970 Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev.
1985, 2 4 , 970-976
Nomenclature
D = particle size, m
g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2
U = settling velocity, m/s
X = distance from the top of the buoyant sediment, mm
Subscripts
f = refers to flocs
p = refers to primary particles
Superscript
O = at infinite dilution
Greek Letters
(Y = fluid to solid volume ratio in the floc
p = fluid viscosity, kg/(m s)
p = density (of fluid if not subscripted), kg/m3
Cost Dtagrams and the Quick Screening of Process Alternatives
James M. Douglas'
Chemical Engineerlng Department, Universm of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 0 1003
Duncan C. Woodcock
Imperial Chemical Industries, Runcorn. Cheshire WA 7 4QE. England
Cost diagrams provide a useful way of summarizing total processing cost information for preliminary process designs.
I n addition, they are often useful for checking rules of thumb, for obtaining quick estimates of the economics of
process alternatives, and for establishing a hierarchy of optimization variables. Thus, they help to establish priorities
for more detailed design studies.
A t the initial stage of designing a new process, it is
possible to generate more than 1 million flow sheets
(Douglas, 1985) and there are about 10-20 optimizations
of the design variables required for each flow sheet
(Westerberg, 1981). Heuristics can often be used to elim-
inate some of the alternate flow sheets and to provide first
estimates of some of the design variables, but there are still
a very large number of process alternatives and optimi-
zations that need to be considered.
Since flow sheets normally are dropped from further
consideration based on the total processing costs (safety,
operability, and pollution may play a part), it is useful to
have a simple and efficient way of summarizing cost in-
formation. Cost diagrams can be used for this purpose.
In addition, cost diagrams sometimes are useful for
checking rules of thumb, for obtaining quick estimates of
the economics of process alternatives, and for identifying
a hierarchy of optimization problems.
Previous Work
From an examination of published design case studies
(Washington University Design Case Study Series; AIChE
Student Problems; Stanford Research Institute Reports;
Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980; Happel and Jordan, 1975;
Baasel, 1977; Ulrich, 1984),it seems to be common practice
to tabulate the manufacturing costs and the capital costs
separately. The list of capital costs normally is itemized
to correspond to names or tags shown on a flow sheet, but
0196-4305/85/1124-0970$01.50/0
4 = volume fraction solids
Registry No. Calcium carbonate, 471-34-1.
Literature Cited
Fessas, Y. P. Ph.D. Thesis, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1983.
Fessas, Y. P.; Weiland, R. H. AIChE J . 1981, 2 7 , 588.
Fessas, Y. P.; Weiland, R. H. Resour. Conserv. 1982, 9 , 87.
Fessas, Y. P.; Weiland, R. H. I n t . J. MuMphase Flow 1984, 10, 485.
Michaels, A. S.;Bolger, J. C. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1962, 1 , 24.
Stagle, D. S.;Shah, Y. T.; Klinzing, G. E.; Waiters, J. G. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process D e s . Dev. 1978, 17, 500.
Thomas, D. G. AIChE J . 1963, 9 , 310.
Vilambi, N. R. K. M.S. Thesis, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1982.
Weiland, R. H.;Fessas. Y. P.; Ramarao. B. V. J . Fluid Mech. 1984, 142,
383.
Weiland, R. H.; McPherson, R. R. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1979, 18, 45.
Whitmore, R. L. Br. J . Appl. Phys. 1955, 6 , 239.
Received for reuiew May 31, 1984
Accepted November 29, 1984
all the steam or cooling water costs usually are added
together and reported as a single item. Separate tables
of manufacturing and capital costs would then be prepared
for each process alternative.
