2008 Crimson Engineering Associates, LLC

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

[HEAT TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT]

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Heat Exchanger Design ................................................................................................................................. 4 Analytical Design of Heat Exchanger E1.................................................................................................... 4 Simulation Design of Heat Exchanger E1 .................................................................................................. 7 Material Selection ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Temperature-Duty Diagrams for Heat Exchangers E2 and E3 .................................................................. 9 Heat Exchanger Cost Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 10 Purchase Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Installation Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Column Design ............................................................................................................................................ 11 References .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC Executive Summary

The following study was conducted as a follow up to a previous consultation performed for Independent Refineries, Inc. (IRI) by Crimson Engineering Associates (CEA). The project concerns the sizing and cost analysis of heat exchange equipment in the proposed cyclohexane plant. The purpose of this study was to utilize analytical calculations combined with simulation software to provide rigorous design specifications for the heat exchanger cascade. Analytical calculations revealed the optimal heat exchanger was a double pass shell and tube exchanger with effective transfer area of 1001 ft2. This result agreed closely with the simulation output which suggested an effective heat transfer area of 1004 ft2. The estimated purchase cost of the unit was approximately $10,200. Combined with direct and indirect costs associated with the units installation, the total fixed capital investment was $195,000. The final component of CEAs consulting work consisted of sizing the distillation column used for product purification. The column consisted of 30 trays with the feed located at tray 16. The tray diameter calculated at the feed location was 84 inches, and tray spacing was calculated at two feet.

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC Background

The current project continues CEAs previous consulting work for Independent Refineries, Inc. Based on CEAs previous recommendations, IRI has started construction on its proposed cyclohexane production plant. Before completing construction, a more rigorous evaluation of the heat transfer equipment necessary for plant operation was required. CEA was charged with designing the heat exchange units for use in the plant and determining their cost of construction and instillation. The design calculations will be performed by hand based on previous simulation data and confirmed with further simulations using PRO/II. The following report contains the results of this study. Additionally, further description of the distillation column used for product purification is included. For the labeling associated with the various heat exchangers, please reference process flow diagram in the Appendix.

Heat Exchanger Design

Analytical Design of Heat Exchanger E1
Design of the heat exchanger began with an analytical evaluation based on fundamental equations. The first step to designing the heat exchanger was to define the flow rates, temperatures, pressures, and enthalpies (which give the duty of the exchanger) of the inlet and outlet streams. These values were taken from the PRO/II report when the project was initially simulated. The next step was to determine the thermodynamic data, such as density, thermal conductivity, viscosity, and heat capacity for each stream. These values may be found in the Appendix. The third step was deciding on the type of heat exchanger that would be best for the process. Since shell and tube heat exchangers are cheap and well understood, this type was chosen. There were no limiting factors, such as extreme temperatures and pressure or size constraints that would cause another type of exchanger to be chosen over the shell and tube type. Next, a trial value for U, the overall heat transfer coefficient, was chosen. Based on Table 14-5 in Peters et al, the average value of the range given was chosen. For a heat exchanger with light organics on each side, the recommended values are 300-425 W/m2K, which gives an average value of 362.5 W/m2K. The design was initially based off of this value, and then this value was checked at the end of the design process and updated to 296 W/m2K for a single pass exchanger and 308 W/m2K for a double pass exchanger. The next step is to obtain a value for the mean temperature difference. For a single pass exchanger, this is simply equal to the log-mean temperature difference. For the two pass exchanger, the log-mean temperature difference is multiplied by a factor found in Peters et al Figure 14-4. Once this value has been obtained, the heat exchanger area may be found from the formula: (1) After the area is found, the specifics of the exchanger are defined. The number of tubes required was found by dividing the area by the surface area of the outside of one tube. An outside diameter of 1 in was chosen for the single and the double pass exchanger. A triangular pitch was used to give the largest heat exchange for the bundle area; also because the pressure drop was not

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

significant enough to make a square pitch necessary. The shell diameter was then calculated using the formula:

( )

(2)

Where K1 and n1 are constants specific to the type of exchanger. The pitch was set at 1.25 times the outside diameter of the tubes. The number of baffles was chosen by how many would fit in the length of the shell, rounding down from the guess of 100% of the shell diameter as the length between baffles. The baffle spacing was then calculated from the number of baffles and the length of the exchanger. A summary of the major results for both the single and double pass exchanger can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Purchase costs were calculated from Figure 14-16. The detailed calculations can be found in the Appendix. Specification Tube Passes Tube Length, ft U, BTU/hr-ft2-F LMTD, F E1 (single pass) 1 20 52.2 171

Effective Heat Transfer Area, ft2 885 Shell Inner Diameter, in 24 Pitch, in 1.25 Layout Triangular Baffle Spacing, in 20.6 Purchase Cost $9,500 Table 1. Specifications for Single Pass Exchanger Specification Tube Passes Tube Length, ft U, BTU/hr-ft2-F LMTD, F E1 (double pass) 2 20 54.3 171

