Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification

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

Design and optimization of isopropanol process based on two alternatives MARK

for reactive distillation
⁎
W.J. Chua, G.P. Rangaiah , K. Hidajat
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117585, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Isopropanol, also known as isopropyl alcohol (IPA) is an important solvent used in many industries. It is mostly
Isopropyl alcohol produced by direct hydration of propylene involving reversible reaction and azeotropic distillation in separate
Catalytic distillation equipment. There have been many studies on separation of IPA and water azeotropic mixture but very few
Reactive distillation studies on the use of reactive distillation (RD), for improving overall efficiency of the entire process. RD can be
Propylene–propane separation
used for IPA production in two different ways: with excess propylene to avoid azeotropic separation, and with
Extractive distillation
excess water to achieve near complete conversion of propylene. The present work investigates both these options
by design and optimization of complete IPA process for minimizing capital and operating costs. The results show
that the RD process with excess water has lower costs compared to the RD process with excess propylene; but the
former incurs small loss of propylene.

1. Introduction Separation of IPA and water mixture in the downstream of a

Isopropanol or isopropyl alcohol or 2-propanol (IPA) with the
chemical formula C3H7OH, is commonly used as a solvent in many
industries as well as in household and medical applications like
disinfectants. Global capacity for IPA is estimated to be 2.7 million
tons per annum, mainly concentrated in North America, East Asia and
Europe [1]. It is generally available in two grades: anhydrous composi-
tion of 99.8 wt.% (99.3 mol%) IPA and azeotropic composition of
87.4 wt.% (67.5 mol%) alcohol. IPA is manufactured by two major
routes: indirect and direct hydration of propylene, of which the latter is
common due to less corrosion in process equipment [2].
Direct hydration of propylene is an exothermic, reversible reaction
carried out in the presence of an acid catalyst, which could be cation-
exchange resins such as molybdophosphoric acid, titanium and zinc
oxides [2]. The main reaction is:
CH3CH = CH2 + H2 O⇌ (CH3)2 CHOH.
The side product is diisopropyl ether (DIPE) formed by the reaction:
2(CH3)2 CHOH ⇌ H2 O+ [(CH3)2 CH]2 O.
Conventional IPA process consists of 7 main unit operations,
namely, trickled bed reactor, propylene–propane splitter, lights col-
umn, pre-concentrator, ether column, extractive distillation column and
regenerator for solvent recovery [2]. Thus, the main steps in IPA
process are reaction and separation in sequence.
conventional IPA process has been studied by many researchers, partly
due to the challenge posed by azeotrope of IPA and water (with 87.4 wt.
% IPA [2]). Heterogeneous azeotroic distillation (HAD) was investi-
gated for IPA production by, for example, Chien et al. [3], Arifin and
Chien [4] and Chang et al. [5]. Separation of IPA and water by
extractive distillation (ED) was studied by, for example, Luyben [6],
Arifin and Chien [7] and Liang et al. [24]. Although purity of IPA
produced in these studies is similar around 99.9 wt.% (99.7 mol%),
feed composition and flow rate to the separation process are not the
same in all of them. Arifin and Chien [7] compared HAD and ED for
separation of 77 wt.% (50.1 mol%) IPA in water, and their results show
that ED is better with 32% lower total annual cost (TAC). Besides
distillation for IPA and water separation, pervaporation in combination
with distillation was studied by Sommer and Melin [8]. Sharma and
Wankat [9] examined hybrid processes of distillation and adsorption.
(1) Liu et al. [10] designed a comprehensive pressure swing adsorption
process using a two-bed system packed with 3A molecular sieve
adsorbent.
(2) Compared to the studies on separation of IPA and water, there are
fewer studies on reactive distillation (RD) for IPA production. Xu et al.
[11] studied an IPA process, which requires only two unit operations,
namely, RD column with excess propylene and the propylene–propane
splitter, rather than seven units in the conventional process. However,
simulation of the splitter was not included in the study of Xu et al. [11].
