have fatigue strengths that are 50%
ll N
greater
 they cost only about 10% more than slip-on flanges.
fu IO
From the design pressure, the flanges need only be rated to 6bar [33] or 150psi [13] (whichever is relevant to the
standards used by the supplier).
ad T
The flanges are shown on the Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) in the Drawing Annex.
lo LU
Due to the removal of a portion of the shell for each the instance of a manway or flange installation, there is a
need to make up for this by means of some reinforcement. The reinforcement method chosen is the commonly
wn SO
adopted welding of a pad onto the shell, about the outside of the manway or flange. This method is cheaper than
a forged ring, but can deliver similar levels of reinforcement, and the problem of thermal stress arising seems
unlikely. It is also avoids the risk of trapping “crud” and enhancing corrosion by installing inset nozzles. [33]
Do E
-R
The “equal area method” is recommended to provide adequate reinforcement, without causing secondary stresses
deriving from over-reinforcement. As a simple numerical expression, the outer diameter of the welded pad will
W
be taken as 2.0 times the (inner) diameter of the hole or branch, with the thickness of the pad equal to that of the
shell (i.e. 7mm).
LO
43 Considering long items passing through the manway, which will be able to be ‘angled’ more.
44 Or fractions for small diameters, or multiples of two or five for large diameters, in accordance with the standards [13].
10:01 page 7-17

07/10/99
7·2·3·1·3 Insulation
The calculation of insulation requirement is presented in the Appendix. Insulation is required only at the base of
S.
the column (Stage 1), where the temperature is hotter and the solution more concentrated in formaldehyde.
.au NT
The hotter temperature(75°C at the bottom of the stage) means that insulation is desirable to give some
protection to personnel.
om FO
The higher solution concentration means that the storage temperature requirements are higher to avoid deposi-
tion of paraformaldehyde. At the top of stage 1 the liquid temperature will be 60°C. Assuming the ambient
/
temperature is at the Bontang minimum of 20°C (see Chapter 2), then the average tube-wall temperature will be
around 40°C. The combined literature suggests that this is too low a temperature for an u n st ab i li sed 45
1.c D
solution of 54%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde.
iv E
.d D
Given that cooling water utility is required to accomplish the cooling duty, and that increased temperature
increases the partial pressure of formaldehyde in the vapour, there is a significant disadvantage in installing
ch ED
excessive or unnecessary insulation, on top of the added capital (and maintenance) cost.
Thus insulation is specified for Stage 1 only, with a thickness of 25mm (this is assumed to be a standard
thickness). The material will be the fibreglass blankets recommended by Ref. [20] for this type of application.
ar B
se M
7·2·3·2 Ends
re E
The top and bottom end of the shell are identical, leading to a cost saving. Initially there was consideration
given to a conical base section to facilitate draining, however this would give less liquid hold-up her height,46
:// T
and were recommended mainly for facilitating the flow of so lid s (as in hoppers et cetera). Thus standard
torispherical heads (“dished ends”) were specified for both the top and bottom vessel closures. These are “the
tp U
most commonly used” up to operating pressures of 1500kPa. They will be the cheapest option up to 1000kPa, as
ht HO
they can be readily formed and require less material than other types of domed heads. [33]
The torispherical head is formed from part of a torus and part of a sphere. The radii of these sections are
m IT
respectively the ‘ k n u c kle ’ radius, Rk, and the ‘cro wn ’ radius, Rc. In order to avoid buckling, guidelines
suggest that Rk/Rc be less than 0.06. Rc should be less than the d i a me ter of the shell, D, as this will otherwise
fro W
approach a flat end, which resists pressures inefficiently. [33]

From these guidelines, and with D = 1800mm, Rk =- 200mm and Rc = 1400mm were selected.
n n
Calculating the thickness required for the ends using the ‘stress concentration factor’ approach, the minimum
io io
thickness was found to be 3.2mm, exclusive of 2mm corrosion allowance. Due to the non-fundamental nature of
the design equation, the maximum longitudinal and meridional stresses in the head (which will occur in the
rs rs
toroidal section) were calculated. These were well below the design maximum 47.
ve ve
Additional formulae were given in the Standard [2]. The value of 3.2mm for the thickness, t, was checked as it
related to buckling. Given that the quantity D/t was equal to 563, much greater than 100, 48 it was recommended
ll N
that particular care be exercised with regard to high localised stresses that may give rise to buckling during
fu IO
hydrostatic testing.
At this stage it was decided to form the entire head at the same thickness as the shell (5 + 2mm), to reduce D/t.
This has a further advantage in terms of the welding together of the closure and shell. The new thickness
ad T
resulted in D/t = 360 – still greater than 100, but less than before.
lo LU
Looking to the first amendment (November 1990), a further recommendation regarding the maximum allowable
internal pressure is given in the event that D/t > 300, as is the case here. That recommendation is found to be
wn SO
satisfied with the thicker value of t (but no t for the initial value of t), even for the heavy hydrostatic pressure
loading.
Do E
-R
45 There is no mention of the addition, or presence, of stabilisers in the product, and so it is assumed that they are to be
W
absent. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the stabilisers would be added before entering final storage.
46 Hence a lower residence time, leading to the possibility of more difficult control.
LO
47 Implying that an u n m e n t i o n e d s a f e t y f a c t o r was included in the design equation. The problem with this sort of
thing is that designers who are unaware of its inclusion may then apply their o wn safety factor, which would be exces-
sive.
48 The value of 100 strictly applies only when Rk approaches the minimum permitted, i.e. 6 % of Rc. We have been more
conservative here, in selecting designing Rk to be 7 % of Rc.
page 7-18 10:01

07/10/99
A ‘flange’ or ‘skirt’ is included on the formed torispherical head to ensure that the weld line is away from the
point of discontinuity between the head and the cylindrical section of the vessel [33] (see Drawing Number
S.
7004, Drawing Annex). The weld will be a double-welded butt joint, as recommended by the Standard [2] to
give a maximum welded joint efficiency of unity for the vessel.
.au NT
Because the head will be formed, the joint efficiency factor can be taken as unity.
7·2·3·3 Supports
om FO
7·2·3·3·1 Scaffolding
/
The description of the skirt support that has been designed follows in the next section. There will also be a
1.c D
further supporting effect of scaffolding which has several functions: it will provide some support to the absorber
column (especially strengthening the column against buckling); it will provide some support of the installed
iv E
pipework entering and exiting the absorber; and it will provide the ‘skeleton’ for the stair-way up the column.
.d D
ch ED
The design of scaffolding was not included in the terms of the contract, and would require the negotiation of a
new contract, or, alternatively, the renegotiation of the existing contract.
ar B
7·2·3·3·2 Skirt
se M
A skirt is used to support the absorber column. They are recommended by Ref. [33], because, “they do not
impose concentrated loadings on the vessel shell,” and, therefore, “they are particularly suitable for use with tall
re E
columns subject to wind loading.”
:// T
The design essentially follows the Australian Standard [2], with incorporation of some material from SINNOTT
[33].
tp U
ht HO
The maximum compressive stress will be found from the conditions prevailing during hydrostatic testing. The
preliminary assumption is made that the skirt will have the same thickness as the column, i.e. 7mm (calculations
are carried out using the fully-corroded value of 5mm). This value satisfies both the yield stress and the Young’s
m IT
modulus requirements.
fro W
The skirt was assumed to be of the cylindrical type (cheaper), rather than the conical type, and subsequent
calculation of the base ring details has been found adequate. The base ring can be shown to have a convenient
n n
circumference to take 8 bolts. This number is recommended as a multiple of 4, and gives a realistic bolt cross-
sectional area of 590mm2 (Dbolt = 27mm). The pitch between the bolts is also above the guideline minimum of
io io
600mm. These bolt dimensions were calculated based on the ‘cyclone loading’ described previously, as this
rs rs
corresponds to the maximum tension.

ve ve
Calculations on the width of the base ring gave values below the minimum recommended values 49 [33], and so
the widths shown in Drawing Number 7003 (Drawing Annex) have been increased. The thickness of the base
ll N
ring is calculated to be 17mm.

fu IO
The method of connection of the skirt to the shell follows the amended version of option (c) given in Fig. 3.24 of
the Standard [2]. This includes recommendations for the position of the skirt–shell weld relative to the shell–end
ad T
weld. Details are given in Drawing Number 7003 (Drawing Annex).

lo LU
The skirt has been checked for the possibility of temperature causing discontinuity stresses, but this was found to
be negligible.
wn SO
7·2·3·3·3 Foundation
Do E
Ref. [3] presents simple information for the preliminary design of foundations 50. This essentially involves
ensuring that the soil below the foundation is under compression at all points. However there is also a limit on
-R
the maximum compressive load that can be borne by the soil. This requires a knowledge of the type of sub-soil
below the foundation, which could only be determined by a survey.
W
LO
49 To provide support on the inside edge of the skirt (50mm) and to ensure sufficient provision for the bolt head a n d
spanner.
50 Or, at least, it wo u l d , if only some [censored] [censored] [censored] had not ‘borrowed’ some of the pages of the book
in a past year.
10:01 page 7-19

07/10/99
This would seem to be a good reason no t to design the foundation quantitatively at this stage. A civil engineer
may even have to be called in.
S.
Qualitatively, the foundation will be of reinforced concrete. An octagonal shape is recommended because “it
.au NT
combines features of stability and ease of construction with minimum material requirements.” However for our
plant it is likely that several equipment items will sit on the one ‘superfoundation’, including the absorber, as is
the case at Orica’s Deer Park facility.
om FO
The reasoning behind this decision is that the other items will need foundations in any case (they cannot be
/
installed on the ground!), and siting several items on the one foundation would decrease the site area required, as
well as inter-piping costs.
1.c D
iv E
7·3 References
.d D
1. M. ALBERT, I. HAHNENSTEIN, H. HASSE and G. MAURER; “Vapor–Liquid Equilibrium of Formaldehyde
ch ED
Mixtures: New Data and Model Revision;” in: –; American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal;
Vol. 42, No. 6; Chemical Engineering Research and Development, Thermodynamics; pp. 1741–1752;
June 1996.
ar B
se M
3. J. R. BACKHURST and J. H. HARKER; Process Plant Design; Heinemann Educational Books; London;
1973.
re E
4. William L. BOLLES and James R. FAIR; “Improved mass-transfer model enhances packed-column
design;” in: Nicholas P. CHOPEY (Ed. in Chief); Chemical Engineering; Vol. 89, N. 14, pp. 109–116;
:// T
McGraw-Hill; New York; 12 July, 1982.
5.
tp U
David James BRENNAN; CHE3109 Lecture Materials; Monash University; Melbourne; 1998.
6. J. M. COULSON and J. F. RICHARDSON; Chemical Engineering, Vol. 2 – “Particle Technology and
ht HO
Separation Processes,” 4th edition; Pergamon; Oxford; 1991.
7. J. W. DREW (Chair); “Packed Columns – A Guide to Performance Evaluation,” 2nd edition; in: S. D.
FEAGEN (Chair); AIChE Equipment Testing Procedure; AIChE Pub. E28; American Institute of Chemi-
m IT
cal Engineers; New York; 1990.

8. Markus DUSS (Sulzer Chemtech AG); Private communication; 06 and 07 September, 1999.
fro W
9. William M. EDWARDS; “Mass Transfer and Gas Absorption;” in: Robert Howard PERRY and Don W.
GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill; New York; 1984.
n n
io io
11. J. R. FAIR, D. E. STEINMEYER, W. R. PENNEY and B. B. CROCKER; “Liquid-Gas Systems;” in: Robert
rs rs
Howard PERRY and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition;
McGraw-Hill; New York; 1984.
ve ve
12. Howard M. FEINTUCH and Robert Ewald TREYBAL; “The Design of Adiabatic Packed Towers for Gas
Absorption and Stripping;” in: Hugh M. HULBERT (Ed.) Industrial and Engineering Chemistry – Process
ll N
Design and Development; Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 505–513; October, 1978.
fu IO
Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill; New York; 1984.
ad T
lo LU
New York; 1994.
15. Douglas C. GIANCOLI; Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, 2nd edition; Prentice
wn SO
Hall; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 1989.

16. J. GMEHLING, U. ONKEN and J. R. RAREY-NIES; “Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Data Collection, Aqueous
Systems (Supplement 2);” in: Dieter BEHRENS and Reiner ECKERMANN (Ed’s); Chemistry Data Series;
Do E
Vol. I, Part 1b; DECHEMA; Frankfurt am Main; circa 1977–1986.

-R
17. Don W. GREEN; “Conversion Factors and Miscellaneous Tables;” in: Robert Howard PERRY and Don
W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill; New York;
W
1984.
LO

page 7-20 10:01

07/10/99
S.
.au NT
20. Jack P. HOLMAN; Heat Transfer, 7th edition, in SI units; McGraw-Hill; London; 1990.
21. Ernest HOLMES; Handbook of Industrial Pipework Engineering; McGraw-Hill; London; 1973.
om FO
/
PERRY and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill;
New York; 1984.
1.c D
23. Arthur MORLEY; Strength of Materials, 1 1 t h ed iti o n; Longmans, Green and Co.; London; 1955.54
iv E
25. W. Erich OLBRICH; CHE3117 Lecture Notes; Monash University; Melbourne; 1998.
.d D
26. W. Erich OLBRICH; CHE4109 Lecture Notes; Monash University; Melbourne; 1999.
ch ED
27. Kakusaburo ONDA, Hiroshi TAKEUCHI and Yoshio OKUMOT; “Mass Transfer Coefficients between Gas
and Liquid Phases in Packed Columns;” in: –; Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan; Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 56–62; 1968.
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
30. Martin J. RHODES; CHE3108 Lecture Materials; Monash University; Melbourne; 1998.
tp U
ht HO
32. SHARMA; Private communication; August 1999. He advocated removal to levels under “50ppm.”
m IT
34. Tamarapu SRIDHAR and Sanjay MAHAJANI; CHE4102 Lecture Notes; Monash University; Melbourne;
1999.
fro W
35. Ralph F. STRIGLE Jr. (Norton Chemical Process Products Corporation); Packed Tower Design and
Applications – Random and Structured Packings, 2nd edition; Gulf Publishing; Houston; 1994.55
36. [Sulzer Chemtech AG]; Structured Packings for Distillation and Absorption; Sulzer Chemtech AG;
n n
Winterthur, Switzerland; [1997?].56

io io
37. Robert Ewald TREYBAL; Mass Transfer Operations, 3rd edition, International edition; McGraw-Hill;
Auckland; 1986.
rs rs
38. Peter Heinz Theodore UHLHERR; CHE3102 Lecture Notes; Monash University; Melbourne; 1 9 9 7 .
ve ve
40. J. G. M. WINKELMAN and A. A. C. M. BEENACKERS; “Simultaneous Absorption and Desorption with
ll N
Reversible First-Order Chemical Reaction: Analytical Solution and Negative Enhancement Factors;” in:
fu IO
–; Chemical Engineering Science; Vol. 48, No. 16, pp. 2951–2955; Pergamon Press; Oxford; 1993.
41. J. G. M. WINKELMAN, H. SIJBRING and A. A. C. M. BEENACKERS; “Modeling and Simulation of
ad T
Industrial Formaldehyde Absorbers;” in: Liang-Shih FAN et alii (Ed’s); Chemical Engineering Science,
Vol. 47, No. 13/14, The First International Conference on Gas-Liquid and Gas-Liquid-Solid Reactor En-
lo LU
gineering [Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.], Session E: Reactor modeling, dynamics, and control, pp. 3785–
3792; Pergamon Press; Oxford; 1992.
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
54 The generosity and thoughtfulness of Mr. Alan FONG and Mr. Anthony FONG is recognised here for the gi ft of this
comprehensive reference.
55 The author expresses his sincere thanks to Miss Jayne BORENSZTAJN for making this reference available.
56 See also the Sulzer Chemtech website at http://www.sulzerchemtech.com/t1_gauze.htm#BX.
10:01 page 7-21

07/10/99
Formaldehyde
8 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM (P&ID)

AROUND FORMALDEHYDE ABSORBER
S.
.au NT
The purpose of a piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) is multifarious. It must provide piping and valve
information; an indication of the instrumentation that is installed, including control; and other fittings. Clearly
om FO
the purpose of a P&ID is not merely to convey information about the control scheme adopted. The P&ID acts as
the foundation for hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies (see Chapter 9) and the mechanics of plant layout
/
activities (see Chapter 11). It is also an invaluable tool in the maintenance, trouble-shooting and optimisation of
1.c D
a plant during and after commissioning.
iv E
In this chapter the P&ID for the absorption section of the plant is considered. This includes the formaldehyde
.d D
absorber, ABS-1, plus the pumps and heat-exchangers on the pump-arounds, as well as the cooling coil and feed
water pump.
ch ED
The completed P&ID is inserted in the Drawing Annex.
ar B
8·1 Pipework
se M
8·1·1 Pipes
re E
The pipes are simplest to specify. As everywhere else on the plant, type 316 stainless steel is used for its
:// T
superior corrosion resistance, which has the additional benefit of providing superior product quality [17], [19].
The diameter is calculated on guideline values of 2m.s–1 flow of liquid (or a maximum of 1m.s–1 under gravity
tp U
flow) and 25ms–1 of the gases [3], which are all ‘low pressure’ in this section of the plant.
ht HO
The diameter thus calculated is then rounded to a standard nominal diameter [4], based on the imperial system
but expressed in integer millimetres.
m IT
For the product line and the bottom stage (Stage 1) recirculation, the piping is traced. The tracing on the
pipelines was suggested1 to allow for start-up conditions2. On start-up the plant will be cold, including the pipe-
fro W
walls. This will not be a problem in other parts of the plant. For example, this may be beneficial in the raw
methanol handling area, as this would reduce the flammability risk. However where concentrated aqueous
formaldehyde solutions3 are concerned, there is a risk4 of depositing paraformaldehyde on the walls of the cold
n n
tubes [15]. This risk is overcome by installing steam tracing. This is only required for the lower stage.
io io
Some additional piping that was not included on the Process Flow Diagram (see Drawing Annex) includes the
rs rs
bypass lines and kick-back lines5. Kick-back lines, when functioning, prevent over-pressure upstream of pumps
ve ve
that would otherwise be ‘dead-headed’. A liquid seal is used at the base of packed column ABS-1 to minimise
the possibility of getting gas in a pump (P4-A or P4-B) suction line [9].
ll N
8·1·2 Joints
fu IO
Generally all of the ‘large’ pipes or ducts are flanged, with gaskets of Teflon (as used at Orica’s Deer Park
plant). ‘Large’ is roughly any diameter over 40mm [17], although this will vary on a case-by-case basis.
ad T
lo LU
8·1·2·1 Flanged joints

Bolted flanges are used to connect instruments and piping to vessels, which aids disassembly for maintenance
wn SO
work, where either equipment items or piping must be removed 6. This includes on the isolation valves and on
the control valve stations. In some of the longer lengths of pipes additional flanges may be present, as there is a
Do E
1 By Dr. Andrew HOADLEY (private communication).

-R
2 The recommended start-up procedure for the plant is discussed in Ref. [8]. Essentially, material can be (mostly)
recycled and gradually heated until it comes up to the design operating temperature, at which point the normal ratio of
W
off-take and purge flows is instated. See also Ref. [11].

3 Especially those with low methanol contents, as the “Grade A” product exiting the absorber.
LO
4 The risk is decreased at low concentrations. During start-up the concentrations in the lower stage would initially be
much lower than during normal operation, and this m a y obviate the need for tracing! Further study would be required.
5 Note that only two kick-back lines are installed on the combination P-4A, P-4B and P-6, as only two are to be active at
any one time.
6 Large equipment items such as the absorber may still be removed with their thermocouple connections in place.
16:17 page 8-1

11/10/99
Chapter 8: P&ID around Formaldehyde Absorber Formaldehyde
practical limit on the length of welded piping sections – these are not shown on the P&ID 7. Flanges are also
used on the manholes in the column (this has been discussed in detail in Chapter 7). Finally, ‘blind’ flanged are
S.
used at the ends of pipes to give surety of closure [18].
The flanges selected for use throughout the plant are of the socket welding type. These are, “used fairly
.au NT
extensively in chemical process piping.” [9] The advantages of this type of flange are that:
 smooth, pocketless bore conditions can be obtained by grinding the internal weld flush
 their static strength is equal to that of welded slip-on flanges, but they have fatigue strengths that are 50%
om FO
greater
/
 they cost only about 10% more than slip-on flanges.
From the design pressure, the flanges need only be rated to 6bar [17] or 150psi [4] (whichever is relevant to the
1.c D
standards used by the supplier).
iv E
8·1·2·2 Screwed joints
.d D
Screwed joints are used on smaller pipes , as they are cheaper. For example the pressure indicators are screwed
ch ED
onto valves, and those valves are screwed onto a spool piece. Screwed joints are not indicated by any symbol.
Threaded connections will follow the British Standard for Petroleum plants (BSP).
ar B
Special ‘threaded’ connections are provided on the shell of ABS-1 (at the base) and on the shell and tube sides of
se M
HX-6, HX-7 and HX-8. These connections, shown with a ‘cap’ during normal operation, are designed to take a
flexible hose connection for nitrogen inerting when maintenance is required 8. There is no need to go to the
re E
expense of a u to ma ted nitrogen inerting in the absorption section of the plant. This could be installed in the
reaction and vaporisation sections.
:// T
tp U
8·1·2·3 Welded joints
ht HO
Many of the joints will simply be welded to further reduce costs. For example the temperature probes are
screwed into welded fittings, and the pressure tappings off pipes are simply welded. Welds are also used for the
reducers9 (shown in the control valve stations). Welds are not indicated by any symbol in the P&ID.
m IT
Welds will undergo radiographic or ultrasonic examination to verify their integrity [1].
fro W
8·1·3 Valves
8·1·3·1 Safety valves
n n
io io
10
Safety valves are installed on the absorber, ABS-1. The greatest pressure is expected to be at the base of the
column. Maintenance is also easier at low elevations. Common practice is to install safety valves at the top of
rs rs
equipment items. Here a kind of compromise is made, and safety valves installed in both locations. This will
handle the possibility of a blockage in the tower (e.g. due to extreme fouling). Given the constant (low) back
ve ve
pressure, the safety valves need not be specified as balanced bellows valves [9].
The reactor has been fitted with bursting disks: the design is directed so that full force of an explosion – if one
ll N
did occur – would not propagate to the absorber. The heat exchangers are not fitted with safety valves to reduce
costs. They will discharge through the column if required.
fu IO
The process vapour is flammable in air. Formaldehyde is also a passible carcinogen. Therefore the safety valves
ad T
will discharge to the tail-gas burner (RXN-3 – not shown on the absorber P&ID), from which the safely
lo LU
combusted gases can be released to atmosphere at a ‘high level’. That is, at an elevation where there is no source
of ignition (to minimise the hazard of burner malfunction), and at which it can be d i l ut ed by the surrounding
air b efo re it can be convected or diffuse nearer to the ground.
wn SO
7 That level of detail could only be shown if piping lengths were known, such as on an isometric piping drawing.
Do E
8 Compressed air could also be connected to ensure the atmosphere in the vessel was breathable in the case of entry by
personnel.
-R
9 The reducers used are ‘eccentric’ (rather than concentric), to improve drainage.
10 The nomenclature of Ref. [9] is adopted here, wherein is stated:
W
“Confusion is sometimes caused by loose interchange of the terms ‘safety valve’ and ‘relief valve’, sug-
gesting they are one and the same thing. There is a difference.
LO
A safety valve is automatically actuated by the static upstream pressure and is used for gas or vapour [...].
It has rapid full opening, or ‘pop’ action, to give immediate protection by release of pressure.
A relief valve automatically operates in a similar manner to a safety valve, but it opens in proportion to
the increase in pressure over the operating pressure and it is used for liquids [...].
To complicate matters further, a safety-relief valve [...] can be used either for gas and vapours or liquids.”
page 8-2 16:17

11/10/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 8: P&ID around Formaldehyde Absorber
Valves leading to safety valves are locked open in normal service, just as major bypass valves are locked closed.
S.
8·1·3·2 Relief valves
On the kick-back lines relief valves11 are installed. This is an innovation of the author’s. Common practice has
.au NT
either no kick-back line (increased hazard) or a kick-back line with a restricting orifice plate, “ROP,” inserted.
This plate allows a small flow through under normal operating conditions, but lets a larger flow through if there
om FO
is an obstruction downstream of the pump.
An improvement to operation can be made by installing a control valve, which will only allow flow through in
/
response to a certain set overpressure [18]. The disadvantage of this scheme is that capital cost is increased, as
well as complexity (and hence maintenance).
1.c D
The relief valve installed should be cheaper than a control valve station (though more expensive than an ROP),
iv E
but it will also only be actuated by a certain overpressure, meaning that there is no deterioration in performance
.d D
during normal operation due to its installation.
A (closed) bypass valve is installed on the kick-back line around the relief valve. This could be opened if the
ch ED
relief valve did not work, or possibly for performing work on the pump.
8·1·3·3 Isolation valves
ar B
Spectacle valves are provided on either side of the pumps to achieve positive isolation – an “infallible, leak-
se M
proof, visible shut-off” [9]. This is of particular importance for the combination of pumps P-4A, P-4B and P-6.
re E
To save money P-4B is configured so as to be able to replace either P-4A xor P-6.12 If the one pump that is not
operating is not properly isolated, then damage may be done to the pump, the effective efficiency of the active
:// T
pump may be decreased13, or – most seriously of all – there may be risk to personnel due to fumes, fire or
deflagration.
tp U
To minimise the risk of damaging the pump or of causing a loss of containment d ue to r ev er se flo w , a check
ht HO
valve (or ‘non-return valve’) is installed upstream of each of the three pumps, but before the isolation valve.
If the pumps in operation are not properly isolated from each other, then some mixing of streams will occur.
This is probably not a major hazard, but will cause deterioration of product quality.
m IT
For pumps P-7, P-8 and P-10 check valves are not required before the downstream isolation valve. However
fro W
check valves are installed d o wn s t r e a m o f t h e kic k -b a ck li n es to prevent reverse flow through the overall
pump ‘installation’ [18].
n n
Gate valves are placed in series with each of the line-blind valves, on the “upstream side”14 of the line-blind
io io
valve, to allow the line to be opened or blinded under pressure from that direction [9]. The gate valves are, in
rs rs
fact, integral to the unit.

ve ve
As noted, valves separate the pressure gauges, to facilitate their removal and replacement.
ll N
8·1·3·4 Control valves

“Control valve stations” are arranged such that isolation valves enable easy removal of the control valve proper.
fu IO
Further, the bypass line is oriented to allow access to the underside of the (heavier) control valves, including
space underneath for removal by a low trolley or bogey [9].
ad T
lo LU
Line reducers and enlargers (namely reducers fitted ‘in reverse’) are installed either side of the control valve 15.
The control valve size can then be less than the main line size (that is, the line size connected to the control valve
station) [9]. This reduces the cost of the control valve, and also improves the controllability 16.
wn SO
Eccentric reducers and enlargers, rather than concentric ones, are proposed to facilitate drainage. This is
important for maintenance work on the control valve.
All of the control valves are likely to come fitted with valve stem positioners.
Do E
-R
11 See footnote 10.

W
12 Operation is alternated (say monthly) to ensure that bo t h pumps are in good working condition.
13 If the unisolated line acts as a kick-back line.
LO
14 the term ‘upstream’ may be assigned differently in the case of (say) a valve failure, compared to normal operation.
15 Presumably the cost of installing larger isolation valves (“A” and “E”) either side of the control valve, due to the
placement of the reducers, has been found to be off-set by the lower pressure drop. Note that the control valve stations
are labelled ‘mnemonically’ – “B” is for the bypass valve, “C” is the control valve and “D” the drain!
16 By decreasing the system gain.
16:17 page 8-3

11/10/99
For gas streams the ‘station’ consists of only a butterfly valve, without a bypass line.
S.
8·1·3·5 Drain valves
.au NT
In all cases the design philosophy is to drain from the lowest point, and to vent from the highest point – whether
it be in an item of equipment or in a section of pipe-line. Drain valves are normally closed, and hence are shown
‘blacked out’. A drain, which is locked closed and blanked off, is included on the safety-valve discharge line, to
om FO
drain the line in the event of liquid discharge due to flooding of the tower.
Note that vents and drains are i nt e gr a l with the heat exchanger shells (for both HX-6, HX-7 and HX-8), and
/
therefore are not shown as separate valves on the P&ID. A remotely operated valve (ROV) acts as a vent at the
top of the absorber.
1.c D
A dedicated sample valve is installed on the product line, although samples could be taken from any drain valve.
iv E
Drains that are not used regularly are blanked off [18].
.d D
8·2 Instrumentation and Control
ch ED
8·2·1 Instrumentation scheme
ar B
8·2·1·1 Configuration
se M
Flow measurement devices and control valve stations are installed on the pump d el i ver y lines (rather than the
re E
suction lines) to reduce the risk of cavitation.
Also, a sufficient length of straight piping run must be allowed for to give accurate measurement of flowrate
:// T
[16]. tp U
The flowrate measurements will be taken by implication from differential pressure measurements over an ROP.
ht HO
Temperature measurements will come from thermocouples (probably K type, dependent on manufacturer’s
recommendations). These would not need to measure the temperature at the centre of the column, as the
horizontal temperature profile would be relatively flat.
m IT
To measure compositions there are a number of possibilities. Standard oxygen detectors may be used on the tail-
fro W
gas line (Stream 39), but this is more relevant to the tail-gas burner (RXN-3) section of the plant. The oxygen
level in the absorber feed (Stream 21) would also always be low during normal operation, which would not be
helpful for control.
n n
The formaldehyde content of the product stream would give the most relevant control information. It is also
io io
required for quality assurance, and so samples will be taken from the product line, buffer tanks and storage tanks
rs rs
as part of a routine analysis procedure. However the manual sampling regime is relatively slow, and not
automated – it would be along the lines of supervisory control. Rapid analysis could be implemented by
ve ve
deducing17 the composition from measurements of the refractive index and density.
Automated density measuring devices exit, though the accuracy is not known. Therefore there may be scope to
ll N
automate control. The most readily available and reliable form of on-line formaldehyde analysis appears,
however, to be for gas streams, 18 and the more accurate of these seems to be the spectroscopic type [12]. Of
fu IO
these the Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEM’s) look to have good
prospects for implementation [6], [7].
ad T
However, without further details on these analysers, including detection range, price and mean time between
failures, they will not be specified for the plant. It is assumed that the existing control scheme is adequate, and
lo LU
that the monitors discussed here are to be considered for an up grad e .

wn SO
8·2·1·2 Locally-mounted instrumentation

Locally-mounted temperature and pressure indicators are installed by every manhole on the absorber, and at the
inlet and outlet of every shell-and-tube heat exchanger. Also, local pressure indicators are present up and
Do E
downstream of every pump.

-R
The purpose of these locally mounted gauges is to provide information to the workers who are actually working
on the plant.
W
The locally mounted gauges will not be electrical, due to considerations of cost, ease of installation and
reliability [20].
LO
17 Namely from correlations, such as those given by [15].

18 Apparently developed to measure gaseous formaldehyde emissions such as in stack gases and exhaust gases.
page 8-4 16:17

11/10/99
8·2·1·3 Panel-mounted instrumentation and alarms

Most of the instrumentation with control room displays are involved in the control of the plant. Control of the
S.
plant in the sense of feedback (or feedforward) signals for a controller, but also supervisory control information.
.au NT
As the control system is likely to be computer-based, instrumentation will be electronic. All output from panel-
mounted instruments, controllers, recorders and alarms will be either displayed or else available for display in
om FO
the control room.
/
Recorders are installed on the flows of the vapour stream (Stream 21) into the absorber (ABS-1), and for the
temperatures of each process-side outlet of the heat exchangers (Streams 24, 29 and 32). In addition to this it is
1.c D
likely that all of the controller variables will have the option of being stored for a period of time.
iv E
The benefits of recording information are in verification of performance (possibly for use in case of threatened
.d D
legal action), for optimisation or troubleshooting, and for diagnosis after a plant upset or accident.
ch ED
The alarms warn the operators of failures and trips, to allow them to take appropriate action – which means they
must be well-trained beforehand. A ‘motor stop alarm’ warns the operators that a pump motor is no longer
operating. Obviously all alarms would be recorded.
ar B
The trip may have been activated by either the high pressure alarm or low pressure alarm that is installed
se M
i m med iat el y a ft er each pump. This would send a signal to a relay or ‘actuator’ to stop the pump motor
(marked “M” on the P&ID). The high pressure alarm would be activated by a blockage in the line downstream
re E
of the pump (including closure of an isolation valve). Low pressure alarms will shut down the pump in the event
of gas entering the line, i.e. ‘vapour lock’, which could damage the pump 19.
:// T
Alarms would be programmed to go off if the process-side temperatures of the streams exiting the shell-and-tube
tp U
heat exchangers deviated outside of a set range. If the temperature were too high, then that would imply that the
recirculated cooling water (RCW) had too high a temperature or too low a flow. If the temperature were too
ht HO
low, then the cooling water may have too great a flowrate, or the process stream too low a flowrate. The
problem of a high temperature is that it increases the vapour pressure of formaldehyde, leading to decreased
effectiveness of absorption. The problem with low temperature is that paraformaldehyde may form on the cold
m IT
surfaces.
There is one more alarm, which is installed on the safety-valve discharge line. This line would normally be close
fro W
to atmospheric pressure, and therefore any pressures significantly above this are likely to be due to safety valve
actuation, for whatever reason.
n n
io io
8·2·2 Process control scheme

rs rs
8·2·2·1 Control systems installed

ve ve
In the shell-and-tube heat exchangers one fluid is a process fluid, while the other is a utility (RCW). However
the flowrate of b o t h streams may be manipulated variables, as the process fluid is simply being recycled around
a packed bed. The temperature at the bottom of each bed is largely influenced by the temperature of the
ll N
recirculant that enters the top of that bed (the recirculant flow being far greater than the flow from the bed
fu IO
above).
Thus the temperature at the bottom of the bed may be adjusted by manipulating the flow of process fluid through
the exchanger. In response to this the utility flowrate will need to be adjusted, and this is done by controlling the
ad T
exit temperature of the RCW.

lo LU
In each case the control cascaded onto a flow controller, which will provide more stable control [10], [13].
At the bottom of the absorber column (ABS-1) the liquid level is also controlled. The liquid level measurement
wn SO
will be provided by a ‘ball-and-stick’ arrangement, which will float on the surface of the liquid (it will be of type
316SS, of course). This is a cheap option, which has the benefit of not being subject to clogging by paraformal-
Do E
dehyde deposits20, such as may occur with pressure gauges used to determine head of liquid. The manipulated
flow is that of the p r o d uc t , Stream 25, rather than the Stage 1 recirculant (which just goes ‘round and ‘round).
-R
The level at the base of the column also implies the liquid temperature at the top of the bed, because that affects
how much of the volatile components are condensed or vaporised.
W
LO
19 Aside from being symptomatic of other problems, especially a low (or non-existent) liquid level.
20 Although occasional recalibration may be necessitated due to altered buoyancy of the float.
16:17 page 8-5

11/10/99
The flow of fresh demineralised water to the top of the column is assumed to be able to varied (using valve
CV807C) by simple ratio 21 with the flow of inlet gas, which is measured.
S.
At the top of the column the main off-gas line (Stream 37) is manipulated by b u tt er fl y v al ve (CV811C) to
.au NT
keep the pressure drop across the column to its design value. Following this is a control valve (CV812C)
manipulated by a flow ratio controller to keep the recycled gas to a set proportion.
om FO
For the serpentine coolers, the cooling duty is split into three sections (HX-11A, HX-11B and HX-11C), which
/
each cool three trays. Each section consists of seven bubble-cap trays and three temperature probes22. A
temperature selector then chooses the h i g he st [10] of these to be controlled. The RCW flow is manipulated.
1.c D
Some computerised ‘interlocks’ can be built into the control system (either computer-based or with programma-
iv E
ble logic controllers –PLC’s). For example, if the feed flow drops below a preset value, then both the off-gas
.d D
purge (Stream 39) and the product off-take (Stream 25) could be shut off [16].
ch ED
8·2·2·2 Control valve failure
There will be two electrical lines, one above ground and the other below, to avoid the risk of a loss of power to
ar B
the control systems. A back-up generator will also be located on the site. However there may still be a
se M
controller failure. In that event the following modes of control failure are selected:
 CV807C on the demineralised water feed line (Stream 33) will fail open, as it is better to have a slightly
re E
dilute product than a dry (and excessively hot) column.
 CV811C on the main off-gas line (Stream 37) will fail open to avoid overpressurising the absorber.
:// T
 CV812C on the tail gas line (Stream 39) will also fail open, to purge contents safely to the burner (RXN-3),
tp U
for subsequent release at high level.
ht HO
 CV801C, CV802C and CV803C on the serpentine cooling coils (Stream 129) will fail open to keep the
column cool (and hence wetted).
 CV804C, CV806C and CV809C on the recirculant lines (Streams 24, 29 and 32) will fail open to allow
m IT
cooling.
 CV808C, CV810C and CV813C on the RCW lines (Streams 122, 124 and 126) will hold their position on
fro W
failure. If they failed closed cooling of the column would cease, but if they failed open, then paraformalde-
hyde deposition may cause other damage to the plant.
 CV805 on the product line (Stream 25) will hold position on failure. If it failed open then the column may
n n
drain, or material that is out of specification may be sent to the tank farm. However, if the valve failed
io io
closed then the column may flood.

rs rs
8·3 References
ve ve

ll N
fu IO
3. David J. BRENNAN; CHE3109 Lecture Materials; Monash University; Melbourne; 1998.

ad T
lo LU
wn SO
New York; 1994.

6. Thomas J. GEYER; “Method 301 Validation of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy for
measuring Formaldehyde and Carbonyl Sulfide;” in: –; Proceedings of the 1996 Air & Waste Manage-
Do E
ment Association’s 89th Annual Meeting & Exhibition; [AWMA?]; [Nashville]; [June 1996].
-R
7. Thomas J. GEYER; “Performance Specification and Evaluation of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Continuous Emissions Monitors [CEM’s] for measuring Hazardous Air Pollutants [HAP’s];” in: –; Pro-
W
LO
21 The amount needed would clearly depend also on the water content of the gas stream. However, to account for this a
mass-balance approach may need to be taken by the control system, or else a composition analyser installed.
22 They are not too expensive.
page 8-6 16:17

11/10/99
ceedings of the 1996 Air & Waste Management Association’s 89th Annual Meeting & Exhibition;
[AWMA?]; [Nashville]; [June 1996].
S.
.au NT
9. Ernest HOLMES; Handbook of Industrial Pipework Engineering; McGraw-Hill; London; 1973.
10. Mathew JEFFREY; Private communication; August 1999.
om FO
11. Shigeo KIMURA and Kouichi KURATA (both Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co.); “Process for Recovering
Waste Heat from Formaldehyde Product Gas;” in: US Patent 4691060; 01 September, 1987. *
/
12. D. R. LAWSON, H. W. BIERMANN, E. C. TUAZON, A. M. WINER, G. I. MACKAY, H. I. SCHIFF, G. L. KOK,
1.c D
P. K. DASGUPTA and K. FUNG; “Formaldehyde measurement methods evaluation and ambient concentra-
tions during the Carbonaceous Species Methods Comparison Study;” in: –; Aerosol Science & Tech-
iv E
nology; Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 64–76; –; –; January 1990.
.d D
13. Thomas E. Marlin; Process Control: Designing Processes and Control Systems for Dynamic Perfor-
ch ED
mance, International edition; McGraw-Hill; New York; 1995.
ar B
se M
16. Dale E. SEBORG, Thomas F. EDGAR and Duncan A. MELLICHAMP; Process Dynamics and Control; John
re E
Wiley & Sons; New York; 1989.
:// T
18. Trevor J. SWEENY; “Technical Safety;” in: John R. G. ANDREWS (Co-ord.); CHE4115 Lecture
tp U
Materials; Monash University; Melbourne; 1998.
ht HO
20. T. C. WHERRY, Jerry R. PEEBLES, Patrick M. MCNEESE, Philip O. TETER Jr., Richard E. WORSHAM and
m IT
Roy M. YOUNG; “Process Control;’ in: Robert Howard PERRY and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
* Thanks to Mr. Phonse Everard for this reference.
16:17 page 8-7

11/10/99
Formaldehyde
9 HAZARD AND OPERABILITY STUDY FOR VAPORISER
S.
9·1 Introduction
.au NT
A hazard and operability (HAZOP) study is a procedure for the systematic, critical examination of the operability
of a process [2], in order to identify hazards and problems which prevent safe and efficient operation. In this
om FO
chapter the technique will be applied to a process design, although it may equally well be applied to an existing
/
plant.
Naturally some thought was given to risk minimisation during the preliminary design of the plant, and while
1.c D
drawing up the piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID – see Chapter 8). However there are bound to be
iv E
some details that are overlooked without the attention of a fo r mal study1.
.d D
The HAZOP study is traditionally performed by a tea m of people, with each of its members having expertise in
ch ED
different areas relevant to the section of plant under examination [3]. Analysis proceeds on a line-by-line and
item-by-item basis. (or on a step-by-step basis for batch plants2). For each equipment item and for each line the
following five headings are filled:
ar B
 G uid e wo r d – this includes the seven guide words3 recommended by the Chemical Industries Association
se M
(CIA) [2]: No/Not; More (of); Less (of); As well as; Part of; Reverse; and Other than 4. Another set of
words that may be used as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, these guide words are the ‘critical exam-
re E
ination questions’ [3]: What (else); Where (else); When (else); How (else); and Who (else).
 De vi at io n – this is the quantity or element that the guide word refers to. Examples include: Level;
:// T
Temperature; Pressure; Flow; and Formaldehyde.
tp U
 P o ss ib l e ca u se s – this heading identifies the cause of any departure, in the sense of the guide word, of
the quantity or element given as the deviation. For example, Less (of) + Level  Leakage. The purpose of
ht HO
this heading is to test whether the deviation can be shown to have a r ea li st ic cause.
 Co n seq ue n ce s – the consequences are the results that follow from a me a n i n g ful deviation. This should
include an indication of how the operators will find out about the deviation. If none of the consequences are
m IT
hazardous, then no action need be taken.

 Act io n r eq uir ed – this includes any remedy to the situation that is judged to be merited by the risk that
fro W
would exist if the action were no t taken.

n n
One thing that should be stressed is that a HAZOP study does not magically ‘make a plant safe’. Apart from the
io io
obvious potential for the study itself to be flawed, even if conducted rigorously, there remain some hazards that
the HazOp study cannot pick up. For example, it may be common practice for the operators to engage in a
rs rs
customary game of poker on the first Sunday night of each month. The diversion of their attention constitutes a
hazard, but could not be identified by a HAZOP study. Another example would be the absence of a sanctioned
ve ve
‘emergency response plan’ (ERP).

Other technical safety procedures must therefore be implemented alongside the HAZOP study, such as hazards
ll N
analysis (HAZAN) studies and institutionalised hazard management (HAZMAN) methods [3].
fu IO
The following section looks at the application of a HAZOP study, as described above, to the P&ID for the
vaporiser circuit.
ad T
lo LU
9·2 Results of the HAZOP Study

A record of the HAZOP study meeting is given in the Appendix5.
wn SO
In summary of the meeting, eight process streams, two utility streams and four equipment items were examined.
Do E
These are shown in the p r e -HAZOP-study P&ID that is given in the Drawing Annex preceding the Appendix.
The p o st -HAZOP-study P&ID is also given.
-R
W
1 For example it is claimed in Ref. [3] that HAZOP studies on the P&ID (in 9 9 me e t i n g s , over 6 mo n t h s ) for the
3 8 t h olefines plant (costing $ 5 0 0 × 1 0 6 ) designed and built by a certain contractor identified 1 3 5 0 p r o b l e m s .
LO
2 This approach would also be relevant to plant start-up and shut-down procedures. However sanity constraints preclude
their investigation for this report.
3 Or, more correctly, phrases.
4 When referring to t i m e , the guide words Sooner than and Later than may be used.
5 Due to the vagaries of the ‘publisher’.
16:16 page 9-1

11/10/99
Chapter 9: Hazard and Operability Study for Vaporiser Formaldehyde
As a result of the study, close to 100 plausible deviations 6 were identified, with around 100 actions recommend-
S.
ed. The reader should not interpret this as meaning that each deviation usually requires only a single action to
remedy it. The majority of the deviations had se v era l recommended actions to be taken. However, the several
.au NT
actions taken for one hazard often also served to remedy a potential problem in another line or item.
In some cases this was deliberate, as a sensible economic measure. For example, having judged that there was
om FO
unlikely to be any significant overpressure in the mains water line (Stream 3), it was necessary only to install a
/
high pressure alarm on o ne o f either Stream 6 xor Stream 7, which are in series. (Also, Stream 7 is physically
quite short.)
1.c D
Most of the actions related to the installation of high and low alarms, with associated trips where necessary. An
iv E
interlock was also recommended for the pair of pumps. Other actions to be taken included the installation of
.d D
additional instrumentation, particularly panel-mounted instrumentation7, and recommendations for the mechani-
ch ED
cal design of the sections, such as installing a vent, insulating the steam and condensate lines (Stream 118 and
119), and ensuring that the materials of construction and thicknesses are adequate.
Maintenance and training were also relevant issues.
ar B
se M
9·3 References
re E
:// T
2.
tp U
R. K. SINNOTT; “Chemical Engineering Design,” 2nd edition; in: J. F. RICHARDSON and J. M.
ht HO
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
6 Deviations that did not appear to be meaningful or that did not have any hazardous consequences are n o t included in
the record of the study.
7 All of the instrumentation on the original P&ID appeared to be locally-mounted – or, at least, do distinction was made
between locally mounted and panel mounted instrumentation.
page 9-2 16:16

11/10/99
Formaldehyde
10 PARALLEL STREAMING
S.
10·1 Introduction
.au NT
This chapter covers the “special task” that has been allocated by the project supervisor. And tasks don’t get
much more special than this.
om FO
/
10·1·1 Scope of the task
1.c D
In this study of the advantages and disadvantages of parallel streaming are examined. Considerations include:
iv E
 Re li ab i li t y – How reliable is the one configuration relative to the other? Is this always true?
 Co st – Does one configuration cost more than the other? Is there a trade-off between capital and operating
.d D
costs?
ch ED
 Op era tio n s – Is one configuration generally easier to operate?
 Mai nt e na nc e – Does one of the configurations require more maintenance work?
ar B
The discussion will be mostly qualitative, but some quantitative examples and estimates are given where it is
se M
appropriate.
re E
10·1·2 Definition of parallel streaming
:// T
Parallel streaming refers to the processing of materials by the use of two small units, or equipment items, rather
tp U
than a single, larger unit. When only one stream is present, the configuration is referred to as single-stream.
Parallel streaming may also be referred to as multiple streaming.
ht HO
The schematic in Figure 10-1 illustrates the main conceptual difference between the two processes.
m IT
(a) (b)
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
Figure 10-1: Schematic showing (a) single streaming and (b) parallel streaming of a single process.
fu IO
With reference to the formaldehyde plant that has been designed, there is another possibility: so me of the units
operations in the plant may be parallel processes, while o t her unit operations may process in a single-stream
ad T
configuration.
An example of parallel streaming in our design (see the Process Flow Diagram in the Drawing Annex) is the
lo LU
catalytic reaction operation. The catalyst is split between two beds, RXN-1 and RXN-2. An example of single
streaming would be the P-1, the methanol feed pump, in the Process Flow Diagram. Although the Specification
Sheet (given in Chapter 6) indicates that there are two pumps installed, P-1A and P-1B, these do no t operate in
wn SO
tandem. One pump is a stand-by for the other.

Another case of t wo items in a si n g le stream process would be two heat exchangers in ser ie s, such as HX-5
Do E
and HX-10 (with respect to the aqueous methanol stream). This may be seen as two single-stream items forming
one single-stream operation.
-R
W
LO
16:18 page 10-1

11/10/99
Chapter 10: Parallel Streaming Formaldehyde
10·2 Considerations
S.
10·2·1 Cost
.au NT
Essentially all of the considerations boil down to some sort of cost. In this section operating and capital costs are
om FO
examined. However the implication is that the later sections on maintenance and so on all infringe on the cost
aspect.
/
10·2·1·1 Capital cost
1.c D
10·2·1·1·1 Derivation
iv E
An estimate of the capital cost of an item may often be obtained from its dimensions. In Figure 10-1 a schematic
.d D
was given. The pedantic reader will have observed that the vo l u me s of the two smaller cubes are equal to that
ch ED
of the single, larger cube. This means that the ratio of side lengths is 1:2 1/3, or approximately 1:1.260 =
0.794:1 for (parallel stream):(single stream).
It is reasonable to assume that, for many units, it is the total vo l u me s of all the items that should be equal,
ar B
rather than, say, the sum of side lengths for each item. This assumption would be almost exactly correct for
se M
storage tanks. It would be approximately true for other items, such as the absorber and the steam turbine. (The
volume would refer to the p r o ces s volume, rather than the volume of materials making up the item.)
re E
For an initial estimate, we may suppose that, for the storage tanks, the cost is essentially proportional to the total
:// T
external surface area. Although the roof may need a vent and the walls may need branches and the underside
tp U
will need a foundation (and so on), it is assumed that the relative increasing effect that this has on the cost of
each will be similar. For the two configurations of cubes 1 given above, the ratio of surface areas for the (two)
ht HO
parallel stream and the single stream processes will be 2(6 × 1 2):(6 × (21/3)2) = 2:22/3 = 1:2–1/3 = 1:0.794 =
1.260:1.
This implies that the cost of a doubling in capacity would be 26% more if a unit was replicated instead of
m IT
procuring a single, larger unit. Of course, this would not apply to existing operations, where the value of the
existing unit must be taken into account.
fro W
Of course, the above estimate contains a number of simplifications. For one, the thickness of material required
will decrease for a smaller unit. Thicknesses of spheres and cylinders, for a given internal pressure (moderately
n n
above atmospheric) may be taken as proportional to the diameter. For a sphere the ratio of diameters for (two)
io io
parallel stream units and a single stream unit is also 1:1.260, with the ratio of surface areas being 1.260:1, as
rs rs
before. The ratio of thicknesses will be 1:1.260, and therefore we calculate that the costs would be identical.
However this does not take fabrication of the item, such as welding into account. Welding is likely to remain
ve ve
more or less proportional to the surface area, despite the decrease in diameter. Costs of installation, insulation,
painting et cetera will also all depend more on the surface area than the thickness. Instrumentation 2 and piping
ll N
are more likely to depend on the n u mb er of items.

fu IO
Thus it still seems reasonable to assume that there will be a saving associated with putting in a single stream
process in preference to a parallel stream process of the same (total) capacity, which we may estimate to have
ad T
roughly a 25% greater capital cost.

lo LU
10·2·1·1·2 Empirical data

Fun though it is to attempt a derivation of the relative costs of the two configurations, the complexities high-
wn SO
lighted in the last paragraph mean that surety in the result could never be attained, because each complexity
forces the adaptation of new assumptions.
The best way3 of getting around this problem is to use empirical correlations, in which all of the various
Do E
complexities have been embedded (and then smoothed by curve-fitting).

-R
W
1 The same analysis could be applied to cylinders, spheres or another more physically relevant shape. Cubes are only
LO
considered here for their simplicity.

2 Assuming that, for example, a liquid level controller could control level in either one large tank, or one of the two
smaller tanks.
3 With the exception of obtaining actual quotes from a number of vendors! (This would be more specific to the
equipment item specified.)
page 10-2 16:18

11/10/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 10: Parallel Streaming
The most popular correlation to use has the form I = ki.Qb [1]. It indicates an exponential relationship between
the capacity, Q, and I, the fixed capital investment. The constant ki may be replaced, if desired, by expressing
S.
the function I/IREF = (Q/QREF)b, where the subscript “REF” stands for a reference condition.
.au NT
The usefulness of the formula is realised through the values of the exponent, b. For plants which are, “nominally
parallel stream,” b = 0.8 to 0.9, but for single stream plants b = 0.5 to 0.6 [1]. (Plants that are mixed parallel and
single stream have intermediate values of b.4)
om FO
Thus, we may now consider the case of a doubling in QREF. The capital investment for the parallel stream
/
process will increase by around 20.85, while for the single stream configuration I would only increase by 20.55.
This gives a ratio of 20.30:1 = 1.231:1.
1.c D
Happily, this predicts that the parallel stream process would be 23% more expensive, which is remarkably
similar to the value of 25% found in the previous section. Taking the bounds of the ranges suggested above, the
iv E
increase may typically range from 15% to 32%.
.d D
ch ED
While the above equations are very neat, the reader should be cautious in generalising the above results to their
own circumstances: it is usually difficult to obtain detailed data to confirm the validity of the relationships given
[1].
ar B
se M
10·2·1·2 Operating cost
Ref. [3] gives a breakdown in typical formaldehyde plant costs, which are claimed to have come from GUTHRIE
re E
(1974), via KHARBANDA (1979)5. Ma n u f ac t uri n g costs are said to be composed of: 59% raw materials costs;
23% depreciation; and 18% utilities and labour.6 These figures are supported by Ref. [5], which states that “the
:// T
cost of methanol represents over 60% of formaldehyde’s production costs.” (The other main raw materials are
tp U
air, which is ‘free’, and silver catalyst, which is expensive but is ‘consumed’ very slowly.)
ht HO
10·2·1·2·1 Raw materials
Raw materials may be thought to be id e nt ica ll y proportional to the capacity of the plant. The capacity of the
m IT
plant should be proportional to the (combined) size or volume of the equipment items.
This assumes the same levels of efficiency in, for example, a catalyst bed of larger diameter. This ma y be
fro W
difficult to achieve exactly, due to increased maldistribution problems as the bed diameter increases.
As a first estimate, the raw materials will be taken as directly proportional to the plant capacity, and therefore
n n
unaffected by the configuration of the plant, in terms of parallel or single streaming (a 1:1 ratio)
io io
10·2·1·2·2 Depreciation
rs rs
Depreciation depends on the capital cost of the plant, and thus is expected to vary in the manner described in
ve ve
section 10·2·1·1 (supported by Ref. [1]).

ll N
10·2·1·2·3 Labour costs

fu IO
To take a simplified view of things, if it takes one person to sit and stare at one big pressure indicator, it would
probably take two people to sit and stare at two smaller pressure indicators. That is, more people are required, in
ad T
general to run a parallel stream process.

lo LU
Of course, the above example applies more directly to process labour (operators). Other forms of labour may be
almost proportional to the number of operators, such as maintenance labour. These generally constitute the
majority of the labour force in the plant [1].
wn SO
For technical, professional, supervisory, administrative and engineering staff there are large economies of scale
are available in both configurations – that is, a doubling in capacity will result in much less than a doubling in
Do E
the number of those classes of employee.

