Physical Property Methods and Models

Part Number: Aspen Physical Property System 11.
1
September 2001
Copyright (c) 1981-2001 by Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.
Aspen Plus®, Aspen Properties®, Aspen Engineering Suite, AspenTech®, ModelManager, the aspen leaf logo and
Plantelligence are trademarks or registered trademarks of Aspen Technology, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
BATCHFRAC and RATEFRAC are trademarks of Koch Engineering Company, Inc.
All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.
This manual is intended as a guide to using AspenTech’s software. This documentation contains AspenTech
proprietary and confidential information and may not be disclosed, used, or copied without the prior consent of
AspenTech or as set forth in the applicable license agreement. Users are solely responsible for the proper use of the
software and the application of the results obtained.
Although AspenTech has tested the software and reviewed the documentation, the sole warranty for the software
may be found in the applicable license agreement between AspenTech and the user. ASPENTECH MAKES NO
WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THIS
DOCUMENTATION, ITS QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Corporate
Aspen Technology, Inc.
Ten Canal Park
Cambridge, MA 02141-2201
USA
Phone: (1) (617) 949-1021
Toll Free: (1) (888) 996-7001
Fax: (1) (617) 949-1724
URL: http://www.aspentech.com
Division
Design, Simulation and Optimization Systems
Aspen Technology, Inc.
Ten Canal Park
Cambridge, MA 02141-2201
USA
Phone: (617) 949-1000
Fax: (617) 949-1030
Contents
For More Information.......................................................................................................viii

Technical Support.............................................................................................................viii
Contacting Customer Support ................................................................................ix
Hours ......................................................................................................................ix
Phone ......................................................................................................................ix
Fax ...........................................................................................................................x
E-mail ......................................................................................................................x
Overview of Aspen Physical Property Methods 1-1

Overview ..........................................................................................................................1-1
Thermodynamic Property Methods ..................................................................................1-2
Equation-of-State Method ....................................................................................1-3
Activity Coefficient Method.................................................................................1-8
Equation-of-State Models...................................................................................1-20
Activity Coefficient Models ...............................................................................1-29
Transport Property Methods...........................................................................................1-32
Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Methods...................................................1-32
Diffusion Coefficient Methods...........................................................................1-33
Surface Tension Methods ...................................................................................1-34
Nonconventional Component Enthalpy Calculation ......................................................1-34
References ......................................................................................................................1-36
Property Method Descriptions 2-1

Overview ..........................................................................................................................2-1
Classification of Property Methods and Recommended Use ...........................................2-1
IDEAL Property Method ..................................................................................................2-7
Property Methods for Petroleum Mixtures.....................................................................2-10
Liquid Fugacity and K-Value Model Property Methods....................................2-11
BK10...................................................................................................................2-11
CHAO-SEA ........................................................................................................2-12
GRAYSON/ GRAYSON2 .................................................................................2-13
MXBONNEL......................................................................................................2-15
Petroleum-Tuned Equation-of-State Property Methods .....................................2-15
PENG-ROB ........................................................................................................2-16
RK-SOAVE ........................................................................................................2-17
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Contents • iii

SRK ....................................................................................................................2-18
Common Models ................................................................................................2-20
Equation-of-State Property Methods for High-Pressure Hydrocarbon Applications.....2-21
BWR-LS .............................................................................................................2-22
BWRS.................................................................................................................2-23
LK-PLOCK ........................................................................................................2-25
PR-BM................................................................................................................2-26
RKS-BM.............................................................................................................2-27
Common Models ................................................................................................2-28
Flexible and Predictive Equation-of-State Property Methods........................................2-29
PRMHV2............................................................................................................2-31
PRWS .................................................................................................................2-32
PSRK ..................................................................................................................2-33
RK-ASPEN.........................................................................................................2-34
RKSMHV2 .........................................................................................................2-35
RKSWS ..............................................................................................................2-36
SR-POLAR.........................................................................................................2-37
Common Models ................................................................................................2-38
Liquid Activity Coefficient Property Methods...............................................................2-40
Equations of State...............................................................................................2-40
Common Models ................................................................................................2-56
Electrolyte Property Methods.........................................................................................2-56
AMINES.............................................................................................................2-58
APISOUR ...........................................................................................................2-60
ELECNRTL........................................................................................................2-61
ENRTL-HF.........................................................................................................2-63
ENRTL-HG ........................................................................................................2-63
PITZER...............................................................................................................2-64
B-PITZER...........................................................................................................2-66
PITZ-HG.............................................................................................................2-68
General and Transport Property Model Parameter Requirements......................2-68
Solids Handling Property Method ..................................................................................2-69
Steam Tables...................................................................................................................2-73
STEAM-TA ........................................................................................................2-73
STEAMNBS/STEAMNBS2 ..............................................................................2-74
Property Model Descriptions 3-1

Overview ..........................................................................................................................3-1
Pure Component Temperature-Dependent Properties..........................................3-3
Thermodynamic Property Models ....................................................................................3-6
Equation-of-State Models.....................................................................................3-9
Vapor Pressure and Liquid Fugacity Models .....................................................3-87
Heat of Vaporization Model ...............................................................................3-91
Molar Volume and Density Models ...................................................................3-93
iv • Contents Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

Heat Capacity Models ......................................................................................3-104
Solubility Correlations......................................................................................3-109
Other Thermodynamic Property Models..........................................................3-111
Transport Property Models...........................................................................................3-125
Viscosity Models ..............................................................................................3-127
Thermal Conductivity Models..........................................................................3-143
Diffusivity Models............................................................................................3-153
Surface Tension Models ...................................................................................3-158
Nonconventional Solid Property Models .....................................................................3-162
General Enthalpy and Density Models.............................................................3-162
Enthalpy and Density Models for Coal and Char.............................................3-164
Property Calculation Methods and Routes 4-1

Overview ..........................................................................................................................4-1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................4-2
Physical Properties in the Aspen Physical Property System ............................................4-3
Methods ............................................................................................................................4-9
Routes And Models ........................................................................................................4-36
Concept of Routes ..............................................................................................4-36
Models ................................................................................................................4-38
Property Model Option Codes............................................................................4-43
Tracing a Route ..................................................................................................4-47
Modifying and Creating Property Method .....................................................................4-49
Modifying Existing Property Methods ...............................................................4-49
Creating New Property Methods ........................................................................4-52
Modifying and Creating Routes .....................................................................................4-54
Electrolyte Calculation 5-1

Overview ..........................................................................................................................5-1
Solution Chemistry...............................................................................................5-2
Apparent Component and True Component Approaches.....................................5-3
Electrolyte Thermodynamic Models ....................................................................5-7
Electrolyte Data Regression .................................................................................5-9
References ......................................................................................................................5-10
Free-Water and Rigorous Three-Phase Calculations 6-1

Overview ..........................................................................................................................6-1
Free-Water Immiscibility Simplification..............................................................6-3
Rigorous Three-Phase Calculations......................................................................6-5
Petroleum Components Characterization Methods 7-1

Overview ..........................................................................................................................7-1
Property Methods for Characterization of Petroleum Components .....................7-3
Water Solubility in Petroleum Pseudocomponents ..........................................................7-6
References ........................................................................................................................7-6
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Contents • v

Property Parameter Estimation 8-1
Overview ..........................................................................................................................8-1
Description of Estimation Methods..................................................................................8-3
Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model A-1

Overview .........................................................................................................................A-1
Working Equations ..........................................................................................................A-1
Parameter Conversion......................................................................................................A-3
Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient Model B-1

Overview ......................................................................................................................... B-1
Theoretical Basis and Working Equations ......................................................................B-2
Development of the Model .................................................................................. B-2
Long-Range Interaction Contribution ................................................................. B-3
Local Interaction Contribution ............................................................................ B-4
Apparent Binary Systems ....................................................................................B-5
Multicomponent Systems .................................................................................... B-8
Parameters .........................................................................................................B-10
Obtaining Parameters .................................................................................................... B-11
References ..................................................................................................................... B-11
Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model C-1

Overview .........................................................................................................................C-1
Model Development ........................................................................................................C-1
Application of the Pitzer Model to Aqueous Strong Electrolyte Systems ......................C-3
Calculation of Activity Coefficients................................................................................C-5
Application of the Pitzer Model to Aqueous Electrolyte Systems with Molecular
Solutes .............................................................................................................................C-7
Parameters ...........................................................................................................C-8
References .....................................................................................................................C-10
vi • Contents Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

About This Manual
Physical Property Methods and Models provides an overview of
Aspen Plus physical property methods and detailed technical
reference information on property option sets, property calculation
methods and routes, property models, and parameter estimation.
This volume also includes technical reference information for
handling physical properties in electrolytes simulations, rigorous
and three-phase calculations, and petroleum components
characterization methods. Much of this information is also
available in online prompts and help.
For information and listings for all Aspen Plus databanks,
electrolytes data, group contribution method functional groups, and
property sets, see Aspen Plus Physical Property Data.
An overview of the Aspen Plus physical property system, and
information about how to use its full range and power, is in the
Aspen Plus User Guide, as well as in online help and prompts in
Aspen Plus.
.
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 About This Manual • vii
For More Information
Online Help The Aspen Physical Property System has a
complete system of online help and context-sensitive prompts. The
help system contains both context-sensitive help and reference
information.
Physical Property Reference Manuals Aspen Physical Property
System reference manuals provide detailed technical reference
information about the physical property calculation system
supplied with Aspen Plus and Aspen Properties.
Aspen Plus and Aspen Properties manuals Aspen Plus
reference manuals provide background information about
Aspen Plus and Aspen Properties.
The manuals are delivered in Adobe portable document format
(PDF).
Technical Support
World Wide Web For additional information about AspenTech
products and services, check the AspenTech World Wide Web
home page on the Internet at: http://www.aspentech.com/
Technical resources AspenTech customers with a valid license
and software maintenance agreement can register to access the
Online Technical Support Center at
http://support.aspentech.com/
This web support site allows you to:
• Access current product documentation
• Search for tech tips, solutions and frequently asked questions
(FAQs)
• Search for and download application examples
• Submit and track technical issues
• Send suggestions
• Report product defects
• Review lists of known deficiencies and defects
Registered users can also subscribe to our Technical Support e-
Bulletins. These e-Bulletins are used to proactively alert users to
important technical support information such as:
• Technical advisories
• Product updates and Service Pack announcements
viii • About This Manual Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Customer support is also available by phone, fax, and email for
Contacting Customer
customers with a current support contract for this product. For the
Support
most up-to-date phone listings, please see the Online Technical
Support Center at http://support.aspentech.com.
The following contact information was current when this product
was released:
Hours
Support Centers Operating Hours
North America 8:00 – 20:00 Eastern Time
South America 9:00 – 17:00 Local time
Europe 8:30 – 18:00 Central European time
Asia and Pacific Region 9:00 – 17:30 Local time
Phone Support Phone Numbers

Centers
North 1-888-996-7100 Toll-free from U.S., Canada, Mexico
America 1-281-584-4357 North America Support Center
(52) (5) 536-2809 Mexico Support Center
South (54) (11) 4361-7220 Argentina Support Center
America (55) (11) 5012-0321 Brazil Support Center
(0800) 333-0125 Toll-free to U.S. from Argentina
(000) (814) 550-4084 Toll-free to U.S. from Brazil
8001-2410 Toll-free to U.S. from Venezuela
Europe (32) (2) 701-95-55 European Support Center
Country specific toll-free numbers:
Belgium (0800) 40-687
Denmark 8088-3652
Finland (0) (800) 1-19127
France (0805) 11-0054
Ireland (1) (800) 930-024
Netherlands (0800) 023-2511
Norway (800) 13817
Spain (900) 951846
Sweden (0200) 895-284
Switzerland (0800) 111-470
UK (0800) 376-7903
Asia and (65) 395-39-00 Singapore
Pacific (81) (3) 3262-1743 Tokyo
Region
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 About This Manual • ix

Fax Support Centers Fax Numbers
North America 1-617-949-1724 (Cambridge, MA)
1-281-584-1807 (Houston, TX: both Engineering and
Manufacturing Suite)
1-281-584-5442 (Houston, TX: eSupply Chain Suite)
1-281-584-4329 (Houston, TX: Advanced Control Suite)
1-301-424-4647 (Rockville, MD)
1-908-516-9550 (New Providence, NJ)
1-425-492-2388 (Seattle, WA)
South America (54) (11) 4361-7220 (Argentina)
(55) (11) 5012-4442 (Brazil)
Europe (32) (2) 701-94-45
Asia and Pacific (65) 395-39-50 (Singapore)
Region (81) (3) 3262-1744 (Tokyo)
E-mail Support Centers E-mail

North America support@aspentech.com (Engineering Suite)
atmdsupport@aspentech.com (Aspen ICARUS products)
mimi.support@aspentech.com (Aspen MIMI products)
pims.support@aspentech.com (Aspen PIMS products)
aspenretail.support@aspentech.com (Aspen Retail products)
acs.support@aspentech.com (Advanced Control products)
AMS.Support@aspentech.com (Manufacturing Suite)
Gabriela.Torres@aspentech.com (Mexico)
South America info@tecnosolution.com.ar (Argentina)
tecnosp@aspentech.com (Brazil)
Europe atesupport@aspentech.com (Engineering Suite)
AMS.Support@aspentech.com (All other suites)
cimview@aspentech.com (CIMVIEW products)
Asia and Pacific atasupport@aspentech.com (Singapore: Engineering Suite)
Region SG_Support@aspentech.com (Singapore: All other suites)
atjsupport@aspentech.com (Tokyo: Engineering Suite)
TK_Support@aspentech.com (Tokyo: All other suites)
x • About This Manual Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

CHAPTER 1
Overview of Aspen Physical

Property Methods
Overview
All unit operation models need property calculations to generate
results. The most often requested properties are fugacities for
thermodynamic equilibrium (flash calculation). Enthalpy
calculations are also often requested. Fugacities and enthalpies are
often sufficient information to calculate a mass and heat balance.
However, other thermodynamic properties (and, if requested,
transport properties) are calculated for all process streams.
The impact of property calculation on the calculation result is
great. This is due to the quality and the choice of the equilibrium
and property calculations. Equilibrium calculation and the bases of
property calculation are explained in this chapter. The
understanding of these bases is important to choose the appropriate
property calculation. Chapter 2 gives more help on this subject.
The quality of the property calculation is determined by the model
equations themselves and by the usage. For optimal usage, you
may need details on property calculation. These are given in the
Chapters 3 and 4.
This chapter contains three sections:
• Thermodynamic property methods
• Transport property methods
• Nonconventional component enthalpy calculation
The thermodynamic property methods section discusses the two
methods of calculating vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE): the
equation-of-state method and the activity coefficient method. Each
method contains the following:
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Overview of Aspen Physical Property Methods • 1-1
• Fundamental concepts of phase equilibria and the equations
used
• Application to vapor-liquid equilibria and other types of
equilibria, such as liquid-liquid
• Calculations of other thermodynamic properties
The last part of this section gives an overview of the current
equation of state and activity coefficient technology.
See the table labeled Symbol Definitions in the section
Nonconventional Component Enthalpy Calculation for definitions
of the symbols used in equations.
Thermodynamic Property Methods

The key thermodynamic property calculation performed in a
calculation is phase equilibrium. The basic relationship for every
component i in the vapor and liquid phases of a system at
equilibrium is:
f i v = f il (1)
Where:
fiv = Fugacity of component i in the vapor phase
fil = Fugacity of component i in the liquid phase

Applied thermodynamics provides two methods for representing
the fugacities from the phase equilibrium relationship in terms of
measurable state variables, the equation-of-state method and the
activity coefficient method.
In the equation of state method:
f i v = ϕ iv y i p (2)
f i l = ϕ li x i p (3)
With:
  (4)
ln ϕ αi = −
1 Vα
 ∂p  RT  α
RT ∫∞  ∂ni 
−
V 
d V − ln Z m
 T , V , niej 
Where:
α = v or l
V = Total volume
ni = Mole number of component i
1-2 • Overview of Aspen Physical Property Methods Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Equations 2 and 3 are identical with the only difference being the
α
phase to which the variables apply. The fugacity coefficient ϕ i is
obtained from the equation of state, represented by p in equation 4.
See equation 45 for an example of an equation of state.
In the activity coefficient method:
fiv = ϕ iv y i p (5)
f il = x i γ i f i*,l (6)
Where ϕ i is calculated according to equation 4,

v
γi = Liquid activity coefficient of component i
f i*,l = Liquid fugacity of pure component i at mixture

temperature
Equation 5 is identical to equation 2. Again, the fugacity
coefficient is calculated from an equation of state. Equation 6 is
totally different.
Each property method in the Aspen Physical Property System is
based on either the equation-of-state method or the activity
coefficient method for phase equilibrium calculations. The phase
equilibrium method determines how other thermodynamic
properties, such as enthalpies and molar volumes, are calculated.
With an equation-of-state method, all properties can be derived
from the equation of state, for both phases. Using an activity
coefficient method, the vapor phase properties are derived from an
equation of state, exactly as in the equation-of- state method.
However the liquid properties are determined from summation of
the pure component properties to which a mixing term or an excess
term is added.
Equation-of-State The partial pressure of a component i in a gas mixture is:
Method pi = y i p (7)
The fugacity of a component in an ideal gas mixture is equal to its
partial pressure. The fugacity in a real mixture is the effective
partial pressure:
f i v = ϕ iv y i p (8)
The correction factor ϕ i is the fugacity coefficient. For a vapor at

v
moderate pressures, ϕ i is close to unity. The same equation can be

v
applied to a liquid:
f i l = ϕ li x i p (9)
A liquid differs from an ideal gas much more than a real gas differs
from an ideal gas. Thus fugacity coefficients for a liquid are very
different from unity. For example, the fugacity coefficient of liquid
water at atmospheric pressure and room temperature is about 0.03
(Haar et al., 1984).
An equation of state describes the pressure, volume and
temperature (p,V,T) behavior of pure components and mixtures.
Usually it is explicit in pressure. Most equations of state have
different terms to represent attractive and repulsive forces between
molecules. Any thermodynamic property, such as fugacity
coefficients and enthalpies, can be calculated from the equation of
state. Equation-of-state properties are calculated relative to the
ideal gas properties of the same mixture at the same conditions.
See Calculation of Properties Using an Equation-of-State Property
Method.
Vapor-Liquid Equilibria The relationship for vapor-liquid equilibrium is obtained by
substituting equations 8 and 9 in equation 1 and dividing by p:
ϕ iv y i = ϕ li x i (10)
Fugacity coefficients are obtained from the equation of state (see
equation 4 and Calculation of Properties Using an Equation-of-
State Property Method). The calculation is the same for
supercritical and subcritical components (see Activity Coefficient
Method).
Pressure-Temperature Diagram
Fluid phase equilibria depend not only on temperature but also on

pressure. At constant temperature (and below the mixture critical
temperature), a multicomponent mixture will be in the vapor state
at very low pressure and in the liquid state at very high pressure.
There is an intermediate pressure range for which vapor and liquid
phases co-exist. Coming from low pressures, first a dew point is
found. Then more and more liquid will form until the vapor
disappears at the bubble point pressure. This is illustrated in the
figure labeled Phase Envelope of a Methane-Rich Hydrocarbon
Mixture. Curves of constant vapor fraction (0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
and 1.0) are plotted as a function of temperature. A vapor fraction
of unity corresponds to a dew-point; a vapor fraction of zero
corresponds to a bubble point. The area confined between dew-
point and bubble-point curves is the two-phase region. The dew-
point and bubble-point curves meet at high temperatures and
pressures at the critical point. The other lines of constant vapor
fractions meet at the same point. In Phase Envelope of a Methane-
Rich Hydrocarbon Mixture, the critical point is found at the
pressure maximum of the phase envelope (cricondenbar). This is
not a general rule.
At the critical point the differences between vapor and liquid
vanish; the mole fractions and properties of the two phases become
identical. Equation 10 can handle this phenomenon because the
same equation of state is used to evaluate ϕ i and ϕ i . Engineering
v l
type equations of state can model the pressure dependence of

vapor-liquid equilibria very well. However, they cannot yet model
critical phenomena accurately (see Equation-of-State Models).
Phase Envelope of a Methane-Rich Hydrocarbon Mixture

Retrograde Condensation
Compressing the methane-rich mixture shown in the figure labeled

Phase Envelope of a Methane-Rich Hydrocarbon Mixture at 270 K
(above the mixture critical temperature) will show a dew-point.
Then liquid will be formed up to a vapor fraction of about 0.75
(110 bar). Upon further compression the vapor fraction will
decrease again until a second dew-point is reached. If the process
is carried out with decreasing pressure, liquid is formed when
expanding. This is the opposite of the more usual condensation
upon compression. It is called retrograde condensation and it
happens often in natural gas mixtures.
Liquid-Liquid and Liquid- Liquid-liquid equilibria are less pressure dependent than vapor-
Liquid-Vapor Equilibria liquid equilibria, but certainly not pressure independent. The
activity coefficient method can model liquid-liquid and liquid-
liquid-vapor equilibria at low pressure as a function of
temperature. However, with varying pressure the equation of state
method is needed (compare Activity Coefficient Method, Liquid-
Liquid and Liquid-Liquid-Vapor Equilibria). The equation-of-state
method (equation 10) can be applied to liquid-liquid equilibria:
ϕ li1 x il1 = ϕ li 2 x il 2 (11)
and also to liquid-liquid-vapor equilibria:
ϕ iv y i = ϕ li1 x il1 = ϕ li 2 x il 2 (12)
Fugacity coefficients in all the phases are calculated using the
same equation of state. Fugacity coefficients from equations of
state are a function of composition, temperature, and pressure.
Therefore, the pressure dependency of liquid-liquid equilibria can
be described.
Liquid Phase Nonideality
Liquid-liquid separation occurs in systems with very dissimilar

molecules. Either the size or the intermolecular interactions
between components may be dissimilar. Systems that demix at low
pressures, have usually strongly dissimilar intermolecular
interactions, as for example in mixtures of polar and non-polar
molecules. In this case, the miscibility gap is likely to exist at high
pressures as well. An examples is the system dimethyl-ether and
water (Pozo and Street, 1984). This behavior also occurs in
systems of a fully- or near fully-fluorinated aliphatic or alicyclic
fluorocarbon with the corresponding hydrocarbon (Rowlinson and
Swinton, 1982), for example cyclohexane and
perfluorocyclohexane (Dyke et al., 1959; Hicks and Young, 1971).
Systems which have similar interactions, but which are very
different in size, do demix at higher pressures. For binary systems,
this happens often in the vicinity of the critical point of the light
component (Rowlinson and Swinton, 1982).
Examples are:
• Methane with hexane or heptane (van der Kooi, 1981;
Davenport and Rowlinson, 1963; Kohn, 1961)
• Ethane with n-alkanes with carbon numbers from 18 to 26
(Peters et al., 1986)
• Carbon dioxide with n-alkanes with carbon numbers from 7 to
20 (Fall et al., 1985)
The more the demixing compounds differ in molecular size, the
more likely it is that the liquid-liquid and liquid-liquid-vapor
equilibria will interfere with solidification of the heavy component.
For example, ethane and pentacosane or hexacosane show this.
Increasing the difference in carbon number further causes the
liquid-liquid separation to disappear. For example in mixtures of
ethane with n-alkanes with carbon numbers higher than 26, the
liquid-liquid separation becomes metastable with respect to the
solid-fluid (gas or liquid) equilibria (Peters et al., 1986). The solid
cannot be handled by an equation-of-state method.
Critical Solution In liquid-liquid equilibria, mutual solubilities depend on
Temperature temperature and pressure. Solubilities can increase or decrease
with increasing or decreasing temperature or pressure. The trend
depends on thermodynamic mixture properties but cannot be
predicted a priori. Immiscible phases can become miscible with
increasing or decreasing temperature or pressure. In that case a
liquid-liquid critical point occurs. Equations 11 and 12 can handle
this behavior, but engineering type equations of state cannot model
these phenomena accurately.
Calculation of Properties The equation of state can be related to other properties through
Using an Equation-of- fundamental thermodynamic equations :
State Property Method
• Fugacity coefficient:
f i v = ϕ iv y i p (13)
• Enthalpy departure:
V RT   V 
(H ) ( )
(14)
− H mig = − ∫  p −  dV − RT ln  ig  + T S m − S m + RT ( Zm − 1)
ig
∞ V  V 
m
• Entropy departure:
V  ∂p  R  V  (15)
(S m )
− S mig = − ∫   −  dV + R ln ig 
∞  ∂T  V 
 v V
• Gibbs energy departure:
V RT   V 
(G )
(16)
− Gmig = − ∫  p −  dV − RT ln  ig  + RT ( Z m − 1)
∞ V  V 
m
• Molar volume:
Solve p(T ,Vm ) for Vm .

