Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 16(5) 766ü771 (2008)

Analysis and Comparison of the Alpha Functions of SRK

Equation of State

LUO Mingjian (৥ੜ޿)1,*, HU Bing (ܑς)1, JIANG Tao (ߛඁ)1, XIA Shuqian (ຑೞሯ)2 and
MA Peisheng (৴ଇಓ)2
1
School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Daqing Petroleum Institute, Daqing 163318, China
2
Key Laboratory for Green Chemical Technology, School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin Uni-
versity, Tianjin 300072, China

Abstract Alpha functions of Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equation of state proposed by Soave, Twu, and Luo
were different in mathematic tendency. They were compared in modeling methane-alkanes equilibria with van der
Waals mixing rule and Modified Huron-Vidal (MHV1) mixing rule, respectively. Results showed that Luo’s alpha
function was a little more accurate than Soave’s, and Twu’s alpha function lacked accuracy in modeling meth-
ane-alkanes equilibrium. SRK equation of state was expanded as virial form, and then the equivalent terms were
contrasted with terms of virial equation of state. Results showed that Soave’s and Luo’s alpha functions matched the
tendency of virial coefficient better than Twu’s, and Luo’s alpha function matched better than Soave’s in wide tem-
perature range, which sustained the conclusions of phase equilibria calculation. Luo’s alpha function keeps de-
creasing when Tr˚1 and becomes negative at sufficient high temperature, thus the conventional cubic equation of
state expressed pressure as the sum of repulsion pressure pR (˚0), and attraction pressure pA (˘0) could be im-
proved to be the sum of hard-sphere repulsion pressure pH (˚0) and intermolecular force pressure pI (pI˘0 at low
temperature and pI˚0 at sufficient high temperature).
Keywords equation of state, virial coefficient, phase equilibria, intermolecular force

1 INTRODUCTION proposed by author’s experience and coefficients were

determined using vapor pressure data of pure substances,
no theoretic method or experiment data were used for
Ever since Huron-Vidal [1] mixing rule was pro- determining alpha function when Tr˚1. Thus, it is
posed, considerable attentions were paid to GE-type necessary to study the alpha functions when Tr˚1.
mixing rules, and a series of mixing rules of this type In this article, SRK equation of state with Soave’s,
were proposed, such as Modified Huron-Vidal Twu’s, and Luo’s alpha functions were compared in
(MHV1) [2, 3], MHV2 [4], Linear Combination of modeling methane-alkanes equilibria, and comparison
Vidal and Michelsen (LCVM) [5], Wong-Sandler (WS) between virial expanding form of SRK equation of
[6], Huron-Vidal Mixing Rule with Activity Coeffi- state and virial equation of state when Tr˚1 was also
cients at Infinite Dilution (HVID) [7], Predictive So- carried out.
ave-Redlick-Kwong (PSRK) [8], etc. They had con-
siderably extended the range of applicability and util-
ity of equation of state. 2 SRK EQUATION OF STATE AND ALPHA
The expressions for parameters of cubic equation FUNCTIONS
of state were equally important. Redlich and Kwong [9]
introduced a/T0.5 into cubic equation of state and suc- The SRK equation of state proposed by Soave [10]
cessfully described p-V-T relationship with RK equa- is
tion of state; Soave substituted a temperature-dependent RT a (T )
function a(T) for a/T0.5, which improved the predic- p  (1)
tion accuracy of pure substance saturate pressure con- V  b V (V  b)
siderably and made the prediction of vapor-liquid where
equilibrium of mixture feasible [10]. However, small RTc
innovations were performed on the expressions or b 0.08664 (2)
parameters of cubic equation of state in contrast to the pc
development of mixing rules. This form of Soave’s [10]
alpha function was adapted by Peng-Robinson (PR) a(T ) acD Tr , Z  (3)
[11], Patel-Teja (PT) [12], and Peng-Robinson-Styjek-
Vera (PRSV) [13] equation of state, and Mathias and R 2Tc2
ac 0.42748 (4)
Copeman [14] also made no essential change. Twu pc
et al. [15] proposed a new alpha function and im-
D Tr , Z  1   0.480  1.574Z  0.176Z 2  (1  Tr0.5 )
0.5
proved the accuracy of vapor pressure prediction at
low temperatures. Luo et al. [16] proposed a new alpha (5)
function that provided more accurate vapor-liquid
equilibrium prediction than the original one proposed Graboski and Daubert [17] modified the coeffi-
by Soave. Because all these alpha functions were cients as

