Issues with shortcuts in ASPEN and PRO2.
Thread Content
Those who have used PRO2 should be aware that its shortcut feature is a very useful tool; it helps to provide preliminary estimates of information related to the tower, including the number of theoretical plates, the reflux ratio, and the feed position. This provides significant reference for future rigorous calculations. Now I use ASPEN, which also has a shortcut module, but it seems to be quite different from PRO2. It must enter the number of theoretical plates, the reflux ratio, and other related information; the approach is basically similar to the strict algorithm, and in that case the advantage of using a shortcut is lost. There are experts on ASPEN; please give some advice. Thank you.
Why isn’t anyone answering me? Where have the experts gone?
Based on my understanding of these two software programs, none of the options and settings are unnecessary; each one has its own advantages. It’s not advisable to focus only on the disadvantages, as those advantages often become apparent once you start using the program. “It must enter the number of theoretical plates and the reflux ratio. From what I remember, the simplified calculation method does not require entering these values in that way (my system now has Aspen installed, so it can no longer be used); you might have gotten it mixed up. As far as I recall, the input requirements are similar to those in Pro11. The Aspen Simplex algorithm is more intuitive for performing result analysis; for example, after the calculations are completed, it is possible to directly view graphs showing the number of plates and the reflux ratio in order to determine the optimal reflux ratio. In contrast, Pro11 only provides a few operating conditions in its final results, based on the reflux ratio you specify and the minimum reflux ratio range. The scope is relatively small and not intuitive; to achieve analysis results similar to those from Aspen, it is necessary to use condition analysis for plotting, which is quite troublesome. The example I gave is just a small one. This post was last edited by LTY on 2007-12-7 13:47 ]
It’s still not clear just how big the \"significant difference\" between the PRO_II and ASPEN you mentioned really is. If we talk about their differences, I think it mainly lies in the approach they take to solving problems. There are only a few conditions that need to be specified for calculating distillation columns. PRO_II and ASPEN require the user to define different conditions, but the underlying calculation methods are the same, so their results cannot differ significantly.
“And pro11 simply uses the reflux ratio you provide along with the range of minimum reflux ratios. Thank you for your reply, but I think what was said above is not quite correct. In PRO2’s shortcut module, it is not necessary to specify the reflux ratio and the number of trays; it can automatically determine a recommended number of theoretical trays and reflux ratio based on your separation requirements.
Thank you to the moderator for placing the post in the correct location; I will be more careful next time.
Is there anyone from ASPEN here? Could you give a brief introduction to the simplified algorithm in ASPEN Plus? Thank you.
Aspen divides the calculations using the simplified method into design and verification types, that is, by entering the theoretical plate number and the reflux ratio separately. In fact, Aspen still calculates the minimum theoretical number of plates and the minimum reflux ratio. Then, based on the number of plates you entered, calculate the reflux ratio under those conditions; once you examine the results, you will understand.