From a given equation of state, fugacities are calculated according
to equation 13. The other thermodynamic properties of a mixture
can be computed from the departure functions:
• Vapor enthalpy:
(
H mv = H mig + H mv − H mig ) (17)
• Liquid enthalpy:
(
H ml = H mig + H ml − H mig ) (18)
ig
The molar ideal gas enthalpy, H m is computed by the expression:
H mig = ∑ y i ∆ f H iig + ∫ ref C pig, i (T ) dT 
T (19)
i
 T 
Where:
C pig, i = Ideal gas heat capacity
∆ f H iig = Standard enthalpy of formation for ideal gas at

298.15 K and 1 atm
T ref = Reference temperature = 298.15 K
Entropy and Gibbs energy can be computed in a similar manner:
(
Gmv = Gmig + Gmv − Gmig ) (20)
Gml = Gmig + (G − G )
l
m
ig
m
(21)
S mv = S mig + (S − S )
v
m
ig
m
(22)
S ml = S mig + (S − S )
l
m
ig
m
(23)
Vapor and liquid volume is computed by solving p(T,Vm) for Vm

or computed by an empirical correlation.
Advantages and You can use equations of state over wide ranges of temperature
Disadvantages of the and pressure, including subcritical and supercritical regions. For
Equation-of-State Method ideal or slightly non-ideal systems, thermodynamic properties for
both the vapor and liquid phases can be computed with a minimum
amount of component data. Equations of state are suitable for
modeling hydrocarbon systems with light gases such as CO2 , N 2 ,
and H 2 S .
For the best representation of non-ideal systems, you must obtain
binary interaction parameters from regression of experimental
vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data. Equation of state binary
parameters for many component pairs are available in the Aspen
Physical Property System.
The assumptions in the simpler equations of state (Redlich-
Kwong-Soave, Peng-Robinson, Lee-Kesler-Plöcker) are not
capable of representing highly non-ideal chemical systems, such as
alcohol-water systems. Use the activity-coefficient options sets for
these systems at low pressures. At high pressures, use the flexible
and predictive equations of state.
Activity Coefficient In an ideal liquid solution, the liquid fugacity of each component in
Method the mixture is directly proportional to the mole fraction of the
component.
f i l = x i f i*,l (24)
The ideal solution assumes that all molecules in the liquid solution
are identical in size and are randomly distributed. This assumption
is valid for mixtures containing molecules of similar size and
character. An example is a mixture of pentane (n-pentane) and 2,2-
dimethylpropane (neopentane) (Gmehling et al., 1980, pp. 95-99).
For this mixture, the molecules are of similar size and the
intermolecular interactions between different component
molecules are small (as for all nonpolar systems). Ideality can also
exist between polar molecules, if the interactions cancel out. An
example is the system water and 1,2-ethanediol (ethyleneglycol) at
363 K (Gmehling et al., 1988, p. 124).
In general, you can expect non-ideality in mixtures of unlike
molecules. Either the size and shape or the intermolecular
interactions between components may be dissimilar. For short
these are called size and energy asymmetry. Energy asymmetry
occurs between polar and non-polar molecules and also between
different polar molecules. An example is a mixture of alcohol and
water.
The activity coefficient γ i represents the deviation of the mixture

from ideality (as defined by the ideal solution):
f i l = x i γ i f i*,l (25)
The greater γ i deviates from unity, the more non-ideal the mixture.
For a pure component x i = 1 and γ i = 1, so by this definition a
pure component is ideal. A mixture that behaves as the sum of its
pure components is also defined as ideal (compare equation 24).
This definition of ideality, relative to the pure liquid, is totally
different from the definition of the ideality of an ideal gas, which
has an absolute meaning (see Equation-of-State Method). These
forms of ideality can be used next to each other.
In the majority of mixtures, γ i is greater than unity. The result is a

higher fugacity than ideal (compare equation 25 to equation 24).
The fugacity can be interpreted as the tendency to vaporize. If
compounds vaporize more than in an ideal solution, then they
increase their average distance. So activity coefficients greater than
unity indicate repulsion between unlike molecules. If the repulsion
is strong, liquid-liquid separation occurs. This is another
mechanism that decreases close contact between unlike molecules.
It is less common that γ i is smaller than unity. Using the same

reasoning, this can be interpreted as strong attraction between
unlike molecules. In this case, liquid-liquid separation does not
occur. Instead formation of complexes is possible.
Vapor-Liquid Equilibria In the activity coefficient approach, the basic vapor-liquid
equilibrium relationship is represented by:
ϕ iv y i p = x i γ i f i*,l (26)
The vapor phase fugacity coefficient ϕ i is computed from an

v
equation of state (see Equation-of-State Method). The liquid

activity coefficient γ i is computed from an activity coefficient
model.
For an ideal gas, ϕ i = 1. For an ideal liquid, γ i = 1. Combining this

v
with equation 26 gives Raoult’s law:

y i p = x i pi*,l (27)
At low to moderate pressures, the main difference between
equations 26 and 27 is due to the activity coefficient. If the activity
coefficient is larger than unity, the system is said to show positive
deviations from Raoults law. Negative deviations from Raoult’s
law occur when the activity coefficient is smaller than unity.
Liquid Phase Reference Fugacity
*, l
The liquid phase reference fugacity f i from equation 26 can be
computed in three ways:
For solvents: The reference state for a solvent is defined as pure
component in the liquid state, at the temperature and pressure of
the system. By this definition γ i approaches unity as x i
approaches unity.
*, l
The liquid phase reference fugacity f i is computed as:
( )
f i*,l = ϕ *,i v T , pi*,l pi*,l θ*,i l (28)
Where:
ϕ *,i v = Fugacity coefficient of pure component i at the
system temperature and vapor pressures, as
calculated from the vapor phase equation of state
pi*,l = Liquid vapor pressures of component i at the
system temperature
θ*,i l = Poynting correction for pressure
=  1 p 
exp
 RT ∫
pi*,l
Vi*,l dp

At low pressures, the Poynting correction is near unity, and can be
ignored.
For dissolved gases: Light gases (such as O2 and N 2 ) are usually

supercritical at the temperature and pressure of the solution. In that
case pure component vapor pressure is meaningless and therefore
it cannot serve as the reference fugacity. The reference state for a
dissolved gas is redefined to be at infinite dilution and at the
temperature and pressure of the mixtures. The liquid phase
*, l
reference fugacity f i becomes H i (the Henry’s constant for
component i in the mixture).
The activity coefficient γ i is converted to the infinite dilution

reference state through the relationship:
(
γ *i = γ i γ ∞i ) (29)
Where:
γ ∞i = The infinite dilution activity coefficient of
component i in the mixture
γ *
By this definition i approaches unity as x i approaches zero. The
phase equilibrium relationship for dissolved gases becomes:
ϕ iv y i p = x i γ *i H i (30)
To compute H i , you must supply the Henry’s constant for the

dissolved-gas component i in each subcritical solvent component.
Using an Empirical Correlation: The reference state fugacity is
calculated using an empirical correlation. Examples are the Chao-
Seader or the Grayson-Streed model.
Electrolyte and Multicomponent VLE
The vapor-liquid equilibrium equations 26 and 30, only apply for

components which occur in both phases. Ions are components
which do not participate directly in vapor-liquid equilibrium. This
is true as well for solids which do not dissolve or vaporize.
However, ions influence activity coefficients of the other species
by interactions. As a result they participate indirectly in the vapor-
liquid equilibria. An example is the lowering of the vapor pressure
of a solution upon addition of an electrolyte. For more on
electrolyte activity coefficient models, see Activity Coefficient
Models.
Multicomponent vapor-liquid equilibria are calculated from binary
parameters. These parameters are usually fitted to binary phase
equilibrium data (and not multicomponent data) and represent
therefore binary information. The prediction of multicomponent
phase behavior from binary information is generally good.
Liquid-Liquid and Liquid- The basic liquid-liquid-vapor equilibrium relationship is:
Liquid-Vapor Equilibria
x il1γ li1 f i*,l = x il 2 γ li 2 f i*,l = ϕ iv y i p (31)
Equation 31 can be derived from the liquid-vapor equilibrium

relationship by analogy. For liquid-liquid equilibria, the vapor
phase term can be omitted, and the pure component liquid fugacity
cancels out:
x il1γ li1 = x il 2 γ li 2 (32)
The activity coefficients depend on temperature, and so do liquid-
liquid equilibria. However, equation 32 is independent of pressure.
The activity coefficient method is very well suited for liquid-liquid
equilibria at low to moderate pressures. Mutual solubilities do not
change with pressure in this case. For high-pressure liquid-liquid
equilibria, mutual solubilities become a function of pressure. In
that case, use an equation-of-state method.
For the computation of the different terms in equations 31 and 32,
see Vapor-Liquid Equilibria.
Multi-component liquid-liquid equilibria cannot be reliably
predicted from binary interaction parameters fitted to binary data
only. In general, regression of binary parameters from multi-
component data will be necessary. See the Aspen Plus User Guide,
Chapter 31 or Aspen Properties User Guide for details.
The ability of activity coefficient models in describing
experimental liquid-liquid equilibria differs. The Wilson model
cannot describe liquid-liquid separation at all; UNIQUAC,
UNIFAC and NRTL are suitable. For details, see Activity
Coefficient Models. Activity coefficient models sometimes show
anomalous behavior in the metastable and unstable composition
region. Phase equilibrium calculation using the equality of
fugacities of all components in all phases (as in equations 31 and
32), can lead to unstable solutions. Instead, phase equilibrium
calculation using the minimization of Gibbs energy always yields
stable solutions.
The figure labeled (T,x,x,y)—Diagram of Water and Butanol-1 at
1.01325 bar, a graphical Gibbs energy minimization of the system
n-butanol + water, shows this.
(T,x,x,y)—Diagram of Water and Butanol-1 at 1.01325 bar
The phase diagram of n-butanol + water at 1 bar is shown in this

figure. There is liquid-liquid separation below 367 K and there are
vapor-liquid equilibria above this temperature. The diagram is
calculated using the UNIFAC activity coefficient model with the
liquid-liquid data set.
The Gibbs energies of vapor and liquid phases at 1 bar and 365 K
are given in the figure labeled Molar Gibbs Energy of Butanol-1
and Water at 365 K and 1 atm. This corresponds to a section of the
phase diagram at 365 K. The Gibbs energy of the vapor phase is
higher than that of the liquid phase at any mole fraction. This
means that the vapor is unstable with respect to the liquid at these
conditions. The minimum Gibbs energy of the system as a function
of the mole fraction can be found graphically by stretching an
imaginary string from below around the Gibbs curves. For the case
of the figure labeled Molar Gibbs Energy of Butanol-1 and Water
at 365 K and 1 atm, the string never touches the vapor Gibbs
energy curve. For the liquid the situation is more subtle: the string
touches the curve at the extremities but not at mole fractions
between 0.56 and 0.97. In that range the string forms a double
tangent to the curve. A hypothetical liquid mixture with mole
fraction of 0.8 has a higher Gibbs energy and is unstable with
respect to two liquid phases with mole fractions corresponding to
the points where the tangent and the curve touch. The overall
Gibbs energy of these two phases is a linear combination of their
individual Gibbs energies and is found on the tangent (on the
string). The mole fractions of the two liquid phases found by
graphical Gibbs energy minimization are also indicated in the
figure labeled (T,x,x,y)—Diagram of Water and Butanol-1 at
1.01325 bar.
Molar Gibbs Energy of Butanol-1 and Water at 365 K and 1 atm

The Gibbs energy has been transformed by a contribution linear in the mole
fraction, such that the Gibbs energy of pure liquid water (thermodynamic
potential of water) has been shifted to the value of pure liquid n-butanol. This is
done to make the Gibbs energy minimization visible on the scale of the graph.
This transformation has no influence on the result of Gibbs energy minimization
(Oonk, 1981).
At a temperature of 370 K, the vapor has become stable in the
mole fraction range of 0.67 to 0.90 (see the figure labeled Molar
Gibbs Energy of Butanol-1 and Water at 370 K and 1 atm).
Graphical Gibbs energy minimization results in two vapor-liquid
equilibria, indicated in the figure labeled Molar Gibbs Energy of
Butanol-1 and Water at 370 K and 1 atm. Ignoring the Gibbs
energy of the vapor and using a double tangent to the liquid Gibbs
energy curve a liquid-liquid equilibrium is found. This is unstable
with respect to the vapor-liquid equilibria. This unstable
equilibrium will not be found with Gibbs minimization (unless the
vapor is ignored) but can easily be found with the method of
equality of fugacities.
Molar Gibbs Energy of Butanol-1 and Water at 370 K and 1 atm
The technique of Gibbs energy minimization can be used for any

number of phases and components, and gives accurate results when
handled by a computer algorithm. This technique is always used in
the equilibrium reactor unit operation model RGibbs, and can be
used optionally for liquid phase separation in the distillation model
RadFrac.
Phase Equilibria Involving In most instances, solids are treated as inert with respect to phase
Solids equilibrium (CISOLID). This is useful if the components do not
dissolve or vaporize. An example is sand in a water stream.
CISOLID components are stored in separate substreams.
There are two areas of application where phase equilibrium
involving solids may occur:
• Salt precipitation in electrolyte solutions
• Pyrometallurgical applications
Salt Precipitation
Electrolytes in solution often have a solid solubility limit. Solid

solubilities can be calculated if the activity coefficients of the
species and the solubility product are known (for details see
Chapter 5). The activity of the ionic species can be computed from
an electrolyte activity coefficient model (see Activity Coefficient
Models). The solubility product can be computed from the Gibbs
energies of formation of the species participating in the
precipitation reaction or can be entered as the temperature function
(K-SALT) on the Reactions Chemistry Equilibrium Constants
sheet.
Salt precipitation is only calculated when the component is
declared as a Salt on the Reactions Chemistry Stoichiometry sheet.
The salt components are part of the MIXED substream, because
they participate in phase equilibrium. The types of equilibria are
liquid-solid or vapor-liquid-solid. Each precipitating salt is treated
as a separate, pure component, solid phase.
Solid compounds, which are composed of stoichiometric amounts
of other components, are treated as pure components. Examples
are salts with crystal water, like CaSO4 , H 2 O .
Phase Equilibria Involving Solids for Metallurgical Applications
Mineral and metallic solids can undergo phase equilibria in a

similar way as organic liquids. Typical pyrometallurgical
applications have specific characteristics:
• Simultaneous occurrence of multiple solid and liquid phases
• Occurrence of simultaneous phase and chemical equilibria
• Occurrence of mixed crystals or solid solutions
These specific characteristics are incompatible with the chemical
and phase equilibrium calculations by flash algorithms as used for
chemical and petrochemical applications. Instead, these equilibria
can be calculated by using Gibbs energy minimization techniques.
In Aspen Plus, the unit operation model RGibbs is specially
designed for this purpose.
Gibbs energy minimization techniques are equivalent to phase
equilibrium computations based on equality of fugacities. If the
distribution of the components of a system is found, such that the
Gibbs energy is minimal, equilibrium is obtained. (Compare the
discussion of phase equilibrium calculation using Gibbs energy
minimization in Liquid-Liquid and Liquid-Liquid-Vapor Equilibria
on page 1-Liquid-Liquid and Liquid-Liquid-Vapor Equilibria)
As a result, the analog of equation 31 holds:
x il1γ li1 f i*,l = x il 2 γ li 2 f i*,l =... x is1γ is1 f i*, s = x is 2 γ si 2 f i*, s =... ϕ vi y i p (33)
This equation can be simplified for pure component solids and
liquids, or be extended for any number of phases.
For example, the pure component vapor pressure (or sublimation)
curve can be calculated from the pure component Gibbs energies
of vapor and liquid (or solid). The figure labeled Thermodynamic
Potential of Mercury at 1, 5, 10, and 20 bar shows the pure
component molar Gibbs energy or thermodynamic potential of
liquid and vapor mercury as a function of temperature and at four
different pressures: 1,5,10 and 20 bar. The thermodynamic
potential of the liquid is not dependent on temperature and
independent of pressure: the four curves coincide. The vapor
thermodynamic potential is clearly different at each pressure. The
intersection point of the liquid and vapor thermodynamic potentials
at 1 bar is at about 630 K. At this point the thermodynamic
potentials of the two phases are equal, so there is equilibrium. A
point of the vapor pressure curve is found. Below this temperature
the liquid has the lower thermodynamic potential and is the stable
phase; above this temperature the vapor has the lower
thermodynamic potential. Repeating the procedure for all four
pressures gives the four points indicated on the vapor pressure
curve (see the figure labeled Vapor Pressure Curve of Liquid
Mercury). This is a similar result as a direct calculation with the
Antoine equation. The procedure can be repeated for a large
number of pressures to construct the curve with sufficient
accuracy. The sublimation curve can also be calculated using an
Antoine type model, similar to the vapor pressure curve of a liquid.
Thermodynamic Potential of Mercury at 1, 5, 10, and 20 bar

The pure component molar Gibbs energy is equal to the pure component
thermodynamic potential. The ISO and IUPAC recommendation to use the
thermodynamic potential is followed.
Vapor Pressure Curve of Liquid Mercury
The majority of solid databank components occur in the

INORGANIC databank. In that case, pure component Gibbs
energy, enthalpy and entropy of solid, liquid or vapor are
calculated by polynomials (see Chapter 3).
The pure component solid properties (Gibbs energy and enthalpy)
together with the liquid and vapor mixture properties are sufficient
input to calculate chemical and phase equilibria involving pure
solid phases. In some cases mixed crystals or solid solutions can
occur. These are separate phases. The concept of ideality and
nonideality of solid solutions are similar to those of liquid phases
(see Vapor-Liquid Equilibria). The activity coefficient models used
to describe nonideality of the solid phase are different than those
generally used for liquid phases. However some of the models
(Margules, Redlich-Kister) can be used for liquids as well. If
multiple liquid and solid mixture phases occur simultaneously, the
activity coefficient models used can differ from phase to phase.
To be able to distinguish pure component solids from solid
solutions in the stream summary, the pure component solids are
placed in the CISOLID substream and the solid solutions in the
MIXED substream.
Calculation of Other Properties can be calculated for vapor, liquid or solid phases:
Properties Using Activity Vapor phase: Vapor enthalpy, entropy, Gibbs energy and density
Coefficients are computed from an equation of state (see Calculation of
Properties Using an Equation-of-State Property Method).
Liquid phase: Liquid mixture enthalpy is computed as:
( )
H ml = ∑ x i H i*,v − ∆ vap H i* + H mE ,l (34)
i
Where:
H i*, v = Pure component vapor enthalpy at T and vapor
pressure
∆ vap H i* = Component vaporization enthalpy
H mE ,l = Excess liquid enthalpy

E ,l
Excess liquid enthalpy H m is related to the activity coefficient
through the expression:
∂ ln γ i (35)
H mE ,l = − RT 2 ∑ x i
i ∂T
Liquid mixture Gibbs free energy and entropy are computed as:
S ml =
1
T
(
H ml − Gml ) (36)
Gml = Gmv − RT ∑ ln ϕ *,i l + GmE ,l (37)

i
Where:
GmE ,l = RT ∑ x i ln γ i (38)
i
Liquid density is computed using an empirical correlation.

Solid phase: Solid mixture enthalpy is computed as:
H ms = ∑ x si H i*, s + H mE , s (39)
i
Where:
H i*, s = Pure component solid enthalpy at T
H mE , s = The excess solid enthalpy
E ,s
Excess solid enthalpy H m is related to the activity coefficient
through the expression:
∂ ln γ i (40)
H mE , s = − RT 2 ∑ x i
i ∂T
Solid mixture Gibbs energy is computed as:
Gms = ∑ x i µ *,i s + GmE , s + RT ∑ x is ln x is (41)
i i
Where:
GmE , s = RT ∑ x is ln γ is (42)
i
The solid mixture entropy follows from the Gibbs energy and
enthalpy:
S ms =
1
T
(
H ms − Gms ) (43)
Advantages and The activity coefficient method is the best way to represent highly
Disadvantages of the non-ideal liquid mixtures at low pressures. You must estimate or
Activity Coefficient obtain binary parameters from experimental data, such as phase
Method equilibrium data. Binary parameters for the Wilson, NRTL, and
UNIQUAC models are available in the Aspen Physical Property
System for a large number of component pairs. These binary
parameters are used automatically. See Physical Property Data,
Chapter 1, for details.
Binary parameters are valid only over the temperature and pressure
ranges of the data. Binary parameters outside the valid range
should be used with caution, especially in liquid-liquid equilibrium
applications. If no parameters are available, the predictive
UNIFAC models can be used.
The activity coefficient approach should be used only at low
pressures (below 10 atm). For systems containing dissolved gases
at low pressures and at small concentrations, use Henry’s law. For
highly non-ideal chemical systems at high pressures, use the
flexible and predictive equations of state.
Equation-of-State The simplest equation of state is the ideal gas law:
Models
RT (44)
p=
Vm
The ideal gas law assumes that molecules have no size and that
there are no intermolecular interactions. This can be called
absolute ideality, in contrast to ideality defined relative to pure
component behavior, as used in the activity coefficient approach
(see Activity Coefficient Method).
There are two main types of engineering equations of state: cubic
equations of state and the virial equations of state. Steam tables are
an example of another type of equation of state.
Cubic Equations of State In an ideal gas, molecules have no size and therefore no repulsion.
To correct the ideal gas law for repulsion, the total volume must be
corrected for the volume of the molecule(s), or covolume b.
(Compare the first term of equation 45 to equation 44. The
covolume can be interpreted as the molar volume at closest
packing.
The attraction must decrease the total pressure compared to an
ideal gas, so a negative term is added, proportional to an attraction
parameter a. This term is divided by an expression with dimension
1
3 6
m , because attractive forces are proportional to r , with r being
the distance between molecules.
An example of this class of equations is the Soave-Redlich-Kwong
equation of state (Soave, 1972):
RT a (T ) (45)
p= −
(Vm − b) Vm (Vm + b)
Equation 45 can be written as a cubic polynomial in Vm . With the
two terms of equation 45 and using simple mixing rules (see
Mixtures, below this chapter). the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation
of state can represent non-ideality due to compressibility effects.
The Peng-Robinson equation of state (Peng and Robinson, 1976) is
similar to the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state. Since the
publication of these equations, many improvements and
modifications have been suggested. A selection of important
modifications is available in the Aspen Physical Property System.
The original Redlich-Kwong-Soave and Peng-Robinson equations
will be called standard cubic equations of state. Cubic equations of
state in the Aspen Physical Property System are based on the
Redlich-Kwong-Soave and Peng-Robinson equations of state.
Equations are listed in the following table.
Cubic Equations of State in the Aspen Physical Property System
Redlich-Kwong(-Soave) based Peng-Robinson based
Redlich-Kwong Standard Peng-Robinson
Standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave Peng-Robinson
Redlich-Kwong-Soave Peng-Robinson-MHV2
Redlich-Kwong-ASPEN Peng-Robinson-WS
Schwartzentruber-Renon
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-MHV2
Predictive SRK
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-WS
Pure Components
In a standard cubic equation of state, the pure component

parameters are calculated from correlations based on critical
temperature, critical pressure, and acentric factor. These
correlations are not accurate for polar compounds or long chain
hydrocarbons. Introducing a more flexible temperature dependency
of the attraction parameter (the alpha-function), the quality of
vapor pressure representation improves. Up to three different alpha
functions are built-in to the following cubic equation-of-state
models in the Aspen Physical Property System: Redlich-Kwong-
Aspen, Schwartzenruber-Renon, Peng-Robinson-MHV2, Peng-
Robinson-WS, Predictive RKS, Redlich-Kwong-Soave-MHV2,
and Redlich-Kwong-Soave-WS.
Cubic equations of state do not represent liquid molar volume
accurately. To correct this you can use volume translation, which is
independent of VLE computation. The Schwartzenruber-Renon
equation of state model has volume translation.
Mixtures
The cubic equation of state calculates the properties of a fluid as if

