DWSIM - Process Simulation, Modeling and Optimization Technical Manual
DWSIM - Process Simulation, Modeling and Optimization Technical Manual
DWSIM - Process Simulation, Modeling and Optimization Technical Manual
Technical Manual
Contact Information
DWSIM - Process Simulation, Modeling and Optimization
E-mail: ❞❛♥✐❡❧✇❛❣❅❣♠❛✐❧✳❝♦♠
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 Thermodynamic Properties 3
2.1 Phase Equilibria Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1 Fugacity Coefficient calculation models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2 Chao-Seader and Grayson-Streed models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3 Calculation models for the liquid phase activity coefficient . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Enthalpy, Entropy and Heat Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Transport Properties 14
3.1 Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Surface Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4 Thermal Properties 18
4.1 Thermal Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5 Reactions 20
5.1 Conversion Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 Equilibrium Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.1 Solution method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3 Kinetic Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7 Other Properties 27
7.1 True Critical Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2 Natural Gas Hydrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2.1 Modified van der Waals and Platteeuw (Parrish and Prausnitz) method . 28
7.2.2 Klauda and Sandler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2.3 Chen and Guo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.3 Petroleum Cold Flow Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.3.1 Refraction Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.3.2 Flash Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.3.3 Pour Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.3.4 Freezing Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Contents Contents
References 33
1 Introduction
The thermodynamic calculations are the basis of simulation in DWSIM. It is important that
a process simulator provides to its users several options for calculations in accordance with their
needs, their modeled systems, which can range from water to other, more elaborated cases, such
as simulations of processes in the petroleum industry, or in a chemical industry.
Regarding phase equilibria, DWSIM, on its current version (1.7), is able to model the vapor-
liquid equilibrium (VLE) and hydrocarbon/water systems which exhibit VLLE behavior, consid-
ering that water and hydrocarbon liquid phases are immiscible.
The following sections describe the calculation methods used in DWSIM for the physical and
chemical description of the elements of a simulation.
2 Thermodynamic Properties
2.1 Phase Equilibria Calculation
In a mixture which find itself in a vapor-liquid equilibria state (VLE), the component fugacities
are the same in all phases, that is [1]:
f iL = f iV (2.1)
f iV
φi = , (2.2)
yi P
which can be calculated from PVT data, commonly obtained from an equation of state. For a
mixture of ideal gases, φi = 1.
The fugacity of the i component in the liquid phase is related to the composition of that phase
by the activity coefficient γi , which by itself is related to xi and standard-state fugacity f i0 by
f iL
γi = . (2.3)
xi f i0
The standard state fugacity f i0 is the fugacity of the i component in the system temperature,
i.e. mixture, and in an arbitrary pressure and composition. in DWSIM, the standard-state
fugacity of each component is considered to be equal to pure liquid i at the system temperature
and pressure.
If an Equation of State is used to calculate equilibria, fugacity of the i component in the liquid
phase is calculated by
f iL
φi = , (2.4)
xi P
with the fugacity coefficient φi calculated by the EOS, just like it is for the same component in
the vapor phase.
The fugacity coefficient of the i component either in the liquid or in the vapor phase is obtained
from the same Equation of State through the following expressions
✂∞ " #
∂P RT
RT ln φiL = − dV − RT ln Z L , (2.5)
∂ni T,V,n j V
VL
✂∞ " #
∂P RT
RT ln φiV = − dV − RT ln ZV , (2.6)
∂ni T,V,n j V
VV
PV L
ZL = (2.7)
RT
PV V
ZV = (2.8)
RT
RT a( T )
P= − (2.9)
(V − b ) V (V + b ) + b (V − b )
where
P pressure
v molar volume
(1/2)
a( T ) = [1 + (0, 37464 + 1, 54226ω − 0, 26992ω 2 )(1 − Tr )]2 0, 45724( R2 Tc2 )/Pc (2.10)
where
ω acentric factor
Tc critical temperature
Pc critical pressure
For mixtures, equation 2.9 can be used, replacing a and b by mixture-representative values. a
and b mixture values are normally given by the basic mixing rule,
q
am = ∑ ∑ xi x j ( ai a j )(1 − k ij ) (2.12)
i j
bm = ∑ x i bi (2.13)
i
where
where Z in the phase compressibility factor (liquid or vapor) and can be obtained from the
equation 2.9,
bm P
B= (2.17)
RT
PV
Z= (2.18)
RT
RT a( T )
P= − , (2.19)
(V − b ) V (V + b )
The a and b parameters are given by:
(1/2)
a( T ) = [1 + (0, 48 + 1, 574ω − 0, 176ω 2 )(1 − Tr )]2 0, 42747( R2 Tc2 )/Pc (2.20)
The equations 2.12 and 2.13 are used to calculate mixture parameters. Fugacity is calculated
by
fi b A ∑k xk aki b Z+B
ln = i ( Z − 1) − ln ( Z − B) − − i ln (2.22)
xi P bm B am bm Z
The phase compressibility factor Z is obtained from the equation 2.19,
Z3 − Z2 + ( A − B − B2 ) Z − AB = 0, (2.23)
am P
A= (2.24)
R2 T 2
bm P
B= (2.25)
RT
PV
Z= (2.26)
RT
The equations 2.15 and 2.23, in low temperature and pressure conditions, can provide three
roots for Z. In this case, if liquid properties are being calculated, the smallest root is used. If
the phase is vapor, the largest root is used. The remaining root has no physical meaning; at
high temperatures and pressures (conditions above the pseudocritical point), the equations 2.15
and 2.23 provides only one real root.
