Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Separation and Purification Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seppur

Process synthesis and simulation-based optimization of ethylbenzene/ T

styrene separation using double-effect heat integration and self-heat
recuperation technology: A techno-economic analysis
⁎
Xingang Li, Chengtian Cui, Hong Li, Xin Gao
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, National Engineering Research Center of Distillation Technology, Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemical Science and
Engineering (Tianjin), Tianjin University, 300072, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ethylbenzene/styrene separation is a typical example of the most costly processes in the chemical industry due to
Ethylbenzene/styrene separation their close-boiling points of these two species. To reduce the cost of their separation, the concepts of double-
Process synthesis effect distillation (DED) and self-heat recuperation technology (SHRT) have been implemented to produce three
Simulation-based optimization energy-efficient distillation configurations in either an individual or synergistic manner. To obtain a fair com-
Double-effect distillation
parison, all the candidate processes were optimized to a minimum in total annual cost (TAC), using a simulation-
Self-heat recuperation technology
Techno-economic analysis
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 ~8% compared to the conventional process
design. The TAC reduction can be improved to as much as ~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.

1. Introduction
Styrene monomer (SM) is commonly recognized as one of the es-
sential monomers for synthesizing various polymers and copolymers,
such as polystyrene, acrylonitrile-butadienestyrene copolymers (ABS),
styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers (SAN), styrene-butadiene rubber
(SBR), styrene block copolymers (SBC), styrene-butadiene latex (SBL),
and adhesives [1]. The global demand for SM has been estimated to be
more than 25 million tons annually and it is growing rapidly [2].
SM is predominantly produced via direct dehydrogenation of
ethylbenzene (EB) on an iron-based catalyst [3]. Typically, the con-
version rate of EB to SM is around 50–70% per pass across the dehy-
drogenation reactor [4]. In normal operations, the dehydrogenated
product is a mixture containing substantial portions of EB and SM as
well as minor amounts of undesirable byproducts, such as the lights,
aromatics benzene and toluene, and other heavies known as styrene tar
[5]. The reactor effluents are then treated in a styrene distillation unit,
where the unreacted EB is recovered from the dehydrogenated product
and then recycled to the reactor, while other components are separated
as raw materials for downstream treatment [4–8]. The separation of the
desired SM product from lights and styrene tar is relatively easy, using
conventional distillation columns (CDiCs). However, separating SM
from EB is considerably difficult due to their close-boiling points (the
normal boiling points of EB and SM are 136.2 and 145.7 °C, respec-
tively) so that their relative volatilities are very close to unity (1.27 at
1 atm and 1.33 at 0.3 atm). Depending on the different distillation se-
quences and separation targets, the EB/SM column usually operates at a
reflux ratio of 5–15 [2,5,8,9]. In a conventional styrene distillation unit,
the EB/SM column alone consumes more than 60% of the overall en-
ergy cost [2].
The energy intensity of EB/SM separation has prompted researchers
to explore alternative separation methods such as extractive distillation
[9,10], membrane separation [11,12], and adsorption [13,14]. Despite
the attractiveness of these alternative technologies, conventional en-
trainer-free distillation remains the primary method used for industrial-
scale EB/SM separation [2]. For close-boiling components, energy-ef-
ficient distillation technologies such as multi-effect distillation (MED)
[15,16], heat pump assisted distillation (HPAD) [17,18], and internally

