CHEN 425- Process Simulation Economics

Production of Ethylbenzene

Instructors:
Dr. Dhabia Al-Mohannadi
Dr. Patrick Linke

Omar Mansour
Aisha Al-Kuwari
Maryam Al-Kaabi

“On my honor, as an Aggie, I have neither given nor received

unauthorized aid on this academic work”
Contents
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Proposed Process .................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology of Conducting the Simulation .............................................................................................. 9
Base Case Simulation ................................................................................................................................ 10
Process Description of the Base Case .................................................................................................. 11
Economic Analysis of the Base Case .................................................................................................... 13
Utility Cost.......................................................................................................................................... 13
Capital Cost ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Net Present Value .............................................................................................................................. 20
Takeaways from the base case simulation .......................................................................................... 21
The Optimized Case................................................................................................................................... 22
Economic Analysis of the Optimized Case ........................................................................................... 23
Utility Cost.......................................................................................................................................... 23
Capital Cost of Optimized Case ......................................................................................................... 32
Net Present Value of Optimized Case................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................. 38
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ethylbenzene Market Value ($ Million) ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Ethylbenzene Production Flowsheet. ........................................................................................ 6
Figure 3: Selectivity as a Function of Feed Ratio .......................................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Base Case Flowsheet ................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5: Utility Distribution of Base Case .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 6: Equipment Cost Distribution.................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7: NPV of Base Case ....................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 8: Optimized Case Flowsheet ........................................................................................................... 22
Figure 9: Heating Curve Example ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10: Heat Exchanger Network ........................................................................................................... 28
Figure 11: Grand Composite Curve ............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 12: Further Integrated Grand Composite Curve .............................................................................. 30
Figure 13: Distribution of Optimized Case Equipment Costs ...................................................................... 36
Figure 14: NPV of Optimized Case .............................................................................................................. 36
List of Tables
Table 1: Feed Specifications. ......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Utility Costs and Specifications ....................................................................................................... 7
Table 3:Design Specifications for Aspen Simulation ................................................................................... 10
Table 4: Distillation Column Specifications............................................................................................. 12
Table 5: Heater Operating Conditions ..................................................................................................... 12
Table 6: Pressure Controller Operating Conditions ............................................................................... 13
Table 7: Raw Material Cost and Product Sale Profit ............................................................................... 13
Table 8: Distribution of Utility Usage ...................................................................................................... 14
Table 9: Distillation Column Component Sizing ..................................................................................... 16
Table 10: Distillation Column Component Equipment Costs ................................................................ 17
Table 11: Reactor Equipment Cost .......................................................................................................... 18
Table 12: Costs of Pressure Control Units ............................................................................................... 18
Table 13: Heater Sizing and Costs ............................................................................................................ 19
Table 14: Stream Classifications ................................................................................................................. 23
Table 15: Stream Duties and CP's ............................................................................................................... 25
Table 16: Process Table Algorithm.............................................................................................................. 26
Table 17: Cascade Table.............................................................................................................................. 27
Table 18: Cost of Utilities from the GCC. .................................................................................................... 29
Table 19: Utility Requirements of Optimized Case ..................................................................................... 31
Table 20: Heat Exchanger Sizing and Costs ................................................................................................. 32
Table 21: Distillation Column Sizing ............................................................................................................ 33
Table 22: Distillation Column Cost .............................................................................................................. 33
Table 23: Reactor Costs............................................................................................................................... 34
Table 24: Pump Costs.................................................................................................................................. 34
Table 25: Sizing and Costs of Heaters ......................................................................................................... 35
Table 26: Sizing and Costs of Coolers.......................................................................................................... 35
Table 27: NPV assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 37
Table 28: Stream Data................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 29: Stream Data Cont ........................................................................................................................ 38
Introduction
Ethylbenzene is valuable intermediate chemical which is used for the production of styrene
monomers. 99% of ethylbenzene produced is used for this specific application, and
therefore the market for ethylbenzene is directly related to that of styrene. Historically the
ethylbenzene and styrene markets have grown together at annual rate of 4-5 %/yr. This
demand is expected to continue at a slightly slower rate of 4.5-5.0 %/yr. considering this
continuous increase in the demand of ethylbenzene, a new process which produces
200,000 tons/yr has been proposed. The following report will evaluate the profitability of
producing this valuable industrial chemical product.

Figure 1: Ethylbenzene Market Value ($ Million)

Proposed Process
The proposed ethylbenzene production method is summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Ethylbenzene Production Flowsheet.

The process utilizes the raw materials ethylene and benzene. Ethylene and benzene are fed
at a temperature of 25 °C and a pressure of 20 bar and 2 bar respectively. The plant will
operate for 8000 h/yr and will produce 200,000 tons/yr. The raw material specifications
are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Feed Specifications.

