PROCESS DESIGN TRENDS

Process Engineering:
Moving in
New Directions
Increasing worldwide competition will
mandate major changes in the way plants
George E. Keller, II, are designed. Seven key themes will
Technology Horizons
Paul F. Bryan,
guide developments.
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology

T he tools and practice of process engi-

neering have evolved significantly
over the years (1,2). This evolution
has included both the development
of new concepts, such as the unit operation and
the heat-exchange network, as well as new meth-
ods of analysis and optimization. The objective of
this article is to predict the likely directions of
progress in both these areas up to the year 2020.
We have chosen that year to match the date of
“Technology Vision 2020” (3), a study sponsored
by leading chemical-oriented groups, including
AIChE, that has become a significant overview
and planning document for prioritizing money al-
lotted for research.
To get a handle on potential advances, we
started by assessing how the nature of the chemi-
cal process industries (CPI) would evolve over
the next 20 or so years — and the changes that
must occur to get there. This allowed us to identi-
fy seven process-engineering themes that will al-
most inevitably be in play (see Table 1). With
these themes delineated, it was relatively straight-
©Copyright 2000
forward to pinpoint process-engineering tasks
that will address them.
American Institute
of Chemical Engineers.
Before discussing these themes, it is impor-
All rights reserved. tant, however, to understand the dynamics that
Copying and underlie the CPI. There is a tremendous resis-
downloading permitted tance to process change — primarily because of
with restrictions. the capital-intensive nature of the CPI and the
high cost of process failure. Table 2 provides an
estimate of the breakdown of costs to produce a
range of chemicals and plastics, and shows that
raw-material and capital costs usually dominate
the overall costs. Because plants cost so much,
they tend to be run for many years; in fact, many
units operating today are at least 50 years old. It
often turns out that it is cheaper to patch up, in-
crementally expand, or debottleneck an existing
unit than to build a new one. Thus, if past trends
are even a modest indicator of future trends, we
can confidently predict that a large fraction —
perhaps three-fourths or more — of the products
sold in the year 2020 will be produced in units
that were operating in 1999. And, if this is the
case, it is also clear that much of the process engi-
neering going on in the meantime will be done on
existing units, to improve process performance,
upgrade capacities, and reduce pollution.
In a number of instances, of course, major pro-
cess changes (see some examples in Table 3)
have revolutionized the production of a certain
chemical or polymer. But, even in these cases, the
time from the “eureka” to the point when that
process dominates the industry has seldom been
less than 10–20 years. So, any new develop-
ments, if they are going to have major impacts on
process technology and economics by 2020, will
probably need to surface within the next five
years or so.

Chemical Engineering Progress January 2000 41

PROCESS DESIGN TRENDS
Table 1. Themes for process-design
improvements in the future.
• Raw-material-cost reduction
• Capital-investment reduction
• Energy-use reduction
• Increased process flexibility and inventory
reduction
First, we will discuss each of the
themes listed in Table 1, particularly
their implications for the future. We
will deal primarily with process de-
sign considerations, because design
probably will be the dominating as-
pect of process engineering. Certain
improvements — either available or
needed — fall under several different
themes, which emphasizes their im-
portance and impact for the future.
Next, we will describe a new and
powerful process-design paradigm —
one that has been slowly developing
over the last decade. Then, we will
dwell briefly on the importance of
improved process control and, finally,
we will draw some general conclu-
sions and recommendations for fur-
ther action.
The seven themes
For most large-volume (say, 100
million lb or more per year) products,
the two factors that contribute most to
the cost of manufacturing in a new
facility are the raw-material and capi-
tal costs (see Table 2). The yearly
capital cost can be roughly estimated
at 30% of the installed investment
and derives primarily from the return
on investment (about 20% for many
products) and depreciation (about
10%). Other factors — energy, labor,
maintenance, taxes, waste abatement,
etc. — typically contribute in total
substantially less than 50% of the
cost. For smaller volume products,
there tends to be more of a parity
among the factors, although the sum
of the raw-material and capital costs
seldom is a minor concern. To retrofit
42 January 2000 Chemical Engineering Progress
• Ever greater emphasis on process safety
• Increased attention to quality
• Better environmental performance
or upgrade an existing facility, only
new investment needs to be account-
ed for; previous, so-called sunk in-
vestment need not be considered. As
a result, retrofitting, debottlenecking,
and upgrading are most often the
strategies of choice for increasing ca-
pacities, lowering unit production
costs, etc.
Let’s now look at the various fac-
tors in order of their importance.
Raw-material-cost reduction
It is difficult to overestimate the im-
portance of raw material costs for the
U.S. CPI as the production and mar-
kets for their products become increas-
ingly globalized. In addition, other
areas of the world — certain parts of
the Near East and the Far East, for ex-
ample — have access to cheaper raw
materials like natural gas and oil than
producers in the U.S. Table 2 gives an
insight as to how economically devas-
tating a raw-material-price disadvan-
tage could be. There is no other factor,
Table 2. Typical cost breakdown for
chemical production.*
Item
Raw materials
Capital cost, including return on
investment and depreciation
Labor and period costs
Energy
Maintenance, etc.
* Source: (16)
† Small volume means 10 million lb/y or less; large volume means 100 million lb/y or more.
with the possible exception of restric-
tive laws and tariffs in other countries,
that more often drives the CPI
offshore.
There are four basic strategies for
reducing the raw material cost, once its
price has been established:
1. develop a new pathway to the
product of interest using different and
cheaper raw materials;
2. improve the chemical efficiency
of existing or potentially new raw ma-
terials by using a better catalyst,
changing the reactor conditions, or
substituting an improved reactor;
3. boost the recycling efficiency of
raw materials and intermediates; and
4. increase the recovery of the prod-
uct. (In some instances, greater recov-
ery and sale of byproducts from a unit
can reduce the fraction of the raw ma-
terial cost that must be borne by the
main product.)