Further work by Wang and Wong [12] proposed a control strategy for

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chegpr@nus.edu.sg (G.P. Rangaiah).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2017.04.021
Received 21 March 2017; Accepted 30 April 2017
Available online 08 May 2017
0255-2701/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
W.J. Chua et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116

Fig. 1. RD-splitter process flow diagram with stream data for the optimal solution with the lowest TAC.

Fig. 2. RD-ED process flow diagram with stream data for the optimal solution with the lowest TAC.

109
W.J. Chua et al.
Table 1
Decision variables with their bounds for the RD-splitter and RD-ED processes for IPA.
RD-splitter process
1. Number of equilibrium stages in the RD column (range: 18–40)
2. Number of equilibrium stages in the splitter column (range: 160–200)
3. Feed stage of the splitter column (range: 70–110)
4. Distillate flow rate of the RD column (range: 170–190 kmol/h)
5. Distillate flow rate of the splitter column (range: 150–180 kmol/h)
Notes: IPA mole fraction of 0.999 in the RD bottoms is achieved by varying reflux ratio,
and propylene mole fraction of 0.95 in the splitter distillate is achieved by varying
reflux ratio, both within Aspen Plus simulation.
RD in the process scheme of Xu et al. [11]. Recently, Niu and Rangaiah
[13] proposed a heuristic-based retrofitting methodology for intensify-
ing existing processes, and applied it to the conventional IPA process.
They developed two retrofit solutions – one using RD with excess
propylene and another using RD with excess water. In another study,
Niu and Rangaiah [14] explored retrofitting the IPA process based on
RD with excess propylene, and developed retrofit solutions involving
RD with excess water. Both these studies are in the context of
retrofitting an existing process.
Thus, RD can be used in two different ways for IPA production. One
alternate is RD with excess propylene to produce pure IPA without
requiring the downstream separation of azeotropic mixture of IPA and
water but this requires the difficult and expensive separation of
propylene–propane for recycling propylene. Another alternate is RD
with excess water, which requires further separation of IPA and water
involving an azeotrope but avoids propylene–propane separation. It is
of particular interest to compare these two alternatives for new plants,
and this is the main objective of this study. The two RD-based processes
for IPA production are simulated and optimized for capital and
operating costs by multi-objective optimization (MOO). Results show
that the IPA process using RD with excess water is more economical
than that using the RD with excess propylene.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next section
describes the two IPA processes, one using RD with excess propylene
and another using RD with excess water. MOO problem and its solution
methodology are outlined in Section 3. Optimization results for the two
IPA processes are presented and discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section
5 summarizes the main findings of this study.
2. Process alternatives for IPA production
In this section, the two alternatives for IPA production are
described. First, IPA process using RD with excess propylene is
presented. This process requires propylene–propane separation by
distillation (splitter) for recovering excess propylene, and hence it is
referred to as the RD-splitter process. Then, IPA process using RD with
excess water is described; it is referred to as the RD-ED process since it
involves separation of IPA–water mixture by ED.
The RD-splitter process (Fig. 1) consists of a RD column followed by
a splitter column to separate unreacted propylene from propane inert,
for recycling. It is a modification of the design by Wang and Wong [12]
to perform reaction(s) in a RD column using excess propylene. Based on
preliminary analysis, a RD column with 3 reactive stages is used. As
shown in Fig. 1, water and propylene are fed into the RD column at the
third and fifth stages (counting from the top of the column) respec-
tively, which are the two ends of the reactive stages. As water is the
limiting reactant, practically all the water fed to the column is
consumed in the reaction. This helps to avoid the problem of separating
azeotropic mixture of IPA and water. IPA of high purity (99.9 mol%) is
obtained as the bottom product of the RD column. Distillate of the RD
column consists of excess propylene and propane. This stream is sent to
110
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116
RD-ED process
1. Number of equilibrium stages in the RD column (range: 16–20)
2. Number of equilibrium stages in the ED column (range: 25–40)
3. Number of equilibrium stages in the ER column (range: 15–30)
4. IPA-water feed stage of the ED column (range: 20–25)
5. DMSO-water feed stage of the ER column (range: 6–14)
6. Reflux ratio of the RD column (range: 15–25)
7. Distillate flow rate of the RD column (range: 20–30 kmol/h)
Notes: IPA mole fraction of 0.999 and recovery of 0.9999 in the ED distillate are
achieved by varying distillate rate and reflux ratio. DMSO mole fraction of 0.999 and
recovery of 0.9999 in the ER bottoms are achieved by varying distillate rate and
reflux ratio. All these are within Aspen Plus simulation.
