this material belongs to sameer bakshi

Tamkang Journal of Science and Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 105-110 (2001) 105

sameer bakshi
Case Studies on Optimum Reflux Ratio of Distillation Towers
in Petroleum Refining Processes
Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin

Department of Chemical Engineering, Tamkang University

Tamsui, Taiwan 251, R.O.C.
E-mail:hjchen@mail.tku.edu.tw

Abstract
For an existing distillation tower such as the propylene splitter in
this study, the number of trays is fixed and there are very few degrees
of freedom that can be manipulated to maximize operating profit; the
reflux ratio can be used to influence the steady-state operating point
and thus the daily profit. Also, in the debutanizer design, we have
discussed the trade-offs between reflux ratios (energy costs) and
annualized capital costs.

Key Words: Optimal Reflux Ratio, Propylene Splitter, Debutanizer,

Petroleum Refining

1. Introduction refining processes; one is called propylene splitter,

Separations are “big businesses” in chemical
processing. It has been variously estimated that
the capital investment in separation equipment is
40-50% of the total for a conventional fluid
processing unit. Of the total energy consumption
of an average unit, the separation steps accounts
for about 70%. And of the separation
consumption, the distillation method accounts for
about 95% [1]. In general, initial design of a
distillation tower involves specifying the
separation of a feed of known composition and
temperature. Constraints require a minimum
acceptable purity of the overhead and/or bottoms
product. The desired separation can be achieved
with relatively low energy requirements by using a
large number of trays, thus incurring larger capital
costs with the reflux ratio at its minimum value.
On the other hand, by increasing the reflux ratio,
the overhead composition specification can be met
by a fewer number of trays but with higher energy
costs. In particular, the optimization of reflux
ratio is attractive for distillation columns that
operate with: 1. high reflux ratio; 2. high
differential product values between overhead and
bottom; 3. high utility costs; 4. low relative
volatility, and 5. feed light key far from 50%. In
this paper, we explore optimum reflux ratio of two
distillation columns for used in the petroleum
an existing tower in a naphtha cracking plant, the
other is a debutanizer used in a fluid catalytic
cracking plant. The optimization software we
used for the optimum reflux-ratio problem of the
propylene splitter is GAMS [2] and a flowsheet
simulator DESIGN II [3] was used for the basic
design of the debutanizer.
2. Propylene Splitter
Figure 1 shows a typical olefins plant in
which a propylene splitter is used for separating
propane and propylene. The lighter component
(propylene) is more valuable than propane. The
overhead stream has to be at least 95% propylene.
Based on the basic principle for a two-component
system, we have to find the minimum reflux ratio,
Rm, and Nm, the minimum number of stages to
accomplish the separation at total reflux. For a
two-component distillation system, if the relative
volatility, α , is constant, then, we have the
enriching operating line:
Rm xD
y= x+ （1）
(Rm + 1) (Rm + 1)
where xD is the purity of the overhead propylene.
The equilibrium line is given by
y = αx /[1 + (α − 1)x ] （2）
The q-line relates feed quality to feed fraction
 gvvghhjjjkkkk
106 Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin

x F F = xD D + xB B （11）
q x
y= x− F （3） where xB is the mole fraction of bottoms light key
q −1 q −1 (propylene).
where xF is the mole fraction of feed light key Combining Eqs. (11) and (12), we have
(propylene) and q is defined as the ratio of heat F (x F − x D )
B= （12）
needed to vaporize 1 mole of feed at entering xB − xD
condition to the molar latent heat of vaporization
If the assumption of constant molar overflow
of feed.
is made, then the liquid (L) and vapor flows (V) are
L = RD , and V = (R + 1)D
Combining Eqs. (1)-(3), and eliminating x and y,
we obtain:
RmxF + qxD α[xD (q −1) + xF (Rm −1)] Next we develop expressions for the sales and
=
Rm(1− xF ) + q(1− xD ) (Rm +1)(1 − xF ) + (q −1)(1− xD )
operating costs. The objective function profit P is
defined as propylene sales plus propane sales and
minus utility costs and raw material costs. Thus,
(4) we have
Equation (4) can be called the Underwood
equation for a binary system. P = (C D x D D + C B x B B )
If the feed enters at its boiling point, q = 1, Eq.
(4) becomes [
+ C D' (1 − x D )D + C B' (1 − x B )B ] （13）
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎡ xD α (1 − xD ) ⎤ − (C R Q R + C C Q C )
Rm = ⎜ ⎟⎢ − ⎥
[ ]
（5）
⎝ α − 1 ⎠ ⎣ xF 1 − xF ⎦ − C F x F F + C F' (1 − x F )F
If the feed enters as vapor at the dew point, q where QR is the reboiler heat requirement, QC is the
= 0, Eq. (4) becomes condenser load requirement:
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ αxD 1 − xD ⎞ QC = Dλ (R + 1)
Rm = ⎜ ⎟⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ − 1 （6）
⎝ α − 1 ⎠⎝ yF 1 − yF ⎠ = λV
Eduljee [4] correlates the Gilliland’s diagram to QR = H D D + H B B − H F F + QC
N − Nm ⎡ ⎛ R − R ⎞0.5668 ⎤ where HD is enthalpy of overhead product, HB is
= 0.75⎢1 − ⎜ m
⎟ ⎥ （7） enthalpy of bottoms product and HF is the feed
N +1 ⎣⎢ ⎝ R + 1 ⎠ ⎦⎥ enthalpy. Table 1 gives numerical values for the
where N is the theoretical number of stages and R objective function of the propylene splitter.
is the reflux ratio. The actual number of stages,
Nact, is obtained by dividing the theoretical number
of stages by plate efficiency, η .
If the relative volatility of the binary mixture
is constant, the following analytical expression by
Fenske can be used to calculate the minimum
number of theoretical stages when a total
condenser is used.
⎡⎛ x ⎞⎛ 1 − x B ⎞⎤
ln ⎢⎜⎜ D ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥
⎝ 1 − x D ⎠⎝ x B ⎠⎦
Nm = ⎣ （8）
ln α
Equation (9) can be rearranged to give
xD
xB = （9）
xD + α Nm
(1 − xD )
The overall material balance gives
F = D+B （10）
where F is the feed rate, D is the distillate flow
rate, and B is the bottoms flow rate.
The component material balance gives
Case Studies on Optimum Reflux Ratio of Distillation Towers in Petroleum Refining Processes 107

Table 1. Numerical values for objective function ofthe propane-propylene splitter

C R = reboiler heat cost $3.00/ 10 6 Btu

CC = condenser cooling cost $0.009/ 10 6 Btu
C B = value of propylene in bottoms $0.12/ l b
C B' = value of propane in bottoms $0.09/ l b

C F = cost per pound of propylene $0.16/ l b

C F' = cost per pound of propane $0.15/ l b

C D = value of propylene in overhead $0.20/ l b

C D' = value of propane in overhead $0.20/ l b
F = feed rate 1,200,000 l b/day
N act = number of equilibrium stages 125
x D = mole fraction overhead light key 0.95
x F = mole fraction of feed light key 0.70
α = relative volatility 1.105
λ = latent heat 130 Btu/ l b
η = plate efficiency 0.75
q = feed quality 1.0

Figure 1. Typical Olefins Plant

108 Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin

Figure 2. Flow Chart of Fluid Catalytic Cracking

Table 2. Component list and mole fraction of debutanizer charge stock

Component mole % Component mole %

Ethylene 0.1 n-butane 3.9

ethane 1.2 pentene 11.9
hydrogen sulfide 2.1 isopentane 9.7
propylene 16.3 n-pentane 2.3
propane 6.9 hexane 11.8
isobutene 6.5 heptane 2.1
n-butene 14.3 octane 0.1
isobutene 10.8

