CE3APD Advanced Process Design

Production of Propylene Oxide, 80,000 Tonnes per Annum in Qatar

Individual Project: Design of a Packed Distillation Column,
T-102, in the HPPO Process

Submitted by Talal Naeem, Group 1

Supervisor: Amirpiran Amiri
Submission Deadline: 25th March
Submitted as Part of the Final Stage for BEng Chemical Engineering
Word Count:

1
Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................ 2
Executive Summary:............................................................................................................... 5
1. Design Project Introduction:............................................................................................. 6
1.1 Gantt Chart:.................................................................................................................. 6
2. Chemical Engineering Design:......................................................................................... 7
Updated Mass Balances:..................................................................................................... 7
Updated Energy Balances:.................................................................................................. 8
Operating Pressure:............................................................................................................. 8
Operating Temperatures:..................................................................................................... 9
FUG Method to obtain Number of Theoretical Stages, N:..................................................10
Volatility Calculations:....................................................................................................... 10
Fenske Equation, Nmin:....................................................................................................... 10
Underwood Equations, and Rmin:........................................................................................ 11
Theoretical Number of Stages, N Calculations:.................................................................12
Gilliland Correlation for Number of Stages, N:................................................................12
Molkanov Equation for Number of Theoretical Stages, N:..............................................12
Feed Location using Kirkbride’s Equation:.........................................................................13
Packing Selection:............................................................................................................. 13
Column Diameter Design, DC:............................................................................................ 15
Maximum Vapour Velocity, VW*:......................................................................................... 15
Column Pressure Drop, ΔP:................................................................................................ 16
Internals Design and Column Height, ZC:...........................................................................18
Feed Distributor Design:.................................................................................................... 18
Other internals:................................................................................................................. 19
Total Column Height, ZT:.................................................................................................... 19
3. Mechanical Design:........................................................................................................ 20
Maximum Operation Conditions:....................................................................................... 20
Material Selection.............................................................................................................. 20
Vessel Thickness Calculations........................................................................................... 20
Domed End Head Thickness:............................................................................................. 21
Vessel Dead weight Calculations:...................................................................................... 21
Vessel Stresses.................................................................................................................. 22
Bending Stress.................................................................................................................. 23
Resultant Longitudinal Stress, σz:...................................................................................... 23
Evaluation of Principal Stresses............................................................................................ 24
Additional Unit Design.......................................................................................................... 27
Condenser Thermal Design............................................................................................... 27
2
 Condenser Flowrates & Duty.......................................................................................... 27
Shell- side Design.............................................................................................................. 31
Tube Side Pressure Drop.................................................................................................... 32
Reboiler Design................................................................................................................. 33
Reboiler Duty..................................................................................................................... 34
Heat Transfer Area and Number of Tubes..........................................................................34
Control & Instrumentation.................................................................................................... 36

Figure 1: Methodology outlining initial column design............................................................6

3
Executive Summary:
This report provides an overview of the design methodology of a packed distillation column, T-102, and
its corresponding units relative to the Hydrogen Peroxide- Propylene Oxide (HPPO) process in Ras
Laffan, Qatar. The column operates at 3 bar absolute and serves as a preliminary separation unit from
the mixed bottoms of F-101 and T-101, propylene flash separation unit and first distillation column,
respectively. The distillate serves as S-101 feed, further propylene oxide (PO) separation, and the
bottoms as T-104 feed, methanol recycle. The key components of separation desired are PO in the
distillate and methanol in the bottoms. Preliminary condenser and reboiler design are discussed but are
not optimised because of time constraints.
Unit operating conditions, mass and energy balances were optimised based on the front-end engineering
Design for the plant conducted in Teaching Period 1 ensured the product specification was met for the
Ras Laffan plan. Industry recognised methods for column design and pressure drop, such as the
Fenske-Underwood and Gilliland method, were used and calculated 15 column stages, and Ergun’s
equation for a 0.023 bar pressure drop, are employed for accurate design.
Packed columns were preferred over tray columns for low liquid holdup applications, preventing
propylene oxide (PO) hotspots and consequent product polymerisation. Further advantages included
improved economics regarding replacements, especially considering the risks hydrogen peroxide can
arise during operation.
Structured packing Mellapak 250Y is selected for its versatility in industry-wide applications, in addition
to its excellent packing efficiency, requiring a smaller packing height of 7.5m. The column diameter was
designed to account for a 69% flooding factor, ensuring operation alongside standard sizing. A gravity-
fed distributor requiring 106 distributors per metre square allowed for optimal distribution, each hold
being 7mm wide and 15cm spacing between them. Column dimensions for inner diameter and height are
2.7 m and 9.95 m, which accounts for packing height, distributor spacing and a vapour- liquid
disengagement zone.
Stainless steel 316 was the selected material for a 10mm thick column, as the alloy is fairly corrosion
resistant’ to hydrogen peroxide whilst considering the material’s economic implications. Safety factors
and worst- case scenario stresses were considered for conservative design. Maximum stress incurred to
the vessel, 47.11 N mm-2, is less than the material maximum allowable stress, 116.257 N mm -2, so is
acceptable to use. An 8mm thick skirt is designed so the vessel remains upright when faced against
worst- case natural disasters Qatar can encounter.
Design could be improved by calculating packing effective areas specific to the column and comparing
them between several types of packing to identify the best packing for separation. Cost of implementing
different reflux ratios against operation for an economical application to the optimum reflux ratios would
be conducted if more time were granted.

4
 1. Design Project Introduction:
This project requires the design & optimisation of a unit operation part of the (HPPO) process, with a
packed distillation column chosen. The primary objective is to separate PO from the methanol
downstream, sent from the combined F-101 & T-101 bottoms. The design of the unit will consider
the climate and availability of materials in Qatar.
The chemical engineering design will focus on improving the mass & energy balances from TP1,
followed by design of a cylindrical packed column under process operation; steady-state conditions are
assumed, alongside further considerations of packed column internals. Additional thermal design of a
condenser & preliminary reboiler are considered, with corresponding calculations found in
‘220178574_Final_Design_Project_Spreadsheet’.
The mechanical design considers worst-case scenario to ensure the column can withstand the rigours of
operations regarding Qatar’s harsh climate.
AutoCAD was used to produce the unit P&ID, developed with control loops to ensure safe operation.
Reputable sources like Aspen Plus, Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook, and NIST have been used
to obtain stream thermodynamic & transport properties. All values used in this report are rounded to
three decimal places, unless shown in standard form. Percentages are to two decimal places, except
adjusted flood factor for accuracy. For detailed calculations and accurate values, refer to the
spreadsheet mentioned previously.
1.1 Gantt Chart:
A Gantt Chart, Appendix 1, was curated in the first week to monitor progress, allowing the project to be
broken into manageable parts, ensuring an efficient approach to the project. Key parts of the report are
outlined with reasonable deadlines set to avoid burn out. A non-negotiable internal deadline one day
before submission, 24th March, was set to avoid late submission. Chemical Engineering Design took
longer than expected. Mechanical Design was started earlier to mitigate project bottlenecks.

5
 2. Chemical Engineering Design:
A design of a counter- current packed distillation column, ensuring realistic PO- methanol separation,
maintaining a low pressure drop. Structured packing is used to offer efficient separation while
maintaining a reasonable height for the size of the column. Equation notations can be found in the
nomenclature list. All conversions are present in Appendix _. Figure 1 shows the method for initial
column design:

Figure 1: Methodology outlining initial

column design.

Updated Mass Balances:

Overall mass balance is as follows:
Feed=Distillate+ Bottoms , x f ∙ F=x d ∙ D+ x b ∙ B(Eq 1)
The methodology applied to the distillation column mass balance is as follows:
 LK, most volatile component in the bottoms in significant amount, & HK, least volatile component
in the distillate in significant amount, are selected.
 Establish LK, HK fractional recoveries present in the distillate and bottoms are determined,
ensuring significant quantities are present, 1% minimum.
 Assuming formation of other components in either distillate or bottoms based on volatility.
 Scale up to ensure desired product specification is met.
The plant is assumed to operate 24 hours a day, 330 days per year to give time for cleaning, unit
maintenance and holidays. PO distillate is only considered specification PO. Bottoms PO is assumed
non- recoverable as T-104 separation considers PO as part of wastewater. The small quantity makes
recovery uneconomical and is process inefficient.
Table 1: Specification operating data, assuming steady-state.

Value Units
Specification Requirement 80,000 T Year-1
80,000,000 kg Year-1
Days of Operation 330 Days Year-1
24 Hours Day-1
PO Specification in Distillate 10101.010 kg h-1
LK and HK Fractional Recovery in Distillate, FRD 0.89 0.01
LK and HK Fractional Recovery in Bottoms, FRB 0.11 0.99

PO and methanol are selected as LK and HK respectively, to purify the desired product and for solvent
recycle and separation. 89% PO recovery in the distillate is assumed to ensure significant presence in
the bottoms. 99% methanol recovery in the bottoms is assumed to maximise solvent recovery.
Mass balances for the key components are the product of the feed flowrate and the fractional recovery in
distillate and bottoms, an example with PO is shown in Equations 2 and 3:

6
 0.89 ∙ x f ∙ F=x d ∙ D , ( Eq 2 ) 0.11∙ x f ∙ F=x b ∙ B ,(Eq 3)
Non- key component final location at the outlets is assumed 100% regarding average relative volatilities
in Table 3. Components with volatilities lower than the HK are assumed to fully leave through the
bottoms. Components more volatile than the LK are assumed entirely in the distillate. Although trace
amounts of these components are found in opposing streams, these are neglected for simpler design.
Mass balances from TP1 with fractional recovery alterations are in Appendix 1.
Enhancing fractional recovery improves unit operation efficiency, however the specification is not met.
The Appendix 1 PO distillate is compared to the specification PO in Table 1; thus, a scale factor is
obtained, 10101.010 kg h-1 / 9218.169 kg h-1 = 1.096.
Initial feed flowrates from TP1 for each component are multiplied by the scale factor ensuring PO
distillate flowrate meets the specified amount, 1.096 * x kg h -1 = 1.096x kg h-1. This should be done in
reverse order from T-104 to F-101 for the process to meet the 80,000 Tonnes of PO per Annum.
Appendices 2-5 shows updated mass balances, applying the scale factor and new fractional recoveries.
Updated Energy Balances:
In TP1, it was assumed that F-101 bottoms temperature would dominate when mixed with T-101 bottoms
because of a substantially larger flowrate, assuming a feed temperature of 313K. However, the feed
quality, q, is a saturated liquid, 1. Table 2 shows the feed saturation temperature is 354.45K. The top and
bottom of the column were recalculated and temperatures of 337.15K and 379.55K were obtained. Both
streams will be heated before mixing so heat exchanger is considered as T-101 design. Specific heat
capacity, Cp are derived at the new temperatures from Aspen Plus.
In Appendices _-_, this invalid assumption is corrected, showing a 2972.327 kJ s -1 column energy
requirement for continuous operation at 3 bar. The column is an energy sink and is insulated to minimise
energy losses.
Operating Pressure:
Operating pressure and volatility are the main driving forces in separation, dictating the vapour- liquid
equilibria between components. At higher pressures, components become less volatile, making it harder
to separate. The T-xy diagrams in Appendices _-_ demonstrate a smaller area of separation between the
key components as pressure increases, resulting in higher pressure operation undesirable.
Appendix _ is at vacuum pressure, where separation is the greatest, however the dew point falls below
the lowest temperature on the graph, 17°C. Qatar’s average temperature is 29.4°C, so using cooling
water as a utility fluid would heat the distillate, requiring refrigerants for condenser operation. This
combined with the expensive operating cost of vacuum distillation makes this uneconomical. If the plant
was in a cooler climate such as Germany, cooling water usage would make vacuum distillation feasible.
At moderate pressures, Appendix _ shows an increased operating temperature range, with a 49.141°C
midpoint temperature increase, compared to vacuum operation. At higher temperatures, hydrogen
peroxide decomposes at faster rates. Despite being feedstock, hydrogen peroxide is considered as
wastewater and is not of major importance in terms of process efficiency. Although it’s insignificant
presence, 255.799 kg h-1 is still processed and its decomposition to pure oxygen and water can increase
column pressure. Although hydrogen peroxide is in trace quantities relative to the other components, it’s
decomposition must not be overlooked. Good liquid distribution and temperature control reduces this
risk.
PO polymerisation can occur ‘as low as room temperature’. Even at vacuum pressures, separation
occurs within room temperature. This issue cannot be resolved at very low pressures. Although
polymerisation occurs after prolonged periods of time, ‘15% after 35 hours’, fractional recovery of PO in
distillate is lower relative to methanol’s recovery in the bottoms to account for potential losses and
reboiler fouling caused by polymer formation. (Pierre and Price, 1956)
However, the temperature range allows for cooling water and high-pressure steam to be used as
condenser and reboiler utilities therefore 3 bar will be used as a compromise pressure. 3 bar