it consisted of one (imaginary) component. If the fluid is a mixture,
the parameters a and b of the imaginary component must be
calculated from the pure component parameters of the real
components, using mixing rules. The classical mixing rules, with
one binary interaction parameter for the attraction parameter, are
not sufficiently flexible to describe mixtures with strong shape and
size asymmetry:
(
a = ∑ ∑ x i x j ai a j ) (1 − k ) (46)
1
2
a , ij
i j
 bi + b j  (47)
b = ∑ xi bi = ∑∑ xi x j  
i i j  2 
A second interaction coefficient is added for the b parameter in the
Redlich-Kwong-Aspen (Mathias, 1983) and Schwartzentruber-
Renon (Schwartzentruber and Renon, 1989) equations of state:
 bi + b j 
( )
(48)
b = ∑∑ xi x j   1 − kb,ij
i j  2 
This is effective to fit vapor-liquid equilibrium data for systems
with strong size and shape asymmetry but it has the disadvantage
k k k
that b,ij is strongly correlated with a , ij and that b,ij affects the
excess molar volume (Lermite and Vidal, 1988).
For strong energy asymmetry, in mixtures of polar and non-polar
compounds, the interaction parameters should depend on
composition to achieve the desired accuracy of representing VLE
data. Huron-Vidal mixing rules use activity coefficient models as
mole fraction functions (Huron and Vidal, 1979). These mixing
rules are extremely successful in fitting because they combine the
advantages of flexibility with a minimum of drawbacks (Lermite
and Vidal, 1988). However, with the original Huron-Vidal
approach it is not possible to use activity coefficient parameters,
determined at low pressures, to predict the high pressure equation-
of-state interactions.
Several modifications of Huron-Vidal mixing rules exist which use
activity coefficient parameters obtained at low pressure directly in
the mixing rules (see the table labeled Cubic Equations of State in
the Aspen Physical Property System). They accurately predict
binary interactions at high pressure. In practice this means that the
large database of activity coefficient data at low pressures
(DECHEMA Chemistry Data Series, Dortmund DataBank) is now
extended to high pressures.
The MHV2 mixing rules (Dahl and Michelsen, 1990), use the
Lyngby modified UNIFAC activity coefficient model (See
Activity Coefficient Models). The quality of the VLE predictions
is good.
The Predictive SRK method (Holderbaum and Gmehling, 1991;
Fischer, 1993) uses the original UNIFAC model. The prediction of
VLE is good. The mixing rules can be used with any equation of
state, but it has been integrated with the Redlich-Kwong-Soave
equation of state in the following way: new UNIFAC groups have
been defined for gaseous components, such as hydrogen.
Interaction parameters for the new groups have been regressed and
added to the existing parameter matrix. This extends the existing
low pressure activity coefficient data to high pressures, and adds
prediction of gas solubilities at high pressures.
The Wong-Sandler mixing rules (Wong and Sandler, 1992; Orbey
et al., 1993) predict VLE at high pressure equally well as the
MHV2 mixing rules. Special attention has been paid to the
theoretical correctness of the mixing rules at pressures approaching
zero.
Virial Equations of State Virial equations of state in the Aspen Physical Property System
are:
• Hayden-O’Connell
• BWR-Lee-Starling
• Lee-Kesler-Plöcker
This type of equation of state is based on a selection of powers of
the expansion:
 1 B C  (49)
p = RT  + 2 + 3 + ...
 Vm Vm Vm 
Truncation of equation 49 after the second term and the use of the
second virial coefficient B can describe the behavior of gases up to
several bar. The Hayden-O'Connell equation of state uses a
complex computation of B to account for the association and
chemical bonding in the vapor phase (see Vapor Phase
Association).
Like cubic equations of state, some of these terms must be related
to either repulsion or attraction. To describe liquid and vapor
properties, higher order terms are needed. The order of the
equations in V is usually higher than cubic. The Benedict-Webb-
Rubin equation of state is a good example of this approach. It had
many parameters generalized in terms of critical properties and
acentric factor by Lee and Starling (Brulé et al., 1982). The Lee-
Kesler-Plöcker equation of state is another example of this
approach.
Virial equations of state for liquid and vapor are more flexible in
describing a (p,V) isotherm because of the higher degree of the
equation in the volume. They are more accurate than cubic
equations of state. Generalizations have been focused mainly on
hydrocarbons, therefore these compounds obtain excellent results.
They are not recommended for polar compounds.
The standard mixing rules give good results for mixtures of
hydrocarbons and light gases.
Vapor Phase Association Nonpolar substances in the vapor phase at low pressures behave
almost ideally. Polar substances can exhibit nonideal behavior or
even association in the vapor phase. Association can be expected
in systems with hydrogen bonding such as alcohols, aldehydes and
carboxylic acids. Most hydrogen bonding leads to dimers. HF is an
exception; it forms mainly hexamers. This section uses
dimerization as an example to discuss the chemical theory used to
describe strong association. Chemical theory can be used for any
type of reaction.
If association occurs, chemical reactions take place. Therefore, a
model based on physical forces is not sufficient. Some reasons are:
• Two monomer molecules form one dimer molecule, so the total
number of species decreases. As a result the mole fractions
change. This has influence on VLE and molar volume
(density).
• The heat of reaction affects thermal properties like enthalpy,
Cp
.
The equilibrium constant of a dimerization reaction,
2 A ↔ A2 (50)
in the vapor phase is defined in terms of fugacities:
f A2 (51)
K=
f A2
With:
f i v = ϕ vi y i p (52)
and realizing that ϕ i is approximately unity at low pressures:

v
y A2 (53)
K=
y 2A p
Equations 51-53 are expressed in terms of true species properties.
This may seem natural, but unless measurements are done, the true
compositions are not known. On the contrary, the composition is
usually given in terms of unreacted or apparent species (Abbott
and van Ness, 1992), which represents the imaginary state of the
system if no reaction takes place. Superscripts t and a are used to
distinguish clearly between true and apparent species. (For more
on the use of apparent and true species approach, see Chapter 5).
K in equation 53 is only a function of temperature. If the pressure
y A2
2
approaches zero at constant temperature, y A ,which is a measure
of the degree of association, must decrease. It must go to zero for
zero pressure where the ideal gas behavior is recovered. The
degree of association can be considerable at atmospheric pressure:
for example acetic acid at 293 K and 1 bar is dimerized at about
95% (Prausnitz et al., 1986).
The equilibrium constant is related to the thermodynamic
properties of reaction:
∆rG ∆r H ∆rS (54)
ln K = − = +
RT RT R
The Gibbs energy, the enthalpy, and the entropy of reaction can be
approximated as independent of temperature. Then from equation
1
54 it follows that ln K plotted against T is approximately a straight
line with a positive slope (since the reaction is exothermic) with
1
increasing T . This represents a decrease of ln K with increasing
temperature. From this it follows (using equation 53) that the
degree of association decreases with increasing temperature.
It is convenient to calculate equilibria and to report mole fractions
in terms of apparent components. The concentrations of the true
species have to be calculated, but are not reported. Vapor-liquid
equilibria in terms of apparent components require apparent
fugacity coefficients.
The fugacity coefficients of the true species are expected to be
close to unity (ideal) at atmospheric pressure. However the
apparent fugacity coefficient needs to reflect the decrease in
apparent partial pressure caused by the decrease in number of
species.
a
The apparent partial pressure is represented by the term y i p in the
vapor fugacity equation applied to apparent components:
f i a , v = ϕ ai , v y ia p (55)
In fact the apparent and true fugacity coefficients are directly
related to each other by the change in number of components
(Nothnagel et al., 1973; Abbott and van Ness, 1992):
y it (56)
ϕ ai , v = ϕ ti , v
y ia
Apparent Fugacity of Vapor Benzene and Propionic Acid
This is why apparent fugacity coefficients of associating species

are well below unity. This is illustrated in the figure labeled
Apparent Fugacity of Vapor Benzene and Propionic Acid for the
system benzene + propionic acid at 415 K and 101.325 kPa (1 atm)
(Nothnagel et al., 1973). The effect of dimerization clearly
decreases below apparent propionic acid mole fractions of about
0.2 (partial pressures of 20 kPa). The effect vanishes at partial
pressures of zero, as expected from the pressure dependence of
equation 53. The apparent fugacity coefficient of benzene
increases with increasing propionic acid mole fraction. This is
because the true mole fraction of propionic acid is higher than its
apparent mole fraction (see equation 56).
The vapor enthalpy departure needs to be corrected for the heat of
association. The true heat of association can be obtained from the
equilibrium constant:
∆ r H = −T
t 2 (
d ∆ r Gmt ) = RT d ( ln K )
2
(57)
m
dT dT
The value obtained from equation 57 must be corrected for the
ratio of true to apparent number of species to be consistent with the
apparent vapor enthalpy departure. With the enthalpy and Gibbs
energy of association (equations 57 and 54), the entropy of
association can be calculated.
The apparent heat of vaporization of associating components as a
function of temperature can show a maximum. The increase of the
heat of vaporization with temperature is probably related to the
decrease of the degree of association with increasing temperature.
However, the heat of vaporization must decrease to zero when the
temperature approaches the critical temperature. The figure labeled
Liquid and Vapor Enthalpy of Acetic Acid illustrates the enthalpic
behavior of acetic acid. Note that the enthalpy effect due to
association is very large.
Liquid and Vapor Enthalpy of Acetic Acid
The true molar volume of an associating component is close to the

true molar volume of a non-associating component. At low
pressures, where the ideal gas law is valid, the true molar volume
is constant and equal to p/RT, independent of association. This
means that associated molecules have a higher molecular mass
than their monomers, but they behave as an ideal gas, just as their
monomers. This also implies that the mass density of an associated
gas is higher than that of a gas consisting of the monomers. The
apparent molar volume is defined as the true total volume per
apparent number of species. Since the number of apparent species
is higher than the true number of species the apparent molar
volume is clearly smaller than the true molar volume.
The chemical theory can be used with any equation of state to
compute true fugacity coefficients. At low pressures, the ideal gas
law can be used.
For dimerization, two approaches are commonly used: the
Nothagel and the Hayden-O’Connel equations of state. For HF
hexamerization a dedicated equation of state is available in the
Aspen Physical Property System.
Nothnagel et al. (1973) used a truncated van der Waals equation of
state. They correlated the equilibrium constants with the covolume
b, a polarity parameter p and the parameter d. b can be determined
from group contribution methods (Bondi, 1968) (or a correlation of
the critical temperature and pressure (as in the Aspen Physical
Property System). d and p are adjustable parameters. Many values
for d and p are available in the Nothnagel equation of state in the
Aspen Physical Property System. Also correction terms for the
heats of association of unlike molecules are built-in. The
equilibrium constant, K, has been correlated to Tb , Tc , b, d, and p.
Hayden and O’Connell (1975) used the virial equation of state
(equation 49), truncated after the second term. They developed a
correlation for the second virial coefficient of polar, nonpolar and
associating species based on the critical temperature and pressure,
the dipole moment and the mean radius of gyration. Association of
like and unlike molecules is described with the adjustable
parameter η . Pure component and binary values for η are
available in the Aspen Physical Property System.
The HF equation of state (de Leeuw and Watanasiri, 1993)
assumes the formation of hexamers only. The fugacities of the true
species are assumed to be ideal, and is therefore suited for low
pressures. Special attention has been paid to the robustness of the
algorithm, and the consistency of the results with theory. The
equation of state has been integrated with the electrolyte NRTL
activity coefficient model to allow the rigorous representation of
absorption and stripping of HF with water. It can be used with
other activity coefficient models for hydrocarbon + HF mixtures.
Activity Coefficient This section discusses the characteristics of activity coefficient
Models models. The description is divided into the following categories:
• Molecular models (correlative models for non-electrolyte
solutions)
• Group contribution models (predictive models for non-
electrolyte solutions)
• Electrolyte activity coefficient models
Molecular Models The early activity coefficient models such as van Laar and
Scatchard-Hildebrand, are based on the same assumptions and
principles of regular solutions. Excess entropy and excess molar
volume are assumed to be zero, and for unlike interactions,
London’s geometric mean rule is used. Binary parameters were
estimated from pure component properties. The van Laar model is
only useful as correlative model. The Scatchard-Hildebrand can
predict interactions from solubility parameters for non-polar
mixtures. Both models predict only positive deviations from
Raoult’s law (see Activity Coefficient Method).
The three-suffix Margules and the Redlich-Kister activity
coefficient models are flexible arithmetic expressions.
Local composition models are very flexible, and the parameters
have much more physical significance. These models assume
ordering of the liquid solution, according to the interaction
energies between different molecules. The Wilson model is suited
for many types of non-ideality but cannot model liquid-liquid
separation. The NRTL and UNIQUAC models can be used to
describe VLE, LLE and enthalpic behavior of highly non-ideal
systems. The WILSON, NRTL and UNIQUAC models are well
accepted and are used on a regular basis to model highly non-ideal
systems at low pressures.
A detailed discussion of molecular activity coefficient models and
underlying theories can be found in Prausnitz et al. (1986).
Group Contribution The UNIFAC activity coefficient model is an extension of the
Models UNIQUAC model. It applies the same theory to functional groups
that UNIQUAC uses for molecules. A limited number of
functional groups is sufficient to form an infinite number of
different molecules. The number of possible interactions between
groups is very small compared to the number of possible
interactions between components from a pure component database
(500 to 2000 components). Group-group interactions determined
from a limited, well chosen set of experimental data are sufficient
to predict activity coefficients between almost any pair of
components.
UNIFAC (Fredenslund et al., 1975; 1977) can be used to predict
activity coefficients for VLE. For LLE a different dataset must be
used. Mixture enthalpies, derived from the activity coefficients
(see Activity Coefficient Method) are not accurate.
UNIFAC has been modified at the Technical University of Lyngby
(Denmark). The modification includes an improved combinatorial
term for entropy and the group-group interaction has been made
temperature dependent. The three UNIFAC models are available in
the Aspen Physical Property System. For detailed information on
each model, see Chapter 3, UNIFAC, UNIFAC (Dortmund
Modified), UNIFAC (Lyngby Modified).
This model can be applied to VLE, LLE and enthalpies (Larsen et
al., 1987). Another UNIFAC modification comes from the
University of Dortmund (Germany). This modification is similar to
Lyngby modified UNIFAC, but it can also predict activity
coefficients at infinite dilution (Weidlich and Gmehling, 1987).
Electrolyte Models In electrolyte solutions a larger variety of interactions and
phenomena exist than in non-electrolyte solutions. Besides
physical and chemical molecule-molecule interactions, ionic
reactions and interactions occur (molecule-ion and ion-ion).
Electrolyte activity coefficient models (Electrolyte NRTL, Pitzer)
are therefore more complicated than non-electrolyte activity
coefficient models. Electrolytes dissociate so a few components
can form many species in a solution. This causes a multitude of
interactions, some of which are strong. This section gives a
summary of the capabilities of the electrolyte activity coefficient
models in the Aspen Physical Property System. For details, see
Chapter 3, Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient Model,
Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model, and Pitzer Activity
Coefficient Model, and Appendices A, B, and C.
The Pitzer electrolyte activity coefficient model can be used for the
representation of aqueous electrolyte solutions up to 6 molal
strength (literature references in appendix C). The model handles
gas solubilities. Excellent results can be obtained, but many
parameters are needed.
The Electrolyte NRTL model is an extension of the molecular
NRTL model (literature references in appendix B). It can handle
electrolyte solutions of any strength, and is suited for solutions
with multiple solvents, and dissolved gases. The flexibility of this
model makes it very suitable for any low-to-moderate pressure
application.
Electrolyte parameter databanks and data packages for industrially
important applications have been developed for both models (see
Physical Property Data, Chapter 1). If parameters are not available,
use data regression, or the Bromley-Pitzer activity coefficient
model.
The Bromley-Pitzer activity coefficient model is a simplification of
the Pitzer model (literature references in appendix A). A
correlation is used to calculate the interaction parameters. The
model is limited in accuracy, but predictive.
Transport Property Methods
the Aspen Physical Property System property methods can
compute the following transport properties:
• Viscosity
• Thermal conductivity
• Diffusion coefficient
• Surface tension
Each pure component property is calculated either from an
empirical equation or from a semi-empirical (theoretical)
correlation. The coefficients for the empirical equation are
determined from experimental data and are stored in the Aspen
Physical Property System databank. The mixture properties are
calculated using appropriate mixing rules. This section discusses
the methods for transport property calculation. The properties that
have the most in common in their behavior are viscosity and
thermal conductivity. This is reflected in similar methods that exist
for these properties and therefore they are discussed together.
Viscosity and When the pressure approaches zero, viscosity and thermal
Thermal Conductivity conductivity are linear functions of temperature with a positive
Methods slope. At a given temperature, viscosity and thermal conductivity
increase with increasing density (density increases for any fluid
with increasing pressure).
Detailed molecular theories exist for gas phase viscosity and
thermal conductivity at low pressures. Some of these can account
for polarity. These low pressure properties are not exactly ideal gas
properties because non-ideality is taken into account. Examples are
the Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw and the Chung-Lee-Starling low
pressure vapor viscosity models and the Stiel-Thodos low pressure
vapor thermal conductivity model.
Residual property models are available to account for pressure or
density effects. These models calculate the difference of a certain
property with respect to the low pressure value. The method used
is:
x ( p) = x ( p = 0) + ( x ( p) − x( p = 0)) (58)
Where:
x = Viscosity or thermal conductivity
Most of the low pressure models require mixing rules for
calculating mixture properties.
Another class of models calculate the high pressure property
directly from molecular parameters and state variables. For
example the TRAPP models for hydrocarbons use critical
parameters and acentric factor as molecular parameters. The
models use temperature and pressure as state variables.
The Chung-Lee-Starling models use critical parameters, acentric
factor, and dipole moment as molecular parameters. The models
use temperature and density as state variables. These models
generally use mixing rules for molecular parameters, rather than
mixing rules for pure component properties.
Vapor viscosity, thermal conductivity, and vapor diffusivity are
interrelated by molecular theories. Many thermal conductivity
methods therefore require low pressure vapor viscosity either in
calculating thermal conductivity or in the mixing rules.
Liquid properties are often described by empirical, correlative
models: Andrade/DIPPR for liquid viscosity and Sato-Riedel for
thermal conductivity. These are accurate in the temperature and
pressure ranges of the experimental data used in the fit. Mixing
rules for these properties do not provide a good description for the
excess properties.
Corresponding-states models such as Chung-Lee-Starling and
TRAPP can describe both liquid and vapor properties. These
models are more predictive and less accurate than a correlative
model, but extrapolate well with temperature and pressure. Chung-
Lee-Starling allows the use of binary interaction parameters and an
association parameter, which can be adjusted to experimental data.
Diffusion Coefficient It is evident that diffusion is related to viscosity, so several
Methods diffusion coefficient methods, require viscosity, for both liquid and
for vapor diffusion coefficients. (Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee and
Wilke-Chang models).
Vapor diffusion coefficients can be calculated from molecular
theories similar to those discussed for low pressure vapor viscosity
and thermal conductivity. Similarly, pressure correction methods
exist. The Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi model calculates a pressure
correction factor which requires the density as input.
Liquid diffusion coefficients depend on activity and liquid
viscosity.
Binary diffusion coefficients are required in processes where mass
transfer is limited. Binary diffusion coefficients describe the
diffusion of one component at infinite dilution in another
component. In multicomponent systems this corresponds to a
matrix of values.
The average diffusion coefficient of a component in a mixture does
not have any quantitative applications; it is an informative
property. It is computed using a mixing rule for vapor diffusion
coefficients and using mixture input parameters for the Wilke-
Chang model.
Surface Tension Surface tension is calculated by empirical, correlative models such
Methods as Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/DIPPR. An empirical linear mixing rule
is used to compute mixture surface tension.
Nonconventional Component
Enthalpy Calculation
Nonconventional components generally do not participate in phase
equilibrium calculations, but are included in enthalpy balances. For
a process unit in which no chemical change occurs, only sensible
heat effects of nonconventional components are significant. In this
case, the enthalpy reference state may be taken as the component at
any arbitrary reference temperatures (for example, 298.15 K). If a
nonconventional component is involved in a chemical reaction, an
enthalpy balance is meaningful only if the enthalpy reference state
is consistent with that adopted for conventional components: the
constituents elements must be in their standard states at 1 atm and
298.15 K. The enthalpy is calculated as:
H s = ∆ f hs + ∫
T
C ps dT (59)
T ref
∆ hs
Frequently the heat of formation f is unknown and cannot be
obtained directly because the molecular structure of the component
is unknown. In many cases, it is possible to calculate the heat of
formation from the heat of combustion ∆ c h , because the
s
combustion products and elemental composition of the

components are known:
∆ f h s = ∆ c h s + ∆ f hcps (60)
∆ f hcps
is the sum of the heats of formation of the combustion
products multiplied by the mass fractions of the respective
elements in the nonconventional component. This is the approach
used in the coal enthalpy model HCOALGEN (see Chapter 3).
This approach is recommended for computing DHFGEN for the
ENTHGEN model.
Symbol Definitions
Roman Letters Definitions
a Equation of state energy parameter
b Equation of state co-volume
B Second virial coefficient
Cp Heat capacity at constant pressure
C Third virial coefficient
f Fugacity
G Gibbs energy
H Henry’s constant
H Enthalpy
k Equation of state binary parameter
K Chemical equilibrium constant
n Mole number
p Pressure
R Universal gas constant
S Entropy
T Temperature
V Volume
x,y Molefraction
Z Compressibility factor
Greek Letters Definitions

γ Activity coefficient
θ Poynting correction
ϕ Fugacity coefficient
µ Thermodynamic potential
Superscripts Definitions
c Combustion property
i Component index
f Formation property
m Molar property
vap Vaporization property
r Reaction property
ref Reference state property
* Pure component property, asymmetric convention
∞ At infinite dilution
a Apparent property
E Excess property
Superscripts Definitions
ig Ideal gas property
l Liquid property
l2 Second liquid property
l1 First liquid property
s Solid property
t True property
v Vapor property
References
Collection, Aliphatic Hydrocarbons, C4 - C6, Chemistry Data
Series Vol 1, Part 6a, D. Bierens and R.Eckerman, eds.,
(Frankfurt/Main: Dechema, 1980).
M. M. Abbott and M. C. Van Ness, "Thermodynamics of Solutions
Containing Reactive Species: A Guide to Fundamentals and
Applications," Fluid Phase Equilibria, Vol 77, (1992), pp. 53-119.
A. Bondi, "Physical Properties of Moelcular Liquids, Crystals, and
Glasses," Wiley, New York, 1968.
M.R. Brulé, C.T. Lin, L.L. Lee, and K.E. Starling, "Multiparameter
Corresponding States Correlation of Coal-Fluid Thermodynamic
Properties," AIChE J., Vol. 28, No. 4, (1982), pp. 616 – 637.
S. Dahl and M.L. Michelsen, "High-Pressure Vapor-Liquid
Equilibrium with a UNIFAC-based Equation of State", AIChE J.,
Vol. 36, No. 12 (1990), pp. 1829-1836.
A.J. Davenport and J.S. Rowlinson, Trans. Faraday Soc., Vol. 59
(1963), p. 78, (cited after van der Kooi, 1981).
D.E.L. Dyke, J.S. Rowlinson and R. Thacker, Trans. Faraday Soc.,
Vol. 55, (1959), p. 903, (cited after Rowlinson and Swinton, 1982).
D.J. Fall, J.L. Fall, and K.D. Luks, "Liquid-liquid-vapor
immiscibility Limits in Carbon Dioxide + n-Paraffin Mixtures," J.
Chem. Eng. Data , Vol. 30, No. 1, (1985), pp. 82-88.
K. Fischer, Die PSRK-Methode: Eine Zustandsgleichung unter
Verwendung des UNIFAC-Gruppenbeitragsmodells, VDI
Fortschrittberichte, Reihe 3: Verfahrenstechnik, Nr. 324
(Düsseldorf: VDI Verlag GmbH, 1993).
Aa. Fredenslund, J. Gmehling, and P. Rasmussen , Vapor-Liquid
Equilibria Using UNIFAC, (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1977).
Aa. Fredenslund, R.L. Jones, and J.M. Prausnitz, "Group-
Contribution Estimation of Activity Coefficients in Nonideal
Liquid Mixtures," AIChE J., Vol. 21, (1975), pp. 1086-1099.
J. Gmehling, U. Onken and W. Arlt, "Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
Data Collection, Aqueous-Organic Systems, Supplement 2,"
Chemistry Data Series Vol 1, Part 1b , D. Bierens and
R.Eckerman, eds., (Frankfurt/Main: Dechema, 1988).
L. Haar, J.S. Gallagher, and J.H. Kell, NBSINRC Steam Tables
(Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1984).
J.G. Hayden and J.P. O’Connell, " A Generalized Method for
Predicting Second Virial Coefficients, " Ind. Eng. Chem. Process
Des. Dev., Vol. 14, No. 3, (1975), pp. 209-216.
C.P. Hicks and C.L. Young, Trans. Faraday Soc., Vol. 67, (1971),
p.1605, (cited after Rowlinson and Swinton, 1982).
T. Holderbaum and J. Gmehling, "PSRK: A Group Contribution
Equation of State based on UNIFAC", Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 70,
(1991), pp. 251-265.
M.-J. Huron and J. Vidal, "New Mixing Rules in Simple Equations
of state for representing Vapour-Liquid Equilibria of Strongly
Non-ideal Mixtures," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 3, (1979), pp. 255-271.
J.P. Kohn, AIChE J. , Vol 7, (1961), p. 514, (cited after van der
Kooi, 1981).
H.J. van der Kooi, Metingen en berekeningen aan het systeem
methaan-n-eiscosaan, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology
(Delft: Delftse Universitaire Pers, 1981) (In Dutch).
B.L. Larsen, P. Rasmussen, and Aa. Fredenslund, "A Modified
UNIFAC Group-Contribution Model for the Prediction of Phase
Equilibria and Heats of Mixing," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 26,
(1987), pp. 2274-2286.
V.V. de Leeuw and S. Watanasiri, " Modelling Phase Equilibria
And Enthalpies Of The System Water And Hydrofluoric Acid
Using A ’HF Equation Of State’ In Conjunction With The
Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient Model," Presented at the
13th European Seminar on Applied Thermodynamics, 9th-12th
June 1993, Carry-le-Rouet, France.
Ch. Lermite and J. Vidal, "Les règles de mélange appliquées aux
équations d'état." Revue de l'Institut Français du Pétrole, Vol. 43,
No. 1, (1988), pp. 73-94.
P.M. Mathias, "A Versatile Phase Equilibrium Equation of State,"
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. Vol. 22, (1983), pp. 385-391.
K.-H. Nothnagel, D.S. Abrams, and J.M. Prausnitz, "Generalized
Correlation for Fugacity Coefficients in Mixtures at Moderate
Pressures. Applications of Chemical Theory of Vapor
Imperfections," Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 12, No.
1, (1973), pp. 25-35.
H.A.J. Oonk, Phase Theory, The Thermodynamics of
Heterogeneous Equilibria, (Amsterdam, etc.: Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, 1981), Ch. 4.
H. Orbey, S.I. Sandler, and D.S. Wong, "Accurate equation of state
predictions at high temperatures and pressures using the existing
UNIFAC model," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 85, (1993), pp. 41-54.
D.-Y. Peng and D.B. Robinson, "A New Two-Constant Equation
of state," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, (1976), pp. 59-64.
C.J. Peters, R.N. Lichtenthaler, and J. de Swaan Arons, "Three
Phase Equilibria In Binary Mixtures Of Ethane And Higher N-
Alkanes," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 29, (1986), pp. 495-504.
M.E. Pozo and W.B. Street, "Fluid Phase Equilibria for the System
Dimethyl Ether/Water from 50 to 200 C and Pressures to 50.9
MPa," J. Chem. Eng. Data, Vol. 29, No. 3, (1984), pp. 324-329.
J.M. Prausnitz, R.N. Lichtenthaler, and E. Gomes de Azevedo,
Molecular Thermodynamics of Fluid-Phase Equilibria, 2nd ed.,
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1986), pp. 137-151.
R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, and B.E. Poling, The Properties Of
Gases And Liquids, 4th ed., (New York, etc: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1987).
J.S. Rowlinson and F.L. Swinton, Liquids and Liquid Mixtures, 3rd
ed. (London, etc.:Butterworths, 1982), ch. 6.
J. Schwartzentruber and H. Renon, "Extension of UNIFAC to High
Pressures and Temperatures by the Use of a Cubic Equation of
State," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 28, (1989), pp. 1049-1955.
G. Soave, "Equilibrium Constants for a Modified Redlich-Kwong
Equation of State," Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, (1972), pp. 1196-
1203.
U. Weidlich and J. Gmehling, "A Modified UNIFAC Model. 1.
∞
Prediction of VLE, h , γ ," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 26,
E
(1987), pp. 1372-1381.