Material Composition Cost of Material

($/m.t.)
Ethylene - 99.94 wt% Ethylene 850
- Balance ethane and
methane
Benzene - 99.9 wt% Benzene 860
- Balance Toluene
In order to provide energy to the process the following utilities and their respective prices
are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Utility Costs and Specifications

Utility Type Price ($/unit) Supply Temperature Return

(°C) Temperature (°C)
HP Steam @ 40 bar $16/1000 kg 290 250
MP Steam @ 15 bar $12/1000 kg 220 197
LP Steam @ 5 bar $8/1000 kg 165 151
Cooling Water $25/1000 m3 25 35
Regrigerant $.09/kWh -100 -100
Electricity $.06.kWh - -
Fuel $3/mmBtu - -

The ethylene and benzene feeds are preheated to 400 °C. The pressures of the ethylene and
benzene feeds are decreased and increased to 20 bar respectively prior to entering the
vapor-phase alkylator. In the reactor the two reactions occur with full conversion of the
limiting reactant, ethylene. Equation 1 produces the desired ethylbenzene product, and
Equation 2 represents the production of the undesired bi-product diethylbenzene. The
selectivity of the desired product is calculated as shown in Equation 3.

𝐶6 𝐻6 + 𝐶2 𝐻4 → 𝐶8 𝐻10 Equation (1)

𝐶6 𝐻6 + 2𝐶2 𝐻4 → 𝐶10 𝐻14 Equation (2)

𝐸1.2
𝑆𝐸→𝐷𝐸𝐵 = 𝐵 Equation (3)
Figure 3 shows the impact of varying the benzene to ethylene feed ratio. It is evident that
increasing the benzene to ethylene ratio increases the selectivity of forming the desired
ethylbenzene product. Considering this, the benzene to ethylene ratio selected for this
process is 14:1, as this will produce the greatest amount of desired product.

Selectivity as a Function of Feed Ratio

0.97

0.96
Selectivty of Ethylbenzene

0.95

0.94

0.93

0.92

0.91

0.9
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
B/E Ratio

Figure 3: Selectivity as a Function of Feed Ratio

The effluent from the alkylation reactor is than depressurized and reduced in temperature
in order be fractionated effectively in the first distillation column. This column produces a
99.9% pure benzene distillate whilst recovering nearly all of the benzene feed. The bottoms
this column are therefore composed of mostly ethylbenzene and diethyl benzene.

The bottoms from the first distillation column are directly fed to another distillation
column which separates the desired ethylbenzene product from the feed with some toluene
impurities. The bottoms of this distillation column are composed of primarily diethyl
benzene. The diethyl benzene and benzene form the overhead split point are pressurized to
20 bar, and mixed to be preheated to 400 °C before entering the trans-alkylation reactor.

The trans-alkylation reactor converts 85% of the di-ethylbenzene according to the reaction
expressed in Equation 4. The effluent of the trans-alkylation reactor is than separated in a
third distillation column in which unreacted benzene is recycled back into a mixing point,
and the bottoms which compose of primarily ethylbenzene and unreacted di-ethylbenzene
is added to the product stream.

𝐶6 𝐻6 + 𝐶10 𝐻14 → 2𝐶8 𝐻10 Equation (4)

The unreacted benzene with ethane, methane, and toluene impurities is passed through a
fourth distillation column. The primary purpose of this column is to remove all ethane and
methane impurities in order to prevent there accumulation. The nearly pure benzene
bottoms is than recycled back as a feed to the alkylation reactor, thereby completing the
loop.

Methodology of Conducting the Simulation

The simulation on Aspen was conducted using the following methodology.

1. The sensitivity Analysis tool on Aspen to find a proper feed temperature, and initial
guess for the reflux ratio.
a. This was determined by seeing the effect that both these variables have on
the recovery of the desired component in the distillation column
2. Design specifications were set for each distillation n column in order to fractionate
the feed to the desired compositions. Table 3 summarizes the design specifications
for each column
3. All subsequent and simulation results were performed using the SRK property
method.
Table 3:Design Specifications for Aspen Simulation

Unit Design Specification Parameter Varied

Dist – 1 - Nearly 100 % recovery of benzene in the - Distillate to feed ratio
distillate - Reflux ratio
- 99.9 wt. % purity of benzene in the
distillate
- 100 % recovery of Ethylbenzene in the
bottoms
Dist-2 - 99% recovery of Ethylbenzene in the - Distillate to feed ratio
distillate
- Nearly 100% recovery of diethyl benzene
in the bottoms
Dist-3 - Nearly 100% recovery of ethylbenzene in - Distillate to feed ratio
the bottoms - Reflux ratio
Dist-4 - Nearly 100% recovery of benzene in the - Bottoms to feed ratio
bottoms

The design specifications for each column were set to ensure that purity of the product
stream would be adequate. For example controlling the fractionation in Dist-1 was crucial
in ensuring that the distillate and bottoms had the proper compositions, as this would
propagate to the rest of the process. Therefore it was desired to have nearly 100%
recovery of benzene in the distillate, as any benzene which fractionates to the bottoms will
be an impurity in the ethylbenzene product stream in Dist-2. The recovery of ethylbenzene
in the bottoms was also set to 100% to ensure that no ethylbenzene is recycled in the
system. The purity of benzene in the distillate was also specified as 99.9 % to control the
fractionation of toluene and to ensure that all benzene feeds remain 99.9 % pure.