Cost Diagrams
As an alternate approach to summarizing cost infor-
mation at the preliminary stages of a process design, we
can prepare a cost diagram. The annualized, installed
capital cost of each piece of equipment is listed inside of
the equipment box on a flow sheet, and the annual oper-
ating costs are attached to the stream arrows. Figure 1
shows a cost diagram for the production of acetone by the
dehydrogenation of isopropyl alcohol, which is a modified
version of the 1948 AIChE Student Contest Problem
(McKetta, 1976). The values in Figure 1are reported in
terms of thousands of dollars per year.
Of course, we could also divide both the annualized
capital costa and the annual operating costs by the annual
production rate of the process. Then, the cost diagram
would indicate the dollars per pound of product that each
item on the flow sheet contributed to the final product
price. This type of an approach is sometimes used in
industry for the design of batch processes.
Use of Cost Diagrams To Check Rules of T h u m b
It is natural to assume that the reflux ratios for the two
distillation columns shown in Figure 1 were fixed by the
0 1985 American Chemical Society

PREHEATER FEH E REACT
I 60 58
* 49 7t
23 7 CAT
c0 w7 COND
2 7
I t
WASTE WATER
Figure 1. Cost diagram for acetone process.
rule of thumb of 20% in excess of the minimum reflux
ratio. However, a t the optimum design conditions ac-
cording to Happel and Jordan (1975), the distribution of
annual costs should be 30% for the column, 35% for the
condenser and reboiler, and 35% for the steam and cooling
water. In a similar study, but using a 6.7 yr vs. a 2 yr time
factor, Peters and Timmerhaus (1980) obtain 15% for the
column, 10% for the condenser and reboiler, and 75% for
steam and cooling water.
Even though there is a significant difference in the
treatment of the capital and operating costs between the
studies of Happel and Jordan and Peters and Timmerhaus,
both of these studies seem to indicate that there is
something wrong with the column designs shown in Figure
1;i.e., the column cost appears to be much too large. Thus,
the cost diagram indicates that some additional column
design studies should be considered, where higher reflux
ratios would decrease the column cost but would increase
the annualized costa of the condenser and reboiler, as well
as the annual cost of the steam and the cooling water.
Use of Cost Diagrams To Infer Structural
Modifications
The cost diagram shown in Figure 1 also makes it ap-
parent that only $5800/yr is being spent for energy inte-
gration on the feed effluent heat exchanger around the
reactor, but that a total of SO00 + 27 500 for the preheater,
+
plus 29 300 18300 for the furnace (although some of this
energy supplies the endothermic heat of reaction), plus
+
7600 3900 for the condenser and cooling water is allo-
cated for reactor heating and cooling. Thus, it seems as
if we should spend more for energy integration. Of course,
it might be difficult to recover more of the heat from the
hot reactor products because the temperature of this
stream will eventually approach the temperature of the
preheater outlet. However, we can avoid this difficulty and
recover more of the heat if we simply eliminate the pre-
heater.
In actual fact, rather than just eliminating the preheater
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1985 971
t. HZ
CONDENSER FLASH
76 -0
V
11.
!,
COND cw
12 5 33
ACET
from the flow sheet, it would be much better to undertake
an energy integration analysis of the flow sheet (Linnhoff
et al., 1982). Recent experience indicates that 30-50%
energy savings are usually possible even in retrofit situa-
tions (Boland and Hindmarsh, 1984; Linnhoff and Vre-
develd, 1984).
Use of Cost Diagrams To Identify the Significant
Design Variables
For the flow sheet shown in Figure 1,some of the design
variables of interest are as follows: the conversion, the
approach temperature between the Dowtherm furnace and
the reactor inlet, the approach temperature between the
preheater exit temperature and the temperature of the
reactor products leaving the feed-effluent heat exchanger,
the fractional recovery of acetone in the compressor, the
reflux ratios in both distillation columns, the fractional
recovery of acetone overhead in the product column (we
assume that the product composition is specified), and the
fractional recoveries of isopropyl alcohol-water azeotrope
and water in the IPA still.
