Compuf.them. Engng,Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 4894%. 1987 0098~1354/87$3.00+ 0.

00
Printedin Great Britain.All right.4reserved Copyright 0 1987Pergamoa Journals Ltd

AN ALGORITHM FOR FLASH CALCULATIONS

USING AN EQUATION OF STATE
D. VEERANNA and A. HUSAIN
Regional Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, PIN 500 007, India

S. SUBRAHMANYAM and M. K. SARKAR

Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, PIN 110 016, India
(Received 5 August 1985; final revision received 16 February 1987; received for publication 23 February 1987)

Abstrac-Because of its inherent advantages, the equation-of-state (EOS) approach is preferred to the
mixed-model approach for VLE calculations at high pressures. In flash calculations at high pressure, there
are certain computational dficulties like trivial solutions and false convergences, especially with the EOS
approach. These problems arise because of poor initial guesses of phase compositions and vapor fraction.
A systematic analysis is presented here to show that the importance of these initial values depends on the
calculation scheme adopted. Appropriate physical constraints are suggested to avoid these problems and
an algorithm is proposed for the flash calculations.

Scope-The equation-of-state approach for flash calculations has been the most popular method in gas
processing for over a decade because of the development of simple equations of state like Soave [I],
Peng-Robinson [2] etc. However, calculations of VLE at high pressures, especially with the EOS approach,
lead to convergence problems, typically yielding trivial solutions and false convergences. In spite of its
use in the hydrocarbon industry, either enough attention has not been paid to this important aspect or
the experience gained has remained unpublished. Only in recent times has some attention been paid to
this important aspect. Veeranna and Rihani [3] analyzed this probleni for phase-boundary calculations.
However, more general flash calculations, have not been thoroughly considered.
In this article a thorough analysis is made to identify the reasons for the above-mentioned problems.
A typical eight-component natural gas system with the Soave EOS is used for illustration. The conclusions
and the proposed algorithm are applicable to any EOS, including the BWR type of EOS.

colidlwlom aad s@Bcamz-In this work it is shown that the method of solving the EOS is not the real
cause for convergence problems in VLE calculations and an analytical solution procedure can be used.
The real factors affecting the convergence are the initial estimates for: (i) Phase compositions or K-values
and (ii) vapor fraction. The relative importance of each one depends on the calculation scheme.
Application of suitable physical constraints suggested in this work leads to a physically acceptable
solution. The proposed algorithm can be used to perform flash calculations for systems close to critical
conditions. The Soave EOS is used for illustration and the algorithm is general and can be used with any
equation-of-state including the BWR type of equation.

