SPECIAL SECTION: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION

Modularization in
Chemical Processing
Michael Baldea Most high-margin growth opportunities lie in
Thomas F. Edgar
The Univ. of Texas at Austin high-grade specialty chemicals. To realize these
Bill L. Stanley opportunities, manufacturers are looking to
Ventech
distributed modular production facilities.
Anton A. Kiss
The Univ. of Manchester Process intensification could help to enable
these new technologies.

T
wo fundamental tenets have driven chemical engi-
neering over the last century. The first is economy of
scale — which reasons that constructing larger chemi-
cal plants improves capital efficiency and resource utiliza-
tion, thereby reducing operating costs and product price, as
well as increasing profit.
The second is unit operations — which are a consistent
set of building blocks that can be used to design a plant. The
unit operations framework was defined to provide method
and structure to the synthesis and analysis of chemical
plants, as well as a rational and systematic path for per-
forming process design calculations. This framework was
particularly critical when the slide rule, not the computer,
was the dominant tool for performing calculations. While
slide rules have become obsolete, unit operations remained
the central paradigm in the design, simulation, and optimiza-
tion of chemical processes.
These principles — economy of scale and unit opera-
tions — have not persisted without challenge. The concept
of process intensification (PI), for example, has been around
since the mid-20th century (1), but has received increased
This article is based on Baldea, M., T. F. Edgar, B. L. Stanley, and A. A.
Kiss, “Modular Manufacturing Processes: Status, Challenges, and Opportu-
nities,” AIChE Journal, doi: 10.1002/aic.15872, 63, pp. 4262–4272 (2017).
attention in the past two decades. The objective of PI is
to design substantially smaller plants, while improving
operational safety, environmental performance, and energy
efficiency. The Rapid Advancement in Process Intensifica-
tion Deployment (RAPID) Manufacturing Institute, sup-
ported by the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE), has recently
placed the spotlight on PI in the U.S. RAPID’s aim is to
target and promote major advances in energy efficiency and
productivity in the process industries. It supports research on
related topics ranging from PI fundamentals, modeling and
simulation, and module manufacturing, to applications in
chemical and commodity processing, natural gas upgrading,
and renewable bioproducts.
PI challenges the conventional approach of “one unit,
one operation” by combining multiple unit operations in the
same physical device. Intensified systems minimize transfer
and transport limitations by bringing multiple physical and
chemical processes in close physical proximity. Phenom-
ena such as catalytic reactions, for example, are governed
by their intrinsic rates, rather than by diffusion through the
catalyst structure. Intensified devices tend to be smaller and
more efficient than their conventional counterparts. Smaller
equipment also has safety advantages, such as minimizing
the holdup of potentially harmful chemicals.

46  www.aiche.org/cep  March 2018  CEP Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 Physical dimensions often play an important role in the
conception and construction of intensified systems, because
some intensification approaches may only be viable at cer-
tain length scales. For example, the capacity of dividing-wall
columns can typically be scaled effectively, but the height of
microchannel-reactor channels cannot exceed a few milli-
meters without risking the occurrence of homogeneous reac-
tions (i.e., combustion). This limits the processing capacity
of individual intensified processes, although capacity can be
increased by increasing the number of devices operating in
parallel (i.e., numbering up) (1).
Numbering up indirectly challenges the established prin-
ciple of economy of scale. Conventional scale-up techniques
increase capacity by increasing the size of a device or pro-
cess, while maintaining the basic design and function. Plant
capacity can be chosen from a continuous range of sizes, but
the optimal size typically requires a trade-off among market
demand, capital expenditure, and operating cost. Number-
ing up affords only discrete choices of capacity, that is, the
number of processing devices or modules must be an integer.
In addition, facilities can expand their product portfolio by
adding different modules that perform other functions.
Modularity is not entirely new to the chemical process
industries (CPI). However, it is not nearly as prevalent as
it is in other manufacturing sectors, such as electronics and
automotive manufacturing. This article discusses the status
of modular manufacturing developments, analyzes their
role in the CPI, and identifies challenges and opportunities
to guide progress. We categorize resources and markets in
terms of a newly defined metric — value density — and
argue that the opportunities for modular manufacturing are
tied to this metric. Moreover, we posit that PI enables modu-
lar manufacturing, but is not a necessary condition.
What is a module?