Almost all of these optimizations involve only local
tradeoffs, Le., the column reflux ratio involves a tradeoff
between the number of plates and the costs of the con-
denser, reboiler, steam, cooling water, and column diam-
eter. However, the optimum reactor conversion involves
a tradeoff between an unbounded reactor cost as the
conversion approaches unity and unbounded recycle costs
as the conversion approaches zero. Thus, the optimum
conversion depends on all the costs in the recycle loop in
Figure 1,and it is apparent that it is much more important
to get the conversion close to the optimum than any of the
other design variables.
Cost Diagrams for Complex Processes
The new synthesis procedures for heat-exchanger net-
works (Linnhoff et al., 1982) lead to highly coupled pro-
cesses. Figure 2 shows a flow sheet for the production of
benzene by the hydrodealkylation of toluene (McKetta,
1977) before energy integration, and Figure 3 shows a cost
972 Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1985
PURGE
4 an inverse proportion to their heat-transfer coefficients
39' K r-
-.
* --1heatFrom Figure 3, we see that there are five stream-stream
exchangers in a row on the reactor effluent stream.
TOLUENE
RECYCLE
DIPHENYL c
Figure 2. Hydrodealkylation of toluene.
diagram of the result for one alternative after an energy
integration analysis. There are so many connections on
Figure 3 that it is difficult to use the cost diagram in the
same way as we did Figure 1. Thus, we need to find a way
to simplify the information presented. In particular, we
would like to be able to evaluate that fraction of the total
processing costs that is associated with the gas and liquid
recycle loops, as compared to the costs for processing the
raw material streams.
In order to simplify the cost diagram, we proceed
through three stages: (1)allocate heat exchanger costs to
process streams; (2) lump costs associated with neighboring
processing operations; and (3) allocate costs to the gas
recycle loop, liquid recycle loop, and fresh feed rate of the
raw materials. We discuss each of these steps below.
Allocate Heat Exchanger Costs to Process
Streams
Following a suggestion of Townsend and Linnhoff
(1984),we allocate the cost of a heat exchanger, where two
process streams exchange heat, to the process streams in
Figure 3. Cost diagram for energy-integrated HDA process.
(where the heat-transfer coefficient includes both the film
coefficient and the appropriate fouling coefficient) (eq 1).
cost allocated to stream -
l/heat-transfer coefficient of stream (1)
The f i t exchanger (cost = 63 X lo3 dollars/yr) is a gas-gas
exchanger; we assume that the heat-transfer coefficients
of the two streams are identical, and therefore we split the
cost evenly. The toluene column reboiler (cost = 14 X lo3
dollars/yr) contacts a gas and a boiling liquid, and we
allocate a smaller cost (4 X lo3 dollars/yr) to the toluene
reboiler because the heat-transfer coefficient is higher. The
allocation for the five exchangers is given in Table I.
Lump Costs Associated with Processing
Operations
We lump the capital and operating costs of units: the
compressor capital cost of 49 X lo3 dollars/yr and the
operating cost of 60 X lo3 dollars/yr; the toluene column
shell cost of 52 X lo3dollars/yr, the allocated reboiler cost
of 4 X lo3 dollars/yr, and the condenser and cooling water
costs of (12 + 8) X lo3 dollars/yr; and similarly for the
stabilizer and benzene columns. Also, we lump neighboring
heat-exchanger costs on the same stream (reactor product
+ + + +
cooling allocated costs of (31.5 10 10 10 29) X lo3
dollars/yr, see Table I, plus the condenser 22 X lo3 dol-
lars/yr and cooling water 43 X lo3 dollars/yr = 155 X lo3
dollars/yr; feed and recycle heating allocated costs of (12
+ 31.5) X lo3 dollars/yr, see Table I, plus the furnace 66
x lo3 dollars/yr and fuel 262 X 103dollan/yr = 371 X lo3
dollars/ yr). With this lumping, we obtain the results
shown in Figure 4.
