J. Chem.

Thermodynamics 181 (2023) 107026

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/the-journal-of-chemical-thermodynamics

Viscosity measurements of liquid ethene + ethane binary mixtures at

temperatures from 173.150 K to 243.150 K and pressures up to 5.5 MPa
Sainan Sun a, b, Bowen Sheng a, b, Yunxiao Wang a, b, Yanxing Zhao a, Xueqiang Dong a, b, *,
Maoqiong Gong a, b, *
a
Key Laboratory of Cryogenics, Technical Institute of Physics and Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Liquid viscosity for the binary systems of {xC2H4 + (1 − x)C2H6} was measured by a vibrating-wire viscometer
Viscosity with three different mole fractions of x = 0.273, 0.521, and 0.757. Measurements were operated at eight iso­
Ethene + ethane therms at temperatures from 173.150 K to 243.150 K and pressures up to 5.5 MPa. The combined relative
Hard-sphere model
standard uncertainty of the measured viscosity was about 2.6 %. The relative deviation from the experimental
data and the calculations of the extended corresponding state (ECS) model implemented in REFPROP 10.0 was
mainly within 5 % with the 10 % maximum. In addition, the Assael and Dymond scheme based on the hard-
sphere theory was used to correlate the measured results, and the model is in good consistency with the
experimental data with the relative deviations within 0.8 %.

1. Introduction the design and optimization of refrigeration systems, especially the

In recent years, as an eco-friendly alternative refrigerant for hydro­
chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydro­
carbons (HCs) and their mixtures have attracted increasing attention in
ultra-low temperature (ULT) applications (− 50 ◦ C to − 100 ◦ C) [1],
including natural gas liquefaction [2], biomedical preservation [3],
freeze-drying [4]. Sun et al. [5] studied the application potential of
ethene (R1150) and ethane (R170) in a three-stage cascade refrigeration
system (TCRS) through thermodynamic analysis and proposed some
available ternary mixed refrigerants containing R170 and R1150. He
et al. [6] reported that the theoretical performance of a two-stage auto-
cascade refrigeration cycle with R170 or R1150 working fluids was
better than using R32/R134a under the specific low temperature con­
ditions. Mota-Babiloni et al. [7] comprehensively analyzed the research
status of ULT refrigeration systems and pointed out that R170 and
R1150 are available natural refrigerants for ULT. Although the flam­
mability and risk assessment studies of R1150 and R170 are not very
sufficient [8], studies have shown that the flammability risk of HCs can
be reduced by optimizing the heat exchanger structure, reducing the
charge quantity, or mixing with lower or non-flammable refrigerants
[9–12].
The thermophysical properties of refrigerants are key parameters in
viscosity, which is essential for the flow and heat transfer analysis. At
present, the research on the viscosity of pure ethane is relatively suffi­
cient. Vogel et al. [27] reviewed and screened the experimental data
from the literature and established a high-precision viscosity model for
ethane, which has an expanded uncertainty of 4 % (k = 2) for liquid and
was implemented in NIST REFPROP 10.0 software package [28]. There
are few experimental studies [26,29] for the viscosity of liquid ethene in
the literature. The viscosity correlation of pure ethene in REFPROP 10.0
[28] was proposed by Holland et al. [30] with a lager uncertainty 10 %
for liquid. In our recently work [31], the current research state on the
viscosity of ethene was reviewed and new liquid experimental data with
a wider temperature range were obtained by a vibrating-wire viscom­
eter. As shown in Table 1, there are many studies on the equilibrium
physical properties of ethene + ethane mixture. By contrast, for the
transport properties, only Gerf and Galkov [26] measured a few liquid
viscosity data in temperature range of 102.02 K to 160.82 K and at
pressure of 0.101 MPa.
Viscosity models are necessary for engineering applications, which
can be roughly classified into the empirical models and the semi-
theoretical models. The commonly used empirical models include
Andrade-Tait equation [32], Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC) model [33] and
Walther equation [34]. The semi-theoretical models based on Enskog

* Corresponding authors at: Key Laboratory of Cryogenics, Technical Institute of Physics and Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China.
E-mail addresses: dxq@mail.ipc.ac.cn (X. Dong), gongmq@mail.ipc.ac.cn (M. Gong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2023.107026
Received 2 January 2023; Received in revised form 7 February 2023; Accepted 8 February 2023
Available online 11 February 2023
0021-9614/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd.
S. Sun et al. The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 181 (2023) 107026