Because unit operations are modules in their own right
— deliberately standardized units that work together —
the distinction between modules and unit operations can
be fuzzy. In this article, we look beyond the conventional
unit operations framework. For instance, modules based
on process intensification may combine fundamental
operations or tasks into a single piece of equipment (e.g.,
reactive distillation, spinning-disk reactors, membrane dis-
tillation, heat-integrated reactors, or advanced distillation
columns) (2). While PI techniques and modular manufac-
turing can be used independently, it is beneficial to use
them in concert: PI can be applied to various sections
of a process, and then the PI solutions can be combined
into modules (3).
We consider three categories of modularity as applied
to CPI facilities: modular fabrication and construction, p Figure 1. This module consisting of two heat exchangers is the size of a
modular design, and modular manufacturing. standard shipping container. The top of the module serves as a pipe rack.
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Modular fabrication and construction
Modular fabrication and construction is one of the first
attempts at applying modularization principles to chemical
processing. A single facility of annual capacity P is built
from factory-preassembled blocks or modules (which are not
necessarily identical). The preassembled modules are then
interconnected in the field, which requires minimal effort
compared to field-erected (i.e., stick-built) structures. These
modules may comprise one conventional unit operation,
several unit operations, or only part of a unit operation.
Process design for a facility constructed of modules
ensures that the functionality of the process is exactly the
same as a conventional facility. Connections for piping, tub-
ing, wiring, and control are all complete at the module level.
Modules communicate via junction boxes for power and
control wiring, and instrument air is fed from a header. In
many cases, the pipe rack is integrated into the module, with
the top portion of the module carrying the aforementioned
ducts and piping (Figure 1).
The detailed engineering and mechanical design of each
module should consider the module’s weight and dimen-
sions, which are constrained by the intended transportation
method and size of the installation location, the necessary
strength of the frame materials to support the equipment
weight, the need for a foundation, and other factors.
Modular construction offers several advantages that
outweigh potential (or perceived) increases in upfront
cost (4, 5).
Enhanced quality control and safety. Assembly in a fac-
tory setting allows control of factors that affect product qual-
ity and employee safety. Shop personnel are able to work
in an environment with a controlled flow of personnel and
materials, as well as access to overhead cranes; for example,
most of the welding on a distillation tower can be performed
CEP  March 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  47
SPECIAL SECTION: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION
Transportation is one of the challenges
of modular construction.
with the column in the horizontal position, thereby avoiding
elevated work. Personnel remain in a relatively small area
and work is brought to their workstations. Workers become
more familiar with this limited environment, including loca-
tions of tools, industrial gases, and electrical supply points
needed to perform their jobs. Personnel also become more
familiar with their coworkers and develop working relation-
ships that promote safety and efficiency.
An employee in the field, however, must move around a
construction site or plant environment to the work location,
moving necessary equipment with them as well. Elevated
work on scaffolds and work with mobile cranes are com-
mon, and carry inherent safety risks. Personnel may also
be subjected to inclement weather conditions that could
increase risk. Teams are frequently assembled for each indi-
vidual job, which hinders workforce cohesion.
Capital cost savings. Modular units are less capital inten-
sive, largely due to more-efficient labor. For many projects,
large portions of the capital costs are related to welding. A
welder in a shop is considerably more efficient than a welder
in the field because a shop welder can remain in the same
location, completing welding tasks for a majority of their
time. In 2016, in the Houston area, a productive hour for a
welder (i.e., one weld on a 6-in. Schedule 40 carbon steel
pipe) cost about $50. The cost of field fabrication is typically
at least twice that of shop fabrication, and could increase by
up to a factor of six, depending on the skill level and avail-
ability of the workers.
Material cost savings. Modules can require extra steel,
but in most cases, the cost is offset by eliminating the need
for a foundation. Pipe racks built into the modules also help
to minimize costs by reducing the amount of piping required
at the plant level.
Deployment cost and project timeline savings. Assem-
bling modules requires fewer hours of skilled labor than
building a plant in the field (Figure 2). The amount of work
that can be performed in the shop relative to the field varies
from project to project, but shifting the majority of the work
Site
Permitting Development
Design and Installation and
Engineering Module Construction Commissioning
Design and Site Building and
Permitting
Engineering Development Construction
Project Timeline
48  www.aiche.org/cep  March 2018  CEP
into the shop can have significant benefits, especially when
qualified labor and expertise are in short supply.
For a typical modular-construction refinery project, for
example, about 65% of the labor is performed in the shop.
