{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04471195184866724, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01117798796216681, 'mean_word_length': 5.191489361702128, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of the Exergy Efficiencies of Various Heat-Integrated Distillation Columns

Distillation has relatively low thermodynamic efficiency, so it is a prime target for process intensification studies. The current research aims to study exergy losses in various heat-integrated distillation columns. A conventional industrial-scale i-butane/n-butane fractionator has been selected as a case study for the comparison of the performances of various heat-integrated designs. The Aspen Plus® process simulator is used to perform steady-state simulations and exergy analyses of the conventional distillation column (CDC), internally heat-integrated distillation column (iHIDiC), externally heat-integrated double distillation columns (EHIDDiC), and vapor recompression (VRC) systems. The results of these exergy analyses show that a modified VRC system (ηE = 10.69%) is the most efficient design for this separation. The exergy efficiency of the conventional VRC system is the same as that of the CDC (ηE = 9.27%). The EHIDDiC system (ηE = 9.77%) is somewhat better than the CDC, whereas iHIDiC shows poor exergy efficiency (ηE = 8.09%), even lower than the CDC.