Practical Aspects of Dividing Wall Columns

With the emphasis on doing more with less (aka Process Intensification) over the past several
years, dividing wall columns have become a mainstream tool for separations. In the appropriate
circumstances, dividing wall designs can provide substantial savings on both capital costs and
energy consumption. Todays state of dividing wall technology is summed up nicely by Dr.
Hartmut Schoenmakers of TU Dortmund, the choice of a dividing wall column for a
separation task is a question of readiness for decision making, its not really a risk, neither for
construction nor for operation..
This paper will try to put dividing wall technology and its application into practical terms, namely:

Why Use It
When to Use It
How to Use It

Background
The concept of thermally coupled columns or a single column with a dividing wall is not new.
Internally partitioned columns have been around for nearly 100 years.1Todays divided wall
column technology is actually the combination of a thermally coupled process design with a
mechanical dividing wall configuration.
The idea of thermally coupled columns was described by Brugma in a patent issued in 1942.2
This patent shows one configuration with three shorter columns producing 4 products (see
Figure 1) and another configuration with three taller columns producing 8 products. The patent
text also specifically estimates a 25% savings in fuel and cooling water with this arrangement.

Figure 1: Brugma Patent Image Showing Thermally Coupled Columns

A few years later, Wright patented what is essentially the Brugma thermally coupled
configuration physically contained solely within one column by using a dividing wall.3 This is
shown in Figure 2. Generally speaking, the designs of Wright and Brugma have the same
thermodynamics simply with a different mechanical configuration. The Wright design is a true
dividing wall column processas we currently envision it. Interestingly, Wrights patent text
specifically claims improvements in product purity as well as savings for capital expenditures,
but does not address energy savings. So apparently, energy savings was possibly unknown to
Wright, but more likely was that it was just not a primary consideration at that time.

Figure 2: Wrights Dividing Wall Column

While the refining and chemical industries were growing quickly during the 20th century, designs
were made with slide rules and plenty of design safety. Although this could be considered
wasteful to some extent, looking at how these industries expanded, its clear that very little of
that overdesign actually went to waste. However, in the last 30 years, the incentive to focus on
energy savings is much more prevalent, resulting in the increased use of divided wall columns.
During the 1980s BASFstarted a concerted interest in and investment in dividing wall columns
with other end user companies like BP, ExxonMobil, Sasol, and Dow following suit.4Today,
there are well over 100 dividing wall columns in operation with many more in planning and
design stages.
Why use a Dividing Wall Column?
Reason #1: Reduced Capital Expenditure:A conventional process that requires the separation
of more than two components needs more than one column to complete this process. If there
are N components, then a column series to separate all the components individually will require

N-1 columns. Because the word columns tends to indicate a discrete vessel, a more precise
terminology would be to replace the word columns with separations. Dividing wall
technology allows us to conduct more than one separation within a single vessel. Although
the number of separations required within a process will not change, dividing wall technology
does reduce the number of columns physically required. For new installations, this means a
lower capital expenditure. For revamps, if another product draw is required, it is possible to
transform an existing conventional column into a dividing wall design and eliminate the need for
a new column as well as other ancillary equipment.
Reason #2: Reduced Energy Usage: As mentioned above, the Brugma patent text estimates a
duty savings of 25%. Both theory and practice tend to support that number. Some estimates
for energy savings are as high as 45%. The potential energy saving is based on the innate
thermal inefficiencies of conventional separation configurations. This is more easily understood
looking at the comparative configurations shown below in Figures 3-5. Figure 3 is a direct
sequence conventional configuration. Here the light component is separated first in the left
column, then the two heavier components are separated in right column.

Figure 3: Direct Sequence

Figure 4 shows a thermally coupled design where an AB mixture leaves the top of the left
prefractionator column and a BC mixture leaves the bottom. These two mixtures are then
separated into A, B, and C in the right column which requires a side draw.

Figure 4: Thermally Coupled (Petlyuk) Sequence

Figure 5 has essentially the same process configuration as Figure 4. The difference is that this
process is conducted in a single column with a dividing wall.

Figure 5: Dividing Wall Column

Looking at thermal inefficiency, the problem with the configuration shown in Figure 3 above is
that its inherently inefficient. This is shown below in Figure 6. This graph, described originally
in more detail by Schultz5, shows the concentration of the middle boiling component
(Component B) in the first column. In this ideal depiction, pure Component A leaves the top of
the column and the concentration of Component B increases going down the column. The
efficiency problem occurs where the composition of B is maximized in the lower of the column
but then is diluted with C prior to leaving the bottom of the column with the BC mixture. Energy
was spent to separate Components B & C and then they were recombined. This waste of
energy can be avoided. With the Petlyuk and dividing wall configurations, the primary (and
easier) separation is between Component A and Component C, leading to a lower energy
requirement.

