MaximaLabs
All guides
Reference model

How to simulate batch campaign: a batch step inside a continuous flowsheet

Fine chemicals and pharma run batches, but a flowsheet is written in mol/s. These two unit ops reconcile that: they integrate the real batch physics over the batch, then report the products as the RATE that campaign delivers, so a batch step sits inside a continuous flowsheet the way a plant actually runs one. The **batch reactor** esterifies ethanol with acetic acid to ethyl acetate and water. It reaches **63.2% conversion** and stops, and that number is not a specification — it is the equilibrium. The reaction is reversible with an equilibrium constant of 4 (the forward and reverse pre-exponentials are given as 5.0e4 and 1.25e4), and solving `K = x(0.10+x)/(0.45-x)^2 = 4` for an equimolar charge carrying 10% water gives an extent of 0.285, which is 63.3% of the acid. Fischer esterification really does plateau there; a model that ran to completion would be describing a different reaction. **Turnaround time costs throughput exactly as reaction time does.** Two hours of reaction plus one hour of turnaround is a **3-hour cycle** and **2922 batches a year**, and the reactor is only reacting for **67%** of the time it is occupied. That fraction is the number that decides whether you need a second reactor, and it is invisible to a steady-state model. The **batch still** then takes the crude and recovers the ethyl acetate — the distillate comes off essentially pure, from a pot that started at 28.5 mol% ester — on its own longer 4-hour cycle, so the two units run at genuinely different campaign rates. **Bounded:** the flowsheet sees each unit's CYCLE AVERAGE, not the transient. A real plant has a surge tank between these two smoothing the pulses, and neither the concentration profile during the batch nor the still's changing overhead composition is visible downstream.

Charge
RX
Still
Product
Residue
  1. 1
    Open the ready-made model

    Open the "Batch campaign: a batch step inside a continuous flowsheet" model in the MaximaLabs workspace — no install, no license. It loads live on the canvas, ready to edit and run.

  2. 2
    Confirm the thermodynamics

    This process is modeled with the NRTL property package over ethanol, acetic_acid, ethyl_acetate, water — already selected, so the phase equilibrium and enthalpy are physically consistent from the first run.

  3. 3
    Review the flowsheet

    The flowsheet chains RX, Still. Every block is a real, solvable unit op you can reconfigure on the canvas.

  4. 4
    Run the simulation

    Click Run. The deterministic solver converges the material and energy balances (recycles included) and fills the live stream table — the AI never invents a number.

  5. 5
    Read the results and iterate

    Inspect the converged streams, tweak a spec, and re-run — or ask the AI copilot to explain a result or diagnose a failed solve in plain English.

What you'll build
Thermodynamics
NRTL
Components
ethanol, acetic_acid, ethyl_acetate, water
Unit operations
RXStill
Open this model in the workspace

Opens live on the canvas — free, no install.

Explore the model & flowsheet

Frequently asked questions

What does the Batch campaign: a batch step inside a continuous flowsheet model simulate?
Fine chemicals and pharma run batches, but a flowsheet is written in mol/s. These two unit ops reconcile that: they integrate the real batch physics over the batch, then report the products as the RATE that campaign delivers, so a batch step sits inside a continuous flowsheet the way a plant actually runs one. The **batch reactor** esterifies ethanol with acetic acid to ethyl acetate and water. It reaches **63.2% conversion** and stops, and that number is not a specification — it is the equilibrium. The reaction is reversible with an equilibrium constant of 4 (the forward and reverse pre-exponentials are given as 5.0e4 and 1.25e4), and solving `K = x(0.10+x)/(0.45-x)^2 = 4` for an equimolar charge carrying 10% water gives an extent of 0.285, which is 63.3% of the acid. Fischer esterification really does plateau there; a model that ran to completion would be describing a different reaction. **Turnaround time costs throughput exactly as reaction time does.** Two hours of reaction plus one hour of turnaround is a **3-hour cycle** and **2922 batches a year**, and the reactor is only reacting for **67%** of the time it is occupied. That fraction is the number that decides whether you need a second reactor, and it is invisible to a steady-state model. The **batch still** then takes the crude and recovers the ethyl acetate — the distillate comes off essentially pure, from a pot that started at 28.5 mol% ester — on its own longer 4-hour cycle, so the two units run at genuinely different campaign rates. **Bounded:** the flowsheet sees each unit's CYCLE AVERAGE, not the transient. A real plant has a surge tank between these two smoothing the pulses, and neither the concentration profile during the batch nor the still's changing overhead composition is visible downstream.
Which thermodynamic method does it use?
The NRTL property package, over ethanol, acetic_acid, ethyl_acetate, water — already selected. You can switch the method on the canvas before running.
Which unit operations are in the flowsheet?
It chains RX, Still. Every block is a real, solvable unit operation you can reconfigure, add to, or remove.
Do I need to install software or buy a license?
No. Batch campaign: a batch step inside a continuous flowsheet runs entirely in your browser on MaximaLabs — free, no install, no license. Open the model to load it live and run the deterministic solver.

