Benefits and Consequences

Group C

Submitted to
Eng. Ibrahim Mekky
Eng. Ahmed Abdel-Sattar
 Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Pacol Stripper function.
1.2. Pacol stripper Operating Costs.

2. Summary
2.1. Optimization criteria.

3. Discussion
3.1. Simulation Model.
3.2. Stream analysis comparison and distillation efficiency.
3.3. Beyond energy saving

4. Conclusions and recommendations.

5. Appendices.

5.1. Aspen hsysy stripper modeling report – normal operation.

5.2. Aspen hsysy stripper modeling report – optimized.
5.3. HTRI report for 400-A1 – normal operation.
5.4. HTRI report for 400-A1 – Optimized.
5.5. UOP spread sheet and design data .
 1. Introduction
1.1. Pacol Stripper function
The stripper column is a 30 sieve tray column with feed put in the 20th tray. The
column heat input is a thermosiphon horizontal shell & tube type hot oil reboiler
(400- E6).
The column bottoms, paraffins and olefins, are pumped to the PEP (Pacol
Enhancement Process) Unit by the Product Stripper Bottoms Pumps (400-P7A/B).
The column was designed and functioned to remove light components (i.e.
components lighter than C6) - overhead product gases- and a limited range of
heavier components (C9 & C10) - overhead liquid-to control the product Lab within
required limits.
The column has an air cooler condenser and a horizontal thermosyphon reboiler
with heating media of 7 kg/cm2(g) hot oil.

The top product purity is maintained by reflux which is flow controlled while the
bottom product purity is maintained by reboiler duty which controls the bottom
temperature and consequently the separation limit.
The stripper design operating data are listed in the following table:

Condition units Design value Actual operating value

2
Top Pressure Kg / cm 2.11 2.1
Bottom Temperature ˚C 265 257
Feed rate M3 / hr 97.8 120.5
Reflux Rate M3 / hr 18 17.5
Reboiler duty Gcal / hr 3.55 3.61
Reboiler temperature range ˚C 38 43.3
Hot Oil Flow Rate M3 / hr 148.2 135
Air cooler Duty Gcal / hr 1.816 0.984
Operating Cost $/ Year 603,845.33 613,096.45
1.2. Pacol Stripper Operating Costs “detailed”

Condition units value

Reboiler Operating Costs $ / Year 556,609.19
Air Coolers Operating costs $ / Year 1438
Losses Costs $ / Year 55,049.26
Total Operating Cost $ / Year 613,096.45

 Based on energy cost of 4.5 $ / MMBtu.

 Operating data was gathered a year before the optimization date , 339 days
were included .
 Averaged data doesn’t include all shutdown periods and days at which
laboratory samples weren’t available.
 2. Summary
2.1.General Overview:
Energy reduction in chemical processes is necessary to sustain cost effective
production and manage capacity in an ever changing marketplace, especially given
the volatility in feedstock and energy costs.
Good energy management helps maximize plant profitability. This study details
how these objectives can be met through the use of simulation software.

2.2. Project Objective

The main objective of the simulation modelling was to find out the energy
reduction potential in the stripper column without any capital investment.

2.3. Methodology

The methodology followed in this study is outlined below.

1. Selection of model from Aspen Hysys for distillation column.
2. Selection of property method.
3. Validation of property method based on actual and design conditions.
4. Preparation of distillation column model.
5. Validation of the model based on actual conditions and stream specifications.
6. Fine tuning of the model based on present operating parameters.
7. Sensitivity analysis.
8. . Trial plan based on optimized model.
9. Analysis.
10. Conclusion.

