<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Michaelgleeson2014</id>
	<title>processdesign - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Michaelgleeson2014"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Michaelgleeson2014"/>
	<updated>2026-04-23T09:42:17Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1614</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1614"/>
		<updated>2014-03-15T00:07:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* References */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Michael Gleeson, Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: March 11, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Process Description===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	There are three main component of our process: pre-treatment, reaction and separation.  See Appendix 15 for a detailed PFD of the process to reference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pre-treatment Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	In the pretreatment phase of our process we bring all of the components to the correct conditions in order to be fed into the reactor.  For example the 50% succinic acid in water feed in pumped to a pressure of 3250 psia and then heated to about 160oC, which are the operating conditions of the gas-liquid induction reactor used in the process.  The operating temperature is relatively low in order to promote selectivity toward BDO and prevent other side reactions.  At higher temperatures the hydrogenation of succinic acid continues past BDO and creates unwanted products.  See Appendix 14 for the full reaction scheme of this process.  At this point the feed can be mixed with a recycled steam coming off of our second gas-liquid separator, which is composed of water, BDO and BGL.  It was advantageous to combine these two steams entering the reactor because the recycle stream saves excess water that was separated out before the final product and further dilutes the succinic acid concentration, for stabilization purposes, within the feed stream.  Furthermore, the excess BDO that is filtered out and would be lost is recycled back into the system to improve the system recovery.  Finally the GBL can be further reacted in the presence of hydrogen in order to form BDO, or once again recovered at the end of the process to be purified and sold rather than wasted.  Of course the recycled stream must be pressurized and heated to the correct conditions as well, however, we first cool the recycle stream to form a liquid so that it can be pumped to the correct pressure of 3250 psia (rather than compressed as a gas, since compressors are much more expensive) and finally heated back to a temperature of 160oC.&lt;br /&gt;
	On the other side of the GLIR the hydrogen feed enters the process.  Hydrogen purchased at 3000 psia is compressed to 3250 psia and then mixed with recycled hydrogen coming off the top of our first gas-liquid separator.  The hydrogen from the top of the separator is split so that some is purged while the rest is recycled (still at high pressure) and mixed with the newly purchased hydrogen.  It was necessary to recycle hydrogen because it is such an expensive input, and used in major excess to simply sending all of it out in the purge to a flare would be very wasteful.  In future iterations of the project, the energy created from hydrogen burned off at a flare should be captured and used in the heat exchange network (explained later).  The mixed streams, still at high pressure, are then heated to 160oC and fed into the reactor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Reaction Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	The reaction is to take place in a gas-liquid induction reactor, GLIR for short.  The GLIR was chosen because it is best suited for multi-phase gas-liquid reactions.  In particular the GLIR has special safety features to ensure worker’s safety under intense operating conditions, such as the high pressure used in our reactor, or when the reactant gas is highly combustible, as hydrogen is in our case.  Additionally, GLIR’s are known for their complete utilization of the gas feed and great recovery specs with few losses, which is important for an expensive input feed.  In our case, hydrogen can cost upwards of $7/kg and so this is a worthwhile investment.  The GLIR will be a sort of fluidized bed reactor holding the catalyst with the liquid feed being pumped through downward as the gas bubbles through the liquid upward while an impeller stirs the mixture to increase contact times.  Using a catalyst composed of a combination of Pd/Re/Ag/Na, typical for a hydrogenation process, high conversion of succinic acid and selectivity toward BDO can be achieved.  Adding Fe to the catalyst has been shown to further increase conversion of succinic acid and selectivity toward BDO and so that will be done as well.  Using a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10% Re catalyst with the balance of the 1.5mm diameter carbon support, we are able to achieve 99.7% conversion of succinic acid with 85.5% selectivity to BDO, 2.04% selectivity to GBL, 9.3% selectivity to THF and the balance to other side products but namely butanol (but also possibly propanol and methane, etc.).  The reactor operates isothermally and isobarically at 160oC and 3250 psia.  Since the reaction is exothermic a cooling jacket will be placed on the GLIR in order to remove the excess heat generated.  The jacket will contain a high heat capacity oil, namely Dowtherm A, that will then be put through a heat exchanger in order to maintain the oil at about 160oC at all times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Separation Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	The separation of the reactor effluent is the final part of our process.  Since the effluent contains so many different components, many different reflux drums (gas-liquid separators) and fractionation columns are necessary.  First, the effluent is cooled in a heat exchanger in order to allow for better separation of the hydrogen and liquid products in the reflux drum that follows where the hydrogen is taken out of the effluent mixture and either burned or recycled as described above.  Next the remaining products and sent to a let-down valve to depressurize them and then reheated to promote better separation in the distillation column that follows which will separate out the main wastes (THF, water, butanol) from the main products (GBL, BDO).  The first waste stream coming off of the top of this column is cooled and then sent to a waste tank as it is highly concentrated with butanol and THF.  The other stream is further depressurized and sent to a distillation column to separate a stream highly concentrated in butanol and THF (as above) out, to be put into a waste container, from a stream that is &amp;gt;99% water which will be let out into the Mississippi River.  The bottoms stream from the first fractionation column containing the main products is once again depressurized and heated to promote a better separation and then put into a new reflux drum.  Here a stream high in water content is separated and recycled from a stream highly concentrated with the desired products.  The non-recycled stream is sent to, yet another, distillation column which separates out our major product, 99.7% BDO in the bottoms from the GBL and water.  The distillate stream is, once again, heated for better separation and sent to our last distillation column which separates out our other major product, &amp;gt;99% GBL, out of the bottoms from a water waste stream in the distillate which will also be let out into the Mississippi.  Further iterations of the project could look at better ways to separate our products (using less columns/drums) or isolating other side-products to be resold (like THF).  Additionally, other ways to handle side-product waste should be explored.  Please see Appendix 6 for a closer look at our modeled HYSYS simulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heat Exchange Network (HEN)===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there are 9 streams that must be heated or cooled in our plant as well as a stream from the reactor jacket, a heat exchange network is necessary to minimize our total plant utilities in a heat exchange network (HEN).  Using pinch point analysis it was determined that the best network contained 12 total heat exchangers with one stream split using a total of 3.87 x 107 kJ/h of hot utility and 3.99 x 106 kJ/h of total cold utility.  These were necessary due to the complex nature of optimizing 10 different process streams needing temperature adjustment while avoiding temperature crosses, etc.  Most of the streams exchange energy between different process streams while only one uses a cooling water and five use small amounts of high pressure steam, which account for the utilities needed.  For more details of the HEN see Appendix 13.  Further iterations of the project should consider adding the duties of the four reboilers and four condensers used on our distillation columns to the heat exchange network.  As is, the network only considers the heat exchangers needed for process streams in order to minimize total utilities used within the process, however, a significant portion of our utilities is used in our distillation columns and thus future iterations could further reduce this number and make the plant more profitable by incorporating them into the network.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 4, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Process Flow Diagram&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: PFDFinal.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
[1]	&amp;quot;AIChE - Proceedings - Hydrogenation of Succinic Acid Using Ruthenium Nanoparticles Embedded Catalysts (2012 Annual Meeting).&amp;quot; AIChE - Proceedings - Hydrogenation of Succinic Acid Using Ruthenium Nanoparticles Embedded Catalysts (2012 Annual Meeting). N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[2]	Besson, Michele, et al. “Aqueous-Phase Hydrogenation of Biomass-Based Succinic Acid to 1,4-Butanediol Over Supported Bimetallic Catalysts.” Published online: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 28 May 2010. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[3]	CATALYSTS FOR MALEIC ACID HYDROGENATION T0 1,4-BUTANEDIOL. ISP Investments Inc., Wilmington, DE (US), assignee. Patent US 7,935,834 B2. 3 May 2011. Print. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[4]	Deshpande, R.M. et al. “Tailoring of activity and selectivity using bimetallic catalyst in hydrogenation of succinic acid.” DuPont Company, Central Research and Development, Wilmington, DE, USA. 8 May 2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[5]	&amp;quot;Gas Liquid Induction Reactor | Gas Liquid Induction Reactors &amp;amp; Hydrogenators.&amp;quot; Gas Liquid Induction Reactors Hydrogenators. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[6]	Sigma-Aldrich, United States. Various Products. Web. www.sigmaaldrich.com/united-states. 3 Mar 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[7]	Alibaba: Manufacturers, Suppliers, Exporters &amp;amp; Importers. Various Products. Web. www.alibaba.com. 3 Mar 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[8]	Pinel, Catherine, et al. “Effect of Addition Mode of Re in Bimetallic Pd-Re/TiO2 Catalysts Upon the Selective Aqueous-Phase Hydrogenation of Succinic Acid to 1,4 Butanediol.” Published online; Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 15 June, 2012&lt;br /&gt;
[9]	PROCESS FOR THE HYDROGENATION OF MALEIC ACID T0 1,4-BUTANEDIOL. The Standard Oil Company, Chicago, IL (US), assignee. Patent US 6,486,367 B1. 26 Nov. 2002. Print.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[10]	Smith, R., Varbanov, P. “The Price of Steam”. Centre for Process Integration, University of Manchester. July 2005. www.cepmagazine.org. Web. 3 Mar 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[11]	“Biobased Products: Succinic Acid” Biorefining Process Source. Wisconsin Biorefining Development Initiative. www.wisbiorefine.org. Web. 3 Mar 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[12]	“1,4-Butanediol” Chem-Net Facts, Chemical Market Insight and Foresight. Tecnon OrbiChem. www.orbiochem.com. Web. 3 Mar 2014.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1613</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1613"/>
		<updated>2014-03-15T00:06:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* References */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Michael Gleeson, Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: March 11, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Process Description===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	There are three main component of our process: pre-treatment, reaction and separation.  See Appendix 15 for a detailed PFD of the process to reference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pre-treatment Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	In the pretreatment phase of our process we bring all of the components to the correct conditions in order to be fed into the reactor.  For example the 50% succinic acid in water feed in pumped to a pressure of 3250 psia and then heated to about 160oC, which are the operating conditions of the gas-liquid induction reactor used in the process.  The operating temperature is relatively low in order to promote selectivity toward BDO and prevent other side reactions.  At higher temperatures the hydrogenation of succinic acid continues past BDO and creates unwanted products.  See Appendix 14 for the full reaction scheme of this process.  At this point the feed can be mixed with a recycled steam coming off of our second gas-liquid separator, which is composed of water, BDO and BGL.  It was advantageous to combine these two steams entering the reactor because the recycle stream saves excess water that was separated out before the final product and further dilutes the succinic acid concentration, for stabilization purposes, within the feed stream.  Furthermore, the excess BDO that is filtered out and would be lost is recycled back into the system to improve the system recovery.  Finally the GBL can be further reacted in the presence of hydrogen in order to form BDO, or once again recovered at the end of the process to be purified and sold rather than wasted.  Of course the recycled stream must be pressurized and heated to the correct conditions as well, however, we first cool the recycle stream to form a liquid so that it can be pumped to the correct pressure of 3250 psia (rather than compressed as a gas, since compressors are much more expensive) and finally heated back to a temperature of 160oC.&lt;br /&gt;
	On the other side of the GLIR the hydrogen feed enters the process.  Hydrogen purchased at 3000 psia is compressed to 3250 psia and then mixed with recycled hydrogen coming off the top of our first gas-liquid separator.  The hydrogen from the top of the separator is split so that some is purged while the rest is recycled (still at high pressure) and mixed with the newly purchased hydrogen.  It was necessary to recycle hydrogen because it is such an expensive input, and used in major excess to simply sending all of it out in the purge to a flare would be very wasteful.  In future iterations of the project, the energy created from hydrogen burned off at a flare should be captured and used in the heat exchange network (explained later).  The mixed streams, still at high pressure, are then heated to 160oC and fed into the reactor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Reaction Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	The reaction is to take place in a gas-liquid induction reactor, GLIR for short.  The GLIR was chosen because it is best suited for multi-phase gas-liquid reactions.  In particular the GLIR has special safety features to ensure worker’s safety under intense operating conditions, such as the high pressure used in our reactor, or when the reactant gas is highly combustible, as hydrogen is in our case.  Additionally, GLIR’s are known for their complete utilization of the gas feed and great recovery specs with few losses, which is important for an expensive input feed.  In our case, hydrogen can cost upwards of $7/kg and so this is a worthwhile investment.  The GLIR will be a sort of fluidized bed reactor holding the catalyst with the liquid feed being pumped through downward as the gas bubbles through the liquid upward while an impeller stirs the mixture to increase contact times.  Using a catalyst composed of a combination of Pd/Re/Ag/Na, typical for a hydrogenation process, high conversion of succinic acid and selectivity toward BDO can be achieved.  Adding Fe to the catalyst has been shown to further increase conversion of succinic acid and selectivity toward BDO and so that will be done as well.  Using a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10% Re catalyst with the balance of the 1.5mm diameter carbon support, we are able to achieve 99.7% conversion of succinic acid with 85.5% selectivity to BDO, 2.04% selectivity to GBL, 9.3% selectivity to THF and the balance to other side products but namely butanol (but also possibly propanol and methane, etc.).  The reactor operates isothermally and isobarically at 160oC and 3250 psia.  Since the reaction is exothermic a cooling jacket will be placed on the GLIR in order to remove the excess heat generated.  The jacket will contain a high heat capacity oil, namely Dowtherm A, that will then be put through a heat exchanger in order to maintain the oil at about 160oC at all times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Separation Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	The separation of the reactor effluent is the final part of our process.  Since the effluent contains so many different components, many different reflux drums (gas-liquid separators) and fractionation columns are necessary.  First, the effluent is cooled in a heat exchanger in order to allow for better separation of the hydrogen and liquid products in the reflux drum that follows where the hydrogen is taken out of the effluent mixture and either burned or recycled as described above.  Next the remaining products and sent to a let-down valve to depressurize them and then reheated to promote better separation in the distillation column that follows which will separate out the main wastes (THF, water, butanol) from the main products (GBL, BDO).  The first waste stream coming off of the top of this column is cooled and then sent to a waste tank as it is highly concentrated with butanol and THF.  The other stream is further depressurized and sent to a distillation column to separate a stream highly concentrated in butanol and THF (as above) out, to be put into a waste container, from a stream that is &amp;gt;99% water which will be let out into the Mississippi River.  The bottoms stream from the first fractionation column containing the main products is once again depressurized and heated to promote a better separation and then put into a new reflux drum.  Here a stream high in water content is separated and recycled from a stream highly concentrated with the desired products.  The non-recycled stream is sent to, yet another, distillation column which separates out our major product, 99.7% BDO in the bottoms from the GBL and water.  The distillate stream is, once again, heated for better separation and sent to our last distillation column which separates out our other major product, &amp;gt;99% GBL, out of the bottoms from a water waste stream in the distillate which will also be let out into the Mississippi.  Further iterations of the project could look at better ways to separate our products (using less columns/drums) or isolating other side-products to be resold (like THF).  Additionally, other ways to handle side-product waste should be explored.  Please see Appendix 6 for a closer look at our modeled HYSYS simulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heat Exchange Network (HEN)===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there are 9 streams that must be heated or cooled in our plant as well as a stream from the reactor jacket, a heat exchange network is necessary to minimize our total plant utilities in a heat exchange network (HEN).  Using pinch point analysis it was determined that the best network contained 12 total heat exchangers with one stream split using a total of 3.87 x 107 kJ/h of hot utility and 3.99 x 106 kJ/h of total cold utility.  These were necessary due to the complex nature of optimizing 10 different process streams needing temperature adjustment while avoiding temperature crosses, etc.  Most of the streams exchange energy between different process streams while only one uses a cooling water and five use small amounts of high pressure steam, which account for the utilities needed.  For more details of the HEN see Appendix 13.  Further iterations of the project should consider adding the duties of the four reboilers and four condensers used on our distillation columns to the heat exchange network.  As is, the network only considers the heat exchangers needed for process streams in order to minimize total utilities used within the process, however, a significant portion of our utilities is used in our distillation columns and thus future iterations could further reduce this number and make the plant more profitable by incorporating them into the network.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 4, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Process Flow Diagram&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: PFDFinal.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
[1]	&amp;quot;AIChE - Proceedings - Hydrogenation of Succinic Acid Using Ruthenium Nanoparticles Embedded Catalysts (2012 Annual Meeting).&amp;quot; AIChE - Proceedings - Hydrogenation of Succinic Acid Using Ruthenium Nanoparticles Embedded Catalysts (2012 Annual Meeting). N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[2]	Besson, Michele, et al. “Aqueous-Phase Hydrogenation of Biomass-Based Succinic Acid to 1,4-Butanediol Over Supported Bimetallic Catalysts.” Published online: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 28 May 2010. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[3]	CATALYSTS FOR MALEIC ACID HYDROGENATION T0 1,4-BUTANEDIOL. ISP Investments Inc., Wilmington, DE (US), assignee. Patent US 7,935,834 B2. 3 May 2011. Print. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[4]	Deshpande, R.M. et al. “Tailoring of activity and selectivity using bimetallic catalyst in hydrogenation of succinic acid.” DuPont Company, Central Research and Development, Wilmington, DE, USA. 8 May 2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[5]	&amp;quot;Gas Liquid Induction Reactor | Gas Liquid Induction Reactors &amp;amp; Hydrogenators.&amp;quot; Gas Liquid Induction Reactors Hydrogenators. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[6]	Sigma-Aldrich, United States. Various Products. Web. www.sigmaaldrich.com/united-states. 3 Mar 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[7]	Alibaba: Manufacturers, Suppliers, Exporters &amp;amp; Importers. Various Products. Web. www.alibaba.com. 3 Mar 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[8]	Pinel, Catherine, et al. “Effect of Addition Mode of Re in Bimetallic Pd-Re/TiO2 Catalysts Upon the Selective Aqueous-Phase Hydrogenation of Succinic Acid to 1,4 Butanediol.” Published online; Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 15 June, 2012&lt;br /&gt;
[9]	PROCESS FOR THE HYDROGENATION OF MALEIC ACID T0 1,4-BUTANEDIOL. The Standard Oil Company, Chicago, IL (US), assignee. Patent US 6,486,367 B1. 26 Nov. 2002. Print.&lt;br /&gt;
[10]	Smith, R., Varbanov, P. “The Price of Steam”. Centre for Process Integration, University of Manchester. July 2005. www.cepmagazine.org. Web. 3 Mar 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
[11]	“Biobased Products: Succinic Acid” Biorefining Process Source. Wisconsin Biorefining Development Initiative. www.wisbiorefine.org. Web. 3 Mar 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
[12]	“1,4-Butanediol” Chem-Net Facts, Chemical Market Insight and Foresight. Tecnon OrbiChem. www.orbiochem.com. Web. 3 Mar 2014.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1612</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1612"/>
		<updated>2014-03-15T00:06:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Michael Gleeson, Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: March 11, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Process Description===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	There are three main component of our process: pre-treatment, reaction and separation.  See Appendix 15 for a detailed PFD of the process to reference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pre-treatment Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	In the pretreatment phase of our process we bring all of the components to the correct conditions in order to be fed into the reactor.  For example the 50% succinic acid in water feed in pumped to a pressure of 3250 psia and then heated to about 160oC, which are the operating conditions of the gas-liquid induction reactor used in the process.  The operating temperature is relatively low in order to promote selectivity toward BDO and prevent other side reactions.  At higher temperatures the hydrogenation of succinic acid continues past BDO and creates unwanted products.  See Appendix 14 for the full reaction scheme of this process.  At this point the feed can be mixed with a recycled steam coming off of our second gas-liquid separator, which is composed of water, BDO and BGL.  It was advantageous to combine these two steams entering the reactor because the recycle stream saves excess water that was separated out before the final product and further dilutes the succinic acid concentration, for stabilization purposes, within the feed stream.  Furthermore, the excess BDO that is filtered out and would be lost is recycled back into the system to improve the system recovery.  Finally the GBL can be further reacted in the presence of hydrogen in order to form BDO, or once again recovered at the end of the process to be purified and sold rather than wasted.  Of course the recycled stream must be pressurized and heated to the correct conditions as well, however, we first cool the recycle stream to form a liquid so that it can be pumped to the correct pressure of 3250 psia (rather than compressed as a gas, since compressors are much more expensive) and finally heated back to a temperature of 160oC.&lt;br /&gt;
	On the other side of the GLIR the hydrogen feed enters the process.  Hydrogen purchased at 3000 psia is compressed to 3250 psia and then mixed with recycled hydrogen coming off the top of our first gas-liquid separator.  The hydrogen from the top of the separator is split so that some is purged while the rest is recycled (still at high pressure) and mixed with the newly purchased hydrogen.  It was necessary to recycle hydrogen because it is such an expensive input, and used in major excess to simply sending all of it out in the purge to a flare would be very wasteful.  In future iterations of the project, the energy created from hydrogen burned off at a flare should be captured and used in the heat exchange network (explained later).  The mixed streams, still at high pressure, are then heated to 160oC and fed into the reactor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Reaction Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	The reaction is to take place in a gas-liquid induction reactor, GLIR for short.  The GLIR was chosen because it is best suited for multi-phase gas-liquid reactions.  In particular the GLIR has special safety features to ensure worker’s safety under intense operating conditions, such as the high pressure used in our reactor, or when the reactant gas is highly combustible, as hydrogen is in our case.  Additionally, GLIR’s are known for their complete utilization of the gas feed and great recovery specs with few losses, which is important for an expensive input feed.  In our case, hydrogen can cost upwards of $7/kg and so this is a worthwhile investment.  The GLIR will be a sort of fluidized bed reactor holding the catalyst with the liquid feed being pumped through downward as the gas bubbles through the liquid upward while an impeller stirs the mixture to increase contact times.  Using a catalyst composed of a combination of Pd/Re/Ag/Na, typical for a hydrogenation process, high conversion of succinic acid and selectivity toward BDO can be achieved.  Adding Fe to the catalyst has been shown to further increase conversion of succinic acid and selectivity toward BDO and so that will be done as well.  Using a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10% Re catalyst with the balance of the 1.5mm diameter carbon support, we are able to achieve 99.7% conversion of succinic acid with 85.5% selectivity to BDO, 2.04% selectivity to GBL, 9.3% selectivity to THF and the balance to other side products but namely butanol (but also possibly propanol and methane, etc.).  The reactor operates isothermally and isobarically at 160oC and 3250 psia.  Since the reaction is exothermic a cooling jacket will be placed on the GLIR in order to remove the excess heat generated.  The jacket will contain a high heat capacity oil, namely Dowtherm A, that will then be put through a heat exchanger in order to maintain the oil at about 160oC at all times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Separation Phase===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	The separation of the reactor effluent is the final part of our process.  Since the effluent contains so many different components, many different reflux drums (gas-liquid separators) and fractionation columns are necessary.  First, the effluent is cooled in a heat exchanger in order to allow for better separation of the hydrogen and liquid products in the reflux drum that follows where the hydrogen is taken out of the effluent mixture and either burned or recycled as described above.  Next the remaining products and sent to a let-down valve to depressurize them and then reheated to promote better separation in the distillation column that follows which will separate out the main wastes (THF, water, butanol) from the main products (GBL, BDO).  The first waste stream coming off of the top of this column is cooled and then sent to a waste tank as it is highly concentrated with butanol and THF.  The other stream is further depressurized and sent to a distillation column to separate a stream highly concentrated in butanol and THF (as above) out, to be put into a waste container, from a stream that is &amp;gt;99% water which will be let out into the Mississippi River.  The bottoms stream from the first fractionation column containing the main products is once again depressurized and heated to promote a better separation and then put into a new reflux drum.  Here a stream high in water content is separated and recycled from a stream highly concentrated with the desired products.  The non-recycled stream is sent to, yet another, distillation column which separates out our major product, 99.7% BDO in the bottoms from the GBL and water.  The distillate stream is, once again, heated for better separation and sent to our last distillation column which separates out our other major product, &amp;gt;99% GBL, out of the bottoms from a water waste stream in the distillate which will also be let out into the Mississippi.  Further iterations of the project could look at better ways to separate our products (using less columns/drums) or isolating other side-products to be resold (like THF).  Additionally, other ways to handle side-product waste should be explored.  Please see Appendix 6 for a closer look at our modeled HYSYS simulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heat Exchange Network (HEN)===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there are 9 streams that must be heated or cooled in our plant as well as a stream from the reactor jacket, a heat exchange network is necessary to minimize our total plant utilities in a heat exchange network (HEN).  Using pinch point analysis it was determined that the best network contained 12 total heat exchangers with one stream split using a total of 3.87 x 107 kJ/h of hot utility and 3.99 x 106 kJ/h of total cold utility.  These were necessary due to the complex nature of optimizing 10 different process streams needing temperature adjustment while avoiding temperature crosses, etc.  Most of the streams exchange energy between different process streams while only one uses a cooling water and five use small amounts of high pressure steam, which account for the utilities needed.  For more details of the HEN see Appendix 13.  Further iterations of the project should consider adding the duties of the four reboilers and four condensers used on our distillation columns to the heat exchange network.  As is, the network only considers the heat exchangers needed for process streams in order to minimize total utilities used within the process, however, a significant portion of our utilities is used in our distillation columns and thus future iterations could further reduce this number and make the plant more profitable by incorporating them into the network.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 4, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Process Flow Diagram&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: PFDFinal.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:PFDFinal.jpg&amp;diff=1604</id>