Table 1 hard-sphere theory [35,36], friction theory [37], free-volume theory

Literature on thermophysical properties measurements of ethene + ethane bi­ [38], corresponding states principle [39], and residual entropy scaling
nary mixture. theory [40] were extensively applied to dense fluid. The mixture was
Author Year Temperature (K) Pressure (MPa) usually regarded as a hypothetical pure fluid. Some mixing rules and
Vapor-liquid equilibria
interaction parameters were employed to extend the viscosity model
McCurdy and Katz [13] 1944 277.59–288.7 3.199–4.923 from pure to mixture. The extended corresponding states (ECS) model
Clark and Din [14] 1953 140.01–175.04 0.004–0.118 has been included in REFPROP 10.0 [41,42] to calculate the transport
Hanson et al. [15] 1953 199.87–255.38 0.216–2.665 properties of hundreds of mixtures, because of its reliability and accu­
Anthony and McKetta [16] 1967 310.85–410.91 2.056–34.630
racy. The viscosity calculation uncertainty is 5 % to 10 % in general.
Fredenslund et al. [17] 1976 263.15–293.15 1.858–4.848
Barclay et al. [18] 1982 198.16–278.15 0.200–4.591 Additionally, the Assael and Dymond scheme [43,44] was developed for
Calado et al. [19] 1983 161.39 0.024–0.062 dense fluid based on the Enskog hard-sphere theory, and has been suc­
Rozhnov et al. [20] 1988 203.16–283.15 0.280–4.579 cessfully applied to correlating and predicting the viscosity of alkanes,
Virial coefficients refrigerants, and liquid mixtures, e.g. alkane mixtures [45] with a
Kharakhorin [21] 1959 169.33–273.16
Ohgaki et al. [22] 1981 298.14
relative uncertainty of about 5 % over a wide range of temperatures and
McElroy and Fang [23] 1993 283.13–333.15 pressures.
Compression factors The accuracy of the viscosity models mainly depends on the exper­
McElroy and Fang [23] 1993 283.13–333.15 0.208–5.606 imental data used to fit the effective parameters in the model. In order to
Excess enthalpy and enthalpy
fill the gap in the experimental database and provide basic data for the
Sharma and Singh [24] 1980 161.41 0.101
Gruszkiewicz et al. [25] 1995 298.15 5.00 application of working fluid with application potential, the experi­
Viscosity mental viscosity of liquid {xC2H4 + (1 − x)C2H6} binary mixtures were
Gerf and Galkov [26] 1940 102.02–160.82 0.101 carried out by a vibrating-wire viscometer in the temperature range of
173.150 to 233.150 K and at pressures up to 5.5 MPa. Measurements
were made under three different components: x = 0.273, 0.521, and
Table 2 0.757. The measured data were compared with the predictive value
Information of the pure fluid samples. from the ECS model and correlated with the Assael and Dymond scheme.
ASHRAE CAS Reg. IUPAC Source Mole
Refrigerant No. name fraction a 2. Experiment
Number

R1150 74–85-1 Ethene Beijing AP BAIF ≥0.9999 2.1. Material

Gases Industry Co.
ltd. The experimental sample of ethene was supplied by Beijing AP BAIF
R170 74–84-0 Ethane Beijing Anxing ≥0.99999 Gases Industry Co. ltd. with a claimed mole fraction purity of ≥ 0.9999.
Tailong Gas Chemical
Co., ltd.
Ethane was supplied by Beijing Anxing Tailong Gas Chemical Co., ltd
with a claimed mole fraction purity of ≥ 0.99999. All samples were used
a
As stated by the supplier and used without further purification. without further gas analysis or purification. The sample detailed infor­
mation is listed in Table 2. The preparation and filling procedure of
mixtures sample was consistent with our previous work [46]. The

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental system: 1. gas cylinder; 2. N2 cylinder; 3. vacuum pump; 4. refrigerating machine; 5. electric heater; 6. lock-in
amplifier; 7. function generator; 8. Fluke1594A; 9. pressure transducer; 10. computer; 11. adiabatic shield; 12. thermostatic bath; 13. corrugated pressure control
device; 14. magnets; 15. pressure vessel; 16. Pt25; 17. vibrating-wire; 18. tungsten backbone.

