Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

FLASH CALCULATIONS

ChE 3G4 Spreadsheet


ui accounts for the gas-phase non-ideality and
i
(the liquid activity coefficient) accounts for the liquid-phase non-ideality
As in the VLE spreadsheet, we assume ui = 1 (ie. no gas-phase non-ideality, a generally good assumption).
Most commonly, this iterative procedure is conducted using the function F, which is defined as:
or, for a two-component system as analyzed in this spreadsheet:
Convergence in this case is achieved as Ex
i
and Ey
i
both approach 1, or as F approaches zero.
Furthermore, this function is easily differentiated:
dF/dV is always negative, meaning that F vs. V is a monotonic and Newton's method can be used to provide fast iterative convergence to the appropriate V value.
This can be done by estimating the next guess value of V with Newton's equation:
Flash drums are one of the simplest unit operations in a chemical plant, both in terms of its operation and our ability to accurately model its behaviour. In a flash drum, a
feed stream containing both vapour and liquid components is split into a vapour stream and a liquid stream according to the temperature and pressure maitained in the flash
drum. As a result, we can use the concepts of mass balances and vapour-liquid equilibrium together to predict the vapour and liquid flow rates as well as the composition of
the vapour and liquid outlet streams.
where y
i
is the mole fraction of component "i" in the gas phase, P is the total pressure, x
i
is the mole fraction of component "i" in the liquid phase,
and P
i
* is the vapour pressure of component "i" at the specified temperature (calculated via Antoine's equation).
The equations used for flash drum analysis are not really new; they are merely restated and rearranged versions of VLE and mass balance equations you have used before.
The central parameter used in a flash calculation is the equilibrium ratio K
i
, defined as:
This equation is simply a rearranged version of the modified Raoult's Law expression we have already seen on the VLE spreadsheet. Practically, K
i
can be considered as a
partitioning coefficient giving some indication of the "lightness" of component "i" (ie. how likely component "i" is to partition into the gas phase)
We can also write a mole balance for this process since the total amount of component "i" in the inlet stream must equal the sum of component "i" flowrates in the outlet
streams:
where z
i
is the overall mole fraction of component "i" (considering both phases), L is the molar fraction of liquid and V is the molar fraction of vapour (both in
relation to the total molar flow).
These VLE and mole balance equations can be combined to arrive at the flash equations:
Solving a flash problem is thus a problem of finding an appropriate value for V which results in both the vapour phase and liquid phase mole fractions summing to 1.
P
P
x
y
K
i
i i
i
i
i
u
= =
*

1 = +V L
V y L x z
i i i
+ =
V y V x z
i i i
+ = ) 1 (
) 1 ( 1 +
=
i
i i
i
K V
K z
y
) 1 ( 1 +
=
i
i
i
K V
z
x

+
+
+
= =
i i
i i
i i
i
i
i
i
i
K V
K z
K V
z
y x F
) 1 ( 1 ) 1 ( 1
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
2
2 2
1
1 1
+

