CHE 462 ASU Fracking Water Reclamation You need first to read the file of Fracking Water Reclamation, and then you need to read report memo solution for Fr
CHE 462 ASU Fracking Water Reclamation You need first to read the file of Fracking Water Reclamation, and then you need to read report memo solution for Fracking Water Reclamation solutions.
There are four solutions in the memo are:
• A Superhydrophilic filter that would be one of the important methods that can remove about 90% of hydrocarbons, particulates, bacteria from polluted water that occurred from fracking process.
• Filtering fracking water through plasma.
• Utilize pecan shell based activated carbon (PSBAC) in the adsorption process.
• Supported the hydraulic fracking by breathers.
** The project objective is to maximize ROI ( read the file uploaded which is called Fracking Water Reclamation for more explanation regarding the project report)
** choose one of these solutions above that you prefer and explain why you have picked it and write 2-3 pages regarding the solution you have chosen. I uploaded a file of an example of how it should be written to follow the instructions as well as I uploaded another file to give the instructions of how to write it. (please follow the instruction in order to make it simple)
**NO plagiarism!
use the following references:
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/filtering-fracking-water-for-reuse/
https://www.google.com/search?ei=oQVIXNjKD8P00wKF6orAAw&q=alternative+way+to+filter+fracking+water+plasma+&oq=alternative+way+to+filter+fracking+water+plasma+&gs_l=psy-ab.3…309472.311980..312135…0.0..0.0.0…….6….1..gws-wiz.UKw5KUF2zV0
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2017/09/dirty-fracking-water-cleaned-for-reuse-by-superhydrophilic-filtration-membrane/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618313684
http://www.solbergmfg.com/ViewFeature.aspx?Feature…
You can use other websites from your own. Thanks! ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM
CHE 462
PROJECT 1 – individual effort
L’Eau Co.
TO: CHE 462 WORLD CLASS DESIGN ENGINEERS
FROM: J.R.Boss, Vice Pres, R&D, L’Eau Co.
DATE: 1/16/19
SUBJECT: DESIGN FOR PRODUCED WATER RECLAMATION
In 1997 an international meeting was held in Kyoto, Japan, 2012 in Doha, Bahrain and
lately in Paris to discuss the Global Warming trends and remediation policies to curb
carbon dioxide emissions. The climate change in global rising temperatures has also
shifted the weather patterns throughout the world. A shift from conventional fuels to
natural gas will significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As examples, switching
from gasoline to methane in transportation vehicles would reduce emissions by 25% for
the same miles driven. Switching from coal to methane in electric power generating
plants would save over 50% of carbon dioxide emissions while producing the same
amount of electricity. The newly tapped methane resource has been identified in
underground shale formations throughout the United States. The method for mining the
natural gas is called hydraulic fracturing or fracking. However, fracking is accompanied
by water pollution issues.
The American More Methane Organization (AMMO Inc) currently produces methane
with 100,000 gallons/day of produced water which costs $0.13/gallon to be hauled away.
The produced water essentially contains 6wt% sodium chloride, 1wt% ethanol, and
1.3wt% acetic acid. We at L’Eau Co. are proposing to take care of the AMMO Inc water
problem for them at our cost to them of $0.06/gallon thereby saving AMMO Inc almost
$3 million/year.
You will work alone to explore the business venture details to be proposed by L’Eau
Co. which will reduce the amount of produced water that must be disposed of at
$0.13/gallon. Potable water made in this venture can be sold at $2/1000 gallons and
organics must be disposed of or sold as a by-product(s). The project objective is to
maximize ROI. Use a money borrowing rate of 5% with an equipment life of 20 years.
The solo effort will assure L’Eau Co. of multitude design outcomes for proposal
consideration.
Your individual final design report must be on my desk (aka Canvas) by 9:40 AM
Monday February 4, 2019. Also, there will be a progress report due on Wednesday,
January 23 so as to help assure a strong steady pace of your dedicated participation.
MEMORANDUM
Almansoori Co.