2
S. Sun et al. The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 181 (2023) 107026

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Experimental viscosity ηexp of liquid {xC2H4 + (1 − x)C2H6} mixtures with T/K p/MPa ρEoS b
/ (kg⋅m− 3) ηexp/(μPa⋅s) δc/%
ethene mole factions × = (0.273, 0.521, and 0.757) at temperatures T from
(173.150 to 243.150) K and pressures p up to 5.5 MPaa. 223.150 2.323 486.74 97.03 − 1.6
223.150 3.320 488.78 98.49 − 1.1
b
T/K p/MPa ρEoS / (kg⋅m− 3) ηexp/(μPa⋅s) δc/% 223.150 4.479 491.06 100.23 − 0.5
x = 0.273 223.150 5.543 493.07 101.34 − 0.4
173.150 0.690 557.50 183.12 − 0.4 233.150 1.291 466.42 84.12 − 2.8
173.150 1.942 558.63 184.91 − 0.1 233.150 2.332 469.22 85.66 − 2.4
173.150 3.021 559.59 186.86 0.3 233.150 3.538 472.27 87.64 − 1.7
173.150 4.120 560.54 189.48 1.1 233.150 4.541 474.68 89.04 − 1.3
173.150 4.579 560.94 191.46 1.9 233.150 5.444 476.75 90.06 − 1.2
183.150 0.761 544.68 160.67 − 0.7 243.150 1.741 447.69 74.80 − 2.6
183.150 1.964 545.91 163.14 0.0 243.150 2.628 450.75 76.10 − 2.5
183.150 3.081 547.04 165.57 0.8 243.150 3.612 453.92 77.73 − 2.0
183.150 4.145 548.09 167.66 1.4 243.150 4.493 456.59 79.18 − 1.5
183.150 4.791 548.71 169.00 1.8 243.150 5.440 459.30 80.53 − 1.2
193.150 0.518 531.05 142.39 − 0.5 x = 0.757
193.150 1.822 532.57 144.68 0.1 173.150 0.934 559.88 168.44 − 1.6
193.150 3.113 534.06 146.36 0.3 173.150 2.112 561.07 169.22 − 1.4
193.150 4.069 535.14 148.52 1.1 173.150 3.119 562.07 170.43 − 0.9
193.150 5.029 536.20 149.55 1.2 173.150 4.063 562.99 172.12 − 0.1
203.150 0.734 517.33 126.68 − 0.6 183.150 0.825 545.68 147.40 − 2.2
203.150 1.864 518.88 128.41 − 0.2 183.150 2.007 547.06 148.34 − 2.0
203.150 2.900 520.26 129.94 0.1 183.150 3.144 548.35 149.67 − 1.4
203.150 4.033 521.74 131.82 0.6 183.150 4.143 549.47 151.02 − 0.8
203.150 5.004 522.97 133.31 1.0 183.150 5.032 550.44 152.50 − 0.1
213.150 0.986 503.02 113.03 − 0.7 193.150 0.528 530.58 129.84 − 2.7
213.150 2.303 505.13 115.92 0.6 193.150 1.690 532.17 131.00 − 2.3
213.150 3.272 506.63 116.80 0.4 193.150 2.669 533.47 132.42 − 1.7
213.150 4.284 508.16 118.52 0.9 193.150 3.739 534.87 134.09 − 0.9
213.150 5.276 509.62 119.88 1.2 193.150 5.252 536.78 135.92 − 0.1
223.150 0.919 487.26 100.84 − 0.4 203.150 0.787 515.47 115.37 − 2.9
223.150 1.991 489.34 102.47 − 0.1 203.150 2.022 517.45 117.00 − 2.3
223.150 3.196 491.58 104.13 0.2 203.150 3.296 519.42 118.42 − 1.8
223.150 4.221 493.42 105.44 0.3 203.150 4.348 521.00 119.97 − 1.0
223.150 5.387 495.44 107.44 1.0 203.150 5.263 522.34 121.33 − 0.4
233.150 1.250 471.10 89.92 − 0.5 213.150 1.115 499.62 102.80 − 3.1
233.150 2.372 473.76 91.53 − 0.3 213.150 2.401 502.08 104.65 − 2.3
233.150 3.348 475.95 92.79 − 0.3 213.150 3.456 504.02 106.03 − 1.7
233.150 4.258 477.92 94.65 0.5 213.150 4.531 505.92 107.68 − 0.9
233.150 5.282 480.04 95.89 0.6 213.150 5.317 507.27 108.76 − 0.5
243.150 1.628 453.69 80.21 − 0.3 223.150 1.120 481.92 90.49 − 4.1
243.150 3.093 457.97 82.35 − 0.2 223.150 2.302 484.72 91.95 − 3.7
243.150 4.333 461.31 84.33 0.2 223.150 3.177 486.70 93.05 − 3.3
243.150 5.410 464.04 85.75 0.3 223.150 4.209 488.94 94.42 − 2.8
x = 0.521 223.150 5.316 491.24 95.74 − 2.4
173.150 0.459 557.72 173.89 − 1.4 233.150 1.526 463.57 79.43 − 5.4
173.150 1.485 558.71 175.28 − 1.0 233.150 2.301 465.91 80.60 − 4.9
173.150 2.373 559.55 176.81 − 0.5 233.150 3.395 469.02 82.44 − 4.1
173.150 3.288 560.41 178.45 0.1 233.150 4.442 471.82 83.78 − 3.7
173.150 4.194 561.24 179.56 0.4 233.150 5.297 474.00 84.78 − 3.5
173.150 5.076 562.05 181.02 0.9 243.150 2.014 443.53 69.77 − 6.1
183.150 1.145 544.94 153.03 − 1.7 243.150 3.157 447.95 71.84 − 5.2
183.150 2.295 546.19 154.71 − 1.2 243.150 4.224 451.72 73.26 − 5.0
183.150 3.231 547.19 155.97 − 0.8 243.150 5.247 455.08 75.51 − 3.5
183.150 4.251 548.27 157.54 − 0.3 a
Standard uncertainties u are u(T) = 8 mK, u(p) = 0.002 MPa, u(x) = 0.005
183.150 5.212 549.26 159.02 0.2
mol fraction; relative standard uncertainty ur is ur(η) = 2.6 %.
193.150 0.769 530.49 135.19 − 1.8 b
The density ρEoS are taken from the Helmholtz EoS for mixtures implemented
193.150 1.669 531.63 136.30 − 1.6
193.150 2.559 532.75 137.49 − 1.2 in REFPROP 10.0 [28].
c
193.150 3.532 533.94 139.03 − 0.6 Relative deviation δ = 100×(ηexp-ηref)/ηref, where ηref is the predictive value
193.150 4.326 534.89 140.01 − 0.4 calculated with the default ECS model [42] implemented in REFPROP 10.0 [28].
193.150 5.324 536.07 141.87 0.4
203.150 0.411 515.22 119.92 − 1.8
uncertainty of the compositions mainly caused from the weighing of the
203.150 0.945 516.03 120.55 − 1.7
203.150 2.269 517.99 122.53 − 1.0 fluid; hence all the weights were precisely measured by a high-precision
203.150 3.440 519.67 124.15 − 0.5 balance (XPE15002L, METTLER TOLEDO) with a resolution of 10 mg.
203.150 4.553 521.22 125.71 0.0 The standard uncertainty in the composition of the mixture samples was
203.150 5.280 522.21 126.51 0.2
estimated to be u(x) = 0.005 mol fraction, and its contribution to the
213.150 0.622 499.90 106.84 − 1.9
213.150 1.379 501.26 107.95 − 1.5
uncertainty of viscosity measurement ur(η)x was less than 0.02 %.
213.150 2.365 502.99 109.22 − 1.2
213.150 3.279 504.54 110.23 − 1.0
213.150 4.376 506.34 112.06 − 0.3 2.2. Apparatus
213.150 5.259 507.75 113.22 0.0
223.150 0.908 483.69 94.75 − 2.4
The experimental setup was described in detail in our previously
223.150 1.181 484.29 95.33 − 2.1
work [31,47] and is only briefly presented here. The schematic of the
experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. The two ends of the tungsten