Considering the labor savings and the economics of these
initial stages, the total cost of a project can be reduced by
about 30%. Projects that employ extensive modularization
can be completed faster. For example, a project that would
typically take three years can be completed in about two
years, enabling an early startup, reducing overhead costs,
and shortening the financing period.
Transportation is one of the challenges of modular
construction. As module size increases, so do the logistic
difficulties of delivering modules to the plant site. Further-
more, modules may require more upfront engineering than
conventional unit operations. Modules that are ordered
from external fabricators typically require very detailed
design packages (5).
Modular construction can be applied to almost any part or
type of plant. The literature provides numerous examples of
modular construction, including catalytic cracking units (6),
steam methane reformers (4), landfill gas processing plants
(6), petrochemical facilities (6), and chlor-alkali plants (7).
The constraints of rail or road transportation typically
limit the size of a module to that of a standardized shipping
container (Figure 3). This places a practical upper limit on
the capacity of a plant of modular construction. For example,
modular oil refineries can be constructed up to a capacity
of about 30,000 bpd. Access to a sea or river port enables
larger modules.
Modular design
A facility with an annual capacity P that incorporates
modular design is developed using prespecified, standard-
ized building blocks, i.e., modules. A modular facility can
include off-the-shelf reaction vessels, heat exchangers,
separation units, etc. These modules, based on unit opera-
tions or novel process intensification techniques, may also
feature standard interconnections for fluid flow, information,
data and control signal exchange, and utility connections (8).
Modular designs can reduce engineering costs considerably,
but at the cost of diminished flexibility (9).
Time Savings
t Figure 2. The timeline for a
modular construction project
(blue) is shorter than the timeline
for a conventional construction
Commissioning
project (green), which helps to
save time.
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Modular deployment and production Improved safety. Modules can be fully tested at the
In modular production, n similar or identical facilities manufacturer’s facility prior to shipment. Safety risks
(modules), each of capacity P/n, are used to meet processing are reduced because the modules are built under more-­
capacity P. These facilities are typically operated in parallel; controlled conditions.
may or may not be geographically co-located; and may or Single point of responsibility and accountability. Dedi-
may not be deployed at the same time, allowing capacity to cated workshops for building modules provide a single point
be expanded or reduced over time. The facilities themselves of contact for the project team. Information necessary for
may be of modular fabrication and construction (a facility detailed engineering, project management, equipment fab-
may, in effect, consist of a single fabricated module), and rication, assembly, automation and process control, startup
can benefit from PI. A careful balance, however, must be assistance, and operator training is all available in one place.
struck between the degree of integration and intensification
and the need to control and operate the process. When to choose modular
Modular deployment and production represents a more deployment and production
recent effort in modular manufacturing, and has been moti- The primary factor that influences the choice of modu-
vated by the need for more flexibility in capacity, product lar deployment and production (instead of a conventional
type, and geographic location. A modular facility is typically process of equal capacity) is economics. To analyze the eco-
comprised of a so-called backbone module that provides nomics of modular production, let’s first consider a central-
utilities to and connectivity among the production modules. ized modular facility, and then focus on distributed modular
Modular deployment and production has several advantages production, whereby the modules are placed at different
over conventional facilities with fixed capacity (10, 11). locations to account for distributed resource availability or a
Faster time to market. Assuming that a module for geographic spread in market demand.
producing a desired product is already designed and avail-
able, it could be deployed in a short time to meet immedi- Centralized modular deployment
ate demand. Thus, modular deployment is well-suited to Consider this well-established cost-scaling estimate for a
producing novel products or entering emerging markets. For conventional process of capacity P (12):
new plants, module construction can be performed in paral-
lel to site construction or while waiting for permits, shorten-
ing schedules by up to 40%. where C is the cost, k represents the dependence of cost
Lower costs. Modular deployment and production can on the capacity of the plant (k > 0), e is a scaling factor
lower energy use by 30%, operating costs by 20%, and typically equal to 2/3, and the subscript c denotes a conven-
capital expenditures by 40%. This is due in large part to tional process.
smaller field crews, more efficient use of materials, and Assume that this relationship holds for the entire range
shorter schedules. In addition, plant operation can
start (or continue) as new modules are built and
commissioned.
Scalable capacity. Modules can be added or
removed to scale capacity as market size evolves over
time. This is an especially valuable benefit for the
production of new products and in emerging or devel-
oping markets where demand is expected to grow or
fluctuate. The ability to add or remove production
capacity, as well as diversify the product portfolio,
can help to simplify or facilitate business and invest-
ment decisions (11).