Base Case Simulation

A preliminary investigation was performed on the ethylbenzene production process in
order to assess the profitability of an unintegrated scenario. For the base case simulation
an intermediate benzene to ethylene feed ratio of 10 was chosen. Due to a lack of proper
column specifications at the time of performing this assessment, the desired purity was not
achieved. As a result, a fifth distillation column was added in order to recycle unreacted
diethyl benzene back to the trans-alkylation reactor. This resulted in the production of a
99.82% pure ethylbenzene product stream. The flowsheet used to assess the profitability
of the base case is shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Base Case Flowsheet

Process Description of the Base Case

As seen in Figure 4 the base case simulation was performed using distillation columns,
heaters, coolers, reactors, compressors and pumps. A detailed overview of all unit
operating conditions will be summarized below.

Table 4 below summarizes the operating conditions for all five distillation columns used in
this process. The feed temperatures and reflux ratio were determined by performing a
sensitivity analysis on these two variable’s effect on recovery of the desired component in
the distillate.
Table 4: Distillation Column Specifications

Distillation Distillation Distillation Distillation Distillation

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
(DIST1) (DIST2) (DIST3) (DEB-REC) (Purge)
Reflux Ratio 0.4 0.5 1 0.22 0.3
Distillate to Feed 0.90 0.96 0.90 0.89 8.85× 10−4
Ratio
Feed 101 144 100 154 20
Temperature(°C)
Condenser 1.5 1.2 2 1.5 2
Pressure (Bar)
Condenser Heat −7.3 × 107 −9.3 × 106 −7.8 × 106 −5.8 × 105 −1.4 × 104
Duty (Btu/hr)
Reboiler Heat Duty 3.0 × 107 9.2 × 106 7.9 × 106 5.7 × 105 1.5 × 107
(Btu/hr)
Number of 30 20 30 20 20
Theoretical Stages

After the operating conditions of the distillation columns were determined, the process was
retrofitted with heaters in order to achieve the required operating temperature. The
operating conditions and resultant heat duties for these heaters are reported below in
Table 5.

Table 5: Heater Operating Conditions

Heater 1 Heater 2 Heater Heater Heater 5

3 4
Inlet Temperature (°C) 23.68 390.952 85.53 391.165 85.69
Outlet Temperature (°C) 293 101 282 100 20
Pressure (bar) 2 1.5 1.2 2 1.2
Heat Duty (MMbtu/hr) 125.55 -97.66 -9.19 -10.74 -14.72
In order to control the pressure in the process, valves, compressors, and pumps were used.
Table 6 summarizes the change in pressures for all these units.

Table 6: Pressure Controller Operating Conditions

COMP1 COMP2 Pump 1 Valve 1 Valve 2

Type Isentropic Isentropic
Inlet Pressure 2 1.2 1.2 20 1.5
(bar)
Discharge 20 bar 20 bar 2 2 2
Pressure
Power 38.19 3.295 .0161
(MMBtu/hr)

Economic Analysis of the Base Case

In order to evaluate the economic feasibility of the base case design, an economic analysis
on the utility, raw material, and capital costs was performed. The raw materials used in this
process are ethylene and benzene. Table 7 shows the raw material consumption as well as
profit from the sale of ethylbenzene.

Table 7: Raw Material Cost and Product Sale Profit

Material Cost of Material Process Consumption Raw Material Cost

($/m.t.) (tons/yr) ($/yr)
Ethylene 850 53267.4 4.527 x 107
Benzene 860 149253 1.284 x 107
Total Raw Material Cost 1.736 x 108
Total Product Sale 2.2 x 108

Utility Cost
Utility costs were calculated for the process by determining which utility would be most
economically feasible for each unit given the temperatures specified on Aspen. When using
the fuel utility, an efficiency of 90% was assumed in order to combust the fuel, to produce
flue gas. Table 8 summarizes the utilities that were used for each unit.

Table 8: Distribution of Utility Usage

Utility Unit Cost ($/hr)

LP Steam Dist I Reboiler 119.5
Dist 3 Reboiler 31.4
Dist-Purge 59.0
Reboiler
MP Steam Dist 2 reboiler 58.5
Rec Column 3.6
Reboiler
Fuel Heater 1 376.7
Heater 3 24.6
Electricity Comp1 671.5
comp 2 57.9
Pump1 0.3
Cooling Reactor 1 38.2
Water Heater 2 61.8
Dist 1 cond 45.8
Dist 2 cond 5.9
Reactor 2 2.3
Heater 4 6.8
Dist 3 cond 5.0
Rec dist cond 0.4
Purge column 0.01
cond
Refrigerant heater 5 3.9 x 102
Total Utility Cost ($/yr) 15.7 x 106
Figure 5 shows the utility cost distribution for the non-integrated case. It is noted that most
of the utility cost comes from the consumption of electricity. Compressor 1 which
constitutes more than 90% of the electricity consumption is the target for savings. Its
purpose is to take the mixture of feed components and increase the pressure to 20 bar, the
alkylation reactor operating condition. A compressor was chosen for this operation due to
the mixture of inlet streams composing of both liquid and vapor. Therefore the
temperature of feed mixture is taken to a point where the feed stream is purely vapor.
However, in retrospect it would be more efficient to simply compress the vapor phase

Distribution of Utility Costs

25%

47%

4%

13%

11%

Figure 5: Utility Distribution of Base Case

ethylene feed and pump the benzene feed to 20 bar separately and then heat the mixture,
as energy utility for pumps is generally less than for compressors.