3
S. Sun et al.
Fig. 2. Distribution of the experimental viscosity data of liquid {xC2H4 + (1 −
x)C2H6} binary mixtures. ■, x = 0.273; , x = 0.521; , x = 0.757.
wire with a nominal diameter of 50 μm and a length of 50 mm were fixed
on the tungsten backbone by ceramic fixtures. Two permanent magnets
made of NdFeB N52 were placed outside the copper pressure vessel, and
magnetic field intensity was 0.35 T in the vessel center. The upper end of
the bellows pressure controller was connected to the pressure vessel
through the flange, and the bottom was connected to the high-pressure
nitrogen gas through the stainless-steel pipeline. The pressure of the
fluid was obtained by a pressure sensor (CPT6100, Mensor), and the
standard uncertainty of pressure measurement was estimated to u(p) =
0.002 MPa. Two annular electric heaters, a refrigerator and an alcohol
liquid bath provided a stable and constant temperature environment for
the pressure vessel, and the outermost vacuum cover was employed to
reduce the heat exchange. The temperature was measured by a Pt25
platinum resistance thermometer, and read by a super temperature-
measuring bridge (1594A, FLUKE). The standard uncertainty of tem­
perature was estimated to u(T) = 8 mK. The vibrating-wire viscometer
operated in the forced vibration mode. A signal generator (33512B,
Keysight Technologies) provided constant-amplitude alternating current
and performed the variable-step frequency sweeps within the frequency
range of fr ± 5 g, where fr is the resonance frequency, and g is the half-
width of the resonance curve. The lock-in amplifier (SR860, Stanford
Research System) was applied to collect the in-phase component Vx and
quadrature component Vy of the voltage at both ends of the wire at each
frequency point fi. The acquisition parameters (fi, Vxi, Vyi) were
substituted into the working equation to calculate the viscosity of the
fluid.
The viscosity measurement of the ethene + ethane binary mixtures in
this paper was completed after pure ethene. The relevant parameters
obtained by the calibration and verification of the apparatus follow the
previously published values [31], including the vacuum damping and
the radius of the wire. The fluid density values used in the measurement
are from the Helmholtz equation of state (EoS) and calculated by
REFPROP 10.0 [28] software. The combined relative standard uncer­
tainty of experimental viscosity in this work was better than 2.6 %,
considering the uncertainty of the composition of the mixture.
3. Results and discussion
A total of 122 ηexp data points for liquid ethene + ethane binary
mixtures were measured as shown in Table 3. The viscosity data for
{xC2H4 + (1 − x)C2H6} mixtures are distributed at three different mole
fractions (x = 0.273, 0.521, and 0.757) and eight temperatures between
173.150 K and 243.150 K, with the maximum pressure of 5.5 MPa. The
4
The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 181 (2023) 107026
p
Fig. 3. The viscosity of liquid {xC2H4 + (1 − x)C2H6} binary mixtures as a
function of pressure at three different temperatures. Scatter points (experi­
mental data): ■, x = 0.273; , x = 0.521; , x = 0.757; , x = 1 (previous
work [31]). Solid lines (calculated data form REFPROP 10.0 [28]): , x = 0;
▬, x = 0.273; , x = 0.521; , x = 0.757; , x = 1.
density of the mixtures ρEoS were calculated with the Helmholtz Equa­
tion of State (EoS) for mixtures implemented in REFPROP 10.0 [28]. All
the experimental data are presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. The experi­
mental viscosity for pure ethene in Fig. 3 were taken from our previously
work [31], and all the solid lines were derived from the default viscosity
equation implemented in REFPROP 10.0 [28]. It can be noted that the
viscosity of ethene + ethane binary mixtures lie in between those of the
two pure components. The viscosity of the mixtures increases with
decreasing temperature while they increase with increasing pressure
and mole fraction of ethane, respectively. The relative deviations of the
experimental viscosity between the values calculated with the default
ECS model [42] as implemented in REFPROP 10.0 [28] are depicted in
Table 3 and Fig. 4. The relative deviations between this work and the
ECS model [42] vary from − 6.1 % to 1.9 % and the average absolute
relative deviation (AARD) is 1.4 %. In addition, the systematic deviation
related to density, pressure, or temperature was observed. The reason
may be that there was a similar deviation between the viscosity model of
pure ethene [30] implemented in REFPROP 10.0 [28] and the liquid
experimental viscosity, as described in our previous work [31]. And for
the ethene + ethane binary mixture, due to the lack of reliable experi­
mental data, the adjustable binary interaction parameters in the ECS
model [42] were set to zero. In general, the ECS model [42] represents
S. Sun et al. The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 181 (2023) 107026