+
+

=
K V
K z
K V
K z
F
(

+

+
+

=
] ) 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
)] 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
2
1 1
K V
K z
K V
K z
dV
dF
where k is the iteration number
Proceed to the Parameters page -->
Second, for non-ideal systems, we cannot immediately calculate the activity coefficients
i
required for estimation of K
i
since all the liquid phase activity correlations
(including the Wilson equation used here) require knowledge of the liquid phase mole fractions. If we just guess the liquid phase mole fractions or initially set the activity
coefficients to 1 (as we did to start the iterations in the non-ideal dew and bubble point calculations), we may effectively force the iterations to initiate outside of the VLE
region of the non-ideal system. This is particularly true if strong non-ideal behaviour occurs in the component set chosen. If this occurs, Newton's method (or any other
iterative method) are unable to converge to a real root for V and the problem is unsolvable. A similar problem (although not quite as damaging to the calculation procedure)
occurs in estimating the vapour fraction V to use in the first iteration. We can get semi-empirical estimates of these values from the proximity of the total pressure P to the
dew and bubble pressures of the component set at given (T,P) conditions:
Two main problems arise when doing VLE calculations. First, on this spreadsheet, you are asked to select both a temperature and a pressure for a given component set.
This set of T and P values may or may not result in a vapour-liquid equilibrium being established with the components you chose at the composition you chose; indeed, if
only one phase exists at the entered (T,P) values, not only does the iterative solution procedure break down but is there no point doing a flash calculation at all! In order to
check for VLE, the bubble pressure (upper limit of VLE) and dew pressure (lower limit of VLE) must first be calculated at the chosen temperature. For VLE to occur, the
pressure you chose must lie within the P
DP
<P(chosen)<P
BP
range in which VLE is established. After doing this calculation (set up for you on the spreadsheets), you must
then either (a) change the pressure such that it lies between the dew and bubble pressures or (b) change the temperature and re-calculate the dew and bubble pressures,
iterating as necessary until the fixed chosen pressure lies between the dew and bubble pressures.
Here,
i,dew
is the converged activity coefficient from the dew pressure calculation and
i
,bubble is the converged activity coefficient from the bubble pressure calculation.
This approach is similar to you drawing a tie-line on a phase diagram to estimate the vapour and liquid fractions and equilibrium phase compositions. These equations are
the mathematical equivalent of the tie line approach which provide essentially weighted average estimates of the activity coefficients and vapour phase fraction based on
how close the experimental pressure is to the bubble and dew pressures respectively. These guesses are surprisingly good (as you will see in the iterations) and are very
important to immediately consider the non-ideal behaviour of the liquid in the first iteration (ie. immediately satisfying P
DP
<P<P
BP
).
Cells with a red triangle in the upper right-hand corner have comments which will give you more information about what the variable in the
cell means or how to select a value for that variable.
This spreadsheet will allow you to perform flash calculations on a variety of two-component systems assuming both ideal and non-ideal solution behaviour.
Cells highlighed in YELLOW require input from you
Cells highlighted in BLUE require you to perform a manual GoalSeek procedure on that cell to get a converged solution
Cells highlighted in PURPLE require that you inspect the value in the cell and make a decision regarding what you need to do next
Other colours are used to connect cells with other cells on the spreadsheet with the same value.
) ( '
) (
1
k
k k k
V F
V F
V V =
+
DP BP
DP
dew i bubble i
dew i i
P P
P P

, ,
,


DP BP
BP
P P
P P
V

=
ui accounts for the gas-phase non-ideality and
i
(the liquid activity coefficient) accounts for the liquid-phase non-ideality
As in the VLE spreadsheet, we assume ui = 1 (ie. no gas-phase non-ideality, a generally good assumption).
dF/dV is always negative, meaning that F vs. V is a monotonic and Newton's method can be used to provide fast iterative convergence to the appropriate V value.
Flash drums are one of the simplest unit operations in a chemical plant, both in terms of its operation and our ability to accurately model its behaviour. In a flash drum, a
feed stream containing both vapour and liquid components is split into a vapour stream and a liquid stream according to the temperature and pressure maitained in the flash
drum. As a result, we can use the concepts of mass balances and vapour-liquid equilibrium together to predict the vapour and liquid flow rates as well as the composition of
the vapour and liquid outlet streams.
where y
i
is the mole fraction of component "i" in the gas phase, P is the total pressure, x
i
is the mole fraction of component "i" in the liquid phase,
and P
i
* is the vapour pressure of component "i" at the specified temperature (calculated via Antoine's equation).
The equations used for flash drum analysis are not really new; they are merely restated and rearranged versions of VLE and mass balance equations you have used before.
The central parameter used in a flash calculation is the equilibrium ratio K
i
, defined as:
This equation is simply a rearranged version of the modified Raoult's Law expression we have already seen on the VLE spreadsheet. Practically, K
i
can be considered as a
partitioning coefficient giving some indication of the "lightness" of component "i" (ie. how likely component "i" is to partition into the gas phase)
We can also write a mole balance for this process since the total amount of component "i" in the inlet stream must equal the sum of component "i" flowrates in the outlet
streams:
where z
i
is the overall mole fraction of component "i" (considering both phases), L is the molar fraction of liquid and V is the molar fraction of vapour (both in
relation to the total molar flow).
These VLE and mole balance equations can be combined to arrive at the flash equations:
Solving a flash problem is thus a problem of finding an appropriate value for V which results in both the vapour phase and liquid phase mole fractions summing to 1.
V y V x z
i i i
+ = ) 1 (
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
2
2 2
1
1 1
+