Allocate Costs to Gas Recycle, Liquid Recycle,
and Fresh Feed
We allocate the reactor cost between the three categories
based on the molar flow rates of the streams, see Table
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1985 973

Table I. Allocation of Heat-Exchanger Costs

orig cost (X103dollars/yr) 63 14 14 14 41
stream reactor feed toluene reboiler stabilizer reboiler benzene reboiler reactor feed
hi,kw/(m2K) 0.69 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57
l / h i allocated cost 31.5 4 4 4 12
stream reactor effluent reactor effluent reactor effluent reactor effluent reactor effluent
hi, kw/(m2K) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69
l / h i allocated cost 31.5 10 10 10 29

I-
RECYCLE COMPRESSOR Table 11. Reactor Cost Allocation

1
(09
molar flow
rate, kg cost (xi03
PRODUCT
stream mol/h dollars/ yr)
REACTOR PURGE
COOLING
198 453 6W gas recycle 3371 158
liquid recycle 91 4
I iI toluene feed 273
1 H2 feed 496
769 36

total 4231 198

DIPH‘NYL BENZENE

Figure 4. L u m p d cost diagram for HDA process. Table 111. Heating/Cooling Cost Allocation
prod cooler cost react feed heaters
11, since the reactor volume will be proportional to the flow 103 103
rate. We allocate the heating/cooling costs in proportion heat load, dollars/ heat load, dollars/
to the heat loads, see Table 111, for the product cooler and stream GJIh vr GJ/h vr
the feed and recycle heating, and we allocate the distilla- gas recycle 39.2 86 53.3 172
liquid recycle 6.1 13 12.1 39
tion costs proportional to the flow rates. fresh feed 25.5 56 49.6 160
Discussion of Complex Cost Diagram total 70.8 155 115.0 371
With the allocation assumption described above, we
obtain the cost diagram shown in Figure 5. Obviously,
the results are only approximate, but a t this stage of a by Douglas (1985). In some cases, heuristics are available
design (when we are screening process alternatives), a more to help in making these decisions, but in other cases, there
careful analysis might not be justified. It should also be are no guidelines available. Hence, the choice made to
noted that Figure 5 makes it appear as if the costs asso- develop a basecase design merely represents a guess. Of
ciated with the gas recycle stream, the liquid recycle course, if we change this choice, we are led to a process
stream, and the fresh feed streams are completely un- alternative. Since the choices a t early decision levels de-
coupled, which is not actually the case because the material pend on those made a t later levels, very different looking
balances are coupled. However, when we use the cost flow sheets might be obtained.
diagram to make first estimates of the economic incentive Thus, in order to determine what process alternatives
corresponding to various process alternatives, we use the should be considered, we merely have to review a process
process material balances to change the costs associated flow sheet in light of the decision procedure proposed by
with the relevant flows. Douglas (1985) and to recognize which choices were ar-
bitrary or were based on qualitative heuristics. These
Stream Costs choices are reviewed in Table IV.
We can also include the stream costs and the material Example-Hydrodealkylation of Toluene. If we
losses on the cost diagram. However, the most again refer to the process for the production of benzene
“reasonable”representation is to include only the amounts by the hydrodealkylation of toluene, where the reactions
of the feed streams that correspond to the excess above are
the stoichiometricrequirements of the specified production
+ H2 - + CH.,
-
rate, since these are the losses that might be avoidable by toluene benzene (2)
some other process alternative; see Figure 5. Our goal is
to use the cost diagram to help us develop a better process. 2benzene diphenyl + H2 (3)
Use of Cost Diagrams To Evaluate Process The level 2 decisions used to develop the base-case
Alternatives design (Douglas, 1985) were (1)do not purify the hydrogen
As was mentioned earlier, there are numerous process feed stream, (2) recover the diphenyl, rather than recycling
alternatives, and in a very large number of cases, there are this reversible byproduct, and (3) use a gas recycle and
no heuristics available for selecting the best alternative. purge stream.
