Climbing Film Evaporator

Transcription

1 Climbing Film Evaporator Design Laboratory - Sarkeys E111 September 29 th, October 6 th, 13 th & 20 th, 2015 CHE Group E Eric Henderson Nadezda Mamedova Andy Schultz Xiaorong Zhang

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary (Nadezda Mamedova) Introduction (Nadezda Mamedova) Theory (Nadezda Mamedova) Design Plan (Eric Henderson) Experimental Plan (Andy Schultz) Apparatus (Andy Schultz) Experimental Results (Xiaorong Zhang) Scaled Up Design (Andy Schultz) Process Flow Diagram (Nadezda Mamedova) Design Comparison (Andy Schultz) References...21 Appendices Appendix I: Data Tables (Eric Henderson) Appendix II: Results Calculations (Eric Henderson) 27 Appendix III: Error Calculations (Nadezda Mamedova).. 31 Appendix IV: Scaled Up Design Calculations (Eric Henderson). 34 1

3 Executive Summary Nadezda Mamedova Purpose: The purpose of the experiment was to determine operating conditions of a climbing film evaporator that can recover triethylene glycol from a stream that contains 30 wt% triethylene glycol. The desired concentration of the exit stream is at 88 wt% triethylene glycol. It is required that 90,000 gallons of inlet liquid be processed per day. How information was obtained: Our engineers had four laboratory days to operate a climbing film evaporator over a range of vacuum pressures to determine which pressure was the most cost efficient as well as which operating conditions could process the required inlet flow. Key findings: We determined that in order to be cost efficient and handle the required inlet flow, we require two climbing film evaporators operated at 20 inhg vacuum. The total cost of installation and operation for a year is $2,718, The most expensive requirement is 2.8*10 7 kg of steam per year. Disclaimers and Recommendations: This experiment was performed under the assumption that the vacuum and system pressures were in equilibrium. We used this assumption to calculate a goal temperature at which the desired exit composition would be reached. We recommend testing the exit product composition to determine the accuracy of this assumption. Due to time constraints, our data gathered was not all started at the same temperature. If more time is allowed, we recommend running the experiment from the same temperature and atmospheric pressure to allow for better comparisons. 2

4 Introduction Nadezda Mamedova Our engineers are expanding our company by adding in a climbing film evaporator that can remove water from a stream of triethylene glycol and recycle the glycol back into a previous process. The entering stream is at a concentration of 70 wt. % water, and our goal is to have an outlet stream of no more than 12 wt. % water. The process requires ninety thousand gallons of mixture to be processed per day. Climbing film evaporators, also known as rising film or vertical long tube evaporators, are used in industry for effluent treatment, polymer production, food production, pharmaceuticals, and solvent recovery. 1 The liquid being evaporated is fed from the bottom into long tubes and is heated with steam condensing on the outside of the tubes, bringing the liquid inside to a boil. The produced vapors press the liquid against the walls of the tubes. The vapor has a higher velocity which forces the liquid against the tube wall to rise. This gives the process its name. 2 3

5 Theory Nadezda Mamedova A variety of evaporators are used in industry. Our engineers will focus on the climbing film evaporator operated in batch mode. The evaporator will also be operated under vacuum. The benefit of this is that it allows for operation at lower temperatures. The mixture of triethylene glycol and water enter the bottom of a thin wall glass calandria tubes wherein the mixture is heated to boiling. The water vapor carrying the triethylene glycol climbs the evaporator and enters a cyclone separator. Here the triethylene glycol condenses and is returned to the evaporator while the water is collected separately. Bourgois and LeMaguer found that the dimensionless volumetric vapor flux may be used to determine the most efficient point of operation. The dimensionless vapor flux,, is given by [1] Where: = vapor density = liquid density = gravitational constant = inside diameter of the tube Operation efficiency increases with increasing until = 2.5. At this point steam consumption is at a minimum and the steam temperature and vacuum pressure are optimal. When the value of is greater than 2.5 the steam consumption needed to produce product at a given concentration greatly increases as increases, and the process becomes inefficient. To account for economic efficiency we considered a scale up factor, R. R was determined from the amount of liquid needing to be processed and the amount our pilot equipment could process. 4

6 [2] Where: R = Scale up factor Qrequired = Amount of liquid required for processing (90,000 Gallons) QExperimental = Amount of liquid our laboratory could process This R factor was carried out to determine other scaled up calculations and cost of the process. 5