Received 2007-12-13, accepted 2008-06-06.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: luomingjian@dqpi.edu.cn
 Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2008 767

D Tr , Z 
0.5
1   0.48508  1.55171Z  0.15613Z 2  ˜ function when Tr˘1. Nevertheless the slight differ-
ence brought Twu’s alpha function more accurate va-
1  Tr0.5  por pressure prediction results at low temperatures [15].
Similarly, Luo’s alpha function was more accurate
(6) than the one of Soave [16]. From Fig. 1, it seems to be
Mathias and Copeman [14] modified the alpha an approximate linear relationship between alpha
function as functions and reduce temperature Tr when Tr˘1.
The comparison of alpha functions at Tr˚1 is
1  c1 1  Tr0.5   c2 1  Tr0.5  
2
D Tr , Z 
0.5
shown in Fig. 2. Contrast to the slight difference when
Tr˘1, these alpha functions are not only different in
c3 1  Tr0.5 
3
, Tr˘1 values but also in tendency. Soave’s values decrease to
(7) zero then increased; Twu’s infinite approach to zero as
a positive value; Luo’s seems decrease linearly, and
and the value become negative when Tr is large enough. It
D Tr , Z  1  c1 1  Tr0.5  , seems that the value of Luo’s alpha function persists
0.5
Tr˚1 (8)
decreasing tendency linearly from Tr˘1. But, it still
Equation (6) proposed by Grabosik and Daubert remains a question which one will be best.
and Eqs. (7) and (8) proposed by Mathias and Cope-
man’s have no essential difference from the one of
Soave [Eq. (5)]. Although Eqs. (7) and (8) are more
accurate, c1, c2, and c3 are needed for every substance.
Twu et al. [15] proposed the alpha function as
D Tr , Z  D 0 Tr   Z ª¬D1 Tr   D 0 Tr  º¼ (9)
with
0.1415991Tr2.29528 
D 0 Tr  Tr0.201158 e (10)
0.5003151Tr2.63165 
D1 Tr  Tr0.660145 e (11)
Figure 2 Comparison of alpha functions when Tr˚1 with
Twu’s alpha function improved the accuracy of acentric factors: 0, 0.1, and 0.2 (from top to bottom)
vapor pressure prediction at low temperatures. And it üü Luo; Soave; Twu
was different to the one of Soave in mathematic ten-
dency when Tr˚1, which was analyzed later. 4 GAS-LIQUID EQUILIBRIUM OF METH-
Luo et al. [16] proposed the alpha function as ANE-ALKANES
D T , Z  1   0.32877  1.1317Z  Tr0.5  Tr  (12)
The new alpha function is not more complex than
the one of Soave or Twu, and provides more accurate
prediction results of vapor-liquid equilibria [15].
3 ANALYSIS OF ALPHA FUNCTIONS
The values of Soave’s, Twu’s, and Luo’s alpha
functions with different acentric factors when Tr˘1
are shown in Fig. 1. Because all alpha functions were
determined by saturated vapor pressure of pure sub-
stance, there are slight differences between these alpha
The prediction results of gas-liquid equilibrium
of methane-alkanes can be used for verifying alpha
functions when Tr ˚ 1 because there are abundant
solubility data of methane in alkanes, and recom-
mended values are available [18], too. Furthermore,
the intermolecular force of methane and alkanes are
similar, and it is reasonable to set the interaction pa-
rameters in mixing rules as zero, thus it avoids the
possibility of offsetting the deficiency of alpha func-
tions by interaction parameters.
The conventional van der Waals mixing rule and
GE-type MHV1 mixing rule were used for obtaining
mixture parameters of equation of state. The van der
Waals mixing rule is
a ¦¦ xi x j aij (13)
i j
b ¦ xi bi (14)
i

aij aii a jj 1  kij  (15)

with kij 0 here.
The MHV1 mixing rule proposed by Michelsen
[2] is
Figure 1 Comparison of alpha functions when Tr˘1 with
acentric factors: 0, 0.1, and 0.2 (from bottom to top)
üü Luo; Soave; Twu
b ¦ xi bi (16)
i
768 Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2008

