Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349

www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

A process integration approach to the design of the

two- and three-column methanol distillation schemes
A.P. Douglas a, A.F.A. Hoadley b,*

a
Plant Solutions Pty Ltd, Suite 2, 63 Rosstown Road, Carnegie, Vic. 3163, Australia
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Monash University, Vic. 3800, Australia

Received 7 April 2005; accepted 6 July 2005

Available online 24 August 2005

Abstract

A thermal and economic comparison of two- and three-column methanol distillation schemes for the purification of crude meth-
anol is presented. The schemes investigated include the conventional two-column scheme involving a topping column and a refining
column, two different enrichment cascade three-column schemes and a double-effect three-column scheme. Three different reforming
process technologies are considered for the front-end process. Heat integration methodologies are used to determine the optimum
column pressure settings. The benefits of enhanced heat integration with the background process are assessed through a determi-
nation of the respective capital, operating and investment costs.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heat integration; Side reboiling; Methanol purification; Energy efficiency

1. Introduction methanol liquid to be withdrawn and the unconverted

The production of methanol from natural gas feed-
stock is one of the worldÕs most important gas-to-liquid
processes. Steam–methane reforming (SMR) is used to
produce synthesis gas, which can be supplemented with
gas from a secondary oxygen-fired reformer [1]. The
final synthesis gas when combined with water or steam
produces methanol (CH3OH) in a synthesis loop.
Methanol synthesis occurs in the gas phase over a
heterogeneous catalyst bed. The reaction of the COx
and hydrogen to methanol is highly exothermic, but
incomplete [8]. In order to raise the synthesis loop con-
version efficiency, the converter effluent gas is cooled
below the methanol–water dew point to allow crude
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9905 3421; fax: +61 3 9905
5686.
E-mail addresses: anthony.doulgas@aspentech.com (A.P. Dou-
glas), andrew.hoadley@eng.monash.edu.au (A.F.A. Hoadley).
reactants recycled. This condensation process is a major
source of surplus heat. Another is cooling the feed gas
prior to compression into the synthesis loop.
The condensate from the synthesis loop is generally
purified in two stages using conventional distillation col-
umns operating at pressures slightly above atmospheric
pressure. The first distillation stage is for light ends
removal, and is carried out in a single distillation col-
umn known as the topping column. This column acts
as a refluxed stripper. The liquid feed enters near the
top stage and methanol vapour generated in the reboiler
acts to strip the light ends (such as DME, methyl for-
mate and acetone) and residual dissolved gases from
the crude methanol. The main area of investigation is
the second stage of methanol purification. This is the
methanol refining stage, where methanol is recovered
as the overhead product from one or more distillation
columns, while water is withdrawn as the bottoms prod-
uct. Middle boiling impurities (principally ethanol, but

1359-4311/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2005.07.001
 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349 339

also higher alcohols, ketones and esters), referred to as Light ends

(a)
fusel oil, are withdrawn as a side stream, below the feed Methanol
Product
stage [10]. Provision of this side stream enables the pro- Crude
duction of methanol to US federal specification O-M- Methanol
Feed Recovery
232K Grade‘‘AA’’. Refining
Column

Column
In a typical two-column methanol purification Topping Fusel Oil
scheme such as shown in Fig. 1, about 20% of the total Column Side-Draw

heat required for purification is associated with the top-

ping column, while the remainder is required to separate
Recovery
methanol from ethanol and water. This basic arrange- Column Bottoms
ment is widely reported in the literature [8]. With the
sharp rise in energy costs since the mid-1970s, methanol Light ends
(b)
technology licensors and operators have focussed con- Methanol
Product
siderable attention on alternatives to this standard Crude
Methanol
two-column arrangement. A number of these alternative Feed Recovery
Column
schemes involve splitting the refining column into two Refining
Fusel Oil
separate columns operating at different pressures, such Topping
Column
Column
Side-Draw

that the overheads of the higher pressure column can

be used to reboil the lower pressure column. The three
variations of the three-column schemes considered in Recovery
Column Bottoms
this study are depicted in Fig. 2. These are:

1. The standard three-column scheme with a topping

column followed by a high pressure refining column, (c) Methanol
Light ends Product
which provides a prerectified feed to the final (recov-
ery) column. The refining column overhead con-
LP
denser reboils the recovery column (Fig. 2a) [8]. Column

2. The double-coupled three-column scheme—a topping Crude Fusel Oil

Methanol Side-Draw
column followed by a high pressure refining column, Feed

which provides a prerectified feed to the final (recov-

Topping HP
ery) column. The refining column overhead con- Column Column LP Column
Bottoms
denser reboils both the recovery and topping
columns (Fig. 2b) [10]. Fusel Oil
Side-Draw
3. The double-effect three-column scheme—a topping
column followed by a high pressure refining column HP Column
Bottoms
operating in parallel with a low pressure refining col-
umn. The high pressure refining column overhead Fig. 2. Schematic of the different three-column schemes: (a) standard
condenser reboils the low pressure refining column enrichment cascade, (b) double-coupled enrichment cascade, (c) double
(Fig. 2c) [3]. effect.

