Predict storage-tank

heat transfer precisely

Use this procedure to determine the rate of heat transfer fro1n
vertical storage tank when shortcut methods are inadequate.
a
Jimmy D. Kumana and Samir P. Kothari, }/e1mingson, Durham and Richardson, /11c.
O Heating or cooling storage tanks can be a major
energy expense at plants and tankfarms. Though many
procedures for calculating such heat-transfer require
roents have been published [ 1,3,5, 7,8, JO], the simplify
ing assumptions that they use can lead to significant
errors in co1nputed heat-transfer rates. This is of con-
cern because efficierl t sizing of Lanks, irlsulation, heaters
and coolers depends on accurate estimates of heat trans
..fer to and from the various tank surfaces. And the ulti
.mate value of being accurate increases as energy costs
to rise.
t't The procedure presented here determines the heat
ft'ransfer to or from a vertical-cylindrical s.torage tank
on the ground- li ke the one in Fig. I . It includes
effects of tank configuration, liquid level, ambient
and wind speed, as well as temperature
;;\:ariations within the tank and between air and ground.
IA partially worked example shows how to use the tech
que, and how to do the calculations on a computer.
' e theory
"storage ta nks come in many di fferent shapes and
[!izes. Horizontal-cylindrical and spherical tanks are
for storage of liquids under pressure; atmospheric
tend to be vertical-cyli ndrical, with flat bottoms
' ';md conical roofs as shown in Fig. I. The example pre
here is for the latter configuration, but the proce
:dure applies to a ny tank for which reliable heat-transfer

'correlations are available.
' .
For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the tank
contents are warmer than the ambient air, and that we
are concerned with heat loss from the tank rather than
gain. But the method may, of course, be applied to
:either case.
(
1
', Consider, then, the categories of surfaces from which
may be transferred across the tank boundaries: wet
dry sidewalls, tank bottom, and roof. In the context
here, "wet" refers to the portion of the wall sub-
,,J!!erged under the liquid surface, whereas "dry" refers to
portion of the wall in the vapor space, above the
surface.
general, the heating coils would be located near
bottom of the tank, in the form of Rat "pancakes."
. , _erefore, the temperature of the air (or vapor) space
"' '
<
. ,.
above the liquid level may be expected to be lower than
the liquid itself. Experience has shown that the average
bulk temperatures of the liquid and vapor space may be
significantly (i.e., more than S
0
F) different, and they
are treated accordingly in our procedure. Use of differ
ent liquid and vapor temperatures is an important de-
parture from the traditional approach, which assumes
the same value for both.
Our basic approach is to develop equations for calcu-
lating the heat loss from each of the four categories of
surfaces, and then add the individual heat losses to get
the total heat loss. Thus:
For dry sidewall q, = UaAd(Tv - T,.) (I)
For wet sidewall q,,, = U,,,A,,,(T,_ - TA) (2)
For tank bottom
qb = U,A,( T,, - T
0
) (3)
For tank roof
q, = U,A,(Tv - T,.) (4)
Total