D.S. Wong and S.I. Sandler, "A Theoretically Correct New Mixing
Rule for Cubic Equations of State for Both Highly and Slightly
Non-ideal Mixtures," AIChE J., Vol. 38, (1992), pp. 671-680.
CHAPTER 2
Property Method Descriptions
Overview
This chapter describes the Aspen Physical Property System
property methods. Topics include:
• Classification of property methods
• Recommended use
• Property method descriptions, organized by application
Since Aspen Physical Property System property methods are
tailored to classes of compounds and operating conditions, they fit
most engineering needs. Customization of property methods is
explained in Chapter 4.
Classification of Property Methods

and Recommended Use
A property method is a collection of property calculation routes.
(For more on routes, see Chapter 4). The properties involved are
needed by unit operation models.
Thermodynamic properties:
• Fugacity coefficient (or equivalent: chemical potential, K-
value)
• Enthalpy
• Entropy
• Gibbs energy
• Volume
Transport properties:
• Viscosity
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Property Method Descriptions • 2-1
• Surface tension
Property methods allow you to specify a collection of property
calculation procedures as one entity, for example, you might use
them in a unit operation, or in a flowsheet (see Aspen Plus User
Guide, Chapter 7).
It is important to choose the right property method for an
application to ensure the success of your calculation. To help you
choose a property method, frequently encountered applications are
listed with recommended property methods. (Multiple property
methods often apply. A class of property methods is
recommended, as opposed to an individual property method.)
The classes of property methods available are:
• IDEAL
• Liquid fugacity and K-value correlations
• Petroleum tuned equations of state
• Equations of state for high pressure hydrocarbon applications
• Flexible and predictive equations of state
• Liquid activity coefficients
• Electrolyte activity coefficients and correlations
• Solids processing
• Steam tables
After you have decided which property method class your
application needs, refer to the corresponding section in this chapter
for more detailed recommendations. See Chapter 3 for detailed
information on models and their parameter requirements. General
usage issues, such as using Henry’s law and the free-water
approximation, are discussed in Aspen Plus User Guide, Chapter 7.
Recommended Classes of Property Methods for Different Applications
Oil and Gas Production
Application Recommended Property Method
Reservoir systems Equations of state for high pressure
hydrocarbon applications
Platform separation Equations of state for high pressure
Transportation of oil and gas by Equations of state for high pressure
pipeline hydrocarbon applications
2-2 • Property Method Descriptions Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Refinery
Low pressure applications(up to Petroleum fugacity and K-value
several atm) correlations (and assay data
Vacuum tower analysis)
Atmospheric crude tower
Medium pressure applications (up Petroleum fugacity and K-value
to several tens of atm) correlations
Coker main fractionator Petroleum-tuned equations of state
FCC main fractionator (and assay data analysis)
Hydrogen-rich applications Selected petroleum fugacity
Reformer correlations
Hydrofiner Petroleum-tuned equations of state
(and assay data analysis)
Lube oil unit Petroleum-tuned equations of state
De-asphalting unit (and assay data analysis)
Gas Processing
Hydrocarbon separations Equations of state for high pressure
Demethanizer hydrocarbon applications (with kij)
C3-splitter
Cryogenic gas processing Equations of state for high pressure
Air separation hydrocarbon applications
Flexible and predictive equations of
state
Gas dehydration with glycols Flexible and predictive equations of
state
Acid gas absorption with Flexible and predictive equations of
Methanol (rectisol) state
NMP (purisol)
Acid gas absorption with Electrolyte activity coefficients
Water
Ammonia
Amines
Amines + methanol (amisol)
Caustic
Lime
Hot carbonate
Claus process Flexible and predictive equations of
state
Petrochemicals
Ethylene plant Petroleum fugacity correlations
Primary fractionator (and assay data analysis)
Light hydrocarbons separation Equations of state for high pressure

train hydrocarbon applications
Quench tower Equations of state for high pressure

Aromatics Liquid activity coefficients (very
BTX extraction sensitive to parameters)
Substituted hydrocarbons Equations of state for high pressure
VCM plant hydrocarbon applications
Acrylonitrile plant
Ether production Liquid activity coefficients
MTBE, ETBE, TAME
Ethylbenzene and styrene plants Equations of state for high pressure
hydrocarbon applications and Ideal
(with Watsol) or liquid activity
coefficient
Terephthalic acid Liquid activity coefficients(with
dimerization in acetic acid section)
Chemicals
Azeotropic separations Liquid activity coefficients
Alcohol separation
Carboxylic acids Liquid activity coefficients
Acetic acid plant
Phenol plant Liquid activity coefficients
Liquid phase reactions Liquid activity coefficients
Estrification
Ammonia plant Equations of state for high pressure
hydrocarbon applications (with kij)
Fluorochemicals Liquid activity coefficients (and HF
equation of state)
Inorganic Chemicals Electrolyte activity coefficients
Caustic
Acids
Phosphoric acid
Sulphuric acid
Nitric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrofluoric acid Electrolyte activity coefficient (and
HF equation of state)
Coal Processing
Size reduction Solids processing (with coal
crushing, grinding analysis and particle size
distribution)
Separation and cleaning Solids processing (with coal
sieving, cyclones, analysis and and particle size
preciptition, washing distribution)
Combustion Equations of state for high pressure
hydrocarbon applications (with
combustion databank)
Acid gas absorption See Gas Processing earlier in this
discussion.
Coal gasification and liquefaction See Synthetic Fuel later in this
discussion.
Power Generation
Combustion Equations of state for high pressure
hydrocarbon applications (with
combustion databank)
Coal (and assay analysis with coal
correlations)
Oil (and assay analysis)
Steam cycles Steam tables
Compressors
Turbines
Acid gas absorption See Gas Processing earlier in this
discussion.
Synthetic Fuel
Synthesis gas Equations of state for high pressure
Coal gasification Equations of state for high pressure
Coal liquefaction Equations of state for high pressure
hydrocarbon applications with kij
and assay analysis with coal
correlations)
Environmental
Solvent recovery Liquid activity coefficients
(Substituted) hydrocarbon stripping Liquid activity coefficients
Acid gas stripping from Flexible and predictive equations of
Methanol (rectisol) state
NMP (purisol)
Acid gas stripping from Electrolyte activity coefficients
Water
Ammonia
Amines
Amines + methanol (amisol)
Caustic
Lime
Hot carbonate
Claus process Flexible and predictive equations of
state
Acids Electrolyte activity coefficients
Stripping
Neutralization
Water and Steam
Steam systems Steam tables
Coolant Steam tables
Mineral and Metallurgical Processes
Mechanical processing Solids Processing (with inorganic
crushing, grinding, databank)
sieving, washing
Hydrometallurgy Electrolyte activity coefficients
Mineral leaching
Pyrometallurgy Solids Processing (with inorganic
Smelter databank)
Converter
IDEAL Property Method
The IDEAL property method accommodates both Raoult’s law and
Henry’s law. This method uses the:
• Ideal activity coefficient model for the liquid phase ( γ = 1 )
• Ideal gas equation of state Pv = RT for the vapor phase
• Rackett model for liquid molar volume
The IDEAL property method is recommended for systems in
which ideal behavior can be assumed, such as:
• Systems at vacuum pressures
• Isomeric systems at low pressures
In the vapor phase, small deviations from the ideal gas law are
allowed. These deviations occur at:
• Low pressures (either below atmospheric pressure, or at
pressures not exceeding 2 bar)
• Very high temperatures
Ideal behavior in the liquid phase is exhibited by molecules with
either:
• Very small interactions (for example, paraffin of similar carbon
number)
• Interactions that cancel each other out (for example, water and
acetone)
The IDEAL property method:
• Can be used for systems with and without noncondensable
components. Permanent gases can be dissolved in the liquid.
You can use Henry’s law, which is valid at low concentrations,
to model this behavior.
• Does not include the Poynting correction
• Returns heat of mixing of zero
• Is used to initialize FLASH algorithm
The transport property models for the vapor phase are all well
suited for ideal gases. The transport property models for the liquid
phase are empirical equations for fitting experimental data.
The IDEAL property method is sometimes used for solids
processing where VLE is unimportant (for example, in coal
processing). For these, however, the SOLIDS property method is
recommended. See Solids Handling Property Method for
documentation on solid phase properties.
Mixture Types
Ideal mixtures with and without noncondensable components. You

should not use IDEAL for nonideal mixtures.
Range
IDEAL is appropriate only at low pressure and low liquid mole

fractions of the noncondensable components (if present).
Use of Henry’s Law
To use Henry’s law for noncondensable components, you must

designate these components as Henry’s components on the
Components Henry-Comps form. Henry’s constant model
parameters (HENRY) must be available for the solute with at least
one solvent. Use the Properties Parameters Binary Interaction form
(HENRY-1) to enter Henry’s constants or to review built-in
parameters. Aspen Physical Property System contains an extensive
collection of Henry’s constants for many solutes in solvents.
Solvents are water and other organic components. Aspen Physical
Property System uses these parameters automatically when you
specify the IDEAL property method.
The following table lists thermodynamic and transport property
models used in IDEAL, and their minimum parameter
requirements.
Parameters Required for the IDEAL Property Method
General
Property/Purpose Parameter Requirements
Mass balance,
Conversion Mass-basis↔Mole- MW
basis
Conversion Stdvol-basis↔Mole- VLSTD
basis
Using Free-water option: solubility WATSOL
of water in organic phase
Enthalpy of reaction DHFORM
Gibbs energy of reaction DGFORM
Thermodynamic Properties
Properties Models Parameter Requirements
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient Ideal gas law
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity CPIG or CPIGDP

Gibbs energy
Density Ideal gas law

Liquid mixture Ideal liquid activity coefficient
Fugacity coefficient
Extended Antoine vapor pressure PLXANT
Henry’s constant Solvent: VC, Solute-solvent: HENRY
Brelvi-O’Connell Solvent: TC, PC, (ZC or RKTZRA), Solute:

(VC or VLBROC)
Enthalpy, entropy Watson/DIPPR TC, (DHVLWT or DHVLDP)
Density Rackett TC, PC, (VC or VCRKT), (ZC or
RKTZRA)
Transport Properties
Vapor mixture
Viscosity Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw/ MW; (MUP and (STKPAR or LJPAR)) or
DIPPR MUVDIP
Thermal conductivity Stiel-Thodos low pres./ MW or

DIPPR KVDIP
Diffusivity Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee MW; MUP and (STKPAR or LJPAR)

Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/ (TC, PC, OMEGA) or
DIPPR SIGDIP
Liquid mixture
Viscosity Andrade/DIPPR MULAND or MULDIP
Thermal conductivity Sato-Riedel/DIPPR (MW, TC, TB) or KLDIP
Diffusivity Wilke-Chan MW, VB
Property Methods for Petroleum
Mixtures
The property methods in the following table are designed for
mixtures of hydrocarbons and light gases. K-value models and
liquid fugacity correlations are used at low and medium pressures.
Petroleum-tuned equations of state are used at high pressures. The
hydrocarbons can be from natural gas or crude oil: that is, complex
mixtures that are treated using pseudocomponents. These property
methods are often used for refinery applications. Density and
transport properties are calculated by API procedures when
possible.
The following table lists the common and the distinctive models
of the property methods. The parameter requirements of the
distinctive models are given in the tables labeled Parameters
Required for the CHAO-SEA Property Method (see CHAO-SEA),
Parameters Required for the GRAYSON Property Method (see
GRAYSON), Parameters Required for the PENG-ROB Property
Method (see PENG-ROB), and Parameters Required for the RK-
SOAVE Property Method (see RK-SOAVE).
Parameter requirements for the common models are in the table
labeled Parameters Required for Common Models. For details on
these models, see Chapter 3.
Property Methods for Petroleum Mixtures
Liquid Fugacity and K-Value Models
Property Method Name Models
BK10 Braun K10 K-value model
CHAO-SEA Chao-Seader liquid fugacity, Scatchard-
Hildebrand activity coefficient
GRAYSON/GRAYSON2 Grayson-Streed liquid fugacity, Scatchard-
Hildebrand activity coefficient
MXBONNEL Maxwell-Bonnell liquid fugacity
Petroleum-Tuned Equations of State
PENG-ROB Peng-Robinson
RK-SOAVE Redlich-Kwong-Soave
SRK Soave-Redlich-Kwong
Common Models for Property Methods for Petroleum Mixtures
Property Model
Liquid enthalpy Lee-Kesler
Liquid molar volume API
Vapor viscosity Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw
Vapor thermal conductivity Stiel-Thodos/DIPPR
Vapor diffusivity Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi
Surface tension API surface tension
Liquid viscosity API
Liquid thermal conductivity Sato-Riedel/DIPPR
Liquid diffusivity Wilke-Chang
Liquid Fugacity and The BK10 property method is generally used for vacuum and low
K-Value Model pressure applications (up to several atm). The CHAO-SEA
Property Methods property method and the GRAYSON property method can be used
at higher pressures. GRAYSON has the widest ranges of
applicability (up to several tens of atm). For hydrogen-rich
systems, GRAYSON is recommended.
These property methods are less suited for high-pressure
applications in refinery (above about 50 atm). Petroleum-tuned
equation of state property methods are preferred for high pressures.
These property methods are not suited for conditions close to
criticality, as occur in light oil reservoirs, transportation of gas by
pipelines, and in some gas processing applications. Standard
equations of state for non-polar components are preferred. If polar
compounds are present, such as in gas treatment, use flexible and
predictive equations of state for polar compounds.
BK10 The BK10 property method uses the Braun K-10 K-value
correlations. The correlations were developed from the K10 charts
for both real components and oil fractions. The real components
include 70 hydrocarbons and light gases. The oil fractions cover
boiling ranges 450 – 700 K (350 – 800°F). Proprietary methods
were developed to cover heavier oil fractions.
Mixture Types
Best results are obtained with purely aliphatic or purely aromatic

mixtures with normal boiling points ranging from 450 to 700 K.
For mixtures of aliphatic and aromatic components, or naphtenic
mixtures, the accuracy decreases. For mixtures with light gases,
and medium pressures, CHAO-SEA or GRAYSON are
recommended.
Range
The BK10 property method is suited for vacuum and low pressure
applications (up to several atm). For high pressures, petroleum-
tuned equations of state are best suited.
The applicable temperature range of the K10 chart is 133 – 800 K
(-220 – 980°F). It can be used up to 1100 K (1520°F).
The parameters for the Braun K-10 are all built-in. You do not
need to supply them. See Parameters Required for Common
Models for parameter requirements of models common to
petroleum property methods.
CHAO-SEA The CHAO-SEA property method uses the:
• Chao-Seader correlation for reference state fugacity coefficient
• Scatchard-Hildebrand model for activity coefficient
• Redlich-Kwong equation of state for vapor phase properties
• Lee-Kesler equation of state for liquid and vapor enthalpy
• API method for liquid molar volume, viscosity and surface
tension
• Models listed in the tables labeled Parameters Required for the
CHAO-SEA Property Method (see below), and Parameters
Required for Common Models
The tables labeled Parameters Required for the CHAO-SEA
Property Method and Parameters Required for Common Models
provide thermodynamic and transport property models, and their
parameter requirements.
The CHAO-SEA property method is predictive. It can be used for
crude towers, vacuum towers, and some parts of the ethylene
process. It is not recommended for systems containing hydrogen.
Mixture Types
The CHAO-SEA property method was developed for systems

containing hydrocarbons and light gases, such as carbon dioxide
and hydrogen sulfide, but with the exception of hydrogen. If the
system contains hydrogen, use the GRAYSON property method.
Range
Use the CHAO-SEA property method for systems with

temperature and pressure limits of:
200 <T < 533 K
Tri
0.5 < < 1.3
Trm < 0.93
P < 140 atm
Where:
Tri = Reduced temperature of a component
Trm = Reduced temperature of the mixture
Do not use this property method at very high pressures, especially
near the mixture critical point, because of anomalous behavior in
these regions.
Parameters Required for the CHAO-SEA Property Method
Thermodynamic Models Parameter Requirements
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Redlich-Kwong TC, PC
Density
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, CPIG or CPIGDP

Gibbs free energy Redlich-Kwong TC, PC
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Scatchard-Hildebrand activity TC, DELTA, VLCVT1; GMSHVL
Gibbs free energy coefficient
Chao-Seader pure component TC, PC, OMEGA

fugacity coefficient
GRAYSON/ The GRAYSON property method uses the:
GRAYSON2 • Grayson-Streed correlation for reference state fugacity
coefficients
• Scatchard-Hildebrand model for activity coefficients
• Redlich-Kwong equation of state for vapor phase properties
• Lee-Kesler equation of state for liquid and vapor enthalpy
• API method for liquid molar volume, viscosity and surface
tension
The GRAYSON2 property method uses the:
• Grayson-Streed correlation with Chao-Seader acentric factors
for liquid fugacities
• Scatchard-Hildebrand model for activity coefficients with
special handling for water
• Redlich-Kwong equation of state for vapor phase fugacity
coefficients
• Redlich-Kwong equation of state for liquid and vapor phase
properties (enthalpies and volumes). Water enthalpy calculated
from NBS steam tables
• TRAPP model for transport properties
Refer to the tables labeled Parameters Required for the
GRAYSON Property Method (below) and Parameters Required
for Common Models for thermodynamic and transport property
models, and their parameter requirements.
The GRAYSON/GRAYSON2 property methods are predictive.
They can be used for crude towers, vacuum towers, and some parts
of the ethylene process. They are recommended for systems
containing hydrogen.
Mixture Types
The GRAYSON/GRAYSON2 property methods were developed

for systems containing hydrocarbons and light gases, such as
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. They are recommended over
the CHAO-SEA property method when the system contains
hydrogen.
Range
The GRAYSON/GRAYSON2 property methods should give

reasonable results for temperatures from 60° F to 800° F for
pressures up to 3000 psia. They should be used with caution at
pressures above 600 psia and temperatures below 60° F. These
methods are not recommended for modeling separations of close-
boiling components (e.g. isomers). Do not use these property
methods at very high pressures, especially near the mixture critical
point, because of anomalous behavior in these regions.
Parameters Required for the GRAYSON Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Density
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, Redlich- CPIG or CPIGDP

Gibbs free energy Kwong TC, PC
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Scatchard-Hildebrand activity TC, DELTA, VLCVT1;GMSHVL
Gibbs free energy coefficient
Grayson-Streed pure component TC, PC, OMEGA

MXBONNEL The MXBONNEL property method uses the:
• Ideal gas for vapor fugacity coefficients
• Maxwell-Bonnell model for vapor pressure to compute liquid
fugacity coefficient (K-Values)
• Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state for liquid and vapor
phase properties. Water enthalpy calculated from NBS steam
tables.
• TRAPP model for transport properties
This method is similar to the BK10 method, except that Maxwell-
Bonnell vapor pressure method is used for all hydrocarbon pseudo-
components. For pure components their standard vapor pressure
correlation is used. This method should only be used in low
pressure (below a few atmospheres) applications.
Mixture Types
MXBONNEL property method can be used for crude towers,

vacuum towers, and some parts of the ethylene process. Best
results are obtained for mixture of hydrocarbons. For mixtures with
light gases and medium pressures, CHAO-SEA or GRAYSON is
recommended.
Range
The MXBONNEL property method is suited for vacuum and low

pressure applications (up to several atmospheres). Do not use this
property method at very high pressures, especially near the mixture
critical point, because of anomalous behavior in these regions.
Petroleum-Tuned Petroleum-tuned equation-of-state property methods are based on
Equation-of-State equations of state for nonpolar compounds with built-in binary
Property Methods parameters. These property methods use the API/Rackett model for
liquid density to overcome the drawback of poor liquid density
calculated by cubic equations of state. Liquid viscosity and surface
tensions are calculated by API models.
Equations of state are comparable in performance when comparing
VLE. BWR-LS is recommended for hydrogen-rich systems.
Property methods based on liquid fugacity correlations or K-value
models are generally preferred for low pressure refinery
applications. Petroleum-tuned equation-of-state models can handle
critical points, but some other models of the property methods
(such as liquid density and liquid viscosity) are not suited for
conditions close to criticality, as occur in light oil reservoirs,
transportation of gas by pipe lines, and in some gas processing
applications. For these cases, equation-of-state property methods
for high pressure hydrocarbon applications are preferred. If polar
compounds are present, such as in gas treatment, use flexible and
predictive equations of state for polar compounds.
PENG-ROB The PENG-ROB property method uses the:
• Peng-Robinson cubic equation of state for all thermodynamic
properties except liquid molar volume
• API method for liquid molar volume of pseudocomponents and
the Rackett model for real components
Refer to the tables labeled Parameters Required for the PENG-
ROB Property Method (below) and Parameters Required for
Common Models for thermodynamic and transport property
models, and their required parameters.
This property method is comparable to the RK-SOAVE property
method. It is recommended for gas-processing, refinery, and
petrochemical applications. Sample applications include gas plants,
crude towers, and ethylene plants.
For accurate results in your VLE or LLE calculations, you must
use binary parameters, such as the Aspen Physical Property System
built-in binary parameters. Use the Properties Parameters Binary
Interaction PRKIJ-1 form to review available built-in binary
parameters. You can also use the Data Regression System (DRS)
to determine the binary parameters from experimental phase
equilibrium data (usually binary VLE data).
Mixture Types
Use the PENG-ROB property method for nonpolar or mildly polar

mixtures. Examples are hydrocarbons and light gases, such as
carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen. For systems with
polar components, use the SR-POLAR, PRWS, RKSWS,
PRMHV2, RKSMHV2, PSRK, WILSON, NRTL, VANLAAR, or
UNIQUAC property methods.
This property method is particularly suitable in the high
temperature and high pressure regions, such as in hydrocarbon
processing applications or supercritical extractions.
Range
You can expect reasonable results at all temperatures and

pressures. The PENG-ROB property method is consistent in the
critical region. Therefore, it does not exhibit anomalous behavior,
unlike the activity coefficient property methods. Results are least
accurate in the region near the mixture critical point.
Parameters Required for the PENG-ROB Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient Peng-Robinson TCPR or TC; PCPR or PC; OMGPR or
Density OMEGA
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, TCPR or TC; PCPR or PC; OMGPR or
Gibbs free energy Peng-Robinson OMEGA
CPIG or CPIGDP
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient Peng-Robinson TCPR or TC; PCPR or PC; OMGPR or
OMEGA CPIG or CPIGDP
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, TCPR or TC; PCPR or PC; OMGPR or
Gibbs free energy Peng-Robinson OMEGA CPIG or CPIGDP
RK-SOAVE The RK-SOAVE property method uses the:
• Redlich-Kwong-Soave (RKS) cubic equation of state for all
thermodynamic properties except liquid molar volume
the Rackett model for real components
Refer to the tables labeled Parameters Required for the RK-
SOAVE Property Method (below) and Parameters Required for
models, and required parameters for this property method.
This property method is comparable to the PENG-ROB property
petrochemical applications. Example applications include gas
plants, crude towers, and ethylene plants. The RK-SOAVE
property method has built-in binary parameters, RKSKIJ, that are
used automatically in the Aspen Physical Property System.
For accurate results in your VLE and LLE calculations, you must
use binary parameters. You can use the Aspen Physical Property
System built-in parameters. Use the Properties Parameters Binary
Interaction RKSKIJ-1 form to review available built-in binary
parameters. You can also use the Data Regression System (DRS)
to determine the binary parameters from experimental phase
Mixture Types
Use the RK-SOAVE property method for nonpolar or mildly polar

polar components, such as alcohols, use the SR-POLAR,
WILSON, NRTL, VANLAAR, or UNIQUAC property methods.
Range

pressures. The RK-SOAVE property method is consistent in the
critical region. Therefore, unlike the activity coefficient property
methods, it does not exhibit anomalous behavior. Results are least
accurate in the region near the mixture critical point.
Parameters Required for the RK-SOAVE Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Redlich-Kwong-Soave TC, PC, OMEGA
Density
Enthalpy, entropy Ideal gas heat capacity, CPIG or CPIGDP,