		<title>File:PFDFinal.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:PFDFinal.jpg&amp;diff=1604"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:50:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1603</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1603"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:50:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Michael Gleeson, Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: March 11, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Process Flow Diagram&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: PFDFinal.jpg]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1602</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1602"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:47:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Michael Gleeson, Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: March 11, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1601</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1601"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:45:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Michael Gleeson, Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: March 11, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1600</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1600"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:43:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Michael Gleeson, Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: March 11, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1599</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1599"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:43:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design Report Authors: Kramer Brand, Eric Donnelly, Joshua Kaplan, May Wang (Fall 2011)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wiki Page Author: David Chen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: January 16, 2014 /Date Revised: January 16, 2014 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1598</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1598"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:42:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1597</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1597"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:40:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 10 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.jpg]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1596</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1596"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:40:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 10 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Reaction Mechanism.JPG]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1595</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1595"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:39:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 9 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1594</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1594"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:39:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 9 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Heat Exchanger Network.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1593</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1593"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:37:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
			 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1592</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1592"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:34:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1591</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1591"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:32:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 8 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1590</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1590"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:31:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 7 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Summary Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1589</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1589"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:31:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 7 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stream Composition Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1588</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1588"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:30:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 6 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:HYSYS Simulation.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1587</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1587"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:30:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 5 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Energy Stream Table.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1586</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1586"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:29:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 4 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Assorted Economic Data.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1585</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1585"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:29:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 3 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Equipment Costs.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1584</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1584"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:26:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 2 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1583</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1583"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:25:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Appendix 1 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sizing and Construction Info.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1569</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1569"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:14:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Economic Analysis */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sensitivity.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1568</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1568"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:14:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Economic Analysis */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table 4 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Econ2.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1567</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1567"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:13:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Components.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1566</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1566"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:13:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Streams.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
Type 	Sizing Spec	Purpose&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor (E-11)	Ṿ=18.2m^3/hr       	Compress inlet hydrogen to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 1 (E-9)	A = 634.21m^2	Heat feed hydrogen to reactor temperature&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 1 (E-1)	Ṿ = 3.5m^3/hr   Duty = 27.4kW    	Pump SUC feed to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 2 (E-21)	Ṿ=15.5m^3/hr   Duty=137 kW    	Pump Recycle to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Jacketed GLIR (E-3)	L = 6.2m        D=2.1m           t=230mm	Gas Liquid Induction Reactor used to convert SUC to BDO, GBL, THF and side products &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 2 (E-2)	A = 4600 m^2	Heat reactor effluent in order to drive better separation&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 1 (E-12)	H=3.0m       D=1.5m           t=15mm	Separates unreacted hydrogen from reactor effluent&lt;br /&gt;
Heater 1 (E-16)	A = 575.15 m^2	Heats Distillation Column inlet to Column conditions&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 1 (13)	H=10m       D=1.82m       #Trays=10        	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 2 (E-20)	H=2.0m       D=.61m           t=6.5mm	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 2 (E-18)	H=8m      D=.60m       #Trays=16        	Purify product grade BDO&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 3 (E-26)	H=8m      D=.90m       #Trays=8      	Purify waste water to expedite water removal&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 4 (E-23)	H=12m      D=.65m       #Trays=12      	Purify product grade GBL&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1565</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1565"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:12:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Technical Approach */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.JPG]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Name	Vapour Fraction	Temp. (C)	Pressure (kPa)	Molar Flow (kgmole/h)	Liquid Volume Flow (m3/h)	Heat Flow (kJ/h)&lt;br /&gt;
Feed	0	25	101	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_2	0	29	22408	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_3	0	164	22408	576	15.45	-2.05E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Vap	1	165	22408	75	3.97	-5.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Liq	0	165	22408	869	22	-2.53E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2 Feed	1	25	22408	340	18.21	9.10E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H2	1	165	22408	376	20.14	1.62E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Bot	0	225	2200	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
8	0.08	165	22408	944	25.97	-2.54E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vap_Rec	1	75	22383	72	3.86	6.86E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Liq	0	75	22383	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
9	0.08	75	22383	944	25.97	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_2	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H3	1	30	22383	376	20.14	1.25E+05&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_1	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Purge	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate	0	187	2000	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqa	0	80	2200	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqb	0	211	2200	872	22.11	-2.50E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor dis	1	187	2000	1	0.04	-2.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_2	0	103	100	4	0.16	-1.36E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Product	0	233	120	63	5.57	-2.87E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Bota	0.31	150	400	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Botb	0.67	202	400	200	9.19	-6.43E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Vap_1	1	202	400	133	3.46	-3.38E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Bot_1	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_2	0	25	1100	133	3.45	-4.10E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_3	0	28	22408	133	3.45	-4.09E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Recycle_3	0	164	22408	133	3.45	-3.93E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_1	1	202	400	133	3.45	-3.37E+07&lt;br /&gt;
ReactorFeed	0	164	22408	708	18.9	-2.44E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Dis2Feed	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate_1	0.68	125	90	4	0.16	-1.24E+06&lt;br /&gt;
THF	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste_1	0	-189	100	14	0.97	-3.98E+06&lt;br /&gt;
WaterWaste	0	105	120	657	11.91	-1.84E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
VapDis_Out	0	30	1000	1	0.04	-2.66E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Water_4	0	94	80	3	0.05	-8.04E+05&lt;br /&gt;
GBL_1	0	199	90	1	0.11	-5.45E+05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
Type 	Sizing Spec	Purpose&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor (E-11)	Ṿ=18.2m^3/hr       	Compress inlet hydrogen to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 1 (E-9)	A = 634.21m^2	Heat feed hydrogen to reactor temperature&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 1 (E-1)	Ṿ = 3.5m^3/hr   Duty = 27.4kW    	Pump SUC feed to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 2 (E-21)	Ṿ=15.5m^3/hr   Duty=137 kW    	Pump Recycle to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Jacketed GLIR (E-3)	L = 6.2m        D=2.1m           t=230mm	Gas Liquid Induction Reactor used to convert SUC to BDO, GBL, THF and side products &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 2 (E-2)	A = 4600 m^2	Heat reactor effluent in order to drive better separation&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 1 (E-12)	H=3.0m       D=1.5m           t=15mm	Separates unreacted hydrogen from reactor effluent&lt;br /&gt;
Heater 1 (E-16)	A = 575.15 m^2	Heats Distillation Column inlet to Column conditions&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 1 (13)	H=10m       D=1.82m       #Trays=10        	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 2 (E-20)	H=2.0m       D=.61m           t=6.5mm	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 2 (E-18)	H=8m      D=.60m       #Trays=16        	Purify product grade BDO&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 3 (E-26)	H=8m      D=.90m       #Trays=8      	Purify waste water to expedite water removal&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 4 (E-23)	H=12m      D=.65m       #Trays=12      	Purify product grade GBL&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1564</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1564"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:10:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Technical Approach */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hysys.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Name	Vapour Fraction	Temp. (C)	Pressure (kPa)	Molar Flow (kgmole/h)	Liquid Volume Flow (m3/h)	Heat Flow (kJ/h)&lt;br /&gt;
Feed	0	25	101	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_2	0	29	22408	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_3	0	164	22408	576	15.45	-2.05E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Vap	1	165	22408	75	3.97	-5.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Liq	0	165	22408	869	22	-2.53E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2 Feed	1	25	22408	340	18.21	9.10E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H2	1	165	22408	376	20.14	1.62E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Bot	0	225	2200	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
8	0.08	165	22408	944	25.97	-2.54E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vap_Rec	1	75	22383	72	3.86	6.86E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Liq	0	75	22383	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
9	0.08	75	22383	944	25.97	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_2	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H3	1	30	22383	376	20.14	1.25E+05&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_1	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Purge	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate	0	187	2000	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqa	0	80	2200	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqb	0	211	2200	872	22.11	-2.50E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor dis	1	187	2000	1	0.04	-2.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_2	0	103	100	4	0.16	-1.36E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Product	0	233	120	63	5.57	-2.87E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Bota	0.31	150	400	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Botb	0.67	202	400	200	9.19	-6.43E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Vap_1	1	202	400	133	3.46	-3.38E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Bot_1	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_2	0	25	1100	133	3.45	-4.10E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_3	0	28	22408	133	3.45	-4.09E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Recycle_3	0	164	22408	133	3.45	-3.93E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_1	1	202	400	133	3.45	-3.37E+07&lt;br /&gt;
ReactorFeed	0	164	22408	708	18.9	-2.44E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Dis2Feed	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate_1	0.68	125	90	4	0.16	-1.24E+06&lt;br /&gt;
THF	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste_1	0	-189	100	14	0.97	-3.98E+06&lt;br /&gt;
WaterWaste	0	105	120	657	11.91	-1.84E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
VapDis_Out	0	30	1000	1	0.04	-2.66E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Water_4	0	94	80	3	0.05	-8.04E+05&lt;br /&gt;
GBL_1	0	199	90	1	0.11	-5.45E+05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
Type 	Sizing Spec	Purpose&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor (E-11)	Ṿ=18.2m^3/hr       	Compress inlet hydrogen to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 1 (E-9)	A = 634.21m^2	Heat feed hydrogen to reactor temperature&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 1 (E-1)	Ṿ = 3.5m^3/hr   Duty = 27.4kW    	Pump SUC feed to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 2 (E-21)	Ṿ=15.5m^3/hr   Duty=137 kW    	Pump Recycle to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Jacketed GLIR (E-3)	L = 6.2m        D=2.1m           t=230mm	Gas Liquid Induction Reactor used to convert SUC to BDO, GBL, THF and side products &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 2 (E-2)	A = 4600 m^2	Heat reactor effluent in order to drive better separation&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 1 (E-12)	H=3.0m       D=1.5m           t=15mm	Separates unreacted hydrogen from reactor effluent&lt;br /&gt;
Heater 1 (E-16)	A = 575.15 m^2	Heats Distillation Column inlet to Column conditions&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 1 (13)	H=10m       D=1.82m       #Trays=10        	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 2 (E-20)	H=2.0m       D=.61m           t=6.5mm	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 2 (E-18)	H=8m      D=.60m       #Trays=16        	Purify product grade BDO&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 3 (E-26)	H=8m      D=.90m       #Trays=8      	Purify waste water to expedite water removal&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 4 (E-23)	H=12m      D=.65m       #Trays=12      	Purify product grade GBL&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Streams.JPG&amp;diff=1563</id>
		<title>File:Streams.JPG</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Streams.JPG&amp;diff=1563"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:09:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Sensitivity.JPG&amp;diff=1562</id>
		<title>File:Sensitivity.JPG</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Sensitivity.JPG&amp;diff=1562"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:09:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Hysys.JPG&amp;diff=1561</id>
		<title>File:Hysys.JPG</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Hysys.JPG&amp;diff=1561"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:09:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Econ2.JPG&amp;diff=1560</id>
		<title>File:Econ2.JPG</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Econ2.JPG&amp;diff=1560"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:08:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Econ.JPG&amp;diff=1559</id>
		<title>File:Econ.JPG</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Econ.JPG&amp;diff=1559"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:08:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Components.JPG&amp;diff=1558</id>
		<title>File:Components.JPG</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=File:Components.JPG&amp;diff=1558"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:08:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1557</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1557"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T19:02:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Executive Summary==&lt;br /&gt;
The Chemical Intermediary Division ($1) of Evanston Chemical Corporation is interested in evaluating the economic benefit of adding 1,4 Butanediol (BDO) to its already robust offering of chemical intermediaries. It plans on producing 50,000 tonnes of 99.5%wt BDO using a modified Davy Process through a Gas Liquid Induction Reactor (GLIR) with a rare earth metal catalyst. The facility will be located in Lake Providence, LA , due to proximity to raw material productions sites and ease of transportation of the final product. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BDO is produced from Succinic Acid (SUC) by a hydrogenation reaction at very high pressures. This particular process uses a rare earth catalyst to because of the high conversion of SUC and the high selectivity toward BDO. Side products of the reaction include the highly valuable chemicals tetrahydrofuran (THF) and γ-butyrolactone (GBL), as well as water, n-butanol, and various other low value chemicals. The reaction occurs at 165oC and 150 bar, so special attention must be paid to reactor design to account for these extreme conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aspen HYSYS was used to model this process, and equipment sizes were calculated as specified by Towler. Equipment costs were estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (formerly known as Icarus). In order to meet the process specifications within the given time-frame, some simplifying assumptions were made that impose limits on the accuracy of the model; specifically, the GLIR was modelled using a conversion reaction. This means that the conversion remained unchanged at unideal operating conditions, which, clearly, is inaccurate. Additionally, only one reaction was modelled; in real world conditions, dozens of reactions would occur within the reactor, which would have a potentially massive effect on the accuracy of this model. Despite these limitations, the possibility of producing BDO for sale in the open market should be investigated because of the extremely encouraging economic potential of this endeavor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis of this process indicates a 10 year NPV of $163M, a 20 year NPV of $258M, and a total capital cost of $17.5M. The variable operational costs are approximately $131M. At a selling point of $3/kg for BDO  and $35/kg for GBL, the total revenue will exceed $190M/yr, so it is strongly recommended the ECC pursue this opportunity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues. 	&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Name	Vapour Fraction	Temp. (C)	Pressure (kPa)	Molar Flow (kgmole/h)	Liquid Volume Flow (m3/h)	Heat Flow (kJ/h)&lt;br /&gt;
Feed	0	25	101	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_2	0	29	22408	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_3	0	164	22408	576	15.45	-2.05E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Vap	1	165	22408	75	3.97	-5.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Liq	0	165	22408	869	22	-2.53E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2 Feed	1	25	22408	340	18.21	9.10E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H2	1	165	22408	376	20.14	1.62E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Bot	0	225	2200	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
8	0.08	165	22408	944	25.97	-2.54E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vap_Rec	1	75	22383	72	3.86	6.86E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Liq	0	75	22383	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
9	0.08	75	22383	944	25.97	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_2	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H3	1	30	22383	376	20.14	1.25E+05&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_1	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Purge	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate	0	187	2000	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqa	0	80	2200	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqb	0	211	2200	872	22.11	-2.50E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor dis	1	187	2000	1	0.04	-2.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_2	0	103	100	4	0.16	-1.36E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Product	0	233	120	63	5.57	-2.87E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Bota	0.31	150	400	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Botb	0.67	202	400	200	9.19	-6.43E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Vap_1	1	202	400	133	3.46	-3.38E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Bot_1	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_2	0	25	1100	133	3.45	-4.10E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_3	0	28	22408	133	3.45	-4.09E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Recycle_3	0	164	22408	133	3.45	-3.93E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_1	1	202	400	133	3.45	-3.37E+07&lt;br /&gt;
ReactorFeed	0	164	22408	708	18.9	-2.44E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Dis2Feed	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate_1	0.68	125	90	4	0.16	-1.24E+06&lt;br /&gt;
THF	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste_1	0	-189	100	14	0.97	-3.98E+06&lt;br /&gt;
WaterWaste	0	105	120	657	11.91	-1.84E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
VapDis_Out	0	30	1000	1	0.04	-2.66E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Water_4	0	94	80	3	0.05	-8.04E+05&lt;br /&gt;
GBL_1	0	199	90	1	0.11	-5.45E+05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
Type 	Sizing Spec	Purpose&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor (E-11)	Ṿ=18.2m^3/hr       	Compress inlet hydrogen to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 1 (E-9)	A = 634.21m^2	Heat feed hydrogen to reactor temperature&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 1 (E-1)	Ṿ = 3.5m^3/hr   Duty = 27.4kW    	Pump SUC feed to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 2 (E-21)	Ṿ=15.5m^3/hr   Duty=137 kW    	Pump Recycle to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Jacketed GLIR (E-3)	L = 6.2m        D=2.1m           t=230mm	Gas Liquid Induction Reactor used to convert SUC to BDO, GBL, THF and side products &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 2 (E-2)	A = 4600 m^2	Heat reactor effluent in order to drive better separation&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 1 (E-12)	H=3.0m       D=1.5m           t=15mm	Separates unreacted hydrogen from reactor effluent&lt;br /&gt;
Heater 1 (E-16)	A = 575.15 m^2	Heats Distillation Column inlet to Column conditions&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 1 (13)	H=10m       D=1.82m       #Trays=10        	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 2 (E-20)	H=2.0m       D=.61m           t=6.5mm	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 2 (E-18)	H=8m      D=.60m       #Trays=16        	Purify product grade BDO&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 3 (E-26)	H=8m      D=.90m       #Trays=8      	Purify waste water to expedite water removal&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 4 (E-23)	H=12m      D=.65m       #Trays=12      	Purify product grade GBL&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1556</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1556"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T18:53:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues. 	&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Name	Vapour Fraction	Temp. (C)	Pressure (kPa)	Molar Flow (kgmole/h)	Liquid Volume Flow (m3/h)	Heat Flow (kJ/h)&lt;br /&gt;
Feed	0	25	101	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_2	0	29	22408	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_3	0	164	22408	576	15.45	-2.05E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Vap	1	165	22408	75	3.97	-5.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Liq	0	165	22408	869	22	-2.53E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2 Feed	1	25	22408	340	18.21	9.10E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H2	1	165	22408	376	20.14	1.62E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Bot	0	225	2200	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
8	0.08	165	22408	944	25.97	-2.54E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vap_Rec	1	75	22383	72	3.86	6.86E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Liq	0	75	22383	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