a ai 1 ª GE § b ·º with MHV1 mixing rule and GE calculated by UNI-

bRT
¦ i b RT q « RT  ¦ xi ln ¨ b ¸»
x  (17) FAC method was shown in Figs. 3 to 5. There are
i i 1 ¬ i © i ¹¼ slight differences in dew point lines prediction results
with q1 0.593 for SRK equation of state, this value for these alpha functions, especially at relative low
was revised to q1 0.64663 by Holderbaum and pressure. But for bubble point lines, the results of So-
Gmehling [8] in PSRK model. The GE can be calcu- ave, Twu, and Luo seemed to be small, large, and ap-
lated by UNIFAC [8, 19, 20] method with group interac- propriate, respectively. From Fig. 2, it can be observed
tion parameters listed in Table 1. The group interaction that the value of Luo’s alpha function is smaller than
parameters can also be set as zero for methane-alkanes. Soave’s when Tr˚1 and larger than Twu’s when Tr is
not very large. The differences of alpha functions
value bring the different accuracy of gas-liquid equi-
Table 1 Group interaction parameters libria of methane-alkanes. Results of gas-liquid equi-
i j aij bij aji bji
libria of methane-alkanes show Luo’s alpha function
was best.
ACH ACCH2 146.8 0 167.0 0
CH2 CH4 39.101 0.84587 68.141 0.7386
ACH CH4 131.51 0 65.123 0
ACCH2 CH4 37.876 0 5.5762 0

Comparison of these alpha functions with differ-

ent mixing rules in methane-alkanes equilibria mod-
eling is listed with experiment data recommended by
Solubility Data Series [18] in Table 2. From Table 2, it
is known that, no matter van der Waals mixing rule or
MHV1 mixing rule be adopted for obtaining mixture
Figure 3 Gas-liquid equilibrium prediction of methane-
parameters of equation of state, and no matter UNI- propane
FAC parameters be set as zero or not, Luo’s alpha Ƶ255 K;Ʒ294 K;ƽ327 K; üü Luo; Soave; Twu
function provides the most accurate results for pres-
sure prediction while the one of Twu provides the in-
accurate results. Luo’s and Twu’s alpha functions are 5 DISCUSSION
superior to the one of Soave in vapor phase composi-
tion prediction. There are theoretic sustains on virial equation,
More obvious comparison of alpha functions and the second virial coefficient B, the third virial

Table 2 Comparison of alpha functions with different mixing rules for methane/alkane systems

Tem- Num- van der Waals mixing rule (kij 0) MHV1 with UNIFAC MHV1 with UNIFAC and aij˙0
Methane+ perature ber of (¨p/p)u10 2
¨yu10 2
(¨p/p)u10 2
¨yu10 2
(¨p/p)u102 ¨yu102
range/K points
Soave Twu Luo Soave Twu Luo Soave Twu Luo Soave Twu Luo Soave Twu Luo Soave Twu Luo
ethane 200280 45 1.87 1.84 1.38 0.82 0.52 0.62 2.30 1.69 1.85 0.90 0.67 0.73 2.95 1.50 2.35 1.00 0.58 0.79
propane 255360 138 2.91 3.29 1.07 1.34 0.93 0.98 3.36 1.89 1.45 1.60 0.88 1.07 4.27 1.30 2.32 1.68 0.96 1.12
butane 255394 153 3.89 6.53 2.21 1.92 1.09 1.28 4.47 5.39 2.77 2.28 1.52 1.75 4.52 4.39 2.50 2.25 1.48 1.89
isobutane 273377 41 2.44 8.14 3.31 1.51 1.07 1.15 2.83 8.37 4.14 1.92 1.45 1.57 2.63 7.54 3.28 1.95 1.45 1.63
pentane 273444 75 5.01 8.10 3.07 1.30 1.44 1.02 3.98 7.50 3.37 1.45 1.62 1.28 4.40 7.51 3.33 1.50 1.63 1.34
isopentane 344410 24 4.70 9.35 2.88 3.20 2.22 2.28 5.30 6.16 2.33 3.20 2.23 2.41 4.47 7.23 2.43 3.16 2.20 2.39
neopentane 298410 38 4.53 4.88 2.11 3.84 2.46 2.91 4.46 4.65 2.70 4.07 2.83 3.05 4.47 4.23 2.25 3.81 2.59 3.00
hexane 298423 76 7.58 9.85 2.45 1.42 1.58 1.42 4.33 11.1 3.48 1.45 1.56 1.45 4.69 11.1 3.33 1.43 1.60 1.48
heptane 266510 111 7.76 10.59 5.76 1.18 1.40 1.21 2.87 13.7 5.86 0.98 1.26 1.16 3.07 13.6 7.37 1.02 1.40 1.31
octane 273423 42 12.77 7.41 6.33    2.28 15.6 6.10    3.24 13.6 5.99   
decane 423583 34 9.26 17.55 11.48 2.28 4.30 4.11 5.91 22.0 17.5 2.36 4.50 4.51 6.36 31.3 26.2 2.72 5.76 5.80
cyclohexane 294444 85 4.64 32.25 17.09 1.04 1.84 1.50 10.88 5.88 4.48 1.49 1.13 1.26 10.34 7.95 6.08 1.49 1.25 1.37
benzene 421501 18 12.26 16.48 6.33 5.03 7.47 5.87 4.66 13.9 7.58 4.38 5.91 5.35 11.91 4.64 4.19 4.62 5.03 4.77
methyl-
422500 20 12.15 19.11 6.29 3.32 2.86 2.44 6.12 13.9 6.95 2.78 2.53 2.36 10.20 7.90 4.04 3.10 2.40 2.47
benzene
average 5.54 10.15 4.71 1.62 1.54 1.46 4.49 7.97 4.12 1.77 1.55 1.59 4.97 7.82 4.69 1.80 1.59 1.69