Gibbs free energy Redlich-Kwong-Soave TC, PC, OMEGA
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient Redlich-Kwong-Soave TC, PC, OMEGA
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, CPIG or CPIGDP

Gibbs free energy Redlich-Kwong-Soave TC, PC, OMEGA
SRK The SRK property method uses the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)
cubic equation of state for all thermodynamic properties with
option to improve liquid molar volume using volume correction.
This method has the following options:
• Peneloux-Rauzy method for liquid molar volume correction
which results in more accurate liquid molar volume
• NBS Steam Table for calculating enthalpy of water for better
accuracy
• Kabadi-Danner mixing rules when dealing with water-
hydrocarbon system
• Composition-independent fugacity coefficient for faster
convergence in equation-based modeling
Refer to the tables labeled Parameters Required for the SRK
Property Method below and Parameters Required for Common
Models for thermodynamic and transport property models, and
required parameters for this property method.
This property method is comparable to other property methods
based on cubic equations of state. It is recommended for gas-
processing, refinery, and petrochemical applications. Example
applications include gas plants, crude towers, and ethylene plants.
The SRK property method has built-in pure component and binary
parameters for use in modeling the ethylene process. The built-in
parameters are stored in the Ethylene databank. For other systems,
you must supply pure component and binary parameters. You can
use the Data Regression System (DRS) to determine the binary
parameters from experimental phase equilibrium data (binary VLE
and LLE data).
Mixture Types
Use the SRK property method for nonpolar or mildly polar

polar components, such as alcohols, use the SR-POLAR,
WILSON, NRTL, VANLAAR, or UNIQUAC property methods.
With the Kabadi-Danner mixing rules, this property method can be
used to model water-hydrocarbon immiscibility.
Range

pressures. The SRK property method is consistent in the critical
region. Therefore, unlike the activity coefficient property methods,
it does not exhibit anomalous behavior. Results are least accurate
in the region near the mixture critical point.
Parameters Required for the SRK Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Soave-Redlich-Kwong SRKTC, SRKPC, SRKOMG
Density
Enthalpy, entropy Ideal gas heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP) and

Gibbs free energy Soave-Redlich-Kwong SRKTC, SRKPC, SRKOMG
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Soave-Redlich-Kwong SRKTC, SRKPC, SRKOMG
Density
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP) and

Gibbs free energy Soave-Redlich-Kwong SRKTC, SRKPC, SRKOMG
The following table lists the models used in all petroleum property
Common Models
methods and their parameter requirements.
Parameters Required for Common Models
General
Property/Purpose Parameter
Requirements
Mass balance, Conversion Mass-basis↔Mole- MW
basis
Conversion Stdvol-basis↔Mole-basis VLSTD
Initialization of Flash calculations PLXANT
Using Free-water option: solubility of water in WATSOL
organic phase
Property Models Parameter Requirements
Liquid mixture
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP)
Entropy Lee-Kesler TC, PC, OMEGA
Density Real components:

Rackett TC, PC, (VC or VCRKT),
(ZC or RKTZRA)
Pseudo components: TB, API
Property Models Paremeter Requirements
Vapor mixture
Viscosity Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw/ MW, (MUP and (STKPAR or LJPAR)) or
DIPPR MUVDIP
Thermal Conductivity Stiel-Thodos/ MW or KVDIP (and vapor viscosity

DIPPR parameters)
Diffusivity Dawson Khoury-Kobayashi - MW, MUP, (STKPAR or LJPAR), VC

Liquid mixture
Viscosity API TB, API
Thermal Conductivity Sato-Riedel/ (MW, TB, TC) or

DIPPR KLDIP
Diffusivity Wilke-Chang MW, VB

Surface tension API TB, TC, SG
Equation-of-State Property Methods
for High-Pressure Hydrocarbon
Applications
The following table, Equation of State Property Methods for
Hydrocarbons at High Pressure, lists property methods for
mixtures of hydrocarbons and light gases. The property methods
can deal with high pressures and temperatures, and mixtures close
to their critical point (for example, pipeline transportation of gas or
supercritical extraction). All thermodynamic properties of vapor
and liquid phases are calculated from the equations of state. (See
Chapter 1). The TRAPP models for viscosity and thermal
conductivity can describe the continuity of gas and liquid beyond
the critical point, comparable to an equation of state.
The hydrocarbons can be from complex crude or gas mixtures
treated using pseudocomponents. But the property methods for
petroleum mixtures are better tuned for these applications at low to
medium pressures. Unless you use fitted binary interaction
parameters, no great accuracy should be expected close to the
critical point. Liquid densities are not accurately predicted for the
cubic equations of state.
In the presence of polar components (for example, in gas
treatment), flexible and predictive equations of state should be
used. For mixtures of polar and nonpolar compounds at low
pressures, use an activity-coefficient-based property method.
The following table lists the common and distinctive models of the
property methods BWR-LS, LK-PLOCK, PR-BM, and RKS-BM.
The parameter requirements of the common models are given in
the table labeled Parameters Required for Common Models. The
parameter requirements for the distinctive models are in the tables
labeled Parameters Required for the BWR-LS Property Method
(see BWR-LS) , Parameters Required for the BWRS Property
Method (see BWRS) , Parameters Required for the LK-PLOCK
Property Method (see LK-PLOCK) , Parameters Required for the
PR-BM Property Method (see PR-BM) , and Parameters Required
for the RKS-BM Property Method (see RKS-BM) .
Equation-of-State Property Methods for Hydrocarbons at High Pressure
BWR-LS BWR-Lee-Starling
BWRS Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling
LK-PLOCK Lee-Kesler-Plöcker
PR-BM Peng-Robinson-Boston-Mathias
RKS-BM Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Boston-Mathias
Property Common Models

Vapor viscosity TRAPP
Vapor thermal conductivity TRAPP
Surface tension API surface tension
Liquid viscosity TRAPP
Liquid thermal conductivity TRAPP
BWR-LS The BWR-LS property method is based on the BWR-Lee-Starling
equation of state. It is the generalization (in terms of pure
component critical properties) of the Benedict-Webb-Rubin virial
equation of state. The property method uses the equation of state
for all thermodynamic properties. Refer to the table Parameters
Required for the BWR-LS Property Method (below) and
Parameters Required for Common Models for thermodynamic and
transport property models and their parameter requirements.
The BWR-LS property method is comparable to PENG-ROB, RK-
SOAVE, and LK-PLOCK for phase equilibrium calculations, but
is more accurate than PENG-ROB and RK-SOAVE for liquid
molar volume and enthalpy. You can use it for gas processing and
refinery applications. It is suited for hydrogen-containing systems,
and has shown good results in coal liquefaction applications.
For accurate results, use the binary interaction parameters. Built-in
binary parameters BWRKV and BWRKT are available for a large
number of component pairs. The Aspen Physical Property System
uses these binary parameters automatically. Use the Properties
Parameters Binary Interaction BWRKV-1 and BWRKT-1 forms to
review available built-in binary parameters. You can also use the
Data Regression System (DRS) to determine the binary parameters
from experimental phase equilibrium data (usually binary VLE
data).
Mixture Types
Use the BWR-LS property method for nonpolar or slightly polar

mixtures, and light gases. Asymmetric interactions between long
and short molecules are well predicted.
Range
You can expect reasonable results up to medium pressures. At very

high pressures, unrealistic liquid-liquid demixing may be
predicted. High pressure liquid-liquid demixing occurs between
short and long chain hydrocarbons and also, for example, between
carbon dioxide and longer hydrocarbon chains at high pressures.
Parameters Required for the BWR-LS Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient,
Density BWR-Lee-Starling TC, VC, OMEGA
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP) and

Entropy, BWR-Lee-Starling TC, VC, OMEGA
Gibbs energy
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, BWR-Lee-Starling TC, VC, OMEGA
Density

Entropy, BWR-Lee-Starling TC, VC, OMEGA
Gibbs energy
BWRS The BWRS property method is based on the Benedict-Webb-
Rubin-Starling equation of state with optional pure-component and
binary interaction parameters. This equation has eleven pure-
component parameters along with binary interaction parameters.
These parameters are obtained from multiproperty (vapor-liquid-
equilibrium, enthalpy, PVT, etc.) data regressions. Parameters for
chemicals common to natural gas mixtures are available from
Starling (1973). If pure-component parameters are not supplied,
they are estimated with correlations proposed by Starling. The
property method uses the equation of state for all thermodynamic
properties. Refer to the table labeled Parameters Required for the
BWRS Property Method (below) and Parameters Required for
models and their parameter requirements.
The BWRS property method is comparable to PENG-ROB, RK-
SOAVE, BWR-LS and LK-PLOCK for phase equilibrium
calculations, but is more accurate than PENG-ROB and RK-
SOAVE for liquid molar volume and enthalpy. You can use it for
gas processing and refinery applications. It is suited for reduced
temperatures as low as Tr = 0.3 and reduced densities as great as
ρ r = 3.0. It can be used for light hydrocarbons in the cryogenic
liquid region in addition to higher temperature regions.
For accurate results, use the binary interaction parameters. The
Aspen Physical Property System does not have built-in binary
parameters. You can use the Data Regression System (DRS) to
determine the binary parameters from experimental phase
Mixture Types
Use the BWRS property method for non-polar or slightly polar

mixtures, and light gases. Examples are hydrocarbons and light
gases, such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and nitrogen.
Range

pressures. The BWRS property method is consistent in the critical
region. It does not exhibit anomalous behavior, unlike the activity
coefficient property methods. Results are least accurate in the
region near the mixture critical point.
Parameters Required for the BWRS Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Density Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling BWRSTC, BWRSVC, BWRSOM

Entropy, Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling BWRSTC, BWRSVC, BWRSOM
Gibbs energy
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling BWRSTC, BWRSVC, BWRSOM
Density

Entropy, Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling BWRSTC, BWRSVC, BWRSOM
Gibbs energy
K. E. Starling, "Fluid Themodynamic Properties for Light
Petroleum Systems", Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas (1973).
LK-PLOCK The LK-PLOCK property method is based on the Lee-Kesler-
Plöcker equation of state, which is a virial-type equation. LK-
PLOCK uses the:
• EOS to calculate all thermodynamic properties except liquid
molar volume of mixtures
the Rackett model for real components, in mixtures
You can use LK-PLOCK for gas-processing and refinery
applications, but the RK-SOAVE or the PENG-ROB property
methods are preferred.
Refer to the tables labeled Parameters Required for the LK-
PLOCK Property Method (below) and Parameters Required for
models, and their parameter requirements.
For accurate results in VLE calculations, use binary parameters.
Built-in binary parameters LKPKIJ are available for a large
number of component pairs. The Aspen Physical Property System
uses these binary parameters automatically. Use the Properties
Parameters Binary Interaction LKPKIJ-1 form to review available
built-in binary parameters. You can also use the Data Regression
System (DRS) to determine the binary parameters from
experimental phase equilibrium data (usually binary VLE data).
This property method also has built-in correlations for estimating
binary parameters among the components CO, CO2, N2, H2, CH4,
alcohols, and hydrocarbons. Components not belonging to the
classes listed above are assumed to be hydrocarbons.
Mixture Types
Use the LK-PLOCK property method for nonpolar or mildly polar

carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen.
Range

pressures. The LK-PLOCK property method is consistent in the
critical region. It does not exhibit anomalous behavior, unlike the
activity coefficient property methods. Results are least accurate in
the region near the mixture critical point.
Parameters Required for the LK-PLOCK Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Lee-Kesler-Plöcker TC, PC, VC, OMEGA
Density
Enthalpy, entropy Ideal gas heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP)

Gibbs free energy Lee-Kesler-Plöcker and TC, PC, VC, OMEGA
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient Lee-Kesler-Plöcker TC, PC, VC, OMEGA
Density Rackett/API TB, API, TC, PC, RKTZRA
Enthalpy, entropy Ideal gas heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP)

Gibbs free energy Lee-Kesler-Plöcker and TC, PC, VC, OMEGA
PR-BM The PR-BM property method uses the Peng Robinson cubic
equation of state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function for all
thermodynamic properties.
Refer to the tables labeled Parameters Required for the PR-BM
Property Method (below) and Parameters Required for Common
their required parameters.
This property method is comparable to the RKS-BM property
petrochemical applications. Sample applications include gas plants,
crude towers, and ethylene plants.
For accurate results in your VLE calculations, you must use binary
parameters. The Aspen Physical Property System does not have
built-in binary parameters for this property method.
Mixture Types
Use the PR-BM property method for nonpolar or mildly polar

Range

pressures. The PR-BM property method is consistent in the critical
region. Results are least accurate in the region near the mixture
critical point.
Parameters Required for the PR-BM Property Method
Properties
Vapor or liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient Peng-Robinson TCPR, PCPR, OMEGA
Density
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, CPIG or CPIGDP,

Gibbs free energy Peng-Robinson TCPR, PCPR, OMEGA
RKS-BM The RKS-BM property method uses the Redlich-Kwong-Soave
(RKS) cubic equation of state with Boston-Mathias alpha function
for all thermodynamic properties.
This property method is comparable to the PR-BM property
petrochemical applications. Example applications include gas
plants, crude towers, and ethylene plants.
For accurate results in your VLE calculations, you must use binary
parameters. The Aspen Physical Property System does not have
built-in binary parameters for this property method.
Mixture Types
Use the RKS-BM property method for nonpolar or mildly polar

Range

pressures. The RKS-BM property method is consistent in the
critical region. Results are least accurate in the region near the
mixture critical point.
Refer to the tables labeled Parameters Required for the RKS-BM
their required parameters.
Parameters Required for the RKS-BM Property Method
Properties
Vapor or liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient Redlich-Kwong-Soave TCRKS, PCRKS, OMGRKS
Density
Enthalpy, entropy, Ideal gas heat capacity, CPIG or CPIGDP,

Gibbs free energy Redlich-Kwong-Soave TCRKS, PCRKS, OMGRKS
The following table lists the models common to equation-of-state
Common Models
property methods for high–pressure hydrocarbon applications and
their parameter requirements.
Parameters Required for Common Models
General
Mass balance, MW
Conversion Mass-basis↔Mole-
basis
Conversion Stdvol-basis↔Mole- VLSTD
basis
Using Free-water option: solubility WATSOL
of water in organic phase
Transport
Vapor Mixture
Viscosity TRAPP TC, PC, OMEGA
Thermal Conductivity TRAPP TC, PC, OMEGA
Diffusivity Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi MW, MUP, (STKPAR or LJPAR),

VC
Surface tension API TB, TC, SG
Liquid mixture
Viscosity TRAPP TC, PC, OMEGA
Thermal Conductivity TRAPP TC, PC, OMEGA
Flexible and Predictive Equation-of-
State Property Methods
The table labeled Flexible and Predictive Equation-of-State
Property Methods (below) lists property methods for mixtures of
polar and non-polar components and light gases. The property
methods can deal with high pressures and temperatures, mixtures
close to their critical point, and liquid-liquid separation at high
pressure. Examples of applications are gas drying with glycols, gas
sweetening with methanol, and supercritical extraction.
Pure component thermodynamic behavior is modeled using the
Peng-Robinson or Redlich-Kwong-Soave equations of state. They
are extended with flexible alpha-functions with up to three
parameters, for very accurate fitting of vapor pressures. This is
important in separations of very closely boiling systems and for
polar compounds. In some cases they are extended with a volume
translation term for accurate fitting of liquid densities (see the table
labeled
Parameters for the Schwartzentruber-Renon and Mathias-Copeman
alpha functions are available for many components in the
PURECOMP databank.
Mixing rules for these models vary. Extended classical mixing
rules are used for fitting hydrogen-rich systems or systems with
strong size and shape asymmetry (Redlich-Kwong-Aspen).
Composition and temperature-dependent mixing rules fit strongly
non-ideal high pressure systems (SR-POLAR). Modified Huron-
Vidal mixing rules can predict non-ideality at high pressure from
low-pressure (group-contribution) activity coeffient models
(Wong-Sandler, MHV2, PSRK). The predictive capabilities of
modified Huron-Vidal mixing rules are superior to the predictive
capabilities of SR-POLAR. The differences among capabilities of
the modified Huron-Vidal mixing rules are small (see Chapter 3).
The Wong-Sandler, MHV2, and Holderbaum-Gmehling mixing
rules use activity coefficient models to calculate excess Gibbs or
Helmholtz energy for the mixing rules. The property methods with
these mixing rules use the UNIFAC or Lyngby modified UNIFAC
group contribution models. Therefore, they are predictive. You can
use any Aspen Physical Property System activity coefficient
models with these mixing rules, including user models. Use the
Properties Methods Models sheet to modify the property method.
See Chapter 4 for details on how to modify a property method.
The Chung-Lee-Starling models for viscosity and thermal
conductivity can describe the continuity of gas and liquid beyond
the critical point. This is comparable to an equation of state. These
models can fit the behavior of polar and associating components.
Details about the pure component models and mixing rules are
found in Chapter 3.
For mixtures of polar and non-polar compounds at low pressures,
activity coefficient models are preferred. For non-polar mixtures of
petroleum fluids and light gases at low to medium pressures, the
property methods for petroleum mixtures are recommended. The
flexible and predictive equations of state are not suited for
electrolyte solutions.
The following table, Flexible and Predictive Equation-of-State
Property Methods, lists flexible and predictive equation-of-state
property methods, the distinctive equation-of-state models on
which they are based, and some of their characteristics. The table
also gives the models that the property methods have in common.
Parameter requirements of the common models are given in the
table labeled Parameters Required for Common Flexible and
Predictive Models. Parameter requirements for the distinctive
models are in the tables labeled Parameters Required for the
PRMHV2 Property Method (see PRMHV2), Parameters Required
for the PRWS Property Method (see PRWS), Parameters Required
for the PSRK Property Method (see PSRK), Parameters Required
for the RK-ASPEN Property Method (RK-ASPEN), Parameters
Required for the RKSMHV2 Property Method (see RKSMHV2),
Parameters Required for the RKSWS Property Method (see
RKSWS), and Parameters Required for the SR-POLAR Property
Method (see SR-POLAR).
Flexible and Predictive Equation-of-State Property Methods
Property Method Equation of State Volume Mixing Rule Predictive
Name Shift
PRMHV2 Peng-Robinson — MHV2 X
PRWS Peng-Robinson — Wong-Sandler X
PSRK Redlich-Kwong-Soave — Holderbaum-Gmehling X
RK-ASPEN Redlich-Kwong-Soave — Mathias —
RKSMHV2 Redlich-Kwong-Soave — MHV2 X
RKSWS Redlich-Kwong-Soave — Wong-Sandler X
SR-POLAR Redlich-Kwong-Soave X Schwarzentruber-Renon —
An X in the Volume Shift column indicates volume shift is
included in the property method.
An X in the Predictive column indicates that the property method
is predictive.
Vapor viscosity Chung-Lee-Starling
Vapor thermal conductivity Chung-Lee-Starling
Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/DIPPR
Liquid viscosity Chung-Lee-Starling
Thermal conductivity Chung-Lee-Starling
Liquid diffusivity Wilke-Chang liquid
PRMHV2 The PRMHV2 property method is based on the Peng-Robinson-
MHV2 equation-of-state model, which is an extension of the Peng-
Robinson equation of state. The UNIFAC model is used by default
to calculate excess Gibbs energy in the MHV2 mixing rules. Other
modified UNIFAC models and activity coefficient models can be
used for excess Gibbs energy.
Besides the acentric factor, up to three polar parameters can be
used to fit more accurately the vapor pressure of polar compounds.
The MHV2 mixing rules predict the binary interactions at any
pressure. Using the UNIFAC model the MHV2 mixing rules are
predictive for any interaction that can be predicted by the UNIFAC
model at low pressure.
The minimum parameter requirements of the PRMHV2 property
method are given in the tables labeled Parameters Required for the
PRMHV2 Property Method (below) and Parameters Required for
Common Flexible and Predictive Models. For details about
optional parameters, and calculation of pure component and
mixture properties, see Chapter 3.
Mixture Types
You can use the PRMHV2 property method for mixtures of non-
polar and polar compounds. For light gases UNIFAC does not
provide any interaction.
Range
You can use the PRMHV2 property method up to high

temperatures and pressures. You can expect accurate predictions
(4% in pressure and 2% in mole fraction at given temperature) up
to about 150 bar. You can expect reasonable results at any
condition, provided the UNIFAC interaction parameters are
available. Results are least accurate close to the critical point.
Parameters Required for the PRMHV2 Property Method
Properties
Vapor and liquid
mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Peng-Robinson-MHV2, TC, PC, OMEGA,
Density UNIFAC UFGRP, GMUFQ, GMUFR
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP),
Entropy, Peng-Robinson-MHV2, TC, PC, OMEGA,
Gibbs energy UNIFAC UFGRP, GMUFQ, GMUFR
PRWS The PRWS property method is based on the Peng-Robinson-
Wong-Sandler equation-of-state model, which is based on an
extension of the Peng-Robinson equation of state. The UNIFAC
model is used to calculate excess Helmholtz energy for the mixing
rules.
Besides the acentric factor, you can use up to three polar
parameters to fit more accurately the vapor pressure of polar
compounds. The Wong-Sandler mixing rules predict the binary
interactions at any pressure. Using the UNIFAC model the PRWS
property method is predictive for any interaction that can be
predicted by UNIFAC at low pressure.
The minimum parameter requirements of the property method are
given in the tables labeled Parameters Required for the PRWS
Flexible and Predictive Models. For details about the optional
parameters, and about calculation of pure component and mixture
properties, see Chapter 3.
Mixture Types
You can use the PRWS property method for mixtures of non-polar
and polar compounds, in combination with light gases.
Range
You can use the PRWS property method up to high temperatures

and pressures. You can expect accurate predictions (3% in pressure
and 2% in mole fraction at a given temperature) up to about 150
bar. You can expect reasonable results at any condition, provided
UNIFAC interaction parameters are available. Results are least
accurate close to the critical point.
Parameters Required for the PRWS Property Method
Properties
Vapor and liquid
mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Peng-Robinson-WS, TC, PC, OMEGA, UFGRP, GMUFR,
Density UNIFAC GMUFQ
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP),TC, PC, OMEGA,
Entropy, PengRobinson-WS, UFGRP, GMUFR, GMUFQ
Gibbs energy UNIFAC
PSRK The PSRK property method is based on the Predictive Soave-
Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state model, which is an extension of
the Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state.
compounds. The Holderbaum-Gmehling mixing rules or PSRK
method predict the binary interactions at any pressure. Using
UNIFAC the PSRK method is predictive for any interaction that
can be predicted by UNIFAC at low pressure. The UNIFAC
interaction parameter table has been extended for gases, for the
PSRK method.
The minimum parameter requirements of the PSRK property
PSRK Property Method (see below) and Parameters Required for
Flexible and Predictive Models. For details about the optional
parameters, and about calculation of pure component and mixture
properties, see Chapter 3.
Mixture Types
You can use the PSRK property method for mixtures of non-polar
and polar compounds, in combination with light gases.
Range
You can use the PSRK property method up to high temperatures

and pressures. You can expect accurate predictions at any
conditions provided UNIFAC interaction parameters are available.
Results are least accurate close to the critical point.
Parameters Required for the PSRK Property Method
Properties
Vapor and liquid
mixture
Fugacity coefficient, PSRK, TC, PC, OMEGA, UFGRP, GMUFR,
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, PSKR, (CPIG or CPIGDP),TC, PC, OMEGA,
Entropy, UNIFAC UFGRP, GMUFR, GMUFQ
Gibbs energy
RK-ASPEN The RK-ASPEN property method is based on the Redlich-Kwong-
Aspen equation-of-state model, which is an extension of Redlich-
Kwong-Soave.
This property method is similar to RKS-BM, but it also applies to
polar components such as alcohols and water. RKS-BM requires
polar parameters that must be determined from regression of
experimental vapor pressure data using DRS. Use the binary
parameters to obtain best possible results for phase equilibria. RK-
ASPEN allows temperature-dependent binary parameters. If the
polar parameters are zero for all components and the binary
parameters are constant, RK-ASPEN is identical to RKS-BM.
The minimum parameter requirements of the RK-ASPEN property
RK-ASPEN Property Method (see below) and Parameters
Required for Common Flexible and Predictive Models. For details
about the optional parameters for this model, see Chapter 3.
Mixture Types
You can use the RK-ASPEN property method for mixtures of non-
polar and slightly polar compounds, in combination with light
gases. It is especially suited for combinations of small and large
molecules, such as nitrogen with n-Decane, or hydrogen-rich
systems.
Range
You can use the RK-ASPEN property method up to high