7 Design Plan Eric Henderson During the operation of a climbing film apparatus, the continued use of steam becomes very expensive; therefore, an attempt to minimize this use of steam will be made. A system temperature at a given pressure will be related to steam flow rate to produce a 88% triethylene glycol separation using figures from the DOW Chemical Triethylene Glycol manual (figure below). 4 This system temperature will be found by utilizing the Antoine equation in Excel s Solver. The Antoine constants are obtained by interpolation of 80% and 90% values in Figure 5 in this lab s manual (Vapor Pressures of Aqueous Triethylene Glycol Solutions at Various Temperatures) to produce constants for 88% triethylene glycol separation. Figure 1: Vapor Pressures of Aqueous Triethylene Glycol Solutions at Various Temperatures 4 Using these experimental data (triethylene glycol flow, column pressure, steam temperature, dehydrated triethylene glycol temperature, and condensed water volume), various relationships between data can be calculated to estimate process cost. For example, once a strong relationship between triethylene glycol separation, temperature, and pressure has been established, a steam cost comparison ($/kg) will be analyzed by using data from Table 8.4 (Costs of Some Common Chemicals). 5 By taking the costs into consideration, the optimum steam flow rate will be related to vapor flux (Equation 1) and feed flow rate to determine the economically optimum scale up plant size. Equipment sizes will be predicted from using Figure 2, with the notion that the production 6

8 requirement of 90k gal/day of process mixture must be met. Analysis of these costs will also require a raw materials cost estimation from Table 8.3, and ultimately, the total costs examination by Table Figure 2: Purchased Costs for Evaporators and Vaporizers 5 It must be assumed that calculated values for this experiment can be applied to any apparatus location. That is to say, values such as correction factors for various geological locations do not need to be used. Furthermore, an accurate exemplification for the current market value costs can be assumed to be corrected under evaluation techniques from present worth calculations. Although correction factors are assumed to not apply, scale up factors must still be calculated once the optimal steam pressure and vacuum pressure are found. The scale up factor calculated from Equation 2 (from Theory) will be used when sizing the equipment and total steam consumption from the pilot plant to the commercial plant. On the other hand, the size of the tubes in the evaporator does not need to be scaled up since the heat transfer will not change. However, an increased number of tubes in the evaporator would be optimal for the commercial process. The optimal steam pressure and vacuum pressure are found by experimental trials in which the desired composition is achieved by the lowest steam consumption under a constant vacuum pressure. These values will be used in the cost analysis, along with the amount of cooling water in the condenser. The amount of cooling water in the condenser is found from the heat necessary to condense the vapor from the cyclone separator. 7

9 Experimental Plan Andrew Schultz In this experiment, the group will analyze the separation of water from triethylene glycol (TEG) via steam evaporation in a column. Several variables will be manipulated throughout the experiment to evaluate the optimal conditions which yield the best separation of the two substances. Variables of importance include: steam flow, saturated triethylene glycol flow, column pressure, steam temperature, dehydrated triethylene glycol temperature, and condensed water volume. The operating parameters for each are given below in Table 1. VARIABLE OPERATING RANGE UNITS Steam Flow Rate 0 90 ml/min Saturated TEG Flow Rate 0 90 ml/min Vacuum Pressure 0 30 psi Table 1: Operating ranges of independent experimental variables. Throughout the experiment, the independent variables which the group will manipulate include steam flow, saturated triethylene glycol mix flow, and vacuum pressure. The group will determine the flow rates for the steam and saturated TEG. These flow rates will be measured by rotameters located on the operating panel and will remain constant throughout the experiment. The group will manipulate the pressure inside the column via a vacuum pump. The separation of water and TEG will then be evaluated at various vacuum pressures. As the pressure inside the column is manipulated, each new system pressure will be used to calculate the theoretical (goal) temperature that triethylene glycol must reach to obtain the desired dehydration. The temperature of the steam flowing into the system is an important parameter to monitor as it is the initial temperature of the system. The measured (dependent) goal temperature is the final temperature of the system at a given vacuum pressure. The volume of condensed water is also an important dependent variable that the group will measure. The volume of water collected over a period of time as determined by the group will indicate the effectiveness of separation at a given vacuum pressure. 8