1 pcal  pexp 1
Note: 'p / p
N
¦ p , 'y
N
¦ ycal  yexp .
exp
 Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2008 769

C (1) 0.02676  0.01770 / Tr2.8  0.040 / Tr3.0 

0.003/ Tr6.0  0.00228 / Tr10.5 (26)
The SRK equation of state [Eq. (1)] can be expanded as
pV 1 a(T ) º 1 ª
1  ª«b 
a (T ) º
z »  2 b «b   ˜ ˜ ˜ (27)
RT V¬ RT ¼ V ¬ RT »¼
a(T )
And b  can be marked as BSRK, then
RT
Figure 4 Gas-liquid equilibrium prediction of methane- ª a(T ) º pc
hexane
Ƶ298K;ƽ423K; üü Luo; Soave; Twu
BSRK,r «¬b  RT »¼ RT
c

0.08664  0.42748D Tr , Z  / Tr (28)

CSRK,r can be given in a similar method
2
a (T ) º § pc ·
CSRK,r b ª«b  ¨ ¸
¬ RT »¼ © RTc ¹
0.08664 > 0.08664  0.42748D (Tr , Z ) / Tr @ (29)
The comparison of BSRK,r and Br is shown in Fig. 6.
As shown in Fig. 6, the deviations between Br and
BSRK,r are slight at relatively small Tr and increasing
Figure 5 Gas-liquid equilibrium prediction of methane- when Tr increase. Soave’s seems to be most close to
cyclohexane the second virial coefficient; Luo’s deviated most
Ƶ298K;ƽ423K; üü Luo; Soave; Twu from Br at high Tr. This deviation may be by reasons
that the third, forth, etc. virial coefficients of virial
equation of state can be fixed by experiment data, but
coefficient C are determined by experiment data for SRK equation of state, only Į was fixed by ex-
which includes data when Tr˚1. The SRK equation of periment data. Further comparison of Cr and CSRK,r is
state can be expanded into virial form and compared shown in Fig. 7. As it is showed, CSRK,r is larger than
with virial equation of state. Cr with relatively small Tr and becoming smaller when
The virial equation of state is Tr increases, which may offset deviations between Br
and BSRK,r. Considering deviation between Br and
pV B C
z 1   ˜˜˜ (18)
RT V V2
With Pitzer and Curl’s suggestion [21]
Bpc
Br B (0)  Z B (1) (19)
RTc
Smith and van Ness citing Abbott’s suggestion [22]
B (0) 0.083  0.422 / Tr1.6 (20)
B (1) 0.139  0.172 / Tr4.2 (21)
(0) (1)
(a) Ȧ 0
Tsonopoulos [23] proposed the B and B to be
B (0) 0.1445  0.33/ Tr  0.1385 / Tr2 
0.0121/ Tr3  0.000607 / Tr8 (22)
B (1) 0.0637  0.331/ Tr2  0.423/ Tr3  0.008 / Tr8 (23)
In a similar approach, the third virial coefficient
was proposed by Orbey and Vera [24]
Cpc2
Cr C (0)  ZC (1) (24)
 RTc 
2
(b) Ȧ 0.1
with Figure 6 Comparison of BSRK,r of Luo, Soave, and Twu
with Br
C (0) 0.01470  0.02432 / Tr2.8  0.00313/ Tr10.5 (25) üü Tsonopoulos; Luo; Soave; Twu
770 Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2008