3. Debutanizer fractionate between n-butane and i-pentane. We

Figure 2 shows a flow chart of a fluid catalytic
cracking process. And debutanizer is used for
separating butanes and lighter from gasoline product.
The feedstock of debutanizer comes from a
deethanizer and is 5620 BPSD (barrels per service
day). Debutanizer is to operate at 150 psig. The
design specification will require the overhead product
to contain 98.5% of the butanes and lighter
components with a contamination of 1.5 mol%
pentanes and pentenes. A feedstock component list
with molar contents is shown in Table 2. This is a
multi-component distillation design and is to
will use DESIGN II for both short-cut and rigorous
design for the debutanizer.
Note that the lost work (LW) [5] of
debutanizer design is calculated by
⎛ Ta ⎞
LW = Bin − Bout + ⎜1 − ⎟Q − W （14）
⎝ Te ⎠
where Bin and Bout are input and output availability
function of streams, respectively, Ta is ambient
temperature, Te is stream temperature, Q is heat load
of input and output streams, and W is output power.
For equipment cost calculation, we used the
Guthrie’s correlations [6]; for distillation tower, the
following equation is used
 Case Studies on Optimum Reflux Ratio of Distillation Towers in Petroleum Refining Processes
⎛M &S⎞
C ($) = ⎜ ⎟(101.9 )D H (2.18 + Fc )
1.066 0.802
⎝ 280 ⎠
（15）
where M&S is the Marshall and Swift index, we
used 792 in this study; D is tower diameter in ft, H
is tower height in ft, and Fc corresponds to the
correction factors for materials, pressure, etc., we
used 1.15 in this study.
For heat exchangers, the following equation is
used
⎛M &S⎞
⎟(101.3)A (2.29 + Fc ) （16）
C ($) = ⎜ .0.65
⎝ 280 ⎠
where A is heat-transfer area in ft2, and in this
study we used Fc as 1.0 and 1.45 for condenser
and reboiler, respectively.
4. Results and Discussion
Depending on the condition of feedstock to
the propylene splitter, we can solve for Rm by Eqs.
(4)-(6). Given the total number of actual stages,
for each reflux ratio R, there must exist an Nm.
For specific purity requirement of the overhead, we
can calculate xB from Eq. (9), and thus B from Eq.
(12), then D from Eq. (10). From the
optimization software GAMS using Table 1 as
input parameters, we find the minimum reflux ratio
is 11.17, the optimal reflux ratio is 16.51 and the
profit is $9,350/day for the propane-propylene
splitter. In addition, a sensitivity analysis for
reflux ratio of 16.51 ±10% was performed. The
results show a profit of $9,043/day for a reflux
ratio of 14.86, and a profit of $9,188/day for a
reflux ratio of 18.16. The profit function changes
about $200-300/day.
From the short-cut design of DESIGN II, we
can obtain the relationship of reflux ratio versus
the theoretical number of stages and feed locations
of debutanizer as shown in Table 3. Having
obtained the basic design specifications, we are
able to do a rigorous tray-by-tray design. The
results are shown in Table 4 with the calculation of
Table 3.
Reflux ratio
0.913
0.957
1.043
1.217
1.522
1.739
109
lost work listed in the last column. Also, we
obtained the results of debutanizer with a overhead
temperature of 100oF and a bottoms temperature of
276oF. The overall coefficient of heat transfer is
80 Btu/h.ft2. oF in the reboiler and 90 Btu/h.ft2. oF in
the condenser; the logarithmic temperature
differences are 130oF and 40oF, respectively.
Saturation steam at 250 psig is used in the reboiler.
At this pressure, the temperature of the condensing
steam is 406 oF and the heat of condensation is 821
Btu / lb . The change in cooling-water temperature
is 30 oF for all cases. The overall plate efficiency
is 50%, tray spacing is 2 ft with tops disengaging
height of 15 ft, and bottoms skirt height of 15 ft.
The debutanizer is to operate 8,500 hr per year
(stream factor of 0.97). The sum of costs for
piping, insulation and instrumentation is estimated
as 60% of the cost for the installed equipment.
Annual fixed charges amount to 15% of the total
cost for installed equipment, piping,
instrumentation and insulation. Steam costs
$3.50 per 1,000 pounds and cooling water costs
$0.05 per 10,000 pounds. By repeated calculations
for different reflux ratios, the following results as
shown in Table 5 can be prepared. As a result, we
would choose the reflux ratio of 1.10 as the
optimum one.
5. Conclusion
In the propylene-splitter study, we have
shown that the reflux ratio is indeed a sensitive
operating variable and affects a daily profit.
The optimal reflux ratio is closely related to
the feed mole fraction, feed quality, relative
volatility, and a separation factor which itself
was a function of overhead and bottoms
composition. Also, in the debutanizer study,
we have determined the optimum value of the
reflux ratio by evaluating the annualized
capital costs (column, condenser, reboiler) and
operating costs (steam, cooling water).
Short-cut results from DESIGN II
Theoretical stages Feedstock location
42 20
35 16
31 15
27 13
24 12
23 11
110 Hsi-Jen Chen and Yeh-Chin Lin