-R
Again the relationship of costs to capacity may be represented as exponential: M = km.Qa, where M is the to ta l
n u mb e r of plant employees and Q is the capacity, as before. Of course, for simplicity we assume that the M
W
LO
4 These may be estimated by taking a w e i gh t e d average of the exponents for purely single-stream and purely parallel
stream processing, with the weighting determined by the proportion of capital associated with each configuration [1].
5 Ref. [7], which gives identical values (at least for formaldehyde), gives its source as 1 9 6 5 , U.S. conditions. Also,
capital related charges were taken as 33% of capital investment.
6 For c a p t i ve production. Otherwise 67%, 18% and 15% respectively [7].
16:18 page 10-3

11/10/99
may equally be interpreted as labour co s t s. Expressing this with respect to a reference condition permits
elimination of the proportionality factor, km: M/MREF = (Q/QREF)a.
S.
The exponent, a, is said to be approximately 0.3 to 0.4 for single stream plants, and 0.6 to 0.7 for parallel stream
plants.
.au NT
Thus, a doubling in capacity would, on average, give labour costs for parallel streaming versus single streaming
of 20.65:20.35 = 20.30:1 = 1.231:1. That is, total labour costs for parallel stream plants 7 would be 23% greater
than for a single stream plant.
om FO
/
Although the exponents for labour were lower, overall, than for capital cost, the ratios have turned out to be the
same, because the difference between exponents for the two configurations was the same for both costs.
1.c D
10·2·1·2·4 Overall operating cost
iv E
.d D
The above discussion may be summarised in tabular form:
ch ED
Co st P r o p o r tio n o f to t al P arall el s trea m p l a nt Si n g le st rea m p la n t
Raw materials 60% 1 1
ar B
Depreciation 22% 1.23 1
Utilities8 and labour 18% 1.23 1
se M
T o tal 100% 1.09 1
re E
Table 10-1: Relative operating costs for the two configurations (arbitrary units).
:// T
This shows that, due to the dominant effect of the raw materials, the total ma n u fac t ur in g cost is only about
9% greater for a parallel stream relative to a single stream plant.
tp U
ht HO
Strictly speaking, the ma n u fa ct ur i n g co st data estimated above only constitutes o ne p ar t of the to t al
o p erat i n g co st . Non-manufacturing costs include “the costs of distribution, selling, research and develop-
ment, and that share of the cost of running a company which can be allocated to the product or business in
m IT
question.” [1]
For simplicity these costs were neglected here. In all probability they will be lower than the average, as this
fro W
plant sells to a captive market using an established technology. Furthermore, the technology has no t been
developed in-house.
The non-manufacturing costs are not expected to be significantly different for the two configurations.
n n
io io
10·2·1·3 Investment strategy

rs rs
Wiley entrepreneurs may wish to consider the benefits of a staggered investment, such as may only be obtained
through a parallel stream configuration. This strategy involves the initial purchase and commissioning of a
ve ve
process that has a significantly lower capacity than the full design capacity that is projected for the plant. The
advantage of this investment is that by the time the second (or subsequent) stage of the project is purchased and
ll N
commissioned, interest will have been accrued on the capital that would otherwise have been spent, and some
income will also have been derived from the existing (smaller scale) operation.
fu IO
This has the effect of reducing the peak level of indebtedness, which may be important if the availability of start-
up capital is problematic.
ad T
lo LU
Such a strategy depends heavily on the prevailing economic circumstances for its success. Of particular
importance are the rates of interest and inflation and taxation. These lead to the ‘discount rate’ (see Ref. [1]).
wn SO
Table 10-2 gives an example of discounted cash flows for a ten year period for two different discount rates and
for the two different investment options.
Do E
-R
W
LO
7 All of the parallel stream plant calculations here assume that there are t wo streams, unless otherwise stated.
8 Utilities for the formaldehyde process are assumed to be zero. The steam generated is used for heating and driving the
blower, with any surplus sold to a neighbouring plant (probably the resins plant). For the purposes of this analysis we
will assume that the steam sales exactly balance the recirculated cooling water costs (the only other major utility ex-
pense), so that n e t t utility costs are zero.
page 10-4 16:18

11/10/99
Di sco u n t r a te = 5 % . y – 1 Di sco u n t ra te = 1 5 % . y – 1
Year Si n g le - str ea m Sta g g ered Si n g le - str ea m Sta g g ered
S.
CF CD C F CF CD C F CF CD C F CF CD C F
0 –100 –100 –56 –56 –100 –100 –56 –56
.au NT
1 +30 –71.4 +14 –42.7 +30 –73.9 +14 –43.8
2 +30 –44.2 +14 –30.0 +30 –51.2 +14 –33.2
om FO
3 +30 –18.3 +14 –17.9 +30 –31.5 +14 –24.0
4 +30 +6.4 +14–56 –52.4 +30 –14.4 +14–56 –48.0
/
5 +30 +29.9 +28 –30.5 +30 +0.6 +28 –34.1
6 +30 +52.3 +28 –9.6 +30 +13.5 +28 –22.0
1.c D
7 +30 +73.6 +28 +10.3 +30 +24.8 +28 –11.5
iv E
8 +30 +93.9 +28 +29.3 +30 +34.6 +28 –2.3
.d D
9 +30 +1 1 3 .2 +28 +4 7 .3 +30 +4 3 .1 +28 +5 .6
ch ED
Table 10-2: The effect of discount rate on the two investment strategies. CF = cash flow and CDCF =
cu mu la t iv e, di sco u nt e d cash flow (both a fter tax).
ar B
This may be graphed as in Figure 10-2.
se M
150
re E
Single, 5%/y
:// T
Staggered, 5%/y
Cumulative, discounted cash flow
tp U 100
Single, 15%/y
Staggered, 15%/y
ht HO
50
m IT
0
fro W
-50
n n
io io
-100
rs rs
0 2 4 Year 6 8 10
ve ve
Figure 10-2: The effect of discount rate on the two investment strategies.
ll N
This graph shows the single stream option to be preferable in terms of ‘net present value’ (NPV) 9. It also retains
a positive NPV for greater values of the discount rate 10.
fu IO
As noted, the advantages of the staggered investment lie in:

 its fl e xib il it y
ad T
 its lower peak debt.

lo LU
The above strategy may be regarded as the expansion of an existing plant. From Ref. [1] we observe that
expansion in parallel has the benefit of allowing a closer match between plant capacity and market demand. This
wn SO
reveals another advantage: a staggered investment strategy may be more easily adjusted to cope with deviations
of reality from the projections that the project was based on.
For example, five years after the initial investment, the company may have planned to put in a second, identical
Do E
line in parallel. However if they see that the demand has increased much more than they had anticipated, then
-R
the capacity of the second line could be increased, or else a third line put in along with the two initially planned.
Obviously this is subject to the availability of additional capital and room for expansion.
W
On the other hand, if the market ‘crashed’, then work on the proposed second line could be postponed indefinite-
ly.
LO
9 The cumulative, discounted value predicted for the end of the project.
10 The discount rate for which the NPV goes to zero is termed the ‘discounted cash flow rate-of-return’ (DCFR), or the
‘internal rate-of-return’ (IRR) [1].
16:18 page 10-5

11/10/99
10·2·2 Reliability and risk
S.
The issue of reliability is somewhat confusing: there is a higher probability of something breaking down, but
consequences of any one breakdown will be, on average, less severe. For example, if the probability of a large
.au NT
level controller failing is the same as for a small level controller, then the probability of one of two smaller level
controllers failing would be double that for the single larger controller. Of course, there is also a possibility
(hopefully slim) that the second smaller controller would also fail.
om FO
/
Given that risk is equal to the product of likelihood and severity [10], the two risks approximately balance each
other. The risk may be expressed numerically, with probability, severity and risk ranging from 0 (low) to 1
1.c D
(high).
iv E
Ca se P r o b ab il it y Se ver it y Ri s k
.d D
Failure of one small item 0.10×0.90 = 0.090 0.50 0.045
ch ED
Failure of other small item 0.10×0.90 = 0.090 0.50 0.045
Failure of both small items 0.10×0.10 = 0.010 1.0 0.010
T o tal 0.19 (0.526...) 0 .1 0
ar B
Failure of one large item 0.10 1.0 0 .1 0
se M
Table 10-3: Risk of failure in parallel and single stream processes. (Arbitrary data.)
re E
The table shows that the risks associated with the two configurations are id e n tic al .
:// T
Other considerations may be made. For example, if one of the smaller units fails, then it is likely that more
tp U
attention would be paid to the other smaller unit that was still functioning, thereby reducing the likelihood of a
combined failure11. Also, there probably is a higher likelihood of a larger item failing.
ht HO
These considerations indicate that while the ‘reliability’ of parallel stream plants is probably less, the risks are
probably also reduced.
m IT
10·2·3 Maintenance
fro W
In terms of maintenance, the malfunctioning of a small level controller (to use the example of the previous
n n
section) will no t be half as inconveniencing as the malfunctioning of a larger level controller. It is unlikely to
take as much as t wi c e as long to unscrew the casing, for example.
io io
rs rs
To the author’s knowledge there is no universally accepted way to represent the level of maintenance required.
We will measure it by the number of ‘manhours’ per week spent doing maintenance work 12. Analysing the
ve ve
situation as in the previous section, Table 10-4 is obtained.

ll N
Ca se Fai l ur e s / we e k Ma n ho ur s/ fai l ure Ma n ho ur s/ wee k

fu IO
Failure of one small item 0.10×0.90 = 0.090 0.7 0.063

Failure of other small item 0.10×0.90 = 0.090 0.7 0.063
Failure of both small items 0.10×0.10 = 0.010 1.2 13 0.012
ad T
T o tal 0.19 (0.726...) 0 .1 4

lo LU
Failure of one large item 0.10 1.0 0 .1 0

Table 10-4: Maintenance required for parallel and single stream processes. (Arbitrary data.)
wn SO
Thus the maintenance required for a parallel plant will be greater than for a single-stream plant.
Do E
-R
W
11 It is assumed that the two events (failure of each small item) are i n d e p e n d e n t of each other. If the plant power supply
LO
failed, then obviously a l l electrical items would fail at once. This is because the power supply would not be a truly
parallel system – although parallel wiring is possible.
12 An alternative may be the i r a t e n e s s of the workers!
13 If both fail then we may assume that the maintenance worker will have improved their technique by the time they work
on the second item.
page 10-6 16:18

11/10/99
10·2·4 Operation
S.
The operability of a plant is a key concern. With parallel catalytic reactors in the plant (RXN-1 and RXN-2 –
see the Process Flow Diagram contained in the Drawing Annex), there is the opportunity to regenerate the
.au NT
catalyst in one bed while the other is still producing product. Staggering the regeneration dates in this way
would permit the smoothing out of product quality curves, being an average of products from recently regenerat-
ed catalyst and older catalyst.
om FO
/
Ref. [2] discusses pluralities of catalytic reactors for silver catalyst processes (i.e. ‘desirably’ wi t h stabilising
o ff - g as rec yc l e ). Therein is stated that, although the temperatures of reactors within a group may initially be
1.c D
within 10 to 15°C of each other, the temperatures often eventually diverge to 30 to 80°C difference. This is
attributed to the nature of the catalyst materials, the catalyst ages, distribution of the silver in the bed, and even
iv E
pressure drops through different piping. Parallel streams are said to comprise from 2 to 10 units.
.d D
That reference states that “A plant with several reactors arranged in parallel and in particular the t wi n reactors
ch ED
[sic!] represents a preferred embodiment of the process of the invention.” Furthermore, “An additional preferred
variation of this embodiment is represented by al ter n at i n g employment of the process of the invention in the
branch lines of a t wi n reactor [...].”14 This refers primarily to operation of one catalytic reactor while the other
ar B
bed is being regenerated: “the catalysts are normally regenerated at different intervals.”
The invention is said to also be relevant to single reactors as well as larger groups of reactors in parallel.
se M
The main reason for including two reactors in this case is the requirement to handle a turndown to 60% of design
re E
capacity. With only a single stream, the only way of achieving this would be to reduce the space velocity
:// T
through the catalyst bed, and hence the contact time. We have seen (Chapter 3) that the contact time is a pivotal
parameter controlling the reaction mechanism (along with the temperature). Therefore the preliminary assess-
tp U
ment was made that the increased ‘efficiency’ at 60% capacity would offset the increased capital and operating
ht HO
costs (see sections 10·2·1·1 and 10·2·1·2, pages 10-2ff.). Obviously that assumption could be studied in more
detail.
Suppose the deterioration in efficiency caused a decrease from the overall yield of 90% at design space velocity
m IT
to only 80% at the turndown rate for a single stream plant. For the parallel stream there would be no decrease.
From this basis Table 10-5 may be constructed (no intermediate turndowns are considered).
fro W
C har act eri s tic T ur nd o wn r eq u ir ed 1 0 % o f ti me T urnd o wn req u ired 3 0 % o f ti me

Si n g le st r ea m P arall el s trea m Si n g le st rea m P arall el s trea m
n n
Normal yield [%] 90 90 90 90

io io
Turndown yield [%] 80 90 80 90

rs rs
Av er a g e 89 90 87 90
ve ve
Table 10-5: Variation of average yield with configuration and relative duration of turndown condition.
Thus, on these (somewhat arbitrary) figures the compromise is between a few percentage points of yield and an
ll N
increased capital cost of around 23%, as well as an increased operating cost of around 9%. Ho we v er there is
an i mp o r ta n t d i s ti nc tio n to be made: the increase in yield for parallel streaming applies to the wh o l e
fu IO
p la nt, while the increased capital and operating costs apply o nl y to t he r eac to r( s) .
ad T
Other concerns may not be so easily quantified. For example, if the resins plant wishes to operate at 60%
lo LU
capacity then they will not be too happy if their supplier is only able to produce at full capacity or not at all 15.
Given that we (think that we) have a captive market, this is not an insurmountable problem. However if we were
attempting to sell in a more competitive market, then customer demands for turndown would be compelling.
wn SO
Ignoring the customers’ wishes could result in the loss of future orders.
The same argument holds for the ability of the dual reactor system to maintain some production while one of the
beds is being regenerated.
Do E
-R
An important constraint that must always be considered in determining the configuration of unit operations is the
maximum (economical) size that the equipment available in. For example, there is no point looking for a
W
LO
14 Emphasis added.
15 The start-up and shut-down penalties here prohibit running at full capacity for three days, and then shutting down for
two days, to average 60% production rates (remembering that the storage tanks have a three day capacity at full flow).
16:18 page 10-7

11/10/99
company to supply a single pump to handle a flowrate of 4×104m3.h–1 16 – clearly a number of pumps in parallel
would be needed to handle this requirement [4].
S.
Similarly, there may be legislation or guidelines that prohibit items above a certain size.
In the case of the catalytic reactor considered here there is no such constraint: diameters from 500mm to
.au NT
4000mm are considered to be feasible [6].
10·3 Recommendations
om FO
/
Where it is possible to avoid parallel streaming, one should do so. However some circumstances make multiple
streaming the only feasible option. Such circumstances include:
1.c D
 Limited availability of investment capital, leading to a constraint on the peak indebtedness allowed
iv E
 Uncertainty over the future market demand
.d D
 Highly hazardous processes, where the small reductions in risk become justified
 The (anticipated) need to cope with high turndowns
ch ED
 The desirability of maintaining at least some product output
 Limits on the sizes of equipment.
ar B
Even in such cases the n u mb er of parallel streams should be kept as low as practical.
se M
10·4 References
re E
1. David J. Brennan; Process Industry Economics: An International Perspective; Institution of Chemical
:// T
Engineers; Rugby; 1998.
tp U
2. Hans DIEM, Guenther MATTHIAS, Albrecht AICHER, Hans HAAS, Hans SCHREIBER and Heinrich SPERBER
(all BASF AG); “Production of Formaldehyde;” in: US Patent 3928461; 23 December, 1975. Note:
ht HO
Original patent lodged in Germany (2231248).
3. Donald E. GARRETT; Chemical Engineering Economics; Van Nostrand Reinhold; New York; 1989.
m IT
fro W
New York; 1994.
n n
io io
rs rs

7. O. P. KHARBANDA; Process Plant & Equipment Cost Estimation; Sevak Publications; Bombay; 1977.
ve ve
ll N

fu IO

ad T

lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
16 It is left to the reader to wonder why anyone would want or need such a unit operation.
page 10-8 16:18

11/10/99
Formaldehyde
11 PLANT LAYOUT1
S.
Chapter 11 covers development of the plant layout. A description of the philosophy is given, and two general
.au NT
arrangement drawings of the si te – in plan view and elevation – are provided in the Drawing Annex (Drawing
Numbers 1101 and 1102).
om FO
11·1 Procedure
/
11·1·1 Starting point
1.c D
iv E
There is insufficient information available about the site in Bontang, Indonesia, 2 and so an exploration of the
criteria relevant to site selection would be inappropriate here. From the problem statement (Chapter 2), it is
.d D
known that the site is flat, and within the bounds of a chemical processing complex 3, which includes a formalde-
ch ED
hyde resins plant. It is assumed that land area is not a dominant constraint.
Another unknown factor is the local planning permit system: government approval would have to be sought for
the plant, which may be a source of unexpected constraints. Thus this design can only be preliminary.
ar B
se M
There is also a lack of detailed information as to exactly which facilities would be provided by existing sources
in the complex, and which would have to be built specifically for the new formaldehyde plant. Clearly an
re E
outside-battery-limits boiler house would no t be required, as steam is already generated from the waste heat
boilers (HX-3 and HX-4) following the catalytic reactors (RXN-1 and RXN-2) and the off-gas burner (HX-9 and
:// T
RXN-3)4. tp U
A cooling tower may be required, depending on the capacity of the existing unit(s). A possible site for a cooling
tower is indicated on the site layout (plan view). In the event that existing facilities have sufficient ‘spare’
ht HO
capacity, then that land will be re-allocated as “room for future expansion.” The same philosophy is applied to
all of the buildings, such as the religious centre 5.
Given that storage tanks are included on the specification sheets (Chapter 6), these must be shown.
m IT
A boiler feedwater treatment and demineralisation plant is n o t on-site, and neither is an electrical substation [6].
fro W
As the majority of the materials entering and exiting the plant travel via pipeline, there is no need for a truck or
tanker bay.
n n
11·1·2 Philosophy
io io
rs rs
Two common philosophies in the laying out of plant items are to design the items according to the sequence in
the process flow diagram, and to group similar items together. In this case a compromise procedure is followed.
ve ve
Due to the large number of recycles (or recirculations) within the process, it is difficult to define o ne ‘process
flow sequence’. Rather, some of the flow goes in one direction, and some in another. To this end the layout has
ll N
followed the ‘main’ flows, with any equipment for needed for the recycle stream located nearby.
fu IO
Another factor that has made the layout more difficult is the ‘integration’ of items. While there is only one
process-stream heat integration (HX-5, following the catalytic reactors and in the aqueous methanol recycle),
ad T
there is also steam sent from the waste heat boilers to the turbine (TRB-1) and the reactor feed heaters (HX-2
and HX-10).
lo LU
As noted, similar items were grouped together. This was done both on a large scale as well as on a small scale.
wn SO
Thus the storage area, methanol–formaldehyde processing plant and buildings for the employees were all
allocated separate areas from the beginning. This initial designation of areas is shown in Figure 11-1.
Do E
-R
1 Although this task was defined as being a being specifically a gr o u p activity, Miss Rachel WELDON developed her
W
o wn plant layout i n d i vi d u a l l y .
2 Probably because this is a hypothetical project!
LO
3 This much, at least, fits in with what is known about the site: an extensive petrochemical infrastructure exists there [1],
[4].
4 The reader should be familiar with the Process Flow Diagram (given in the Drawing Annex) by this stage.
5 Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country. Followers of this religion pray five times per day. The religious centre
will also have facilities for people of other religions.
13:18 page 11-1

17/10/99
Chapter 11: Plant Layout Formaldehyde
Methanol–formalde-
S.
hye processing plant
Storage area
.au NT
Area for employees
om FO
Figure 11-1: Preliminary site area designations.
/
Room for expansion was intended to be allocated within the methanol–formaldehyde processing plant, and
1.c D
wherever more detailed design indicated that room existed.
iv E
On the smaller scale, the 16 pumps (some stand-by) were grouped into three areas, the two catalytic reactors
.d D
were located side-by-side (literally parallel streams!) and the shell-and-tube heat exchangers were distributed
ch ED
into two groups.
Naturally, the turbine and blower were located in the one enclosure.
ar B
In terms of elevations, all items were specified at ground level where possible, due the lower initial cost and ease
se M
of maintenance and operation. The packed columns (ABS-1 and HX-1) had to be oriented vertically for gravity
flow, as was also the case with the heat exchangers operating on condensing steam (HX-2 and HX-10) and the
re E
steam drums (D-1 to D-3).
:// T
The plant is an outdoor facility, allowing substantial savings in construction costs, more accessible machinery
tp U
and reduced dangers of fire or explosion [6]. The blower is housed in an enclosure, however, and thought may
be given to an overhead shelter (for operator comfort) above the six pumps near the absorber, for example.
ht HO
These philosophies are illustrated by the drawings in the Drawing Annex. An attempt has been made to indicate
process and utility stream flows (namely steam). A detailed discussion follows.
m IT
11·2 Detail of Layout

fro W
11·2·1 Buildings6
n n
io io
In each case, for safety reasons, at least two means of escape (on different sides) are provided [7]. The walls of
the control room and fire shed are to be particularly strong, as these are both close to the storage areas and not
rs rs
too far from the plant, and because these buildings are important in an emergency. (The medical centre is
protected by these two.)
ve ve
The sizes of the buildings are estimated from the guidelines in Ref. [5], based on requirements for no more than
20 persons on site (total)7. Other sizings are for roughly 2 operators, 1 laboratory employee and 1 maintenance
ll N
worker.
fu IO
The fire shed and medical centre are close to the main entrance. They are as close as is safe to the likely
accident areas. While the plant would certainly not have its own vehicle 8, it should at least have a shed
ad T
containing fire-fighting equipment. Likewise the “medical centre” is really just a first-aid room, but that is no
lo LU
reason to omit it!
The workshop and store are integrated, as is common practice, and it is located close to the plant, along with the
wn SO
control room and laboratory.

Toilets and showers are provided9 in a ‘central’ sort of location – next to the canteen, and not too far from the
control room or offices.
Do E
-R
6 Although this plant is to be part of an existing complex, there are a number of reasons for including buildings on our
site: safety (it is never safer to rely on somebody else to maintain a fire-fighting resource, medical facility, et cetera);
W
convenience (operators do not like to walk too far to get to a toilet, prayer room or canteen; engineers and visitors like a
near-by reception); limitations of existing facilities (the existing canteen/s may already be struggling to seat all of the
LO
existing employees). In any case, the buildings do n o t represent a major cost, as shown in Chapter 12.
7 While this may sound high, it actually gave values around the mi n i mu m of Ref. [5].
8 This is assumed to be established already elsewhere in the complex.
9 While these could have been provided in the canteen, it seemed that showers would not be installed in a canteen, and if
there was to be a separate shower block, then it ‘may as well’ house the toilets also.
page 11-2 13:18

17/10/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 11: Plant Layout
The offices and administration building fronts the car park, so that reception is located in a logical area.
S.
Buildings generally have at least 1.5m clearance between them10.
.au NT
11·2·2 Storages
As recommended by Ref. [5], the storage does not occupy, “more than two sides of the process plant area” – it
om FO
occupies only one side. This arrangement allows adequate safety precautions to be taken. Access to the tanks is
/
still possible if one of the roads is cut off.
1.c D
Considering the storages as a hazard, they are located at least 15m away from likely sources of ignition in the
plant, chiefly the tail-gas burner (RXN-3) and the catalytic reactors operating at 700°C (RXN-1 and RXN-2).
iv E
The methanol storage tank is a more significant hazard, and therefore a blast wall will be built around it. This is
.d D
based on the assumption that the wall will be more economical than locating the tank 30m from any other item
ch ED
on the site and from the site boundary, as recommended [5]11. Only authorised employees may enter this area.
“Water cannons” may be required for cooling of metal structures in the event of a fire [2].
ar B
Each tank will have a bund to collect any leakage, and this bund, too, will have emergency exits [5]. The tanks
are grouped, and bunded, in such a way that the contents of the tanks in one bund require the same type of fire-
se M
fighting equipment. The two ST-3’s and the two ST-5’s are grouped together. The methanol tank is separate.
re E
The Grade B buffer tank, ST-2, is located closer to the methanol tank, as additional methanol will need to be sent
:// T
to that tank. tp U
11·2·3 Processing plant
ht HO
Spacing between items has been taken from BUSH’s 1971 values quoted in Ref. [5]. Generally the horizontal
spacing recommendation between adjacent items is about 1.5 to 3m. For the shell-and-tube heat exchangers
m IT
provision is made for removal of the tube bundle 12. The clearances give adequate allowance for safety and
maintenance. The clearances are indicated on the drawing by a lighter outline around the item.
fro W
Vertical clearances are not relevant to this site.

n n
11·2·3·1 Vaporiser and associated equipment

io io
The equipment items associated with the vaporiser (HX-1) are all located close-by. This includes the various
rs rs
pumps and heat exchangers, each of which are grouped together. The main feed streams are: air (and off-gas),
coming from the blower (CP-1); and methanol, coming from the methanol tank (ST-1). These are both located
ve ve
nearby.
As these units contain a significant inventory of methanol, which is quite flammable, they have been located at
ll N
least 15m away from the most likely sources of ignition, namely RXN-1 to RXN-3.
fu IO
As indicated, the blower (and turbine) are housed in a compressor building, as typical [6],13 for protection
against noise pollution. It may also be noted that, “In contrast to the solidly constructed buildings required in
ad T
Europe, buildings in tropical regions [such as Bontang] can be lightly constructed” for protection against wind
lo LU
and rain only. The compressor building will be well-ventilated to avoid accumulation of flammable vapours.
11·2·3·2 Reactors and associated units

wn SO
The catalytic reactors and the tail-gas burner are all situated on the downwind side, at least 15m from any
equipment other than their associated pumps and steam drums. 14
Do E
-R
W
LO
10 Except for the fire shed and medical centre, which abut each other.
11 If additional cheap land is available, then ST-1 would simply be moved approximately 20m to the North West.
12 If applicable.
13 An example is Orica’s Deer Park plant.
14 And the cooling tower, if needed. Note that the cooling tower would be located next to its main ‘client’, the absorber.
13:18 page 11-3

17/10/99
Chapter 11: Plant Layout Formaldehyde
11·2·3·3 Absorber and associated items

The column, ABS-1, is an important item because of its size. It is supported by a permanent scaffolding
S.
structure, which has built-in a stairway. There may also need to be provision for some lifting equipment
(especially for the packing). The siting of the absorber is such that heavy lifting vehicles will have good access
.au NT
on two sides (and limited access on the North side). The roads will be built to suit this heavy lifting equipment.
The length of the road is also ample to accommodate erection of the column.
om FO
The absorber produces the formaldehyde solution that is the product, and so is located closer to the tank farm.
/
11·2·4 Other
1.c D
iv E
The roads are all through roads to avoid the need for any three-point-turns, particularly of any trucks. They
.d D
provide access for firefighting vehicles [6], and space for the installation of bulky equipment.
ch ED
The cooling water tower, if required, would be situated on the downwind side of the plant, downwind of the air
intake to the blower (CP-1).
ar B
11·3 Area required
se M
As no real site has been allocated, the area needed is simply calculated by looking at the site layout diagram
re E
(plan view), given in the Drawing Annex.
:// T
This shows that the (fenced) site is 70m × 124m = 8680m2  0.868ha [3].15
tp U
The processing plant only occupies 30m × 52m = 1560m2  0.156ha (or 18% of the total), while the storage area
ht HO
comprises approximately 57m × 42m = 2394m2  0.24ha (28% of the total).
11·4 References
m IT
1. The Castle Group; “Oil, Gas, Plastic and Chemical/Petrochemical Processing;” in: Indonesian Business:
fro W
The Year in Review; http://www.castleasia.com/yir/Chapter_11.htm. (Accessed August 1999.)

2. Eckhard FIEDLER, Georg GROSSMAN, Burkhard KERSEBOHM, Günter WEISS, Claus WITTE; “Methanol;”
n n
in: Barbara ELVERS, Stephen HAWKINS and Gail SCHULZ (Ed’s); Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, 5th edition, Vol. A16; VCH; Weinheim; 1990.
io io
rs rs
1984.
ve ve
4. Kaltim [East Kalimantan] Industrial Estate; Untitled; http://www.kie.co.id/tabel.html. (Accessed

10/08/1999.)
ll N
5. J. C. MECKLENBURGH (Chairman); Plant Layout: A Guide to the Layout of Process Plant and Sites;
Leonard Hill Books in association with The Institution of Chemical Engineers; Aylesbury, Bucks; 1973.
fu IO
6. Erich MOSBERGER and coauthors, Lurgi AG [verbatim]; “Chemical Plant Design and Construction;” in:
Barbara ELVERS, Stephen HAWKINS and Gail SCHULZ (Ed’s); Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
ad T
Chemistry, 5th edition, Vol. B4; VCH; Weinheim; 1992.

lo LU

8. Steve WHEELER and Laura ALLEN (Ed’s); Monash University Diary/Directory ’99; Monash Unicomm;
wn SO
Melbourne; [circa 1999].

Do E
-R
W
LO
15 For comparison, Monash University’s “main Clayton campus area covers 101ha.” [8]
page 11-4 13:18

17/10/99
Formaldehyde
12 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
S.
In this chapter capital and operating costs are estimated, and general conclusions drawn from these. As the plant
.au NT
is not operating in Australia, but rather in Bontang, Indonesia, the costs will be expressed in terms of 1999 U.S.
dollars1 (USD1999). This has a local reputation as a stable currency, which will (hopefully) provide a ‘hedge’
against further fluctuations in the market, possibly due to the immense changes currently occurring in the
om FO
republic.
/
Therefore it is recommended that budgeting be done in Australian or American dollars where possible, although
Indonesian Rupiah would need to be paid in some instances.
1.c D
12·1 Capital cost
iv E
.d D
“P l u ral p er sp e ct i ve s ” [1] are used in looking at the capital cost of the site. That is, information from a
ch ED
number of sources, of varying levels of detail, are used to ‘home in’ on an accurate figure.
12·1·1 Definition of boundaries
ar B
se M
The capital costs are divided into two categories: inside battery limits (IBL) and outside battery limits (OBL)2.
Inside battery limits essentially consists of the processing plant, including the reactors, absorbers, pumps and
re E
heat exchangers. It would not normally include compressed air supply or steam generation. However, in this
case those items are integral in the processing operation. Thus the IBL is considered to include everything that is
:// T
shown on the Process Flow Diagram (in the Drawing Annex), exc ep t for the tanks (ST-1 to ST-5).
tp U
Outside battery limits is therefore everything on the site that is not covered under IBL. This includes the tanks,
recirculated water cooling tower (if present), and buildings and service facilities for the plant, such as the
ht HO
laboratory, control room, offices, canteen et cetera. The OBL facilities can be identified on the plan view of the
plant layout (Drawing Number 1101 in the Drawing Annex).
m IT
12·1·2 Initial estimates

fro W
An initial estimate of the cost of a complete plant may be obtained from the published correlations. These are
generally based on information released by companies building news plants.
n n
12·1·2·1 Generalised chart

io io
From Ref. [11] a chart is given for “complete plant costs.” However the reference data is quite old: GUTHRIE
rs rs
(1974); Chemical Engineering (1973/1974); KHARBANDA (1979)3 and Chemical Engineering (1980–1987). It
was updated to “early 1987” (CE Index 320)4. It is recommended that the data be used as high estimates of IBL
ve ve
and storage costs, rather than low estimates of complete plant costs.
The 1999 CE Index is taken as 390.5
ll N
fu IO
Our plant produces 80,000t.y–1 of 54%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde (HCHO) from methanol, or 229t.d –1, given the
350 days of operation per year specified in Chapter 2.
While the chart specifies no concentration, based on the sources of data used, conventions used in Ref. [] et
ad T
cetera and the domain of the curve, it is reasonable to assume that this refers to 37%(kg.kg –1) HCHO solution.
lo LU
This gives a plant cost of 4×106USD1987 = 4.9×106USD1999.
With a location factor of 0.72 [3] the p la nt co st comes to 3 .5 ×1 0 6 U S D 1 9 9 9 .

wn SO
Do E
-R
1 An average rate over 1999 (real values to date, with the remainder of the year estimated from Ref’s [8] et cetera).
2 OBL items are also known as ‘off-sites’ [3]. However confusing term is avoided in this report, as OBL items are
W
certainly on the s i t e (or else they would not be considered in the capital cost estimation), just (often) not within the
processing p l a n t boundary.
LO
3 This is probably misleading, as Ref. [17] indicates that it took material from data that were already “somewhat obsolete
(1965)” at the time of publishing!
4 This refers to the index of chemical engineering plant ‘inflation’ published in Ref. [8] and previous issues.
5 Based on Ref’s [7] and [8]. Although it i n i t i a l l y appears unlikely that the second half peak in 1998 will be replicated
in 1999, this is probably seasonal variation. The 1999 Marshall & Swift indices rose significantly above 1998 values.
13:26 page 12-1

17/10/99
Chapter 12: Economic Evaluation Formaldehyde
12·1·2·2 Recent report

A recently reported cost for a new BASF formaldehyde plant, to go on stream at the end of 2000, is given in Ref.
S.
[20]. It has a stated capacity of 180,000t.y–1 (“the world’s largest”) with a cost of 32×106DM1999. Again the
concentration is not given, but reference to Ref. [18] suggests the figure is on a 54%(kg.kg–1) basis. From
.au NT
published exchange rates [5] (see Appendix), this is 17×106USD1999.
om FO
The value must now be adjusted down to match our plant capacity. The correct factor to use in the equation
I  Qb, where I if the capital investment and Q the capacity, is b = 0.65 [11], [17], which reflects the parallel
/
streaming component of the process [3] (see also Chapter 11).
Hence the cost of our 80,000t.y–1 plant is estimated to be 59% less, or approximately 10×10 6USD1999. With a
1.c D
location factor of 0.6 (estimated from Ref. [3]), the p la nt co s t comes to approximately 6 .1 ×1 0 6 U S D 1 9 9 9 .
iv E
.d D
The difference between the two figures lies in the different natures of the sources. The latter figure probably
includes more OBL items, even though it is part of BASF’s existing Ludwigshafen complex, described as
ch ED
“mammoth” and “vast” [21].
In both cases expenses such as ‘contingencies’ and ‘supervision’ are probably omitted.
ar B
12·1·3 Detailed estimate
se M
12·1·3·1 Purchased costs
re E
A more accurate value for the capital cost is obtained by estimating purchased equipment costs individually.
:// T
This will account for differences in processing technologies. After these are evaluated they can be adjusted to
reflect the cost of the entire site using a factored approach. Accuracy is about ±20% [3] (more likely to be low
tp U
[17]). The correlations are taken from Ref’s [4] [11] and [14], and the calculations appear in the Appendix.
ht HO
The data were updated using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost index (CE Index), and the historical exchange
rate (in the case of the first reference). Location factors were also employed to site the items in Indonesia6 [3].
m IT
Each of the items was thus brought ‘up to date’, and subsequently adjusted by the published type, material and
pressure factors. Where no factor was quoted for the materials of construction the values in Ref. [3] were used.
fro W
Clearly one could not expect each of the sources to give identical results. It was felt that a suitably conservative
and yet representative number could be obtained by taking an average in which the maximum value was given a
n n
double weighting. It can be seen from the graph in the Appendix that the concordance is generally good. The
io io
exception was the case of the storage tanks, where it was felt that the figures of Ref. [3], which were for
“pressure vessels,” were probably too high7. Therefore, for the storage tanks they received a weighting of one
rs rs
half.
ve ve
In summary, the following costs were obtained:

ll N
I te m Co st
fu IO
[1 0 0 0 ×U SD 1 9 9 9 ]
Columns et cetera 293
ad T
Blower & Turbine 848

Drums 54
lo LU
Heat exchangers 663

Pumps 49
wn SO
Reactors 733
Valve8 4
9
Total IBL PCE : 2640
Do E
Table 12-1: Purchased cost of equipment (PCE) inside the battery limits (IBL). Detailed in Appendix.
-R
W
LO
6 The exact location in Indonesia is not specified, however it is believed that Bontang is a good example of a modern
facility that is quite readily accessible, and is probably typical of the data used for the value in Ref. [3].
7 Comparison may also be made to Ref. [14].
8 Only included for completeness, as it was shown on the Process Flow Diagram and has a specification sheet.
9 Rounded from 2642×103.
page 12-2 13:26

17/10/99
Formaldehyde Chapter 12: Economic Evaluation
The purchased cost of IBL equipment ( I B L P CE ) was thus found to be around 2 .6 ×1 0 6 U SD 1 9 9 9 . A detailed
breakdown of the costs for each individual item10 is available in the Appendix.
S.
In addition to the IBL PCE’s, costs were also estimated for the storages and the buildings. The values are given
.au NT
in Table 12-2, and detailed breakdowns are again available in the Appendix.
I te m Co st Frac tio n o f IB L
om FO
[1 0 0 0 ×U SD 1 9 9 9 ] P CE
/
Storage tanks 1200 0.44
Buildings 306 0.12
1.c D
Table 12-2: Purchased cost of items outside battery limits (OBL). Detailed in Appendix.
iv E
.d D
The key thing to observe in this table is the high cost of the storage tanks relative to the total IBL PCE. This is
not entirely unexpected11: “Storage tanks often represent the single largest expense of process plants” [14].
ch ED
The proportions of the various costs are seen more clearly in the following chart.
ar B
se M
Proportion of IBL Purchased Cost of
Equipment
re E
Columns et
:// T
Valve cetera
Reactors 0% 11%
tp U
28%
ht HO
Blower &
Pumps Turbine
m IT
2% 32%
Heat Drums
fro W
exchangers 2%
25%
n n
Figure 12-1: The proportion of each IBL purchased cost of equipment (PCE).
io io
There are four significant costs making up the IBL PCE: the columns with their internals; the reactors (mainly
rs rs
the tail-gas burner); the blower with its turbine; and the heat exchangers.
As discussed earlier in this report, it is not imperative that a column be used for the vaporisation unit operation,
ve ve
and so a possible capital cost saving is available here, although some in-line mixing equipment may then need to
be installed to ensure uniformity of reactor feed 12.
ll N
The reactors are probably all necessary. Removing the tail-gas burner (RXN-3) would require steam to be
fu IO
bought in from existing boilers in the complex. A detailed study 13 would probably show that this was economi-
cally a poor alternative, as steam is not cheap. Moreover, assuming the 100ppm levels of formaldehyde
currently exiting the absorber could not be d ire ct l y released, then another item would have to be added for
ad T
emission control.
lo LU
The blower is needed, but there is a trade-off between the operating pressure and the cost of the blower.
Although the operating pressure is within guideline recommendations, as discussed in earlier chapters, there may
be some merit in looking more closely into the relationship between incremental increase in blower cost and
wn SO
pressure drop through each item. The steam turbine is probably on the order of twice as much as a large motor:
it may be that further studies would recommend an alteration of the flowsheet in this regard, dependent on local
conditions.
Do E
-R
W
10 And in some cases further breakdowns, such as absorber shell, packing and trays.
11 It does not appear to be recognised by the references in Table 12-3 – possibly included in their definition of PCE.
LO
12 Probably not needed if the plant layout is similar to that which has been developed, where the vaporiser unit operation
occurs a significant distance from the catalytic reaction.
13 Currently 1.72kg.s–1 of 1200kPa(abs) steam is produced, at 12AUD1999.t–1 (Chapter 2). Over the course of 350d (i.e. 1y
of operation), this equates to a cost of approximately 624×10 3AUD1999. Converting yields 412×103USD1999. Although
this is less than the capital cost of RXN-3 (see Appendix), presumably RXN-3 would operate for a number of years.
13:26 page 12-3

17/10/99
There is probably little that can be done about the heat exchanger cost, aside from further optimisation of heat
transfer coefficients and the heat exchanger network. The more detailed optimisation should include explicit
S.
reference to costs, rather than implicit ‘rules of thumb’.
.au NT
12·1·3·2 Total physical plant cost
The total capital cost of the ‘physical’ plant can be estimated by the application of multiple factors, which
om FO
combine to form an effective overall LANG-type factor. The factors may be estimated and applied to individual
items, but for the purposes of this report application to the combined IBL costs is sufficient [1].
/
Our formaldehyde plant is classed as a ‘fluids processing plant’. Each literature source has presented slightly
1.c D
different factors. These are shown below, along with the factor eventually chosen.
iv E
.d D
Fac to r ( mu l t ip l e o f IB L P CE):
Det ai ls Ref. [3]14 Ref. [11]15 Ref. [19] Ref. [15]16 Final Co m me n t s
ch ED
PCE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Basis
Complete installation 0.47 0.11 to 0.4 0.27 to 0.50 Foundation, insulation,
ar B
& erection 0.30 0.60 safety, painting & fire-
proofing all relevant
se M
Piping (installed) 0.66 0.15 to 0.70 0.66 to 0.70 Lots of piping
0.70 1.20
re E
Instrumentation & 0.18 0.10 to 0.20 0 [blank] 0.20 Moderate level
:// T
controls (installed) 0.35
Electrical (installed) 0.11 0.10 to 0.10 0.09 to 0.10 Low level
tp U
0.15 0.11
ht HO
Buildings (all) 0.18 0.05 to 0.30 0.18 to 0 .1 2 Actual value estimated
1.00 0.34 in previous section
Utilities 0.70 0.30 to 0.50 0.70 0.10 Few new services need
m IT
0.75 to be provided
Storages17 – – 0.15 – 0 .4 4 Actual value estimated
fro W
in previous section
Site developments & 0.16 0.05 to 0.05 0.10 0.10 Purchase of land
land 0.15 (ex. land) (ex. land) assumed, but flat land
n n
Environmental – 0.10 to – – 0.20 Important for a HCHO

io io
provisions 0.30 plant. Accounts for

rs rs
solids/liquid disposal.
T o tal: 3.46 1.96 to 4.7 3.40 3.00 to 3 .4 6
ve ve
4.05
Table 12-3: Factors of the IBL PCE for estimating the total physical plant cost (PPC).
ll N
Fascinatingly, the factor finally arrived at by the tortuous route shown is identical to the figure given in Ref. [3]!
fu IO
Using this factor results in a t o tal P P C of 9 .1 4 ×1 0 6 US D 1 9 9 9 .

ad T
The relative importance of the storages and buildings, which were estimated in detail, is indicated by Figure
lo LU
12-2.
The cost of the buildings is not too high – less than suggested by the general guidelines presented in the
following section – as would be expected for a plant that is part of a larger complex. However the cost of the
wn SO
storages is so high that serious consideration should be given to the number and size of storages. In particular:
 Is it possible to reduce the size of the two buffer tanks (ST-2 and ST-3)?
 Is it possible to reduce the size of the ‘spare’ storage tanks (ST-4B and ST-5B)? How much ‘abnormal’
Do E
product is expected to be produced? How often might the resins plant go off-line, and for how long?
-R
 Is it possible to have only one single ‘spare’ storage?

 Can the size of the methanol storage be reduced (if not completely eliminated)? How reliable is the supply?
W
LO
14 Taken from PETERS and TIMMERHAUS (1991).

15 This reference did not distinguish between ‘fluids processing plants’ and other types.
16 From WOODS (1975).
17 Only one reference specified a factor for storages. The other references must have either included storages under
another factor (e.g. buildings, services) or else under the PCE.
page 12-4 13:26

17/10/99
These questions are unable to be answered in full at this stage, and would be the subject of further study.
S.
.au NT
Proportion of "PCE"
Buildings
: 7%
om FO
Storage
/
tanks:
28%
1.c D
Total IBL:
iv E
65%
.d D
ch ED
Figure 12-2: The proportion of three purchased costs of equipment (PCE).
ar B
12·1·3·3 Total fixed capital
se M
The total capital cost that the company may expect to pay to purchase and erect the plant is given by the ‘total
re E
fixed capital’, or ‘total erected cost’. This does not include working capital, which is needed for start-up
(covered in section 12·3).
:// T
The ‘indirect costs’ are calculated using factors, in a similar manner to that described in the previous section.
They are then added to the total physical plant cost (PPC) already obtained to get the total fixed capital required.
tp U
The factors used will be as given in Table 12-4.
ht HO
Fac to r ( mu l t ip l e o f IB L P CE):
Det ai ls Ref. [3] Ref. [11]18 Ref. [19] Ref. [15] Final Co m me n t s
m IT
PCE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Basis: 1.00

Design, engineering 0.33 0.30 to 1.02 0.33 0.50 Established technology
fro W
& supervision 0.75 19

Contractor’s fee 0.21 0.10 to 0.17 0.21 0.30 No in-house knowl-
n n
0.45 edge or experience

Contingency20 0.42
io io
0.15 to 0.34 0.42 0.60 High uncertainty w.r.t.

0.80 Indonesian ‘situation’
rs rs
Construction / ‘field’ 0.41 – – 0.41 0.20 /Considered above

expenses
ve ve
T o tal: 1.37 0.55 to 1.53 2.00 to 1 .6 0 Equivalent to a LANG

2.00 3.05 factor of 5 .0 6
ll N
Table 12-4: Factors of the IBL PCE for estimating the indirect costs.
fu IO
The reader’s attention is drawn in particular to the contingency factor, which is set relatively high in order to
account for the many uncertainties with respect to the future of the Indonesian nation 21.
ad T
Another factor which has not really been taken into account is the Indonesian regulation that any investment of
lo LU
this type must be a joint venture with an Indonesian company. The precise details of the requirements have
changed recently, due largely to the internal and external financial pressure on the country. It is not known
exactly how such a prerequisite would affect the calculations.
wn SO
From the figure found, the i n d ir ec t co st s would be 4 .2 3 ×1 0 6 U SD 1 9 9 9 .

Do E
Adding this to the total PPC of 9 .1 4 ×1 0 6 US D 1 9 9 9 gives a to ta l fi xed ca p ita l i n ve st me nt of

-R
1 3 .3 7 ×1 0 6 U S D 1 9 9 9 , or approximately 1 3 .4 mi ll io n U S d o l lar s i n 1 9 9 9 .22

W
18 This reference did not distinguish between ‘fluids processing plants’ and other types.
LO
19 Includes construction.
20 Due to company policy and Australian government deterrents, payment of bribes is not considered.
21 Notable examples are the future of East Timor and the determination of the president (to occur later in 1999), either of
which could lead indirectly to market changes, or more directly (in an extreme case) to sanctions or blockades. If the
region is in turmoil, then there may also be problems with (among other things) transportation and finding employees.
13:26 page 12-5

17/10/99
While this value was expected to be higher than those found in section 12·1·2, which probably do not consider
S.
purchase of land, clearing of land, contractor fee(s) and so on, it has turned out to be larger by factors of 3.8 and
2.2 on the two preliminary estimates. Then again, the two preliminary estimates were themselves different by a
.au NT
factor of 1.7. As the detailed estimate is ‘transparent’ – that is, all the sources and assumptions are visible (see
also Appendix) – it will be taken as ‘correct’, or the best estimate.
Clearly the most accurate way to determine the cost would be to decide upon a supplier for each item and get
om FO
quotes for all work to be done. However that is not possible at this stage: it is both time-consuming and
/
expensive [11], and probably requires still more detailed specification of equipment.
1.c D
12·2 Operating Cost
iv E
.d D
Again we endeavour to follow the “p lural p erspectives” p hilosophy.
ch ED
12·2·1 Preliminary estimate
In Chapter 10 we saw that the raw material cost, which is essentially methanol, dominates the manufacturing
ar B
cost, making up 60%. Depreciation, utilities and labour account for the remaining 40%.
se M
It is difficult to nominate a price for the methanol, upon which the operating cost could be based, due to the wide
re E
fluctuations that are observed. For example, in the period 1982 to 1997, its high price was 6 .4 t i me s gre ate r
than its low price! And this is not due to inflation, as the more recent figure was actually at the lo w end of that
:// T
range [10]. tp U
The value that will be used is 100USD1999.t–1. This value is given in the problem statement (Chapter 2), and is
ht HO
consistent with the price quoted in the periodical Chemical Marketing Reporter, as at June 1999. It is also
consistent with Ref. [10].
The basis is the U.S. Gulf Coast, freight on board (F.O.B.). There is no compelling reason to suppose that the
m IT
price in Bontang, where a methanol supplier is located, would vary significantly from this value. One would
actually suppose that a good deal might be worked out through a contract.
fro W
From the mass balance that was performed it may be seen that 0.658t of pure methanol is required for every 1t of
54%(kg.kg–1) formaldehyde solution23. This is 0.451t(methanol).t(37% solution) –1.
n n
Thus the p ro d uc tio n co st s can be considered to be approximately 7 5 US D 1 9 9 9 .t – 1 , for 3 7 % equivalent

io io
formaldehyde. Expressed as the equivalent of 5 4 % solution, this becomes 1 1 0 U SD 1 9 9 9 .t – 1 .

rs rs
Given the production of 80000t of the more concentrated solution per year, this equates to an a n n ual p ro d u c -
tio n co s t of 8 .8 ×1 0 6 US D 1 9 9 9 .
ve ve
12·2·2 Detailed estimates

ll N
The technique used to obtain a (hopefully) more accurate estimate follows the method of Ref. [3].
fu IO
Along with the methanol cost derived above, the selling price of formaldehyde on open market is given as
ad T
286USD1999.t–1, for the equivalent of 3 7 %( k g. k g – 1 ) formaldehyde.24 However the formaldehyde product will
lo LU
be largely c ap t i ve , going to the neighbouring resins plant. For this analysis it will be assumed that the resins
plant is a separate entity, such that prices are still paid for the formaldehyde. However, from Ref. [17] it seems
that the price that would be paid for the cap ti v e product would be only 7 0 % of the ‘free-market’ value. This
wn SO
would give a value of 200US D 1 9 9 9 .t–1 for 37% solution.
It will be assumed that a ll of the 54% “Grade A” solution is sent to the resins plant, and that al l of the 37%
Do E
“Grade B” solution is sold on the free market 25. Thus the Grade A sells at 291US D 1 9 9 9 .t–1 and the Grade B at
-R
417USD 1 9 9 9 .t–1, both on a 54% basis.

