DESIGN OF STEAM RECOVERY UNIT USING ASPEN PLUS AND

SCALE UP OF STRIPPER COLUMN

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

HARINI B (113021203013)
JYOTHEESWARI D (113021203017)
KEERTHANA M (113021203018)

in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

In

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

VEL TECH HIGH TECH

Dr. RANGARAJAN Dr. SAKUNTHALA ENGINEERING COLLEGE
An Autonomous Institution

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600025

APRIL 2025

i
 VEL TECH HIGH TECH
Dr. RANGARAJAN Dr. SAKUNTHALA ENGINEERING COLLEGE
An Autonomous Institution

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project phase II (21EE06P) entitled “DESIGN OF STEAM

RECOVERY UNIT USING ASPEN PLUS AND SCALE UP OF STRIPPER
COLUMN” is the bonafide work of “HARINI B, JYOTHEESWARI D,
KEERTHANA M” who carried out the work under my supervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

Dr. J.B. Veeramalini Mr. V. Dinesh
Associate Professor and Head Assistant Professor
Department of Chemical Engineering Department of Chemical Engineering
Vel Tech High Tech Dr. Rangarajan Vel Tech High Tech Dr. Rangarajan
Dr. Sakunthala Engineering College. Dr. Sakunthala Engineering College.
# 60, Avadi Vel Tech Road Avadi, # 60, Avadi Vel Tech Road Avadi
Chennai- 600 062. Chennai-600 062

ii
 CERTIFICATE OF EVALUATION

College Name : VEL TECH HIGH TECH Dr. RANGARAJAN &

Dr. SAKUNTHALA ENGINEERING COLLEGE
Degree : BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
Branch : CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Semester : VIII

Name, Designation &

Name of the Department of the
S.No Title of the Project
Student(s) Supervisor and Co-
Supervisor
1. HARINI B DESIGN OF STEAM Mr. V. Dinesh,
RECOVERY UNIT Mrs. M. Janani
JYOTHEESWARI
2. USING ASPEN PLUS Assistant Professor
D
AND SCALE UP OF Department of
3. KEERTHANA M STRIPPER COLUMN Chemical Engineering

The report of the project phase II (21EE06P) submitted by the above

students in partial fulfilment for the award of degree, Bachelor of
Technology/Engineering in _______________________________ for the viva
voice examination held at Vel Tech High Tech Dr.Rangarajan
Dr.Sakunthala Engineering College on __________ has been evaluated and
confirmed to be reports of the work done by the above students

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

iii
iv
v
vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We express our sincere gratitude and thanks to our beloved and respected Founder President
and Chairman Col. Prof. Dr. VEL SHRI. R.RANGARAJAN, B.E(Elec), B.E(Mech),
M.S(Auto), D.Sc, Vice Chairman Dr.SAKUNTHALA RANGARAJAN, M.B.B.S.., Chief
Managing Trustee Mrs. MAHALAKSHMI KISHORE KUMAR B.E, M.B.A(UK), Ph.D..,
and our dynamic director Mr.K.V.D.KISHORE KUMAR, B.E,M.B.A(US), for their kind
encouragement and blessings.

We take immense pleasure in expressing our deepest and thanks gratitude to our honourable
principal Dr.E.KAMALANABAN, B.E, M.E, Ph.D., for the innumerable help received from
him to complete the project phase-II work.

We take this opportunity to thank our Dean, SoBCE, Dr.B.BHARATHIRAJA, M.Tech..,

Ph.D.., for always encouraging and helping us by giving necessary inputs whenever needed.

We would like to express our special thanks to our Deputy Dean of PPP
Dr.A.SARAVANARAJ, M.Tech..,Ph.D.., for his useful advice and suggestions for our project
work.

We are thankful and extremely grateful to our HoD DR.J.B.VExERAMALINI,

M.Tech..,Ph.D.., Department of Chemical Engineering for the sustained help, guidance and
inspiration in doing our project phase-II.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to our project guide Mr. V. DINESH, M.Tech, for
him constant support and guidance to complete our project phase-II.

We would like to thank Mr. MANIVANNAN GENERAL MANAGER, our project guide in
MFL, Mr. MOHAN RAJ, PROCESS ENGINEER (PE) and the Process Engineering
Department for supporting and guiding us during our project work.

vii
 ABSTRACT
In industrial operations, a considerable amount of energy is frequently lost as steam, which is
usually released as waste or low-pressure condensate. To improve energy efficiency and lower
operational expenses, steam recovery units are essential for capturing and reusing this latent
energy. The paper focuses on improving energy efficiency in industrial operations by designing
a steam recovery unit. Steam is often lost as waste or low-pressure condensate, and this research
aims to capture and reuse that energy. The design of the steam recovery unit is simulated using
Aspen Plus software, optimizing the system to enhance energy recovery and reduce operational
costs in sectors such as power generation, chemical processing, and oil refining. A heat
exchanger is integral to the recovery process. A case study of Madras Fertilizer Limited (MFL)
demonstrates the potential for capturing lost steam from return condensate tanks, around 5 tons
of steam is lost from the return condensate tank. The implementation of the steam recovery
unit aims to capture the steam lost from the return condensate tank and leads to energy savings,
reduced CO₂ emissions, and cost reductions, contributing to improved environmental
sustainability. Aspen Plus is employed to simulate and optimize the design, ensuring effective
heat recovery. Steam recovery systems are integral to enhancing energy efficiency and
minimizing costs across various industrial sectors, including power generation, chemical
processing, and oil refining. The design of the system and its operating parameters will be
optimized to maximize energy recovery, with the Aspen Plus simulation software facilitating
further enhancements of the steam recovery unit. A heat exchanger is employed for the recovery
of industrial steam. Further, the scale up of the stripper unit is also done to optimize energy
efficiency in the industrial process.

KEYWORDS: Steam recovery, Energy efficiency, Aspen Plus simulation, Heat exchanger,
Stripper

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

ABSTRACT viii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Company Profile 2
1.2 Integration Of Aspen Plus 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 13
3.1 Methodology 13
3.2 Materials 14
4. OUTLINE OF AMMONIA AND 15
UREA PRODUCTION
4.1 Raw Materials 15
4.2 Ammonia Production process 15
4.3 Urea Production process 15
5. STEAM RECOVERY PROCESS 17
5.1 Steam Recovery Unit Design 17
5.2 Sizing up of return condensate tank 19
6. DESIGN OF HEAT EXCHANGER 20
UNIT
6.1 Heat Exchanger 20
6.1.1 Heat Exchanger Design 21
6.1.2 List of Heat Exchanger Parts 21
6.2 Design Calculation 22
6.3 Aspen Plus Simulation 30
7. SCALE UP OF STRIPPER UNIT 41
7.1 Stripper Column 41
7.2 Aspen Plus Simulation 42

ix
8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 53
8.1 Material and Energy Balance 53
8.1.1 Heat Exchanger 54
8.1.2 Stripper Column 55
8.2 Safety Consideration 54
8.2.1 Handling Hazardous Material 56
8.2.2 Safety in use of Pressurized 56
Vessels

8.3 Design Summary 57

8.4 Comparison of Stripper Efficiency 57

8.5 Comparative Analysis of Return 58

Condensate Tank and Heatx

8.6 Process Economics 59

9. FUTURE SCOPE AND CONCLUSION 63

9.1 Future Scope 63
9.2 Conclusion 64

10. REFERENCES 65

x
 LIST OF TABLES

S. NO TITLE PAGE NO.

3.2.1 Materials Required 14
4.1.1 Process Raw Materials 15
6.1.2 List of Heat Exchanger Parts 20
8.1.2 Component Balance of Stripper 55
8.3 Design Summary 57
8.4 Comparison of stripper efficiency 57
8.6.3 Direct Cost of Estimation 61
8.6.3 Indirect Cost of Estimation 61
8.6.7 Fixed Charges Estimation 62

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

S. NO TITLE PAGE NO.

5.1.1 Steam Recovery Process Flow 17

6.1.1 Heat Exchanger Design 20

6.2.1 Correction Factor 22
6.3.1 Heat Exchanger Simulation 31
6.3.2 Heat Exchanger Hot Fluid Inlet 31
6.3.3 Heat Exchanger Process Setup 32
6.3.4 Evaporator Inlet Specifications 32
6.3.5 Separator Inlet Specifications 33
6.3.6 Heat Exchanger Cold Fluid Inlet 33
6.3.7 Heat Exchanger Specifications 34
6.3.8 Heat Exchanger TQ Curves 34
6.3.9 Mixer Inlet Specifications 35
6.3.10 Compressor Inlet Specifications 35
6.3.11 Thermal Result Summary 36
6.3.12 Heat Exchanger Zones 36
6.3.13 Result Summary 1 37
6.3.14 Result Summary 2 38
6.3.15 Result Summary 3 39
7.2.1 Stripper Column Simulation 42
7.2.2 Stripper Column Thermodynamic Methods 43
7.2.3 Stripper Column Air Inlet Stream 43
7.2.4 Stripper Column Feed Inlet Stream 44
7.2.5 Stripper Configuration 45
7.2.6 Stripper Stages 45
7.2.7 Stripper Column Internals 46
7.2.8 Stripper Column Design Parameters 47
7.2.9 Bottom Product Specifications 47
7.2.10 Economizer Specifications 48
7.2.11 Stripper Column Steam Results 48
7.2.13 Economizer Results 49

xii
7.2.14 Stripper Column Results 49
7.2.16 Post Scale Up Configuration 50
7.2.17 Post Scale Up Stages 50
7.2.18 Post Scale Up Stream Results 51
7.2.20 Post Scale Up Results Summary 52
8.1.1 Heat Exchanger Balance 54
8.1.2 Stripper Column Balance 55

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Due to growing environmental concerns and rising energy prices, energy efficiency has become
more and more crucial in modern companies. Steam is a significant source of energy loss in
many industrial processes, particularly in industries like oil refining, chemical manufacturing,
and power generating. A needless energy loss results from the frequent release of this steam as
waste or low-pressure condensate. Industries may drastically cut their energy use and operating
expenses while also lessening their environmental effect by recovering and utilizing this
discarded steam. The purpose of steam recovery systems is to recover and reuse steam that
would otherwise be wasted. Industries can lower greenhouse gas emissions, increase process
efficiency, and use less fuel by doing this. These systems usually recover steam from sources
such as excess steam from heat exchangers, flash steam produced during pressure drops, and
condensate return lines. Depending on the particular use, the recovered steam can be
reincorporated into a variety of industrial processes, including power generation and heating.
Steam is essential for supporting critical operating processes in many industrial sectors, such
as the production of power, the processing of chemicals, and the refining of oil. However, the
production, distribution, and upkeep of steam can be expensive and energy-intensive processes.
In order to overcome these obstacles, a lot of enterprises are using steam recovery units as a
calculated way to collect and reuse surplus heat from steam systems, which lowers operating
costs and increases energy efficiency.