the splitter column for separation. Propylene of purity similar to the
fresh feed is obtained from the splitter top and sent back to the RD as
recycle.
The alternate RD-ED process uses excess water to produce IPA in a
RD column. Similar to the RD-splitter, the RD column with 3 reactive
stages is used. As shown in Fig. 2, water and propylene are fed into the
RD column at the second and fourth stages (counting from the column
top) respectively, which are the two ends of the reactive stages. An IPA/
water mixture is collected as the bottom product. The conventional
two-column ED set-up is added after the RD, to produce high purity IPA
using dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as the low-boiling entrainer. This is
based on Arifin and Chien [7], who showed that ED is better than HAD
for separation of 77 wt.% (50.1 mol%) IPA in water, with 32% lower
TAC. As shown in Fig. 2, DMSO is recovered in the entrainer recovery
(ER) column for reuse in the ED column; make-up entrainer is quite
small (∼0.4 kmol/h or ∼3 kg/h).
For the present study, both the RD-splitter and RD-ED processes are
simulated rigorously in Aspen Plus version 9. Feed to both processes is
the chemical-grade propylene of 95 mol% purity (with propane as the
impurity). Its flow rate is 400 kmol/h, which results in the production
of around 375 kmol/h. The propylene feed mixture is assumed to be
obtained as a fully refrigerated [15] saturated liquid at 1.05 bar and
−46.7 °C. By preheating the propylene feed in a heat exchanger using
cooling water at 30 °C, 1600 kmol/h of chilled water at 5 °C can be
produced. Thus, the final temperature of fresh propylene feed is 24.9 °C.
Taking molecular mass of isopropanol of 60.1 g/mol and plant opera-
tion of 8000 h/year, the production capacity of either process is around
180,000 ton/year.
For the RD-splitter process, the water feed rate is fixed at 380 kmol/
h. In Fig. 1, the molar ratio of propylene in the combined feed to the
water feed is 1.39:1, which is close to the 1.5:1 molar ratio used by
Wang and Wong [12] in their simulations. In the RD-ED process, the
propylene to water ratio is 1:2.05 to ensure excess water in the RD
column. Further, the recycled DMSO entrainer flow rate is fixed at
673 kmol/h, as shown in Fig. 2. This gives a DMSO to IPA/water molar
feed ratio of around 0.864:1, compared to 1.025:1 ratio used by Arifin
and Chien [7] in their optimized IPA dehydration process design.
For simulating the RD-splitter process in Aspen Plus, UNIFAC and
Peng–Robinson models are chosen for the RD and splitter column,
respectively, as in Xu et al. [11], who verified their suitability by
comparison with the experimental data. All the distillation columns
including RD are simulated rigorously using RADFRAC block in Aspen
Plus and assuming vapor–liquid equilibrium on each stage. Further,
reactive stages in the RD column are simulated assuming equilibrium-
reaction model. This simulation approach follows that of Xu et al. [11]
and Wang and Wong [12].
Pressure of the RD column is selected as 20 bar, which is concluded
to be optimal by Xu et al. [11]. Splitter column pressure is taken to be
18 bar. These pressures allow the use of cheaper cooling water in the
condensers of RD and splitter columns. RD has a partial condenser so
that the vapor distillate stream can be fed to the splitter column in order
W.J. Chua et al.