9	0.08	75	22383	944	25.97	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_2	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H3	1	30	22383	376	20.14	1.25E+05&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_1	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Purge	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate	0	187	2000	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqa	0	80	2200	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqb	0	211	2200	872	22.11	-2.50E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor dis	1	187	2000	1	0.04	-2.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_2	0	103	100	4	0.16	-1.36E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Product	0	233	120	63	5.57	-2.87E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Bota	0.31	150	400	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Botb	0.67	202	400	200	9.19	-6.43E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Vap_1	1	202	400	133	3.46	-3.38E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Bot_1	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_2	0	25	1100	133	3.45	-4.10E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_3	0	28	22408	133	3.45	-4.09E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Recycle_3	0	164	22408	133	3.45	-3.93E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_1	1	202	400	133	3.45	-3.37E+07&lt;br /&gt;
ReactorFeed	0	164	22408	708	18.9	-2.44E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Dis2Feed	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate_1	0.68	125	90	4	0.16	-1.24E+06&lt;br /&gt;
THF	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste_1	0	-189	100	14	0.97	-3.98E+06&lt;br /&gt;
WaterWaste	0	105	120	657	11.91	-1.84E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
VapDis_Out	0	30	1000	1	0.04	-2.66E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Water_4	0	94	80	3	0.05	-8.04E+05&lt;br /&gt;
GBL_1	0	199	90	1	0.11	-5.45E+05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
Type 	Sizing Spec	Purpose&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor (E-11)	Ṿ=18.2m^3/hr       	Compress inlet hydrogen to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 1 (E-9)	A = 634.21m^2	Heat feed hydrogen to reactor temperature&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 1 (E-1)	Ṿ = 3.5m^3/hr   Duty = 27.4kW    	Pump SUC feed to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 2 (E-21)	Ṿ=15.5m^3/hr   Duty=137 kW    	Pump Recycle to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Jacketed GLIR (E-3)	L = 6.2m        D=2.1m           t=230mm	Gas Liquid Induction Reactor used to convert SUC to BDO, GBL, THF and side products &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 2 (E-2)	A = 4600 m^2	Heat reactor effluent in order to drive better separation&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 1 (E-12)	H=3.0m       D=1.5m           t=15mm	Separates unreacted hydrogen from reactor effluent&lt;br /&gt;
Heater 1 (E-16)	A = 575.15 m^2	Heats Distillation Column inlet to Column conditions&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 1 (13)	H=10m       D=1.82m       #Trays=10        	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 2 (E-20)	H=2.0m       D=.61m           t=6.5mm	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 2 (E-18)	H=8m      D=.60m       #Trays=16        	Purify product grade BDO&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 3 (E-26)	H=8m      D=.90m       #Trays=8      	Purify waste water to expedite water removal&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 4 (E-23)	H=12m      D=.65m       #Trays=12      	Purify product grade GBL&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 2===&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 6===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 10===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1555</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1555"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T18:52:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
===Project Justification===&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technology Review===&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Design Basis===&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technical Approach==&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues. 	&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Name	Vapour Fraction	Temp. (C)	Pressure (kPa)	Molar Flow (kgmole/h)	Liquid Volume Flow (m3/h)	Heat Flow (kJ/h)&lt;br /&gt;
Feed	0	25	101	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_2	0	29	22408	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_3	0	164	22408	576	15.45	-2.05E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Vap	1	165	22408	75	3.97	-5.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Liq	0	165	22408	869	22	-2.53E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2 Feed	1	25	22408	340	18.21	9.10E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H2	1	165	22408	376	20.14	1.62E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Bot	0	225	2200	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
8	0.08	165	22408	944	25.97	-2.54E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vap_Rec	1	75	22383	72	3.86	6.86E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Liq	0	75	22383	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
9	0.08	75	22383	944	25.97	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_2	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H3	1	30	22383	376	20.14	1.25E+05&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_1	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Purge	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate	0	187	2000	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqa	0	80	2200	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqb	0	211	2200	872	22.11	-2.50E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor dis	1	187	2000	1	0.04	-2.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_2	0	103	100	4	0.16	-1.36E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Product	0	233	120	63	5.57	-2.87E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Bota	0.31	150	400	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Botb	0.67	202	400	200	9.19	-6.43E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Vap_1	1	202	400	133	3.46	-3.38E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Bot_1	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_2	0	25	1100	133	3.45	-4.10E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_3	0	28	22408	133	3.45	-4.09E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Recycle_3	0	164	22408	133	3.45	-3.93E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_1	1	202	400	133	3.45	-3.37E+07&lt;br /&gt;
ReactorFeed	0	164	22408	708	18.9	-2.44E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Dis2Feed	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate_1	0.68	125	90	4	0.16	-1.24E+06&lt;br /&gt;
THF	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste_1	0	-189	100	14	0.97	-3.98E+06&lt;br /&gt;
WaterWaste	0	105	120	657	11.91	-1.84E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
VapDis_Out	0	30	1000	1	0.04	-2.66E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Water_4	0	94	80	3	0.05	-8.04E+05&lt;br /&gt;
GBL_1	0	199	90	1	0.11	-5.45E+05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
Type 	Sizing Spec	Purpose&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor (E-11)	Ṿ=18.2m^3/hr       	Compress inlet hydrogen to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 1 (E-9)	A = 634.21m^2	Heat feed hydrogen to reactor temperature&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 1 (E-1)	Ṿ = 3.5m^3/hr   Duty = 27.4kW    	Pump SUC feed to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 2 (E-21)	Ṿ=15.5m^3/hr   Duty=137 kW    	Pump Recycle to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Jacketed GLIR (E-3)	L = 6.2m        D=2.1m           t=230mm	Gas Liquid Induction Reactor used to convert SUC to BDO, GBL, THF and side products &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 2 (E-2)	A = 4600 m^2	Heat reactor effluent in order to drive better separation&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 1 (E-12)	H=3.0m       D=1.5m           t=15mm	Separates unreacted hydrogen from reactor effluent&lt;br /&gt;
Heater 1 (E-16)	A = 575.15 m^2	Heats Distillation Column inlet to Column conditions&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 1 (13)	H=10m       D=1.82m       #Trays=10        	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 2 (E-20)	H=2.0m       D=.61m           t=6.5mm	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 2 (E-18)	H=8m      D=.60m       #Trays=16        	Purify product grade BDO&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 3 (E-26)	H=8m      D=.90m       #Trays=8      	Purify waste water to expedite water removal&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 4 (E-23)	H=12m      D=.65m       #Trays=12      	Purify product grade GBL&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
==Economic Analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendices==&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 1===&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 2==&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3===&lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 3=== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 4===&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5===&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 5b===&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 7===&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 8===&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 9===&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 11===&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 12===&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
===Appendix 13===&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1554</id>
		<title>Design S1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Design_S1&amp;diff=1554"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T18:51:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: Created page with &amp;quot;===Introduction=== ==Project Justification== 1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;===Introduction===&lt;br /&gt;
==Project Justification==&lt;br /&gt;
1,4 Butanediol is an important organic chemical used mainly as an intermediate for the production of Tetrahydrofuran (THF), Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL) and Polybutylene Terephthalate (PBT). In 2011, the global market for BDO reached 1,725.0 kilo tons. Current projections suggest that worldwide BDO consumption will grow to 2550 kilo tons by 2017. The Technology Division of Evanston Chemicals has requested a preliminary design and economic evaluation on the feasibility of producing 1,4 Butanediol from a biomass derived succinic acid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Technology Review==&lt;br /&gt;
BDO can be produced by hydrogenation of succinic acid in the presence of a catalyst, at high temperatures and pressures (approximately 150-200°C and 20,000 kPa). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there does not exist a means to produce only BDO. Instead, a mixture of THF, GBL, and BDO is produced. The choice of catalyst is the major factor in controlling yields and selectivity of a certain product. Current research suggests that bimetallic catalysts have a stronger activity and lead to higher conversion to BDO. TiO supported 2%Pd/X%Re catalyst and Carbon supported 2%Ru/4%Re catalyst both have been shown to be particularly effective. It is interesting to note that both catalysts contain Re. Research suggests that the synergy between Re and Pd/Ru leads to higher selectivity for BDO. Additionally, the chosen catalyst for this study was a 0.4% Fe, 1.9% Na, 2.66% Ag, 2.66% Pd, 10.0% Re on 1.5 mm carbon support. Taken from an ISP Investments patent from 2011, this catalyst has exceptionally high yields, upwards of 99.7% conversion of succinic acid, as well as high yields of BDO. In total, the percentage conversions of succinic acid to various products are: &lt;br /&gt;
BDO:		85.51 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	GBL:		2.04 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	THF:		9.28 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
	Butanol:	2.87 wt %&lt;br /&gt;
The lifetime of the catalyst is approximately 5 years. Furthermore, multiple reactor types have been discussed in the literature, including CSTRs and PFRs. However, the literature also shows that gas liquid induction reactors are the best for hydrogenation reactions in industry. They are preferred for their safety with respect to explosive gas phase reactants and complete utilization of the gas phase reactant; being especially useful for expensive inputs. These reactors use energy efficient impellers for gas induction and dispersion along with special recovery equipment to prevent waste of the gas phase, thus GLIR was chosen for this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Design Basis==&lt;br /&gt;
	The plant has been proposed to be built in Lake Providence, Louisiana. This is due primarily to its proximity to suppliers of succinic acid in the south east region, as well as close to distributors by way of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the plant has been designed to have a capacity of approximately 50MM kg/yr of BDO production. This will require feeds of compressed hydrogen gas, and an aqueous feed of water and succinic acid, in a 50/50 wt % composition. 	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Technical Approach===&lt;br /&gt;
	The primary tool used to model the plant process was Aspen HYSYS. Because of the non-idealities involved in the NRTL HYSYS fluid package, an additional fluid package was created	 in Aspen. Additionally, the GLIR reactor chosen was modeled as a conversion reactor. Selectivity and yield of the reactor was modeled based off the specific data from the ISP Investments patent (discussed in Introduction: Technology Review). Although this provided very accurate modeling, the operating pressure and temperature were required to be held constant. This prevented any optimization within the reactor with respect to these operating conditions. The distillation columns were modeled as fractional distillation columns, with bottoms or distillate flow rate, and component recovery as active constraints. Additionally, Aspen Energy Analyzer was used to create the heat exchanger network, which can be seen in the Appendix. The economic analysis was performed in Aspen ICARUS. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1. Screenshot of Aspen HYSYS process simulation. &lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, this plant will produce technical grade BDO and GBL, but the THF stream will be treated as waste. Originally, attempts were made to purify the THF stream in order to sell it; this process produces approximately 5M kg/yr, and at a selling point of ~$3.00/kg, this would generate an additional $15M/yr in revenue. However, the stream containing THF also contains water and n-butanol. As shown in Appendix XX, THF and water have a pressure dependent azeotrope; Figures XX1 and XX2 show that the azeotrope can be broken by pressurizing the stream after initial separation and atmospheric pressure. However, the presence of n-butanol makes separation of THF and water impossible; butanol and water have a tight azeotrope that cannot be broken simply by pressurizing the stream. Instead, absorption or ion exchange must be used to purify the stream. After extensive efforts were made to purify the THF, it was decided that the undertaking would not be profitable. In future iterations of this project, redoubled efforts would be made to force separation of THF to generate large revenues. 	&lt;br /&gt;
	 &lt;br /&gt;
===Process Flow Diagram &amp;amp; Flow Sheets===&lt;br /&gt;
	Below is listed a complete flow sheet, with data taken from Aspen HYSYS.&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Name	Vapour Fraction	Temp. (C)	Pressure (kPa)	Molar Flow (kgmole/h)	Liquid Volume Flow (m3/h)	Heat Flow (kJ/h)&lt;br /&gt;
Feed	0	25	101	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_2	0	29	22408	576	15.45	-2.13E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Feed_3	0	164	22408	576	15.45	-2.05E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Vap	1	165	22408	75	3.97	-5.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor_Liq	0	165	22408	869	22	-2.53E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2 Feed	1	25	22408	340	18.21	9.10E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H2	1	165	22408	376	20.14	1.62E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Bot	0	225	2200	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
8	0.08	165	22408	944	25.97	-2.54E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vap_Rec	1	75	22383	72	3.86	6.86E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Liq	0	75	22383	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
9	0.08	75	22383	944	25.97	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_2	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
H3	1	30	22383	376	20.14	1.25E+05&lt;br /&gt;
H2Rec_1	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Purge	1	75	22383	36	1.93	3.43E+04&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate	0	187	2000	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqa	0	80	2200	872	22.11	-2.61E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Liqb	0	211	2200	872	22.11	-2.50E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor dis	1	187	2000	1	0.04	-2.17E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_2	0	103	100	4	0.16	-1.36E+06&lt;br /&gt;
Product	0	233	120	63	5.57	-2.87E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Bota	0.31	150	400	200	9.19	-6.85E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Botb	0.67	202	400	200	9.19	-6.43E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Vap_1	1	202	400	133	3.46	-3.38E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Dis_Bot_1	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_2	0	25	1100	133	3.45	-4.10E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_3	0	28	22408	133	3.45	-4.09E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Recycle_3	0	164	22408	133	3.45	-3.93E+07&lt;br /&gt;
H20Rec_1	1	202	400	133	3.45	-3.37E+07&lt;br /&gt;
ReactorFeed	0	164	22408	708	18.9	-2.44E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Dis2Feed	0	202	400	67	5.73	-3.05E+07&lt;br /&gt;
Distillate_1	0.68	125	90	4	0.16	-1.24E+06&lt;br /&gt;
THF	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste_1	0	-189	100	14	0.97	-3.98E+06&lt;br /&gt;
WaterWaste	0	105	120	657	11.91	-1.84E+08&lt;br /&gt;
Waste	0.19	103	120	671	12.88	-1.82E+08&lt;br /&gt;
VapDis_Out	0	30	1000	1	0.04	-2.66E+05&lt;br /&gt;
Water_4	0	94	80	3	0.05	-8.04E+05&lt;br /&gt;
GBL_1	0	199	90	1	0.11	-5.45E+05&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A detailed sizing list of the relevant components is listed below. Of particular interest are the distillation columns, which have heights between 8 and 12 meters. Furthermore, the reactor has a length of 6.2 meters and a diameter of 2.1 meters. A more complete table of sizing and sizing methodologies is listed in the Appendix. &lt;br /&gt;
Table 2&lt;br /&gt;
Type 	Sizing Spec	Purpose&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor (E-11)	Ṿ=18.2m^3/hr       	Compress inlet hydrogen to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 1 (E-9)	A = 634.21m^2	Heat feed hydrogen to reactor temperature&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 1 (E-1)	Ṿ = 3.5m^3/hr   Duty = 27.4kW    	Pump SUC feed to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Pump 2 (E-21)	Ṿ=15.5m^3/hr   Duty=137 kW    	Pump Recycle to reactor pressure&lt;br /&gt;
Jacketed GLIR (E-3)	L = 6.2m        D=2.1m           t=230mm	Gas Liquid Induction Reactor used to convert SUC to BDO, GBL, THF and side products &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchanger 2 (E-2)	A = 4600 m^2	Heat reactor effluent in order to drive better separation&lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 1 (E-12)	H=3.0m       D=1.5m           t=15mm	Separates unreacted hydrogen from reactor effluent&lt;br /&gt;
Heater 1 (E-16)	A = 575.15 m^2	Heats Distillation Column inlet to Column conditions&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 1 (13)	H=10m       D=1.82m       #Trays=10        	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Vapor-Liquid Separator 2 (E-20)	H=2.0m       D=.61m           t=6.5mm	Drive separation &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 2 (E-18)	H=8m      D=.60m       #Trays=16        	Purify product grade BDO&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 3 (E-26)	H=8m      D=.90m       #Trays=8      	Purify waste water to expedite water removal&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Column 4 (E-23)	H=12m      D=.65m       #Trays=12      	Purify product grade GBL&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
===Economic Analysis===&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3&lt;br /&gt;
Manufacturing Cost Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Capital Cost		Operating Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Compressor	 $      513,300.00 		SUC Raw Materials	 $  111,139,488.18 &lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	 $  1,237,100.00 		Catalyst 	 $          500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Distillation Columns	 $      927,600.00 		Water	 $          158,018.83 &lt;br /&gt;
Separators	 $      507,200.00 		Contingencies	 $       2,600,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Heat Exchangers	 $  3,071,800.00 		Utilities	 $       9,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Pumps	 $      182,900.00 		Hydrogen	 $       2,706,102.05 &lt;br /&gt;
Storage Tanks	 $      658,300.00 		S &amp;amp; OH	 $       1,500,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Flare	 $        82,300.00 		Engineering	 $       2,960,000.00 &lt;br /&gt;
Total	 $  7,180,500.00 	 	Total	 $  131,063,609.05 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 3 is a summary of the capital and operating costs required for the production of BDO and GBL. The expenditure on succinic acid clearly stands out; it makes up roughly 80% of the annual operating costs of this plant. The production plant consumes approximately 75.6M kg/yr of succinic acid, and at $1.47/kg, the costs add up quickly. Some other things to note from Table XX; the reactor is the most expensive singular piece of equipment; because it operates at exceedingly high pressure, it has extremely thick walls and is made of a high strength steel alloy. Additionally, the total cost of the heat exchangers is more than $3M; however, the production plant uses twelve heat exchangers, so the average individual cost comes out to a more reasonable $280,000. Lastly, this plant has a high annual utilities cost, mainly because of the 4 distillation columns and the large amount of cooling water necessary to keep the process running at the correct temperature. &lt;br /&gt;
Below in Table XX+1 is a summary of the economic measures of return of this process.&lt;br /&gt;
Table XX+1&lt;br /&gt;
Investment Summary&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Pay-Back Period (yrs)	0.45&lt;br /&gt;
Avg Cash Flow ($MM/yr)	40.8&lt;br /&gt;
10yr ROI	264.13%&lt;br /&gt;
10yr NPV ($MM)	163.1 &lt;br /&gt;
20yr NPV ($MM)	258.0 &lt;br /&gt;
10yr IRR	128.37%&lt;br /&gt;
20yr IRR	128.50%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As shown clearly in Table 3, this plant has extremely encouraging economic potential, with an average yearly cash flow of $40.8M, a simple payback period of less than 6 months, and a breakeven point of approximately 9 months. These capital projections assume a 2 year construction time, 38% tax rate, 50% capacity in the first year of production, and a 7 year MACRS depreciation method. &lt;br /&gt;
Revenue is split into two streams; main product (BDO) and by-product (GBL). The main product revenue is approximately $150M/yr, while the by-product revenue is $40M/yr, despite producing nearly 50 times less GBL than BDO. In future iterations of this design, it may be worthwhile to examine if it is more profitable to convert all of the succinic acid directly to GBL instead of producing the intermediary, BDO. &lt;br /&gt;
If the economic returns seem astronomical, it is because they are; no economic investment actually produces these kinds of returns. The extremely favorable prediction could stem from several sources of error; supply and demand, bulk pricing, waste removal, and side reactions. The yearly supply of BDO is approximately 1M metric tons, meaning that this plant would produce 5% of the world’s supply. If the supply of BDO outpaced the demand, the selling price would fall, cutting into main product revenues. Additionally, the estimate of GBL selling price was based off a per kg price; if bulk pricing were used, the selling price of GBL would be between 40-50% lower than the price used. In addition to economic discontinuities, the problem of waste removal was never fully solved. Based on past estimates, waste removal could cost as must as $10M/year, further reducing the profitability of this plant. Lastly, the process of BDO synthesis was simplified for modelling purposes. In actual production, many side reactions would occur; driving down conversion and increasing separation costs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A sensitivity analysis was performed on all important variables. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Sensitivity analysis&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1 shows that the profitability of the plant (based on the 10 year NPV), is most sensitive to the selling price of BDO and GLB, the cost of raw materials, and the construction time. It is least sensitive to changes in the utilities cost and fixed capital costs. It is clear from the figure that this undertaking is profitable in the face of any singular change. However, if several of these variables react unfavorably to the coming economic climate, the plant could potentially make very little money. For example, if the construction time doubles (which happens frequently) and the selling prices of BDO and GBL are driven down by market saturation, the plant could have a 10 year NPV falls to approximately 0. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Conclusion===&lt;br /&gt;
	To conclude, this project is highly feasible, and our company stands to make a very high profit from the construction of this plant. Based on a two year construction time, a 38% tax rate, and 50% production over the first year, our simple payback period would be 0.45 years, with yearly revenue of over $190M. We strongly recommend Evanston Chemical to move forward with this facility. However, there are key next steps to be considered. First, a more detailed reaction scheme for the reactor is required. This scheme must be able to handle variable operating pressure and temperature, as well as contain a more detailed and complete incorporation of side reactions. Namely, the reaction of GBL to BDO is a necessary consideration. Moreover, a fully life cycle analysis and environmental health and safety analysis will be required. The removal of waste will also need to be addressed. Additionally, profits may be increased by performing a plant wide optimization project. Also, the assumption of a 5 year catalyst lifetime will need to be addressed in more detail, as the high cost of this component will greatly affect the bottom line. Another factor which may affect the overall profitability is the flocculating prices of rare metals, which make up the catalyst. Also, the market price of these commodity chemicals will almost certainly be affected by a 10% influx of global supply. Finally, while we have planned on also selling GBL, looking into purifying the THF will also be profitable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Appendices===&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 1==&lt;br /&gt;
Sizing and construction information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Component	Diameter (m)	Height/L (m)	Material of construction	Wall thickness (mm)	Addt&#039;l notes&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor	2.06	6.19	Stainless steel 410	231	Hemispherical head, 104 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1	1.52	2.96	Stainless steel 410	153	Hemispherical head, 69 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2	0.61	2	Carbon steel	6.51	Torispherical head, 7.66 mm&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1	1.82	10	-	-	10 trays, 1 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3	0.6	8	-	-	16 trays, .5 m tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
Details:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor:&lt;br /&gt;
Reactor					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	192	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Flow	16.56	m3/h	LHSV	0.8	h-1&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
mu	0.001684				&lt;br /&gt;
U	0.001376				&lt;br /&gt;
ds	1.50E-03				&lt;br /&gt;
rho	840.1				&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drop	5.52E+03	Pa	0.8	Psi	&lt;br /&gt;
(across react)					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design (as pressure vessel)			&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	1.81E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	0.231231	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	0.098037	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	0.103965	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	20.7	m3			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L:D	3 to 1				&lt;br /&gt;
L=	6.190242	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D=	2.063414	m			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 1:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	974.6	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	15.24	kg/m3			&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	0.555387831	m/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	146.6	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.040722222	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.002672062	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	6.31E+04	kg/h			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.75E+01	kg/s			&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.80E-02	m3/s			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.39E+00	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.07826726	m			&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	1.524	m	For appropriate height&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.956815432	m	From p.770 labels	&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)				&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	3575	psi	~50	C	&lt;br /&gt;
Material	SS 410	S (psi)	2.00E+04	E	1&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.53E-01	m			&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	6.58E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Hemisph	High P			&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	6.93E-02	m			&lt;br /&gt;
					&lt;br /&gt;
Separator 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Settling velocity		Towler p. 769			&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	833.8	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	2.702	kg/m3				&lt;br /&gt;
u_t	1.227669556	m/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	3481	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.966944444	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
V_flow	0.357862489	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	5.87E+03	kg/h				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.63E+00	kg/s				&lt;br /&gt;