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gaoxin@tju.edu.cn (X. Gao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115760
Received 19 April 2019; Received in revised form 25 June 2019; Accepted 30 June 2019
Available online 02 July 2019
1383-5866/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Li, et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the CDiC.
heat-integrated distillation column (HIDiC) [19,20] are expected to
save substantially reduce energy consumption as well as total annual
cost (TAC). Cui et al. [21] suggested using double-effect distillation
(DED, the simplest type of MED) and mechanical vapor recompression
(MVR, a kind of HPAD) to intensify close-boiling point distillation
schemes, since these two methods are most commonly used in industry.
By applying DED and MVR to the conventional EB/SM column, these
authors observed an energy consumption reduction of 30% and 40%,
respectively [2]. However, the authors [2] heuristically set the struc-
tural and operating parameters that were based on those of an in-
dustrial plant without explicit optimization. It is unfair to compare
different configurations using non-optimum conditions. Utilizing stage-
by-stage heat transfer between rectifying and stripping sections, a
HIDiC is expected to produce good energy-saving performance. But in
some cases, this structure can consume more energy, which would be
restrictive [22]. In addition, due to design, construction and operation
complexities, HiDiC has minimal applications in industry [18–21].
Until recently, Wakabayashi et al. [23] developed the world’s first
commercial application of HIDiC technology by discretely applying the
heat exchangers to appropriately selected stages in the rectifying and
stripping sections. Recognizing that the practical implementation issues
of HIDiC have not been fully resolved, this approach was not considered
in this present study.
The concept of self-heat recuperation technology (SHRT) was pro-
posed by the Tsutsumi research group more than a decade ago [24]. To
date, the authors have applied this technology to several thermal pro-
cesses including the reaction section [25], distillation section [26],
drying section [27], gas separation section [28], etc., and found that it
produced a considerable degree of energy saving. The basic principle of
SHRT is to recover the waste heat from the effluent streams to heat the
feed streams by adiabatically compressing gas and/or vapor [29]. In the
case of applying SHRT to binary distillation, the overhead vapor is
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the feed split partial heat integration DED configuration.
2
Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760
adiabatically compressed by a heat pump, which elevates its tempera-
ture. Then the heating requirements of the reboiler and feed preheater
are supplied by the discharged high-pressure vapor and bottoms. It is
expected that the heat of the process stream can be circulated without
the need for any additional heat. Unlike HPAD that only uses latent
heat, SHRT utilizes both latent and sensible heat to intensify the column
and thus it is expected to be more efficient. Moreover, instead of ap-
plying SHRT to a single column, it is possible to further strengthen the
DED with SHRT at the cost of more capital investments. Generally
speaking, the synergistic effect of integrating DED with SHRT has not
yet been addressed.
The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive economic
evaluation of CDiC, DED, SHRT, and DED-SHRT for the EB/SM se-
paration to obtain a configuration with a minimum separation cost for
SM production. Each of these proposed configurations were in-
dividually optimized using a simulation-based optimization framework
and fairly compared under their respective optimum conditions.
2. Process synthesis
2.1. Process specifications
To explore the influence of feed flow rates on the selection of the
optimum distillation configuration, two flow rates – 100 kmol/h and
1000 kmol/h – with 40/60 mol% EB/SM saturated liquid mixture at
1 atm were used. Employing an annual operating time (AOT) of 8000 h,
the feed flow rates are approximately equivalent to styrene treatment
capacities of 50,000 ton/a and 500,000 ton/a, respectively. The product
specifications were 99.9 mol% of purity for each component. To sup-
press SM polymerization, the EB/SM column was considered to be
operated in the high vacuum condition with low-pressure drop tray. As
discussed in previous works [30,31], the optimum selection of column
pressure is crucial for distillation design. Therefore, the column pres-
sure was considered to be a design variable. The compressor mechan-
ical/isentropic efficiency was set at 0.8/0.72. The pressure drops in
heat exchangers and pipelines were neglected. Cooling water was op-
erated at 30–40 °C and low-pressure steam operated 6 bar was used as
cold and hot utilities, respectively. All the process simulations were
performed in the Aspen Plus V8.8 environment with the built-in Peng-
Robinson thermodynamic model [2,5].
2.2. Process configurations
2.2.1. Configuration 1 – CDiC
Fig. 1 presents a CDiC for EB/SM separation. The decision variables
to be optimized were column pressure (PT), total stage (NT), and feed
stage (NF). Reflux ratio (RR) and distillate flow rate (D) were varied to
satisfy the required product specifications by using the Design Spec/
X. Li, et al. Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760

Fig. 3. Schematic diagrams of the (a) MVR, (b) MVR-PCS-CIP-FP, (c) MVR-PCS, (d) MVR-CIP, (e) MVR-FP, (f) MVR-PCS-CIP, (g) MVR-PCS-FP, and (h) MVR-CIP-FP.

high-pressure column (HPC) to drive the reboiler of the low-pressure

Fig. 4. A process superstructure considering MVR with PCS, CIP, and FP.
Vary option in Aspen Plus. The CDiC was used as the baseline case for
comparison with other configurations.
column (LPC). To produce binary separation, Cui et al. [16] summar-
ized five commonly used DED configurations – feed split, light split
forward, light split reverse, heavy split forward, and heavy split reverse.
Based on a case study of the separation of close-boiling components,
feed split proved to be more economical than the other DED config-
urations [16]. Feed split was selected, because the relative volatility
and feed composition of the previous case were close to the metrics set
in this study. DED can be conceptually classified as full and partial heat
integration, where the former is a particular case of the latter. Fig. 2
shows a feed split partial heat integration DED configuration. When the
duty of the LPC trim reboiler approaches to zero, the partial heat in-
tegration is reduced to a full phase. The selection of a partial or a full
type depends on the following economic optimization. The decision
variables for this configuration include column pressures (PT1 and PT2),
feed stages (NF1 and NF2), total stages (NT1 and NT2), and feed split
flow rate (F1 or F2). Also, the reflux ratio (RR1 and RR2) and distillate
flow rate (D1 and D2) are varied to satisfy the desired product specifi-
cations.