10 The group will conduct the experiment over the next three laboratory periods according to Table 2 below. The order of evaluation for each vacuum pressure will be cycled during each laboratory period to evaluate the effect of the temperature of the column being higher than ambient conditions after the first experiment of each day. This will allow the group to identify and evaluate the differences, if any, of starting an experiment at ambient conditions versus a system at higher than ambient temperatures. DATE 10/06/ /13/ /20/2015 TASK Measure condensed water volume for vacuum pressures at 19, 20, 21, 22 psi. Evaluate time taken to achieve goal temperature. Measure condensed water volume for vacuum pressures at 20, 21, 22, 19 psi. Evaluate time taken to achieve goal temperature. Measure condensed water volume for vacuum pressures at 21, 22, 19, 20 psi. Evaluate time taken to achieve goal temperature. Table 2: Schedule of experiments to be performed on remaining experimental laboratory days. Due to the limitations of the laboratory, specifically the vacuum pump, the range of vacuum pressures at which the group was able to conduct the experiment were limited. This may be a factor when the group determines the optimum operating vacuum pressure to separate water from triethylene glycol to the desired dehydration set point. You also changed the steam pressure. 9

11 Apparatus Andrew Schultz Major equipment available in the laboratory for pilot tests for this experiment include an evaporator, separator, condenser, batch reactor, vacuum pump, and recycle pump. The watertriethylene glycol (H20/TEG) mixture is pumped from a storage tank into a shell and tube heat exchanger. The H20/TEG mixture enters tube side at the bottom of the exchanger while steam enters shell side at the top. As the steam condense around the tubes, the process fluid inside the tubes is heated until water begins to vaporize. As the water vaporizes, the TEG is pushed to the outside of the tubes and up the column, hence the namesake climbing film evaporator. 6 The water vapor and TEG then enter a vertical separator wherein the heavier liquid TEG flows to the bottom of the separator into a recycle loop while the water vapor flows out of the top of the separator to the condenser. Inside the column, the water vapor condenses downward into a batch reactor. The condensed water is collected and measured via an outlet stream from the bottom of the reactor. This volume is indicative of the efficiency of the system under the operational vacuum pressure conditions that is, the more water that is collected, the more water that is separated from the TEG. Thus, the more efficient the system is at the specified operating conditions. The vacuum recycle pumps facilitate the movement of the process throughout the system. Rewrite last sentence to clarify. Important operating variables for this experiment include the vacuum pressure of the system, vacuum pump water flow, and steam pressure entering the evaporator. The group actively manipulated the vacuum pressure throughout the experiment in order to evaluate the efficiency of water evaporation from a water-triethylene glycol mixture. This procedure was predicated on the idea that the boiling point of fluids decrease at higher vacuum pressures. In order to create the vacuum inside the system, a fluid stream was necessary to cycle through the vacuum pump. A water stream was used for this purpose. The group determined a water flow rate that allowed the pump to create sufficient suction such that the desired vacuum pressure was reached without causing cavitation. The water flow rate was measured by a rotameter located on the operating panel. This flow rate was held constant throughout for each trial throughout the experiment. The group also controlled the pressure of the steam entering the evaporator. This procedure was based on the idea that there would be an increase in steam condensation at increased pressure. This pressure was controlled by ball valve. The group attempted to keep the steam pressure 10

12 constant. However, due to the nature of the control valve, the actual steam pressure each day of experimenting fluctuated somewhat. For the experiment, the H20/TEG mixture is pumped from a storage tank tube side into the evaporator while steam is allowed to flow shell side into the evaporator. As the steam condenses around the tubes, the heat is transferred to the H20/TEG mixture by conduction, which causes the water to evaporate and move the TEG up the evaporator into the separator. At this point, the liquid TEG flows to the bottom of the separator and is recycled back into the system while the water vapor flows to the top of the separator into a condenser. As the vapor liquefies in the condensing column, it is collected in the batch reactor. The condensed water is then measured and analyzed to evaluate the efficacy of the separation under the specified operating conditions. Valves 14 and 15 were manipulated for each trial to control the vacuum pressure inside the system. Steam pressure was operated at pressures of 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). These vacuum pressure set points were used in conjunction with the Antoine equation to determine a calculated (goal) temperature for the TEG in the bottom of the separator. Additionally, the position of valve -- was manipulated to control water flow into the vacuum pump. Safety hazards of concern for the experiment include chemical inhalation or contact, equipment malfunction, injury by broken or shattered glass, and injury by contact with steam. The primary chemical of concern for this experiment is triethylene glycol, which is slightly hazardous in cases of inhalation, but is very hazardous in cases of eye contact. 7 Disturbances in water and watertriethylene glycol flow could potentially cause cavitation in the water vacuum and recycle pumps, respectively. Conversely, an exceedingly high suction (vacuum) pressure set point could cause the glass batch reactor to shatter and send glass shards airborne. Scalding while measuring the condensed water from the batch reactor or burns from the steam are possible hazards while conducting the experiment as well. The group employed various safety measures to avoid and protect against the above hazards. These measures include wearing appropriate protective equipment like pants, long sleeve shirts, and closed-toed shoes to protect our skin from glass shards and safety glasses to protect our eyes from the same as well as TEG vapor. Additionally, 11

