How to simulate ethanol-water heat-and-flash (van laar)
The simplest separation there is, on the simplest activity model that still gets a non-ideal pair right: a 40 mol% ethanol-water stream heated to 356 K at 1 atm and flashed adiabatically, on the two-constant Van Laar equation — the oldest of the family, temperature-independent, cheap to fit from a single azeotrope point. What it computes: 55% of the feed vaporizes at 356 K, the vapour at 54 mol% ethanol against 22% left in the liquid, on 2.75 MW of preheat. Ethanol-water is the one pair the package carries regressed constants for; other pairs fall back to UNIFAC.
- 1Open the ready-made model
Open the "Ethanol-water heat-and-flash (Van Laar)" model in the MaximaLabs workspace — no install, no license. It loads live on the canvas, ready to edit and run.
- 2Confirm the thermodynamics
This process is modeled with the VAN-LAAR property package over ethanol, water — already selected, so the phase equilibrium and enthalpy are physically consistent from the first run.
- 3Review the flowsheet
The flowsheet chains HEAT, DRUM. Every block is a real, solvable unit op you can reconfigure on the canvas.
- 4Run 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.
- 5Read 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.
- Thermodynamics
- VAN-LAAR
- Components
- ethanol, water
- Unit operations
- HEATDRUM
Opens live on the canvas — free, no install.
Explore the model & flowsheetFrequently asked questions
- What does the Ethanol-water heat-and-flash (Van Laar) model simulate?
- The simplest separation there is, on the simplest activity model that still gets a non-ideal pair right: a 40 mol% ethanol-water stream heated to 356 K at 1 atm and flashed adiabatically, on the two-constant Van Laar equation — the oldest of the family, temperature-independent, cheap to fit from a single azeotrope point. What it computes: 55% of the feed vaporizes at 356 K, the vapour at 54 mol% ethanol against 22% left in the liquid, on 2.75 MW of preheat. Ethanol-water is the one pair the package carries regressed constants for; other pairs fall back to UNIFAC.
- Which thermodynamic method does it use?
- The VAN-LAAR property package, over ethanol, water — already selected. You can switch the method on the canvas before running.
- Which unit operations are in the flowsheet?
- It chains HEAT, DRUM. 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. Ethanol-water heat-and-flash (Van Laar) 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
Ethanol-water rectifier (UNIQUAC)
The ethanol-water rectifier on UNIQUAC — Abrams and Prausnitz's local-composition model with its surface and volume parameters, here on the one binary the package carries regressed parameters for (every other pair falls back to UNIFAC, which the package description says). 30 mol% feed, 20 stages, reflux 2.5, 40% distillate: 75 mol% ethanol overhead and ethanol-free water in the bottoms at 5.7 MW. The cut is kept at 0.40 on purpose: at 0.32 the spec asked for a 94% distillate past the 89.4% azeotrope and the column reported exactly that, and at 0.36 it pinched a hair short of it (balance 5e-3). Compare with the same column on NRTL and Wilson to see how much three regressed models agree on one well-measured pair — a few tenths of a percent in the distillate.
Beer column: 8% ethanol to 53% (Wilson)
The first column of a distillery on the Wilson equation — the oldest local-composition model, fine for a fully miscible pair like ethanol-water and unable by construction to represent a liquid-liquid split, which is why it is offered for this pair and not as a default. An 8 mol% fermenter beer, 12 stages with the feed near the top (stage 3) as a beer column is run, reflux 1, 15% distillate: 53 mol% ethanol overhead and a stillage bottoms with no ethanol left, 1.37 MW on the reboiler for 100 mol/s of beer. Ethanol-water is the one binary the package carries regressed Wilson parameters for; everything else falls back to UNIFAC.
Flash separation
An isothermal flash drum at 358 K splitting an ethanol–water feed into ethanol-rich vapor and water-rich liquid products.
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).