temperatures and pressures. You can expect reasonable results at
any condition, but results are least accurate close to the critical
point.
Parameters Required for the RK-ASPEN Property Method
Properties
Vapor and liquid
mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Redlich-Kwong-Aspen TCRKA, PCRKA, OMEGARKA UFGRP,
Density GMUFR, GMUFQ
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP) and TCRKA, PCRKA,
Entropy, Redlich-Kwong-Aspen OMEGARKA
Gibbs energy
RKSMHV2 The RKSMHV2 property method is based on the Redlich-Kwong-
Soave MHV2 equation-of-state model, which is an extension of the
Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state. The Lyngby modified
UNIFAC model is used to calculate excess Gibbs energy for the
MHV2 mixing rules.
compounds. The MHV2 mixing rules predict the binary
interactions at any pressure. Using the Lyngby modified UNIFAC
model, the Redlich-Kwong-Soave MHV2 model is predictive for
any interaction that can be predicted by Lyngby modified UNIFAC
at low pressure. The Lyngby modified UNIFAC interaction
parameter table has been extended for gases for the MHV2
method.
The minimum parameter requirements of the RKSMHV2 property
RKSMHV2 Property Method (see below) and Parameters
Required for Common Flexible and Predictive Models. For details
about optional parameters and calculation of pure component and
Mixture Types
You can use the RKSMHV2 property method for mixtures of non-
polar and polar compounds, in combination with light gases.
Range
You can use the RKSMHV2 property method up to high

temperatures and pressures. You can expect accurate predictions
(4% in pressure and 2% in mole fraction at given temperature) up
to about 150 bar. You can expect reasonable results at any
condition, provided Lyngby modified UNIFAC interactions are
available. Results are least accurate close to the critical point.
Parameters Required for the RKSMHV2 Property Method
Properties
Vapor and liquid
mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Redlich-Kwong-Soave-MHV2, TC, PC, OMEGA, UFGRPL, GMUFLR,
Density Lyngby modified UNIFAC GMUFLQ
Entropy, Redlich-Kwong-Soave-MHV2, UFGRPL, GMUFLR, GMUFLQ
Gibbs energy Lyngby modified UNIFAC
RKSWS The RKSWS property method is based on the Redlich-Kwong-
Soave-Wong-Sandler equation-of-state model, which is an
extension of the Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state. The
UNIFAC model is used to calculate excess Helmholtz energy for
the mixing rules.
Besides the acentric factor,you can use up to three polar
compounds. The Wong-Sandler mixing rules predict the binary
interactions at any pressure. Using the UNIFAC model it is
predictive for any interaction that can be predicted by UNIFAC at
low pressure.
The minimum parameter requirements of the RKSWS property
RKSWS Property Method (see below) and Parameters Required
for Common Flexible and Predictive Models. For details about
optional parameters and calculation of pure component and
Mixture Types
You can use the RKSWS property method for mixtures of non-
Range
You can use the RKSWS property method up to high temperatures

and pressures. You can expect accurate predictions (3% in pressure
and 2% in mole fraction at a given temperature) up to about 150
bar. You can expect reasonable results at any condition, provided
UNIFAC interaction parameters are available. But results are least
accurate close to the critical point.
Parameters Required for the RKSWS Property Method
Properties
Vapor and liquid
mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Redlich-Kwong-Soave-WS, TC, PC, OMEGA, UFGRP, GMUFR,
Entropy, Redlich-Kwong-Soave-WS, UFGRP, GMUFR, GMUFQ
Gibbs energy UNIFAC
SR-POLAR The SR-POLAR property method is based on an equation-of-state
model by Schwarzentruber and Renon, which is an extension of
the Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state. You can apply the
SR-POLAR method to both non-polar and highly polar
components, and to highly nonideal mixtures. This method is
recommended for high temperature and pressure applications
SR-POLAR requires:
• Polar parameters for polar components. These parameters are
determined automatically using vapor pressure data generated
from the extended Antoine model.
• Binary parameters to accurately represent phase equilibria. The
binary parameters are temperature-dependent.
If you do not enter binary parameters, the Aspen Physical Property
System estimates them automatically using VLE data generated
from the UNIFAC group contribution method. Therefore, the SR-
POLAR property method is predictive for any interaction that
UNIFAC can predict at low pressures. The accuracy of the
prediction decreases with increasing pressure. You cannot use
UNIFAC to predict interactions with light gases.
SR-POLAR is an alternative property method that you can use for
nonideal systems, instead of using an activity coefficient property
method, such as WILSON.
Parameter requirements for the SR-POLAR property method are in
the tables labeled Parameters Required for the SR-POLAR
Property Method (see below) and Parameters Required for
Common Flexible and Predictive Models. For details about
optional parameters, and calculation of pure component and
Mixture Types
You can use the SR-POLAR property method for mixtures of non-
Range
You can use the SR-POLAR property method up to high

temperatures and pressures. You can expect fair predictions up to
about 50 bar. You can expect reasonable results at any condition,
provided UNIFAC interaction parameters are available. But results
are least accurate close to the critical point.
Parameters Required for the SR-POLAR Property Method
Properties
Vapor and liquid
mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Schwartzentruber-Renon TC, PC, OMEGA, Optional:
Density RKUPPn, RKUCn,
RKUKAn, RKULAn, RKUKBn
n = 0, 1, 2
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/DIPPR (CPIG or CPIGDP)
Entropy, Schwartzentruber-Renon Optional:
Gibbs energy RKUPPn, RKUCn,
RKUKAn, RKULAn, RKUKBn
n = 0, 1, 2
Common Models The following table describes the models common to flexible and
predictive property methods and their parameter requirements.
Parameters Required for Common Flexible and Predictive Models
General
Mass balance, MW
Conversion Mass-basis↔Mole-basis
Using Free-water option: solubility of WATSOL
water in organic phase
Vapor mixture
Viscosity Chung-Lee-Starling TC, PC, OMEGA
Thermal Conductivity Chung-Lee-Starling TC, PC, OMEGA
Diffusivity Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi MW, MUP, (STKPAR or LJPAR), VC

Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/ DIPPR (TC, PC, OMEGA) or SIGDIP
Liquid mixture
Viscosity Chung-Lee-Starling TC, PC, OMEGA
Thermal Conductivity Chung-Lee-Starling TC, PC, OMEGA
Liquid Activity Coefficient Property
Methods
The table labeled Liquid Activity Coefficient Property Methods
(see Equations of State) lists property methods for nonideal and
strongly nonideal mixtures at low pressures (maximum 10 atm).
You can model permanent gases in liquid solution using Henry’s
law. Binary parameters for many component pairs are available in
the Aspen Physical Property System databanks. The UNIFAC
based property methods are predictive.
These property methods are not suited for electrolytes. In that case
use an electrolyte activity coefficient property method. Model
polar mixtures at high pressures with flexible and predictive
equations of state. Non-polar mixtures are more conveniently
modeled with equations-of-state. Petroleum mixtures are more
accurately modeled with liquid fugacity correlations and equations
of state.
In labeled Liquid Activity Coefficient Property Methods (see
Equations of State) there are five different activity coefficient
models and six different equation-of-state models. Each activity
coefficient model is paired with a number of equation-of-state
models to form 26 property methods. The description of the
property methods are therefore divided into two parts:
• Equation of state
• Activity coefficient model
Each part discusses the characteristics of the specific model and its
parameter requirements. Parameters of the models occurring in all
property methods are given in the table labeled Parameters
Required for Common Models.
Equations of State This section discusses the characteristics and parameter
requirements of the following equations of state:
• Ideal gas law
• Redlich-Kwong
• Nothnagel
• Hayden-O’Connell
• HF equation of state
• VPA/IK-CAPE Equation of State
Liquid Activity Coefficient Property Methods
Property Method Gamma Model Name Vapor Phase EOS
Name
NRTL NRTL Ideal gas law
NRTL-2 NRTL Ideal gas law
NRTL-RK NRTL Redlich-Kwong
NRTL-HOC NRTL Hayden-O’Connell
NRTL-NTH NRTL Nothnagel
UNIFAC UNIFAC Redlich-Kwong
UNIF-LL UNIFAC Redlich-Kwong
UNIF-HOC UNIFAC Hayden-O’Connell
UNIF-DMD Dortmund modified Redlich-Kwong-Soave
UNIFAC
UNIF-LBY Lyngby modified Ideal Gas law
UNIFAC
UNIQUAC UNIQUAC Ideal gas law
UNIQ-2 UNIQUAC Ideal gas law
UNIQ-RK UNIQUAC Redlich-Kwong
UNIQ-HOC UNIQUAC Hayden-O’Connell
UNIQ-NTH UNIQUAC Nothnagel
VANLAAR Van Laar Ideal gas law
VANL-2 Van Laar Ideal gas law
VANL-RK Van Laar Redlich-Kwong
VANL-HOC Van Laar Hayden-O’Connell
VANL-NTH Van Laar Nothnagel
WILSON Wilson Ideal gas law
WILS-2 Wilson Ideal gas law
WILS-GLR Wilson Ideal gas law
WILS-LR Wilson Ideal gas law
WILS-RK Wilson Redlich-Kwong
WILS-HOC Wilson Hayden-O’Connell
WILS-NTH Wilson Nothnagel
WILS-HF Wilson HF equation of state
Vapor pressure Extended Antoine
Liquid molar volume Rackett
Heat of vaporization Watson
Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/DIPPR
Liquid viscosity Andrade/DIPPR
Liquid thermal conductivity Sato-Riedel/DIPPR
Ideal Gas Law The property methods that use the ideal gas law as the vapor phase
model are:
• NRTL
• NRTL-2
• UNIF-LBY
• UNIQUAC
• UNIQ-2
• VANLAAR
• VANL-2
• WILSON
• WILS-2
• WILS-GLR
• WILS-LR
The ideal gas law is the simplest equation of state. It is also known
as the combined laws of Boyle and Gay-Lussac.
Mixture Types
The ideal gas law cannot model association behavior in the vapor
phase, as occurs with carboxylic acids. Choose Hayden-O’Connell
or Nothnagel to model this behavior.
Range
The ideal gas law is valid for low pressures. It is not suited for
modeling pressures exceeding several atm. For medium pressures,
choose a Redlich-Kwong-based property method.
There are no component-specific parameters associated with the
ideal gas law.
Redlich-Kwong The property methods that use the Redlich-Kwong equation of
state as the vapor phase model are:
• NRTL-RK
• UNIFAC
• UNIF-LL
• UNIQ-RK
• VANL-RK
• WILS-RK
The Redlich-Kwong equation of state is a simple cubic equation of
state.
Mixture Types
The Redlich-Kwong equation of state cannot model association

behavior in the vapor phase, as occurs with carboxylic acids.
Range
The Redlich-Kwong equation of state describes vapor phase

properties accurately up to medium pressures.
The parameter requirements for the Redlich-Kwong equation of
state are given in the following table. For details about the model,
see Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for Redlich-Kwong Property Methods
Properties
Vapor mixture
Density
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP), TC, PC
Entropy, Redlich-Kwong
Gibbs energy
Nothnagel The property methods that use the Nothnagel equation of state as
vapor phase model are:
• NRTL-NTH
• UNIQ-NTH
• VANL-NTH
• WILS-NTH
The Nothnagel equation of state accounts for dimerization in the
vapor phase at low pressure. Dimerization affects VLE; vapor
phase properties, such as enthalpy and density; and liquid phase
properties, such as enthalpy.
Mixture Types
The Nothnagel equation of state can model dimerization in the

vapor phase, as occurs with mixtures containing carboxylic acids.
Range
Do not use the Nothnagel based property methods at pressures

exceeding several atm. For vapor phase association up to medium
pressure choose the Hayden-O’Connell equation.
Parameter requirements for the Nothnagel equation of state are
given in the following table. Enter equilibrium constants of
association directly (NTHK). Or calculate them from the pure
component parameters NTHA, elements 1 to 3 (bi, pi and di). If
parameters are not available, the Aspen Physical Property System
uses default values. For prediction, the Hayden-O’Connell
correlation is more accurate. For details about the models, see
Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for Nothnagel Property Methods
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Nothnagel TB, TC, PC and (NTHA or NTHK)
Density
Enthalpy, Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP), TB, TC, PC and
Entropy, Nothnagel (NTHA or NTHK)
Gibbs energy
Hayden-O’Connell The property methods that use the Hayden-O’Connell equation of
state as vapor phase model are:
• NRTL-HOC
• UNIF-HOC
• UNIQ-HOC
• VANL-HOC
• WILS-HOC
The Hayden-O’Connell equation of state predicts solvation and
dimerization in the vapor phase, up to medium pressure.
Dimerization affects VLE; vapor phase properties, such as
enthalpy and density; and liquid phase properties, such as enthalpy.
Mixture Types
The Hayden-O’Connell equation reliably predicts solvation of

polar compounds and dimerization in the vapor phase, as occurs
with mixtures containing carboxylic acids.
Range
Do not use the Hayden-O’Connell-based property methods at

pressures exceeding 10 to 15 atm.
Parameter requirements for the Hayden-O’Connell equation of
state are given in the following table. For details about the model,
see Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for Hayden-O’Connell Property Methods
Properties
Vapor mixture
Density Hayden-O’Connell TC, PC, RGYR, MUP, HOCETA
Enthalpy,
Entropy,
Gibbs energy Ideal heat capacity, (CPIG or CPIGDP), TC, PC, RGYR, MUP,
Hayden-O’Connell HOCETA
HF Equation of State The only property methods that use the HF equation of state as the
vapor phase model are WILS-HF and ENRTL-HF.
For HF-hydrocarbon mixtures, the Wilson activity coefficient
model is usually best suited for preventing nonrealistic liquid
phase splitting.
The HF equation of state predicts the strong association of HF the
vapor phase at low pressures. Association (mainly hexamerization)
affects VLE, vapor phase properties, such as enthalpy and density,
and liquid phase properties, such as enthalpy.
Mixture Types
The HF equation of state reliably predicts the strong association

effects of HF in a mixture.
Range
Do not use the WILS-HF property method at pressures exceeding 3

atm.
Parameters for the HF equation of state are built-in for
temperatures up to 373 K. You can enter parameters and regress
them using the Aspen Physical Property System Data Regression
System (DRS), if necessary. For details about the model, see
Chapter 3.
VPA/IK-CAPE Equation The VPA/IK-CAPE equation of state is similar to the HF equation
of State of state but allows dimerization and tetramerization. No property
method uses this equation of state by default. It is recommended
that this equation of state is used in place of the HF equation of
state with the WILS-HF and ENRTL-HF property methods, when
dimerization and tetramerization is expected.
The main assumption of the model is that only molecular
association causes the gas phase nonideality. Attractive forces
between the molecules and the complexes are neglected.
There are three kinds of associations, which can be modeled:
• Dimerization (examples: formic acid, acetic acid)
• Tetramerization (example: acetic acid)
• Hexamerization (example: hydrogen fluoride)
Mixture Types
The VPA/IK-CAPE equation of state can be used to model strong

association effects such as the presence of dimers, tetramers and
hexamers. Use the VPA model for associating compounds like
acids and Hydrogen fluoride.
Range
Do not use the VPA/IK-CAPE equation of state at pressures

exceeding 3 atmospheres. Parameters (equilibrium constants) for
the formation of dimers, tetramers and hexamers are not built in to
the Aspen Physical Property System. You can enter parameters and
regress them using the Aspen Physical Property Data Regression
System (DRS)
Activity Coefficient This section discusses the characteristics and parameter
Models requirements of the following activity coefficient models:
• NRTL
• UNIFAC
• UNIQUAC
• Van Laar
• Wilson
NRTL The property methods that use the NRTL activity coefficient
model are listed in the following table:
NRTL Property Methods
Binary Parameters
Property Dataset VLE LLE Henry Vapor Phase Poynting

Method Name Number Lit Reg Lit Reg Lit Reg EOS Name Correction
NRTL 1 X X — X X X Ideal Gas law —
NRTL-2 2 X X — X X X Ideal Gas law —
NRTL-RK 1 — X — — X X Redlich-Kwong X
NRTL-HOC 1 — X — — X X Hayden-O'Connell X
NRTL-NTH 1 — — — — X X Nothnagel X
An X in the Lit columns indicates the parameters were obtained
from the literature.
An X in the Reg columns indicates the parameters were regressed
by AspenTech from experimental data in the Dortmund Databank
(DDB).
The NRTL model can describe VLE and LLE of strongly nonideal
solutions. The model requires binary parameters. Many binary
parameters for VLE and LLE, from literature and from regression
of experimental data, are included in the Aspen Physical Property
System databanks. For details, see Physical Property Data, Chapter
1.
You can model the solubility of supercritical gases using Henry’s
law. Henry coefficients are available in the Aspen Physical
Property System databanks for many solutes with water and other
solvents (see Physical Property Data, Chapter 1).
The property methods with a vapor phase model that can be used
up to moderate pressures, have the Poynting correction included in
the liquid fugacity coefficient calculation (see the table labeled
NRTL Property Methods (above).
Heat of mixing is calculated using the NRTL model.
You can use separate data sets for the NRTL binary parameters to
model properties or equilibria at different conditions. It is also
possible to use one data set for VLE and a second data set for LLE
(use NRTL and NRTL-2) property methods are identical except for
the data set number they use. For example, you can use these
property methods in different flowsheet sections or column
sections.
Mixture Types
The NRTL model can handle any combination of polar and non-
polar compounds, up to very strong nonideality.
Range
Parameters should be fitted in the temperature, pressure, and

composition range of operation. No component should be close to
its critical temperature.
Parameter requirements for the NRTL activity coefficient model
are given in the following table. For details about the model, see
Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for NRTL Property Methods
Properties
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, NRTL liquid activity coefficient NRTL
Gibbs energy Extended Antoine vapor pressure PLXANT
Henry’s constant Solvent: VC,
Solute-solvent: HENRY
(VC or VLBROC)
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity CPIG or CPIGDP
Entropy Watson/DIPPR heat of vaporization TC, (DHVLWT or DHVLDP)
NRTL liquid activity coefficient NRTL
Density Rackett TC, PC, (VC or VCRKT),
(ZC or RKTZRA)
UNIFAC UNIFAC is an activity coefficient model, like NRTL or
UNIQUAC. But it is based on group contributions, rather than
molecular contributions. With a limited number of group
parameters and group-group interaction parameters, UNIFAC can
predict activity coefficients. The following table lists the property
methods based on UNIFAC.
UNIFAC Property Methods
Property Model Parameters Tmin Tmax Henry Vapor Phase Poynting
Method Name Name Rev. Yr /K /K Lit Reg EOS Name Correction
UNIFAC UNIFAC 5, 1991 290 420 X X Redlich-Kwong X
UNIF-LL UNIFAC —, 1991 280 310 X X Redlich-Kwong X
UNIF-HOC UNIFAC 5, 1991 290 420 X X Hayden- X
O'Connell
UNIF-DMD DMD- 1, 1993 290 420 X X Redlich- X
UNIF Kwong-Soave
UNIF-LBY LBY-UNIF —, 1987 290 420 X X Ideal Gas law —
The original version of UNIFAC can predict VLE and LLE, using
two sets of parameters. So there are two property methods based
on the original UNIFAC model, one using the VLE data set
(UNIFAC), the other using the LLE data set (UNIF-LL).
There are two modifications to the UNIFAC model. They are
named after the location of the universities where they were
developed: Lyngby in Denmark, and Dortmund in Germany. The
corresponding property methods are UNIF-LBY and UNIF-DMD.
Both modifications:
• Include more temperature-dependent terms of the group-group
interaction parameters
• Predict VLE and LLE with a single set of parameters
• Predict heats of mixing better
In the Dortmund modification, the prediction for activity
coefficients at infinite dilution is improved. For details on the
models, see Chapter 3.
law. Henry coefficients are available in the Aspen Physical
Property System databanks for many solutes with water and other
solvents (see Physical Property Data, Chapter 1).
The options sets with a vapor phase model that can be used up to
moderate pressures, have the Poynting correction included in the
liquid fugacity coefficient calculation (see the table labeled
UNIFAC Property Methods above).
Heats of mixing are calculated using the UNIFAC or modified
UNIFAC models.
Mixture Types
The UNIFAC and modified UNIFAC models can handle any

combination of polar and nonpolar compounds. Dissolved gas in
solutions can be handled with Henry’s Law. However, gas-solvent
interactions are not predicted by UNIFAC.
Range
No component should be close to its critical temperature.

Approximate temperature ranges are indicated in the table labeled
UNIFAC Property Methods (above).
The parameter sets for all UNIFAC models are regularly revised
and extended. The table labeled UNIFAC Property Methods
(above) gives the revision number currently used in the Aspen
Physical Property System. For details on the parameters used, see
Physical Property Data, Chapter 3.
The minimum parameter requirements for the UNIFAC and
modified UNIFAC models are given in the following table. For
details about the models, see Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for the UNIFAC Property Methods
Properties
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, UNIFAC UFGRPD
Gibbs energy or:
Dortmund modified UNIFAC UFGRPL
or:
Lyngby modified UNIFAC PLXANT
Extended Antoine vapor pressure Solvent: VC,
Henry’s constant Solute-solvent: HENRY
(VC or VLBROC)
Enthalpy, Entropy Ideal gas heat capacity CPIG or CPIGDP
Watson/DIPPR heat of vaporization TC, (DHVLWT or DHVLDP)
UNIFAC UFGRP
or:
Dortmund modified UNIFAC UFGRPD
or:
Lyngby modified UNIFAC UFGRPL
RKTZRA)
UNIQUAC The property methods that use the UNIQUAC activity coefficient
model are listed in the following table.
UNIQUAC Property Methods
Binary Parameters

Method Number Lit Reg Lit Reg Lit Reg EOS Name Correction
Name
UNIQUAC 1 X X X X X X Ideal Gas law —
UNIQ-2 2 X X X X X X Ideal Gas law —
UNIQ-RK 1 — X — — X X Redlich-Kwong X
UNIQ- 1 — X — — X X Hayden-O'Connell X
HOC
UNIQ- 1 — — — — X X Nothnagel X
NTH
The UNIQUAC model can describe strongly nonideal liquid

solutions and liquid-liquid equilibria. The model requires binary
parameters. Many binary parameters for VLE and LLE, from
literature and from regression of experimental data, are included in
the Aspen Physical Property System databanks (for details, see
Physical Property Data, Chapter 1).
law. Henry coefficients are available from the databank (see
Physical Property Data, Chapter 1).
UNIQUAC Property Methods above).
Heats of mixing are calculated using the UNIQUAC model.
You can use separate data sets for the UNIQUAC binary
parameters to model properties or equilibria at different conditions.
It is also possible to use one data set for VLE and a second data set
for LLE (use UNIQUAC and UNIQ-2). The property methods are
identical except for the data set number they use. For example, you
can use these options sets in different flowsheet sections or column
sections.
Mixture Types
The UNIQUAC model can handle any combination of polar and

non-polar compounds, up to very strong nonideality.
Range

Parameter requirements for the UNIQUAC activity coefficient
model are given in the following table. For details about the model,
see Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for UNIQUAC Property Methods
Properties
Liquid mixture
Gibbs energy UNIQUAC liquid activity GMUQR, GMUQQ, UNIQ
coefficient
Brelvi-O’Connell Solvent: TC, PC, (ZC or RKTZRA),
Solute: (VC or VLBROC)
Enthalpy,
Entropy Ideal gas heat capacity CPIG or CPIGDP
UNIQUAC liquid activity GMUQR, GMUQQ, UNIQ
coefficient
RKTZRA)
Van Laar The property methods that use the Van Laar activity coefficient
Van Laar Property Methods
Binary Parameters
Property Dataset VLE LLE Henry Vapor Phase EOS Poynting

Method number Lit Reg Lit Reg Lit Reg Name Correction
Name
VANLAA 1 — — — — X X Ideal Gas law —
R
VANL-2 2 — — — — X X Ideal Gas law —
VANL-RK 1 — — — — X X Redlich-Kwong X
VANL- 1 — — — — X X Hayden-O'Connell X
HOC
VANL- 1 — — — — X X Nothnagel X
NTH
The Van Laar model can describe nonideal liquid solutions with
positive deviations from Raoult’s law (see Chapter 1). The model
requires binary parameters.
law. Henry coefficients are available from the Aspen Physical
Property System databank (see Physical Property Data, Chapter 1).
Van Laar Property Methods above).
Heats of mixing are calculated using the Van Laar model.
You can use separate data sets to model properties or equilibria at
different conditions (use VANLAAR and VANL-2). The property
methods are identical except for the data set number they use. For
example, you can use these property methods in different
flowsheet or column sections.
Mixture Types
The Van Laar model can handle any combination of polar and non-
polar compounds with positive deviations from Raoult’s law.
Range
Parameters should be fitted in the temperature range of operation.