2.2.2. Configuration 2 – DED 2.2.3. Configuration 3 – SHRT

The basic principle of DED is the use of the overhead vapor from the The implementation of a SHRT in EB/SM column is similar to the

3
X. Li, et al.
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the DED-SHRT.
Fig. 6. Aspen Plus/MATLAB optimization framework with a SADDE algorithm.
traditional MVR configuration (Fig. 3a), in which the overhead vapor is
compressed to a higher temperature to vaporize the bottom material,
and the high-pressure condensate is then expanded to the top pressure
by a valve before it enters the column. During the compression/ex-
pansion process, partial saturated vapor/liquid can be condensed/fla-
shed, so an optional heater/cooler is required to preheat/condense the
stream. If the latent heat of the pressurized vapor is not fully utilized in
the reboiler and exits the heat exchanger as a two-phase mixture, a flow
splitter should to be added to pre-split part of the vapor before it enters
the compressor. This measure is called pre-compressor splitting (PCS,
Fig. 3c) [32]. To further intensify the MVR, with the exception of the
latent heat, the remaining sensible heat can be further used for com-
pressor inlet preheating (CIP, Fig. 3d) and feed preheating (FP, Fig. 3e)
[33]. By optionally combining PCS, CIP, and FP, eight different con-
figurations can be generated, as demonstrated in Fig. 3 (Note that
Fig. 3b is a combination of PCS, CIP, and FP). To optimize all these
configurations once and for all, a process superstructure comprised of
the MVR with PCS, CIP, and FP was synthesized as shown in Fig. 4. In
the original SHRT column proposed by Matsuda et al. [26], all the feed
and products were set at standard conditions (25 °C and 0.10 MPag),
allowing the feed preheating by the bottoms. However, in this case, the
4
Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760
bottoms’ temperature was too low to preheat feed stream and thus was
not considered. The decision variables for the superstructure are
column pressure (PT), feed stage (NF), total stage (NT), PCS flow rate
(F1 or F2), CIP outlet temperature (T2), steam preheater outlet tem-
perature (T3), compressor outlet pressure (PC), and feed vapor fraction
(q).
2.2.4. Configuration 4 – DED-SHRT
Fig. 5 shows the synergistic configuration that integrates DED with
SHRT. The LPC is driven by the HPC top vapor, while the LPC top vapor
is reversely compressed to drive HPC, and its sensible heat that exits the
HPC reboiler is used sequentially for CIP and FP. Note that all the heat
of the process stream is circulated without the need for any additional
heat. In other words, this configuration is entirely driven by electrical
power. The decision variables considered include column pressures (PT1
and PT2), feed stages (NF1 and NF2), total stages (NT1 and NT2), feed
split flow rate (F1 or F2), PCS flow rate (F3 or F4), CIP outlet tem-
perature (T1), compressor outlet pressure (PC), HPC feed vapor fraction
(q1), and LPC feed vapor fraction (q2).
X. Li, et al. Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760

Fig. 7. (a) The optimum CDiC configuration, (b) T-H composite curve, and (c) grand composite curve.