One of the great advantages of cost diagrams is the help It would be desirable to estimate the economic incentive
they often provide in obtaining a quick estimate of the for changing these decisions and evaluating the process
economics associated with process alternatives without alternatives, without completely redesigning the process.
having to completely redesign the process. Some examples The decision not to purify the hydrogen-methane feed
of this type are discussed below for the benzene process. stream seems to be sound, since methane is produced by
the reactions. The other two decisions are discussed below.
Listing of Process Alternatives
A list of decisions that were required to develop a process Recycle of Diphenyl
flow sheet (for a limited class of processes) was presented In order to evaluate the possible incentive for recycling
974 Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1985

GAS RECYC GAS RECYC

f
I
109

FEED HEAT REACTOR PROD COOL

TOL 1691
GR 86 PURGE
Hp 2463 NFF 56 - BEN2 8 TOL
c
LR LR LR i3
r 600 (FEEDSTOCK)
160 198 1 155 ( 5 mole/hr TOL)
95% H2 685 fuel

:1 ;:i
LR
r--
39
39
LR
~~~

76

76
NFF I or
129
43
172

DIPHENYL BENZENE
200 PRODUCT
(8mole/hr TOL)

Figure 5. Cost allocation diagram for HDA process.

the diphenyl, we can use the cost diagram to obtain most a requirement of a 5/1 H2/aromatics ratio a t the reactor
of the information we need. inlet in order to prevent coking. Thus, an extra 12 mol/h
(a) We save the 8 mol/h toluene that get converted to aromatics recycle will require an extra 12(5) = 60 mol/h
diphenyl (we still lose the equivalent of 5 mol/h toluene, hydrogen recycle, but since the hydrogen recycle stream
some as benzene, out the purge stream), but we lose the is only 40% H2,the gas recycle flow must be increased by
fuel value credit of the diphenyl. Thus, from the cost 150 mol/h. The costs associated with this increased gas
diagram, Figure 5, we can write recycle flow in the cost diagram, Figure 5, are, approxi-
mately,
150
savings in raw material = 1691 - - 200 =
(P3)
-(158
3371
+ 86 + 109 + 172) = 24 (X103dollars/yr)
840 (X103dollars/yr) (e) Combining the expressions above, we estimate the
(b) We can eliminate the toluene column order of magnitude of the saving as

savings = 76 (X103dollars/yr)
On the other hand, the diphenyl flow in the liquid re-
cycle recycle loop builds up to an equilibrium level, and
all the equipment in this loop must be oversized to acco-
modate this flow.
(c) From an equilibrium calculation, see Hougen and
Watson (1974))the equilibrium diphenyl flow a t the re-
actor exit is 12 mol/h, so that the total liquid recycle flow
+
becomes 12 91 = 103 mol/h. We assume that the costs
associated with the liquid recycle streams are proportional
to the flow, and therefore the increased cost for the items
that depend on the liquid recycle flow in the cost diagram,
Figure 5, would be
12
-(4
91
+ 13 + 7 + 43 + 39) = 14 (X103dollars/yr)
In fact, this cost should be an upper bound, because the
capital costs only increase with the flow raised to the 0.6
power, or some similar fractional exponent. However, at
this point in the analysis, we are willing to sacrifice accu-
racy for speed in the first screening of alternatives.
(d) The increased liquid recycle of aromatics will require
that the gas recycle flow is also increased, since there is
savings = 840 + 76 - 14 - 24 = 878 (X103dollars/yr)
Obviously, the calculations are only rough approxima-
tions. However, they indicate that there H a large incentive
for evaluating this alternative more rigorously.
Purification of the Gas Recycle Stream
In our original decision to use a gas recycle and a purge
stream with a purge composition of 40% H2,our increment
raw material cost is 2163 X lo3 dollars/yr, while the fuel
value of this hydrogen is only 685 X lo3 dollars/yr.