7
temperatures are significantly higher than vacuum and is still below extreme conditions which could put
human life in danger.
Ras Laffan is a coastal area, so ocean water will be used as the source of utilities because of Qatar’s
high clean water scarcity. Seawater will be processed to clean requirements in situ.
Operating Temperatures:
Feed enters as a saturated liquid, requiring it to be at the bubble point. The distillate leaves at the dew
point, where the first drop of liquid forms, ensuring the LK leaves as a saturated vapour. Bottoms leave
the column at bubble point, where the first bubble forms, so the HK leaves as a saturated liquid.
Temperature is iterated using Raoult- Dalton’s Law at saturated vapour pressure. Vapour pressures were
derived using Design Institute for Physical Properties and Antoine’s equation are shown below: (Perry,
Green and Maloney (1997, p.Table 2-8)), (NIST, 2018)
C2 C B
ln P sat =C1 + +C3 ln T + C 4 T , P sat =Pa ( Eq 4 ) log 10 P sat = A−
5
(Eq 5)
T T +C
Saturated vapour pressures of propylene and PO are calculated using equations 4 and 5 for the feed at
354.45K:
¿¿
Psat , C =e
3 H6

802.487
3.55046−
Psat C 3 H 6O =10 354.45 K +(−81.348)
=4.093 ¯¿
Constants are acceptable for the temperature ranges shown in (‘3.5. Saturated Vapour Pressure’, Sheet
‘3. Properties & Assumptions’, ‘220178574_ Final_Design_Project_Spreadsheet’). Hydrogen peroxide
and nitrogen constants were difficult to find, so were estimated on Aspen Plus using the PENG- ROB
property method. PG constants were found and gave unreliable values approximately 20% differences
from Aspen, so were estimated using simulation software. All estimated components were insignificant
regarding mole fractions, having negligible effects on saturation temperatures.
Temperatures were often outside the accepted temperature range, so were extrapolated and compared
to Aspen estimates. The least accurate extrapolation was 8% lower than what Aspen reported, deeming
reasonable extrapolations.
Vapour and liquid mole fractions must equal 1 to satisfy vapour- liquid equilibrium. Due to phase, feed
and bottoms follow equation 6 and the distillate applies to equation 7.
Mole fractions in Appendix 6 are used. Pressure is 3 bar. For bottoms, the sum of the column pressure
drops and operating pressure, 3.023 bar, is used.
yi Psat
y i=K i ∙ x i ( Eq 6 ) x i= (Eq 7) K i= (Eq 8)
Ki PT
TP1 temperatures were used as the first feed trial. The selected temperature was too low, indicated by
the 0.39 liquid mole fraction (‘Feed Saturation Temperature- 1 st Attempt’, Sheet ‘6. Operating
Temperatures, ‘220178574_ Final_Design_Project_Spreadsheet’). 360K was used for the 2nd Attempt,
resulting in a mole fraction 15% of 1. Goal seek was employed to calculate a temperature which
allows for the sum of gas mole fractions to equal 1, 354.45K.
This process is repeated for the distillate and bottoms. For an accurate and detailed breakdown of each
iteration, consult ‘Sheet ‘6. Operating Temperatures’, ‘220178574_ Final_Design_Project_Spreadsheet’.
Rounding errors led to less accurate values. Feed temperature is shown below. Distillate and bottoms
are calculated using the same principle as the feed and is found in Appendices _-_.

Table 1:Final Iteration for Feed Temperature, 354.45K, 81.3°C at 3 bar.

Component Psat, bar Kf xf yf

8
 C3H6 38.138 12.713 0.024 0.305
H2O2 0.606 0.202 3.09E-03 6.242E-04
H2O 0.499 0.166 0.378 0.0627
CH3OH 1.892 0.631 0.509 0.321
C3H6O 4.093 1.364 0.0804 0.110
C3H6O2 0.014 0.005 1.25E-03 6.25E-06
N2 1461.67 487.223 4.10E-04 0.200
Total 1.000

FUG Method to obtain Number of Theoretical Stages, N:

The FUG method is a shortcut method to simplify distillation column design. Fenske’s equation is used to
obtain the minimum number of stages at total reflux. Underwood equations are used to obtain , to
calculate the minimum reflux ratio.  should lie within the LK and HK average relative volatilities, to
indicate feasible separation. Gilliland’s correlation links the minimum reflux ratio to obtain N.
Unlike the McCabe- Thiele method, the FUG method can be used to design multicomponent columns. A
more rigorous method such as simulation and optimisation on Aspen HYSYS would be conducted if
there were no time constraints to improve design validity.
Volatility Calculations:
Ki values calculated previously are applied to equation 9 to obtain distillate and bottoms relative
volatilities, where KLVC is the HK Ki value, 0.331 and 1.425. The product of both is powered 0.5 to obtain
average volatilities for each component to derive equation 10. Average relative volatilities are considered
to account for volatility changes across the column. Volatilities at multiple points in the column, ideally at
every stage, would be considered if there was no time constraint. All components follow the same
method as PO example.
Ki
α i= ( Eq 9 ) α i ,avg =√ α d ∙ α b (Eq 10)
K LVC
0.863 2.393 0.5
α d= =2.607 α b = =1.679 α C H6 O ,avg =(2.607 ∙ 1.679) =2.092
0.331 1.425 3

Table 3 shows volatilities of the distillate, bottoms and average relative volatilities.
Table 3: Average Volatility calculation.

Component αd αb α i ,avg
C3H6 27.677 13.557 19.371
H2O2 0.024 0.044 0.032
H2O 0.245 0.288 0.266
CH3OH 1.000 1.000 1.000
C3H6O 2.607 1.679 2.092
C3H6O2 4.50E-03 0.012 7.35E-03
N2 1307.230 389.382 713.451

Fenske Equation, Nmin:

Relative average volatilities above and key component distillate and bottoms mole fractions from
Appendix 6 are used to calculate the minimum number of stages in Table 4.
Table 4: Fenske Equation

Equation Number Equation Value

11 α avg ,LK 2.092
α avg , LK =
α avg , HK
9
 12 N min =¿ 8.047 stages

8.047 stages obtained from equation 12 assumes infinite reflux which is not realistic. The Underwood
equations are used to calculate a minimum reflux ratio to calculate number of theoretical stages.
Underwood Equations, and Rmin:
Underwood equations are deployed to calculate the smallest reflux, at the cost of infinite stages.
Equations 13 and 14 form the basis of calculating R min. Quality of feed is associated with feed mole
fractions in the first equation. Reflux is associated with the quantity of distillate returning to the column
therefore distillate mole fractions are used in the second equation below.
α i ,avg ∙ x i , f α i ,avg ∙ x i , d
∑ α i ,avg −θ
=1−q ( Eq 13 ) , ∑
α i , avg−θ
=1+ Rmin ( Eq 14 )
i i

where HK <θ< LK
i,avg from Table 3, and mole fractions from Appendix 6 are used. The liquid feed is saturated, q=1,
therefore the left-hand side is equivalent to 0. The parameter  is assumed to be in between PO and
methanol’s relative volatilities, initially assumed 1.5. Goal seek function was deployed to iterate  to
1.833 to satisfy the constraint to three decimal places. The result is shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Underwood Equation, Final Iteration for .

Component α i ,avg ∙ x i , f  α i ,avg −θ α i , avg ∙ x i , f

α i ,avg−θ
C3H6 0.465 1.833 17.538 0.026
H2O2 9.888E-05 1.833 -1.801 -5.490E-05
H2O 0.101 1.833 -1.567 -0.064
CH3OH 0.509 1.833 -0.833 -0.611
C3H6O 0.168 1.833 0.259 0.649
C3H6O2 9.188E-06 1.833 -1.826 -5.032E-06
N2 0.293 1.833 711.618 4.11E-04
Total 3.511E-04 ≈ 0

 is within the 1 - 2.092 range, so is deemed acceptable. Theta is substituted into equation 14 to obtain
the minimum reflux ratio shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Underwood Equation to determine minimum reflux ratio.

Component α i ,avg ∙ x i , d θ α i ,avg −θ α i , avg ∙ x i ,d

α i ,avg −θ
C3H6 4.552 1.833 17.538 0.260
H2O2 0.000 1.833 -1.801 0.000
H2O 0.000 1.833 -1.567 0.000
CH3OH 0.051 1.833 -0.833 -0.061
C3H6O 1.487 1.833 0.259 5.741
C3H6O2 0.000 1.833 -1.826 0.000
N2 2.907 1.833 711.618 4.085E-03
1+Rmin 5.944

The minimum reflux required for separation is 4.944. This is large to ensure high HK fractional recovery.
This value decreases if fractional recovery of HK in bottoms was assumed lower. A reflux ratio is
10
established to estimate a realistic N. Optimal economic reflux ratios are typically ‘1.2-1.5 times the
minimum reflux.’ (Chen and Lin, 2001). Figure 2 compares the economic reflux ratio range and N using
the Molkanov equation, 1.3 was selected as the best value, resulting in a 6.415 reflux.
Theoretical Number of Stages, N Calculations:

Gilliland Correlation for Number of Stages, N:

Appendix _ graphically correlates the minimum number of stages (from the Fenske equation),
considering a selected reflux ratio to obtain the theoretical number of stages. Although this empirical
method mostly relies on graphical interpretation, which can lead to human error, it accounts for four
different sets of experimental data, providing reasonable estimates if interpolated correctly.
R−Rmin 6.415−4.994 N −N min
= =0.198 , =0.46 , obtained graphically .
R+1 6.415+1 N +1
0.46+ 8.047
Equation above is rearranged to solve for N= =15.754 stages including reboiler
0.54
Molkanov Equation for Number of Theoretical Stages, N:
Molkanov equation is employed as an alternative to calculate N. This is a more reliable method than the
Gilliland correlation as values is calculated instead of interpolated. The parameter ψ is equivalent to the
x-axis equation in the Gilliland correlation, 0.198. Appendix _ shows Molkanov Equations, equation 15,
calculated according to the ‘economic reflux ratio range 1.2-1.5’ incrementing every 0.05. (Bonet et al.,
2007)
N −N min
N +1
=1−exp
(
1+54.4 ψ ψ−1
∙
11+117.2ψ ψ 0.5 )
(Eq 15)

As reflux ratio increases, energy demand supplied to process more intensive flowrates, requiring a lower
N. More liquid in the column leads to higher pressure drops, so a trade-off between N and energy
consumption is considered. Increasing the reflux ratio from 1.2 to 1.3 warrants an 11.11% N reduction. A
21.69% A further reduction is achieved by increasing the reflux ratio to 1.5, both ensure reasonable
separation design.

