CHEN 425 ASPEN Simulation Report 8
Title: Process Economic Analyzer (ICARUS) Workshop I
Workshop No.: 8
Date of Submission of Report: September 15, 2020
Prepared by: Jackie Landoski
To: Prof. Mahmoud El-Halwagi
1) Summary of Results
Part I
Total Purchased Equipment Cost = $130,200.00
FCI (Lang) = $651,000
Part II
Total Purchased Equipment Cost = $168,500.00
FCI (Lang) = $842,500
There is a 29.4% increase in cost by splitting the equipment to factor in safety.
The cost of equipment in relation to its size is approximately the ratio of the
equipment multiplied by an exponent of 0.6. Therefore, one piece is more cost
efficient per square foot compared to two pieces of half size.
2) Simulation Results
Part I
Inputs:
Heat Exchanger 1 Area: 900 ft2
Heat Exchanger 2 Area: 1800 ft2
Pump 1 Flowrate: 200 gpm
Pump 2 Flowrate: 300 gpm
Vertical Tank Capacity: 20,000 gal
Part II
Inputs:
Heat Exchanger 1 Area: 450 ft2
Heat Exchanger 2 Area: 450 ft2
Heat Exchanger 3 Area: 900 ft2
Heat Exchanger 4 Area: 900 ft2
Pump 1 Flowrate: 100 gpm
Pump 2 Flowrate: 100 gpm
Pump 3 Flowrate: 150 gpm
Pump 4 Flowrate: 150 gpm
Vertical Tank Capacity: 20,000 gal
3) Discussion of Simulation Results
Part I
Heat Exchanger 1 Equipment Cost = $29,700.00
Heat Exchanger 2 Equipment Cost = $47,400.00
Pump 1 Cost = $8,500.00
Pump 2 Cost = $9,300.00
Vertical Storage Tank Cost = $35,300.00
Total Purchased Equipment Cost = $130,200.00
FCI(Lang)= 5.0($29,700+$47,400+$8,500+$9,300+$35,300) = $651,000
Part II
Heat Exchanger 1 Equipment Cost = $21,400.00
Heat Exchanger 2 Equipment Cost = $21,400.00
Heat Exchanger 3 Equipment Cost = $29,700.00
Heat Exchanger 4 Equipment Cost = $29,700.00
Pump 1 Cost = $7,500.00
Pump 2 Cost = $7,500.00
Pump 1 Cost = $8,000.00
Pump 2 Cost = $8,000.00
Vertical Storage Tank Cost = $35,300.00
Total Purchased Equipment Cost = $168,500.00
FCI(Lang)=5.0($21,400+$21,400+$29,700+$29,700+$7,500+$7,500+$8,000+$8,000+
$35,300) = $842,500
The scaling factor for similar operations can be shown by the equation:
FOB Equipment CostB= FOB Equipment CostA*(Size B/Size A)0.6
This equation shows that it is cheaper to have one equipment of size V than 2 units of
size V/2 each.
Compared to Part I, by dividing the equipment into 2, the equipment cost increased by
about 29.4%. This is a significant increase in economic requirements, so a decision to
implement these safety measures would need to be evaluated by the company’s ability.
However, some of the safety concerns could me mitigated by introducing safeguards,
which could alleviate some of the financial burden.
4) Screenshots of Simulations/Results
Figure 1- Screenshot of Part I
Figure 2- Screenshot of Part II
5) Conclusions/Recommendations
This simulation allowed me to see how splitting a single exchanger and pump
into 2 increases the money spent on equipment. Additionally, it allowed me to
evaluate the tradeoff between safety and cost.
I would recommend choosing the configuration in Part I because of the
significantly lower equipment cost. By implementing some safeguards, the safety
problem situation should be reduced as well.