(a) Thus, the incentive for recovering and recycling the
hydrogen is very large, i.e.,
raw material savings = 2163 - 685 =
1478 (X103dollars/yr)
With the use of a hydrogen recovery system, such as a
membrane process, the revised material balances are shown
in Figure 6. (b) The gas recycle flow is reduced from 3371
to 1628 mol/h; so the cost savings associated with a de-
creased gas recycle flow from the cost diagram, Figure 5,
are
(1-3371)
1628 (172 + 109 + 158 + 86) =
271 (X103dollars/yr)

Table IV. Decisions
level 1: batch vs. continuous-we consider only continuous
processes
level 2: input-output structure of flow sheet
(1)‘should we purify the raw material streams before they are
fed to the reactor?”; if the impurities are inert, there are no
quantitative heuristics
(2) “how many product streams will there be?”; reasonable
heuristics seem to be available, except for the case of a
reversible byproduct
(3) “should a reversible byproduct be recovered or recycled to
extinction?”; no quantitative heuristic is available
(4) “do we need a gas recycle and a purge stream?”; a
quantitative heuristic seemed to be available before the recent
invention of membrane separation processes to separate
gaseous mixtures.
level 3: recycle structure
(1)“how many reactor systems are required?”; the heuristics
seem to be reasonable; “is there any separation between the
reactors?”; usually a decision can be made based on the
chemist’s data
(2) “how many recycle streams are there?“; heuristics are
available
(3) “should we use an excess of one reactant?”; normally,
chemist’s data will indicate the answer
(4) “is a gas recycle compressor required?”; a heuristic is
available
(5) “should the reactor be operated adiabatically, with direct
heating (or cooling), or is a diluent (heat carrier) needed?”;
some calculations are needed to use the heuristic
(6) “do we want to shift the equilibrium conversion?”;
calculations and judgment are required
level 4: separation system
(1) “what is the structure of the vapor and liquid recovery
system?”; heuristics are available
level 4a: vapor recovery system
(1)“what is the best location of the vapor recovery system?”; a
heuristic is available
(2) “what is the best type of vapor recovery system to use?”;
no heuristics are available
level 4b: liquid separation system
(1)“what separations can be made by distillation?”; a heuristic
that usually works is available
(2) “what sequence of distillation columns should be used?”;
the published heuristics are limited to sharp splits of ideal
mixtures for a single feed, but in many cases they do not lead
to the best sequence
(3) “how should the light ends be removed?”; calculations and
judgment are required
(4) ”should the light ends be vented, sent to fuel, or recycled
to the vapor recovery system?”; calculations and judgment are
required
(5) “how should we accomplish the other Separations?”; no
heuristics are available
level 5: heat exchanger network-a design procedure is available
(Linnhoff et al., 1982) for developing alternative designs for
heat-exchanger networks; also, a procedure described by
Androkovich and Westerberg can be used for energy
integrating distillation columns
(c) The reduction in the hydrogen feed rate from 496 to
287.4 mol/h also reduces the costs associated with the fresh
feed processing costs on the cost diagram, Figure 5, to
(1 - 2 ~ ~ ~ (160 +
~ ) 56) =
+ + 36 + tailed design studies are undertaken. However, the in-
68 (X103 dollars/yr)
(note that we do not include the stabilizer and benzene
column fresh feed costs in this calculation because they
are not affected by the hydrogen flow.)
(d) The total potential savings of the hydrogen purifi-
cation process is
total savings = 1478 + 271 + 68 =
1817 (X103 dollars/yr)
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1985 975
95 % H2 9 5 % H2 RECYCLE 95% H2/CH4
SEP
t
- C“4
2074
REACTOR SEP -B
TO L
273
TOL RECYCLE
91
I
Figure 6. Material balances for alternate HDA process.