More guides like this

Reference model (Luyben & Yu 2006)

Methyl acetate esterification via reactive distillation

Acetic acid and methanol esterify over the reactive stages of a column into methyl acetate and water — a genuine quadruple-azeotrope system where reactive distillation intensifies what would otherwise need several conventional columns. Reactive Distillation Design and Control, Luyben & Yu, Wiley (2006), pp. 147-164.

Contact process (H2SO4 plant)

Sulfuric acid: catalytic SO2 oxidation (contact process)

The heart of a sulfuric-acid plant: roaster/burner gas (SO₂ in excess air) is oxidized to SO₃ over a vanadium-pentoxide catalyst bed, then the SO₃ is absorbed to make acid. The converter is a Gibbs-minimization reactor (Aspen RGibbs equivalent) that finds the SO₂ ⇌ SO₃ equilibrium from first-principles formation energies — no assumed conversion — so it captures the real design tension of the contact process: the reaction SO₂ + ½O2 → SO₃ is exothermic, so a lower bed temperature drives the equilibrium toward SO₃ (higher conversion) while a higher temperature is needed for catalyst activity. At 700 K this converts ~99% of the SO₂; raise the sensitivity temperature and watch the equilibrium conversion fall — the reason real plants use multiple catalyst beds with interstage cooling. The SO₃-rich gas then goes to an absorption tower (modeled as SO₃ capture into the acid product, leaving a spent tail gas of N₂ + excess O₂). Formation-energy source: CRC Handbook / NIST-JANAF (ΔHf°/ΔGf° for SO₂ and SO₃).

Reference model (CN104628563A)

Patent benchmark: methyl lactate synthesis (CN104628563A)

Real patent replication, not an invented process: CN104628563A's acid-catalyzed lactate-ester route — lactic acid esterified with excess methanol, then purified by vacuum distillation — reproduced here as a continuous flowsheet. The patent's own worked methyl-lactate example reports 98.8% esterification conversion and 99.6% product purity at 120 degC/3h. This flowsheet's reactor conversion is set directly to the patent's reported 98.8% (not fitted); the vacuum column (0.2 atm, matching the patent's vacuum-distillation purification step) then splits the methanol and reaction water off the ester completely — zero methyl lactate leaves overhead — and delivers 97.8 mol% methyl lactate in the bottoms at 389.9 K. The property method is the whole story here, exactly as it was on the sulfolane extractive column. Written on Peng-Robinson, this example did not converge at all: every pair in a methanol / water / lactic-acid / methyl-lactate mixture is hydrogen-bonding, which van der Waals mixing cannot represent, and the column returned a partial profile carrying 2.60 mol/s of methyl lactate out of a column fed 1.98 — 32% more product than the reactor made, a 0.26 component-balance residual. (That wrong profile is where this example's previously-published 98.75% purity was read from; the number was retracted at the test level and is now corrected here.) A plain activity model cannot be used either, for a data reason rather than a physics one: neither lactic acid nor methyl lactate carries a regressed ideal-gas-Cp correlation, and the gamma-phi enthalpy path raises on that where a cubic quietly falls back to a corresponding-states estimate. PSRK is a cubic whose mixing is driven by UNIFAC, so it has both — and it converges to a 2.7e-06 component-balance residual, with methyl lactate and lactic acid each leaving in exactly the amount the reactor made.