3. Simulation-based optimization (CTRAY ), heat exchanger (CHEX ), and the compressor (CCOM ), while the
costs of the pump, pipeline, and valve are neglected. Hence:
3.1. Objective function
CAPEX = ∑ (CCOL + CTRAY + CHEX + CCOM ) (3)
The objective function to be minimized is the TAC (US$/a), that The CAPEX of the distillation column shell (CCOL , US$) and tray
takes into consideration the operational and capital expenditures (CTRAY , US$) can be estimated from [34]:
(OPEX and CAPEX, US$/a). An AOT of 8000 h with a payback period
(PBP) of 3 years for capital investment are the initially considered CCOL = 17, 640·Dc1.066 ·Hc0.802 (4)
parameters. Therefore:
CTRAY = 229·DC1.55 ·(NT − 2) (5)
CAPEX
TAC = OPEX + The column diameterDc (m) is calculated using the Aspen Tray
PBP (1)
Sizing option. The column heightHc (m) is estimated as follows:
OPEX includes hot utility (Chu ) for the reboiler, cold utility (Ccu ) for
Hc = 1.2·0.61·(NT − 2) (6)
the condenser, and electrical power (Celec ) for the compressor:
Without considering equipment details, the CAPEX of the heat ex-
OPEX = AOT ·[∑ (Chu·Qhu ) + ∑ (Ccu·Qcu) + ∑ (Celec·W )] (2) changer (CHEX , US$) is estimated by its heat transfer area (A, m2) [34]:

where Qhu , Qcu , and W are the energy consumption of heating, cooling, CHEX = 7, 296·A0.65 (7)
and compression work, respectively, the available utilities include low-
The heat transfer area is calculated based on:
pressure steam (6 bar, 160 °C), cooling water (30–40 °C), and electrical
power. The prices are 7.78, 0.354, and 16.8 US$/GJ, respectively [34]. Q
A=
The CAPEX mainly considers the distillation column (CCOL ), tray U ·LMTD (8)

5
X. Li, et al.
Fig. 8. (a) The optimum DED configuration, (b) T-H composite curve, and (c) grand composite curve.
where Q is the heat duty, U the overall heat-transfer coefficient, and
LMTD the logarithmic mean temperature difference between the hot
and cold streams. The adopted overall heat-transfer coefficient for the
condenser is 0.852 kW/(°C·m2), while for reboiler and process-to-pro-
cess heat exchanger 0.568 kW/(°C·m2).
The compressor cost (CCOM , US$) is calculated as a function of the
work done (Wc , kW) [34]:
CCOM = 9, 560·Wc 0.82 (9)
3.2. Constraints
The four distillation configurations were developed using Aspen
Plus, so the constraints of rigorous distillation MESH equations and
thermodynamic models were seamlessly implemented. The product
specifications were satisfied by using the Design Spec/Vary option. In
addition, since the SM will self-polymerize at high temperature, the
bottom temperature is set at no more than 120 °C.
3.3. Optimization framework
The optimization of the proposed configurations contains both
6
Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760
discrete (total stage and feed stage) and continuous (column pressure,
stream flow rate, etc.) variables that were formulated as a mixed integer
nonlinear programming (MINLP). Solving the MINLP by deterministic
optimization algorithms is difficult, because the rigorous MESH equa-
tions and thermodynamic properties are expressed as highly nonlinear
equations. Population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithms are
more suitable for this type of black-box optimization problem, because
as they do not require any derivative information like deterministic
algorithms [35–37]. In this work, the applied metaheuristic optimiza-
tion algorithm is a self-adapting dynamic differential evolution
(SADDE) [38].
A simulation-based optimization framework integrating Aspen Plus
and MATLAB is demonstrated in Fig. 6. Aspen Plus tackles the process
simulation, and MATLAB with SADDE program is responsible for the
black-box optimization in which the independent decision variables for
each configuration are embedded. The Aspen Plus and MATLAB are
linked through an Active X/COM interface [39].
The SADDE algorithm has three control parameters – population
size NP, mutation factor F (including lower/upper bound Fl/Fu), and
crossover probability CR (including lower/upper bound CRl/CRu). The
applied SADDE algorithm tuning parameters are as follows: population
size NP = 100, mutation factor [Fl, Fu] = [0.1, 0.9], and crossover rate
X. Li, et al.
Fig. 9. (a) The optimum SHRT configuration, (b) T-H composite curve, and (c) grand composite curve.
[CRl, CRu] = [0.1, 0.9]. The number of generations is 300 for each
optimization.
4. Techno-economic analysis
4.1. Feed flow rate = 100 kmol/h
A techno-economic analysis was performed to evaluate the separa-
tion cost for producing SM using different configurations with the feed
flow rate of 100 kmol/h. The optimum CDiC, DED, SHRT, and DED-
SHRT configurations, as well as their T-H composite curves and grand
composite curves are shown in Figs. 7–10, respectively. A thorough
comparison of the optimum configuration is given in Table 1.
For the optimum CDiC, the amount of low-grade waste heat dis-
carded in the condenser was about the same amount as the supplied
high-quality energy, as demonstrated in the T-H diagrams. Its OPEX
strongly influences the TAC, whereas, for the rest of the configurations
employing waste heat recovery measures, the annual CAPEX was
dominant and consisted of a reduction of 50–77% in OPEX.
The DED design improved the performance of the CDiC by self-
7
Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760
utilization of half amount of waste heat by creation of a temperature
cascade, as shown in the pocket of the grand composite curve. In this
manner, the OPEX was halved at the expense of more CAPEX associated
with the additional column. The significant reduction in the OPEX re-
sulted in an overall 7.76% TAC reduction compared to the CDiC. The
resulting optimum configuration demonstrated that partial heat in-
tegration is slightly better than the full integration since only light duty
is required from the added trim reboiler. However, from a control
perspective, partial integration can provide much more robust control
compared to a full integration process, because the former has more
degrees of freedom in control than the latter [40].
When SHRT is incorporated into the design, the optimum config-
uration shows that the FP is eliminated, leaving the PCS and CIP se-
quentially implemented. As demonstrated in the grand composite
curve, the heat cascade pocket is close, meaning that the entire waste
heat is upgraded and circulated without the need for any additional
steam utility. Since the column is entirely driven by electricity in
steady-state mode, it is possible to use renewable energy sources in-
stead of fossil fuel combustion to improve plant sustainability. The
SHRT appears to be the configuration with the lowest TAC of all the
X. Li, et al. Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760