Peng-Robinson with Volume Translation Volume translation solves the main problem with
two-constant EOS’s, poor liquid volumetric predictions. A simple correction term is applied to
the EOS-calculated molar volume,
v = v EOS − c, (2.27)
v L = v EOS
L − ∑ xi ci (2.28)
Volume translation can be applied to any two-constant cubic equation, thereby eliminating
the volumetric defficiency suffered by all two-constant equations [4].
Chao-Seader ([5]) and Grayson-Streed ([6]) are older, semi-empirical models. The Grayson-
Streed correlation is an extension of the Chao-Seader method with special applicability to hy-
drogen. In DWSIM, only the equilibrium values produced by these correlations are used in the
calculations. The Lee-Kesler method is used to determine the enthalpy and entropy of liquid and
vapor phases.
Chao Seader Use this method for heavy hydrocarbons, where the pressure is less than 10 342
kPa (1 500 psia) and the temperature is between the range -17.78 žC and 260 žC.
Grayson Streed Recommended for simulating heavy hydrocarbon systems with a high hydro-
gen content.
The activity coefficient (γ) is a factor used in thermodynamics to account for deviations from
ideal behaviour in a mixture of chemical substances. In an ideal mixture, the interactions between
each pair of chemical species are the same (or more formally, the enthalpy of mixing is zero) and,
as a result, properties of the mixtures can be expressed directly in terms of simple concentrations
or partial pressures of the substances present. Deviations from ideality are accommodated by
modifying the concentration by an activity coefficient. . The activity coefficient is defined as
∂(nG E /RT )
γi = [ ] P,T,n j6=i (2.29)
∂ni
where G E represents the excess Gibbs energy of the liquid solution, which is a measure of how
far the solution is from ideal behavior. For an ideal solution, γi = 1. Expressions for G E /RT
provide values for the activity coefficients.
UNIQUAC and UNIFAC models The UNIQUAC equation considers g ≡ G E /RT formed by
two additive parts, one combinatorial term gC to take into account the size of the molecules,
and one residual term g R , which take into account the interactions between molecules:
g ≡ gC + g R (2.30)
The gC function contains only pure species parameters, while the g R function incorporates
two binary parameters for each pair of molecules. For a multicomponent system,
and
g R = − ∑ qi xi ln(∑ θ j τj i ) (2.32)
i j
where
φi ≡ ( xi ri )/(∑ x j r j ) (2.33)
j
and
θi ≡ ( xi qi ) / ( ∑ x j q j ) (2.34)
j
The i subscript indicates the species, and j is an index that represents all the species, i included.
All sums are over all the species. Note that τij 6= τji . When i = j, τii = τjj = 1. In these
equations, ri (a relative molecular volume) and qi (a relative molecular surface area) are pure
species parameters. The influence of temperature in g enters by means of the τij parameters,
which are temperature-dependent:
where
Ji = ri /(∑ r j x j ) (2.40)
j
L = qi / ( ∑ q j x j ) (2.41)
j
si = ∑ θl τli (2.42)
l
Again the i subscript identify the species, j and l are indexes which represent all the species,
including i. all sums are over all the species, and τij = 1 for i = j. The parameters values
(uij − u jj ) are found by regression of binary VLE data.