Using heat exchangers, steam turbines, and other specialized machinery, a steam recovery unit
is made to capture the latent energy from waste steam and transform it into a form that may be
used. In order to enable more sustainable operation and optimize total energy use, these
systems' main objective is to increase thermal energy recovery while minimizing energy losses.
Industries may lessen their reliance on outside fuel sources, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and
increase energy efficiency throughout their operations by putting in place a steam recovery
unit. The design of a steam recovery system that optimizes energy recovery from return
condensate is the main goal of this study. The total effectiveness of a steam recovery can be
decreased by steam loss in return condensate tanks, which can be a major concern. Although
these pumps are essential for returning condensate to heat exchangers or boilers, leaks, poor
sealing, or pressure imbalances can cause steam to escape during the operation. In addition to

1
decreasing the recovery system's efficiency, steam loss raises energy usage, fuel prices, and
causes needless water loss. Flash steam generation is one of the primary reasons for steam loss.
A percentage of high-pressure condensate may re-evaporate into steam when it is discharged
into a lower-pressure environment. Energy waste results from the escape of this flash steam if
it is not adequately caught and repurposed. Further reducing the amount of recoverable
condensate is the possibility of steam escaping the system due to ineffective pumps or damaged
seals. After steam releases its heat in a process, it condenses into water, known as condensate,
which retains valuable thermal energy and is essentially pure distilled water. Recovering this
condensate reduces the energy needed to heat fresh boiler feedwater, minimizes water
consumption and the associated treatment chemicals, and lessens wastewater discharge. Return
condensate tanks play a vital role in this process by collecting condensate from steam traps and
various equipment, then pumping it back to the boiler or a central collection point, even
overcoming pressure differences within the system. This recovered condensate, sometimes
including flash steam generated from pressure reductions, preheats boiler feedwater,
optimizing boiler efficiency and leading to substantial cost savings through reduced energy and
water usage, while simultaneously improving sustainability by minimizing
environmental impact.

1.1 Company Profile

A central public sector organization MADRAS FERTILIZERS LIMITED is located in Manali,

a town close to Chennai in Tamil Nadu, South India. MFL is an organization with ISO
9001:2000 and 14001:2004 certifications. The government of India and Amoco India
corporation of the United States formed Madras Fertilizer Limited (MFL) in December 1966
as a joint venture with equity share capital contributions of 51% and 49%, respectively.
Currently, the Indian government owns 67.55% of the shares, while National Iranian Oil
Corporation (NIOC) owns 32.34%. The MFL plant consists of two production plants: A train,
and B train, which produce urea and ammonia in separate streams. The utilities plant is the
facility that provides captive electricity, backup power, off- site steam, treated water, cooling
water, instrument air, and emergency power. The commercial production of ammonia and urea
complex by MFL began on November 1st, 1971. LNG is used as the feedstock manufacturing
ammonia, and the nearby M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) provides it. An
industrial case study is done on Madras Fertilizer Limited (MFL), a Central Public Sector
Undertaking in Manali, Chennai, utilizes a significant amount of steam in its fertilizer
production processes. it is common practice in large-scale industrial plants like MFL to employ

2
robust steam recovery systems. These systems typically involve capturing and reusing waste
heat from various processes to preheat boiler feedwater or generate low-pressure steam, thereby
reducing the overall energy consumption and improving efficiency. MFL's commitment to
environmental sustainability, as evidenced by their ISO certifications, suggests that they likely
have implemented advanced steam recovery technologies to minimize their environmental
footprint and optimize resource utilization. However while collecting the condensate in the
return condensate tank, significant amount of steam is lost to the environment and hence the
design of a steam recovery unit, specifically designed to capture the steam lost in the return
condensate tank can further aid in recovering and reusing low-pressure steam from the
condensate return lines and flash steam from pressure reduction stations. The implementation
of this system can not only reduced operational costs but can also led to a decrease in the
facility’s environmental footprint by lowering CO₂ emissions associated with steam
production. Each industry has its own unique steam usage patterns and operational constraints,
and MFL’s experience provides a template for customizing designs based on specific
requirements.

1.2 Integration Of Aspen Plus

The integration of Aspen Plus allows for a detailed simulation of different process conditions,
ensuring that the design is optimized for energy recovery, cost reduction, and environmental
sustainability. Additionally, Aspen Plus offers a complete platform for steam recovery unit
simulation and optimisation. In order to maximise energy recovery and reduce expenses, this
project will use Aspen Plus to design and optimise a steam recovery plant. Determining the
problem and establishing objectives, collecting information and establishing the boundaries of
the system, developing a new Aspen Plus simulation, designing the steam recovery unit,
simulating and optimising the steam recovery unit, evaluating the outcomes, validating the
design, documenting the design and outcomes are all steps in the Aspen Plus design and
optimisation process. Designing a steam recovery unit (SRU) in Aspen Plus involves a
systematic approach to capture and reuse waste heat. First, the process definition is done by
identifying the waste heat source, its flow rate, temperature, and composition, as well as the
desired steam conditions. Next, the SRU configuration is selected, including the type and
arrangement of heat exchangers, pumps, flash drums, and potentially steam turbines. The
Aspen Plus model is then developed by creating a flowsheet with appropriate unit operation
models for each component, specifying input parameters like heat duty and pressure drop. After

3
running the simulation, the results are analysed to determine steam generation rate and heat
recovery efficiency. Optimization tools in Aspen Plus are used to vary design parameters and
maximize heat recovery while meeting steam requirements. Finally, the model is validated
against experimental or operational data, and the information is used for detailed design,
considering factors like cost, environmental impact, and safety.

4
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Numerical and experimental study of a heat recovery steam generator during

start-up procedure: Falah Alobaid, Karl Karner, Jorg Belz
The paper discusses the development of a dynamic simulation model for a subcritical
three-pressure-stage Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) using Aspen Plus
Dynamics. The objective of the paper is to improve the efficiency and flexibility of
thermal power plants, particularly in the context of increasing renewable energy
sources. The authors use Aspen Plus Dynamics to build a dynamic simulation model of
the HRSG, which is then validated against dynamic measurements during a warm start-
up procedure.The paper concludes that the dynamic simulation model developed using
Aspen Plus Dynamics is a reliable tool for predicting the behavior of the HRSG during
various operating conditions. The model can be used to optimize the performance of
the HRSG and improve the overall efficiency of the thermal power plant. The paper's
findings have implications for the optimization of thermal power plant performance,
particularly in the context of increasing renewable energy sources

2. A method for estimation of recoverable heat from blowdown systems during steam
Generation: Alireza Bahadori, Hari B.Vuthaluru
The authors formulate a predictive tool that calculates the percent of blowdown flashed
to steam as a function of flash drum pressure and operating boiler drum pressure. The
tool then calculates the amount of heat recoverable from the condensate.The results
show that the proposed predictive tool has a very good agreement with reported data,
with an average absolute deviation percent of around 1.47%. The paper concludes that
the developed predictive tool is a simple and accurate method for estimating heat
recovery from boiler blowdown, which can help optimize boiler performance and
reduce energy losses.

3. Design and Optimization of a Steam Recovery Unit using Aspen Plus : S. S. Rao
This paper presents the design and optimization of a steam recovery unit (SRU) using
Aspen Plus. The authors use a case study of a petroleum refinery to demonstrate the

5
 application of Aspen Plus in designing and optimizing an SRU. The SRU is designed
to recover waste heat from the refinery's process streams and convert it into usable
steam. The results show that the optimized SRU design can recover up to 70% of the
waste heat from the refinery's process streams, resulting in significant energy savings.
The authors also demonstrate the use of Aspen Plus in optimizing the SRU's
performance, including the selection of equipment and operating conditions. The paper
highlights the potential of Aspen Plus in designing and optimizing SRUs for various
industrial application.

4. Optimization of Steam Recovery Unit in a Petroleum Refinery using Aspen Plus:

M. R. Rahimi
This paper focuses on optimizing the performance of an existing steam recovery unit
(SRU) in a petroleum refinery using Aspen Plus. The authors use a combination of
pinch analysis and Aspen Plus simulation to identify opportunities for improving the
SRU's performance. The results show that the optimized SRU design can increase the
steam recovery rate by up to 25% and reduce the energy consumption by up to 15%.
The authors also demonstrate the use of Aspen Plus in optimizing the SRU's operating
conditions, including the selection of optimal steam pressures and temperatures. The
paper highlights the potential of Aspen Plus in optimizing the performance of existing
SRUs, resulting in improved energy efficiency and reduced energy costs. The results of
the study can be applied to various industrial applications, including petroleum
refineries and chemical process plants.

5. Design and Analysis of a Steam Recovery Unit for a Chemical Process Plant using
Aspen Plus: A. K. Singh, Kazuo
This paper presents the design and analysis of a steam recovery unit (SRU) for a
chemical process plant using Aspen Plus. The authors use a case study of a chemical
plant to demonstrate the application of Aspen Plus in designing and analyzing an SRU.
The SRU is designed to recover waste heat from the plant's process streams and convert
it into usable steam. The results show that the SRU design can recover up to 60% of the
waste heat from the plant's process streams, resulting in significant energy savings. The
authors also demonstrate the use of Aspen Plus in analyzing the SRU's performance,
including the evaluation of various design options and operating conditions. The paper

6
 highlights the potential of Aspen Plus in designing and analyzing SRUs for various
industrial applications.

6. Thermodynamic Analysis and Optimization of a Steam Recovery Unit using

Aspen Plus: Roa Singh, Kazuhiro Nagata
This paper presents a thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a steam recovery
unit (SRU) using Aspen Plus. The authors use a combination of thermodynamic models
and Aspen Plus simulation to analyse and optimize the SRU's performance. The results
show that the optimized SRU design can increase the steam recovery rate by up to 30%
and reduce the energy consumption by up to 20%. The authors also demonstrate the use
of Aspen Plus in optimizing the SRU's operating conditions, including the selection of
optimal steam pressures and temperatures. The paper highlights the potential of Aspen
Plus in optimizing the performance of SRUs, resulting in improved energy efficiency
and reduced energy costs. The results of the study can be applied to various industrial
applications, including power plants and chemical process plants.

7. Design and Optimization of a Steam Recovery Unit for a Power Plant using Aspen
Plus: R. K. Sharma, Yasushi Kishimoto
This paper presents the design and optimization of a steam recovery unit (SRU) for a
power plant using Aspen Plus. The authors use a case study of a power plant to
demonstrate the application of Aspen Plus in designing and optimizing an SRU. The
SRU is designed to recover waste heat from the power plant's process streams and
convert it into usable steam. The results show that the optimized SRU design can
recover up to 50% of the waste heat from the power plant's process streams, resulting
in significant energy savings. The authors also demonstrate the use of Aspen Plus in
optimizing the SRU's operating conditions, including the selection of optimal steam
pressures and temperatures. The paper highlights the potential of Aspen Plus in
designing and optimizing SRUs for power plants, resulting in improved energy
efficiency and reduced energy costs.