Figure 6: Middle Component B Concentration Versus Along Column Elevation

When to use a Dividing Wall Column

The primary advantages, discussed above, are the lower capital cost and lower energy usage
which are obviously desirable benefits. Generally speaking, we should then want to use
dividing wall technology whenever possible. So to understand when to properly use a dividing
wall column, the engineer must better understand when not to use one.
A dividing wall design does have limitations that need to be understood. From a process
standpoint, the combined separations must operate at a single operating pressure and the
pressure drop of the internals within the two sides must, by definition, be equal. The desired
operating temperatures of the two sides must also be comparable.
As with any column design, the temperature/pressure profile is defined by the available cooling
and heating sources. The top temperature is often defined by a cooling water temperature and
the top pressure is set to whatever level is needed to condense the proper distillate

composition. The bottom pressure is equal to the pressure of the overhead condenser
equipment plus column internals pressure drop. The bottoms temperature is then set at
whatever level is necessary to obtain the proper bottoms composition at the existing bottoms
pressure. Since a dividing wall column is effecting two separations with some physical
communication between, the operational window for temperature and pressure has to be
suitable for both separations.
It should also be understood that different heating and cooling media are available at different
costs. Potentially, a dividing wall application may require a greater use of a more expensive
heating source (e.g. high pressure steam versus lower pressure steam) or a more expensive
cooling source (e.g. a refrigerated source versus ambient cooling water). In this case, even
though the overall energy usage may be lower, the actual operating cost could be higher than
expected and even higher than a conventional two column design.
Currently, dividing wall columns are overwhelmingly used with a classic ABC three component
(ternary) separation where A is the light product, B is the middle product and C is the bottoms
product. The range of processes using these applications is quite wide. The most beneficial
case for a dividing wall column comes when at least 50% of the feed stream is made of the
middle Component B and the A and C component proportions are generally equal. Looking
back at Figure 6 which shows the energy lost for overfractionating component B in a two
column system, it becomes obvious that the greater the amount of component B, the more
energy can be saved by avoiding this loss by using a dividing wall column. Taking this to the
extreme, with no B component, the second separation is totally unnecessary and therefore a
dividing wall brings no benefit.

How to Use Dividing Wall Column Technology

After finding a potential application for a dividing wall column, the most important thing is to
properly model the process to verify the expected performance. Because the dividing wall
column design introduces additional degrees of freedom, it requiresa multi-variable solution.This
can be done with brute trial and error but it is a rather daunting task. Therefore a variety of
shortcut methods have been developed to more quickly obtain practical solutions. Nguyen lists
a summary of shortcuts available for designs along with extensive descriptions of the
methods.6Note that these shortcut methods dont provide an actual optimized solution but rather
provide a practical starting point for rigorous process simulations.
Two of the more interesting methods found in literature are the use of V-Min Diagrams and the
use of Response Surface Methodology.7,8 V-Min Diagrams, presented by Halvorsen et al,
fundamentally use the Underwood method to find the minimum reflux value with infinite stages
to calculate the minimum vapor rate needed to perform the most difficult separation. Although
this value can never be decreased, other flows within the column can be adjusted to optimize
the design without increasing energy usage, provided that they do not exceed the previously
established minimum required vapor rate. So this method gives the designer the ideal outcome
for energy usage while allowing them flexibility to adjust the column design to increase
operability. For instance, one factor that usually is adjusted is the liquid split within the column.
The final design will still need to be determined with a series of process simulations.

The Response Surface Methodology presented by Long and Lee is very interesting. For a
classic ternary system, the method calculates the effect of 5 overall variables. They are
compared one directly versus the other as well asversus the total annual cost (annualized
capital cost plus the annual energy cost)for the columnoperation. Resulting are 10 sets of three
dimensional graphs that are combined to form a complex 2nd order polynomial cost function.
This function is then used to find the ideal operating point for the dividing wall column as well as
calculating the cost of varying from this point. The method requires a substantial amount of
different process simulations (46 in this case) to generate all the curves and requires the use of
sophisticated mathematical software. However, this work requirement is vastly lower than the
nearly one million calculations needed to solve this problem simply with brute force. The
example provided by Long states that the response surface methodology produced a design
with 45% savings versus a conventional design whereas only a 37% savings was found when
evaluating the variables individually. It appears there certainly is merit with using this method.

Revamp Considerations
A new grass roots project is an ideal opportunity for a dividing wall column since all the
equipment and utilities can be designed to take maximum advantage of the dividing wall
capabilities. However, revamps canbe attractive as well for a few reasons. First, it is possible
to transform a conventional column into a dividing wall column by adding a dividing wall and the
appropriate side draw(s). But dividing wall columns are almost always taller (needing more
stages) and larger in diameter (needing enough cross-sectional area to provide capacity for two
adjacent process separations). In some cases, the availability of high performance trays,
packing, and internals will provide both more efficiency and capacity simultaneously. But most
often, the column shell itself will need to be modified or replaced. Figure 7 shows a trayed
design with an off-center baffle.