The UNIFAC method for the estimation of activity coefficients depends on the concept of that
a liquid mixture can be considered a solution of its own molecules. These structural units are
called subgroups. The greatest advantage of this method is that a relatively small number of
subgroups can be combined to form a very large number of molecules.
The activity coefficients do not only depend on the subgroup properties, but also on the
interactions between these groups. Similar subgroups are related to a main group, like “CH2”,
“OH”, “ACH” etc.; the identification of the main groups are only descriptive. All the subgroups
that belongs to the same main group are considered identical with respect to the interaction
between groups. Consequently, the parameters which characterize the interactions between the
groups are identified by pairs of the main groups.
The UNIFAC method is based on the UNIQUAC equation, where the activity coefficients are
given by the equation 2.36. When applied to a solution of groups, the equations 2.38 and 2.39
are written in the form:
The parameters Ji e Li are still given by eqs. 2.54 and ??. Furthermore, the following
definitions apply:
(i )
ri = ∑ νk Rk (2.45)
k
(i )
qi = ∑ νk Qk (2.46)
k
(i )
eki = (νk Qk )/qi (2.47)
sk = ∑ θm τmk (2.50)
m
si = ∑ θl τli (2.51)
l
The i subscript identify the species, and j is an index that goes through all the species. The k
subscript identify the subgroups, and m is an index that goes through all the subgroups. The
(i )
parameter νk is the number of the k subgroup in a molecule of the i species. The subgroup
parameter values Rk and Qk and the interaction parameters − amk are obtained in the literature.
Modified UNIFAC (Dortmund) model The UNIFAC model, despite being widely used in
various applications, has some limitations which are, in some way, inherent to the model. Some
of these limitations are:
2. The γ − φ approach limits the use of UNIFAC for applications under the pressure range
of 10-15 atm.
6. The parameters of liquid-liquid equilibrium are different from those of vapor-liquid equilib-
rium.
Some of these limitations can be overcome. The insensitivity of some types of isomers can
be eliminated through a careful choice of the groups used to represent the molecules. The fact
that the parameters for the liquid-liquid equilibrium are different from those for the vapor-liquid
equilibrium seems not to have a theoretical solution at this time. One solution is to use both data
from both equiibria to determine the parameters as a modified UNIFAC model. The limitations
on the pressure and temperature can be overcome if the UNIFAC model is used with equations
of state, which carry with them the dependencies of pressure and temperature.
These limitations of the original UNIFAC model have led several authors to propose changes
in both combinatorial and the residual parts. To modify the combinatorial part, the basis is the
suggestion given by Kikic et al. (1980) in the sense that the Staverman-Guggenheim correction on
the original term of Flory-Huggins is very small and can, in most cases, be neglected. As a result,
this correction was empirically removed from the UNIFAC model. Among these modifications, the
proposed by Gmehling and coworkers [Weidlich and Gmehling, 1986; Weidlich and Gmehling,
1987; Gmehling et al., 1993], known as the model UNIFAC-Dortmund, is one of the most
promising. In this model, the combinatorial part of the original UNIFAC is replaced by:
where the remaining quantities is defined the same way as in the original UNIFAC. Thus, the
correction in-Staverman Guggenheim is empirically taken from the template. It is important to
note that the in the UNIFAC-Dortmund model, the quantities Rk and Qk are no longer calculated
on the volume and surface area of Van der Waals forces, as proposed by Bondi (1968), but are
additional adjustable parameters of the model.
The residual part is still given by the solution for groups, just as in the original UNIFAC, but
now the parameters of group interaction are considered temperature dependent, according to:
These parameters must be estimated from experimental phase equilibrium data. Gmehling
et al. (1993) presented an array of parameters for 45 major groups, adjusted using data from
the vapor-liquid equilibrium, excess enthalpies, activity coefficients at infinite dilution and liquid-
liquid equilibrium. enthalpy and entropy of liquid and vapor.
NRTL model Wilson (1964) presented a model relating g E to the molar fraction, based mainly
on molecular considerations, using the concept of local composition. Basically, the concept of
local composition states that the composition of the system in the vicinity of a given molecule
is not equal to the overall composition of the system, because of intermolecular forces.
Wilson’s equation provides a good representation of the Gibbs’ excess free energy for a variety
of mixtures, and is particularly useful in solutions of polar compounds or with a tendency to
association in apolar solvents, where Van Laar’s equation or Margules’ one are not sufficient.