Simplified maintenance and less downtime. To
minimize downtime due to breakdowns or routine
maintenance, modules can simply be replaced. The
offline module can then be serviced on-site or trans-
ported off-site for service in a specialized shop. The
cost of a replacement module, of course, can be sig-
nificantly higher than the cost of the spare part needed p Figure 3. This modularized distillation system includes a boiler, a fractionator, an
for repairs (7). overhead condenser, heat exchangers, pumps, and controls.

Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP  March 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  49
SPECIAL SECTION: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION
of capacities, for both scale up and scale down, that is, from
P/n to P. Hence, the cost of a facility of capacity P/n (i.e., a
module) is:
where the subscript m stands for modular. Because n ≥ 2
and 0 < ec < 1, the cost of one module (out of n) is expected
to be higher than 1/n of the cost of a conventional process
(i.e., nec < n and 1/nec > 1/n). A modular centralized plant of
capacity P will be more capital-intensive than a conventional
plant of equivalent capacity.
This comparison is based on the premises that the market
conditions for the modular and conventional processes are
similar, that the two processes use the same technology, and
that there is a potential efficiency penalty for scaling down.
These premises, however, may not hold true. Various
factors can lower the capital cost of a centralized modular
facility, better aligning the net present value (NPV) of a
modular plant with that of a conventional plant. Consider,
for example, that each module may not cost the same. The
cost of the nth module may be lower than the cost of the
first module due to a learning-curve effect and the inher-
ent benefits of producing modules in larger numbers (13).
Modularly deployed plants also often do not use the same
technologies as conventional plants, incorporating innova-
tive technologies and PI at the module level. In addition, not
all of the modules need to be deployed immediately.
Extensive empirical evidence suggests that modular
deployment and production lend themselves to high-value
products (typically exceeding €100/kg) made in low to
medium volumes, and potentially in geographically distrib-
uted facilities. The NPV of a modularly deployed plant has
been found to be lower than the NPV of a conventional facil-
ity over a longer time period (more than 10 years) (13). This
suggests that modular production is best suited to meeting
short- to medium-term market needs that fluctuate over time.
These estimates exclude the cost of labor. Because of
technological advances, the workforce required to oper-
Table 1. The value density can inform
important business decisions.
πp/πl Dresource/P Ψ Comment
Low Low Low Pursue modular deploy-
ment and production
Low High Intermediate High logistics cost —
undertake further analysis
High Low Intermediate Area will not support
production
High High High Pursue a conventional
centralized production
scheme
50  www.aiche.org/cep  March 2018  CEP
ate a large-scale facility is likely not much larger than the
number of operators involved in running a comparable plant
of smaller size. Modular production plants can be operated
remotely, from a single, minimally staffed control center that
oversees multiple facilities.
The decision to select a centralized modular facility
should be based on a careful analysis of both capital cost and
market evolution prospects.
Geographically distributed modular deployment
The annual benefit of a conventional centralized process,
Bc, as a function of operating cost and capital cost is:
where πp is the product unit price (including the logistic
costs to deliver the product to users), πa is the unit acquisi-
tion price of feedstock, πl is the corresponding logistic costs,
and α is a capital cost coefficient (based on the assumed
payback rate).
For simplicity, assume that the acquisition price remains
relatively constant; the logistic costs decrease linearly with
the number of processing modules and can be reduced by
appropriately locating the modules; and the logistic cost
for the product is small compared to the logistic cost of
the feedstock.
The annualized benefit for a corresponding modular
processing facility, Bm, is:
where 0 < β ≤ 1 accounts for potential yield and/or efficiency
losses owing to scale-down of a technology.
Then, compute the difference between the annual benefit
of the distributed modular process and of the centralized
conventional process:
Equation 5 provides guidance for selecting between
distributed modular and centralized conventional produc-
tion based on the desired production capacity, the number
of modular production units, the cost-scaling model, and
the desired payback period. The first term reflects the yield
and/or efficiency due to modularization and is at most zero,
showing that modularization likely incurs an efficiency
penalty. The second term corresponds to logistics costs, and
will always be positive, indicating that under the condi-
tions assumed here, modular production is superior to a
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
conventional process in terms of logistics. The third term
corresponds to the capital cost and will always be nega-
tive, suggesting that modular processes remain inferior to
conventional processes from the point of view of capital
expenditure for the same technology.