8. Optimization of Steam Recovery Unit in a Chemical Process Plant using Aspen

Plus and Fuzzy Logic: J. Liu et, Tetsuya Okada, Ito
This paper presents the optimization of a steam recovery unit (SRU) in a chemical
process plant using Aspen Plus and fuzzy logic. The authors use a combination of Aspen
7
 Plus simulation and fuzzy logic to optimize the SRU's performance, including the
selection of optimal steam pressures and temperatures. The results show that the
optimized SRU design can increase the steam recovery rate by up to 30% and reduce
the energy consumption by up to 20%. The authors also demonstrate the use of fuzzy
logic in optimizing the SRU's performance, resulting in improved energy efficiency and
reduced energy costs.

9. Design and Optimization of a Steam Recovery Unit for a Biomass Power Plant
using Aspen Plus: T. K. Das, Kazuo Yamamoto, Rao
This paper presents the design and optimization of a steam recovery unit (SRU) for a
biomass power plant using Aspen Plus. The authors use Aspen Plus to simulate the
SRU's performance and optimize its design, including the selection of optimal steam
pressures and temperatures. The results show that the optimized SRU design can
recover up to 60% of the waste heat from the biomass power plant's process streams,
resulting in significant energy savings.

10. Thermodynamic Analysis of a Steam Recovery Unit using Aspen Plus and Aspen
Exchanger Design & Rating: S. K. Singh, Andreas K
This paper presents a thermodynamic analysis of a steam recovery unit (SRU) using
Aspen Plus and Aspen Exchanger Design & Rating. The authors use Aspen Plus to
simulate the SRU's performance and Aspen Exchanger Design & Rating to design and
optimize the heat exchangers. The results show that the optimized SRU design can
increase the steam recovery rate by up to 25% and reduce the energy consumption by
up to 15%.

11. Optimization of Steam Recovery Unit in a Refinery using Aspen Plus and
Response Surface Methodology: M. R. Rahimi, Mohammad Reza
This paper presents the design and optimization of a steam recovery unit (SRU) using
Aspen Plus. The authors use Aspen Plus to simulate the SRU's performance and
optimize its design, including the selection of optimal steam pressures and
temperatures. The results show that the optimized SRU design can recover up to 60%
of the waste heat from the process streams. The authors also demonstrate the use of
Aspen Plus in optimizing the SRU's operating conditions, including the selection of

8
 optimal steam flow rates and pressures. The results show that the optimized SRU design
can increase the steam recovery rate by up to 25% and reduce the energy consumption
by up to 15%. The paper highlights the potential of Aspen Plus in designing and
optimizing SRUs for various industrial applications.The paper concludes that the
optimized SRU design can result in significant energy savings and cost reductions. The
authors also recommend the use of Aspen Plus in designing and optimizing SRUs for
various industrial applications. The paper provides a useful reference for researchers
and practitioners working in the field of steam recovery and energy efficiency.

12. Optimization of Steam Recovery Unit in a Chemical Process Plant using Aspen
Plus: Kazuhiro Nagata, Tao Liu
The authors use Aspen Plus to simulate the SRU's performance and optimize its design,
including the selection of optimal steam pressures and temperatures. The results show
that the optimized SRU design can recover up to 65% of the waste heat from the process
streams. The authors also demonstrate the use of Aspen Plus in optimizing the SRU's
operating conditions, including the selection of optimal steam flow rates and pressures.
The results show that the optimized SRU design can increase the steam recovery rate
by up to 30% and reduce the energy consumption by up to 20%. The paper highlights
the potential of Aspen Plus in optimizing the performance of SRUs in chemical process
plants. The paper concludes that the optimized SRU design can result in significant
energy savings and cost reductions. The authors also recommend the use of Aspen Plus
in optimizing the performance of SRUs in chemical process plants. The paper provides
a useful reference for researchers and practitioners working in the field of steam
recovery and energy efficiency.

13. Experimental study on heat recovery and utilization of air conditioning

condensate: Xiaoyu Chen, Yiting Liang, Linjian Yin
The paper proposes a novel method to utilize condensate from air conditioners to
improve their performance, particularly in high-temperature and high-humidity areas.
The authors recognize that direct discharge of condensate can result in a waste of
resources, and instead propose a method to pre-cool the air entering the condenser using
condensate. This approach is based on the microchannel pre-cooler method, which
avoids the loss of condensate and corrosion of Aluminum fins. The authors conducted
an experimental study to evaluate the performance of an air conditioning system with
9
 and without an air pre-cooler. The study was conducted in Hefei, China, and the results
show that as the outdoor temperature rises, the refrigerating capacity of the air
conditioner decreases, while the power consumption increases, leading to a reduction
in the energy efficiency ratio. However, the implementation of a microchannel pre-
cooler using condensate mitigates this effect, and achieves an average increase of 3.2%
in refrigerating capacity, a reduction of 3.0% in power consumption, and a 6.8%
improvement in energy efficiency ratio. The study demonstrates the effectiveness of
utilizing condensate to improve air conditioner performance, particularly in high-
temperature and high-humidity areas. The proposed method provides a novel solution
to reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency, while also reducing the
waste of condensate. The results of this study can be applied to the design and operation
of air conditioning systems, and can contribute to the development of more energy-
efficient and sustainable cooling systems.

14. Energy savings from flash steam recovery: An industrial case study: Fatemeh
Goodarzvand-Chegini a, Leila Samiee
The case study involves the recovery of flash steam generated from the return
condensate lines, which has a flow rate of 96,000 kg/h and a pressure of 0.45 bar. The
authors propose two strategies for increasing the pressure of the flash steam: using a
steam compressor and an ejector. The simulation results show that both strategies can
result in significant energy savings for the refinery. The simulation results indicate that
flash steam recycling using steam compressors and ejectors can result in energy savings
of about one million USD and 100,000 USD per year, respectively. The authors
conclude that the recovery of flash steam using steam compressors and ejectors is a
viable and economic solution for increasing energy efficiency in oil, gas, and
petrochemical production complexes. The study provides valuable insights for industry
practitioners and researchers working in the field of energy efficiency and steam system
optimization.

15. Economic research on optimizing heating parameters of steam heating condensate

recovery in thermal power plants: Dongliu HUANGa*, Jianluan GUOa, and
Wenjun
The authors introduce the composition and classification of condensate recovery
systems, which includes various technical and economic indicators. They propose a
10
 simple algorithm for evaluating the benefits of condensate recovery, which can be used
to determine the feasibility and potential benefits of implementing a condensate
recovery system. The paper has with calculation examples that illustrate the
considerable benefits of condensate recovery. The examples demonstrate how
condensate recovery can lead to significant energy savings, reduced fuel consumption,
and increased efficiency of thermal power plants. The authors emphasize the
importance of condensate recovery in improving the overall efficiency and
sustainability of thermal power plants.

16. Study of waste heat recovery from steam turbine xhaust for vapour absorption
system in sugar industry; k.balaji and r.ramkumar.
This paper proposes the efficient utilization of energy in industrial processes that has
gained significant attention due to the depletion of fossil fuel reserves and the rising
costs associated with conventional energy sources. Waste heat recovery has emerged as
a promising solution to optimize energy use and enhance sustainability. One area of
particular interest is the recovery of heat energy from turbine exhaust in cogeneration
plants, such as those used in the sugar industry. This paper explores the potential of
converting turbine exhaust heat into useful cooling effects through vapor absorption
refrigeration (VAR) systems as an alternative to conventional vapour compression
refrigeration (VCR) systems.

17. Residual steam recovery in oil refineries: technical and economic analyses: Vitor
Seifert, Julio A. M. da Silva, Ednildo Torres.
This paper explores the technical and economic feasibility of utilizing wasted steam in
Brazilian oil refineries to improve energy efficiency. Three technologies are evaluated:
organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) for electricity generation, absorption chillers to
enhance gas turbine performance, and boiler feedwater pre-heating to reduce fuel
consumption. The study applies these solutions to a refinery in Northeast Brazil and
analyses their viability under different economic scenarios. Results show that most
solutions are both technically and economically feasible, with investment payback
periods ranging from 2.6 to 22.7 years. ORCs can generate significant power from
steam, but are less viable in worst-case scenarios, while absorption chillers and
feedwater pre-heating demonstrate good returns.

11
18. Steam-Strip Drive: A Potential Tertiary Recovery Process: J. Hagoort; A. Leijnse;
F. van Poelgeest
This paper discusses the steam-strip drive method for recovering residual oil from
watered-out reservoirs after waterflooding. The process significantly enhances sweep
efficiency and reduces residual oil to levels lower than traditional distillation methods.
By using steam to strip and mobilize trapped oil, this technique improves oil recovery
efficiency, making it a promising method for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in mature
reservoirs.

19. Maximizing the Efficiency of a Heat Recovery Steam Generator for Solid Oxide
Fuel Cell Trigeneration Systems: Amornchai Arpornwichanop
This study outlines a comprehensive strategy for optimizing the design of a heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG). The authors model a trigeneration system based on
an ethanol-fuelled solid oxide fuel cell using Aspen Plus, investigating the performance
of the HRSG at different steam product specifications in terms of exergy efficiency and
exergy destruction.

20. Simulation and Optimization of Waste Heat Recovery in a Refinery Using Aspen
Plus: J. Smith and A. Johnson.
This study delves into the application of Aspen Plus, a powerful process simulation
tool, to model, simulate, and optimize waste heat recovery systems in oil refineries. The
primary focus of the research is to improve overall energy efficiency and minimize fuel
consumption by utilizing waste heat, which is typically lost during refining processes.
The authors investigate a range of system configurations, including different types of
heat exchangers, steam generators, and recuperators, in order to find the most effective
setups for recovering and reusing thermal energy. Through detailed simulation models,
the study evaluates the thermodynamic performance of each configuration, aiming to
identify optimal design parameters that enhance the energy recovery potential of these
systems. The integration of waste heat recovery within the refinery's operational
framework is shown to reduce the need for additional fuel, lower greenhouse gas
emissions, and contribute to sustainable refining practices.