13 gloves were worn when handling the steam valves and measuring the condensed water to protect against burns and scalding. 12

14 Experimental Results Xiaorong Zhang Our experimental data showed that a vacuum gauge pressure of 20 inches of mercury obtained the highest efficiency, which achieved a product of at least 88 percent of triethylene glycol by weight. Highest efficiency was achieve when the process required the least amount of time to reach the goal temperature, while consuming the least amount of steam. Table 3 shows the experimental conditions for vacuum gauge pressure of 20 inches of mercury. Other trials were run at similar barometric pressure, but different vacuum pressures, which led to different temperature goals. The goal temperaturesshow an increasing trend with decreasing vacuum gauge pressure. Experiment #3 Conditions Barometric pressure 29.2 inhg mmhg Vacuum pressure 20 inhg mmhg Antoine pressure mmhg Temperature goal C F Start height 24 in End height in Volume process gal Process time 20 min Thoroughput gal/hr Scale-up factor, R Table 3: Experimental conditions at 20inHg. Table 4 shows the data of the pilot run under a vacuum pressure of 20 inches of mercury. Due to water being removed constantly, the volume of water coming from the green hose consistently decreased. Because of the same reason, the temperature of outgoing fluid (OF) increased slowly at a lower temperature and greatly increased at a higher temperature. In addition, the LMTD (logarithmic mean temperature difference) indicates how much heat is transferred. The larger the LMTD, the more heat is transferred. The decreasing trend on the LMTD is also in agreement with Steam Valve Temperatures (F) Time interval Rate Pressure Consumptio Volume (ml) Time (s) (min) (ml/s) (psi) n (ml) IS, #13 OF, #15 OS, #12 IF, #1 LMTD Table 4: Experimental data for pilot run at 20inHg. 13

15 the volume of water trend, since less water was evaporated at a higher temperature, which means less heat was transferred. Heat (kj) Heat Transfer Overall heat transfer coefficient (kj/ft 2 *C) steam Pressure (psi) Table 5: Relationship between heat transfer and steam pressure. Table 5 shows the relation between heat transfer and steam pressure. During the experimental procedure it was difficult to the keep the apparatus at a constant steam pressure; however, determining an efficient constant steam pressure is important for the scaled up process. From Table 5, both steam pressures of 3.5 PSI and 4 PSI obtained a higher overall heat transfer coefficient. Nevertheless, due to a decreasing trend of heat transfer with an increase in temperature, heat transfer at 4 PSI steam pressure shows a better result that achieves the most heat transfer. Figure 3: Comparison of total steam consumption (in liters) at various vacuum steam pressures (in inches of Mercury). Figure 3 shows the steam consumption for each pilot run under different vacuum gauge pressures. The consumptions for all of the runs, except for at 18 inches of mercury, are around 30 liters. However, the pilot run at 20 inches of mercury required less process time, which makes it our most 14