A conventional process of capacity P is viable when
feedstock is available at a rate corresponding to P without
incurring considerable logistic costs (recall that that the
logistic cost of the product is assumed to be small). Other­
wise, distributed modular manufacturing is preferable,
assuming that the technology itself is cost-competitive at
the relevant scale or that a different but cost-competitive
technology exists at that scale.
These arguments further suggest that the potential of
a geographic area to support a conventional centralized or
modular distributed (or decentralized) production strategy
can be assessed in terms of a value density, Ψ, which is
defined based on a desired annual production capacity of P:
where Dresource accounts for the physical density of a resource
in terms of available annual supply rate per unit area.
A low value density (Ψ < 1) suggests either a low πp/πl
ratio, indicating high logistic costs compared to the price of
the product, or a low Dresource/P ratio, indicating that the area
may not be capable of supplying sufficient feedstock for the
desired capacity, or both. Conversely, a high value density
(Ψ > 1) indicates that logistic costs may be low and/or the
feedstock in the area is abundant.
The value density can be used as a criterion for selecting
between distributed modular and conventional centralized
production. A high value density indicates that centralized
production may be appropriate, while a low value density
favors modular production (Table 1).
The value density is intended simply as a screening
criterion. The decision to invest in a distributed modular or
centralized process should be made by considering the cost
and efficiency of the process, as well as market demand and
feedstock availability predictions, particularly at intermedi-
ate values of Ψ. Value densities can also be used to perform
an objective comparison of alternative business opportuni-
ties, such as investing in different geographic areas.
Consider, for example, the production of gases, such as
nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, which are used to support
numerous manufacturing and fabrication processes. Gas
demand is often satisfied through deliveries of compressed-
gas cylinders. For higher demands, the corresponding
liquefied products are delivered via tanker trucks and stored
on-site in cryogenic tanks.
To meet even higher demands, deliveries are uneconomi-
cal, and instead, on-site, small-scale production facilities
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
are used. For example, Praxair, Inc., offers small on-site air
separation modules that can produce nitrogen (via cryogenic
separation) at rates of up to 5,000 Nm3/hr. Likewise, oxygen
of up to about 95% purity can be generated via vacuum
pressure-swing adsorption at rates of about 6,000 Nm3/hr.
Air Products and Chemicals offers skid-mounted, modular
hydrogen generators that rely on steam reforming to
generate up to 5,000 Nm3/hr. In addition to economic
benefits, on-site production eliminates the safety hazards
associated with transporting cryogenic liquids and highly
flammable hydrogen.
Distributed modular production plants are also used to
produce hydrocarbon liquids from stranded natural gas feed-
stock. Natural gas deposits are referred to as stranded when
their small scale and/or remote location render conventional
exploitation and monetization economically infeasible. It is
estimated that one-third of natural gas resources worldwide
are stranded. Because stranded natural gas is a low-value-
density resource, it is suited to a distributed processing
approach.
Several examples in the literature advocate for the
development of small-scale gas-to-liquids (GTL) processes,
which convert stranded gas feedstock into more-fungible
and energy-dense liquids, typically via steam-methane
reforming followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (14, 15).
This technology has been deployed commercially at capaci-
ties up to 1,000 bpd. Note that steam-methane reforming
and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reactors do not scale
down favorably, and PI (e.g., catalytic plate/microchannel
reactors) has played a key role in making such systems
economically viable.
Similar to stranded natural gas, biomass processing is
also amenable to distributed, modular systems because of the
distributed nature of feedstock production and its low value
density. Biological feedstock is cultivated in fields (e.g.,
switchgrass, sorghum, corn, and corn stover) or harvested
from aqueous environments (e.g., algae). Examples in the
literature (10) prominently advocate for distributed process-
ing pathways geared toward the production of platform
chemicals or transportation fuels. With the exception of the
well-developed ethanol production process (16), transporta-
tion fuel production relies on Fischer-Tropsch synthesis,
with the key difference being that synthesis gas is obtained
by gasification. PI via novel reactor technologies is playing a
key role in these modular systems.
Safety and sustainability in
distributed modular production
Safety is paramount to chemical processing, and deploy-
ing distributed modular chemical production facilities has
several potential safety advantages. It inherently reduces the
amount of any hazardous chemicals that may be present at
CEP  March 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  51
SPECIAL SECTION: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION
a manufacturing location. In addition, certain chemicals can
be manufactured on-site, thereby eliminating the need to
transport hazardous materials by road or rail.