TO: JRBeckman VP Company
FROM: Mohamed Almansoori
DATE: 1/22/2019
SUBJECT: DESIGN FOR PRODUCED WATER RECLAMATION
Project 1 selection was manufacturing a design for produced water reclamation. Alternatives
explored included:
• A Superhydrophilic filter that would be one of the important methods that can remove about
90% of hydrocarbons, particulates, bacteria from polluted water that occurred from fracking
process.
• Filtering fracking water through plasma.
• Utilize pecan shell based activated carbon (PSBAC) in the adsorption process.
• Supported the hydraulic fracking by breathers.
Considering the previous alternatives, superhydrophobic filters is the most likely option to
proceed with; due to its high performance, and economical efficiency.
MEMORANDUM
(note: double Spaced, 12 Font, 3 Pages MAX)
TO: Professor Reader
FROM: Researcher
DATE:1/25/2019
SUBJECT: Crystallization Experiment
( note: the first paragraph is the abstract) The crystallization nucleation kinetic
parameter, i, for potassium chloride in a 37 C cooling crystallizer was (found to be) 2.3.
The kinetic parameter, i, was 35% higher than literature values. The higher kinetic
parameter value was due to fluctuations in the feed flow rate controller and the low
number of data runs (four). To achieve agreement within 10% of the kinetic parameter
theoretical value, a new flow control valve was recommended and more runs of at least
10 would be needed. (note: briefly give final analysis, reasons, conclusions and
recommendations)
(note: The body of the memo supports the first paragraph with tables, figures and
reasons. Normally, there is little coverage in theory development and only major
effects are briefly discussed. Support only those claims made in the first paragraph.)
Figure 1 is the plot of the log of nucleation density versus log of growth rate for each
steady state experiment. The best line fit revealed random scatter not biased offset data
error. The data scatter was caused by the corroded feed flow control valve.
nucleation density, no,
particles/liter/micron
6
5
4
Series1
3
Linear (Series1)
2
y = 2.316x + 1.7888
1
0
0
1
2
growth rate, G,
microns/sec
Figure 1: Nucleation Density, no, as a function of growth rate, G
The control valve bla bla bla [1]. Figure 2 is a picture of the corrosion that caused the
valve to not seal [2]. And so on……….
The appended Figures 3 to 6 summarize the data runs.
Figure 1 is based on the following expressions of the crystal size distribution function,
Equation 1, and the nucleation kinetic power law model, Equation 2 [3]:
n=noEXP(-L/G )
(1)
no=kGi
(2)
Recommendations
•
Control valve was junk (do not say it like this, be professional). Replace the
control valve with a non-corrosive valve for future investigations.
2
•
More data runs would be needed to improve the kinetic parameter estimate. (be
specific, say 10 runs based on a Student T test analysis)
References
1. McCabe, W. L., J. C. Smith, and P. Harriott, Unit Operations of Chemical
Engineering, 5th Ed, McGraw-Hill, 1984.
2. Randolph, A.D , “ Nucleation densities of salts in aqueous solutions”, Ind. Engr
Chem, vol 20, pp. 125-1322, 1980.
3. Perry, Robert and Cecil Chilton, ed, Chemical Engineers Handbook 5th ed,
McGraw-Hill, 1973.
Appendix
•
HAND Sample Calculations
•
Spread sheets
•
Other tables and figures from data analysis used to generate tables and
figures placed in the main memo text
3
20
log particle density, n,
particles/liter/micron
18
16
14
12
Series1
10
Linear (Series1)
8
Linear (Series1)
6
4
2
y = -0.0214x + 19.12
0
-2 0
500
1000
particle size, L, microns
Figure 3: Data from Run no. 1
Figures 4,5,6 follow
Tables of Raw data are also included here.
4
UNDERSTAND IT & WRITE IT !
CONVINCE THE READER
GOOD
CHECHE
462
424
REPORT
&MEMO
WRITING
BAD
Chapter 11 PTW
ABSTRACT
BODY
CONCLUSION
YOUR READERS : KNOW THEM !