L_flow	1.96E-03	m3/s				&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Volume	5.87E-01	m3	Allowing for 5 minutes of hold up&lt;br /&gt;
			&amp;gt;Due to high volume flow of liquid&lt;br /&gt;
D_min	0.609217549	m				&lt;br /&gt;
D_design 	0.61	m	For appropriate height	&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
H	2.008137095	m	From p.770 labels		&lt;br /&gt;
						&lt;br /&gt;
Design specs (as Pressure V)					&lt;br /&gt;
Design Values	64	psi	~50	C		&lt;br /&gt;
Material	Carbon steel	S (psi)	1.30E+04	E	1	&lt;br /&gt;
t_hoop	1.51E-03	m	plus 5 mm corrosion	6.51E-03	m&lt;br /&gt;
t_long	7.50E-04	m				&lt;br /&gt;
Head type	Tori	Low P				&lt;br /&gt;
t_head	2.66E-03	m				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 1: &lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler	&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	785.8	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3		&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.380057			&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	14.9	kg/s		&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	1.824833	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	10			&lt;br /&gt;
H	10	m		&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
				&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 2:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	0.5	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	794.7	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.328154		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	1.38	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.597661	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	16		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
Distillation 3:&lt;br /&gt;
Column diameter	p.853 towler&lt;br /&gt;
l_t	1	m	Tray spacing&lt;br /&gt;
rho_l	913	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
rho_v	14.99	kg/m3	&lt;br /&gt;
u_v hat	0.410219		&lt;br /&gt;
V_max	3.536111	kg/s	&lt;br /&gt;
D_c	0.855676	m	(six inch increments)&lt;br /&gt;
Trays	8		&lt;br /&gt;
H	8	m	&lt;br /&gt;
			&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 2==&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst Pricing Information:&lt;br /&gt;
Liter of catalyst	9072.580645	L	per 42.0417 days					&lt;br /&gt;
Time on stream	1009	hrs-experiment	Assume lifetime of 5 years				&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Void fraction	0.4								&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4.52	g/cm3							&lt;br /&gt;
Avg. rho_catalyst	4520	g/L							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008064.52	g							&lt;br /&gt;
Amount of cat	41008.06452	kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price of cat	32.61962751	$/kg							&lt;br /&gt;
Price (lifetime) (w. margin)	 $  2,006,501.68 	$	per 5 years					&lt;br /&gt;
									&lt;br /&gt;
Catalyst components	Frac (%)	Price	Units	rho (g/cm3)	Price ($/kg)		&lt;br /&gt;
Fe	0.4	160	dol/ton	7.874	3.1496	0.176367	0.004	0.000705	&lt;br /&gt;
Na	1.9	2.5	dol/kg	0.97	1.843	1.9	0.019	0.0361	&lt;br /&gt;
Ag	2.66	25	dol/oz	10.49	27.9034	25	0.0266	0.665	&lt;br /&gt;
Pd	2.66	1000	dol/kg	12.023	31.98118	1000	0.0266	26.6	&lt;br /&gt;
Re	10	50	dol/kg	21.02	210.2	50	0.1	5	&lt;br /&gt;
Support	82.38	0.3858	dol/kg	2.15	177.117	0.3858	0.8238	0.317822	&lt;br /&gt;
					4.521942			32.61963	$/kg&lt;br /&gt;
					g/cm3				&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 3== &lt;br /&gt;
Equipment Costs&lt;br /&gt;
Area Name	Component Name	Component Type	Total Direct Cost	Equipment Cost&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H2 Feed Compressor	DGC RECIP MOTR	513,300.00	427,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Reactor Vessel	DHT JACKETED  	1,237,100.00	961,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 1	DHT HORIZ DRUM	420,400.00	273,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Separator 2	DHT HORIZ DRUM	86,800.00	8,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 1	DTW TRAYED    	313,000.00	97,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation 2	DTW TRAYED    	193,700.00	41,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E. 1	DHE TEMA EXCH 	198,500.00	48,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.2	DHE TEMA EXCH 	286,000.00	94,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.3	DHE TEMA EXCH 	277,000.00	86,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.4	DHE TEMA EXCH 	83,200.00	12,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.5	DHE TEMA EXCH 	1,203,300.00	607,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.6	DHE TEMA EXCH 	111,900.00	22,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.7	DHE TEMA EXCH 	107,500.00	18,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.8	DHE TEMA EXCH 	138,600.00	28,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.9	DHE TEMA EXCH 	298,500.00	115,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.10	DHE TEMA EXCH 	214,100.00	62,100.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	H.E.11	DHE TEMA EXCH 	153,200.00	32,900.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 1	DCP ANSI      	35,900.00	8,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Pump 2	DCP ANSI      	147,000.00	79,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Purge Flare	DFLRSELF SUPP 	82,300.00	11,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 3	DTW TRAYED    	206,900.00	46,500.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Product Storage	DVT STORAGE   	229,300.00	131,800.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Waste Storage	DVT STORAGE   	221,100.00	125,200.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	GBL Storage	DVT STORAGE   	207,900.00	79,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
Main Area	Distillation Column 4	DTW TRAYED    	214,000.00	81,400.00&lt;br /&gt;
		Total	7,180,500.00	3,500,600.00&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 3== &lt;br /&gt;
Economic Sumamry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 4==&lt;br /&gt;
Energy Stream Summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 5==&lt;br /&gt;
HYSYS Simulation&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 5b==&lt;br /&gt;
Stream Summary Table&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 7==&lt;br /&gt;
Summary of HYSYS stream compositions.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 8==&lt;br /&gt;
Economic analysis summary&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 9==&lt;br /&gt;
Assorted economic data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ENGINEERING SUMMARY	Cost	Manhours&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Basic Engineering	767,300.00	6,959.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Detail Engineering	1,552,700.00	14,893.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Material Procurement	537,300.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Home Office	98,700.00	1,030.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Design, Eng, Procurement Cost	2,956,000.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
Figure A1: Summary of Engineering Costs&lt;br /&gt;
OPERATING LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Operators per Shift	 	3&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Operator/H	20&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	480,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Cost/8000 Hours	 	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Supervision	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
          Supervisors per Shift	 	1&lt;br /&gt;
          Unit Cost	Cost/Supervisor/H	35&lt;br /&gt;
          Total Supervision Cost	Cost/period	280,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A2: Summary of Labor and Maintenance Costs&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT RESULTS SUMMARY 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Capital Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Raw Materials Cost	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Products Sales	Cost/period	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Labor and Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	843,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Utilities Cost	Cost/period	346,035.64&lt;br /&gt;
     Total Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,945,064.49&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Labor Cost	Cost/period	760,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Maintenance Cost	Cost/period	83,300.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Operating Charges	Cost/period	190,000.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Plant Overhead	Cost/period	421,650.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Subtotal Operating Cost	Cost/period	1,800,985.64&lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Cost	 	144,078.85&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A3: Overall Summary of Project Results &lt;br /&gt;
Appendix 10. VLE Data&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A4: Water vs THF VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A5: Water vs THF VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A6: Water vs Butanol VLE at 100 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
Figure A7: Water vs Butanol VLE at 2000 kPa&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 11==&lt;br /&gt;
Project capital summary.&lt;br /&gt;
PROJECT CAPITAL SUMMARY	 	Total Cost	Design, Eng, Procurement	Construction Material	Construction Manhours	Construction Manpower	Construction Indirects&lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Purchased Equipment	Cost	3,562,500.20	 	3,562,500.20	 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Equipment Setting	Cost	48,033.10	 		1,591.00	48,033.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Piping	Cost	1,839,521.60	 	1,300,326.60	18,056.00	539,194.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Civil	Cost	352,120.60	 	183,510.60	7,104.00	168,610.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Steel	Cost	71,926.20	 	58,874.10	493	13,052.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Instrumentation	Cost	1,109,755.50	 	924,111.60	6,171.00	185,644.00	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Electrical	Cost	684,348.20	 	596,287.40	3,084.00	88,060.80	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Insulation	Cost	594,591.20	 	362,250.20	10,562.00	232,341.10	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Paint	Cost	123,535.10	 	34,906.60	4,037.00	88,628.50	 &lt;br /&gt;
     Other	Cost	5,357,000.50	2,956,000.20	719,800.10	 		1,681,200.10&lt;br /&gt;
     Subcontracts	Cost	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     G and A Overheads	Cost	323,619.90	0	232,277.00	 	40,906.90	50,436.00&lt;br /&gt;
     Contract Fee	Cost	597,333.90	174,404.00	159,496.90	 	117,975.60	145,457.40&lt;br /&gt;
     Escalation	Cost	0	0	0	 	0	0&lt;br /&gt;
     Contingencies	Cost	2,639,571.20	563,472.70	1,464,181.20	 	274,040.50	337,876.80&lt;br /&gt;
 	 	0	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
 	 		 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Total Project Cost	Cost	17,303,857.20	 		 		 &lt;br /&gt;
     Adjusted Total Project Cost	Cost	17,094,689.70	 	 	 	 	 &lt;br /&gt;
							 &lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 12==&lt;br /&gt;
Heat exchanger network.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
==Appendix 13==&lt;br /&gt;
Reaction mechanism summary&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=1553</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=1553"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T18:45:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Succinic acid to 1,4-butanediol */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!-- Header table. Introduction. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;padding:5px&amp;quot; valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width = &amp;quot;1080&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Welcome to the Northwestern University Chemical Process Design Open Textbook.&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This electronic textbook is a student-contributed open-source text covering the materials used in our chemical engineering capstone design courses at Northwestern.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
If you have any comments or suggestions on this open textbook, please contact [//www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/directory/profiles/Fengqi-You.html  Professor Fengqi You].&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Northwestern University Chemical Process Design Open Text Book&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Table of Contents --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;border: 1px solid red; padding:1px&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;border: 1px solid darkgray; padding:5px;&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;590&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Chemical Process Design Theory and Method =&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
==Design Basis==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Define product and feed]] (S1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Preliminary market analysis and plant capacity]] (G2)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Site condition and design]] (H)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Block Flow Diagram| Block flow diagram]] (S2)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process alternatives and flowsheeting]] (H)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Reactors]] (G2)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Separation processes]] (S2)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process hydraulics]] (S1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Heat Transfer Equipment| Heat transfer equipment: Heat exchangers, boilers, condensers, heaters and coolers]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Utility systems]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Pressure Vessels| Pressure vessels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Estimation of capital]] (H)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Estimation of production cost and revenue]] (S2) &lt;br /&gt;
# [[Engineering economic analysis]] (S1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Sensitivity analysis and design optimization]] (G1)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other Process Design Considerations==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process safety]] (G1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process hazards]] (G1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Environmental concerns]] (G2)&lt;br /&gt;
# Controls and P&amp;amp;ID &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; height=&amp;quot;100%&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;border: 1px solid darkgray&amp;quot; padding:5px; width=&amp;quot;480&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Chemical Process Design Projects=&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
== Examples ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sugar Cane Ethanol Plant]] (2011)&lt;br /&gt;
* Other examples&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Glycerol to propylene glycol==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Design 1]] (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Design 2]] (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
==Succinic acid to 1,4-butanediol==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Design S1]] (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
* Design 2 (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydrogen Student Design Contest==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Drop-in Hydrogen Fueling (2014)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Guide to Use Wiki&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Editing_help| Quick Guide to MediaWiki Editing]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents MediaWiki User&#039;s Guide]&lt;br /&gt;
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=1552</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=1552"/>
		<updated>2014-03-14T18:44:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;!-- Header table. Introduction. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;padding:5px&amp;quot; valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width = &amp;quot;1080&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Welcome to the Northwestern University Chemical Process Design Open Textbook.&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This electronic textbook is a student-contributed open-source text covering the materials used in our chemical engineering capstone design courses at Northwestern.&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
If you have any comments or suggestions on this open textbook, please contact [//www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/directory/profiles/Fengqi-You.html  Professor Fengqi You].&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Northwestern University Chemical Process Design Open Text Book&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Table of Contents --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;border: 1px solid red; padding:1px&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;border: 1px solid darkgray; padding:5px;&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;590&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Chemical Process Design Theory and Method =&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
==Design Basis==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Define product and feed]] (S1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Preliminary market analysis and plant capacity]] (G2)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Site condition and design]] (H)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Block Flow Diagram| Block flow diagram]] (S2)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Flow Diagram==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process alternatives and flowsheeting]] (H)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Reactors]] (G2)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Separation processes]] (S2)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process hydraulics]] (S1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Heat Transfer Equipment| Heat transfer equipment: Heat exchangers, boilers, condensers, heaters and coolers]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Utility systems]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Pressure Vessels| Pressure vessels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Process Economics==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Estimation of capital]] (H)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Estimation of production cost and revenue]] (S2) &lt;br /&gt;
# [[Engineering economic analysis]] (S1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Sensitivity analysis and design optimization]] (G1)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other Process Design Considerations==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process safety]] (G1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Process hazards]] (G1)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Environmental concerns]] (G2)&lt;br /&gt;
# Controls and P&amp;amp;ID &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;5&amp;quot; height=&amp;quot;100%&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;border: 1px solid darkgray&amp;quot; padding:5px; width=&amp;quot;480&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Chemical Process Design Projects=&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
== Examples ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sugar Cane Ethanol Plant]] (2011)&lt;br /&gt;
* Other examples&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Glycerol to propylene glycol==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Design 1]] (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Design 2]] (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
==Succinic acid to 1,4-butanediol==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Design 1]] (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
* Design 2 (2014)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydrogen Student Design Contest==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Drop-in Hydrogen Fueling (2014)]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Guide to Use Wiki&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Editing_help| Quick Guide to MediaWiki Editing]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents MediaWiki User&#039;s Guide]&lt;br /&gt;
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Engineering_economic_analysis&amp;diff=1422</id>
		<title>Engineering economic analysis</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Engineering_economic_analysis&amp;diff=1422"/>
		<updated>2014-03-04T22:47:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Authors: Michael Gleeson, Sean Kelton, Thomas Considine (ChE 352 in Winter 2014)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: David Chen, Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: Feb. 22, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Measures of Economic Return==&lt;br /&gt;
The following are &amp;quot;back of the envelope&amp;quot; type calculations for economic return of a project.  These measures are quick and easy because they ignore some of the more complicated parts of evaluating a project including factors such as depreciation, time value of money and taxes.&lt;br /&gt;
===Payback Time===&lt;br /&gt;
The payback time is defined as the period of time (in years) required to break even on the initial economic investment.  It is given by the equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T = I/C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the payback time for the project, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the total investment required for the project and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average annual cash flow generated by the project.  This calculation is used to determine how quickly the project&#039;s fixed costs (i.e. land, machinery, etc.) can be recovered from the project.  A small payback period is desirable for a new project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Return on Investment===&lt;br /&gt;
The regular return on investment (ROI) involves complicated tax and depreciation calculations.  However, the pre-tax ROI is much simpler.  It is given by the equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;ROI = C/I&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where ROI in this case is the pre-tax ROI, C is the pre-tax cash flow generated by the project and I is the total investment required fro the project.  This calculation, as it sounds, is a measure of the percentage return on the initial investment required for a project (typically the fixed costs, explained above).  A higher ROI is a more profitable project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Project Cash Flows==&lt;br /&gt;
Project cash flows, much like it sounds, are the annualized cash flows, or revenue, generated from a new project.  The first year of a project&#039;s cash flow is typically negative because the money is spent on initial investment.  At first there will be a small expenditure on research and design expenses from engineering.  Once the design is finished and construction is set to begin the expenditures will rapidly increase.  These expenses may include things such as initial cost of renting or purchasing space/land, equipment &amp;amp; materials, initial labor to build a plant, etc.  All in all research, design, procurement and construction, all which must be done prior to start up, will typically take 2-4 years.  At this point the project will have reached maximum investment and typically has the most negative sum of cash flows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first year after start up, cash flows begin to become positive, however, the cash flows in the first year are usually reduced comparatively to years after.  This is due to unexpected problems within the project/process.  Typically machine down time, maintenance,etc. will be greatest in this year, causing the project to run under capacity.  After the first year all of the problems within a process have begun to be discovered and resolved and so the process can run at full capacity with increase cash flows.  From this point on, the only improvements in project cash flows come from process improvements (i.e. six sigma analysis, etc.), however, by using these techniques project cash flows can become greater year over year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toward the end of the life of a project, cash flows can begin to tail off in magnitude once again due to outdated equipment, new competition, or other increases in operating costs.  Finally when a project is terminated there is a small additional cash flow related to the recovery from any assets such as equipment, land, etc. can all be resold or scrapped, however, there will also be some amount of costs related to deconstruction and land remediation (due to pollution or other harmful project outputs).  Typically the recovered assets outweighs these costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A typical cash flow diagram of a project relating the cumulative cash flows over the life of the project is shown in the figure below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example11.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Cash Flows Diagram. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 11 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 5, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As seen in Figure 1, the cash flows follow the pattern described in the paragraph above.  The break even point of the project is the point at which the cash flows cross the x-axis.  The life of the project is given by the duration of the graph.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chemical production facilities are subject to the same financial levies by the government as all corporations. Specifically, corporations typically pay income taxes, and may collect incentives based on state and federal regulations. Detailed tax filings are almost always conducted by the accounting or financial department of a corporation. When preparing process economics estimations, taxes should be included, however all final cost estimates reported to management should be prepared by the appropriate specialist (Douglas, 23).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Corporate Taxes===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The specific tax codes will vary from state to state, and from country to country (Peters, 303). The common factor will be that income is taxed at marginal rates. In the United States, this percentage is 35%, although the effective rate may be lower. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Corporate income taxes is a yearly expense. The percentage rate is to be applied on the income, not the revenue. See other Economics sections on the difference between income and revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Investment Incentives===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Local, state, and federal governments generally encourage capital investments by corporations. Financial incentives afforded to corporations include low interest loans, free capital for research and development, and tax holidays for new technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When conducting economic estimates of a chemical process plant, especially if the plant utilizes efficient or &amp;quot;green&amp;quot; technology, it is important to investigate any and all sources of government incentives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Depreciation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depreciation, in the colloquial sense, is the loss of value of an item. As it pertains to the chemical process industry, depreciation is the loss of value due to &amp;quot;wear and tear&amp;quot; of the components and facilities of the plant. It is important to note that this does not include working capital or land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics of Depreciation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depreciation can be thought of as a yearly expense that the plant incurs. It can then be considered a cost, effectively reducing the income and thus the income tax. However, depreciation is not an actual cash flow. There is no transfer of money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note how depreciation lowers the amount of taxes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T=(P-D)*t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the taxes due; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the gross profit; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the depreciation; and &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are the taxes due.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two commons methods of calculating depreciation are discussed in the next sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straight Line Depreciation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straight line depreciation is the most common method of approximating depreciation when calculating profitability measures, such as return on investment (Seider, 392).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this method, the depreciable value &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Cd&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is written off over the total life of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; years at a constant linear rate:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Di=Cd/n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is each year in the lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the book value &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, or the initial cost of the item minus the accumulated depreciation charges, at year &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;m&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, can be defined as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm=C-m*Cd/n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the initial cost of the item.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Depreciation Case Study===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, let us find the book value after 3 years of a compressor which originally costs $50,000, has a depreciable value of $5,000, and has a lifetime of 20 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Di=5,000/20=250&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm=$50,000-250*3=$49,250&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore we can say that over the three years, the compressor has cost the process a difference of $750, which can be taken out of the taxable income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Time Value of Money==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money that is available now is inherently more valuable than the same amount in the future, because that money could be used as capital for an investment that earns interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital that is available in the future is said to be &amp;quot;discounted&amp;quot;. The present value of money, which is discussed in further detail in the coming sections, is a discounted amount of the future value:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;PV=FV*DF&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;PV&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the Present value, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;FV&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the Future value, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;DF&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the discount factor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discount factor, which takes into account an estimated interest rate gained on present money, is calculated for every year &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;DF=1/(1+i)^n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the a given amount of money in the future has less value as the length of future time increases, and as the expected amount of interest that current capital could gain increases. See Net Present Value for more information on this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of additional interest is the different between the time value of money and inflation. It is important to note that these two concepts are completely different. Inflation is the yearly rate at which the price of a certain good will increase (Biegler, 169). Although the mathematics and calculations are similar, inflation is generally a result of socioeconomic factors increasing the supply of money, and not the potential interest rate gained on current capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discounted Cash Flow Methods==&lt;br /&gt;