Another target for utility cost reduction is in the use of refrigerant. Refrigerant is only used
to cool the feed to the purge column, and this in itself contributes 25% of utility cost. In
future optimization, it will be attempted to achieve separation of subzero boiling point
ethane and methane with a feed temperature that can be achieved via cooling water.
Capital Cost
The capital costs of the major process units were calculated by sizing the equipment from
the Aspen flowsheet. The major units considered were reactors, pumps, compressors,
distillation columns, and heat exchangers. All the costs were determined from Plant Design
and Economics for Chemical Engineers. These costs were adjusted to present day values
from 2002 using the most up-to-date cost indices found in 2017 according to the equations
below.

𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥2017
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡2017 = 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡2002 ∗
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥2002

692.5
= 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡2002 ∗
392.5

Distillation Columns
In order to calculate the capital costs for the distillation columns, only the major
components were considered. For each column the sizes of the towers, tray diameter,
condenser, reboiler, as well as number of trays were required. Table 9 summarizes the size
of each component which significantly contributes to cost of the distillation columns. Aspen
+ was used to size the tray diameters, condenser Area, and reboiler area. The number of
trays by assuming a 70% tray efficiency. Column height was calculated using the equation
below. A tray spacing of 2 ft was assumed.

𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑓𝑡) = 4𝑓𝑡 + 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑦 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔(𝑓𝑡) × (𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠 − 1) + 10(𝑓𝑡)

Table 9: Distillation Column Component Sizing

Unit Number Quantity Tray Height (ft) Condenser Reboiler

of Trays Factor Diameter Area (m2) Area (m2)
(ft)
Distillation 42 .97 9.41 72 464 668
column 1
 Distillation 28 1 5.11 52 30.44 187
column 2
Distillation 42 .97 4.49 72 44 336
column 3
Recycle 28 1 1.18 52 174 11
distillation
column 4
Purge 28 1 9.76 52 .01 91
distillation
column 5

Table 10 summarizes the equipment costs for the distillation columns adjusted to prices in
2017. When calculating costs for trays, it was assumed that stainless steel sieve trays were
used. Reboilers were treated as multiple-pipe heat exchangers when calculating there
equipment costs. The condensers are all considered to be tank vent condensers made of
galvanized steel.

Table 10: Distillation Column Component Equipment Costs

Unit Tower Cost Tray Cost $ Condenser Reboiler Total

Cost Cost Cost
Distillation 262,576 $ 48,071 21,006 157,546 490,000
Column 1
Distillation 105,030 $ 3,501 4,026 52,515 165,072
Column 2
Distillation 131,288 $ 1,698 5,076 66,519 205,000
Column 3
DEB-Rec- 78,773 $ 1,225 2,276 2,451 84,725
Dist-Column
Purge-Dist 157,546$ 5,252 1,575 19,256 180,000
 Total Distillation Column 1.13 x 106
Cost

Reactors
The equipment costs for reactors were calculated as according to the project statements
using the following the equations. Stainless steel was chosen as the material of construction
for the reactors since this material is not corrosive to hydrocarbon systems. Table 11
summarizes the equipment costs for the reactors.

EQPC1 ($): 15 * (flow into reactor

EQPC2 ($): 40 * (flow into reactor) for (SS-SS)

Table 11: Reactor Equipment Cost

Reactor 1 Reactor 2
Flow into the reactor 158,951 kg/hr 12,336 kg/hr Total Reactor Cost
EQPC ($) 2,384,265 $ 493,440 $ 2.88 x 106

Pressure Control Units

Based on literature, reciprocating pump was the selection for this process since it has a
higher efficiency when compared to centrifugal pump. Pump costs are dependent on the
volumetric flow it operates at, whilst compressor costs depend on the power required.
Table 12 shows the costs of the pressure control units

Table 12: Costs of Pressure Control Units

Compressor 1 Compressor 2 Pump

Sizing 11191.9 kW 965.657 kW 13.74 x 10-3 Total Cost
Depenedency (m3/s)
Cost $ 2.63 x 10 6 2.19 x 106 7,002 4.82 x 106
Heat Exchangers
An estimation of the overall heat transfer coefficient can be approximated by taking the
overall heat transfer coefficient of the main component in the heat exchanger, which is
found to be ethylbenzene. The overall heat transfer coefficient has a value between 150-
300 Btu/hr.ft2.F for evaporation with light oils1. The overall heat transfer coefficient is
assumed to at an intermediate value of 225 Btu/hr.ft2.F and the surface area of the heat
exchanger is calculated from the following equation:
𝑄 = 𝑈𝐴∆𝑇
It is assumed that the heat exchanger is a multiple-pipe heat exchanger which is made of
carbon steel. Table 13 summarizes the sizing and costs of the heat exchangers.
Table 13: Heater Sizing and Costs