Figure 7: Sulzer Off-Center Diving Wall Tray Design

In some cases, especially with smaller diameter columns, the best solution is to simply cut a
column and install a complete dividing wall column section in the middle (see Figure 8). In other
cases, the best option is to completely remove the existing column and install an entirely new
dividing wall column. Regardless of which method is being considered, a thorough economic
evaluation is mandatory to determine the most cost effective solution.

Figure 8: Sulzer Dividing Wall Column Segment

Commercial Experience
As seen in Table 1, Sulzer has experience with over 50 dividing wall columns operating globally.
In these cases, Sulzer has been involved in the supply of internals and/or the design of these
columns with diameters ranging from 40 to 5700 mm.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

Column ID (mm)
213
884
884
1994
Pilot column
4500
Pilot column
43
65
2000
1600
1500
2200
2400
2000
4400
5600
220
3800
1600
4700
4500
2200
4400
2700
1524
450
267
5700
5300
2000
3300
1400
3300
500
2000
4000
4200
3300
4400
5700
5300
2000
4500
4600
2900
2800
1600
2100
4300
4000
3600
2743

Year
1984
1986
1992
1997
1998
1998
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2011
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2015
2016
2016

Packing / Tray
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Trays
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Trays
Packing
Packing
Trays
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Trays
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Trays
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Trays
Trays
Packing
Packing
Packing
Trays
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Trays
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing
Packing

Table 1: Sulzer Dividing Wall Columns

Region
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Africa
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
South-America
Europe
North-America
North-America
Asia
Africa
Europe
Asia
Europe
Europe
Europe
Asia
Asia
Europe
North-America
Europe
Europe
Asia
Asia
Asia
Asia
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Asia
Asia
Europe
Asia
Middle East
Middle East
Middle East
Europe
Europe
Europe
Asia
Asia
Asia
Asia
Asia
Europe
North-America

Looking Forward
Dividing wall column designs are becoming more practical and reliable to design due to new
design methods, controls, and operating experience. Design methods now exist to effectively
separate more than three components. Some of these multi-side draw columns are in operation
now. As for the wall designs, Yildirimdiscusses columns with a variety of wall designs.9 These
designs include horizontally offset walls, multiple and vertically split walls, and radially oriented
walls. These options are available to fine tune column performances even further. Another
interesting process application is for the use of dividing wall technology in conjunction with
reactive distillation. One example for methyl acetate hydrolysis using Sulzer KatapakTM
structured packing is presented in detail by Sander.10 Testing shows that this configuration can
successfully be used where the reactive distillation product is the intermediate boiler.
In the appropriate process circumstances, dividing wall columns are simply a smarter way to
separatecomponent fractions in a known energy intensive process. Currently, there is more
than enough know-how to confidently push farther forward in this area. In coming years, this
expertise and realized plant savings will only continue to grow.

Bibliography
1. Luster, E.W., Apparatus for Fractionating Cracked Products, U.S. Patent 1,915,681;
June 27, 1933
2. Brugma, A.J., Process and Device for Fractional Distillation of Liquid Mixtures, More
Particularly Petroleum, U.S. Patent 2,295,256; September 8, 1942
3. Wright, R.O., Fractionation Apparatus, U.S. Patent 2,471,134; May 24, 1949
4. Pendergast, J.G., D. Vickery, P. Au-Yeung, and J. Anderson, Consider Dividing Wall
Columns, Chemical Processing, December 2008
5. Schultz, M.A., D.G. Stewart, J.M. Harris, S.P. Rosenblum, M.S. Shakur, and D.E.
OBrien, Reducing Costs with Dividing-Wall Columns, Chemical Engineering Progress,
pp. 64-71, May 2002
6. Nguyen, M.T.G., Conceptual Design, Simulation and Experimental Validation of Divided
Wall Column: Application for Nonreactive and Reactive Mixture, Thesis, INP Toulouse,
January 2015
7. Halvorsen, I.J., S. Skogestad, I. Dejanovic, L. Matijasevic, and Z. Olujic, Multi-Product
Dividing Wall Columns: A Simple and Effective Assessment and Conceptual Design
Procedure, Chemical Engineering Translations, 25, pp. 611-616, 2001
8. Long, N.V.D and M.Y. Lee, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 37, pp. 119-124,
2012
9. Yildirim, ., A.A. Kiss, and E.Y. Kenig, Dividing Wall Columns in Chemical Process
Industry: A Review on Current Activities, Separation and Purication Technology, 80,
pp. 403-417, 2011

10. Sander, Stefan, C. Flisch, E. Geissler, H. Schoenmakers, O. Ryll, and H. Hasse,Methyl

Acetate Hydrolysis in a Reactive Divided Wall Column,Symposium Series 152, IChemE
2006