As discussed above, the value of money is directly related to time, insofar as $500 today is worth more than $500 in two years. Discounted cash flow methods, such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) take the time value of money into account. The main difference between nondiscounted and discounted cash flows is that all cash flows are related to time zero in the latter.(Turton 266). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Net Present Value===&lt;br /&gt;
Net Present Value (NPV), also known as Net Present Worth (NPW), gives the present value of all payments and provides a basis of comparison for projects with different payment schedules but similar lifetimes. (Biegler 151). In making comparisons between projects, the larger the net present worth, the more favorable the investment. (Peters 328). It is one of the most widely used economic measures because it captures the time value of money, the value of investment incentives and variations in construction schedule, while allowing for price forecast models that include cyclic behavior. The NPV can be represented as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; NPV = \sum_{n=1}^{n=t}\frac{CF_n} {\left( 1+i \right) ^n} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;CF_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; = cash flow in year n and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; = project lifetime and i is the discount rate as a decimal. (Towler 407). If the net present value is equal to zero, the return of the project is equal to the return that the discount rate would provide. (Peters 328). There are several drawbacks to NPV; it does not measure bang for buck, and it cannot be optimized unless an upper bound is set to the plant size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return===&lt;br /&gt;
The DCFROR is the interest or discount rate for which the NPV is equal to zero. (Turton 270). This means that DCFROR represents the highest after tax interest rate at which the project can break even. Often, corporation management will set an &amp;quot;internal&amp;quot; interest rate, which is the lowest rate of return that a company will accept for any new investment. If the DCFROR is greater than this internal rate, the investment is favorable. NPV and DCFROR are almost always used together. (Peters 328). The DCFROR can be represented as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sum_{n=1}^{n=t}\frac{CF_n} {\left( 1+i&#039; \right) ^n} = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where i&#039; is the DCFROR. DCFROR is useful for comparing projects of different sizes and for comparing projects to other investments. (Towler 408).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Discounted Payback Period===&lt;br /&gt;
DPP is the time required, after start-up, to recover the fixed capital costs required for a project with all cash flows discount back to time zero. (Turton 268). The project with the shortest discounted payback period is the most desirable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Annualized Costs==&lt;br /&gt;
Annualized Cost is another way of comparing capital expenses with future cash flows where the capital expense is converted into a recurring annual capital charge. It is useful for comparing the cost of assets with different lifetimes. (Towler 411). This is very similar to the way that mortgages are amortized over a 15 or 30 year lifetime. Annual payment can be represented as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A = P\,\frac{i\,\left( 1+i \right)^n} {\left(1+i\right)^n - 1}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where P is the principle investment, n is investment period, and i is the discount rate. The annual capital charge ratio can be defined as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;ACCR = A/P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the fraction of the principle that must be paid each year to recover the investment at the target interest rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
Hi TJ&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
Hi Teej&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Engineering_economic_analysis&amp;diff=1421</id>
		<title>Engineering economic analysis</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Engineering_economic_analysis&amp;diff=1421"/>
		<updated>2014-03-04T22:45:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Time Value of Money */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Authors: Michael Gleeson, Sean Kelton, Thomas Considine (ChE 352 in Winter 2014)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: David Chen, Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: Feb. 22, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Measures of Economic Return==&lt;br /&gt;
The following are &amp;quot;back of the envelope&amp;quot; type calculations for economic return of a project.  These measures are quick and easy because they ignore some of the more complicated parts of evaluating a project including factors such as depreciation, time value of money and taxes.&lt;br /&gt;
===Payback Time===&lt;br /&gt;
The payback time is defined as the period of time (in years) required to break even on the initial economic investment.  It is given by the equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T = I/C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the payback time for the project, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the total investment required for the project and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average annual cash flow generated by the project.  This calculation is used to determine how quickly the project&#039;s fixed costs (i.e. land, machinery, etc.) can be recovered from the project.  A small payback period is desirable for a new project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Return on Investment===&lt;br /&gt;
The regular return on investment (ROI) involves complicated tax and depreciation calculations.  However, the pre-tax ROI is much simpler.  It is given by the equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;ROI = C/I&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where ROI in this case is the pre-tax ROI, C is the pre-tax cash flow generated by the project and I is the total investment required fro the project.  This calculation, as it sounds, is a measure of the percentage return on the initial investment required for a project (typically the fixed costs, explained above).  A higher ROI is a more profitable project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Project Cash Flows==&lt;br /&gt;
Project cash flows, much like it sounds, are the annualized cash flows, or revenue, generated from a new project.  The first year of a project&#039;s cash flow is typically negative because the money is spent on initial investment.  At first there will be a small expenditure on research and design expenses from engineering.  Once the design is finished and construction is set to begin the expenditures will rapidly increase.  These expenses may include things such as initial cost of renting or purchasing space/land, equipment &amp;amp; materials, initial labor to build a plant, etc.  All in all research, design, procurement and construction, all which must be done prior to start up, will typically take 2-4 years.  At this point the project will have reached maximum investment and typically has the most negative sum of cash flows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first year after start up, cash flows begin to become positive, however, the cash flows in the first year are usually reduced comparatively to years after.  This is due to unexpected problems within the project/process.  Typically machine down time, maintenance,etc. will be greatest in this year, causing the project to run under capacity.  After the first year all of the problems within a process have begun to be discovered and resolved and so the process can run at full capacity with increase cash flows.  From this point on, the only improvements in project cash flows come from process improvements (i.e. six sigma analysis, etc.), however, by using these techniques project cash flows can become greater year over year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toward the end of the life of a project, cash flows can begin to tail off in magnitude once again due to outdated equipment, new competition, or other increases in operating costs.  Finally when a project is terminated there is a small additional cash flow related to the recovery from any assets such as equipment, land, etc. can all be resold or scrapped, however, there will also be some amount of costs related to deconstruction and land remediation (due to pollution or other harmful project outputs).  Typically the recovered assets outweighs these costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A typical cash flow diagram of a project relating the cumulative cash flows over the life of the project is shown in the figure below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example11.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Cash Flows Diagram. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 11 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 5, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As seen in Figure 1, the cash flows follow the pattern described in the paragraph above.  The break even point of the project is the point at which the cash flows cross the x-axis.  The life of the project is given by the duration of the graph.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chemical production facilities are subject to the same financial levies by the government as all corporations. Specifically, corporations typically pay income taxes, and may collect incentives based on state and federal regulations. Detailed tax filings are almost always conducted by the accounting or financial department of a corporation. When preparing process economics estimations, taxes should be included, however all final cost estimates reported to management should be prepared by the appropriate specialist (Douglas, 23).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Corporate Taxes===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The specific tax codes will vary from state to state, and from country to country (Peters, 303). The common factor will be that income is taxed at marginal rates. In the United States, this percentage is 35%, although the effective rate may be lower. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Corporate income taxes is a yearly expense. The percentage rate is to be applied on the income, not the revenue. See other Economics sections on the difference between income and revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Investment Incentives===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Local, state, and federal governments generally encourage capital investments by corporations. Financial incentives afforded to corporations include low interest loans, free capital for research and development, and tax holidays for new technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When conducting economic estimates of a chemical process plant, especially if the plant utilizes efficient or &amp;quot;green&amp;quot; technology, it is important to investigate any and all sources of government incentives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Depreciation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depreciation, in the colloquial sense, is the loss of value of an item. As it pertains to the chemical process industry, depreciation is the loss of value due to &amp;quot;wear and tear&amp;quot; of the components and facilities of the plant. It is important to note that this does not include working capital or land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics of Depreciation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depreciation can be thought of as a yearly expense that the plant incurs. It can then be considered a cost, effectively reducing the income and thus the income tax. However, depreciation is not an actual cash flow. There is no transfer of money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note how depreciation lowers the amount of taxes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T=(P-D)*t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the taxes due; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the gross profit; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the depreciation; and &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are the taxes due.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two commons methods of calculating depreciation are discussed in the next sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straight Line Depreciation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straight line depreciation is the most common method of approximating depreciation when calculating profitability measures, such as return on investment (Seider, 392).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this method, the depreciable value &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Cd&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is written off over the total life of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; years at a constant linear rate:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Di=Cd/n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is each year in the lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the book value &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, or the initial cost of the item minus the accumulated depreciation charges, at year &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;m&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, can be defined as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm=C-m*Cd/n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the initial cost of the item.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Depreciation Case Study===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, let us find the book value after 3 years of a compressor which originally costs $50,000, has a depreciable value of $5,000, and has a lifetime of 20 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Di=5,000/20=250&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm=$50,000-250*3=$49,250&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore we can say that over the three years, the compressor has cost the process a difference of $750, which can be taken out of the taxable income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Time Value of Money==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money that is available now is inherently more valuable than the same amount in the future, because that money could be used as capital for an investment that earns interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital that is available in the future is said to be &amp;quot;discounted&amp;quot;. The present value of money, which is discussed in further detail in the coming sections, is a discounted amount of the future value:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;PV=FV*DF&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;PV&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the Present value, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;FV&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the Future value, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;DF&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the discount factor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discount factor, which takes into account an estimated interest rate gained on present money, is calculated for every year &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;DF=1/(1+i)^n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the a given amount of money in the future has less value as the length of future time increases, and as the expected amount of interest that current capital could gain increases. See Net Present Value for more information on this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of additional interest is the different between the time value of money and inflation. It is important to note that these two concepts are completely different. Inflation is the yearly rate at which the price of a certain good will increase (Biegler, 169). Although the mathematics and calculations are similar, inflation is generally a result of socioeconomic factors increasing the supply of money, and not the potential interest rate gained on current capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discounted Cash Flow Methods==&lt;br /&gt;
As discussed above, the value of money is directly related to time, insofar as $500 today is worth more than $500 in two years. Discounted cash flow methods, such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) take the time value of money into account. The main difference between nondiscounted and discounted cash flows is that all cash flows are related to time zero in the latter.(Turton 266). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Net Present Value===&lt;br /&gt;
Net Present Value (NPV), also known as Net Present Worth (NPW), gives the present value of all payments and provides a basis of comparison for projects with different payment schedules but similar lifetimes. (Biegler 151). In making comparisons between projects, the larger the net present worth, the more favorable the investment. (Peters 328). It is one of the most widely used economic measures because it captures the time value of money, the value of investment incentives and variations in construction schedule, while allowing for price forecast models that include cyclic behavior. The NPV can be represented as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; NPV = \sum_{n=1}^{n=t}\frac{CF_n} {\left( 1+i \right) ^n} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;CF_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; = cash flow in year n and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; = project lifetime and i is the discount rate as a decimal. (Towler 407). If the net present value is equal to zero, the return of the project is equal to the return that the discount rate would provide. (Peters 328). There are several drawbacks to NPV; it does not measure bang for buck, and it cannot be optimized unless an upper bound is set to the plant size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return===&lt;br /&gt;
The DCFROR is the interest or discount rate for which the NPV is equal to zero. (Turton 270). This means that DCFROR represents the highest after tax interest rate at which the project can break even. Often, corporation management will set an &amp;quot;internal&amp;quot; interest rate, which is the lowest rate of return that a company will accept for any new investment. If the DCFROR is greater than this internal rate, the investment is favorable. NPV and DCFROR are almost always used together. (Peters 328). The DCFROR can be represented as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sum_{n=1}^{n=t}\frac{CF_n} {\left( 1+i&#039; \right) ^n} = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where i&#039; is the DCFROR. DCFROR is useful for comparing projects of different sizes and for comparing projects to other investments. (Towler 408).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Discounted Payback Period===&lt;br /&gt;
DPP is the time required, after start-up, to recover the fixed capital costs required for a project with all cash flows discount back to time zero. (Turton 268). The project with the shortest discounted payback period is the most desirable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Annualized Costs==&lt;br /&gt;
Annualized Cost is another way of comparing capital expenses with future cash flows where the capital expense is converted into a recurring annual capital charge. It is useful for comparing the cost of assets with different lifetimes. (Towler 411). This is very similar to the way that mortgages are amortized over a 15 or 30 year lifetime. Annual payment can be represented as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A = P\,\frac{i\,\left( 1+i \right)^n} {\left(1+i\right)^n - 1}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where P is the principle investment, n is investment period, and i is the discount rate. The annual capital charge ratio can be defined as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;ACCR = A/P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the fraction of the principle that must be paid each year to recover the investment at the target interest rate.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Engineering_economic_analysis&amp;diff=1420</id>
		<title>Engineering economic analysis</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Engineering_economic_analysis&amp;diff=1420"/>
		<updated>2014-03-04T22:45:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Time Value of Money */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Authors: Michael Gleeson, Sean Kelton, Thomas Considine (ChE 352 in Winter 2014)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: David Chen, Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: Feb. 22, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Measures of Economic Return==&lt;br /&gt;
The following are &amp;quot;back of the envelope&amp;quot; type calculations for economic return of a project.  These measures are quick and easy because they ignore some of the more complicated parts of evaluating a project including factors such as depreciation, time value of money and taxes.&lt;br /&gt;
===Payback Time===&lt;br /&gt;
The payback time is defined as the period of time (in years) required to break even on the initial economic investment.  It is given by the equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T = I/C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the payback time for the project, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;I&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the total investment required for the project and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average annual cash flow generated by the project.  This calculation is used to determine how quickly the project&#039;s fixed costs (i.e. land, machinery, etc.) can be recovered from the project.  A small payback period is desirable for a new project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Return on Investment===&lt;br /&gt;
The regular return on investment (ROI) involves complicated tax and depreciation calculations.  However, the pre-tax ROI is much simpler.  It is given by the equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;ROI = C/I&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where ROI in this case is the pre-tax ROI, C is the pre-tax cash flow generated by the project and I is the total investment required fro the project.  This calculation, as it sounds, is a measure of the percentage return on the initial investment required for a project (typically the fixed costs, explained above).  A higher ROI is a more profitable project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Project Cash Flows==&lt;br /&gt;
Project cash flows, much like it sounds, are the annualized cash flows, or revenue, generated from a new project.  The first year of a project&#039;s cash flow is typically negative because the money is spent on initial investment.  At first there will be a small expenditure on research and design expenses from engineering.  Once the design is finished and construction is set to begin the expenditures will rapidly increase.  These expenses may include things such as initial cost of renting or purchasing space/land, equipment &amp;amp; materials, initial labor to build a plant, etc.  All in all research, design, procurement and construction, all which must be done prior to start up, will typically take 2-4 years.  At this point the project will have reached maximum investment and typically has the most negative sum of cash flows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first year after start up, cash flows begin to become positive, however, the cash flows in the first year are usually reduced comparatively to years after.  This is due to unexpected problems within the project/process.  Typically machine down time, maintenance,etc. will be greatest in this year, causing the project to run under capacity.  After the first year all of the problems within a process have begun to be discovered and resolved and so the process can run at full capacity with increase cash flows.  From this point on, the only improvements in project cash flows come from process improvements (i.e. six sigma analysis, etc.), however, by using these techniques project cash flows can become greater year over year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toward the end of the life of a project, cash flows can begin to tail off in magnitude once again due to outdated equipment, new competition, or other increases in operating costs.  Finally when a project is terminated there is a small additional cash flow related to the recovery from any assets such as equipment, land, etc. can all be resold or scrapped, however, there will also be some amount of costs related to deconstruction and land remediation (due to pollution or other harmful project outputs).  Typically the recovered assets outweighs these costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A typical cash flow diagram of a project relating the cumulative cash flows over the life of the project is shown in the figure below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example11.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Cash Flows Diagram. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 11 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 5, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As seen in Figure 1, the cash flows follow the pattern described in the paragraph above.  The break even point of the project is the point at which the cash flows cross the x-axis.  The life of the project is given by the duration of the graph.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taxes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chemical production facilities are subject to the same financial levies by the government as all corporations. Specifically, corporations typically pay income taxes, and may collect incentives based on state and federal regulations. Detailed tax filings are almost always conducted by the accounting or financial department of a corporation. When preparing process economics estimations, taxes should be included, however all final cost estimates reported to management should be prepared by the appropriate specialist (Douglas, 23).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Corporate Taxes===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The specific tax codes will vary from state to state, and from country to country (Peters, 303). The common factor will be that income is taxed at marginal rates. In the United States, this percentage is 35%, although the effective rate may be lower. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Corporate income taxes is a yearly expense. The percentage rate is to be applied on the income, not the revenue. See other Economics sections on the difference between income and revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Investment Incentives===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Local, state, and federal governments generally encourage capital investments by corporations. Financial incentives afforded to corporations include low interest loans, free capital for research and development, and tax holidays for new technologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When conducting economic estimates of a chemical process plant, especially if the plant utilizes efficient or &amp;quot;green&amp;quot; technology, it is important to investigate any and all sources of government incentives.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Depreciation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depreciation, in the colloquial sense, is the loss of value of an item. As it pertains to the chemical process industry, depreciation is the loss of value due to &amp;quot;wear and tear&amp;quot; of the components and facilities of the plant. It is important to note that this does not include working capital or land.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics of Depreciation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Depreciation can be thought of as a yearly expense that the plant incurs. It can then be considered a cost, effectively reducing the income and thus the income tax. However, depreciation is not an actual cash flow. There is no transfer of money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note how depreciation lowers the amount of taxes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T=(P-D)*t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the taxes due; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the gross profit; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the depreciation; and &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are the taxes due.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two commons methods of calculating depreciation are discussed in the next sections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Straight Line Depreciation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Straight line depreciation is the most common method of approximating depreciation when calculating profitability measures, such as return on investment (Seider, 392).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this method, the depreciable value &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Cd&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is written off over the total life of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; years at a constant linear rate:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Di=Cd/n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is each year in the lifetime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the book value &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, or the initial cost of the item minus the accumulated depreciation charges, at year &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;m&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, can be defined as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm=C-m*Cd/n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;C&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the initial cost of the item.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Depreciation Case Study===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, let us find the book value after 3 years of a compressor which originally costs $50,000, has a depreciable value of $5,000, and has a lifetime of 20 years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Di=5,000/20=250&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Bm=$50,000-250*3=$49,250&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore we can say that over the three years, the compressor has cost the process a difference of $750, which can be taken out of the taxable income.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Time Value of Money==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Money that is available now is inherently more valuable than the same amount in the future, because that money could be used as capital for an investment that earns interest. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Capital that is available in the future is said to be &amp;quot;discounted&amp;quot;. The present value of money, which is discussed in further detail in the coming sections, is a discounted amount of the future value:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;PV=FV*DF&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;PV&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the Present value, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;FV&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the Future value, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;DF&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the discount factor. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discount factor, which takes into account an estimated interest rate gained on present money, is calculated for every year &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Discount factor=1/(1+i)^n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This implies that the a given amount of money in the future has less value as the length of future time increases, and as the expected amount of interest that current capital could gain increases. See Net Present Value for more information on this subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of additional interest is the different between the time value of money and inflation. It is important to note that these two concepts are completely different. Inflation is the yearly rate at which the price of a certain good will increase (Biegler, 169). Although the mathematics and calculations are similar, inflation is generally a result of socioeconomic factors increasing the supply of money, and not the potential interest rate gained on current capital.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discounted Cash Flow Methods==&lt;br /&gt;
