Separation Process Principles- 2n - Seader & Henley - Solutions Manual

Xa 0475 0375 0250 0125 0025 ka 1345 1310 1331 1413

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 8oC Stage 2, 65oC Stage 45, 75oC A converged result was obtained in 6 iterations, with a computed reflux ratio of 14.9, compared to the above 15.5 estimate by the Underwood equations. However, as shown in the composition profile on the next page, a pinch region (where no composition changes occur) of approximately 7 stages is evident just above the feed stage. Accordingly, the calculations with the SCDS Column model were repeated by removing 7 stages above the feed, resulting in the following new input: Number of stages = 39 (includes the total condenser and the partial reboiler) Feed stage = 25 A converged result was obtained in 5 iterations, with a computed reflux ratio of 15.0, just slightly greater. The composition profile for this run also appears on the next page. No pinch is evident. Analysis (continued) Exercise 11.9 (continued) Analysis (continued) Exercise 11.9 (continued) The ordinary distillation column for separating methanol from ethanol was sized with Chemcad for sieve trays, with: 24-inch tray spacing 12% downcomer area 10% hole area 1/4-inch holes 80% of flooding The resulting column inside diameter was determined to be 6.5 feet, which gives 60.0% of flooding at the top tray and 72.4% of flooding at the bottom. The tray pressure drop averages 0.091 psi/tray, for a total of 3.4 psi or 0.23 atm for the 37 trays. Thus, the assumption of negligible tray pressure drop is not satisfactory. For a final design, the computations should be repeated taking into account tray pressure drop and tray efficiency. The final material balance for the ordinary distillation column was as follows: Component Acetone Methanol Ethanol Total: mol/s: Feed 0.13 9.89 68.76 78.78 Distillate 0.13 9.82 0.07 10.02 Bottoms 0.00 0.07 68.69 68.76 Because the flow rate of ethanol in the bottoms is only 68.69 mol/s and 70.00 is needed for the extractive distillation column, the makeup ethanol rate is 70.00 - 68.69 = 1.31 mol/s. Comparison with Example 11.3: In Example 11.3, water is used as the solvent. It is much more effective than the ethanol solvent used in this exercise, as shown by the following comparison: Item Solvent flow rate, mol/s Solvent makeup rate, mol/s Equilibrium stages in extractive distillation column Equilibrium stages in ordinary distillation column Diameter of extractive distillation column, feet Diameter of ordinary distillation column, feet Water solvent 60 1.4 28 16 6 2.5 Ethanol solvent 70 1.31 56 36 7 6.5 Exercise 11.10 Subject: Separation of acetone from methanol by extractive distillation with methyl-ethylketone (MEK) Given: Bubble-point feed of 30 mol/s acetone (A) and 10 mol/s methanol (M) at 1 atm. MEK (K) as the solvent. Results of Example 11.3 with a solvent of water. Assumptions: Because the feed is close to the azeotropic composition of 22 mol% methanol, use a two-column system, with the first column being extractive distillation and the second ordinary distillation to recover the solvent. UNIFAC for K-values. Negligible tray pressure drop. 100% tray efficiency. Find: Suitable column designs to obtain an acetone product of at least 95 mol%, a methanol p...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/24/2014 for the course CBE 2124 at NYU Poly.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online