4.7 Article

Process synthesis and simulation-based optimization of ethylbenzene/styrene separation using double-effect heat integration and self-heat recuperation technology: A techno-economic analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115760

关键词

Ethylbenzene/styrene separation; Process synthesis; Simulation-based optimization; Double-effect distillation; Self-heat recuperation technology; Techno-economic analysis

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFB0604903]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [21336007, 21776202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ethylbenzene/styrene separation is a typical example of the most costly processes in the chemical industry due to their close-boiling points of these two species. To reduce the cost of their separation, the concepts of double-effect distillation (DED) and self-heat recuperation technology (SHRT) have been implemented to produce three energy-efficient distillation configurations in either an individual or synergistic manner. To obtain a fair comparison, all the candidate processes were optimized to a minimum in total annual cost (TAC), using a simulation-based optimization framework on a simulator Aspen Plus and an optimizer programmed in MATLAB with a metaheuristic algorithm. For a small treatment capacity (100 kmol/h) and a short payback period (PBP, 3 years), the DED and SHRT configurations were found to reduce the TAC by similar to 8% compared to the conventional process design. The TAC reduction can be improved to as much as similar to 28% with a larger capacity (1000 kmol/h). The synergistic DED-SHRT configuration has the lowest energy consumption, but its high capital investment makes it only economically viable for longer PBPs. The best scheme under either short or long PBP appeared to be SHRT. Since the conventional design and SHRT share close technical parameters, the former will benefit more when retrofitted into the latter when minimum process modifications are applied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据