As discussed above, the value of money is directly related to time, insofar as $500 today is worth more than $500 in two years. Discounted cash flow methods, such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) take the time value of money into account. The main difference between nondiscounted and discounted cash flows is that all cash flows are related to time zero in the latter.(Turton 266). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Net Present Value===&lt;br /&gt;
Net Present Value (NPV), also known as Net Present Worth (NPW), gives the present value of all payments and provides a basis of comparison for projects with different payment schedules but similar lifetimes. (Biegler 151). In making comparisons between projects, the larger the net present worth, the more favorable the investment. (Peters 328). It is one of the most widely used economic measures because it captures the time value of money, the value of investment incentives and variations in construction schedule, while allowing for price forecast models that include cyclic behavior. The NPV can be represented as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; NPV = \sum_{n=1}^{n=t}\frac{CF_n} {\left( 1+i \right) ^n} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;CF_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; = cash flow in year n and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; = project lifetime and i is the discount rate as a decimal. (Towler 407). If the net present value is equal to zero, the return of the project is equal to the return that the discount rate would provide. (Peters 328). There are several drawbacks to NPV; it does not measure bang for buck, and it cannot be optimized unless an upper bound is set to the plant size. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return===&lt;br /&gt;
The DCFROR is the interest or discount rate for which the NPV is equal to zero. (Turton 270). This means that DCFROR represents the highest after tax interest rate at which the project can break even. Often, corporation management will set an &amp;quot;internal&amp;quot; interest rate, which is the lowest rate of return that a company will accept for any new investment. If the DCFROR is greater than this internal rate, the investment is favorable. NPV and DCFROR are almost always used together. (Peters 328). The DCFROR can be represented as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sum_{n=1}^{n=t}\frac{CF_n} {\left( 1+i&#039; \right) ^n} = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where i&#039; is the DCFROR. DCFROR is useful for comparing projects of different sizes and for comparing projects to other investments. (Towler 408).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Discounted Payback Period===&lt;br /&gt;
DPP is the time required, after start-up, to recover the fixed capital costs required for a project with all cash flows discount back to time zero. (Turton 268). The project with the shortest discounted payback period is the most desirable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Annualized Costs==&lt;br /&gt;
Annualized Cost is another way of comparing capital expenses with future cash flows where the capital expense is converted into a recurring annual capital charge. It is useful for comparing the cost of assets with different lifetimes. (Towler 411). This is very similar to the way that mortgages are amortized over a 15 or 30 year lifetime. Annual payment can be represented as: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A = P\,\frac{i\,\left( 1+i \right)^n} {\left(1+i\right)^n - 1}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where P is the principle investment, n is investment period, and i is the discount rate. The annual capital charge ratio can be defined as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;ACCR = A/P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is the fraction of the principle that must be paid each year to recover the investment at the target interest rate.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1299</id>
		<title>Process hydraulics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1299"/>
		<updated>2014-02-23T22:21:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Conclusion */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Authors: Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton, Michael Gleeson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: David Chen, Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: Feb. 2, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transportation and storage of fluids is essential to a chemical process plant. Piping, valves, pumps and compressors comprise the major components of fluid handling equipment. The goal of process hydraulics in a design setting is to overcome frictional losses in piping and equipment, provide correct operating conditions, and overall assist in the controls of the plant. All three objectives must be designed in concert, and before the final controls system is designed. (Towler, 1207).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydraulic systems &amp;amp; Pressure drop==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall pressure drops created by pumps and compressors must also include those created by the connecting pipes. These components must be designed in concert, to account for changes in elevation and friction losses in the pipe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Total Pressure Drop===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drops throughout the flow of a fluid can be summed to find the overall pressure drop of a defined system. For example: If a fluid A, initially at zero gauge pressure, is pumped to a pressure of 300 kPa, then flows through 10 meters of pipe resulting in a loss of 50 kPa, the final gauge pressure at the end of the pipe is 250 kPa. This type of analysis is useful when designing pressure systems over many components.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Total Pressure Drop = \sum_i \Delta P_i = +300 kPa - 50 kPa = 250 kPa&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pressure Drop in Pipes===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When designing pumps and compressors, the loss of pressure due to piping is not negligible, and must be appropriately accounted for (Turton, 537). The &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Delta P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; across a pipe is calculated as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P = (4*c*L/d)*(rho*v^2/2)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is the specific coefficient (typically 0.005 for turbulent flows)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the length of piping,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the diameter of piping, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;rho&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the density of the fluid, and &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;v&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the velocity of the fluid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An added term accounting for the pressure difference due to height is also necessary if there is a change in elevation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the first term in the equation can be altered to include an additional factor:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(n + 4*c*L/d)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is an empirical value to account for piping bends, restrictions, and other variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heuristics===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both the process hydraulics and the economics of a system is affected by pipe sizing (Peters, 500). Heuristics, or &amp;quot;Rules-of-thumbs&amp;quot; have been developed to assist in optimizing pipe selection. While more detailed optimization techniques are available and commonly used, the rules of thumb provide a good starting point for pipe selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested pipe velocities, in ft/s, for gases, liquids, and super-heated steam are approximately 60-100, 6, and 150, respectively (Towler Presentation, 9). Additionally, for liquid flow, the following equation provides a rule-of-thumb for optimal pipe diameter, in inches:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;D = \sqrt{Flow/10}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where D is the optimal diameter, and Flow is in units of gallons/minute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pumps &amp;amp; Compressors==&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps and Compressors are used to pressurize liquids and gases, respectively, and to transfer them from one location to another. In general, it is preferable to increase the pressure of a stream by pumping a liquid rather than compressing a gas because it is far less expensive. This is because the power needed to increase the pressure of a stream is: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;W = \int\limits_{P_1}^{P_2} V\, dP&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where V is the volumetric flow rate. Generally, the volumetric flow rate of a liquid is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the volumetric flow rate of a gas, which means a 10hp pump is comparable in fluid pressurizing capacity to a 1000hp compressor. (Seider 132). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pumps===&lt;br /&gt;
As stated above, pumps require relatively little power compared to gas compressors. However, they are easily vapor locked when pumping liquids near the bubble point because small amounts of vapor can become trapped within their rotating blades. Pumps increase the pressure energy of the effluent fluid by the transfer of kinetic energy from the motor to the fluid, through the impeller. (Seider 642). Selection of pumps for specific services requires knowledge of the liquid to be handled, the total dynamic head required, the suction and discharge heads, and in most cases, the temperature, viscosity, vapor pressure, and density of the fluid. The different types of pumps used in industry can be classified as centrifugal pumps, positive displacement pumps, jet pumps, and electromagnetic pumps. (Peters 508). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Centrifugal Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
This type of pumps is the most widely used in industry. They range in capacity from .5 to 20,000 meters cubed per hour. In the centrifugal pump, the fluid enters the pump are the center of a rotating impeller, where it is thrown outward by centrifugal force. The fluid at the edge of the impeller gains a high kinetic energy, which is then converted into pressure energy, which supplies the pressure difference between the suction side and the delivery side of the pump. (Peters 510).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
In positive displacement pumps, a fixed volume is alternately filled and emptied of the pump fluid by action of the pump. In general, overall efficiencies of positive displacement pumps are higher than those of centrifugal pumps because internal losses are minimized. However, the range of capacities that these pumps can handle is somewhat limited. There are two classes of positive displacement pump, reciprocating and rotary. Reciprocating pumps use valves that are operated by pressure difference to introduce and discharge the liquid being pumped. They generally can deliver fluids with high efficiency against high pressure. In rotary pumps, two intermeshing gears are fitted into a casing. Fluids becomes trapped between the teeth of the gears and is transported to the discharge side of the pump. (Peters 514).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Jet Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Jet pumps use the momentum of one fluid to transport the desired fluid. Efficiency of jet pumps is generally low, and these are mainly useful for situations in which the head to be attained is low and less than the head of the fluid used from pumping. (Peters 515).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Electromagnetic Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Electromagnetic pumps use the principle that a conductor in a magnetic field, carrying a current that flows at right angles to the field, has a force exerted on it. These pumps are used to move fluids that exhibit electromagnetic properties. (Peters 515). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Gas compressors are designed to increase the pressure of gases. Even small amounts of liquids can cause significant amounts of degradation to the compressor blades, so most compressors are designed to avoid condensation. Like pumps, the feed enters the eye of the impeller unit. Compressors are generally much larger than pumps, and they are well insulated to facilitate operation on light gases. To avoid excessively high temperatures, individual compressors are designed to operate at small compressor ratios &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P_2/P_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, typically less than 5. If the compression ratio is greater than 5, multistage compressors are used. (Seider 644-646). Compressors are generally classified into two major categories; continuous flow compressors and positive displacement compressors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Continuous Flow Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
Centrifugal and Axial Compressors are the two main types of continuous flow compressors. Centrifugal compressors are used for higher pressure ratios and lower flow rates, while axial compressors are used for lower stage pressure ratios and high flow rates. The pressure ratio of a single stage centrifugal compressor is roughly 1.2:1, while the pressure ratio of axial flow compressors is between 1.05:1 and 1.15:1. Because of the low pressure ratios for each stage, a single compressor may include a number of stages in one casing to achieve the desired overall pressure ratio. (Peters 521).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
These units are essentially volume gas movers with variable discharge pressures. They operate in much the same way as positive displacement pumps. (Peters 522).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics of Pumps and Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps are relatively cheap in terms of processing equipment.  In 1997 dollars, they would cost between $390 and $1500 base cost multiplied by a ~2.38 (because pumps usually cost much less than $200,000) factor for the installation costs.  Therefore their total installed costs today is $1000-$3500 multiplied by some time correction factor to account for inflation.  For this reason it is typically preferable to condense a vapor to liquid, pump up the liquid, then evaporate the liquid, rather than compress a gas. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compressors are one of the most expensive pieces of process equipment.  In 1997 dollars they cost about $23,000 as a base cost multiplied by a ~3.11 (because compressors are typically less than $200,000) factor to account for installation costs.  Therefore their total installed cost today is ~$71,500 multiplied by a correction factor to account for the inflation over time; nearly 70 times as expensive as a pump!  For this reason in industry compressing a gas within your process is avoided if at all possible. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Valves==&lt;br /&gt;
A valve is a mechanical tool used to control the flow of material in a system by blocking or restricting the materials flow path; typically used on piping.  Valves serve many purposes including but not limited to: beginning or quenching the flow of a material through a system, regulating the flow rate of the material traveling through a system, regulating the pressure of a material flowing through a system, prevent back-flow of a material and changing the flow direction at intersection points.  Any valve in a piping system will cause a pressure drop.  As a rule of thumb, 10 psi change in pressure should be accounted for across each valve when designing a plant. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More specifically, the table below gives the pressure drop of different types of valves in the number of velocity heads lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1: Pressure Drops Across Valves. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 25 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n	&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|45 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|90 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.75	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, ½  open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9.5&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|180 degree bend, close return	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, along run, branch blanked off	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, entering run or entering branch	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, branching flow	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 5 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 20 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|4.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 40 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|17.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|24	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 60 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|206&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Check valve, swing	&lt;br /&gt;
|2	&lt;br /&gt;
|Pipe union	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04&lt;br /&gt;
|}			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gate Valve ===&lt;br /&gt;
A gate valve is comprised of a wedge that slides up and down perpendicular to the path of fluid flow on screw type mechanism, which spins in opposite directions to open/close the valve, in order to allow and block fluid flow respectively.  This type of valve is an ON/OFF valve and therefore should either be operated fully open or fully closed.  Operating partially open can degrade the seal on the valve.  The fluid path is straight through the valve and therefore minimal pressure drop results. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Gate Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 14 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Ball Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A ball valve is another type of ON/OFF valve that only operates fully opened or closed with the flow path straight through the valve.  However, these valves only require a quarter turn to open or close the valve and therefore can quench flow much faster than a gate valve.  Rather than blocking flow with a wedge, a ball valve turns so that the opening aligns with the pipe to allow flow or pipe wall to block flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example3.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 2: Ball Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 16 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Butterfly Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A butterfly valve also requires only a quarter turn to switch between the open and closed position.  A flat plate switches positions between being parallel or perpendicular to flow in order to allow or prevent flow through the valve respectively.  This valve does not seal well on its own and, unaided, can be pushed open by fluid flow, therefore extra materials are required for complete shutdown of flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example4.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 3: Butterfly Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 17 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Plug Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A plug valve is very similar to a ball valve, except it is used in situations in which a better seal is needed.  The valve uses plug stationed in lubricated lining to provide the seal and once again a quarter turn will open/close the valve by aligning the hole within the plug to the pipe/wall respectively.  There is an upper limit to the temperature a which a plug valve can be used, ~450 F, because after this point heat expansion differences of the liner and plug ruins the seal. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example5.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 4: Plug Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 18 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Globe Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A globe valve is a type of throttling valve, controlling the fluid flow rate, in which the height of a disk is adjusted between two vertical plates.  The gap between the disk and the second vertical plate, known as the seat, can be adjusted to regulate flow rate, however, the valve should not be run at very slow flow rates (&amp;lt;10% open) because the flowing fluid will cause damage to the seat.  The two vertical directional changes of the fluid flow path cause greater pressure drops across these valves.  This type of valve can be adjusted automatically (using a machine program) or manually by a worker. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example6.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 5: Globe Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 19 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Needle Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A needle valve is much like a globe valve, however, a stem with a conical head is used to control the flow rate.  The conical head provides a more accurate and precise flow rate control.  Additionally, the conical head does not have problems at low flow rates as the flat disk of a globe valve exhibits. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example7.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 6: Needle Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 21 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Control Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Control valves are a classification of automatic globe valves.  These valves use an electric actuator or some type of compressed air system to adjust the flow rate through the valve via signaling from an electric control program. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example8.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7: Control Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 22 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Check Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Check valves are valves that are used to control the flow direction within the pipe (i.e. prevent back-flow).  The three main types are swing valves, lift valves and wafer valves (respectively below).  Swing valves push a swinging mechanism forward to allow forward flow, but is blocked in the other direction because the weight of the disc holds itself in place.  These valves are most common in industry.  These valves are not good when flow rate pulsates or is very high, nor if the fluid is a slurry or a gas.  Lift valves use vertical plates, as in a throttling valve, to divert flow in an upward direction to lift a move-able piece that is otherwise held in place by gravity preventing reverse flow.  Wafer valves use a circular wafer that can only twist in one direction so that forward flow in the pipe spins the wafer to align with the fluid flow and move forward, however, in the reverse direction the hinge is blocked so the wafer can not spin allow flow.  These valves require a smaller pressure drop to open and are generally cheaper however they must be used in a very strict flow rate range (~3-11 ft/s). (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example9.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 8: Swing Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 24 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example10.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 9: Lift Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example11.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10: Wafer Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transportation and storage of fluids is a key variable in the design and optimization of a chemical process facility. The major components involved in this step of process design are the piping, valves, pumps and compressors. Process hydraulics design aims to overcome frictional losses in piping and equipment, provide correct operating conditions, and overall assist in the controls of the plant. These three objectives must be designed in concert, as together they effect many variables within both the chemistry, engineering, and economics of the plant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
1. G.P. Towler, R. Sinnott, &#039;&#039;Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design&#039;&#039;, Elsevier, 2012.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. L.T. Biegler, I.E. Grossmann, A.W. Westerberg, &#039;&#039;Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design&#039;&#039;, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. W.D. Sieder, J.D. Seader, D.R. Lewin, &#039;&#039;Process Design Principles: Synthesis, Analysis, and Evaluation&#039;&#039;, Wiley: New York, 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. R.T. Turton, R.C. Bailie, W.B. Whiting, J.A. Shaeiwitz, &#039;&#039;Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes&#039;&#039;, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, &amp;quot;Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers&amp;quot;, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill: New York, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1298</id>
		<title>Process hydraulics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1298"/>