W
22 Equivalent to 2 0 . 3 mi l l i o n A U D 1 9 9 9 .
LO
23 From this point onwards the units (kg.kg–1) will be dropped, as all percentage concentrations are on a m a s s basis.
24 The “equivalent” is in reference to the fact that formaldehyde is actually produced at a strength of 54% (at least
initially). So the cost is adjusted proportionally to be ‘equivalent’ to a 37% solution.
25 Hopefully any sales of 54% solution on the free market would be compensated for by sales of 37% solution to the resins
plant. In any case, the Grade B product makes up only 10% of the mix (taking each at their respective strengths).
page 12-6 13:26

17/10/99
From the flows found in the mass balance the value associated with any product exiting the absorber will
therefore be 300USD 1 9 9 9 .t–1 on a 54% basis.
S.
The operating life of the plant is taken as 10y to be more conservative, although lives up to 30y are not unrea-
.au NT
sonable26, as discussed in Chapter 1. The straight-line method is used, with negligible scrap value assumed [3].
It is not known precisely what quality the “towns water” is. It is no secret that the water quality in Indonesia is,
om FO
in general, far inferior to that in Australia, and especially in Melbourne. However it will be assumed that the
/
relatively modern Bontang facility, with a high proportion of expatriate workers, has good quality drinking water
that can be drunk from the tap, so that it would be acceptable to use this ‘towns water’ to make up recirculated
1.c D
cooling water (RCW) losses. The losses are estimated at 20% [3]27.
The boiler feed water (BFW) make-up is from demineralised water (DMW), also estimated at 20% [3].
iv E
.d D
Operator wages are taken as 50000AUD1999 for shift workers and 40000AUD1999 for day workers.
ch ED
A summary of the results is presented in Table 12-5 (two decimal places are retained throughout for ne at n es s ).
A full account of the calculations and assumptions made is presented in the Appendix.
ar B
se M
An n u al co st Co st p er to n n e o f
Co st 5 4 % p ro d uc t
re E
[1 0 6 ×U S D 1 9 9 9 ] [US D 1 9 9 9 .t – 1 ]
P ro d uc tio n co s t s
:// T
Raw materials: tp U Methanol 5.32 66.48
Utilities: Steam –0.16 –2.00
Demineralised water (DMW) 0.25 3.15
ht HO
Recirculated cooling water 0.10 1.25
Towns water 0.20 2.50
Electric power 0.06 0.81
m IT
Total 0.46 5.71

Labour: Process labour wages 0.26 3.30
fro W
Maintenance labour and overheads 0.75 9.35

Total 1.01 12.65
n n
Maintenance materials 0.67 0.41

io io
Operating supplies / Consumable stores 0.03 1.32

Plant overheads 0.11 1.32
rs rs
Insurance 0.20 2.51

Property taxes 0.13 1.67
ve ve
“Book” depreciation28 1.34 16.71

T o tal p r o d uc tio n co s t: Fi x ed 3.49 43.63
ll N
Var i ab l e 5.78 72.19

fu IO
T o tal 9 .2 7 1 1 5 .8 2
No n - ma n u f act ur i n g co s t s:
ad T
Corporate administration 0.23 2.90

Research and development 0.05 0.58
lo LU
Selling expenses 0.46 5.79

T o tal no n - ma n u f ac t ur i n g c o s t s 0 .7 4 9 .2 7
wn SO
hence:
T o tal o p er a ti n g co s t 1 0 .0 1 1 2 5 .0 8
Also:
Do E
Minimum profit 2.67 33.43

-R
Mi ni mu m vi ab l e s el li n g p r ice 12.68 1 5 8 .5 1
29
Table 12-5: Operating cost summary. Detailed in Appendix.
W
LO
26 Although they would doubtless involve some further capital investment.

27 Although the temperature in Bontang is generally high, the humidity is also high....
28 This is n o t a ‘cash cost’ [3].
29 My thanks go to Miss. Jayne BORENSZTAJN for alerting me to additional methanol and DMW flows I originally omitted.
13:26 page 12-7

17/10/99
The first thing that springs to ones attention from the table is the minimum viable selling price calculated (last
row). It is calculated based on the reasonable estimation of a minimum profit equivalent to 20% of the fixed
S.
capital. However it has come out to be far le s s than the expected selling price: 159 compared to
300USD 1 9 9 9 .t–1 on a 54% basis (Grades A and B combined).
.au NT
Of course, one also notices the to t al p r o d uc tio n co st, 1 1 5 US D 1 9 9 9 .t – 1 , and the to tal o p era ti n g co st ,
1 2 4 US D 1 9 9 9 .t – 1 (both 54% basis). Both of these agree quite well with the preliminary estimate of the
om FO
previous section.
/
This leads to another point regarding the proportion of methanol costs relative to overall on-going costs. For the
production costs, which do n o t include the non-manufacturing costs (see Table 12-5), the methanol accounts for
1.c D
57% of the costs. For the total operating cost the figure drops slightly to 53%. However both of these are close
to 60%, from which we can see the reason for the similarity in values between this section and the previous one.
iv E
.d D
We notice that there is one ‘negative cost’ – i.e. a cost sa v in g – in the table. This is due to the surplus steam
ch ED
that is produced and ‘exported’ to neighbouring plants for a fee.
One more value can be extracted from the table. Subtracting the raw materials cost from the total operating cost
ar B
yields a ‘conversion cost’ of 58USD 1 9 9 9 .t–1 (54% basis).
se M
It is interesting (and useful) to examine what would happen to the operating cost if the turndown requirement to
re E
60% prevailed for an extended period of time. Put simply, the ‘fixed’ portion of the production cost remains
constant on an annual basis (but increases per tonne of solution), while the ‘variable’ portion of the production
:// T
cost remains constant relative to the amount of product produced (and hence actually decreases on an annual
basis).
tp U
The calculation is given in the Appendix. It shows that the total operating cost is 7.51×10 6USD 1 9 9 9 .y–1, or
ht HO
156USD 1 9 9 9 .t–1 of 54% equivalent solution. The former figure shows a decrease, the latter an increase. The
minimum viable selling price remains, however, significantly below the expected selling price (even accounting
for the fact that it is a captive sale, as discussed earlier).
m IT
Clearly the minimum viable selling price is very sensitive to the feedstock cost, which has been shown to
constitute roughly 60% of the production cost, and only a slightly lesser proportion of the operating cost.
fro W
However even if long-term operation at the maximum turndown was needed, the project would still be feasible.
The feedstock cost would have to rise to 2 .2 times its current level to bring the minimum viable selling price up
n n
to the expected selling price a t t h e ma x i mu m t ur nd o wn , and thrice its current value at full design capacity.
io io
Intuitively this seems unlikely.

Of course there was discussion in section 12·2·1 of the variability of the cost of methanol, which had a range in
rs rs
which the maximum price was more than a factor of six greater than its lowest price. However this does not
ve ve
jeopardise the project, as the feedstock costs could not rise independently of the feedstock price. If the feedstock
price did triple over a year or two, which is eminently possible, the formaldehyde price would simply follow it
closely [12], thus allowing the project to stay profitable.
ll N
fu IO
12·3 Working capital

ad T
Working capital can be defined as “capital investment over and above [...] fixed capital required to initiate and
lo LU
sustain operation of a process plant [or other project]” [3]. The main components of working capital are stocks
of raw materials, of which an inventory must be accumulated before production can begin, and stocks of finished
products and extended credit.
wn SO
The method followed is taken from Ref. [3], and detailed in the Appendix. A summary is given in Table 12-6.
Do E
The methanol storage is 3d, the main storage tanks have a 3d inventory of product and the buffer tanks (ST-2 and
-R
ST-3) have an inventory of around 1d.

The value of the finished product stocks in storage is assessed at cas h co st s [3]. This is the operating cost less
W
the book depreciation (which is no t a cash cost). Alternatively, it may be thought of as the raw materials costs
plus all of the conversion cash costs (i.e. excluding book depreciation).
LO
The value of materials in progress inventory is, in turn, taken as the average of the product value and the raw
material value. No definitive data is available for the size of the inventory. Guidelines suggest 1 to 2 weeks of
annual production [3]. However, with the final storages being low, the intermediate storage is also low. A value
of 1 week will be taken, which is probably still conservative.
page 12-8 13:26

17/10/99
Finally, it is assumed that all payments are monthly, giving average credit and indebtedness periods of 6 weeks.
The only exception to this are the wages and salaries, which will on average be paid 1.5 weeks in arrears [3].
S.
Co mp o ne n t Val u e
.au NT
[1 0 6 ×U S D 1 9 9 9 ]
P r o d uc tio n co s t s
Raw materials 0.04
om FO
Materials in progress inventory 0.13
/
Product stocks 0.09
Total 0.27
1.c D
Deb to r s
iv E
Customers 2.77
.d D
Total 2.77
Cr ed ito r s
ch ED
Raw materials –0.61
Utilities –0.05
Wages –0.03
ar B
Total –0.70
se M
hence:
T o tal wo r k i n g c ap i tal re q ui red 2 .3 5
re E
Table 12-6: Working capital summary. Detailed in Appendix.
:// T
The wo r k i n g c ap i tal is thereby calculated to be 2 .3 5 × US D 1 9 9 9 . The interesting thing about this situation
tp U
is that there is one dominant factor, which is the unpaid customer debts. One reason is that the time equivalent
ht HO
of the process materials is far less. The other is that the expected selling price is roughly double the operating
cost, and so the contribution of the creditors to the working capital is not so great.
We note that the working capital is approximately 10% of the expected sales re v e n ue , which is reasonable.
m IT
12·4 Analysis of Project Profitability

fro W
While the initial indication of the operating cost relative to the expected selling price look good, this must be
looked at in more detail in combination with the fixed capital cost and the working capital requirement. Once
n n
again “plural perspectives” are used30.

io io
rs rs
12·4·1 Return on investment

ve ve
A simple and widely used indicator of profitability is the return on investment (ROI) parameter [3]. This is
defined as the difference between the expected annual sales revenue and the annual operating costs, divided by
ll N
the sum of the fixed capital and working capital.

The result that is calculated, as the reader may verify, is (24–10.0) ÷ (13.37+2.35)  89%.y–1.
fu IO
Given that a threshold level of acceptance is said to be 20%.y–1 for this type of project, the value obtained above
ad T
would indicate that the project is expected to be highly profitable. A more detailed analysis follows.
lo LU
12·4·2 Cash flow

wn SO
The cash flow will be estimated using the first approach presented in Ref. [3]. In this method cash flows are
estimated on the basis of costs and prices at the present. This may be justified by the “highly unpredictable”
nature of inflation rates – their incorporation is certain to add complexity, but will not necessarily increase
Do E
accuracy. The main disadvantage of this is that it does not allow for the differences in inflation rates for
-R
different components, for example tax depreciation and labour costs. It is justified at this stage of the project.
The inflation rate is also seen to be relatively low.
W
The next page shows the cash flow diagram that is estimated (the full cash flow table is in the Appendix). A
LO
discussion follows.
30 Giving a plurality of plural perspectives in this chapter.
13:26 page 12-9

17/10/99
Cash flow diagram
S.
100
• DISCOUNT
.au NT
Cumulative discounted cash flow (after tax)
RATE = 0%
80
om FO
• DISCOUNT
RATE = 5%
/
[millions of USD1999]
60
1.c D
• DISCOUNT
40 RATE = 10%
iv E
.d D
• DISCOUNT
ch ED
20 RATE = 20%
• DISCOUNT
ar B
0 RATE = 62%
se M
-20
re E
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
:// T Year (2000 = "Year Zero")

tp U
ht HO
Figure 12-3: Cumulative cash flow diagram (discounted and after tax).
To obtain Figure 12-3 the following assumptions were made:

m IT
 Construction of the plant will commence in 2000 and the plant will be producing product in 2001.
 All of the fixed capital will be spent in year zero (2000).
fro W
 The production will be 75% of the design capacity in the first year (2001), 90% in the following year and
100% thereafter.
n n
 The working life of the plant will be 10 years (i.e. until 2010). It has been explained already that although
io io
formaldehyde plants commonly operate for longer than 10 years, for example 30 years, that would not be a
suitably conservative first estimate, nor would it account for the further capital expenditure required.
rs rs
 At the end of ten years the plant is scrapped, with only the working capital recovered (fully).
ve ve
 The working capital is 80% disbursed in year zero (2000), with the remainder divided equally of the
following two years.
 All tax is paid in the year in which the income was incurred. I.e. there is minimal ‘delay’ in collection [3].
ll N
 The corporate taxation rate is estimated at 30%. While the Australian rate is around 36%, it is likely that
fu IO
Indonesia has a lower rate31.

 The investment allowance is assumed to be zero, and no other incentives (such as tax ‘holidays’) are
ad T
allowed for.
lo LU
12·4·2·1 Discount rate

The discount rate, i, also known as the “cost of capital,” is the weighted cost of money from all sources (viz.
wn SO
equity and loan) required to fund a project. It is typically expressed in %.y–1 as an interest rate.
Clearly the discount rate must related in some way to the inflation rate (e.g. as measured by the consumer price
Do E
index (CPI)). One means of estimating the rate is given by Ref. [3]. In this method the discount rate is given by:
-R
i = L.iL.(1–t) + E.iE
where L and E refer to the proportion of capital from loan sources and equity sources (i.e. internal to the
W
company) respectively, t is the prevailing rate of taxation and iL and iE are the individual interest rates32.
LO
31 This is deduced by the lack of any social security system per se in the Republic of Indonesia, et cetera.
32 The equity rate will be estimated internally by company accountants based on how much they think should be earned
given the risk of the project.
page 12-10 13:26

17/10/99
For example the discount rate may be estimated as follows if the capital investment is derived in equal propor-
tions from equity and loan sources:
S.
i = 0.5 × 10%.y–1 (1 – 0.30) + 0.5 × 12%.y–1 = 9.5%.y–1.
Note that if the capital was derived entirely from equity sources this would increase to 12%.y –1. Alternatively, i
.au NT
would drop to only 7%.y–1 (on these figures), if all of the capital came from loans.
Our project presents an interesting problem: although the plant is physically located in Indonesia, the company
om FO
is not Indonesian – we assume that the company is based in Australia. So on what basis should the discount rate
/
be chosen?
If we suppose lower inflation in Indonesia implies a lower discount rate, then it would be more likely for the
1.c D
project to be assessed as profitable (see the following sections). However the Australian-based company clearly
has access to the Australian market (and Australian interest rates), and so company accountants might argue that
iv E
the project profitability should be compared against the greater potential that exists in Australia.
.d D
ch ED
In both countries inflation is very low, and the current discount rate might be, say, 5%.y–1. However it must be
remembered that the simplified approach used here uses only a single value for the cost of capital, and so this
should reflect some kind of ‘average’ over the entire life of the project.
ar B
We will therefore be optimistic (depending on your perspective), and specify a cost of capital of 10%.y–1.
se M
Application of the discount rate is explored further in the following sections.
re E
12·4·2·2 Net present value
:// T
The net present value (NPV) may be evaluated at any time as the cumulative cash flow which has been
tp U
‘discounted’ according to the ‘discount rate’, i. However it is usually used to refer to the NPV at the “comple-
tion of economic life.” The relevant formula is [3]:
ht HO
NPV =  { Ct ÷ (1 + i)t }
where the summation is over the time, t, and Ct is the cash flow at time t.
m IT
From the cash flow diagram we see that the NPV for all of the discount rates, except for the highest, are positive
at the end of the project in the year 2011.
fro W
The most relevant curve is of course that corresponding to the discount rate that we believe will predominate
n n
over the course of the project, namely 10%.y–1. As this has a positive NPV, we assess the project as favourable.
io io
12·4·2·3 Payback time

rs rs
Not the name of the latest Hollywood blockbuster, the payback time is a measure of, “the time taken to recover
ve ve
investment costs” [3]. For the purposes of this report, it will be the year at which the net present value (NPV)
goes to zero, where the reference year (“year zero”) is 2000.
ll N
A simple-minded analysis is disproportionately instructive. Our expected sales revenue is 24×10 6USD1999.y–1 at
fu IO
full capacity utilisation (i.e. design flows), with an operating cost of 10.0×10 6USD1999.y–1. If all inflation and
taxation is ignored, it would seem that barely over a single year is required to make up the combined fixed and
ad T
working capital of 15.7×106USD1999. Of course this also assumes full production capacity and so on, but the
indication is undeniably good.
lo LU
We now turn back to Figure 12-3. From the graph we read that the NPV reaches zero before 2003 for all
wn SO
discount rates under 62%. This is equivalent to a payback time of less than 3 years (and closer to 2), which
sounds to be good.
Do E
12·4·2·4 Discounted cash flow rate of return

-R
The final indicator of profitability is the ‘discounted cash flow rate of return’ (DCFRR), also known as the
internal rate of return (IRR). This is defined as the discount rate at which the final NPV goes to zero [3].
W
Expressed mathematically, it is the value of i for which

NPV =  { Ct ÷ (1 + i)t } = 0
LO
is true.
From the graph we may read that the NPV does not go to zero until the discount rate reaches a massive 62%.y –1.
13:26 page 12-11

17/10/99
Obviously the first point to make is that 62%.y–1 is a fantastic figure, which is far higher than the estimated cost
of capital (see section 12·4·2·1). Given that the project could only be less profitable than others of similar risk if
S.
the true cost of capital was more than six times greater than the (moderately conservative) value estimated, it
would be fair to say that the project is definitely profitable, and indeed far more profitable than comparable
.au NT
investments.
12·5 Conclusions
om FO
/
The total capital cost has been found to be 1 3 .4 ×1 0 6 US D 1 9 9 9 , obtained largely from detailed estimation of the
purchased cost of equipment (PCE), multiplied by an overall factor of 5.06. This cost is higher than the
1.c D
preliminary estimates, but these probably do not consider many of the ‘extra’ costs.
iv E
The operating cost has been found to be 9 .9 2 ×1 0 6 U S D 1 9 9 9 . y – 1 , or 1 2 4 US D 1 9 9 9 .t – 1 of 54%(kg.kg–1)
.d D
formaldehyde solution. This gave a minimum viable selling price of 1 5 7 USD 1 9 9 9 . t – 1 at full design capacity.
ch ED
Even at the maximum turndown, the minimum viable selling price remained well below the expected selling
price of 300USD 1 9 9 9 , (which does take account of the majority captive supply). Thus the project would appear
viable despite the high sensitivity of the selling price to the feedstock cost.
ar B
se M
Working capital was estimated at 2.35×1 0 6 US D 1 9 9 9 , which was mostly due to the debtors (customers).
re E
The discounted cash flow showed that the project is highly profitable, even looking at only a 10 year plant life:
the net present value (NPV) was positive; the pay-back time was short (approximately 2 years); and the
:// T
discounted cash flow rate of return (DCFRR) was found to be more than a factor of 6 higher than the estimated
cost of capital.
tp U
The return on investment (ROI) was also significantly above the threshold level.
ht HO
In ve s t me n t i n t hi s p r o j e ct i s r eco m me n d ed .
m IT
12·6 References
fro W
1. David J. BRENNAN; CHE4117 Lecture Notes; Monash University; Melbourne; 1999.

2. David J. BRENNAN; Process Industry Economics: An Australian Perspective; Longman Cheshire;
n n
Melbourne; 1990.
io io
3. David J. BRENNAN; Process Industry Economics: An International Perspective; Institution of Chemical

Engineers; Rugby; 1998.
rs rs
4. P. L. BREUER and David J. BRENNAN; [Data and Techniques for] Capital Cost Estimation of Process
ve ve
Equipment; The Institution of Engineers, Australia; Melbourne; 1994.

5. “Business;” in: The [Saturday] Age; May to October, 1999.
6. The Castle Group; “Oil, Gas, Plastic and Chemical/Petrochemical Processing;” in: Indonesian Business:
ll N
The Year in Review; http://www.castleasia.com/yir/Chapter_11.htm. (Accessed August 1999.)

fu IO
7. Chemical Engineering; McGraw-Hill; New York; July 1999; p. 138.33

8. Chemical Engineering; McGraw-Hill; New York; August 1999; p. 150.34
9. Chemical Marketing Reporter; “Chemical Profile: Formaldehyde;” in: ChemExpo;
ad T
http://www.chemexpo.com/news/PROFile980622.cfm; 22 June, 1998. (Accessed 07 April, 1999.)

lo LU
10. Chemical Marketing Reporter; “Chemical Profile: Methanol;” in: ChemExpo;

http://www.chemexpo.com/news/PROFILE980803.cfm; 03 August, 1998. (Accessed 26 April, 1999.)
11. Donald E. GARRETT; Chemical Engineering Economics; Van Nostrand Reinhold; New York; 1989.
wn SO
Do E
New York; 1994.

-R
1984.
W
14. Richard S. HALL, Jay MATLEY and Kenneth J. MCNAUGHTON; “Current costs of process equipment;”
in: Chemical Engineering; McGraw-Hill; New York; 05 April 1982; pp. 80–116.35
LO
33 Note that the value of the CE Index shown for May 1998 does not agree with the following reference.
34 Thanks to the Hargrave Library staff who made this copy available.
35 Due to Dr. David BRENNAN.
page 12-12 13:26

17/10/99
15. F. A. HOLLAND, F. A. WATSON and J. K. WILKINSON; “Process Economics;” in: Robert Howard PERRY
and Don W. GREEN (Ed’s); Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th edition; McGraw-Hill; New
S.
York; 1984.
16. Kaltim [East Kalimantan] Industrial Estate; Untitled; http://www.kie.co.id/tabel.html. (Accessed
.au NT
10/08/1999.)
17. O. P. KHARBANDA; Process Plant & Equipment Cost Estimation; Sevak Publications; Bombay; 1977.
om FO
/
1.c D
20. Russ SWAN (Ed.); “contract news” [sic!]; in: The Chemical Engineer; Issue 684; The Institution of
iv E
Chemical Engineers; Rugby; 08 July, 1999; p. 10.
.d D
21. Russ SWAN (Ed.); The Chemical Engineer; Issue 685; The Institution of Chemical Engineers; Rugby;
ch ED
22 July, 1999; pp. 4 (“BASF bounces back”) and 11 (“Winning the grand prize”).36
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
36 This was also the reference from which the management-babble term contained in the Summary was taken (“residue;”
p. 32). (A footnote or reference looked ‘out of place’ on that page.) Other good terms i n c l u d e a Concerted Capability
Review, an Incremental Policy Format and a Functional Control Philosophy! There are 1728 possible phrases.
13:26 page 12-13

17/10/99
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
D RAWING A NNEX
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
1. FORMALDEHYDE PLANT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

ve ve
2. COMPUTER SIMULATION OUTPUT

3. DRAWING 7001: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF BUBBLE CAP
ll N
4. DRAWING 7002: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF BUBBLE CAP TRAYS – COLUMN INTERNALS

fu IO
5. DRAWING 7003: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE BASE OF THE ABSORBER (ABS-1)

6. DRAWING 7004: MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE ABSORBER (ABS-1) – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
ad T
7. DRAWING 8001: PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM (P&ID) OF THE ABSORPTION SECTION OF THE
lo LU
PLANT
wn SO
“A” (BEFORE HAZOP)

Do E
“C” (AFTER HAZOP)

-R
10. DRAWING 1101: PLANT LAYOUT – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING OF MAIN FORMALDEHYDE
PLANT – PLAN VIEW
W
11. DRAWING 1102: PLANT LAYOUT – GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING OF MAIN FORMALDEHYDE
PLANT – ELEVATION = LOOKING WEST
LO
S.
.au NT
ABBREVIATIONS: ENERGY DUTIES
om FO
Steam (12 bar) 40 Combusted CP-1 539 kW
BFW = Boiler Feed Water 117 off-gas to HX-1 (2154) kW
stack
DMW = Demineralised Water HX-2 963 kW
/
TW = Towns Water 113 HX-3 3918 kW
112 HX-4 2612 kW
BFW HX-9 HX-5 801 kW
HX-6 590 kW
1.c D
P-5 HX-7 2350 kW
HX-8 1620 kW
114 116 50 HX-9 1478 kW
iv E
Natural Gas (normally zero flow) HX-10 1353 kW
D-3 RXN-3 HX-11 153 kW
115 Air P-1 0.5 kW
.d D
39 49 P-2 3.5 kW
38 P-3 0.35 kW
37 P-4 3.0 kW
ch ED
33 P-5 4.0 kW
129 Stage 4 34 DMW P-6 4.5 kW
FT-1 104 128 48 Methanol P-7 1.5 kW
P-10 P-8 2.0 kW
15B 16 17 109 HX-11 P-9 0.5 kW
ar B
15A P-8 41 P-10 0.1 kW
130 DMW RXN-1 (0) kW
RXN-2 (0) kW
se M
RXN-1 RXN-2 32 126 RXN-3 2117 kW
110 120 D-1 D-2 TRB-1 539 kW
HX-2 103 108 106 Stage 3
BFW 101 BFW 127 HX-6
re E
100 HX-4 HX-3 105
121 31 42 ST-2 ST-3
P-3 102 107 P-9 29 30
124 44 45
:// T
14 19 P-7 Product
Stage 2 ABS-1 Grade B
tp U
18 125 HX-7 37/7
20
118 28 27 26 25
ht HO
Demister 13 HX-10 12 24
122
CP-1 119 HX-5 P-6 43 ST-4 ST-5
TRB-1 Stage 1 123 HX-8
46 47
Product
Filter 111 21 Grade A
m IT
1 54/1
Air 8 9 HX-1 22
23
Filter 7
fro W
6
4 ST-1 5 11 P-4
Methanol 10 ITEMS:
P-1 P-2 ABS-1 Absorption Column
3 CP-1 Feed Gas Blower to Vaporiser
n n
2 D-1 Steam Drum on HX-4
DMW D-2 Steam Drum on HX-3
Filter V-1 D-3 Steam Drum on RXN-3
io io
FT-1 Flame Trap on Reactor Feed Line
Stream Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HX-1 Methanol Feed Vaporiser
HYSIM identifier LPAir MainsWater WaterFeed Meth.Pipe Meth.Pipe Meth.Feed AqMethanol LPGas HPGas CCC DDD EEE FFF / AAA ProcessVap Total_Feed - - - - CoolEff AbsFeed - - - HX-2 Methanol Superheater
Vapour fraction
Temperature
Pressure
-
°C
kPa
1
37.0
101
0
37.0
400
0
37.0
185
0
37.0
110
0
37.0
110
0
rs rs
37.0
185
0
37.0
185
1
43.6
101
1
121.6
185
0
62.1
185.0
0
62.1
245.0
0
72.6
215.0
0
86.5
185
1
62.1
185
1
158.3
170
1
158.3
170
1
158.3
170
1
170.0
145
1
170.0
145
1
170.0
145
1
90.0
130
0
75.0
130.0
0
75.0
170
0
60.0
130
HX-3
HX-4
HX-5
Waste Heat Boiler (for RXN-2)
Waste Heat Boiler (for RXN-1)
Reactor Effluent Cooler
ve ve
MASS FLOW kg.s-1 3.221 0.226 0.226 1.742 1.742 1.742 1.968 5.948 5.948 23.945 23.945 23.945 23.945 7.916 7.916 3.166 4.750 3.166 4.750 7.916 7.916 29.7 29.7 29.7 HX-6 Stage 3 Recirculation Cooler
MASS FRACTION HX-7 Stage 2 Recirculation Cooler
Formaldehyde - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 trace trace 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 trace trace trace 0.181 0.181 0.181 0.181 0.540 0.540 0.540 HX-8 Stage 1 Recirculation Cooler
Methanol - 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.885 trace trace 0.315 0.315 0.315 0.315 0.220 trace trace trace 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.010 0.010 0.010 HX-9 Economiser
Oxygen - 0.225 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 HX-10 Vaporiser Recycle Heater
ll N
Water - 0.032 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.115 0.046 0.046 0.685 0.685 0.685 0.685 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.450 0.450 0.450 HX-11 Serpentine Cooling Coils
Hydrogen - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 P-1 Methanol Feed Pump
Carbon Dioxide - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 P-2 Liquid Recirculation Pump
fu IO
Carbon Monoxide - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 P-3 Boiler Feed Water Pump
Formic Acid - 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 P-4 Stage 1 Recirculation Pump
Nitrogen - 0.743 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.785 0.785 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.590 0.000 0.000 0.000 P-5 Boiler Feed Water Pump
P-6 Stage 2 Recirculation Pump
Stream Number Units 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 P-7 Stage 3 Recirculation Pump
ad T
HYSIM identifier PRODUCT - - - - - - - AbsWater - Ohead_Total RecVap_a Off-gas Exhaust2 - - - - - - - - ExtraAir P-8 Stage 4 Coolant Pump
Vapour fraction - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 P-9 Boiler Feed Water Pump
lo LU
Temperature °C 60.0 60.0 63.0 63.0 48.0 51.0 51.0 40.0 37.0 37.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 206.4 37.0 60.0 60.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 37.0 37.0 P-9 Boiler Feed Water Pump
Pressure kPa 130 130 240 280 240 265 305 265 400 495 110 101 110 101 150 130 130 130 130 130 130 150 110 P-10 Absorber Water Pump
MASS FLOW kg.s-1 2.646 27.1 41.2 41.2 41.2 13.7 13.7 13.7 0.328 0.328 5.599 2.727 2.872 4.590 0.069 0.187 2.458 0.273 0.273 2.458 2.458 0.017 1.718 RXN-1 Catalytic Reactor (40 % load)
MASS FRACTION RXN-2 Catalytic Reactor (60 % load)
Formaldehyde - 0.540 0.540 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.199 0.199 0.199 0.000 0.000 trace trace trace 0.000 0.000 0.540 0.540 0.370 0.370 0.540 0.540 0.000 0.000 RXN-3 Tail Gas Burner
Methanol - 0.010 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 trace trace trace 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.080 0.080 0.010 0.010 1.000 0.000 ST-1 Methanol Storage Tank
wn SO
Oxygen - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.225 ST-2 Grade B Formaldehyde Buffer Tank
Water - 0.450 0.450 0.706 0.706 0.706 0.798 0.798 0.798 1.000 1.000 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.129 1.000 0.450 0.450 0.550 0.550 0.450 0.450 0.000 0.032 ST-3 Grade B Formaldehyde Grading Tank
Hydrogen - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ST-4 Grade A Formaldehyde Buffer Tank
Carbon Dioxide - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ST-5 Grade A Formaldehyde Grading Tank
Carbon Monoxide - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 TRB-1 Turbine to drive CP-1
V-1 Water Let-Down Valve
Do E
Formic Acid - 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000
Nitrogen - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.834 0.834 0.834 0.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.743
-R
Stream Number 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
HYSIM identifier - - - - - - - - - - Steam1b Condens1 BFWater4a BFWater4b BFWater4c - - Steam4a Steam4b Condens4' Steam4c Condens4c' - - - - - - - - -
Vapour fraction - 0 0 0 0.75 1 0 0 0 0.75 1 1 0.9417 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Title: Formaldehyde Plant Process Flow Diagram
Temperature °C 100.0 100.0 151.9 151.9 151.9 100.0 100.0 151.9 151.9 151.9 151.9 100.2 100.0 100.1 189.5 189.5 188.0 188.0 188.0 187.4 188.0 187.4 30.0 45.0 30.0 45.0 30.0 41.0 30.0 30.0 35.0 Process: Non-distillative silver catalyst (off-gas recycle)
Original: Sasha Trandafilovic
W
Pressure kPa 400 500 500 500 500 400 500 500 500 500 500 102 400 1270 1240 1240 1200 1200 1200 1185 1200 1185 400 360 400 360 400 360 400 525 485
MASS FLOW kg.s-1 1.086 1.086 1.086 1.599 1.086 1.628 1.628 1.628 2.398 1.628 2.714 2.720 1.720 1.720 1.720 1.720 1.720 1.720 0.569 0.569 0.484 0.484 25.9 25.9 37.5 37.5 12.8 12.8 7.32 7.32 7.32 Revised by: David I. Verrelli
FRACTION WATER - 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Revision: "F"
Date: 09/10/1999
LO
D-1
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
S.
.au NT
KEY:
RXN-3 Non-return valve (flanged) Locally mounted instrument
om FO
SV801S PC Pipe / Duct (utility / minor)
RXN-3
H FC G-39-406 Spectacle blind & valve Panel mounted instrument
SV801A PR PA Pipe /Duct (main process) (flanged, normally open) (with local display)
/
G-37-559
ROV
CV811C
FR
CV812C Wiring (control signal) Spectacle blind & valve TI Temperature indicator
(flanged, normally closed) TT Temperature transmitter
1.c D
CV813C CP-1 Ground level (approximate) TR Temperature recorder
TI G-38-406
PI Relief / Safety valve TX Temperature selector (max.)
Flanged connection (spring-activated, flanged) TC Temperature controller
iv E
CV801B
L-34-019 RV802R Blanked flange ROV Remote-operated valve PI Pressure indicator
.d D
TT 1
C-129-025 RV802B
(flanged, normally closed) PA Pressure alarm
2 CV801E CV801C CV801A
3
IV802B Cap (for N2 connection) H High
CV801D
TX TT 4 HX-11A Control valve L Low
ch ED
5
6 PI Valve normally open (flanged, fail open) PT Pressure transmitter
TT 7 C-130-051 PI PC Pressure controller
H
P-8 MA PA Valve normally closed Control valve
TI
Stage 4 L (flanged) (flanged, fail closed) FT Flow transmitter
PI RCW M RELAY
FR Flow recorder
ar B
C-129-102
IV802A Valve locked open (flanged) Control valve
CV802B
CV807B TW (flanged, holds position) CT Composition transmitter
se M
8 Valve locked closed
TT C-129-025 C-129-076
CV807E CV807C CV807A
9 CV802E CV802C CV802A (flanged) Reducer (eccentric) MA Motor stop alarm
10
11
CV802D
CV807D TX TT
Orifice plate / Restriction
re E
12
13 HX-11B
TT 14 C-130-051 L-32-102
FC IV809B PI "Trade waste" (drain)
TI TW
TI
:// T
Stage 4 Tracing
PI TR H PI
TC TA CV808B
FC
tp U
L Tray number
CV803B TI 18
RV801R
IV801B
RV801B TT 15 CV808E CV808C CV808A
C-129-025
ht HO
16 CV803E CV803C CV803A
RCW CV808D
17 PI
TX TT 18 HX-11C CV803D HX-6 RCW
19
C-126-102
PI TI
PI 20 RV803R L-31-102
H TT 21 C-130-051 IV803B RCW
P-10 MA PA
RV803B TT
L CV804B FC C-127-102
TI
m IT
M RELAY PI
PI PI
IV801A H TI
CV804E CV804C CV804A
P-7 MA PA IV809A
TW L
SV802S CV804D
PI
fro W
SV802A M RELAY CV809B FC
IV803A
L-33-019 L-32-102
TC TW L-29-178 CV809E CV809C CV809A
Stage 3 L-30-152
CV809D
DMW TI
n n
PI L-29-178 PRODUCT
L-25-038
io io
FC CV805B H PI RCW
TR TI TC TA IV808B SAMPLE
L TI FC POINT
PI
Stage 2 rs rs TC
L-25-038
CV805E
CV805D
CV805C CV805A L-24-152
IV807B HX-8
PI
C-122-152
L-29-178
TW
ve ve
L-27-229 PI
TI CV806B
FC TI TI
PI RCW
TR H PI
CV806E CV806C CV806A TT C-123-152 TC TA
L
ll N
CV806D TI
PT IV807A L-23-152 TI RCW
L-26-152 C-125-178 TT
fu IO
FR Stage 1 RV804R PI PI
TI HX-7
HX-5 RV804B
G-21-635 PI TI
IV806B
ABS-1 C-124-178
ad T
SV803A
SV803S IV806A
IV804B
IV805B
lo LU
LC L-28-178 IV808A
IV806B TI
PI
PI PI PI
PI PI PI
H H H
P-4A MA PA P-4B MA P-6 MA
wn SO
PA PA
TC L L L FC CV810B
M RELAY M RELAY M RELAY
L-22-203
IV804A IV806A
RCW
RV805B
IV805A CV810E CV810C CV810A
TW TW L-27-229 TW RV805R CV810D
Do E
TW TW TW L-27-229
-R
ABBREVIATIONS: LINE IDENTIFICATION: X-YY-ZZZ "Z" D.I.V. 2/10/1999 FOR APPROVAL

DMW Demineralised water P-4A Stage 1 recirculation pump ABS-1 Absorption column CV Control valve (station) X = Fluid class: G = Process gas REVISION BY DATE DESCRIPTION
RCW Recirculated cooling water P-4B Spare for P-4A / P-6 RV Relief valve (unit) L = Process liquid DATE 13/9/1999 PROCESS AND
Off-gas burner Stage 2 recirculation pump Stage 3 recirculation cooler Safety valve (unit) C = RCW SCALE N.T.S. INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
W
RXN-3 P-6 HX-6 SV

HX-5 Reactor effluent cooler P-7 Stage 3 recirculation pump HX-7 Stage 2 recirculation cooler IV Isolation valve (spectacle) YY = Line number NUMBER 8001 (P&ID) OF ABSORPTION
CP-1 Blower P-8 Stage 4 coolant pump HX-8 Stage 1 recirculation cooler ZZZ = Nominal line size [mm] DRAWN BY D.I.V. SECTION OF PLANT
P-10 Absorber water pump HX-11 Serpentine cooling coils NOTE: All Schedule 80, Type 316SS PROJECT CHE4117 - FORMALDEHYDE ABSORBER
LO
10/5/99, 2:26 PM 1 of 1 dp_P&ID8.xls
D-7
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
14 INSTRUMENTATION
.d D
RC Ratio flow control
TPI Temperature & Pressure indicator
ch ED
TPI
FIC Flow indicator control
PI Pressure indicator
FI Flow indicator
20 LC Level control
ar B
LA Level alarm
TI FA Flame alarm
se M
TPI TI Temperature indicator
Demister
LINE SPECIFICATION
re E
13 12 A-BB-CCC-D-EEE
HX-5 A- Pipe size (mm)
TPI
:// T
HX-10 BB- Fluid class
TPI
CCC- Line number
tp U
FIC D- Design pressure (bar)
FIC EEE- Material class
ht HO
AIR 21 EQUIPMENT ITEMS
V-3 HX-1 Methanol evaporator
LA
FIC TPI
HX-5 Heater
HX-1 V-4 HX-10 Heat exchanger
m IT
P-2 Recirculation pump
LC
V-2 FI 7
CONTROL VAVLES
METHANO
fro W
6 V-1
L PI V-2
V-3
RC 11 V-4
n n
3
Designed by HAI H. HUYNH
io io
FI 10
DEMINERAL
WATER
V-1 rs rs P-2-a
ve ve
PI
ll N
fu IO
ad T
P-2-b
lo LU
TITLE : Pumping & Instrumentation

wn SO
Vaporizer (VAP-1)
PROJECT : Formaldehyde
Bontang, Indonesia
VERSION : (A)
Do E
DRAWN BY : HAI H. HUYNH

-R
W
LO
D-8
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
118 INSTRUMENTATION
H Insulation RC Ratio flow control
iv E
FI TPI Temp. and pressure indicator
L FIC Flow indicator control
FA
.d D
14 PI Pressure indicator
FI Flow indicator
TPI
H
ch ED
LIC Level indicator and control
PI LA Level alarm
Relief & vent FA Flame alarm
TI Temperature indicator
20 INT Interlock
ar B
TI ALARMS
TPI TPI
se M
FI H High alarm
Demister L L L Low alarm (& trip)
LINE SPECIFICATION
re E
13 12 A-BB-CCC-D-EEE
HX-5 A- Pipe size (mm)
TPI
HX-10 BB- Fluid class
:// T
TPI
CCC- Line number
FI D- Design pressure (bar)
H
tp U
H FIC
V-3 FIC FI EEE- Material class
L TI
PI
L
ht HO
AIR 21 EQUIPMENT ITEMS
9 H HX-1 Methanol evaporator
PI
FIC 119 HX-5 Heater
L HX-1 V-4 HX-10 Heat exchanger
m IT
H P-2 Recirculation pump
H LIC
V-2 FI 7
L
L CONTROL VAVLES
fro W
METHANOL 6 H V-1
PI V-2
PI
H V-3
RC H 11 V-4
n n
L
L FI
H Designed by HAI H. HUYNH
io io
FI 10 Revised by DAVID I. VERRELLI
DEMINERALISED L PI
WATER
V-1 3 rs rsL
ve ve
P-2-a H
PI
ll N
INT
fu IO
TITLE : Pumping & Instrumentation

Vaporizer (VAP-1)
PROJECT : Formaldehyde
Bontang, Indonesia
ad T
P-2-b VERSION : (C)

DRAWN BY : HAI H. HUYNH
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
D-9
S.
.au NT
om FO
SCALE Methanol pipeline
CP-1 TRB-1 Hazard limits for catalytic reactors
/
0 5 10 m Sound-proof (15m) Possible boiler feedwater
enclosure treatment plant, else
N HX-5
1.c D
HX-2
ST-1 FT-1 ROOM FOR FUTURE
iv E
D-1 EXPANSION OF PLANT
RXN-1 P-3A&B
ST-3B HX-1 HX-4
.d D
P-9A&B
P-1A&B
ch ED
RXN-2 P-5A&B
HX-3 D-2
P-2A&B HX-10
Prevailing D-3
ar B
wind direction RXN-3
Stack &
se M
HX-9 Natural gas pipeline
ST-2 P-7 P-6 HX-6

ST-3A ROOM FOR FUTURE
re E
ABS-1 EXPANSION OF PLANT
P-10 P-4B HX-7 Cooling tower, if
required, else
:// T
future expansion
tp U
Scaffolding/stairs P-8 P-4A HX-8
Hazard limits for off-gas burner
(15m)
ht HO
ROOM FOR FUTURE
m IT
To resins plant MAINTENANCE LAB. EXPANSION OF PLANT
CONTROL & (R&D) RELIGIOUS
ROOM STORE 4×4 CENTRE
5×6 5×6
fro W
7×7
ST-4
FIRE MEDICAL
SHED CENTRE CANTEEN
n n
ST-5B ST-5A 2×2 3×3 (INCLUDING
EATING AREA) OFFICES AND ADMINISTRATION
io io
TOILETS & 7.5×8
SHOWERS 7×16
3.5×6
rs rs
ve ve
15m radius "hazard limit"
CAR PARK
ll N
&
MARSHALLING AREA 1
fu IO
ad T
GATE
HOUSE
lo LU
4×3
FENCE (BARBED WIRE)
wn SO
= Process stream flow direction

MAIN ACCESS ROAD
Do E
= Utility stream flow direction

-R
DESCRIPTION FINAL PLANT LAYOUT

DATE 09/10/1999 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING
SCALE see legend OF MAIN FORMALDEHYDE PLANT
W
NUMBER 1101 PLAN VIEW

DRAWN BY DV & ST
REVISION "C" BY DV,ST&MW DATE 11/10/1999
LO
PROJECT CHE4117 – FORMALDEHYDE PLANT LAYOUT
D-10
9:20 AM, 10/12/99 1 of 1 dp_lay-P4.xls (Sheet1)
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
DESCRIPTION FINAL PLANT LAYOUT
ar B
DATE 09/10/1999 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING
SCALE see legend OF MAIN FORMALDEHYDE PLANT
se M
NUMBER 1102 ELEVATION = LOOKING WEST
DRAWN BY DIV
REVISION "B" BY DIV DATE 11/10/1999
re E
PROJECT CHE4117 – FORMALDEHYDE PLANT LAYOUT
:// T
SCALE:
tp U
ht HO
0 10 20 m
NOTE: Scale is only approximate, as not all dimensions are known,

and some items are shown slightly larger than actual size for clarity
m IT
fro W
ABS-1
South North
n n
io io
NOTE: PUMPS ARE ACTUALLY
rs rs D-3
D-2 D-1
ve ve
IN LINE - SHOWN SEPARATELY
HERE FOR CLARITY
RXN-2 RXN-1 Sound-proof
ll N
SEE PLAN VIEW: & & HX-1 enclosure

DRAWING NUMBER 1101 RXN-3 & HX-9 HX-3 HX-4
fu IO
HX-10 HX-2
TRB-1
HX-8 HX-7 HX-6 &
P-2A P-1A HX-5 CP-1
P-4A P-8 P-4B P-10 P-6 P-7 P-2B P-1B P-5A P-5B P-9A P-9B P-3A P-3B
ad T
TO ROAD ROAD
lo LU
SEE NOTE AT FAR LEFT

wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
10/12/99, 9:07 AM 1 of 1 dp_lay-E2.xls(Sheet1)
D-11
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
A PPENDIX TO C HAPTER 3
m IT
fro W
P ROCESS S YNTHESIS AND

F LOWSHEET D EVELOPMENT
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
LO
W
-R
These are calculated
Do E
Stream Number(s) Description Type Hot/Cold TIN [°C] H'IN [kW] TOUT [°C] H'OUT [kW] m' [] cp [kJ.kg-1] m'cp DH' Composite curves
11,12 (a) Vaporiser recycle Sink (sens) Cold 62.10 -28959.8 86.5 -26970.4 22.5059523 4.07307596 91.6684534 2238.7
1000
11,12 (b) Vaporiser recycle Sink (lat.) Cold 86.5 -26970.4 86.5 -3706.6 22.5059523 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0
wn SO
14,15 Superheating Sink Cold 62.08 2976.8 158.3 3940.1 7.9159 1.26525728 10.0156501 963.2882
900
ex-RXN-1,16 Boiler Source Hot 700.0 10745.1 170.0 4430.0 7.9159 1.50522238 11.9151898 -6315.0506
lo LU
16,17 (a) Absorber feed Source (sens)Hot 170.0 4430.0 90.0 3572.9 7.9159 1.35358993 10.7148825 -857.1906 800 Source
16,17 (b) Absorber feed Source (lat.) Hot 62.0 3572.9 62.0 3572.9 7.9159 0 0 0
Sink
ad T
16,17 (c) Absorber feed Source (lat.) Hot 62.0 3572.9 62.0 3572.9 7.9159 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 700
19,20 Absorber, stage 1 Source Hot 75.0 -53691.3 60.0 -56946.9 58.7193 1.232 72.34762 -1085.2143
28,29 Absorber, stage 2 Source Hot 65.0 -53691.3 50.0 -56946.9 58.7193 1.232 72.34762 -1085.2143 600
fu IO
31,32 Absorber, stage 3 Source Hot 55.0 -53691.3 40.0 -56946.9 58.7193 1.232 72.34762 -1085.2143
500
38,40 ***FIX Burner Source Hot 907 6542 220 2550 4.5937 1.266 5.81399228 -3992.0121
RCW Utility
ll N Sink 30.0 40 4.1899 0 0 400
Temperature [°C]
TW Utility Sink 30.0 40 4.1899 0 0
DW Utility Sink 30.0 40 4.1899 0 0 300
ve ve
LP Steam: 500bar(a) Utility Source 151.9 151 condensing infinite
HP Steam: 1200bar(a) Utility Source 188.0 187 condensing infinite 200
rs rs
100
io io
2238.6628
n n 0.0
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
SOURCE STREAMS Composite Curve DH [kW]

fro W
Interval Number Lower Temp Upper Temp
m IT Stream m'cp DH' Sub-Total DH' Cumul-Total DH'
40 0 Composite curves - DETAIL

1 40.0 55.0 31,32 72.34762 1085.2143 1085.2143 1085.2143
2 50.0 65.0 28,29 72.34762 1085.2143 1085.2143 2170.4286 Source
ht HO
3 60.0 75.0 19,20 72.34762 1085.2143 1085.2143 3255.6429 Sink (Option 1)
75.0 90.0 3255.6429 300
Sink (Option 2)
tp U
4 90.0 170.0 16,17 (a) 10.7148825 857.1906 857.1906 4112.8335
5 170.0 220.0 ex-RXN-1,16 11.9151898 595.759491 595.759491 4708.59299
:// T
6 220.0 700.0 ex-RXN-1,16 11.9151898 5719.29111 8510.0074 13218.6004 250
700.0 38,40 5.81399228 2790.71629 13218.6004
re E
7 700.0 907 38,40 5.81399228 1201.29581 1201.29581 14419.8962
200
se M
ar B
SINK STREAMS Composite Curves
Temperature [°C]
150
Interval Number Lower Temp Upper Temp Stream m'cp DH' Sub-Total DH' Cumulative Total DH'
ch ED
OPTION 1 OPTION 2
100
62.08 DATUM = 3255.6429 3500
.d D
1 62.08 62.10 14,15 10.0156501 0.13420971 0.13420971 3255.77711 3500.13421
2 62.10 86.5
iv E
14,15 10.0156501 244.595196 2483.258 5739.03511 5983.39221
86.5 11,12(a) 91.6684534 2238.6628 5739.0351 5983.3922 50
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3 86.5 158.3 14,15 10.0156501 718.558795 718.558795 6457.5939 6701.951
DH [kW]
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
27/09/99, 10:48
/ S. 1 of 1 CURVES_f.xls (CompCurves)
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
M ASS AND E NERGY B ALANCES &

P ROCESS S IMULATION
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
LO
CHE4117: Design Project
W Formaldehyde David Verrelli (Group 8)
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
CALCULATION OF DESIGN "GRADE A" AND "GRADE B" CAPACITY
fu IO
-1
Total capacity:
ll N 80 kt(54%).y
ve ve
Percentage of "Grade A": 90 %
Percentage of "Grade B": 10 %
rs rs
io io
Compositions [%]: HCHO
n n CH3OH H2O
"Grade A" 54 1 45
"Grade B" 37 7 56
fro W
-1 -1 -1
350 dop'n.y 24 hop'n.dop'n 3600 s.hop'n
m IT
Thus:
-1 -1 -1 -1
Flow of "Grade A": 74.34034 kt(54%).y 212.401 t(54%).dop'n 8.850041 t(54%).hop'n 2.458345 kg(54%).s
ht HO
-1 -1 -1 -1
Flow of "Grade B": 5.659656 kt(54%).y 16.17045 t(54%).dop'n 0.673769 t(54%).hop'n 0.187158 kg(54%).s
tp U
-1 -1 -1 -1
TOTAL flow 80 kt(54%).y 228.5714 t(54%).dop'n 9.52381 t(54%).hop'n 2.645503 kg(54%).s
:// T
-1 -1
re E -1 -1
Flow of "Grade A": 74.34034 kt(54%).y 212.401 t(54%).dop'n 8.850041 t(54%).hop'n 2.458345 kg(54%).s
-1 -1 -1 -1
se M
Flow of "Grade B": 8.260038 kt(37%).y 23.60011 t(37%).dop'n 0.983338 t(37%).hop'n 0.273149 kg(37%).s
-1 -1 -1 -1
ar B
TOTAL flow 82.60038 kt(solution).y
ch ED 236.0011 t(solution).dop'n 9.833379 t(solution).hop'n 2.731494 kg(solution).s
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
12:00, 27/09/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP#MEB19.XLS (Design Capacity)
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
BASIC COMPLETE MATERIAL BALANCE
Assume: Atomic masses: Molar masses:
-1 -1
12.011 kg.kmol 0.032 kg.mol
iv E
About half of the methanol goes to each of the folowing reactions [Mechetta, p.358]: C CH3OH
-1 -1
CH3OH + 0.5O2 --> HCHO + H2O (1) 36% of CH3OH reacted H 1.0079 kg.kmol HCHO 0.030 kg.mol
-1 -1
.d D
CH3OH --> HCHO + H2 (2) 60% of CH3OH reacted O 15.9994 kg.kmol O2 0.032 kg.mol
-1 -1
The former is decreased by the presence of water [Catalyst Handbook, p. 493] N 14.0067 kg.kmol N2 0.028 kg.mol
-1
ch ED
0.018 kg.mol
(3)
Dehydrogenation (2) is more prevalent for catalysis by silver [Formaldehyde , p. 9] Sargent-Welch Sci. Co. H2O
-1
H2 0.002 kg.mol
-1
Assume: - other (side) reactions are considered (as follows): CO2 0.044 kg.mol NOTE: Compared to a 50:50 split b/n rxn's (1) & (2) with no side reactions,
-1
- nitrogen is inert and approximates any argon present CO 0.028 kg.mol the scheme outlined here requires:
-1
ar B
- methanol is in excess HCOOH 0.046 kg.mol * less water [now also by (3); & more methanol compensate for red'n in (1)]
- oxygen (limiting) consumed to: 99.5% (once-through) by analogy with Table 4 (p. 362) of McKetta From Simon Farrar (Orica) * more methanol [due to "losses" in side-rxn's]
& * more oxygen (in air) [due to extra methanol consumed]
(5)
- Off gases released contain all N2, O2 and H2 and (nominal) 13.2% of H2O exiting system G.F.C Rogers & Y. R. Mayhew , p. 2
se M
by simplification of Table 4 (p. 362) in McKetta
- by-products form by: Assume: Ullmann's(5), Vol. A11, p. 624. as fresh feed.
H2 + 0.5O2 --> H2O (3) 40.0% of H2 from (2) [WITHOUT recycled]
re E
HCHO --> CO + H2 (4) 0.92% of HCHO formed by (1) & (2) + recycled NOTE: "Fresh Feed" is a hypothetical stream - in practice the components
CH3OH + 1.5O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O (5) 4.0% of CH3OH reacted of this stream would be added variously at different points in the system.
(5)
HCHO + O2 --> CO2 + H2O (6) 6.5% of HCHO formed by (1) & (2) + recycled *More complete combustion at the elevated temperature? - see Ullmann's , p. 626
:// T
- the formation of formic acid (during processing!) is considered here: (3)
Formaldehyde , p. 9 NOTE (1): Absorber has not been properly modelled at all.
HCHO + 0.5O2 --> HCOOH (7) 0.020% of HCHO formed by (1) & (2) + recycled
tp U
cf. HCHO + 0.5O2 --> CO + H2O (8) 0.020% of HCHO formed by (1) & (2) + recycled NOTE (2): Trace quantities of NOx will be present in all gas/vapour process streams
- the following are not considered: cf. Catalyst Handbook, p. 493 except for the fresh feed. FORMULAE:
ht HO
CH3OH + 0.5O2 --> H2O + H2 +CO (9) Essentially covered by other reactions NOTE (3): Water in the incoming methanol has not been considered here. CH3OH + 1.5O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O (1)
HCHO + HCHO --> CH3OCHO (10) Temperature is too high during processing - Simon Farrar. Formic acid in incoming methanol is negligible, HCHO + O2 --> CO2 + H2O (2)
- Conversion of methanol is: 98.5% (once through) (Ullmann) Yield: 88.9% and may be assumed to be completely combusted to "inert" CO2 H2 + 0.5O2 --> H2O (3)
- Ratio of total off-gas to that which is recycled is: 0.95 ==> Ratio of recycled off-gas to (100%) methanol fed: 157% cf. US patent 4072717, col. 6 Water balance: CO + 0.5O2 --> CO2 (4)
- Percentage of fresh water entering the entire system on the process-side that enters the vaporiser (the rest entering the absorber): 50% HCOOH + 0.5O2 --> CO2 + H2O (5)
m IT
Note: Water in Absorber feed is already at a high mole fraction.
- Ambient air: Relative humididy = 80% Temperature = 37 °C hence Mole fraction = 0.049599 at 1atm(abs). Total overhead/absorber feed = 0.22847389 if total pressure = 110 kPa(abs)
NOTE: psat(water @ 44°C) = 9.10 kPa(abs) 8.273%
Mass fractions [-]: HCHO CH3OH H2O HCOOH Mole fraction of air [-]: O2 N2 Ar CO2 Approx. O2 N2 G.F.C Rogers & Y. R. Mayhew (5) , p. 26 NOTE: psat(water @ 50°C) = 12.33 kPa(abs) 11.209% - Excess air supplied: 20%
fro W
"Grade A" 0.54 0.01 < 0.45 < 0.001 0.2095 0.7809 0.0093 0.0003 0.2095 0.7905 NOTE: psat(water @ 55°C) = 15.74 kPa(abs) 14.309% - Assume complete combustion in off-gas burner
NOTE: psat(water @ 60°C) = 19.92 kPa(abs) 18.109% (except N2)
NOTE: psat(water @ 70°C) = 31.16 kPa(abs) 28.327%
Using the spreadsheet's "iterate" function REACTIONS: (Absorber feed) CHECK !
n n
Stream: Fresh feed Recycled off-gas Total reactor feed (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) NETT Reactor effluent Absorber water in Off-gas Product ACC = 0 = IN+GEN-OUT: Additional fuel/air Combusted off-gas
MOLAR FLOWS [mol.s-1] FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: 51.3882561 51.3882561 51.3882561 =Total HCHO formed pre-degradation FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: [mol.s-1]
io io
CH3OH 54.35507 0.3008 0 0.0000 54.3551 0.1837 -19.2706 -32.1177 0 0 -2.14118 0 0 0 -53.52943 CH3OH 0.8256 0.0025 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.8256 0.0072 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CH3OH
HCHO 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 19.2706 32.11766 0 -0.47476 0 -3.31545 -0.01028 -0.01028 47.5775 HCHO 47.5775 0.1430 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 47.5775 0.4156 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 HCHO
O2
N2
H2O
22.65455 0.1254
85.48174 0.4731
18.18057 0.1006
0.0553 0.0005
81.2076 0.7050
9.5298 0.0827
22.7099 0.0768
166.6894 0.5634
27.7104 0.0937
rs rs -9.6353
19.2706
0
0 -6.423532
0
0 12.84706
0
0
0
-3.21177
0
0 4.282355 3.315448
-3.31545
0
-0.00514
0
-0.00514 -22.59632
0
0 0.010278 39.72574
0
O2
N2
H2O
0.1135
166.6894
67.4361
0.0003
0.5010
18.18057
0
0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0582
85.4817
10.0314 0.0827
0.0005
0.7050
0
66.0555
0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
---
---
12.0800
45.5811
3.0092
0.1991
0.7513
2.0230
131.0628
32.7859
0.0118
0.7628
O2
N2
H2O
ve ve
0.2027 1.0000 0.5771 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0.0496 0.1908
H2 0 0.0000 18.7581 0.1628 18.7581 0.0634 0 32.11766 -12.84706 0.474756 0 0 0 0 19.74535 H2 38.5034 0.1157 0 0.0000 19.7454 0.1628 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 H2
CO2 0 0.0000 5.1838 0.0450 5.1838 0.0175 0 0 0 0 2.141177 3.315448 0 0 5.456626 CO2 10.6404 0.0320 0 0.0000 5.4566 0.0450 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 5.9417 0.0346 CO2
CO 0 0.0000 0.4608 0.0040 0.4608 0.0016 0 0 0 0.474756 0 0 0 0.010278 0.485033 CO 0.9458 0.0028 0 0.0000 0.4850 0.0040 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CO
ll N
TOTAL 180.6719 1.0000 115.1954 1.0000 295.8674 1.0000 9.635298 32.11766 -6.423532 0.474756 1.070589 0 -0.00514 0.005139 36.87477 332.7421 1.0000 18.18057 1.0000 121.2584 1.0000 114.4689 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 60.6703 1.0000 171.8134 1.0000
( N O T Z E R O ) ( N O T Z E R O ) (NOT ZERO) (SHOULD BE ZERO)
fu IO
Total out: 235.727267