Aspen Hysys simulation software is used for steady state simulation. For the
purpose of optimization study.
Peng Robinson was selected as a property method and it was validated based on
property data prediction by the method and by comparing the same with the actual
Laboratory analysis, operating pressure and temperature.
The following parameters were matched with actual column conditions:

a. Temperature profile along the column.

b. Condenser and reboiler duties.
c. Reflux and Hot Oil flow.
d. Top and bottom products composition.
Case study and sensitivity analysis were then performed to understand the effect
of various variables like column pressure, reflux ratio, etc., without
compromising the top and bottom product specifications.
It was concluded from the simulation study that it is possible to reduce the
column pressure from 2.1 Kg/cm2(g) to 1.95 Kg/cm2(g) without compromising
product quality.
The tray ratings were done by specifying the existing geometry of sieve trays,
and the flooding tendency was evaluated in various sections of the column.
Simulation results showed that the column can be operated at 72.2% of normal
operating reboiler duty.
. Benefits and Conclusions
The stripper column top pressure was optimized from 2.1 Kg/cm2(g) to 2.0
Kg/cm2(g) which lead to a reduction of energy in the reboiler of around 35 m3/hr
of hot oil (35384 kg/hr @ S.T.P conditions).
This was translated into energy savings of 0.48 GCal/hr, resulting in economic
benefits of 74,000 $ per annum without any capital investment.
 Based on fuel price of 4.5 $ / MMBtu (17.85 $ / GCal).
 3. Discussion
3.1.Simulation model
Stripper column was simulated using ASPEN HYSYS according to design and
actual operating conditions.
The main purpose is to determine the extension of the optimization study at which
column products deviate of the earlier specified parameters.
Feed composition to the column was predicted by mixing the column products
samples analysis (400-SN06),(400-SN08),(400-SN09),this way was found to be
more accurate and easier for the simulation matrix solution.

The key parameter of the optimization study is the column top pressure which was
reduced gradually though the simulation environment considering the reboiler duty
as inactive parameter and monitoring the effect of the pressure reduction on the
bottom temperature.
Before starting to reduce the top pressure the column was optimized at the normal
operating conditions and reboiler duty was evaluated to be operated 12.5 % over the
required for the products specifications.

At the reduced column top pressure, reflux and other parameters were modified to
achieve the best operating point then reboiler duty was recalculated to determine the
corresponding utility (hot oil) flow rate.

Laboratory samples analysis was collected for 339 days before optimization first
trial, normalized and compared with the after optimization results.
Air cooler duty was calculated through simulation model then recalculated using
HTRI for more accuracy and detailedly.
Simulation Model of PACOL Stripper Column
3.2. Stream analysis comparison and distillation efficiency.
The following table illustrates the weight percent of n-C10 and O-C10 in liquid
overhead sample (400-SN09) and the weight percent of n-C9 and O-C9 in the
bottom product sample (400-SN06) though 339 days before the trial, starting from
1st of January 2016 to the first optimization trial date 21st of December 2016, each
month was averaged and listed, finally the annual average was calculated.

400-SN09 400-SN06
Month / Component n-C10 O-C10 n-C9 O-C9
Jan-2016 4.57 1.05 0.07 0.05
Feb-2016 2.65 1.38 0.05 0.05
Mar-2016 1.88 1.31 0.06 0.05
Apr-2016 3.62 1.42 0.05 0.05
May-2016 0.70 1.11 0.06 0.05
Jun-2016 0.88 0.77 0.09 0.05
Jul-2016 0.56 0.96 0.06 0.05
Aug-2016 1.91 1.14 0.09 0.05
Sep-2016 0.25 0.88 0.06 0.05
Oct-2016 0.26 0.77 0.06 0.05
Nov-2016 0.50 0.67 0.06 0.05
Dec-2016 0.21 0.47 0.12 0.05
Annual average 1.5 1.0 0.07 0.05
Optimized Period 0.46 0.40 0.14 0.05