Q = q, + q,,, + q, + q, (5)
When using these equations in design or rating prob
!ems, we either assume the various temperatures for typ
. ..
. .
' ' '
. ' ..
-... . . '
'.,
.. ' .
Typical vertical -cylindrical tank Fig. 1
ENCINEERll'\C M:\RCH 22. 1982 127
.
11
!
!
f
t
I
I
!
' :
.,
Individual film heat-transfer coefficients Table I
ical conditions or determine them by measurement.
The area values are a lso easy to obtain:
A
4
= "'D (L - L,.)
A.., = wD L,.
A = <TD
2
/ 4
A,= (wD/ 2)(D2/4 + d2)112
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
The complications arise when we try to estimate t he
overall hea t-tra nsfer coefficients u,, u ... vb and u,, for
the four surfaces of t he tank. For the tank geometry
these can for tunately be calculated from the
individual fi lm heat-transfer coefficients in the conven-
tional manner, usi ng publ ished correlations.
T he overall coefficients
Table I shows the component coefficient for each
T he overall heat-tra nsfer coefficient for the d ry
sidewall of the tank ( U
4
) is calculated as the sum of the
resistances of vapor film, fou ling, me tal wall, i nsulation
( if any), a nd outside air (convection plus radiation).
The outside-ai r heat-transfer coefficient (I<,.,,) is a
functioti of wind velocity as well as temperature gradi
Effect of wind velocity and
l!J.T on heat-transfer rate Fig. 2
cnt. Daca on the effect of wind velocity a nd .).T have
been presented by St uhlbarg [ lOJ and Boycn (2 J. Wit!i
a l ittle bit of manipulatio n, their data we re replotted
yieldi ng the "wi nd euhancement factor" ( W
1
) in Fig. 2'.
By defi ni tion:
J1.'
1
= hA_,/h'.<w = (10)
Therefore, once t he outsi de-air coefficient for sl i!/ air
is known, the overall d ry-sidewall coefficient a t
various \\
1
ind velocities can be compuled as:
1/ Ud = l / hv.,, + 1.Kf k,,, + 1
1
/ k
1
+
+ hxdi + l / hF
4
(ll)
Similarly, t he overall coefficien ts for the wet sidewall.
bottom a nd roof surfaces are:
!/ U,. = J l hi,
0
+ t., flc.w + t
1
/ k
1
+
+ hR.,, ) + l / hfu (12)
1/ Ub = l / hLb + l,wl kM + l / ha + 1/ 11,,, (13)
l / U, = 1/ h,. + t.
11
!k,,, +
+ hR, ) + 1/ hFd (14)
Eq. 13 a nd 14 assume tha t t he roofand bottom a rc not
insulated, which is generally the case in temperate cli-
ma tes. vVe shall now review correlations for t he individ-
ual heat-transfer coefficients needed to obtain the over.
all coefficients.
Individual filn1 heat-transfer coefficients
The fil m heallransfer coefficients may be divided
inlo four categories: conve.ctiot1 frotn '
1
ertica1 '"alls
1
c.onvection fro1n hori2:0 ntal surfaces, pure conduction,
and radiative heat transfer. Within ea ch category, cor-
relations a re presented for several fl ow regi mes.
Vertical-wall film coefficients. T hese a pply to the in-
side wall (wet or dry) a nd the o utside wall (still air}. For
vertical plates and cylinders, Kato et al. [6) recommend
the following for liquids and vapors:
NNu = 0.138 Nil;l
6
(N'/;,
175
- 0.55) (15)
where 0. 1 <Np,< 40 and N
0
, > 10
9
.
For isothermal ver tical plates, Ede ['/) reported the
followi ng for liquids:
N,vu = 0.4.95(N
0
,Np,)o.z; (16)
where Np, > 100 and 10
4
< (N
0
,Np, ) < 10
9
, and for
gases:
N,vu = 0.0295 1V'lJ!
0
N"h41 (I + 0.5