Fig. 10. (a) The optimum DED-SHRT configuration, (b) T-H composite curve, and (c) grand composite curve.

Table 1 throughput of the DED-SHRT compressor (183.683 kmol/h) was less

Comparison of four distillation configurations with PBP of 3 years (feed flow than in the SHRT (381.571 kmol/h), but the former had a larger
rate = 100 kmol/h). compression ratio (4.3) than the latter (2.1). Compared to the T-H
CDiC DED SHRT DED-SHRT diagrams of the SHRT configuration, the DED-SHRT was sufficient to
divide the large pocket of the SHRT into two small pockets. However,
Cooling water duty (kW) 4015 2159 537 560 even though the DED-SHRT provided the lowest OPEX, the soaring
Steam duty (kW) 3819 1902 0 0
CAPEX made it even worse than a CDiC. Also, the DED-SHRT is difficult
Electrical power (kW) 0 0 444 416
OPEX (106 US$/a) 0.8966 0.4482 0.2204 0.2069 to control due to the strong interaction between the two columns.
Total CAPEX (106 US$) 2.0524 3.0300 3.6979 4.7067 Therefore, from both the economic and dynamic aspects, DED-SHRT
Annual CAPEX (106 US$/a) 0.6841 1.0100 1.2326 1.5689 should be eliminated in the conceptual design stage.
TAC (106 US$/a) 1.5808 1.4582 1.4530 1.7758 With an optimization objective function of the PBP set at 3 years,
OPEX/TAC ratio 0.567 0.307 0.152 0.117
TAC reduction – 7.76% 8.08% −12.34%
determining the economic performance of each configuration in the
long-term production is an interesting exercise. Fig. 11 shows the effect
of PBP on TAC for each configuration in the range of 3–15 years. When
advanced configurations. On the other hand, it is also important to the PBP is longer than four years, the CDiC is found to be the least
consider the start-up procedure, for which two methods can be em- competitive configuration. With the increase of PBP, the TAC of DED-
ployed. One is the use of an electric heater, in which case the com- SHRT is significantly reduced and begins to outperform the DED at
pressor with the adiabatic efficiency of zero can be used as the electric seven years, because it has the lowest OPEX. However, the SHRT con-
heater. The other is the installation of an auxiliary boiler or a fired figuration always beats the other competitors in the given PBP range,
heater as a back-up heat source. In the case of vamping the current and is found to be the best configuration from the perspective of TAC. In
distillation column, the boiler or the fired heater can be left as it is and addition, it should be noted that the technical parameters of the column
be reused as the back-up heater. (pressure, diameter, stage number, etc.) in the SHRT configuration are
The DED-SHRT configuration that was also completely driven by close to that in the CDiC, which means that the existing CDiC can be
electricity produced the lowest OPEX, which demonstrated the sy- reused and retrofitted to the SHRT with minor modifications. In detail,
nergistic effect of combining two energy-efficient measures. The the existing column, condenser, and reboiler can be maintained, so that

8
X. Li, et al. Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760

only a new CIP heat exchanger and a compressor are needed, with a
total capital investment of 1,466,000 US$. The OPEX saving is 676,200
US$ each year, which means it will take only 2.17 years to recover the
additional capital investment. Chemical/Petrochemical plants normally
have an annual maintenance period of 10–14 days for major repair and
replacement [41]. The proposed retrofit from CDiC to SHRT is the
preferred approach within this period to avoid production loss.