Figure 2: Graphical Representation of Economical Reflux Ratios vs Number of

Theoretical Stages.

.
11
Higher reflux ratios reduce column capital costs. On the contrary, excessive energy costs lead to higher
total costs, which is not process efficient. Figure 2 shows R at each reflux ratio against N. The sharpest
gradient falls in the 1.2-1.3 Rmin range, so the greatest value is taken.1.3 R min is considered as the
optimised reflux ratio as it compromises the best energy consumption with number of stages.
Calculated Molkanov equation using the optimised reflux ratio is shown below:

1.3 Rmin =6.492 , ψ=0.198 ,

N −8.037
N +1
=1−exp
((
1+ 54.4 ∙ 0.198
11+117.2∙ 0.198
∙
0.198−1
0.198 )(
0.5 ))
N=15.785 stages , including reboiler .
The Molkanov equation using the optimised reflux ratio derives N as 15.785 stages, including reboiler.
The two methods have a 0.2% difference, deeming reasonable calculations. 15.895 is rounded up to 16
stages because it is impossible to have 0.785 stages. 15 is number of actual stages as excluding the
reboiler as HETP assesses column performance and are optimised to meet separation requirements.
Feed Location using Kirkbride’s Equation:
Feed location determines the optimum number of stages in the rectifying and stripping section, stages
above and below the feed point, N E and NS. This is important to ensure sufficient vapour- liquid contact
for effective separation between key components. Equation 16 is employed to calculate N E and NS. Total
bottom and distillate molar flowrates in kmol h-1 from Appendix 4 are used for B and D.
Reboiler stage is not considered in the following calculations as it is not part of the column. Log is
assumed base 10, so is powered accordingly. The formula is rearranged for N E and is multiplied by the
number of stages to obtain the number of stages above the feed. Simple subtraction of N-N E derives NS.

( ) [( ) ( ) ( ) ]
2
N B x x
log E =0.206 log ∙ f , HK ∙ b , LK (Eq 16)
NS D x f , LK x d , HK

Table 7: Feed Location

Criteria Value
NE 12.859 stages
NS 2.141 stages

Values are not rounded to whole numbers at this point as HETP has not been considered. Table 7 values
are reasonable as the feed is methanol rich, so more stages in the rectifying section are expected to
increase the purity of PO in the distillate.
Packing Selection:
Packing is used to offer a large surface area for vapour- liquid contact to occur, enhancing mass transfer,
resulting in high quality separation. Packing choice plays a pivotal role in column performance, directly
influencing column capacity (diameter), pressure drop, packing factor and column height. Selected
packing must be able to withstand corrosion of column components. Packing material must be
considered alongside. Three packing materials are considered: ceramic, metal and plastic.
Ceramic packings offer the best wettability, using its surface area effectively. This would lower the
chances of channelling in the column, leading to effective mass transfer and reducing liquid
maldistribution. Ceramic is also corrosion resistant, important for processing hydrogen peroxide.
However, ceramic is brittle and breaks easily on impact, which is not ideal for tall columns unless
installed layer by layer. To ensure packings do not break from potential column stresses, regular checks
would be required. If installation is conducted without caution, the possible costs saved by increased unit
efficiency may be outweighed by the cost of packing checks and replacement if excessive stress
constantly acts on the column.
Plastic packings are light in weight, providing easy transport and handling in bulk. Plastic is one of the
largest mass-produced materials worldwide making it easier to find manufacturers, so is the least
12
expensive of the three. However, production of plastic is environmentally polluting as it is heavily reliant
on non-renewable sources such as oil. A mitigation is using biodegradable or recyclable plastic packings
to prolong the packing lifetime. Plastic also lacks the ability to wet, making it a poor choice for a high
degree of separation, a fundamental requirement and often non- compatible with hydrogen peroxide.
Metal packings are the strongest out of the three, offering elevated temperature resistance. Metal
wettability offers better wettability than plastic and worse than ceramic. Hydrogen peroxide has a
tendency of corroding metals as well as reacting with many, limiting metal packing usage. However,
hydrogen peroxide is in trace quantities, making some metals more compatible with others, typically
alloys.
A price compromise metal that is compatible with hydrogen peroxide is SS304 at quantities the column
will encounter. The decision matrix below determines metal to be the selected material for this
application. This is subjective based on the information above.
Table 8: Material Selection Decision Matrix, where 5 is the Best, 1 is the Worst.

Characteristic Ceramic Plastic Metal

Wettability 5 1 4
Strength 1 3 5
Cost 2 5 1
Corrosion 5 1 4
Total 13 10 14

Two types of packing are considered in columns: random and structured. Random packings are
irregularly shaped pieces of plastic, metal or ceramic which are cost- effective to manufacture. These are
normally dumped into the column and tend to have higher surface areas than structured packing.
Increasing packing size reduces its effective surface area. Figure 3 shows a general guide for the size of
packing compared to the column diameter.
Although offering a higher surface area, random packings are prone to uneven liquid distribution
because liquid films around each packing will be different. Liquid maldistribution leads to a higher
pressure drop, ‘0.08-0.65 kPa/ m packing’, increasing column energy consumption. (Woods, 2007)

Figure 3: Random Packing Sizing Selection Guide

Structured packings are geometrically intricate, requiring higher manufacturing costs, and are placed in
the column in an arranged formation to ensure maximum vapour- liquid contact is taken advantage of.
Although more expensive, structured packing allows a lower pressure drop, ‘0.02-0.5 kPa/ m packing.’
and a lower HETP, reducing the capital costs of the column. (Woods, 2007) Random packings are
optimised for packed columns with diameters less than 1m.
Figure 3 recommends 50mm packings for the diameter obtained in section 2.4 of the report. If random
packing were used, packing height would fall in the range of 11.25 - 15m. Equation 17 shows a rule of
thumb for HETP that Kister developed for structured packing. Using Table 9 data, HETP equals 0.5,
resulting in a 7.5m packing height, reducing height by a third considering 11.25m. For this reason,
structured packing is preferred. (Kister, 1992)
Table 9: Mellapak 250Y Packing Specification Data.

Parameter Value Units

FP 66 m-1
e 0.975
13
 a 250 m2 m-3
Allowable F- Factor 1-2.5 Pa0.5

100 100
HETP= +0.1 ( Eq 17 ) , HETP= +0.1=0.5 m
a 2 −3
250 m m
F=u s ∙ √ ρV ( Eq 18 ) , F=1.202 m s−1 ∙ √ 3.908 kg m−3=2.38 Pa0.5
Superficial gas velocity, uS, is obtained equation Table 15, equation 28. F- factor sits within the range, so
is reasonable to use. from Y- type corrugated, 45°, structured packing is selected over X-type
corrugated, 60°. High fractional recovery of methanol in the bottoms puts a greater importance on mass
transfer performance than pressure drop. (Colintery.com, 2023)
Mellapak 250Y is selected as it was one of the first Y- type structured packing developed, so vendors
have optimised geometry, voids and overall mass transfer performance. Hydrogen peroxide- metal
compatibility must be considered when selecting packing material. This has been determined in section
3.2 of the report.
If more time were granted, effective area calculations of types of random and structured packing using
gas and liquid mass transfer coefficients would be conducted to enhance design. Reliable methods such
as Onda’s method for random packing and Billet & Schultes model for structured packing would be
calculated, further refining packing selection for metal and ceramic packings. Structured packing
methods require rigorous simulations and analysis.
Column Diameter Design, DC:
Internal traffic and stream properties are used to design an appropriate column diameter which avoids
flooding, the point where the column is unable to operate counter- currently. To avoid excessive
resistances against gas flow, reducing its ability to move upward, column vapour mass velocity at
flooding is calculated to ensure the column area does not flood. Column operation is 60-80% flooding is
commonplace in industry, so 70% flooding was assumed initially.
Design assumes steady- state operation, so internal traffic calculations are assumed constant flowrates.
Table 10 shows internal traffic calculations. Equations 19 and 20 apply to the rectifying section, and
equations 21 and 22 apply to the stripping section. ‘q’ equals1, so V = V’. F, D and B are total flowrates
of the corresponding letters in kg s-1 and kmol s-1, tabled values are divided by 3600. Mixture stream
properties were estimated using Aspen Plus. It was advised to find properties at feed, distillate and
bottoms at the temperatures calculated earlier and then average. Table 11 shows the stream properties
used in the report.
Table 10: Internal Traffic calculations.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

19 LO=R Ḋ 23.338 0.441 kg s-1 kmol s-1

20 V =LO + Ḋ 26.933 0.509 kg s-1 kmol s-1
21 '
L =LO +q Ḟ 42.919 1.116 kg s-1 kmol s-1
22 '
V =V −(1−q)∙ Ḟ 26.933 0.509 kg s-1 kmol s-1

Table 11: Average Stream Liquid & Vapour Properties.

−3 −3 −2 −2
ρ L , kg m ρV , kg m μL , N s m μG , N s m
Feed 757.972 3.095 2.867E-04 1.20E-05
Distillate 685.067 6.007 1.394E-04 1.04E-05
Bottoms 740.898 2.623 2.491E-04 1.30E-05
Average 727.979 3.908 2.251E-04 1.18E-05

14
Maximum Vapour Velocity, VW*:
Flow factor, FLV, is a parameter that assesses column performance in the rectifying and stripping section
of the column to obtain K4 at flooding. The larger value is selected to avoid flooding. The stripping section
should have a larger value as it has a larger liquid flowrate.
Table 12: FLV calculations

Eq Number Equation FLV, Rectifying FLV, Stripping

( LV ,,VL'' )∙( ρρ )
23 O V
0.5 0.063 0.117
F LV =
L

As mentioned previously, FLV, Stripping is larger and is applied to the graph in Appendix _ and the red line is
used to obtain K4 at flooding, 3.1. K4, properties from Table 12 and the packing factor are used to derive
equation 24, the maximum vapour velocity, accounting for densities instead of volume occupied.

