Acetic acid via methanol carbonylation (Cativa process) — a PENG-ROBINSON process flowsheet
Methanol carbonylated with CO to acetic acid over the iridium-based Cativa catalyst (BP Chemicals), which runs at higher selectivity and lower water content than the older Monsanto rhodium process. The homogeneous catalyst itself isn't a flowing component in this model — only the carbonylation stoichiometry and downstream light-ends recovery are represented. Unreacted CO is flashed off and a column strips residual methanol from the acetic acid product.
171 views 0 forks
- Rigorous PENG-ROBINSON thermodynamics, solved by the same engine every simulation runs on.
- 4 unit operations modeled: MIX, RX, Flash, COL.
- Focus areas: Carbonylation, Acetic acid, Cativa, Homogeneous catalysis.
- Thermodynamics
- PENG-ROBINSON
- Components
- methanol, carbon_monoxide, acetic_acid
- Unit operations
- MIXRXFlashCOL
Opens in a new tab, loaded straight into the app — no setup.
Read the step-by-step guideReproduce this exact result from Python — the real client.get_example() → run_and_wait() path, not a mockup.
from flowsim.sdk import FlowSimClient
client = FlowSimClient()
example = client.get_example("acetic-acid-cativa-process")
sim = client.create_simulation(example["title"], example["flowsheet"])
result = client.run_and_wait(sim["id"])
print(result["status"]) # "converged"
streams = client.streams(sim["id"])Related models
Dilute acetic acid recovery by extractive distillation
Recovering acetic acid from a dilute aqueous stream (e.g. cellulose acetate or terephthalic acid plant wastewater) using diisobutyl ketone (DIBK) as an extractive entrainer. Because acetic acid and water form no azeotrope but have a relative volatility that flattens toward 1 as the mixture concentrates, straight distillation needs an impractically tall column and heavy reboil duty; the entrainer raises water's relative volatility so the extractive column takes water overhead in far fewer stages, and a second column then strips the entrainer from the acid bottoms for recycle.
Acetic acid recovery — NRTL with vapor-phase dimerization
Concentrating dilute aqueous acetic acid (30 mol%) to a 99.8% acetic-acid bottoms product by distillation, modeled with the NRTL activity package and chemical-theory vapor-phase association (acetic acid dimerizes, 2 A → A2, in the vapor). This is the physics a cubic equation of state gets wrong: the pinned NRTL acetic-acid/water binary (DECHEMA) plus the cited dimerization constants (Nagy et al., Molecules 2020) give the real bubble curve and latent heat, so the close-boiling acid/water pair actually separates and converges where Peng-Robinson does not.
Oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane to ethylene + acetic acid (EDHOX concept)
Linde's EDHOX technology co-produces ethylene AND acetic acid from ethane and oxygen in one catalytic step (a proprietary mixed-metal catalyst in a multi-tubular salt-cooled reactor), with combined ethylene+acetic-acid selectivity published above 93% and the CO₂ by-product of over-oxidation recovered pure (no nitrogen dilution, since the oxidant is pure O₂, not air). Modeled here as three chained fixed-conversion reactors on real, exactly mass-balanced reactions: the main dehydrogenation (C₂H₆ + 0.5 O₂ → C₂H₄ + H₂O), the acetic-acid co-production path (C₂H₆ + 1.5 O₂ → CH₃COOH + H₂O), and a minor full-oxidation loss path (C₂H₆ + 3.5 O₂ → 2 CO₂ + 3 H₂O) accounting for the un-selective balance — the same 'illustrative, not fitted' posture as the naphtha cracker's furnace, since Linde's catalyst kinetics are proprietary and not published. The per-reaction conversions here are tuned to reproduce the one real published number (>93% combined selectivity: this flowsheet computes ~96%), not an assumed per-pass ethane conversion, which Linde doesn't publish.
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.
Industrial water reuse: RO + membrane distillation to near-ZLD
A chemical-site water-reuse train of the kind large industrial water users build when the intake is salinising and freshwater is getting scarce: reverse osmosis makes reuse-grade water, the RO concentrate is warmed by low-grade waste heat and pushed further by membrane distillation, and the MD concentrate is crystallised to salt. Overall water recovery comes out at 94.9%. The point of the flowsheet is why MD is there at all. RO is pressure-driven, so its ceiling is osmotic pressure — and this feed hits that wall hard: at 25 bar the same 75% recovery is infeasible, and the model says so with a number rather than a shrug (osmotic pressure 27.2 bar against a 25 bar feed, a structured SPEC_THERMODYNAMICALLY_IMPOSSIBLE error, which is why the feed here runs at 45 bar). Membrane distillation is driven by a vapour-pressure difference instead, so only vapour crosses and there is no osmotic ceiling at all: it takes the RO concentrate from 2.0 mol% to 9.7 mol% salt, recovering 81% of the water RO had to leave behind, and its distillate is solvent-only. The waste-heat coupling is not decoration. At the RO concentrate's own 25 C the MD flux is about 1 kg/m2/h and the module is pointless; warmed to 60 C it runs at 21.5 kg/m2/h, inside the 10-50 kg/m2/h band real DCMD modules achieve. That is the entire commercial case for MD — it is a heat-driven process, so it is only cheap where low-grade heat is already being vented.