400-SN09 analysis:
Analysis showed that n-C10 content in the overhead liquid product is within design
range and acceptable additionally it was the 4th lowest value over the year and less
than half of the annual average.
Either O-C10 weight percent is normal and is the least value of the year.
Generally, it is no additional losses considered and the product specifications are
within design and usual limits.
400-SN06 analysis:
Analysis showed that n-C9 content in the bottom product is within design range and
acceptable although it was higher than the annual average.
Either it n-C9 was higher than annual average over 20 days before the pressure
reduction so it is expected to retain its normal value shortly.
O-C9 weight percent is normal and is the least value of the year.
Generally, O-C9 weight percent is normal and is the least value of the year, the
bottom product specifications are accepted and it is no effect on the LAB molecular
weight.
Laboratory Samples analysis
n-C10 O-C10

1.8

1.6

1.4
Weight Percent , wt%

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

Day of Operation , Day

400-SN09 analysis during December,2016

LAB Mol. Wt (600-SN013).

Mol. Wt.

241.2

241
Weight Percent , Wt%

240.8

240.6

240.4

240.2

240

239.8

239.6

239.4

Days of Operation , day

LAB Molecular Weight, 600-SN013

3.3. Optimization results and annual saving estimation.
3.3.1. Bottom reboiler (400-E6) Optimization:
Due to pressure reduction the heat required to evaporate the light material in the
stripper feed declined, earlier before starting the optimization through pressure
reduction a preliminary adjustment was accomplished to optimize the heating duty
of the reboiler even though operating the column with relatively high top pressure.
The first step was to reduce the heating duty of the reboiler by 12.5% without any
change of the normal operation top pressure of (2.1 kg / cm2).
The previous adjustment can be better described as a reflux ratio optimization step.

Next the column top pressure was reduced gradually according to the past
simulation data to 2.0 kg / cm2 , this resulted to further reduction of the reboiler
duty by 16.3% with reference to the original duty.
The overall result is a duty saving of 28.8% of the reboiler duty which can be
expressed as 0.48 GCal/hr and 37 m3/hr of the utility heating medium (hot oil).

The next table illustrates the final reboiler optimization results:

Duty Operating Cost Saving

Case
GCal /hr $ / Year $ / Year %
Design 3.55 547,358.1 No Saving No Saving
Normal 3.61 556,609.2 No Saving No Saving
Optimized 3.13 482,600.2 74,000 28.8
3.3.2. Air Cooler (400-A2 A/B) Optimization:
Due to reboiler duty reduction reflux was optimized to a value below 9 m3 / hr, It
affected directly on the cooler duty which dropped to 0.6 Gcal / hr ( about 30 % of
the designed duty and 60 % of the normal operation one).
The operating cost dropped to 823 $ / yr compared to 1438 $ /yr before
optimization (about 43% saving).

25

20

15

10

0
Design Normal Optimized
Cooling Duty , Gcal/hr 1.816 0.984 0.563
Power KW/hr 20 10.83700441 6.200440529
Cost 1000$/year 2.653 1.438 0.823

Cooling Duty, Power Consumption and Operating Cost of 400-A2

3.3.3. Beyond Energy Saving:
Decreasing the stripper bottom product temperature permits a lower temperature
from PEP unit exchangers to adsorbers.
During normal operation Benzene stream from (500-E1) to adsorbers can’t reach
specified temperature (128˚C) because of high Pacolate temperature although the
exchnager bypass valve is fully opened.
Further hot oil flow to (500-E1) is unstable as the pentane temperature from (500-
E2) is high enough to suppress heating fluid flow to the reboiler.
After optimization of stripper conditions PEP unit exchangers (500-E1,500-E2,500-
E3) performance is much better due to the wider temperature range allowed with
reduction of the bottom product of the stripper.
4. Conclusion and recommendations
1. Stripper column operation was optimized through two phases with overall
saving of 28.8 % of normal operation costs without any additional costs.

2. Stripper products analysis showed that pressure reduction didn’t compromise

the products specifications and all the column streams are within design
limits.

3. The overall saving due to reboiler duty optimization is about 75,000 $/year,
based on the national specified energy price.

4. Further studies should be performed to reach the maximum allowable

optimization limit.

5. All back end columns should be optimized; integral studies can improve the
optimization results with a full-scale estimation of benefits and consequences.
Appendices