		<updated>2014-02-23T22:19:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Authors: Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton, Michael Gleeson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: David Chen, Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: Feb. 2, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transportation and storage of fluids is essential to a chemical process plant. Piping, valves, pumps and compressors comprise the major components of fluid handling equipment. The goal of process hydraulics in a design setting is to overcome frictional losses in piping and equipment, provide correct operating conditions, and overall assist in the controls of the plant. All three objectives must be designed in concert, and before the final controls system is designed. (Towler, 1207).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydraulic systems &amp;amp; Pressure drop==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall pressure drops created by pumps and compressors must also include those created by the connecting pipes. These components must be designed in concert, to account for changes in elevation and friction losses in the pipe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Total Pressure Drop===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drops throughout the flow of a fluid can be summed to find the overall pressure drop of a defined system. For example: If a fluid A, initially at zero gauge pressure, is pumped to a pressure of 300 kPa, then flows through 10 meters of pipe resulting in a loss of 50 kPa, the final gauge pressure at the end of the pipe is 250 kPa. This type of analysis is useful when designing pressure systems over many components.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Total Pressure Drop = \sum_i \Delta P_i = +300 kPa - 50 kPa = 250 kPa&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pressure Drop in Pipes===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When designing pumps and compressors, the loss of pressure due to piping is not negligible, and must be appropriately accounted for (Turton, 537). The &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Delta P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; across a pipe is calculated as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P = (4*c*L/d)*(rho*v^2/2)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is the specific coefficient (typically 0.005 for turbulent flows)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the length of piping,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the diameter of piping, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;rho&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the density of the fluid, and &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;v&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the velocity of the fluid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An added term accounting for the pressure difference due to height is also necessary if there is a change in elevation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the first term in the equation can be altered to include an additional factor:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(n + 4*c*L/d)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is an empirical value to account for piping bends, restrictions, and other variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heuristics===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both the process hydraulics and the economics of a system is affected by pipe sizing (Peters, 500). Heuristics, or &amp;quot;Rules-of-thumbs&amp;quot; have been developed to assist in optimizing pipe selection. While more detailed optimization techniques are available and commonly used, the rules of thumb provide a good starting point for pipe selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested pipe velocities, in ft/s, for gases, liquids, and super-heated steam are approximately 60-100, 6, and 150, respectively (Towler Presentation, 9). Additionally, for liquid flow, the following equation provides a rule-of-thumb for optimal pipe diameter, in inches:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;D = \sqrt{Flow/10}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where D is the optimal diameter, and Flow is in units of gallons/minute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pumps &amp;amp; Compressors==&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps and Compressors are used to pressurize liquids and gases, respectively, and to transfer them from one location to another. In general, it is preferable to increase the pressure of a stream by pumping a liquid rather than compressing a gas because it is far less expensive. This is because the power needed to increase the pressure of a stream is: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;W = \int\limits_{P_1}^{P_2} V\, dP&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where V is the volumetric flow rate. Generally, the volumetric flow rate of a liquid is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the volumetric flow rate of a gas, which means a 10hp pump is comparable in fluid pressurizing capacity to a 1000hp compressor. (Seider 132). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pumps===&lt;br /&gt;
As stated above, pumps require relatively little power compared to gas compressors. However, they are easily vapor locked when pumping liquids near the bubble point because small amounts of vapor can become trapped within their rotating blades. Pumps increase the pressure energy of the effluent fluid by the transfer of kinetic energy from the motor to the fluid, through the impeller. (Seider 642). Selection of pumps for specific services requires knowledge of the liquid to be handled, the total dynamic head required, the suction and discharge heads, and in most cases, the temperature, viscosity, vapor pressure, and density of the fluid. The different types of pumps used in industry can be classified as centrifugal pumps, positive displacement pumps, jet pumps, and electromagnetic pumps. (Peters 508). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Centrifugal Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
This type of pumps is the most widely used in industry. They range in capacity from .5 to 20,000 meters cubed per hour. In the centrifugal pump, the fluid enters the pump are the center of a rotating impeller, where it is thrown outward by centrifugal force. The fluid at the edge of the impeller gains a high kinetic energy, which is then converted into pressure energy, which supplies the pressure difference between the suction side and the delivery side of the pump. (Peters 510).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
In positive displacement pumps, a fixed volume is alternately filled and emptied of the pump fluid by action of the pump. In general, overall efficiencies of positive displacement pumps are higher than those of centrifugal pumps because internal losses are minimized. However, the range of capacities that these pumps can handle is somewhat limited. There are two classes of positive displacement pump, reciprocating and rotary. Reciprocating pumps use valves that are operated by pressure difference to introduce and discharge the liquid being pumped. They generally can deliver fluids with high efficiency against high pressure. In rotary pumps, two intermeshing gears are fitted into a casing. Fluids becomes trapped between the teeth of the gears and is transported to the discharge side of the pump. (Peters 514).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Jet Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Jet pumps use the momentum of one fluid to transport the desired fluid. Efficiency of jet pumps is generally low, and these are mainly useful for situations in which the head to be attained is low and less than the head of the fluid used from pumping. (Peters 515).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Electromagnetic Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Electromagnetic pumps use the principle that a conductor in a magnetic field, carrying a current that flows at right angles to the field, has a force exerted on it. These pumps are used to move fluids that exhibit electromagnetic properties. (Peters 515). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Gas compressors are designed to increase the pressure of gases. Even small amounts of liquids can cause significant amounts of degradation to the compressor blades, so most compressors are designed to avoid condensation. Like pumps, the feed enters the eye of the impeller unit. Compressors are generally much larger than pumps, and they are well insulated to facilitate operation on light gases. To avoid excessively high temperatures, individual compressors are designed to operate at small compressor ratios &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P_2/P_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, typically less than 5. If the compression ratio is greater than 5, multistage compressors are used. (Seider 644-646). Compressors are generally classified into two major categories; continuous flow compressors and positive displacement compressors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Continuous Flow Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
Centrifugal and Axial Compressors are the two main types of continuous flow compressors. Centrifugal compressors are used for higher pressure ratios and lower flow rates, while axial compressors are used for lower stage pressure ratios and high flow rates. The pressure ratio of a single stage centrifugal compressor is roughly 1.2:1, while the pressure ratio of axial flow compressors is between 1.05:1 and 1.15:1. Because of the low pressure ratios for each stage, a single compressor may include a number of stages in one casing to achieve the desired overall pressure ratio. (Peters 521).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
These units are essentially volume gas movers with variable discharge pressures. They operate in much the same way as positive displacement pumps. (Peters 522).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics of Pumps and Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps are relatively cheap in terms of processing equipment.  In 1997 dollars, they would cost between $390 and $1500 base cost multiplied by a ~2.38 (because pumps usually cost much less than $200,000) factor for the installation costs.  Therefore their total installed costs today is $1000-$3500 multiplied by some time correction factor to account for inflation.  For this reason it is typically preferable to condense a vapor to liquid, pump up the liquid, then evaporate the liquid, rather than compress a gas. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compressors are one of the most expensive pieces of process equipment.  In 1997 dollars they cost about $23,000 as a base cost multiplied by a ~3.11 (because compressors are typically less than $200,000) factor to account for installation costs.  Therefore their total installed cost today is ~$71,500 multiplied by a correction factor to account for the inflation over time; nearly 70 times as expensive as a pump!  For this reason in industry compressing a gas within your process is avoided if at all possible. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Valves==&lt;br /&gt;
A valve is a mechanical tool used to control the flow of material in a system by blocking or restricting the materials flow path; typically used on piping.  Valves serve many purposes including but not limited to: beginning or quenching the flow of a material through a system, regulating the flow rate of the material traveling through a system, regulating the pressure of a material flowing through a system, prevent back-flow of a material and changing the flow direction at intersection points.  Any valve in a piping system will cause a pressure drop.  As a rule of thumb, 10 psi change in pressure should be accounted for across each valve when designing a plant. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More specifically, the table below gives the pressure drop of different types of valves in the number of velocity heads lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1: Pressure Drops Across Valves. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 25 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n	&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|45 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|90 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.75	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, ½  open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9.5&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|180 degree bend, close return	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, along run, branch blanked off	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, entering run or entering branch	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, branching flow	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 5 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 20 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|4.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 40 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|17.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|24	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 60 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|206&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Check valve, swing	&lt;br /&gt;
|2	&lt;br /&gt;
|Pipe union	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04&lt;br /&gt;
|}			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gate Valve ===&lt;br /&gt;
A gate valve is comprised of a wedge that slides up and down perpendicular to the path of fluid flow on screw type mechanism, which spins in opposite directions to open/close the valve, in order to allow and block fluid flow respectively.  This type of valve is an ON/OFF valve and therefore should either be operated fully open or fully closed.  Operating partially open can degrade the seal on the valve.  The fluid path is straight through the valve and therefore minimal pressure drop results. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Gate Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 14 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Ball Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A ball valve is another type of ON/OFF valve that only operates fully opened or closed with the flow path straight through the valve.  However, these valves only require a quarter turn to open or close the valve and therefore can quench flow much faster than a gate valve.  Rather than blocking flow with a wedge, a ball valve turns so that the opening aligns with the pipe to allow flow or pipe wall to block flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example3.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 2: Ball Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 16 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Butterfly Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A butterfly valve also requires only a quarter turn to switch between the open and closed position.  A flat plate switches positions between being parallel or perpendicular to flow in order to allow or prevent flow through the valve respectively.  This valve does not seal well on its own and, unaided, can be pushed open by fluid flow, therefore extra materials are required for complete shutdown of flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example4.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 3: Butterfly Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 17 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Plug Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A plug valve is very similar to a ball valve, except it is used in situations in which a better seal is needed.  The valve uses plug stationed in lubricated lining to provide the seal and once again a quarter turn will open/close the valve by aligning the hole within the plug to the pipe/wall respectively.  There is an upper limit to the temperature a which a plug valve can be used, ~450 F, because after this point heat expansion differences of the liner and plug ruins the seal. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example5.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 4: Plug Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 18 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Globe Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A globe valve is a type of throttling valve, controlling the fluid flow rate, in which the height of a disk is adjusted between two vertical plates.  The gap between the disk and the second vertical plate, known as the seat, can be adjusted to regulate flow rate, however, the valve should not be run at very slow flow rates (&amp;lt;10% open) because the flowing fluid will cause damage to the seat.  The two vertical directional changes of the fluid flow path cause greater pressure drops across these valves.  This type of valve can be adjusted automatically (using a machine program) or manually by a worker. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example6.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 5: Globe Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 19 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Needle Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A needle valve is much like a globe valve, however, a stem with a conical head is used to control the flow rate.  The conical head provides a more accurate and precise flow rate control.  Additionally, the conical head does not have problems at low flow rates as the flat disk of a globe valve exhibits. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example7.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 6: Needle Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 21 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Control Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Control valves are a classification of automatic globe valves.  These valves use an electric actuator or some type of compressed air system to adjust the flow rate through the valve via signaling from an electric control program. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example8.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7: Control Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 22 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Check Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Check valves are valves that are used to control the flow direction within the pipe (i.e. prevent back-flow).  The three main types are swing valves, lift valves and wafer valves (respectively below).  Swing valves push a swinging mechanism forward to allow forward flow, but is blocked in the other direction because the weight of the disc holds itself in place.  These valves are most common in industry.  These valves are not good when flow rate pulsates or is very high, nor if the fluid is a slurry or a gas.  Lift valves use vertical plates, as in a throttling valve, to divert flow in an upward direction to lift a move-able piece that is otherwise held in place by gravity preventing reverse flow.  Wafer valves use a circular wafer that can only twist in one direction so that forward flow in the pipe spins the wafer to align with the fluid flow and move forward, however, in the reverse direction the hinge is blocked so the wafer can not spin allow flow.  These valves require a smaller pressure drop to open and are generally cheaper however they must be used in a very strict flow rate range (~3-11 ft/s). (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example9.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 8: Swing Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 24 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example10.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 9: Lift Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example11.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10: Wafer Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conclusion==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
1. G.P. Towler, R. Sinnott, &#039;&#039;Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design&#039;&#039;, Elsevier, 2012.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. L.T. Biegler, I.E. Grossmann, A.W. Westerberg, &#039;&#039;Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design&#039;&#039;, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. W.D. Sieder, J.D. Seader, D.R. Lewin, &#039;&#039;Process Design Principles: Synthesis, Analysis, and Evaluation&#039;&#039;, Wiley: New York, 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. R.T. Turton, R.C. Bailie, W.B. Whiting, J.A. Shaeiwitz, &#039;&#039;Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes&#039;&#039;, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, &amp;quot;Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers&amp;quot;, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill: New York, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1297</id>
		<title>Process hydraulics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1297"/>
		<updated>2014-02-23T22:18:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Pressure Drop in Pipes */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Authors: Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton, Michael Gleeson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: David Chen, Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: Feb. 2, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transportation and storage of fluids is essential to a chemical process plant. Piping, valves, pumps and compressors comprise the major components of fluid handling equipment. The goal of process hydraulics in a design setting is to overcome frictional losses in piping and equipment, provide correct operating conditions, and overall assist in the controls of the plant. All three objectives must be designed in concert, and before the final controls system is designed. (Towler, 1207).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydraulic systems &amp;amp; Pressure drop==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall pressure drops created by pumps and compressors must also include those created by the connecting pipes. These components must be designed in concert, to account for changes in elevation and friction losses in the pipe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Total Pressure Drop===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drops throughout the flow of a fluid can be summed to find the overall pressure drop of a defined system. For example: If a fluid A, initially at zero gauge pressure, is pumped to a pressure of 300 kPa, then flows through 10 meters of pipe resulting in a loss of 50 kPa, the final gauge pressure at the end of the pipe is 250 kPa. This type of analysis is useful when designing pressure systems over many components.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Total Pressure Drop = \sum_i \Delta P_i = +300 kPa - 50 kPa = 250 kPa&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pressure Drop in Pipes===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When designing pumps and compressors, the loss of pressure due to piping is not negligible, and must be appropriately accounted for (Turton, 537). The &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Delta P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; across a pipe is calculated as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P = (4*c*L/d)*(rho*v^2/2)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is the specific coefficient (typically 0.005 for turbulent flows)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the length of piping,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the diameter of piping, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;rho&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the density of the fluid, and &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;v&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the velocity of the fluid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An added term accounting for the pressure difference due to height is also necessary if there is a change in elevation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the first term in the equation can be altered to include an additional factor:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(n + 4*c*L/d)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is an empirical value to account for piping bends, restrictions, and other variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heuristics===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both the process hydraulics and the economics of a system is affected by pipe sizing (Peters, 500). Heuristics, or &amp;quot;Rules-of-thumbs&amp;quot; have been developed to assist in optimizing pipe selection. While more detailed optimization techniques are available and commonly used, the rules of thumb provide a good starting point for pipe selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested pipe velocities, in ft/s, for gases, liquids, and super-heated steam are approximately 60-100, 6, and 150, respectively (Towler Presentation, 9). Additionally, for liquid flow, the following equation provides a rule-of-thumb for optimal pipe diameter, in inches:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;D = \sqrt{Flow/10}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where D is the optimal diameter, and Flow is in units of gallons/minute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pumps &amp;amp; Compressors==&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps and Compressors are used to pressurize liquids and gases, respectively, and to transfer them from one location to another. In general, it is preferable to increase the pressure of a stream by pumping a liquid rather than compressing a gas because it is far less expensive. This is because the power needed to increase the pressure of a stream is: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;W = \int\limits_{P_1}^{P_2} V\, dP&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where V is the volumetric flow rate. Generally, the volumetric flow rate of a liquid is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the volumetric flow rate of a gas, which means a 10hp pump is comparable in fluid pressurizing capacity to a 1000hp compressor. (Seider 132). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pumps===&lt;br /&gt;
As stated above, pumps require relatively little power compared to gas compressors. However, they are easily vapor locked when pumping liquids near the bubble point because small amounts of vapor can become trapped within their rotating blades. Pumps increase the pressure energy of the effluent fluid by the transfer of kinetic energy from the motor to the fluid, through the impeller. (Seider 642). Selection of pumps for specific services requires knowledge of the liquid to be handled, the total dynamic head required, the suction and discharge heads, and in most cases, the temperature, viscosity, vapor pressure, and density of the fluid. The different types of pumps used in industry can be classified as centrifugal pumps, positive displacement pumps, jet pumps, and electromagnetic pumps. (Peters 508). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Centrifugal Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
This type of pumps is the most widely used in industry. They range in capacity from .5 to 20,000 meters cubed per hour. In the centrifugal pump, the fluid enters the pump are the center of a rotating impeller, where it is thrown outward by centrifugal force. The fluid at the edge of the impeller gains a high kinetic energy, which is then converted into pressure energy, which supplies the pressure difference between the suction side and the delivery side of the pump. (Peters 510).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
In positive displacement pumps, a fixed volume is alternately filled and emptied of the pump fluid by action of the pump. In general, overall efficiencies of positive displacement pumps are higher than those of centrifugal pumps because internal losses are minimized. However, the range of capacities that these pumps can handle is somewhat limited. There are two classes of positive displacement pump, reciprocating and rotary. Reciprocating pumps use valves that are operated by pressure difference to introduce and discharge the liquid being pumped. They generally can deliver fluids with high efficiency against high pressure. In rotary pumps, two intermeshing gears are fitted into a casing. Fluids becomes trapped between the teeth of the gears and is transported to the discharge side of the pump. (Peters 514).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Jet Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Jet pumps use the momentum of one fluid to transport the desired fluid. Efficiency of jet pumps is generally low, and these are mainly useful for situations in which the head to be attained is low and less than the head of the fluid used from pumping. (Peters 515).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Electromagnetic Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Electromagnetic pumps use the principle that a conductor in a magnetic field, carrying a current that flows at right angles to the field, has a force exerted on it. These pumps are used to move fluids that exhibit electromagnetic properties. (Peters 515). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Gas compressors are designed to increase the pressure of gases. Even small amounts of liquids can cause significant amounts of degradation to the compressor blades, so most compressors are designed to avoid condensation. Like pumps, the feed enters the eye of the impeller unit. Compressors are generally much larger than pumps, and they are well insulated to facilitate operation on light gases. To avoid excessively high temperatures, individual compressors are designed to operate at small compressor ratios &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P_2/P_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, typically less than 5. If the compression ratio is greater than 5, multistage compressors are used. (Seider 644-646). Compressors are generally classified into two major categories; continuous flow compressors and positive displacement compressors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Continuous Flow Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
Centrifugal and Axial Compressors are the two main types of continuous flow compressors. Centrifugal compressors are used for higher pressure ratios and lower flow rates, while axial compressors are used for lower stage pressure ratios and high flow rates. The pressure ratio of a single stage centrifugal compressor is roughly 1.2:1, while the pressure ratio of axial flow compressors is between 1.05:1 and 1.15:1. Because of the low pressure ratios for each stage, a single compressor may include a number of stages in one casing to achieve the desired overall pressure ratio. (Peters 521).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
These units are essentially volume gas movers with variable discharge pressures. They operate in much the same way as positive displacement pumps. (Peters 522).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics of Pumps and Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps are relatively cheap in terms of processing equipment.  In 1997 dollars, they would cost between $390 and $1500 base cost multiplied by a ~2.38 (because pumps usually cost much less than $200,000) factor for the installation costs.  Therefore their total installed costs today is $1000-$3500 multiplied by some time correction factor to account for inflation.  For this reason it is typically preferable to condense a vapor to liquid, pump up the liquid, then evaporate the liquid, rather than compress a gas. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compressors are one of the most expensive pieces of process equipment.  In 1997 dollars they cost about $23,000 as a base cost multiplied by a ~3.11 (because compressors are typically less than $200,000) factor to account for installation costs.  Therefore their total installed cost today is ~$71,500 multiplied by a correction factor to account for the inflation over time; nearly 70 times as expensive as a pump!  For this reason in industry compressing a gas within your process is avoided if at all possible. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Valves==&lt;br /&gt;