Fig. 3. Pareto-optimal solutions and the corresponding decision variables for the RD-splitter process. Square symbol refers to the Pareto-optimal solution having the minimum TAC.
to reduce reboiler duty of the latter column in the RD-splitter process
and to remove lighter gases in the RD-ED process. NRTL is chosen as the
property package for ED and ER columns, as in Arifin and Chien [7],
and [24]. Both ED and ER columns in the RD-ED process are at
atmospheric pressure for easier separation and to avoid high pressure,
and yet cooling water can be used in their condensers. Condensers of
splitter, ED and ER columns are assumed to be total for obtaining liquid
distillate streams.
3. Multi-objective optimization problem and its solution
methodology
A typical MOO problem has two or more objectives, decision
111
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116
variables and constraints. These are discussed, one by one, for IPA
process optimization. Cost is a major consideration for setting up any
new plant. Two objectives frequently analyzed are Annualized Capital
Cost (ACC) and Annual Operating Cost (AOC). Although these two can
be combined into a single objective (namely, TAC), they are considered
here as two separate objectives for simultaneous minimization. This
approach provides many optimal solutions for further analysis and
selection. Thus, IPA process with either the RD-splitter or RD-ED is
optimized for the following two objectives:
Minimize f1 : Annualized Capital Cost, ACC ($/year). (3a)
Minimize f2 : Annual Operating Cost, AOC ($/year). (3b)
W.J. Chua et al.
Fig. 3. (continued)
Here, ACC is estimated based on all major equipment in the process.
Capital cost of the distillation columns, heat exchangers and pumps in
the process are estimated using the Capital Cost Estimation Program
(CCEP), developed by Feng and Rangaiah [16] based on cost correla-
tions in Seider et al. [25]. Data required for cost estimation like column
diameter, operating temperature and pressure are obtained directly
from the Aspen Plus simulation results. Tray efficiency of the columns is
estimated using the correlation of Kessler and Wankat [17], which is
based on O’Connell's curve; for this, geometric mean of relative
volatility of key components and liquid viscosity values for all stages
in the column is used. Annualization factor for calculating ACC is 0.2
based on interest rate of 15% and plant life of 10 years.
The second objective, AOC is estimated based on utilities required
112
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116
for condensers and reboilers of the distillation columns, electricity for
pumps and cost of catalyst replacement in the RD column. Unit cost
($/GJ) of utilities are: 8.58 for low pressure steam (3.5 bar, 148 °C),
10.05 for medium pressure steam (10 bar, 185 °C), 12.92 for high
pressure steam (30 bar, 237 °C), 0.29 for cooling water and 16.8 for
electricity; these values are average of those in Seider et al. [25] and
Turton et al. [26]. For costing the catalyst in the RD column,
commercially available Amberlyst 36 catalyst is assumed. Mass of this
catalyst needed per stage (M kg/stage) is estimated using:
πD 2h
M= × ρ × (1 − ε ) × n.
4 (4)
Here, D is the diameter of tray (m), h is the height of catalyst packing on
W.J. Chua et al.
Fig. 4. Temperature and liquid composition profiles in the RD column corresponding to the Pareto-optimal solution with the lowest TAC for the RD-splitter process.
the tray (m) and ρ is catalyst density (= 1200 kg/m3), ε is void fraction
of catalyst and n is the fraction of tray area occupied by the catalyst. ε
(= 0.36) is based on the minimum bulk porosity of sphere packings for
uniform-sized spheres Zhang et al. [27]. For conservative estimation
and achieving reaction equilibrium, h is assumed to be 0.2 m (about one
third of typical tray-to-tray spacing) and n is assumed to be 0.85.
Catalyst life is assumed to be 2 years, based on methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE) production process, which uses similar acidic cation
exchange resin [18]. Taking catalyst cost of $531/kg from Sigma-
Aldrich Co. LLC [19], total annual cost of catalyst for all reactive stages
can be calculated.