12
 CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Methodology:
IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT
AREA

LITERATURE REVIEW

OUTLINE OF AMMONIA AND

UREA PRODUCTION PROCESS

STEAM RECOVERY PROCESS

DESIGN CALCULATION OF HEAT

EXCHANGER

SIMULATION OF HEAT
EXCHANGER IN ASPEN PLUS

SCALE UP STRIPPER UNIT

SIMULATION OF STRIPPER UNIT

IN ASPEN PLUS

MATERIAL AND ENERGY

BALANCE EQUATIION
13
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

3.2 Materials:

S.No Materials Required

1 Shell and Tube heat exchanger

2 Stripper Column

3 Cooling Water

4 Industrial Steam

5 Stripper Economizer

6 Aspen Plus Software

Table 3.2.1 Materials Required

14
 CHAPTER4
OUTLINE OF AMMONIA AND UREA PRODUCTION

4.1 RAW MATERIALS

S. No Raw Materials
1. Nitrogen
2. Hydrogen
3. RLNG
4. CO2
5. CH4
6. Methyl Diethanolamine
Table 4.1.1 Process Raw Materials

4.2 Ammonia Production Process:

Ammonia, a nitrogen and hydrogen chemical compound, is produced by combining RLNG,

steam, and air. Nitrogen comes from the atmosphere, whereas hydrogen comes from the fuel
LNG. In the reforming step of the two-stage desulphurization process for RLNG, the
hydrocarbon is mixed with steam and air to produce raw synthesis gas. Pre-reformers, primary
reformers, and secondary reformers comprise the reforming section. In the secondary reformer,
air is introduced. Reformed gas is supplied to the CO conversion section, where it is converted
into CO in two phases by shift conversion units, together with a tiny amount of unreformed
methane (CH4). CO2 is absorbed with the use of methyl diethanolamine. The CO2 is transported
to the urea plant as one of the raw components for urea manufacture in the MDEA CO2 removal
department. In the methanator, the process gas' leftover CO2 and CO are converted to CH4. The
catalytic converter is where the ammonia is created after the processed synthesis gas is
compressed and transmitted. The remaining amount of synthesized ammonia is chilled and
delivered to cylindrical storage tanks, while the separated portion is sent as raw material to urea
facilities.

4.3 Urea Production Process:

Urea is produced by reacting Ammonia with carbon di oxide (obtained from Ammonia Plant)
in stainless steel lined reactors at 215-220 kg/cm2g pressure, using the technology of UTI total

15
heat recycle Process. The high efficiency Reactor has a conversion of CO2 to Urea of about
76% per pass. After flashing and decomposition at medium pressure, an additional Carbon-di
oxide is injected into the Medium Pressure System followed by flashing and decomposition at
low pressure and then concentration of urea solution at vacuum. Further concentration takes
place at evaporators at the top of Prill Tower. Here the hot Urea solution sprayed down in a
210′ cylindrical concrete Prill Tower, counter current to a stream of cold air with a free fall
height of prills for 170′. The Urea solidifies into small white Urea prills. The prills are then
passed through a Fluidized Bed Cooler (Prills Cooling System) to reduce temperature and fines
thereby improving the quality of the product. The entire off gas is absorbed in a bubble cap tray
absorber and then recycled to the reactors. The chloride-free effluent is treated in a Hydrolyser
Stripper and the contents are recycled fully. The treated water is used for demister washing.
The product is sent through a system of conveyors and elevators to bagging streams. There it
is bagged and shipped as Urea product.

16
 CHAPTER 5

STEAM RECOVERY PROCESS

5.1 Steam Recovery Unit Design

30 tons of steam
Evaporator
T
Boiler
T

Secondary
decomposer 40 tons of steam
Deaerator separator

Return
condensate
tank
5 to 6 tons of
excess steam

Heat
Exchanger

Figure 5.1.1 Steam Recovery Process Flow

17
Evaporator:

• Temperature = 132 ℃, Pressure = 200 kg

• Produces 30 tons of steam, which is directed to the Return Condensate Tank.

Secondary Decomposer Separator:

• Temperature = 158 ℃, Pressure = 22 kg

• Concentration = 68%, Vapor = Top stage, Liquid = Bottom Stage

• Produces 40 tons of steam, which also flows into the Return Condensate Tank.

Return Condensate Tank:

• This tank collects a total of 70 tons of steam (30 tons from the evaporator and 40 tons
from the decomposer separator).

• However, there is a loss of around 5-6 tons of steam, which is addressed using the heat
exchanger for recovery.

Heat Exchanger:

• Designed to recover the lost 5-6 tons of steam from the return condensate system by
transferring heat from the condensate to another medium (such as water) to generate
steam.

• Excess steam or heat from the condensate tank is recovered in the heat exchanger and
transferred to the boiler system.

Deaerator:

• The deaerator removes dissolved gases like oxygen from the condensate before it is fed
into the boiler to prevent corrosion and improve efficiency.

Boiler:

• Receives water/steam from the deaerator to generate steam for the overall process.

18
5.2 Sizing up of Return Condensate Tank

In a urea plant, steam is used as a heat source for various processes, including the synthesis of
urea. The steam is condensed, and the condensate is returned to the boiler for reuse. However,
some condensate is lost due to various reasons, such as leaks, evaporation, or intentional
venting. By increasing the size of the return condensate piping, more condensate can be
recovered and returned to the boiler. This can lead to several benefits. It Reduces Steam
Consumption with more condensate being recovered, the amount of steam needed for the
process can be reduced. This is because the recovered condensate can be reused as feedwater
for the boiler, reducing the need for fresh water. It Lower Energy Costs by Reducing steam
consumption that translates to lower energy costs, as less fuel is required to generate steam.
This can lead to significant cost savings, especially in large-scale urea plants. It increases Plant
Efficiency by optimizing condensate recovery which can improve overall plant efficiency by
reducing waste and minimizing the amount of energy required for the process.

5.2.1 Factors to Be Considered While Sizing Up

1.Process Requirements: Ensure that the increased condensate return does not affect the process
chemistry or product quality. This may require adjustments to the process conditions, such as
temperature, pressure, or flow rates.

2. Piping and Infrastructure: Verify that the existing piping and infrastructure can support the
increased condensate flow. This may require upgrading or replacing piping, valves, or other
equipment.

3. Control Systems: Update control systems and instrumentation to accommodate the changes.
This may include modifying control logic, adding new sensors or transmitters, or upgrading
the control system hardware.

4. Safety Considerations: Ensure that the increased condensate return does not create any safety
hazards, such as overpressure, overheating, or flooding.

5. Economic Evaluation: Conduct an economic evaluation to determine the feasibility of the

project. This should include an analysis of the capital costs, operating costs, and potential
benefits.

19
5.3. Flow Sheet

20
 CHAPTER 6
DESIGN OF HEAT EXCHANGER UNIT

6.1 HEAT EXCHANGER

A shell and tube heat exchanger are a widely used heat exchanger in many industries such as
chemical processing, power generation, HVAC, etc. It is preferred for its efficiency and
durability. It consists of a cylindrical shell containing a bundle of tubes. One fluid flow inside
the tubes, which is known as tube side, and another fluid flows outside the tubes but inside the
shell, which is known as shell side. Heat is exchanged between these two fluids through the
walls of the tubes. The heat can either be added to the system (heating) or removed from the
system (cooling). The exchanger consists of a shell, tube sheets, baffles, tie rods, expansion
joints, etc. Shell is a closed cylindrical structure that contains the tubes. The tube sheets separate
the shell and tubes. The baffles are placed inside the shell, which forces the shell side fluid to
pass in a zigzag manner. The tie rods are provided to prevent the sagging of the tubes. The
expansion joint is provided for the axial expansion or contraction of the shell. Shell and tube
heat exchangers can be categorized based on their design and flow configuration. They can
have either a single-pass or multi-pass design, depending on whether the fluid flows through
the tubes once or more than once. They can also be parallel, counter, or crossflow, with
counterflow being the most efficient for heat transfer. An assortment of design variations are
available, including fixed tube sheet, floating head, and U-tube exchangers, each providing
unique advantages for maintenance, thermal expansion accommodation, and cleaning ease.
Shell and tube heat exchanger thermal design is based on the LMTD (Log Mean Temperature
Difference) method and the Effectiveness-NTU method. Shell and tube heat exchanger
mechanical design is based on the U (Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient). The U is influenced
by many factors, such as tube material, fluid characteristics and flow velocity. There are also
many other mechanical design aspects that need to be taken into consideration, such as tube
diameter, length, layout, shell diameter, etc. The construction material is usually the same as
for the tubes. Common construction materials for tubes are stainless steel, copper and titanium.
The shell is commonly fabricated from carbon steel or stainless steel. Baffles in the shell guide
the fluid flow, so the fluid does not bypass, and enhance the turbulence that will improve the
efficiency of heat transfer. These exchangers have gained wide application in power stations
for steam condensation and in the petrochemical industry

21
6.1.1 Heat Exchanger Design

Figure 6.1.1 Heat Exchanger Design

6.1.2 List of Heat Exchanger Parts

S.NO PARTS S.NO PARTS
1 Shell 16 Tubes (U-type)
2 Shell cover 17 Tie rods and spacers
3 Shell flange (channel end) 18 Transverse (or cross) baffles
4 Shell flange (cover end) 19 Longitudinal baffles
5 Shell nozzle or branch 20 Impingement baffles
6 Floating tube sheet 21 Floating head support
7 Floating head cover 22 Pass partition
8 Floating head flange 23 Vent connection
9 Floating head gland 24 Drain connection
10 Floating head backing ring 25 Instrument connection
11 Stationary tube sheet 26 Expansion bellows
12 Channel or stationary head 27 Support saddles
13 Channel cover 28 Lifting lugs
14 Channel nozzle or branch 29 Weir
15 Tube (straight) 30 Liquid level connection

22
6.2 Design Calculation

Tube Parameters:

Pitch: Square Pitch - tubes are arranged in a square grid for increased heat transfer efficiency.

1. Tube Length
Standard tube length of 16 ft (4.87)

2. Tube outer diameter

Standard diameter: ¾ of inch =19.05 mm

3. Wall thickness
Standard thickness = 0.065 =1.651mm

4. Tube inner diameter

ID = OD – 2(t)
ID = 19.05 – 2(1.657)
= 15.75 mm

5. Tube Pitch =1.25 × OD = 23.82 mm

6. Number of passes= 2 pass

1-2, shell and tube heat exchanger

Shell Parameters:
1. Shell Length
Standard length: 20ft (6.1 m)

2. Shell inner diameter

Standard diameter =254 mm
3. Wall thickness
Standard thickness = 7 mm

4. Outer diameter
OD = ID + 2(t)
= 268 mm

23
 Th1 100˚c Th2 47˚c

Tc2 60˚c Tc1 33˚c

• Hot Side Inlet Temperature (Th1): 100°C

• Hot Side Outlet Temperature (Th2): 47°C
• Cold Side Inlet Temperature (Tc1): 36°C
• Cold Side Outlet Temperature (Tc2): 60°C

1. 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷
The LMTD method is used to calculate the average temperature difference between
hot and cold fluids
(𝑇ℎ1 −𝑇𝑐2 )−(𝑇ℎ2 − 𝑇𝑐1 )
ΔTLMTD = (𝑇 −𝑇 )
𝑙𝑛 ℎ1 𝑐2
(𝑇ℎ2 −𝑇𝑐1 )

(100 – 60) – (47 – 33)

= (100−60)
𝑙𝑛
(47−33)

= 24.76˚c

Figure 6.2.1 Correction factor

24
 Correction Factor: To account for non-ideal flow, a correction factor (F) is used.

𝑇ℎ1 −𝑇ℎ2
R= = 2.21
𝑇𝑐2 −𝑇𝑐1

𝑇𝑐2 −𝑇𝑐1
P= = 0.4
𝑇ℎ1 −𝑇𝑐1

Correction Factor = 0.80

(as plot in graph)

ΔTLMTD = 24.76 × 0.80

= 19.80˚c

2. Heat Capacity:
Heat capacity is the heat required to increase an object temperature by one degree. The
heat Capacity formula is expressed as the product of mass, specific heat, and change in
the temperature which is mathematically given as:

Q = mCpΔT
Where,
• Q is the heat capacity in Joules
• m is the mass in grams
• c is the specific heat of an object in J/g °C
• ΔT is the change in the temperature in °C

➢ Hot Side

𝑄ℎ = 𝑚𝑛 𝐶𝑝𝑐 Δ𝑇ℎ

𝑚ℎ = 5000 kg/hr = 1.389 kg/hr

Cph = 2.010 kJ/˚C kg

ΔTh = 53˚c

𝑄ℎ = 1.389 × 2.010 × 53

= 147.011 kJ/s

25
 = 147011 watts

➢ Cold Side

𝑄𝑐 = 𝑚𝑐 𝐶𝑝𝑐 ΔT𝑐

147.011 = 𝑚𝑐 × 4.18 × 27

𝑚𝑐 = 1.302 𝑘𝑔/𝑠

3. Heat Transfer Area

The total surface area available for heat exchange between the hot and cold fluids in a
heat exchanger. In a shell-and-tube exchanger, the heat transfer area is typically the
surface area of the tubes in contact with the fluids.