The first strategy is primarily a
chemistry or biochemistry concern, but
a new process-design paradigm, which
we will describe later, can provide ben-
efits. Process design obviously plays a
role in the last three strategies. Most of
the process design tools already are in
place to deal with these strategies, al-
though continuing conceptual and soft-
ware developments would definitely be
helpful.
Examples abound for how improve-
ments in reactors have reduced raw
material costs. In the early days of
steam cracking of light hydrocarbons
to produce ethylene, reactor residence
% of Product Sales Price
Small Product† Large Product†
5–20 40–70
5–30 25–50
10–50 <10
5–30 <10
10–30 <10
times were several seconds; in modern
reactors, residence times often are less
than 0.1 s, and temperatures are up to
100°C higher. As a result of the better
reaction conditions, chemical efficien-
cies to ethylene have at least doubled.
A similar picture presents itself in cat-
alytic cracking to form high-octane
gasoline. Improved catalysts made
possible new generations of fluidized-
bed and dilute-phase reactors, and
yields to gasoline-range materials im-
proved dramatically.
Today, new applications are being
sought for distillation reactors, which
have the potential for reducing yields
of unwanted byproducts. This technol-
ogy and others combining reaction and
separation are promising and active
areas for process engineering research.
In addition, engineering goals such as
lowering pressure drop, boosting heat
transfer (better temperature-profile
management), and improving resi-
dence-time-distribution management in
large-scale reactors are worthy of con-
tinuing study.
Tools are in place, for the most part,
for the last two strategies, which pri-
marily involve better designs for exist-
ing processes. New technology offer-
ing a step change in performance,
though not plentiful (see Table 3),
should at least be considered when
planning new or expanded facilities.
Capital-investment reduction
We already have mentioned the
highly-capital-intensive nature of the
CPI. The very large investments re-
quired to erect most plants places a
major barrier in the way of tearing
down old facilities and building bigger,
more modern ones. Instead, the prima-
ry pathways to capacity increases and
more efficient operations are debottle-
necking, retrofitting, and incremental
expansion. Only in cases of a major
chemistry breakthrough or where a sin-
gle key product can be made by a high-
ly upgraded process (see Table 3 for
examples of both) will the economics
favor replacing an old facility with a
new one.
One proposed pathway to dramati-
Table 3. Examples of step changes
in process technology.
New Process
Fluidized-bed catalytic-cracking
production of gasoline and
other fuel fractions
Low-pressure oxo technology
for C3, C4, and C5 aldehydes
Low-pressure, gas-phase fluidized-
bed polymerization technology for
production of polyolefins
Reactive-distillation technology
Simulated-moving-bed adsorption
technology
Pressure-swing adsorption and
membrane technologies for gas
separations
cally reducing the capital intensity of
facilities is equipment downsizing,
which often is called process intensifi-
cation. (For more information on pro-
cess intensification, see the articles on
page p. 22 and p. 35.) The Higee pro-
cess — in which distillation takes place
in a high-gravity field — is a well-pub-
licized example of a radical rethinking
of what a distillation column should
look like (4). Here, radial, countercur-
rent flows of vapor and liquid contact
each other in a rapidly rotating cylinder
of packing; heights of theoretical plates
of one inch or so are possible. Such a
Chemical Engineering Progress
Effect
Became the premier process for
molecular-weight reduction and
octane improvement in refineries,
while producing higher yields of
gasoline than previous processes
Obsoleted high-pressure technology,
producing much higher chemical
efficiencies and reduced investments
Obsoleted almost all high-pressure and
solvent-based polymerization
technologies, cutting both investment
and operating costs
(a) Became the premier process for
production of methyl acetate, with
dramatic investment and operating-cost
reductions by eliminating the need for
complex azeotrope-resolving columns
and increasing per-pass conversions
(b) Became the premier process for
producing methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), minimizing azeotrope
separations and increasing per-pass
conversions
Became the strongly favored means for
separating p-xylene from other C8s,
long-chain olefins from paraffins, and
fructose from glucose
Have made significant inroads against
cryogenic distillation for air separation
and hydrogen recovery/purification,
especially, in the former case, for lower-
volume production rates
gigantic improvement in contacting ef-
ficiency would seem to count for much
economically. Two factors, however,
blunt the technology’s appeal. First, the
radical downsizing requires additional
investment in equipment to spin the
rotor, and energy costs may actually in-
crease if electricity is needed for that
spinning. And, second, the ancillaries
of a standard distillation column — the
reboiler, the condenser, the piping, the
control systems, etc. — are essentially
unchanged, while all of the other costs
associated with installing a piece of
equipment are virtually the same. Both
January 2000 43
PROCESS DESIGN TRENDS
these factors have limited commercial
Higee installations to a very small num-
ber.
More successful have been various
incremental improvements like the ad-
vent of structured packing for distilla-
tion columns. The CPI now rely exten-
sively on these packings, particularly
for retrofitting columns to achieve ca-
pacity increases or better separation.
New versions of structured packing
continue to be introduced.
Another strategy is to reduce the
number of vessels in the process, main-
ly by combining more than one func-
tion into the same vessel. Two out-
standing examples are the distillation
reactors in the production of methyl
acetate and methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) (5) and other fuel ethers such
as tetra amyl methyl ether (TAME). In
the methyl acetate process, combining
reaction and separation also eliminates
the formation of several azeotropes,
dramatically simplifying the overall
separation scheme. For both processes,
the economics are such that the distilla-
tion-reactor-based process has virtually
eliminated all competition. Other re-
searchers have been investigating
membrane-containing reactors for
equilibrium-limited reactions. Selec-
tively removing one product from the
reacting stream increases conversions
over those attainable with the normal
equilibrium condition. The major —
and perhaps insurmountable — barrier
to commercializing such systems is the
large disparity between typical rates of
reaction and permeation. For example,
space times for commercial gas-phase
catalytic and noncatalytic reactions are
in the order of 0.1–5.0 s. No highly se-
lective membrane known or projected
has a permeation rate that can begin to
match these rates of product formation.