The capital cost of the three-column schemes is signi-

Light ends
ficantly greater than the standard two-column arrange-
ment. An economic analysis of a world scale methanol
Methanol plant (using conventional SMR technology) by Seddon
Product
[15] indicated that the methanol distillation section
Crude
Methanol accounts for only 11% of the total installed capital cost.
Feed
Macnaughton et al. [14] give a similar estimate of
Refining
Column
10–15% of the process capital cost to distillation. They
Topping
also comments that integration of the distillation with
Column the rest of the process makes the distillation columns a
Fusel Oil
Side draw suitable sink for low grade heat, leading to an improve-
ment in the overall process efficiency.
The purpose of this study was to utilise heat integra-
Water
Bottoms Product tion techniques to identify practical improvements to
the different distillation schemes reported in the litera-
Fig. 1. Methanol purification—two-column scheme. ture, which demonstrate an increase in the overall plant
340 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349
efficiency, and/or reduced capital cost. Furthermore, in
assessing a number of these distillation schemes, conclu-
sions are drawn with respect to the appropriateness of
each scheme for integration with the background process.
2. Theory
2.1. The process grand composite curve (GCC)
Heat integration or pinch analysis provides a meth-
odology to set targets for maximum heat recovery and
minimum consumption of utilities (e.g. steam and cool-
ing water). Process streams requiring cooling are classed
as hot streams, providing a source of heat to those pro-
cess streams requiring heating, or cold streams. Pinch
analysis is based on the premise that process streams
can be matched in such a way as to minimise reliance
on external heat sources or sinks, whilst adhering to
an exchanger minimum approach temperature (refer to
[13]). A powerful tool for heat integration analysis is
the grand composite curve (GCC). Fig. 3 illustrates
the use of the grand composite curve for setting the
hot utility requirement (the double horizontal line at
the top of Fig. 3) and the cold utility requirement (the
double horizontal line at the bottom of this figure).
The GCC is constructed from knowledge of process
stream temperatures and enthalpies according to a heat
cascade principle [13]. It provides an overall picture of
the net heating and cooling requirements of a process
and can be used to identify:
• Temperature ranges over which heat surpluses and
deficits exist.
• The process pinch point (for maximum heat recov-
ery)—the temperature at which there is no net surplus
or deficit of heat available after heat transfer between
those hot process streams being cooled down to that
temperature and those cold process streams being
heated up from that temperature.
T Hot utility requirement Columns A, B & C are
appropriately located below
the process pinch. Operate
Column A at a higher
pressure to allow heat
Process
pinch point
integration with Column B.
The box with the dashed
border represents Column A
Column A Reboiler before the change in operating
pressure.
Column A A
Condenser
/ Column B
Reboiler B the process heat and mass balance, by considering the
Column B Condenser
C
Cold utility requirement
∆H
Fig. 3. A typical grand composite curve for a background process and
distillation columns A, B and C.
• The appropriate placement of hot utilities (e.g. steam
or a fired heater) and cold utilities (e.g. cooling water,
or raising steam or heating boiler feed water) and the
respective load on each.
• The appropriate placement of distillation columns, if
the reboiler and condenser duties have been excluded
from the construction of the process GCC. In this
instance, the GCC is effectively a background process
GCC.
A conventional distillation column takes in the heat
required to drive the separation process at the reboiler
and then rejects this heat from the overhead condenser
at a lower temperature. Placement of a distillation col-
umn within the process such that the reboiler receives
heat (either from the process or from a hot utility, or
both) at a temperature above the process pinch point
while rejecting heat from its condenser at a temperature
below the process pinch point will lead to cross pinch
heat transfer and no net energy saving [12]. If however
the column is located totally above or below the pinch,
then integration of a reboiler or condenser with the pro-
cess will lead to a net energy saving of up to the amount
that was integrated. Therefore, Linnhoff et al. [12] con-
clude that integrating the column totally above or below
a process pinch point will be more thermally efficient.
Dhole and Linnhoff [5] show that a distillation col-
umn may be represented by a temperature–enthalpy
(T–H) box to identify the appropriate placement of a
column within the background process and heat integra-
tion opportunities between multiple columns. An exam-
ple of the use of T–H boxes to represent distillation
columns against the background process GCC is illus-
trated in Fig. 3. This figure also shows how the column
pressure can also be used to adjust the distillation box
vertically, in this case to facilitate the coupling of a col-
umn condenser with the reboiler of another column.
Although this technique is useful for locating col-