No component should be close to its critical temperature.
Parameter requirements for the Van Laar activity coefficient model
are given in the following table. For details about the model, see
Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for Van Laar Property Methods
Properties
Liquid mixture
Gibbs energy Van Laar liquid activity coefficient VANL
Brelvi-O’Connell Solvent: TC, PC, ( ZC or RKTZRA),
Enthalpy,
Entropy Ideal gas heat capacity CPIG or CPIGDP
Van Laar liquid activity coefficient VANL
RKTZRA)
Wilson The property methods that use the Wilson activity coefficient
Wilson Property Methods
Binary Parameters

Method number Lit Reg Lit Reg Lit Reg EOS Name Correction
Name
WILSON 1 X X — — X X Ideal Gas law —
WILS-2 2 X X — — X X Ideal Gas law —
WILS-GLR 1 — — — — X X Ideal Gas law —
WILS-LR 1 — — — — X X Ideal Gas law —
WILS-RK 1 — X — — X X Redlich-Kwong X
WILS- 1 — X — — X X Hayden-O'Connell X
HOC
WILS-NTH1 — — — — X X Nothnagel X
The Wilson model can describe strongly nonideal liquid solutions.

The model cannot handle two liquid phases. In that case use NRTL
or UNIQUAC. The model requires binary parameters. Many
binary parameters for VLE, from literature and from regression of
experimental data, are included in the Aspen Physical Property
System databanks (for details, see Physical Property Data, Chapter
1).
The solubility of supercritical gases can be modeled using Henry’s
law. Henry coefficients are available from the databank for many
solutes with water and other solvents (see Physical Property Data,
Chapter 1).
Wilson Property Methods above).
Heats of mixing are calculated using the Wilson model.
You can use separate data sets for the Wilson binary parameters to
model properties or equilibria at different conditions (use
WILSON and WILS-2). The property methods are identical except
for the data set number they use. For example, you can use these
property methods in different flowsheet or column sections.
Mixture Types
The Wilson model can handle any combination of polar and non-
polar compounds, up to very strong nonideality.
Range

Parameter requirements for the Wilson activity coefficient model
are given in the table below. For details about the model, see
Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for the Wilson Property Methods
Properties
Liquid mixture
Gibbs energy Wilson liquid activity coefficient WILSON
Henry’s constant Solvent: VC, Solute-solvent: HENRY
(VC or VLBROC)
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity CPIG or CPIGDP
Entropy
Wilson liquid activity coefficient WILSON
RKTZRA)
Common Models The following table describes the models common to activity
coefficient property methods and their parameter requirements.
Parameters Required For Common Models
General
Mass balance, MW
Using Free-water option: solubility of WATSOL
water in organic phase
Vapor mixture
Viscosity Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw/ DIPPR MW; (MUP and (STKPAR or LJPAR)) or
MUVDIP
Thermal conductivity Stiel-Thodos low pres./ DIPPR MW or KVDIP
Liquid mixture
Thermal Conductivity Sato-Riedel/DIPPR (MW, TC, TB) or KLDIP
Electrolyte Property Methods

The following table lists property methods for electrolyte
solutions. Electrolyte solutions are extremely nonideal because of
the presence of charged species. Property methods based on
correlations can handle specific components under well-described
conditions; rigorous models are generally applicable. The
ELECNRTL property method can handle mixed solvent systems at
any concentration. The PITZER property method is accurate for
aqueous solutions up to 6M. Binary parameters for many
component pairs are available in the databanks. B-PITZER is
predictive but less accurate. You can use these property methods at
low pressures (maximum 10 atm). ENRTL-HF is similar to
ELECNRTL, but with a vapor phase model for the strong HF
association. This property method should be used at low pressures
(maximum 3 atm). Permanent gases in liquid solution can be
modeled by using Henry’s law. Transport properties are calculated
by standard correlations with corrections for the presence of
electrolytes.
Electrolyte Property Methods
Correlation-Based Property Methods
Property Method Correlation System
AMINES Kent-Eisenberg MEA, DEA, DIPA, DGA
APISOUR API Sour water H2O, NH3, CO2, H2S
correlation
Activity Coefficient Model-Based Property Methods
Property Method Gamma Model Name Vapor Phase EOS Name
ELECNRTL Electrolyte NRTL Redlich-Kwong
ENRTL-HF Electrolyte NRTL HF equation of state
ENRTL-HG Electrolyte NRTL Redlich-Kwong
PITZER Pitzer Redlich-Kwong-Soave
PITZ-HG Pitzer Redlich-Kwong-Soave
B-PITZER Bromley-Pitzer Redlich-Kwong-Soave
Common Models For Rigorous Property Methods
Property Model
Vapor pressure Extended Antoine
Liquid molar volume Rackett/Clarke
Heat of vaporization Watson/DIPPR
Infinite dilution heat capacity Criss-Cobble
Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/DIPPR -
Onsager-Samara
Liquid viscosity Andrade/DIPPR - Jones-Dole
Liquid thermal conductivity Sato-Riedel/DIPPR - Riedel
Liquid diffusivity Wilke-Chang - Nernst-Hartley
Do not use the electrolyte property methods for nonelectrolyte
systems. See Classification of Property Methods and
Recommended Use for more help.
For general thermodynamic principles, see Chapter 1. Chapter 5
contains specifics on electrolyte calculation. For details on
methods, see Chapter 4. The property method descriptions give the
minimum parameter requirements for the thermodynamic property
models used, also of the common thermodynamic property models.
The general and transport property parameter requirements for
coefficient-based property methods are in the table labeled
Parameters Required for General and Transport Models . For
details on models, see Chapter 3.
AMINES The AMINES property methoduses the Kent-Eisenberg method for
K-values and enthalpy. It is designed for systems containing water,
one of four ethanolamines, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and
other components typically present in gas-sweetening processes. It
can be used for the following four amines:
• Monoethanolamine (MEA)
• Diethanolamine (DEA)
• Diisopropanolamine (DIPA)
• Diglycolamine (DGA)
Range
Use the AMINES property method for amine systems with ranges
of:
MEA DEA DIPA DGA
Temperature (°F) 90 – 280 90 – 275 90 – 260 90 – 280
Maximum H2S or CO2 Loading 0.5 0.8 0.75 0.5
(moles gas/mole amine)
Amine Concentration in 15 – 30 20 – 40 20 – 40 40 – 65
Solution(mass percent)
If the amine concentration is outside the recommended range, the
Chao-Seader method is used for K-values (only for that particular
property evaluation).
Refer to the following table for parameter requirements for this
property method.
Parameters Required for the AMINES Property Method
General
Requirements
Mass balance, Conversion Mass-basis↔Mole-basis MW
Using free-water option: solubility of water in WATSOL
organic phase
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient Redlich-Kwong, TC; PC
Density
Enthalpy, entropy Ideal gas heat capacity/DIPPR CPIG or CPIGDP
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient Scatchard-Hildebrand activity TC; DELTA; VLCVT1; GMSHVL
Gibbs energy coefficient
Chao-Seader pure component TC; PC; OMEGA
(amines and water only)
Kent-Eisenberg (H2S and CO2 —
only)
Enthalpy, entropy Watson heat of vaporization and TC; PC;DHVLWT or DHVLDP
DIPPR model
Density Rackett molar volume TC; PC: VC or VCRKT; ZC or RKTZRA
Vapor mixture Dean-Stiel
Viscosity MW; (MUP and (STKPAR or LJPAR)) or
MUVDIP; TC, PC, VC
Thermal conductivity Stiel-Thodos MW, TC, PC, VC, ZC
Diffusivity Dawson-Khoury-Kobayaski MW; MUP and (STKPAR or LJPAR); VC
Liquid mixture
The APISOUR property method:
APISOUR
• Uses the API procedure for K-values and enthalpy of sour
water systems.
• Is designed for sour water systems containing primarily water,
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide.
• Is applicable in the temperature range of 20 – 140°C.
• Has an overall average error between measured and predicted
partial pressures of about 30% for ammonia, carbon dioxide,
and hydrogen sulfide.
• Does not require any user-supplied parameters.
• Is recommended for fast calculation of sour water systems at
limited concentration. For more accurate results, use the
ELECNRTL property method.
Note: APISOUR uses an activity coefficient method such as

NRTL or Wilson to calculate fugacity coefficients for components
other than water, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, or carbon dioxide.
To specify this method, on the Properties | Property Methods |
APISOUR | Models sheet, select a model for calculating gamma.
The default is GMRENON which uses NRTL.
Parameter requirements for the APISOUR property method are

listed in the following table.
Parameters Required for the APISOUR Property Method
General
Requirements
Mass balance, Conversion Mass-basis↔Mole- MW
basis
Using Free-water option: solubility of water in WATSOL
organic phase
Vapor mixture
MUVDIP
Liquid mixture
ELECNRTL The ELECNRTL property method is the most versatile electrolyte
property method. It can handle very low and very high
concentrations. It can handle aqueous and mixed solvent systems.
The ELECNRTL is fully consistent with the NRTL-RK property
method: the molecular interactions are calculated exactly the same
way, therefore ELECNRTL can use the databank for binary
molecular interaction parameters for the NRTL-RK property
method.
Many binary and pair parameters and chemical equilibrium
constants from regression of experimental data are included in
Aspen Physical Property System databanks. See Physical Property
Data, Chapter 2, for details on the systems included, the sources of
the data, and the ranges of application.
The solubility of supercritical gases can be modeled using Henry’s
law. Henry coefficients are available from the databank (see
Chapter 1).
Heats of mixing are calculated using the electrolyte NRTL model.
The Redlich-Kwong equation of state is used for all vapor phase
properties, which cannot model association behavior in the vapor
phase as occurs with carboxylic acids or HF. For carboxylic acids,
choose Hayden-O’Connell or Nothnagel; for HF choose ENRTL-
HF.
Mixture Types
Any liquid electrolyte solution unless there is association in the

vapor phase.
Range
Vapor phase properties are described accurately up to medium

pressures. Interaction parameters should be fitted in the range of
operation.
The parameter requirements for the ELECNRTL property method
are given in the following table, and in Parameters Required for
General and Transport Property Models. For details about the
model see Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for the ELECNRTL Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Density
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/ DIPPR/ CPIG or CPIGDP or
Entropy, Barin correlation CPIXP1, CPIXP2, CPIXP3
Gibbs energy
Redlich-Kwong TC, PC
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Electrolyte NRTL Mol.: CPDIEC
Gibbs energy Ion: RADIUS
Mol.-Mol.: NRTL
Mol.-Ion, Ion-Ion: GMELCC, GMELCD
GMELCE, GMELCN
Henry’s constant Solvent: VC, Mol. solute-solvent: HENRY
Brelvi-O’Connell Solvent: TC, PC, (ZC or RKTZRA), Mol.
solute: (VC or VLBROC)
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/ DIPPR CPIG or CPIGDP
Entropy and
Watson/DIPPR heat of vaporization Solvent: TC, (DHVLWT or DHVLDP)
Infinite dilution heat capacity / Ions: CPAQ0 or

Criss-Cobble Ions: IONTYP, S025C
Electrolyte NRTL Mol.: CPDIEC

Ion: RADIUS
Mol.-Mol.: NRTL
Mol.-Ion, Ion-Ion: GMELCC, GMELCD
GMELCE, GMELCN
Density Rackett/Clarke Mol.: TC, PC, (VC or VCRKT), (ZC or
RKTZRA) Ion-ion: VLCLK
Solid pure (and
mixture)
Enthalpy, Solids heat capacity polynomial/ CPSP01 or CPSXP1 to CPSXP7
Entropy Barin correlation
Density Solids molar volume polynomial VSPOLY
ENRTL-HF The ENRTL-HF property method is similar to the ELECNRTL
property method except that it uses the HF equation of state as
vapor phase model.
The HF equation of state predicts the strong association of HF in
the vapor phase at low pressures. Association (mainly
hexamerization) affects both vapor phase properties (for example,
enthalpy and density) and liquid phase properties (for example,
enthalpy).
A data package is available to accurately model vapor and liquid
phases of HF and water mixtures in any proportion.
Mixture Types
The HF equation of state reliably predicts the strong association

effects of HF in the vapor phase. The liquid can be any liquid
electrolyte solution.
Range
Usage should not exceed pressures of 3 atm.

Parameters for the HF equation of state are built-in for
temperatures up to 373 K. Parameters can be entered and regressed
using the Aspen Physical Property Data Regression System (DRS)
if needed. For details about the model, see Chapter 3. For the
parameter requirements for the electrolyte NRTL model, see the
table labeled Parameters Required for the ELECNRTL Property
Method (see ELECNRTL). For general and transport property
parameter requirements, see the table Parameters Required for
General and Transport Property Models.
ENRTL-HG The ENRTL-HG property method is similar to the ELECNRTL
property method, except it uses the Helgeson model for standard
properties calculations. The Helgeson model is a very accurate and
flexible equation of state that calculates standard enthalpy, entropy,
Gibbs free energy and volume for components in aqueous
solutions. The Helgeson model should provide more accurate
enthalpy and Gibbs free energy of process streams up to high
temperatures and pressures. The model is also used to calculate
Gibbs free energy for use in estimating chemical equilibrium
constants (for both equilibrium and salt precipitation reactions)
when they are missing. Equilibrium constants calculated using the
Helgeson model have been found to be reasonably accurate and
extrapolate well with respect to temperature.
Mixture Types
Any liquid electrolyte solution is acceptable, unless there is

association in the vapor phase.
Range
Vapor phase properties are described accurately up to medium

operation.
For parameter requirements for the electrolyte NRTL model, see
the table labeled Parameters Required for the ELECNRTL
Property Method (see ELECNRTL). For general and transport
property parameter requirements, see the table labeled Parameters
Required for General and Transport Property Models.
PITZER The PITZER property method is based on an aqueous electrolyte
activity coefficient model. It has no overlap with other activity
coefficient models. It can accurately calculate the behavior of
aqueous electrolyte solutions with or without molecular solutes up
to 6 molal ionic strength.
Many interaction parameters from regression of experimental data
are included in databanks and data packages (for details, see
Chapter 1).
Property System databanks (see Chapter 1).
Heats of mixing are calculated using the Pitzer model.
The Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state is used for the vapor
phase fugacity coefficient, all other vapor phase properties are
assumed ideal. Redlich-Kwong-Soave cannot model association
behavior in the vapor phase (for example, carboxylic acids or HF).
For carboxylic acids, choose a non-electrolyte activity coefficient
model with Hayden-O’Connell or Nothnagel; for HF choose
ENRTL-HF or WILS-HF.
Mixture Types
You can use the Pitzer model for any aqueous electrolyte solution
up to 6M ionic strength, not showing association in the vapor
phase.
Range
Vapor phase fugacities are described accurately up to medium

operation.
The parameter requirements for the PITZER property method are
given in the following table, and the table labeled Parameters
Required for General and Transport Property Models. For details
about the model, see Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for the PITZER Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Redlich-Kwong-Soave TC, PC, OMEGA
Density
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/DIPPR/ CPIG orCPIGDP or
Entropy, Barin correlation CPIXP1, CPIXP2, CPIXP3
Gibbs energy
Redlich-Kwong TC, PC, OMEGA
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Pitzer Cation-anion: GMPTB0, GMPTB1,
Gibbs energy GMPTB2, GMPTB3, GMPTC
Cation-cation: GMPTTH
Anion-anion: GMPTTH
Cation1-cation2-common anion: GMPTPS
Anion1-anion2-common cation: GMPTPS
Molecule-ion, Mol. – Mol.: GMPTB0,
GMPTB1, GMPTC
Henry's constant Solvent: VC, Mol. solute-solvent: HENRY
Brelvi-O'Connell Solvent: TC, PC, (ZC or RKTZRA), Mol.
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/DIPPR CPIG or CPIGDP
Entropy and
Watson/DIPPR heat of vaporization Solvent: TC, (DHVLWT or DHVLDP)]
Pitzer Cation-anion: GMPTB0, GMPTB1,
GMPTB2, GMPTB3, GMPTC
Anion-anion: GMPTTH
Cation1-cation2-common anion: GMPTPS
Anion1-anion2-common cation: GMPTPS
Molecule-ion, Mol. – Mol.:
GMPTB0,GMPTB1,GMPTC
Solid pure (and
mixture)
Enthalpy, Solids heat capacity polynomial/ CPSP01 or
Entropy Barin correlation CPSXP1 to CPSXP7
The B-PITZER property method is based on the simplified Pitzer
B-PITZER
aqueous electrolyte activity coefficient model, which neglects third
order interactions. It can predict the behavior of aqueous
electrolyte solutions up to 6 molal ionic strength. It is not as
accurate as ELECNRTL or PITZER with fitted parameters. But, it
is better than using these property methods without interaction
parameters.
Property System databanks (see Chapter 1).
Heats of mixing are calculated using the Bromley-Pitzer model.
The Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state is used for the vapor
phase fugacity coefficient. All other vapor phase properties are
assumed ideal. Redlich-Kwong-Soave cannot model association
behavior in the vapor phase (for example with carboxylic acids or
HF). For carboxylic acids, choose a non-electrolyte activity
coefficient model with Hayden-O’Connell or Nothnagel; for HF,
choose ENRTL-HF or WILS-HF.
Mixture Types
You can use the B-PITZER model for any aqueous electrolyte
solution up to 6M ionic strength, not showing association in the
vapor phase.
Range

operation.
The parameter requirements for the B-PITZER property method
are given in the following table, and the table labeled Parameters
Parameters Required for the B-PITZER Property Method
Properties
Vapor mixture
Density Redlich-Kwong-Soave TC, PC, OMEGA
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/ DIPPR/ CPIG or CPIGDP or CPIXP1, CPIXP2,
Entropy, Barin correlation CPIXP3
Gibbs energy and
Redlich-Kwong TC, PC, OMEGA
Liquid mixture
Fugacity coefficient, Bromley-Pitzer Ionic: GMBPB, GMBPD Optional:
Gibbs energy Cation-anion: GMPTB0, GMPTB1,
GMPTB2, GMPTB3
Anion-anion: GMPTTH
Molecule-ion, Mol.-Mol.: GMPTB0,
GMPTB1
Henry’s constant Solvent: VC, Mol. solute-solvent: HENRY
Brelvi-O’Connell Solvent: TC, PC, (ZC or RKTZRA), Mol.
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/DIPPR CPIG or CPIGDP
Entropy and
Watson/DIPPR heat of vaporization Solvent: TC, (DHVLWT or DHVLDP)]

Bromley-Pitzer Ionic: GMBPB, GMBPD
Optional:
Cation-anion: GMPTB0, GMPTB1,
GMPTB2, GMPTB3
Cation-cation:GMPTTH
Anion-anion: GMPTTH
Molecule-ion, Mol.-Mol.: GMPTB0,
GMPTB1
Solid pure (and
mixture)
Enthalpy, Solids heat capacity polynomial/ CPSP01 or CPSXP1 to CPSXP7
Entropy Barin correlation
The PITZ-HG property method is similar to the PITZER property
PITZ-HG
method, except it uses the Helgeson model for standard properties
calculations. The Helgeson model is a very accurate and flexible
equation of state that calculates standard enthalpy, entropy, Gibbs
free energy and volume for components in aqueous solutions. The
Helgeson model should provide more accurate enthalpy and Gibbs
free energy of process streams up to high temperatures and
pressures. The Helgeson model is also used to calculate Gibbs free
energy for use in estimating chemical equilibrium constants (for
both equilibrium and salt precipitation reactions) when they are
missing. Equilibrium constants calculated using the Helgeson
model have been found to be reasonably accurate and extrapolate
well with respect to temperature.
Mixture Types
You can use this property method for any aqueous electrolyte
solution up to 6M ionic strength, not showing association in the
vapor phase.
Range

operation.
The parameter requirements for the PITZ-HG property method are
given in the table labeled Parameters Required for the PITZER
Property Method (see PITZER), and the table labeled Parameters
General and The following table describes the general and transport property
Transport Property models used and their parameter requirements for activity
Model Parameter coefficient-based electrolyte property methods.
Requirements Parameters Required for General and Transport Property Models
General
Mass balance, MW
Conversion Mass-
basis↔Mole-basis
Enthalpy of reaction Solvents, Mol. solutes: DHFORM
Solids,Salts: (DHSFRM or CPSXP1 to CPSXP7)
Ions: DHAQFM
Gibbs energy of Solvents, Mol. solutes: DGFORM
reaction Solids,Salts: (DGSFRM or CPSXP1 to CPSXP7)
Ions: DGAQFM
Vapor mixture
MUVDIP
Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/ DIPPR Solv., Mol.sol.: (TC, PC, OMEGA) or
Onsager-Samaras † SIGDIP
Ion: CHARGE
Liquid mixture
Viscosity Andrade/DIPPR Jones-Dole † Solv., Mol.sol.: MULAND or MULDIP
Ion: IONMUB, IONMOB
Thermal Conductivity Sato-Riedel/ DIPPR Riedel † Solv., Mol.sol.: (MW, TC, TB) or KLDIP
Ion: IONRDL
Diffusivity Wilke-Chang/ Nernst-Hartley † Solv., Mol.sol.: MW, VB
Ion: CHARGE, IONMOB
† Only for rigorous electrolyte property methods
Solids Handling Property Method