For example, on-site production of chlorine and chlorine-
based oxidants could help to meet more-stringent environ-
mental regulations. Small, modular on-site sodium hypo-
chlorite generators are commercially available, eliminating
the need for chlorine deliveries to water treatment plants.
These generators can produce over 1 m.t. of chlorine per
day. Larger-scale plants that produce up to 15,000 m.t./yr are
comprised of multiple modules.
On-site wastewater treatment at facilities such as resorts
and hotels has a low value density and, thus, is suited to
distributed modular production. Furthermore, on-site pro-
duction of chlorine has significant environmental, safety, and
health benefits, such as eliminating the need for road or rail
distribution and reducing the amount of stored hazardous
materials. A similar argument could be made for distributed,
small-scale production of ammonia.
Although these systems have safety benefits, there are
tradeoffs. The overall cost of a suite of modules may be
higher than the cost of a conventional, centralized plant,
because the cost of containment systems is likely to scale
with the capital cost of equipment. In addition, although
storing large amounts of hazardous chemicals presents safety
issues, the hazard can be monitored and managed, and, if
needed, mitigated at a single location.
Sustainability is another important factor to consider
when developing a new process. Sustainability and life­cycle
analysis tools for conventional process systems (17) can
t Figure 4.
This modular-
ized distillation
system includes a
heated insulated
enclosure that
reduces heat loss
and is designed for
low-temperature
(–150°F) service.
52  www.aiche.org/cep  March 2018  CEP
serve as the basis for a cradle-to-grave design and analysis
of modular processes. However, several additional features
need to be accounted for, including:
• Modules may be deployed in different locations that
are subject to different environmental, health, and safety
regulations. Modules should be designed to meet the most
stringent specifications to maximize deployment flexibility.
• System maintenance should be performed regularly to
ensure that all modules operate safely and efficiently. This
may require additional effort to coordinate the activity and
travel schedules of support technicians and engineers for
distributed systems.
• Modular processing enables staged decommissioning,
in which some modules can be decommissioned while oth-
ers continue to operate.
Process systems engineering
for intensified modular production
Drivers and barriers. The expansion of modular manu-
facturing in chemical processing is driven by the potential to
reduce energy use and costs, improve safety, minimize envi-
ronmental impact, and shorten time to profit. PI could help
to make these drivers a reality in modular manufacturing.
Modular PI, however, has to overcome several barriers:
• risk associated with less-established technologies
• lack of scale-up and scale-down knowledge
• initial equipment design
• lack of knowledge related to PI equipment operation in
an integrated plant
• cost
• safety issues, for example, associated with unconven-
tional energy sources
• reliability and availability of new PI equipment (that
has not been fully tested for long periods).
Process design. The cost calculations for a process
module (Eq. 2) assume that the module uses the same tech-
nology as the full-scale, conventional process. This assump-
tion increases the total cost of a modular process. Process
designers should consider new process configurations that
are customized to small scales or that scale down favorably.
PI should figure prominently in these efforts, providing
new avenues for reducing module size, reducing cost,
and potentially increasing efficiency. Integrating PI technol-
ogies in modular construction could reduce the overall
costs (e.g., fewer pieces of equipment and lower operating
costs) and improve safety (e.g., smaller inventory of hazard-
ous materials).
Evolution in this area will depend on significant progress
in process synthesis, modeling, and optimization. Systematic
techniques for identifying PI opportunities are still in their
infancy (18). None of the commercial process modeling
and design optimization software tools available today can
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
represent intensified and modular systems explicitly and at
the necessary level of detail.
Of particular importance is capturing the geometric
dimensions and features of these devices, the benefits of
which are often at the heart of the design. For example, a
high internal-area-to-volume ratio is often cited as one of the
main performance-enhancing characteristics of autothermal
reactors (1). In addition, smaller dimensions can amplify
the impact of phenomena that are routinely encountered and
dealt with in conventional unit operations. For example, an
intensified autothermal reactor has a larger external area-to-
volume ratio than its conventional counterpart, which ampli-
fies the effect of ambient heat losses. Distillation systems
(Figure 4) suffer from similar issues.
Process designers and equipment manufacturers need
to more closely collaborate to design solutions that enhance
performance while also lowering equipment capital costs.
Reducing the cost of modular equipment reduces the busi-
ness risk of deploying such solutions, and can provide
significant impetus for their adoption. Steps in the right
direction might include standardizing components of each
module; identifying low-cost, high-quality fabrication
options; and streamlining the parts supply chain by engaging
suppliers, modularizing construction, choosing appropriate
frame materials, etc.