umns in relation to the background process GCC, these
T–H boxes show only the reboiling and condensing
requirement and not the internal temperature–heat pro-
file of the individual columns. Therefore, they cannot
yield any information in regard to the size (duty) and
location (stage) of an intermediate reboiler or con-
denser. The column grand composite curve (CGCC)
can however provide this information to the designer.
2.2. The column grand composite curve (CGCC)
The process GCC is constructed from knowledge of
heat cascade through each temperature level of the pro-
cess. Similarly, the column grand composite curve
(CGCC) is constructed from knowledge of the column
internal stream mass flows and enthalpies. Various
methodologies for generating the CGCC are presented
 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349
by Dhole and Linnhoff [5] and more recently, Bandyo-
padhyay et al. [2]. The procedures for generating the
CGCC are based on the hypothetical concept of a mini-
mum thermodynamic condition (MTC), in which a col-
umn is assumed to operate reversibly i.e. with no
thermodynamic losses. The net result is a column with
minimum internal stream flows, minimum net work con-
sumption (to separate components) and effectively no
driving forces for heat and mass transfer between stages.
For a binary separation, the column temperature–
enthalpy relationship is obtained by simultaneously
solving mass and energy balances for a reversible
scheme. For multicomponent systems, a simplification
proposed by Fonyo [9] and adopted by Dhole and
Linnhoff [5] uses the light key and heavy key compo-
nents to approximate the binary situation.
Dhole and Linnhoff [5] propose a practical near-mini-
mum thermodynamic condition (PNMTC) for a real
column, which still requires an infinite number of stages
of separation and an infinite number of side-exchangers.
However, because the data is obtained from a converged
column simulation, it can also include feed stage mixing
losses and pressure losses (both inevitable in a real col-
umn). It can also take into account actual column con-
figuration, such as multiple products, side strippers and
side rectifiers. The procedure involves calculating the
change in the energy balance with each stage of separa-
tion using the vapour and liquid flowrates and enthal-
pies from the column simulation. An energy deficit is
obtained at each stage ignoring all heat transfer into
and out of the column i.e. ignoring QCondenser, QReboiler,
and QIntermediate Exchanger. This methodology is illustrated
in Fig. 4 and for a step by step procedure, refer to Dhole
and Linnhoff [5]. When the net enthalpy deficits at each
stage are added to the condenser duty, obtained from
the simulation, and plotted against stage temperature,
a close approximation of the CGCC is obtained at the
practical near-minimum condition for the column.
If the column is operating at or near its minimum re-
flux ratio, which is consistent with the column operating
QCondenser
Hdef1
Hdef2
Hdef3
Feed
Column
Pinch Point
Temperature
QReboiler
Fig. 4. Construction of the CGCC from stagewise enthalpy envelope deficits [5].
341
with an infinite number of theoretical stages of separa-
tion, the heat deficit at the feed stage will equal the over-
head condenser duty, such that the net heat duty at the
feed stage will be zero. Therefore the feed stage becomes
the pinch point for heat transfer in a distillation column
operating at its PNMTC. This is analogous to the pro-
cess pinch point (see Fig. 2). The heat load axis in
Fig. 4 represents the minimum amount of heat, which
must be available for heat transfer at every temperature
level or at every theoretical stage in the column in order
to drive the separation. Large steps in heat load below
the feed stage indicate that there is a large amount of
heat transfer from the vapour, which emanates from
the reboiler, to liquid descending through the column.
Conversely, large steps in heat load above the feed stage
indicate large heat transfer rates between the liquid re-
flux from the overhead condenser and the vapour, rich
in the light key, which has been stripped from the feed
by the heat imparted to the feed in the stripping section.
Large changes in heat load at intermediate column tem-
peratures indicate that there is potential to provide the
heat (or remove the heat) at these temperatures using
an external device. Large heat transfer driving forces
exist in the regions of the column where the heat load
change coincides with significant changes in tempera-
ture. As a result, heat may be added or removed directly
at these temperatures without a significant increase in
the number of theoretical stages of separation.
In summary, the CGCC provides information in
order to assess the potential for side heating or cooling
operations, which could be integrated with the back-
ground process.
2.3. Economic analysis
An economic assessment allows the capital-energy
trade-offs to be explored. In this study this analysis is
done on a relative basis, using the two-column distilla-
tion scheme as the reference or base case for cost com-
parison between the various methanol distillation
Hdef1
T
TCondenser QCondenser
Hdef2
T1 Hdef3
T2
T3
TFeed
TReboiler QReboiler
∆H
342 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349