One major job of process engineering
in the next decade will be to identify
combined-reaction/separation-system
candidates.
Development of process-sequenc-
ing and process-selection techniques
has been a rapidly growing and fer-
tile area over the last few decades
(see Ref. 6, for example, as well as
44 January 2000 Chemical Engineering Progress
recent reviews by Westerberg (2),
and Bumble (7)). Of particular con-
cern has been sequencing of separa-
tion processes (almost exclusively
distillation at this point) for multi-
component mixture resolution. There
are now available a number of so-
called structure-dependent tech-
niques, including superstructures (8),
state-space representations (9), and
process graphs (p-graphs) (10). Very
recent information (11) suggests that
the p-graph approach may be the
fastest computationally, as well as
the method most likely to find a truly
optimal solution. As time goes on,
these techniques will incorporate
other separation processes like ad-
sorption, membranes, and extraction
so that these unit operations can be
realistically situated in a flowsheet to
give economically optimal solutions.
Mathematically simpler methods
based on heuristic approaches are
also available (12).
Another relatively new technique
— a structure independent one —
called mass-exchange-network (MEN)
analysis (13,14), which has some simi-
larities with heat-exchange-network
(HEN) analysis, gives truly vital pieces
of information: targets. Targets can in-
clude such items as the minimum pos-
sible makeup-water addition, separa-
tion characteristics of the optimal
mass-separating agent (MSA), the
minimum discharge to the waste-treat-
ment system, as well as other economi-
cally critical parameters. The impor-
tance of these targets is that they quick-
ly show how the results for a given
flowsheet compare to the best possible
performance. Such targets can be de-
termined independent of the eventual
final structure of the flowsheet; then,
the technique can be used to home in
on the optimal flowsheet.
Advances in both structure-depen-
dent and structure-independent tech-
niques over the next decade will make
the highly complex problem of synthe-
sizing the economically optimal flow-
sheet, both for new and retrofit situa-
tions, more or less routine. These tech-
niques, in turn, will speak powerfully
to the problem of how to effect signifi-
cant capital-cost reductions in the in-
vestment-intensive CPI.
Energy-use reduction
Many people regard energy costs as
a, if not the, major contributor to the
overall cost of production. In general,
however, this is not true (see Table 3).
Furthermore, even for separations,
which is the area that accounts for a
large fraction of the energy usage, in-
vestment implications — return on in-
vestment and depreciation — nearly
always outweigh energy costs (15,16).
Therefore, energy-use reduction al-
ways must be studied in concert with
the investment implications of that re-
duction. Not to do so can waste large
amounts of research dollars. Consider
the proposed use of supercritical fluids
as MSAs for many large-scale separa-
tions. Researchers were able to find
systems for which energy costs were
lower than for more conventional com-
petitors such as distillation, azeotropic
distillation, and extraction. Subsequent
economic analyses showed, however,
that in virtually no case could the in-
vestment in the supercritical-fluid-
based process be borne. Today, essen-
tially the only new separations using
supercritical fluids are those for which
traditional MSAs are ruled out because
of toxicity concerns — for instance,
some separations involving foods,
pharmaceuticals, and biochemicals.
Nevertheless, energy-use reduction
remains a legitimate field for process-
design efforts and research. Perhaps,
the most important step taken in the
last 20 or so years has been HEN anal-
ysis (17,18,19). The techniques that
have been developed under this rubric
provide simple means for visualizing
heat flows throughout a process, as
well as for understanding how various
streams can be heat-exchanged to min-
imize the need for hot and cold utili-
ties. But, the most important aspect of
this analysis may well be the concept
of the target, just as in the MEN analy-
sis discussed earlier. HEN analysis
provides a simple means for arriving at
the absolute minimum energy usage
and number of heat exchangers — the
targets — attainable for a given set of
heat sources and sinks in a process.
Additional techniques help the user
factor in considerations involving safe-
ty, location, etc., to arrive at practical
targets for energy use and the number
of exchangers. It is difficult to overesti-
mate the importance of the ability to
calculate a target at the start of a study.
HEN-analysis routines already are em-
bedded in a number of process-design
software packages, and many process
engineers currently use these routines.
They should be applied to any new-fa-
cility design, as well as for modifica-
tions of existing units.
In the separations area, the thrust of
much research has been to lower ener-
gy usage by finding alternatives to dis-
tillation. This effort has been only very
modestly successful, because the capi-
tal-cost increases incurred by these al-
ternatives quite often have more than
counterbalanced the reductions in ener-
gy costs. On the other hand, improve-
ments in distillation (for example, new
packings that give more stages when
retrofitted or that permit use of lower
reflux ratios) have brought about ener-
gy-use reductions for attractively small
investments. Mix and coworkers (20)
have summarized the major techniques
for energy-use reduction for distilla-
tion. In addition, Kunesh et al. (21)
have shown that distillation columns
often can use low-pressure steam from
turbine exhausts, creating a very-low-
cost heating source — this, along with
low capital cost, is why distillation can
be such a formidable competitor.
Heat-cascading of distillation
columns can provide major energy-use
reductions, but commercial examples
of this technique are few and far be-
tween. Cascading involves using the
heat that must be removed from the
overhead stream of one column as the
source of heat for another column. This
operation is quite similar to that of a
multiple-effect evaporator. A way of
visualizing cascading is given by Ho
and Keller (22). The double column
used in cryogenic air separation is the
main example of cascaded operation. A
second example is the Buckau Walther
refining system for ethanol (6), in
which two main columns and a two-
column azeotropic-distillation system
are cascaded in such a way that there is
only one steam addition. But, despite
the obvious energy-use reductions pos-
sible, there seems to be a genuine re-
luctance to use this technique. Process
control problems, real or imagined, are
a likely contributor, and further ad-
vances in process control technology
and real-time composition sensors
would help in reducing this reluctance.