These savings must be greater than the annualized in-
stalled cost of a membrane process for this alternative to
be attractive. However, it should also be noted that the
large recycle flow of methane acts as a heat carrier (diluent)
and limits the adiabatic temperature rise in the reactor to
less than 1300 O F . Thus, eliminating the methane in the
recycle might cause this constaint to be violated. If this
is the case, we would design the hydrogen purification unit
so that enough methane could be recycled to satisfy the
constraint, and we would need to adjust our estimates of
the savings.
Other Decision Levels
We can estimate the economic incentives for changing
the decisions made a t other levels in a similar way. The
other decisions are listed in Table V, and changing these
decisions will lead to other process alternatives (in most
cases). We can also use the cost diagram to assess the
economic incentive for changing design constraints, such
as the 5 / 1 hydrogen/aromatics ratio a t the reactor inlet.
Reducing the Hydrogen/Aromatics Ratio
The specification of a 5/ 1hydrogen/aromatics ratio at
the reactor inlet in order to prevent coking is probably an
uncertain constraint; it seems unlikely that a chemist
would undertake experiments to find the exact coking
limitations for a significant range of design variables-
reactor temperature, pressure, conversion, etc. Instead,
a chemist would set the ratio to a sufficiently high value
so that coking was never encountered (which is perfectly
reasonable). However, it is desirable to estimate the
economic incentive for reducing this ratio very early in the
development of a project, so that a chemist can make
additional experiments in the range of the optimum design
conditions. The cost diagram can be used for this purpose.
(a) If we evaluate the effect of a 311 rato (Rase (1977)
suggests a 2/1 ratio), the gas recycle flow is approximately
+ +
cut in half, and the savings would be 0.5 (158 85 109
+ 172) = 260 (X103 dollars/yr).
(b) However, a decrease in the partial pressure of hy-
drogen in the reactor will affect the rate of the reverse
reaction given by eq 3 and, therefore, might affect the
amount of diphenyl formed; i.e., the correlation of selec-
tivity vs. conversion used for the initial design might
change.
It is essential to verify experimentally that operation
with a 3 / 1 H,/aromatics ratio is possible before any de-
formation obtained from the cost diagram does provide
a rough measure of the economic incentive for carrying out
these experiments.
Energy Integration Alternatives
The cost diagram clearly indicates that the heating and
cooling costs are significant. Therefore, we want to con-
sider other energy integration alternatives. For example,
we could pressure-shift the toluene column, so that part
of the benzene reboiler heat load could be supplied by the
toluene condenser. Similarly, we could use multiple levels
976 Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 24, No. 4, 1985
Table V. Process A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t h e HDA P r o c e s s
level 2: decisions-input-output structure
(1) d o n o t purify t h e hydrogen feed stream
(2) recover, r a t h e r t h a n recycle, d i p h e n y l so t h a t there are
three p r o d u c t streams (purge, benzene product, d i p h e n y l
byproduct)
(3) use a gas recycle a n d purge stream
level 3: decisions-recycle structure
(1) use a single reactor
(2) use a gas (H, a n d CH,) a n d a liquid (toluene) recycle
stream
(3) Use a 5 / 1 H2/aromatics r a t i o t o prevent coking-assuming
t h i s t o b e a design constraint (although it could b e formulated
as a n o p t i m i z a t i o n problem)
(4) a gas recycle compressor is needed
(5) operate t h e reactor adiabatically
(6) d o n ' t consider e q u i l i b r i u m effects
level 4a: decisions-vapor recovery system
(1) if a vapor recovery system is used, place it o n t h e purge
stream
(2) don't use a vapor recovery system
level 4b: decisions-liquid separation system
(1)a l l separations by d i s t i l l a t i o n
(2) direct sequence o f simple columns-probably complex
columns should b e used
(3) remove l i g h t ends in stabilizer
(4) l i g h t ends t o fuel-no vapor recovery system
level 5: decisions-energy integration-there are numerous
alternatives
of utilities (e.g., LP steam instead of fuel).