Blue-H2 / CCS plant, Teesside, United Kingdom

Blue hydrogen: SMR + water-gas-shift + CO2 capture

A low-carbon (blue) hydrogen train: steam-methane reforming converts natural gas + steam to syngas (CH₄ + H₂O <=> CO + 3H2) at 1123 K, a water-gas-shift reactor converts the CO with more steam to extra H₂ + CO₂ (CO + H₂O <=> CO₂ + H₂), the gas is cooled, the process water knocked out, and 96% of the CO₂ is captured as a pure stream for sequestration/EOR (the CCS that makes the hydrogen 'blue'). Both reactors are solved to real chemical equilibrium (partial-pressure basis) rather than a fixed conversion.

Light naphtha isomerization unit, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA

C5/C6 isomerization: why the colder catalyst wins

The light end of a gasoline pool. Straight-chain C₅/C₆ paraffins have poor octane, their branched isomers have good octane, and the reaction between them is a simple reversible exothermic rearrangement. Which means the equilibrium gets worse as the reactor gets hotter — and that single fact, not activity, is the technology choice in this unit. Run the built-in temperature sweep: this light straight-run naphtha reaches 74.9% iso-C₅ and 67.2% iso-C₆ at 400 K (the chlorided-alumina window) and only 65.3% and 57.6% at 530 K (the zeolitic window). A chlorided-alumina catalyst does not beat a zeolite by being more active; it beats it by approaching a better equilibrium. That is also why the two are not interchangeable in a revamp — a zeolitic unit cannot be pushed to alumina octane by running harder, only by running colder than its catalyst allows. Two things the flowsheet shows directly: moles are conserved exactly (one molecule in, one molecule out — 100.00000 mol/s out for 100 in, the module's own gate), and the benzene and cyclohexane in the feed pass through untouched at 4.00% and 6.00%, because a component named in no pair is not something this block pretends to convert. Only two pairs are written (n-pentane/isopentane and n-hexane/2-methylpentane) and that is deliberate: pairs are applied in sequence over a shared mole pool, so two pairs sharing one normal would let the second redistribute what the first already converted. A real C₆ network (n-hexane / 2-MP / 3-MP / 2,2-DMB / 2,3-DMB, each with its own equilibrium) is a coupled problem this block does not solve — see the.

MEG/EG complex, Jubail, Saudi Arabia

Ethylene glycol plant: closed water loop + multi-effect evaporator dehydration

The water-integrated evolution of the fiber-grade MEG plant. Two changes turn the once-through EO/glycol chain into a real, water-economical process: (1) the recovered process water is RECYCLED back to the hydration reactors through a purge splitter. A pure recycle is inventory-singular (reactors are keyed on the shrinking EO pool, so water consumption is fixed regardless of how much water circulates), so an 8% purge pins the loop and makes it well-posed, cutting fresh water makeup from 10 to ~1.75 mol/s (a >80% reduction). (2) The bulk dehydration is done by a genuine TWO-EFFECT EVAPORATOR TRAIN (forward-feed, real steam economy: effect 1's low-temperature vapor is the heating steam for effect 2) doing rigorous (P,H)-flash water removal, rather than a single spec-based split. The recycle converges through the solver's Wegstein tearing (~15 outer passes) and MEG still comes out fiber-grade (>=99.9%). HONEST SCOPE: the reaction chemistry is rigorous stoichiometry (real atom balances, ~90/9/1 selectivity) and the evaporators are real energy-balanced flash effects — but flash evaporation CANNOT reach glycol dryness without slipping glycol into the overhead vapor (MEG has a real vapor pressure at 90 C), so the evaporators run cool and only pre-concentrate. An overhead knockout returns the ~1-2% slipped glycol to the product (no yield loss), and a final vacuum-refining polish (still a spec-based split, representing the refluxed dehydration column a flash cannot replicate) removes the last water. This mirrors a real MEG plant's multi-effect-evaporator + vacuum-refining dehydration section. The product columns remain spec-based (a converged 99.9% fiber-grade MEG column is not tractable under Peng-Robinson here — the MEG/DEG relative volatility is too narrow for the wide-boiling MESH path).

Stop fighting legacy software. Build your first flowsheet in 60 seconds.