schemes. A simple discounted cash flow analysis was

used to determine a suitable capitalisation factor with
which to capitalise the annual operating cost savings
associated with more energy efficient schemes. This cap-
italisation is used to determine the capital equivalent of
the operating cost savings relative to the two-column
base case. The following assumptions were applied to
a net present value (NPV) model:
Discount rate 15% per annum
Plant life 20 years (after initial
investment)
Natural gas value US$1 per GJ (LHV)
Maintenance 2% of investment
(indexed at 2% per annum)
HP–LP letdown steam US$4 per tonne
Generating electricity US$36 per MW h
The initial investment amount was determined iteratively
such that the NPV of the initial investment (in 2003 US
dollars), plus the sum of the discounted cash flows (main-
tenance = cash outflow, natural gas saving = revenue or
a reduction in cash outflow), equalled zero at a discount
rate of 15% per annum, applied over 20 years.
Conventional engineering methods were used to size
and cost individual equipment required in each scheme,
the full details of which are provided by Douglas [6].
These costs were then converted to total installed costs
to reflect the cost of purchase, freight to site and instal-
lation on site. The differential installed costs were calcu-
lated relative to the two-column base case.
The differential fully installed capital cost was sub-
tracted from the capitalised operating savings. The
result is the maximum net capital expenditure, which is
the amount of money which could be spent in order to:
Realise the savings in energy as actual savings in
natural gas consumption i.e. implement changes to
the BFW/steam system.
Pay for any other capital and operating cost impacts on
the methanol synthesis plant (e.g. higher maintenance
costs, or possibly, more complex process controls).
If an amount less than the maximum net capital
expenditure is actually expended, then the project
Methanol process technology Source
Conventional SMR (S:C  3.0) [8]
Two-stage combined reforming (S:C = 2.8) [1]
Water saturator process (LCM) (S:C = 1.5) [1]
A problem table was manually generated for each
process flowsheet using heat and material balance data
from converged simulations for a commercial simula-
tion package using the SRK–Kabadi–Danner thermo-
dynamic property package [11]. In order to obtain the
background process GCC a number of streams were
specifically excluded from the analysis. These streams
were as follows:
• All streams associated with methanol purification,
with the exception of a feed preheat/product run-
down exchange used by Apanel [1].
• All utility streams, including streams associated with
boiler feed water preheating and steam raising. It is
assumed that the Reforming Furnace flue gas and
combustion air streams are utility streams, and are
therefore also excluded from the analysis.
• All streams associated with the air separation unit
(ASU). Streams associated with the ASU are
excluded because: (i) it is assumed that heat integra-
tion opportunities will be maximised within the
ASU in order to maximise ASU plant efficiency,
and (ii) matches between oxygen containing streams
and methanol would not be allowed due to safety
concerns.
• All reactors are excluded from the GCC, though their
inlet and exit stream temperatures and heat capacity
flow rates reflect their presence.
The GCC for each of the three process technologies is
shown in Fig. 5. The cold process stream temperatures
were shifted up by an assumed minimum temperature
approach of 20 C to reflect a practical average mini-
mum approach temperature for all heat transfer duties,
1000
900
Conventional SMR
Actual Temperature (°C)

800 Two-stage Combined

would be an improvement on the two-column base 700 Water saturator process
case on a total cost basis. 600
500
400
300
3. Results 200
100
0
3.1. Background process composite curves 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Heat Load (MW)

Grand composite curves (GCCs) for the background Fig. 5. GCC for a 5000 tonne/day methanol plant: (·) conventional
process were generated for each of the following low SMR plant based (S:C  3.0), (j) combined reformer plant
pressure natural gas to methanol process technologies: (S:C = 2.8), (n) water saturator LCM plant (S:C = 1.5).
 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349 343

whether they be gas–gas, gas–liquid, liquid–liquid or 65

condensing services. Hot stream temperatures were not Overhead Condenser
shifted so that the grand composite curve, which is dom- 70
inated by hot streams, could be displayed at its actual

Temperature (Deg.C)
process temperature.
75
Fig. 5 shows that neither the conventional SMR pro-
cess nor the combined reforming process requires any
additional hot utility. Linnhoff et al. [13] refer to such 80

cases as ‘‘Threshold’’ problems. Both GCCs are of a Bottoms Reboiler

similar shape, with large quantities of high grade heat 85
available for high pressure steam raising. This high pres-
sure steam is used to drive steam turbines, while the low 90
pressure exhaust from these turbines can be used for re- 0 10 20 30 40
Heat Load (MW)
boiler heat. By contrast the GCC for the LCM process
shown in Fig. 5 displays a process pinch point at a tem- 1

Theoretical Stage Number

perature of 183 C. This pinch point occurs because the
6
LCM process contacts the natural gas feed with a large
circulating flow of hot water in a saturator column. The 11
natural gas feedstock becomes supersaturated with low 16
grade steam, thus reducing the need to inject steam gen- 21
erated indirectly to achieve the desired process steam to
26
carbon ratio. The evaporation of the water into the gas
absorbs heat and therefore the circulating saturator 31
water is a significant process heat sink. 0 10 20 30 40
Heat Load (MW)
3.2. Column composite curves
Fig. 6. Topping column CGCC.