(a) Ȧ 0 (a) Ȧ 0

(b) Ȧ 0.1 (b) Ȧ 0.1

Figure 7 Comparison of CSRK,r of Luo, Soave, and Twu Figure 8 Comparison of dBSRK,r/dTr of Luo, Soave, and
with Cr Twu with dBr/dTr
üü Orbey; Luo; Soave; Twu üü Tsonopoulos; Luo; Soave; Twu

BSRK,r or Cr and CSRK,r, respectively, SRK equation

with Luo’s alpha function seems to be worst in con-
sistent with virial equation of state; but together with
Figs. 6 and 7, Luo’s may be the best one.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the varia-
tional tendency of Br and BSRK,r. Soave’s and Twu’s
BSRK,r, especially Twu’s, increase rapidly at relative
low Tr and hardly any there is change when Tr˚4; it is
difficult to compare Br and Luo’s BSRK,r qualitatively
in variational tendency, but a quantitative comparison
of derivative dB/dT can be provided. Moreover, dB/dT
and B-T(dB/dT) are more frequently used than B in (a) Ȧ 0
thermodynamic properties and phase equilibrium cal-
culation. Thus, comparisons between dBr/dTr and
dBSRK,r/dTr, Br  Tr(dBr/dTr) and dBSRK,r  Tr(dBSRK,r/dTr)
are also important. Results are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
From Fig. 8, Luo’s dBSRK,r/dTr seems to match dBr/dTr
of virial equation best; so it is shown with dBSRK,r  Tr
(dBSRK,r/dTr) in Fig. 9.
By comparing the results of BSRK,r with Br, Cr with
CSRK,r, dBSRK,r with dBr, and dBSRK,r  Tr(dBSRK,r/dTr)
with Br  Tr(dBr/dTr), SRK equation of state with alpha
function proposed by Luo meets virial equation of
state best when Tr˚1. The conclusion is consistent (b) Ȧ 0.1
with the gas-liquid equilibria of methane-alkanes. Figure 9 Comparison of dBSRK,r-Tr(dBSRK,r/dTr) of Luo,
Both prediction results of methane-alkanes equi- Soave, and Twu with Br-Tr(dBr/dTr)
libria and comparison results with virial equation of üü Tsonopoulos; Luo; Soave; Twu
state show that Luo’s alpha function is most suitable
for SRK equation of state when Tr˚1, and Luo’s al-
pha function becomes negative when Tr is large p pH  pI (31)
enough. The conventional expression of cubic equa-
tion of state by van der Waals as the sum of repulsion where pH (˚0) can be named hard-sphere repulsion
pressure pR (˚0) and attraction pressure pA (˘0) pressure and pI can be named intermolecular force
pressure. The pI is unnecessary positive, which means
p pR  pA (30) force between molecules transfer from attraction to
should be revised as repulsion when temperature is sufficiently high.
 Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 16, No. 5, October 2008 771