Effective Heat Transfer Area, ft2 1001 Shell Inner Diameter, in 22 Pitch, in 1.25 Layout Triangular Baffle Spacing, in 20.6 Purchase Cost $10,200 Table 2. Specifications for Double Pass Exchanger

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

Next, the tube side heat transfer coefficient, tube side pressure drop, shell side heat transfer coefficient, and shell side pressure drop are found. The correlations for these calculations, respectively, are given below. Tube Side: Shell Side:
( )

(3, 4) (5, 6)

In the first equation, C is assumed to equal 0.021, since the flow is mostly vapor. The Reynolds number is based on G, the mass velocity, which is the mass flow rate divided by the area available for flow. (/w)0.14 is neglected because it is assumed to be close to unity. In the second equation, Bi has to do with the reversal of flow, and it was assumed to be equal to one for these calculations. np is the number of passes, which is equal to one for the single pass and two for the double pass exchanger. The value i is equal to 1.02 for turbulent flow. In the third equation, ao is equal to 0.33 for the staggered tube configuration used for the design. Fs is a safety factor which is usually equal to 1.6. In the final equation, Bo is the number of times the shell side fluid changes direction based on the number of baffles. Nr is the number of tube rows, determined from the pitch of the tubes and the shell diameter. Once all of these values have been calculated, the corrected value for U may be found. The equation used for this calculation is below:
( )

(7)

Where 1/hod equals 1/hid and both are equal to 6x10-4 m2-K/W according to Peters et al Table 145. kw is the thermal conductivity of the steel tubes. A value of 43.3 W/m-K was found in table D-5 for carbon steel at 300C. After several iterations, a value of Uo which matched the initial guess of U was found. These values are mentioned above and all values used may be found in the Appendix. The temperature-heat duty (T-Q) diagrams for both the single pass and double were based on simulation data from PRO/II. Due to the similarity of the T-Q diagrams, the information has been condensed into one graph depicted in Figure 1.

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

Figure 1. T-Q Diagram for Single and Double Pass Exchanger

Simulation Design of Heat Exchanger E1

In addition to the analytical method of heat exchanger design PRO/II simulation was utilized to perform rigorous heat exchanger design. The simulation utilized available stream data along with user inputs to perform a predictive design of the heat exchanger. For both the tube and shell side the desired pressure drop was specified to be 5 psi or less. The cold stream was selected for the tube side because it was higher pressure than the hot stream. A summary of the major results may be found below in Table 3. The complete simulation report is available in the Appendix. Specification Tube Passes Tube Length, ft U, BTU/hr-ft2-F LMTD, F Effective Heat Transfer Area, ft2 Shell Inner Diameter, in Pitch, in Pitch Pattern Baffle Spacing, in Simulation E1 2 20 226 120 1004 23 1.0 90 0.2

Table 3. Specifications from Rigorous Heat Exchanger Modeling

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

Material Selection
The selection of heat exchanger material is determined by the temperature and corrosiveness of each exchanger. In addition, the material should have good thermal conductivity for the tube side for the heat exchanger to function efficiently. Table 4 shows the material type and fluid component in each exchanger.
Heat Exchanger E1 Side Tube Fluids Benzene Cyclohexane Hydrogen Methane Shell Benzene Cyclohexane Hydrogen Methane E2 Tube Benzene Cyclohexane Hydrogen Methane Shell E3 Tube Steam Benzene Cyclohexane Hydrogen Methane Shell Cooling Water Stainless Steel 309 Stainless Steel 309 Stainless Steel 309 Stainless Steel 309 Carbon Steel Material Type Carbon Steel

Table 4. Component and Material Breakdown for Heat Exchangers In exchanger E1 the fluids flowing are all organic. Thus, an exchanger with carbon steel is ideal. Additionally, carbon steel is readily available and has a low cost. In E1, stream 5 is heated by

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

stream 7. Therefore, stream 5 should flow on the shell side given that it has an operating temperature of 250 F, while stream 7 should flow on the tube side with an operating temperature of 435 F.

In exchanger E2 and exchanger E3 stainless steel 309 is used. Stainless steel 309 has good corrosion resistance, good thermal conductivity and mechanical properties. Both E1 and E2 have water is present on the shell side. Therefore, stainless steel 309 is ideal because it will prevent rust.E2 is used to heat stream 4 which has an operating temperature of 300 F, while E3 is used to cool stream 9 from 250 F to 120 F. Determination of shell and tube side fluids was based on the pressure of the two streams. In general, it is preferable that the higher pressure fluid flow on the tube side, while the lower pressure fluid flow on the shell side.