INTRODUCTION and (ii) mixed-model approach (MMA), wherein

There was a time when it was considered sufficient to
approximate light hydrocarbon systems at equi-
librium with models in which K-values of the phases
were dependent on temperature and pressure only.
Slowly it was realized by the hydrocarbon industry
that it was necessary to incorporate compositional
effects for accurate simulation of phase equilibria.
This led to the development of convergence-pressure
correlations, which strive to account for the effect of
liquid-phase composition. With the advent of digital
computers, rapid progress was made in the analytical
representations of phase behavior, leading to the
development of two powerful approaches to simulate
hydrocarbon VLE. These are: (i) single-model ap-
preach (SMA), wherein the same equation-of-state
(EOS) (e.g. BWR [4,5] and Soave [l]) is used to
represent both liquid- and vapor-phase properties
489
different models (e.g. Chao and Seader [6], and
Prausnitz and Chueh [7j) are used for liquid- and
vapor-phases. The SMA has certain advantages over
the MMA, especially in gas processing where the
separation is carried out at high pressures, close to
the critical region where K-values change rapidly
with pressure. This led to the development of im-
proved EOS (e.g. Starling and Han [8,9], Graboski
and Daubert (10,l I], Peng and Robinson [2] etc.) and
their increased use in the hydrocarbon industry.
However, the EOS approach leads to certain com-
putational difficulties in iterative phase equilibrium
calculations. In spite of its intensive use in the
hydrocarbon industry for over a decade, it appears
that the computational difficulties involved with the
use of a single EOS have not been given much
attention in the published literature. Some attention to
this aspect is noted in the recent literature [3,12-231.
490 D. VEEIUNNA
ef al.
According to Harmens [12], trivial solutions may
occur at relatively high temperature and high pres-
sure where cubic equation-of-state gives a single real
root for both liquid- and vapor-phases; the problem
is least likely to occur in multicomponent systems
which are of practical importance. He suggested to
use different values for each phase for the constant R
in the Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state. Huron et al.
[13] proposed determining the limits for pressure by
trial and error. According to Asselinea et al. [14],
convergence problems may arise at high pressure if
the solution is near to extrema of temperature or
pressure in dew-point calculations or near to critical
point. They suggested that initial estimates for dew-
point calculations should be provided by means of
pseudocritical constants. Coward et al. [ 151also men-
tioned the problem of trivial solutions in the region
of cricondenbar, critical point and cricondentherm.
Khoury [16] observed that the problem of trivial
solutions in flash calculations with an equation-of-
state arise because of the selection of incorrect densi-
ties from the EOS for liquid- and vapor-phases. He
suggested to give a small perturbation to temperature
(positive for vapor and negative for liquid). If the
perturbation gives three roots, the smallest one is
taken for vapor and the largest one for liquid;
otherwise the previous density is taken as correct. La1
and Mukhopadyay [17] observed trivial solutions
both in univariate approach and multivariate ap-
proach in phase-boundary calculations. According to
Gundersen [18], this problem is created by the use of
analytical solution method to solve the cubic
equation-of-state. He proposed an algorithm to nu-
merically solve the cubic equation. Poling et al. [19]
suggested changing phase compositions, guided by
the numerical value of the derivative of the com-
pressibility factor. These techniques are helpful at
moderate pressures only, i.e. up to pseudocritical
conditions. But the problem is more deep rooted.
There are trivial solutions (Ki + 1.0) as well as phys-
ically nonexistent convergences at high pressure
where the above techniques fail. Further, there is
some confusion in literature as to the real cause of
this problem. According to Gundersen [18], use of
analytical solution methods to solve cubic equations
results in these failures. Baker et al. [20] rightly
pointed out that solution techniques for phase-
equilibrium problems give mathematical solution for
the set of equations which satisfy the usual restriction
on equality of chemical potentials of components in
each phase and conservation of moles in the system,
but it may be an incorrect physical solution. They
applied the constraint that the system of predicted
phases at equilibrium state must have the lowest
possible Gibbs energy at the system temperature and
pressure. Michelson [21,22] discussed the numerical
implementation of this approach. Grens [23] in a
review of computational methods, indicated that
free-energy minimisation increases the efficiency of
phase equilibrium calculations. Veeranna and Rihani
[3] suggested to impose a constraint on calculated
liquid- and vapor-phase densities to avoid trivial
solutions and false convergences in phase.-boundary
calculations in vapor-liquid equilibria. However, gen-
eral flash calculations were not considered.
In this work, a systematic study was carried out to
analyze the problem in isothermal flash calculation
usingan eight-component natural gas system with the
Soave EOS [l] through the application of density
constraint to identify the correct solution. Through-
out this work, only analytical solution method is used
to solve the Soave EOS. Because of its simplicity
[24,25], univariate algorithm is followed in this work.
SCHEME FOR R%Yl’HERMALFLASH CALCULATIONS
In isothermal flash calculations, feed composition,
temperature and pressure are given, and vapor frac-
tion (V/F) and individual phase compositions are
calculated. The equations used to establish the phase-
equilibrium conditions are the fugacity equality:
f*=f;, i=l,...n. (1)
and the material balance relation:
F (V/F) = E r,(& - l)/[l + (& - 1) (VP91= 0 (2)
To initiate the calculations, equilibrium ratios, K’S,
and the vapor fraction (V/F) are assumed. The
relative importance of these estimates depends on the
calculation scheme adopted. Equations (1) and (2)
can be solved in two ways:
(i) the material balance equation is in the inner
loop and the fugacity equality is checked outside,
(ii) the material balance equation is in the outer
loop and the fugacity equality is checked inside.
These two schemes are examined using a typical
eight-component mixture whose composition is given
in Table 1. In all the illustrations, the calculations are
made with the Soave EOS [l].
Scheme 1. In this scheme, with initially assumed
K-values, equation (2) is solved iteratively for V/F
followed by calculations of the phase compositions.
Then the conditions for equation (1) are checked. The
process is repeated until equation (1) is satisfied.
Normally, the initial K-values, so-called ideal K-
values are generated from Raoult’s law using vapor
pressure correlations. In gas processing, where the
operations are carried out at high pressures, some of
the components would be supercritical at the given
Table 1. Composition of
test mixture
Component mol %
Nitrogen 0.54
M&halle 72.80
Ethane 5.46
PrOpant 3.06
n-Butane 3.07
n-Rntane 6.88
n-Hexane 4.38
n-Hcptane 3.75
 An algorithm for llash calculations using an equation of state 491