( ) ( )
0.5
¿
K 4 ∙ ρV ∙ ( ρ L− ρV ) −3
3.1 ∙ 3.908 kg m ∙ ( 727.979−3.908 ) kg m
−3 0.5
VW = ( Eq 24 ) , V W ¿ =

( ) ( )
0.1 −2 0.1
μ −1 2.251E-04 N s m
13.1∙ F P ∙ L 13.1∙ 66 m ∙ −3
ρL 727.979 kg m

VW* equals 6.740 kg m-2 s-1. The greatest vapour flowrate in Table 10 is divided by the maximum vapour
velocity to calculate the largest minimum area to avoid flooding. The assumed flooding factor, initially
70% was selected. Goal seek was used to adjust the flooding factor to 69.993% ensure standard
diameter usage.
Table 13: Column Areas & Diameter.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

25 V' 3.996 m2
Amin = ¿
VW
26 Amin 5.792 m2
Af=
F

( )
27 0.5 2.716 m
4 ∙ Af
DC=
π

Designed DC is inaccurate because of rounding errors. 2.701 m and 5.733 m2 will be used. (‘8.7- Column
Diameter, DC’, Sheet ‘8. Column Diameter’, ‘220178574_Final_Design_Project_Spreadsheet’) Packing
changes will alter FP, diameter is altered as a result.
Column Pressure Drop, ΔP:
Low pressure drops are vital for effective packed column operation. Heuristic states an acceptable
pressure drop of ‘0.02-0.5 kPa/ m packing’. (Woods, 2007) Two methods are conducted and compared
for accurate pressure drop design. The first method is applicable to both structured and random packing,
highlighting possible inaccuracies, nonetheless is still used in industry.
Equation 25 is rearranged, and maximum vapour velocity is recalculated with the optimised column area.
Equation 24 is rearranged for K4 at 68.993% flooding. Intersection of the orange and F LV lines in
Appendix _ is interpolated for the column pressure drop. Table 14 outlines the derivation of the graphical
method pressure drop.
Table 14: Graphical Pressure Drop

Eq Number Equation Value Units

15
 25 (Rearr) ¿ V' 4.698 kg m-2 s-1
VW =
Af

( )
24 (Rearr) ¿ 2 μ
0.1 1.506 Unitless
13.1 ∙ ( V W ) ∙ L
ρL
K4=
ρV ( ρL −ρV )
26 Z P=HETP ∙ N 7.5 m

Appendix _ estimates a pressure drop of 50mm H2O/m packing. Interpolation errors arise, so was
reviewed by someone else. 1mm H2O is equivalent to 9.8E-03 kPa, converting to 0.49 kPa/m packing.
This is deemed acceptable by heuristic above. With a 3675 Pa, 0.037 bar column pressure drop.
A second pressure drop method involving an adjusted Ergun’s equation for Mellapak 250Y is deployed to
validate the previous pressure drop. Stichlmair’s model is the simplest, proving ‘most effective in a study
between air and water’. Rocha Bravo & Fair and Billet & Schultes model are ‘more complex’ and pose
‘more robust for a multicomponent systems’, however, ‘intense simulation efforts’ with specialist software
are required. Given the time restraints, Stichlmair’s method was selected. (Madsen et al., 2023)
Stichlmair’s correlation requires the system to be below loading point. It is assumed that the column
operates under the appropriate conditions as operation is below flooding. Unlike the graphical method,
Stichlmair’s method accounts for non-wetted and irrigated pressure drops.
Non- wetted pressure drop is calculated in Table 15, which considers gas Reynold’s number and friction
factor per particle, 0. These are ‘dependent on C1, C2 and C3, constants specific to Mellapak 250Y’
where ‘C1 = 5, C2 = 3 and C3=0.45.’ (Madsen et al., 2023) V’ from Table 10 is volumetric flowrate, so is
divided by average gas density. Non- wetted pressure drop is expected to be lower compared to wetted
because gas flow faces no liquid resistance, only by packing in the column.
Table 15: Non- wetted Pressure Drop.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

27 6 (1−ε) 6.000E-04 m
d p=
a
28 ' 3 −1 V' V' 1.202 m s-1
V ,m s = , u =
ρV G ,s A f
29 u G , s ∙ d p ∙ ρV 9458.684 Unitless
ℜ=
(1−ε )∙ μG
30 C1 C2 0.481
ξ 0= + +C 3
ℜ √ℜ
31 Δ Pd 3 1−ε uG ,s
2 95.474 Pa m-1
= ξ0 4.65 ρV
Z 4 ε dp

Irrigated pressure drop incorporates Froude’s number to assess column liquid holdup ‘accounting for the
same gas flow as non- wetted pressure drop’. (Madsen et al., 2023) ‘Froude’s number indicates the
influence of gravity on fluid motion’. (Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2023) ‘c’ is a constant for
structured packings, c = -0.38. Table 16 shows the pressure drop over an irrigated column, considering
the non- wetted column.
Table 16: Irrigated & Total Pressure Drop/m packing.

Eq number Equation Value Units

32 ' L'
3 −1 L' 9.768E-03 m s-1
L ,m s = ,u =
ρ L L, s A f
16
 33 uL , s a
2 2.737E-03 Unitless
Fr= 4.65
gε
34 1
3
0.078 m3 liquid m-3 empty
h L =0.555 Fr tower

[ ]
35 2+c 3.165
(
1−ε 1−
hL
) 3

( )
− 4.65
∆P ε hL
= ∙ 1−
∆ Pd 1−ε ε

Low Froude’s number and turbulent Reynold’s number suggests a good degree of mixing, allowing
sufficient vapour- liquid contact. Contribution of irrigated column pressure drop is 3.165 times greater
than non-wetted, which agrees with the previous statement. The ratio and non- wetted column pressure
drop are multiplied to obtain total pressure drop per metre packing.
Pa Pa
3.165 ∙ 95.474 =302.175 , 0.302 kPa /m packing. This value also satisfies the
m packing m packing
heuristic previously stated.
Both methods give acceptable pressure drops, even though the graphical method is 38.37% greater than
Stichlmair’s method. The latter is selected for final pressure drop as constants were optimised for
Mellapak 250Y.
Internals Design and Column Height, ZC:
Column internals are just as important as column design. If designed poorly, then maldistribution will
arise. Column internals must be spaced appropriately from packing to avoid distribution hotspots. If the
distance is large, feed will be distributed at higher velocities. Typical ‘trouble- free range from 120-
160mm’. (Mach Engineering, 2024). 150mm is selected to minimise liquid holdup.
Feed Distributor Design:
Feed distributors main design intent is to ‘maximise liquid interface surface area’. (Mach Engineering,
2024) Strigle recommends ‘60-100 distribution points per square metre’. However, ‘a larger distributor
number helps to improve packing efficiency in structured packings.’ ‘More than 120, and 160 distributors
are recommended for 350, and 500 m2 m-3 packing areas.’ Minimum number of distributors for 250 m2 m-3
were ‘extrapolated’, requiring at least 93 distributors. Liquid load calculations are shown below. (Green
and Southard (2019, pp.14–71), (Cook, n.d.) Figure 4 comfortably indicates distributor design is not
limited by liquid loads.

Ḟ Q
Qfeed = ( Eq 36 ) , u L= Feed ( Eq 37 )
ρL Af
−1 3 −1
70489.875 kg h 3 −1 92.998 m h −1
Q̇ Feed = −3
=92.998 m h ,u L = 2
=16.222 mh
757.972 kg m 5.733 m

Figure 4: Liquid load capacities that specific distributors allow. (Mach Engineering, 2024)

Spray type distributors

‘face potential to foul’. Hydrogen peroxide’s corrosive nature poses the threat to weaken distributor
performance with time.
Liquid load of current feed flowrates is sufficient for ladder type. If plant capacity increases, ladder type
would not be able to manage high liquid loads.
17
Gravity type distributors can withstand high flowrates and are the ‘least troublesome’ out of the three.
Maximum liquid load is 6 times higher than current liquid load so does not pose as issue with plant
expansion and are ‘not limited by fouling’, making it the best distributor out of the three. (Mach
Engineering, 2024)
Distributor head assumes a value lower than distribution space, 90mm. A high level was selected,
acknowledging the large reflux. Distributor outlet velocity is calculated in equation 38. Volumetric flowrate
per hole is determined using equation 39. A 7mm diameter was selected to avoid hole clogging. Hole
shape is assumed circular. Hole area is calculated as 3.848E-05 m 2. ‘l’ is in hours, so is multiplied by
3600.
Table 17: Distributor Design.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

38 uo = √ 2 g ho 1.329 m s-1

39 l=au o 0.184 m3 h-1

40 uL 88.163 m-2
ND≤
l

A factor of 20% is applied to the minimum distributor number per square metre to increase packing
efficiency, providing a requirement of at least 106 redistributors per square metre for a feed distributor.
This is more than the 93 extrapolated from earlier.
Other internals:
‘Redistributors are required every 5-10 m to avoid maldistribution.’ Based on packing height in equation
26, a redistributor is required. When considering redistributors, the reflux flowrate must be considered
due to the high quantity reintroduced to the column. The redistributor will sit under the feed distributor at
6.705m, to ensure uniform feed distribution. A seventh of the stages sit below the feed, requiring even
liquid distribution entering the stripping section for efficient HK bottoms fractional recovery.
Packing must be held in place by supports to ‘restrict packed bed movement’ under operation. (Jaya and
Kolmetz, 2020). This helps to improve column mechanical integrity as stresses acting on the vessel are
less likely to affect packing efficiency.
Internals considered in this section must be determined via rigorous testing and simulation design
considerations have not been made.
Total Column Height, ZT:
Total cylindrical height considers appropriate spacing between internals and accounts for a vapour- liquid
disengagement zone, which has been advised as an additional 1 m at the column ends. This zone is
considered to ‘reduce chances of liquid entrainment in distillate’, improving separation efficiency. There
are three distances between distributors and packing in the column, demonstrated in Figure 5, so the
0.15m spacing is considered three times. Total cylindrical height is calculated below using equation 41.
ZC =Z P +Z L + Z G + ( Z Distributor ∙ N Z Distributor
) ( Eq 41 ) , Z C=7.5 m+1 m+1 m+ ( 3 ∙0.15 m )=9.95 m
This height is tall enough to ensure sufficient separation, while maintaining reasonable distribution with
respect to liquid and vapour flowrates.

18
 3. Mechanical Design:
In this section, design operating conditions are developed from section 3, serving as the basis for
refining ‘internal pressure vessel’ dimensions based on stresses incurred, whilst accounting for
geographical challenges, such as windspeed and heat as the column is located outside. This was
decided as column height makes it difficult to fit inside.
Packing with lower HETP would allow for column construction within the plant building. Skirt support for
the vertical vessel at full loading is designed to ensure the vessel remains upright in the event of future
extreme conditions that Qatar may be exposed to. For relevant conversions, refer to Appendix _
Maximum Operation Conditions:
Worst-case operation must be considered when designing a column’s mechanical integrity, so a 10%
safety factor is applied to the highest operating conditions. These are assumed to be the bottoms bubble
point temperature and the liquid disengagement zone pressure. The disengagement zone density is the
bottoms liquid density in Table 11 is assumed full and is calculated below using equations 42 and 43.
Ptotal=P operating + Phydrostatic ( Eq 42 ) , P hydrostatic=ρgh( Eq 43)
−3 −1
¯ ¯¿ 3.073 .̄
Phydrostatic =740.898 kg m ∙9.81 m s ∙ 1 m=7268.209 Pa , 0.073 ,̄ P total=3 +0.073
Applying the safety factor, design temperature, T i, and pressure, Pi, are 3.38 bar, 0.350 N mm-2 and
117.04°C/242.672°F, respectively.
Material Selection
The selected vessel construction material must be inert eliminating further reactions. The main factors
for the chosen material is the hydrogen-peroxide compatibility and corrosion resistance. Economics is
considered, even though these materials are typically expensive. ‘10% hydrogen peroxide compatibility’
is considered. (Industrial Specialties Mfg. and IS MED Specialties, 2019)
Carbon steel is cost-effective, so was considered despite corroding easily. Higher corrosion allowance is
a consideration, leading to lower stress effects. However, would lead to higher capital costs, requiring
expensive joins, rendering it as uneconomical. Appendix _ specifies ‘severe effect’, so was disregarded.
Stainless steel vessels are commonplace in industry, suggesting multiple available standard sizes. It is
‘easy to shape and thin sheets can be used’ making vessel construction viable. (Makkus et al., 2000)
Figure 5 shows that stainless steels 304, 316 and 416 ‘face slights effects to corrosion.’ However, SS304
is rated ‘B’ until 48°C, so is inappropriate for use. SS316 outperforms SS416 and has more readily
available data, so SS316 is selected for design ease.
Although SS316 is expensive compared to other steels, the higher capital cost will save money on
replacements when considering plant lifetime. Qatar is a rich country, so even more corrosion resistant
materials such as Hastelloy could be considered but would require a cost-benefit analysis .
A 2mm corrosion allowance will be implemented across all thickness calculations to account for ‘slight
corrosion’ . (Industrial Specialties Mfg. and IS MED Specialties, 2019) Selected material properties are
found in Appendix _.
Vessel Thickness Calculations
Vessel thicknesses are determined to accommodate for stresses by extreme pressures the vessel will
face under operation, accounting for SS316 MAST, S, at the design temperature. Values from Appendix
_ are interpolated at the design temperature and is determined as 16.861 ksi, 116.257 N mm -2. (Cook,
n.d.) The minimum thickness column diameter including corrosion allowance is benchmarked at 10mm
by Appendix _. A ‘double- welded butt joint with spot checks’, giving an E of 0.85 is selected to balance
joint specialisation requirement and cost.