Wilson’s equation has the advantage of being easily extended to multicomponent solutions but
has two disadvantages: first, the less important, is that the equations are not applicable to
systems where the logarithms of activity coefficients, when plotted as a function of x, show a
maximum or a minimum. However, these systems are not common. The second, a little more
serious, is that the model of Wilson is not able to predict limited miscibility, that is, it is not
useful for LLE calculations.
Renon and Prausnitz [7] developed the NRTL equation (Non-Random, Two-Liquid) based on
the concept of local composition but, unlike Wilson’s model, the NRTL model is applicable to
systems of partial miscibility. The model equation is:
n n
∑ τji x j Gji n τ x G
∑ mj m mj
j =1 x j Gij
ln γi = +∑ τij − m=1 , (2.56)
n n n
∑ xk Gki j =1 ∑ xk Gkj ∑ xk Gkj
k =1 k =1 k =1
where
T Temperature (K)
The significance of Gij is similar to Λij from Wilson’s equation, that is, they are characteristic
energy parameters of the ij interaction. The parameter is related to the non-randomness of
the mixture, i.e. that the components in the mixture are not randomly distributed but follow a
pattern dictated by the local composition. When it is zero, the mixture is completely random,
and the equation is reduced to the two-suffix Margules equation.
For ideal or moderately ideal systems, the NRTL model does not offer much advantage over
Van Laar and three-suffix Margules, but for strongly non-ideal systems, this equation can provide
a good representation of experimental data, although good quality data is necessary to estimate
the three required parameters.
In DWSIM, Po = 1 atm. Heat capacities are obtained directly from the EOS, by using the following thermodynamic
relations:
✂V
∂2 P T (∂P/∂T )2V
C p − Cid
p =T dV − −R (2.60)
∂T 2 (∂P/∂V ) T
∞
H − H id S−Sid
RT R
h i h i
1 da P A T da
PR Z−1− 21,5 bRT
a − T dT × ln( Z − B) − ln P0
− 21,5 bRT a dT ×
h i h i
V +2,414b V +2,414b
× ln V +0,414b × ln V +0,414b
h i h i
da
SRK Z−1− 1
bRT a − T dT × ln( Z − B) − ln PP0 − A
B
T da
a dT ×
h i h i
× ln 1 + Vb × ln 1 + ZB
2
∂P
∂T V
C p − Cv = −T (2.61)
∂P
∂V T
Lee-Kesler Enthalpies, entropies and heat capacities are calculated by the Lee-Kesler model
[9] through the following equations:
D = d1 + d2 /Tr (2.70)
Each property must be calculated based in two fluids apart from the main one, one simple and
other for reference. For example, for the compressibility factor,
ω (r )
Z = Z (0) + Z − Z (0)
, (2.71)
ω (r )
where the (0) superscript refers to the simple fluid while the (r ) superscript refers to the reference
fluid. This way, property calculation by the Lee-Kesler model should follow the sequence below
(enthalpy calculation example):
1. Vr and Z (0) are calculated for the simple fluid at the fluid Tr and Pr . using the equation
2.62, and with the constants for the simple fluid, as shown in the table 3, ( H − H 0 )/RTc
(0)
is calculated. This term is ( H − H 0 )/RTc
. in this calculation, Z in the equation 2.62
is Z (0) .
2. The step 1 is repeated, using the same Tr and Pr , but using the constants for the reference
fluid as shown in table 3. With these values, the equation 2.62 allows the calculation of
(r )
( H − H 0 )/RTc . In this step, Z in the equation 2.62 is Z (r) .
3. Finally, one determines the residual enthalpy for the fluid of interest by
h i h i (0)
( H − H 0 )/RTc = ( H − H 0 )/RTc +
h i (r ) h i (0)
ω 0 0
( H − H )/RTc − ( H − H )/RTc , (2.72)
ω (r )
3 Transport Properties
3.1 Density
Liquid Phase Liquid phase density is calculated with the Rackett equation [8],
h i
2/7
RTC 1+(1−Tr )
Vs = Z , (3.1)
PC RA
where:
Tr Reduced temperature
If T > Tcm , the Rackett method For mixtures, the equation 3.1 becomes
does not provide a value for Vs h i
1+(1− Tr )2/7
and, in this case, DWSIM uses xi Tci
the EOS-generated
Vs = R ∑ Pci
ZRA , (3.2)
compressibility factor to
calculate the density of the with Tr = T/Tcm , and
liquid phase.