Tabk 2. Effect of initial K-values on tlash calculations in Scheme I

Point 1 - 2 3 4
Temperature (K) 320 320 370 320
Pressure (atm) 128 160 160 172
V/F predicted by
initially guessed
K-values 0 0 0 0
K-VdUCS
component Ideal Actual Ideal Actual Ideal Actual Ideal Actual
Nitrogen I.105 2.134 0.884 1.782 1.003 1.480 0.822 1.438
Methane 0.949 1.703 0.759 1.334 0.924 1.255 0.706 1.195
Ethane 0.422 0.812 0.338 0.854 0.469 0.978 0.314 0.899
Propane 0.124 0.482 0.099 0.625 0.262 0.819 0.092 0.738
n-Butane 0.036 0.286 0.029 0.458 0.089 0.686 0.027 0.606
n-Pentane 0.011 0.173 0.009 0.340 0.034 0.580 0.008 0.502
n-Hexane 0.004 0.108 0.003 0.257 0.014 0.493 0.003 0.420
n -Heptane 0.001 0.067 0.001 0.197 0.006 0.419 0.001 0.351

conditions. Hence the vapor pressure would be an achieve a V/F between 0.0 and 1.0. A similar sug-
extrapolated value. Such Raoult’s law K-values gestion is made by Poling et al. [19]. However, it is
would be totally different from actual K-values and not known a priori which component K-value should
hence, in such a situation equation (2) may give V/F be altered and by how much. If initial K-values are
< 0, or > 1.O, whereas in reality the mixture might be taken as the arithmetic average of the K-values for
in the two-phase region. In the first iteration, the the bubble- and dew-point temperatures at the given
calculations would be terminated and there would be pressure, a two-phase mixture is initially predicted
no way to revise the K-values. A few such cases for and used to revise the K-values. Convergence is then
the eight-component mixture are shown in Table 2. achieved irrespective of the initially assumed value of
As can be seen, the ideal K-values are very much V/F, as shown by the results presented in Table 3 for
different from the true K-values and, hence, for a the test mixture. For all three cases of initial assumed
two-phase mixture a single liquid-phase is incorrectly V/F (0.1, 0.5 and 0.9), the results are the same,
predicted. For point 2 and 4 in Table 2, even the indicating that with this scheme the initial guess for
K-value for the lightest component is less than unity. V/F has no bearing on final convergence. However,
If in the first iteration, a two-phase mixture is pre- in this scheme, the convergence is very sensitive to the
dicted, then the K-values are revised and there is a initial K-values. At high pressure, there are multiple
chance for proper convergence. This prediction can convergences depending on the initial K-values. Re-
be accomplished by altering the K-values so as to sults presented in Table 4 at two pressures with three
different sets of K-values each clearly indicate that
fmal convergence is sensitive to the initial K-values
Table 3. Effect of initial V/F on flash calculations in Scheme 1
and the problem of selecting the acceptable solution
V/F predicted
arises. This may be resolved by applying the density
Temperature Pressure Initial V/F constraint suggested later.
IK) (atm) 0.1 0.5 0.90
Scheme 2. In this scheme, the material balance
100.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 equation (2) is in the outer loop and equation (1) is
180.0 1.0 0.773 0.773 0.773
260.0 1.0 0.887 0.887 0.887 checked in the inner loop. With an assumed value of
340.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 V/F, phase compositions and new K-values are calcu-
140.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
220.0 8.0 0.757 0.757 0.757
lated. Hence, even if the initial K-values are poor,
300.0 8.0 0.870 0.870 0.870 they are revised in the subsequent iterations and thus
380.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 the initial K-values have no influence on convergence.
180.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
260.0 32.0 0.726 0.726 0.726 On the other hand, the initial value of V/F plays a
340.0 32.0 0.862 0.862 0.862 vital role in avoiding a trivial solution, just as tem-
400.0 32.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
perature and pressure do in phase-boundary calcu-
250.0 128.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
280.0 128.0 0.424 0.424 0.424 lations.
320.0 128.0 0.620 0.620 0.620 There can be a vapor-phase trivial solution or a
360.0 128.0 0.773 0.773 0.773
400.0 128.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
liquid-phase trivial solution [3] depending on
280.0 160.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 temperature-pressure conditions. Figure 1 shows a
300.0 160.0 0.323 0.323 0.323 case of a vapor-phase trivial solution. Any value of
320.0 160.0 0.486 0.486 0.486
340.0 160.0 0.613 0.613 0.613 V/F below 0.43 leads to a vapor-phase trivial solu-
360.0 160.0 0.756 0.756 0.756 tion, irrespective of initial K-values. Figure 2 shows
380.0 160.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
the case of a liquid-phase trivial solution, where any
300.0 172.0 0.149 0.149 0.149
320.0 172.0 0.363 0.364 0.363 value of V/F greater than 0.90 leads to a liquid-phase
340.0 172.0 0.555 0.555 0.555 trivial solution. This kind of sharp change to a trival
360.0 172.0 0.863 0.863 0.866
solution exists at low pressures.
492 D. V-A et al.

