Abstract

Phase equilibrium calculations are often involved in the design, simulation, and optimization of chemical processes. Reported methods for these calculations are based on either equation-solving or Gibbs free energy minimization approaches. The main objective of this work is to compare selected methods for these two approaches, in terms of reliability to find the correct solution, computational time, and number of K-value evaluations. For this, four equation-solving and three free minimization methods have been selected and applied to commonly encountered vapour–liquid equilibrium (VLE), liquid–liquid equilibrium (LLE), and vapour–liquid–liquid equilibrium (VLLE) examples involving multiple components and popular thermodynamic models. Detailed results show that the equation-solving method based on the Rachford–Rice formulation accompanied by mean value theorem and Wegstein's projection is reliable and efficient for two-phase equilibrium calculations not having local minima. When there are multiple minima and for three-phase equilibrium, the stochastic method, genetic algorithm (GA) followed by modified simplex method of Nelder and Mead (NM) is more reliable and desirable. Generic programs for numerical methods are ineffective for phase equilibrium calculations. These findings are of interest and value to researchers and engineers working on phase equilibrium calculations and/or developing thermodynamic models for phase behaviour.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.