(17)
where Np,;:: S and (N
0
, Np,)> 10
9

For vertical plates ta ller t han 3 ft, Stuhlbarg [/OJ
recommends:
h = 0.451cL-o";(N
0
, Np,)o.1; ( IS:
where 10
4
< (.lv
0
; 1Vp, ) < 109.
Horizontal-surface heat-transfer coefficients. The
coeffi cients a ppl y to t he roof and inside-bottom surface!
of the tank. T he bottom is assumed to be flat. For sur
faces facing up [8):
N = 0 14 (N V )0.33
Jlu Gr ' Pr
For surfaces facing down:
N,v,, = 0.27 (Na, Np, )o.zs
(20
128 CHtMICAL t.NCINURINC :0.IARCH 22, 1982
,
'

D
'
Both equations apply in the range 2 x 101 <
(Wo,N,,,) < 3 X 10
1
0.
Equivalent coefficients for conductive heat transfer.
The wall and insulation coefficients are derived from
the thermal conductivities:
hM = k.11/IM
h, = k,/1,
(21)
(22)
!he coefficient for heat transfer to and from the ground
the coefficient for heal conduction from a semi
infinite solid (9]:
(23)
Fouling coefficients. The coefficients 11,.. , hp,., and hfb
apply t0 the vapor and liquid at the wall, and 1hc liquid
a1 the bottom of the tank, respectively. These arc cm
pirical, and depend on the type of Auid and 01her fac-
tors such as tank deaning. Generally, hp, is the greatest
of the three, and""" the least, indicating 1ha1 the great-
est fouling resistance is at the bouom of the tank.
Equivalent coefficient for radiative heat transfer.
The coefficient for sidewalls and roof depends on the
emissivity of these surfaces, and is given by (8):
JiR =
0.1713 [(T..,. + 460)' _ ( T,. + 460)']
( T ... - TA ) 100 JOO {24)
With these relationships, we now have the tools to cal
culate heat transfer to or from the tank.
Example
ABC Chemical Corp. has a single manufacturing
P!ant m the U.S., and exports a high-viscosity specialty
011 product t.o Europe. The oil is offloaded in Port City,
and stored m a Rat-bottom, conical-roof tank rented
from XYZ Terminal Co. Ltd. The tank is located out
doors and rests on the ground. It is equipped with pan-
cake-type steam-heating coils because the oil must be
maintained above so r in order to preserve its fluidity.
Other pertinent data are: tank diameter is 20 fl tank
height is 48 ft (to the edge of the rool); roof inclin'c
in. per foot; tank sidewalls arc o/
16
-in. carbon steel;
lat ion is I Yz-in. fi berglass, on the sidewall only.
XYZ Terminal Co. does not have metering stations
on the steam supply to individual tanks, and proposes
to charge ABC Chemical for tank heating on the basis
of calculated heat losses, using the conventional tables
[I), and assuming a tank wall temperature of 50F. The
project engineer from ABC Chemical decided to inves-
tigate how XYZ's estimate would compare with the
more elaborate one described in this anicle .
. First, th: collected basic data on storage and
climate. 011 shipments from the U.S. arrive :it Pon City
approximately once a month, in 100,000-gal batches.
Deliveries to local customers are made in 8,000-gal
tanktrucks, three times a week on average. The typical
variation in tank level over a 30-day period is known
from experience.
The ambient temperature goes through a more com-
plex cycle, of course. \.Vithin the primary cycle of 365
days, there are daily temperature variations. But in the
seasonal cycle, heat supply is required only during the
winter months, when temperatures fall well below 50"F.
Wind conditions at the storage site are not as well
defined, and therefore much harder to predict. How-
ever, we can assume that the wind speed will hold con
slant for a short pc.riod of time, and calculate the heat
loss for this unit period under a fixed set of conditions.
The wind speed to be used must be based on the known
probability distribution of wind speeds at the site.
The procedure for determining t he annual heat loss
consists of adding up the heat losses calcularcd for each
unit period (which could be an hour, 12 hours, 24
hours, or 30 days, as appropriate). T his example dem-
onstrates the calculation of heat loss for only one unit
period, or 12 hours, using an ambient temperature of
I 29
Data for ABC Chemical Co. example
Liquid Air
0.08
0.25
0.007
Heat-transfer coefficients after first iteration
Table ti
Vapor
Q.08
0.25
0.007
0.002
-. '
Table Ill
Table IV
35 f , a wind velocity of 10 mph. a nd a liquid level of
50'.ii,_ The other dat a req uired are given in Table JI.
Note t hat the liqll id temper a ture is controlled at 55' f
to provide a sr ma rg in of safety.
Si nce the Pra nd tl a nd Grashof numbers occur rcpea
1
.
edly in t he fi lm hea1-uansfer cocfl\cicnt equations, and
remain relatively uncha nged for a ll the conditions of
interest, let us fi rst ca lculate. their values. T hus. for the
liquid phase:
Ne, = L
3
p
2
gf3 :iT/
2
= 97.5 L3 :iT
Np, = c .. u! k =
Similarly, for the vapor p hase, Ne, = 1.90 x
10
7
L
3
:iT and Np, = 0.28. We can now ca lculate the
individual film heat-t ransfer codlicients, usi ng t he ap-
propriate L and :i T va l\les in the Grashof-number
equalions. This is an iterati\re procc.ss tl1at requires
t ial estimates for wall and ground temperatures. plus
\\'al l te.1nperatures.
Coefficient for vapor a t wall (h.,..,). As an initial ap.
proxi1nation, assun1e that the ''"al l ternpcrature is tl1e
average of t he vapor and ou1side-air temperatures:
T,. = (SO + 35)/ 2 = 42.s r. Then find the Grashof
nun1ber :
" -
' "Gr -
1.90 X IO;(L - L,.)3(7"v - T,. )
1.90 x 10
1
( 24)3( 7.5)
1.97 x 10"
Employing Eq. 15, fi nd the Nussel1 number and then.
'
the coeflicient (k = 0.0151, L == 48 ft, L'" = 24 ft): i
N,, . =