Heater 1 Heater Heater Heater Heater

2 3 4 5

U 225 140 225 140 140

(Btu/hr.ft2.F)

A (m2) 68.94 303.12 4.5 33.62 143.65 Total

Cost
($)
Cost ($) 3,151 57,767 1,926 6,827 26,258 96,000

Figure 6 summarizes the distribution of equipment costs. Once more it is noted that the
decision to use compressors to increase reactor feed pressures was a costly choice. The
total equipment cost was 8.93 Million USD.
 Equipment Costs Distribution

Heaters Pressure Control Reactors Distillation Columns

Figure 6: Equipment Cost Distribution

Net Present Value

The Net present value of the base case plant was determined by making the following
assumptions. The plant life was assumed to be 25 years. The income tax rate was set to
20% and the discount rate at 15%. Straight line depreciation was used with an assumed
salvage value of 0$. It is assumed that all TCI is expended before plant operation. Figure 7
shows that the process is economically feasible before any optimization or energy
integration. The return of investment for the process was calculated to be 65% with a
discounted payback period of 3 years.
 NPV Base Case
$160,000,000.00
$140,000,000.00
$120,000,000.00
$100,000,000.00
$80,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-$20,000,000.00
-$40,000,000.00

Figure 7: NPV of Base Case

Takeaways from the base case simulation

By performing the base case simulation, it was determined that the base case, in itself was
profitable. However several aspects were considered to increase profits further. It was
noted that the utilization of compressors constituted a significant amount to both the
capital and utility costs. Therefore these compressors will be replaced accordingly with
pumps. In order to eliminate the capital costs associated with the fifth distillation column
which recycled unreacted diethyl benzene to feed of the trans-alkylation reactor, the
desired purity will be attempted to be satisfied by increasing the benzene to ethylene ratio.

It is also evident that there are a lot of heating and cooling requirements which can be
integrated to further reduce utility needs. An attempt to effectively integrate the heat to
reduce heating and cooling requirements will be performed, and its impact on the NPV will
be assessed.

At the time of running the base case simulation, the recycle stream was not connected to
feed, this will be an important change to make to ensure the entire loop is closed and the
process is simulated according to flowsheet requirements. Another important error in the
base case calculations was the negligence of on-stream efficiency. The current production is
assuming a full operational time of 8760 h/yr, however this plant will operate for only
8000 h/yr. This will be a factor which must be considered in the optimization of the
process.

The Optimized Case

The ethylbenzene production process was optimized, using the insights from the base case
simulation. The primary method of reducing operating and capital costs was to eliminate
all compressors in the process, and substituting them with pumps. The fifth distillation
column which was added to achieve the desired purity was removed, and the column
design specifications were properly designed to ensure a purity of 99.5 % ethylbenzene.
However this required the benzene to ethylene feed ratio to increase from 10:1 to 14:1.
This discrepancy between the feed ratios used in the optimized and base case will result in
higher capital costs in the optimized case since the equipment must be larger to
incorporate the higher benzene flowrates in the process. The process flowsheet with the
changes from the base case is presented below in Figure 8. All stream information for the
optimized case may be found in Appendix A.

Figure 8: Optimized Case Flowsheet

Another notable change made in the optimization case is that the plant is currently
producing 219,000 tons/yr. This is due to the on-stream efficiency in which the desired
production per hour must be increased to accommodate the annual plant downtime. When
taking into account the 91.32 % on-stream efficiency, the optimized case produces exactly
200,000 tons/yr at a purity of 99.53 %.

Economic Analysis of the Optimized Case

By making the aforementioned changed to the base case simulation, the economic
feasibility of the optimized case was reassessed. The changes in capital costs, and operating
costs were re-evaluated as follows.

Utility Cost
In order to reduce utility costs the relevant hot and cold streams were analyzed to assess
which streams can be used to recover utility costs. The streams identified were named
according to following scheme summarized in Table 14.

Table 14: Stream Classifications

Stream Classification
Ethylene Feed C-1
Benzene Feed C-2a
C-2b
C-2c
Reactor 2 Feed C-3a
C-3b
C-3c
Recycle Stream C-4a
C-4b
C-4c
Reactor 1 Effluent H-1
Reactor 2 Effluent H-2a
H-2b
Purge Column Feed H-3
The following nomenclature was used to simplify the heat integration process. Several
streams must be evaluated splitting them into multiple hypothetical streams for heat
integration purposes. This is due to several of the streams experiencing phase changes, as
seen in Figure 9. As a result of this it would be inaccurate to consider an average overall
heat capacity, CP. In Figure 9, the heating curve of the benzene feed is shown in which there
are two regions of sensible heat, and a latent heat zone.

Figure 9: Heating Curve Example

Aspen is thereby used to identify the heat capacities of each stream and substream. As seen
in Figure, the benzene feed stream can thereby split into substreams C-2a, C-2b, and C-2c.
The heat capacity rates (CP), and duties of all the streams are summarized in Table 15, in
which CP was calculated using Equation 5 below.