-1 -1
MASS FLOWS [kg.s ] FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) NETT FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: FRACTION: [kg.s ]
CH3OH 1.7416 0.3357 0 0.0000 1.7416 0.2200 -0.61747 -1.02911 0 0 -0.06861 0 0 0 -1.71519 CH3OH 0.0265 0.0033 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.026455 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CH3OH
HCHO 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.578623 0.964371 0 -0.01426 0 -0.09955 -0.00031 -0.00031 1.428571 HCHO 1.4286 0.1805 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 1.428571 0.5400 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 HCHO
ad T
O2 0.7249 0.1397 0.0018 0.0006 0.7267 0.0918 -0.30832 0 -0.205545 0 -0.10277 -0.10609 -0.00016 -0.00016 -0.723055 O2 0.0036 0.0005 0 0.0000 0.0019 0.0006 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0.3865 0.2250 0.0647 0.0141 O2
N2 2.3946 0.4615 2.2749 0.8341 4.6695 0.5899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N2 4.6695 0.5899 0 0.0000 2.3946 0.8341 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 1.2769 0.7434 3.6715 0.8002 N2
lo LU
H2O 0.3275 0.0631 0.1717 0.0630 0.4992 0.0631 0.347164 0 0.231442 0 0.077147 0.059728 0 0.000185 0.715667 H2O 1.2149 0.1535 0.3275 1.0000 0.1807 0.0630 1.190003 0.4498 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0.0542 0.0316 0.5906 0.1287 H2O
H2 0 0.0000 0.0378 0.0139 0.0378 0.0048 0 0.064743 -0.025897 0.000957 0 0 0 0 0.039803 H2 0.0776 0.0098 0 0.0000 0.0398 0.0139 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 H2
CO2 0 0.0000 0.2281 0.0837 0.2281 0.0288 0 0 0 0 0.094233 0.145912 0 0 0.240145 CO2 0.4683 0.0592 0 0.0000 0.2401 0.0837 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0.2615 0.0570 CO2
CO 0 0.0000 0.0129 0.0047 0.0129 0.0016 0 0 0 0.013298 0 0 0 0.000288 0.013586 CO 0.0265 0.0033 0 0.0000 0.0136 0.0047 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 --- 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 CO
wn SO
TOTAL 5.1887 1.0000 2.7272 1.0000 7.9159 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.9159 1.0000 0.3275 1.0000 2.8707 1.0000 2.645503 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7176 1.0000 4.5884 1.0000
( S H O U L D B E Z E R O ) ( S H O U L D B E Z E R O ) (SHOULD BE ZERO) Total out: 5.51625088 (SHOULD BE ZERO)
NOTE: Some water enters with "fresh air" Actual reaction conversion: 35.453% 59.089% 25.02% 0.924% 3.939% 6.452% 0.0200% 0.0200%
-1
= 5.643335 mol.s basis: CH3OH CH 3 OH H2 HCHO CH3OH HCHO HCHO HCHO * Note: HCHO and H2 calculated from total generated
Do E
-1
= 0.101666 kg.s ==> 0.225861 in MainsWater ^^^ Or 97.5% of the CH 3 OH remaining after reactions (1) and (5) have proceded
-R
W
2:23 PM, 10/5/99 1 of 1 DP#MEB19.XLS (Complete Mat. Bal. (2))

LO
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
Table 5a. Thermodynamic & Essential Data of Components
-R
All data from Sinnott (2) unless otherwise stated
Methanol Air Oxygen Nitrogen Formaldehyde Carbon Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Water Formic Acid Methyl Formate Hydrogen
Do E
(CH3OH) (O2) (N2) (HCHO) (CO2) (CO) (H2O) (HCOOH) (C2H4O2) (H2)
MW Molecular Weight [g.mol-1] 32.042 32 28.013 30.026 44.01 28.01 18.015 46.025 60.052 2.016 MW
wn SO
TFP Normal Freezing Point [°C] -97.7 -218.8 -209.9 -117.2 -56.6 -205.1 0 8.3 -99 -259.2 TFP
TBP Normal Boiling Point [°C] 64.6 -183 -195.8 -19.2 -78.5 -191.5 100 100.6 31.7 -252.8 TBP
TC Critical Temperature [K] 512.6 154.6 126.2 408 304.2 132.9 647.3 580 487.2 33.2 TC
lo LU
PC Critical Pressure [bar(abs)] 81 50.5 33.9 65.9 73.8 35 220.5 60 13 PC
ad T
VC Critical Volume [m3.mol-1] 0.118 0.073 0.09 0.094 0.093 0.056 0.172 0.065 VC
LDEN Liquid Density [kg.m-3] 791 1149 805 815 777 803 998 1226 974 71 LDEN
TDEN Ref. Temp for liquid density [°C] 20 -183 -195 -20 20 -192 20 15 20 -253 TDEN
fu IO
HVAP Heat of Vaporisation at normal
ll N 35278 6824 5581 23027 17166 6046 40683 21939 28219 904 HVAP
boiling point [J.mol-1]
VISA Constants in the liquid viscosity eq. 555.3 85.68 90.3 319.83 578.08 94.06 658.25 729.35 363.19 13.82 VISA
VISB Constants in the liquid viscosity eq. 260.64 51.5 46.14 171.35 185.24 48.9 283.16 325.72 212.7 5.39 VISB
ve ve
DELHF Standard Enthalpy of formation of -201.3 0 0 -115.97 -393.77 -110.62 -242 -378.86 -350.02 0 DELHF
-1
of vapour at 298K [kJ.mol ]
rs rs
[kJ.kg-1] -6282.379 0 0 -3862.319323 -8947.284708 -3949.30382 -13433.2501 -8231.613254 -5828.6152 0
io io
DELGF Standard Gibbs energy of formation
n n -162.62 -109.99 -394.65 -137.37 -228.77 -351.23 -297.39 DELGF
of vapour at 298K [kJ.mol-1]
CPVAPA Constant in ideal gas heat 21.152 28.94 28.106 31.15 23.475 19.795 30.869 32.243 11.715 1.432 27.143 CPVAPA
capacity equation (see below)
fro W
CPVAPB Constant in ideal gas heat 7.09E-02 4.15E-03 -3.68E-06 -1.36E-02 3.16E-02 7.34E-02 -1.29E-02 1.92E-03 1.36E-01 2.70E-01 9.27E-03 CPVAPB
m IT
CVPAPC Constant in ideal gas heat 2.59E-05 3.19E-06 1.75E-05 2.68E-05 2.99E-05 -5.60E-05 2.79E-05 1.06E-05 -8.41E-05 -1.95E-04 -1.38E-05 CVPAPC
CPVAPD Constant in ideal gas heat -2.58E-08 -1.79E-09 -1.07E-08 -1.17E-08 -2.30E-08 1.72E-08 -1.27E-08 -3.60E-09 2.02E-08 5.70E-08 7.65E-09 CPVAPD
ht HO
ANTA Constant in Antoine equation 18.5875 15.4075 14.9502 16.4775 22.5898 14.3686 18.3036 16.9882 16.5104 13.6333 ANTA
tp U
ANTB Constant in Antoine equation 3626.55 734.55 588.72 2204.13 3103.39 530.22 3816.44 3599.58 2590.87 164.9 ANTB
ANTC Constant in Antoine equation -34.29 -6.45 -6.6 -30.15 -0.16 -13.15 -46.13 -26.09 -42.6 3.19 ANTC
:// T
TMN Minimum temperature for -16 -210 -219 -88 -119 -210 11 -2 -48 -259 TMN
re E
Antoine constant [°C]
TMX Maximum temperature for 91 -173 -183 -2 -69 -165 168 136 51 -248 TMX
se M
Antoine constant [°C] ar B
-1 -1 2 3
cp[J.mol .K ] = A + B.T + C.T + D.T ; T in K
LOG(Viscosity[mPa.s]) = (VISA).{(1/T) - (1/VISB)}; T in K
ch ED
LN(pvapour(sat'n)[mmHg(abs)]) = ANTA - (ANTB/(T + ANTC)); T in K
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:07
/ S. 1 of 1 dp_const.xls(Sinnott)
LO
W
-R
From Oxtoby & Nachtrieb (2) Methanol -238.66 -7448.349 cf . (aq) -245.93 -7675.24
Do E
Heat of formation of the pure liquids at 25°C: Water -285.83 -15866.22
Formic acid -424.72 -9228.028 cf . (aq) -425.43 -9243.45
-1 -1 -1 -1
wn SO
[kJ.mol ] [kJ.kg ] [kJ.mol ] [kJ.kg ]
-1 -1
From Ullmann's (5)
lo LUHeat of solution at 23°C: HCHO 62 kJ.mol = 1935.927 kJ.kg
( T = 296.15 K )
ad T
-1. -1
Then with the mean specific heat of HCHO(g): 34.89326 J.mol K
-1. -1
Mean specific heat of HCHO(l): 72.18094 J.mol K
-1. -1
fu IO
Mean specific heat of H2O(l): 75.40113 J.mol K
-1
ll N
well might the mean cp of 25%(mol.mol ) HCHO-H2O(solution) be (approx.)
-1. -1
74.59608 J.mol K
*Assuming additive specific heats of the pure liquid constituents (ideal), as per Sinnott (2) , p. 284.
ve ve
rs rs
However, by the same token we would assume that the HCHO component of that mixture would have
-1. -1
mean cp of HCHO(aq) = mean cp of HCHO(l) = 72.18094 J.mol K (they are very similar, in any case)
io io
-1 -1
n n
Heat of formation at 25°C: Gas -116.0 kJ.mol = -3622.06 kJ.kg
-1 -1
Hence: Aq -177.9254 kJ.mol = -5555.66 kJ.kg
-1
( cf. -178.0 kJ.mol if cp's not considered. )
fro W
-1
From Perry (7) m IT = -5557.9841 kJ.kg
Liquid Phase Heat Capacities
-1 -1 2 3 4
T in K, cp in J.kmol .K ht HO cp = C1 + C2.T + C3.T + C4.T + C5.T
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 T_min T_max
Methanol 105800 -362.23 0.9379 175.47 400
tp U
Water 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.014116 9.3701E-06 273.16 533.15
:// T
re E
From AIChE.S (Table 4)
Liquid Phase Heat Capacity
se M
-1 -1
T in K, cp in J.mol .K cp = A + B.T + C.T2 + D.T3
ar B
A B C D T_min T_max
HCHO 4.16E+02 -2.64E+00 4.98E-03 - ? ?
ch ED
.d D
From Perry (6)
iv E
Liquid-phase heat capacity of formic acid:
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
0 °C : 0.436 cal.g .°C , 1.824224 kJ.kg .K , 83.95991 J.mol .K ,
1.c D
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
15.5 °C : 0.509 cal.g .°C , 2.129656 kJ.kg .K , 98.01742 J.mol .K ,
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
20 to 100 °C : 0.524 cal.g .°C , 2.192416 kJ.kg .K , 100.9059 J.mol .K ,
om FO
This last row should be sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this report.
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:07
/ S. 1 of 1 dp_const.xls(Elsewhere)
LO
W
-R
Do E
Energy Balance over Vaporiser (HX-1)
wn SO
NOTE: Heat of solution of methanol [implicitly] considered. 23.945
-1
Ideal vapour- [& liquid(?)]- phase assumed. Recirc. liquid flow: 23.945 kg.s
lo LU
STREAMS IN:
ad T
No. Description HYSIM Flow t T Species State Mass frac. MR A / C1 B / C2 C / C3 D / C4 C5 `cp DHºf, 298K DHºf, T DHºf, T
[kg.s-1] [°C] [K] [-] [kg.mol-1] [kJ.kg-1.K-1] [kJ.kg-1] [kJ.kg-1] [kW]
3 Demin'd water WaterFeed 0.225861 37.05 310.20 H2O L 1 0.0180152 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.180306924 -15866.04645 -15815.69214 -3572.148043 H2O
fu IO
6 Methanol MethanolFeed 1.7416 37.04 310.19 CH3OH L 1 0.032042 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.571789791 -7448.349042 -7417.396266 -12918.13734 CH3OH
9 Air & rec. off-gas HPGas
ll N
5.948366 121.58 394.73 O2 V 0.122168 0.0319988 28.11 -3.68E-06 1.75E-05 -1.07E-08 0.9302 0 89.8450 65.29035916 O2
5.948366 394.73 N2 V 0.7850055 0.0280134 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.17E-08 1.042040847 0 100.6434311 469.9545017 N2
5.948366 394.73 H 2O V 0.0459565 0.0180152 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.60E-09 1.888880215 -13433.10094 -13250.66722 -3622.281895 H2O
v e ve
5.948366 394.73 H2 V 0.0063547 0.0020158 27.14 0.009274 -1.38E-05 7.65E-09 14.39067509 0 1389.894573 52.53801484 H2
5.948366 394.73
rs rs
CO2 V 0.0383467 0.0440098 19.8 0.07344 -5.60E-05 1.72E-08 0.890766635 -8948.007035 -8861.974121 -2021.416297 CO2
5.948366 394.73 CO V 0.0021687 0.0280104 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.27E-08 1.0441883 -3948.533402 -3847.682563 -49.63510507 CO
io io
13 Refluxed liquid AAA 23.945 86.52 359.67 CH3OH Aq 0.3151 0.032042 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.759445804 -7675.238749 -7505.483162 -56629.16116 CH3OH
n n
23.945 359.67 H 2O L 0.6849 0.0180152 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.183481453 -15866.04645 -15608.68704 -255980.3387 H2O
(average over 298K to T) SUM = -334205.3357
Check mass balances: -7.3E-05
fro W
*Note: Aqueous cp's taken as those for the pure liquid.
STREAMS OUT:
No. Description HYSIM Flow
m IT t T Species State Mass frac. MR A / C1 B / C2 C / C3 D / C4 C5 `cp DHºf, 298K DHºf, T DHºf, T
14 Reactor feed ProcessVap 7.9159 62.08 335.23 HCHO V 0 0.0300262 23.48 3.16E-02 2.99E-05 -2.30E-08 1.1904 -3862.293597 -3818.1510 0 HCHO minus feed: 0
ht HO
7.9159 335.23 CH3OH V 0.2200129 0.032042 21.15 7.09E-02 2.59E-05 -2.85E-08 1.4137 -6282.379377 -6229.9540 -10850.08793 CH3OH minus feed: 2068.0
7.9159 335.23 O2 V 0.0918026 0.0319988 28.11 -3.68E-06 1.75E-05 -1.07E-08 0.9226 0 34.2136 24.86299793 O2 minus feed: -40.4
tp U
7.9159 335.23 H 2O V 0.0630629 0.0180152 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.60E-09 1.8759 -13433.10094 -13363.5378 -6671.078078 H2O minus feed: 523.4
7.9159 335.23 H2 V 0.0047752 0.0020158 27.14 0.009274 -1.38E-05 7.65E-09 14.353614 0 532.2793741 20.12016034 H2 minus feed: -32.4
:// T
7.9159 335.23 CO2 V 0.0288154 0.0440098 19.8 0.07344 -5.60E-05 1.72E-08 0.862979507 -8948.007035 -8916.004907 -2033.740719 CO2 minus feed: -12.3
7.9159 335.23 CO V 0.0016296 0.0280104 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.27E-08 1.042309198 -3948.533402 -3909.881137 -50.43746667 CO minus feed: -0.8
re E
7.9159 335.23 HCOOH V 0 0.0460256 11.71 0.1358 -8.41E-05 2.02E-08 1.01930732 -8231.505945 -8193.706665 0 HCOOH minus feed: 0
7.9159 minus feed:
se M
335.23 N2 V 0.5898887 0.0280134 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.17E-08 1.041329524 0 38.61593515 180.3171092 N2 -289.6
10 Liquid to heater CCC 23.945 62.08 335.23 CH3OH Aq 0.3151 0.032042 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.660808728 -7675.238749 -7576.567181 -57165.49283 CH3OH minus recirc: -536.3
ar B
23.945 335.23 H 2O L 0.6849 0.0180152 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.178496813 -15866.04645 -15711.094 -257659.7989 H2O minus recirc: -1679.5
(average over 298K to T) SUM = -334205.3357 minus SUM: 0.0
ch ED
Difference in enthalpy between Recirc. liquid in/out: -2215.8 cf. HYSIM: -1990.7995 "ERROR" = -10% recirc. 1.7814 pump OUT - IN = 0
Difference in/out for others: + 2215.79 cf. HYSIM: 2238.6648 "ERROR" = 1.0% 1131.6109 H/Ex1
.d D
2238.6628 857.1907 H/Ex2
1990.583
iv E
Recirc. liquid in/out, but HYSIM with "correct" flow: -2215.79 cf. HYSIM: -2383.474982 "ERROR" = 7.6%
nett proc. 2238.6628
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
2:28 PM, 10/5/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_EB-x3.xls (HX-1)
LO
W
(Mass &) Energy Balance over Absorber (ABS-1)
-R
NOTE: Heats of solution of methanol [implicitly] considered.
-1
Ideal vapour- [& liquid(?)]- phase assumed. Total pump-around flow: 56.750 kg.s (excluding product)
-1
Do E
Total HEAT-EXCHANGED pump-around flow: 56.750 kg.s (excluding product)
Formic acid is treated as water for VLE.
wn SO
STAGE 1 (BASE OF COLUMN)
-1
Pump-around flow: 56.750 kg.s
Mole fraction of HCHO in liquid from stage above: 0 GOAL SEEK!
lo LU
STREAMS IN:
No. Description HYSIM Flow t T Species State Mass frac. Mass Flow MR Mole flow Mole frac. A / C1 B / C2 C / C3 D / C4 C5 `cp DHºf, 298K DHºf, T DHºf, T
[kg.s-1] [°C] [K] [-] [kg.s-1] [kg.mol-1] [mol.s-1] [-] [kJ.kg-1.K-1] [kJ.kg-1] [kJ.kg-1] [kW]
ad T
j Fresh DMW fed AbsWater 0.3275 37.00 310.15 HCHO Aq 0 0 0.030026 0 0 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.48927736 -5555.656 -5525.784 0 HCHO
0.3275 310.15 CH3OH Aq 0 0 0.032042 0 0 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.57167231 -7675.239 -7644.379 0 CH3OH
fu IO
Combined liquid-IN temperature: 0.3275 310.15 H2O L 1 0.3275 0.018015 18.17909 1 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.1803182 -15866.05 -15815.88 -5179.7016 H2O
59.84 °C 0.3275 310.15 HCOOH Aq 0 0 0.046026 0 0 2.192416 -9243.455 -9217.146 0 HCOOH
a Reactor effluent AbsFeed 7.916 90.00 363.15 HCHO V 0.1804678 1.4285651 0.030026 47.57729 0.142986 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.2107 -3862.294 -3783.597 -5405.1149 HCHO
ll N
7.9159 363.15 CH3OH V 0.003342 0.0264549 0.032042 0.825632 0.002481 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.4480 -6282.379 -6188.261 -163.70987 CH3OH
7.9159 363.15 O2 V 0.000459 0.0036334 0.031999 0.113549 0.000341 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9261 0 60.1986 0.21872711 O2
7.9159 363.15 H2O V 0.1534721 1.2148697 0.018015 67.43581 0.202668 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8819 -13433.1 -13310.78 -16170.863 H2O
ve ve
7.9159 363.15 H2 V 0.0098049 0.0776149 0.002016 38.50327 0.115716 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3718531 0 934.17045 72.5055294 H2
7.9159 363.15
CO2 V 0.059157 0.4682807 0.04401 10.64037 0.031978 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.87627156 -8948.007 -8891.049 -4163.5067 CO2
rs rs
7.9159 363.15
CO V 0.0033468 0.0264925 0.02801 0.945811 0.002842 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04303748 -3948.533 -3880.736 -102.81056 CO
7.9159 363.15 HCOOH V 5.976E-05 0.000473 0.046026 0.010278 3.09E-05 11.71 0.1358 -8.4E-05 2.02E-08 1.04557342 -8231.506 -8163.544 -3.8616253 HCOOH
io io
7.9159 363.15 N2 V 0.5898907 4.6695157 0.028013 166.6886 0.500957 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04150997 0 67.698148 316.117566 N2
m Pump-around 1 -
n n
56.750 60.00 333.15 HCHO Aq 0.54 30.645 0.030026 1020.609 0.415637 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.6765732 -5555.656 -5461.975 -167382.24 HCHO
56.75 333.15 CH3OH Aq 0.01 0.5675 0.032042 17.71113 0.007213 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.65293796 -7675.239 -7582.386 -4303.004 CH3OH
56.75 333.15 H2O L 0.44982 25.527285 0.018015 1416.986 0.57706 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17834781 -15866.05 -15719.8 -401283.92 H2O
56.75 333.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00018 0.010215 0.046026 0.221942 9.04E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9166.72 -93.638046 HCOOH
fro W
Mass fraction of HCHO in total liquid fed: 53.69% Mole fraction HCHO in total liquid fed: 0.41258272 (average over 298K to T) SUM = -603863.53
Check mass balances: 0 *Note: Aqueous cp's taken as those for the pure liquid.
m IT
0 (given a total pressure of: 110 kPa(abs))
STREAMS OUT: ???
No. Description HYSIM Flow t T Species State Mass frac. Mass Flow MR Mole flow Mole frac. A / C1 B / C2 C / C3 D / C4 C5 `cp DHºf, 298K DHºf, T DHºf, T
ht HO
k Product - 2.645503 75.00 348.15 HCHO Aq 0.54 1.4285716 0.030026 47.5775 0.415637 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.83026044 -5555.656 -5414.143 -7734.4904 HCHO
(pre-cooling) 2.645503 348.15 CH3OH Aq 0.01 0.026455 0.032042 0.825636 0.007213 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.71149878 -7675.239 -7539.664 -199.46203 CH3OH
tp U
2.645503 H
348.15 2 O L 0.44982 1.1900002 0.018015 66.05534 0.57706 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.18043703 -15866.05 -15657.02 -18631.862 H2O
2.645503 348.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00018 0.0004762 0.046026 0.010346 9.04E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9133.834 -4.3494453 HCOOH
:// T
b V from stage 4 OHead_Total 5.598 50.00 323.15 HCHO V -1.17E-06 -6.53E-06 0.030026 -0.000217 -9.2E-07 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1816 -3862.294 -3832.754 0.02502479 HCHO
5.597897 323.15 CH3OH V -2.16E-08 -1.21E-07 0.032042 -3.77E-06 -1.6E-08 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.3989 -6282.379 -6247.407 0.00075538 CH3OH
re E
5.597897 323.15 O2 V 0.0006491 0.0036334 0.031999 0.113549 0.00048 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9211 0 23.0281 0.0836711 O2
5.597897 323.15 H2O V 0.0629468 0.3523695 0.018015 19.55957 0.082721 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8733 -13433.1 -13386.27 -4716.9129 H2O
se M
5.597897 323.15 H2 V 0.013865 0.0776149 0.002016 38.50327 0.162838 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3452205 0 358.63051 27.8350649 H2
5.597897 323.15
CO2 V 0.083653 0.4682807 0.04401 10.64037 0.045 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.85708331 -8948.007 -8926.58 -4180.145 CO2
5.597897 323.15 CO V 0.0047326 0.0264925 0.02801 0.945811 0.004 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04208198 -3948.533 -3922.481 -103.9165 CO
ar B
5.597897 323.15 HCOOH V -5.64E-07 -3.16E-06 0.046026 -6.86E-05 -2.9E-07 11.71 0.1358 -8.4E-05 2.02E-08 1.00771392 -8231.506 -8206.313 0.02591205 HCOOH
5.597897 323.15 N2 V 0.8341554 4.6695157 0.028013 166.6886 0.704961 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04133907 0 26.033477 121.563729 N2
l Pump-around 1 - 56.750 75.00 348.15 HCHO Aq 0.54 30.645 0.030026 1020.609 0.415637 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.83026044 -5555.656 -5414.143 -165916.4 HCHO
ch ED
56.75 348.15 CH3OH Aq 0.01 0.5675 0.032042 17.71113 0.007213 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.71149878 -7675.239 -7539.664 -4278.7592 CH3OH
56.75
.d D
348.15 H2O L 0.44982 25.527285 0.018015 1416.986 0.57706 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.18043703 -15866.05 -15657.02 -399681.33 H2O
56.75 348.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00018 0.010215 0.046026 0.221942 9.04E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9133.834 -93.302113 HCOOH
iv E (average over 298K to T) SUM = -605391.39
Difference in enthalpy between Recirc. liquid in/out: 3093.02 cf. HYSIM: 3142.23 "ERROR" = 1.6% recirc. 3.912 pump OUT - IN = -1527.8606
Difference in/out for others: -4620.88 cf. HYSIM: -3316.1539 "ERROR" = -28% -3146.101 H/Ex NOT ADIABATIC HERE!
1.c D
-3316.1539 -3142.189
Difference in/out for others AND heat loss: -4620.9 cf. HYSIM: -4844.014 "ERROR" = 4.8% (Must recirculate
-1
nett proc. -3316.154 84.782856 kg.s
om FO
Overall: -7713.9 cf. HYSIM: -7986.245 "ERROR" = 3.5% to be adiabatic.)
.au NT
2:28 PM, 10/5/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_EB-x3.xls (ABS-1)
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
Energy Balance over Reactor (both RXN-1 and RXN-2)
ad T
Ideal vapour-phase assumed. fu IO
STREAMS IN:
ll N
14 Reactor feed Total_Feed 7.9159 158.26 431.41 HCHO V 0 0.0300262 23.48 3.16E-02 2.99E-05 -2.30E-08 1.2609 -3862.293597 -3694.2703 0 HCHO
7.9159 431.41 CH3OH V 0.2200129 0.032042 21.15 7.09E-02 2.59E-05 -2.85E-08 1.5314 -6282.379377 -6078.2973 -10585.9625 CH3OH
v e ve
7.9159 431.41 O2 V 0.0918026 0.0319988 28.11 -3.68E-06 1.75E-05 -1.07E-08 0.9351 0 124.6193 90.56087089 O2
rs rs
7.9159 431.41 H 2O V 0.0630629 0.0180152 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.60E-09 1.8973 -13433.10094 -13180.2587 -6579.585144 H2O
7.9159 431.41 H2 V 0.0047752 0.0020158 27.14 0.009274 -1.38E-05 7.65E-09 14.41034721 0 1920.345926 72.589076 H2
io io
7.9159 431.41 CO2 V 0.0288154 0.0440098 19.8 0.07344 -5.60E-05 1.72E-08 0.906900818 -8948.007035 -8827.151981 -2013.473367 CO2
7.9159
n n 431.41 CO V 0.0016296 0.0280104 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.27E-08 1.045932979 -3948.533402 -3809.1507 -49.13804402 CO
7.9159 431.41 HCOOH V 0 0.0460256 11.71 0.1358 -8.41E-05 2.02E-08 1.106826808 -8231.505945 -8084.008433 0 HCOOH
7.9159 431.41 N2 V 0.5898887 0.0280134 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.17E-08 1.043067619 0 139.0008598 649.0645146 N2
fro W
Check mass balances: 0
m IT
STREAMS OUT:
ht HO
14 Reactor effluent Convert_Eff 7.9159 700.00 973.15 HCHO V 0.1804678 0.0300262 23.48 3.16E-02 2.99E-05 -2.30E-08 1.6375 -3862.293597 -2756.9508 -3938.483684 HCHO minus feed: -3938
tp U
7.9159 973.15 CH3OH V 0.003342 0.032042 21.15 7.09E-02 2.59E-05 -2.85E-08 2.1308 -6282.379377 -4844.0821 -128.1497527 CH3OH minus feed: 10457.8
7.9159 973.15 O2 V 0.000459 0.0319988 28.11 -3.68E-06 1.75E-05 -1.07E-08 1.0100 0 681.7529 2.477099311 O2 minus feed: -88.1
:// T
7.9159 973.15 H 2O V 0.1534721 0.0180152 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.60E-09 2.0506 -13433.10094 -12048.9316 -14637.88172 H2O minus feed: -8058.3
7.9159 973.15 H2 V 0.0098049 0.0020158 27.14 0.009274 -1.38E-05 7.65E-09 14.60847417 0 9860.720061 765.3386233 H2 minus feed: 692.7
re E
7.9159 973.15 CO2 V 0.059157 0.0440098 19.8 0.07344 -5.60E-05 1.72E-08 1.076275079 -8948.007035 -8221.521356 -3849.979696 CO2 minus feed: -1836.5
7.9159 minus feed:
se M
973.15 CO V 0.0033468 0.0280104 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.27E-08 1.101087454 -3948.533402 -3205.29937 -84.91653062 CO -35.8
7.9159 973.15 HCOOH V 5.976E-05 0.0460256 11.71 0.1358 -8.41E-05 2.02E-08 1.466439451 -8231.505945 -7241.659315 -3.42554358 HCOOH minus feed: -3
7.9159 973.15 N2 V 0.5898907 0.0280134 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.17E-08 1.089651368 0 735.5146735 3434.497342 N2 minus feed: 2785.4
ar B
(average over 298K to T) SUM = -18440.52387 minus SUM: -24.6
NOTE: For completely adiabatic operation the exit temperature would be: 975.049413 K, which is a difference of only -0.19%
ch ED
cf. HYSIM: 6804.973 OUT - IN = -24.57927093
"ERROR" = -27786% ===> Approx. ADIABATIC
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
2:28 PM, 10/5/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_EB-x3.xls (RXN-1&2)
LO
W
-R
Do E
Energy Balance over Tail-gas Burner (RXN-3)
wn SO
Ideal vapour-phase assumed. lo LU
STREAMS IN:
ad T
39 Purged off-gas Off-gas 2.870748 45.71 318.86 HCHO V 0 0.0300262 23.48 3.16E-02 2.99E-05 -2.30E-08 1.1785 -3862.293597 -3837.8900 0 HCHO
2.8707 318.86 CH3OH V 0 0.032042 21.15 7.09E-02 2.59E-05 -2.85E-08 1.3936 -6282.379377 -6253.5212 0 CH3OH
fu IO
2.8707
ll N 318.86 O2 V 0.0006491 0.0319988 28.11 -3.68E-06 1.75E-05 -1.07E-08 0.9206 0 19.0635 0.035521049 O2
2.8707 318.86 H 2O V 0.0629512 0.0180152 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.60E-09 1.8724 -13433.10094 -13394.3273 -2420.58511 H2O
2.8707 318.86 H2 V 0.0138649 0.0020158 27.14 0.009274 -1.38E-05 7.65E-09 14.34216332 0 296.9917812 11.82106887 H2
2.87074824 318.86 CO2 V 0.0836524 0.0440098 19.8 0.07344 -5.60E-05 1.72E-08 0.854967694 -8948.007035 -8930.302706 -2144.567625 CO2
v e ve
2.87074824 318.86 CO V 0.0047326 0.0280104 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.27E-08 1.04201441 -3948.533402 -3926.955784 -53.35154132 CO
2.87074824 318.86 HCOOH V 0 0.0460256 11.71 0.1358 -8.41E-05 2.02E-08 1.003562547 -8231.505945 -8210.724573 0 HCOOH
rs rs
2.87074824 318.86 N2 V 0.8341498 0.0280134 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.17E-08 1.04135553 0 21.56397378 51.63782648 N2
49 Extra air ExtraAir 1.717638
io io45.71 318.86 HCHO V 0 0.0300262 23.48 3.16E-02 2.99E-05 -2.30E-08 1.1785 -3862.293597 -3837.8900 0 HCHO
1.7176 318.86 V 0 0.032042 21.15 7.09E-02 2.59E-05 -2.85E-08 1.3936 -6282.379377 -6253.5212
n n CH3OH 0 CH3OH
1.7176 318.86 O2 V 0.2250448 0.0319988 28.11 -3.68E-06 1.75E-05 -1.07E-08 0.9206 0 19.0635 7.368900182 O2
1.7176 318.86 H 2O V 0.0315613 0.0180152 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.60E-09 1.8724 -13433.10094 -13394.3273 -726.1181003 H2O
fro W
1.7176 318.86 H2 V 0 0.0020158 27.14 0.009274 -1.38E-05 7.65E-09 14.34216332 0 296.9917812 0 H2
1.71763799 318.86 CO2 V 0 0.0440098 19.8 0.07344 -5.60E-05 1.72E-08 0.854967694 -8948.007035 -8930.302706 0 CO2
1.71763799
m IT 318.86 CO V 0 0.0280104 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.27E-08 1.04201441 -3948.533402 -3926.955784 0 CO
1.71763799 318.86 HCOOH V 0 0.0460256 11.71 0.1358 -8.41E-05 2.02E-08 1.003562547 -8231.505945 -8210.724573 0 HCOOH
1.71763799 318.86 N2 V 0.7433939 0.0280134 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.17E-08 1.04135553 0 21.56397378 27.5346413 N2
ht HO
tp U
STREAMS OUT:
:// T
- Tail-gas Stack-gas
re E
4.588386 907.69 1180.8 HCHO V 0 0.0300262 23.48 3.16E-02 2.99E-05 -2.30E-08 1.7476 -3862.293597 -2319.7099 0 HCHO minus feed: 0
4.5884 1180.84 CH3OH V 0 0.032042 21.15 7.09E-02 2.59E-05 -2.85E-08 2.3026 -6282.379377 -4249.8801 0 CH3OH minus feed: 0.0
se M
4.5884 1180.84 O2 V 0.0141084 0.0319988 28.11 -3.68E-06 1.75E-05 -1.07E-08 1.0297 0 908.8792 58.83611875 O2 minus feed: 51.4
4.5884 1180.84 H 2O V 0.128726 0.0180152 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.60E-09 2.1174 -13433.10094 -11564.1121 -6830.27937 H2O minus feed: -3683.6
ar B
4.5884 1180.84 H2 V 0 0.0020158 27.14 0.009274 -1.38E-05 7.65E-09 14.75453281 0 13023.70807 0 H2 minus feed: -11.8
4.58838623 1180.84 CO2 V 0.0569898 0.0440098 19.8 0.07344 -5.60E-05 1.72E-08 1.118892788 -8948.007035 -7960.369322 -2081.566783 CO2 minus feed: 63.0
ch ED
4.58838623 1180.84 CO V 0 0.0280104 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.27E-08 1.122938148 -3948.533402 -2957.324883 0 CO minus feed: 53.4
4.58838623 1180.84 HCOOH V 0 0.0460256 11.71 0.1358 -8.41E-05 2.02E-08 1.55866563 -8231.505945 -6855.684263 0 HCOOH minus feed: 0
.d D
4.58838623 1180.84 N2 V 0.8001758 0.0280134 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.17E-08 1.110363036 0 980.1085692 3598.483976 N2 minus feed: 3519.3
(average over 298K to T) SUM = -5254.526057 minus SUM: -8.3
iv E
NOTE: For completely adiabatic operation the exit temperature would be: 1182.1838 K, which is a difference of only -0.11%
cf. HYSIM: 4858.9326 OUT - IN = -8.301638695
"ERROR" = -58630% ===> Approx. ADIABATIC
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
2:28 PM, 10/5/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_EB-x3.xls (RXN-3)
Stream AAA AbsFeed AbsWater AqMethanol Stream Q_Heat1b Q_Heat2a Q_Heat2b Q_Super1'
Description Description
S.
Vapour frac. 0 1 0 0 Vapour frac. 2.0000* 2.0000* 2.0000* 2.0000*
Temperature C 86.5180* 90.0000* 37.0000* 37.0368 Temperature C 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Pressure kPa 185 130 120.0000* 185 Pressure kPa 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
.au NT
Molar Flow mol/s* 957.0421 332.7419 18.1792 66.8933 Molar Flow mol/s* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Mass Flow kg/s* 20.0000* 7.9159 0.3275* 1.9675 Mass Flow kg/s* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
LiqVol Flow L/s 21.6455 10.655 0.3282 2.4151 LiqVol Flow L/s 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Enthalpy kW -26970.2295 3572.8516 -613.5226 -1896.8556 Enthalpy kW 1131.611 857.1907 857.1907 963.2883
om FO
Density kg/m3 876.7156 1.0243 998.2847 794.6892 Density kg/m3 0 0 0 0
Mole Wt. 20.8977 23.7898 18.0151 29.4125 Mole Wt. 0 0 0 0
Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 4.093 1.3378 4.1901 3.7051 Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C --- --- --- ---
/
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.5255 0.0359 0.6277 0.2323 Therm Cond W/m-K --- --- --- ---
Viscosity cP 0.3197 0.0157 0.6904 0.497 Viscosity cP --- --- --- ---
Z Factor 0.0015 1 0.0008 0.0027 Z Factor --- --- --- ---
1.c D
Sur Tension dyne/cm 52.6804 --- 70.0165 35.611 Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- ---
Std Density kg/m3 937.6828 --- 1014.836 816.5136 Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- ---
iv E
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0.1806 0.0000* 0 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Methanol mass frac. 0.3151* 0.0033 0.0000* 0.8852 Methanol mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
.d D
Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0006 0.0000* 0 Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
H2O mass frac. 0.6849* 0.1534 1.0000* 0.1148 H2O mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0098 0.0000* 0 Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
ch ED
CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0.059 0.0000* 0 CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0033 0.0000* 0 CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0001 0.0000* 0 FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.5899 0.0000* 0 Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
ar B
Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0 Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
se M
Stream BBB BFWater1a BFWater1b BFWater1c Stream Q_react RCW1_in RCW1_out RecLiq1
Vapour frac. 0.2305 0 0 0 Vapour frac. 2.0000* 0 0 0
re E
Temperature C 62.0833 100.0000* 100.0153 151.8571 Temperature C 0.0000* 30.0000* 45.0000* 75.0000*
Pressure kPa 185 400.0000* 500 500.0000* Pressure kPa 0.0000* 400.0000* 360 130.0000*
Molar Flow mol/s* 1252.9148 150.6514 150.6514 221.849 Molar Flow mol/s* 0.0000* 2885.0285 2885.0285 2569.1488
:// T
Mass Flow kg/s* 27.9159 2.7140* 2.714 3.9966 Mass Flow kg/s* 0.0000* 51.9741 51.9741 59.3941
LiqVol Flow L/s 31.5978 2.7195 2.7195 4.0047 LiqVol Flow L/s 0.0000* 52.079 52.079 70.1631
Enthalpy kW -25984.197 -4364.6093 -4364.2277 -5547.3923 Enthalpy kW 0.0000* -98890.026 -95597.3417 -54273.8546
Density kg/m3
tp U --- 948.0489 948.0807 902.0124 Density kg/m3 0 1003.6873 992.2268 773.2326
Mole Wt. 22.2808 18.0151 18.0151 18.0151 Mole Wt. 0 18.0151 18.0151 23.1182
ht HO
Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C --- 4.1965 4.1963 4.3193 Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C --- 4.1894 4.1909 3.7574
Therm Cond W/m-K --- 0.6807 0.6807 0.6863 Therm Cond W/m-K --- 0.6182 0.6376 0.3688
Viscosity cP --- 0.279 0.2789 0.1787 Viscosity cP --- 0.7972 0.5939 0.1746
Z Factor --- 0.0024 0.0031 0.0028 Z Factor --- 0.0028 0.0025 0.0013
Sur Tension dyne/cm --- 58.6054 58.6025 48.2944 Sur Tension dyne/cm --- 71.2338 68.6162 41.0466
m IT
Std Density kg/m3 --- 1014.836 1014.836 1014.836 Std Density kg/m3 --- 1014.836 1014.836 839.4352
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0.5407
Methanol mass frac. 0.2881 0.0000* 0 0 Methanol mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0.01
Oxygen mass frac. 0.026 0.0000* 0 0 Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0
fro W
H2O mass frac. 0.5086 1.0000* 1 1 H2O mass frac. 0.0000* 1.0000* 1 0.4492
Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0014 0.0000* 0 0 Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0
CO2 mass frac. 0.0082 0.0000* 0 0 CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0
CO mass frac. 0.0005 0.0000* 0 0 CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0
n n
FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0.0002
io io
Nitrogen mass frac. 0.1673 0.0000* 0 0 Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0
Argon mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0 0
rs rs
Stream BFWater4a BFWater4b BFWater4c BurnerFeed Stream RecLiq2_a RecLiq2_b RecLiq3_a RecLiq3_b
Vapour frac. 0 0 0.0000* 1 Vapour frac. 0 0 0 0
v e ve
Temperature C 100.0000* 100.1359 189.4517 45.7076 Temperature C 75.0145 60 60.0000* 60.0000*

Pressure kPa 400.0000* 1270 1240 110 Pressure kPa 170.0000* 120 120 120.0000*
Molar Flow mol/s* 95.4755 95.4755 95.4755 182.0192 Molar Flow mol/s* 2569.1488 2569.1488 2454.7765 2454.7776*
Mass Flow kg/s* 1.7200* 1.72 1.72 4.59 Mass Flow kg/s* 59.3941 59.3941 56.7500* 56.75
ll N
LiqVol Flow L/s 1.7235 1.7235 1.7235 6.0095 LiqVol Flow L/s 70.1631 70.1631 67.0396 67.0396
Enthalpy kW -2766.0752 -2763.9706 -2103.1497 1680.7712 Enthalpy kW -54269.76 -57562.4443 -54999.9036 -54999.9279
fu IO
Density kg/m3 948.0489 948.3234 865.0236 1.0463 Density kg/m3 773.2152 790.785 790.785 790.7851
Mole Wt. 18.0151 18.0151 18.0151 25.2173 Mole Wt. 23.1182 23.1182 23.1182 23.1182
Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 4.1965 4.1946 4.4676 1.1762 Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 3.7575 3.6248 3.6248 3.6248
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.6807 0.6808 0.6714 0.034 Therm Cond W/m-K 0.3688 0.3747 0.3747 0.3747
ad T
Viscosity cP 0.279 0.2786 0.1415 0.0176 Viscosity cP 0.1745 0.2115 0.2115 0.2115
Z Factor 0.0024 0.0078 0.0067 1 Z Factor 0.0018 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013
lo LU
Sur Tension dyne/cm 58.6054 58.5796 40.1818 --- Sur Tension dyne/cm 41.0438 43.9075 43.9075 43.9075
Std Density kg/m3 1014.836 1014.836 1014.836 --- Std Density kg/m3 839.4352 839.4352 839.4352 839.4353
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.5407 0.5407 0.5407 0.5407*
Methanol mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Methanol mass frac. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0100*
Oxygen mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0.0847 Oxygen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
wn SO
H2O mass frac. 1 1.0000* 1 0.0514 H2O mass frac. 0.4492 0.4492 0.4492 0.4492*
Hydrogen mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0.0087 Hydrogen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
CO2 mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0.0522 CO2 mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
CO mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0.003 CO mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
Do E
FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002*
Nitrogen mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0.8001 Nitrogen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
-R
Argon mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Argon mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
Stream CCC ColdFeed Condens1 Condens4' Stream RecOff-gas RecVap_a RecVap_b Stack-gas
W
Vapour frac. 0 0.8305 0.9417 0.0000* Vapour frac. 1 1 1 0.9539

Temperature C 62.0833* 38.1968 100.1843 187.3985 Temperature C 50 49.9958 49.9954* 907.692
Pressure kPa 185 185 102.0000* 1185 Pressure kPa 110 101.0000* 101.0000* 110
LO
Molar Flow mol/s* 957.0473 295.8688 150.6551 31.5819 Molar Flow mol/s* 115.1998 115.1998 115.1954* 171.9008
Mass Flow kg/s* 20.0000* 7.9159 2.7141 0.569 Mass Flow kg/s* 2.7268 2.7268 2.7272 4.59
Enthalpy kW -28961.029 738.1688 1402.9055 -700.9128 Enthalpy kW 1074.1837 1074.1837 1074.1202 6539.7038
Mole Wt. 20.8976 26.7547 18.0151 18.0151 Mole Wt. 23.6706 23.6706 23.6744 26.7015
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.5172 --- --- 0.6726 Therm Cond W/m-K 0.0382 0.0382 0.0382 ---
11:22, 27/09/99 1 of 3 DP_D151.XLS (DP_D150)

Viscosity cP 0.4463 --- --- 0.1431 Viscosity cP 0.017 0.017 0.017 ---
Z Factor 0.0015 --- --- 0.0064 Z Factor 1 1 1 ---
Sur Tension dyne/cm 56.9883 --- --- 40.6386 Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- ---
S.
Std Density kg/m3 937.6853 --- --- 1014.836 Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- ---
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0 0.0000* Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0
Methanol mass frac. 0.3151* 0.22 0 0.0000* Methanol mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0
.au NT
Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0918 0 0.0000* Oxygen mass frac. 0.0008 0.0008 0.0006* 0.0142
H2O mass frac. 0.6849* 0.0631 1 1.0000* H2O mass frac. 0.0632 0.0632 0.0630* 0.1289
Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0048 0 0.0000* Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0139 0.0139 0.0139* 0
CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0288 0 0.0000* CO2 mass frac. 0.0834 0.0834 0.0837* 0.0568
om FO
CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0016 0 0.0000* CO mass frac. 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047* 0
FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0 0.0000* FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0
Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.5899 0 0.0000* Nitrogen mass frac. 0.8339 0.8339 0.8341* 0.8001
/
Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0 0.0000* Argon mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0
Stream Condens4b Condens4c Condens4c' Convert_Eff Stream Steam1a Steam1b Steam1c Steam4a
1.c D
Vapour frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.9689 Vapour frac. 0.7500* 1 0.7500* 1.0000*
iv E
Temperature C 187.3985 187.3985 187.3985 700.0000* Temperature C 151.8557 151.8571 151.8557* 187.9668
Pressure kPa 1185 1185 1185 160 Pressure kPa 500.0000* 500 500.0000* 1200.0000*
.d D
Molar Flow mol/s* 31.5819 26.8842 26.8842 332.7419 Molar Flow mol/s* 221.849 150.6551 221.8528 95.4755
Mass Flow kg/s* 0.569 0.4843 0.4843 7.9159 Mass Flow kg/s* 3.9966 2.7141 3.9967* 1.72
ch ED
Enthalpy kW -700.9128 -596.6548 -596.6548 10745.0928 Enthalpy kW 767.4445 1950.6219 767.4574 1302.046
Mole Wt. 18.0151 18.0151 18.0151 23.7898 Mole Wt. 18.0151 18.0151 18.0151 18.0151
ar B
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.6726 0.6726 0.6726 --- Therm Cond W/m-K --- 0.0288 --- 0.032
Viscosity cP 0.1431 0.1431 0.1431 --- Viscosity cP --- 0.014 --- 0.0152
se M
Z Factor 0.0064 0.0064 0.0064 --- Z Factor --- 1 --- 1
Sur Tension dyne/cm 40.6386 40.6386 40.6386 --- Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- ---
Std Density kg/m3 1014.836 1014.836 1014.836 --- Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- ---
re E
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0 0 0.1806 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
Methanol mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0033 Methanol mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
Oxygen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0006 Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
:// T
H2O mass frac. 1 1 1 0.1534 H2O mass frac. 1.0000* 1 1.0000* 1
Hydrogen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0098 Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
CO2 mass frac. 0 0 0 0.059 CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
CO
tp U
mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0033 CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0001 FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
ht HO
Nitrogen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.5899 Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
Argon mass frac. 0 0 0 0 Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0000* 0
Stream CoolEff DDD DrumFeed EEE Stream Steam4b Steam4b' Steam4c Steam4c'
m IT
Vapour frac. 1 0 0.4044 0 Vapour frac. 1 1.0000* 1 1.0000*

Temperature C 170.0000* 62.0967 151.8571 72.6444 Temperature C 187.9668 187.9668 187.9668 187.9668
Pressure kPa 145 245 500 215 Pressure kPa 1200 1200.0000* 1200 1200.0000*
Molar Flow mol/s* 332.7419 957.0473 372.5042 957.0473 Molar Flow mol/s* 31.5819 31.5819 26.8842 26.8842
fro W
Mass Flow kg/s* 7.9159 20 6.7107 20 Mass Flow kg/s* 0.569 0.569 0.4843 0.4843
Enthalpy kW 4430.0422 -28959.2476 -3596.7701 -28102.0568 Enthalpy kW 430.6981 430.6981 366.6335 366.6335
n n
Mole Wt. 23.7898 20.8976 18.0151 20.8976 Mole Wt. 18.0151 18.0151 18.0151 18.0151
io io
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.043 0.5172 --- 0.5215 Therm Cond W/m-K 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032
Viscosity cP 0.019 0.4462 --- 0.3849 Viscosity cP 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152
rs rs
Z Factor 1 0.002 --- 0.0018 Z Factor 1 1 1 1

Sur Tension dyne/cm --- 56.986 --- 55.1394 Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- ---
Std Density kg/m3 --- 937.6853 --- 937.6853 Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- ---
v e ve
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.1806 0 0 0 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*

Methanol mass frac. 0.0033 0.3151 0 0.3151 Methanol mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
Oxygen mass frac. 0.0006 0 0 0 Oxygen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
H2O mass frac. 0.1534 0.6849 1 0.6849 H2O mass frac. 1 1 1 1.0000*
ll N
Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0098 0 0 0 Hydrogen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*

CO2 mass frac. 0.059 0 0 0 CO2 mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
fu IO
CO mass frac. 0.0033 0 0 0 CO mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*

FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0001 0 0 0 FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
Nitrogen mass frac. 0.5899 0 0 0 Nitrogen mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
Argon mass frac. 0 0 0 0 Argon mass frac. 0 0 0 0.0000*
ad T
Stream Exhaust1 Exhaust2 ExtraAir FFF Stream Steam4d Total_Feed W_APump1 W_BPump1
lo LU
Vapour frac. 1 1 1 0 Vapour frac. 1 1 2.0000* 2.0000*
Temperature C 328.4914 206.3792 37.0000* 86.5180* Temperature C 187.9668 158.2616 0.0000* 0.0000*
Pressure kPa 106 101 110 185.0000* Pressure kPa 1200 170 0.0000* 0.0000*
Molar Flow mol/s* 171.9008 171.9008 60.6691 957.0473 Molar Flow mol/s* 37.0093 295.8674 0.0000* 0.0000*
wn SO
Mass Flow kg/s* 4.59 4.59 1.7176* 20 Mass Flow kg/s* 0.6667 7.9159 0.0000* 0.0000*
LiqVol Flow L/s 5.5203 5.5203 1.9775 21.6455 LiqVol Flow L/s 0.6681 9.9523 0.0000* 0.0000*
Enthalpy kW 3134.5079 2473.6871 549.2388 -26970.4458 Enthalpy kW 504.7143 3940.1198 4.0946 0.3816
Density kg/m3 0.5658 0.6764 1.2077 876.7184 Density kg/m3 5.6387 1.268 0 0
Do E
Mole Wt. 26.7015 26.7015 28.3109 20.8976 Mole Wt. 18.0151 26.7549 0 0
Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 1.1953 1.1635 1.0368 4.0931 Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 3.0477 1.2972 --- ---
-R
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.0442 0.0362 0.0264 0.5255 Therm Cond W/m-K 0.032 0.037 --- ---
Viscosity cP 0.0273 0.0232 0.0187 0.3197 Viscosity cP 0.0152 0.0198 --- ---
Z Factor 1 1 1 0.0015 Z Factor 1 1 --- ---
Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- 52.6808 Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- ---
W
Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- 937.6853 Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- ---
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0.0000*
Methanol mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0.3151 Methanol mass frac. 0 0.22 0.0000* 0.0000*
LO
Oxygen mass frac. 0.0142 0.0142 0.2250* 0 Oxygen mass frac. 0 0.0918 0.0000* 0.0000*
H2O mass frac. 0.1289 0.1289 0.0316* 0.6849 H2O mass frac. 1 0.0631 0.0000* 0.0000*
Hydrogen mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0 Hydrogen mass frac. 0 0.0048 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO2 mass frac. 0.0568 0.0568 0.0000* 0 CO2 mass frac. 0 0.0288 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0 CO mass frac. 0 0.0016 0.0000* 0.0000*
FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0 FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0.0000*
Nitrogen mass frac. 0.8001 0.8001 0.7434* 0 Nitrogen mass frac. 0 0.5899 0.0000* 0.0000*
Argon mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0 Argon mass frac. 0 0 0.0000* 0.0000*
11:22, 27/09/99 2 of 3 DP_D151.XLS (DP_D150)

S.
.au NT
Stream HPGas LPAir LPGas MainsWater Stream W_BPump4 W_Blower W_MethPump W_Turb2
om FO
Vapour frac. 1 1 1 0 Vapour frac. 2.0000* 2.0000* 2.0000* 2.0000*
Temperature C 121.583 37.0000* 43.5838 37.0000* Temperature C 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Pressure kPa 185.0000* 101.0000* 101 400.0000* Pressure kPa 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
/
Molar Flow mol/s* 228.9755 113.7801 228.9755 12.5395 Molar Flow mol/s* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Mass Flow kg/s* 5.9484 3.2212* 5.9484 0.2259* Mass Flow kg/s* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
LiqVol Flow L/s 7.5372 3.7087 7.5372 0.2264 LiqVol Flow L/s 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
1.c D
Enthalpy kW 2635.0243 1030.0533 2104.1736 -423.1333 Enthalpy kW 2.1046 530.8508 0.2252 547.7165
Density kg/m3 1.4644 1.1089 0.9963 998.3729 Density kg/m3 0 0 0 0
iv E
Mole Wt. 25.9782 28.3107 25.9782 18.0151 Mole Wt. 0 0 0 0
Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 1.1508 1.0368 1.1387 4.1901 Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C --- --- --- ---
.d D
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.0382 0.0264 0.032 0.6277 Therm Cond W/m-K --- --- --- ---
Viscosity cP 0.021 0.0187 0.0179 0.6904 Viscosity cP --- --- --- ---
Z Factor 1 1 1 0.0028 Z Factor --- --- --- ---
ch ED
Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- 70.0165 Sur Tension dyne/cm --- --- --- ---
Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- 1014.836 Std Density kg/m3 --- --- --- ---
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Methanol mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Methanol mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
ar B
Oxygen mass frac. 0.1222 0.2250* 0.1222 0 Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
H2O mass frac. 0.046 0.0316* 0.046 1 H2O mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
se M
Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0064 0.0000* 0.0064 0 Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO2 mass frac. 0.0384 0.0000* 0.0384 0 CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO mass frac. 0.0022 0.0000* 0.0022 0 CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
re E
FormicAcid mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Nitrogen mass frac. 0.785 0.7434* 0.785 0 Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Argon mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0 0 Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
:// T
Stream MethanolFeed MethanolPipe OHead_Total Off-gas Stream W_VapPump WaterFeed
Vapour frac.
tp U 0 0 1 1 Vapour frac. 2.0000* 0
Temperature C 37.0355 37.0000* 50.0000* 50 Temperature C 0.0000* 37.0456
ht HO
Pressure kPa 185.0000* 110.0000* 110.0000* 110 Pressure kPa 0.0000* 185
Molar Flow mol/s* 54.3538 54.3538 236.5498 121.3501 Molar Flow mol/s* 0.0000* 12.5395
Mass Flow kg/s* 1.7416 1.7416* 5.5993 2.8724 Mass Flow kg/s* 0.0000* 0.2259
LiqVol Flow L/s 2.1887 2.1887 7.8596 4.032 LiqVol Flow L/s 0.0000* 0.2264
Enthalpy kW -1473.7222 -1473.9474 2205.7159 1131.5323 Enthalpy kW 1.7814 -423.1333
m IT
Density kg/m3 773.4377 773.4186 0.9691 0.9691 Density kg/m3 0 998.2705

Mole Wt. 32.0419 32.0419 23.6706 23.6706 Mole Wt. 0 18.0151
Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 3.6422 3.642 1.26 1.26 Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C --- 4.1901
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.1747 0.1747 0.0382 0.0382 Therm Cond W/m-K --- 0.6277
fro W
Viscosity cP 0.4623 0.4625 0.017 0.017 Viscosity cP --- 0.6898

Z Factor 0.003 0.0018 1 1 Z Factor --- 0.0013
Sur Tension dyne/cm 27.6753 27.6809 --- --- Sur Tension dyne/cm --- 70.0085
Std Density kg/m3 796.4045 796.4045 --- --- Std Density kg/m3 --- 1014.836
n n
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0 0 Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*

io io
Methanol mass frac. 1.0000* 1 0 0 Methanol mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*

Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0008 0.0008 Oxygen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*
H2O mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0632 0.0632 H2O mass frac. 0.0000* 1.0000*
rs rs
Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0139 0.0139 Hydrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0834 0.0834 CO2 mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.0047 0.0047 CO mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*
v e ve
FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0 0 FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*

Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0.8339 0.8339 Nitrogen mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*
Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0 0 0 Argon mass frac. 0.0000* 0.0000*
ll N
Stream PRODUCT ProcessVap Q_Abs Q_Burner

Description
fu IO
Vapour frac. 0 1 2.0000* 2.0000*

Temperature C 60 62.0833 0.0000* 0.0000*
Pressure kPa 120 185.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Molar Flow mol/s* 114.3723 295.8674* 0.0000* 0.0000*
ad T
Mass Flow kg/s* 2.6441 7.9159 0.0000* 0.0000*

LiqVol Flow L/s 3.1235 9.9523 0.0000* 0.0000*
lo LU
Enthalpy kW -2562.5408 2976.8316 -27.5397 0.0000*

Density kg/m3 790.785 1.7759 0 0
Mole Wt. 23.1182 26.7549 0 0
Spec. Heat kJ/kg-C 3.6248 1.2336 --- ---
Therm Cond W/m-K 0.3747 0.0295 --- ---
wn SO
Viscosity cP 0.2115 0.0154 --- ---

Z Factor 0.0013 1 --- ---
Sur Tension dyne/cm 43.9075 --- --- ---
Std Density kg/m3 839.4352 --- --- ---
Do E
Formaldehyde mass frac. 0.5407 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*

Methanol mass frac. 0.01 0.2200* 0.0000* 0.0000*
-R
Oxygen mass frac. 0 0.0918* 0.0000* 0.0000*

H2O mass frac. 0.4492 0.0631* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Hydrogen mass frac. 0 0.0048* 0.0000* 0.0000*
CO2 mass frac. 0 0.0288* 0.0000* 0.0000*
W
CO mass frac. 0 0.0016* 0.0000* 0.0000*

FormicAcid mass frac. 0.0002 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
Nitrogen mass frac. 0 0.5899* 0.0000* 0.0000*
LO
Argon mass frac. 0 0.0000* 0.0000* 0.0000*
11:22, 27/09/99 3 of 3 DP_D151.XLS (DP_D150)

STREAM MASS COMPOSITIONS

Stream name BBB
S.
Mass Fraction
.au NT
Component Total Vapour Light Liquid Heavy Liquid
Formaldehyde 0 0 0 ---
Methanol 0.2881 0.1958 0.3232 ---
om FO
Oxygen 0.026 0.0946 0 ---
H2O 0.5086 0.0658 0.6768 ---
/
Hydrogen 0.0014 0.0049 0 ---
CO2 0.0082 0.0296 0 ---
1.c D
CO 0.0005 0.0017 0 ---
FormicAcid 0 0 0 ---
iv E
Nitrogen 0.1673 0.6077 0 ---
Argon 0 0 0 ---
.d D
--- --- --- --- ---
<snip!>
ch ED
--- --- --- --- ---
Mass Flows in kg/h
ar B
se M
Methanol 28956.3262 5415.8833 23540.4434 ---
Oxygen 2616.1794 2615.8643 0.3154 ---
re E
H2O 51110.7188 1819.2366 49291.4844 ---
Hydrogen 136.1387 136.1146 0.0241 ---
CO2 821.2947 819.3807 1.914 ---
:// T
CO
tp U 46.4667 46.4565 0.0102 ---
Nitrogen 16810.0879 16809.3906 0.6961 ---
ht HO
Argon 0 0 0 ---
--- --- --- --- ---
<snip!>
--- --- --- --- ---
m IT
Total flow 27.9159 7.684 20.2319 0

fro W
Stream name ColdFeed
Mass Fraction
n n
io io

rs rs
Methanol 0.22 0.13 0.6829 ---

Oxygen 0.0918 0.1097 0 ---
ve ve
H2O 0.0631 0.0137 0.3171 ---

Hydrogen 0.0048 0.0057 0 ---
CO2 0.0288 0.0344 0 ---
ll N
CO 0.0016 0.0019 0 ---

fu IO
Nitrogen 0.5899 0.7046 0 ---

Argon 0 0 0 ---
--- --- --- --- ---
ad T
<snip!>
--- --- --- --- ---
lo LU
Mass Flows in kg/h

wn SO
Methanol 6269.7598 3101.2915 3168.4683 ---
Oxygen 2616.0107 2615.9941 0.0165 ---
Do E
H2O 1797.4092 326.3094 1471.0997 ---

Hydrogen 136.1388 136.1351 0.0037 ---
-R
CO2 821.295 821.1005 0.1945 ---

CO 46.4667 46.4646 0.0021 ---
W
Nitrogen 16810.0859 16810.0605 0.0265 ---

Argon 0 0 0 ---
LO
--- --- --- --- ---

<snip!>
--- --- --- --- ---
Total flow 7.9159 6.627 1.2888 0
11:21, 27/09/99 1 of 2 DP_D151.XLS (DP_D160)

Stream name Convert_Eff
Mass Fraction
S.
.au NT
Formaldehyde 0.1806 0.1916 --- 0
Methanol 0.0033 0.0035 --- 0
Oxygen 0.0006 0.0006 --- 0.0001
om FO
H2O 0.1534 0.1628 --- 0.0001
Hydrogen 0.0098 0.0104 --- 0
/
CO2 0.059 0.0018 --- 0.9969
CO 0.0033 0.0034 --- 0.0024
1.c D
FormicAcid 0.0001 0.0001 --- 0
Nitrogen 0.5899 0.6258 --- 0.0005
iv E
Argon 0 0 --- 0
--- --- --- --- ---
.d D
<snip!>
--- --- --- --- ---
ch ED
Mass Flows in kg/h
ar B
Formaldehyde 5146.2549 5146.1899 --- 0.0651
Methanol 95.2399 95.2387 --- 0.0012
se M
Oxygen 16.6598 16.5632 --- 0.0966
H2O 4371.5361 4371.4492 --- 0.0869
re E
Hydrogen 279.4381 279.4333 --- 0.0049
CO2 1680.9608 48.5047 --- 1632.4562
CO 95.3084 91.3722 --- 3.9362
:// T
FormicAcid
tp U 1.5783 1.5782 --- 0.0001
Nitrogen 16810.0879 16809.2734 --- 0.8148
Argon 0 0 --- 0
ht HO
--- --- --- --- ---
<snip!>
--- --- --- --- ---
Total flow 7.9159 7.461 0 0.4549
m IT

Stream name Stack-gas
fro W
Mass Fraction
n n

io io
Methanol 0 0 0 ---
rs rs
Oxygen 0.0142 0.0003 0.1968 ---

H2O 0.1289 0.1387 0 ---
ve ve
Hydrogen 0 0 0 ---
CO2 0.0568 0 0.8031 ---
CO 0 0 0 ---
ll N
Nitrogen 0.8001 0.861 0.0001 ---
fu IO
Argon 0 0 0 ---
--- --- --- --- ---
<snip!>
ad T
--- --- --- --- ---

lo LU
Mass Flows in kg/h
wn SO
Methanol 0 0 0 ---
Oxygen 234.4494 4.3651 230.0844 ---
H2O 2129.9111 2129.8926 0.0185 ---
Do E
Hydrogen 0 0 0 ---
CO2 939.0356 0 939.0356 ---
-R
CO 0 0 0 ---
Nitrogen 13219.3457 13219.2148 0.1309 ---
W
Argon 0 0 0 ---
--- --- --- --- ---
LO
<snip!>
--- --- --- --- ---
Total flow 4.5897 4.2649 0.3248 0
11:21, 27/09/99 2 of 2 DP_D151.XLS (DP_D160)

LO
W
Van Laar, IDEAL (DEFAULT)
-R
+-------------------- Aij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ +-------------------- Aij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ ameters ---------------------+
¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ -Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦
Do E
¦ H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All LLE C_UnifacLLE_All ¦
¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ ¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ B_all immiscible in i ¦
wn SO
¦ Formaldehyde Methanol Oxygen H2O ¦ ¦ Hydrogen CO2 CO FormicAcid ¦ Nitrogen Argon ¦
¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- -5.7036 ¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦Methanol --- --- --- 0.6257 ¦ ¦Methanol 24.7952 --- 13.8729 --- ¦ --- --- ¦
lo LU
¦Oxygen --- --- --- 29.1896 ¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦H2O 62.9893 0.7643 -80.3697 --- ¦ ¦H2O -6.5127 -183.6914 266.3600 -0.7971 ¦ 30.1561 -42.2753 ¦
ad T
¦Hydrogen --- 2.6055 --- 8.0175 ¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦CO2 --- --- --- 676.2780 ¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦CO --- -4.0521 --- -12385.0000 ¦ ¦CO --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
fu IO
¦FormicAcid --- --- --- -1.5362 ¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦Nitrogen --- --- --- 7.0546 Nitrogen --- --- --- --- --- --- ¦
ll N
¦Argon --- --- --- 33.2214 ¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----------------------------+
v e ve
+-------------------- Bij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ +-------------------- Bij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ ameters ---------------------+
rs rs
¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices ¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices ¦ -Matrices ¦
¦ ¦
io io
¦ n n ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦Methanol --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦Methanol -1.9464 --- -0.0294 --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦Oxygen --- --- --- -0.0498 ¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
fro W
¦H2O --- --- 19.3401 --- ¦ ¦H2O 4.4304 39.0684 -36.7130 --- ¦ -2.3370 11.6313 ¦
¦Hydrogen --- -0.0009 --- -0.0100 ¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
m IT
¦CO2 --- --- --- -0.0977 ¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦CO --- -0.0036 --- --- ¦ ¦CO --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦FormicAcid --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
ht HO
¦Nitrogen --- --- --- -0.0004 Nitrogen --- --- --- --- --- --- ¦
¦Argon --- --- --- -0.0299 ¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
tp U
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----------------------------+
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
11:12, 27/09/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_VLAR4.xls (van Laar default)
LO
W
Van Laar, IDEAL (DEFAULT PLUS UNIFAC VLE)
-R
Unifac Groups Unavailable for Formaldehyde - Methanol interaction pair
Do E
Unifac Groups Unavailable for Formaldehyde - FormicAcid interaction pair
wn SO
+-------------------- Aij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ +-------------------- Aij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ eters ---------------------+
¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ atrices A_UnifacVLE ¦
lo LU
¦ H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All E C_UnifacLLE_All ¦
¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ ¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ B_all immiscible in i ¦
ad T
¦Formaldehyde --- --- -12.1627 -5.7036 ¦ ¦Formaldehyde 11.5578 69.6759 -2.0741 --- ¦ 20.0324 -9.9439 ¦
¦Methanol --- --- -12.1627 0.6257 ¦ ¦Methanol 24.7952 69.6759 13.8729 0.0257 ¦ 20.0324 -9.9439 ¦
fu IO
¦Oxygen 1480.4229 2570.1833 --- 29.1896 ¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- 1792.9489 ¦ --- --- ¦
¦H2O 62.9893 0.7643 -80.3697 --- ¦ ¦H2O -6.5127 -183.6914 266.3600 -0.7971 ¦ 30.1561 -42.2753 ¦
ll N
¦Hydrogen 693.7556 2.6055 --- 8.0175 ¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- 1025.6306 ¦ --- --- ¦
¦CO2 -3918.1270 -3094.8086 --- 676.2780 ¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- -3727.8840 ¦ --- --- ¦
ve ve
¦CO 1192.2665 -4.0521 --- -12385.0000 ¦ ¦CO --- --- --- 1542.3230 ¦ --- --- ¦
¦FormicAcid --- 0.2458 -12.1627 -1.5362 ¦ ¦FormicAcid 11.5578 69.6759 -2.0741 --- ¦ 20.0324 -9.9439 ¦
rs rs
¦Nitrogen -124.3227 1518.7225 --- 7.0546 Nitrogen --- --- --- 339.0691 --- --- ¦
¦Argon 1356.6383 2893.7578 --- 33.2214 ¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- 1772.0728 ¦ --- --- ¦
io io
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------+
n n
+-------------------- Bij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ +-------------------- Bij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ eters ---------------------+
¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices ¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices ¦ atrices ¦
fro W
¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
m IT
¦Formaldehyde --- --- 3.6612 --- ¦ ¦Formaldehyde -0.1687 -8.4077 1.9472 --- ¦ -1.1520 3.2910 ¦
¦Methanol --- --- 3.6612 --- ¦ ¦Methanol -1.9464 -8.4077 -0.0294 0.0000 ¦ -1.1520 3.2910 ¦
ht HO
¦Oxygen -0.0043 -0.0043 --- -0.0498 ¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- -0.0043 ¦ --- --- ¦
¦H2O --- --- 19.3401 --- ¦ ¦H2O 4.4304 39.0684 -36.7130 --- ¦ -2.3370 11.6313 ¦
tp U
¦Hydrogen -0.0010 -0.0009 --- -0.0100 ¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- -0.0010 ¦ --- --- ¦
¦CO2 0.0011 0.0011 --- -0.0977 ¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- 0.0011 ¦ --- --- ¦
:// T
¦CO -0.0024 -0.0036 --- --- ¦ ¦CO --- --- --- -0.0024 ¦ --- --- ¦
¦FormicAcid --- 0.0000 3.6612 --- ¦ ¦FormicAcid -0.1687 -8.4077 1.9472 --- ¦ -1.1520 3.2910 ¦
re E
¦Nitrogen -0.0037 -0.0037 --- -0.0004 Nitrogen --- --- --- -0.0037 --- --- ¦
¦Argon -0.0039 -0.0039 --- -0.0299 ¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- -0.0039 ¦ --- --- ¦
se M
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------+
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
11:12, 27/09/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_VLAR4.xls (van Laar default + UNIFAC VLE)
LO
W
NRTL, IDEAL (DEFAULT)
-R
+------------------------------- A:\DP_0080.SIM ------------------------- +------------------------------- A:\DP_0080.SIM -------------------------- SIM --------------------------
¦ +-------------------- Aij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ ¦ +-------------------- Aij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ meters ---------------------+
¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ ¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦
Do E
¦ ¦ H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All ¦ H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All LE C_UnifacLLE_All ¦
¦ ¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ ¦ ¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ B_all immiscible in i ¦
wn SO
¦ ¦ Formaldehyde Methanol Oxygen H2O ¦ ¦ ¦ Hydrogen CO2 CO FormicAcid ¦ Nitrogen Argon ¦
¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- -2642.7380 --- 321.3200 ¦ ¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦Methanol -79.2009 --- --- 610.4030 ¦ ¦ ¦Methanol 24.7952 --- 13.8729 --- ¦ --- --- ¦
lo LU
¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- 29.1896 ¦ ¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦H2O -2806.8950 -48.6725 -80.3697 --- ¦ ¦ ¦H2O -6.5127 -183.6914 266.3600 248.8916 ¦ 30.1561 -42.2753 ¦
ad T
¦ ¦Hydrogen --- 2.6055 --- 8.0175 ¦ ¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- 676.2780 ¦ ¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦CO --- -4.0521 --- -12385.0000 ¦ ¦ ¦CO --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
fu IO
¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- -250.2830 ¦ ¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦Nitrogen --- --- --- 7.0546 ¦ Nitrogen --- --- --- --- --- --- ¦
ll N
¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- 33.2214 ¦ ¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ----------------------------+
v e ve
+------------------------------- A:\DP_0080.SIM -------------------------- +------------------------------- A:\DP_0080.SIM -------------------------- .SIM --------------------------
rs rs
¦ +-------------------- Bij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ ¦ +-------------------- Bij Interaction Parameters ---------------------+ ameters ---------------------+
¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices ¦ ¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices ¦ -Matrices ¦
io io
¦ ¦ n n ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦Methanol --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦Methanol -1.9464 --- -0.0294 --- ¦ --- --- ¦
fro W
¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- -0.0498 ¦ ¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦H2O --- --- 19.3401 --- ¦ ¦ ¦H2O 4.4304 39.0684 -36.7130 --- ¦ -2.3370 11.6313 ¦
m IT
¦ ¦Hydrogen --- -0.0009 --- -0.0100 ¦ ¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- -0.0977 ¦ ¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦CO --- -0.0036 --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦CO --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
ht HO
¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦Nitrogen --- --- --- -0.0004 ¦ Nitrogen --- --- --- --- --- --- ¦
tp U
¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- -0.0299 ¦ ¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----------------------------+
:// T
+------------------------------- A:\DP_0080.SIM -------------------------- +------------------------------- A:\DP_0080.SIM -------------------------- .SIM --------------------------
re E
¦ +--------------- NRTL Alpha(i,j) Interaction Parameter ---------------+ ¦ +--------------- NRTL Alpha(i,j) Interaction Parameter ---------------+ ion Parameter ---------------+
¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ ¦ ¦ HOT KEYS F1_Help F2_Menu S_Switch-Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦ -Matrices A_UnifacVLE ¦
se M
¦ ¦ H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All ¦ H_Henry's Coeff L_UnifacLLE C_UnifacLLE_All LLE C_UnifacLLE_All ¦
¦ ¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ ¦ ¦ I_j immiscible in i B_all immiscible in i ¦ B_all immiscible in i ¦
ar B
¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- 2.4335 --- 1.4582 ¦ ¦ ¦Formaldehyde --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦Methanol 2.4335 --- --- 0.3001 ¦ ¦ ¦Methanol --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
ch ED
¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦Oxygen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦H2O 1.4582 0.3001 --- ---
.d D ¦ ¦ ¦H2O --- --- --- 4.3935 ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦Hydrogen --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- ---
iv E¦ ¦ ¦CO2 --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦CO --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦CO --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- 4.3935 ¦ ¦ ¦FormicAcid --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
1.c D
¦ ¦Nitrogen --- --- --- --- ¦ Nitrogen --- --- --- --- --- --- ¦
¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- --- ¦ ¦ ¦Argon --- --- --- --- ¦ --- --- ¦
¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----------------------------+
om FO
.au NT
11:12, 27/09/99
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_VLAR4.xls (NRTL default data)
++---------------------- Binary Interaction Parameters ----------------------+-+

¦¦ ¦ ¦
S.
¦¦ HYSIM displays all binary interaction parameters in the form of two ¦ ¦
.au NT
¦¦ corresponding matrices. Any blanks in the matrix correspond to ¦ ¦
¦¦ a stored value of zero. Any element in the matrix may be overwritten ¦ ¦
¦¦ by using the cursor to move to that position and either pressing <F2> ¦ ¦
om FO
¦¦ for a menu or entering the number directly. There are also a series of ¦ ¦
/
¦¦ Hot Keys available in the form. ¦ ¦
1.c D
¦¦ ¦ ¦
¦¦ If you are entering data the components across the top of the menu ¦ ¦
iv E
¦¦ represent the "i" and the components down the side represent the "j". ¦ ¦
.d D
¦¦ ¦ ¦
ch ED
¦¦ a(i,j) ¦ ¦
¦¦ 1 2 3 4 ¦ ¦
¦¦ j i--> ic4 nc4 ic5 nc5 ¦ ¦
ar B
¦¦ | ic4 --- 2,1 3,1 4,1 ¦ ¦
se M
¦¦ v nc4 1,2 --- 3,2 4,2 ¦ ¦
¦¦ ic5 1,3 2,3 --- 4,3 ¦ ¦
re E
¦¦ nc5 1,4 2,4 3,4 --- ¦ ¦
:// T
¦¦ tp U ¦ ¦
¦¦ ¦ ¦
¦¦ more ¦ ¦
ht HO
+----------------------- Binary Interaction Parameters -----------------------+

¦ ¦
m IT
¦ Each activity model, with the exception of NRTL and Chien-Null has ¦
fro W
¦ two such matrices, you may use the "S" key to switch between the two. The ¦
¦ second matrix corresponds to the bij matrix and is filled in exactly the ¦
¦ same manner as the aij matrix. All of the activity models follow this ¦
n n
¦ format where ¦
io io
¦ ¦
rs rs
¦ Aij = aij + bij * T ( T = temperature in Kelvin deg) ¦

¦ ¦
v e ve
¦ The NRTL model is different in that it contains a third matrix ¦

¦ corresponding to the "alpha(i,j)" term. In this case "S" acts as a ¦
ll N
¦ three way switch, pressing from the Bij matrix will give you the alpha ¦
fu IO
¦ matrix. The units of Aij are different for each activity model and are ¦
¦ explained in their corresponding section. If Aijs are not available for ¦
ad T
¦ all binary parameters you may use the various UNIFAC estimation ¦
lo LU
¦ methods. You have the choice of using the <F2> menu to regress a specific ¦
¦ binary pair, or utilize the Hot Keys available in the form. ¦
¦ ¦
wn SO
¦ more ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Do E
-R
+-------------------- Binary Interaction Parameters --------------------+

¦ ¦
W
¦ The LLE option is not available for the Wilson model since it is ¦
¦ not capable of predicting three phase equilibria. HYSIM's imple- ¦
LO
¦ mentation of the NRTL equation contains temperature dependent ¦

¦ energy parameters as well as the alpha parameter. After selecting ¦
¦ the NRTL equation, the second matrix accessed using the "S" command ¦
11:12, 27/09/99 1 of 2 DP_VLAR4.xls (Help for YOU)

¦ is the B(i,j) parameter matrix. Pressing the "S" key a second time ¦
¦ will result in HYSIM displaying the Alpha(i,j) matrix, it is ¦
S.
¦ important to note that Alpha(i,j) = Alpha(j,i). In order to toggle ¦
.au NT
¦ back to the A(i,j) matrix you must press the "S" key a third time. ¦
¦ As with the other activity models, only the aij parameter is ¦
¦ regressed, the alpha parameter is set equal to 0.3. ¦
om FO
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
/
1.c D
+-------------------- Paramater Estimation Using Unifac ---------------------+
¦ ¦
iv E
¦ HYSIM uses Unifac to generate Aijs or energy parameters for all of ¦
.d D
¦ the available activity models. Only Aij and Aji are regressed for ¦
ch ED
¦ each activity model, Bij and Bji are set to zero and the Alpha term ¦
¦ for the NRTL is set equal to 0.3. Given a binary HYSIM, will calculate ¦
¦ the Unifac activitys at the two infinite dilution points, and three ¦
ar B
¦ intermediate compositions, at a temperature of 298 K and 1 atm pressure. ¦
se M
¦ All of the library components in HYSIM carry Unifac structure information, ¦
¦ any Hypothetical components should have these groups assigned if the ¦
re E
¦ Unifac option is being used. The calculated activities are then used ¦
:// T
¦ in the internal regression routines to produce the Aijs. There are two
tp U ¦
¦ important things to note; ¦
¦ ¦
ht HO
¦ First, the parameters are regressed at atmospheric pressure, this will ¦
¦ produce better results when using the ideal model for the vapour phase. ¦
¦ Second, Unifac is a generalized method and is only going to produce ¦
m IT
¦ approximate results +/- (10 - 15 )%. The method will work quite well as ¦
fro W
¦ long as the given binary components are NOT the primary constitients ¦
¦ being separated in a fractionation system. If no other source of Aij ¦
¦ data is available this option should be used as opposed to using zero ¦
n n
¦ for the energy parameters. ¦

io io
¦ Hot Keys ¦
rs rs
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
v e ve
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Wilson UNIQUAC NRTL VanLaar ¦
ll N
¦Margules Chien-Null ¦
fu IO
¦VanLaar two or four parameter VanLaar equation [Aij = aij + bij*T] ¦

¦ Which activity model do you require ¦
ad T
¦> ¦
lo LU
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
11:12, 27/09/99 2 of 2 DP_VLAR4.xls (Help for YOU)

S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
S PECIFICATION OF E QUIPMENT I TEMS

n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
P ART 1: V APOUR –L IQUID E QUILIBRIA

n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
LO
W
Vapour pressures over solutions, by the van Laar equation(s)
-R
From R, P & P (4) , Chapter 8, Table 8-3
Do E
gE = A.x1.x2 / {x1.(A/B) + x2}
R.T.ln(g1) = A.{1 + (A/B).(x1/x2)}-2

wn SO
R.T.ln(g2) = B.{1 + (B/A).(x2/x1)}-2
For the binary system methanol(1)-water(2):

lo LU
From HYSIM:
ad T
a12 = 0.7643 b12 = 0
a21 = 0.6257
fu IO b21 = 0
T [°C] =
ll N 60 \ T [K] = 333.15
hence: A12 = 0.7643 = A ?

A21 = 0.6257 = B ?
v e ve
By estimation from typical activity coefficients at infinite dilution:
(From R, P & P (4) , Chapter 8, Table 8-17 )
rs rs
Note: species (1) is the solute, at inifinite dilution
io io
For n -primary alcohols(1)-water(2):
T [°C] a e
n n z h q Equation g A
25 -0.995 0.622 0.558 … 0 (a)  1.531087  1055.988
60 -0.755 0.583 0.460 … 0 (a)  1.940886  1836.896

fro W
100 -0.420 0.517 0.230 … 0 (a) 2.123244  2336.058
Equations: \ A = T[K] × 16.95899 -3935.17

m IT
(a) log(g1) = a + e.N1 + z/N1 + q/N2
where Ni is the number of carbon atoms in molecule i
N1 = 1 N2 = 0
ht HO
where A and B may be found by observing that for the van Laar equation:
tp U
for x1  0 R.T.ln(g1¥) = A
for x2  0 R.T.ln(g2¥) = B
-1 -1
:// T
where R = 8.31451 J.mol .K
re E
For water(1)-n -primary alcohols(2):
T [°C] a e z h q Equation g B
25 0.760 0
se M 0 … -0.630 (a)  1.348963  742.0455
60 0.680 0 0 … -0.440 (a)  1.737801  1530.747
100 0.617 0 0 … -0.280 (a)  2.172701  2407.497
ar B
where Ni is the number of carbon atoms in molecule i \ B = T[K] × 22.19922 -5872.57
N1 = 0 N2 = 1
ch ED
NOTE:
.d D
DECHEMA Chemistry Data Series, Vol. I, Part 1b (VLE …, Aq systems, Supp.2) gives:
A12 = 0.8509
iv E
g1 = 2.34 This is not very similar to the values estimated.
A21 = 0.5291 g2 = 1.70 This is similar to the value at 60°C.
Where these have been correlated for atmospheric pressure (101.325kPa(abs)).
1.c D
It is to be assumed that the constants listed here are A/(R.T) and B/(R.T), respectively.
Thus, at 60°C:
A12  2356.975 = A g1  2354.9 = A
om FO
A21  1465.596 = B g2  1469.829 = B
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:11
/ S. 1 of 6 DP_VLAR4.xls(van Laar VLE)
LO
W
Plotting VLE data based on these parameters: Substance Constant (Reid, Prausnitz & Poling(4))
-R
methanol(1)-water(2), T[°C] = 60 A= 1836.896 0 A B C D eq'n Tc [K] pc [bar]
\ T [K] = 333.15 B= 1530.747 0 Formaldehyde -7.29343 1.08395 -1.63882 -2.30677 1 408 65.9
From Antoine data, at 60°C: Water -7.76451 1.45838 -2.7758 -1.23303 1 647.3 221.2
Do E
pvap,1 [kPa(abs)] = 84.65408 pvap,2 [kPa(abs)] = 19.94065 Methanol -8.54796 0.76982 -3.1085 1.54481 1 512.6 80.9
1.5
(1) ln(pvap/pc) = {A(1 - T/Tc) + B(1 - T/Tc) + C(1 - T/Tc)3 + D(1 - T/Tc)6}.(Tc/T)
Total pressure = 101.325 kPa(abs) p1 + p2 = y1P + y2P = P = g1.x1.pvap,1 + g2.x2.pvap,2
wn SO
x1 x2 g g2 p1 [kPa(a)] p2 [kPa(a)] P [kPa(a)] y1 y2 y1 From HYSIM y1 From DECHEMA
0.001 0.999 1.937802 1.000001 0.164043 19.92073 20.08477 0.008168 0.991832 0.004232729 A= 0.7643 0.0098267 A= 2356.97514
lo LU
0.05 0.95 1.798037 1.001952 7.610557 18.9806 26.59116 0.286206 0.713794 0.182666758 B= 0.6257 0.3146282 B= 1465.59589
0.1 0.9 1.675797 1.007678 14.18631 18.08438 32.27069 0.439603 0.560397 0.320559648 0.4622945
ad T
0.2 0.8 1.48052 1.029867 25.06641 16.42897 41.49538 0.604077 0.395923 0.514912578 0.6103714
0.3 0.7 1.335354 1.065817 33.91294 14.87715 48.79009 0.695078 0.304922 0.64533758 0.6918171
0.4 0.6 1.227125 1.11534 41.55246 13.34437 54.89683 0.756919 0.243081 0.738924481 0.7496741
0.5
fu IO
0.5 1.146843 1.178705 48.54249 11.75207 60.29455 0.805089 0.194911 0.809351274 0.7973377
0.6 0.4 1.088265 1.256561 55.27565 10.02266 65.29831 0.84651 0.15349 0.864270021 0.8402283
0.7
ll N
0.3 1.046995 1.34991 62.04268 8.075424 70.1181 0.884831 0.115169 0.908296098 0.8808938
0.8 0.2 1.019909 1.460077 69.07153 5.822977 74.89451 0.922251 0.077749 0.944378619 0.9206492
0.9 0.1 1.004774 1.588714 76.55239 3.167999 79.72039 0.960261 0.039739 0.974490144 0.960215
0.999 0.001 1 1.736201 84.56946 0.034621 84.60408 0.999591 0.000409 0.999764212 0.9996002
v e ve
(6)
Experimental data from Perry , p. 3-73 (Table 3-26) Methanol(1)-water(2) at 60°C
rs rs
Note: Evaluated at 59.4°C 1
x1 p1 [mmHg] p2 [mmHg] P [kPa(a)] y1
io io
0.0000 0 145.4 19.38507 0
0.2217 210.1
n n
106.9 42.26319 0.662776 0.8
0.2740 240.2 102.2 45.64958 0.701519
0.3324 272.1 96.6 49.15596 0.737998
0.3980 301.9 91.7 52.47568 0.767022 0.6
fro W
0.4708 335.6 84.8 56.04872 0.798287
y1
0.555 373.7 76.9 60.07506 0.829339
0.692 439.4
m IT
57.8 66.28788 0.883749 0.4 Est'd from inf. dil'n act. coeff'ts {R,R&P(4)]
0.785 486.6 43.8 70.71418 0.917421
Exp'tal, from Perry(6)
0.859 526.9 30.1 74.26056 0.945961
1.000 609.3 0 81.23332 1 From HYSIM constants
0.2
ht HO
Expt'al; constants direct from DECHEMA
Note also the error in the original: they actually quote mole PERCENT
tp U
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x1
For the binary system formaldehyde(1)-water(2):
:// T
From HYSIM:
re E
a12 = 62.9893 b12 = 0
a21 = -5.7036
se M
b21 = 0
T [°C] = 60 \ T [K] = 333.15

ar B
hence: A12 = 62.9893 = A ?
A21 = -5.7036 = B ?
ch ED
By estimation from typical activity coefficients at infinite dilution:
.d D
(From R, P & P (4) , Chapter 8, Table 8-17 )
iv E
Note: species (1) is the solute, at inifinite dilution
For n -aldehydes(1)-water(2):
1.c D
T [°C] a e z h q Equation g A
25 -0.780 0.622 0.320 … 0 (a)  1.452112  924.7028
60 -0.400 0.583 0.210 … 0 (a)  2.471724  2506.598
om FO
100 -0.03 0.517 0 … 0 (a)  3.069022  3479.083
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:11
LO
W
^^^Note: SAME AS previous
Equations:
-R \ A = T[K] × 33.82772 -9022.62
(a) log(g1) = a + e.N1 + z/N1 + q/N2
Do E
N1 = 1 N2 = 0
NOTE: No data is given by R, P & P(4) for a water(1)-aldehyde(2) system
where A and B may be found by observing that for the van Laar equation: However information is available for water(1)-ketone(2) systems
wn SO
for x1  0 R.T.ln(g1¥) = A It has been assumed that methanal (i.e. formaldehyde) can be modeled as
for x2  0 R.T.ln(g2¥) = B a HYPOTHETICAL single-carbon ketone (i.e. *methanone).
-1 -1
lo LU where R = 8.31451 J.mol .K This is based on the statement, "aldehydes and ketones behave similarly and
undergo many of the same reactions," in John McMURRY; Organic Chemistry(3);
This may be COMPARED with the case for a hypothetical single-carbon ketone: Brooks/Cole Publishing; Pacific Grove, California; 1992; p. 697.
ad T
For n -ketones(1)-water(2):
T [°C] a e z h q Equation g A
25 -1.475 0.622 0.500 0 … (b)  1.402814  839.0822
fu IO
60 -1.040 0.583 0.330 0 … (b)  1.595879  1294.757
100 -0.621 0.517 0.200 0 … (b)  1.97697  2114.596
ll N ^^^Note: SAME AS previous
Equations: \ A = T[K] × 17.08944 -4305.68
(b) log(g1) = a + e.N1 + z.(1/N'1 + 1/N''1) + h.(N1 - N2)2
v e ve
N1 = 1 N2 = 0
rs rs
N', N'' are the number of carbon atoms in respective branches of branched compounds, INCLUDING the "polar grouping."
Thus
io io
N'1 = 1 N''1 = 1
n n
We observe that this approximation was acceptable for the lowest temperature (25°C), but quite inaccurate for larger deviations from ideality.
For water(1)-n -ketones(2):

T [°C] a e z h q Equation g B
fro W
25 1.857 0 0 … -1.019 (c)  0.659174  -1033.16
60 1.493 0 0 … -0.73 (c)  1.078947  210.4777
100 1.231
m IT
0 0 … -0.557 (c)  1.309182  835.8371
Equations: \ B = T[K] × 24.70012 -8265.62

(c) log(g1) = a + e.N1 + z.(1/N'1 + 1/N''1 + 1/N'''1) + q.(1/N'2 + 1/N''2)
ht HO
N1 = 0 N2 = 1
tp U
N', N'' are the number of carbon atoms in respective branches of branched compounds, INCLUDING the "polar grouping."
Thus
:// T
N'1 = 0 N''1 =
re E 0 N'''1 = 0 N'2 = 1 N''2 = 1
Plotting VLE data based on these parameters: Substance Constant (Reid, Prausnitz & Poling(4))
formaldehyde(1)-water(2), T = 60 °C A= 2506.598 A B C D eq'n Tc [K] pc [bar]
se M
\ T [K] = 333.15 B= 210.4777 Formaldehyde -7.29343 1.08395 -1.63882 -2.30677 1 408 65.9
From Antoine data, at 60°C: Water -7.76451 1.45838 -2.7758 -1.23303 1 647.3 221.2
Methanol -8.54796 0.76982 -3.1085 1.54481 1 512.6 80.9
pvap,1 [kPa(abs)] = 1403.154
ar B
pvap,2 [kPa(abs)] = 19.94065
(1) ln(pvap/pc) = {A(1 - T/Tc) + B(1 - T/Tc)1.5 + C(1 - T/Tc)3 + D(1 - T/Tc)6}.(Tc/T)
ch ED
x1 x2 g g2 p1 [kPa(a)] p2 [kPa(a)] P [kPa(a)] y1 y2
.d D
0.0001 0.9999 2.466411 1 0.346076 19.93866 20.28474 0.017061 0.982939
0.001 0.999 2.419887 1.000011 3.395474 19.92092 23.3164 0.145626 0.854374
iv E
0.02 0.98 1.796153 1.002909 50.40561 19.59869 70.00429 0.720036 0.279964
0.05 0.95 1.407668 1.011344 98.75878 19.15852 117.9173 0.837526 0.162474
0.1 0.9 1.182532 1.024956 165.9274 18.39447 184.3219 0.900205 0.099795
1.c D
0.2 0.8 1.058873 1.043499 297.1525 16.64643 313.799 0.946952 0.053048
0.3 0.7 1.024585 1.054564 431.2955 14.72009 446.0156 0.966996 0.033004
0.4 0.6 1.011388 1.061769 567.6535 12.70342 580.3569 0.978111 0.021889
om FO
0.5 0.5 1.005445 1.066806 705.3973 10.6364 716.0337 0.985145 0.014855
0.6 0.4 1.002546 1.070518 844.0363
.au NT 8.53873 852.5751 0.989985 0.010015
27/09/99, 11:11
LO
W
0.7 0.3 1.001093 1.073364 983.2811 6.421076 989.7022 0.993512 0.006488
0.8
-R 0.2 1.000383 1.075615 1122.953 4.289694 1127.243 0.996195 0.003805
0.9 0.1 1.000077 1.077439 1262.937 2.148484 1265.085 0.998302 0.001698
0.999 0.001 1 1.078933 1401.751 0.021515 1401.773 0.999985 1.53E-05
Do E
Experimental data from M. Albert, L. Hahnenstein, H. Hasse & G. Maurer, AIChE.J, p. 1743 (Table 1)
&, also, hence recalculated van Laar data
Note: Evaluated at t[°C] = 70 , as T[K] = 343.15 (approx.) 
wn SO
x1 p [kPa(a)] y1 g1 = y1/yRaoult 1 g1 Recalc. ERROR2  but also: g2 = y2/yRaoult 2 g2 Recalc. ERROR2
0.030 31 0.029  0.016761 0.013832 8.583E-06 pvap,1= 1787.843 0.995006 1 2.494E-05
lo LU 
0.064 30.9 0.054 0.014583 0.013832 5.642E-07 pvap,2= 31.18772 1.00136 1 1.849E-06
0.068 31.2 0.056  0.014372 0.013832 2.914E-07 [kPa(abs)] 1.013274 1 0.0001762
ad T
0.091 30.9 0.071  0.013485 0.013832 1.204E-07 1.012574 1 0.0001581
0.110 30.9 0.083  0.013041 0.013832 6.251E-07 A= -12213.6 1.020832 1 0.000434
0.129 30.7 0.093  0.012379 0.013832 2.109E-06 B= -1.1E+10 1.025047 1 0.0006274
0.137 30.5 0.098  0.012203 0.013832 2.652E-06 1.022144 1 0.0004904
fu IO
0.086517 1000 × SUM = 0.014945 (least-squares regression) SUM = 0.001913
TOTAL SUM = 0.016857599
ll N
Alternative correlation:
Linearised van Laar equation: [see R.P.&P., Example 8-1]
v e ve
x1.x2/{gE/(R.T)} = D + C.(2x1 - 1) g1 = p1/(x1.pvap 1) g2 = p2/(x2.pvap 2) x1.x2/{gE/(R.T)} From the graph:
where: A = R.T/(D - C) B = R.T/(D + C) 0.016761 0.995006 -0.2282 2C (D - C)
rs rs
and by definition: gE/(R.T)  x1.ln(g1) + x2.ln(g2) 0.014583 1.00136 -0.22243 0.256391 -0.24006
0.014372 1.013274 -0.22946
io io
Determination of van Laar constants for the system
formaldehyde(1)-water(2) at 70°C
n n 0.013485 1.012574 -0.21739 Hence:
0.013041 1.020832 -0.21328
-0.2
0.012379 1.025047 -0.20617 A= -11885.1
y = 0.2564x - 0.2401 0.012203 1.022144 -0.2022 B= 174684.3
-0.21 R² = 0.8848
fro W
However observe that the sensitivity in B is very great,
-0.22
as it is found by dividing by the SUM of 2C and (D - C),
m IT which are both of very similar magnitude, but opposite sign.
-0.23
"y" = x1.x2/{gE/(R.T)}
From the graph (below) it is not physically realistic at large x1,
and it "probably" does not satisfy the Gibbs-Duhem equation.
-0.24
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
ht HO
"x" = x1
tp U
Experimental data from M. Albert, L. Hahnenstein,
H. Hasse & G. Maurer, AIChE.J, p. 1743 (Table 1)
Note: Evaluated at t[°C] = 90 ,
:// T
as T[K] = 363.15 (approx.)
x1 p [kPa(a)] y1
re E
Formaldehyde(1)-water(2) at 60°C/70°C/90°C Est'd from inf. dil'n act. coeff'ts
0.051 71.4 0.061 [R,R&P(4)] (60°C)
1
0.056 71.4 0.064
se M
0.058 70.6 0.066 From AIChE.J, exp'tal (70°C)
y = 0.9785x
0.150 71.6 0.136 R² = 0.896
0.8 Est'd from inf. dil'n act. coeff'ts, from
ar B
UNIFAC (60°C)
By Raoult's Law (with Antoine Eq'n at

60°C)
ch ED
0.6
Est'd from AIChE.J, exp'tal (70°C) by
y1
weighted least squares regression
.d D
0.4
y = 0.7514x
Est'd from AIChE.J, exp'tal (70°C) by
iv E R² = 0.9591 the method of R, P & P
From AIChE.J, exp'tal (90°C)

0.2
1.c D
Linear (From AIChE.J, exp'tal (70°C))
0
om FO
Linear (From AIChE.J, exp'tal (90°C))
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x1
Recalculated van Laar constants:
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:11
LO
W
T = 70 °C A= -12213.6 -9273.5879 -29317.985 -12262.41228 -11885.138
-R\ T [K] = 343.15 B= -1.1E+10 -6805.042 -4113.3916 -1009975.48 174684.34
From Antoine data, at 70°C: (previous "guesses")
pvap,1 [kPa(abs)] = 1787.843 pvap,2 [kPa(abs)] = 31.18772
Do E
x1 x2 g g2 p1 [kPa(a)] p2 [kPa(a)] P [kPa(a)] y1 y2 y1 [Est'd from AIChE.J, exp'tal (70°C) by the method of R, P & P]
wn SO
0.0001 0.9999 0.013832 1 0.001941 19.93866 19.9406 9.73E-05 0.999903 0.000109199 A= -11885.1377
0.001 0.999 0.013832 1 0.019408 19.92071 19.94012 0.000973 0.999027 0.00109134 B= 11128.0122
0.02
lo LU0.98 0.013832 1 0.388164 19.54184 19.93 0.019476 0.980524 0.0215527
0.05 0.95 0.013832 1 0.97041 18.94362 19.91403 0.04873 0.95127 0.052791981
0.1 0.9 0.013832 1 1.940821 17.94659 19.88741 0.09759 0.90241 0.101888421
ad T
0.2 0.8 0.013832 1 3.881648 15.95252 19.83416 0.195705 0.804295 0.188165947
0.3 0.7 0.013832 0.999999 5.822482 13.95844 19.78093 0.294348 0.705652 0.255697777
0.4 0.6 0.013832 0.999998 7.763327 11.96437 19.72769 0.393524 0.606476 0.297156603
fu IO
0.5 0.5 0.013832 0.999995 9.704189 9.970278 19.67447 0.493238 0.506762 0.295529612
0.6 0.4 0.013832 0.999989 11.64508 7.976175 19.62126 0.593493 0.406507 0.214488827
0.7
ll N
0.3 0.013832 0.999974 13.58604 5.98204 19.56808 0.694296 0.305704 0.049001975
0.8 0.2 0.013832 0.999924 15.52715 3.987826 19.51497 0.795653 0.204347 2.07456E-05
0.9 0.1 0.013833 0.999614 17.46887 1.993295 19.46217 0.897581 0.102419 2.62656E-76
v e ve
0.999 0.001 0.013964 0.008681 19.57402 0.000173 19.57419 0.999991 8.84E-06 2.86146E-23
From UNIFAC estimation of activity coefficients at infinitite dilution [R,P&P and AIChE.J]
rs rs
T = 60 °C A = 2319.507
\ T [K] = 333.15 B = 2851.515
io io
From Antoine data, at 60°C: NOTE: The previous (initial) estimation was close to this value for A
n n
pvap,1 [kPa(abs)] = 1403.154 pvap,2 [kPa(abs)] = 19.94065

fro W
x1 x2 g g2 p1 [kPa(a)] p2 [kPa(a)] P [kPa(a)] y1 y2 cf. yRaoult 1
0.0001 0.9999
m IT
2.309974 1 0.324125 19.93866 20.26278 0.015996 0.984004 0.006988178
0.001 0.999 2.307144 1.000001 3.237279 19.92072 23.158 0.139791 0.860209 0.065802063
0.02 0.98 2.248465 1.000275 63.09888 19.5472 82.64608 0.763483 0.236517 0.589499648
0.05 0.95 2.159827 1.001737 151.5285 18.97652 170.505 0.888704 0.111296 0.787392424
ht HO
0.1 0.9 2.022445 1.007098 283.7802 18.07397 301.8542 0.940124 0.059876 0.886602064
0.2 0.8 1.782948 1.029835 500.3503 16.42847 516.7788 0.96821 0.03179 0.946212357 Formaldehyde(1)-water(2) at 101.325kPa(abs), at
tp U
0.3 0.7 1.584723 1.071209 667.0831 14.95242 682.0355 0.978077 0.021923 0.967904568 the boiling points
0.4 0.6 1.421961 1.135724 798.0925 13.58824 811.6808 0.983259 0.016741 0.979127973 1
0.5 0.5 1.28999 1.230139 905.0276 12.26489 917.2925 0.986629 0.013371 0.985987828
0.9
:// T
0.6 0.4 1.185169 1.36469 997.7851 10.88512 1008.67 0.989208 0.010792 0.990614716
0.8
0.7 0.3 1.104846 1.555139 1085.189 9.303147 1094.492 0.9915 0.0085 0.993946312
re E 0.7
0.8 0.2 1.047366 1.826335 1175.693 7.283664 1182.977 0.993843 0.006157 0.996459752
0.9 0.1 1.012168 2.218582 1278.205 4.423997 1282.629 0.996551 0.003449 0.998423456 0.6
Estimated, with temp dependence
0.999 0.001 1.000001
se M
2.792411 1401.753 0.055682 1401.809 0.99996 3.97E-05 0.999985775 0.5 From Ullmann's
y1
From Ullmann's
0.4
0.3
ar B
Plotting VLE data based on these parameters:
0.2
formaldehyde(1)-water(2) A= 33.82772 × T[K] + -9022.62
Total pressure = 101.325 kPa(abs) B= 24.70012 × T[K] + -8265.62 0.1
ch ED
T[K] = 273.15 + t[°C] 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
From Antoine data, at T[K]: p1 + p2 = y1P + y2P = P = g1.x1.pvap,1 + g2.x2.pvap,2
x1
.d D
x1 x2 guess T [K] A B pvap,1 pvap,2 g g2 p1 [kPa(a)] p2 [kPa(a)] P [kPa(a)] y1 y2
iv E
0.0001 0.9999 372.84 3589.601 943.4921 3409.471 100.2506 3.180605 1 1.084417841 100.2406 101.325 0.010702 0.989298
0.001 0.999 370.28 3502.945 880.2182 3236.943 91.40732 3.091958 1.000005 10.00849006 91.31633 101.3248 0.098776 0.901224
0.02408 0.97592 335.74 2334.751 2000.0000 1496.138 22.45697 2.203823 1.000562 79.39647307 21.92853 101.325 0.783582 0.216418
1.c D
0.049585 0.950415 313.04 1566.757 -533.5355 822.2511 7.342221 2.315175 0.993312 94.39352083 6.931486 101.325 0.931592 0.068408
0.076291 0.923709 304.51 1278.299 -744.1603 641.2998 4.59191 1.985022 0.991998 97.11739686 4.20765 101.325 0.958474 0.041526
0.097782 0.902218 299.54 1109.996 -867.0508 550.9453 3.443021 1.823689 0.991005 98.24659106 3.078416 101.325 0.969618 0.030382
om FO
0.131141 0.868859 293.73 913.4836 -1010.539 458.2639 2.425547 1.651316 0.989724 99.2391977 2.085803 101.325 0.979415 0.020585
0.172983 0.827017 288.39 732.8137 -1142.46 384.192 1.73293 1.503317 0.988625 99.90830338 1.416861 101.3252 0.986017 0.013983
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:11
LO
W
0.210371 0.789629 284.71 608.6011 -1233.156 338.942 1.363857 1.406109 0.988132 100.2608535 1.064159 101.325 0.989498 0.010502
-R
0.24947 0.75053 281.59 502.8934 -1310.341 303.8154 1.106178 1.326047 0.988105 100.5047291 0.820344 101.3251 0.991904 0.008096
0.302879 0.697121 278.11 385.3565 -1396.164 268.1794 0.870923 1.240057 0.988853 100.7246077 0.600371 101.325 0.994075 0.005925
0.351845 0.648155 275.48 296.3584 -1461.148 243.4523 0.72339 1.177487 0.990282 100.8606203 0.464312 101.3249 0.995418 0.004582
0.37312 0.62688 274.46 261.8400 -1486.352 234.3607 0.672415 1.153954 0.991103 100.9071454 0.417773 101.3249 0.995877 0.004123
Do E
0.5 0.5 269.41 90.8153 -1611.23 193.188 0.463859 1.046583 0.997437 101.0936494 0.231335 101.325 0.997717 0.002283
0.6 0.4 266.17 -18.5966 -1691.12 170.0118 0.362735 0.991901 0.999799 101.1808733 0.145065 101.3259 0.998568 0.001432
0.7 0.3 263.19 -119.5476 -1764.831 150.6419 0.287356 0.960083 0.985089 101.2400513 0.084921 101.325 0.999162 0.000838
wn SO
0.8 0.2 260.13 -222.9547 -1840.337 132.6669 0.224942 0.954307 0.913329 101.2839122 0.041089 101.325 0.999594 0.000406
0.9 0.1 256.84 -334.2593 -1921.608 115.2788 0.171557 0.9765 0.71529 101.3127295 0.012271 101.325 0.999879 0.000121
0.999 0.001 253.92 -433.0178 -1993.719 101.4268 0.134009 0.999996 0.392314 101.3249457 5.26E-05 101.325 0.999999 5.19E-07
lo LU
ad T
Experimental data from Ullmann's (5) , Vol. A11, p. 622 (Table 3) CH3OH 0.032 kg.mol-1 HCHO 0.030 kg.mol-1 H2O 0.018 kg.mol-1
Note: Evaluated at the boiling points, at P [kPa(abs)] = 101.325
2
xMass 1 x1 yMass 1 y1 p1 [kPa(a)] \ y1 cf. y1 above ERROR
fu IO
0.0395 0.02408 0.0368 0.0224 2.35 0.0232 0.7835823 0.5787882
0.08 0.049585 0.073 0.0451 4.75 0.0469 0.9315916 0.7842768
0.121 0.076291
ll N 0.106 0.0664 7 0.0691 0.9584737 0.7933898
0.153 0.097782 0.132 0.0836 8.65 0.0854 0.9696184 0.7834509
0.201 0.131141 0.1695 0.1091 11.2 0.1105 0.9794147 0.7562042
v e ve
0.2585 0.172983 0.2145 0.1408 14.45 0.1426 0.9860167 0.7128827
0.3075 0.210371 0.249 0.1659 16.8 0.1658 0.9894976 0.6783744
0.3565 0.24947 0.274 0.1846 18.8 0.1855 0.9919038 0.6509539
rs rs
0.420 0.302879 0.305 0.2084 21.4 0.2112 0.9940748 0.6150673
0.475 0.351845 0.331 0.2289 23.4 0.2309 0.9954176 0.5859848
io io
0.498 0.37312 0.340 0.2361 24.1 0.2378 0.9958769 0.5759287
n n (a check)
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:11
LO
W
-R Methanol(1)-water(2) at 60°C
1
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
0.8 fu IO
ll N
v e ve
rs rs
0.6
io io
n n
fro W
y1
m IT
ht HO
0.4 tp U
Est'd from inf. dil'n act. coeff'ts {R,R&P(4)]
:// T
re E
se M Exp'tal, from Perry(6)
From HYSIM constants

ar B
0.2 Expt'al; constants direct from DECHEMA
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
om FO
x1 .au NT
/ S.
LO
W
Formaldehyde(1)-water(2) at 60°C/70°C/90°C
1
-R
Do E
wn SO
y = 0.9785x
R² = 0.896
lo LU Est'd from inf. dil'n act. coeff'ts
[R,R&P(4)] (60°C)
0.8
ad T
From AIChE.J, exp'tal (70°C)
fu IO
ll N
Est'd from inf. dil'n act. coeff'ts,
from UNIFAC (60°C)
v e ve
rs rs
0.6 By Raoult's Law (with Antoine
io io
n n Eq'n at 60°C)
Est'd from AIChE.J, exp'tal

(70°C) by weighted least
fro W
y1
m IT squares regression
Est'd from AIChE.J, exp'tal
(70°C) by the method of R, P &
0.4
y = 0.7514x P
ht HO
R² = 0.9591 From AIChE.J, exp'tal (90°C)
tp U
:// T
Linear (From AIChE.J, exp'tal
re E
se M (70°C))
Linear (From AIChE.J, exp'tal

0.2
ar B
ch ED (90°C))
.d D
iv E
1.c D
0
om FO
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x1 .au NT
/ S.
27/09/99, 11:31 1 of 1 van Laar VLE Chart 2
Formaldehyde(1) Water(2)
0.9183 r_i 0.9200 Refer to:
S.
0.780 q_i 1.400 R,P&P; T8-21, T8-3
AIChE.J; T6, T7
.au NT
-149.00 u_ij 240.00
om FO
0.0001 x_i 0.9999
/
60 T [°C] 60
333.15 T [K] 333.15
1.c D
iv E
.d D
9.98E-05 f_i 0.9999
5.57E-05 q_i 0.999944
ch ED
1.055264 t_ij 0.917004
ar B
10 z 10
se M
re E
0.7732 l_i -2.32
:// T
2.310288 tp U g_i 1  1.93E-05 = B (van Laar)
 2319.50663 = A (van Laar)
ht HO
Similarly:
t [°C] T [K] g1 A g2 B
60 333.15 2.310288 2319.507 2.799482 2851.515
m IT
25 298.15 2.316579 2082.565 2.811124 2562.229

100 373.15 2.304493 2590.208 2.78857 3181.768
fro W
0 273.15 2.32201 1913.26 2.821003 2355.352

n n
45 318.15 2.312822 2217.971 2.804196 2727.577

io io
80 353.15 2.307233 2454.867 2.79375 3016.682

120 393.15 2.302023 2725.532 2.783866 3346.785
rs rs
v e ve
Hence: A = T[K] × 6.76855 +64.54

ll N
fu IO
B = T[K] × 8.26043 +2355.78

ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
27/09/99, 11:12 1 of 1 DP_VLAR4.xls(UNIFAC act.coefft.)