- 0.55) = 921. 1
h,,,, = (92 1.l )(k)/ (L - Lw) = 0.581 Btu/ f1
2
h- F
<
i
I
!
'
Coeffi cient for liquid a t the wall (h
1
, ,,, ). Here, neither!
,\lp, nor (lv
0
, Np, ) fa lls wi thi n the range of the
ble correlations ( Eq. 16. 18). Let us try b oth, again usingl
an average for Tic: j
'
T,, = (TL + T,)/ 2 = 45f j
N(;, == 97.47L3 ( TL - T.,,) = 1.35 x 10
7
I
Using Eq. 16 a nd 18, we get two es1ima 1es for the heat-1
transfer coefficient (k = 0.1 2, Np, = 484): l
hL,,, = (0.495k/ L,,, )(Nc, = o. 704 Btu/ ft
2
h- r I
hL.,, = I
= 1.4 15 B1u/ ft
1
n-r
To be conservative, we use 1he highel' value:;
hL,,, = 1.41 5 Btu/ ft
2
h-F. j
Coefiicicnl for vapor at r oof (h,,.). \Ve consider this al
Aat plate, wi th a dia1n eter of 20 ft, and use Eq. 20J
again wit h an average T.,, of 42.sf (k = 0.0 1:'> 1): I
N
0
, = 1.9 X 10
1
D
3
(Tv - T,,,) == 1. 14 x 10'
2

hw = (0.27k/ D)(Nc, Np, )0.
2
; = 0. 154 B1u/ ft
2
h- ' F
Coefficient for liquid at tank bouom Assurnel
that the ground temperature ( Tc) is ; F above a mbii
ent, and use an average of liquid a nd g ro\lnd tempera-;
tures as a first approximacion for the tank-bottom
p eratul'e: 1
T,,, = (TL+ T
0
)/ 2 ==< Ti + T< + 5)/ 2 = 47.5' F I
130
j
'

'fhen. figure the Grashof number. and use Eq. 19 to get
iJie coeffi cient:
Ne, = 97.47D"(7i, - T.., ) = 5.85 x 10
6
Na, Nr, = 2.83 x 109
hu. = 1. 105 F
Coefficient for outside air at roof (h:.,). Assume
T. : T., since the roofis uninsulated, and get the coef
fidcnt for still air from Eq. 19:
Na,= 1.9 x 10
7
D
3
(T,., - TA)= 1.14 x 10
1
z
JiM = 0.663 Btu/ ft
2
h- F
Coeffici ent for outside air at wall Assume that
the temperature drop across the film is one-fourth of the
drop from the inside Auid to the outside air (averaged
for the wet and dry walls). and use Eq. 15 to fi nd the
eoefficient:
:. T = 17.5/ 4 = 4.375F
,V
0
, = 1.9 X 10
1
L
3
:0T = 9.19 X 10
12
= 0.51 Btu/ f!Zh. F
Conduction coeffi cients for ground, metal waU, and
insulation (he. hJJ and h
1
) . These arc straightforward,
from Eq. 2 1-23:
h. = k.,/tM = 640 Btu/ ft
2
h-'F
h
1
= k
1
/ t
1
= 0.224 Btu/ ft
2
h- F
/1
0
= 8/ccl "'D = 0. 102 Btu/ft
2
h-' F
Radi ation coefficients for dry and wet sidewall, and
roof (hRd, hR" hR,) As for the outside-air fil m coeffi -
cients, assume that T.,,. = TA + 0.25 (T,,.,. - T,),
where is the temperature of the liquid or vapor
inside the tank, if the surface is insulated. For the unin
1ulatcd roof, assume that T.., = TA + 0.5(Tv - TA ).
Then TK, = 38.75F for the (insulated) dry sidewall,
T.., "'40F for the wet sidewall, and r_ = 42.5 F for
the roof. Using Eq. 24, find the coefficient for each of
the three cases:
hi< = 0.757 Btu/ 0
2
h- F
ha.,,= 0.759 6tu/ ft2h. F
11
11
, = 0.765 6tu/ ft2h- F
Closing in on results
Table III summarizes the heat-transfer ooefficients
just calculated, including the corrections for wind-n:, ,.
and arc multiplied by 3.3 and 3. 1, respectively,
based on data for 10-mph wind in Fig. 2. Substituti ng
these individual coefficients in Eq. 1114, we obtain the
U values listed in Table III.
\.\'hat remains to be done? When we began the calcu-
lations, we assumed that the temperatures
were related to the bulk-flui d temperatures by:
T,. = TA + 0.5(T,.,. - T.) for uninsulated surfaces
T.,. =TA + 0.25(T.,.
1
k - TA) for insulated surfaces
In order to calculate accur.ne coefficients for heat trans
fer, we must no'" obtain better estimates of these wall
., temperatures. This requires an iterative procedure that
can be programmed and run on a computer.
Revised coefficients after second iteration Table V
'
Coefficient Dry.wall Wat wall Roof ; Botto"'
0.463