In designing a distillation column, three important variables are the
number of trays, feed stage and reflux ratio. Capital cost of a column is
related to the number of trays, and operating cost depends on the feed
stage and reflux ratio. Note that a large reflux ratio also results in a
larger column diameter, reboiler and condenser. Thus, there is trade-off
between number of trays and reflux ratio. Operating cost of a distilla-
tion column is often more significant than capital cost (e.g., see Table 4
in [20]). In summary, decision variables and their bounds for optimiz-
ing the RD-splitter and RD-ED processes are given in Table 1. These and
the bounds for each variable are chosen based on typical values in the
literature, to ensure simulation convergence and to provide scope for
optimization.
For optimizing the RD-ED process, two additional constraints are
imposed. Temperature of the RD column is lower than that in the RD-
splitter set-up. This will reduce reaction rate of propylene hydration. A
temperature of 130 °C in the reactive stages [11] is recommended to
ensure reasonable reaction kinetics. Hence, a minimum stage tempera-
ture of 125 °C is imposed for the top most reactive stage, which is the
reactive stage with the lowest temperature in the column. Secondly, as
the vent gas is not recycled back to the reaction stage, some propylene
is wasted through the vent and IPA production is reduced since
propylene is the limiting raw material. Based on preliminary tests, a
minimum IPA flow of 372 kmol/h in the RD bottoms is imposed.
Sharma et al. [21] have developed an Excel-based multi-objective
optimization (EMOO) program based on the elitist non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). They tested the program for a
number of benchmark functions and applied to MOO of a falling-film
evaporator for milk concentration. Subsequently, EMOO program has
been applied to different applications and also enhanced with real
coding and performance-based termination criteria [22,23]. In the
present study too, this program has been successfully employed for
design optimization of two IPA processes based on RD. NSGA-II
algorithm parameters used are: real coding, non-uniform mutation,
tournament selection, population size of 100, crossover probability of
0.9, mutation probability of 0.1 and maximum number of generations
of 50.
113
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116
4. Results and discussion
In this section, results for the RD-splitter and RD-ED processes are
presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. Then, performance of
the two processes is compared in Section 4.3.
4.1. RD-splitter process
Pareto-optimal solutions including optimal values of decision vari-
ables obtained for the RD-splitter process, using EMOO program are
presented in Fig. 3. Fig. 3a shows that AOC decreases substantially from
around $10 million/year to $8 million/year while ACC increases
slightly from $3.2 million/year to $3.4 million/year. As shown in
Fig. 3b and c, further increase in ACC above $3.4 million/year is mainly
due to increasing number of stages in the splitter column, which has
negligible impact on AOC. TAC can be calculated by simple addition of
AOC and ACC for the optimal solutions. The Pareto-optimal solution
having the lowest TAC is shown as a rectangle in Fig. 3.
As can be seen in Fig. 3d and e, ACC increases while AOC decreases
as the number of stages in the RD column increases from 21 to 33. This
is expected since a larger number of stages, while incurring higher
capital cost, allows the column to be operated at a lower reflux ratio,
which lowers operating cost. For the RD-splitter process, savings in
AOC from increasing the number of stages in the RD column outweigh
the slight increase in ACC. Optimal values of the feed stage for the
splitter is found to be scattered between 78 and 86, with no clear
relationship between the splitter feed stage and ACC or AOC. Hence,
these results are not shown for brevity.
Fig. 4 shows the temperature and liquid composition profiles in the
RD column corresponding to the Pareto-optimal solution with the
lowest TAC for the RD-splitter process. As expected, temperature in
the column gradually increases from the top (stage 1) to bottom (stage
33). Composition profiles confirm the production of pure IPA from the
bottom of the RD column. Within the column, DIPE is formed and its
mole fraction is around 0.35 on stages 3–23. However, owing to
reversible reactions and separation in the RD column, DIPE is very
small in both the distillate and bottoms streams.