xi Vci
φi = , (3.4)
∑ xi Vci
1/2
8 V V
ci c j 1/2
Tcij = 3 Tci Tc j , (3.5)
Vc1/3
i
+ V 1/3
c j
where:
xi Molar fraction
If the component (or mixture) isn’t saturated, a correction is applied in order to account for
the effect of pressure in the volume,
β+P
V = Vs 1 − (0, 0861488 + 0, 0344483ω ) ln , (3.7)
β + Pvp
with
β
= −1 − 9, 070217 (1 − Tr )1/3 + 62, 45326 (1 − Tr )2/3 − 135, 1102 (1 − Tr ) +
P
+ exp 4, 79594 + 0, 250047ω + 1, 14188ω 2 (1 − Tr )4/3 , (3.8)
where:
P Pressure (Pa)
Finally, density is calculated from the molar volume by the following relation:
MM
ρ= , (3.9)
1000V
where:
ρ Density (kg/m3)
For the Ideal Gas Property Vapor Phase Vapor phase density is calculated from the compressiblity factor generated by
Package, the compressibility the EOS, according with the following equation:
factor is considered to be equal
to 1. MM P
ρ= , (3.10)
1000ZRT
where:
ρ Density (kg/m3)
P Pressure (Pa)
T Temperature (K)
Mixture If there are two phases at system temperature and pressure, the density of the mixture
is calculated by the following expression:
ρm = f l ρl + f v ρv , (3.11)
where:
3.2 Viscosity
Liquid Phase Liquid phase viscosity is calculated from
!
η L = exp ∑ xi ln ηi , (3.12)
i
where ηi is the viscosity of each component in the phase, which depends on the temperature and
is calculated from experimental data. Dependence of viscosity with the temperature is described
in the equation
η = exp A + B/T + C ln T + DT E , (3.13)
where A, B, C, D and E are experimental coefficients (or generated by DWSIM in the case of
pseudocomponents or hypotheticals).
Vapor Phase Vapor phase viscosity is calculated in two steps. First, the temperature depen-
dence is given by the Lucas equation [8],
h i
ηξ = 0, 807Tr0,618 − 0, 357 exp(−0, 449Tr ) + 0, 34 exp(−4, 058Tr ) + 0, 018 (3.14)
1/6
Tc
ξ = 0, 176 , (3.15)
MM3 Pc4
where
η Viscosity (µP)
In the second step, the calculated viscosity with the Lucas method is corrected to take into
account the effect of pressure, by the Jossi-Stiel-Thodos method [8],
where
If the vapor phase contains more than a component, the viscosity is calculated by the same
procedure, but with the required properties calculated by a molar average.
σ
= (0, 132αc − 0, 279) (1 − Tr )11/9 (3.17)
Pc2/3 Tc1/3
Tbr ln( Pc /1, 01325)
αc = 0, 9076 1 + , (3.18)
1 − Tbr
where
4 Thermal Properties
4.1 Thermal Conductivity
Liquid Phase The contribution of each component for the thermal conductivity of the liquid
phase is calculated by the Latini method [8],
A(1 − Tr )0,38
λi = (4.1)
Tr1/6
A∗ Tb0,38
A = γ, (4.2)
MM β Tc
where A∗ , α, β and γ depend on the nature of the liquid (Saturated Hydrocarbon, Aromatic,
Water, etc). The liquid phase thermal conductivity is calculated from the individual values by
the Li method [8],
λL = ∑ ∑ φi φj λij (4.3)
λij = 2(λi−1 + λ− 1 −1
j ) (4.4)
xi Vci
φi = , (4.5)
∑ xi Vci
where
Vapor Phase Vapor phase thermal conductivity is calculated by the Ely and Hanley method
[8],
1000η ∗
∗ 3R
λV = λ + 1, 32 Cv − , (4.6)
MM 2
where
λ ∗ = λ0 H (4.7)
1/2
16, 04.10−3
H= f 1/2 /h2/3 (4.8)
MM/1000
λ0 = 1944η0 (4.9)
T0 θ
f = (4.10)
190, 4
Vc
h= φ (4.11)
99, 2
If Tr 6 2, T + = Tr . If Tr > 2, T + = 2.
Vc
h= φ (4.14)
99, 2
MM/1000
η ∗ = η0 H (4.15)
16, 04.10−3
9
(n−4)/3
η0 = 10−7 ∑ Cn T0 (4.16)
n =1
T0 = T/ f (4.17)
5 Reactions
DWSIM includes support for chemical reactions through the Chemical Reactions Manager.