16 desirable run for scale up. For the unexpectedly large steam value for 18 inches of mercury, our group did not find any apparent reason for this abnormal value. Propagation of Error A propagation of error analysis was calculated on throughputs and on the scale-up factor (R). These two values are the main error sources for the scale up design. The error in the experimental throughputs is calculated as 46.22±30.88 and R is calculated as ± Unfortunately, these errors are large, which affects the scale up design substantially. The cause of these big errors is that our group had a difficult time measuring the starting and ending height of the feed tank. Our group will try to figure out a good way to measure the height of the tank during the make-up experiment for our revised report. Good idea. Scaled Up Design - Andrew Schultz The scaled up design was based on the data and experimental results from several pilot trials. The group utilized Equation 2 to determine the scale up factor (r) that was needed to scale the experimental conditions and equipment to meet the commercial requirements outlined in Table 6 below. Scale Up Pilot Commercial Size Factor (r) Evaporator Table 6: The SA scale (ft^2) up factor based 1.55 on the pilot experiments Cyclone Separator The scaling factor was then Area used (ft^2) to scale the throughput as well as triethylene glycol and water volumetric flow rates. Condenser These calculations SA (ft^2) were 1.87 based on the plant operating 24 hours per day, Vacuum Pump (hp) days per year and were calculated to meet the dehydration specification of 12 weight percent water in triethylene glycol. These values are represented below in Table 7. 15

17 In evaluating the optimal conditions under which the system should be operated to most efficiently reach the dehydration specification, the group determined that the most costly element of the experiment was the cost of steam. Therefore, it was decided to hold the steam input constant at four pounds per square inch while varying the system vacuum pressure. The Antione Equation was used to calculate the temperature that was necessary to meet the 88 weight percent triethylene glycol specification for each variation of vacuum pressure. The time required to reach this temperature as well as the volume of the triethylene and water mixture processed were recorded and evaluated to determine the optimal operating conditions. These values are outlined in Table 8 below. Vacuum Pressure (inhg) System Temperature (F) Required Production System throughput 90,000 [gal/day] 87, [gal/day] Triethylene Glycol [m^3/day] 2, [gal/day] Water Removed 9.71 [m^3/day] Table 7: Scaled system throughput, triethylene glycol, and water flow rates. Tested System Conditions Volume Processed (gal) Processing Time (min) Rate (gal/day) Table 8: Experimental conditions and results from pilot tests performed at vacuum pressures from 17 to 21 inches of Mercury. Based on these results, it was determined that the operation of the system was most efficient at a vacuum pressure of 20 inches of mercury, and this pressure will be used as the basis for the scale up. At this vacuum pressure, the system has the largest processing rate as well as requiring the lowest system temperature. This is significant because it is desired to optimize the processing rate while maintain an economical scale up that is, process the largest volume of the triethylene glycol and water mixture at the lowest temperature in order to utilize the least amount of steam to meet the desired specifications. 16

18 Equation 2 was manipulated to scale the major equipment to meet commercial specifications. The major equipment pieces which are necessary to scale up include the evaporator, cyclone separator, and condenser. The scaled up values for the major equipment is included in Table 9 below. Factor (r) Evaporator SA (ft^2) Cyclone Separator Area (ft^2) Condenser SA (ft^2) Vacuum Pump (hp) Scale Up Pilot Commercial Size Table 9: Scaled up values for major equipment. The scaled up equipment costs were estimated using the CAPCOST cost analysis program. Additional costing methods (e.g., cost of labor, raw materials, etc.) and correlations were derived using Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes by Turton et al. All correlations and costing analyses should be consistent between CAPCOST and the textbook since the program was designed by the authors of the textbook. Furthermore, all correlations are based on industry averages and do not require the use of corrective factors. The cost analysis data are depicted in the following tables. Total Equipment Cost Equipment Cost (USD) Evaporator 374,000 Cyclone $ 2,070 Vacuum Pump $ 16,970 Condenser $ 42,300 Triethylene Glycol Storage Tank 68,400 Process Water Storage Sphere $ 38,400 Water By Product Storage Tank $ 87,900 Total $630,000 Table 10: Total equipment cost outlined by major pieces of equipment. $ $ 17

19 Total Manufactoring Costs Raw Materials $ 883 Labor $ 468, Utilites $ 828, Maintenance $ 223, Operating Supplies $ 33, Laboratory Charges $ 70, Royalties $ 115, Depreciation $ 318, Taxes $ 100, Insurance $ - Rent $ - EXPENSES General Expenses Administrative Costs $ 111, Distribution & marketing $ 351, Research & development $ 159, Totals $ 2,156, $ 621, Total annual cost $ 2,777, Table 11: Outline of total annual costs (TAC). Itemized Capital Investment Cost Direct costs Basis Cost (USD) Purchased equipment Capcost $ 630,000 Equipment installation 47% of equipment cost $ 296,000 Instrumentation and controls 36% of equipment cost $ 227,000 Piping 68% of equipment cost $ 428,000 Electrical systems 11% of equipment cost $ 69,300 Buildings 18% of equipment cost $ 113,000 Yard improvements 10% of equipment cost $ 63,000 Service facilities 70% of equipment cost $ 441,000 Total Direct Plant Cost $ 2,270,000 Indirect Costs Basis Cost (USD) Engineering and supervision 33% of equipment cost $ 208,000 Construction expenses 41% of equipment cost $ 258,000 Legal expenses 4% of equipment cost $ 25,200 Contractor's fee 22% of equipment cost $ 139,000 Contingency 44% of equipment cost $ 277,000 Total Indirect Plant Cost $ 907,000 Capital Investment Costs Basis Cost (USD) Fixed Capital Investment $3,180,000 Working capital 15% of total capital investment $ 561,000 Total Capital Investment Table 12: Outline of costs for total capital investment. $3,740,000 18