Solving startup and shutdown prob-
lems with cascaded columns also will
be required.
Energy-use reduction will continue
to be important where the energy sav-
ing can more than counterbalance the
new investment required to achieve it.
Numerous retrofit applications will
occur, because existing plants’ sunken
investments need not be considered.
Increased process flexibility
and inventory reduction
One of the greatest misunderstand-
ings regarding the CPI is that they con-
sist primarily of continuous or long-
term, steady-state processes. In fact,
well over half of the production ton-
nage and dollar income come from dis-
continuous processes: batch, semi-
batch, and campaign. Campaign pro-
cesses are particularly important. In
such processes, product A is made,
often in a steady-state operation though
not necessarily so, for a certain period
that may last from perhaps hours to
days. Then, reactor conditions and pos-
sibly reactant composition are changed
to manufacture product B in the same
equipment. Several more products may
be made before product A once again
is produced. The overwhelming major-
ity of polymer processes are of this na-
ture, that is, a single reactor and down-
stream processing system produces a
portfolio of final products.
Just-in-time strategies, especially
when combined with quality consider-
ations, have become a highly popular
theme over the past two decades. The
Japanese were the first to show the
Chemical Engineering Progress
economic power of these approaches,
sometimes called pull strategies. The
highly popular book “The Goal” pro-
vides an interesting introduction to this
subject (23). Discontinuous processes
can be difficult to manage from a just-
in-time standpoint, because the inven-
tory of each product must be built up
to cover the periods when it is not
being produced. Furthermore, just-in-
time strategies have been developed
primarily for plants in which many
parts are assembled to make a relative-
ly few final products; these strategies
can be difficult to apply to plants in
which a few raw materials produce
many products. Two books and an arti-
cle (24,25,26) now provide us with
some excellent directions for imple-
menting time-based approaches in the
kind of discontinuous manufacturing
that is found in our industries.
Smith (24) pinpoints many bene-
fits, economic and otherwise, of re-
ducing the time between when raw
materials arrive at a unit and when
product is shipped. For example, in-
ventories are minimized, and the cost
of storage, which can be roughly esti-
mated at 20% (27) to 30% or more
(28) per year of the average value of
the inventory, is cut. To effect these
benefits, however, requires a new set
of metrics for measuring how well a
process is performing, and Smith
spells them out elegantly.
For the most part, these two books
assume that the manufacturing unit ex-
ists, and the problem is how to operate
it in the most economical fashion. The
issue for process design in the future,
however, will be how to design units
that take maximum advantage of the
wisdom involved in the new manufac-
turing paradigms. A few of the ques-
tions that must be answered include:
• What must be done process-wise
to drive stored inventory to the lowest
value that meets business expectations
for on-time delivery to customers?
• How do we minimize the econom-
ic penalties associated with the transi-
tion from making product A to making
product B? How do we minimize off-
specification-product output, waste
January 2000 45
PROCESS DESIGN TRENDS
generation, cleanout costs, and exces-
sive lost time during the transition?
• How do we make the process as
operator-friendly and easily control-
lable as possible?
• How do we integrate the process
design into an overall business strategy
for on-time supply of high-quality
products to customers?
To deal effectively with these ques-
tions will require the development of
process design strategies that integrate
unsteady-state operations (startup,
shutdown, and transitions) with steady-
state operation of the process. And,
achieving a truly optimal overall de-
sign will demand that process design-
ers interact in detail with business
planners. We simply don’t yet have the
tools to produce such designs in the
best way possible. Developing tools to
accomplish these tasks is probably the
single most important, highest impact
area for process design research over
the next 20 years.
Ever greater emphasis on
process safety
The frequency and severity of in-
dustrial accidents seem to be decreas-
ing. Despite this, public awareness and
concern over such accidents, especially
when they involve release of toxic ma-
terials to the environment or create a
safety hazard to the general populace,
is growing (29). This automatically
dictates that engineers vigorously and
continuously strive to reduce accidents.
Such accidents can occur in three
places: within the processes, in plant
storage areas, and remotely from the
plant facility, for instance, during trans-
portation from one site to another or in
remote storage terminals.
Kletz has been a prolific chronicler
and interpreter of CPI accidents
(30,31,32). He has made a host of
practical design suggestions that will
undoubtedly be heeded by many oper-
ating and design companies. These
recommendations range from quite
particular ones, e.g., concerning welds
on specific vessels, to general ones,
such as minimization of inventories of
hazardous materials. The more gener-
46 January 2000 Chemical Engineering Progress
al recommendations may be especial-
ly important for process design in the
future.
There are other sources of help out-
side of the CPI — in particular, the nu-
clear industry provides some guidance
for process design of highly hazardous
reaction systems. This industry has de-
veloped reactor designs that require
neither human intervention nor that of
instruments and utilities to shut down
safely and without release of radioac-
tive material for the vast majority of
possible incidents (see Refs. 33 and
34). And, even for the remaining types
of incidents, the safety aspects are
maximized. This is called a state of
near inherent safety. For process equip-
ment containing potentially explosive
atmospheres or reactors producing a
highly hazardous product such as hy-
drogen cyanide or ethylene oxide, pro-
cess design techniques that minimize
the likelihood of all types of excursions
from safe conditions would be ex-
tremely useful. Some of these tech-
niques already exist, but more could be
profitably used.
Storage of large quantities of
flammable or toxic feeds, intermedi-
ates, and products also creates the po-
tential for major safety incidents. As
will be discussed in more detail later, a
key issue for process design will be to
minimize the amounts of material
stored in the outside-battery-limits part
of the process.
The transport of toxic and
flammable materials between process-
ing sites raises other major safety is-
sues. Tank-truck and railway accidents
that place people in danger, cause
evacuations, block roadways, etc., are
particularly visible safety hazards. In
the future, a toxic-intermediate-pro-
ducing unit may have to be sited next
to the units that process this material
into safer forms or final products.
