johnson.shelly.multiple effect evaps - GRADED2

johnson.shelly.multiple effect evaps - GRADED2 - Fresh...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Fresh Steam, lb/hr Steam economy Capacity, lb/hr base 46986 3.00 141155 flash 26492 2.46 65342 185 deg C 28071 2.47 69539 180 deg C 28398 2.45 69547 13.0% S 31839 2.94 93709 16.0% S 19286 2.97 57336 This spreadsheet evaluates the addition of a flash tank utlizing Effe sensitivity cases that were looked at, evaluating different input tem adding a flash tank 4% of savings could be acheived. The base case uses 28,929 lb/hr of fresh steam being fed into Effec in Hg vacuum. The feed rate was 160,000 lb/hr at 183°C and 14.5% water evaporated per lb of fresh steam. For each of the cases, the final percent solids was held constant at fresh steam could be compared between each case. The flash tank combines with the evaporated steam from Effect #2 that is the fee steam is needed to evaporate the same amount of water with the from the base case. The next two cases looked at running the simulation with different the case where the feed temperature was increased to 185°C, mo water. This is becasue the temperature is higher which decreases t increased to achieve the same amount of heat transfer. In this case the feed temperature decreased to 180°C, the amount of fresh stea get to the desired solids. The economy decreased by 0.7% and the The final two cases that were looked at varied the feed solids to Eff depending on the solids content. When the feed had 13.0% solids, how great an impact the amount of water that must be evaporated fresh steam usage increased by 37.1% When the increased to 16.0 while the steam usage decreased by 17.7%. There was less steam water. The economy increased slightly because such a great amoun Overall, the flash did prove to be more efficient than without a flash the best economy benefit, the case with the flash tank and higher f the most, the percent solids in the feed should be increased. This re 4% savings of steam.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
0.0% 0.0% -18.0% -43.6% 0.0% -17.7% -40.3% 0.4% -18.6% -39.6% -0.7% -2.1% -32.2% 19.3% -1.1% -59.0% 20.7% % Difference from base case, economy % Change in fresh steam usage from base case % Difference from flash case, economy ect #1 condensate to flash vapor to be added to Effect #3 steam inpu peratures of the feed liquor and percent solids of the feed liquor. It ct #1. The existing vapor from Effect #3 was set at 23,500 lb/hr as it % solids. The results from this simulation resulted in a base case stea 25.6% solids and all of the input parameters with the leaving steam case simply adds a flash tank to flash vapor from the condensate fro d steam for Effect #3. The amount of fresh steam in this case decrea reuse of heat. The fresh steam usage decreased by 8.7% and the ec feed temperatures, one below the flash case and one above the flash ore steam had to be added relative to the previous case to evaporate the delta in the temperature. Since the temperature is decreased, the e the economy increased by 0.5% and the fresh steam increased by 5 am was higher because the temperature was so low that it required m e fresh steam usage increased by 7.1%.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/07/2011 for the course PSE 417 taught by Professor Kirkman during the Fall '10 term at N.C. State.

Page1 / 51

johnson.shelly.multiple effect evaps - GRADED2 - Fresh...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online