Methanol column sized by design spec — a NRTL process flowsheet
A methanol-water column sized by design specification rather than by trial and error — Aspen's Design Spec / SimCentral's Adjust, and a capability that had no curated example despite being solver-native.
The column is specified the way a shortcut (FUG) column is: light and heavy keys with their recoveries (98% of the methanol overhead, 2% of the water). What is not specified is the reflux ratio. Instead the flowsheet carries a design_specs entry — vary COL.reflux_ratio until the metric shortcut_n_stages equals 14 — and the solver root-finds it, re-solving the whole flowsheet each trial. Open the Design Spec panel to see it, or the solved result: reflux settles at 1.06 for exactly 14.00 stages.
Why that is the interesting question. Reflux and stages trade off against each other, and against energy. Left at the initial 1.6, this separation needs only 10.8 stages but 4.35 MW of reboiler duty; pulled down to 1.06 it needs 14 stages and just 3.49 MW — a 20% energy saving bought with three more trays. A design spec lets you state the column you can afford to build and have the solver tell you how to run it, instead of guessing a reflux ratio and reading off whatever height falls out.
The Sensitivity tab comes preloaded with that trade-off as a sweep (reflux ratio against reboiler duty) so the curve behind the single design-spec answer is one click away.
Modeling assumptions & limitations
- 1This is the Fenske-Underwood-Gilliland shortcut, not a rigorous stage-by-stage solve: shortcut_n_stages is Gilliland's correlation, so the 14 stages is a sizing estimate to take into a rigorous run, exactly as DSTWU feeds RadFrac. A design spec is an outer root-find over the whole flowsheet and runs in sequential / tear-EO modes only.
262 views 1 forks
- Rigorous NRTL thermodynamics, solved by the same engine every simulation runs on.
- 1 unit operations modeled: COL.
- Focus areas: Design spec, Shortcut column, FUG, Reflux vs stages.
- Thermodynamics
- NRTL
- Components
- methanol, water
- Unit operations
- COL
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("methanol-column-design-spec")
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
Acetone recovery — batch still vs. continuous column
A spent-solvent stream (60 mol% acetone, 40% water) recovered two ways, so the Analysis panel's Batch distillation (Rayleigh) tool has something to be compared against — it had no curated example, and a batch calculation only means anything next to the continuous alternative. The flowsheet is the continuous answer: a shortcut column recovering 98% of the acetone overhead and rejecting 98% of the water, giving 59.8 mol/s of distillate at high purity for 4.4 MW of reboiler duty. The batch answer (Analysis > Batch distillation). Charge 100 mol of the same mixture to a still and boil it down until the pot falls to 10 mol% acetone: you distil 67.4 mol and the average distillate is only 84.2 mol% acetone. That is the Rayleigh result and it is the whole lesson — a simple batch still has one theoretical stage, so the vapour it makes is enriched but never pure, and the composition drifts the entire time. Reaching column-grade purity in a batch needs reflux and cuts (a batch rectifier), or a second pass. Why the comparison is the point. Batch equipment is cheap, flexible, and right for small or campaign volumes; the column is right when the duty is continuous and purity matters. Having both numbers on the same feed is what makes that a decision rather than a preference.
Shortcut column sizing (Fenske-Underwood-Gilliland)
Before anyone builds a rigorous column they size it in about a second, and this is that step — Aspen's DSTWU, the calculation every distillation design starts from. State the two keys and how well you want them separated, and the shortcut answers the four questions that set the capital cost. For a depropaniser feed (30% propane, 40% n-butane, 30% n-pentane) at 10 bar recovering 98% of the propane overhead and 98% of the n-butane in the bottoms: Fenske gives 8.34 minimum stages — the count at total reflux, where you spend infinite energy to buy the fewest trays. Underwood gives a minimum reflux of 1.54 — the reflux at infinite stages, the opposite corner. Neither is buildable; the real column lives between them, and Gilliland interpolates: at 1.3x the minimum reflux you need 17.7 theoretical stages, with Kirkbride putting the feed on stage 7.85. That is a little over twice the minimum stage count for 1.3 times the minimum reflux, which is the trade every column is designed on. The energy follows: 1.67 MW reboiler against a 1.35 MW condenser. Bounded, and this is the important part. These are screening numbers, not a design. The shortcut assumes constant relative volatility and constant molal overflow — it cannot see a pinch, a tangent, an azeotrope, or a temperature profile. Its job is to give a rigorous MESH column a starting point that converges, not to replace it. Run the distillation unit op on 18 stages with a feed at 8 to check it.