Such a scenario would minimize stor-
age of the intermediate and risk of
transportation-related accidents. The
challenge for process design will be to
efficiently integrate processes in a way
that minimizes the likelihood of all
possible accidents.
Increased attention to quality
This will address both quality with
a little “q” and with a big “Q.”
The meaning of quality with a little
“q” is the everyday sense of “excel-
lence” or “superiority.” In the context
of chemical products, this could mean
minimizing:
• total level of contaminants;
• level of a specific contaminant; or
• variation (from batch to batch,
shipment to shipment, etc.).
One example of the first type is
when the contaminants are inerts.
These serve as diluents in process
streams. In recycle processes, the only
way to eliminate them may be through
the use of purge streams — but such
streams also can cause the loss of valu-
able feeds and products, as well as in-
crease waste-treatment costs. The sec-
ond bullet includes cases of contami-
nants causing formation of undesirable
byproducts (e.g., sulfur-containing
compounds in fuels), poisoning cata-
lysts (e.g., metal-containing com-
pounds in petroleum), or degrading
performance in end products (e.g., di-
enes in olefin monomers). The third
bullet always applies, because it is
harder for a downstream process or
product to consistently meet specifica-
tions if an upstream process is not
under close control.
The meaning of quality with a big
“Q” has been the subject in recent
years of innumerable books, articles,
courses, presentations, and meetings,
as well as corporate and international
standards. Gurus such as Deming,
Juran, Feigenbaum, and Crosby each
have offered their own views and won
their own adherents. “Quality” here is
not a measure of superiority or inferi-
ority. It simply means: “On time. On
budget. Within specifications.” Once a
specification, such as purity, has been
agreed upon between supplier and cus-
tomer, a Quality product meets that
specification, while a sub-Quality one
does not.
Because it virtually always is more
costly to exceed a specification than to
meet it, we are led back to the third
bullet above: minimizing variation. If
purity levels, for example, vary widely
over time, a producer to avoid making
any off-specification product must aim
for an average level that exceeds the
specification. A process design to ac-
complish this will certainly be more
expensive than one that needs to aim
no higher than the specification.
The future holds ever-more-strin-
gent requirements for both little “q”
and big “Q.” Purity levels are being
pushed higher by concerns about
downstream processing, product per-
formance, the toxicity of certain
byproducts, and the environment. The
drive toward greater consistency will
continue because of the ongoing need
to minimize the variation in end prod-
ucts and the expense of waste or re-
work in production. The need to meet
industry quality standards also will
become increasingly important; ISO
9000 is already a de facto require-
ment for doing business in Europe,
for example.
Some process-design implications
of these trends are:
• Better process models are needed
to accurately design for ultra-low im-
purity levels.
• Expertise in new separation and
reaction technologies will be required
to design processes to minimize impu-
rities and wastes.
• Overdesign and safety factors
must be minimized if our designs are
to be economically competitive.
• Flexibility to maintain consistent
performance in the face of feedstock
composition variations, process upsets,
seasonal variations, etc., must be built
into designs.
• Improved process-control strate-
gies, software, and sensors are es-
sential to support consistent process
performance.
• Partnering with customers to de-
fine expected future specifications, not
just the current ones, must become an
integral part of the design process.
Finally, we should note that some of
the other future thrusts will make the
quality task even more challenging. In-
ventory reduction, for example, im-
plies both less storage capacity, which
limits the use of blending to help ond, most of the opportunities proba-
achieve consistency, and less holdup in bly will present themselves as end-of-
processes, which can make process pipe applications.
control more challenging. (We’ll elab- It seldom is realized that a large
orate on this point in a later section.) number of sources contribute to pollu-
Building plants to make multiple prod- tion in most processes. Table 4 lists
ucts also will be more difficult when some examples. Note that the genera-
high product consistency and purity tion points are within the battery limits
level most be maintained. of the process, outside of the battery
limits, and in the distribution system.
Better environmental These points include leaks, waste
performance streams as a result of less-than-100%
The hierarchy for dealing with pol- product yields, as well as less-than-
lution problems, as formulated by a 100% efficiency in separations, losses
study group sponsored by the Chemi- in the tank farm and in product trans-
cal Manufacturers Association (35), is fers, and so on.
source reduction, recycling, and, last Technology for dealing with the re-
of all, end-of-pipe treatment. Process covery of volatile organic compounds
design strategies for pollution abate- (VOCs) in gas streams seems to be
ment in the future must deal with two well in hand, with a large number of
problems. First, most of the facilities processes competing for use (see Table
in 2020 will be expanded and upgrad- 5). Humphrey et al. (36) and
ed versions of current plants, and, sec- Humphrey and Keller (6) have shown,
Table 4. Many sources typically contribute
to pollution from a process.
• Raw-material cleanup. Removal of feed contaminants, e.g., sulfur and nitrogen
compounds, various nonreactive species (diluents), as well as reactive species that
form byproducts.
• Raw-material storage. Leaks, breathing losses, tank filling.
• Utility (steam, electricity, cooling water) generation. Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, metal salts, ash.
• Reaction/separation system.
• Catalysts with low chemical efficiencies to desired products.
• Gas-cycle and liquid-cycle purges.
• Byproduct and product losses during purification of products.
• Incomplete separation of product(s) from byproducts and reactants.
• Off-specification product(s) produced as a result of process upsets or
poor process control.
• Off-specification product(s) produced during transition periods for batch,
semi-batch, and campaign operations, as well as during startup and
shutdown procedures for all processes.
• Cleanup solutions from batch, semi-batch, and campaign operations.
• Gas and vapor losses from vacuum-pump vents, still vents, etc.
• Losses from reactions in which solids are formed and handled, e.g., from
various conveying and drying systems.
• Intermediate and product storage. Leaks, breathing losses, tank filling.
• Distribution system. Leaks and breathing and filling losses from product-transfer
systems, tank trucks, tank cars, and barges.
• Regional supply terminals. Leaks, breathing losses, tank filling.