19
Longitudinal and hoop thicknesses, equations 44 & 45 consider stresses incurred to the vessel in the
vertical and circumferential axes, which are driven by internal pressure. Calculations including a
corrosion allowance are shown in Table 18.
Table 18: Vessel Thickness Calculations.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

44 Pi ∙ D i 4.390 mm
t L= +CA
4 SE+0.8 Pi
45 P i ∙ Di 6.783 mm
t h= +C A
2 SE+1.2 Pi

Calculations are less than the minimum thickness because of the low design pressure to MAST ratio. ‘t L
and ‘th’ are compared to the guideline minimum thickness. The largest, 10mm is taken as vessel
thickness.
Domed End Head Thickness:
Thicknesses above consider the cylindrical section of the vessel. Three types of domed end heads;
‘hemispherical, ellipsoidal and torispherical heads’ are considered.
Ellipsoidal is the ‘most economical at pressures above 15 bar’. Design pressure is more than four times
smaller, rendering its use. Hemispherical head is ‘capable of resisting twice the pressure of a
torispherical head’. This would be the best design choice if design pressure was close to the material
MAST. The system maximum pressure is over three hundred times smaller, causing overdesign.
Torispherical head is the ‘best for pressures under 15 bar.’ For this reason, torispherical head is selected.
The domed end thickness is calculated in Table 19.
‘Crown radius should not exceed column diameter’ so R C.=Di, 2702 mm. The knuckle to crown radii
should not be less than 0.06 to avoid buckling.’ The lower bound of the acceptable limit is used to
calculate the largest allowable domed end thickness. Torispherical depth per end is doubled for top and
bottom ends and added to total cylindrical height from section 2.6.3 to obtain total vessel height.
Table 19: Domed End & Total Column Height Calculations.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

46 r i=0.06 ∙ RC 162.120 mm
47 0.855 Pi R C 10.180 mm
t T= +C A
SE−0.1 Pi

√[( ]
48 361.930 mm
hi =R i− Ri−
Di
2 )(
Ri +
Di
2 )
+2 r i

49 ZT =Z C +(2 ∙ hi) 10.674 m

Rounding errors led to domed end thickness being higher than minimum thickness. Domed ends will
assume the minimum to ensure a uniform vessel. If sufficient time for detailed design, domed end depth
would be determined for accurate Hsk.
Vessel Dead weight Calculations:
Total empty vessel deadweight must be considered to ensure vessel will not fail under full loading. The
following dead-weights are considered significant; empty vessel, packing, insulating material, and caged
ladder classified as auxiliary. Dead weight for feed distributors and liquid redistributors were considered.
Time constraints will assume for them to be considered under the constant Cw,

20
‘Cw = 1.15 for distillation columns, accounting for multiple fittings such as support rings or equivalent
fittings.’ ZC is used as HV.
Table 20: Empty vessel dead weight.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

50 −3 2712 mm
Dm =Di+ t ×10
51 W v =C w π ρm Dm g ( H v + 0.8 D m ) t 93.193 kN

Packing deadweight above and below the feed is calculated by splitting the packed height based on the
rectifying and stripping sections. Packed height per section combines Table 7 and Z P. Packings are
assumed to be loaded; total packed height dead weight is ‘multiplied by 1.2 kN’. Bulk material density is
considered to account for packing voidage.
Table 21: Packing dead weight.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

52 V P= A ∙ Z P ; Above , Below 36.860, 6.266 m3
53 W P=g ∙ ρbulk ∙V P ; Above , Below 72.319, 12.294 kN

Empty and loaded packing dead weight is calculated as 84.613 and 101.536 kN.
Table 22: Insulation dead weight.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

54 V i=C V ∙ t ∙ Z C 8.446 m3
55 W i =V i ∙ ρi ∙ g 10.771 kN

Insulation is deployed to ensure Qatar’s climate does not interfere with column temperature control. This
is ‘doubled to account for attachments, fittings, and moisture absorption.’ Initial insulation dead weight
from Table 22 is doubled, showing a final 21.542 kN insulation dead weight, Wi.
Auxiliary fittings externally attached to the vessel is considered significant dead weight. A caged ladder
was selected to ensure safe climbing in extreme weather. A rough guide for caged ladder weight is 360N
per metre length. The ladder is assumed to be the same length as Hv, so total caged ladder weight, WCL,
is derived as 3.842 kN.
Total vessel deadweight, WZ, is calculated using equation 56. All units are in kN.
W Z =W v +W P . L + W i +W CL ( Eq56 ) ,W Z =93.193+ 101.536+21.542+3.842=220.113 kN
Vessel Stresses
Stresses imposed on the vessel caused by weight under loading, and internal pressures in both vertical
and horizontal axes, whilst addressing Qatar’s geographical challenges such as wind speed are
considered in this section. All stress calculations use the units N mm-2.
Weight stresses assume the vessel is fully filled with water, W W, and combines WZ for worst- case
scenario, WT. Water’s density is assumed 1000 kg m -3 for design ease. The highest liquid density in
Table 11 is less than water, so column operating stresses will be lower than calculations, ensuring the
column will experience less severe weight stresses. Circumferential, longitudinal and weight bearing
stresses are shown in Table 23.
1.1.1. Primary Stresses

21
 Table 23: Stress calculations

Eq Number Equation Value Units

57 π 2 3 661023.233 N
W W = ∙ ρ w ∙ g∙ (3∙ Di ∙ Z C +2 ∙ Di )
12
58 W T =W Z +W W 881136.233 N
59 P i ∙ Di 47.285 N mm-2
σ h=
2t
60 Pi ∙ D i 23.643 N mm-2
σ L=
4t
61 W Z,WT 2.583, N mm-2
σ w= 10.342
π ( D i +t ) t

The higher dead weight stress will be considered from this point for calculations involving σ w will use
10.342 N mm-2. Hoop stresses are expected to be half of the stresses acting longitudinally because of
the nature of the equation.
Bending Stress
As stated previously, the vessel will be out in the open so will be prone to wind speed loading. Qatar
does not experience high winds regularly. However, its desert location makes it vulnerable to sandstorms
so is considered for design. High wind speeds induce bending stresses on the vessel. Ras Laffan is
located near to the coast, so is more vulnerable to higher speeds as coastal areas face worst storm
conditions. Vessel effective diameter accounts for a 0.4m caged ladder allowance. ‘Maximum wind
speed recorded in Ras Laffan, Qatar was 16.5 m s -1,’ which is equivalent to 59.4 km h-1. (Aboobacker et
al., 2021) Bending stresses are considered at 160 km h-1 to ensure the column can withstand extreme
wind loading. Coefficient 0.07 in equation 64 is ‘adjusted for caged ladder’. Adjusted diameter
dimensions for wind loading calculations are in Appendix _
‘Total bending moment’, and the ‘second moment of area of the vessel are used to calculate maximum
bending stress imposed on the column in Table 25. Hv considers domed end depths and ZC.
Table 24: Bending stress calculations.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

66 Fw 2 339125372.5 N mm
M x= ∙Hv
2
67 π 4 4 78331211950 mm4
l v = (D O −D i )
64

( )
68 M x Di 5.892 N mm-2
σ b=± +t
lv 2

Bending stress is four times smaller than longitudinal stress, having minimal effect on resultant
longitudinal stress.
Resultant Longitudinal Stress, σz:
Upwind and downwind vessel stresses along the vertical axis are determined for resultant longitudinal
stresses. The equation assumes ‘σw is compressive, and therefore negative’.
Table 25: Resultant longitudinal stresses, σz.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

69 σ z , upwind =σ L +σ w +σ b 19.193 N mm-2
70 σ z , downwind =σ L + σ w −σ b 7.409 N mm-2

22
Both resultant values are positive, showing σ w and σb to be insignificant compared to σL. This may be
caused by condition overestimation, where a lower thickness being tolerable to increase compressive
stresses for economical vessel design. However, if plant expansion is considered, the column would still
be mechanically operable.
Compressive stresses have negligible effect, so critical buckling stress, equation 74, is not of major
importance and is found in Appendix _ and compared with the sum of the compressive stresses, σ w and
σb, 16.324 N mm-2. Vertical vessels are more prone to buckling than horizontal vessels, so is still
considered.

Evaluation of Principal Stresses

Allowable stress intensities form the basis for principal stress comparisons. The main stresses
respective to the axes they act in, σh and σz, are considered. ‘Torsional shear stress, τ, is normally small,
so is assumed negligible.’ Upwind and downwind are considered for effective evaluation. Table 26 _
shows the principal stresses. An example calculation of σ1 upwind is shown below.

[ √ ]
σ 1, upwind =0.5 ∙ σ h+ σ z + ( σ h−σ z )2+ 4 τ 2 ( Eq 71 ) , σ 1=0.5∙ ¿
Table 26: Principal stresses.

Eq Number Equation Upwind Downwind Units

71
[ √ ]
σ 1=0.5 ∙ σ h + σ z + ( σ h−σ z ) + 4 τ 2 2 47.285 47.285 N mm-2

72 σ =0.5 ∙ [ σ + σ −√ ( σ −σ ) +4 τ ]
2 h z h z
2 2 19.193 7.409 N mm-2

73 σ 3=0.5 ∙ Pi 0.175 0.175 N mm-2

Evaluation of Appendix _ compares maximum stress differences and SS316’s MAST to ensure the
column will not fail. The largest difference, 47.11 N mm-2, is compared to 116.257 N mm-2. Calculations
use equations 75- 77 to obtain the maximum governing stress and is shown below.
Table 27: Evaluation of Principal Stresses.