20 Process Flow Diagram - Nadezda Mamedova 19

21 Propagation of Error Analysis Eric Henderson Propagation of error analysis sample hand calculations for the following table can be found in Appendix III. Piece of Equipment Error in Size σ Q_Experimental ±6.29*10-3 gal/hr σ R ± σ Tubes ±0.296 σ Cyclone separator area ±0.2 ft 2 σ Pump air flow ±0.433 CFM Table 13. Error of Equipment Sizing Overall, our error in equipment size yielded a very small standard deviation; therefore, our scale up calculations are confirmed to be precise. Our average experimental error was found to be less than five percent for all data in question. Consequently, our data are confirmed to be statistically significant. Design Limitations, Assumptions, and Recommendations - Nadezda Mamedova This experiment was performed under the assumption that the vacuum and system pressures were in equilibrium. We used this assumption to calculate a goal temperature at which the desired exit composition would be reached. We recommend testing the exit product composition to determine the accuracy of this assumption. Due to time constraints, our data gathered were not all started at the same temperature. If more time is allowed, we recommend running the experiment from the same temperature and atmospheric pressure to allow for better comparisons. The largest limitation to our experiment was the start and end height of the liquid level in., which we used to calculate the amount of liquid processed. Errors in the amount of liquid processed would carry through all the calculations and cost analysis. 20

22 Comparison with Design Based On Literature Values Andrew Schultz An experiment was conducted using an industrial climbing film evaporator to concentrate pineapple juice for widespread commercial purposes. In Bourgois and LeMaguer s experiment, the evaporator had three sections, each being similar in length (2.13 meters) with differing quantities of tubes 66, 111, and 156. In total their system had a processing capacity of over 5,000 kilograms per hour or 120,000 kilograms per day. For our purposes, we are processing an inlet feed of 90,000 gallons per day, so both systems are analogous in total processing capabilities per day. Further, the overall heat transfer coefficient for our triethylene glycol system was calculated to kilojoules per square foot per degree Celcius or 283 Watts per square meter per Kelvin, which is dissimilar to the calculated range Bourgois and LeMaguer determined for their industry pineapple juice application (1,000 to 1,600 Watts per square meter per Kelvin). This source of error do you mean differences or errors or both? could derive from the measured tank height, compositional differences between triethylene glycol and pineapple juice, the dehydration versus concentration processes not being directly comparable, as well as improved present-day equipment compared to the equipment Bourgois and LeMaguer had available. 21

23 Report Grade: 87/100 References 1. Aschner, F.S. & Schaal, M. & Hasson, D. (1971). Large Long-Tube Evaporators for Seawater Distillation. 2. Evaporation Handbook, 4th edition, An Invensys Company, APV Americas, Engineered Systems Separation Technologies. [1] Last Accessed on 4 October Bourgois, J., & LeMaguer, M. (1984). Modelling of Heat Transfer in a Climbing-Film Evaporator: Application to an Industrial Evaporator. Journal of Food Engineering, Triethylene Glycol Manual (n.d.): n. pag. DOW Chemical, Feb Turton, Richard. Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Print. 6. Evaporation Handbook, 4th edition, An Invensys Company, APV Americas, Engineered Systems Separation Technologies. [1] Last Accessed on 4 October "Triethylene Glycol MSDS." Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Science Lab, 21 May Web. 6 Oct < 22