• Biotreatment and incineration facilities. Vaporization losses of organics to the air,
incomplete biodestruction, biomass generation, carbon dioxide.
Chemical Engineering Progress January 2000 47
PROCESS DESIGN TRENDS
Table 5. Typical process options for
removal of VOCs from vent streams.
• Membranes (nearly unlimited, 90–98%)*
• Pressure-swing adsorption (PSA) (probably about 20%, 99+%)
• Fixed-bed, temperature-swing adsorption (TSA) (a few %, 99+%)
• Wheel-based TSA (1,000–5,000 ppm, 90–98%)
• Moving-bed TSA (a few %, 90–98%)
• Biosorption/biofiltration (a few %, 90–98%)
• Absorption (nearly unlimited, 90–98%)
• Refrigeration (unlimited, 50–75%)
• Freezing with, e.g., liquid nitrogen (unlimited, 99+%)
• Incineration (unlimited, 99+%)
* The first number in parentheses is the estimated maximum pollutant concentration in mol.% in the feed.
The second number is the estimated maximum % removal.
however, that no single process domi-
nates economically, and that the picture
is quite complex. Certain synergistic
combinations of these processes are yet
to be explored. For liquid streams, the
picture is one of adequate technology
— the biotreatment system, for exam-
ple — but there is room for innovation
and cost reduction. This is especially
true if carbon dioxide must be classi-
fied as a pollutant, because a biotreat-
ment system converts the majority of
the contained carbon into this gas. The
job for process design in the future for
end-of-pipe treatment systems will be
to reduce the complexity and, especial-
ly, the cost of these systems, and to re-
turn as much useful product back to the
process as possible.
As far as improving the process it-
self, there are several possibilities. In-
creasing the chemical efficiency of re-
actions, as discussed earlier, is espe-
cially important. A second strategy is
to raise the degree of separation in
columns and other devices so that less
product is lost. (A higher recovery of
product benefits the profitability of the
process in two ways: by providing
more product for sale, and by eliminat-
ing the cost of treatment of unrecov-
ered product as a waste.) And, a third
strategy is to use the MEN analysis
discussed earlier. This analytical tool
seems especially well suited to mini-
mize, for example, makeup water, as
well as the volumes of waste and other
48 January 2000 Chemical Engineering Progress
streams within the unit. From some of
the examples given by El-Halwagi
(14), it appears that favorable retrofit
and process-modification economics
could result. This situation is similar to
the use of HEN analysis, which engi-
neers have relied on for years to identi-
fy retrofit and modification opportuni-
ties in many processes. Further addi-
tions to the MEN concept may be nec-
essary to make it as powerful and user-
friendly as possible.
An extremely important aspect of
process design for overall waste mini-
mization is water reuse and wastewater
minimization. A new book (37) covers
this area very well, and gives many in-
dustrial examples. It includes recent
work on water-pinch technology
(which is akin to HEN technology) for
determining the absolute minimum
amount of fresh-water makeup to a
process. Application of the methods
described in this book potentially can
cut both the overall investment and op-
erating cost of a process, as well as re-
duce fresh-water usage. In the future,
the approach described here should be-
come a key element in any comprehen-
sive process-design effort.
A new paradigm:
integrating process design
with research
There is a powerful extension of the
use of process design that, to date, has
been little exploited. This involves the
intimate intermingling of experimental
research and development with process
modeling and design. In the traditional
approach, an idea from the laboratory
is researched and developed into a pro-
cess with only periodic dialogue with
and guidance from process designers.
An experimental package is assembled
and, as the project moves toward the
pilot plant, more and more process-de-
sign activity is initiated. Finally, the ex-
perimental package is complete, and
process and detailed design begin in
earnest.
The new paradigm involves the ini-
tiation of serious process design right
at the beginning of a project. In fact,
following the initial eureka, the first
activity should be the development of
a flowsheet with material and energy
balances, a thermodynamics package,
very rough equipment sizings, and a
simple economic model. Many guess-
es and approximations undoubtedly
will have to be made in this early
flowsheet, but the purpose of this ac-
tivity is to focus the experimental pro-
gram as quickly as possible on the
critical technical and economic ques-
tions regarding the process. Will cer-
tain separations be difficult because of
azeotrope formation? Will reactor con-
ditions be highly important to the utili-
ty balance for the process? Is there a
minimum chemical-efficiency barrier
for an economical process? Will the
bulk of the investment be in the reac-
tor section or the separation section?
Can alternative separation schemes be
employed to reduce the overall com-
plexity and cost of the separation sys-
tem? The subsequent research-and-de-
velopment (R&D) program then cen-
ters on a nearly continuous dialogue
between laboratory staff and process
designers to answer such questions.
Specific laboratory results are used to
update the process model, which, in
turn, is used to suggest further areas
for experimentation.
So far, only anecdotal evidence is
available for judging the benefits of
this way of doing process develop-
ment, but our experience indicates
that 25–50% cuts in both R&D costs
and in the time to reach the final-de-
sign stage can be achieved. The cost
and time savings come from the abili-
ty to identify and concentrate on key
Literature Cited
1. Krambeck, F. J., “An Inward Look on
the Elements of Processing,” presented
at AIChE Ann. Mtg., Miami (Nov.
1998).
2. Westerberg, A. W., “A Systems View of
Process Engineering,” presented at
AIChE Ann. Mtg., Miami (Nov. 1998).
3. “Technology Vision 2020: The U.S.
Chemical Industry,” AIChE, New York
(1996).
4. Martin, C. L., and M. Martinelli,
“Preliminary Distillation Mass Transfer
and Pressure Drop Results Using a Pilot
Plant Scale High Gravity Contacting
Unit,” presented at AIChE Nat. Mtg.,
New Orleans (1992).
5. Degarmo, J. L., V. N. Parulekar, and
V. Pinjala, “Consider Reactive Distilla-
tion,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 88 (3), pp.
43–50 (Mar. 1992).