4.2. Feed flow rate = 1000 kmol/h

For a large treatment capacity, a comparison of different distillation

configurations is given in Table 2. The detailed design parameters are
provided in the Supporting Information. As these data show, as the feed
flow rate is increased, the alternative configurations become much
more attractive over the base case since the TAC reductions are larger.
This means that the process scale greatly affects the final economics.
Compared to the data in Tables 1 and 2, the OPEX is nearly propor-
tional to the treatment capacity, so the TAC reductions are derived
primarily from the decrease in CAPEX. For different treatment capa-
Fig. 11. The effect of PBP on TAC for four distillation configurations (feed flow cities, the approximate CAPEX can be estimated by:
rate = 100 kmol/h).
CAPEX 1 F1 α
=⎛ ⎞
CAPEX 2 ⎝ F2 ⎠ (10)
Table 2
Comparison of four distillation configurations with PBP of 3 years (feed flow where F denotes the treatment capacity and α the scale factor. Nor-
rate = 1000 kmol/h). mally, the scale factor varies from 0.3 to 1, but the average is very close
to 0.6, thus it is called the rule of six-tenths [42]. If α = 1, the CAPEX
CDiC DED SHRT DED-SHRT
will be proportional to the capacity like the OPEX. Apparently, the
Cooling water duty (kW) 38,680 20,859 5256 5341 lower the scale factor, the greater the economic benefits obtained by the
Steam duty (kW) 36,584 18,209 0 0 increased process scale. Table 3 provides the calculated scale factor
Electrical power (kW) 0 0 4294 3814 based on the two treatment capacities. Note that the CDiC and DED
OPEX (106 US$/a) 8.5914 4.2925 2.1311 1.8996
have scale factors close to 0.6, but the configurations with heat pump
Total CAPEX (106 US$) 8.8442 12.0865 18.7075 22.5216
Annual CAPEX (106 US$/a) 2.9481 4.0288 6.2358 7.5072 have larger factors. The factor difference is mainly the result of the
TAC (106 US$/a) 11.5395 8.3213 8.3669 9.4068 conservative compressor cost correlation given in Eq. (9). Recently,
OPEX/TAC ratio 0.745 0.516 0.255 0.202 Luyben [43] has showed that the estimation of compressor CAPEX has a
TAC reduction – 27.89% 27.49% 18.48% great influence in conceptual design stage. After comparing the dif-
ferent correlations listed in this literature report [43], we found that Eq.
(9) predicts a very high value of compressor CAPEX. However, even
Table 3
with this conservative estimation of the heat pump cost, the SHRT still
Calculated scale factor by using feed flow rates of 100 kmol/h and 1000 kmol/
outperformed the other configurations in long-term production, as
h.
shown in Fig. 12. Therefore, the SHRT configuration is recommended as
CDiC DED SHRT DED-SHRT the most desirable energy-efficient design for industrial EB/SM se-
Size factor α 0.63 0.60 0.70 0.68
paration.

5. Conclusions

This study described a process synthesis and optimization metho-

dology for improving the cost-intensive EB/SM separation. Three dif-
ferent distillation configurations employing DED and SHRT concepts
were proposed, optimized, and compared in terms of their capability to
conserve product separation costs. Using a short PBP of 3 years with a
small feed flow rate (100 kmol/h), the DED and SHRT configurations
were found to reduce the TAC by ~8% compared to the base case. The
TAC reduction can be improved up to ~28% with a larger capacity
(100 kmol/h) due to the effects of scaling. However, with the increase
in PBP, SHRT was found to be the best choice from the perspective of
economics. The synergistic DED-SHRT consumes the lowest OPEX, but
the overwhelmingly high CAPEX makes it only economically viable
under a long-term production. Also, it was observed that the technical
parameters of the CDiC are close to that in the SHRT, which meant that
the former can be retrofitted to the latter with minor modifications.
This proposed retrofit could provide chemical engineers with an alter-
native way to enhance the conventional EB/SM column. Since the de-
sign and optimization methods proposed in this reported work can si-
multaneously reduce the costs and energy consumptions, it is
Fig. 12. The effect of PBP on TAC for four distillation configurations (feed flow
recommended that they can also be implemented to other energy-in-
rate = 1000 kmol/h).
tensive close-boiling distillation processes.

