How to simulate sulfolane extractive distillation of aromatics

Extractive distillation recovering benzene and toluene from a stabilized reformate's C₆-C₇ non-aromatics (represented by methylcyclohexane) using sulfolane, after Figure 10.2/10.6 of T. Brouwer (PhD thesis, TU Twente, 2021). A vacuum solvent-recovery column then splits the aromatics from the sulfolane (reported as its own product rather than recycled). Both columns converge (ED 44 iterations, SR 98, residuals ~1e-5): methylcyclohexane leaves overhead at 91.3 mol%, the aromatics product carries **no** sulfolane at all (0.00000 mole fraction) at 95.2% recovery of the feed's benzene and toluene, and the recovery column returns sulfolane 99.96% pure at 490 K. Both columns were originally mis-specified in the same way, and it is worth seeing once because the symptom looks like a thermodynamic failure rather than an arithmetic one. `distillate_to_feed` is a fraction of a column's TOTAL feed, and both were set above the amount of light key actually present, so each column was forced to drag its heavy key overhead to make up the flow. The ED asked for 0.15 of 140 mol/s = 21 mol/s of overhead when only 17.5 mol/s of non-aromatics exists, so 3.5 mol/s of aromatics had to come over — that was the 19.4% benzene lost to the raffinate. The recovery column asked for 0.42 of its bottoms against roughly a quarter of it being aromatics, so ~20 mol/s of solvent had to come over — that was the 42 mol% sulfolane in the product. Setting each to the light key's real share (0.125 and 0.265) removes both. The property method is the whole story here, and it is why this example ran unconverged for a long time. Extractive distillation exists *because* of solvent selectivity, so a cubic with van der Waals mixing rules — Peng-Robinson as this was originally written — cannot represent the one effect the column depends on; it was being asked to converge on a model that did not contain the physics. A plain activity model cannot be used either: sulfolane boils at 558 K, so a reboiler hot enough to strip it drives benzene past its 562 K critical point, where a gamma-phi formulation has no answer at all. What the system needs is both at once, which is exactly what a Ge mixing rule provides — PSRK is a cubic (no supercritical ceiling) whose mixing is driven by UNIFAC (real selectivity). `pr-mhv1` converges here too, in 47 iterations.

Frequently asked questions

What does the Sulfolane extractive distillation of aromatics model simulate?

Extractive distillation recovering benzene and toluene from a stabilized reformate's C₆-C₇ non-aromatics (represented by methylcyclohexane) using sulfolane, after Figure 10.2/10.6 of T. Brouwer (PhD thesis, TU Twente, 2021). A vacuum solvent-recovery column then splits the aromatics from the sulfolane (reported as its own product rather than recycled). Both columns converge (ED 44 iterations, SR 98, residuals ~1e-5): methylcyclohexane leaves overhead at 91.3 mol%, the aromatics product carries **no** sulfolane at all (0.00000 mole fraction) at 95.2% recovery of the feed's benzene and toluene, and the recovery column returns sulfolane 99.96% pure at 490 K. Both columns were originally mis-specified in the same way, and it is worth seeing once because the symptom looks like a thermodynamic failure rather than an arithmetic one. `distillate_to_feed` is a fraction of a column's TOTAL feed, and both were set above the amount of light key actually present, so each column was forced to drag its heavy key overhead to make up the flow. The ED asked for 0.15 of 140 mol/s = 21 mol/s of overhead when only 17.5 mol/s of non-aromatics exists, so 3.5 mol/s of aromatics had to come over — that was the 19.4% benzene lost to the raffinate. The recovery column asked for 0.42 of its bottoms against roughly a quarter of it being aromatics, so ~20 mol/s of solvent had to come over — that was the 42 mol% sulfolane in the product. Setting each to the light key's real share (0.125 and 0.265) removes both. The property method is the whole story here, and it is why this example ran unconverged for a long time. Extractive distillation exists *because* of solvent selectivity, so a cubic with van der Waals mixing rules — Peng-Robinson as this was originally written — cannot represent the one effect the column depends on; it was being asked to converge on a model that did not contain the physics. A plain activity model cannot be used either: sulfolane boils at 558 K, so a reboiler hot enough to strip it drives benzene past its 562 K critical point, where a gamma-phi formulation has no answer at all. What the system needs is both at once, which is exactly what a Ge mixing rule provides — PSRK is a cubic (no supercritical ceiling) whose mixing is driven by UNIFAC (real selectivity). `pr-mhv1` converges here too, in 47 iterations.

Is "Sulfolane extractive distillation of aromatics" the same as a sulfolane unit?

Yes — this model covers what is also called sulfolane unit, aromatics extractive distillation. It runs the real process on the rigorous solver, so you can size and study it directly.

Which thermodynamic method does it use?

The PSRK property package, over benzene, toluene, methylcyclohexane, sulfolane — already selected. You can switch the method on the canvas before running.

Which unit operations are in the flowsheet?

It chains 2× SR. 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. Sulfolane extractive distillation of aromatics runs entirely in your browser on MaximaLabs — free, no install, no license. Open the model to load it live and run the deterministic solver.