6. Humphrey, J. L., and G. E. Keller,
“Separation Process Technology,” Mc-
Graw-Hill, New York (1997).
7. Bumble, S., “Computer Aided Plant De-
sign: Waste Minimization/Pollution Pre-
vention,” CRC Press, Boca Rota, FL, in
press (2000).
8. Floudas, C. A., A. R. Ciric, and L. E.
Grossmann, “Automatic Synthesis of
Optimum Heat Exchanger Network
Configurations,” AIChE J., 32 (2),
pp. 276–290 (Feb. 1986).
9. Bagajewicz, M. J., and V.
Manousiouthakis, “Mass/Heat-Ex-
change Network Representation of Dis-
tillation Networks,” AIChE J., 38 (11),
pp. 1,769–1,800 (Nov. 1992).
10. Kovacs, Z., Z. Ercsey, F. Friedlander,
and L. T. Fan, “Exact Super-Structure
for the Synthesis of Separation-Net-
works with Multiple Feed-Streams and
Sharp Separators,” Comp. & Chem.
Eng., 23, pp. S1,007–1,010 (1999).
11. Kovacs, Z., Z. Ercsey, F. Friedlander,
and L. T. Fan, “Separation-Network
Synthesis: Global Optimum Through
Rigorous Superstructure,” Comp. &
Chem. Eng., in press (2000).
12. Barnicki, S. D., and J. R. Fair, “Sepa-
ration System Synthesis: A Knowledge-
Based Approach” I & E. C. Res., 29 (3),
pp. 421-432 (1990).
process issues quickly and to elimi-
nate much of the development-pro-
cess recycling — that is, working on a
certain process route only to find that
13. El-Halwagi, M. M., and H. D. Spriggs,
“Solve Design Puzzles with Mass Inte-
gration,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 94 (8),
pp. 25–44 (Aug. 1998).
14. El-Halwagi, M. M., “Pollution Preven-
tion Through Process Integration,” Aca-
demic Press, New York (1997).
15. Keller, G. E., “Separations: New Direc-
tions for an Old Field,” AIChE Monogr.
Ser., 83 (17), AIChE, New York (1987).
16. Keller, G. E., “Process Engineering Chal-
lenges of the 21st Century,” presented at
AIChE Ann. Mtg., Miami (Nov. 1998).
17. Umeda, T., J. Itoh, and K. Shiroko,
“Heat Exchanger System Synthesis,”
Chem. Eng. Progress, 74 (7), pp. 70–76
(July 1978).
18. Linnhoff, B., “Use Pinch Analysis to
Knock Down Capital Costs and Emis-
sions,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 90 (8),
pp. 32–57 (Aug. 1994).
19. Linnhoff, B., D. W. Townsend, D.
Boland, G. F. Hewitt, B. E. A. Thomas,
A. R. Gut, and R. H. Marsland, “A
User Guide on Process Integration for
the Efficient Use of Energy,” IChemE,
Rugby, U.K. (1994).
20. Mix, T. J., J. S. Dweck, M. Weinberg,
and R. C. Armstrong, “Energy Conser-
vation in Distillation” Chem. Eng.
Progress, 74 (4), p. 49–55 (Apr. 1978).
21. Kunesh, J. G., H. Z. Kister, M. J.
Lockett, and J. R. Fair, “Distillation:
Still Towering Over Other Options,”
Chem. Eng. Progress, 91 (10), pp. 43–54
(Oct. 1995).
22. Ho, F. G., and G. E. Keller, “Process
Integration,” in “Recent Developments
in Chemical Process and Plant Design,”
Y. A. Liu, H. A. McGee and W. R. Ep-
perly, eds., Wiley Interscience, New
York, pp. 101–126 (1987).
23. Goldratt, E. M., and J. Cox, “The
Goal,” 2nd rev. ed., North River Press,
Great Barrington, MA (1992).
24. Smith, W. K., “Time Out: Using Visible
Pull Systems to Drive Process Improve-
ment,” Wiley, New York (1998).
25. Smith, W. K., J. L. Ingraham, and D.
M. Rurak, Target, pp. 27–42, (Jan./Feb.
1993).
26. Srikanth, M., “Synchronous Manufac-
turing,” South-West Publishing, Cincin-
nati, OH (1990).
Chemical Engineering Progress
is not economically viable and then
having to change direction. If our sav-
ings estimate is confirmed in other
studies, then this new paradigm
27. Wacker, J. G., Prod. and Inv. Mgmt.,
27, pp. 11–14 (3rd qtr. 1986).
28. Keller, G. E., Discussions with invento-
ry-management personnel at Union Car-
bide and other companies (1996–1998).
29. Corbett, H. J., “Industry Must Live Up
to Public Expectations,” Chem. Eng.
Progress, 84 (9), p. 5 (Sept. 1988).
30. Kletz, T. A., “Friendly Plants,” Chem.
Eng. Progress, 85 (7), pp. 18–26 (July
1989).
31. Kletz, T. A., “Learning from Accidents,”
2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston (1994).
32. Kletz, T. A., “What Went Wrong?,” 4th
ed., Gulf, Houston (1999).
33. Forsberg, C. W., et al., “Proposed and
Existing Passive and Inherent Safety-
Related Structures, Systems, and Com-
ponents (Building Blocks) for Advanced
Light-Water Reactors,” U. S. Dept. of
Energy, Oak Ridge, TN (1989).
34. Forsberg, C. W., and W. J. Reich,
“Worldwide Advanced Nuclear Power
Reactors with Passive and Inherent
Safety: What, Why, How, and Who,” U.
S. Dept. of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN
(1991).
35. “Designing Pollution Prevention into the
Process: Research, Development and
Engineering,” CMA, Washington, DC
(1993).
36. Humphrey, J. L., et al., “Membranes
Versus Competing Processes for Recov-
ery of VOCs from Air,” presented at the
8th Ann. Mtg. of the N. Amer. Membr.
Soc., Ottawa (May 1996).