9
X. Li, et al.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge financial support from National Key
Research and Development Program of China (No. 2018YFB0604903),
and National Nature Science Foundation of China (Nos. 21336007,
21776202).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115760.
References
[1] C. Nederlof, Catalytic Dehydrogenations of Ethylbenzene to Styrene, PhD Thesis
Delft University of Technology, 2012.
[2] C. Cui, X. Li, D. Guo, J. Sun, Towards energy efficient styrene distillation scheme:
from grassroots design to retrofit, Energy 134 (2017) 193–205.
[3] H. Ba, S. Podila, Y. Liu, X. Mu, J.M. Nhut, V. Papaefthimiou, S. Zafeiratos,
P. Granger, C. Pham-Huu, Nanodiamond decorated few-layer graphene composite
as an efficient metal-free dehydrogenation catalyst for styrene production, Catal.
Today. 249 (2015) 167–175.
[4] V.A. Welch, Cascade Reboiling of Ethylbenzene/Styrene Columns, US Patent, US
6171449 B1, 2001.
[5] W.L. Luyben, Design and control of the styrene process, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50
(2011) 1231–1246.
[6] N.B. King, Ethylbenzene-styrene separation, US Patent, 3904484, 1975.
[7] H.H. Sardina, Dehydrogenation process for production of styrene from ethylben-
zene comprising low temperature heat recovery and modification of the ethylben-
zene-steam feed therewith, US Patent, 4628136, 1986.
[8] A.C. Dimian, C.S. Bildea, Energy efficient styrene process: design and plantwide
control, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (2019) 4890–4905.
[9] M.T.G. Jongmans, E. Hermens, M. Raijmakers, J.I.W. Maassen, B. Schuur, A.B. de
Hann, Conceptual process design of extractive distillation process for ethylbenzene/
styrene separation, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 90 (2012) 2086–2100.
[10] M.T.G. Jongmans, B. Schuur, A.B. de Haan, Ionic liquid screening for ethylbenzene/
styrene separation by extractive distillation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (2011)
10800–10810.
[11] C.A. Koval, T. Spontarelli, P. Thoen, R.D. Noble, Swelling and thickness effects on
the separation of styrene and ethylbenzene based on facilitated transport through
ionomer membranes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 31 (1992) 1116–1122.
[12] B. Cao, M.A. Henson, Modeling of spiral wound pervaporation modules with ap-
plication to the separation of styrene/ethylbenzene mixtures, J. Membr. Sci. 197
(2002) 117–146.
[13] M. Maes, F. Vermoortele, L. Alaerts, S. Couck, C.E. Kirschhock, J.F.M. Denayer,
D.E. De Vos, Separation of styrene and ethylbenzene on metal – organic frame-
works: analogous structures with different adsorption mechanisms, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 132 (2010) 15277–15285.
[14] T. Remy, L. Ma, M. Maes, D.E. De Vos, G.V. Baron, J.F.M. Denayer, Vapor-phase
adsorption and separation of ethylbenzene and styrene on the metal – organic
frameworks MIL-47 and MIL-53 (Al), Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (2012) 14824–14833.
[15] C. Cui, H. Yin, J. Yang, D. Wei, J. Sun, C. Guo, Selecting suitable energy-saving
distillation schemes: making quick decisions, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intens.
107 (2016) 138–150.
[16] C. Cui, Z. Xi, S. Liu, J. Sun, An enumeration-based synthesis framework for multi-
effect distillation processes, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 144 (2019) 216–227.
[17] A.K. Jana, Advances in heat pump assisted distillation column: a review, Energy
Convers. Manage. 77 (2014) 287–297.
[18] A.A. Kiss, S.J.F. Landaeta, C.A.I. Ferreira, Towards energy efficient distillation
technologies – making the right choice, Energy 47 (2012) 531–542.
10
Separation and Purification Technology 228 (2019) 115760
[19] M. Nakaiwa, K. Huang, A. Endo, T. Ohmori, T. Akiya, T. Takamatsu, Internally heat-
integrated distillation columns: a review, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 81 (2003) 162–177.
[20] B. Suphanit, Design of internally heat-integrated distillation column (HIDiC): uni-
form heat transfer area versus uniform heat distribution, Energy 35 (2010)
1505–1514.
[21] C. Cui, X. Li, H. Sui, J. Sun, Quick decision-making for close-boiling distillation