Process simulation models were prepared for each of

the four methanol distillation schemes under consider-
ation, i.e. the two-column scheme and the three different 60
three-column arrangements. In all cases, the light key Overheads Condenser
was assumed to be methanol and the heavy key, water.
Temperature (°C)

80
The dashed line in each CGCC indicates the location
of the feed stage. 100
Inter-reboiler opportunity
3.2.1. Topping column CGCC
120
Although the minor contributor in the methanol
purification process, the topping column CGCC is pre- 140
Bottoms reboiler
sented first in Fig. 6, as it is common to all four schemes. 0 50 100 150 200
This figure shows that all of the heat needs to be sup- Heat Load (MW)
plied within 5 C of the reboiler temperature and there-
Theoretical Stage Number

fore there is no value in inter-reboiling. In comparison 1

to all the other column options, the topping column 11
reboiler temperature of 88 C is the lowest temper- 21 Inter-reboiler opportunity
ature and therefore can be integrated with any of the at the fusel oil draw stage.
31
background processes to utilise the available low-grade
process heat. 41

51
3.2.2. Two-column scheme refining column CGCC
The two-column refining column is shown in Fig. 7. 0 50 100 150 200
In the two-column scheme, the refining column con- Heat Load (MW)
sumes the bulk of the heat required for methanol purifi-
Fig. 7. Two-column refining column CGCCs.
cation. Furthermore, higher quality heat (higher
temperature) is required for the refining column reboiler
(i.e. 124 C versus 88 C), which has a much greater background process. Fig. 7 indicates a region with sig-
implication for heat integration of the column with the nificant heat transfer driving forces in the vicinity of
344
the fusel oil side-stream product draw stage (theoretical
stage51). This is the only region in which a large amount
of heat is transferred over a range of intermediate tem-
peratures, some of which are substantially lower than
the bottoms reboiler temperature. Since this region
spans a considerable temperature range from 95 C to
120 C, this infers that heat transfer driving forces will
be substantial. Hence, there is a real opportunity for
heat input at a temperature lower than the bottoms
reboiler temperature (124 C), with little impact on
the number of theoretical stages of separation. The con-
cept of an intermediate reboiler at around the fusel oil
removal stage is well known, see [7,4].
3.2.3. Three-column refining column GCC and recovery
column GCC
Fig. 8 shows both the standard three-column scheme
and the double-coupled three-column scheme refining
columns. Unlike the two-column refining column, the
high pressure refining column in the three-column
scheme does not produce a pure bottoms product since
it essentially has no stripping section. Hence, this col-
umn acts as a prerectifier, removing a portion of the
light product and enriching the heavy product in the
feed to the downstream recovery column. The CGCC
for the high pressure refining column (or rectifier) does
110
115
Temperature (°C)
120
125
130
135
0 50
Heat Load (MW)
1 60
Theoretical Stage Number
11
21
31
41
51
0 50
Heat Load (MW)
Fig. 8. Three-column refining column CGCCs.
A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349
not have a region in which large rates of heat transfer
are coincident with column temperatures that are either
significantly lower than the bottoms reboiler tempera-
ture or significantly higher than the overhead condenser
temperature. The CGCC is very similar to the two-
column refining column CGCC (Fig. 9) above the
feed stage.
The recovery column CGCC (see Fig. 9) is very sim-
ilar to that of the two-column refining column. Heat
transfer driving forces are more pronounced since the
separation is effected in considerably fewer theoretical
stages than the two-column refining column (i.e. 45 the-
oretical stages instead of 57) due to the prerectification
of the feed by the high pressure refining column. Consis-
tent with the findings for the two-column refining col-
umn, there is potential to supply a large portion of the
total reboiler heat requirement at a temperature lower
than that of the bottoms reboiler. Large rates of heat
transfer are evident in the temperature range of 85–
109 C, corresponding to 60–94% of the total reboiler
heat duty for the recovery column. In this column the
fusel oil is drawn at theoretical stage number 38 of 45
and has a temperature of 85–87 C.
3.2.4. Double-effect three column high and low pressure
refining column GCCs
The CGCCs for the double-effect high pressure refin-
ing column and low pressure refining column are very
similar to both the two-column refining column and
the recovery column of the three-column scheme, since
Double-coupled
all produce essentially pure overhead and bottoms prod-
ucts, with a fusel oil side-stream product draw. Simi-
Standard
larly, inter-reboiler opportunities exist for both
the high pressure and low pressure refining columns in
the double-effect three-column scheme as shown in
Fig. 10.
40
100 150
50 Double-coupled
Standard
Temperature (°C)
70
Double-coupled
Standard 80
90
100 Inter-reboil opportunity
110
120
100 150 0 20 40 60 80 100
Heat Load (MW)
Fig. 9. Three-column recovery column CGCCs.
 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349 345