+
+

=
K V
K z
K V
K z
F
(

+

+
+

=
] ) 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
)] 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
2
1 1
K V
K z
K V
K z
dV
dF
Second, for non-ideal systems, we cannot immediately calculate the activity coefficients
i
required for estimation of K
i
since all the liquid phase activity correlations
(including the Wilson equation used here) require knowledge of the liquid phase mole fractions. If we just guess the liquid phase mole fractions or initially set the activity
coefficients to 1 (as we did to start the iterations in the non-ideal dew and bubble point calculations), we may effectively force the iterations to initiate outside of the VLE
region of the non-ideal system. This is particularly true if strong non-ideal behaviour occurs in the component set chosen. If this occurs, Newton's method (or any other
iterative method) are unable to converge to a real root for V and the problem is unsolvable. A similar problem (although not quite as damaging to the calculation procedure)
occurs in estimating the vapour fraction V to use in the first iteration. We can get semi-empirical estimates of these values from the proximity of the total pressure P to the
dew and bubble pressures of the component set at given (T,P) conditions:
Two main problems arise when doing VLE calculations. First, on this spreadsheet, you are asked to select both a temperature and a pressure for a given component set.
This set of T and P values may or may not result in a vapour-liquid equilibrium being established with the components you chose at the composition you chose; indeed, if
only one phase exists at the entered (T,P) values, not only does the iterative solution procedure break down but is there no point doing a flash calculation at all! In order to
check for VLE, the bubble pressure (upper limit of VLE) and dew pressure (lower limit of VLE) must first be calculated at the chosen temperature. For VLE to occur, the
pressure you chose must lie within the P
DP
<P(chosen)<P
BP
range in which VLE is established. After doing this calculation (set up for you on the spreadsheets), you must
then either (a) change the pressure such that it lies between the dew and bubble pressures or (b) change the temperature and re-calculate the dew and bubble pressures,
iterating as necessary until the fixed chosen pressure lies between the dew and bubble pressures.
Here,
i,dew
is the converged activity coefficient from the dew pressure calculation and
i
,bubble is the converged activity coefficient from the bubble pressure calculation.
This approach is similar to you drawing a tie-line on a phase diagram to estimate the vapour and liquid fractions and equilibrium phase compositions. These equations are
the mathematical equivalent of the tie line approach which provide essentially weighted average estimates of the activity coefficients and vapour phase fraction based on
how close the experimental pressure is to the bubble and dew pressures respectively. These guesses are surprisingly good (as you will see in the iterations) and are very
important to immediately consider the non-ideal behaviour of the liquid in the first iteration (ie. immediately satisfying P
DP
<P<P
BP
).
Cells with a red triangle in the upper right-hand corner have comments which will give you more information about what the variable in the
cell means or how to select a value for that variable.
This spreadsheet will allow you to perform flash calculations on a variety of two-component systems assuming both ideal and non-ideal solution behaviour.
Cells highlighed in YELLOW require input from you
Cells highlighted in BLUE require you to perform a manual GoalSeek procedure on that cell to get a converged solution
Cells highlighted in PURPLE require that you inspect the value in the cell and make a decision regarding what you need to do next
Other colours are used to connect cells with other cells on the spreadsheet with the same value.
DP BP
DP
dew i bubble i
dew i i
P P
P P