Eq Number Equation Upwind Downwind Units

74 σ 1−σ 2 28.092 39.876 N mm-2
75 σ 1−σ 3 47.11 47.11 N mm-2
75 σ 2−σ 3 19.018 7.234 N mm-2

The maximum governing stress to the vessel from Appendix _ is 47.11 N mm -2. This is lower than the
MAST, demonstrating stress will not weaken the column’s mechanical integrity.
1.2. Skirt Support
Vertical vessels require skirt support to remain upright as ‘they do not impose concentrated loads on the
shell vessel.’ SS316 is considered as skirt support. Process fluid will not contact skirt, so CS was
considered initially. As the column is out in the open, it is exposed to Ras Laffan’s typography, which is
predominantly sand. Sand may contain salts or low concentrations of materials which are corrosive to
carbon steel, weakening the skirt.
Assumed skirt height is 3 m as reboiler tubes are assumed to be ‘standard 2.44 m.’ 3 m accounts for
tubes and its corresponding heads. Skirt thickness is assumed 8 mm. Stainless steel young’s modulus at
ambient conditions is 200000 N mm-2. Skirt angle is assumed 90° for design ease. D S is assumed DC at
90°. Joint efficiency is assumed to be 0.85. SS is assumed to be the

23
‘Weight of the liquid to fill the vessel will be transferred directly to the skirt’, so vessel weight is only
considered for operating dead- weight stress. Test weight considers the maximum weight of the vessel to
account for worst- case loading. Skirt bending stress applies skirt diameter, thickness and the maximum
bending moment, Ms, at, 13.674 m. Using equation 65, Ms = 556540838.5 N mm. Skirt stresses are
calculated are shown below.
Table 28: Skirt stresses calculations.

Eq Number Equation Operating Test Units

78 WZ,T 12.927 3.232 N mm-2
σ ws=
π (D s+ t sk )t sk
79 4 Ms 12.097 N mm-2
σ bs=
π (D s +t sk )t sk Ds

Tensile resultant force is solved by finding the smallest difference between bending and dead weight
stresses, and the compressive resultant force is the largest sum. These worst- case resultant forces are

compared to two criterion, σ s ,tensile ≤ S S E sin θ s∧σ s ,compressive ≤ 0.125 EY

( )
t sk
Ds
∙sin θ s . Resultant stresses must

satisfy both for acceptable skirt design.

Table 29: Resultant skirt support stresses.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

80 σ s ,compressive =σ bs+ σ ws 25.024 N mm-2

81 σ s ,tensile =σ bs−σ ws 8.865 N mm-2

82 S S E ∙ sin θs 117.212 N mm-2

( )
83 t sk 92.524 N mm-2
0.125 ∙ EY ∙ ∙ sin θs
Ds

Resultant compressive and tensile stresses satisfy the criterion, therefore acceptable. Lower thicknesses
can be reduced to the minimum, 6mm, for economical design by changing the Excel spreadsheet.
1.3. Pipe Diameter Sizing
For fluid flow, pipe diameters are determined based on mass flow and density. Equations give an optimal
diameter and assume stream turbulence since they are optimised for case specific streams. Specialised
pipes would incur unnecessary costs, so standard diameters are selected.
Stainless steel is selected as pipe material for best fabrication to the vessel and multiple standard sizes
available. Table 30 and 31 shows optimal diameters developed for feed, distillate, bottoms and reflux
streams. Bottoms quantity that returns as vapour is not known, because of time constraints for reboiler
design. Reflux density is assumed at distillate composition at condenser outlet temperature and is
obtained from Aspen Plus. Equation 83 obtains diameter in mm. Densities are in Table 11.
Table 30: Optimum diameters and their counterparts.

Eq Number Equation Feed Distillate Bottoms Reflux to Units

Column
84 −0.37
ρ 104.018 738.389 158.740 117.556 mm
0.52
d i , optimum =260G

85 do 114.3 813 168.3 141.3 mm

24
 86 t 6.02 17.48 7.11 6.55 mm
62 (Rearr) d i=d o−2 t 108.28 778.04 154.08 128.2 mm

Table 31: Optimum diameters of utility streams.

Eq Number Units

Standard pipe sizes that process liquid, do, are 4.5, 6.625 and 5.56 inches respectively. Standard pipe
sizes which process vapour, distillate pipes, are sized at 32 inches. Pipe sizes processing vapours are
larger than liquid process pipes as gases occupy more volume, so need more space to move through
pipes under turbulent flow. Thicker pipes were selected to account for corrosion as SS316 faces ‘slight
corrosion’.

25
Additional Unit Design
This section considers preliminary design for units associated with T-102, condenser and reboiler.
Condenser Thermal Design
Column distillate faces condensation to serve the purpose for reflux to enter as a liquid. The condenser
is designed as a total condenser, where all fluids condense compared to distillate state. This section
explores condenser thermal design, considering a shell & tube, counter- current operation, as it transfers
heat between fluids effectively. Mass flowrate condensed is V’ from internal traffic from Table 10, 26.933
kg s-1.
Condensation occurs shell side, with the utility stream being cooling water. Ras Laffan’s proximity to the
sea considers seawater as a cheaper and more ethical alternative to using clean water. Sea water is
assumed to be processed to a clean standard in situ, assuming minimal fouling for efficient heat transfer.
Condensers are gravity- driven, so operation is more effective if mounted at the top of the column. This
design ignores this consideration.
Condenser Flowrates & Duty
Vapour leaves the column and enters the condenser from the rectifying section, so V’ from internal traffic
calculated in Table 10 is assumed to be the flowrate condensed, 26.933 kg s -1 or 0.509 kmol s-1. Inlet
temperature tube side is assumed column dew point, 64°C. Tube side outlet temperature is assumed to
be liquid at 54°C. Cooling water is assumed to receive a 5°C increase from Qatar’s average
temperature, 29.4°C, so the process fluid via reflux enters as liquid. Condenser temperatures are in
shown below.
Table 32: Condenser Temperature Data

TH, in 337.15 K
TH, out 327.15 K
TC, in 302.55 K
TC, out 307.55 K
T Shell, Avg 332.15 K
T Tube, Avg 305.05 K
Condenser duty is calculated based on the enthalpy change of the distillate vapour flowrate at dew point
as it condenses at the tube outlet temperature. Duty obtained is the requirement for the service fluid
required to cool the process fluid. Vapour and liquid enthalpies are found in Appendix _. C p does not
change significantly across service fluid temperatures, so is assumed 4.18 kJ kg-1 K-1.
Table 33: Condenser duty & service fluid flowrate calculations

Eq Equation Value Units

Number
87 Qcondenser = ṁ∙ ( ∆ H vapour−∆ H liquid ) 12461.899 kJ s-1

88 Q condenser 596.263 kg s-1

ṁCW =
Cp∆T

Condenser duty requires an energy supply of 12461.899 kW, an energy sink, for a 10°C process fluid
reduction using CW. 596.623 kg s-1 is required for the condenser to cool the process fluid to a specific
temperature. This would require excessive monitoring and high energy to process substantial amounts of
sea water to meet clean specifications, which is process inefficient. Use of a heat transfer fluid, or a fluid
with higher heating capacities offer lower service fluid flowrate requirements.
Total heat transfer area utilises condenser duty, log mean temperature and assumes an overall heat
transfer coefficient, U. Assumed U is based off ranges determined by the fluids used in the heat
26
exchanger. Figure 5 show acceptable U ranges. U is iterated until the assumed U is within a 30% design
range of calculated U.
630 W m-2 °C is the final assumed U. 500-700 W m -2 °C is considered as nitrogen, although in trace
quantities, is non- condensable so is considered for conservative design. A temperature correction factor
is applied to the log mean temperature to ensure an accurate estimation, found in Appendix _. Overall
heat transfer area calculations are shown in Table 34.

Figure 5: Overall heat transfer coefficients, U for condenser

fluids.
Table 34: Heat Transfer Area

Eq Number Equation Value Units

89 ∆ T LM =¿ ¿ 27.023 K

93 ∆ T M =Ft ∙ ∆ T LM 26.699 K
94 Q̇ 740.881 m2
A=
U assumed ∙ ∆ M
95 At =π ∙d o ∙ Lt 0.491 m2
96 A 1509 Tubes
Nt=
At

( )
97 N 1 1182 mm
Db =d o t n1
K1
98 pt =1.25 ∙ d o 26.708 mm
99 Db 45
Nr=
pt

Tube outer diameters and lengths were iterated at standard sizes. A compromise number of tubes was
achieved using a 21.336 mm do and 7.32 m tube length for acceptable tube flow is shown in Table 34. N t
is rounded up it is impossible to have a decimal number of tubes.
Total tube diameter is grouped as bundle diameter as all calculations per tube would require excessive
calculations. K1 and n1 are 0.215 and 2.207 as the exchanger is assumed to have 1 pass both shell and
tube side.
Tubes assume a square pitch 25% larger than the outer diameter and is used to obtain the average
number of tube rows that experience condensation. A 2/3 correction factor is applied to equation 99,
giving 30 tubes per row on average. Row number and bundle diameter are rounded up for design ease.
1.3.1. Shell- Side Coefficient, (hc)b
Cooling water flows tube side. Shell side average and wall temperatures are averaged to calculate
condensate average temperature for the distillate. Table 35 shows properties for the shell condensate.
Condensing coefficient is assumed 1500 W m-2 °C.

27
 Table 35: Wall temperature.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

( )
100 ( T shell , avg−T tube ,avg ) ∙ U assumed 320.77 K
T w = T shell , avg−
U condensing

101 T condensate , avg=0.5 ∙(T shell ,avg +T w ) 326.46 K

Process stream and cooling water properties used in this section will be at the average condensate
temperature, shown in Table 36.
Table 36: Condenser Stream Properties (Aspen Plus, 2025)

Property Value Units

Process Fluid
Liquid Density, ρL 709.989 kg m-3
Liquid Viscosity, μL 0.167 mN s m-2
Thermal Conductivity, kL 0.134 W m-1 K-1
Vapour Density, ρV 6.375 kg m-3
Vapour Viscosity, μV 0.010 mN s m-2
Service Fluid
Liquid Density, ρL 971.862 kg m-3
Liquid Viscosity, μL 0.583 mN s m-2

1.3.2. Condensate Tube Loading, Г

Condensation per tube is considered for accurate design. W c is mass flowrate entering the shell, L t is
tube length and Nt is number of tubes from Table 34. Condensate tube loading is calculated below.

WC 26.933 kg s
−1
−1 −1
Γh= ( Eq102 ) , Γ h= =2.44E-03 kg s m /tube
Lt ∙ N t 7.32 m∙ 1509 tubes

Condensate tube loading, average number of rows and process fluid data from Table 36 derive the Shell-
side heat transfer coefficient, which is calculated below.

[ ]
1
ρL ( ρL −ρV ) g 3
−1
6
( h c ) b=0.95 ∙ k L μL Γ h
∙ Nr ( Eq 103 ) ,

[ ]
1
709.989 kg m ∙ ( 709.989 kg m −6.375 kg m ) ∙ 9.81m s
−3 −3 −3 −2 1
−2 3 −1
6
( h c ) b=0.95 ∙ 0.134 mN s m ∙ −3 −2 −1 −1
∙ 30 =1654.593 W m ℃
0.167 × 10 mN s m ∙ 2.44E-03 kg s m
Shell- side coefficient is 10.31% greater than Ucondensate, so no correction to Tw is needed.
1.3.3. Tube- side Coefficient, hi
Tube- side heat transfer is driven by tube- side velocity and tube cross- sectional area. Turbulent flow is
preferred tube- side so cooling water at one point in a tube is replaced constantly, taking heat from the
process fluid. Inner diameter, di, is 17.12 mm. CW flowrate from Table 33 is the mass flowrate, 596.263
kg s-1. Equations required for tube- side coefficient and their constituent results are tabulated below.