LO
W
DECHEMA 23/09/1998
-R TUTORIAL 4 Question 1
DATA Megat Ahmad
David Verrelli PART (a) PART (b) PART (c)
Do E
CHE3117
Methanol Water Methanol Water Methanol Water
Methanol --- -0.1800 Methanol --- 0.6207 Methanol --- 0.4742
wn SO
Water -0.1800 --- Water 0.7611 --- Water 0.8316 ---
DECHEMA experimental data
lo LU
Mole_Frac Mole_Frac Temp. Mole_Frac Mole_Frac Temp. Mole_Frac Mole_Frac Temp.
Liq Vap Feed Liq Vap Feed Liq Vap Feed ERRORS
ad T
Methanol Methanol Methanol Methanol Methanol Methanol Part (a) Part (b) Part (c)
x_meth x_w T [ºC] Case [---] [---] [ºC] Case [---] [---] [ºC] Case [---] [---] [ºC] Diff T Diff T Diff T
0.0000 1.0000
fu IO
100.00 29 0.0000 0 99.7769 2 0 0 99.9909 1 0 0 99.9909 -0.22 0.22 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01
0.0089 0.9911 98.43 30 0.0089 0.0088543 99.5691 3 0.0089 0.0623018 98.4445 2 0.0089 0.066269 98.3262 1.14 1.14 0.01 0.01 -0.10 0.1
0.0204 0.9796 96.65

ll N 31 0.0204 0.0377609 99.2843 4 0.0204 0.132037 96.6251 3 0.0204 0.139071 96.3987 2.63 2.63 -0.02 0.02 -0.25 0.25
0.0306 0.9694 95.12 32 0.0306 0.0572935 99.0172 5 0.0306 0.185592 95.1575 4 0.0306 0.194016 94.8657 3.90 3.9 0.04 0.04 -0.25 0.25
0.0419 0.9581 93.32 33 0.0419 0.0793334 98.7061 6 0.0419 0.237506 93.6702 5 0.0419 0.246495 93.3407 5.39 5.39 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.02
ve ve
0.0516 0.9484 92.13 34 0.0516 0.0985251 98.4268 7 0.0516 0.276896 92.5002 6 0.0516 0.285818 92.1495 6.30 6.3 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.02
0.0616 0.9384 91.05 35 0.0616 0.118515 98.1279 8 0.0616 0.313306 91.3789 7 0.0616 0.321791 91.0227 7.08 7.08 0.33 0.33 -0.03 0.03
rs rs
0.0689 0.9311 90.21 36 0.0689 0.133208 97.9028 9 0.0689 0.337556 90.611 8 0.0689 0.345556 90.2579 7.69 7.69 0.40 0.4 0.05 0.05
0.0759 0.9241 89.54 37 0.0759 0.147354 97.682 10 0.0759 0.359181 89.9113 9 0.0759 0.36662 89.5657 8.14 8.14 0.37 0.37 0.03 0.03
io io
0.0954 0.9046 87.86 38 0.0954 0.186918 97.042 11 0.0954 0.412283 88.1297 10 0.0954 0.417862 87.8234 9.18 9.18 0.27 0.27 -0.04 0.04
0.1242 0.8758 85.72 39

n n 0.1242 0.245192 96.0386 12 0.1242 0.475731 85.874 11 0.1242 0.478261 85.6575 10.32 10.3 0.15 0.15 -0.06 0.06
0.1672 0.8328 83.10 40 0.1672 0.330091 94.4389 13 0.1672 0.547657 83.1338 12 0.1672 0.545874 83.0814 11.34 11.3 0.03 0.03 -0.02 0.02
0.1990 0.8010 81.57 41 0.1990 0.390082 93.2002 14 0.199 0.589006 81.4654 13 0.199 0.584522 81.5376 11.63 11.6 -0.10 0.1 -0.03 0.03
fro W
0.2348 0.7652 80.01 42 0.2348 0.453905 91.7707 15 0.2348 0.627343 79.8584 14 0.2348 0.620376 80.0628 11.76 11.8 -0.15 0.15 0.05 0.05
0.3458 0.6542 76.62 44 0.3458 0.345798 87.2917 16 0.3458 0.713103 76.0809 15 0.3458 0.702127 76.5904 10.67 10.7 -0.54 0.54 -0.03 0.03
m IT
0.3934 0.6066 75.43 45 0.3934 0.681376 85.4199 17 0.3934 0.740849 74.8243 16 0.3934 0.729571 75.4113 11.86 11.9 -0.61 0.61 -0.02 0.02
0.4654 0.5346 73.89 46 0.4654 0.756025 82.7067 18 0.4654 0.777213 73.1764 17 0.4654 0.766751 73.8243 11.53 11.5 -0.71 0.71 -0.07 0.07
0.6469 0.3531 70.46 47 0.6469 0.884807 76.6777 19 0.6469 0.854333 69.8027 18 0.6469 0.850301 70.3692 12.25 12.2 -0.66 0.66 -0.09 0.09
ht HO
0.7463 0.2537 68.69 57 0.7463 0.929978 73.8892 20 0.7463 0.893798 68.2046 19 0.7463 0.893959 68.6345 7.99 7.99 -0.49 0.49 -0.06 0.06
0.7601 0.2399 68.50 49 0.7601 0.935239 73.5291 21 0.7601 0.899298 67.9907 20 0.7601 0.899963 68.3987 5.39 5.39 -0.51 0.51 -0.10 0.1
tp U
0.8423 0.1577 67.04 50 0.8423 0.842281 71.5108 22 0.8423 0.932493 66.748 21 0.8423 0.935368 67.0169 6.49 6.49 -0.29 0.29 -0.02 0.02
0.8708 0.1292 66.61 51 0.8708 0.870711 70.8587 23 0.8708 0.944261 66.3276 22 0.8708 0.947448 66.5465 4.90 4.9 -0.28 0.28 -0.06 0.06
:// T
0.9001 0.0999 66.11 52 0.9001 0.900062 70.2122 24 0.9001 0.956535 65.9003 23 0.9001 0.959722 66.0677 4.75 4.75 -0.21 0.21 -0.04 0.04
0.9163 0.0837 65.87 53 0.9163 0.916278 69.8648 25 0.9163 0.963407 65.666 24 0.9163 0.966433 65.8052 4.34 4.34 -0.20 0.2 -0.06 0.06
re E
0.9529 0.0471 65.24 54 0.9529 0.952897 69.1048 26 0.9529 0.979173 65.1417 25 0.9529 0.981362 65.2183 4.62 4.62 -0.10 0.1 -0.02 0.02
0.9750 0.0250 64.88 55 0.9750 0.975021 68.6619 27 0.975 0.988866 64.8285 26 0.975 0.990196 64.8683 4.22 4.22 -0.05 0.05 -0.01 0.01
se M
1.0000 0.0000 64.51 56 1.0000 1 68.1744 28 1 1 64.4755 27 1 1 64.4755 4.15 4.15 -0.03 0.03 -0.03 0.03
ar B
Mean Deviation 7.03 0.27 0.06
Maximum Deviation 12.25 0.71 0.25
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
27/09/99, 11:12
/ S. 1 of 1 DP_VLAR4.xls (DECHEMA data)
Antoine constants from "VLE of Formaldehyde Mixtures: New Data and Model Revision" in AIChEJ, 42(6), p. 1745.
Substance Constant Constant (Sinnott(2)) Constant (Reid, Prausnitz & Poling(4))

A2 B2 C2 A2 B2 C2 A eq'n Tc [K]
B pc [bar]
C D
Formaldehyde 14.4625 -2204.13 -30.15 16.4775 -2204.13 -30.15 1
-7.29343 408
1.08395 65.9
-1.63882 -2.30677
Water 16.2886 -3816.44 -46.13 18.3036 -3816.44 -46.13 -7.76451 1.45838 -2.7758 -1.23303 1 647.3 221.2
Methanol 16.5725 -3626.55 -34.29 18.5875 -3626.55 -34.29 -8.54796 0.76982 -3.1085 1.54481 1 512.6 80.9
(1) ln(pvap/pc) = {A(1 - T/Tc) + B(1 - T/Tc)1.5 + C(1 - T/Tc)3 + D(1 - T/Tc)6}.(Tc/T)
S.
(sign altered) TO GIVE [mmHg]
Equation: ln( pº[kPa] ) = A2 + B2 / (T[K] + C2) (2) ln(pvap) = A - B/T + C.ln(T) + D(pvap/T2)
.au NT
NOTE: All pressures are absolute Check pure-component boiling points at atmospheric pressure
==> pº = 101.325 kPa t[°C] = - 273.15 + T[K]
254.0521 K = -19.0979 °C -19.0982
om FO
373.1525 K = 100.0025 °C 100.0021
Now for Raoult's Law: 337.6612 K = 64.51121 °C 64.51083
/
Composition: pº [kPa] p [kPa] pº [kPa] p [kPa]
1.c D
Formaldehyde 0.54 t[°C] = -20 97.36911 52.57932 t[°C] = 0 219.6436 118.6075
Water 0.45 T[K] = 253.15 0.116889 0.0526 T[K] = 273.15 0.593078 0.266885
iv E
Methanol 0.01 1.002321 0.010023 4.013874 0.040139
SUM 1 52.64194 118.9146
.d D
(Sinnott(2)) (R, P & P(4)) pº [kPa] p [kPa]
ch ED
t[°C] = -50 T[K] = 223.15 pTOTAL = 11.316 kPa(abs) 11.316 11.303 -0.1% t[°C] = 20 437.8067 236.4156
= ERROR
t[°C] = -46.9606 T[K] = 226.1894 pTOTAL = 13.509 kPa(abs) 13.509 13.498 T[K] = 293.15 2.313304 1.040987
t[°C] = -40 T[K] = 233.15 pTOTAL = 19.866 kPa(abs) 19.866 19.874 12.97214 0.129721
ar B
t[°C] = -30 T[K] = 243.15 pTOTAL = 33.084 kPa(abs) 33.084 33.185 237.5863
se M
t[°C] = -20 T[K] = 253.15 pTOTAL = 52.642 kPa(abs) 52.643 52.985
t[°C] = -10 T[K] = 263.15 pTOTAL = 80.505 kPa(abs) 80.506 81.367 1.1% t[°C] = 0.01 T[K] = 273.16 Error:
re E
= ERROR
t[°C] = -4.2046 T[K] = 268.9454 pTOTAL = 101.325 kPa(abs) 101.326 102.688 J.AIChE pº [kPa] 0.5935 -2.9%
t[°C] = 0 T[K] = 273.15 pTOTAL = 118.915 kPa(abs) 118.916 120.767 Sinnott 0.5935 -2.9%
:// T
t[°C] = 10 tp UT[K] = 283.15 pTOTAL = 170.368 kPa(abs) 170.371 173.960 R, P & P 0.6120 0.12%
t[°C] = 20 T[K] = 293.15 pTOTAL = 237.586 kPa(abs) 237.590 244.059 ACTUAL 0.6112
t[°C] = 30 T[K] = 303.15 pTOTAL = 323.482 kPa(abs) 323.487 334.511 3.3%
ht HO
= ERROR
t[°C] = 40 T[K] = 313.15 pTOTAL = 431.129 kPa(abs) 431.135 449.097 t[°C] = 100 T[K] = 373.15 Error:
t[°C] = 50 T[K] = 323.15 pTOTAL = 563.728 kPa(abs) 563.736 591.940 J.AIChE pº [kPa] 101.316 -0.0090%
t[°C] = 60 T[K] = 333.15 pTOTAL = 724.578 kPa(abs) 724.589 767.523 Sinnott 101.317 -0.0075%
m IT
t[°C] = 70 T[K] = 343.15 pTOTAL = 917.055 kPa(abs) 917.069 980.723 R, P & P 101.378 0.053%
t[°C] = 80 T[K] = 353.15 pTOTAL = 1144.583 kPa(abs) 1144.599 1236.857 7.5% ACTUAL 101.325
= ERROR
t[°C] = 90 T[K] = 363.15 pTOTAL = 1410.618 kPa(abs)
fro W
1410.639 1541.762
t[°C] = 100 T[K] = 373.15 pTOTAL = 1718.635 kPa(abs) 1718.660 1901.913 t[°C] = 373.7 T[K] = 646.85 Error:
t[°C] = 110 T[K] = 383.15 pTOTAL = 2072.110 kPa(abs) 2072.141 2324.628 J.AIChE pº [kPa] 20650 -6.1%
n n
t[°C] = 120 T[K] = 393.15 pTOTAL = 2474.514 kPa(abs) 2474.551 2818.469 Sinnott 20651 -6.1%
io io
t[°C] = 130 T[K] = 403.15 pTOTAL = 2929.300 kPa(abs) 2929.344 3394.358 13.7% R, P & P 22001 0.0065%
= ERROR
t[°C] = 140 T[K] = 413.15 pTOTAL = 3439.900 kPa(abs) 3439.950 #NUM! ACTUAL 22000
rs rs
t[°C] = 150 T[K] = 423.15 pTOTAL = 4009.711 kPa(abs) 4009.770 #NUM!

t[°C] = 160 T[K] = 433.15 pTOTAL = 4642.099 kPa(abs) 4642.167 (pure HCHO is super-critical here)
ve ve
t[°C] = 170 T[K] = 443.15 pTOTAL = 5340.384 kPa(abs) 5340.462

Raoult-Antoine:
54F:1M:45W
ll N

100000.000
fu IO

ad T

lo LU
10000.000
pTOTAL =
Total saturation pressure [kPa(abs)]
t[°C] = 250 T[K] = 523.15 13679.065 kPa(abs) 13679.266

wn SO

pTOTAL = 1000.000
t[°C] = 300 T[K] = 573.15 21813.584 kPa(abs) 21813.905
Do E
-R
W
100.000
LO
10.000
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature [°C]
J.AIChE, 42(6) Sinnott (R, P & P(4))
11:28, 27/09/99 1 of 1 dp_pvap.xls (Sheet1)

LO
W
-R Total saturation pressure [kPa(abs)]
Do E
wn SO
100000.000
10000.000
100.000
1000.000
10.000
lo LU
-50
ad T
fu IO
ll N
0
ve ve
rs rs
io io
50
n n
fro W
J.AIChE, 42(6)
m IT
100
ht HO
54F:1M:45W
tp U
Raoult-Antoine:
:// T
150
Sinnott
re E
Temperature [°C]
se M
ar B
200
ch ED
.d D
iv E
250
1.c D
(R, P & P(4))

om FO
300
.au NT
/ S.
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
P ART 2: D ETAILED P ROCESS D ESIGN

n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
Property calculation: VLE
Experimental data from M. Albert, L. Hahnenstein, H. Hasse & G. Maurer, AIChE.J, p. 1743 (Table 1)
S.
&, also, hence recalculated van Laar data
Note: Evaluated at t[°C] = 70 , as T[K] = 343.15 (approx.)
.au NT
x1 p [kPa(a)] y1
0.030 31 0.029
0.064 30.9 0.054 Substance Constant (Reid, Prausnitz & Poling(4))
0.068 31.2 0.056 A B C D eq'n Tc [K] pc [bar]
om FO
0.091 30.9 0.071 Formaldehyde -7.29343 1.08395 -1.63882 -2.30677 1 408 65.9
0.110 30.9 0.083 Water -1.23303 1 647.3 221.2
/
-7.76451 1.45838 -2.7758
0.129 30.7 0.093 Methanol -8.54796 0.76982 -3.1085 1.54481 1 512.6 80.9
0.137 30.5 0.098 (1) ln(pvap/pc) = {A(1 - T/Tc) + B(1 - T/Tc)1.5 + C(1 - T/Tc)3 + D(1 - T/Tc)6}.(Tc/T)
1.c D
iv E
Their data:
Note: In all cases HCHO concentration increases down a column.
.d D
T [K] t [°C] P [kPa(abs)]
343.1 69.95 31.0 Formaldehyde(1)-Water .. AIChE.J data
ch ED
343.1 69.95 30.9
343.1 69.95 31.2
1000.0
343.1 69.95 30.9
343.2 70.05 30.9
ar B
343.3 70.15 30.7
343.1 69.95 30.5 y = 4.8998x - 1669.5
se M
MEAN: 343.1428571 69.99286 30.87143 R² = 0.8836
s: 0.078679579 0.07868 0.221467
P [kPa(abs)]
re E
363.1 89.95 71.4 100.0
363.1 89.95 71.4
y = 5.864E-05e3.846E-02x
:// T
363.2 90.05 70.6
363.1
tp U 89.95 71.6 R² = 9.972E-01
MEAN: 363.125 89.975 71.25
s: 0.05 0.05 0.443471
ht HO
383.1 109.95 153.1 10.0
383.3 110.15 155.0 333.15 343.15 353.15 363.15 373.15 383.15 393.15 403.15 413.15 423.15
383.1 109.95 155.1 T [K]
383.0 109.85 155.1
m IT
MEAN: 383.125 109.975 154.575

s: 0.125830574 0.125831 0.984463
fro W
413.2 140.05 405.3

413.2 140.05 414.4
413.1 139.95 423.1
413.2 140.05 423.7
n n
413.2 140.05 432.9

io io
413.1 139.95 443.1

413.1 139.95 442.7
rs rs
413.1 139.95 449.1

MEAN: 413.15 140 429.2875
ve ve
s: 0.053452249 0.053452 15.3195
Hence with:
ll N
Henry's law: y = 0.7514 x or y = x ???

& Total pressure: PBINARY = 5.86E-05 exp ( 3.85E-02 T[K] )
fu IO
Note(1): all pressures in kPa(abs).

Note(2): "with inerts" signifies inert gases present to a TOTAL, COMBINED pressure of "P"
Note(3): obviously the "BINARY" refers to the situation with no inerts, although hydrolysis & polymerisation still occur.
ad T
Data for: x1 T [K] PBIN [kPa] y1 BINARY p1 e.g. y1 WITH INERTS Ullmann's (5) Ratio of
lo LU
P=? xMass 1# p1 y1 w INERTS y1 w INERTS

#
(bottom) Assuming a binary solution.
TOP Abs. Stage 1 0.402006 335.15 23.23769 0.302067 7.019346 128 0.054839 0.528406 3.487933 0.027249 50%
BOTTOM 0.42 348.15 38.3117064 0.312309799 11.96512131 130 0.092039395 0.542435098 7.762824198 0.059714032 65%
wn SO
TOP Abs. Stage 2 0.195415 323.15 14.64729 0.146835 2.150735 126 0.017069 0.288159 0.943184 0.007486 44%
BOTTOM 0.196488451 336.15 24.14881957 0.147641422 3.565366059 128 0.027854422 0.289558558 2.101505518 0.016418012 59%
TOP Abs. Stage 3 0.129216 315.15 10.76796 0.097093 1.045492 124 0.008431 0.198284 0.407343 0.003285 39%
Do E
BOTTOM 0.13020155 324.15 15.22160042 0.097833445 1.489181608 126 0.011818902 0.199676262 0.726852471 0.00576867 49%
TOP Abs. Stage 4 0 313.15 9.970747 0 0 110 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
-R
BOTTOM (top) 0.096071711 316.15 11.1901676 0.072188284 0.807798993 124 0.006514508 0.150485765 0.344611498 0.002779125 43%
NEAR TOP 0.000001 313.15 9.970746937 7.514E-07 7.49202E-06 110 6.81093E-08 1.66672E-06 1.08208E-05 9.83706E-08 144%
Note(4): Order-of-magnitude concordancy(?) with Ullmann's (5) - which has lower pvap's.(!) (Assuming binary liquid)
W
a 2
pF[kPa]=0.1333F.exp{-F .(a0+a1/T+a2/T )}
a= 0.08760 ± 0.00950
LO
a0 = -12.0127 ± 0.0550
a1 = 3451.72 ± 17.14
a2 = 248257.3 ± 5296.8
TOP Abs. Stage 4 5.86E-05 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

BOTTOM (top) #DIV/0!
27/09/99, 10:52 1 of 1 DP_EB-09.xls(Prop`s)

S.
.au NT
om FO
/
e
1.c D
iv E
f
.d D
ch ED
s
4
ar B
se M
g
re E
d
r
:// T
tp U
3
ht HO
m IT
h q
c
fro W
p
n n
io io
2
rs rs
ve ve
j n
ll N
b
fu IO
m
ad T
a
lo LU
1
wn SO
l
Do E
k
-R
W
LO
27/09/99, 11:09 1 of 1 dp_abs02.xls(Schematic)

LO
W
(Mass &) Energy Balance over Absorber
-R
-1
NOTE: Heats of solution of methanol [implicitly] considered. Total pump-around flow: 84.639 kg.s (excluding product)
-1
Formic acid is treated as water for VLE. Total HEAT-EXCHANGED pump-around flow: 84.639 kg.s (excluding product)
Do E
STAGE 1 (BASE OF COLUMN)
-1
wn SO
Mass fraction of HCHO in liquid from stage above: 0.288897 GOAL SEEK!
STREAMS IN:
No. Description
lo LU
HYSIM Flow t T Species State Mass frac. Mass Flow MR Mole flow Mole frac. A / C1 B / C2 C / C3 D / C4 C5 `cp   Hºf, T
j L from stage 2 - 1.742831 63.00 336.15 HCHO Aq 0.2888974 0.5034995 0.030026 16.76867 0.196488 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.70531878 -5555.656 -5452.853 -2745.5091 HCHO
ad T
DEFINE!!! WATCH T-
1.74283148 CROSS 336.15 CH3OH Aq 0.005 0.0087142 0.032042 0.27196 0.003187 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.66429888 -7675.239 -7573.995 -66.000988 CH3OH
Combined liquid-IN temperature: 1.74283148 336.15
H2O L 0.7059526 1.2303564 0.018015 68.29546 0.800258 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.1785776 -15866.05 -15707.26 -19325.528 H2O
60.20 °C
fu IO 1.74283148 336.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00015 0.0002614 0.046026 0.00568 6.66E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9160.143 -2.3946878 HCOOH
a Reactor effluent AbsFeed 7.920 90.00 363.15 HCHO V 0.1804678 1.429305 0.030026 47.60193 0.142986 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.2107 -3862.294 -3783.597 -5407.9144 HCHO
CHANGED!!!
ll N 7.92 363.15 CH3OH V 0.003342 0.0264686 0.032042 0.82606 0.002481 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.4480 -6282.379 -6188.261 -163.79466 CH3OH
(Should be 7.9159kg.s-1) 7.92 363.15 O2 V 0.000459 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.000341 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9261 0 60.1986 0.2188404 O2
7.92 363.15 H2O V 0.1534721 1.2154989 0.018015 67.47074 0.202668 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8819 -13433.1 -13310.78 -16179.239 H2O
v e ve
7.92 363.15 H2 V 0.0098049 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.115716 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3718531 0 934.17045 72.5430833 H2
7.92 363.15
CO2 V 0.059157 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.031978 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.87627156 -8948.007 -8891.049 -4165.6632 CO2
rs rs
7.92 363.15 CO V 0.0033468 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.002842 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04303748 -3948.533 -3880.736 -102.86381 CO
7.92 363.15 HCOOH V 5.976E-05 0.0004733 0.046026 0.010283 3.09E-05 11.71 0.1358 -8.4E-05 2.02E-08 1.04557342 -8231.506 -8163.544 -3.8636254 HCOOH
io io
7.92 363.15 N2 V 0.5898907 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.500957 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04150997 0 67.698148 316.281298 N2
m Pump-around 1 -
n n 29.737 60.00 333.15 HCHO Aq 0.54 16.057959 0.030026 534.7982 0.415637 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.6765732 -5555.656 -5461.975 -87708.178 HCHO
NO POLY-
29.736961 MERS! 333.15 CH3OH Aq 0.01 0.2973696 0.032042 9.280619 0.007213 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.65293796 -7675.239 -7582.386 -2254.7711 CH3OH
29.736961 333.15 H2O L 0.44982 13.37628 0.018015 742.4997 0.57706 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17834781 -15866.05 -15719.8 -210272.5 H2O
fro W
29.736961 333.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00018 0.0053527 0.046026 0.116297 9.04E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9166.72 -49.066272 HCOOH
(5)
m IT Hence equilibrium partial pressure in the vapour: 7.019345926 (From Ulmann's ) (From AIChE.J & van Laar ) *Note: Aqueous cp's taken as those for the pure liquid.
-7.10543E-15 Hence equilibrium mole fraction in the vapour: 0.05483864 (given a total pressure of: 128 kPa(abs)) Hence "approach to equilibrium" is: 99.50%
STREAMS OUT: ???
No. Description HYSIM Flow t T Species State Mass frac. Mass Flow MR Mole flow Mole frac. A / C1 B / C2 C / C3 D / C4 C5 `cp   Hºf, T
ht HO
k Product - 2.645503 75.00 348.15 HCHO Aq 0.54 1.4285716 0.030026 47.5775 0.415637 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.83026044 -5555.656 -5414.143 -7734.4904 HCHO -7734
tp U
(pre-cooling) 2.645503 348.15 CH 3OH Aq 0.01 0.026455 0.032042 0.825636 0.007213 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.71149878 -7675.239 -7539.664 -199.46203 CH3OH #REF!
2.645503 348.15 H2O L 0.44982 1.1900002 0.018015 66.05534 0.57706 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.18043703 -15866.05 -15657.02 -18631.862 H2O
:// T
2.645503 348.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00018 0.0004762 0.046026 0.010346 9.04E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9133.834 -4.3494453 HCOOH #REF!
b V from stage 1 - 7.017 62.00 335.15 HCHO V 0.0718554 0.5042329 0.030026 16.7931 0.055279 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1903 -3862.294 -3818.252 -1925.2885 HCHO #REF!
re E
7.01732848 335.15 CH3OH V 0.0012437 0.0087277 0.032042 0.272384 0.000897 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.4136 -6282.379 -6230.076 -54.374472 CH3OH #REF!
7.01732848 335.15 O2 V 0.000518 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.000374 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9226 0 34.1363 0.1240961 O2 #REF!
se M
7.01732848 335.15 H2O V 0.1789649 1.2558551 0.018015 69.71086 0.229474 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8758 -13433.1 -13363.69 -16782.865 H2O #REF!
7.01732848 335.15 H2 V 0.0110662 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.12681 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3535572 0 531.08162 41.2411865 H2 41
ar B
7.01732848 335.15
CO2 V 0.0667666 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.035044 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.86293916 -8948.007 -8916.078 -4177.3898 CO2 #REF!
7.01732848 335.15 CO V 0.0037773 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.003115 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04230745 -3948.533 -3909.968 -103.63865 CO 87605
7.01732848 335.15 HCOOH V 3.684E-05 0.0002585 0.046026 0.005617 1.85E-05 11.71 0.1358 -8.4E-05 2.02E-08 1.01922786 -8231.506 -8193.795 -2.1181955 HCOOH 46.9
ch ED
7.01732848 335.15 N2 V 0.6657711 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.548988 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04132941 0 38.529188 180.005835 N2 348238
l Pump-around 1 - 29.737
.d D
75.00 348.15 HCHO Aq 0.54 16.057959 0.030026 534.7982 0.415637 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.83026044 -5555.656 -5414.143 -86940.078 HCHO
29.736961 348.15 CH3OH Aq 0.01 0.2973696 0.032042 9.280619 0.007213 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.71149878 -7675.239 -7539.664 -2242.0669 CH3OH
29.736961
iv E 348.15 H2O L 0.44982 13.37628 0.018015 742.4997 0.57706 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.18043703 -15866.05 -15657.02 -209432.74 H2O
29.736961 348.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00018 0.0053527 0.046026 0.116297 9.04E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9133.834 -48.890243 HCOOH
1.c D
OUT - IN = 4.5286E-08
om FO
.au NT
10:52, 27/09/99
/ S. 1 of 4 DP_EB-09.xls (Abs`r)
LO
W
-R
Do E
STAGE 2 (LOWER-MIDDLE SECTION OF COLUMN)
-1
wn SO
STREAMS IN:
lo LU
h L from stage 3 - 0.65 51.00 324.15 HCHO Aq 0.1994886 0.1296676 0.030026 4.318481 0.130202 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.59631201 -5555.656 -5488.151 -711.6353 HCHO
DEFINE!!! WATCH T-
ad T
H2O L 0.7984114 0.5189674 0.018015 28.8072 0.868533 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17828821 -15866.05 -15757.41 -8177.583 H2O
48.05 °C 0.65 324.15 HCOOH Aq 0.0001 0.000065 0.046026 0.001412 4.26E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9186.452 -0.5971194 HCOOH
b V from stage 1 - 7.017 62.000 335.15 HCHO V 0.0718554 0.5042329 0.030026 16.7931 0.055279 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1903 -3862.294 -3818.252 -1925.2885 HCHO
fu IO
7.01732848 335.15 CH3OH V 0.0012437 0.0087277 0.032042 0.272384 0.000897 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.4136 -6282.379 -6230.076 -54.374472 CH3OH
7.01732848 335.15 O2 V 0.000518 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.000374 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9226 0 34.1363 0.1240961 O2
ll N
7.01732848 335.15 H2O V 0.1789649 1.2558551 0.018015 69.71086 0.229474 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8758 -13433.1 -13363.69 -16782.865 H2O
7.01732848 335.15 H2 V 0.0110662 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.12681 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3535572 0 531.08162 41.2411865 H2
v e ve
7.01732848 335.15
CO2 V 0.0667666 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.035044 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.86293916 -8948.007 -8916.078 -4177.3898 CO2
7.01732848 335.15 CO V 0.0037773 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.003115 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04230745 -3948.533 -3909.968 -103.63865 CO
7.01732848
rs rs
335.15 HCOOH V 3.684E-05 0.0002585 0.046026 0.005617 1.85E-05 11.71 0.1358 -8.4E-05 2.02E-08 1.01922786 -8231.506 -8193.795 -2.1181955 HCOOH
7.01732848 335.15 N2 V 0.6657711 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.548988 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04132941 0 38.529188 180.005835 N2
io io
p Pump-around 2 - n n 41.158 48.00 321.15 HCHO Aq 0.2888974 11.890551 0.030026 396.0059 0.196488 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.57155014 -5555.656 -5496.51 -65356.531 HCHO
41.1583837 321.15 CH3OH Aq 0.005 0.2057919 0.032042 6.422568 0.003187 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.60925057 -7675.239 -7615.226 -1567.152 CH3OH
41.1583837 321.15 H2O L 0.7059526 29.055867 0.018015 1612.853 0.800258 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17849345 -15866.05 -15769.94 -458209.31 H2O
41.1583837 321.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00015 0.0061738 0.046026 0.134137 6.66E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9193.029 -56.755533 HCOOH
fro W
(5)
Check mass balances: 0 Hence equilibrium partial pressure in the vapour: 2.150735239 (From Ulmann's ) (From AIChE.J & van Laar ) *Note: Aqueous cp's taken as those for the pure liquid.
0 Hence equilibrium mole fraction in the vapour: 0.017069327 (given a total pressure of: 126 kPa(abs)) Hence "approach to equilibrium" is: 99.50%
m IT
STREAMS OUT:
j L from stage 2 - 1.742831 63 336.15 HCHO Aq 0.2888974 0.5034995 0.030026 16.76867 0.196488 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.70531878 -5555.656 -5452.853 -2745.5091 HCHO
ht HO
1.74283148 336.15 CH3OH Aq 0.005 0.0087142 0.032042 0.27196 0.003187 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.66429888 -7675.239 -7573.995 -66.000988 CH3OH
tp U
1.74283148 336.15
H2O L 0.7059526 1.2303564 0.018015 68.29546 0.800258 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.1785776 -15866.05 -15707.26 -19325.528 H2O
1.74283148 336.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00015 0.0002614 0.046026 0.00568 6.66E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9160.143 -2.3946878 HCOOH
c V from stage 2 - 5.924 50.00 323.15 HCHO V 0.0220105 0.130401 0.030026 4.342906 0.01726 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1816 -3862.294 -3832.754 -499.79479 HCHO
:// T
5.924497 323.15 CH3OH V 0.0002217 0.0013136 0.032042 0.040996 0.000163 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.3989 -6282.379 -6247.407 -8.2064774 CH3OH
re E
5.924497 323.15 O2 V 0.0006136 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.000452 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9211 0 23.0281 0.08371444 O2
5.924497 323.15 H2O V 0.0919008 0.5444662 0.018015 30.2226 0.120116 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8733 -13433.1 -13386.27 -7288.3702 H2O
se M
5.924497 323.15 H2 V 0.0131075 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.153106 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3452205 0 358.63051 27.8494819 H2
5.924497 323.15
CO2 V 0.0790824 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.042311 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.85708331 -8948.007 -8926.58 -4182.3101 CO2
5.924497
ar B
323.15 CO V 0.004474 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.003761 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04208198 -3948.533 -3922.481 -103.97033 CO
5.924497 323.15 HCOOH V 1.048E-05 6.209E-05 0.046026 0.001349 5.36E-06 11.71 0.1358 -8.4E-05 2.02E-08 1.00771392 -8231.506 -8206.313 -0.5095089 HCOOH
5.924497 323.15 N2 V 0.7885791 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.662826 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04133907 0 26.033477 121.626693 N2
ch ED
n Pump-around 2 - 41.158 63.00 336.15 HCHO Aq 0.2888974 11.890551 0.030026 396.0059 0.196488 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.70531878 -5555.656 -5452.853 -64837.432 HCHO
41.1583837 336.15 CH3OH Aq 0.005 0.2057919 0.032042 6.422568 0.003187 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.66429888 -7675.239 -7573.995 -1558.667 CH3OH
.d D
41.1583837 336.15 H2O L 0.7059526 29.055867 0.018015 1612.853 0.800258 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.1785776 -15866.05 -15707.26 -456388.07 H2O
41.1583837 336.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00015 0.0061738 0.046026 0.134137 6.66E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9160.143 -56.552501 HCOOH
iv E
OUT - IN = 8.2655E-09
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
10:52, 27/09/99
LO
W
-R
STAGE 3 (UPPER-MIDDLE SECTION OF COLUMN)
Do E
-1
STREAMS IN:
wn SO
g L from stage 4 - 0.40 43.00 316.15 HCHO Aq 0.1504147 0.0601659 0.030026 2.00378 0.096072 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.53249354 -5555.656 -5510.071 -331.51834 HCHO
lo LU
DEFINE!!! WATCH T-
H2O L 0.8485353 0.3394141 0.018015 18.84043 0.903309 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17910619 -15866.05 -15790.82 -5359.6279 H2O
ad T
40.09 °C 0.4 316.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00005 0.00002 0.046026 0.000435 2.08E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9203.991 -0.1840798 HCOOH
c V from stage 2 - 5.924 50.000 323.15 HCHO V 0.0220105 0.130401 0.030026 4.342906 0.01726 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1816 -3862.294 -3832.754 -499.79479 HCHO
5.924497 V 0.0002217 0.0013136 0.032042 0.040996 0.000163 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.3989 -6282.379 -6247.407 -8.2064774
fu IO 323.15 CH3OH CH3OH
5.924497 323.15 O2 V 0.0006136 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.000452 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9211 0 23.0281 0.08371444 O2
ll N 5.924497 323.15 H2O V 0.0919008 0.5444662 0.018015 30.2226 0.120116 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8733 -13433.1 -13386.27 -7288.3702 H2O
5.924497 323.15 H2 V 0.0131075 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.153106 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3452205 0 358.63051 27.8494819 H2
5.924497 323.15
CO2 V 0.0790824 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.042311 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.85708331 -8948.007 -8926.58 -4182.3101 CO2
v e ve
5.924497 323.15 CO V 0.004474 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.003761 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04208198 -3948.533 -3922.481 -103.97033 CO
rs rs
5.924497 323.15 N2 V 0.7885791 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.662826 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04133907 0 26.033477 121.626693 N2
r Pump-around 3 - 13.744 40.00 313.15 HCHO Aq 0.1994886 2.7417246 0.030026 91.31107 0.130202 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.51038749 -5555.656 -5518 -15128.836 HCHO
io io WATCH T-
13.7437671 APROACH 313.15 CH3OH Aq 0.002 0.0274875 0.032042 0.85786 0.001223 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.58168676 -7675.239 -7636.513 -209.90892 CH3OH
n n 13.7437671 313.15 H2O L 0.7984114 10.973181 0.018015 609.1068 0.868533 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17964476 -15866.05 -15803.35 -173413.03 H2O
13.7437671 313.15 HCOOH Aq 0.0001 0.0013744 0.046026 0.029861 4.26E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9210.568 -12.658791 HCOOH
(5)
Check mass balances: 0 Hence equilibrium partial pressure in the vapour: 1.045491577 (From Ulmann's ) (From AIChE.J & van Laar ) *Note: Aqueous cp's taken as those for the pure liquid.
fro W
0 Hence equilibrium mole fraction in the vapour: 0.008431384 (given a total pressure of: 124 kPa(abs)) Hence "approach to equilibrium" is: 99.50%
STREAMS OUT:
m IT
h L from stage 3 - 0.65 51 324.15 HCHO Aq 0.1994886 0.1296676 0.030026 4.318481 0.130202 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.59631201 -5555.656 -5488.151 -711.6353 HCHO
ht HO
0.65 324.15 CH3OH Aq 0.002 0.0013 0.032042 0.040572 0.001223 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.61990898 -7675.239 -7607.121 -9.8892575 CH3OH
0.65 324.15
H2O L 0.7984114 0.5189674 0.018015 28.8072 0.868533 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17828821 -15866.05 -15757.41 -8177.583 H2O
tp U
0.65 324.15 HCOOH Aq 0.0001 0.000065 0.046026 0.001412 4.26E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9186.452 -0.5971194 HCOOH
d V from stage 3 - 5.674 42.00 315.15 HCHO V 0.0107321 0.0608993 0.030026 2.028205 0.008476 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1758 -3862.294 -3842.305 -233.99363 HCHO
5.674497 315.15 CH3OH V 7.288E-05 0.0004136 0.032042 0.012907 5.39E-05 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.3890 -6282.379 -6258.766 -2.5885082 CH3OH
:// T
5.674497 315.15 O2 V 0.0006406 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.000475 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9202 0 15.6426 0.05686569 O2
re E
5.674497 315.15 H2O V 0.0643075 0.3649129 0.018015 20.25583 0.084646 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8717 -13433.1 -13401.28 -4890.3004 H2O
5.674497 315.15 H2 V 0.0136849 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.160982 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3394902 0 243.77133 18.930083 H2
se M
5.674497 315.15
CO2 V 0.0825665 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.044487 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.85313135 -8948.007 -8933.504 -4185.5541 CO2
5.674497 315.15 CO V 0.0046711 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.003954 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04196167 -3948.533 -3930.82 -104.19136 CO
ar B
5.674497 315.15 N2 V 0.8233213 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.696925 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04137533 0 17.703381 82.7090306 N2
q Pump-around 3 - 13.744 51.00 324.15 HCHO Aq 0.1994886 2.7417246 0.030026 91.31107 0.130202 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.59631201 -5555.656 -5488.151 -15047 HCHO
ch ED
13.7437671 324.15 CH3OH Aq 0.002 0.0274875 0.032042 0.85786 0.001223 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.61990898 -7675.239 -7607.121 -209.101 CH3OH
13.7437671 324.15 H2O L 0.7984114 10.973181 0.018015 609.1068 0.868533 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17828821 -15866.05 -15757.41 -172908.92 H2O
.d D
13.7437671 324.15 HCOOH Aq 0.0001 0.0013744 0.046026 0.029861 4.26E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9186.452 -12.625645 HCOOH
iv E
OUT - IN = 2.0373E-10
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
10:52, 27/09/99
LO
W
-R
STAGE 4 (TOP OF COLUMN)
-1
Do E
GOAL SEEK!
Mass fraction of HCHO in liquid from stage above: 0
STREAMS IN:
wn SO
f Fresh DM Water AbsWater 0.3275 37.00 310.15 HCHO Aq 0 0 0.030026 0 0 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.48927736 -5555.656 -5525.784 0 HCHO
DEFINE!!! MAX'M
NOTE: 0.3275 310.15
lo LU SUMMER CH3OH Aq 0 0 0.032042 0 0 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.57167231 -7675.239 -7644.379 0 CH3OH
Hence combined temperature: 0.3275 310.15
H2O L 1 0.3275 0.018015 18.17909 1 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.1803182 -15866.05 -15815.88 -5179.7016 H2O
37.00 °C 0.3275 310.15 HCOOH Aq 0 0 0.046026 0 0 2.192416 -9243.455 -9217.146 0 HCOOH
ad T
d V from stage 3 - 5.674 42.00 315.15 HCHO V 0.0107321 0.0608993 0.030026 2.028205 0.008476 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1758 -3862.294 -3842.305 -233.99363 HCHO
5.674497 315.15 CH3OH V 7.288E-05 0.0004136 0.032042 0.012907 5.39E-05 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.3890 -6282.379 -6258.766 -2.5885082 CH3OH
fu IO 5.674497 315.15 O2 V 0.0006406 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.000475 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9202 0 15.6426 0.05686569 O2
5.674497 315.15 H2O V 0.0643075 0.3649129 0.018015 20.25583 0.084646 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8717 -13433.1 -13401.28 -4890.3004 H2O
ll N 5.674497 315.15 H2 V 0.0136849 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.160982 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.3394902 0 243.77133 18.930083 H2
5.674497 315.15
CO2 V 0.0825665 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.044487 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.85313135 -8948.007 -8933.504 -4185.5541 CO2
5.674497 315.15 CO V 0.0046711 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.003954 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.04196167 -3948.533 -3930.82 -104.19136 CO
v e ve
5.674497 315.15 N2 V 0.8233213 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.696925 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04137533 0 17.703381 82.7090306 N2
rs rs
s Pump-around 4 - 0.000 40.00 313.15 HCHO Aq 0.1504147 0 0.030026 0 #DIV/0! 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.51038749 -5555.656 -5518 0 HCHO
(Note: no change from below) 0 313.15 CH3OH Aq 0.001 0 0.032042 0 #DIV/0! 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.58168676 -7675.239 -7636.513 0 CH3OH
io io
0 313.15 H2O L 0.8485353 0 0.018015 0 #DIV/0! 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17964476 -15866.05 -15803.35 0 H2O
n n 0 313.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00005 0 0.046026 0 #DIV/0! 2.192416 -9243.455 -9210.568 0 HCOOH
Mass fraction of HCHO in total liquid fed: 0.00% Mole fraction HCHO in total liquid fed: 0 (average over 298K to T) SUM = -14494.774
(5)
Check mass balances: 0 Hence equilibrium partial pressure in the vapour: 0 (From Ulmann's ) (From AIChE.J & van Laar ) *Note: Aqueous cp's taken as those for the pure liquid.
8.88178E-16 Hence equilibrium mole fraction in the vapour: 0 (given a total pressure of: 110 kPa(abs)) Hence "approach to equilibrium" is: 98.78%
fro W
STREAMS OUT:
m IT
g L from stage 4 - 0.4 43 316.15 HCHO Aq 0.1504147 0.0601659 0.030026 2.00378 0.096072 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.53249354 -5555.656 -5510.071 -331.51834 HCHO
0.4 316.15 CH3OH Aq 0.001 0.0004 0.032042 0.012484 0.000599 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.59187684 -7675.239 -7628.585 -3.051434 CH3OH
ht HO
0.4 316.15
H2O L 0.8485353 0.3394141 0.018015 18.84043 0.903309 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17910619 -15866.05 -15790.82 -5359.6279 H2O
0.4 316.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00005 0.00002 0.046026 0.000435 2.08E-05 2.192416 -9243.455 -9203.991 -0.1840798 HCOOH
tp U
e V from stage 4 Ohead_Total 5.602 37.50 310.65 HCHO V 0.0001309 0.0007334 0.030026 0.024425 0.000103 23.48 0.03157 2.99E-05 -2.3E-08 1.1725 -3862.294 -3847.637 -2.8218137 HCHO
5.601997 310.65 CH3OH V 2.424E-06 1.358E-05 0.032042 0.000424 1.79E-06 21.15 0.07092 2.59E-05 -2.9E-08 1.3835 -6282.379 -6265.085 -0.0850878 CH3OH
:// T
5.601997 310.65 O2 V 0.0006489 0.0036353 0.031999 0.113608 0.00048 28.11 -3.7E-06 1.75E-05 -1.1E-08 0.9196 0 11.4951 0.04178834 O2
5.601997 310.65 H2O V 0.063013 0.3529988 0.018015 19.5945 0.082809 32.24 0.001924 1.06E-05 -3.6E-09 1.8707 -13433.1 -13409.72 -4733.6134 H2O
re E
5.601997 310.65 H2 V 0.013862 0.0776551 0.002016 38.52321 0.162804 27.14 0.009274 -1.4E-05 7.65E-09 14.336205 0 179.20256 13.9159897 H2
5.601997 310.65
CO2 V 0.083635 0.4685232 0.04401 10.64588 0.044991 19.8 0.07344 -5.6E-05 1.72E-08 0.85089134 -8948.007 -8937.371 -4187.3659 CO2
se M
5.601997 310.65
CO V 0.0047316 0.0265063 0.02801 0.946301 0.003999 30.87 -0.01285 2.79E-05 -1.3E-08 1.0419047 -3948.533 -3935.51 -104.31566 CO
5.601997 310.65 HCOOH V -5.2E-07 -2.91E-06 0.046026 -6.33E-05 -2.67E-07 11.71 0.1358 -8.4E-05 2.02E-08 0.99557618 -8231.506 -8219.061 0.02393859 HCOOH
ar B
5.601997 310.65 N2 V 0.8339766 4.6719343 0.028013 166.775 0.704812 31.15 -0.01357 2.68E-05 -1.2E-08 1.04140635 0 13.017579 60.8172753 N2
s Pump-around 4 - 0.000 43.00 316.15 HCHO Aq 0.1504147 0 0.030026 0 #DIV/0! 416.31 -2.6391 0.004984 - 2.53249354 -5555.656 -5510.071 0 HCHO
(Note: no change from above) 0 316.15 CH3OH Aq 0.001 0 0.032042 0 #DIV/0! 105800 -362.23 0.9379 0 0 2.59187684 -7675.239 -7628.585 0 CH3OH
ch ED
0 316.15 H2O L 0.8485353 0 0.018015 0 #DIV/0! 276370 -2090.1 8.125 -0.01412 9.37E-06 4.17910619 -15866.05 -15790.82 0 H2O
0 316.15 HCOOH Aq 0.00005 0 0.046026 0 #DIV/0! 2.192416 -9243.455 -9203.991 0 HCOOH
.d D
iv E (average over 298K to T) SUM = -14647.785
Serpentine inter-cooling req'd b/n TRAYS? OUT - IN = -153.01063

1.c D
om FO
.au NT
10:52, 27/09/99
ABSORBER DETAILED DESIGN
Model of a simplified case:
Stage 1
S.
Reference(s): Perry(6), p. 14-20, 14-10.
.au NT
"van Laar VLE" worksheet [by D.I.V.], & the relevant references therein.
"Diam.", "Visc.", "Gdiff" & "Ldiff" worksheets [D.I.V.], & references therein.
HYSIM material
I. Hahnenstein, H. Hasse, Y.-Q. Liu and G. Maurer; AIChE Symposium series
om FO
Onda et alii - original reference.
/
Assumptions:
Assume: Comment:
1.c D
1. Straight operating line (i.e. dilute solutions - small mass transfer) This implies constant flowrates.
2. Straight equilibrium line (i.e. Henry's law is valid: yi = Hi.xi) This may be reasonable, based on data presented in worksheet "van Laar VLE".
iv E
3. Absorption heat effects are negligible This may or may not be valid:
Note: Perry's definition of the assumption is ambiguous, if not confusing. - Hysim's simulation says a large amount of heat [in kW] is evolved
.d D
- however the absorber also has pump-around cooling, with large(?) liquid flow
and so the actual temperature PROFILES in the absorber will not be great
ch ED
Additionally, reaction is ignored.
Data:
ar B
Temperature at bottom of stage: LIQUID: 75.00 °C GAS: 90.00 °C
se M
Temperature at top of stage: LIQUID: 60.20 °C GAS: 62.00 °C It is assumed that thermal equilibrium is (almost) reached.
re E
Thus a nominal column temperature of 67.60214 °C will be used here ± 10°C, say.
:// T
Pressures: TOP: 125 kPa(abs) Estimate.
BOTTOM: 130 kPa(abs)
tp U AVERAGE: 127.5 kPa(abs)
ht HO
Henry's constant: By linear regression of AIChE.J data in worksheet "van Laar VLE": 0.7514 (70°C) This was only based on xHCHO under 0.20
("m") By weighted least squares regression of the above: (approx.) 1 (70°C)
Data from Ullmann's(5) & Walker(3): << 1 This assumes equilibrium of reaction.
All other estimates, including Raoult's law: >> 1 (60°C) This doesn't consider liquid-phase formation of nonvolatiles.
m IT
Hence use the value: 0.7514 On the conservative side.