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 73.6 t/h of steam — 1.84 t steam per tonne of P₂O₅, 44.5 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 — and a water activity fitted to measured data: binary boiling points (Li 2017, NIST TRC ThermoML Archive) and 20 °C vapour pressures up to 85 wt% (Kirk-Othmer), with a held-out error of 2% in water activity. The boiling-point elevation is therefore the fitted one, 23.5 K at 54% P₂O₅ and 0.12 bar (the ideal, Raoult's-law activity this replaced gave 9 K). Checked against a boiling point the fit never saw, it puts 85 wt% acid at 164 °C at atmospheric pressure against a measured 158 °C. Above 18 mol% acid the temperature dependence rests on one coefficient and that single check, so read the concentrate temperature to within a few kelvin. No heat of dilution is carried (about 1.5% of the latent duty at 54% P₂O₅). The 320 K feed stands in for a hotter plant feed. The acid heated at 1 atm here partly boils in the exchanger (the model's fitted boiling point at 1 atm); the real acid is kept liquid under static head and flashes in the chamber.
Phosphoric acid concentration: microwave heating (29 → 54% P2O5)
The same duty with the steam exchanger replaced by volumetric microwave heating: 44.5 MW absorbed in the acid, then the same vacuum flash to 54.0 wt% P₂O₅ and the same 64.0 t/h of water removed — the microwave does not remove water, it supplies the latent heat. At a 65% wall-plug magnetron efficiency (915 MHz industrial units reach ~85%) that is 68.5 MW of electricity, 1,710 kWh per tonne of P₂O₅ (1,310 at 85%). The comparison that decides it is the energy carrier, not the heating mechanism: at Jorf Lasfar the baseline's 1.84 t/t of steam is a co-product of the sulfuric-acid plants, and the site turns that steam into electricity at roughly 30%. Sending it through a turbine, a magnetron and back into the acid delivers about a fifth of the heat the exchanger delivers directly (0.30 × 0.65 ≈ 0.2), so on this site the microwave route needs roughly five times the primary steam energy of the baseline. Where microwaves do earn their place is not here but at the superphosphoric end (>70% P₂O₅, viscous, fouling, where the recent literature targets them), and an electric route for the 29-54 step should be compared against mechanical vapour recompression, which reuses the latent heat at a coefficient of performance of 10-30. Sweep the absorbed duty to see the product concentration and the electricity follow it. 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 — and a water activity fitted to measured data: binary boiling points (Li 2017, NIST TRC ThermoML Archive) and 20 °C vapour pressures up to 85 wt% (Kirk-Othmer), with a held-out error of 2% in water activity. The boiling-point elevation is therefore the fitted one, 23.5 K at 54% P₂O₅ and 0.12 bar (the ideal, Raoult's-law activity this replaced gave 9 K). Checked against a boiling point the fit never saw, it puts 85 wt% acid at 164 °C at atmospheric pressure against a measured 158 °C. Above 18 mol% acid the temperature dependence rests on one coefficient and that single check, so read the concentrate temperature to within a few kelvin. No heat of dilution is carried (about 1.5% of the latent duty at 54% P₂O₅). The 320 K feed stands in for a hotter plant feed. Microwave penetration depth (about a centimetre in a conductive acid at 2.45 GHz) and the HF attack on quartz windows are equipment questions this model does not carry.