Table 4. Sensitivity of converacna to initial K-values in the critical retion in Scheme 1.

Pressure 160.0 172
cam
Initial R-values
Nitrogen 1.455 1.60 1.42 I .285 1.20 1.14
Methane 1.205 1.30 1.22 1.135 1.10 1.06
Ethane 0.910 0.85 0.97 0.935 1.0 0.96
PrOpaZlC 0.750 0.70 0.83 0.815 0.90 0.89
n-Butane 0.615 0.60 0.70 0.715 0.80 0.82
n -Pentane 0.515 0.45 0.60 0.630 0.80 0.76
n-Hexane 0.435 0.40 0.51 0.560 0.68 0.71
n-Heptane 0.365 0.30 0.45 0.495 0.65 0.66
V/P

Temperature (K)
280.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
300.0 0.323 0.323 0.663 0.149 0.0 0.079
320.0 0.486 0.488 0.487 0.363 0.874 0.361

ZZ:8 , 0.613
0.766 0.615
0.760 0.616
0.769 0.863
0.555 0.941
0.571 0.558
1.0
380.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

At high pressure, the direct substitution of com-
position in the inner loop will not lead either to
equality of fugacities or constant K-values even after
a large number of iterations. If the substitution is
continued until equation (1) is satisfied, it will ulti-
mately lead to a trivial solution. But there is very little
change in K-values after the first few iterations and
it is common practice in VLE calculations to stop the
iterations prematurely. In such an event, there are
cases where the deviation function actually passes
through zero as shown in Fig. 3, leading to false’
convergence, indicating a two-phase mixture whereas
in reality a total liquid exists. In addition to this, the
deviation function, equation (2) decreases with in-
creasing pressure. At high pressures, the function
may be so small at all V/F that it may be confused
for convergence. This behavior is illustrated by the
results presented in Table 5, where the deviation
function is shown for three different pressures. Fur-
thermore, the deviation function may exhibit a max-
imum or a minimum as shown in Fig. 4. If the initial
estimate is on the wrong side of the stationary point,
the search process may have difficulty in reaching the
required convergence point.
Algorithm to solve the paSh problems
In Scheme 1, as already mentioned, the initial value
of V/F has no bearing on convergence and only

o.a-

0.6-

0.4-

0.2 -

-Region at trivial solution 4

< 0.0

e
I&
-0.2 -

-0.4 -

-0.6 -

-0.6
0.0 0-f 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 4’6 0,7 0.6 0.9 1.0
Vapor fraction, V/F

Fig. 1. Vapor phase trivial solution--T = 340 K, P = 32 atm.

 An algorithm for flash calculations using an quation of state 493

a1 -

-0.I -
Region
Of
-0.2 - trivid

SOlUtiOll

- 2.5 - I I 1 1 I I I I I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0
Vapor Fraction V/F

Fig. 2. Liquid phase trivial solution--T = 195 K, P = 40 atm.