110 combined reformer process. There is not sufficient heat

below the process pinch to allow the two-column scheme
120
to be integrated with the LCM process. Fig. 11 shows
Temperature (˚C)

130 the topping column CGCC as a trapezoid tucked under

the background GCC for the SMR process. The two
140
Inter-reboil opportunity horizontal lines represents the reboiler and condenser
duties. A 10 C minimum approach temperature is
150
assumed between the background process hot streams
160 and the reboiler.
The dashed box in Fig. 11 represents the outline of
170 the standard refining column in the two-column scheme
0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Heat Load (MW) (all the heat supplied through a bottoms reboiler). In
order to have a satisfactory approach temperature (right
50 hand top corner of the CGCC) with the process, the col-
60 umn needs to be situated well to the left of the topping
column. However because of the quantity of heat
Temperature (˚C)

70 required, this leads to a large temperature difference

80 between the process and the column at the left hand
corner. It would therefore be more efficient to use steam
90
Inter-reboil opportunity to provide the reboiler heat and would also avoid film
100 boiling in this reboiler.
By providing 75% of the reboiler energy through a
110
side reboiler changes significantly the shape of the
120 CGCC. In Fig. 11, the black outline represents the col-
0 20 40 60 80 100
(b) Heat Load (MW)
umn with an inter-reboiler. The bottoms reboiler re-
quires 50 MW of steam while the inter-reboiler (sloping
Fig. 10. Double-effect three-column scheme refining columns CGCCs: line of 141 MW) now fits below the background GCC
(a) high pressure, (b) low pressure.
and therefore can use process heat. This arrangement
will be referred to as the two-column improved scheme.
4. Discussion

4.1. Two-column schemes 4.2. Three-column schemes

The two-column scheme may be integrated with Heat integration of the three-column scheme with the
either the conventional SMR process or the two-stage background process is illustrated in Fig. 12 using the

300

250 An inter-reboiler provides

~141 MW of heat (of a total
requirement of 176 MW).
Actual Temperature (°C)

200
Original refining
column outline
150

100

50
Refining column CGCC Topping column

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Heat Load (MW)

Fig. 11. Heat integration of the two-column refining column with and without an intermediate reboiler at the fusel oil draw stage.
346 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349
200
Refining column CGCC
150
Actual Temperature (°C)
100
50
Recovery column CGCC
0
0 50
Fig. 12. Heat integration of the standard three-column scheme for the LCM background process including the integration of a recovery column side
reboiler (improved option 1).
background process GCC for the LCM process. The
LCM process has much less high grade heat available
from the make-up (synthesis) gas. Furthermore, the eco-
nomics of the LCM process are enhanced by minimising
the utility steam system since process steam raising is
unnecessary.
The standard three-column arrangement is shown in
Fig. 12 with three separate CGCCs. The upper CGGC
is the recovery column, which does not quite fit below
the background GCC. The integration between the
refining and the recovery column is represented as
two horizontal lines of equal length or duty, being
the recovery column condenser which is the bottom
edge of the recovery column CGCC and the top edge
including the dotted portion of the line which is the
bottoms reboiler of the refining column. As the refining
column temperature–heat load ‘‘box’’ crosses the back-
ground process GCC (for the LCM process), a steam
reboiler would be required to supplement the heat
available from the process through heat integration.
Option one for the three-column scheme involves the
use of an inter-reboiler at the fusel oil draw stage of
the recovery column. As shown in Fig. 12, this option
does not improve the overall heat integration of this
scheme with the background process. However, because
of the greater temperature difference, the inter-reboiler
effectively widens the temperature approach between
the refining column overhead condenser and the recov-
ery column reboiler, thereby reducing exchanger sur-
face area.
By applying the principles of a nested enrichment cas-
cade [7], a feasible heat integration solution (option 2) is
possible for the three-column scheme. First, integrate
the refining column overhead condenser with the recov-
ery column inter-reboiler only. This allows the refining
Improvement option1
The inter-reboiler allows a
greater temperature difference
100 150 200 250
Heat Load (MW)
column operating pressure to be reduced to suit the low-
er inter-reboiler temperature. Second, integrate the
recovery column bottoms reboiler with the process. This
scheme is shown in Fig. 13.
4.3. Double-effect three-column scheme
The standard double-effect three-column scheme
requires approximately 92 MW of reboiler heat at
165 C and therefore it can not be integrated with the
LCM process due to the process pinch in this process
at 183 C. However for both the conventional SMR
methanol plant and the combined reformer process con-
figurations, the high temperature at which sufficient pro-
cess heat would be available would make integration
with the process impractical. That is, it would be more
practical to utilise high grade process heat to raise steam
for power generation and utilise low pressure pass-out
steam as the reboiler heating medium.
Placement of an inter-reboiler at the fusel oil draw
stage of the high pressure refining column allows 75–
80% of the total reboiler duty to be provided at temper-
atures of 135–150 C, rather than at 165 C. The first
option is when the high pressure condenser reboils both
the bottoms and intermediate reboiler of the low-
pressure column. Even so, some 20–25 MW of bottoms
reboiler heat must still be supplied to the high pressure
refining column by low pressure steam. The inter-reboi-
ler on the high pressure refining column aids heat
integration with the background process, while the in-
ter-reboiler on the low pressure refining column serves
to substantially increase the temperature approach of
the heat integrated high pressure column overhead con-
denser and the low pressure column reboiler. Improve-
ment option one gives a 40–50 MW saving in bottoms
 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349 347