A valve is a mechanical tool used to control the flow of material in a system by blocking or restricting the materials flow path; typically used on piping.  Valves serve many purposes including but not limited to: beginning or quenching the flow of a material through a system, regulating the flow rate of the material traveling through a system, regulating the pressure of a material flowing through a system, prevent back-flow of a material and changing the flow direction at intersection points.  Any valve in a piping system will cause a pressure drop.  As a rule of thumb, 10 psi change in pressure should be accounted for across each valve when designing a plant. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More specifically, the table below gives the pressure drop of different types of valves in the number of velocity heads lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1: Pressure Drops Across Valves. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 25 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n	&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|45 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|90 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.75	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, ½  open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9.5&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|180 degree bend, close return	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, along run, branch blanked off	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, entering run or entering branch	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, branching flow	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 5 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 20 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|4.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 40 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|17.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|24	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 60 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|206&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Check valve, swing	&lt;br /&gt;
|2	&lt;br /&gt;
|Pipe union	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04&lt;br /&gt;
|}			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gate Valve ===&lt;br /&gt;
A gate valve is comprised of a wedge that slides up and down perpendicular to the path of fluid flow on screw type mechanism, which spins in opposite directions to open/close the valve, in order to allow and block fluid flow respectively.  This type of valve is an ON/OFF valve and therefore should either be operated fully open or fully closed.  Operating partially open can degrade the seal on the valve.  The fluid path is straight through the valve and therefore minimal pressure drop results. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Gate Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 14 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Ball Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A ball valve is another type of ON/OFF valve that only operates fully opened or closed with the flow path straight through the valve.  However, these valves only require a quarter turn to open or close the valve and therefore can quench flow much faster than a gate valve.  Rather than blocking flow with a wedge, a ball valve turns so that the opening aligns with the pipe to allow flow or pipe wall to block flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example3.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 2: Ball Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 16 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Butterfly Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A butterfly valve also requires only a quarter turn to switch between the open and closed position.  A flat plate switches positions between being parallel or perpendicular to flow in order to allow or prevent flow through the valve respectively.  This valve does not seal well on its own and, unaided, can be pushed open by fluid flow, therefore extra materials are required for complete shutdown of flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example4.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 3: Butterfly Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 17 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Plug Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A plug valve is very similar to a ball valve, except it is used in situations in which a better seal is needed.  The valve uses plug stationed in lubricated lining to provide the seal and once again a quarter turn will open/close the valve by aligning the hole within the plug to the pipe/wall respectively.  There is an upper limit to the temperature a which a plug valve can be used, ~450 F, because after this point heat expansion differences of the liner and plug ruins the seal. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example5.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 4: Plug Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 18 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Globe Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A globe valve is a type of throttling valve, controlling the fluid flow rate, in which the height of a disk is adjusted between two vertical plates.  The gap between the disk and the second vertical plate, known as the seat, can be adjusted to regulate flow rate, however, the valve should not be run at very slow flow rates (&amp;lt;10% open) because the flowing fluid will cause damage to the seat.  The two vertical directional changes of the fluid flow path cause greater pressure drops across these valves.  This type of valve can be adjusted automatically (using a machine program) or manually by a worker. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example6.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 5: Globe Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 19 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Needle Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A needle valve is much like a globe valve, however, a stem with a conical head is used to control the flow rate.  The conical head provides a more accurate and precise flow rate control.  Additionally, the conical head does not have problems at low flow rates as the flat disk of a globe valve exhibits. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example7.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 6: Needle Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 21 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Control Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Control valves are a classification of automatic globe valves.  These valves use an electric actuator or some type of compressed air system to adjust the flow rate through the valve via signaling from an electric control program. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example8.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7: Control Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 22 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Check Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Check valves are valves that are used to control the flow direction within the pipe (i.e. prevent back-flow).  The three main types are swing valves, lift valves and wafer valves (respectively below).  Swing valves push a swinging mechanism forward to allow forward flow, but is blocked in the other direction because the weight of the disc holds itself in place.  These valves are most common in industry.  These valves are not good when flow rate pulsates or is very high, nor if the fluid is a slurry or a gas.  Lift valves use vertical plates, as in a throttling valve, to divert flow in an upward direction to lift a move-able piece that is otherwise held in place by gravity preventing reverse flow.  Wafer valves use a circular wafer that can only twist in one direction so that forward flow in the pipe spins the wafer to align with the fluid flow and move forward, however, in the reverse direction the hinge is blocked so the wafer can not spin allow flow.  These valves require a smaller pressure drop to open and are generally cheaper however they must be used in a very strict flow rate range (~3-11 ft/s). (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example9.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 8: Swing Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 24 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example10.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 9: Lift Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example11.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10: Wafer Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
1. G.P. Towler, R. Sinnott, &#039;&#039;Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design&#039;&#039;, Elsevier, 2012.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. L.T. Biegler, I.E. Grossmann, A.W. Westerberg, &#039;&#039;Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design&#039;&#039;, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. W.D. Sieder, J.D. Seader, D.R. Lewin, &#039;&#039;Process Design Principles: Synthesis, Analysis, and Evaluation&#039;&#039;, Wiley: New York, 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. R.T. Turton, R.C. Bailie, W.B. Whiting, J.A. Shaeiwitz, &#039;&#039;Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes&#039;&#039;, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, &amp;quot;Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers&amp;quot;, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill: New York, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1296</id>
		<title>Process hydraulics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://design.cbe.cornell.edu/index.php?title=Process_hydraulics&amp;diff=1296"/>
		<updated>2014-02-23T22:18:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Michaelgleeson2014: /* Pressure Drop in Pipes */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Authors: Thomas Considine, Sean Kelton, Michael Gleeson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steward: David Chen, Fengqi You&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Date Presented: Feb. 2, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The transportation and storage of fluids is essential to a chemical process plant. Piping, valves, pumps and compressors comprise the major components of fluid handling equipment. The goal of process hydraulics in a design setting is to overcome frictional losses in piping and equipment, provide correct operating conditions, and overall assist in the controls of the plant. All three objectives must be designed in concert, and before the final controls system is designed. (Towler, 1207).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydraulic systems &amp;amp; Pressure drop==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall pressure drops created by pumps and compressors must also include those created by the connecting pipes. These components must be designed in concert, to account for changes in elevation and friction losses in the pipe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Total Pressure Drop===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pressure drops throughout the flow of a fluid can be summed to find the overall pressure drop of a defined system. For example: If a fluid A, initially at zero gauge pressure, is pumped to a pressure of 300 kPa, then flows through 10 meters of pipe resulting in a loss of 50 kPa, the final gauge pressure at the end of the pipe is 250 kPa. This type of analysis is useful when designing pressure systems over many components.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Total Pressure Drop = \sum_i \Delta P_i = +300 kPa - 50 kPa = 250 kPa&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pressure Drop in Pipes===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When designing pumps and compressors, the loss of pressure due to piping is not negligible, and must be appropriately accounted for (Turton, 537). The &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Delta P&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; across a pipe is calculated as follows:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P = (4*c*L/d)*(rho*v^2/2)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is the specific coefficient (typically 0.005 for turbulent flows)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the length of piping,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the diameter of piping, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;rho&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the density of the fluid, and &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;v&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the velocity of the fluid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An added term accounting for the pressure difference due to height is also necessary if there is a change in elevation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the first term in the equation can be altered to include an additional factor:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(n + 4*c*L/d)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which accounts for piping bends, restrictions, and other variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Heuristics===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both the process hydraulics and the economics of a system is affected by pipe sizing (Peters, 500). Heuristics, or &amp;quot;Rules-of-thumbs&amp;quot; have been developed to assist in optimizing pipe selection. While more detailed optimization techniques are available and commonly used, the rules of thumb provide a good starting point for pipe selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested pipe velocities, in ft/s, for gases, liquids, and super-heated steam are approximately 60-100, 6, and 150, respectively (Towler Presentation, 9). Additionally, for liquid flow, the following equation provides a rule-of-thumb for optimal pipe diameter, in inches:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;D = \sqrt{Flow/10}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where D is the optimal diameter, and Flow is in units of gallons/minute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pumps &amp;amp; Compressors==&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps and Compressors are used to pressurize liquids and gases, respectively, and to transfer them from one location to another. In general, it is preferable to increase the pressure of a stream by pumping a liquid rather than compressing a gas because it is far less expensive. This is because the power needed to increase the pressure of a stream is: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;W = \int\limits_{P_1}^{P_2} V\, dP&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where V is the volumetric flow rate. Generally, the volumetric flow rate of a liquid is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the volumetric flow rate of a gas, which means a 10hp pump is comparable in fluid pressurizing capacity to a 1000hp compressor. (Seider 132). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Pumps===&lt;br /&gt;
As stated above, pumps require relatively little power compared to gas compressors. However, they are easily vapor locked when pumping liquids near the bubble point because small amounts of vapor can become trapped within their rotating blades. Pumps increase the pressure energy of the effluent fluid by the transfer of kinetic energy from the motor to the fluid, through the impeller. (Seider 642). Selection of pumps for specific services requires knowledge of the liquid to be handled, the total dynamic head required, the suction and discharge heads, and in most cases, the temperature, viscosity, vapor pressure, and density of the fluid. The different types of pumps used in industry can be classified as centrifugal pumps, positive displacement pumps, jet pumps, and electromagnetic pumps. (Peters 508). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Centrifugal Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
This type of pumps is the most widely used in industry. They range in capacity from .5 to 20,000 meters cubed per hour. In the centrifugal pump, the fluid enters the pump are the center of a rotating impeller, where it is thrown outward by centrifugal force. The fluid at the edge of the impeller gains a high kinetic energy, which is then converted into pressure energy, which supplies the pressure difference between the suction side and the delivery side of the pump. (Peters 510).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
In positive displacement pumps, a fixed volume is alternately filled and emptied of the pump fluid by action of the pump. In general, overall efficiencies of positive displacement pumps are higher than those of centrifugal pumps because internal losses are minimized. However, the range of capacities that these pumps can handle is somewhat limited. There are two classes of positive displacement pump, reciprocating and rotary. Reciprocating pumps use valves that are operated by pressure difference to introduce and discharge the liquid being pumped. They generally can deliver fluids with high efficiency against high pressure. In rotary pumps, two intermeshing gears are fitted into a casing. Fluids becomes trapped between the teeth of the gears and is transported to the discharge side of the pump. (Peters 514).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Jet Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Jet pumps use the momentum of one fluid to transport the desired fluid. Efficiency of jet pumps is generally low, and these are mainly useful for situations in which the head to be attained is low and less than the head of the fluid used from pumping. (Peters 515).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Electromagnetic Pumps====&lt;br /&gt;
Electromagnetic pumps use the principle that a conductor in a magnetic field, carrying a current that flows at right angles to the field, has a force exerted on it. These pumps are used to move fluids that exhibit electromagnetic properties. (Peters 515). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Gas compressors are designed to increase the pressure of gases. Even small amounts of liquids can cause significant amounts of degradation to the compressor blades, so most compressors are designed to avoid condensation. Like pumps, the feed enters the eye of the impeller unit. Compressors are generally much larger than pumps, and they are well insulated to facilitate operation on light gases. To avoid excessively high temperatures, individual compressors are designed to operate at small compressor ratios &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P_2/P_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, typically less than 5. If the compression ratio is greater than 5, multistage compressors are used. (Seider 644-646). Compressors are generally classified into two major categories; continuous flow compressors and positive displacement compressors. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Continuous Flow Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
Centrifugal and Axial Compressors are the two main types of continuous flow compressors. Centrifugal compressors are used for higher pressure ratios and lower flow rates, while axial compressors are used for lower stage pressure ratios and high flow rates. The pressure ratio of a single stage centrifugal compressor is roughly 1.2:1, while the pressure ratio of axial flow compressors is between 1.05:1 and 1.15:1. Because of the low pressure ratios for each stage, a single compressor may include a number of stages in one casing to achieve the desired overall pressure ratio. (Peters 521).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Positive Displacement Compressors====&lt;br /&gt;
These units are essentially volume gas movers with variable discharge pressures. They operate in much the same way as positive displacement pumps. (Peters 522).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Economics of Pumps and Compressors===&lt;br /&gt;
Pumps are relatively cheap in terms of processing equipment.  In 1997 dollars, they would cost between $390 and $1500 base cost multiplied by a ~2.38 (because pumps usually cost much less than $200,000) factor for the installation costs.  Therefore their total installed costs today is $1000-$3500 multiplied by some time correction factor to account for inflation.  For this reason it is typically preferable to condense a vapor to liquid, pump up the liquid, then evaporate the liquid, rather than compress a gas. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compressors are one of the most expensive pieces of process equipment.  In 1997 dollars they cost about $23,000 as a base cost multiplied by a ~3.11 (because compressors are typically less than $200,000) factor to account for installation costs.  Therefore their total installed cost today is ~$71,500 multiplied by a correction factor to account for the inflation over time; nearly 70 times as expensive as a pump!  For this reason in industry compressing a gas within your process is avoided if at all possible. (Biegler, 133-135).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Valves==&lt;br /&gt;
A valve is a mechanical tool used to control the flow of material in a system by blocking or restricting the materials flow path; typically used on piping.  Valves serve many purposes including but not limited to: beginning or quenching the flow of a material through a system, regulating the flow rate of the material traveling through a system, regulating the pressure of a material flowing through a system, prevent back-flow of a material and changing the flow direction at intersection points.  Any valve in a piping system will cause a pressure drop.  As a rule of thumb, 10 psi change in pressure should be accounted for across each valve when designing a plant. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
More specifically, the table below gives the pressure drop of different types of valves in the number of velocity heads lost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Table 1: Pressure Drops Across Valves. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 25 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n	&lt;br /&gt;
!Valve or Fitting Type	&lt;br /&gt;
!No. Velocity Heads, n&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|45 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.35	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|90 degree ell, standard	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.75	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, bevel seat, ½  open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9.5&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|180 degree bend, close return	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|9&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, along run, branch blanked off	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.4	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|13&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, entering run or entering branch	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|36&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Tee, branching flow	&lt;br /&gt;
|1	&lt;br /&gt;
|Globe valve, plug disk, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|112&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.17	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 5 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.05&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¾ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.9	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 20 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|1.56&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ½ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|4.5	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 40 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|17.3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Gate valve, ¼ open	&lt;br /&gt;
|24	&lt;br /&gt;
|Plug valve, 60 degrees open	&lt;br /&gt;
|206&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Check valve, swing	&lt;br /&gt;
|2	&lt;br /&gt;
|Pipe union	&lt;br /&gt;
|0.04&lt;br /&gt;
|}			&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Gate Valve ===&lt;br /&gt;
A gate valve is comprised of a wedge that slides up and down perpendicular to the path of fluid flow on screw type mechanism, which spins in opposite directions to open/close the valve, in order to allow and block fluid flow respectively.  This type of valve is an ON/OFF valve and therefore should either be operated fully open or fully closed.  Operating partially open can degrade the seal on the valve.  The fluid path is straight through the valve and therefore minimal pressure drop results. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 1: Gate Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 14 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Ball Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A ball valve is another type of ON/OFF valve that only operates fully opened or closed with the flow path straight through the valve.  However, these valves only require a quarter turn to open or close the valve and therefore can quench flow much faster than a gate valve.  Rather than blocking flow with a wedge, a ball valve turns so that the opening aligns with the pipe to allow flow or pipe wall to block flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example3.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 2: Ball Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 16 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Butterfly Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A butterfly valve also requires only a quarter turn to switch between the open and closed position.  A flat plate switches positions between being parallel or perpendicular to flow in order to allow or prevent flow through the valve respectively.  This valve does not seal well on its own and, unaided, can be pushed open by fluid flow, therefore extra materials are required for complete shutdown of flow. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example4.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 3: Butterfly Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 17 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Plug Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A plug valve is very similar to a ball valve, except it is used in situations in which a better seal is needed.  The valve uses plug stationed in lubricated lining to provide the seal and once again a quarter turn will open/close the valve by aligning the hole within the plug to the pipe/wall respectively.  There is an upper limit to the temperature a which a plug valve can be used, ~450 F, because after this point heat expansion differences of the liner and plug ruins the seal. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example5.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 4: Plug Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 18 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Globe Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A globe valve is a type of throttling valve, controlling the fluid flow rate, in which the height of a disk is adjusted between two vertical plates.  The gap between the disk and the second vertical plate, known as the seat, can be adjusted to regulate flow rate, however, the valve should not be run at very slow flow rates (&amp;lt;10% open) because the flowing fluid will cause damage to the seat.  The two vertical directional changes of the fluid flow path cause greater pressure drops across these valves.  This type of valve can be adjusted automatically (using a machine program) or manually by a worker. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example6.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 5: Globe Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 19 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Needle Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
A needle valve is much like a globe valve, however, a stem with a conical head is used to control the flow rate.  The conical head provides a more accurate and precise flow rate control.  Additionally, the conical head does not have problems at low flow rates as the flat disk of a globe valve exhibits. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example7.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 6: Needle Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 21 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Control Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Control valves are a classification of automatic globe valves.  These valves use an electric actuator or some type of compressed air system to adjust the flow rate through the valve via signaling from an electric control program. (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example8.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 7: Control Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 22 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Check Valve===&lt;br /&gt;
Check valves are valves that are used to control the flow direction within the pipe (i.e. prevent back-flow).  The three main types are swing valves, lift valves and wafer valves (respectively below).  Swing valves push a swinging mechanism forward to allow forward flow, but is blocked in the other direction because the weight of the disc holds itself in place.  These valves are most common in industry.  These valves are not good when flow rate pulsates or is very high, nor if the fluid is a slurry or a gas.  Lift valves use vertical plates, as in a throttling valve, to divert flow in an upward direction to lift a move-able piece that is otherwise held in place by gravity preventing reverse flow.  Wafer valves use a circular wafer that can only twist in one direction so that forward flow in the pipe spins the wafer to align with the fluid flow and move forward, however, in the reverse direction the hinge is blocked so the wafer can not spin allow flow.  These valves require a smaller pressure drop to open and are generally cheaper however they must be used in a very strict flow rate range (~3-11 ft/s). (Towler)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example9.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 8: Swing Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 24 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example10.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 9: Lift Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Example11.png|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Figure 10: Wafer Check Valve Example. Taken from ChE 351 powerpoint slide 23 (written by Jennifer Cole) for class instruction. Slides presented on Oct. 28, 2013.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
1. G.P. Towler, R. Sinnott, &#039;&#039;Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design&#039;&#039;, Elsevier, 2012.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. L.T. Biegler, I.E. Grossmann, A.W. Westerberg, &#039;&#039;Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design&#039;&#039;, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. W.D. Sieder, J.D. Seader, D.R. Lewin, &#039;&#039;Process Design Principles: Synthesis, Analysis, and Evaluation&#039;&#039;, Wiley: New York, 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. R.T. Turton, R.C. Bailie, W.B. Whiting, J.A. Shaeiwitz, &#039;&#039;Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes&#039;&#039;, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, &amp;quot;Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers&amp;quot;, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill: New York, 2003&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Michaelgleeson2014</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>