Q = U A ΔT

𝑄
A=
𝑈𝑜(𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒) 𝛥𝑇

Assuming 𝑈𝑜 = 400 W/𝑚2 𝑘

147011
A=
400 ×19.80

A = 20.46 𝑚2

4. Number of tubes
The total count of tubes used in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. This number
determines the surface area available for heat transfer, affecting the exchanger's
efficiency. More tubes generally provide a larger heat transfer area, allowing for greater
heat exchange between the hot and cold fluids. The number of tubes is calculated based
on the required heat transfer area, tube dimensions, and heat exchanger design
specifications.

𝐴
𝑛𝑡 =
𝜋𝑑𝑜 𝐿

26
 20.46
= = 70
𝜋×0.01905×4.87

5. Shell Bundle Diameter

The diameter of the cylindrical arrangement of tubes (also called the tube bundle)
within the shell of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. It is a key design parameter that
determines how many tubes can fit within the shell and affects the heat transfer
efficiency

➢ Shell diameter

= 𝐷𝐵 + 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑁
𝐷𝐵 = 𝑑𝑜 × (𝐾 )l/n

70 1
𝐷𝐵 = 19.05 × (0.156) 2.29

𝐷𝐵 = 273.8 𝑚𝑚 = 0.273 𝑚𝑚

➢ Side Clearance

= Tube pitch + Tube

= 23.82 – 19.05
= 4.77 mm = 0.0047 mm

➢ Shell diameter

= 278.57 mm

= 0.2785 m

6. Baffle Design
Baffles are used to create turbulence, improve heat transfer, and prevent short-circuiting
by forcing the fluid to flow across the tube bundle multiple times. They also help
support the tubes and prevent vibration.
Single segmented Baffle

➢ Minimum Baffle Spacing

= 0.3×shell diameter

27
 = 0.3×278.5 mm
= 83.5 mm (3.2 inch)

➢ Number of chambers
𝐿
=
𝑏𝑚𝑖𝑛
4.87
=
0.0835

= 58.3 ≈ 58

➢ Actual baffle spacing

𝐿
=
𝑁𝑐
4.87
=
58

= 0.0839 m or 83.9 mm

7. Shell side and Tube side heat transfer coefficient:

These coefficients represent the rate of heat transfer per unit area between the fluid and
the surface of the tube in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. The heat transfer coefficients
for both the shell and tube sides can be estimated using empirical correlations, such as
the Seider-Tate and Dittus-Boelter equations

𝜌𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 = = 3862.1
µ
𝐶𝑝 µ
Pr = = 3.02
𝐾

➢ Tube side heat transfer coefficient

Seider Tate Equation is employed to calculate the tube side heat transfer
coefficient. This equation is used to account for both viscosity effects and
temperature variation along the tube

𝐾 𝑅𝑒 𝑃𝑟 1/3 µ
ℎ𝑡 = 1.86 ( ) (
𝐷 𝐿 ) (µ𝑤)0.14
𝐷

28
 1.996 3862.1 ×3.02
ℎ𝑡 = 1.86 (
0.0157
)( 4.87 ) (1)0.14
0.0157

ℎ𝑡 = 790 𝑤 ⁄𝑚2 𝑘

➢ Shell side heat transfer coefficient

Dittus Boelter Equation is employed to calculate the shell side heat transfer
coefficient. It is an empirical formula used to estimate the convective heat
transfer coefficient for fluids flowing turbulently inside smooth tubes
⁄3
𝑁𝑈 = 0.36 × 𝑅𝑒0.55 𝑃𝑟1

= 48.87

𝑁𝑈 . 𝐾
ℎ𝑠 =
𝐷𝑐

➢ Equivalent diameter

1.27
𝐷𝑐 = (𝑃𝑡2 − 0.785 𝑑𝑜2 )
20

1.27
= (23.82 − 0.785(19.05)2 )
19.05

= 54.180 mm

= 0.0541 m

48.87 ×0.643
ℎ𝑠 =
0.054

= 579.5 𝑤 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾

8. Overall heat transfer coefficient

The overall heat transfer coefficient is a measure of the total resistance to heat transfer
through a series of layers, including conduction through the tube material, convection
from the fluid inside the tube, and convection from the fluid outside the tube.

1 1 1
= + + 𝑅𝑓
𝑈𝑜 ℎ𝑡 ℎ𝑠

𝑅𝑓 = 0.0001 𝑚2 𝐾/ 𝑤

29
 1 1 1
= + + 0.001
𝑈𝑜 790 579.5

1
= 3.091 × 10−3
𝑈0

𝑈𝑜 = 323.4 𝑤 ⁄𝑚2 𝑘
The overall heat transfer coefficient is crucial in the design and performance analysis of heat
exchangers, as it defines how effectively heat is transferred between the two fluids. A higher
UUU-value indicates better heat transfer performance, while a lower value indicates higher
resistance to heat flow.

𝑈𝑜(𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒) − 𝑈𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 ×100

𝑈𝑜 (𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒)

400−323.4 ×100
400

= 19 %

𝑈𝑜(𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒) − 𝑈𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐
If the value of ×100 < 30%, then the assumed value of overall heat transfer
𝑈𝑜 (𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒)

coefficient is correct and can be employed for design calculation. The overall efficiency is
determined to be 19%, indicating how well the heat exchanger performs relative to its ideal
capacity

6.2.1 Steam Recovery

When steam is used in a system, it provides heat to the process and condenses into water, which
is called condensate. In many systems, steam that escapes into the condensate return tank can
be condensed and recovered as water, which can then be reused in the boiler. This helps reduce
water consumption and the energy required to produce new steam.

➢ Condensate Volume

For 5 tons of steam, the amount of condensate that can be recovered is based on the simple
conversion of steam to water. Since 1 ton of steam is equivalent to approximately 2,000 pounds
of water, 5 tons of steam will condense into:

30
Condensate (Water) = 5 tons of steam × 2,000 pounds/ton = 10,000 pounds of water
This converts to approximately 4,540 kilograms (kg) or 4.54 cubic meters (m³) of water.

➢ Energy Recovered in Steam Condensation

Steam has high latent heat, which is the energy required to convert water to steam and vice
versa. The latent heat of steam at atmospheric pressure (around 100°C) is about 2260 kJ/kg.
When 5 tons (or 5,000 kg) of steam condenses, the energy released during this process can be
calculated as:

Energy recovered = 5,000 kg × 2260 kJ/kg = 11,300,000 kJ

This is the total heat energy that can be recovered when the steam condenses back into water
in the return condensate tank.
➢ Efficiency of Steam Recovery with Heat Exchanger
By adding a heat exchanger to the return condensate tank, a portion of this recovered heat can
be transferred to other parts of the process, reducing the need to reheat water in the boiler. This
reduces steam loss and improves overall system efficiency. A heat exchanger will also reduce
the temperature differential, allowing more efficient condensation of the steam back into water
➢ Impact on System
Condensate: By recovering and reusing 4.54 m³ of water (which is approximately 4,540 kg),
the system can reduce the amount of fresh water that needs to be supplied.
Energy Saving: Recovering 11.3 million kJ of energy through the steam condensation reduces
the boiler's energy demand to produce steam again.

6.3 ASPEN PLUS SIMULATION

The design of shell and tube heat exchanger unit was done in Aspen plus to further understand
the recovery of steam from the return condensate tank. This helps to understand the flow of
steam through the tube side and the flow of cooling water through the shell side.

31
 Figure 6.3.1 Heat Exchanger Simulation

Figure 6.3.2 Heat Exchanger Hot Fluid Inlet

The pressure and temperature of the Hot Fluid inlet is determined as:

• Temperature = 100°C
• Pressure = 50 psia
• Total flow rate = 1.389 kg/sec

The composition is determined in mass flow with the unit of kg/sec and water is added as
component with the value if 1.389 kg/sec

32
 Figure 6.3.3 Heat Exchanger Process Setup

In the process set up of a heat exchanger, the global settings are determined as

• Ambient Pressure = 14.6959 psi

• Input mode = STEADY-STATE
• Steam class = CONVEN

Flow basis is determined in mole with the operation year of 8766 hours

Figure 6.3.4 Evaporator Inlet Specifications

33
The displayed simulation involves a flash separation unit labeled as "EVAPORAT (Flash2)",
where a liquid feed undergoes partial vaporization at specified conditions. The flash
specifications show that the separation is based on temperature and pressure, with values set at
500°C and 2 bar, respectively. The valid phases for this operation are vapor-liquid, meaning
that the system will establish equilibrium between these two phases.

Figure 6.3.5 Separator Inlet Specifications

This separator is designed to split a stream based on a specified fraction of a component, with
water being the targeted substance. The split fraction is set to 0.8, meaning that 80% of the
water in the inlet stream is directed to the VAP2 outlet stream. The substream type is set to
MIXED, indicating that the separated stream may contain both vapor and liquid phases. The
left sidebar lists various unit operations and stream summaries, including the EVAPORAT
(Flash2) unit, suggesting that the separation might be part of a steam recovery or vapor-liquid
separation process.

34
 Figure 6.3.6 Heat Exchanger Cold Fluid Inlet
The pressure and temperature of the cold Fluid inlet is determined as:

• Temperature = 33°C
• Pressure = 50 psia
• Total flow rate = 1.302 kg/sec

The composition is determined in mass flow with the unit of kg/sec and water is added as
component with the value if 1.302 kg/sec

Figure 6.3.7 Heat Exchanger Specifications

The specifications of heat exchanger determine the hot fluid in tube side and the flow direction
is determined as counter current.