28
 Table 37: Tube- side heat transfer coefficient, hi.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

104 π ∙ N t ∙ di
2 0.347 m2
Ac , t=
4
105 ṁ 1.768 m s-1
ut =
ρ L ∙ Ac , t
106 4200∙ (1.35+0.02 ∙35)∙ut
0.8 7696.410 W m-1 K-1
hi = 0.2
di

1.3.4. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, UO

Shell and tube heat transfer coefficients, tube diameters and its corresponding material participate in
calculating the overall heat transfer coefficient, UO.
Cupro- nickel was preliminarily selected as the tube material because of its industry wide use in shell
and tube heat exchangers. Hydrogen peroxide is assumed non-existent in the condenser inlet, so all
metals are safe for use. In reality, this assumption may be invalid, so an in- depth material selection
should be taken when commissioning the plant.
Cupro- nickel’s thermal conductivity is 45 W m-1 K-1 from Appendix _. All units apart from diameters are in
W m-1 K-1. Shell and tube fluids are considered as ‘organic vapours’ and ‘cooling water (towers)’ in Figure
6, so fouling factors are assumed 5000 and 6000 W m-1 K-1, respectively. UO calculation is shown below.
d0
+ + di + 0 +
1 1 1 d 0 ln ⁡( ) d 1 d0 1
= ( Eq107)
U O (h¿ ¿ c)b ¿ hod d i hid d i hi
2kw

Figure 6: Shell diameter clearance graph.

29
 1
=
1
+
1
+
0.021366 ln ( 0.021366
0.01712 ) 0.021366
+ ∙
1
+
0.021366
∙
1
U O 1654.593 5000 2 ∙ 45 0.01712 6000 0.01712 7696.410
1 −1 −1 −1 −1
¿ m ℃ W =814.908W m K
1.227E-03
Uassumed is 29.35% smaller than UO, which is in the 30% acceptable range, therefore U assumed is deemed
valid. UO could be further for a lower difference, but calculated is within the range. U O is used to optimise
the heat exchanger, for new total heat transfer area, number of tubes and bundle diameter which will be
used going forward. These are tabulated below.
Table 38: Optimised Heat Exchanger Calculations using U O.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

94 (Optimised) Q 572.771 m2
AO =
UO∆TM
96 (Optimised) AO 1167 Tubes
N t ,O=
At

( )
97 (Optimised) Nt
1
n1
1051 mm
Db , O=d o
K1

Shell- side Design

Bundle diameter from Table 38 is used as the basis to obtain an inside shell diameter, this considers a
clearance depending on the selected head type. Pull-through floating head gives the largest clearance
and is selected for conservative design. An in- depth analysis should consider the optimal head when
commissioning the plant. Figure 6 shows the clearance graph, 95mm is interpolated and is summed to
the bundle diameter, resulting in a 1147 mm shell diameter.
Inner shell diameter was compared to standard sizes,(Reference). The nearest standard size, 1219mm
was initally selected, gave a vapour velocity which did not satisfy the accpetable rule of thumb, 0.6 - 1.5
m s-1. This was iterated with standard shell diameters until acceptable design was reached, 2286 mm
was determined as the acceptable shell diameter.
Baffle spacing in the shell is determined by the number of baffles and is shown below. A 45% baffle cut is
selected to give the largest friction factor, resulting in the lowest pressure drop. Baffle spacing is
calculated in 6.32 m in Appendix _. Baffle number was iterated until reasonable tube- side velocity was
obtained, 1.
Table 39: Reynolds number parameter calculations.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

109 (Pt −d o )D S N b 2.906 m2
A s=
Pt
110 Wc 9.268 kg m-2 s-1
Gs =
As
111 Gs 1.453 m s-1
u s=
ρV
112 1.27 2 2 0.021 m
d e= (Pt −0.785 ∙d o )
do

30
Shell cross flow area is calculated with respect to shell diameter and baffle spacing. Cros- flow area is
used to obtain the mass velocity, Gs, and is divided by vapour density to obtain shell -side velocity. Shell
side is within an acceptable range of 0.6-1.5 m s-1, so is acceptable.
Equivalent diameter is calculated to use an equivalent diameter, taking baffles and head type into
account for fluid flow and is considered as the diameter for Reynolds number calculation below. Viscosity
is assumed to be in N s m-2.
Table 40: Shell- side Reynolds number.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

113 G s∙ de 19462.8 Unitless
ℜ=
μv
Reynold’s number is 19462, which is greater than 2000, so is safe to assume turbulent flow. Friction
factor is interpolated in Appendix _, obtaining 0.03. Pressure drop is assumed ‘50% of the calculated
using inlet flow.’ Table 41 demonstrates shell- side pressure drop. Value calculated is in N m -2 and is
converted to bar accordingly.
Table 41: Shell side Pressure Drop.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

( )
114 Lt ρ v us 2 101.815, N m-2,
∆ P=8 j f ∙ ∙ 0.0102 bar
de 2

This is less than 0.07 bar, therefore is acceptable. Pressure drop is negligible, so further considerations
are unnecessary.
Tube Side Pressure Drop
Fluid flow tube side is liquid, so a pressure drop will occur so is calculated. Tube side velocity was
calculated in Table 37.
Table 42: Tube side Reynolds number.

Eq Number Equation Value Unit

115 ρL ut d i 50457.075 Unitless
ℜ=
μL

Reynolds number is turbulent like shell side. Figure 7 shows a tube side correlation between Reynolds
number and friction factor. The graph is interpolated to obtain a friction factor of 3.1E-03.

31
 Figure 7: Tube- side friction factor.

Pressure drop tube side is calculated in Table 41.

Table 43: Tube side pressure drop.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

[ () ]
116 Lt ρ ut
2 19903.724, N m-2,
∆ Pt =N p 8 j f ∙ +2.5 0.199 bar
di 2
Acceptable pressure drop range is 0.05 – 0.2 bar. This proves design is acceptable for operation in
accordance with standard sizes used. Tube- side could be optimised better to ensure it is not so close to
the upper bound of the accepted range, but process efficiency is not as important than in T-102 as it is
not the focal point of report.
Cooling water return can be used as waste heat in other aspects of the process for example, pre-heating
feedstock before it enters the reactor or use as a source of cooling water for a cooling jacket for the
reactor. T-103 and T-104 operate at atmospheric pressure, so the waste heat from the condenser can be
used to heat the feed until saturation.
Reboiler Design
V’ from the column stripping section is partially vapourised before it is re-introduced into the column, so
is considered as reboiler flowrate. A natural thermosiphon reboiler, with a minimum circulation ratio of 3
to avoid reboiler drying, is considered for preliminary design as it can manage higher flowrates.
Vaporisation is assumed to occur tube side. Natural thermosiphon reboilers are density- driven, so pump
requirement is eliminated; improving process efficiency as pump operation would be expensive due to
large process requirements. Reboiler is assumed to operate at 3.023 bar, the sum of the pressure drop
from section 4.3, 0.023 bar to the column operating pressure, 3 bar. Bottoms mass flowrate is divided by
its corresponding molar flowrate, giving a 26.444 kg kmol-1 molecular weight.
Design is limited as mixtures that leave the reboiler as a vapour- liquid mixture require extensive
simulation and testing. Design methods require rigorous modelling to develop and would not be possible
to conduct unless a longer period were granted. Increased PO polymerisation at higher temperatures
may cause reboiler fouling and should be taken into consideration when commissioning the plant. This
section consists of a preliminary design calculating reboiler duty and number of tubes.

32
Reboiler Duty
Quantity re-entering the distillation column as vapour is calculated below.
−1 −1
Liquid entering the reboiler=L’−B ( Eq 117 ) , Liquid entering thereboiler =42.919 kg s −15.986 kg s =26.933 kg s
Vaporised flowrate in the reboiler, V’, is assumed initially. This value did not satisfy the minimum
recirculation rate of 3, so V’ was iterated using goal seek until the condition was met on the
‘220178574_Final_Design_Project_Spreadsheet’. V’ used from this point is 0.252 kmol s -1. L’ is the liquid
leaving the reboiler as a liquid, 0.756 kmol s-1. The products of V’ and L’ with xb give V’i. and L’i
respectively. Refer to Appendix _ and _ for vapourisation enthalpies and average Cp data
Table 44: Condenser Duty Calculations

Compone xB V 'i ∆ H vap V ' i ∙ ∆ H vap L 'i Cp ∆T L 'i ∙ C p ∆ T

nt kmol s -1
kJ kmol -1
kJ s -1
kmol s -1
kJ kmol -
K kJ s-1
1
K-1
H2O2 3.455E-03 8.707E-04 54231.3 47.219 2.612E-03 92.764 81.4 19.72
3
H2O 0.422 0.106 45922.6 4867.796 0.319 81.767 81.4 2123.
211
CH3OH 0.563 0.142 40328.7 5726.675 0.426 117.324 81.4 4068.
374
C3H6O 9.878E-03 2.489E-03 28001.5 69.696 7.47E-03 129.17 81.4 78.54
4 5
C3H8O2 1.391E-03 3.505E-04 62404 21.873 1.051E-03 184.10 81.4 15.75
5 0
Total 10733.259 6305.
603

Table 45: Final Condenser Duty

Eq Equation Value Units

Number
118 Q Reboiler=∑ V ' i ∙ ∆ H vap ,i + ∑ L' i ∙ C p ∆ T 17038.862 kJ s-1
i i

Reboiler duty considers energy required to vaporise V’ and considers the sensible energy to heat liquid
leaving the reboiler, L’, from the reference, 298K to the bottoms temperature, 379.15K at 3.023 bar.
Reboiler duty is more intensive than condenser despite the stream changing phase entirely. 81 mole %
of condenser components are considered liquid at reference state, requiring less energy to condense.
Reboiler considers a larger temperature change and vaporises assumed bottoms components that are
liquid at reference state. Trace components present in opposite streams in reality are not considered.
Heat Transfer Area and Number of Tubes
Condenser is compared to a common maximum heat transfer flux, q’ max to obtain the heat transfer area.
Q reboiler 17038862W 2
AO = ( Eq 119 ) , AO= −2
=449.574 m
q ' max 37900 W m

Maximum heat transfer flux ‘recommendation for vertical thermosiphon reboilers are 37900 W m-2’. Tube
inner diameter and length are assumed to be at ‘typical reboiler standard sizes, 25.4 mm and 2.44 m’
respectively. Tube area and number of tube calculations follow equations 95 and 96 and are shown
below. Tube number is rounded up as stated previously.

33
 2
At =π ∙2.44 m∙ 0.0254 m=0.195 m
2
449.574 m
Nt= 2
=2306 tubes(rounded )
0.195 m
2306 tubes are preliminary, using the assumed reboiler standard tube sizes. Longer pipes and larger
diameters can optimise tube number. Tube number acquired is only for preliminary design and is not
accurate. If more time was allowed, reboiler design and optimisation would be completed in more depth.
The assumed heat transfer flux is assumed high for calculation ease and would be accurately assumed
for the same reason mentioned previously.