, ,
,


CONSTANTS AND PARAMETERS
Pressure P 1245 mm Hg
Temperature T 348 K
Gas Constant R 1.987 cal/mol K
A B C
1 Acetone Chloroform 7.11714 1210.595 229.664
2 Acetone Methanol 7.11714 1210.595 229.664
3 Acetone Water 7.11714 1210.595 229.664
4 Carbon tetrachloride Benzene 6.84083 1177.91 220.576
5 Chloroform Methanol 6.95465 1170.966 226.232
6 Ethanol Benzene 8.1122 1592.864 226.184
7 Ethanol Water 8.1122 1592.864 226.184
8 Ethyl acetate Ethanol 7.10179 1244.951 217.881
9 n-Hexane Ethanol 6.91058 1189.64 226.28
10 Methanol Benzene 8.08097 1582.271 239.726
11 Methanol Ethyl acetate 8.08097 1582.271 239.726
12 Methanol Water 8.08097 1582.271 239.726
13 Benzene Toluene 6.90565 1211.033 220.79
14 Methyl acetate Methanol 7.06524 1157.63 219.726
15 1-Propanol Water 8.37895 1788.02 227.438
16 2-Propanol Water 8.87829 2010.32 252.636
17 Tetrahydrofuran Water 6.99515 1202.29 226.254
18 Water Acetic Acid 8.07131 1730.63 233.426
19 Water 1-Butanol 8.07131 1730.63 233.426
20 Water Formic Acid 8.07131 1730.63 233.426
2
Component 1:
Component 2:
Bulk Composition Parameters:
z
1
0.5
z
2
0.5
Proceed to the ideal flash calculation -->
Acetone
Methanol
Acetone
Methanol
Choose Component Set:
Number Component 1 Component 2
Component 1
ANTOINE'S COEFFICIENTS
Component 1 Component 2
T Range (
o
C)
A B C
T Range (
o
C)

(cm
3
/mol)

(cm
3
/mol)
(-13) - 55 6.95465 1170.966 226.232 (-10) - 60 74.05 80.67
(-13) - 55 8.08097 1582.271 239.726 15 - 84 74.05 40.73
(-13) - 55 8.07131 1730.63 233.426 1 - 100 74.05 18.07
(-20) - 77 6.87987 1196.76 219.161 8 - 80 97.09 89.41
(-10) - 60 8.08097 1582.271 239.726 15 - 84 80.67 40.73
20 - 93 6.87987 1196.76 219.161 8 - 80 58.68 89.41
20 - 93 8.07131 1730.63 233.426 1 - 100 58.68 18.07
16 - 76 8.1122 1592.864 226.184 20 - 93 98.49 58.68
(-30) - 170 8.1122 1592.864 226.184 20 - 93 131.61 58.68
15 - 84 6.87987 1196.76 219.161 8 - 80 40.73 89.41
15 - 84 7.10179 1244.951 217.881 16 - 76 40.73 98.49
15 - 84 8.07131 1730.63 233.426 1 - 100 40.73 18.07
20-150 6.95464 1344.8 219.482 25-140 88.89 106.2
2 - 56 8.08097 1582.271 239.726 15 - 84 79.84 40.73
(-15) - 98 8.07131 1730.63 233.426 1 - 100 75.14 18.07
(-26) - 83 8.07131 1730.63 233.426 1 - 100 76.92 18.07
23 - 100 8.07131 1730.63 233.426 1 - 100 81.55 18.07
1 - 100 8.021 1936.01 258.451 18 - 118 18.07 57.54
1 - 100 7.36366 1305.198 173.427 89 - 126 18.07 91.97
1 - 100 6.94459 1295.26 218 36 - 108 18.07 37.9
LIQUID MOLAR VOLUMES
Component 1 Component 2
ANTOINE'S COEFFICIENTS

