Sizing Process Flowsheets & Simulations
Explore 2 validated, solved Sizing simulation flowsheets in MaximaLabs — real components: propane, n_butane, n_pentane. Open any one directly in your browser.
Solved via: PENG-ROBINSON.
Shortcut column sizing (Fenske-Underwood-Gilliland)
Before anyone builds a rigorous column they size it in about a second, and this is that step — Aspen's DSTWU, the calculation every distillation design starts from. State the two keys and how well you want them separated, and the shortcut answers the four questions that set the capital cost. For a depropaniser feed (30% propane, 40% n-butane, 30% n-pentane) at 10 bar recovering 98% of the propane overhead and 98% of the n-butane in the bottoms: Fenske gives 8.34 minimum stages — the count at total reflux, where you spend infinite energy to buy the fewest trays. Underwood gives a minimum reflux of 1.54 — the reflux at infinite stages, the opposite corner. Neither is buildable; the real column lives between them, and Gilliland interpolates: at 1.3x the minimum reflux you need 17.7 theoretical stages, with Kirkbride putting the feed on stage 7.85. That is a little over twice the minimum stage count for 1.3 times the minimum reflux, which is the trade every column is designed on. The energy follows: 1.67 MW reboiler against a 1.35 MW condenser. Bounded, and this is the important part. These are screening numbers, not a design. The shortcut assumes constant relative volatility and constant molal overflow — it cannot see a pinch, a tangent, an azeotrope, or a temperature profile. Its job is to give a rigorous MESH column a starting point that converges, not to replace it. Run the distillation unit op on 18 stages with a feed at 8 to check it.
4 unit ops • PENG-ROBINSON
11 0
View & openTray efficiency: 20 real trays are not 20 stages
Every equilibrium column model quietly assumes each tray reaches equilibrium. Real trays do not, and the gap is not small enough to ignore when you are buying a shell. The same depropaniser is solved twice at 20 trays, a 2.5 reflux ratio and a 50/50 split. As 20 equilibrium stages it puts 99.61% propane overhead. As 20 actual trays on the rate-based model it manages 96.63% — the tower is the same height and the separation is measurably worse, because the model applies an efficiency instead of assuming one. Left to itself it derives that efficiency from the feed's relative volatility and liquid viscosity through the O'Connell correlation; give it a stage_efficiency and it uses yours, and at a punishing Murphree 0.5 the overhead drops further to 95.33%. The practical reading: an equilibrium model sized this column at 20 trays and the tray efficiency spent roughly three points of product purity. Size on equilibrium stages and you will under-build the tower — that is what the efficiency is for. Bounded: this applies a single overall efficiency to every tray, which is a screening treatment. It is not a rigorous rate-based column — for genuine two-film Maxwell-Stefan transfer with per-stage interface composition and energy coupling, use nonequilibrium_distillation instead. O'Connell itself is a correlation fitted to commercial tray data, so it carries that scatter.
4 unit ops • PENG-ROBINSON
14 0
View & open