Temperature-Duty Diagrams for Heat Exchangers E2 and E3

In order to size the draw the T-Q diagrams for heat exchangers 2 and 3 for the plant, the data from the plant needed to be taken. The data is presented as follows: Table 5. Exchanger 2 Data
Hot Feed Inlet (F) S4 Hot Feed Outlet (F) S6 Duty (Btu/hr) 4057506 U*A (Btu/hr-F) Inlet Temp F Outlet Temp F 225418268 232 300

Table 6. Exchanger 3 Data

Hot Feed Inlet (F) S9 Hot Feed Outlet (F) S1 Duty (Btu/hr) 7113381 U*A (Btu/hr-F) Inlet Temp F Outlet Temp F 11072 250 120

Using the equation for heat duty:

q U A Tm

(8)

where Tm is:
Tm Tlm

T1 t2 T2 t1 T t ln 1 2 T2 t1

(9)

After taking this data from tables above, a solver program can be used to solve for what the temperatures of other stream satisfy Tm numbers of .018 for exchanger 2 and 642 for exchanger 3. These solutions will give a possible temperature range. Knowing that these points are steam for exchanger 2 and water for exchanger 3 allowed us to say whether or not the possible solutions for T-Q diagram are valid.

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

10

337 322 Temperature (F) 307 292 277 262 247 232 8.57E+06 9.07E+06 9.57E+06 1.01E+07 Q (BTU)

Cold Side Possible Hot Side

1.06E+07

1.11E+07

Figure 2. T-Q Diagram Exchanger 2

250 230 210 190 Temperature (F) 170 150 130 110 90 70 50 3.79E+06 4.79E+06 5.79E+06 Q (BTU) 6.79E+06 7.79E+06 Possible Cold Side Hot Side

Figure 3. T-Q Diagram for Exchanger 3 The hot and cold streams fall in line with the possible conditions of steam on hot side of one and cold on hot side of other. This makes the above graphs valid for the heat exchangers in the plant.

Heat Exchanger Cost Evaluation

Purchase Costs
Reference Figures 1 and 2 for Purchase Costs of the Exchanger.

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC

Installation Costs

11

In order to figure out the Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) on the heat exchangers to be purchased, total surface area had to be calculated using the sizes solved from the Pro II analysis. This analysis came up with a surface area of 1004 ft2. Using Figure 14-16 and 14-17 on page 681 in PT&W, lead to a cost of $22,500 for a heat exchanger with all stainless steel. This same area can be used so solve for cost of heat exchangers 2 and 3, which are made of carbon steel shells and stainless steel tubes, leading to a cost of $20,850. This comes out to a total purchased and delivered equipment cost of $64,200. Using Table 6-9 on page 251 in PT&W, the FCI of the project can be estimated. The figure below shows this:
Total Purchased Equipment Delivered Direct Cost Installation Instrumentation and Controls Yard Improvements Service Facilities Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs Engineering and Supervision Construction Expenses Contractor's Fee Contingency Total Indirect Costs Fixed Capital Investments $64,200

.47 of Purchased Equipment .36 of Purchased Equipment .10 of Purchased Equipment .70 of Purchased Equipment

$30,174 $23,112 $6,420 $44,940 $104,646

.33 of Purchased Equipment .41 of Purchased Equipment .22 of Purchased Equipment .44 of Purchased Equipment

$21,186 $26,322 $14,124 $28,248 $89,880 $194,526

Table 7. Installation Costs for Heat Exchanger

Column Design
The Pro/II report from assignment 3 was used to setup the component flow rates, reflux ratio, and feed temperatures and pressures. The parameters used for sizing the column include a tray spacing of 2 feet, a vapor velocity of .6 of the flooding velocity, and all trays being sieve trays. The results from running the simulation yields tray diameters of 84 inches for trays 2-15 and 90 inches for trays 16-29. The reason why trays 16-29 are larger than the others would be that the feed is located at tray 16. The trays need to be wider to accommodate the higher amount of liquid. The Soave-Redlich-Qwong thermodynamic model was used for property calculations. After successful convergence of the simulation, the flow rate of the overhead was 36.1 lbmol/hour with an exit temperature and pressure of 156.5 F and 14.7 psia. The detailed report can be found in the Appendix.

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC References

12

Perry, Robert H., et. al. Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook. Seventh Edition. McGrawHill. Pages 2-95, 2-322, 6-10, 6-11. Welty, Wicks, Wilson, Rorrer. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer. Fourth Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Pages 188-190. Peters, Max S, Klaus D Timmerhaus, and Ronald E West. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. 5th Edition. St. Louis: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

CRIMSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC Appendix

13

500 psig
C1 S13

Recycle

Eff. 80%
S6

S12

300 F
S11

SP1

Purge Gas

S3

DP=15 psi
R1

E2 S7 S4

BENZENE HYDROGEN M1

S5 S1 E1 S9 E3 S10 F1

120 F

Product

Figure A1. Process Flow Diagram for Cyclohexane Process