Three types of reactions are available to the user:
Conversion, where you must specify the conversion (%) of the limiting reagent as a function
of temperature
Equilibrium, where you must specify the equilibrium constant (K) as a function of temperature,
a constant value or calculated from the Gibbs free energy of reaction (∆G/R). The orders
of reaction of the components are obtained from the stoichiometric coefficients.
Kinetic, where you should specify the frequency factor (A) and activation energy (E) for the
direct reaction (optionally for the reverse reaction), including the orders of reaction (direct
and inverse) of each component.
For each chemical reaction is necessary to specify the stoichiometric coefficients of the com-
ponents and a component-base - required a reagent, used as reference for calculating the heat
of reaction. The sequential reactions DWSIM both as parallel (this behavior is defined in the
editor, sets of reactions).
aA + bB → cC, (5.1)
where a, b and c are the stoichiometric coefficients of reactants and product, respectively. A
is the limiting reactant and B is in excess. The amount of each component at the end of the
reaction can then be calculated from the following stoichiometric relationships:
where NA,B,C are the molar amounts of the components at the end of the reaction, NA0 ,B0 ,C0
are the molar amount of the components at the start of the reaction and X A is the conversion
of the base-reactant A.
n
K= ∏(q j )νj , (5.5)
j =1
where K is the equilibrium constant, q is the basis of components (partial pressure in the vapor
phase or activity in the liquid phase) ν is the stoichiometric coefficient of component j and n is
the number of components in the reaction.
The equilibrium constant can be obtained by three different means. One is to consider it a
constant, another is considering it as a function of temperature, and finally calculate it auto-
matically from the Gibbs free energy at the temperature of the reaction. The first two methods
require user input.
For each reaction that is occurring in parallel in the system, we can define ξ as the reaction
extent, so that the molar amount of each component in the equilibrium is obtained by the
following relationship:
whereξ i is the coordinate of the reaction i and νij is the stoichiometric coefficient of the j
component at reaction i. Defining the molar fraction of the component i as x j = n j /nt , where
nt is the total number of mols, including inerts, whe have the following expression for each
reaction i:
where the system of equations F can be easily solved by Newton-Raphson’s method [10].
aA + bB → cC + dD (5.8)
r A = k[ A][ B] − k′ [C ][ D ] (5.9)
where
The kinetic reactions are used in Plug-Flow Reactors (PFRs) and in Continuous-Stirred Tank
Reactors (CSTRs). In them, the relationship between molar concentration and the rate of
reaction is given by
✂V
FA = FA0 + r A dV, (5.12)
where FA is the molar flow of the A component and V is the reactor volume.
where
Winn [12]
MM = 0, 00005805PEMe2,3776 /d150,9371 , (6.3)
where
Riazi[12]
Lee-Kesler[12]
Farah
where
where
SG Specific Gravity
Lee-Kesler [11]
Tc = 189, 8 + 450, 6SG + (0, 4244 + 0, 1174SG ) Tb + (0, 1441 − 1, 0069SG )105 /Tb (6.12)
where
Tb NBP (K)
Farah
Riazi-Daubert[12]
Riazi[12]
Pc 6
− ln 1,10325 − 5, 92714 + 6, 09648/Tbr + 1, 28862 ln Tbr − 0, 169347Tbr
ω= 6
(6.23)
15, 2518 − 15, 6875/Tbr − 13, 472 ln Tbr + 0, 43577Tbr
Korsten[12]
Lee-Kesler method[11]
pv 6
ln Pr = 5, 92714 − 6, 09648/Tbr − 1, 28862 ln Tbr + 0, 169347Tbr + (6.25)
6
+ω (15, 2518 − 15, 6875/Tbr − 13, 4721 ln Tbr + 0, 43577Tbr ),
where
pv
Pr Reduced vapor pressure, P pv /Pc
ω Acentric factor
6.1.6 Viscosity
Letsou-Stiel [8]
ξ0 + ξ1
η = (6.26)
ξ
ξ0 = 2, 648 − 3, 725Tr + 1, 309Tr2 (6.27)
ξ1 = 7, 425 − 13, 39Tr + 5, 933Tr2 (6.28)
1/6
Tc
ξ = 176 (6.29)
MM3 Pc4
where
η Viscosity (Pa.s)
Abbott[12]
where
7 Other Properties
7.1 True Critical Point
The Gibbs criteria for the true critical point of a mixture of n components may be expressed
of various forms, but the most convenient when using a pressure explicit cubic equation of state
is
A11 A12 ... A1n
A21 A22
L = . =0 (7.1)
..
