um analysis method. Method A involved an energy balance around the column condenser. In this analysis, Equation 5 is a cooling water energy balance and Equation 6 is an energy balance with respect to the process material, ethanol, and isopropanol.The cooling water energy balance determined the heat duty of the condenser. That duty was then used in the process component energy balance over the condenser to determine the vapor velocity. The relationship exemplifies that as the vapor flow rate is increased through the column , the cooling water temperature change will increase due to the additional heat load that was created. A complete summary of the vapor velocity results for each trial can be found in Appendix B, p. 6.Graphs of HETP vs. vapor velocity were created to represent each method for determining both number of equilibrium stages and vapor velocity. From the HETP versus vapor velocity graphs, it is evident that there is a clear relationship between the vapor flow rate and the HETP. As the vapor flow rate increases, the HETP also increases in a linear fashion. The R2 value for the Fenske method produced much higher significance between the variables then the results from the McCabe-Thiele analysis. The R2 from the Fenske Method given a value of approximately 0.643, while that of the McCabe-Thiele valued at 0.547. The r2 value representing the significance between HETP and vapor velocity did not change appreciable between the two methods for calculating the vapor velocity. The condenser energy balance was chosen as the method for representing the HETP vs. vapor velocity data, which was used in the scale-up process. From the graph of HETP vs. vapor velocity, the flooding value was determined at 4.85 ft/hr. The HETP vs. vapor velocity chart, which represents the values for HETP from the Fenske equation and the vapor velocity through the total column energy balance is the relationship used to scale-up to the existing col...