ΔH
𝐶𝑃 = Equation (5)
Δ𝑇
Table 15: Stream Duties and CP's

Classification Heat Duty (kW) Heat Capacity Rate

(kW/K)
C-1 1475.9 -3.91382
C-2a 1870 -9.54082
C-2b 1210 -
C-2c 1760 -9.8324
C-3a 957 -7.37288
C-3b 483 -
C-3c 1500 -8.52273
C-4a 18100 -135.277
C-4b 15600 -
C-4c 23000 -128.482
H-1 -60473.9 211.623
H-2a -1680 6.10343
H-2b -1300 81.25
H-3 -6791.94 103.19

Process Table Algorithm and Cascade

After all streams were properly tabulated, the process table algorithm was developed in
order to determine the minimum heating and cooling requirements in the processes, as
well as the pinch point. Table 16 shows the process table algorithm which was created with
all relevant streams. It was assumed that minimum approach temperature is 10 °C.
Table 16: Process Table Algorithm

T Stream Intervals
DT CP H
407.1
2.1 -3.91382 -8.21901
405
18.738 -150.761 -2824.95
H-2a
386.262 H-1
157.262 66.96617 10531.23
229
C-3c 0 c-3b -483
229
C-3b 3 68.11602 204.3481
226
C-2c
0 c2b c4b -16810
226
C-2b C-4b C-4c 115 61.62269 7086.61
H-2b
111
10.5 136.7693 1436.077
100.5
1.3 -74.854 -97.3103
99.2
C-3a 4.2 -67.4812 -283.421
95
2.8 -148.731 -416.447
92.2
C-4a 11.38 -13.4546 -153.114
H-3
80.82
50.82 89.73498 4560.331
30 C-1
C-2a 15 103.1896 1547.844
15

After this the cascade tables were created in order to determine the pinch point and
minimum heating and cooling requirements as seen in Table 17. From this cascade it was
determined that the minimum heating requirements were nearly 9,400 kW, and cooling
13,700 kW. The pinch was determined to be at 226 °C.
 Table 17: Cascade Table

Cascade
-8.2 9,382.4 QH,min
-2,833.2 6,557.4
7,698.1 17,088.7
7,215.1 16,605.7
7,419.4 16,810.0
-9,390.6 0.0
-2,304.0 7,086.6
-867.9 8,522.7
-965.2 8,425.4
-1,248.6 8,142.0
-1,665.1 7,725.5
-1,818.2 7,572.4
2742.1 12,132.7
4290.0 13,680.6 QC,min

Heat Exchanger Network

After determining the pinch point and the expected minimum and cooling requirements,
the heat exchanger network was developed. The designed heat exchanger network is
shown below in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Heat Exchanger Network

By completing the heat exchanger network, it was determined that in order to achieve the
necessary stream temperatures, 8 heat exchangers, 5 heaters, and 4 coolers would be
required. The resultant energy savings by integrating the streams are a total of 56.5 MW of
heating and cooling savings.

Grand Composite Curve

In order to decide where to place the utilities, and room for further integration, the grand
composite curve was developed as seen in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Grand Composite Curve

From this grand composite two pockets are noted, with the largest pocket notably
recovering nearly 11,000 kW of both heating and cooling requirements. The costs of the
utilities to pay for the required heating and cooling is than summarized in Table 18.

Table 18: Cost of Utilities from the GCC.

Utility Duty (kW) Cost ($/yr)

Fuel 1,800 147,000

HP Steam 6,450 1.6 x 106

Cooling Water 12,200 210,000

Refrigerant 1,300 936,000

Total Cost 2.9 x 106

In order to pay for the utilities to account for the minimum heating and cooling
requirements the annual expenditure will be nearly 2.9 million $/yr. However it is
important to realize that these utility costs do not include that of the distillation columns,
reactors, and pumps. In order to further integrate the process, cooling water, and HP steam
requirements were reduced by using the exothermic heat from the alkyation reactor to
produce HP steam, and the cooling requirements were reduced by directly using excess
heat for the reboilers of Dist 1, and Dist – Purge as seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Further Integrated Grand Composite Curve

The heat released from reactor 1 was used to produce the high pressure steam which was
previously purchased as a utility. This eliminates the need for steam utility above the pinch.
Below the pinch, the cooling requirements are decreased by directly using the heat which
needs to be cooled, in the reboilers of Dist 1 and the purge reboiler. Therefore, with this
fully integrated schematic, the utility costs were recalculated for all the process equipment
as summarized in Table.
Table 19: Utility Requirements of Optimized Case

Utility Equipment Energy (kW) Cost ($/yr)