12
-
11

21
-
22
(cal/mol) (cal/mol)
116.1171 -506.8519 0.920995418 2.267382782
-114.4047 545.2942 0.648998012 0.249981051
344.3346 1482.2133 0.148308923 0.028608903
7.0459 59.6233 0.91156215 0.844819756
-361.7644 1694.0241 0.851952292 0.043575133
1264.4318 266.6118 0.244763053 1.036204428
325.0757 953.2792 0.192441242 0.077578817
58.8869 570.0439 0.547158241 0.261258961
320.3611 2189.2896 0.280538463 0.01880082
1666.441 227.2126 0.197166049 1.580398272
982.2689 -172.9317 0.584178146 3.105208224
82.9876 520.6458 0.393479239 0.208949999
-20.1154 34.369 1.230001002 1.136803796
-93.89 847.4348 0.584336828 0.14977749
906.5256 1396.6398 0.064822614 0.031908113
659.5473 1230.208 0.090506092 0.039651868
1475.2583 1844.7926 0.026240404 0.015377211
705.5876 111.6579 1.147768147 2.709460755
1549.66 2050.2569 0.541246351 0.262413215
-310.106 1180.804 3.28434637 0.380237495
A
12
A
21
WILSON PARAMETERS BINARY INTERACTION PARAMETERS
IDEAL FLASH CALCULATION
Component #1 Acetone Component #2 Methanol
Antoine's Equation Coefficients for Acetone Antoine's Equation Coefficients for Methanol
A= 7.11714 A= 8.08097
B= 1210.595 B= 1582.271
C= 229.664 C= 239.726
Partial Pressure Temperature = 74.85 C Partial Pressure Temperature = 74.85 C
P1*(T) 1385.611 mm Hg P2*(T) 1124.908 mm Hg
Bulk Mixture Composition Bulk Mixture Composition
z1 0.5 Acetone z2 0.5 Methanol
Conditions
Total Pressure 1245.000 mm Hg
Temperature 348.000 K
x1 0.5 Acetone x2 0.5 Methanol
PBP 1255.260 mm Hg Bubble P Equation:
y1 0.552
y2 0.448
y1 0.5 Acetone y2 0.5 Methanol
PDP 1241.723 mm Hg Dew P Equation:
x1 0.448
x2 0.552
PDP 1241.723 mm Hg If PDP < P(chosen) < PBP --> Proceed with flash calculation
P(chosen) 1245 mm Hg
PBP 1255.260 mm Hg
(1) (2) (3)
Newton's Method Procedure: Adjust guess for iteration k+1 using equation (4)
Iteration #1 Iteration #2 Iteration #3 Iteration #4 Iteration #5 Iteration #6 Iteration #7 Iteration #8
V 0.757941519 0.75643264 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639
K1 1.112940598 1.112940598 1.112940598 1.112940598 1.112940598 1.112940598 1.112940598 1.112940598
K2 0.903540798 0.903540798 0.903540798 0.903540798 0.903540798 0.903540798 0.903540798 0.903540798
F -1.63361E-05 -8.05356E-13 0 0 0 0 0 0
dF/dV -0.010826672 -0.010826672 -0.010826672 -0.010826672 -0.010826672 -0.010826672 -0.01082667 -0.010826672
V* 0.75643264 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639 0.756432639
L 0.24356736 0.243567361 0.243567361 0.243567361 0.243567361 0.243567361 0.243567361 0.243567361
x1 0.460573792 0.460646103 0.460646103 0.460646103 0.460646103 0.460646103 0.460646103 0.460646103
x2 0.539438589 0.539353897 0.539353897 0.539353897 0.539353897 0.539353897 0.539353897 0.539353897
Exi 1.000012382 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
y1 0.512591272 0.512671749 0.512671749 0.512671749 0.512671749 0.512671749 0.512671749 0.512671749
y2 0.487404774 0.487328251 0.487328251 0.487328251 0.487328251 0.487328251 0.487328251 0.487328251
Eyi 0.999996046 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
The variables highlighted in pink are the variables typically of interest in a flash equation solution.
Iteration Output V 0.756432639
After 8 Iterations: L 0.243567361
x1 0.460646103
y1 0.512671749
Proceed to the non-ideal flash calculation -->
** Keep in mind that depending on how non-ideal the system is, your choice of pressure that satisfies the condition PDP<P(chosen)<PBP for the
ideal case may not satisfy that same condition with the liquid-phase non-ideality factored in. Thus, it is highly likely you will have to change the
pressure of your system (according to the non-ideal PDP and PBP calculations) to perform the non-ideal flash calculation.
Newton's method is practically very useful in this case since the function dF/dV is easy to compute and is always negative, meaning that the F vs. V relationship is
monotonic and Newton's method rapidly converges on a solution. Also, unlike using a Goal Seek approach, Newton's method is completely automated on a
spreadsheet. Interestingly, Goal Seek is very poor at solving this problem since F has small values which are very sensitive to the value of V. Goal Seek (at least
in its default configuration) settles for "convergence criteria" for F which are not accurate enough to get good, converged solutions for V.
Parameters for Chosen Set of Components
Bubble Pressure (BUBBLE P) Calculation
Perform a Flash Calculation
Dew Pressure (DEW P) Calculation
Compare PDP, P(chosen), PBP
Otherwise, return to Parameters page to (a) change the pressure to lie within
this range (immediately proceed to the flash calculation after selecting an
appropriate P) OR (b) change the temperature and recalcuate BUBBLE P and
DEW P
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
) ( ) (
*
2 2
*
1 1
T P x T P x P
TOTAL
+ =
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
) ( ) (
1
*
2
2
*
1
1
T P
y
T P
y
P
dp
+
=
0
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
2
2 2
1
1 1
=
+

