Blending header — one model, three solve modes

A solvent blending and distribution header, built to demonstrate the capability AVEVA sells SimCentral on and Aspen splits across separate products: one flowsheet that solves steady-state, pressure-driven, and dynamically — no re-modelling between them. A water-rich supply and an ethanol-rich additive each pass a control valve into a common header, down a trunk line, and split at a tee to two consumers.

1. Steady-state (Solver menu > Steady-state). You specify the flows (100 and 25 mol/s) and each valve's outlet pressure; the solver reports the blend — 22 mol% ethanol — and the pressure profile down the header. This is the design question: what pressures do I need to move this flow?

2. Pressure-driven (Solver menu > Pressure-driven). Now the feeds specify pressure (9 bar) instead of flow, the consumers are pinned at 2 bar, and each valve's cv becomes a resistance law. Flow is a solved unknown, closed by mass balance against every element's resistance. This is the rating question: what flow do I actually get? The valves here are sized for the design duty, so the answer comes back at the same 125 mol/s and the same 6.0 bar header — the two modes agree because they describe one plant. The tee is where it gets interesting: in pressure-driven mode the 60/40 split is not read from split_fractions (that parameter is ignored) — it is solved from the two consumer valves' Cv against the downstream pressures. Halve HCV_UNIT2's cv and the split moves and the total flow drops; do the same in steady-state mode and nothing budges, because there the split is something you asserted rather than something the network decided.

3. Dynamic (Solver menu > Dynamic). Initialized from the steady-state solution, step the additive feed to 98 mol% ethanol and watch the blend move: the header responds first, then each consumer lags it by its own holdup, all settling at 23.6 mol% — the value a hand mass balance gives, ((100x0.05) + (25x0.98))/125.

Honesty notes. The dynamic mode is composition dynamics at fixed hydraulics (a standard simplification — the flows stay at their steady-state values, so this is not a pressure transient); the pressure-driven nodal solver uses a representative composition for pipe density inside a split, exact for the single-fluid case here and screening-level for a genuinely multi-fluid ΔP. Neither is a limitation of the flowsheet — both are documented bounds of the engines, stated so the demo is not read as more than it is.