35
 Figure 6.3.8 Heat Exchanger TQ Curves

The graph represents the Temperature vs. Heat Duty (T-Q curve) for a heat exchanger simulated
in Aspen Plus. The x-axis represents the heat duty in Btu/hr, indicating the amount of heat
transferred, while the y-axis shows the temperature in °F, depicting the temperature variations
of both streams. The red curve corresponds to the hot stream, which cools down as it transfers
heat, whereas the blue curve represents the cold stream, which heats up as it absorbs energy.

Figure 6.3.9 Mixer Inlet Specifications

The mixer is used to combine multiple streams into a single output while ensuring phase
equilibrium. The flash specifications for this unit indicate that the valid phases are set to vapor-

36
liquid, meaning both phases can coexist in the system. The pressure field is empty, suggesting
that the user may need to define it or that it will be determined by surrounding process
conditions. Additionally, a temperature estimate field is present, which is likely used to assist
in convergence during calculations. The convergence parameters include a maximum iteration
limit of 30 and an error tolerance of 0.0001, ensuring that the system solves the material and
energy balance equations within a reasonable computational effort.

Figure 6.3.10 Compressor Inlet Specifications

The compressor is configured with an isentropic model, meaning that the compression process
assumes no heat loss or entropy change, which is an idealized scenario. The discharge pressure
is set to 3 bar, while other specifications such as pressure increase, pressure ratio, and power
required remain unselected, indicating that the discharge pressure is the primary design
criterion.The efficiency options include isentropic, polytropic, and mechanical efficiencies,
though only isentropic efficiency appears to be considered in this setup.

37
 Figure 6.3.11 Thermal Result Summary

The Thermal Results tab for a heat exchanger in Aspen Plus, showing key parameters related
to heat transfer between the hot and cold streams. The hot stream enters at 212°F and exits at
169.02°F, indicating it is cooling down as it transfers heat. The cold stream enters at 91.4°F
and exits at 140°F, showing that it absorbs heat and increases in temperature. Both streams are
at a constant pressure of 50 psia, and their vapor fractions remain at 0, meaning they are fully
in the liquid phase throughout the process.

Figure 6.3.12 Heat Exchanger Zones

The Zone Summary tab of the Thermal Results section for a heat exchanger in Aspen Plus is
determined. The hot-side outlet temperature is 169.02°F, while the cold-side outlet temperature

38
is 140°F, indicating effective heat transfer. The Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD) is
69.8957°F, which represents the average temperature driving force for heat transfer. The overall
heat transfer coefficient (U) is 149.694 Btu/hr-ft²-°F, showing how efficiently heat is
transferred per unit area. The total heat duty of the exchanger is 505,213 Btu/hr, confirming the
amount of thermal energy exchanged. The heat transfer area is 48.3109 ft², determining the
required surface area for effective heat transfer. The UA value, a key performance indicator, is
7,231.83 Btu/hr-°F, showing the exchanger’s overall thermal conductance

Figure 6.3.13 Result Summary 1

The table provides critical thermodynamic and composition data for multiple streams involved
in the process, including temperature, pressure, vapor and liquid phase properties, and
molar/mass fractions. The results section categorizes streams such as SEP, EVAPORAT,
COMP, HEATX, MIX, and VAP streams, indicating the presence of key unit operations like
separators, compressors, heat exchangers, and mixers. The temperature and pressure values are
shown for both vapor and liquid phases, helping analyse phase behaviour. Additionally, the
molar and mass liquid/vapor fractions are listed, which are crucial for evaluating separation
efficiency and energy balance

39
 Figure 6.3.14 Result Summary 2

The table includes enthalpy, entropy, density, molar flow rates, mass flow rates, and fractions
of components for multiple streams, such as BTMOUT, COLDIN, FEED, HOTIN, HOTOUT,
STEAM, VAP1, VAP2

Figure 6.3.15 Result Summary 3

40
 CHAPTER 7
SCALE UP OF STRIPPER UNIT

7.1 Stripper Column

PUMP

Concentrator (Vaccum system) Stripper Feed Tank

Top Header

Bottom Header

Stripper Economizer

Hydrolyzer Stripper

Figure 7.1.1 Stripper Column Design

Stripping is a physical separation process where one or more components are removed from a
liquid stream by a vapor stream. In industrial applications the liquid and vapor streams can
have co-current or counter current flows. Stripping is usually carried out in either a packed or
trayed column. Stripping is mainly conducted in trayed towers (plate columns) and packed
columns, and less often in spray towers, bubble columns, and centrifugal contactors. Trayed
towers consist of a vertical column with liquid flowing in the top and out the bottom. The vapor
phase enters in the bottom of the column and exits out of the top. Inside of the column are trays
or plates. These trays force the liquid to flow back and forth horizontally while the vapor
bubbles up through holes in the trays. The purpose of these trays is to increase the amount of

41
contact area between the liquid and vapor phases. In stripper section ammonia and urea is
recovered from the liquid formed condensation of water from the concentrator. Gaseous CO2
and steam are added from the bottom section and air is also added from the bottom.

7.2 Aspen Plus Simulation

Pre scale up stripper simulation:

Figure 7.2.1 Stripper Column Simulation

The design of the stripper column in Aspen Plus, as depicted above, comprises a stripper pump
(ST-PUMP), a stripper column (B3), and an economizer (ECON).

Figure 7.2.2 Stripper Column Thermodynamic Methods

The thermodynamic models used to simulate stripper model is Non Random Two Liquid
equation.

42
 Figure 7.2.3 Stripper Column Air Inlet Stream

The air inlet material stream is introduced into the feed stream under the following conditions:

• Temperature = 30°C
• Pressure = 1atm,
• Flow rate = 5900kg/hr.

Figure 7.2.4 Stripper Column Feed Inlet Stream

The feed inlet stream is comprised of water, CO2 and NH3. The temperature and pressure
conditions of air inlet are

43
 • Temperature = 145℃
• Pressure = 5atm
• Flow rate = 20500kg/hr

Figure 7.2.5 Stripper Configuration

The configuration of the stripper column includes 58 stages,

• Calculation type = Equilibrium

• Condenser = Partial Vapor
• Rebolier = Kettle type.
• Distillate Rate: 4100 kg/hr
• Reflux Ratio: 0.4

This setup is used to simulate the distillation process for separation of components based on
their volatility, and the configuration is tailored for wide-boiling petroleum fractions.

44
 Figure 7.2.6 Stripper Stages

The performance stages of the stripper column where:

• Feed out = stage 1

• Vapor outlet = stage 57
• Reboiler = stage 58.

Figure 7.2.7 Stripper Column Internals

45
The configuration of the stripper column internals includes "CS-1" to "S7" stages with sieve
trays, interactive hydraulic sizing, and pressure drop calculations enabled for the sump, with
specified diameter and liquid residence time.

Figure 7.2.8 Stripper Column Design Parameters

The stripper column's internal geometry settings specify:

• % Jet flood = 80
• Maximum acceptable pressure drop = 0.36 psi
• Minimum weir loading = 12.078 gpm/ft
• Maximum weir loading = 143.97 gpm/ft.
• Maximum Downcomer area = 0.1

46
 Figure 7.2.9 Bottom Product Specifications

The material stream specifications define the flash type based on temperature and pressure:

• Temperature = 182℃
• Pressure = 113 psi

Alongside mole-flow data for components such as urea, water, CO2, NH3, and air.

Figure 7.2.10 Economizer Specifications

The inlet conditions of the economizer are utilized for heat exchange purposes. The specified
operating conditions includes:

47
 • Temperature = 150°C
• Pressure = 113 psi

Figure 7.2.11 Stripper Column Steam Results

The stream summary displays key thermodynamic properties, including mole and mass
fractions, enthalpy, entropy, and density for both the feed-in and feed-out streams, providing a
comprehensive overview of the material flow and energy balance across the pump.

Figure 7.2.12 Stripper Column Steam Results

48
The stream results display material flow data across the feed and product streams of the B3
column. Mole flow, mass flow, and enthalpy values are provided for various stages, including
feedout (FEEDOUT), S1, BTMPDT, and TOPPDT.

Figure 7.2.13 Economizer Results

The economizer results provide key performance metrics, including:

• Temperature = 302°F
• Pressure = 113 psia
• Heat duty = 4.00379e+06 Btu/hr,

Indicating its heat exchange efficiency and pressure conditions.

Post Scale Up Simulation Results:

49
 Figure 7.2.16 Post Scale Up Configuration

The configuration setup shows the column operating with equilibrium calculations over 110
stages, a kettle reboiler, and a vapor-liquid condenser. The distillate rate = 41,000 kg/hr, with
reflux ratio = 0.4.

Figure 7.2.17 Post Scale Up Stages

The performance stages of the stripper column where,

• Feed out = stage 1

• Vapor outlet = stage 109
• Reboiler = stage 110.

50
 Figure 7.2.18 Post Scale Up Stream Results

The stream summary displays key thermodynamic properties, including mole and mass
fractions, enthalpy, entropy, and density for both the feed-in and feed-out streams, providing a
comprehensive overview of the material flow and energy balance across the pump.

Figure 7.2.19 Post Scale Up Stream Results

The stream results display material flow data across the feed and product streams of the B3
column. Mole flow, mass flow, and enthalpy values are provided for various stages, including
feedout (FEEDOUT), S1, BTMPDT, and TOPPDT.

51
 Figure 7.2.20 Post Scale Up Results Summary

This shows the key parameters of the RadFrac unit, including 110 stages, a total condenser, and
a kettle reboiler, with a reflux ratio of 0.4 and a specified distillate rate of 41,000 lbmol/hr.

52
 CHAPTER 8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

8.1 Material and Energy Balance:

Material Balance:

A mass balance, also called a material balance, is an application of conservation of mass to the
analysis of physical systems. By accounting for material entering and leaving a system, mass
flows can be identified which might have been unknown, or difficult to measure without this
technique. The exact conservation law used in the analysis of the system depends on the context
of the problem but all revolve around mass conservation, i.e. that matter cannot disappear or
be created spontaneously. Therefore, mass balances are used widely in engineering and
environmental analyses. For example, mass balance theory is used to design chemical reactors,
analyse alternative processes to produce chemicals as well as in pollution dispersion models
and other models of physical systems. Closely related and complementary analysis techniques
include the population balance, energy balance and the somewhat more complex entropy
balance. These techniques are required for thorough design and analysis of systems such as the
refrigeration cycle. In environmental monitoring the term budget calculations is used to
describe mass balance equations where they are used to evaluate the monitoring data
(comparing input and output, etc.) In biology the dynamic energy budget theory for metabolic
organization makes explicit use of mass and energy balances. The mass that enters a system
must, by conservation of mass, either leave the system or accumulate within the system.
Mathematically the mass balance for a system without a chemical reaction is as follows:

Input =output + accumulation

The above equation also holds good for systems with chemical reactions if the terms in the
balance equation are taken to refer to total mass i.e. the sum of all the chemical species of the
system. In the absence of a chemical reaction the amount of any chemical species flowing in
and out will be the same.