+
+

=
K V
K z
K V
K z
F
(

+

+
+

=
] ) 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
)] 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
2
1 1
K V
K z
K V
K z
dV
dF
TOTAL
i
i
i
i
P
P
x
y
K
*
= =
) ( '
) (
1
k
k k k
V F
V F
V V =
+
NON-IDEAL FLASH CALCULATION
Component #1 Acetone Component #2 Methanol
Antoine's Equation Coefficients for Acetone Antoine's Equation Coefficients for Methanol
A= 7.11714 A= 8.08097
B= 1210.595 B= 1582.271
C= 229.664 C= 239.726
Partial Pressure Temperature = 74.85 C Partial Pressure Temperature = 74.85 C
P1*(T) 1385.611 mm Hg P2*(T) 1124.908 mm Hg
Bulk Mixture Composition Bulk Mixture Composition
z1 0.5 Acetone z2 0.5 Methanol
Conditions
Total Pressure 1245.000 mm Hg
Temperature 348.000 K
Wilson Activity Model Activity Coefficients
12-11 -114.4047 cal/mol
21-22 545.2942 cal/mol
vL (Component 1) 74.05 cm
3
/mol
vL (Component 2) 40.73 cm
3
/mol
A12 0.648998012 at given T
A21 0.826282195 at given T
x1 0.5 Acetone x2 0.5 Methanol
A12 0.648998012
A21 0.826282195
1 1.143519718
2 1.161524344 Bubble P Equation:
PBP 1445.541 mm Hg
y1 0.548
y2 0.452
y1 0.5 Acetone y2 0.5 Methanol
Estimate both activity coefficients as equal to 1 for the first iteration:
1 1
2 1
PDP 1241.723
Exi 1.0000
x1 0.448
x2 0.552 Dew P Equation:
A12 0.648998012
A21 0.826282195
1 (estimate) 1.179457653
2 (estimate) 1.129587633
Subsequent Iterations:
Iteration #2 Iteration #3 Iteration #4 Iteration #5 Iteration #6 Iteration #7 Iteration #8
1 1.179457653 1.187812301 1.190329792 1.19047072 1.190655644 1.190707831 1.190722554
2 1.129587633 1.123789672 1.122299026 1.12134162 1.121208373 1.1211708 1.121160202
PDP 1429.354 1429.354 1430.211 1429.593 1429.593 1429.593 1429.593
Exi 0.9997 0.9996 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
x1 0.437 0.434 0.434 0.433 0.433 0.433 0.433
x2 0.562 0.565 0.566 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.567
A12 0.648998012 0.648998012 0.648998012 0.648998012 0.648998012 0.648998012 0.648998012
A21 0.826282195 0.826282195 0.826282195 0.826282195 0.826282195 0.826282195 0.826282195
1 (estimate) 1.187812301 1.190329792 1.19047072 1.190655644 1.190707831 1.190722554 1.190726707
2 (estimate) 1.123789672 1.122299026 1.12134162 1.121208373 1.1211708 1.121160202 1.121157212
The following parameters are automatically entered if you complete all 8 iterations:
1429.593 mm Hg
0.433
1.191
1.121
PDP 1429.593 mm Hg If PDP < P(chosen) < PBP --> Proceed with flash calculation
P(chosen) 1245.000 mm Hg
PBP 1445.541 mm Hg
(1) (2) (3)
Newton's Method Procedure: Adjust guess for iteration k+1 using equation (4)
Initial Predictions: Vapour Fraction (V): (5) Activity Coefficients (i): (6)
Iteration #1 Iteration #2 Iteration #3 Iteration #4 Iteration #5 Iteration #6 Iteration #7 Iteration #8 Iteration #9 Iteration #10