34
Control & Instrumentation
A Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) for T-102 has been produced, outlining key operation
indicators, valves and control loops which work simultaneously for efficient column operation. All pipes
are insulated for good temperature control and are constructed using the same vessel material to ensure
easier fabrication. Standard pipe sizes mentioned in Tables 30 and 31 are shown on the P&ID as stream
labels. The P&ID considers ISO standards. Primary process lines are thicker than the secondary process
lines, such as utility streamlines. At least one person should always be occupying the control room when
the plant is operating for quick emergency shut down in the worst- case.
The following control loops have been implemented in the T-102 P&ID:
A level element (LE) monitors fluid accumulation at the bottom of the liquid disengagement zone. The
value is reported to a level transmitter (LT) which compares the level to a 50% set point. The primary
function of the control loop uses the level control valve, adjusting the bottoms flowrate related to the
level. If the level exceeds this, lower than 0.25 m or higher than 0.75 m, the control loops secondary
function sets off the alarms in the control room, notifying control room personnel to act accordingly.
One issue with distillation column operation is that reflux flowrates tend to get larger and larger as the
column operates. A flowrate control loop that limits the snowball effect of the reflux drum is considered.
Flowrate element (FE) reads the flowrate and sends it to a flowrate transmitter (FT). FT transmits it into
an electrical signal, which compares the process flowrate to the highest and lowest allowable ones. If it is
significantly out of the range, alarms will go off in the control room to alert operators of the issue. The
electrical signal is transmitted to a flowrate relay (FY) which dictates the flow control valve opening.

35
36
Ideally finish all design by here

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
 Appendices:

Appendix 3: T-102 TP1 Mass Balance with Adjusted Fractional Recoveries

Component Stream
Feed, kg h-1 Distillate, kg h-1 Bottoms, kg h-1
C3H6 2204.915 2204.915 0.000
H2O2 233.442 0.000 233.442
H2O 15108.788 0.000 15108.788
CH3OH 36188.747 316.887 35826.860
C3H6O 10357.493 9218.169 1139.324
C3H6O2 210.176 0.000 210.176
N2 25.477 25.477 0.000
Total 64329.038 11765.448 52518.59

Appendix 4: Component Molecular Weights, Mr.

Molecular Weight, Mr
Component Value Units
C3H6 42.080 kg kmol-1
H2O2 34.015 kg kmol-1
H2O 18.015 kg kmol-1
CH3OH 32.042 kg kmol-1
C3H6O 58.079 kg kmol-1

45
 C3H6O2 76.094 kg kmol-1
N2 28.013 kg kmol-1

Appendix 3: T-102 Adjusted Mass Flowrates to Meet Specification.

Stream Mass Flowrates, kg h-1

Feed Distillate Bottoms
C3H6 2416.084 2416.084 0.000
H2O2 255.799 0.000 255.799
H2O 16555.708 0.000 16555.708
CH3OH 39654.612 396.546 39258.066
C3H6O 11349.450 10101.010 1248.440
C3H6O2 230.305 0.000 230.305
N2 27.917 27.917 0.000
Total 70489.875 12941.557 57548.318
Mass Balance 70489.875 70489.875
Check, (In, Out)

Appendix 4: Adjusted Molar Flowrates to Meet Specification.

Stream Molar Flowrates, kmol h-1

Component Feed Distillate Bottoms
C3H6 57.416 57.416 0.000
H2O2 7.520 0.000 7.520
H2O 918.996 0.000 918.996
CH3OH 1237.582 12.376 1225.206
C3H6O 195.414 173.918 21.496
C3H6O2 3.027 0.000 3.027
N2 0.997 0.997 0.000
Total 2429.952 244.707 2176.245

Appendix 5: Finalised Adjusted Mass Fractions.

Stream Mass Fractions, wt wt-1

Component Feed Distillate Bottoms
C3H6 0.034 0.187 0.000
H2O2 3.629E-03 0.000 4.445E-03
H2O 0.235 0.000 0.288
CH3OH 0.563 0.031 0.682
C3H6O 0.161 0.781 0.022
C3H6O2 3.267E-03 0.000 4.002E-03
N2 3.960E-04 2.157E-03 0.000
Total 1.000 1.001≈ 1 1.000

Appendix 6: Finalised Adjusted Mole Fractions.

Stream Mole Fractions, mol mol-1

Component Feed Distillate Bottoms
C3H6 0.024 0.235 0
H2O2 3.09E-03 0 3.455E-03
H2O 0.378 0 0.422
CH3OH 0.509 0.051 0.563
C3H6O 0.0804 0.711 9.878E-03
C3H6O2 1.25E-03 0 1.391E-03

46
 N2 4.10E-04 4.074E-03 0.000
Total 0.996 ≈ 1 1.002 ≈ 1 1.000

Appendix _: Cp at Feed Average Temperature

Appendix _: Cp at Distillate Average Temperature

Appendix _: Cp at Bottoms Average Temperature

Appendix_: Vapourisation Enthalpies

Appendix _: Energy balance around the feed.

Componen Molar ΔHcond Cp ΔT Q

t Flowrate
kmol s-1 kJ kmol-1 kJ kmol-1 K kJ s-1
C3H6 0.016 -14187 189.716 56.3 -56.096
H2O2 2.09E-03 0 92.411 56.3 10.874
H2O 0.255 0 81.588 56.3 1171.318
CH3OH 0.344 0 115.218 56.3 2231.451
C3H6O 0.054 0 124.676 56.3 379.040
C3H6O2 8.41E-04 0 181.519 56.3 8.595
N2 2.77E-04 0 34.213 56.3 0.533
Total 3745.715

Appendix _: Energy balance around the distillate

Componen Molar ΔHvap Cp ΔT Q

t Flowrate
kmol s-1 kJ kmol-1 kJ kmol-1 K kJ s-1
C3H6 0.016 0 69.242 39 43.207
H2O2 0 54241.3 44.901 39 0
H2O 0 45922.6 34.948 39 0
CH3OH 3.44E-03 40328.7 48.138 39 145.189
C3H6O 0.048 28001.5 79.7475 39 1493.359
C3H6O2 0 62404 122.154 39 0
N2 2.77E-04 0 29.278 39 0.316

47
 Total 1682.134

Appendix _: Energy balance around the bottoms.

Componen Molar ΔHcond Cp ΔT Q

t Flowrate
kmol s-1 kJ kmol-1 kJ kmol-1 K kJ s-1
C3H6 0 -14187 380.17 81.4 0
H2O2 2.09E-03 0 92.764 81.4 15.782
H2O 0.255 0 81.789 81.4 1697.694
CH3OH 0.340 0 117.324 81.4 3247.059
C3H6O 5.97E-03 0 129.174 81.4 62.773
C3H6O2 8.408E-04 0 184.105 81.4 12.600
N2 0 0 31.132 81.4 0
Total 5035.908

Appendix _: PO- Methanol T-xy Diagram at Vacuum Pressure, 0.5 bar

Appendix _: PO- Methanol T-xy Diagram at Moderate Pressure, 3 bar

48

Appendix _: PO- Methanol T- xy diagram at High Pressure, 7 bar.

 Appendix _: Final Iteration for Distillate Dew Point, 337.15K, 64°C at 3 bar.

Component Psat, bar Kd yd xd

C3H6 27.483 9.161 0.23 0.025
H2O2 0.025 0.008 0.00 0
H2O 0.242 0.081 0.00 0
CH3OH 0.992 0.331 0.051 0.154
C3H6O 2.590 0.863 0.711 0.824
C3H6O2 0.0045 1.49E-03 0.00 0
N2 1298.08 432.693 4.07E-04 9.41E-06
Total 1.03 ≈ 1

Appendix 7: Final Iteration for Column Bubble Point, 379.55K, 106.4°C at 3.023 bar.

Component Psat, bar Kb xb yb

C3H6 58.401 19.319 0 0
H2O2 0.190 0.0629 3.455E-03 2.173E-04
H2O 1.240 0.410 0.422 0.173
CH3OH 4.309 1.425 0.563 0.802
C3H6O 7.234 2.393 9.878E-03 0.024
C3H6O2 0.051 0.017 1.391E-03 2.365E-05
N2 1677.370 554.869 0.000 0
Total 0.999 ≈ 1

Appendix 8: Saturated Pressures at Feed Temperature

Appendix 9: Saturated Pressures at Dew Point

Appendix 10: Saturated Pressures at Bubble Point

49
 Appendix _: Molkanov Equation for Number of Theoretical Stages Against Economic Reflux Ratios

Reflux R ψ 1+54.4 11+117.2 ψ -1 ψ 0.5 N −N min N %

Ratio ψ ψ N +1 change
1.2Rmin 5.993 0.143 8.794 27.760 -0.857 0.378 0.512 17.539 0.00
1.25Rmin 6.243 0.172 10.374 31.158 -0.828 0.415 0.485 16.570 5.53
1.3Rmin 6.492 0.200 11.880 34.440 -0.800 0.447 0.461 15.785 11.11
1.35Rmin 6.742 0.226 13.317 37.487 -0.774 0.475 0.439 15.127 13.75
1.4Rmin 6.992 0.250 14.625 40.300 -0.750 0.5 0.420 14.600 16.76
1.45Rmin 7.241 0.273 15.879 42.996 -0.727 0.522 0.402 14.129 19.44
1.5Rmin 7.491 0.294 17.023 45.457 -0.706 0.542 0.386 13.735 21.69

50
 Appendix _: Feed Properties

Appendix _: Distillate Properties

Appendix _: Bottoms Properties

51
 Appendix _: Hydrogen Peroxide Compatibility Chart
(Industrial Specialties Mfg. and IS MED Specialties, 2019)

Appendix _: SS316 Properties Data.

Property Value Units

ρmaterial 8000 kg m-3
ρbulk =ρmaterial ∙(1−ε ) 200 kg m-3
MAST At 100°F 20 ksi
MAST At 200°F 15.6 ksi

Appendix _: Minimum Vessel Thickness guideline.

Appendix _: MAST for varied materials at variable

temperatures.

52
 Appendix _: Additional diameter dimensions to calculate wind loading per linear millimetre.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

62 DO =Di+ 2t 2722 mm
63 Deff =DO +2 t i +CL A 3322 mm
64 Pw =0.07 uw
2 1.792E-03 N mm-2
65 F w =Deff Pw 5.953 N mm-1

Appendix _: Critical buckling stress

Eq Number Equation Value Units

( )
74 t 73.475 N mm-2
σ c =2× 104
DO

Appendix _: Evaluation of Principal Stresses.

Eq Number Equation Upwind Downwind Units

74 σ 1−σ 2 28.092 39.876 N mm-2
75 σ 1−σ 3 47.11 47.11 N mm-2
75 σ 2−σ 3 19.018 7.234 N mm-2

Appendix _: Enthalpies for condenser duty.

Appendix _: Temperature correction factor, Ft:

Eq Number Equation Value Units

90 R=¿ ¿ ¿ 2

91 S=¿ ¿ ¿ 0.145

92 1−S ¿ 0.988
F t=( √ R +1)¿ ln [
2
]

[ ]
1−RS
2−S [ R+1−( √ R +1 ) ]
2

(R−1) ln
2−S [ R+1+ √( R +1 ) ]
2

53
Ft used in report taken from ‘220178574_Final_Design_Project_Spreadsheet’ for calculation ease.

Appendix _: Condenser process fluid properties

Appendix _: Condenser water properties

Appendix _: Metal thermal conductivities.

Appendix _: Baffle spacing.

Eq Number Equation Value Units

108 Lt 6.32 m
N b= −1
B
54
 Appendix _: Reboiler Molecular weight tube side.

Component xb Molecular Weight, Molecular Weight,

kg kmol-1 kg kmol-1
H2O2 3.455E-03 34.015 0.118
H2O 0.422 18.015 7.602
CH3OH 0.563 32.042 18.040
C3H6O 9.878E-03 58.079 0.574
C3H6O2 1.391E-03 76.094 0.106
Total

55
56
57