Process control. Controlling modular production archi-
tectures requires expanding or modifying the set of control
decisions implemented in process systems. Typically, a
supervisory controller meets plantwide control objectives by
directing a regulatory control layer, while the setpoints of the
supervisory control system are dictated by an optimization
calculation that considers production scheduling and/or real-
time optimization of the process state (19).
Production modules must be closely coordinated. This
is especially true for parallel configurations, where a coor-
dinating controller should ensure that all of the feedstock
molecules are processed in the same way. Cooperative
control strategies are typically necessary to orchestrate
module operation (20) in spatially distributed configurations.
Furthermore, production turnup and turndown likely involve
activating and deactivating (turning on and off) one or several
modules. This set of discrete decisions should be accommo-
dated in the control, coordination, and cooperation mecha-
nisms. In circumstances where the operating conditions of the
system change rapidly, close coordination between process
control and production scheduling is required (21).
Specific architectures, such as decentralized intelligence
for modular applications (DIMA), are being developed by
the European Industry 4.0 initiative. The development of
scalable dynamic process models for model-based control
will help to attain the goal of plug-and-produce modules.
These models could be developed by the manufacturers
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
The expansion of modular
manufacturing is driven by the
potential to reduce energy use and costs,
improve safety, minimize environmental
impact, and shorten time to profit.
of the modules themselves and delivered together with
the physical module to the user. In this way, every module
would be accompanied by a digital twin that can be used for
advanced control and operational optimization.
Further development in process monitoring and fault
diagnosis techniques is needed to make remote operation
without on-site personnel a reality. Predictive equipment
condition monitoring and predictive maintenance could also
help enable this operation scenario.
The control of modular systems that rely on PI may pose
special challenges, however, such as loss of some control
degrees of freedom and strong dynamic interactions (22).
Process operations. The planning and scheduling of
production, as well as supply chain analysis and optimiza-
tion, play key roles in modular production, particularly for
distributed systems. Modularly deployable facilities have the
potential to support new processing paradigms. It is con-
ceivable that plants could be deployed on demand to meet a
stringent need (e.g., water purification or pharmaceutics pro-
duction during a crisis), or relocated frequently as the supply
fluctuates, such as following the harvest of biomass. Addi-
tional approaches may emerge, such as the cooperative use of
a facility by multiple users/co-owners, in which the resource
is allocated ad hoc at a variable cost and based on need.
Additional efforts in process design and optimization (in
particular capacity planning) can help to identify methods
for taking full advantage of multiple, co-located distributed
resources in distributed modular processing configurations.
For example, several stranded gas deposits in Texas are
located in areas with high potential for wind-power genera-
tion, which could enable electricity-powered modular pro-
cessing and GTL conversion. In addition, reverse osmosis-
based desalination plants could be constructed at small
scales and operated in a grid-independent fashion using
wind power.
Closing thoughts
Numerous examples demonstrate that modular process-
ing has already become a reality. However, the benefits of
modularization and, in particular, modular construction are
not yet universally known. Promoting these concepts via
training and education is crucial to expanding the modular
production paradigm.
Major opportunities exist to make chemical processes
more profitable and sustainable by reducing energy use and
CEP  March 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  53
SPECIAL SECTION: PROCESS INTENSIFICATION
CO2 emissions, the cost of production, waste, and environ-
mental impact. Modular deployment and production
can provide increased flexibility in meeting market and
customer demands.
PI can play an important role in the expansion of
modular processing by providing new process designs with
favorable scale-down characteristics. However, intensifi-
cation is neither necessary nor a sufficient condition for
process modularization. Yet, modular manufacturing based
on PI will likely have a stronger impact, allowing substantial
energy and cost savings in industrial processes and reducing
environmental footprints.
Interactions between chemical engineers and equipment
manufacturers can also help to facilitate new equipment con-
struction techniques (e.g., 3D printing of devices) that will
lower capital cost without compromising performance. The
convergence of these factors will likely democratize access
to chemical manufacturing to a broader base of enterprises,
particularly small businesses or businesses in developing
countries. Modularization can simplify engineering, increase
plant efficiency and production flexibility, reduce time to
market, and improve overall competitiveness. CEP
Nomenclature
B = annual benefit
C = cost
Dresources = parameter accounting for the physical density of
a resource
e = scaling factor, typically equal to 2/3
k = factor representing the dependence of cost on the
capacity of the plant
n = number of modules
P = capacity
Greek Letters
α = capital cost coefficient
β = parameter accounting for potential and/or
efficiency losses due to scale-down
πa = unit aquisition price of feedstock
πl = logistic cost
πp = product unit price
ψ = value density
Subscripts
c = conventional plant
m = modular plant
Acknowledgments
Michael Baldea acknowledges with gratitude financial support from the
National Science Foundation (NSF) through the CAREER Award 1454433
and Award CBET-1512379. Anton A. Kiss gratefully acknowledges the Royal
Society Wolfson Research Merit Award, and the valuable discussions with
his former industrial colleagues at AkzoNobel.