Electricity Pump 1 18.7 9,000
Pump 2 2.0 956
Pump 3 15.1 7,267
Pump 4 7.1 3400
Pump 5 179.5 86000
Fuel Heater 1 708.1 58,000
Heater 2 812.4 67,000
Heater 4 1,500 123,000
Heater 5 5,895 483,000
MP Steam Reboiler 2 3,519 608,000
Reboiler 3 2,284 395,000
LP Steam Reboiler 1 38,000 -> 33,200 4.2 x 106
Reboiler 4 6,800 ->4,000 435,000
Cooling Water Cooler 1 4900 -> 0 0
Cooler 2 700 - > 0 0
Cooler 3 340 ->0 0
Cooler 4 1660 -> 0 0
Condenser 1 40,000 692,000
Condenser 2 3,600 61,000
Condenser 3 2,300 39,000
Condenser 4 1.2 21
Refrigerant Cooler 4 1,300 936,000
Total Annual Utility 8.2 x 106
Cost
Capital Cost of Optimized Case
Several changes were made in optimized case which required reevaluation of the capital
costs. Due to the increase in benzene to ethylene feed ratio, the sizing of all equipment
were subsequently increased. This was done in order to remove the need for the fifth
distillation column, as increasing the benzene to ethylene ratio increases the selectivity
towards ethylbenzene, thereby reducing the diethyl benzene impurities.

Heat Exchangers
According the heat exchanger network specified in Figure 10, the heat exchanger sizing
was determined using the Aspen + simulator. The inlet and outlet streams, flowrates,
temperatures, pressure, and compositions were specified according to this network, and
the resultant sizing was performed on Aspen. Table 20 summarizes the sizing and prices of
the heat exchangers used to achieve the heat integration. All heat exchangers were
considered to be multiple-pipe carbon steel heat exchangers.

Table 20: Heat Exchanger Sizing and Costs

HX-1 HX-2 HX-3 HX-4 HX-5 HX-6 HX-7 HX-8 HX-9

A (m2) 6.9 378 1300 14 24 910 1377 17000 730.

Cost ($) 2294 38815 38815 2999 5117 38815 38815 38815 38815

Total Cost ($) 243,300

It is important to note that the prices of these heat exchangers have an error when it comes
to calculating costs of heat exchanger areas greater than 200 m2, as this is the maximum
heat exchanger area where data is readily available.

Distillation Columns
The distillation columns were sized by using Aspen + to obtain the tray diameter. The
number of trays were modified from the theoretical stages, by assuming a tray efficiency of
70%. The tray spacing was assumed to be 24”, and using this with the actual number of
stages, the height of the columns could be estimated. Condenser and reboiler areas were
calculated by using general heat transfer coefficient relationships for light hydrocarbon –
water systems. Table 21 summarizes the sizing of the components in the distillation
column.

Table 21: Distillation Column Sizing

Unit Number Quantity Tray Height (ft) Condenser Reboiler

of Trays Factor Diameter Area (m2) Area (m2)
(ft)
Distillation 57 .97 21.4 126 931.57 1665.69
column 1
Distillation 43 .97 5.88 98 48.31 81.46
column 2
Distillation 43 .97 4.46 98 48.14 43.02
column 3
Purge 29 1 8.67 70 .04 103.38
distillation
column 5

Table 22 summarizes the equipment costs for the distillation columns adjusted to prices in
2017.

Table 22: Distillation Column Cost

Unit Tower Cost $ Tray Cost $ Condenser Reboiler Total

Cost Cost Cost
Distillation 525,151 16,980 70,573 38,815 651,519
Column 1
Distillation 945,273 1,273 5,117 15,879 967,542
Column 2
Distillation 997,788 1,188 5,114 8,822 1,012,901
Column 3
Purge-Dist 420,121 1,575 3,529 26,465 451,690
 Total Distillation Column 3.08 x 106
Cost

Reactors
The equipment costs for the reactors were calculated according to the project statement, as
a function of the flow into the reactor. Stainless steel was chosen as the material of
construction since this material can withstand the high temperatures in the reactor and is
not corrosive to hydrocarbon systems.

Table 23: Reactor Costs

Reactor 1 Reactor 2
Flow into the reactor 240,048 kg/hr 11706.1 kg/hr Total Reactor Cost
(kg
EQPC ($) 6,352,876 $ 309,802 $ 6,663,000

Pumps
Based off of literature, reciprocating pumps were selected due to their higher efficiency
compared to centrifugal pumps. Pump costs are dependent on the volumetric flowrate the
pump processes. The sizing of the pumps and costs are listed in Table 24.

Table 24: Pump Costs

Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Pump 5

Sizing 5 x 10-3 3.11 x 10 -4 2 x 10-3 6.88 x 10-2 7.47 x 10-2 Total
Dependency Cost ($)
(m3/s)
Cost $ 3.5 x 10 3 2.6 x 103 3.5 x 10 3 7.0 x 10 3 7.1 x 10 3 2.4 x 104

Heaters and Coolers

Heaters and coolers were required to accommodate the minimum heating and cooling
requirements. The areas of the heaters and coolers were calculated similar to that of the
condensers and reboilers, by using typical values of the overall heat transfer coefficients.
Tables 25 and 26 summarize the sizing and costs of each heater and cooler.