200

Actual Temperature (°C)

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Heat Load (MW)

Fig. 13. Heat integration of the three-column scheme with the LCM process (improved option 2).

(steam) reboiler duty reducing steam consumption, lead-
ing to a potential saving fuel consumption.
Heat integration with the background process is fur-
ther improved (option two) by only integrating the high
pressure column overhead condenser with only the inter-
reboiler of the low pressure column. This allows the
operating pressure of the high pressure column to be re-
duced, which reduces the bottoms reboiler temperature
and facilitates the greater utilisation of lower grade pro-
cess heat. In the example presented in Fig. 14, full heat
integration with the background process is now feasible,
and the steam reboiler can be eliminated, leading to a
potential saving in boiler fuel consumption.
4.4. Cost comparison
The equipment costs and installed costs are presented
in Fig. 15. These capital costs do not include the topping
column which is the same in each scheme. Both trayed
and packed columns were evaluated by Douglas [6],
but the differences were not significant, so only the
trayed column results are presented here. As expected,
the two-column scheme has the lowest capital cost.
However, Fig. 15 also shows that all but one improve-
ment associated with inter-reboiling, leads to an overall
reduction in the capital cost and hence are beneficial.
The exception is the first improvement option for the
double-effect scheme, where the high pressure condenser
is linked to both reboilers on the low pressure column.
Fig. 16 presents the net capital expenditure to realise
operating cost savings. As mentioned already, this is
the capital available to capture the heat which is saved
by using one of three-column arrangements. The
simplest situation is when this quantity of steam is
not generated, which could be the case for the LCM pro-
cess. However, for the SMR and two-stage combined

300

The steam reboiler can now

be completely eliminated
during normal operation.
Actual Temperature (°C)

200

100

0
50 150 250 350 450 550
Heat Load (MW)

Fig. 14. Double-effect three-column scheme heat integration with the SMR process (improved option 2).
348 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349

$40 mal and economic penalties which differentiate the

Cost (2003US$ Million)

$30 schemes. This allowed the identification of practical

improvements, which enhanced the potential for heat
$20
integration between the methanol distillation columns
$10
and the background methanol synthesis process.
$0 The results confirm the findings disclosed by Cial-

Double Effect (Inter-reboil

Double Effect (Inter-reboil

2-Column (Base Case)

Double-coupled (Inter-

Double-coupled (Inter-
2-Column Improved

Standard (inter-reboil

Standard (inter-reboil
kowski and Ognisty [4] in which an inter-reboiler, sup-

Double-coupled

Double Effect
Standard

reboil option 1)

reboil option 2)
plying 70–90% of the total column heat duty, is placed
option 1)

option 2)

option 1)

option 2)
at the fusel oil draw stage of a methanol refining column
to improve heat integration with the background meth-
anol process. Those findings are extended to demon-
strate how an Enrichment Cascade, as disclosed by
Fig. 15. Capital cost comparison of two-column and three-column Erickson [7] can improve heat integration between the
schemes. Total equipment cost (shaded) and total installed cost (full various three-column schemes considered and the back-
bar).
ground methanol process, while simultaneously realising
reductions in total installed capital cost.
All three-column processes provide surplus capital to
$10 pay for heat recovery for the heat not used for distilla-
tion reboiling, even for a relatively low fuel cost of
2003US$ Million