0.98
0.181
hVw
hLw
hy,
hLb
hG
h'Ar
hAf
0.31
0.96
0.619
.0.102,
'
' -

.. - :..
' h'Aw 0.311 0.317
-

hAw' 1.047 1.047
hM 640 640 640
h1 . 0.224 ' 0.224
1ti - . 1,ooo soo . :- 1,.000
' .
. soo
": .hR . . 0. 7500 .. , 0. 751:4 0.7600 .
'. u.: _..,; 0.1392 . 0.1655 0.1636
;.. _, .... - .'l."' ..
. ;i. :,: :...- ""; -
"1 _:,.>": :. ,:;t
.. <
- .,_. - --.. '-

For dry wall, the rate of heat loss is given by all three
of the following:
q, = U, A,(Tv - TA ) (25)
= lrvw A,(Tv - T.,) (26)
= (hRd + hA,
0
)A, (Tw, - TA} (27)
Solving Eq. 25 and 27 for T,., yields:
T,., = (U,/(hRd + lrA,.))(Tv - TA)+ TA (28)
Similarly, solving Eq. 25 and 26 for T,
0
yields:
T.,, => Tv - (U,lhv.,)(Ty - TA) (29)
Using the same approach, now calculate T,,, and T,,,, for
the wet wall, and T,,, for the roof and bottom of the
tank.
To fi nd the correct wall temperatures, use the initial
estimates of U and Ir values in Eq. 28 and 29 (and in the
paraUel equations for the other surfaces) to get new T,.
and T.., values. Table IV shows these temperatures after
a second iteration. Using these new temperatures, re
compute Grashof numbers, individual heat-transfer
coefficients and overall coefficients, and then iterate
again to get a new set of T., and T.,. values. When the
current and previous iteration's temperature estimates
arc the same (within a specified toleranoe), the iteration
is completed.
Table V lists the individual and overall coefficients
after the second iteration. Although it is clear that addi
tional iterations are needed, let us accept these values as
sufficiently aocurate for the present purpose. T hen we
can obtain the total heat-transfer rate (Q) by using the
U values in Eq. 1-5 and summing. Table VI shows the
calculated heat-transfer rates through each boundary,
and the total rate. Note that the roof and bottom of the
tank account for only slight heat loss, despite being
uninsular.ed.
This, of course, is for the unit period of time, when
wind speed is 10 mph, the tank is half full , and the air
35F. Table VI! shows how the results of unit-period
CHEi\l lCAL Z"l. 19&: 131
Rate of heat transfer during unit period Table VI
heat losses can be tabulated and added to get the cumu-
lative heat loss for a month or year. Of course, this re-
quires climatic data and tank-level estimates for the
overall time-period.
Comparison with other methods
Aerstin and Street (1 J offer a very simple method for
calculating heat loss from tanks. For a tank with l.5 in.
of sidewall insulation, and a wind speed of l 0 mph, the
recommended overall U (based on k = 0.019 for the
insulation) is 0. 14 for AT = soF and 0.14 for
AT = 100. F. Adjusting these values fork= 0.028 and
AT= 11F, as in our example, yields an overall U of
0.206 Btu/ ft
2
h-F. The total exposed surface is 3,331 ft
2
(tank bottom not ind uded), and thus the overall rate of
heat transfer by their method is:
Q = 0.206 x 3,331 x 17 = 11,666 Btu/ h
This compares with a beat loss of 8,913 Btu/ h (for
the exposed surface) calculated by the procedure of this
article-see Table VI. Thus their method yields a result
313 too high in this case.
Stuhlbarg [ JO] takes an approach similar to that pro-
P?sed here, but his method differs in how the outside
tank wall film coefficient is computed. Stuhlbarg r'*'m-
mcnds the use of a manufacturer's table, and does
not explicitly distinguish between the bulk liquid tem-
perature and the outside-wall surface temperature 1n
calculating' the proper heat-transfer coefficient. -!
. .
The algebraic method of Hughes and Deumaga (5]
resembles the one presented in rhis anicle in rna
11
,
wa)s. But it does not recognize differences between
L1id ar1d ' ' a por lc1111Jera t ures inside the la11k
1
nor does it
account for the interaction between J Tand "ind
in calcL1 lating a \vi11dcnhat'l<'cr11cnt f nctor. Finally
1
evc:n
tho\lgh their procedure rcqt<ires ireration, the focus of
the iterative efforts is LO get beuer estimates of Auid
properties, not tankwall temperatures.
Conclusions
Our engineer at ABC Chernical was able to negotiat.
a significant reduction in the heating charges proposetj
by the XYZ Terminal Co., which had used a shortcut
method for its estimate, because the procedure pre.
sented here is ra tional and defensible. A rigorous solu.
tion of the itera rions can easi ly be reached on a digital
computer or even a programmable calculator, and the
effort pays off in better design or operar ion criteria. :
' .ffark .diun