Table 25: Sizing and Costs of Heaters

Heater 1 Heater 2 Heater Heater 4 Heater 5

3

U 8 8 75 8 8
(Btu/hr.ft2.F)

A (m2) 31.36 35.93 2.09 66.35 345.32 Total Cost

($)
Cost ($) 6881 7057 2117 13232 37051 66338

Table 26: Sizing and Costs of Coolers

Cooler 1 Cooler 2 Cooler Cooler 4

3

U 100 100 100 200

(Btu/hr.ft2.F)

A (m2) 51.74 7.89 6.55 59.02 Total Cost

($)
Cost ($) 10586 2117 2117 12350 27170

The total equipment cost was thereby calculated to be 10 million USD. The contribution of
each type of equipment to the capital costs are summarized in Figure 13. It is evident that a
majority of the equipment costs originate from the costs of the distillation columns and
reactors. From the base case, major savings have been achieved by switching from
compressors to pumps. The total equipment costs for the optimized case ended up being
more expensive than that of the base due to the higher benzene to ethylene feed ratio.
 Distribution of Equipment Costs

Distillation Columns Pumps Heaters Coolers Heat Exchangers Reactors

Figure 13: Distribution of Optimized Case Equipment Costs

Net Present Value of Optimized Case

In order to evaluate the profitability of the optimized case, the net present value curve was
developed as seen in Figure 14.

NPV Optimized Case

$200,000,000.00

$150,000,000.00

$100,000,000.00

$50,000,000.00

$0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-$50,000,000.00
Years

Figure 14: NPV of Optimized Case

The plant was assumed to operate for 25 years. Linear depreciation was used with an
assumed salvage value of 0$. The discount rate was 15%, and there was an income tax of
20% of profits. The assumptions summarized in Table 27 were made for calculations of
NPV.

Table 27: NPV assumptions

Year Assumptions
1 - 25 % of FCI expended
- Expended WCI
- 0 production
2 -50% of FCI expended
- 25% production
3 - 25% of FCI expended
- 75% of production
4-24 - 100% of production
25 - 100% of production
- Recovered WCI

The discounted ROI of the optimized case was calculated to be 67%. This is a slight increase
in the ROI of the base case which was 65%. The return on investment of the base case
simulation would be much less if the same operating conditions used in the optimized case
were used in the base case. Because the optimized case had a greater benzene to ethylene
feed ratio, all equipment were more expensive, and even the utility requirements were
increased. However through integration, the process was still made more profitable.
 Appendix A
Table 28: Stream Data

BENZENE ETHYLENE REAC1F REAC1OUT DIST1F DIS- DIS- DIS- DIS-

1TOP 1BOT 2TOP 2BOT
Temperature (°C) 25.0 25.0 399.7 400.0 105.5 85.7 143.4 139.5 166.6
Pressure (bar) 2.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1
Molar total flow 213.6 214.0 3209.8 2996.0 2996.0 2786.5 209.5 202.9 6.6
(kmol/hr)
Mole Fraction
ETHANE 0.0E+00 2.8E-04 1.9E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.1E-05 4.3E-48 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
METHANE 0.0E+00 5.2E-04 3.5E-05 3.7E-05 3.7E-05 4.0E-05 2.3E-59 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
TOLUENE 8.5E-04 0.0E+00 7.8E-04 8.3E-04 8.3E-04 8.3E-04 8.0E-04 8.2E-04 1.6E-08
ETHYLBENZENE 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.8E-09 6.8E-02 6.8E-02 8.2E-09 9.8E-01 1.0E+00 3.1E-01
DIETHYLBENZENE 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 5.2E-24 2.2E-02 6.7E-06 6.9E-01
BENZENE 1.0 0.0E+00 9.3E-01 9.3E-01 9.3E-01 1.0E+00 3.0E-09 3.1E-09 2.9E-19
ETHYLENE 0.0E+00 1.0E+00 6.7E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
WATER 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Table 29: Stream Data Cont

REAC2F REAC2OUT DIST3F DIST3TP DIST3BOT PURGEFEE PURGE REC1

Temperature (°C) 400.0 400.0 100.0 93.4 153.5 400.0 70.5 86.3
Pressure (bar) 20.0 20.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 20.0 1.2 1.2
Molar total flow 145.9 145.9 145.9 135.5 10.4 214.0 0.5 2782.2
(kmol/hr)
Mole Fraction
ETHANE 2.1E-05 2.1E-05 2.1E-05 2.2E-05 1.3E-36 2.8E-04 1.3E-01 8.9E-17
METHANE 3.8E-05 3.8E-05 3.8E-05 4.1E-05 1.3E-44 5.2E-04 2.5E-01 5.3E-23
TOLUENE 8.0E-04 8.0E-04 8.0E-04 7.6E-04 1.3E-03 0.0E+00 4.0E-05 8.3E-04
ETHYLBENZENE 1.4E-02 6.7E-02 6.7E-02 7.2E-08 9.3E-01 0.0E+00 1.5E-12 1.1E-08
DIETHYLBENZENE 3.1E-02 4.6E-03 4.6E-03 9.8E-19 6.5E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
BENZENE 9.5E-01 9.3E-01 9.3E-01 1.0E+00 2.2E-07 0.0E+00 6.2E-01 1.0E+00
ETHYLENE 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
WATER 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00