$8

$6 US$1/GJ (2003). For the first time, these schemes are

$4
compared against three different methanol synthesis
$2
technologies. The conventional SMR and two-stage
combined reforming processes can support the integra-
$0
tion of both two- and thee-column schemes. However,
Double-coupled (Inter-

Double-coupled (Inter-

Double Effect (Inter-

Double Effect (Inter-

Standard (inter-reboil

Standard (inter-reboil
Standard

Double-coupled

Double Effect

reboil option 1)

reboil option 2)

the gas saturator (LCM) process does not have sufficient

reboil option 1)

reboil option 2)
option 1)

option 2)

heat to support the integration of a two-column scheme

and therefore this methanol synthesis process strongly
favours the adoption of an integrated three-column
scheme.
Fig. 16. Net capital expenditure to break even with the two-column Finally, the operability of the different integration op-
base case. tions has not been evaluated in this study. It would be a
logical extension to this work to determine the response
reforming processes which have a large energy surplus, of the different configurations for a typical disturbance
additional capital would be required to recover this heat such as to the feed composition or background process
by using it to preheat boiler feedwater, or heat some conditions.
other process or utility stream. The improved two-col-
umn scheme is not shown in Fig. 16, because the saving
is just the capital cost saving of US$1.7 million. It could References
also be argued that the comparison should be made with
the improved two-column scheme, in which case this [1] G.J. Apanel, Methanol—supplement C. PEP Report No. 43C,
amount would need to be deducted from the results in SRI Consulting, Menlo Park, California, USA, 2000.
Fig. 16. The results indicate that the improved standard [2] S. Bandyopadhyay, R.K. Malik, et al., Temperature–enthalpy
curve for energy targeting of distillation columns, Comput. Chem.
three-column and improved double-effect schemes all
Eng. 22 (12) (1998) 1733–1744.
offer significant net capital benefits. It should also be [3] T. Chiang, W.L. Luyben, Comparison of energy consumption in
noted that these benefits are achieved for a relatively five heat-integrated distillation configurations, Ind. Eng. Chem.
low fuel cost of US$1/GJ (2003). Process. Des. Dev. 22 (2) (1983) 175–179.
[4] E.J. Cialkowski, T.P. Ognisty, Intermediate reboiler for a meth-
anol plant, US 5,346,593, 1994.
[5] V.R. Dhole, B. Linnhoff, Distillation column targets, Comput.
5. Conclusions Chem. Eng. 17 (5/6) (1993) 549–560.
[6] A.P. Douglas, Comparing and improving two column and three
A thermal and economic comparison of two-column column methanol distillation schemes, Masters, Department of
and three-column methanol distillation schemes has Chemical Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, 2004.
[7] D.C. Erickson, Nested enrichment cascade distillation of unequal
been presented. Process integration analysis techniques
mixtures, US 4,824,527, 1989.
which involved matching the background process grand [8] E. Fiedler, G. Grossman, et al. (Eds.), Methanol. UllmannÕs
composite curve (GCC) and the column grand compos- Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH Verlag, GmbH
ite curve (CGCC) were employed to challenge the ther- & Co., 2002.
 A.P. Douglas, A.F.A. Hoadley / Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 338–349
[9] Z. Fonyo, Thermodynamic analysis of rectification. I. Reversible
model of rectification, Int. Chem. Eng. 14 (1974) 18–27.
[10] M. Harvey, Methanol distillation—two and three column
schemes, IMTOF, London, 1993.
[11] V.N. Kabadi, R.P. Danner, A modified Soave–Redlich–Kwong
equation of state for water–hydrocarbon phase equilibria, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Process. Des. Dev. 24 (3) (1985) 537–541.
[12] B. Linnhoff, H. Dunford, et al., Heat integration of distillation
columns into overall processes, Chem. Eng. Sci. 38 (8) (1983)
1175–1188.
349
[13] B. Linnhoff, D.W. Townsend, et al., A User Guide on Process
Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy, IChemE, London,
UK, 1982.
[14] N.J. Macnaughton, A. Pinto, et al., Development of methanol
technology for future fuel and chemical markets, Amer. Inst.
Chem. Natl. Eng. Natl. Meet, New York, AIChE, Paper 23E,
1984.
[15] D. Seddon, Technology and economics of gas utilisation: meth-
anol, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Melbourne,
Australia, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., 1994, pp. 473–484.