Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
00
q Institution of Chemical Engineers
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998
he dividing wall distillation column has been known now for some 50 years. Despite its
potential to make major savings in energy and capital costs in distillation, it has not been
widely used in practice. One of the major fears in applying the technology is uncertainty
regarding the control and operation of the arrangement. This paper investigates theoretically
the operation and control of the dividing wall column. A degrees of freedom analysis was
performed to determine the number of control loops required. Possible control con gurations
were then investigated using Relative Gain Array Analysis and dynamic simulation. The
results of these theoretical studies indicate that simple control schemes are capable of
providing stable control.
Keywords: dividing wall distillation; thermal coupling; dynamic simulation; control; pilot plant
INTRODUCTION
Distillation remains the most important method used in the
chemical industry for the separation of homogeneous
mixtures, with the amount of energy used in distillation
operations being considerable. Appropriate integration of
the distillation column with the overall process can result
in signi cant energy savings (Linnhoff et al.1 , Smith and
Linnhoff 2 ) but the scope for this is often limited. Other
options involve the use of complex distillation arrangements
such as the side-stripper, the side-recti er or the fully
thermally coupled (Petyluk) con guration. Such complex
arrangements can consume signi cantly less energy when
compared to a conventional arrangement. So far, the use
of complex arrangements has largely been limited to crude
oil distillation where the side stripper arrangement has been
used extensively.
The Petyluk con guration (Figure 1a) was initially
introduced some 50 years ago (Brugma3 ). Theoretical
studies on a stand alone basis (Petyluk et al.4 , Fidskowski
and Krolikowski5 , Glinos and Malone6 and Kaibel7 ) have
shown that it is capable of achieving typically 30% of
energy savings compared with a conventional sequence.
In addition, the Petyluk arrangement can also be achieved
by placing a vertical wall in the middle of the column
(Figure 1b), separating the feed from the side draw (Wright8 ,
Kaibel9 ). Thus an overall reduction in capital cost can be
expected through the elimination of a column shell, reboiler
and condenser when compared with a conventional arrangement. Despite these advantages, industry has been reluctant
to use the Petyluk and dividing wall con gurations. This can
largely be attributed to the lack of established design
procedures and the fear of control problems.
The design of the Petyluk con guration has been studied by
many researchers (Stupin1 0 , Fonyo et al.1 1 , Tedder and
308
309
Figure 1. Fully thermally coupled columns. (a) Petyluk column; (b) Dividing wall column.
310
Degrees of freedom
NC + 2
2NC + 7
3N + 2NC + 5
3NC + 9
NC + 5
NC + 5
NC + 5
311
Degrees of Freedom
NC + 5
NC + 5
3NT(1) + 2NC + 5
3NC + 9
NC + 5
3NT(5) + 2NC + 5
3NC + 9
3NT(6) + 2NC + 5
Main Side.
Cascade of stages (Section 2).
Liquid draw stage.
Cascade of stages (Section 3).
3NT(2) + 2NC + 5
NC + 5
3NT(3) + 2NC + 5
3NC + 9
NC + 5
3NT(4) + 2NC + 5
NC + 5
Total DOF
- 26NC + 52
3(NT(1) + NT(2) + NT (3) + NT(4) + NT (5) + NT (6))+ NC + 35
Restriction from inherent relationships, design speci cations and uncontrolled variables.
Pressures on all stages, reboiler, condenser and re ux splitter.
Heat leaks on all stages and splitters.
Holdup on all stages.
No. of plates at each section.
Feed (composition, owrate and pressure).
Feed temperature
Column pressure
Top product composition
Middle product composition
Bottom product composition
Condenser/accumulator holdup
Reboiler holdup
Light impurity in middle product
Heavy impurity in middle product
Manipulated variables
Feed preheater duty
Condenser cooling duty
Re ux owrate
Distillate owrate
Sidedraw owrate
Reboiler duty
Bottom product owrate
Liquid split at top of dividing wall
Vapour split at bottom of dividing wall
312
Figure 3. The dividing wall column con guration and the base case
operating parameter.
Figure 4. Variation in middle product composition subject to changes in liquid split. (a) Methanol; (b) Iso-propanol.
Figure 5. Variation in middle product composition subject to changes in vapour split. (a) Iso-propanol; (b) Butanol.
313
Figure 7. Area ratio and vapour split relationship for pressure drop
equalization between the two sides of the dividing wall. (Equal number
of stages at both sides).
314
Table 4. Optimum liquid and vapour split for changes in feed composition.
Feed composition
3.80
1.16
3.80
1.16
3.90
1.16
3.75
1.15
Feed 1
(0.333, 0.334, 0.333)
Feed 2
(0.363, 0.334, 0.303)
Feed 3
(0.303, 0.364, 0.333)
Feed 4
(0.303, 0.334, 0.363)
98 mol percent
98.5 mol percent
99 mol percent
3.5
3.8
3.7
1.02
1.16
1.29
Figure 8. Plots of changes in reboiler duty requirement with different liquid and vapour splits.
315
Table 6. Results from an example to illustrate the setting for the liquid and vapour splits for the dividing wall column operation.
Operating liquid
and vapour splits
3.7
3.5
Optimum liquid
and vapour splits
1.29
1.02
3.5
3.7
Energy penalty
(percent)
1.02
1.29
6.9
product specs. not achieved
with the operating splits
INTERACTION ANALYSIS
Two control schemes that can be used for controlling
the dividing wall column were considered, i.e. L-S-V and
D-S-V (where L, S, D and V refer to manipulation of the
top re ux, side draw, distillate ows and vapour ow from
the reboiler respectively). These are shown in Figure 9.
Relative Gain Array Analysis (Bristol2 5 ) was used to
analyse the interaction as well as determining suitable
pairings between controlled and manipulated variables in
the two control schemes.
Basically, the RGA is a matrix which consists of
elements representing the steady state gain ratio between
the respective controlled and manipulated variables
when all other manipulated variables are constant, divided by the steady state gain ratio between the same
controlled and manipulated variables when all other
controlled variables are constant. This is represented by
the equation:
k
ij
= (y / m )
i
j mi
/ (yi / mj )yj
Table 7. Results for the steady state gain array and the relative gain array.
Scheme
L-S-V
- 0.003
- 2.401
2.433
D-S-V
- 0.003
0.014
Figure 9. Two composition control scheme for the dividing wall column.
- 0.274 - 2.659
0.019 - 2.672
11.736
0.001
- 10.736
- 0.274 - 2.659
0.019 - 2.672
0.891
0.001
0.107
0.297
0.014
2.665
0.001
- 10.057 - 0.679
0.011
11.045
0.988
0.691
0.100
0.007
0.892
0.008
0.992
0.001
316
Figure 10 (i). Control run for scheme L-S-V with set point changes. (ii). Control run for scheme D-S-V with set point changes.
DYNAMIC SIMULATION
Dynamic simulation was then performed to observe
the behaviour of the two control schemes when subjected
to set point changes and feed disturbances as shown in
Trans IChemE, Vol 76, Part A, March 1998
317
Figure 11 (i). Control run for scheme L-S-V with feed disturbance. (ii) Control run for scheme D-S-V with feed disturbance.
318
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to the UK
Department of Energy, Energy Ef ciency Of ce, BP, Exxon, Glitch, ICI,
M. W. Kellogg, and Shell for nancial support of this project. The authors
would also like to express their gratitude to Dr Frigyes Lestak for his
contribution to the project.
ADDRESS
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to
Professor R. Smith, Department of Process Integration, UMIST,
PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
The manuscript was received 4 August 1997 and accepted for publication
after revision 22 January 1998.