average absolute relative deviations (ΔAARD), maximum absolute rela­

x tive deviations (ΔMARD) and the relative bias (ΔBias) between the
experimental data and calculated results from the HS model for each
x composition are listed in Table 4. The relative deviations of experi­
x
/%

mental viscosity and calculated values from the HS model are presented
in Fig. 5. The AARD, MARD, and Bias of the present results from the
correlation were less than 0.3 %, 0.8 %, and 0.003 %. As shown in Fig. 5,
the deviation distribution is random. The model can present the data to
within 0.8 %, which means that the HS model provides a good fit of the
experimental data.

4. Conclusions

Liquid viscosity measurements of {xC2H4 + (1 − x)C2H6} binary

mixtures with three different mole fractions of x = 0.273, 0.521, and
0.757, were carried out by a vibrating-wire viscometer at temperatures
from 173.150 K to 233.150 K and pressures to 5.5 MPa. The relative
combined standard uncertainty in the experimental viscosity of the
mixtures was estimated to be 2.6 %. To our knowledge, the viscosity
experimental data provided by this work has not been reported. The
Fig. 4. Relative deviations between measured viscosity ηexp of liquid {xC2H4 + measured data agree with the calculations of the extended correspond­
(1 − x)C2H6} mixtures and predictive values ηref calculated with the default ECS ing states (ECS) model as implemented in REFPROP 10.0 software
model [42] implemented in REFPROP 10.0 [28] as a function of density ρ: ■, x package within 10 % and mainly within 5 %. Then, the Assael and
= 0.273; , x = 0.521; , x = 0.757. Dymond scheme based on the hard-sphere (HS) theory was used to
correlate the measured results. The HS model is in good consistency with
the viscosity of the mixtures with an uncertainty of 5 % to 10 %. The the experimental data with the relative deviations within 0.8 %.
relative deviation of the measured viscosity from values calculated with
ECS model is mainly within 5 % with the 10 % maximum. CRediT authorship contribution statement
The Assael and Dymond scheme [48] based on the hard-sphere
theory (hereinafter called “HS model”) was employed to correlate the Sainan Sun: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Meth­
present experimental viscosity. A reduced dimensionless viscosity η* odology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
was defined in the model, given by
16 ( π )1/2 η
η∗ = (2NA )1/3 V 2/3 (1)
5 MRT Rη

where η is the experimental viscosity, NA is the Avogadro constant, M is

the molar mass, R is the gas constant, V is the molar volume. Rη is the
/%

temperature-independent roughness factor, accounting for the effects of

non-spherical molecular shape, which obtained by fitting to the exper­
imental data. The molar mass M of the mixture is calculated by the
following mixing rule:
∑
Mm = xi Mi (2)
i