The RD column distillate rate has a more complex effect on the
objectives. Fig. 3f and g show that ACC decreases and AOC increases
when the RD column distillate rate increases from 178 kmol/h to
185 kmol/h. A similar pattern can be seen for the splitter column
distillate rate (Fig. 3h and i), which ranges from 156 kmol/h to
163 kmol/h. In fact, a linear relationship is found between the RD
and splitter distillate rates; this is attributable to nearly constant flow
rate of splitter bottoms at around 22 kmol/h for all Pareto-optimal
solutions. The splitter (and indirectly the RD column) distillate rate is
related to the combined feed flowrate into the RD column due to the
W.J. Chua et al.
Fig. 5. Pareto-optimal solutions and the corresponding decision variables for the RD-ED process. Square symbol refers to the Pareto-optimal solution having the minimum TAC.
recycle stream from the splitter column to the RD column. As a result, a
higher splitter (and RD column) distillate rate increases propylene feed
into the RD column, which will increase RD column diameter, reboiler
and condenser duties. Thus, both AOC and ACC should increase as the
splitter/RD column distillate rate increases. As shown in Fig. 3f–i, AOC
increases with splitter/RD column distillate; however, ACC decreases
with splitter/RD column distillate, which is due to confounding by
another decision variable, namely, number of ideal stages in RD
column. As shown in Fig. 3j and k, number of ideal stages in RD
column decreases as RD distillate rate increases.
114
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116
4.2. RD-ED process
The Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by EMOO program, for the
MOO of the RD-ED process are shown in Fig. 5a . As AOC decreases
from around $6.5 million/year to $6.16 million/year, ACC increases
from $1.95 million/year to $2.25 million/year. With reference to the
optimal solution having the lowest TAC (square point in Fig. 5), further
reduction in AOC increases ACC disproportionately.
Fig. 5b and c show that ACC increases and AOC decreases when the
number of ideal stages in the ED column increases from 27 to 35. This
trend is not found for the number of ideal stages in RD and ER columns,
which have optimal values 17 or 18 stages, and between 15 and 18
W.J. Chua et al. Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116

Fig. 6. Temperature and liquid composition profiles in the RD column corresponding to the Pareto-optimal solution with the lowest TAC for the RD-ED process.

Table 2 outweighs the cost of an additional column in the RD-ED process.

Comparison of optimal results corresponding to lowest TAC for alternate RD processes for Further, the RD-splitter process has higher AOC (by 20%), which is
IPA production. attributable to higher duties of reboiler and condenser of the RD
RD-splitter for RD-ED for optimal
column to achieve reaction and purification to high purity IPA in a
optimal TAC TAC single column. As seen in Table 2, total condenser duty of the RD-ED
process is marginally higher than that of the RD-splitter process, and so
RD reboiler (condenser) duty (MW) 15.93 (15.30) 4.32 (3.00) the difference in total cooling cost is negligible. Note that cooling water
Splitter reboiler (condenser) duty 4.51 (5.15) –
(MW)
is used in the condensers for both processes. More significantly, RD
ED reboiler (condenser) duty (MW) – 6.65 (11.40) reboiler duty for the RD-splitter process is disproportionately higher,
ER reboiler (condenser) duty (MW) – 7.73 (6.12) accounting for the higher total steam cost and consequently higher
Total reboiler (condenser) duty 20.44 (20.45) 18.7 (20.52) AOC. Note that, in the RD-splitter process, reboiler of RD and splitter
(MW)
columns use high pressure (HP) and low pressure (LP) steam, respec-
IPA production rate (kmol/h) 378.127 372.365
Rate of propylene loss (kmol/h) 0.513 6.962 tively; in the RD-ED process, reboilers both RD and ED columns use
Total cooling water cost ($/h) $21.35 $21.42 medium pressure (MP) steam, and only reboiler of ER column requires
Total steam cost ($/h) $879.94 $756.33 HP steam. Cost differences of LP, MP and HP steam partly contribute to
ACC ($/year) $3,393,712 $1,945,950 higher AOC of the RD-splitter process.