V(predicted) 12.57481623 23.95469045 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
1 1.737138938 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
2 0.653915075 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
K1 1.933332449 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
K2 0.590838949 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
F 0.085994602 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
dF/dV -0.007556727 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
V* 23.95469045 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
L -22.95469045 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
x1 0.021406226 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
x2 -0.05680962 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
Exi -0.035403393 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
y1 0.041385352 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
y2 -0.033565336 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
Eyi 0.007820016 #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
1* #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
2* #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM! #NUM!
Again, the variables highlighted in pink are typically the variables of interest when doing a flash calculation.
Iteration Output V #NUM!
After 10 Iterations: L #NUM!
x1 #NUM!
y1 #NUM!
Compare PDP, P(chosen), PBP
Otherwise, return to Parameters page to (a) change the pressure to lie within this
range (immediately proceed to the flash calculation after selecting an appropriate
P) OR (b) change the temperature and recalcuate BUBBLE P and DEW P
Perform a Flash Calculation (including non-ideal liquid analysis)
After 8 iterations, 2 (converged)
After 8 iterations, the converged dew point pressure is:
After 8 iterations, x1 (converged)
After 8 iterations, 1 (converged)
Parameters for Chosen Set of Components
Bubble Pressure (BUBBLE P) Calculation
Dew Pressure (DEW P) Calculation
As with the DEW T calculation, continue iterations until both TDP and the two activity coefficients converge. You must perform GoalSeek
iterations on each Exi box to converge to the answer.
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
) ( ) (
*
2 2 2
*
1 1 1
T P x T P x P
BP
+ =
1
) ( ) (
*
2 2
2
*
1 1
1
= + =
T P
P y
T P
P y
x
DP DP
i

|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
|
.
|

\
|

=
C T
B
A
P 10
*
0
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
) 1 ( 1
) 1 (
2
2 2
1
1 1
=
+

+
+

=
K V
K z
K V
K z
F (

+

+
+

=
] ) 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
)] 1 ( 1 [
) 1 (
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
2
1 1
K V
K z
K V
K z
dV
dF
TOTAL
i i
i
i
i
P
P
x
y
K
*

= =
) ( '
) ( 1
k
k k k
V F
V F
V V =
+
DP BP
DP
dew i bubble i
dew i i
P P
P P

, ,
,


DP BP
BP
P P
P P
predicted V

= ) (