BECKMAN
CHE 462 REPORT WRITING
Some Do’s And Don’ts for you to
consider in your writing
DO !
DON’T
DO’S
Report Preparation & Organization
Know your FACTS
Know your READERS
Set report OUTLINE
JUST WRITE IT!
Revise with EXACT WORDS
PERFECT Finished Report
( note: reports are graded on
the PERFECT basis.)
DON’TS Preparation & Organization
Last Minute – 2AM mistakes
Incomplete Ideas – start & finish a thought
Obviously Wrong math f=ma2
Wrong or no Units
Crowded plots
Massive tables
muspelled werds: spell check
Too short/too long
Blah blah blah (NO)- cause and effect (YES)
CHE 462 SOME GOOD HINTS
Number Pages
No Personal Pronouns (I, we)
No Pronouns!
No contractions (don’t, it’s, didn’t)
No possessives (his, hers, its, world’s …)
Past Tense (was not is)
Passive voice (the heat transfer coefficient was
(calculated to be ..?)
Three 5 gallon buckets were needed.
Exact clarity is everything (NO – large, close to,
hotter, YES – 12% higher, 2 oC cooler)
REPORT WRITING
GUIDELINES example
VLE FLASH
VLE ABSTRACT
In this experiment, we found that the relative
volatility is close to the theoretical one. It was
partially boiled by steam and it changed. Figure 5
and Table 3 show all of the runs.
VLE ABSTRACT
The relative volatility of ethyl benzene and
styrene at 3 bar and 130C was 1.25 which was 5%
higher than assuming an ideal solution. The feed
quality ranged from 10% to 35%.
MEMORANDUM REPORTING
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
1st PARAGRAPH is an ABSTRACT
Major findings ONLY – Results, Conclusions,
Recommendations
BODY is Discussion
MAJOR evidence ONLY
CONCLUSION*
REFERENCES*
TOTAL PAGES 2-3
APPENDIX* – Sample Calcs, Figures, Minor Evidence 10p.
* Normally not included in industry but kept in your files.
1st PARAGRAPH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Professor Reader
FROM: Researcher
DATE: 1/25/16
SUBJECT: Crystallization Experiment
The crystallization nucleation kinetic parameter ,i, for potassium
chloride in a 37 C cooling crystallizer was (found to be ? Needed?)
2.3. The kinetic value was 35% higher than literature values. The
kinetic value error was due to fluctuations in the feed flow rate
controller and the low number of data runs (four). To achieve
agreement within 10% for the kinetic parameter, a new control valve
would be required and more runs of at least 10 would be needed. (note:
give final analysis, reasons, conclusions and recommendations)
BODY
(The body of the memo supports the first paragraph with tables, figures
and reasons. Normally, there is little coverage in theory development
and only major effects are briefly discussed. Support only those claims
made in the first paragraph.)
Figure 1 is the plot of the log of nucleation density versus log of
growth rate for each steady state experiment. The best line fit gave a
slope of i = 2.3 and revealed random data error. The data scatter was
caused by the corroded feed flow control valve. The control valve bla
bla bla [1]. Figure 2 is a picture of the corrosion that caused the valve
to not seal [2]. And so on……….
The appended Figures 3 to 6 summarize the data runs. Figure 1 is
based on the following expressions of the crystal size distribution
function, Equation 1, and the nucleation kinetic power law model,
Equation 2 [3]:
n=noEXP(-L/Gt )
no=kGi
(1)
(2)
Conclusions and Recommendations
Kinetic parameter, i, was found to be 2.3 which was 35%
higher than the accepted value
Control valve was junk (do not say it like this, be
professional)
More data runs would be needed to improve the kinetic
parameter estimate. (be specific, say 10 runs based on a
Students T test estimate)
YOUR TURN:UNDERSTAND IT
& WRITE IT !
GOOD
BAD
Remember, everything you write begins with ladies & gentlemen of the jury.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