6 CONCLUSIONS 3 Michelsen, M.L., “A modified Huron-Vidal mixing rule for cubic

equation of state”, Fluid Phase Equilibr., 60, 213219 (1990).
4 Dahl, S., Michelsen, M.L., “High-pressure vapour-liquid equilibria
In this study, alpha functions of SRK equation of with a UNIFAC-based equation of state”, AIChE J., 36 (12),
state proposed by Soave, Twu, and Luo were analyzed 18291836 (1990).
5 Boukoubalas, C., Spiliotis, N., Coutsikos, P., “Prediction of va-
and compared. Both prediction results of methane- por-liquid equilibrium with the LCVM model: A linear combination
alkanes equilibrium and comparison results with virial of the Vidal and Michelsen mixing rules coupled with the original
equation of state show that Luo’s alpha function is UNIFAC and the t-mPR equation of state”, Fluid Phase Equilibr., 92,
most suitable for SRK equation of state when Tr˚1. 75106 (1994).
6 Wong, D.S.H, Sandler, S.I., “A theoretically correct mixing rule for
Results showed that with a linear decreasing alpha cubic equations of state”, AIChE J., 38 (5), 671680 (1992).
function, the SRK equation of state provides more 7 Geana, D., Feroiu, V., “Prediction of vapor-liquid equilibria at low
accurate gas-liquid equilibria prediction at high tem- and high pressures from UNIFAC activity coefficients at infinite di-
peratures, and it is more consistent with second virial lution”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 37, 11731180 (1998).
equation of state. The conventional expression of cu- 8 Holderbaum, T., Gmehling, J., “PSRK: A group contribution of state
based on UNIFAC”, Fluid Phase Equilibr., 70, 251256 (1991).
bic equation of state in pressure as the sum of repul- 9 Redlich, O., Kwong, J.N.S., “On the thermodynamics of solutions
sion pressure pR (˚0) and attraction pressure pA (˘0) (V) An equation of state, fugacities of gaseous solution”, Chem. Rev.,
could be improved to the sum of hard-sphere repul- 44, 233244 (1949).
sion pressure pH (˚0) and intermolecular force pres- 10 Soave, G., “Equilibrium constants from a modified Redlich-Kwong
equation of state”, Chem. Eng. Sci., 27 (6), 11971203 (1972).
sure pI (pI˘0 at low temperature and pI˚0 at suffi- 11 Peng, D.Y., Robinson, D.B., “A new two-constant equation of state”,
cient high temperature). Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 15 (1), 5964 (1976).
12 Patel, N.C., Teja, A.S., “A new cubic equation of state for fluids and
fluid mixtures”, Chem. Eng. Sci., 37 (3), 263273 (1982).
NOMENCLATURE 13 Stryjek, R., Vera, J.H., “An improved Peng-Robinson equation of
state for pure components and for mixtures”, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 64,
323333 (1986).
a(T), b SRK equation parameter
14 Mathias, P.M., Copeman, T.W., “Extension of the Peng-Robinson
ac value of a(T) at T=Tc
equation of state to complex mixtures”, Fluid Phase Equilibr., 13,
aij, bij group interaction parameter
91108 (1983).
B, C virial coefficient
15 Twu, C.H., Coon, J.E., Cunningham, J.R., “A new generalized alpha
GE excess Gibbs energy
function for a cubic equation of state (2) Redlich-Kwong equation”,
p pressure
Fluid Phase Equilibr., 105, 6169 (1995).
R gas constant
16 Luo, M.J., Ma, P., Xia, S.Q., “A modification of Į in SRK equation
T temperature
of state and vapor-liquid equilibria prediction”, Chin. J. Chem. Eng.,
V volume
15 (1), 102109 (2007).
x mole fraction in liquid
17 Graboski, M.S., Daubert, T.E., “A modified Soave equation of state
y mole fraction in gas/vapor
for phase equilibrium calculations (1) hydrocarbon systems”, Ind.
z compressibility factor
Eng. Chem. Proc. Design Dev., 4, 443448 (1978).
Į(T) alpha function
18 Clever, H.L., Young, C.L., Solubility Data Series, Volume 27/28,
Ȧ acentric factor
Methane, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1987).
Subscrips 19 Fredenslund, A., Jones, R.L., Prausnitz, J.M., “Group contribution
c critical value estimation of activity coefficients in nonideal liquid mixtures”,
cal calculated value AIChE J., 21, 10861099 (1975).
exp experiment value 20 Fischer, K., Gmehling, J., “Further development, status and results
i i component of the PSRK method for the prediction of vapor-liquid equilibria and
r reduced value gas solubilities”, Fluid Phase Equilibr., 121, 185206 (1996).
21 Pitzer, K.S., Curl, R.F., “The volumetric and thermodynamic proper-
ties of fluids. III. Empirical equation for the second virial coeffi-
REFERENCES cient”, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 79 (10), 23692370, New York (1957).
22 Smith, S.M., van Ness, H.C., Introduction to Chemical Engineering
1 Huron, M.J., Vidal, J., “New mixing rules in simple equations of Thermodynamics, 3 edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1975).
state for representing vapour-liquid equilibria of strongly non-Ideal 23 Tsonopoulos, C., “An empirical correlation of second virial coeffi-
mixtures”, Fluid Phase Equilibr., 3, 255271 (1979). cients”, AIChE J., 20 (2), 263272 (1974).
2 Michelsen, M.L., “A method for incorporating excess Gibbs energy 24 Orbey, H., Vera, J.H., “Correlation for the third virial coefficient us-
models in equations of state”, Fluid Phase Equilibr., 60, 4758 (1990). ing Tc, Pc and Ȧ as parameters”, AIChE J., 29 (1), 107 (1983).