37. Mann, J. G., and Y. A. Liu, “Industrial
Water Reuse and Wastewater Minimiza-
tion,” McGraw-Hill, New York (1999).
Further Reading
Douglas, J. M., “Conceptual Design of
Chemical Processes,” McGraw-Hill,
New York (1988).
El-Halwagi, M. M., and V.
Manousiouthakis, “Synthesis of Mass
Exchange Networks,” AIChE J., 35 (8),
pp. 1,233-1,244 (Aug. 1989).
Forsberg, C. W., and A. M. Weinberg,
Ann. Rev. Energy, 15, pp. 133–152
(1990).
January 2000 49
PROCESS DESIGN TRENDS
should rapidly come into vogue, at
least with chemical engineers, if not
chemists.
There are a number of commercial-
ly available process-design programs
that can be used with the new
paradigm — e.g., ASPEN Plus, Chem-
CAD III, HYSYS, and PRO/VISION
— with the choice often depending
upon personal familiarity with a partic-
ular package. It is essential, however,
also to include a believable economic-
estimation program for the paradigm to
work well.
The role of process control
As mentioned before, quality, both
with a little “q” and a big “Q,” is a
major theme in manufacturing, and
improved process control is a key
issue for achieving our quality goals.
But, the process changes driven by
several of the other themes also will
require better process sensors and con-
trol technologies. For example, the ef-
fort to reduce investment will cause
equipment to be downsized to the
greatest extent possible, eliminating
much of the extra volume in process
equipment devoted to helping smooth
out the process or providing a safety
margin for producing on-specification
product. Likewise, surge tanks will
disappear. The desire to increase pro-
cess nimbleness or flexibility also will
put a premium on reducing surge ca-
pacities within the process.
These changes will make processes
more subject to being out of control,
that is, they will become more “jittery.”
Therefore, without improvements in
process sensing and control, the frac-
tion of off-specification product that
must be recycled, blended, sold for a
lower price, or destroyed in the waste-
treatment system will increase — a
highly unsatisfactory outcome. Better
process-dynamics models will be need-
ed to describe the unsteady-state be-
havior of processes; in many cases, this
description will require nonlinear mod-
els. The obvious goal will be to pro-
duce the most steady-state-friendly
process possible, as well as one that
can change from one state to another as
50 January 2000 Chemical Engineering Progress
quickly as possible. Achieving process
stability and nimbleness will mandate
more complex control systems than
just simple feedback control.
Key improvements
in the offing
We predict that process design will
progress in at least two important di-
rections over the next 20 years or so.
First, there will be improvements in the
“technology” of process design, pri-
marily in response to the pressures of
the seven themes discussed above.
And, second — and likely at least as
important, there will be improvements
in the ways in which process design
will be used.
In the first direction, we can expect
that the pressures for change will drive
us to more precise and less expensive
designs, both for upgraded and new fa-
cilities. To achieve these designs, we
increasingly will focus on several
major areas:
• MEN-based and other techniques
for investment- and energy-use reduc-
tion and pollution abatement;
• heat-cascading of distillation
columns for effecting major energy-
use reduction;
• unsteady-state, nonlinear mod-
eling, and other process-design tools
for batch, semi-batch, and campaign
processes;
• inherent-safety concepts for pro-
cess and storage tanks; and
• simple but believable invest-
ment-estimation packages that allow
for quick evaluation and comparison of
process improvements.
In addition, we have noted other pro-
cess-design directions.
Gains in the second direction will
come from adopting the new paradigm
of combining process design and pro-
cess research from the very first eureka
in research clear through the develop-
ment stages and beyond. This
paradigm provides an improved basis
to evaluate the economic and technical
aspects of ideas, to compare and rank
different process concepts quickly, and
to identify the critical few difficulties
— the potential fatal flaws — in a pro-
posed process so they can be assessed
at the earliest possible point. This
paradigm essentially minimizes the
amount of research recycling caused
by spending time researching an idea
only to find that the resulting process is
uneconomical or impractical and then
having to start over again.
Finally, improved process sensors,
including real-time composition ana-
lyzers, and process control technolo-
gies, will be necessary to achieve the
desired process improvements, as
well as to provide the control neces-
sary to fully realize their economic
benefits. CEP
G. E. KELLER, II, was, until his retirement in
1997, a senior corporate research fellow,
and manager of the Separations and
Process Fundamentals Skill Center at Union
Carbide Corp.’s Technical Center in S.
Charleston, WV. He now is principal of
Technology Horizons in S. Charleston, WV
((304) 744–3152; Fax: (304) 744–3152;
E-mail: gkellerii@worldnet.att.net). He
presently is involved in economic-
development activities, consulting,
developing new adsorption technology, and
promoting university/industry research
relations; he also is an adjunct professor at
both West Virginia and Marshall Univs.,
and a consulting editor for AIChE Journal.
He is a member of the Nat. Acad. of Eng., a
Fellow of AIChE and the Amer. Inst. of
Chemists, and is a registered Professional
Engineer in West Virginia. He has received
three AIChE national awards, the latest
being the Institute Award for Excellence in
Industrial Gases Technology in 1999.
P. F. BRYAN was a research scientist for Union
Carbide Corp. in S. Charleston, WV, when
this article was written. He now is a senior
lecturer in the chemical engineering dept.
of Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and director of the Mt. Vernon Station of
the David H. Koch School of Chemical
Engineering Practice, Mt. Vernon, IN ((812)
831–7663; Fax: (812) 831–7409; E-mail:
Separ8r@aol.com), as well as a consultant
in separations technology, thermo-
dynamics, and process synthesis.
Previously, he taught at the Col. Sch. of
Mines, and worked at Chevron Research.
He received a BS from Penn. St. Univ., and
a PhD from the Univ. of Calif., Berkeley,
both in chemical engineering, and did
postgraduate work at the École Nationale
Superieure des Mines, Paris. A member of
AIChE, he is active in the Separations Div.,
and will become its chair in 2001.