AOC ($/year) $7,976,175 $6,345,124
TAC ($/year) $11,369,887 $8,291,074
While the RD-ED process has better objective values, its disadvan-
Unit cost of production excluding $3.76 ($0.0626) $2.78 ($0.0463) tage is the loss of nearly 2% of propylene in the feed (Table 2), through
feed cost, $/kmol of IPA ($/kg the RD distillate. Nevertheless, the RD-ED process still has lower unit
of IPA) cost of production even after including cost of propylene feed; see last
Unit cost of production including $32.29 ($0.537) $31.75 ($0.528)
row in Table 2. Further, propylene loss in the RD-ED process can be
feed cost, $/kmol of IPA ($/kg
of IPA) avoided by returning RD distillate (containing ∼25 mol% of propylene)
to the upstream propylene plant, if IPA process is part of an olefin
complex.
stages respectively. For conciseness, results for these decision variables
are not shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 5d and e show that ACC increases and AOC 5. Conclusions
decreases, when the feed stage of ED column varies from 21 to 24.
Optimal values of the feed stage of ER column are 7 and 8, and optimal In this study, the RD-splitter and RD-ED processes for IPA produc-
values of RD column reflux ratio and distillate rate are within a narrow tion were optimized for two objectives. EMOO was implemented to find
band around 15 and 28 kmol/h respectively; all these results are not the optimal configuration for a number of decision variables. For the
shown in Fig. 5. In summary, the obtained optimal results suggest that a RD-splitter process, the optimum design was found to have TAC
narrow range of operating conditions is optimal for IPA production by (excluding feed cost) of $11.4 million/year and unit production cost
the RD-ED process, and that number of stages and feed stage in ED (including feed cost) of $32.29/kmol. For the RD-ED process, the
column contribute to the variation of objectives as shown in Fig. 5. optimum design was found to have TAC (excluding feed cost) of $8.3
Fig. 6 shows the temperature and liquid composition profiles in the million/year and unit production cost (including feed cost) of $31.75/
RD column corresponding to the Pareto-optimal solution with the kmol. Thus, both the investment and operating costs of the RD-ED
lowest TAC for the RD-ED process. Temperature profile in Fig. 6 is process are lower than those of RD-splitter process, mainly because of
similar to that in Fig. 4 for the RD-splitter process. However, composi- splitter size and RD reboiler duty. Therefore, the RD-ED process is
tion profiles in the RD column of RD-ED process are different from those better although it has slightly lower IPA production due to propylene
for the RD-splitter process because of excess water in the former. For loss.
example, DIPE mole fraction is lower at less than 0.1 and bottoms
stream of the RD column is a mixture of IPA and water. References

4.3. Comparison
The optimal results corresponding to the lowest TAC for both the
RD-splitter and RD-ED processes are compared in Table 2. It can be seen
that the RD-ED process has better values for all cost metrics. In terms of
ACC, the high cost of the splitter column in the RD-splitter process
[1] P. Dutia, Isopropyl alcohol: a techno-commercial profile, Chem. Week. (2012)
211–216. April 24, Retrieved from www.chemicalweekly.com/Profiles/Isopropyl_
Alcohol.pdf.
[2] J.I. Kroschwitz, Isopropyl Alcohol in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, 5th ed., Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2004.
[3] I.L. Chien, K.L. Zeng, H.Y. Chao, Design and control of a complete heterogeneous
azeotropic distillation column system, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43 (2004) 2160–2174.

115
W.J. Chua et al.
[4] S. Arifin, I.L. Chien, Combined pre-concentrator/recovery column design for
isopropyl alcohol dehydration process, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (2007) 2535–2543.
[5] W.T. Chang, C.T. Huang, S.H. Cheng, Design and control of a complete azeotropic
distillation system incorporating stripping columns for isopropyl alcohol dehydra-
tion, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (2012) 2997–3006.
[6] W.L. Luyben, Plantwide control of an isopropyl alcohol dehydration process, AIChE
J. 52 (2006) 2290–2296.
[7] S. Arifin, I.L. Chien, Design and control of an isopropyl alcohol dehydration process
via extractive distillation using dimethyl sulfoxide as an entrainer, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 47 (2008) 790–803.