THESE DO NOT CONSIDER INERTS PRESENT
fro W
-1
Flows: TOTAL liquid inflow: 1372.037 mol.s
-1
TOTAL liquid outflow: 1401.164 mol.s
n n
RATIO of BOTTOM to TOP liquid flows: 1.021229 Thus the flow may be considered constant.
-1
Average stage TOTAL liquid flow: 1386.6 mol.s This average is justified by the high pump-around rate.
io io
-1
Vapour inflow: 332.913 mol.s Note: no vapour recirculation.
rs rs
-1
Vapour outflow: 303.7859 mol.s
RATIO of BOTTOM to TOP vapour flows: 1.09588 This is really NOT too large to assume constant flow.
ve ve
-1
Average (total) vapour flow: 318.3495 mol.s
-1
Mean molar masses: GAS: 0.0231 kg.mol Worksheet "Diam."
ll N
-1
LIQUID: 0.022944 kg.mol Worksheet "Diam."
fu IO
Mole-fractions: Mole-fraction of formaldehyde in vapour: TOP: 0.055279

BOTTOM: 0.1430
AVERAGE: 0.099133 NOTE: This average for reference only.
ad T
(based on a 99.5% nominal aproach to equilibrium)

lo LU
Mole-fraction of formaldehyde in liquid: TOP: 0.4020 There will be some formaldehyde in the pump-around liquid(!)…
BOTTOM: 0.4156 ...but too high would cause more formaldehyde to escape more easily.
AVERAGE: 0.408822 The similarity is due to the large pump-around.
wn SO
Mole-fraction IN EQUILIBRIUM WITH liquid: TOP: 0.0548 Note that temperature is the dominant effect here.
BOTTOM: 0.0920
AVERAGE: 0.073439
Do E
Equilibrium: Hence "m": TOP: 0.136412 Defined by yequilibrium  m.x

-R
BOTTOM: 0.221442
AVERAGE: 0.179636 Actual mean: 0.178927
W
Diameter: 1.8 m Calculated in worksheet "Diam."
Flooding: DESIGN: 73% Worksheet "Diam."

LO
TURNDOWN: 44% Worksheet "Diam."
Internals: Type: Pall rings

Material: S.S.
-1
sc: 75 mN.m Sinnott(2)
Nominal size: 0.051 m I.e. 2 inches.
2 -3
at: 102 m .m
Fluid properties: mG: 1.66E-05 Pa.s See worksheet "Visc.".
10:52, 27/09/99 1 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed1)

mL: 1.89E-03 Pa.s Worksheet "Diam."
2 -1
DG: 0.174 cm .s See worksheet "GDiff".
2 -1
DL : 3.5E-05 cm .s See worksheet "LDiff".
-3
S.
rG: 1.04 kg.m Worksheet "Diam."
-3
rL: 1132 kg.m Worksheet "Diam."
.au NT
-1
s: WATER, 303.15K: 71.40 dyn.cm Perry(6)
-1
WATER, 293.15K: 70 mN.m Sinnott(2)
om FO
-1
WATER, 293K: 72.8 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
-1
WATER, 303K: 71.18 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
/
-1 (4)
METHANOL, 333K: 19.41 dyn.cm R, P & P
-1
ACETONE, 318K: 21.22 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
1.c D
-1
FORMAMIDE, 338K: 53.66 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
iv E
-1
METHYL FORMATE, 298K: 24.62 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
-1
.d D
-1
ch ED
-1
ASSUME: 60 dyn.cm Surface tension reduces with T rising.
Mass-transfer coefficients:
Liquid "film": Calculated; see below.
ar B
Vapour "film": Calculated; see below.
se M
Overall: Calculated; see below.
re E
Equations:
Height: hbed = HOy.NOy
HOy:
:// T
HOy = GM/[(Ky.a).y*BM]
where:
tp U
y*BM = {(1 - y) - (1 - y*)} / ln{(1 - y)/(1 - y*)}
ht HO
with y* the equilibrium gas-phase mole fraction, such that y* = m.x
and the rate of mass transfer, Ni = Ky.(yi - y*i), defines the overall gas-phase mass transfer coefficient
This Ky can also be expressed in terms of the "film" coefficients, viz. :
m IT
1/Ky = 1/ky + m/kx

NOTE: Poxy W. M. Edwards (& predecessors) use a different notation - care!!
fro W
From Onda et alii :

1/3 -1/2 0.4
kL.(rL/mL.g) / {(mL/rL.DL) .(at.Dp) } is correlated against (Re)L = L/(aw.mL)
{(kG.R.T)/(at.DG)} / {(mG/rG.DG)-1/3.(at.Dp)-2.0} is correlated against (Re)G = G/(at.mG)
n n
aw/at = 1 - exp{-1.45(sc/s)0.75.(L/at.mL)0.1 × (L2.at/(rL2.g))-0.05.(L2/(rL.s.at))0.2}

io io
Where [G] = [L] = kg.m-2.s-1 aw is the "effective" - wetted - area per volume
Where: KG = Ky / P Where: kG = ky / P Where: kL = kx / rL From Uhlherr, CHE3102 notes.
rs rs
ve ve
Alternatively, an estimate may be obtained from Cornell's method (Sinnott (2) , updated by Bolles/Fair )
0.5 1.24 (1/3) 0.16 1.25 0.8 0.6
Hy[m] = 0.0190283.yh[m].(Sc)v .(Dc/0.3048) .(Z/3.048) / {L.(mL/mw) .(rw/rL) .(sw/sL) }
0.5 0.15
ll N
Hx[m] = h[m].(Sc)L .K3.(Z/3.048)

Where Dc is a "corrected" diameter: the lesser of {diameter} or {2 × 0.3048}.
fu IO
-3 -1
Where mw = 1.002 mPa.s rw = 998.2032 kg.m sw = 70 mN.m (All at 20°C)
And HOy = Hy + (m.GM/LM).Hx NOTE: use of the coefficient (m.G M /L M ) implied the subscripts "Oy", "y" and "x" by CHE3102/Uhlherr.
ad T
lo LU
NOy: Colburn's equation of 1939 is:

NOy = 1/{1 - (m.GM/LM)} × ln[{1 - (m.GM/LM)} × {(y1 - m.x2)/(y2 - m.x2)} + m.GM/LM] "m" is a Henry's law-type constant here:
Note: the GM and LM are (moles per time) per unit area (of the column). yequilibrium 1  m.x1
wn SO
Feintuch/Treybal(1978) present an "Edmister-type approach":

NOy = ln[{(y1 - y2*)/(y2-y2*)}.(1-1/AE) + 1/AE] / (1 - 1/AE)
Do E
where AE = [ABOTTOM.(ATOP + 1) + 0.25]0.5 - 0.5

and (1/Ai) = (mi.Gi/Li)
-R
Calculations:
NOy: According to Colburn:
W
(m.GM/LM) = 0.041243
{1 - (m.GM/LM)} = 0.958757
LO
\ NOy = 5.482
According to Feintuch & Treybal:

ABOTTOM = 19.00635
ATOP = 33.10883
The big difference here means the more sophisticated average is probably worth calculating!
AE = 24.96634 (cf. arithmetic mean of 26.05759 )
10:52, 27/09/99 2 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed1)

\ NOy = 5.477
This non-simple short-cut method has resulted in a VERY SIMILAR result to the result from Colburn.
HOy: y*BM = TOP: 0.944941

BOTTOM: 0.882242
AVERAGE: 0.913592 "Averages" are just simple, arithmetic.
S.
-2 -1
GM = TOP: 130.8265 mol.m .s
.au NT
-2 -1
BOTTOM: 119.3803 mol.m .s
-2 -1
AVERAGE: 125.1034 mol.m .s
om FO
From the data of Onda et alii :
-2 -1
L= 12.5021 kg.m .s OKAY OKAY
/
OKAY (sc/s)0.75 = 1.1822 (L/at.mL)0.1 = 1.5175 (L2.at/(rL2.g))-0.05 = 1.3958 (L2/(rL.s.at))0.2 = 0.4685
Bolles/Fair: 0.3<( s c / s )<2 Bolles/Fair: 2.5e-9<Fr L <0.018 Bolles/Fair: 1.2e-8<We L <0.27
1.c D
2 -3
aw = 83.4 m .m
(Re)L = 7.92E+01 OKAY (mL/rL.DL)-1/2 = 0.046027 (at.Dp)0.4 = 1.934052
iv E
Bolles/Fair: 0.04<Re L <500
Hence: kL.(rL/mL.g)1/3 = 0.00985 where 0.0060 (cf. 0.0051) is the constant for this large, modern packing
.d D
ch ED
-1
Thus, kL = 0.00025 m.s
-3
rB = 49341 mol.m
-2 -1
\ kx = 12.35 mol.m .s
ar B
-2 -1
G= 2.8898 kg.m .s
se M
(Re)G = 1.71E+03 OFF SCALE! (mG/rG.DG)-1/3 = 1.027408 (at.Dp)-2.0 = 0.036954
Hence: (kG.R.T)/(at.DG) = 41.708 where 6.00 (cf. 5.23) is the constant for this large, modern packing
re E
-1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1
Thus, kG = 2.54E-05 mol.Pa .m .s 0.000258 mol.atm .cm .s
:// T
P= 128 kPa(abs)
-2 -1
\ ky = 3.24 mol.m .s
tp U
ht HO
We see that the gas-phase resistance is dominant.... (...also, "m" is small).
-2 -1
Hence: Ky = 3.098 mol.m .s
\ HOy = 0.530 m
m IT
cf. The data of the Norton Co. (for specific conditions) in Perry(6), p. 14-34, T14-4:
-1 -3
Ky.a.y*BM = 114 kmol.h .m
fro W
-3 -1
i.e. 31.667 mol.m .s
Whence HOy = 3.951 m
n n
Height: hbed = 2.91 m

io io
HOy: By Cornell's (updated) method:

rs rs
Flooding: 73% K3 = 0.69

(2)
(At design percentage flooding, from charts in Bolles/Fair & Sinnott )
ve ve
Flooding: 73% yh = 140 ft 42.672 m

-1 -2
L[lbm.h ft ]: 9.22E+03 h = 0.105 ft 0.032004 m
ll N
(At design percentage flooding, from charts in Bolles/Fair: specific to metal Pall rings.)
Estimated height, "Z" = 1.93 m
fu IO
(Sc)v0.5 = 0.960253 Dc = 0.6096 m

-2 -1
{L.(mL/mw)0.16.(rw/rL)1.25.(sw/sL)0.8} = 13.37842 kg.m .s
ad T
Hy = 0.333588 m
lo LU
0.5
(Sc)L = 21.7266
Hx = 0.447998 m
wn SO
\ HOy = 0.352 m
(We note that the extraordinarily low value of m.GM/LM means the contribution of Hx is ~negligible.)
Do E
Height: hbed = 1.93 m (or 2.25 m without height-correction)

-R
W
LO
10:52, 27/09/99 3 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed1)

Stage 2
S.
.au NT
HYSIM material
om FO
/
Assumptions:
Assume: Comment:
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
Data:
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
ht HO
m IT

fro W
-1
-1
n n
-1
io io
-1
rs rs
-1
ve ve
-1
-1
ll N
-1
fu IO

BOTTOM: 0.0553
ad T

lo LU
wn SO
BOTTOM: 0.0279
AVERAGE: 0.022462
Do E

-R
BOTTOM: 0.141761
W

LO

Material: S.S.
-1
2 -3
at: 102 m .m
11:01, 27/09/99 1 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed2)

2 -1
2 -1
-3
S.
-3
.au NT
-1
-1
om FO
-1
WATER, 293K: 72.8 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
-1
WATER, 303K: 71.18 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
/
-1 (4)
-1
1.c D
-1
iv E
-1
-1
.d D
-1
ch ED
-1
ar B
se M
re E
Equations:
HOy:
:// T
where:
tp U
y*BM = {(1 - y) - (1 - y*)} / ln{(1 - y)/(1 - y*)}
ht HO
m IT
1/Ky = 1/ky + m/kx

fro W
From Onda et alii :

1/3 -1/2 0.4
n n

io io
rs rs
ve ve
0.5 1.24 (1/3) 0.16 1.25 0.8 0.6
0.5 0.15
ll N
Hx[m] = h[m].(Sc)L .K3.(Z/3.048)

fu IO
-3 -1
ad T
lo LU

wn SO

Do E

-R
Calculations:
W
(m.GM/LM) = 0.015343
{1 - (m.GM/LM)} = 0.984657
LO
\ NOy = 5.365

ABOTTOM = 48.78104
ATOP = 93.21043
11:01, 27/09/99 2 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed2)

\ NOy = 5.363
HOy: y*BM = TOP: 0.982835

BOTTOM: 0.958368
S.
-2 -1
GM = TOP: 119.3803 mol.m .s
.au NT
-2 -1
-2 -1
om FO
-2 -1
/
1.c D
2 -3
aw = 90.4 m .m
iv E
.d D
ch ED
-1
Thus, kL = 0.000729 m.s
-3
rB = 52479 mol.m
-2 -1
\ kx = 38.26 mol.m .s
ar B
-2 -1
G= 2.5696 kg.m .s
se M
re E
-1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1
:// T
P= 123 kPa(abs)
-2 -1
\ ky = 3.06 mol.m .s
tp U
ht HO
-2 -1
\ HOy = 0.410 m
m IT
-1 -3
fro W
-3 -1
i.e. 31.667 mol.m .s
n n

io io

rs rs
Flooding: 58% K3 = 0.90

(2)
ve ve
Flooding: 58% yh = 140 ft 42.672 m

-1 -2
L[lbm.h ft ]: 1.23E+04 h = 0.120 ft 0.036576 m
ll N
fu IO
(Sc)v0.5 = 0.953179 Dc = 0.6096 m

-2 -1
ad T
Hy = 0.279133 m
lo LU
0.5
(Sc)L = 13.19657
Hx = 0.391743 m
wn SO
\ HOy = 0.285 m
Do E

-R
W
LO
11:01, 27/09/99 3 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed2)

Stage 3
S.
.au NT
HYSIM material
om FO
/
Assumptions:
Assume: Comment:
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
Data:
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
ht HO
m IT

fro W
-1
-1
n n
-1
io io
-1
rs rs
-1
ve ve
-1
-1
ll N
-1
fu IO

BOTTOM: 0.0173
ad T

lo LU
wn SO
BOTTOM: 0.0118
AVERAGE: 0.010125
Do E

-R
BOTTOM: 0.090774
W

LO

Material: S.S.
-1
2 -3
at: 102 m .m
10:53, 27/09/99 1 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed3)

2 -1
2 -1
-3
S.
-3
.au NT
-1
-1
om FO
-1
WATER, 293K: 72.8 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
-1
WATER, 303K: 71.18 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
/
-1 (4)
-1
1.c D
-1
iv E
-1
-1
.d D
-1
ch ED
-1
ar B
se M
re E
Equations:
HOy:
:// T
where:
tp U
y*BM = {(1 - y) - (1 - y*)} / ln{(1 - y)/(1 - y*)}
ht HO
m IT
1/Ky = 1/ky + m/kx

fro W
From Onda et alii :

1/3 -1/2 0.4
n n

io io
rs rs
ve ve
0.5 1.24 (1/3) 0.16 1.25 0.8 0.6
0.5 0.15
ll N
Hx[m] = h[m].(Sc)L .K3.(Z/3.048)

fu IO
-3 -1
ad T
lo LU

wn SO

Do E

-R
Calculations:
W
(m.GM/LM) = 0.026308
{1 - (m.GM/LM)} = 0.973692
LO
\ NOy = 5.414

ABOTTOM = 32.15762
ATOP = 46.24948
10:53, 27/09/99 2 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed3)

\ NOy = 5.413
HOy: y*BM = TOP: 0.991547

BOTTOM: 0.985458
S.
-2 -1
GM = TOP: 98.8772 mol.m .s
.au NT
-2 -1
-2 -1
om FO
-2 -1
/
1.c D
2 -3
aw = 76.6 m .m
iv E
.d D
ch ED
-1
Thus, kL = 0.000317 m.s
-3
rB = 53626 mol.m
-2 -1
\ kx = 16.98 mol.m .s
ar B
-2 -1
G= 2.2873 kg.m .s
se M
re E
-1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1
:// T
P= 118 kPa(abs)
-2 -1
\ ky = 2.78 mol.m .s
tp U
ht HO
We see that the gas-phase resistance is [VERY!] dominant.... (...also, "m" is small).
-2 -1
\ HOy = 0.464 m
m IT
-1 -3
fro W
-3 -1
i.e. 31.667 mol.m .s
n n

io io

rs rs
Flooding: 53% K3 = 0.94

(2)
ve ve
Flooding: 53% yh = 140 ft 42.672 m

-1 -2
L[lbm.h ft ]: 4.13E+03 h = 0.088 ft 0.026822 m
ll N
fu IO
(Sc)v0.5 = 0.958168 Dc = 0.6096 m

-2 -1
ad T
Hy = 0.718652 m
lo LU
0.5
(Sc)L = 15.76725
Hx = 0.413303 m
wn SO
\ HOy = 0.730 m
Do E

-R
W
LO
10:53, 27/09/99 3 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed3)

Stage 4
S.
.au NT
HYSIM material
om FO
/
Assumptions:
Assume: Comment:
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
Data:
ar B
se M
re E
Thus a nominal column temperature of 40 °C will be used here ± 10°C, say.
:// T
ht HO
m IT

fro W
-1
-1
n n
RATIO of BOTTOM to TOP liquid flows: 1.147314 Thus the flow may NOT be considered constant.
-1
Average stage TOTAL liquid flow: 19.51811 mol.s Not justified, due to the absence of any (high) pump-around.
io io
-1
rs rs
-1
ve ve
-1
-1
ll N
-1
fu IO
Mole-fractions: Mole-fraction of formaldehyde in vapour: TOP: 0.000103 Entering zero here would give infinite height.
BOTTOM: 0.0085
ad T

lo LU
AVERAGE: 0.048036 The disimilarity is due to the absence of a (large) pump-around.
wn SO
BOTTOM: 0.0065
AVERAGE: 0.003257
Do E

-R
BOTTOM: 0.067809 We see that for this reducing concentration which varies little absolutely,
AVERAGE: 0.067809 "m" is quite constant. Thus bottom value can be taken as value everywhere at top.
Actual mean: 0.067959
W
Flooding: DESIGN: 179% Minute liquid flow! Worksheet "Diam."

LO
TURNDOWN: 107% Minute liquid flow! Worksheet "Diam."
Internals: Type: Pall rings ???

Material: S.S. ?
-1
sc: 75 mN.m ? Sinnott(2)
Nominal size: 0.051 m ??? I.e. 2 inches.
2 -3
at: 102 m .m ???
10:54, 27/09/99 1 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed4)

2 -1
2 -1
-3
S.
-3
.au NT
-1
-1
om FO
-1
WATER, 293K: 72.8 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
-1
WATER, 303K: 71.18 dyn.cm R, P & P(4)
/
-1 (4)
-1
1.c D
-1
iv E
-1
-1
.d D
-1
ch ED
-1
ar B
se M
re E
Equations:
HOy:
:// T
where:
tp U
y*BM = {(1 - y) - (1 - y*)} / ln{(1 - y)/(1 - y*)}
ht HO
m IT
1/Ky = 1/ky + m/kx

fro W
From Onda et alii :

1/3 -1/2 0.4
n n

io io
rs rs
ve ve
0.5 1.24 (1/3) 0.16 1.25 0.8 0.6
0.5 0.15
ll N
Hx[m] = h[m].(Sc)L .K3.(Z/3.048)

fu IO
-3 -1
ad T
lo LU

wn SO

Do E

-R
Calculations:
W
(m.GM/LM) = 0.826716
{1 - (m.GM/LM)} = 0.173284
LO
\ NOy = 14.978

ABOTTOM = 1.285356
ATOP = 1.127999
10:54, 27/09/99 2 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed4)

\ NOy = 14.961 (Note: using ABOTTOM only yields: 13.264 )

This non-simple short-cut method has resulted in a VERY CLOSE result to the result from Colburn.
However previous results so close to Colburn, that we will assume that result is good here too.
HOy: y*BM = TOP: 0.999948
BOTTOM: 0.992505
S.
-2 -1
GM = TOP: 94.03947 mol.m .s
.au NT
-2 -1
-2 -1
om FO
-2 -1
/
1.c D
2 -3
aw = 27.3 m .m
iv E
.d D
ch ED
-1
Thus, kL = 4.29E-05 m.s
-3
rB = 55255 mol.m
-2 -1
\ kx = 2.37 mol.m .s
ar B
-2 -1
G= 2.2139 kg.m .s
se M
re E
-1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1
:// T
P= 113 kPa(abs)
-2 -1
\ ky = 2.63 mol.m .s
tp U
ht HO
-2 -1
\ HOy = 1.407 m
m IT
-1 -3
fro W
-3 -1
i.e. 31.667 mol.m .s
n n

io io

rs rs
Flooding: 179% K3 = 1 ??? - Off chart!

(2)
ve ve
Flooding: 179% yh = 150 ft 45.72 m ??? - Off chart!

-1 -2
L[lbm.h ft ]: 1.02E+02 h = 0.051 ft 0.015545 m ??? - [Just] Off chart!
ll N
fu IO
(Sc)v0.5 = 0.973464 Dc = 0.6096 m

-2 -1
ad T
Hy = 34.84471 m
lo LU
0.5
(Sc)L = 18.75357
Hx = 0.631935 m
wn SO
\ HOy = 35.367 m
Do E

-R
W
LO
10:54, 27/09/99 3 of 3 DP_EB-09.xls (Bed4)

Diameter computation
S.
Design for a pressure drop of 42 mm(H2O).m-1 at the design condition.
==> approx. 412 Pa.m-1
.au NT
i.e. 20.58 kPa for a 50 m column.
Note: Assuming a CONSTANT DIAMETER for the entire column, this would have to be evaluated for all stages,
for the full range of possible operating conditions.
om FO
Each evaluated at the top of the stage (the lower values).
/
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4: Option a STAGE 4: Option b
Design 0.6×Design Design 0.6×Design Design 0.6×Design Design 0.6×Design Design 0.6×Design
-1
Lower gas flow rate [mol.s ] 303.79 182.27 251.61 150.97 239.30 143.58 236.62 141.97 236.62 141.97
1.c D
Lower gas flow rate [kg.s-1] 7.0173 4.2104 5.9245 3.5547 5.6745 3.4047 5.6020 3.3612 5.6020 3.3612
Mean MR [kg.mol-1] 0.02310 0.02310 0.02355 0.02355 0.02371 0.02371 0.02367 0.02367 0.02367 0.02367
iv E
Lower liquid flow rate [mol.s-1] 1372.04 823.22 2048.58 1229.15 722.16 433.30 18.18 10.91 18.18 10.91
.d D
Lower liquid flow rate [kg.s-1] 31.4798 18.8879 41.8084 25.0850 14.1438 8.4863 0.3275 0.1965 0.3275 0.1965
-1
Mean MR [kg.mol ] 0.02294 0.02294 0.02041 0.02041 0.01959 0.01959 0.01802 0.01802 0.01802 0.01802
ch ED
p [kPa(abs)] 125 125 120 120 115 115 110 110 110 110
Temperature [K] 335.15 335.15 323.15 323.15 315.15 315.15 310.65 310.65 310.65 310.65
62.00 62 50.00 50 42.00 42 37.50 37.5 37.50 37.5
ar B
Ideal gas density [mol.m-3] 44.857 44.857 44.662 44.662 43.888 43.888 42.588 42.588 42.588 42.588
-3
Ideal gas density [kg.m ] 1.036 1.036 1.052 1.052 1.041 1.041 1.008 1.008 1.008 1.008
se M
Liquid mass fraction HCHO [-] 0.526098 0.526098083 0.287507 0.287507374 0.198101 0.198100722 0 0 0 0
re E
Liquid mass fraction CH3OH [-] 0.009723 0.009723183 0.004953 0.004953359 0.001972 0.001971719 0 0 0 0
a 1.151 1.151 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092
b 0.5015 0.5015 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
:// T
c 0.0161 0.0161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Liquid density [kg.m-3] 1132.1 1132.1 1071.0 1071.0 1050.3 1050.3 995.4 995.4 995.4 995.4
tp U
r/1000 = a + 0.30(XF-b) - 0.25(XM-c) - 10–4.{5.5(XF-0.30) + 5.4}.(t[°C]-20) (Ullmann's (5) )
And note the misprinted exponent in the original.

ht HO
Compare with Walker (3) : Values greater than 1000 okay.
Compare with K-O (4) : 1134.8 1134.8 1071.9 1071.9 1050.4 1050.4 993.5 993.5 993.5 993.5
r/1000 = {1.119 + 0.30(XF-0.45) - 0.27(XM)}.{1.0 + 0.00055.(55-t[°C])}
m IT
\ (L / G).(rV / rL)0.5 1.36E-01 1.36E-01 2.21E-01 2.21E-01 7.85E-02 7.85E-02 1.86E-03 1.86E-03 1.86E-03 1.86E-03
From Fig. 11.44: K4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.13 0.13 ??? ???
fro W
(extrapol'n of Treybal) (very large)

cf. K4 at flooding 2.8 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.5 0.32 0.32 ??? ???
(extrapol'n of Treybal) (very large)
Percentage of flooding 65% 65% 61% 61% 61% 61% 64% 64% #VALUE! #VALUE!
n n
Sinnott (2) calls 66% "satisfactory" (out of range) (out of range)

io io
Liquid viscosity [mPa.s] 1.892 1.892 1.226 1.226 1.054 1.054 0.380 0.380 0.380 0.380
From Ullmann's (5) = K-O (4) : h = 1.28 + 3.9XF + 5XM - 0.024t[°C] Out of range ==> compare with values for water
rs rs
0.450 0.450 0.544 0.544 0.628 0.628 0.758 0.758 0.758 0.758
Hence: 1.892 1.892 1.226 1.226 0.841 0.841 0.758 0.758 0.758 0.758
v e ve
Packing Pall rings Pall rings Pall rings Pall rings Pall rings Pall rings Pall rings Pall rings Plastic gauze or trays???
Size [mm] 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 (e.g. Sulzer, Type BX)
Table 11.3, Sinnott (2)
ll N
Fp [m-1] 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 cG,MAX......
a [m2.m-3] Table 11.3, Sinnott (2) 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 102
fu IO
\ G2 ={K4.rV.(rL–rV)}/{13.1FP.(mL/rL)0.1} [kg.m-2.s-1]2 Largest A Smallest A

0.5
6.151 6.151 6.134 6.134 6.683 6.683 0.617 0.617 0.6 5 G.rV [(m3.m-2.s-1).(kg.m-3)0.5]
-2 -1 3 -2 -1
G [kg.m .s ] 4.9795 G [m .m .s ] = "F"
ad T
2.480 2.480 2.477 2.477 2.585 2.585 0.785 0.785 0.5975

F[m3.m-2.s-1]= 1.5 is typical
Whence A [m2] -2 -1
lo LU
2.829 1.698 2.392 1.435 2.195 1.317 7.133 4.280 0.6025 5.0206 G [kg.m .s ]
\ L [kg.m-2.s-1] 11.126 11.126 17.477 17.477 6.443 6.443 0.046 0.046 9.29837 0.669482656 \ A [m ]
2
GM [mol.m-2.s-1] 107.369 107.369 105.182 105.182 109.019 109.019 33.173 33.173 Fortunately the 2.5447 m2
LM [mol.m-2.s-1] 484.927 484.927 856.378 856.378 328.996 328.996 2.549 chosen for the bottom three stages
2.549
wn SO
Thus diameter [m] 1.898 1.470 1.745 1.352 1.672 1.295 3.014 2.334 is right within this range!
...so use that value for the top stage too.
Say diameter of column (bottom 3 stages) is 1.8 m 2.5447 2.5447 A [m2]
-2 -1
Column area [m2] 2.5447 2.2014 1.3209 G [kg.m .s ]
Do E
3 -2 -1
Packing size to column diameter ratio: 36.0 2.1834 1.3101 G [m .m .s ] = "F"
-2 -1
Sinnott (2) : "a larger packing size could be considered"
-R
0.128699 0.0772 L [kg.m .s ]

3 -2 -1
Percentage flooding at selected diameter: 0.465441 0.2793 L [m .m .h ]
72.8% 43.7% 57.6% 34.5% 52.6% 31.5% 178.7% 107.2% Fortunately this is within the range:
W
This should be okay. CLEARLY PALL Minimum: 0.05 m3.m-2.h-1

RINGS DON'T APPLY Maximum: 60 m3.m-2.h-1
G [kg.m-2.s-1] 1.6546 1.3969 1.3380 1.3209 Typical: 4 m3.m-2.h-1
LO
2.7576 2.3282 2.2299 2.2014

L [kg.m-2.s-1] 12.371 7.422 16.430 9.858 5.558 3.335 0.129 0.077 13.2
-1
5.3 Pressure drop [kPa.m ]
GM [mol.m-2.s-1] 119.380 71.628 98.877 59.326 94.039 56.424 92.987 55.792 (from Sulzer-Chemtech chart )
-2 -1
LM [mol.m .s ] 539.176 323.506 805.042 483.025 283.792 170.275 7.144 4.286
-1
6.4 8.8 Typical NTU.m
Is this HOG-1 xor HOL-1???
Note: This is NOT for the (reacting) HCHO–H2O system
27/09/99, 10:54 1 of 1 DP_EB-09.xls (Diam.)

Gas viscosity computation
Using the method of Wilke, given by R, P & P (4)
S.
Molar mass: Water (1) 18.0152 g.mol-1
.au NT
Formaldehyde (2) 30.0262 g.mol-1
Hydrogen (3) 2.0158 g.mol-1
Nitrogen (4) 28.0134 g.mol-1
om FO
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4
/
Temperature:
t [°C] 76 56 46 39.75 Average for gas.
1.c D
T [K] 349.15 329.15 319.15 312.9
iv E
Composition: mole fraction
This is entering, so not
Water (1) 0.202668 at equilibrium. 0.229474 0.120116 0.084646
.d D
Formaldehyde (2) 0.142986 0.055279 0.01726 0.008476
Hydrogen (3) 0.115716 0.12681 0.153106 0.160982
ch ED
Nitrogen (4) 0.538631 0.588437 0.709518 0.745897
Nitrogen mole fraction decreased by taking value at bottom of stage,
but increased by assuming all other components as nitrogen.
Approx. pure component viscosity [Pa.s]:
ar B
Water (1) 1.11E-05 1.04E-05 1.00E-05 9.87E-06 From Y&R(5), rounded to nearest 5°C
se M
Formaldehyde (2) 1.12E-05 1.05E-05 1.02E-05 1.00E-05 Assume as for methanol: Perry(6), to nearest 10°C
Hydrogen (3) 1.00E-05 9.50E-06 9.50E-06 9.00E-06 Perry(6), to nearest ~25K
Nitrogen (4) 2.00E-05 1.90E-05 1.90E-05 1.80E-05 Perry(6), to nearest ~25K
re E
Wilke's parameter's:  ij = {1 + (h i/h j)1/2.(Mj/Mi)1/4}2 / {8(1 + Mi/Mj)}1/2
:// T
i=1
 i1 1 1 1 1
tp U
 i2 1.269471 1.269066 1.262202 1.266702
ht HO
 i3 0.290487 0.288971 0.284755 0.289163
 i4 0.925623 0.919832 0.90374 0.920565
i=2
 i1 0.768523 0.768739 0.772445 0.770009
m IT
 i2 1 1 1 1
 i3 0.209955 0.208986 0.206894 0.209371
fro W
 i4 0.739786 0.735653 0.726742 0.737295

i=3
 i1 2.338808 2.359044 2.417614 2.356457
n n
 i2 2.792292 2.816461 2.870285 2.8068

io io
 i3 1 1 1 1
 i4 1.910394 1.910394 1.910394 1.910394
rs rs
i=4
 i1 1.072542 1.080692 1.104258 1.07965
ve ve
 i2 1.415965 1.426829 1.451003 1.422487

 i3 0.274938 0.274938 0.274938 0.274938
ll N
 i4 1 1 1 1
fu IO
Terms in series:
i=1 2.45E-06 2.72E-06 1.45E-06 1.01E-06
i=2 2.22E-06 8.4E-07 2.68E-07 1.29E-07
ad T
i=3 5.73E-07 6.18E-07 7.87E-07 8.01E-07

i=4 1.09E-05 1.18E-05 1.48E-05 1.5E-05
lo LU
\ SUM = viscosity of mixture [Pa.s]:

1.61E-05 1.59E-05 1.73E-05 1.7E-05
It turns out that the decrease in temperature (==> decreasing viscosity) almost exactly compensates
for the increase in mole fraction of nitrogen (which has double the viscosity of the others)!
wn SO
Thus, in ALL cases in the absorber, take the gas viscosity as: 1.66E-05 Pa.s
Do E
Comparison with mole-fraction weighted means:

-R
1.58E-05 1.54E-05 1.63E-05 1.58E-05

"ERROR" -2.1% -3.7% -5.9% -6.9%
Hence the viscosity would have been underestimated by an average factor of 4.7%
W
However we see that, although in some cases Wilke's method gives identical values as experiment
LO
(methane–propane at 498K), in other cases errors may be +12% (nitrogen–hydrogen at 373K, yN = 0.2)
or -12% (ammonia–hydrogen at 306K, yA = 0.399).
Only Reichenberg's method is consistently accurate to no more than ±4.8% w.r.t. experiment
(these extremes occur for the same conditions as for Wilke's method, above).
As may be guessed, Reichenberg's method is more involved.
27/09/99, 10:54 1 of 1 DP_EB-09.xls(Visc.)

Gas-phase diffusivity computation
S.
Assuming binary diffusion:
Formaldehyde in nitrogen (main constituent)
.au NT
(4)
Use the method of Fuller et alii (1965–1969), recommended by R, P & P
(Average abs. error = 5.4%)
om FO
DAB[cm2.s-1] = 0.00143 T[K]1.75 / {P[bar].MAB[g.mol-1]1/2.[ (S v)A1/3 + (S v)B1/3 ]}2
/
where MAB = 2 / (1/MA + 1/MB)
and S v is the "diffusion volume" sum - atoms (xor =molecule):
1.c D
Sv
iv E
Atomic and Structural Diffusion Volume Increments
.d D
C 15.9
ch ED
H 2.31 Diffusion Volumes of Simple Molecules
O 6.11 He 2.67
N 4.54 Ne 5.98
ar B
Aromatic ring -18.3 Ar 16.2
Heterocyclic ring -18.3 Kr 24.5
se M
Xe 32.7
F 14.7 H2 6.12
re E
Cl 21.0 D2 6.84
:// T
Br
tp U 21.9 N2 18.5
I 29.8 O2 16.3
S 22.9 Air 19.7
ht HO
CO 18.0
CO2 26.9
m IT
N2 O 35.9
NH3 20.7
fro W
H2 O 13.1
SF6 71.3
n n
Cl2 38.4
io io
Br2 69.0
rs rs
SO2 41.8
ve ve
Thus, for formaldehyde:

(Sv)A 26.63
-1
30.0262 g.mol
ll N
MA
For nitrogen:
fu IO
(Sv)B 18.5 (cf. 9.08 for individual contributions)

-1
MB 28.0134 g.mol
ad T
Hence: [ (S v)A1/3 + (S v)B1/3 ] =

lo LU
5.631019

wn SO
p [kPa(abs)] 125 120 115 110

Temperature [K] 335.15 323.15 315.15 310.65
Do E
Temperature [°C] 62.00 50.00 42.00 37.50

-R
MAB 28.98 28.98 28.98 28.98

W
Hence DAB[cm2.s-1] = 0.176 0.172 0.172 0.175

LO
Again this is so invariant that it may be taken as constant across the entire column: 0.174 cm2.s-1
(We note that the decreasing temperature is compensated for by [commensurately?] decreasing pressure.)
27/09/99, 11:01 1 of 2 DP_EB-09.xls(GDiff)

Use the method of Gilliland (1934), recommended by Holman(7)
S.
DAB[cm2.s-1] = 435.7 T[K]1.5 / {P[Pa].MAB[g.mol-1]1/2.[ (S v)A1/3 + (S v)B1/3 ]}2
.au NT
where MAB = 2 / (1/MA + 1/MB)
and S v is the molecular volume - summation of atomic contributions:
om FO
Sv
/
Atomic and Structural Diffusion Volume Increments
C 14.8
1.c D
H 3.7 Diffusion Volumes of Simple Molecules
O
iv E
in aldehydes/ketones 7.4 H2 14.3
.d D
in methyl esters 9.1 N2 15.6
ch ED
in ethyl esters 9.9 O2 7.4
in higher esters/ethers 11 Air 29.9
in acids 12
ar B
in union with S/P/N 8.3 CO2 34.0
se M
N
in primary amines 10.5 H2 O 18.8
re E
in secondary amines 1.20
:// T
tp U F 8.7
Cl
terminal 21.6
ht HO
medial 24.6
Br 27.0
I 37.0
m IT
S 25.6
P 27.0
fro W
Thus, for formaldehyde:

n n
(Sv)A 29.6
-1
io io
MA 30.0262 g.mol
For nitrogen:
rs rs
(Sv)B 15.6
-1
MB 28.0134 g.mol
ve ve
1/3 1/3
Hence: [ (S v)A + (S v)B ]= 5.592027
ll N
fu IO
p [kPa(abs)] 125 120 115 110

ad T
Temperature [K] 335.15 323.15 315.15 310.65

lo LU
Temperature [°C] 62.00 50.00 42.00 37.50

wn SO
MAB 28.98 28.98 28.98 28.98

Hence DAB[cm2.s-1] = 0.127 0.125 0.126 0.129
Do E
Again this is so invariant that it may be taken as constant across the entire column: 0.127 cm2.s-1
-R
(We note that the decreasing temperature is compensated for by [commensurately?] decreasing pressure.)
W
Note: Due to the obvious errors in estimating BINARY gas diffusion coefficients,
computation of diffusivities for the MIXTURE would clearly not be justified.
LO
27/09/99, 11:01 2 of 2 DP_EB-09.xls(GDiff)

Liquid-phase diffusivity computation
S.
Assuming binary diffusion:
Formaldehyde in water (main constituent)
.au NT
NOTE: While the correlations are for dilute solute diffusion, the hydrolysis of HCHO renders this valid here.
Use the correlation of Hayduk and Minhas (1982), recommended by R, P & P(4)
om FO
In aqueous solutions: (Average abs. error = ~10%)
/
DºAB[cm2.s-1] = 1.25 × 10-8.(VA-0.19 - 0.292).T[K]1.52.hwe*
where e* = (9.58/VA) - 1.12
1.c D
hw is the viscosity of water [mPa.s]
and VA is the molar volume of the solute at its normal b.p. [cm3.mol-1]
iv E
.d D
From Ullmann's(5):
ch ED
"Formaldehyde liquefies at -19.2°C, the density of the liquid being 0.8153 g.cm-3 at 20°C [....]"
-1
Given a molar mass of: 30.026 g.mol
3 -1
This yields VA = 36.828 cm .mol
ar B
whence e* = -0.85987
se M
re E
p [kPa(abs)] 125 120 115 110
:// T
Temperature [K] tp U 335.15 323.15 315.15 310.65
Temperature [°C] 62.00 50.00 42.00 37.50
ht HO
From Rogers & Mayhew (5)
Viscosity of liquid water (to nearest 5°C) = hw [mPa]:
m IT
0.463 0.544 0.651 0.718
Hence DºAB[cm2.s-1] = 3.5E-05

fro W
2.9E-05 2.4E-05 2.2E-05
This probably should not be taken as constant across the whole column: 2.8E-05 cm2.s-1
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
27/09/99, 10:54 1 of 1 DP_EB-09.xls(LDiff)

S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
P ART 3: D ETAILED M ECHANICAL D ESIGN