Optimization Variables
The cost diagram also helps us to identify which are the
most significant design variables. For the flow sheet shown
in Figure 3, the factors that affect the raw material costs
(reactor conversion as it affects the selectivity and the
purge composition of hydrogen) are the most important.
Factors that affect the gas and liquid recycle flows (again,
the purge composition of hydrogen as well as the 5/1
H,/aromatics ratio constraint and reactor conversion for
toluene recycle) are the next most important. The pressure
of the flash drum, which affects the purge loss of aromatics
balanced against the incremental cost of using higher
pressure equipment in the gas recycle loop, might be next.
Note that there are no rules of thumb available to fix any
of these variables.
The fractional recoveries in the distillation columns, the
reflux ratios in these columns, the approach temperature
in the heat-exchanger network, the pressure levels of the
intermediate stages of the gas compressor, etc., involve
local tradeoffs. Also, rules of thumb are available for
obtaining a first guess of these design variables. However,
it should be noted that the rule of thumb for choosing the
reflux ratio in a distillation column of 20% greater than
the minimum is not valid for energy integrated columns,
so that an optimization analysis might be useful.
Evaluating Alternatives vs. Optimization
Experience seems to indicate that greater savings nor-
mally are possible by evaluating a new process alternative
rather than optimizing a process. However, since there are
no rules of thumb available for selecting the reactor con-
version (which usually fixes the product distribution, raw
material costs, and recycle costs) or the purge composition
of reactants (which usually fixes raw material costs and
gas recycle costs), some case studies or an optimization
analysis is needed for these variables.
Conclusions
It should be apparent that the use of cost diagrams to
evaluate process alternatives does not give results that are
sufficiently accurate for final designs. Instead, we use this
approach to get some "feeling" for the economic incentive
for evaluating various alternatives in more detail. Thus,
cost diagrams provide a useful tool for establishing pri-
orities for additional design studies.
Literature Cited
Baasel, W. D. "Preliminary Chemical Engineering Plant Design"; Eisevier:
New York, 1977.
Bobnd, D.; Hindmarsh, E. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1984, 80(7), 47.
Douglas, J. M. AIChE J . lg85, 3 1 , 353.
Happel, J.; Jordan, D. G. "Chemical Process Economics", 2nd ed.: Marcel
Dekker: New York, 1975.
Hougen, 0. A.; Watson, K. M. "Chemical Process Principles"; Wiley: New
York, 1947; Vol. 111, p 875.
Linnhoff, B.; Townsend, D. W.; Boland, D.; Hewitt, G. F.; Thomas, 8. E. A.;
Guy, A. R.; Marsland, R. H. "A User Guide on Process Integration for the
Efficient Use of Energy"; Institution of Chemical Engineers: Rugby, 1982.
Linnhoff, B.; Vredeveld, D. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1984, 80(7), 33.
McKetta, J. J. "Encyclopedia of Chemlcal Processing and Design"; Marcel
Dekker: New York, 1976; Vol. 1, p 314.
McKetta, J. J. "Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design"; Marcel
Dekker: New York, 1977; Vol. 4, p 182.
Peters, M. S.; Timmerhaus, K. D. "Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers", 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1980.
Rase, H. F. "Chemlcal Reactor Deslgn for Process Plant", Wiiey: New York,
1977; Vol. 2.
Townsend, D. W.; Linnhoff, 8. Paper presented at the Annual Research
Meeting of the Institute of Chemlcal Engineerings, Bath, U.K., April 1984.
Ulrich, G. D. "A Guide to Chemical Engineering Process Design and
Economics", Why: New York, 1984.
Westerberg, A. W. "Foundations of Computer Aided Chemical Process
Design"; Mah, R. S. H., Seider, W. D., Eds.; Engineering Foundation: Hen-
niker, NH, 1981; Vol. 1, p 149.
Received f o r review May 29, 1984
Accepted D e c e m b e r 17, 1984