schemes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56 (2017) 5078–5091.
[22] J. Cabrera-Ruiz, A. Jimenez-Gutierrez, J.G. Segovia-Hernandez, Assessment of the
implementation of heat-integrated distillation columns for the separation of ternary
mixtures, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (2011) 2176–2181.
[23] T. Wakabayashi, K. Yoshitani, H. Takahashi, S. Hasebe, Verification of energy
conservation for discretely heat integrated distillation column through commercial
operation, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 142 (2019) 1–12.
[24] Y. Kansha, N. Tsuru, K. Sato, C. Fushimi, A. Tsutsumi, Self-heat recuperation
technology for energy saving in chemical processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009)
7682–7686.
[25] Y. Kansha, M. Ishizuka, C. Song, A. Tsutsumi, An innovative methanol synthesis
process based on self-heat recuperation, Appl. Them. Eng. 70 (2014) 1189–1194.
[26] K. Matsuda, K. Kawazuishi, Y. Kansha, C. Fushimi, M. Nagao, H. Kunikiyo,
F. Masuda, A. Tsutsumi, Advanced energy saving in distillation process with self-
heat recuperation technology, Energy 36 (2011) 4640–4645.
[27] M. Aziz, Y. Kansha, A. Kishimoto, Y. Kotani, Y. Liu, A. Tsutsumi, Advanced energy
saving in low rank coal drying based on self-heat recuperation technology, Fuel
Process. Technol. 104 (2012) 16–22.
[28] Y. Kansha, A. Kishimoto, T. Nakagawa, A. Tsutsumi, A novel cryogenic air se-
paration process based on self-heat recuperation, Sep. Purif. Technol. 77 (2011)
389–396.
[29] K. Matsuda, Y. Kansha, C. Fushimi, A. Tsutsumi, A. Kishimoto, Advanced Energy
Saving and its Applications in Industry, Springer, 2013.
[30] W.L. Luyben, Distillation column pressure selection, Sep. Purif. Technol. 168 (2016)
62–67.
[31] C. Cui, S. Liu, J. Sun, Optimal selection of operating pressure for distillation col-
umns, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 137 (2018) 291–307.
[32] M.B. Leo, A. Dutta, S. Farooq, Process synthesis and optimization of heat pump
assisted distillation for ethylene-ethane separation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018)
11747–11756.
[33] C.C.E. Christopher, A. Dutta, S. Farooq, I.A. Karimi, Process synthesis and optimi-
zation of propylene/propane separation using vapor recompression and self-heat
recuperation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56 (2017) 14557–14564.
[34] W.L. Luyben, Principles and Case Studies of Simultaneous Design, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 2011.
[35] C. Cui, J. Sun, Rigorous design and simultaneous optimization of extractive dis-
tillation systems considering the effect of column pressures, Chem. Eng. Process.
Process Intensif. 139 (2019) 68–77.
[36] J. Javaloyes-Anton, R. Ruiz-Femenia, J.A. Caballero, Rigorous design of complex
distillation columns using process simulators and the particle swarm optimization
algorithm, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52 (2013) 15621–15634.
[37] M. Vazquez-Ojeda, J.G. Segovia-Hernandez, S. Hernandez, A. Hernandez-Aguirre,
A.A. Kiss, Design and optimization of an ethanol dehydration process using sto-
chastic methods, Sep. Purif. Technol. 105 (2013) 90–97.
[38] C. Cui, X. Zhang, J. Sun, Design and optimization of energy-efficient liquid-only
side-stream distillation configurations using a stochastic algorithm, Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 145 (2019) 48–52.
[39] Aspen Technology, Aspen Plus User Guide, Aspen Technology, Inc., 2000.
[40] W.L. Luyben, Design and control of a fully heat-integrated pressure-swing azeo-
tropic distillation system, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (2008) 2681–2695.
[41] N.V.D. Long, M. Lee, Optimal retrofit of a side stream column to a dividing wall
column for energy efficiency maximization, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 91 (2013)
2291–2298.
[42] R.W. Whitesides, Process Equipment Cost Estimating by Ratio and Proportion,
2012. < https://www.pdhonline.com/courses/g127/g127content.pdf > .
[43] W.L. Luyben, Capital cost of compressors for conceptual design, Chem. Eng.
Process. Process Intensif. 126 (2018) 206–209.