The universal curve of η* was established as a function of Vr = (V/

V0),
x
log10 (η∗ ) = 1.0945 − 9.26324⋅Vr− 1 + 71.0385⋅Vr− 2 − 301.9012Vr− 3 x
(3)
+797.69⋅Vr− 4 − 1221.977⋅Vr− 5 + 987.5574⋅Vr− 6 − 319.4636⋅Vr− 7 x

where V0 is a temperature-dependent characteristic molar volume,

which can be represented by an empirical relation as follow:
( )
V0 × 106 / m3 ⋅mol− 1 = a + b(T/K) + c(T/K)2 (4)
Fig. 5. Relative deviations between measured viscosity ηexp of liquid {xC2H4 +
(1 − x)C2H6} mixtures and calculated values ηcal from the HS model as a
where a, b, and c were obtained by fitting to the experimental data.
function of density ρ: ■, x = 0.273; , x = 0.521; , x = 0.757.
The fitting coefficients in the HS model (Eqs. (1) to (4)) together with

Table 4
The coefficients of Eqs. (1) to (4) for the liquid {xC2H4 + (1 − x)C2H6} mixtures with ethene mole factions × = (0.273, 0.521, and 0.757)a.
x a b c Rƞ ΔAARD/% ΔMARD/% ΔBias/%
-5
0.273 35.6304 − 0.0263 3.1067 × 10 0.9348 0.2 0.6 0.001
0.521 34.7555 − 0.0279 1.1299 × 10-5 1.0647 0.2 0.5 0.001
0.757 31.1295 0.0002 − 6.5520 × 10-5 1.0905 0.3 0.8 0.003
a
a, b, and c: the coefficients of Eqs. (4); Rη: the temperature-independent roughness factor of Eqs. (1); ΔAARD: average absolute relative deviations; ΔMARD: maximum
absolute relative deviations; ΔBias: relative bias.