K-values have a strong Muence. To get accurate
K-values a priori is not easy, unless bubble- and
dew-point K-values are calculated, e.g. by the method
suggested in [3]. As mentioned earlier, in Scheme 1,
the results at high pressures close to the critical
conditions are sensitive to the initial K-values. The
correct solution may be identified by the density
constraint suggested by equation (3), as all the solu-
tions will not satisfy that condition. However, this
cannot be built into the calculation scheme,
In Scheme 2, initial K-values have little bearing but
initial V/F has a strong effect on convergence. As
discussed earlier, there are four different types of
computational difficulties:
(1) trivial solutions,

0.0008

0.0004

-0.006 -

1 I 4

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Vapor fraction, V/F

Fig. 3. Physically nonexistent convergence-T = 280 K, P = 160 atm.

494 D. VEIXANNA
et al.

Table 5. Variation of deviation function FNIF) with messwe Table 6. Steps in algorithm for isothermal flash calculations
Pressurelatd 1 32 160 Step No. process
Tempera&e ;K) 180 260 360
0.780 1. Calculate initial K-values
Actual V/F 0.773 0.726
2. Assume a vapor fraction (V/F) of 0.5
V/F F(V/F) 3. Calculate the p* coxn~positions,componmt fugacities
0.02 12.518 0.904 -0.wO2 and new K-va& at the presentGp&X&oC(V/F)
0.10 5.264 0.921 -0.0000 4. Repeat Step 3 until I(f&/fn) - 1.01< L,
0.20 2.898 0.853 0.0002 5. Find out if it is a &al solution or a case. of false
0.30 1.909 0.741 o.ooo7 convergence using the density constraint, i.e. & < 4, or
0.40 1.346 0.608 0.0017
$;;!m
0.50 0.957 0.460 0.003 1 xs not consistent with EOS, some tolerance for its
0.60 0.635 0.290 0.0042 deviation may be provided). If it is not go to Step 7.
0.70 0.307 0.072 0.0027 6. If d,, < &, increase vapor fraction (V/F)
0.80 -0.148 -0.276 -0.0012 If &,, > &, decrease vapor fraction (V/F)
0.90 -1.214 -1.117 -0.0036 7. If I#ji <f2, go to step 10
0.98 -8.455 - 5.598 -0.0036 8. If +,.$,_, c 0 or j < 10, adjust V/F through false posi-
tion method and go to Step 3
(Substitution terminated after 10 iterations in the inner loop).
9. If 4, > 0, increase V/F or vice versa and go to Step 3
10. Convergence achieved; stop

(2) deviation function becomes very small leading

to false convergences,
(3) physically nonexistent convergences,
(4) stationary points on objective function.
All these problems arise out of the nonlinear nature
of the resulting mathematical equations, which can be
satisfied by a number of solutions, not all of which
are physically meaningful. A physically acceptable
solution can be obtained by applying suitable phys-
ical constraints. As suggested in reference [3], the
following two physical constraints will lead to proper
equilibrium conditions:
(i) for a given mixture, along the phase boundary,
vapor density is maximum and liquid density is
minimum at the critical point; i.e.
cr, 3 d, 3 d,,
(ii) vaporization increases with increasing
perature and decreasing pressure.
Table 6 gives the steps involved in the algorithm for
isothermal flash calculations incorporating these con-
straints. The first constraint, implemented through
Step 6, helps to avoid trivial solutions and false
convergences whereas the second one, implemented
through Step 9, helps to cross over the maximum and
minimum on the convergence curve. To illustrate the
implementation of the algorithm, the objective func-
tions for flash calculations at 172 atm for four
different temperatures are shown in Fig. 5, which
show liquid-phase trivial solution, vapor-phase trivial
solution and maximum and minimum on objective
function. At 300 K, the initially assumed value of V/F
i.e. 0.5 leads to a liquid-phase trivial solution with a
vapor-phase density higher than critical density of the
(3)
mixture. At this stage, Step 6 of the algorithm directs
tem- to reduce V/F thus leading to nontrivial region. Step
9 of the algorithm helps to cross the minimum on the