l
\
1 . . .\(.rsdn, F., a nd Strl. O .. ":.\pplio::d Chemic:'! Dciign,"'
Nev. York. 19 78. p. l:? l . :
References
'2:. L . "ihemlal Energy john \\
1
iler & Soru. New

19ll p. a !
3. .. The (;(1$1 of pipe i nsul<ltion. Chtrrr.. Ent t'cb. 1-1,
P ll. '
-t. Ede! A. J ..... l\d\-:t.nces in i i cat Tran.sf er," \ ;ol. .. , Acad<:mic Prt:$$. New Yon_:
1961, p. I. 1
$. Mughc:5, R., :i.nd Dcun1aga. V., lnruta1ion sa1-ueocrgy, Chrr11 .. Eng,. Msy
19'4, p. 9$. j
6. Kato, and Hir;it;\, Intl.). ef fl1al a11d .\(aJJ TI41Ufn, Vol. lli
( 1968), p. lll i.
i . Kern. O. Q., ' ' Proed$ Heat l'ran$fer; New York, 1950,
217.
C

6. Per')-. R. H., and Chilton, C. H.," tK-'11lical Eogin(:en' Handbook,"
ed., McCr.., .,.,. Hill, Nev. 'r'ol'lc:, 1973, p. lfl .. 17. j
9. Rohscl\ovo, W. t>.1., and Hanne11, J. P., " H:i.odbook o f f.l e;i.t
New York> 1913, p. '.l-1'20. 1
10. Stuhlb"rg;. D . How to Design Tank Hca li 11g Coils, Ptt Rtjllff, Vol. 39:, Ni>,
( t959), p. 143.
'
The authors l
Jim1ny D. Ku1uana is Chid Pl"()(:c.l j
'nginee,r at Hcr.ni ngson, Durh<l m a !'ld 1
Rich.ardi;on, Inc . P.O. Box 12744, .
Pe1'3acol:a, t' L 325 i5, v.hcre he is
involved in all aspec1s of t itg:'i.necring
design. He t ioldl a B. Tecll. degree Cror.\t
the I ndi a n l nstilUIC or Tecllnology, and j
:i.n M.S. front the Univcn i t)' of 1
Cincinna1i, bo1h in dlemk.al 1
engineering. Mr. Ku1nana is registered
as a professional eng\J)(;t'r in !'Our st.alt$,
and i $ in AIChE a$ C1f
his local sc:ctioo. Me hol<h a patent on 1
di51i llaliol'I or fuelgradc ethanol.. i.
]
Sa1ni r P. Kotha ri was a pl'OCC$$ enginJ
v.ith HenninttliOn, Durham and J
RicharWon, rnc. v.hen this ank le Wti
v.riuen. He rtttnd y j oined Hoffmann
Roche Inc .. Nuilcy, NJ 07110, where
i.i cit.gaged i n designing
plants. Kott-.a.ri holds a B.S. dcgrtt4
fro1n ?lit Sayajir:;io Uni1o-erni1y{lnd i1)
:ind :an froftt t he University of )
C.incinruttl. bot h i:l chemical
enginttring. He to AIChE and
ha.s v.ritten jCveral t:f:nical ar1icle1.
132 CHtM\CAL WOlN&&.RlNC MARCH 2<! , 191}2