A ... ... A
n1 nn
A A12 ... A1n
11
A21 A22
..
M= = 0, (7.2)
.
A ... ... An−1,n
n−1,1
∂L ∂L
∂n1 ... ... ∂nn
where
∂2 A
A12 = (7.3)
∂n1 ∂n2 T,V
All the A terms in the equations 7.1 and 7.2 are the second derivatives of the total Helmholtz
energy A with respect to mols and constant T and V. The determinants expressed by 7.1 and
7.2 are simultaneously solved for the critical volume and temperature. The critical pressure is
then found by using the original EOS.
DWSIM utilizes the method described by Heidemann and Khalil [15] for the true critical point
calculation using the Peng-Robinson and Soave-Redlich-Kwong equations of state.
f wi = f wH , (7.4)
that is, the fugacity of water in hydrate is the same as in the water in any other phase present
at equilibria.
The difference in the models present in DWSIM is mainly in the way that water fugacity in the
hydrate phase is calculated. In the modified van der Waals and Platteeuw model, the isofugacity
criteria is used indirectly through chemical potentials, which must also be equal in the equilibria:
µiw = µw
H
(7.5)
remembering that
gi
f i = xi P exp((µi − µi )/RT ). (7.6)
7.2.1 Modified van der Waals and Platteeuw (Parrish and Prausnitz) method
The classic model for determination of equilibrium pressures and temperatures was developed
by van der Waals and Platteeuw. This model was later extended by Parrish and Prausnitz [16]
to take into account multiple "guests" in the hydrate structures. The condition of equilibrium
used in the vdwP model is the equality of the chemical potential of water in the hydrate phase
and in the other phases, which can be liquid, solid or both.
Chemical potential of water in the hydrate phase In the modified var der Waals method,
the chemical potential of water in the hydrate phase is calculated by:
H β
µw = µw + RT ∑ νm ln(1 − ∑ θmj ), (7.7)
m j
β
where µw is the chemical potential of water in the empty hydrate lattice (something like an
"ideal" chemical potential) and νm is the number of m cavities by water molecule in the lattice.
The fraction of cavities m-type cavities occupied by the gaseous component l is
where Cmj is the Langmuir constant and f i is the fugacity of the gaseous component l. The
Langmuir constant takes into account the interactions between the gas and the molecules of
water in the cavities. Using the Lennard-Jones-Devonshire cell theory, van der Waals e Platteeuw
showed that the Langmuir constant can be given by
✂ ∞
C ( T ) = 4π/kT exp[(−w(r ))/kT ]r2 dr, (7.9)
0
where T is the absolute temperature, k is the Boltzmann constant and w(r) is the spherically
symmetric potential which is a function of the cell radius, the coordination number and the
nature of the gas-water interaction. In this method, the Kihara potential with a spherical core
is used,
where N is equal to 4, 5, 10 or 11; z and R are, respectively, the coordination number and
the cavity cell radius.
Supported hydrate formers CH4, C2H6, C3H8, iC4H10, H2S, N2 and CO2.
The model proposed by Klauda and Sandler [17] uses spherically symmetric Kihara potentials
determined from viscosity data and the second virial coefficient, in opposition to the traditional
models which adjust these parameters to experimental hydrate data. In general, this method
predicts hydrate formation data more precisely than the other models.
β β β
f wH = exp( A g ln T + ( Bg )/T + 2, 7789 + Dg T ) ×
β β β β
exp Vw [ P − exp( A g ln T + ( Bg )/T + 2, 7789 + Dg T )]/RT ×
exp[∑ νm ln(1 − ∑(Cml f l )/(1 + ∑ Cmj f j ))] (7.12)
m j
The A, B and D constants are specific for each hydrate former and represent the vapor pressure
β
of the component in the empty hydrate lattice. Vw represents the basic hydrate molar volume
(without the presence of guests) and the Langmuir constant (C ) is calculated by the following
equation:
✂ R− a
C ( T ) = 4π/kT exp[(−w(r ))/kT ]r2 dr (7.13)
0
In the Klauda e Sandler method the spherically symmetric Kihara potential is also used,
with a modifications in the potential to include the effects of the second and third cell layers,
Supported hydrate formers CH4, C2H6, C3H8, iC4H10, H2S, N2 and CO2.