5
S. Sun et al.
Bowen Sheng: Validation, Writing – review & editing. Yunxiao Wang:
Validation, Writing – review & editing. Yanxing Zhao: Investigation,
Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Xueqiang Dong: Conceptual­
ization, Resources, Writing – review & editing. Maoqiong Gong: Su­
pervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This work is financially supported by the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (No. 2021YFB4000700), the National
Natural Sciences Foundation of China (No. 52036010) and QingDao
CASFuture Research Institute CO., LTD. (21-8-1-1-qy).
References
[1] E.A. Rodriguez-Jara, F.J. Sanchez-de-la-Flor, J.A. Exposito-Carrillo, J.M. Salmeron-
Lissen, Thermodynamic analysis of auto-cascade refrigeration cycles, with and
without ejector, for ultra low temperature freezing using a mixture of refrigerants
R600a and R1150, Appl. Therm. Eng. 200 (2022) 18.
[2] Z. Tian, W.J. Zeng, B. Gu, Y. Zhang, X. Yuan, Energy, exergy, and economic (3E)
analysis of an organic Rankine cycle using zeotropic mixtures based on marine
engine waste heat and LNG cold energy, Energ. Conver. Manage. 228 (2021) 15.
[3] C.J. Hunt, Technical Considerations in the Freezing, Low-Temperature Storage and
Thawing of Stem Cells for Cellular Therapies, Transfus. Med. Hemother. 46 (3)
(2019) 134–149.
[4] D. Nowak, E. Jakubczyk, The Freeze-Drying of Foods-The Characteristic of the
Process Course and the Effect of Its Parameters on the Physical Properties of Food
Materials, Foods 9 (10) (2020) 27.
[5] Z.L. Sun, Q.F. Wang, B.M. Dai, M. Wang, Z.Y. Xie, Options of low Global Warming
Potential refrigerant group for a three-stage cascade refrigeration system, Int. J.
Refrig. 100 (2019) 471–483.
[6] Y.N. He, H.H. Wu, Y.Y. Liu, T. Wang, X.H. Wu, C.X. Cheng, T.X. Jin, Theoretical
performance comparison for two-stage auto-cascade refrigeration system using
hydrocarbon refrigerants, Int. J. Refrig. 142 (2022) 27–36.
[7] A. Mota-Babiloni, M.M. Joybari, J. Navarro-Esbri, C. Mateu-Royo, A. Barragan-
Cervera, M. Amat-Albuixech, F. Moles, Ultralow-temperature refrigeration systems:
Configurations and refrigerants to reduce the environmental impact, Int. J. Refrig.
111 (2020) 147–158.
[8] B. Palm, Hydrocarbons as refrigerants in small heat pump and refrigeration systems
– a review, Int. J. Refrig. 31 (4) (2008) 552–563.
[9] L.N. Lin, M.A. Kedzierski, Review of low-GWP refrigerant pool boiling heat transfer
on enhanced surfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 131 (2019) 1279–1303.
[10] R. Ghoubali, P. Byrne, F. Bazantay, Refrigerant charge optimisation for propane
heat pump water heaters, Int. J. Refrig. 76 (2017) 230–244.
[11] G. Di Nicola, F. Polonara, R. Stryjek, A. Arteconi, Performance of cascade cycles
working with blends of CO2 + natural refrigerants, Int. J. Refrig. 34 (6) (2011)
1436–1445.
[12] M.Q. Gong, Z.H. Sun, J.F. Wu, Y. Zhang, C. Meng, Y. Zhou, Performance of R170
mixtures as refrigerants for refrigeration at-80 degrees C temperature range, Int. J.
Refrig. 32 (5) (2009) 892–900.
[13] J.L. McCurdy, D.L. Katz, Phase equilibria in the system ethane-ethylene-acetylene,
Ind. Eng. Chem. 36 (7) (1944) 674–680.
[14] A.M. Clark, F. Din, Equilibria between solid, liquid and gaseous phases at low
temperatures. The system carbon dioxide + ethane + ethylene, Discuss. Faraday
Soc. 15 (1953) 202–207.
[15] G.H. Hanson, R.J. Hogan, F.N. Ruehlen, M.R. Cines, Ethane-ethylene system:
Vapor-liquid equilibria at 0◦ ,-40◦ and-100◦ F, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 49 (6)
(1953) 37–44.
[16] R. Anthony, J. McKetta, Phase equilibrium in the ethylene-ethane-water system,
J. Chem. Eng. Data (1967) 12.
[17] A. Fredenslund, J. Mollerup, K.R. Hall, Vapor-liquid-equilibrium data for systems
C2H4+C2H6 and CO2+C2H4+C2H6, J. Chem. Eng. Data 21 (3) (1976) 301–304.
The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 181 (2023) 107026
[18] D.A. Barclay, J.L. Flebbe, D.B. Manley, Relative volatilities of the ethane-ethylene
system from total pressure measurements, J. Chem. Eng. Data 27 (2) (1982)
135–142.
[19] J.C.G. Calado, E.J.S. Gomes de Azevedo, P. Clancy, K.E. Gubbins, Thermodynamic
study of liquid mixtures of ethane and ethene, J. Chem. Soc.-Faraday Trans. I 79
(11) (1983) 2657–2667.
[20] M.S. Rozhnov, V.G. Kozya, V.I. Zhdanov, Phases relationships in C1–C3
hydrocarbons and nitrogen 2-components systems, Khimicheskaya promyshlennost
11 (1988) 674–675.
[21] F.F. Kharakhorin, Liquid-Vapor Equilibrium in the system of ethane-ethylene, Inzh.
Fiz. Zh. 2 (1959) 72–77.
[22] K. Ohgaki, T. Mizuhaya, T. Katayama, The Interaction Second Virial Coefficients
for Seven Binary Systems Containing Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Ethylene, Ethane