Energy Balance:

Energy takes many forms such as heat, kinetic energy, chemical energy potential energy but
because of inter conversions it is not always easy to isolate separate constituents of energy

53
balances The most common important energy form is heat energy and the conservation of this
can be illustrated by considering operations such as heating and drying In these, enthalpy (total
heat is conserved and as with the mass balances so enthalpy balances can be written round the
various items of equipment process stages, round the whole plant, and it is assumed that no
appreciable heat is converted to other forms of energy such as work. Heat is absorbed or
evolved by some reactions in processing but usually the quantities are small when compared
with the other forms of energy entering into food processing such as sensible heat and latent
heat. Latent heat is the heat required to change, at constant temperature, the physical state of
materials from solid to liquid, liquid to gas, or solid to gas.

Sensible heat is that heat which when added or subtracted from materials changes their
temperature and thus can be sensed. The units of specific heat are J/kg K and sensible heat
change is calculated by multiplying the mass by the specific heat by the change in temperature,
(m xcx AT). The units of latent heat are Jkt and total latent heat change is calculated by
multiplying the mass of the material, which changes its phase by the latent heat. Having
determined those factors that are significant in the overall energy balance, the simplified heat
balance can then be used with confidence in industrial energy studies. Such calculations can be
quite simple and straightforward but they give a quantitative feeling for the situation and can
be of great use in design of equipment and process.

8.1.1 Heat Exchanger:

The material and energy balance for the heat exchanger unit simulated by Aspen Plus is found
to be:

Figure 8.1.1.1 Heat Exchanger Balance

54
Energy Balance

𝑄ℎ = 𝑄𝑐

𝑚𝑛 𝐶𝑝𝑐 Δ𝑇ℎ = 𝑚𝑐 𝐶𝑝𝑐 ΔT𝑐

147011 watts = 147011 watts

8.1.2 Stripper Column

The material and energy balance for the stripper column simulated by Aspen Plus is found to
be:

Figure 8.1.2.1 Stripper Column Balance

Table 8.1.2 Component Balance Of Stripper

Components Molecular weight Amount
Urea 60.06 -
Water 18 92.24
NH3 17 6.16
CO2 44 1.6
Air 28.96 -
Total 100

Mass Balance
Input = Output
28784.5 lb/hr = 28784.5 lb/hr

55
8.2 Safety Considerations:
Almost all of the chemicals handled at this factory as a raw material, intermediate product, or
end product might cause damage to people if handled incorrectly. Operators should be well
familiar with the hazardous qualities of any chemicals handled and educated in suitable
material handling techniques to minimize bodily contact. The following sections provide a
broad overview of how to handle hazardous materials and safeguard employees. The principal
potentially hazardous materials in this plant are:

1. Ammonia
2. Liquid ammonia
3. Urea
4. Carbonate
5. Carbon dioxide in non-ventilated area.

8.2.1 Handling Hazardous Materials:

In general, operators should observe the following principles to limit all physical contact with
the chemicals handled in this plant:

1. Always keep chemicals in tightly sealed containers.

2. If the chemicals cannot be maintained in closed containers, use appropriate protective
clothes and equipment.

8.2.2 Safety in use of Pressurized Vessels:

Before opening and/or attending for maintenance inspection, all vessels should be properly
emptied, depressurized, purged, and vented. Vessels should preferably be emptied to another
vessel before opening from an environmental and atmospheric standpoint. If this is not
possible, the next best option is to empty vessels into drums. If the sewers are emptied, extreme
attention should be exercised to avoid sludge, air pollution, and excessive flashing. If feasible,
vessels should be depressurized and returned to the process. The minimum requirements
include monitoring for oxygen and combustible gases prior to vessel entry, disconnecting all
vessel piping, locking out motors, outfitting vessel entry personnel with safety harnesses,
keeping fire watch and safety conservers on hand while personnel are inside, and maintaining
constant communication with those inside.

56
8.3 Design Summary

Heat Exchanger Stripping section

Heat Capacity = 𝑄ℎ = 147011 watt Pre-Scale Up:
𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 = 24.76 No of stages (Pre scale up) = 58
Heat Transfer Area = A = 20.46 𝑚2 Maximum Pressure drop = 0.36psi
Number of tubes = 70 Jet Flow = 100%
𝐷𝐵 = 273.8 𝑚𝑚 = 0.273 𝑚𝑚 Weir Loading = 27.64 m3/hr
Shell diameter = 0.2785 m Mole Flow = 1130.8 kmol/hr
Minimum Baffle Spacing == 83.5 mm Mass Flow = 20499 kg/hr
Number of chambers =58 Distillate Rate = 41000 kg/hr
Actual baffle spacing = 83.9 mm Post Scale Up:
Reynolds number = 3862.1 No of stages (Post scale up) = 110
Prandtl number = 3.02 Weir Loading = 32.67 m3/hr
ℎ𝑡 = 790 𝑤 ⁄𝑚2 𝑘 Maximum Pressure drop = 0.41psi
Nusselt number = = 48.87
𝐷𝑐 = 0.0541 m
ℎ𝑠 = 579.5 𝑤⁄𝑚2 𝐾
𝑈𝑜 = 323.4 𝑤 ⁄𝑚2 𝑘

8.4 Comparison of stripper efficiency

PARAMETER 58 STAGES 110 STAGES

Maximum Pressure Drop 0.36psi 0.41psi
Weir Loading 27.64 m3/hr 32.67 m3/hr
Heat Duty 1.18 Watts 1.97 watts
CO2 Emissions 0.5 kg/hr 0.7 kg/hr

57
8.5 Comparative Analysis Of Return Condensate Tank And Heat Exchanger

1. Increasing the Size of the Return Condensate Tank

• A larger return condensate tank can store more condensate, allowing the system to retain
heat for a longer period. The increased thermal mass helps in reducing the temperature
drop of the stored condensate.

• By holding more condensate at a high temperature, the tank minimizes the amount of
flash steam that is lost during the process. This could lead to more efficient steam
recovery and reduced waste.

• Enlarging the tank is a straightforward solution that does not require additional piping,
controls, or maintenance, making it simpler in terms of installation and operation.

• The cost of increasing the tank size can be lower than adding a heat exchanger, but it
still requires modifications to the existing infrastructure.

• While increasing tank size helps with heat retention, it may not actively recover
additional heat from the system beyond what is already being stored.

2. Adding a Heat Exchanger Unit to the Existing Return Condensate Tank

• A heat exchanger can actively recover heat from the condensate before it returns to the
boiler. This recovered heat can be transferred to preheat makeup water or other process
streams, improving the overall thermal efficiency.

• By using the heat exchanger, the system can reduce the load on the boiler as it requires
less energy to heat the incoming water. This leads to less fuel consumption and reduces
steam losses.

• By pre-cooling the condensate through the heat exchanger, the flash steam generated
when condensate is returned to the boiler can be minimized. This reduces vented steam
losses.

• Installing a heat exchanger requires additional capital investment, including piping,

pumps, and instrumentation. It also requires periodic maintenance, which could
increase operational complexity.

58
 • The heat exchanger improves the energy efficiency of the system as a whole, making
better use of available heat in the process. This could result in significant long-term
savings.

Comparison Summary:

• A heat exchanger provides a more effective means of heat recovery than simply
increasing the tank size.

• Both methods can reduce steam loss, but a heat exchanger offers a more active and
efficient way to recover heat.

• Increasing tank size might be less expensive upfront, while adding a heat exchanger is
more costly but provides better long-term efficiency.

• Enlarging the tank is simpler in terms of operation, while adding a heat exchanger
introduces more complexity but also more control over heat recovery.

• A heat exchanger has the potential for greater energy savings and faster payback due to
its active heat recovery mechanism.

Therefore, adding a heat exchanger to the return condensate tank would be more efficient in
reducing steam loss and improving overall system performance, while increasing the tank size
provides a simpler, less expensive alternative with moderate improvements in steam retention.

8.6 Process Economics

8.6.1 Calculation of Total Investment

Acceptable plant design must present a process that is capable of operating under conditions ,
which will yield profit. Since net profit equals total volume minus all expenses , it is essential
that the chemical engineer be aware of the many different types of cost involved in the
manufacturing process. Capital must allocate for the direct plant expenses, such as those for
raw material, labour and equipment. Besides direct expenses many others indirect expenses are
incurred, and these must be included If a complete analysis of the total cost is to be obtained.
Some examples of this indirect expenses are administrative salary, product distribution cost
and cost for inter plant communication.

A capital investment is required for every industrial process and determination of necessary
investment is an important part of the plant design process. The total investment for any process

59
consist fixed capital investment for practical equipment and facilities in the plant plus working
capital, which must be available to pay salaries, keep raw material and products on hand, and
handle other special items requiring the direct cost outline. When the cost for any type of
commercial process is to be determined, sufficient accuracy has to be provided for reliable
decision. There are many factors affecting investment and production cost. These are:

• Source of equipment
• Price fluctuation
• Company policies
• Operating and rate of production
• Governmental policies

Before an industrial plant can be put into operation, a large sum of money must be supplied to
purchase and install the necessary machinery and equipment. Land and service facilities must
be obtained, and the plant must be erected completely with all piping, controls and services.
The capital needed to supply the necessary manufacturing and plant facilities is called the
fixed-capital investment, while that necessary for the operation of plant is termed the orking
capital. The sum of the fixed capital investment and the working is known as the total capital
investment. Generally, the working capital amounts 10-20% of the total capital investment.
Following is the breakdown of the fixed capital investment for a chemical process.

8.6.2 Types of Capital Cost Estimate

Preliminary estimate (budget authorization estimate scope method): based on sufficient data to
permit the estimate to the budget, probable accuracy of this estimate is within ± 20% Order of
magnitude estimate (ratio estimate) based on similar cost data; probable accuracy of this
estimate over ± 30% Study estimate based on knowledge of major items of equipment, probable
accuracy of this estimate up to ± 30% Detailed estimate based on complete engineering
drawing, specification and site survey, probable accuracy of this estimate within ± 10%

• Direct cost
• Purchased equipment cost
• Purchased equipment installation
• Instrumentation and control
• Piping
• Electrical equipment and material

60
 • Indirect cost
• Engineering supervision
• Construction expenses
• Contractor’s fee
• Contingency

8.6.3 Direct Cost of Estimation (DC)

MFL plant capacity = 1500 MT
S.No Type of cost Range (%) Assumed (%) Cost in rupees

1. Purchased equipment - - 1208400

cost (PEC)
2 Installation cost 50-90% of PEC 90% 1068700

3. Instrument and control 06%- 30% of PEC 20% 241680

4. Piping installation cost 10%-80% of PEC 50% 604200

5. Electrical Installation 10%-40% of PEC 25% 302100

cost
Service facility cost 30%-80% of PEC 60% 725040

Total 13769120

Table 8.6.3 Direct Cost of Estimation

8.6.4 Indirect Cost of Estimation (IC)
S.No Type of cost Range (%) Assumed (%) Cost in rupees

1. Engineering and supervision 10% -30% of DC 20% 2753824

2. Construction Expenses 5% - 20% of DC 10% 1376912

3. Contractor’s fee 2% - 7% of DC 5% 688456

4. Contingency 8% - 20% of DC 15% 2065360

Total 6884552

Table 8.6.3 Indirect Cost of Estimation

61
8.6.5 Fixed capital investment (FCI)
Fixed capital investment = DC + IC
= 13769120 + 6884552 = Rs. 20653672
8.6.6 Working capital investment
Working capital investment = 10%– 20% of FCI
Assuming 15%,
Working capital investment = Rs.3098050
8.6.7 Total capital Investment
Total capital Investment = FCI + WCI = 23751722
S.No Type of cost Range (%) Assumed (%) Cost in rupees