n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
R ECORD OF H AZ O P M EETING
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
LO
W
Stream 3 -R
GUIDE WORD DEVIATION POSSIBLE CAUSES CONSEQUENCES ACTION REQUIRED
No Flow  Pipe blockage  Possibility of entering the explosive  Display flow reading of Stream 3 on
Do E
 Control valve V-1 malfunction limits panel (control room)
 Pipe rupture or leakage  Visible on flow indicator  Have alarm for low flow
wn SO
lo LU  Reactor feed will be outside design  Have temperature indicator and
composition ==> product may be out alarm in reactor
of spec.  Regular maintenance and inspection
ad T
 Reactor temperature may increase of control valve and piping
(less thermal ballast)
fu IO
More Flowll N  Control valve V-1 failure (fail-open  Deterioration of catalyst  Install alarm for high flow
to avoid previous deviation)  Decrease in yield
Less Flow  As for “No Flow”  As for “No Flow”  As for “No Flow”
ve ve
Pressure  Control valve V-1 failure  Reverse flow, possibly including  Install low pressure alarm and
rs rs
io io  Upstream pipe rupture or leakage methanol ==> flammability hazard indicator
n n  Install non-return valve
What else? Instrument air failure
fro W  As for “More Flow”  As for “More Flow”  Regular inspection
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:34 / S. 1 of 17 DP_HZOP4.DOC
LO
W
Stream 6 -R
No Flow  Upstream pump failure or trip  Visible on flow indicator  Regular maintenance and inspection
Do E
 Pipe blockage  Reactor feed will be outside design  Stand-by pump installed
 Control valve V-2 failure (fail closed composition ==> product will be out
wn SO
lo LU to avoid following deviation) of spec.
 Pipe rupture or leakage  Reactor temperature will decrease
(no reaction), catalyst degradation
ad T
More Flow  Control valve V-2 malfunction  Product out of specification  Install alarm for high flow
 Visible on flow indicator  Have panel-mounted indicator
fu IO
Pressure
ll N  Downstream blockage AND pump-  Increased likelihood of rupture and  Pressure indicator and high alarm
trip failure leakage ==> flammability risk  Regular maintenance and testing of
pump motor trip
ve ve
Temperature  Pump dead-heading, as for “More  As for “More Pressure”  As for “More Pressure”
rs rs
io io Pressure”
Less Flow n n  As for “No Flow”  As for “No Flow”  As for “No Flow”
Pressure  Control valve V-2 failure  Reverse flow of methanol ==>  Install low pressure alarm and
 Upstream pipe rupture or leakage flammability hazard indicator (panel mounted)
fro W
m IT  Upstream pump failure or trip  Loss of feedstock  Install non-return valve
 Regular inspection and maintenance
What else? Instrument air failure
ht HO  As for “More Flow”  As for “More Flow”  Regular inspection
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:34 / S. 2 of 17 DP_HZOP4.DOC
LO
W
Stream 7 -R
No Flow  Upstream pump failure or trip  No product  Provision for indicator on flow
Do E
 Pipe blockage  Reactor temperature will decrease controller
 Malfunction of V-1 AND V-2 (no reaction)  Regular maintenance and inspection
wn SO
lo LU  Pipe rupture or leakage  Stand-by pump installed
More Flow  Malfunction of V-1 AND V-2  Product out of specification (contact  Install alarms for high flow on
time in reactor affected) Streams 3 AND 6
ad T
 Visible on flow indicators  Have panel-mounted indicators
 Possible level increase in vaporiser
fu IO
Pressure  Downstream blockage AND pump-  Increased likelihood of rupture and  Pressure indicator and high alarm on
ll N
trip failure leakage ==> flammability risk stream 6
 Regular maintenance and testing of
ve ve
pump motor trip
rs rs
Temperature  Pump dead-heading, as for “More
io io  As for “More Pressure”  As for “More Pressure”
n nPressure”
Less Flow  As for “No Flow”  Less product  As for “No Flow”
 Reactor temperature will decrease
fro W
m IT (less reaction)
Pressure  Control valve V-1 OR V-2  Reverse flow of methanol ==>  Install low pressure alarm and
malfunction flammability hazard indicator (panel mounted)
 Upstream pipe rupture or leakage  Install non-return valve
ht HO
 Upstream pump failure or trip  Regular inspection and maintenance
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ S.3 of 17 DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 9 -R
No Flow  Upstream blower (CP-1) failure or  Reactor feed will be outside design  Provision for indicator on flow
Do E
trip of steam turbine (TRB-1) composition ==> product will be out controller
 Duct blockage of spec.  Regular maintenance and inspection
wn SO
lo LU  Duct rupture or leakage  Reactor temperature will decrease  (Stand-by compressor and turbine
 Failure of control valve V-3 (fails (no reaction) too expensive and impractical)
closed to avoid feeding a fire)
ad T
More Flow  Malfunction of V-3  Product out of specification (contact  Install alarm for high flow
 Steam turbine (TRB-1) goes haywire time in reactor affected)  Have panel-mounted indicators
fu IO
ll N  Too much off-gas recycle  Visible on flow indicators  Remove all ignition sources
 Possibly enter flammability limits  Adjust off-gas recycle
Pressure  Downstream blockage (e.g. V-3  Increased likelihood of rupture and  Pressure indicator and high alarm
ve ve
failure) AND turbine-trip leakage ==> flammability risk  Regular maintenance and testing of
rs rs
io iomalfunction (contains hydrogen) turbine trip system
Temperature  Compressor dead-heading, as for
n n  As for “More Pressure”  As for “More Pressure”
“More Pressure”
fro W
m IT  Reactor temperature will decrease
(less reaction)
 Product out of spec.
Pressure  Control valve V-3 failure  Reverse flow of vapour, possibly  Install low pressure alarm and
ht HO
 Upstream pipe rupture or leakage including methanol ==> flammability indicator (panel mounted)
tp U
 Upstream blower/turbine failure or hazard  Regular inspection and maintenance
trip  Product out of spec.  (Non-return valve impractical)
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 4 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 10 -R
No Flow  Downstream pump (P-2A / P-2B)  No vaporisation due to zero heat  Provision for panel display of level
Do E
failure transfer ==> Level in vaporiser rises  Regular maintenance and inspection
 Pipe blockage ==> increased rupture risk of  Training of operators not to close
wn SO
lo LU  Pipe rupture or leakage vaporiser ==> flammability hazard isolation valves during operation
 Upstream feed system failure  Visible on vaporiser level indicator AND interlocks
 Accidental closure of isolation  composition ==> product will be out
ad T
valves of spec.
 Reactor temperature will decrease
fu IO
ll N (no reaction)
 More cooling required in absorber
(control system will detect this)
ve ve
More Flow  Increase in upstream flow  No increase in vaporisation due to  Install alarm for high flow
rs rs
 Lower temperature on exit of HX-10
io io limited utility capacity ==> Level in  Have panel-mounted indicators
n n(Stream 13) vaporiser rises ==> increased rupture
risk of vaporiser ==> flammability
hazard
 Visible on vaporiser level indicator
fro W
m IT
Pressure  Downstream blockage of pipe  Increased likelihood of rupture and  High pressure alarm on pump
 Accidental closure of isolation leakage ==> flammability risk discharges (to existing indicators)
ht HO
valves
tp U (contains methanol)
Temperature  High temperature of Stream 9 OR 13  Vapour in pump suction ==> damage  Install low level alarm to trip pump
to pump
:// T
re E
se M  Reactor temperature will decrease
(less reaction)
ar B
 More cooling required in absorber
(control system will detect this)
ch ED
Pressure  Low level in vaporiser (HX-1)  As for “More Temperature”  As for “More Temperature”
.d D
 Upstream rupture or leakage
iv E
 Upstream blower/pump failure or
trip
1.c D
Temperature  Inadequate heat transfer in heat
om FO  Level in vaporiser rises ==>  Install panel-mounted temperature
exchangers (HX-5 OR HX-10) increased rupture risk of vaporiser indicators and alarms on exits of heat
 Steam utility failure .au NT ==> flammability hazard exchangers HX-5 AND HX-10
07/10/99, 9:38
/ S.5 of 17 DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
-R  On start-up temperatures of Streams  Visible on vaporiser level indicator  Attempt to make up additional duty
20 and 21 will be low  Product out of spec. in OTHER exchanger, ELSE reduce
flow of vaporiser feed
Do E
 Recycle until operating temperature
reached
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/
6 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 11 -R
No Flow  Upstream pump (P-2A / P-2B)  As for “No Flow” of Stream 10  As for “No Flow” of Stream 10
Do E
failure
 Pipe blockage
wn SO
lo LU  Pipe rupture or leakage
 Upstream feed system failure
 Accidental closure of isolation
ad T
valves
More Flow  As for “More Flow” of Stream 10  As for “More Flow” of Stream 10  As for “More Flow” of Stream 10
fu IO
ll N
(including fouling of heat leakage ==> flammability risk discharges (to existing indicators)
exchangers, HX-5 OR HX-10) (contains methanol)
ve ve
rs rs
io iovalves
Temperature  High temperature of Stream 9 OR 13
n n  Vapour in pump suction ==> damage  Install low level alarm to trip pump
to pump
Less Flow  As for “No Flow”  As for “Less Flow” of Stream 10  As for “No Flow”
fro W
Pressure  Low level in vaporiser (HX-1)
m IT  As for “More Temperature”  As for “More Temperature”
trip
ht HO
Temperature  As for “Less Temperature” of Stream  As for “Less Temperature” of Stream  As for “Less Temperature” of Stream
tp U
10 :// T 10 10
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 7 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 12 -R
No Flow  As for “No Flow” of Stream 11  As for “No Flow” of Stream 10  As for “No Flow” of Stream 10
Do E
wn SO
lo LU (including fouling of heat leakage ==> flammability risk discharges (to existing indicators)
ad T
valves
fu IO
to pump
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n ntrip
10 10 10
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 8 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 13 -R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU (including fouling of heat leakage ==> flammability risk discharges (to existing indicators)
ad T
valves
fu IO
to pump
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n ntrip
10 10 10
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 9 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 14 -R
No Flow  Upstream blockage (including  No reaction ==> reactor temperature  Display flow reading of Stream 14
Do E
accidental closure of isolation decrease ==> visible on reactor on panel
valves) temperature indicator (with alarm)  Have alarm for low flow
wn SO
lo LU  Upstream leakage or rupture  No product  Regular maintenance and inspection
of ductwork
More Flow  More flow of feed streams into  Product out of spec. (altered contact  Install a flow indicator, to be
ad T
vaporiser (HX-1) – see Streams 3, 6, time in reactor) displayed in the control room with
7 and 9  Temperature at inlet to reactor will integral high flow alarm
fu IO
ll N decrease due to limited heat transfer  Size vaporiser unit and steam system
in Superheater (HX-2) ==> possible to handle some contingency (say
degradation of catalyst; product out 20% above design)
ve ve
of spec.  Temperature indicator AND
rs rs
io io controller will exist on exit of
n n superheater (HX-2)
Pressure  Downstream blockage of duct  Increased likelihood of rupture and  Install high pressure alarm
 Accidental closure of isolation leakage ==> flammability risk
valves downstream (contains methanol)
fro W
 Discharge through safety valve at top
m IT
of vaporiser (HX-1)
ht HO
tp U to pump (P-2)  Temperature indicator AND
 Less heating required in superheater controller on HX-2
(HX-2)
:// T
 Composition may be different ==>
re E
se M product out of spec.
Less Flow  As for “No Flow”  Less reaction ==> reactor  As for “No Flow”
temperature decrease ==> visible on
ar B
reactor temperature indicator (with
alarm)
ch ED
 Less product
.d D
Pressure  Upstream rupture or leakage
iv E  Reaction may be affected via a shift  Install low flow alarm
 Upstream blower (CP-1) failure OR in equilibrium (principally of the  Make the ducts strong
trip dehydrogenation reaction)
1.c D
 Saturation mole fractions of
condensables in absorber (ABS-1)
om FO
.au NT will increase ==> less effective
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 10 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
-R absorption ==> lower plant yield;
product out of spec.
 Identifiable by blower trip alarm
Do E
13 13 13
wn SO
Percentage of  Inadequate vaporisation (e.g.  Less reaction  Have alarm on ratio controller –
methanol
lo LU insufficient steam OR temperature of  Enter the flammability limits (no increase the ratio of methanol
Stream 20 too low, as on start-up) longer above the upper limit) supplied, if possible, ELSE feed less
ad T
 Malfunction of ratio controller feed to process and recycle more off-
gas
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 11 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 118 -R
No Flow  Blockage in steam lines (including  No heating in HX-10 ==> less  Display flow reading of Stream 119
Do E
accidental closure of isolation vaporisation occurring ==> less on panel
valves; including build-up of product / out of spec.  Have alarm for low flow on Stream
wn SO
lo LU deposits [“fouling”] in HX-10)  Likely to be registered by the 119
 Upstream leakage or rupture pressure indicator on Stream 118  Indicate pressure on panel
 Failure to add additional fuel (natural  Regular maintenance and inspection
ad T
gas) to the off-gas burner (RXN-3) of ductwork
on start-up
fu IO
More Flow ll N  Malfunction in steam system control  Over heating of vaporiser recycle  Install a flow indicator, to be
valves (including V-4 – which should stream (in HX-10) ==> gas phase in displayed in the control room with
be fail-open to vaporise methanol out Stream 13 ==> liquid hold-up in integral high flow alarm on Stream
ve ve
rs rs of vaporiser) base of vaporiser drops ==> 119
cavitation in pump (P-2)  Temperature indicator AND
controller will exist on exit of
io io
n n superheater (HX-2), and duty in this
exchanger will decrease as required
 Low pressure/Level alarms will trip
fro W
m IT pump (P-2)
Pressure  Downstream blockage of line  Increased likelihood of rupture and  Install high pressure alarm at boiler
 Accidental closure of isolation leakage ==> risk to personnel (RXN-3)
ht HO
valves downstream
tp U  Discharge through safety valve on
 Malfunction in steam system control shell-side of HX-10
valves (including V-4)
:// T
Temperature  As for “More Pressure”
re E  Increased risk of materials failures  Construct steam lines of rugged
 Very low boiler feed water flow
se M ==> risk to personnel material
leading to super-heating of the
1200kPa(abs) steam
ar B
Less Flow  As for “No Flow”  Less heating in HX-10 ==> less  As for “No Flow”
vaporisation occurring ==> less
ch ED
product / out of spec.
.d D
iv E  Likely to be registered by the
pressure indicator on Stream 118
Pressure  Upstream rupture or leakage  Control system would attempt to  Detect with low temperature alarm
1.c D
 Upstream pump (on boiler feed water increase the flow (IF necessary), on Stream 13 AND low flow alarm
to off-gas burner) failure OR trip however there is a limit to the flow Stream 119
om FO
.au NT that can be handled by HX-10  Ease off on the flow of feedstock to
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 12 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
-R  Temperature of Stream 13 would the vaporiser (HX-1)
decrease ==> less vaporisation ==>
less feed to reactor ==> less product
Do E
/ out of spec.
Temperature  Inadequate heating in boiler (RXN-  Control system would attempt to  Cover steam lines with adequate
wn SO
3) increase the flow (IF necessary), insulation and ensure its upkeep
 Heat loss through steam lines however there is a limit to the flow  Control temperature of steam at point
lo LU
that can be handled by HX-10 of generation (RXN-3)
ad T
 Temperature of Stream 13 would  Detect with low temperature alarm
decrease ==> less vaporisation ==> on Stream 13 AND low flow alarm
fu IO
ll N less feed to reactor ==> less product Stream 119
/ out of spec.  Ease off on the flow of feedstock to
the vaporiser (HX-1)
ve ve
What else? Personnel performing  Regular maintenance  Employees suffer burns to their  Cover steam lines with adequate
maintenance on OR
rs rs
 Equipment break-down persons insulation (“Personnel Protection”)
near steam lines and ensure its upkeep
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ S. 13 of 17 DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Stream 119 -R
Do E
Pressure  As for “More Pressure” of Stream  As for “More Pressure” of Stream  As for “More Pressure” of Stream
wn SO
lo LU 118 118 118
Temperature  Low flow of Stream 12 (q.v.)  Increased risk of materials failures  Construct condensate lines of rugged
 As for “More Pressure” ==> risk to personnel material
ad T
fu IO  Very low boiler feed water flow
leading to super-heating of the
1200kPa(abs) steam
ll N
Less Flow  As for “Less Flow” of Stream 118  As for “Less Flow” of Stream 118  As for “Less Flow” of Stream 118
Pressure  As for “Less Pressure” of Stream  As for “Less Pressure” of Stream  As for “Less Pressure” of Stream
ve ve
118 118 118
rs rs
io io
n n 118 118 118
What else? Personnel performing  As for “What else?” of Stream 118  As for “What else?” of Stream 118  As for “What else?” of Stream 118
maintenance on OR
fro W
near condensate lines
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
LO
W
Vaporiser (HX-1)-R
No Level  No inlet flows (blockage of inlet  Vapour to suction port of pump (P-2)  Automatic trip on pumps
Do E
lines/closed control valves) ==> Damage to pumps
 Inlet flows are too hot (vapour)  Product out of spec.
wn SO
More Level
lo LU  Inadequate heating in recirculation  Flooding of vaporiser  Install high level alarm on existing
loop (including due to blockage in  Blower may have to work harder to liquid level controller
pipes) blow gas stream (Stream 9) through
ad T
the increased head of liquid
Pressure  Downstream blockage  Pressure will be relieved through  Ensure regular maintenance, testing
fu IO
ll N existing safety valve on top of HX-1 AND inspection of safety valve
Temperature  Upstream blockage or disturbance  Increased risk of materials failures  Construct vaporiser shell of heavy
 High inlet temperatures on streams 9 ==> risk to personnel; flammability duty materials
ve ve
OR 13 (q.v.) risk
rs rs
Less Level  Less inlet flows (blockage of inlet
io io  As for “No Level”  As for “No Level”
n nlines/closed control valves)
 Inlet flows are too hot (e.g. two-
phase)
fro W
Pressure  Blower (CP-1) or pump (P-1) failure  Reaction may be affected via a shift  Install low flow alarm
 Blockage in lines 7 OR 9 (upstream) in equilibrium (principally of the
m IT
dehydrogenation reaction)
 Saturation mole fractions of
ht HO
condensables in absorber (ABS-1)
tp U
will increase ==> less effective
absorption ==> lower plant yield;
:// T
product out of spec.
re E
se M  Identifiable by blower/pump trip
alarm
Temperature  Inadequate heating in recirculation  Flooding of vaporiser  Install high level alarm on existing
ar B
loop (including due to blockage in  Blower may have to work harder to liquid level controller
pipes) blow gas stream (Stream 9) through
ch ED
the increased head of liquid
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 15 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
LO
W
Methanol Heater (HX-10)
-R
No Level (shell-side)  Blockage in Stream 118 (including  No heat transfer  Low flow alarm on Stream 119
Do E
Less inlet flows: blockage of inlet  Loss of containment ==> risk to  Install liquid level controller with
lines) personnel low level alarm
wn SO
lo LU  Steam trap failure
 Leak in HX-10
More Level  Blockage in Stream 119 (including  Flooding of exchanger shell  Install liquid level controller with
ad T
closed control valves)  Evident due to low flow indicator on high level alarm
 Insufficient flow of steam through stream 119
fu IO
ll N Stream 118  Heat transfer [coefficient] would
decrease ==> evident due to low
temperature indicator on Stream 13
ve ve
Pressure  As for “More Pressure” of Stream  As for “More Pressure” of Stream  As for “More Pressure” of Stream
rs rs
io io 118 118 118
Temperature n n  As for “More Temperature” of  As for “More Temperature” of  As for “More Temperature” of
Stream 118 Stream 118 Stream 118
Less Level  As for “No Level”  As for “No Level”  As for “No Level”
fro W
Pressure  If the exchanger were isolated (shell-  This may cause material failure in  Train employees to NOT isolate
side) with steam initially present, extreme cases exchanger while it still contains
m IT
then the steam would condense ==> steam – it must be vented
decrease in pressure  Install vent if not already present
ht HO
(not marked) ELSE discharge
tp U
through safety valve
:// T
118 118 118
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
LO
W
Pumps (P-2A AND P-2B)
-R
More Pressure  Dead-heading of pump due to  Possible material failure in extreme  Design pressures rated above
Do E
downstream obstruction in line cases operating pressures
 Trip pump in case of high pressure
wn SO
lo LU alarm (to be installed)
Temperature  As for “More Pressure”  Possible material failure in extreme  Design temperatures rated above
 High inlet temperatures (see Stream cases (due to reduction in the yield operating temperatures
ad T
7) strength of metals at elevated
temperatures)
fu IO
Less Pressure
ll N  Low level in vaporiser (HX-1) ==>  Cavitation ==> Damage to pump  Automatic trip on pump, activated by
Insufficient Net Positive Suction low level alarm on vaporiser (HX-1)
Head (NPSH)
ve ve
Reverse Flow  Check-valve failure  Damage to pump(s)  Make sure that those responsible
rs rs
io io check the check valves to make sure
n n that the check valves will check the
flow, as required
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
07/10/99, 9:38
/ 17 of 17
S. DP_HZOP5.DOC
S.
.au NT
om FO
/
1.c D
iv E
.d D
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
E CONOMIC E VALUATION
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
LO Formaldehyde David Verrelli (Group 8)
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
1999 currency exchange rates:
ve ve
Source: The Saturday Age, Business section (from CBA - not for currency notes)
rs rs
io io
One Australian dollar was worth:
n n
DATE German DM US $
Buy Sell AVERAGE Buy Sell AVERAGE
fro W
08 May 1.2290
m IT 1.2004 1.215 0.6718 0.6668 0.669
22 May 1.2289 1.2003 1.215 0.6620 0.6570 0.660
10 July 1.2910 1.2610 1.276 0.6692 0.6642 0.667
24 July 1.2209 1.1923 1.207 0.6506 0.6456 0.648
ht HO
09 October 1.2188 1.1904 1.205 0.6620 0.6570 0.660
tp U
Average 1.238
:// T 1.209 1.22 0.663 0.658 0.66
So a German DM is equal to 0.5400 US $.

re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
13:57, 17/10/99 1 of 1 dp_12-ex.xls (ExchangeRates)
PURCHASED EQUIPMENT COSTS W

Indonesian, USD1999 basis.
ABBREVIATIONS: n.a. = not available,

-R N/A = not applicable, s-a-t = shell-and-tube (heat exchanger)
REFERENCE: BREUER & BRENNAN GARRETT HALL, MATLEY & MCNAUGHTON

Current location factor [B & B; BRENNAN]: 0.769 0.97 0.97
Historical currency conversion factor [B & B]: 0.769 1 1 FINAL COMMENTS
Do E
CE Index for original date [BRENNAN; CE]: 363.0 320 300 VALUE
CE Index for 1999 [CE]: 390 390 390
Inflation factor: 1.074 1.219 1.3
wn SO
lo LU
ITEM DESCIP- DIMENSION & TYPE Original Updated FACTORS Final Original Updated FACTORS Final Original Updated FACTORS Final
TION cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost
ad T
[AUD1/7/91] [USD1999] [–] [–] [–] [USD1999] [USD1987] [USD1999] [–] [–] [–] [USD1999] [USDJan82] [USD1999] [–] [–] [–] [USD1999]
INSIDE BATTERY LIMITS

fu IO
ABS-1 Column 1.8m diameter, 33m height 80.0E+3 50.9E+3 1 1.9 1 96.6E+3 92.0E+3 108.8E+3 1 2.1 1 228.5E+3 no good data available 185E+3
Packing
ll N
19.3 m3, 50mm Pall 13.1E+3 8.3E+3 1 3.5 1 29.0E+3 13.1E+3 15.5E+3 1 1.05 1 16.3E+3 no good data available 25E+3 Garrett's data for SS.
Trays 21 × 1.8m dia., b-caps n.a. 22.1E+3 26.1E+3 1 1.9 1 49.5E+3 no good data available 50E+3
CP-1 Blower Centrifugal 6 m3.s-1 85kPa n.a. 190.0E+3 224.6E+3 1 2.5 1 561.5E+3 see below see below Garrett with MOTOR
v e ve
Blower WITH tubine 539kW N/A N/A 250.0E+3 315.3E+3 1 2.9 1 914.2E+3 see below "Gas" turbine specified
D-1 Drum 1.4 cubic metres 13.0E+3 8.3E+3 1 1.9 1 15.7E+3 n.a. no good data available 16E+3
rs rs
D-2 Drum 2.2 cubic metres 18.0E+3 11.4E+3 1 1.9 1 21.7E+3 n.a. 000.0E+0 no good data available 14E+3
D-3 Drum 12 cubic metres 30.0E+3 19.1E+3 1 1.9 1 36.2E+3 n.a. 000.0E+0 no good data available 24E+3
io io
HX-1 Column 1.8m diameter, 3m height n n 25.0E+3 15.9E+3 1 1.9 1.02 30.7E+3 8.4E+3 9.9E+3 1 2.1 1 20.8E+3 no good data available 27E+3
Packing 5.1 m3, 50mm Pall 3.4E+3 2.2E+3 1 3.5 1 7.6E+3 3.5E+3 4.1E+3 1 1.05 1 4.3E+3 no good data available 7E+3 Garrett's data for SS.
Type factor corrected by subtracting unity according to B & B
2
HX-2 s-a-t Fixed-tube, 148 m 60.0E+3 38.1E+3 1 3.5 1.05 140.2E+3 32.0E+3 37.8E+3 0.79 3.48 1.05 109.1E+3 25.0E+3 31.5E+3 1 3.85 1 121.4E+3 128E+3 Hall extrapolated
HX-3 s-a-t Fixed-tube, 131 m2 40.0E+3 25.4E+3 1 3.5 1 89.0E+3 29.0E+3 34.3E+3 0.79 3.48 1 94.2E+3 20.5E+3 25.9E+3 1 3.85 1 99.5E+3 96E+3 see RXN-2
fro W
HX-4 s-a-t Fixed-tube, 87.2 m2 18.0E+3 11.4E+3 1 3.5 1 40.1E+3 23.0E+3 27.2E+3 0.79 3.48 1 74.7E+3 17.0E+3 21.4E+3 1 3.85 1 82.5E+3 70E+3 see RXN-1
HX-5 s-a-t U-tube 180 m2 28.0E+3 17.8E+3 1 3.5 1.05 65.4E+3 36.0E+3 42.6E+3 0.85 3.48 1.05 132.1E+3 out of range 110E+3
m IT
HX-6 s-a-t Floating 75 m2 22.0E+3 14.0E+3 1 3.5 1 49.0E+3 19.0E+3 22.5E+3 1 3.48 1 78.1E+3 17.5E+0 22.1E+0 1 3.85 1 85.0E+0 51E+3
HX-7 s-a-t Floating 210 m2 41.0E+3 26.1E+3 1 3.5 1 91.2E+3 40.0E+3 47.3E+3 1 3.48 1 164.4E+3 out of range 140E+3
HX-8 s-a-t Floating 100 m2 18.0E+3 11.4E+3 1 3.5 1 40.1E+3 19.0E+3 22.5E+3 1 3.48 1 78.1E+3 20.0E+3 25.2E+3 1 3.85 1 97.1E+3 78E+3
ht HO
HX-9 fired boiler see RXN-3 (1478kW) see RXN-3 see RXN-3 see RXN-3 see below see RXN-3
2
HX-10 s-a-t Fixed-tube, 13 m 7.0E+3 4.5E+3 1 3.5 1.05 16.4E+3 5.9E+3 7.0E+3 0.79 3.48 1.05 20.1E+3 5.5E+3 6.9E+3 1 3.85 1 26.7E+3 22E+3
tp U
HX-11 coil 25mm 273 m n.a. 627.0E+0 741.2E+0 1 2.05 1 1.5E+3 n.a. 2E+3 Garrett extrapolated
3 -1
P-1A Pump-set 0.32kW 7.9 m .h 9.7m 2.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 1.0E+3 1.2E+3 1 2.0 1 2.4E+3 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 2E+3 Garrett extrapolated
:// T
P-1B Pump-set 0.32kW 7.9 m3.h-1 9.7m 2.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 1.0E+3 1.2E+3 1 2.0 1 2.4E+3 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 2E+3 All conventional, AVS
P-2A Pump-set 2.55kW 96 m3.h-1 7.1m 3.0E+3 1.9E+3 1 1.8 1 3.4E+3 2.0E+3 2.4E+3 1 2.0 1 4.7E+3 1.1E+3 1.4E+3 1 1.8 1 2.5E+3 4E+3
re E
P-2B Pump-set 2.55kW 96 m3.h-1 7.1m 3.0E+3 1.9E+3 1 1.8 1 3.4E+3 2.0E+3 2.4E+3 1 2.0 1 4.7E+3 1.1E+3 1.4E+3 1 1.8 1 2.5E+3 4E+3
P-3A Pump-set 0.22kW 3.9 m3.h-1 10.2m 2.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 1.0E+3 1.2E+3 1 2.0 1 2.4E+3 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 2E+3 All except Hall extrap'd
se M
P-3B Pump-set 0.22kW 3.9 m3.h-1 10.2m 2.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 1.0E+3 1.2E+3 1 2.0 1 2.4E+3 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 2E+3
P-4A Pump-set 2.1kW 93 m3.h-1 3.6m 2.5E+3 1.6E+3 1 1.8 1 2.9E+3 1.8E+3 2.1E+3 1 2.0 1 4.3E+3 1.2E+3 1.5E+3 1 1.8 1 2.7E+3 4E+3
ar B
P-4B Pump-set 3.0kW 135 m3.h-1 3.7m 2.6E+3 1.7E+3 1 1.8 1 3.0E+3 2.0E+3 2.4E+3 1 2.0 1 4.7E+3 1.4E+3 1.7E+3 1 1.8 1 3.1E+3 4E+3
P-5A Pump-set 2.76kW 6.2 m3.h-1 82m 2.6E+3 1.7E+3 1 1.8 1 3.0E+3 1.9E+3 2.2E+3 1 2.0 1 4.5E+3 1.3E+3 1.6E+3 1 1.8 1 3.0E+3 4E+3
P-5B Pump-set 2.76kW 6.2 m3.h-1 82m 2.6E+3 1.7E+3 1 1.8 1 3.0E+3 1.9E+3 2.2E+3 1 2.0 1 4.5E+3 1.3E+3 1.6E+3 1 1.8 1 3.0E+3 4E+3
ch ED
P-6 Pump-set 3.0kW 135 m3.h-1 3.7m 2.6E+3 1.7E+3 1 1.8 1 3.0E+3 2.0E+3 2.4E+3 1 2.0 1 4.7E+3 1.4E+3 1.7E+3 1 1.8 1 3.1E+3 4E+3 See P-4B
P-7 Pump-set 1.0kW 47 m3.h-1 3.9m 2.1E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.4E+3 1.5E+3 1.8E+3 1 2.0 1 3.5E+3 1.1E+3 1.4E+3 1 1.8 1 2.5E+3 3E+3
.d D
P-8 Pump-set 1.3kW 26 m3.h-1 13m 2.1E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.4E+3 1.6E+3 1.9E+3 1 2.0 1 3.8E+3 1.2E+3 1.5E+3 1 1.8 1 2.6E+3 3E+3
P-9A Pump-set 0.32kW 5.9 m3.h-1 10.2m 2.0E+3
iv E
1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 1.0E+3 1.2E+3 1 2.0 1 2.4E+3 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 2E+3 All except Hall extrap'd
P-9B Pump-set 0.32kW 5.9 m3.h-1 10.2m 2.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 1.0E+3 1.2E+3 1 2.0 1 2.4E+3 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 2E+3
P-10 Pump-set 0.05kW 1.2 m3.h-1 9.7m 1.5E+3 953.6E+0 1 1.8 1 1.7E+3 800.0E+0 945.8E+0 1 2.0 1 1.9E+3 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 1.8 1 2.3E+3 2E+3
All extrapolated
1.c D
RXN-1 Cat. Bed Take as 20% of HX-4 8.0E+3 14.9E+3 16.5E+3 14E+3
Take as 20% of HX-4
RXN-2 Cat. Bed Take as 20% of HX-3 17.8E+3 18.8E+3 19.9E+3 19E+3
Take as 20% of HX-3
Includes HX-9. Box
om FO
12.3 ×106 must be extrapolated
RXN-3 Burner Fired, box 3.595MW btu/h N/A 200.0E+3 236.4E+3 1 1.34 1 316.8E+3 370.0E+3 466.6E+3 1 1.8 1 839.8E+3 665E+3 (circular wouldn't req.)
Stack 15m n.a. 12.5E+3 14.8E+3 2.3 1 1 34.0E+3 n.a. 34E+3
TRB-1 Steam turbine
539kW centrifugal 3600rpm n.a. 85.0E+3 100.5E+3 1.04 2.9 1 303.1E+3 See CP-1 see below See also under CP-1
.au NT
Corresponding motor N/A / 42.0E+3 49.7E+3 1.04 2.9 1 149.8E+3 N/A see below
\ Blower + Turbine: 714.9E+3 914.2E+3 848E+3
S.
14:00, 17/10/99 1 of 2 dp_12pci.xls (PCE's)
V-1 Exp.Valve under 1 inch n.a. n.a. 1.0E+3 1.3E+3 1 2.9 1 3.7E+3 4E+3 IF h.p. butterfly (negl.)
TOTAL INSIDE BATTERY LIMITS: W 2.7E+6
ITEM DESCIP- DIMENSION & TYPE Original Updated FACTORS Final Original Updated FACTORS Final Original Updated FACTORS Final FINAL COMMENTS
TION
-R cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost VALUE
Do E
STORAGE TANKS wn SO
ST-1 tank closed 190 m3 80.0E+3 50.9E+3 1 1.9 1 96.6E+3 38.0E+3 44.9E+3 1 2.0 1 89.8E+3 Out of range 92E+3 B&B:"pressure vessels"
ST-2 tank closed 183 m3 80.0E+3 50.9E+3 1 1.9 1 96.6E+3 37.0E+3 43.7E+3 1 2.0 1 87.5E+3 Out of range 91E+3 Garrett: cone roof
ST-3 tank closed
lo LU 330 m3 130.0E+3 82.6E+3 1 1.9 1 157.0E+3 51.0E+3 60.3E+3 1 2.0 1 120.6E+3 Out of range 133E+3 (cf. ellipsoidal)
ST-4A tank closed 507 m3 170.0E+3 108.1E+3 1 1.9 1 205.3E+3 62.0E+3 73.3E+3 1 2.0 1 146.6E+3 Out of range 166E+3
ad T
ST-4B tank closed 507 m3 170.0E+3 108.1E+3 1 1.9 1 205.3E+3 62.0E+3 73.3E+3 1 2.0 1 146.6E+3 Out of range 166E+3
ST-5A tank closed 1120 m3 300.0E+3 190.7E+3 1 1.9 1 362.4E+3 90.0E+3 106.4E+3 1 2.0 1 212.8E+3 Out of range 263E+3 B&B extrapolated
ST-5B tank closed 1120 m3 300.0E+3 190.7E+3 1 1.9 1 362.4E+3 90.0E+3 106.4E+3 1 2.0 1 212.8E+3 Out of range 263E+3 B&B extrapolated
TOTAL STORAGES:
fu IO 1.2E+6
ll N
ITEM DESCIP- DIMENSION & TYPE Original Updated FACTORS Final Original Updated FACTORS Final Original Updated FACTORS Final FINAL COMMENTS
TION cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost cost cost Type Materials Pressure cost VALUE
v e ve
rs rs
BUILDINGS
io io
Canteen 60 m2 : ft2 646 n.a. 40.8E+3 48.2E+3 1 1 1 48.2E+3 n.a. 48E+3 All assumed to be
Control Room 30 m2 :
n n
ft2 323 n.a. 23.4E+3 27.7E+3 1 1 1 27.7E+3 n.a. 28E+3 equivalent (in cost) to:
Fire Shed 4 m2 : ft2 43 n.a. (Extrapolated) ---> 4.7E+3 5.5E+3 0.5 1 1 2.8E+3 n.a. 3E+3 "Office type with
Gate House 12 m2 : ft2 129 n.a. 11.3E+3 13.3E+3 0.5 1 1 6.7E+3 n.a. 7E+3 air conditioning,
fro W
Laboratory 16 m2 : ft2 172 n.a. 14.2E+3 16.7E+3 1.5 1 1 25.1E+3 n.a. 25E+3 restrooms, plaster or
Maintenance & Store 30 m2 : ft2 323 n.a. 23.4E+3 27.7E+3 1 1 1 27.7E+3 n.a. 28E+3 equivalent walls,
Medical Centre 9 m2 : ft2
m IT 97 n.a. 8.9E+3 10.6E+3 1.5 1 1 15.9E+3 n.a. 16E+3 insulation, modest
Offices & Admin. 112 m2 : ft2 1206 n.a. 67.2E+3 79.4E+3 1 1 1 79.4E+3 n.a. 79E+3 architectural features."
Religious Centre 49 m2 : ft2 527 n.a. 34.7E+3 41.0E+3 1 1 1 41.0E+3 n.a. 41E+3 EXCEPT where type
ht HO
Toilets & Showers 21 m2 : ft2 226 n.a. 17.6E+3 20.8E+3 1.5 1 1 31.2E+3 n.a. 31E+3 factors are used
TOTAL BUILDINGS: 305.6E+3
tp U
SUMMARY:
:// T
Comparison of costings Columns et cetera 292.8E+3
1.E+06
Blower & Turbine 847.8E+3
re E
Drums 54.4E+3
Heat exchangers 662.5E+3
se M
Pumps 48.5E+3
Reactors 732.6E+3 Proportion of IBL Purchased Cost of Equipment
ar B
1.E+05 Valve 3.7E+3
Total IBL: 2.6E+6 Fraction of:
Storage tanks: 1.2E+6 0.44
ch ED
Buildings: 305.6E+3 0.12 Columns et
SUM: 4.1E+6 Valve cetera
.d D
Estimated cost (USD1999)

1.E+04
Reactors 0% 11%
Proportion of "PCE"
iv E Breuer & Brennan 28%
Garrett
Buildings: Blower &
Hall et alii
7% Turbine
1.c D
Final Storage
32%
Item tanks:
1.E+03 Pumps
Column Drum s-a-t coil Pump-set Pump-set Pump-set TOTAL
StackINSIDE BATTERY LIMITS: tank tank TION Canteen
Maintenance & Store
om FO
ABS-1 D-1 HX-6 HX-11 P-3A P-5B P-9B ST-2 ST-5B
29%
2%
Heat Drums
Total IBL: 2%
exchangers
64%
.au NT
/ S. 25%
14:00, 17/10/99 2 of 2 dp_12pci.xls (PCE's)

LO
W
-R Comparison of costings
1.E+06
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
1.E+05
v e ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
Estimated cost (USD1999)

ht HO
tp U
1.E+04
Breuer & Brennan
:// T
re E
se M Garrett
Hall et alii
ar B
Final
ch ED
.d D
iv E
Item
1.E+03
1.c D
Column Drum s-a-t coil Pump-set Pump-set Pump-set Stack TOTAL tank tank TION Canteen Maintenance
ABS-1 D-1 HX-6 HX-11 P-3A P-5B P-9B INSIDE ST-2 ST-5B & Store
BATTERY
om FO
LIMITS:
.au NT
/ S.
17/10/99, 14:31 1 of 1 PCE's Chart 1
CHE4117: Design Project Formaldehyde David VERRELLI
LO
W
OPERATING & PRODUCTION COSTS: 100% capacity utilisation
-R
PRODUCT Formaldehyde
PROCESS ROUTE Production from methanol via a silver catalyst-type process, with off-gas recycle
Do E
GENERAL DATA
wn SO
VALUE UNITS COMMENTS
PLANT CAPACITY 80000 t.y-1
lo LU
CAPACITY UTILISATION 1.00 (t.y-1).(t.y-1)-1
6
FIXED CAPITAL: Inside Battery Limits 2.64 ×10 $ All "$" symbols denote USD1999. 1AUD1999 = 0.66USD1999.
ad T
FIXED CAPITAL: Outside Battery Limits 6.50 ×106 $
TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL 13.37 ×106 $
fu IO
PRODUCT SELLING PRICE
ll N 300 $.tproduct-1 "Expected" price, Freight On Board. 54%(kg.kg-1) basis.
EXPECTED ECONOMIC PLANT LIFE

ve ve 10 y Minimum value (conservative).
ANNUAL COST COST PER TONNE OF PRODUCT (54% basis)

6 -1
[×10 $.y ] [$.tproduct-1]
rs rs
PRODUCTION COST
io io
UNITS
n n UNIT COST UNIT USAGE COMMENTS
-1
[$.unit ] [unit.tproduct-1]
RAW MATERIALS From a neighbouring plant in Bontang, by pipeline.
Methanol t 100 0.6648 5.32 66.48 The unit cost is adjusted so that the minimum viable
fro W
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS 5.32 66.48 selling price equals the expected selling price.
There are two inlets streams!
m IT
UNITS UNIT COST UNIT USAGE COMMENTS
[$.unit-1] [unit.tproduct-1]
ht HO
UTILITIES
Steam t 7.92 -0.252 -0.16 -2.00 Surplus steam is exported for profit.
tp U
Nitrogen Nm3 0.198 0.000 0.00 0.00 Not required during normal operation.
Demineralised water t 1.65 1.912 0.25 3.15 20% of BFW (Streams 100, 105 and 112) + Streams 2, 33 and 41.
:// T
3
Recirculated cooling water m  t 0.0396 31.57 0.10 1.25 Streams 122, 124, 126 and 128.
Towns water t
re E
0.396 6.314 0.20 2.50 Taken as 20% of the RCW flow.
Electric power MWh 29.7 0.0271 0.06 0.81 From actual pump motor requirements (only): 19.95 kW.
se M
Natural gas GJ 2.64 0.000 0.00 0.00 Only required on start-up.
TOTAL UTILITIES COSTS 0.46 5.71 This is only 9% of the Raw Materials cost.
ar B
NUMBER COST PER "UNIT" COMMENTS
ch ED
[$.y-1]
PROCESS LABOUR
.d D
Operators per shift 2 iv E
(Hours required per day) (24)
(Days required per week) (7)
(Hours per shift) (8) (Ignoring time required during shift change-over)
1.c D
Shift teams 4
TOTAL shift operators 8 33000 0.26 3.30
om FO
TOTAL day operators 0 26400 0.00 0.00 It is assumed that all operators are on a rotating shift,
TOTAL PROCESS LABOUR WAGES .au NT 0.26 3.30 such that none are classed as "day" operators
17/10/99, 14:05
/ S. 1 of 2 dp_12op5.XLS(Op&ProdCosts100%)
LO
W
FRACTION OF TOTAL PROCESS LABOUR WAGES
-R
PAYROLL OVERHEADS 0.3 0.08 0.99 Plant is not in a highly "developed" country 0.30  0.30  0.50
Do E
FRACTION OF TOTAL FIXED CAPITAL
MAINTENANCE LABOUR 0.05 0.67 8.36 See, e.g. , BrennanI, p. 126, and cf. p. 118.
Assuming "equal division between materials and labour." See also below
wn SO
NETT "OPERATING" LABOUR COSTS
lo LU 1.01 12.65 This is 19% of the Raw Materials cost.
FRACTION OF FRACTION OF NETT

ad T
TOTAL FIXED "OPERATING"
CAPITAL LABOUR COSTS
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.05 0.67 8.36 See BrennanI, p. 118: here the two fractions sum to 0.02  0.10  0.12
fu IO
ll N The fraction is increased due to high capacity utilisation: 100% ,
and due to the corrosive process fluid (though 316SS is used) which precipitates.
OPERATING SUPPLIES  CONSUMABLE STORES 0.125 0.03 0.41 Moderately "dirty" and "complicated" process 0.05  0.13  0.20
cf. 0.0075 0.10028 1.25344 Alternative to the above 0.005  0.008  0.01
ve ve
PLANT OVERHEADS 0.4 0.11 1.32 Plant is part of a larger petrochemical complex 0.3  0.4  1.0
INSURANCE 0.015 0.20 2.51 Moderate risk 0.001  0.015  0.03
rs rs
PROPERTY TAXES 0.01 0.13 1.67 Relatively undeveloped industrial area; incentive? 0.01  0.01  0.04
io io
"BOOK" DEPRECIATION (not a cash cost)
n n 0.10 1.34 16.71 Calculated based on a 10 y plant life 0.05  0.10  0.2
TOTAL FIXED COSTS 3.49 43.63
TOTAL PRODUCTION COST FIXED 3.49 43.63

fro W
VARIABLE 5.78 72.19 Raw materials & Utilities
TOTAL 9.27 115.82 Check: Methanol makes up 57% of the total "production cost." 
m IT
NON-MANUFACTURING COSTS
FRACTION OF TOTAL PRODUCTION COST (above)
ht HO
Corporate administration 0.025 0.23 2.90 Relatively simple division; mostly central admin. 0.02  0.03  0.06
cf. Fraction of total fixed capital 0.01375 2.30 Alternative to the above 0.01  0.014  0.04
tp U
Research & Development 0.005 0.05 0.58 An established technology, largely bought into 0.00  0.01  0.05
6 -1
cf. Fraction of sales revenue 0.006 1.80 Expected sales revenue = 24 ×10 $(gr).y 0.00  0.006  0.06
:// T
Selling expenses 0.05 0.46 5.79 Relatively one major customer (contract) 0.05  0.05  0.025
re E
cf. Fraction of sales revenue 0.020 6.00 Alternative to the above 0.02  0.020  0.2
TOTAL NON-MANUFACTURING COSTS 0.74 9.27
se M
TOTAL OPERATING COST 10.01 125.08 Check: Methanol makes up 53% of the total "operating cost." 
ar B
MINIMUM PROFIT Fraction of total fixed capital = 0.20 2.67 33.43 $.tproduct-1 This is a (pseudo)-commodity ==> Profit margin not so high
ch ED
MINIMUM VIABLE SELLING PRICE
.d D 12.68 158.51 $.tproduct-1 NOTE: The expected selling price is 300 $.tproduct-1
iv E
Recall:
-1
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS 5.32 66.48 $.tproduct Which is only methanol.
1.c D
Hence:
"CONVERSION COST" 4.69 58.61 $.tproduct-1
om FO
.au NT
17/10/99, 14:05
LO
W
OPERATING & PRODUCTION COSTS TO "BREAK EVEN": 100% capacity utilisation
-R
Do E
GENERAL DATA
wn SO
lo LU
CAPACITY UTILISATION 1.00 (t.y-1).(t.y-1)-1
ad T
6
fu IO -1 -1
ll N 300 $.tproduct "Expected" price, Freight On Board. 54%(kg.kg ) basis.
EXPECTED ECONOMIC PLANT LIFE 10 y Minimum value (conservative).

ve ve
6 -1
[×10 $.y ] [$.tproduct-1]
rs rs
PRODUCTION COST
io io
UNITS
Methanol t 297.09 0.6648 15.80 197.49 The unit cost is adjusted so that the minimum viable
fro W
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS m IT 15.80 197.49 selling price equals the expected selling price.
-1
ht HO
UTILITIES
tp U
3
Nitrogen Nm 0.198 0.000 0.00 0.00 Not required during normal operation.
:// T
3
re E
Towns water t 0.396 6.314 0.20 2.50 Taken as 20% of the RCW flow.
se M
ar B
-1
ch ED
[$.y ]
PROCESS LABOUR
.d D
1.c D
Shift teams 4
om FO
17/10/99, 14:05
/ S. 1 of 2 dp_12op5.XLS(BreakEven100%)
LO
W
-R
Do E
I
MAINTENANCE LABOUR 0.05 0.67 8.36 See, e.g. , Brennan , p. 126, and cf. p. 118.
wn SO

ad T
I
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.05 0.67 8.36 See Brennan , p. 118: here the two fractions sum to 0.02  0.10  0.12
fu IO
ve ve
rs rs
io io

fro W
TOTAL 19.75 246.83 Check: Methanol makes up 80% of the total "production cost." 
m IT
ht HO
tp U
6 -1
cf. Fraction of sales revenue 0.006 1.80 Expected sales revenue = 24 ×10 $(gr).y 0.00  0.006  0.06
:// T
re E
se M
TOTAL OPERATING COST 21.33 266.58 Check: Methanol makes up 74% of the total "operating cost." 
ar B
ch ED
-1 -1
.d D 24.00 300 $.tproduct NOTE: The expected selling price is 300 $.tproduct
iv E
Recall:
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS 15.80 197.49 $.tproduct-1 Which is only methanol.
1.c D
Hence:
-1
"CONVERSION COST" 5.53 69.09 $.tproduct
om FO
.au NT
17/10/99, 14:05
LO
W
OPERATING & PRODUCTION COSTS: 60% capacity utilisation
-R
Do E
GENERAL DATA
wn SO
lo LU
CAPACITY UTILISATION 0.60 (t.y-1).(t.y-1)-1 The possibility of turndown to 60% is a required attribute.
6
ad T
fu IO
ll N 300 $.tproduct-1 "Expected" price, Freight On Board. 54%(kg.kg-1) basis.
EXPECTED ECONOMIC PLANT LIFE

ve ve 10 y Minimum value (conservative).

6 -1
[×10 $.y ] [$.tproduct-1]
rs rs
PRODUCTION COST
io io
UNITS
-1
Methanol t 100 0.6648 3.19 66.48 The unit cost is adjusted so that the minimum viable
fro W
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS 3.19 66.48 selling price equals the expected selling price.
m IT
ht HO
UTILITIES
tp U
Nitrogen Nm3 0.198 0.000 0.00 0.00 Not required during normal operation.
:// T
3
Towns water t
re E
0.396 6.314 0.12 2.50 Taken as 20% of the RCW flow.
se M
ar B
ch ED
[$.y-1]
PROCESS LABOUR
.d D
1.c D
Shift teams 4
om FO
17/10/99, 14:06
LO
W
-R
Do E
MAINTENANCE LABOUR 0.05 0.67 13.93 See, e.g. , BrennanI, p. 126, and cf. p. 118.
wn SO

ad T
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.05 0.67 13.93 See BrennanI, p. 118: here the two fractions sum to 0.02  0.10  0.12
fu IO
ve ve
rs rs
io io

fro W
TOTAL 6.96 144.90 Check: Here methanol makes up 46% of the total "production cost." 
m IT
ht HO
tp U
6 -1
cf. Fraction of sales revenue 0.006 1.80 Expected sales revenue = 14.4 ×10 $(gr).y 0.00  0.006  0.06
:// T
re E
se M
TOTAL OPERATING COST 7.51 156.49 Check: Here methanol makes up 42% of the total "operating cost." 
ar B
ch ED
.d D 10.19 212.20 $.tproduct-1 NOTE: The expected selling price is 300 $.tproduct-1
iv E
Recall:
-1
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS 3.19 66.48 $.tproduct Which is only methanol.
1.c D
Hence:
"CONVERSION COST" 4.32 90.02 $.tproduct-1
om FO
.au NT
17/10/99, 14:06
LO
W
OPERATING & PRODUCTION COSTS TO "BREAK EVEN": 60% capacity utilisation
-R
Do E
GENERAL DATA
wn SO
lo LU
CAPACITY UTILISATION 0.60 (t.y-1).(t.y-1)-1 The possibility of turndown to 60% is a required attribute.
ad T
6
fu IO -1 -1
ll N 300 $.tproduct "Expected" price, Freight On Board. 54%(kg.kg ) basis.

ve ve
6 -1
[×10 $.y ] [$.tproduct-1]
rs rs
PRODUCTION COST
io io
UNITS
Methanol t 222.30 0.6648 7.09 147.77 The unit cost is adjusted so that the minimum viable
fro W
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS m IT 7.09 147.77 selling price equals the expected selling price.
-1
ht HO
UTILITIES
tp U
3
Nitrogen Nm 0.198 0.000 0.00 0.00 Not required during normal operation.
:// T
3
re E
Towns water t 0.396 6.314 0.12 2.50 Taken as 20% of the RCW flow.
se M
ar B
-1
ch ED
[$.y ]
PROCESS LABOUR
.d D
1.c D
Shift teams 4
om FO
17/10/99, 14:07
LO
W
-R
Do E
I
MAINTENANCE LABOUR 0.05 0.67 13.93 See, e.g. , Brennan , p. 126, and cf. p. 118.
wn SO

ad T
I
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.05 0.67 13.93 See Brennan , p. 118: here the two fractions sum to 0.02  0.10  0.12
fu IO
ve ve
rs rs
io io

fro W
TOTAL 10.86 226.20 Check: Here methanol makes up 65% of the total "production cost." 
m IT
ht HO
tp U
6 -1
cf. Fraction of sales revenue 0.006 1.80 Expected sales revenue = 14.4 ×10 $(gr).y 0.00  0.006  0.06
:// T
re E
se M
TOTAL OPERATING COST 11.73 244.29 Check: Here methanol makes up 60% of the total "operating cost." 
ar B
ch ED
-1 -1
.d D 14.40 300 $.tproduct NOTE: The expected selling price is 300 $.tproduct
iv E
Recall:
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS COSTS 7.09 147.77 $.tproduct-1 Which is only methanol.
1.c D
Hence:
-1
"CONVERSION COST" 4.63 96.52 $.tproduct
om FO
.au NT
17/10/99, 14:07
LO
W
WORKING CAPITAL: 80000t.y-1 plant with 100% capacity utilisation
-R
Do E
GENERAL DATA
wn SO
-1
PLANT CAPACITY 80000 t.y All based on a solution of equivalent conc'n 54% by mass.
-1 -1 -1
CAPACITY UTILISATION 1.00 (t.y ).(t.y ) Assumed to be "normal" operation.
lo LU 6
6
ad T
6
-1
PRODUCT SELLING PRICE 300 $.tproduct "Expected" price, Freight On Board. 54%(kg.kg-1) basis.
fu IO
ll N
RAW MATERIAL STOCKS
INVENTORY UNIT USAGE UNIT COST VALUE COMMENTS
ve ve
-1 -1 6
[weeks] [t.tproduct ] [$.t ] [×10 $]
TOTAL = Methanol 0.43 0.6583 100 0.043 From a neighbouring plant in Bontang, by pipeline, with small storage tank.
rs rs
io io
MATERIALS IN PROGRESS INVENTORY
INVENTORY UNIT VALUE VALUE COMMENTS
n n
[weeks of production] [t] [$.t-1] [×106 $]
TOTAL 1.0 1276 104 0.133 This low value may still be conservative for such a "short" process.
Take "unit value" as average between product and (mean) raw materials
fro W
Tonnes composed of average of {contributions from each raw material} and {product}
PRODUCT STOCKS
m IT
INVENTORY PRODUCT CASH COST VALUE COMMENTS
[weeks] [$.t-1] [×106 $]
TOTAL = 54% formaldehyde solution 0.57 108.37 0.095 By pipeline to neighbouring resins plant, with moderate storage.
ht HO
*NOTE: valued at "cash operating cost " (no depreciation!)
tp U
SUB-TOTAL (process materials) 0.272
:// T
DEBTORS
PERIOD PRODUCT SELLING PRICE VALUE COMMENTS
re E
[weeks] [$.t-1] [×106 $]
TOTAL = Customers 6 300 2.769 Assume monthly payments (every ~ 4 weeks)
se M
*Using the expected price NOTE: Other debtors exist (e.g. insurance, et cetera), but are not considered here
SUB-TOTAL (debtors) 2.769
ar B
CREDITORS
ch ED
PERIOD COST PER TONNE OF PRODUCTVALUE COMMENTS
[weeks] [$.tproduct-1] [×106 $]
.d D
RAW MATERIALS 6 66.48 (0.614) Monthly payments assumed (every ~ 4 weeks)
iv E
UTILITIES 6 5.71 (0.053) Monthly payments assumed (every ~ 4 weeks)
WAGES 1.5 12.65 (0.029) "Paid, say on average, 1.5 weeks in arrears" - Brennan, p. 90
1.c D
NOTE: Other creditors exist (e.g. "operating supplies"), but are not considered here
SUB-TOTAL (creditors) (0.696)
om FO
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL 2.345 = {Process materials} + {Debtors} - {Creditors}
.au NT
17/10/99, 14:08
/ S. 1 of 1 dp_12op5.XLS(WorkingCap)
W Cash flows Note: Basis is USD 1999 and 54% formaldehyde solution (by mass).
-R All cash flows in millions of USD1999.
Calendar year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Do E
Year number 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Fixed capital -13.37

wn SO
Working capital lo LU -1.88 -0.23 -0.23 2.35
Sales volume [t.y-1] 0 60000 72000 80000 80000 80000 80000 80000 80000 80000 80000 0
ad T
Selling price [USD1999.t-1] 300
Sales revenue 0 18 21.6 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0
fu IO
Variable cost [USD1999.t-1]*
ll N
72.19
Variable costs 0 -4.33 -5.20 -5.78 -5.78 -5.78 -5.78 -5.78 -5.78 -5.78 -5.78 0
ve ve
Fixed costs‡ 0 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 -2.89 0
rs rs
CASH FLOW BEFORE TAX 0 10.77 13.51 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 15.33 0
io io
n n
Investment allowance† 0
Tax depreciation rate 10%
fro W
Tax depreciation allowance m IT 0 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 0
Taxable income 0 9.44 12.17 13.99 13.99 13.99 13.99 13.99 13.99 13.99 13.99 0
Tax rate 30%
ht HO
Tax payments¶ tp U 0 -2.83 -3.65 -4.20 -4.20 -4.20 -4.20 -4.20 -4.20 -4.20 -4.20 0
CASH FLOW AFTER TAX -15.25 7.71 9.62 11.13 11.13 11.13 11.13 11.13 11.13 11.13 11.13 2.35
:// T
CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW AFTER TAX
re E
• DISCOUNT RATE = 0% 0 -15.25 -7.54 2.08 13.22 24.35 35.48 46.61 57.75 68.88 80.01 91.14 93.49
se M
• DISCOUNT RATE = 5% ar B0 -15.25 -7.90 0.82 10.44 19.60 28.32 36.63 44.54 52.07 59.25 66.08 67.46
• DISCOUNT RATE = 10% 0 -15.25 -8.24 -0.29 8.08 15.68 22.59 28.88 34.59 39.78 44.50 48.80 49.62
• DISCOUNT RATE = 20% 0 -15.25 -8.82 -2.14 4.30 9.67 14.14 17.87 20.98 23.57 25.73 27.52 27.84
ch ED
.d D
• DISCOUNT RATE = 62% 0 -15.25
iv E -10.47 -6.79 -4.15 -2.52 -1.50 -0.88 -0.49 -0.25 -0.10 -0.01 0.00
(annual) 1.c D
* All non-manufacturing costs are assumed to be fixed. We assume all tax is paid in the same year (no delay)
-1
‡ This therefore 125.08 – 72.19 – 16.71§ USD1999.t . We assume production is 75% in the first year, 90% in the following year and 100% thereafter.
om FO
§ This is book depreciation. We assume all fixed capital is disbursed in "year zero", along with 80% of the working capital,
† This is assumed to be zero. with the remainder distributed equally over the following two years, with full recovery.
¶ No tax is paid on the working capital recovered, after Brennan. Tax rate estimated at 30%, slightly lower than the 36% corporate rate in Australia.
.au NT
 Similarly, this does not include the working (or fixed) capital. / S.
13:56, 17/10/99 1 of 1 dp_12cf3.xls (CashFlows-Table)
Formaldehyde
Acknowledgements
S.
Just a quick word to all my friends and colleagues that did not get a mention in the Preface – sorry, but I couldn’t
list e v er yo ne !
.au NT
A couple of people not mentioned so far who deserve some recognition:
om FO
Mr. Andrew Sahely for his insightful and helpful answers to my several questions;
Mrs. Zong Li Xie for providing access to her report of 1998;
/
Dr. Sanjay Mahajani for suggesting the incredibly helpful source of patents;
the civil fourth year students who gave access to their binding machine;
1.c D
and finally due recognition of Mr. Saiful Zainal Abidin for patiently and diligently working by my side through
iv E
the work on the HYSIM program, including weekends and after hours.
.d D
Finally, just because you weren’t mentioned, don’t (necessarily) mean you don’t mean anything to me!
ch ED
ar B
se M
re E
:// T
tp U
ht HO
m IT
fro W
n n
io io
rs rs
ve ve
ll N
fu IO
ad T
lo LU
wn SO
Do E
-R
W
LO
12:30
18/10/99
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-
Do RE
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-
Do RE
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.
LO
W
-R
Do E
wn SO
lo LU
ad T
fu IO
ll N
ve ve
rs rs
io io
n n
fro W
m IT
ht HO
tp U
:// T
re E
se M
ar B
ch ED
.d D
iv E
1.c D
om FO
.au NT
/ S.

Siri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M O N A S H U N I V E R S I T Y

F ORMALDEHYDE FROM M ETHANOL

Author: David VERRELLI

Monash Identification Number: 11911603

Group Members: Ho Hai HUYNH

Saiful ZAINAL ABIDIN

Date Submitted: Monday, 18th October 1999

© The Author, 1999

Melbourne, 18th October, 1999.

13:38 page iii

2·2·4 Other Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 2-2

2·3·1 Methanol Feedstock ......................................................................................................................... 2-2

2·4 UTILITIES PROVIDED ........................................................................................................................ 2-3

2·5 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................... 2-3

2·6 TERMINAL POINTS ............................................................................................................................ 2-3

3 PROCESS SYNTHESIS AND FLOWSHEET DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 3-1

3·1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ‘SILVER CATALYST PROCESSES’ ........................................................ 3-1

3·1·1 Reactor ............................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3·1·3 Vaporiser & mixer ............................................................................................................................ 3-3

3·1·4 Absorber ........................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3·2·2 Without distillation ........................................................................................................................... 3-5

3·2·4 Additions .......................................................................................................................................... 3-7

3·3 SEPARATION ....................................................................................................................................... 3-9

3·4·1 Introduction to recycling philosophy ................................................................................................ 3-9

3·5 PROCESS INTEGRATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY ................................................................ 3-9

3·6 ECONOMIC, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ 3-12

5·3·2 Verification....................................................................................................................................... 5-6

5·4·1 Property package .............................................................................................................................. 5-7

5·4·4 Sensitivity analysis ........................................................................................................................... 5-9

5·4·5 Failings of the simulation ............................................................................................................... 5-10

5·5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 5-11

6 SPECIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT ITEMS ......................................................................... 6-1

6·1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIFICATION SHEETS ...................................................................... 6-1

6·1·1 Flowrates .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6·1·4 Power requirements: Pumps and Blower ......................................................................................... 6-1

6·1·5 Volumes ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6·1·8 Reaction ............................................................................................................................................ 6-2

6·1·11 Quantity ............................................................................................................................................ 6-3

6·2 SPECIFICATION SHEETS................................................................................................................... 6-3

7 DETAILED DESIGN OF FORMALDEHYDE ABSORBER................................................. 7-1

7·1·3 Vapour pressures .............................................................................................................................. 7-7

10 PARALLEL STREAMING............................................................................................................. 10-1

10·1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 10-1

10·1·2 Definition of parallel streaming ...................................................................................................... 10-1

10·2 CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 10-2

10·2·1 Cost ................................................................................................................................................ 10-2

10·2·3 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................... 10-6

10·3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................. 10-8

10·4 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 10-8

11 PLANT LAYOUT ..................................................................................................................... 11-1

11·1 PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................................................... 11-1

11·1·2 Philosophy ...................................................................................................................................... 11-1

11·2·2 Storages .......................................................................................................................................... 11-3

11·2·3 Processing plant .............................................................................................................................. 11-3

11·3 AREA REQUIRED .............................................................................................................................. 11-4

12 ECONOMIC EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 12-1

13:36 page vii

12·1·1 Definition of boundaries ................................................................................................................. 12-1

“A” (BEFORE HAZOP)

“C” (AFTER HAZOP)