and Propylene at 25 ℃, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 14 (1) (1981) 71–72.
[23] P.J. McElroy, J. Fang, Compression factors and virial coefficients of ethene and
ethene+ethane mixtures, J. Chem. Eng. Data 38 (3) (1993) 410–413.
[24] B.R. Sharma, P.P. Singh, Thermodynamics of bromoform and ethanol mixtures,
J. Indian Chem. Soc. 57 (7) (1980) 715–719.
[25] M. Gruszkiewicz, J. Sipowska, J. Ott, P. Brown, J. Moore. Excess enthalpies for
(ethane+ ethene) at the temperatures (273.15, 298.15, 323.15, 348.15, and
363.15) K and the pressures (5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, and 15) MPa. J. Chem. Thermodyn.,
1995, 27(5): 507-524.
[26] S.F. Gerf, G.I. Galkov, Viscosity of liquid pure gases and their mixtures, Zh. Tekh.
Fiz. 10 (1940) 725–732.
[27] E. Vogel, R. Span, S. Herrmann, Reference Correlation for the Viscosity of Ethane,
J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 44 (4) (2015) 39.
[28] E.W. Lemmon, I.H. Bell, M.L. Huber, M.O. McLinden. NIST Standard Reference
Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP,
Version 10.0, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference
Data Program, Gaithersburg, 2018.
[29] N.S. Rudenko, L.V. Shubnikov, Variation in the viscosity of liquid methane and
ethylene with temperature, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 8 (1935) 179–184.
[30] P.M. Holland, B.E. Eaton, H.J.M. Hanley, A correlation of the viscosity and thermal
conductivity data of gaseous and liquid ethylene, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 12 (4)
(1983) 917–932.
[31] S. Sun, Z. Yang, B. Sheng, Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, X. Dong, M. Gong, The viscosity of
liquid ethene: Measurement and molecular dynamic simulation, J. Chem.
Thermodyn. 178 (2023), 106957.
[32] A. Baylaucq, M.J.P. Comunas, C. Boned, A. Allal, J. Fernandez, High pressure
viscosity and density modeling of two polyethers and two dialkyl carbonates, Fluid
Phase Equilib. 199 (1–2) (2002) 249–263.
[33] J. Lohrenz, B.G. Bray, C.R. Clark, Calculating viscosities of reservoir fluids from
their compositions, J. Petrol. Tech. 16 (10) (1964) 1171–1176.
[34] C. Walther, The evaluation of viscosity data, Erdöl Teer 7 (1931) 382–384.
[35] M.J. Assael, J.H. Dymond, M. Papadaki, P.M. Patterson, Correlation and Prediction
of Dense Fluid Transport Coefficients. I. n-Alkanes, Int. J. Thermophys. 13 (2)
(1992) 269–281.
[36] V. Vesovic, W.A. Wakeham, Prediction of the viscosity of fluid mixtures over wide
ranges of temperature and pressure, Chem. Eng. Sci. 44 (10) (1989) 2181–2189.
[37] S.E. Quinones-Cisneros, C.K. Zeberg-Mikkelsen, E.H. Stenby, The friction theory (f-
theory) for viscosity modeling, Fluid Phase Equilib. 169 (2) (2000) 249–276.
[38] A. Allal, C. Boned, A. Baylaucq, Free-volume viscosity model for fluids in the dense
and gaseous states, Phys. Rev. E 64 (1) (2001) 10.
[39] S.A. Klein, M.O. McLinden, A. Laesecke, An improved extended corresponding
states method for estimation of viscosity of pure refrigerants and mixtures, Int. J.
Refrig. 20 (3) (1997) 208–217.
[40] X. Yang, X. Xiao, M. Thol, M. Richter, I.H. Bell, Linking Viscosity to Equations of
State Using Residual Entropy Scaling Theory, Int. J. Thermophys. 43 (12) (2022).
[41] H. Marcia. Models for Viscosity, Thermal Conductivity, and Surface Tension of
Selected Pure Fluids as Implemented in REFPROP v10.0. 2018.
[42] J.C. Chichester, M.L. Huber. Documentation and assessment of the transport
property model for mixtures implemented in NIST REFPROP (Version 8.0)[M].
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Boulder, CO, 2008.
[43] M.J. Assael, J.H. Dymond, M. Papadaki, P.M. Patterson, Correlation and prediction
of dense fluid transport coefficients. II. Simple molecular fluids, Fluid Phase
Equilib. 75 (1992) 245–255.
[44] M.J. Assael, J.H. Dymond, S.K. Polimatidou, Correlation and prediction of dense
fluid transport-coefficients.VII. Refrigerants, Int. J. Thermophys. 16 (3) (1995)
761–772.
[45] M.J. Assael, J.H. Dymond, M. Papadaki, P.M. Patterson, Correlation and prediction
of dense fluid transport coefficients. III. n-alkane mixtures, Int. J. Thermophys. 13
(4) (1992) 659–669.
[46] X. Wang, Y. Zhao, X. Dong, X. Yao, J. Wang, H. Guo, M. Gong, Investigation on
solid-liquid equilibrium for trifluoromethane (R23) plus difluoromethane (R32)
binary system, Int. J. Refrig. 126 (2021) 238–245.
[47] J. Wang, Y. Zhao, X. Dong, F. Wang, M. Gong, A vibrating-wire viscometer and
measured viscosity data of compressed liquid carbon dioxide at temperatures from
218.150 to 273.150 K and pressures up to 13 MPa, J. Mol. Liq. 310 (2020),
113208.
[48] M.J. Assael, A.R.H. Goodwin, V. Vesovic, W.A. Wakeham, Advances in Transport
Properties of Fluids, Exp. Thermodyn. IX (2014).