Table 4. Rigorous design results from DESIGN II

Reflux Theoretical Diameter Condenser load Reboiler load Lost work

ratio stages (ft) (Btu/hr) (Btu/hr) (Btu/hr)
1.05 42 4.73 9.158 × 10 6 1.085 × 10 7 2.88 × 10 6
1.10 35 4.78 9.401 × 10 6 1.108 × 10 7 2.97 × 10 6
1.20 31 4.87 9.883 × 10 6 1.155 × 10 7 3.14 × 10 6
1.40 27 5.05 1.080 × 10 6 1.246 × 10 7 3.46 × 10 6
1.75 24 5.34 1.240 × 10 6 1.406 × 10 7 4.02 × 10 6
2.00 23 5.54 1.351 × 10 6 1.517 × 10 7 4.41 × 10 6

Table 5. Annual cost of debutanizer design versus recycle ratio

Reflux Actual number Diameter Column Condenser Reboiler Cooling Steam Total annual
ratio of stages (ft) ($) ($) ($) water ($) ($) cost ($)
1.05 84 5.0 83,560 37,000 23,560 12,970 393,160 550,250
1.10 70 5.0 73,140 37,630 23,880 13,320 401,500 549,470
1.20 62 5.0 67,020 38,870 24,550 14,000 418,530 562,970
1.40 54 5.0 60,760 41,180 25,780 15,300 451,500 594,520
1.75 48 5.5 61,940 45,050 27,890 17,570 509,480 661,930
2.00 46 5.5 60,140 47,635 29,300 19,140 549,705 705,920

References

[1] Fair, J.R., “Energy-Efficient Separation Process

Design,” Recent Developments in Chemical
Process and Plant Design, Y.A. Liu, McGee,
Jr., H.A. and Epperly, W.R. (eds.), John Wiley
& Sons, New York (1987).
[2] GAMS Development Corporation, GAMS A
USER’S GUIDE, Washington, DC, GAMS
Development Corporation (1998).
[3] ChemShare Corporation, DESIGN II USER’S
GUIDE, Houston, TX, ChemShare Corporation
(1988).
[4] Eduljee, H.E., “Equations Replace Gilliland’s
Plot,” Hydrocarbon Process., 54 (9), 120
(1975).
[5] de Nevers, N. and Seader, J.D., “Lost Work: a
Measure of Thermodynamic Efficiency,”
Energy, 5, 757 (1980).
[6] Douglas, J.M., Conceptual Design of Chemical
Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York (1988).

Accepted: Jun. 26, 2001