[8] S. Sommer, T. Melin, Design and optimization of hybrid separation processes for the
dehydration of 2-propanol and other organics, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43 (2004)
5248–5259.
[9] P.K. Sharma, P.C. Wankat, Distillation-adsorption hybrid processes to separate
binary liquid mixtures with homogeneous azeotrope, Sep. Sci. Technol. 48 (2013)
1–14.
[10] Y. Liu, S.D. Feist, C.M. Jones, D.R. Armstrong, Isopropanol dehydration by hot-gas
pressure swing adsorption: experiments, simulations and implementation, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 53 (2014) 8599–8607.
[11] Y. Xu, K.T. Chuang, A.R. Sanger, Design of a process for production of isopropyl
alcohol by hydration of propylene in a catalytic distillation column, Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 80 (2002) 686–694.
[12] S.J. Wang, D.S. Wong, Control of reactive distillation production of high-purity
isopropanol, J. Process Control 16 (2006) 385–394.
[13] W.M. Niu, G.P. Rangaiah, Process retrofitting via intensification: a heuristic
methodology and its application to isopropyl alcohol process, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
55 (2016) 3614–3629.
[14] W.M. Niu, G.P. Rangaiah, Retrofitting an isopropyl alcohol process based on
reactive distillation and propylene-propane separation, Chem. Eng. Process.:
Process Intensif. 108 (2016) 164–173.
[15] American Chemistry Council, Propylene product stewardship guidance manual,
(2007) Retrieved from https://www.shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/
chemicals/downloads/products-services/propylene-productstewardshipmanual.
116
Chemical Engineering & Processing: Process Intensification 118 (2017) 108–116
pdf.
[16] Y. Feng, G.P. Rangaiah, An evaluation of capital cost estimation methods and
programs, Chem. Eng. 118 (8) (2011) 22–29.
[17] D.P. Kessler, P.C. Wankat, Distillation design: correlations for column parameters,
Chem. Eng. 26 (September) (1988) 71–74.
[18] US International Trade Commission, Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE): conditions
affecting the domestic industry, US International Trade Commission, 2-2, 1999
Retrieved from https://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/pubs/332/pub3231.pdf.
[19] Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC, Amberlyst 36, (2016) Retrieved from http://www.
sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/436712?lang=en&region=SG.
[20] C.M. Lek, G.P. Rangaiah, K. Hidajat, Distillation: revisiting some rules of thumb,
Chem. Eng. September (2004) 50–55.
[21] S. Sharma, G.P. Rangaiah, K. Cheah, Multi-objective optimization using MS excel
with an application to design of a falling-film evaporator system, Food Bioprod.
Process. 90 (2) (2012) 123–134.
[22] J.Y.Q. Wong, S. Sharma, G.P. Rangaiah, Design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers
for multiple objectives using elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm with
termination criteria, Appl. Therm. Eng. 93 (2016) 888–899.
[23] S. Sharma, G.P. Rangaiah, F. Maréchal, Multi-objective optimization programs and
their application to amine absorption process design for natural gas sweetening, in:
G.P. Rangaiah (Ed.), Multi-Objective Optimization: Techniques and Applications in
Chemical Engineering, second ed., World Scientific, 2017.
[24] K. Liang, W. Li, H. Luo, M. Xia, C. Xu, Energy-efficient extractive distillation process
by combining preconcentration column and entrainer recovery column, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 53 (2014) 7121–7713.
[25] W.D. Seider, J.D. Seader, D.R. Lewin, Product and Process Design Principles, 3rd
ed., Wiley, New York, 2010.
[26] R. Turton, R.C. Bailie, W.B. Whiting, J.A. Shaeiwitz, Analysis, Synthesis, and Design
of Chemical Processes, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2009.
[27] W. Zhang, K.E. Thompson, A.H. Reed, L. Beenken, Relationship between packing
structure and porosity in fixed beds of equilateral cylindrical particles, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 61 (24) (2006) 8060–8074.