Chen and Guo [18] developed a model based in a formation mechanism based in two steps,
the first being a quasi-chemical reaction to form the "basic hydrate" and the second as being a
small gas absorption process in the linking cages of the basic hydrate. The results showed that
this model is capable of predict hydrate formation conditions for pure gases and mixtures.
Fugacity of water in the hydrate phase In the Chen and Guo model, a different approx-
imation is used for the equilibrium condition. Here the equilibrium is verified by means of an
isofugacity criteria of the hydrate formers in the hydrate and vapor phase. The fugacity of the
component in the vapor phase is calculated by:
f iH = f i0 (1 − θi )α , (7.17)
f i0 = f 0 ( P) f 0 ( T ) f 0 ( xw γw ), (7.18)
′ ′ ′
f 0 ( T ) = A exp( B /( T − C )), (7.20)
f 0 ( xw γw ) = ( xw γw )(−1/λ2 ) , (7.21)
where β and λ2 depend on the structure of the hydrate formed and A’, B’ and C’ depends on
the hydrate former. xw and γm are, respectively, the water molar fraction and activity coefficient
in the liquid phase.
In the Chen and Guo model, the Langmuir constants are calculated with an Antoine-type
equation with parameters obtained from experimental data, for a limited range of temperature:
C ( T ) = X exp(Y/( T − Z )) (7.22)
Supported hydrate formers CH4, C2H6, C3H8, iC4H10, H2S, N2, CO2 and nC4H10.
1/2
1 + 2I
r= (7.24)
1− I
where
r Refraction Index
SG Specific Gravity
PF = {[0, 69 × ((t10ASTM − 273, 15) × 9/5 + 32) − 118, 2] − 32} × 5/9 + 273, 15 (7.25)
where
PF Flash Point (K)
PFL = [753 + 136(1 − exp(−0, 15v100 )) − 572SG + 0, 0512v100 + 0, 139(1, 8MeABP)] /1, 8
(7.26)
where
PFL Pour Point (K)
where
PC Freezing Point (K)
where
PN Cloud Point (K)
where
IC Cetane Index
References
[1] Smith J. Intro to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Com-
panies. 1996.
[2] Peng DY, Robinson DB. A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Fundamentals. 1976;15(1):59–64.
[3] Soave G. Equilibrium constants from a modified Redlich-Kwong equation of state. Chemical
Engineering Science. 1972;27(6):1197–1203.
[4] Whitson CH, Brule MR. Phase Behavior (SPE Monograph Series Vol. 20). Society of
Petroleum Engineers. 2000.
[5] Chao KC, Seader JD. A General Correlation of Vapor-Liquid Equilibria in Hydrocarbon
Mixtures. AICHE Journal. 1961;7:599–605.
[6] Grayson HG, Streed CW. Vapor-Liquid Equilibria for High Temperature, High Pressure
Hydrogen-Hydrocarbon Systems. N/A. 1963;VII.
[7] Renon H, Prausnitz JM. Local Compositions in Thermodynamic Excess Functions for Liquid
Mixtures. AICHE Journal. 1968;14:135–144.
[8] Reid R. The Properties of Gases and Liquids. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1987.
[9] Lee BI, Kesler MG. A generalized thermodynamic correlation based on three-parameter
corresponding states. AIChE Journal. 1975;21(3):510–527.
[11] Riazi MR, Al-Adwani HA, Bishara A. The impact of characterization methods on properties
of reservoir fluids and crude oils: options and restrictions. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering. 2004;42(2-4):195–207.
[12] Riazi MR. Characterization and properties of petroleum fractions. ASTM. 2005.
[13] Harrison BK, Seaton WH. Solution to missing group problem for estimation of ideal gas
heat capacities. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research. 1988;27(8):1536–1540.
[15] Heidemann RA, Khalil AM. The calculation of critical points. AIChE Journal. 1980;
26(5):769–779.
[16] Parrish WR, Prausnitz JM. Dissociation Pressures of Gas Hydrates Formed by Gas Mixtures.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development. 1972;11(1):26–35.
[17] Klauda J, Sandler S. A Fugacity Model for Gas Hydrate Phase Equilibria. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research. 2000;39(9):3377–3386.
[18] Chen GJ, Guo TM. A new approach to gas hydrate modelling. Chemical Engineering
Journal. 1998;71(2):145–151. Url.