54  www.aiche.org/cep  March 2018  CEP
Literature Cited
1. Reay, D., et al., “Process Intensification: Engineering for Effi-
ciency, Sustainability and Flexibility,” Butterworth-Heinemann,
Waltham, MA (2013).
2. Kiss, A. A., “Distillation Technology — Still Young and Full of
Breakthrough Opportunities,” Journal of Chemical Technology
and Biotechnology, 89, pp. 479–498 (2014).
3. Kim, Y. H., et al., “Modular Chemical Process Intensification:
A Review,” Annual Review of Chemical and Bimolecular Engi-
neering, 8, pp. 359–380 (2017).
4. Armstrong, R., “Better Ways to Build Process Plants,” Chemical
Engineering, 79, pp. 86–94 (1972).
5. Roy, S., “Consider Modular Plant Design,” Chemical Engineer-
ing Progress, 113 (5), pp. 28–31 (2017).
6. Glaser, L. B., and J. Kramer, “Does Modularization Reduce
Plant Investment?” Chemical Engineering Progress, 79 (10),
pp. 63–68 (1983).
7. Hesler, W. E., “Modular Design — Where It Fits,” Chemical
Engineering Progress, 86 (10), pp. 76–80 (1990).
8. Hohmann L., et al., “Modules in Process Industry — A Life
Cycle Definition,” Chemical Engineering and Processing:
Process Intensification, 111, pp. 115–126 (2017).
9. Burgess T., et al., “Enhancing Value Stream Agility: The U.K.
Specialty Chemical Industry,” European Management Journal,
20 (2), pp. 199–212 (2002).
10. Bramsiepe, C., “Low-Cost Small-Scale Processing Technologies
for Production Applications in Various Environments — Mass
Produced Factories,” Chemical Engineering and Processing:
Process Intensification, 51, pp. 32–52 (2012).
11. Mothes, H., “No-Regret Solutions­— Modular Production Con-
cepts for Times of Complexity and Uncertainty,” ChemBioEng
Reviews, 2 (6), pp. 423–435 (2015).
12. Edgar, T. F., et al., “Optimization of Chemical Processes,”
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1989).
13. Lier, S., and M. Grunewald, “Net Present Value Analysis of
Modular Chemical Production Plants,” Chemical Engineering
Technology, 34 (5), pp. 809–816 (2011).
14. Roberts, K., “Modular Design of Smaller-Scale GTL Plants,”
Petrochemical Technology, 18, pp. 101–103 (2013).
15. LeViness, S., et al., “Velocys Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis
Technology — New Advances on State-of-the-Art,” Topics
in Catalysis, 57 (6–9), pp. 518–525 (2014).
16. Daoutidis, P., et al., “Engineering Biomass Conversion
Processes: A Systems Perspective,” AIChE Journal, 59 (1),
pp. 3–18 (2013).
17. Allen, D. T., and D. R. Shonnard, “Green Engineering: Envi-
ronmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes,” Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2002).
18. Baldea, M., “A Pinch-Like Targeting Framework for
Systematic Thermal Process Intensification,” AIChE Journal, doi:
10.1002/aic.15971 (2017).
19. Seborg, D. E., et al., “Process Dynamics and Control, 4th Ed.,”
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2016).
20. Rawlings, J. B., and B. T. Stewart, “Coordinating Multiple
Optimization-Based Controllers: New Opportunities and Chal-
lenges,” Journal of Process Control, 18 (9), pp. 839–845 (2008).
21. Baldea, M., and I. Harjunkoski, “Integrated Production Sched-
uling and Process Control: A Systematic Review,” Computers
and Chemical Engineering, 71, pp. 377–390 (2014).
22. Baldea, M., “From Process Integration to Process Intensifica-
tion,” Comput. Chem. Eng., 81, pp. 104–114 (2015).
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)