Pressure-swing ethanol dehydration (Gᴱ mixing rule)
Ethanol–water is the classic azeotrope, and pressure-swing distillation breaks it without an entrainer: the azeotrope moves with pressure, so a low-pressure column and a high-pressure column pass each other's azeotropic distillate and each recovers a pure product. The whole process only works if the property package tracks that shift — which is exactly where a conventional package choice falls between two chairs. This flowsheet runs the high-pressure column at 15 bar on pr-mhv1: Peng-Robinson with an MHV1 excess-Gibbs mixing rule, so the cubic equation of state gets its attraction parameter from NRTL's excess Gibbs energy instead of from a single binary interaction constant. Switch the thermo package (Solver menu) and compare the predicted azeotrope: | package | 1 atm | 15 bar | valid at 15 bar? | |---|---|---|---| | NRTL | 0.891 | 0.802 | no — γ-φ is a low-pressure formulation (~10 bar) | | Peng-Robinson (kij) | 0.586 | 0.613 | yes, but a kij cannot represent this azeotrope | | pr-mhv1 | 0.949 | 0.798 | yes | (mole fraction ethanol; the repo's DECHEMA-validated 1 atm anchor is 0.894.) At 15 bar pr-mhv1 lands within 0.005 of NRTL while remaining a genuine equation of state, whereas plain Peng-Robinson is off by ~0.19 and puts the azeotrope in the wrong place entirely. Selecting nrtl here also trips the applicability guard, which warns that the activity model is past its pressure ceiling and names the fix. The flowsheet demonstrates the mechanism on itself. Drop the column pressure to 1 atm and re-run, changing nothing else: the solve fails with SPEC_THERMODYNAMICALLY_IMPOSSIBLE, because at atmospheric pressure the requested bottoms purity sits beyond the azeotrope and no column can reach it. At 15 bar the same specification converges and the bottoms leaves at x_EtOH ≈ 0.924 — past the atmospheric azeotrope of 0.894, which is precisely the composition an atmospheric column cannot cross.
Phosphoric acid concentration: steam evaporator baseline (29 → 54% P2O5)
The conventional wet-process step, at the scale of one Jorf Lasfar concentration line: 138 t/h of 29% P₂O₅ acid, heated by 3.5 bar LP steam in a graphite exchanger and flashed under vacuum (0.12 bar) to 54% P₂O₅, evaporating 64.0 t/h of water. The steam feed is tuned so the concentrate lands on 54.0 wt% P₂O₅ (the user variable p2o5_wt_product), which takes 71.7 t/h of steam — 1.79 t steam per tonne of P₂O₅, 43.4 MW of condensing duty. That is the single-effect ideal; the published plant benchmark of ~2.8 t/t carries exchanger approach, losses and off-design operation on top. The point of the number here is what it costs the site: at Jorf Lasfar this steam is a co-product of the exothermic sulfuric-acid plants, which is the fact any electric alternative has to beat. Compare the two sibling examples, phosphoric-acid-concentration-microwave and -hybrid. Model scope, stated up front. The acid runs on the brine package, which carries phosphoric acid as a non-volatile molecular solute with its CRC liquid heat capacity (145 J/mol/K) — the streams show the real H₃PO₄/water compositions and the acid's sensible heat is in the balance. What that package does NOT yet carry is the acid's non-ideal water activity: it runs Raoult's law, so the boiling-point elevation is the colligative one, right in sign but about a third of the real value (+9 K at 54% P₂O₅ here; the real acid runs 20-30 K hotter, and 85 wt% acid boils at 158 °C at atmospheric pressure). The Pitzer fit that closes it is published (Bakher & Kaddami 2018, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 35(3) 1153, open access) and named in the package as the parameters to transcribe. No heat of dilution is carried. Both omissions move the acid temperatures, not the water removed nor the energy-carrier comparison, which is what the study turns on. The 320 K feed stands in for a hotter plant feed for the same reason. The acid heated at 1 atm here partly boils in the exchanger (the model's colligative boiling point at 1 atm); the real acid is kept liquid under static head and flashes in the chamber.