-0-06

I I I 1 I I

0.6
I I

0.7
I

0.8
I

0.9
I’
l-0
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Vapor Fraction V/F

Fig. 4. Existence of a max and min on the convergence curve-T = 320 K, P = 128 atm.
 An algorithm for flash calculations using an equation of state 495

objective function. At 320 and 340 K, convergence
will be smooth as the initially assumed value of V/F
is in nontrivial region and also there are no stationary
points on objective function in the range of initial
value V/F and equilibrium value. At 360 K, the initial
value of V/F leads to a vapor-phase trivial solution
with a liquid density lower than the critical density.
Step 6 of the algorithm directs to increase V/F, thus
leading to nontrivial region whereas Step 9 helps to
cross the maximum on the objective function. The
results obtained by the proposed algorithm are
presented in Table 7. Note that the results for
172atm are different from those in Table 3.
DISCUSSION
At high pressures, the liquid- and vapor-phases
became monotonic even when the mixture is in the
two phase region. This clearly shows that there is no
relation between the number of phases in the system
and the number of roots arising out of the EOS for
each phase. The fact that the analytical method is
used to solve the cubic equation throughout this
work shows that the method of solving the EOS is not
the real cause for convergence problems.
In Scheme 1, even though the correct solution can
be identified with the help of the density criterion
suggested by equation (3), this cannot be incorpo-
rated in the calculation scheme. Hence, it is advisable
to use the second scheme. The required critical den-
sity may be calculated from an EOS [26] or an
empirical method like that of Prausnitz and Chueh
[A. The proposed algorithm can be used with any
EOS including that of the BWR type.
NOMENCLATURE
d, = Critical density of mixture
d,,,,= Liquid density of mixture
&v = Vapor density of mixture
.& = Fugacity of component i in liquid mixture

0.8 -

0.6 -
//
,,
0.4 - ,#’ \
/’ \
.’
\ \
“0 0.2 - \ \
\ 360K
x \
2
5 i I1 .-- /’ ,.---.. -1.

iz

-0.6 - 300K

-08 -

-1.0 -

-1.2 -

-1.4 -
I I I I 1 I I
0.1 0.2 a.3 0.4 0.5 06 0.7 0.0 09 1.0

Vapor Fraction V/F

Fig. 5. Converge& characteristics for flash calculations at 172 atm.
4% D. VEBRANNA
et al.

Table 7. Results by the ~rouosedalaortthm vapor-liquid equilibria in hydrocarbon mixtures. AZ-