24 Time interval (min) Volume (ml) Time (s) Rate (ml/s) Pressure (psi) Consumptio n (ml) IS, #13 OF, #15 OS, #12 IF, #1 LMTD Heat (kj) Overall heat transfer coefficient (kj/ft 2 *C) Steam Valve Temperatures (F) Heat Transfer End height 24 in Volume process gal Process time 20 min Thoroughput gal/hr Scale-up factor, R Vaccum pump Motor 75 HP Total surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 4456 Condenser Appendix I: Data Tables Eric Henderson Vacuum Pressure = 21 inhg Experiment #3 Conditions Barometric pressure 29.2 inhg mmhg Vacuum pressure 21 inhg mmhg Antoine pressure mmhg Temperature goal C F Start height 24.4 in Cyclone Volume ft 3 Cross-sectional area ft 2 Diameter ft Surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 4456 Commercial Process Evaporator 23

25 Time interval (min) Volume (ml) Time (s) Rate (ml/s) Pressure (psi) Consumptio n (ml) IS, #13 OF, #15 OS, #12 IF, #1 LMTD Heat (kj) Overall heat transfer coefficient (kj/ft 2 *C) Steam Valve Temperatures (F) Heat Transfer Vaccum pump Motor 75 HP Experiment #3 Conditions Barometric pressure 29.2 inhg mmhg Vacuum pressure 20 inhg 508 mmhg Antoine pressure mmhg Temperature goal C F Start height 24 in End height in Volume process gal Process time 20 min Thoroughput gal/hr Scale-up factor, R Total surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 339 Condenser Cyclone Volume ft 3 Cross-sectional area ft 2 Diameter ft Vacuum Pressure = 20 inhg Surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 339 Commercial Process Evaporator 24

26 Time interval (min) Volume (ml) Time (s) Rate (ml/s) Pressure (psi) Consumptio n (ml) IS, #13 OF, #15 OS, #12 IF, #1 LMTD Heat (kj) Overall heat transfer coefficient (kj/ft 2 *C) Steam Valve Temperatures (F) Heat Transfer Vaccum pump Motor 75 HP Experiment #3 Conditions Barometric pressure inhg mmhg Vacuum pressure 19 inhg mmhg Antoine pressure mmhg Temperature goal C F Start height in End height 16.5 in Volume process gal Process time 27 min Thoroughput gal/hr Scale-up factor, R Total surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 385 Condenser Cyclone Volume ft 3 Cross-sectional area ft 2 Diameter ft Vacuum Pressure = 19 inhg Surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 385 Commercial Process Evaporator 25

27 Time interval (min) Volume (ml) Time (s) Rate (ml/s) Pressure (psi) Consumptio n (ml) IS, #13 OF, #15 OS, #12 IF, #1 LMTD Heat (kj) Overall heat transfer coefficient (kj/ft 2 *C) Steam Valve Temperatures (F) Heat Transfer Experiment #3 Conditions Barometric pressure inhg mmhg Vacuum pressure 18 inhg mmhg Antoine pressure mmhg Temperature goal C F Start height 24.5 in End height in Volume process gal Process time 25 min Thoroughput gal/hr Scale-up factor, R Vaccum pump Motor 75 HP Total surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 1273 Condenser Cyclone Volume ft 3 Cross-sectional area ft 2 Diameter ft Vacuum Pressure = 18 inhg Surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 1273 Commercial Process Evaporator 26

28 Time interval (min) Volume (ml) Time (s) Rate (ml/s) Pressure (psi) Consumptio n (ml) IS, #13 OF, #15 OS, #12 IF, #1 LMTD Heat (kj) Overall heat transfer coefficient (kj/ft 2 *C) Steam Valve Temperatures (F) Heat Transfer Vaccum pump Motor 75 HP Experiment #3 Conditions Barometric pressure inhg mmhg Vacuum pressure 17 inhg mmhg Antoine pressure mmhg Temperature goal C F Start height 24 in End height in Volume process gal Process time 27.5 min Thoroughput gal/hr Scale-up factor, R Total surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 1400 Condenser Cyclone Volume ft 3 Cross-sectional area ft 2 Diameter ft Vacuum Pressure = 17 inhg Surface area ft 2 Number of tubes 1400 Commercial Process Evaporator 27

29 Appendix II: Results Calculations - Eric Henderson 28

30 29

31 30

32 31

33 Appendix III: Error Calculations Nadya Mamedova 32

34 33

35 34

36 Appendix IV: Scale Up Calculations Eric Henderson 35

37 36

38 37

39 38

40 39