1. Depreciation (for 10% of FCI 10% 2065360

machinery)
2 Local Tax 3% - 4% of FCI 4% 826147

3. Insurance 0.4 % - 01% of FCI 0.8% 165200

4. Rent 8%-12% of FCI 12% 2478441

Total 5535148

Table 8.6.7 Fixed Charges Estimation

Fixed charges = 10% - 30% of Total Production cost

Assuming 20%,
Total production cost = 5535148 / 0.2
= Rs. 27675740

62
 CHAPTER 9

FUTURE SCOPE AND CONCLUSION

9.1 Future Scope:

The future of steam recovery and stripper systems looks incredibly promising, driven by the
increasing need for energy efficiency, water conservation, and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Industries such as paper and pulp, textiles, and chemical processing are embracing these
systems to cut energy use, conserve water, and reduce waste. Thanks to advancements in
technology—particularly in heat exchanger materials and design—these systems are becoming
even more efficient and cost-effective. A key area of innovation is integrating steam recovery
and stripper systems with other energy-efficient technologies like heat pumps, organic Rankine
cycles, and advanced distillation methods. By combining these approaches, industries can
maximize energy savings and sustainability benefits. Additionally, the development of new
materials and coatings is extending system lifespans, cutting maintenance costs, and
minimizing downtime. Another exciting trend is the rise of digital technologies such as
artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), and data analytics. These tools enable
real-time monitoring, system optimization, and predictive maintenance, helping industries
boost efficiency and reduce operational disruptions. Digital twins and simulation models are
also being used to refine system designs, cutting down on costly trial-and-error approaches.
Looking ahead, steam recovery and stripper systems hold immense potential in emerging fields
like biorefineries, bioenergy, and advanced manufacturing. As these industries grow, steam
recovery solutions will play a crucial role in reducing resource consumption and environmental
impact. Additionally, new business models—such as product-as-a-service and energy-as-a-
service—could make it easier and more affordable for companies to adopt these systems. In
short, the future of steam recovery and stripper systems is bright. With continuous
advancements in technology, digitalization, and innovative business strategies, these systems
will help industries meet sustainability goals, reduce costs, and enhance overall performance.
As the world moves toward a more energy-efficient and eco-friendly future, steam recovery
and stripper systems will be key players in resource conservation and sustainable
industrial practices.

63
9.2 Conclusion:

In urea production plants, steam recovery and stripper systems play a crucial role in optimizing
energy efficiency and reducing energy costs. By recovering waste heat from the urea synthesis
process, plants can generate high-pressure steam, which can be used to drive turbines, pumps,
and other equipment. This reduces the plant's reliance on external energy sources, lowers
energy costs, and minimizes greenhouse gas emissions. The stripper column is a critical
component of the urea production process, where ammonia and carbon dioxide are stripped
from the urea solution. By optimizing the stripper column's operating conditions, plants can
improve the efficiency of the stripping process, reduce energy consumption, and enhance
product quality. Steam recovery systems can also be integrated with the stripper column to
recover waste heat and generate additional steam. The economic benefits of steam recovery
and stripper systems in urea production plants are significant. By reducing energy
consumption, plants can lower their operating costs, improve their profitability, and enhance
their competitiveness. Additionally, steam recovery systems can help plants to extend the life
of their equipment, reduce maintenance costs, and minimize downtime.

In conclusion, steam recovery and stripper systems are essential components of urea production
plants, enabling plants to optimize energy efficiency, reduce energy costs, and enhance product
quality. By investing in these systems, urea producers can drive business growth, improve their
competitiveness, and contribute to a more sustainable future.

64
 CHAPTER 10
REFERENCES

1. Absorption of Water Vapor into New Working Fluids for Absorption Refrigeration
Systems Antonio De Lucas, Marina Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 345-350.
2. Absorption Cooling: A Review of Lithium Bromide-Water Chiller Technologies
Xiaolin Wang and Hui T. Chua Received: May 20, 2009; Accepted: July 7, 2009;
Revised: July 17, 2009 Recent Patents on Mechanical Engineering 2009, 2, 193-213.
3. Adera, S., et al., Depletion of Lubricant from Nanostructured Oil-Infused Surfaces by
Pendant Conden sate Droplets, ACS Nano, 14 (2020), 7, pp. 8024-8035
4. Aspen Technology. ASPEN PLUS User Manual Release 11.1; Aspen Technology, Inc.:
Cambridge, MA, 2002
5. Bahadori A, editor. Natural Gas Processing. Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing;
201p. v.
6. Bloss D, Bockwinkel R, Rivers N, editors. Capturing energy savings with steam traps.
Washington DC, USA: ACEEE; 1997.
7. Brodov, Y. M., et al., State of the Art and Trends in the Design and Operation of High-
and Low-Pressure Heaters for Steam Turbines at Thermal and Nuclear Power Plants in
Russia and Abroad – Part 1: Heater Types and Designs, Thermal Engineering, 67
(2020), 10, pp. 685-698
8. Bronhold CJ, editor Flash Steam Recovery Project. 22nd Industrial Energy Technology
Conference; 2000 April 5-6; Houston, Texas
9. Buzzi F, Di Palo M, Gabbrielli R. Thermodynamic performance evaluation of an
innovative steam compressor using zeolite-water adsorption reactor. Appl Therm Eng.
2023;222:119954.
10. Cheng-Liang Chen C-YL. A flexible structural and operational design of steam
systems. Selected Papers from the 13th Conference on Process Integration, Modelling
and Optimisation for Energy Saving and Pollution Reduction in Applied Thermal
Engineering. 2011;31(13):2084–93.
11. Dong JW, Han Z, Ma H, Deng Y, Su F, Pan X. Experimental investigation of the steam
ejector in a single-effect thermal vapor compression desalination system driven by a
low-temperature heat source. Energies 2018;11:2282.
12. ElHelw, M., et al., Novel Sea Water Desalination Unit Utilizing Solar Energy Heating
System, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 59 (2020), 2, pp. 915-924

65
13. Improving Steam System Performance: A Sourcebook for Industry: U.S. Department
of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) 2012 October.
14. Jones, A. J. Membrane and separation technology: The Australian perspective;
Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Aus tralia, 1987
15. Leithner R. Steam generators and steam distribution networks. In: Unbehauen HD,
editor. ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS); 2009.
16. M.Brumaza, Im.Mujtaba in Thermodynamic Analysis Of Refrigerating Absorption
System.
17. McNulty, B. WE energies to host innovative carbon separation project. www.we-
energies.com (accessed month 2006).
18. Merritt C. Process steam systems: A practical guide for operators, maintainers, and
designers, the condensate recovery system. edition F. Inc: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
336 p.
19. Modelling of lithium-bromide (LiBr) chillers and organic Rankin cycle (ORC) powered
by low-temperature geothermal heat source Salah A. A. Masheiti
20. Mrzljak, V., et al., Thermodynamic Analysis of Marine Steam Power Plant Pressure
Reduction Valves, Pomorski Zbornik, 56 (2019), 1, pp. 9-30
21. New Generation of Float and Thermostatic Steam Traps. Valve World, Valsteam
ADCA. 2020 February.
22. Omerkaynakli and Yaman Karadeniz Thermodynamic Analysis of Absorption
Refrigeration System Based On Entropy Generation Uludag University. TR-16057,
Bursa, Turkey. [A] ISHRAE journals (1998-2004), Indian Society for Heating,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers. Mumbai.
23. Paffel K. Flash steam recovery using condensate tank vent condensers on modulating
steam system. Pumps & Systems. 2010;Document No. 26(June).
24. Paffel K. Flash steam recovery from non-modulating steam applications. Pumps Syst
2010;27.
25. Poljak, I., et al., Energy and Exergy Analysis of the Condensate Pump during Internal
Leakage from the Marine Steam Propulsion System, Pomorstvo, 32 (2018), 2, pp. 268-
280
26. Ranade VV, Bhandari VM. Chapter 14 - Industrial wastewater treatment, recycling, and
reuse—Past, present and future. In: Ranade VV, Bhandari VM, editors. Industrial
wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann; 2014. p.
521–35.
66
27. Saha, S., et al., Overall Performance of Steam System Used in Garment Industries in
Bangladesh: A Case Study-Based Approach, Energy Efficiency, 14 (2021), 2, pp. 1-18
28. Shivakumar, K.; Narasimhan, S. A robust and efficient NLP formulation using graph
theoretic principles for synthesis of heat exchanger networks. Compute. Chem. Eng.
2002, 26, 1517-1532
29. Smith, J. M.; Van Ness, H. C. Introduction to chemical engineering thermodynamics;
McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, 1987; pp 496-518
30. Solar Energy to Drive Half-Effect Absorption Cooling System Rabah GOMRI
31. Solomon B. Amwayi NSCL. Energy management through condensate and flash steam
recovery systems. A case study of Nzoia sugar company. IEK International Conference;
August; Kenya: Kenya Engineer Company; 2015.
32. Swaney, R. Thermal integration of processes with heat engines and heat pumps. AIChE
J. 1989, 35 (6), 1010
33. Tashtoush MAA-NaMAK BM. A comprehensive review of ejector design,
performance, and applications. Appl Energy 2019;240(15):138–72.
34. Tomarov, G. V., et al., Factors and Mechanisms Causing Wear of Turbine Heating
Steam Condensate Pipe-Line Components at a Nuclear Power Plant, Thermal
Engineering, 66 (2019), 9, pp. 662-671
35. Valle-Riestra, J. F. Project evaluation in the chemical process industries; McGraw-Hill,
Inc.: New York, 1983; p 262.
36. Van de Ruit H. Improve condensate recovery systems. Hydrocarb Process 2000;79
(12):47–53.
37. Wenten, I. G. Recent development in membrane science and its industrial applications.
Member. Sci. Technol. 2002, 24 (suppl).
38. Wu, S., Construction of Visual 3-D Fabric Reinforced Composite Thermal Performance
Prediction System, Thermal Science, 23 (2019), 5A, pp. 2857-2865
39. Wu, S., Study and Evaluation of Clustering Algorithm for Solubility and
Thermodynamic Data of Glycerol Derivatives, Thermal Science, 23 (2019), 5A, pp.
2867-2875
40. Zhang, L., et al., Experimental Study on Distribution Characteristics of Condensate
Droplets under Ultra sonic Vibration, Microgravity Science and Technology, 30 (2018),
6, pp. 737-746

67