Temperature Ressun ChE Jl7, 598 (1961).
fK) &iIl) V/F 7. J. M. Prausnita and P. L. Chueh, High pressure
vapor-liquid equilibrium calculations. Prentice Hall,
100.0 1.0 0.0
Englewood Cliffs, New York (1968).
180.0 1.0 0.773
260.0 1.0 0.887 8. K. E. Starlinn and M. S. Han. Thennodata re.Bned for
340.0 1.0 1.0 LPG. Part 12: Mixtures. Hyhrocarbon Process 51(5),
140.0 8.0 0.0 129 (1972).
220.0 8.0 0.757 9. K. E. Starling and M. S. Han, Thermodata relined for
300.0 8.0 0.869 LPG. Part 15: Industrial applications. Hy&ocarbon
380.0 8.0 1.0 Process 51(6), 107 (1972).
180.0 32.0 0.0 10. M. S. Graboski and T. E. Dauber?, A modified Soave
260.0 32.0 0.726
340.0 32.0 0.862 equation of state for phase equilibrium calculations. 1.
400.0 32.0 1.0 Hydrocarbon systems. Znd. Engng Chem. Process Des.
250.0 128.0 0.0 Dev. 17, 443 (1978).
280.0 128.0 0.424 11. M. S. Graboski and T. E. Dauber& A modified Soave
320.0 128.0 0.620 equation of state for phase equilibrium calculations. 2.
360.0 128.0 0.773 Systems containing CO*, H,S, N, and CO. Ind. Engng
400.0 128.0 1.0 Chem. Process Des. Dee. 17, 448 (1978).
280.0 160.0 0.0 12. A. Harmens, Prediction of multicomponent low tern-
300.0 160.0 0.323
320.0 160.0 0.486 perature phase equilibria-A comparison of com-
340.0 160.0 0.615 putation techniques. Cryotech 73. Proc. British Cryo-
360.0 160.0 0.768 genic Council Cot&, Brighton. IPC Science and
380.0 160.0 1.0 Technology Press, Great B&in (1974).
300.0 172.0 0.018 13. M. J. Huron. G. N. Dufour and J. Vidal. Vanor-liauid
320.0 172.0 0.363 equilibrium and critical locus curve calculations with
340.0 172.0 0.566 Soave equation for hydrocarbon system with carbon
368.0 172.0 0.977 dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. Fluid Phase Equilibria 1,
247 (1977-78).
14. L. Asselineau, G. Bogdanic and J. Vidal, A versatile
algorithm for calculating vapor-liquid equilibria. Fluid
f* = Fugacity of component i $ vapor mixture Phase Equilibria 3, 273 (1979).
5 1 zval; o;~urhbnum ratto of component i 15. I. Coward, S. E. Gale and D. R. Webb, Process
engineering calculations with equations of state. Trans.
T= Temper&tire, K Inst. Gem. Engrs (Land.) 56, 19 (1978).
V/F = Vapor fraction of feed in moles 16. F. M. Khouryy Calculate right density. Hydrocarbon
zi = Mole fraction of component i in a mixture Process 57(12), 155 (1978).
6, = Tolerance limit for convergence of composition 17. R. K. La1 and P. K. Mukhopadyay, A new method for
L, = Tolerance limit for convergence of V/F vapor-liquid equilibria prediction near the critical re-
&= zz;tzT function given by equation 2 at jth gion. Indian J. Cryog. S(3), 27 (1980).
18. T. Gundersen, Numerical aspects of the implementation
R = Constant in the Redlich-Kwong equation-of- of cubic equations of state in flash calculation routines.
state Cornput. them. Engng 6, 245 (1982).
19. B. E. Poling, E. A. Grens and J. M. Prausnitx, Thermo-
dynamic properties from a cubic equation of state:
REFlSRJZNCES Avoid trivial roots and spurious derivatives. Ind. Engng
Chem. Process Des. Dee. 20, 127 (1981).
1. G. Soave, Equilibrium constants from a modified 20. L. E. Baker, A. C. Pierce and K. D. Lucks, Gibbs
Redlich-Kwong equation of state. Chem. Engng Sci. 27, energy analysis of phase equilibria. Sot. Petrol Engrs Jl
1197 (1972). 22, 731 (1982).
2. D. Y. Peng and D. B. Robinson, A new two constant 21. M. L. Michelson, The isothermal llash problem. Part I.
equation of state. Ind. Engng Chem. Fur&m. 15, 59 Stability. Fluid Phase Equilibria 9, 1 (1982).
(1976). 22. M. L. Michelson, The isothermal gash problem. Part II.
3. D. Veeranna and D. N. Rihani, Avoiding convergence Phase split calculation. Fluid Phase Equilibria 9, 21
problems in VLE prediction through an equation of (1982).
state. Fluid Phase Equilibria 16, 41 (1984); 22, 241 23. E. A. Grens, Efficient use of thermodynamic models in
(1985). process calculations. Second Znt. Conf. Founaktions of
4. M. Benedict, G. M. Webb and L. C. Rubin, An Computer-Aided Design (A. W. West&erg and H. H.
empirical equation for thermodynamic properties of Chien. eds). DD. 249-302 (1983).
light hydrocarbons and their mixtures I. Methane, 24. R. R&es ‘&d-N. Agip, Phase equilibrium calculations
ethane, propane and butane. J. Chem. Phys 8, 344 in the near critical region. Paper presented at European
(1940). Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Bournemouth,
5. M. Benedict, G. M. Webb and L. C. Rubin, An England (1981).
empirical equation for thermodynamic properties of 25. M. 0. Ohanomah and D. W. Thompson, Computation
light hydrocarbons and their mixtures II. Mixtures of of multicomponent phase equilibria. Part I. Vapor-
methane, ethane, propane and butane. J. Chem. Phys liquid equilibria. Comput. them. Engng 8, 147 (1984).
10, 747 (1942). 26. R. A. Heidemann and A. M. Khalil, The calculation of
6. K. C. Chao and J. D. Seader, A general correlation of critical points, AZChE Ji 26, 769 (1980).