The SOLIDS property method is designed for many kinds of solids
processing:
• Coal processing
• Pyrometallurgical processes
• Miscellaneous other solids processing (such as starch and
polymers)
The properties of solids and fluid phases cannot be calculated with
the same type of models. Therefore the components are distributed
over the substreams of types MIXED, CISOLID and NC and their
properties are calculated with appropriate models (for details on
the use of substreams, see Aspen Plus User Guide, Chapter 9).
During the mechanical processing of raw materials (ore, coal,
wood), physical properties can often be handled as
nonconventional components with an overall density and an
overall heat capacity. The characterization of nonconventional
components and the specification of property models is discussed
in the Aspen Plus User Guide, Chapter 7. Details on
nonconventional property methods and models are given in
chapters 1 and 3 of this manual, respectively.
When the solids are decomposed into individual components (for
example, to selectively undergo chemical reactions), they occur in
the CISOLID substream. The property models for these
components are pure component property models of the
polynomial type. The components are not in phase equilibrium
with the fluid components. Some examples are coal dust in air,
burning carbon, and sand in water.
In pyrometallurgical applications, a CISOLID component can be in
simultaneous phase and chemical equilibrium. This can happen
only in the RGIBBS model, an equilibrium reactor based on Gibbs
energy minimization. Under other conditions, the CISOLID
component can undergo reactions but not phase equilibrium. As
another exception, homogeneous solid mixture phases can occur in
the same reactor. The nonideality of solid mixtures can be handled
using activity coefficient models. To distinguish a solid mixture
from single CISOLID components, they are placed in the MIXED
substream.
In pyrometallurgical applications, many phases can occur
simultaneously. These phases may need to be treated with different
activity coefficient models (use the SOLIDS property method). For
details, see Getting Started Modeling Processes with Solids.
Fluid components always occur in the MIXED substream. They
are treated with the same fluid phase models as discussed in
IDEAL. If non-ideality in the liquid phase occurs, the ideal activity
coefficient model can be replaced.
Permanent gases may be dissolved in the liquid. You can model
them using Henry’s law, which is valid at low concentrations.
Hydrometallurgical applications cannot be handled by the SOLIDS
property method. Use an electrolyte property method.
The transport property models for the vapor phase are all well
suited for ideal gases. The transport property models for the liquid
phase are empirical equations for fitting of experimental data.
The following table lists the models used in the SOLIDS property
method and their parameter requirements. For details on these
models, see Chapter 3.
Parameters Required for the SOLIDS Property Method
General
Mass balance, MW
Free-water option: solubility of water in WATSOL
organic phase
Enthalpy of reaction DHFORM, (DHSFRM or
CPSXP1 to CPSXP7)
Gibbs energy of reaction DGFORM, (DGSFRM or
CPSXP1 to CPSXP7)
Vapor pure and mixture
Fugacity Ideal gas law
Coefficient
Enthalpy, Ideal gas heat capacity/ DIPPR/ CPIG or CPIGDP or CPIXP1, CPIXP2,
Entropy, Barin correlation CPIXP3
Gibbs energy
Density Ideal gas law
Liquid pure and mixture
Fugacity Extended Antoine vapor pressure/ PLXANT or
Coefficient, Barin correlation CPIXP1, CPIXP2
Gibbs energy
Ideal liquid activity coefficient —
Henry's constant Solvent: VC, Solute-solvent: HENRY
Brelvi-O'Connell Solvent: TC, PC, (ZC or RKTZRA),
Enthalpy, [Ideal gas heat capacity/ CPIG or
Entropy DIPPR CPIGDP
and
Watson/DIPPR heat of vaporization TC, (DHVLWT or DHVLDP)]
DIPPR heat capacity correlation/ (CPLDIP or
Barin correlation CPLXP1, CPLXP2
Density Constant Volume, VLCONS
Ideal mixing
Solid pure (and
mixture)
Fugacity Extended Antoine vapor pressure/ PLXANT
Coefficient, Barin correlation CPSXP1 to CPSXP7
Gibbs energy
Ideal liquid activity coefficient —
Enthalpy, Solids heat capacity polynomial/ CPSP01 or
Entropy Barin correlation CPSXP1 to CPSXP7
Vapor pure and mixture
Viscosity Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw/ MW; (MUP and (STKPAR or LJPAR))
DIPPR or MUVDIP
Thermal conductivity Stiel-Thodos low pres./ MW or
DIPPR KVDIP
Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/ (TC, PC, OMEGA) or
DIPPR SIGDIP
Liquid pure and mixture
Solids pure
Thermal Conductivity Solids, polynomial KSPOLY
Steam Tables
The following table lists the names of the two steam table property
methods available in Aspen Physical Property System.
Steam tables can calculate all thermodynamic properties for
systems containing pure water or steam. For mixtures of water and
other components, refer to the beginning of this chapter for more
help. The NBS/NRC steam tables are more recent and accurate.
The transport property models for both property methods are from
the International Association for Properties of Steam (IAPS).
All models have built-in parameters. For details, see ASME Steam
Tables and NBS/NRC Steam Tables in Chapter 3.
Steam Tables Property Methods
Property Method Models
Name
Steam Tables:
STEAM-TA ASME 1967
STEAMNBS/STMNB NBS/NRC 1984
S2
Common models:
IAPS vapor viscosity
IAPS vapor thermal conductivity
IAPS surface tension
IAPS liquid viscosity
IAPS liquid thermal conductivity
STEAM-TA The STEAM-TA property method uses the:
• 1967 ASME steam table correlations for thermodynamic
properties
• International Association for Properties of Steam (IAPS)
correlations for transport properties
Use this property method for pure water and steam. The Aspen
Physical Property System uses STEAM-TA as the default property
method for the free-water phase, when free-water calculations are
performed.
Range
Use the STEAM-TA property method for pure water and steam
with temperature ranges of 273.15 K to 1073 K. The maximum
pressure is 1000 bar.
The STEAMNBS/STMNBS2 property methods use:
STEAMNBS/STEAMN
BS2 • 1984 NBS/NRC steam table correlations for thermodynamic
properties
• International Association for Properties of Steam (IAPS)
correlations for transport properties
The STMNBS2 uses the same equations as STEAMNBS but with
a different root search method.
Use these property methods for pure water and steam, and in
particular for the free-water phase.
Range
Use the STEAMNBS/STMNBS2 property methods for pure water

and steam with temperature ranges of 273.15 K to 2000 K. The
maximum pressure is over 10000 bar. The STMNBS2 method is
recommended for use with the SRK, BWRS, MXBONNEL and
GRAYSON2 property methods.
CHAPTER 3
Property Model Descriptions
Overview
This chapter describes the property models available in the Aspen
Physical Property System and defines the parameters used in each
model. The description for each model lists the parameter names
used to enter values on the Properties Parameters forms.
This chapter also lists the pure component temperature-dependent
properties that the Aspen Physical Property System can calculate
from a model that supports several equations or submodels. See
Pure Component Temperature-Dependent Properties (below).
Many parameters have default values indicated in the Default
column. A dash (–) indicates that the parameter has no default
value and you must provide a value. If a parameter is missing,
calculations stop. The lower limit and upper limit for each
parameter, when available, indicate the reasonable bounds for the
parameter. The limits are used to detect grossly erroneous
parameter values.
The property models are divided into the following categories:
• Thermodynamic property models
• Transport property models
• Nonconventional solid property models
The property types for each category are discussed in separate
sections of this chapter. The following table (below) provides an
organizational overview of this chapter. The tables labeled
Thermodynamic Property Models, Transport Property Models, and
Nonconventional Solid Property Models in this chapter present
detailed lists of models. These tables also list the Aspen Physical
Property System model names, and their possible use in different
phase types, for pure components and mixtures.
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Property Model Descriptions • 3-1
Electrolyte and conventional solid property models are presented
in Thermodynamic Property Models, this chapter. For more details
on electrolyte coefficient models, see Appendices A, B, and C.
Categories of Models
Category Sections
Thermodynamic Equation-of-State Models
Property Models Activity Coefficient Models
Vapor Pressure and Liquid Fugacity Models
Heat of Vaporization Models
Molar Volume and Density Models
Heat Capacity Models
Solubility Correlations
Other
Transport Property Viscosity Models
Models Thermal Conductivity Models
Diffusivity Models
Surface Tension Models
Nonconventional Solid General Enthalpy and Density Models
Property Models Enthalpy and Density Models for Coal and Char
3-2 • Property Model Descriptions Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Pure Component The following table lists the pure component temperature-
Temperature- dependent properties that the Aspen Physical Property System can
Dependent Properties calculate from a model that supports several equations or
submodels.
For example, the Aspen Physical Property System can calculate
heat of vaporization using these equations:
• Watson
• DIPPR
• PPDS
• IK-CAPE
Pure Component Temperature-Dependent Properties
Submodel-Selection
Parameter Element Default DIPPR
Property Number Available Submodels Equation Number
Solid Volume THRSWT/1 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 100
Liquid Volume THRSWT/2 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 105/116
Liquid Vapor Pressure THRSWT/3 Aspen, Wagner, BARIN, PPDS, 101/115
IK-CAPE
Heat of Vaporization THRSWT/4 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 106
Solid Heat Capacity THRSWT/5 Aspen, DIPPR, BARIN, PPDS, 100
IK-CAPE
Liquid Heat Capacity THRSWT/6 DIPPR, PPDS, BARIN, IK-CAPE 100/114
Ideal Gas Heat Capacity THRSWT/7 Aspen, DIPPR, BARIN, PPDS, 107
IK-CAPE
Second Virial THRSWT/8 DIPPR 104
Coefficient
Liquid Viscosity TRNSWT/1 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 101
Vapor Viscosity TRNSWT/2 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 102
Liquid Thermal TRNSWT/3 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 100
Conductivity
Vapor Thermal TRNSWT/4 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 102
Conductivity
Liquid Surface Tension TRNSWT/5 Aspen, DIPPR, PPDS, IK-CAPE 106
Which equation is actually used to calculate the property for a
given component depends on which parameters are available. If
parameters are available for more than one equation, the Aspen
Physical Property System uses the parameters that were entered or
retrieved first from the databanks. The selection of submodels is
driven by the data hierarchy, and controlled by the submodel-
selection parameters.
The thermodynamic properties use the THRSWT submodel-
selection parameter, and the transport properties use the TRNSWT
submodel-selection parameter.
As the previous table shows, a property is associated with an
element of the parameter. For example, the Aspen Physical
Property System uses THRSWT element 1 to select a submodel for
solid volume.
The following table shows the values for THRSWT or TRNSWT,
and the corresponding submodels.
Parameter Values
(Equation Number) Submodel
0 Aspen
1 to 116 DIPPR
200 to 211 BARIN
301 to 302 PPDS
401 to 404 IK-CAPE
All built-in databank components have model-selection parameters
(THRSWT, TRNSWT) that are set to use the correct equations that
are consistent with the available parameters. For example, suppose
that parameters for the DIPPR equation 106 are available for liquid
surface tension. For that component, TRNSWT element 5 is set to
106 in the databank. If you are retrieving data from an in-house or
user databank, you should store the appropriate values for
THRSWT and TRNSWT in the databank, using the appropriate
equation number. Otherwise, the Aspen Physical Property System
will search for the parameters needed for the Aspen form of the
equations.
If a component is available in more than one databank, the Aspen
Physical Property System uses the data and equations based on the
databank list order on the Components Specifications Selection
sheet. For example, suppose the Aspen Physical Property System
cannot find the parameters for a particular submodel (equation) in
the ASPENPCD databank. If the PURE10 databank contains
parameters for another equation, the Aspen Physical Property
System will use that equation (most likely the DIPPR equation) to
calculate the property for that component.
If your calculation contains any temperature-dependent property
parameters, (such as CPIGDP for DIPPR ideal gas heat capacity,
entered on the Properties Parameters Pure Component form), the
Aspen Physical Property System sets THRSWT element 7 to 1 for
that component. This default setting might not always be correct. If
you know the equation number, you should enter it directly on the
Properties Parameters Pure-Components form. For example,
suppose you want to use the:
• DIPPR equation form of heat of vaporization (DHVLDP) for a
component
• Aspen equations for the remaining temperature dependent
properties
Set the fourth element of the THRSWT parameter to 106 (see the
table Pure Component Temperature-Dependent Properties, above),
and the 1-3 and 5-8 elements to 0. If you want to set the other
temperature-dependent properties to use what is defined for that
component in the databank, leave the element blank.
Many different equations are available for DIPPR to use for any
property of a component, although it is usually limited to two or
three. The following table lists the available DIPPR equations and
the corresponding equation (submodel) number.
Available DIPPR Equations
Equation
Number Equation Form
100 Y = A + BT + CT 2 + DT 3 + ET 4
101 Y = exp[ A + B / T + C ln T + DT E ]
102 ( )(
Y = AT B / 1 + C / T + D / T 2 )
103 Y = A + B exp− [C / TD ]
104 Y = A + B /T + C /T 3 + D /T 8 + E /T 9
105 Y = A / B (1+ (1−T / C ) )
D
106
Y = A(1 − Tr )
(B +CTr + DTr 2
+ ETr 3 )
107 Y = A + B[(C / T ) / SINH (C / T )] + D[( E / T ) / COSH (E / T )]
2 2
114 (
Y = A 2 / t + B − 2 ACt − ADt 2 − C 2t 3 / 3 − CDt 4 / 2 − D 2t 5 / 5 ) ( ) ( )
(2 / 3 )
116 Y = A + Bt 0.35
+ Ct + Dt + Et ( 4 / 3)
This chapter help describes the Aspen, DIPPR, BARIN, and IK-
CAPE equations for each property. For descriptions of the the
BARIN equations for heat capacity and enthalpy, see BARIN
Equations for Gibbs Energy, Enthalpy, Entrophy, and Heat
Capacity, this chapter.
The PPDS equations are available only to the customers who have
licensed the PPDS databank from NEL.
Thermodynamic Property Models
This section describes the available thermodynamic property
models in the Aspen Physical Property System. The following
table provides a list of available models, with corresponding Aspen
Physical Property System model names. The table provides phase
types for which the model can be used and information on use of
the model for pure components and mixtures.
Aspen Physical Property System thermodynamic property models
include classical thermodynamic property models, such as activity
coefficient models and equations of state, as well as solids and
electrolyte models. The models are grouped according to the type
of property they describe.
Thermodynamic Property Models
Equation-of-State Models
Property Model Model Name(s) Phase(s) Pure Mixture
ASME Steam Tables ESH2O0,ESH2O VL X —
BWR-Lee-Starling ESBWR0, ESCSTBWR VL X X
Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling ESBWRS, ESBWRS0 VL X X
Hayden-O'Connell ESHOC0,ESHOC V X X
HF equation-of-state ESHF0, ESHF V X X
Ideal Gas ESIG V X X
Lee-Kesler ESLK VL — X
Lee-Kesler-Plöcker ESLKP0,ESLKP VL X X
NBS/NRC Steam Tables ESSTEAM0,ESSTEAM VL X —
Nothnagel ESNTH0,ESNTH V X X
Peng-Robinson-Boston-Mathias ESPR0, ESPR VL X X
Peng-Robinson-Wong-Sandler ESPRWS0,ESPRWS VL X X
Peng-Robinson-MHV2 ESPRV20,ESPRV2 VL X X
Predictive SRK ESRKSV10, ESRKSV1 VL X X
Redlich-Kwong ESRK0, ESRK V X X
Redlich-Kwong-Aspen ESRKA0,ESRKA VL X X
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Boston- ESRKS0,ESRKS VL X X
Mathias
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Wong- ESRKSWS0, ESRKSWS V L X X
Sandler
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-MHV2 ESRKSV20, ESRKSV2 VL X X
Schwartzentruber-Renon ESRKU0,ESRKU VL X X
Soave-Redlich-Kwong ESSRK, ESSRK0 VL X X
Standard Peng-Robinson ESPRSTD0,ESPRSTD VL X X
Standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave ESRKSTD0,ESRKSTD VL X X
VPA/IK-CAPE equation-of-state ESVPA0, ESVPA V X X
Property Model Model Name(s) Phase(s) Pure Mixture
Peng-Robinson Alpha functions — VL X —
RK-Soave Alpha functions — VL X —
Huron-Vidal mixing rules — VL — X
MHV2 mixing rules — VL — X
PSRK mixing rules — VL — X
Wong-Sandler mixing rules — VL — X
Activity Coefficient Models
Property Model Model Name Phase(s) Pure Mixture
Bromley-Pitzer(Chien-Null) GMPT2 L — X
Chien-Null GMCHNULL L — X
Constant Activity Coefficient GMCONS S — X
Electrolyte NRTL GMELC L L1 L2 — X
Ideal Liquid GMIDL L — X
NRTL(Non-Random-Two-Liquid) GMRENON L L1 L2 — X
Pitzer GMPT1 L — X
Polynomial Activity Coefficient GMPOLY S — X
Redlich-Kister GMREDKIS LS — X
Scatchard-Hildebrand GMXSH L — X
Three-Suffix Margules GMMARGUL LS — X
UNIFAC GMUFAC L L1 L2 — X
UNIFAC (Lyngby modified) GMUFLBY L L1 L2 — X
UNIFAC (Dortmund modified) GMUFDMD L L1 L2 — X
UNIQUAC GMUQUAC L L1 L2 — X
van Laar GMVLAAR L — X
Wagner interaction parameter GMWIP S — X
Wilson GMWILSON L — X
Wilson model with liquid molar GMWSNVOL L — X
volume
Vapor Pressure and Liquid Fugacity Models
Extended Antoine/Wagner PL0XANT L L1 L2 X —
Chao-Seader PHL0CS L X —
Grayson-Streed PHL0GS L X —
Kent-Eisenberg ESAMIN L — X
Maxwell-Bonnell PL0MXBN L L1 L2 X —
Heat of Vaporization Models
Watson / DIPPR / IK-CAPE DHVLWTSN L X —
Clausius-Clapeyron Equation DHVLWTSN L X —
Molar Volume and Density Models
API Liquid Volume VL2API L — X
Brelvi-O'Connell VL1BROC L — X
Clarke Aqueous Electrolyte VAQCLK L — X
Volume
Costald Liquid Volume VL0CTD,VL2CTD L X X
Debije-Hückel Volume VAQDH L — X
Rackett / DIPPR / IK-CAPE Liquid VL0RKT,VL2RKT L X —
Volume
Rackett Mixture Liquid Volume VL2RKT L X X
Modified Rackett VL2MRK L X X
Solids Volume Polynomial VS0POLY S X —
Heat Capacity Models
Aqueous Infinite Dilution Heat — L — X
Capacity Polynomial
Criss-Cobble Aqueous Infinite — L — X
Dilution Ionic Heat Capacity
DIPPR / IK-CAPE Liquid Heat HL0DIP L X —
Capacity
Ideal Gas Heat Capacity / DIPPR — V X X
Solids Heat Capacity Polynomial HS0POLY S X —
Solubility Correlation Models
Henry's constant HENRY1 L — X
Water solubility — L — X
Other Models
Cavett Liquid Enthalpy Departure DHL0CVT, DHL2CVT L X X
BARIN Equations for Gibbs — SLV X —
Energy, Enthalpy, Entropy and
Heat Capacity
Electrolyte NRTL Enthalpy HAQELC, HMXELC L — X
Electrolyte NRTL Gibbs Energy GAQELC, GMXELC L — X
Liquid Enthalpy from Liquid Heat DHL0DIP L X X
Capacity Correlation
Enthalpies Based on Different DHL0HREF LV X X
Reference Status
Phases: V = Vapor; L = Liquid; S = Solid
An X indicates applicable to Pure or Mixture
Equation-of-State The Aspen Physical Property System has 20 built-in equation-of-
Models state property models. This section describes the equation-of-state
property models available.
Model Type
ASME Steam Tables Fundamental
BWR-Lee-Starling Virial
Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling Virial
Hayden-O’Connell Virial and association
HF Equation-of-State Ideal and association
Huron-Vidal mixing rules Mixing rules
Ideal Gas Ideal
Lee-Kesler Virial
Lee-Kesler-Plöcker Virial
MHV2 mixing rules Mixing rules
NBS/NRC Steam Tables Fundamental
Nothnagel Ideal
Peng-Robinson Alpha functions Alpha functions
Peng-Robinson-Boston-Mathias Cubic
Peng-Robinson-MHV2 Cubic
Peng-Robinson-Wong-Sandler Cubic
Predictive SRK Cubic
PSRK mixing rules Mixing rules
Redlich-Kwong Cubic
Redlich-Kwong-Aspen Cubic
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Boston-Mathias Cubic
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-MHV2 Cubic
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Wong-Sandler Cubic
RK-Soave Alpha functions Alpha functions
Schwartzentruber-Renon Cubic
Soave-Redlich-Kwong Cubic
Standard Peng-Robinson Cubic
Standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave Cubic
VPA/IK-CAPE equation-of-state Ideal and association
Wong-Sandler mixing rules Mixing rules
ASME Steam Tables The ASME steam tables (1967) are implemented like any other
equation-of-state in the Aspen Physical Property System. The
steam tables can calculate any thermodynamic property of water or
steam and form the basis of the STEAM-TA property method.
There are no parameter requirements. The ASME steam tables are
less accurate than the NBS/NRC steam tables.
ASME Steam Tables, Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of
Steam, (1967).
K. V. Moore, Aerojet Nuclear Company, prepared for the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commision, ASTEM - A Collection of FORTRAN
Subroutines to Evaluate the 1967 ASME equations of state for
water/steam and derivatives of these equations.
BWR-Lee-Starling The Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Lee-Starling equation-of-state is the
basis of the BWR-LS property method. It is a generalization by
Lee and Starling of the virial equation-of-state for pure fluids by
Benedict, Webb and Rubin. The equation is used for non-polar
components, and can manage hydrogen-containing systems.
General Form:
Zm = Zm( 0 ) + γZm(1)
Where:
Zm( 0 ) , Zm(1) = fcn(T , Tc , Vm , Vcm )
Mixing Rules:
Vcma = ∑ ∑ x i x jVcij*,a
i j
VcmbTc = ∑ ∑ x i x j TcijVcijb
i j
VcmbTc = ∑ ∑ x i x j γ ijVcijc
i j
Where:
a = b = 4.5 / 3; c = 35
. /5
Vcij = (1 − ε ij )3 (Vci*Vcj* )1/ 2
Tcij = (1 − nij )(Tci Tcj )1/ 2
γ ιϕ = ( γ i − γ j )1/ 2
Parameter Symbol Default MDS Lower Upper Units
Name/Element Limit Limit
TCBWR Tci TC X 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
VCBWR Vci* VC X 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
BWRGMA γi OMEGA X -0.5 3.0 —
BWRKV ε ij 0 X -5.0 1.0 —
BWRKT ηij 0 X -5.0 1.0 —
Binary interaction parameters BWRKV and BWRKT are available
in the Aspen Physical Property System for a large number of
components. (See Physical Property Data, Chapter 1).
References
M.R. Brulé, C.T. Lin, L.L. Lee, and K.E. Starling, AIChE J., Vol.
28, (1982) p. 616.
Brulé et al., Chem. Eng., (Nov., 1979) p. 155.
Watanasiri et al., AIChE J., Vol. 28, (1982) p. 626.
Benedict-Webb-Rubin- The Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling equation-of-state is the basis
Starling of the BWRS property method. It is a modification by Han and
Starling of the virial equation-of-state for pure fluids by Benedict,
Webb and Rubin. This equation-of-state can be used for
hydrocarbon systems that include the common light gases, such as
H 2S , CO 2 and N 2 .
The form of the equation-of-state is:

C0 D E d
P = ρ m RT + ( B0 RT − A0 − 2
+ 30 − 04 ) ρ m2 + (bRT − a − ) ρ m3
T T T T
d 6 cρ m3
+ α (a + ) ρ m + 2 (1 + γρ m2 ) exp (−γρ m2 )
T T
Where:
B0 = ∑x B
i
i 0i
1 1
A0 = ∑∑ xi xi A02i Aoj2 (1 −k ij )
i j
1 1
C0 = ∑∑ x x C
i j
i i
2
0i C (1 −k ij ) 3
2
oj
2
 1

γ = ∑ xi γ i2 
 i 
3
 1

b = ∑ xi bi3 
 i 
3
 1

a = ∑ xi ai3 
 i 
3
 1

α = ∑ xi α i3 
 i 
3
 1

c = ∑ xi ci3 
 i 
1 1
D0 = ∑∑ x x D
i j
i i
2
0i D (1 −k ij ) 4
2
oj
3
 1

d = ∑ xi d i3 
 i 
1 1
E0 = ∑∑ x x E
i j
i i
2
0i E (1 −k ij ) 5
2
oj
k ij = k ji
In the mixing rules given above, A0i , B0i , C0i , D0i , E0i , ai , bi , ci ,
di αi γ i
, , are pure component constants which can be input by the
user. If the values of these parameters are not given, the Aspen
Physical Property System will calculate them using the critical
temperature, the critical volume (or critical density), the acentric
factor and generalized correlations given by Han and Starling.
k
For best results, the binary parameter ij must be regressed using
phase-equilibrium data such as VLE data.
Name/ Limit Limit
Element
BWRSTC Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
BWRSVC Vci VC x 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
BWRSOM ωi OMEGA x –0.5 2.0 –
BWRSA/1 B0i fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – MOLE-VOLUME
BWRSA/2 A0i fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – PRESSURE * MOLE-VOL^2
BWRSA/3 C0i fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – PRESSURE * TEMPERATURE^2 *
MOLE-VOLUME^2
BWRSA/4 γi fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – MOLE-VOLUME^2
BWRSA/5 bi fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – MOLE-VOLUME^2
BWRSA/6 ai fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – PRESSURE * MOLE-VOL^3
BWRSA/7 αi fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – MOLE-VOLUME^3
BWRSA/8 ci fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – PRESSURE * TEMPERATURE^2 *
MOLE-VOLUME^3
BWRSA/9 D0i fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – PRESSURE * TEMPERATURE^3 *
MOLE-VOLUME^2
BWRSA/10 di fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – PRESSURE * TEMPERATURE *
MOLE-VOLUME^3
BWRSA/11 E0i fcn(ωi ,Vci , Tci ) x – – PRESSURE * TEMPERATURE^4 *
MOLE-VOLUME^2
Constants Used with the correlations of Han and Starling
Parameter Methane Ethane Propane n-Butane
B0i 0.723251 0.826059 0.964762 1.56588
A0i 7520.29 13439.30 18634.70 32544.70
2.71092 × 10 2.95195 × 10 7.96178 × 10 1.37436 × 10

C0i 8 9 9 10
1.07737 × 10 2.57477 × 10 4.53708 × 10 3.33159 × 10

D0i 10 11 11 11
3.01122 × 10 1.46819 × 10 2.56053 × 10 2.30902 × 10

E0i 10 13 13 12
bi 0.925404 3.112060 5.462480 9.140660
ai 2574.89 22404.50 40066.40 71181.80
1.50520 × 10 3.64238 × 10
di 47489.1 702189.0 7 7
αi 0.468828 0.909681 2.014020 4.009850
4.37222 × 10 6.81826 × 10 2.74461 × 10 7.00044 × 10

ci 8 9 10 10
γi 1.48640 2.99656 4.56182 7.54122
Parameter n-Pentane n-Hexane n-Heptane n-Octane
B0i 2.44417 2.66233 3.60493 4.86965
A0i 51108.20 45333.10 77826.90 81690.60
2.23931 × 10 5.26067 × 10 6.15662 × 10 9.96546 × 10

C0i 10 10 10 10
1.01769 × 10 5.52158 × 10 7.77123 × 10 7.90575 × 10

D0i 12 12 12 12
3.90860 × 10 6.26433 × 10 6.36251 × 10 3.46419 × 10

E0i 13 14 12 13
bi 16.607000 29.498300 27.441500 10.590700
ai 162185.00 434517.00 359087.00 131646.00
3.88521 × 10 3.27460 × 10 1.85906 × 10

di 7 7 8351150.0 8
αi 7.067020 9.702300 21.878200 34.512400
1.35286 × 10 3.18412 × 10 3.74876 × 10 6.42053 × 10

ci 11 11 11 11
γi 11.85930 14.87200 24.76040 21.98880

References
M. Benedict, G. B. Webb, and L. C. Rubin, J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 8,

(1940), p. 334.
M. S. Han, and K. E. Starling , "Thermo Data Refined for LPG.
Part 14: Mixtures", Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 51, No. 5,
(1972), p.129.
K. E. Starling, "Fluid Themodynamic Properties for Light
Petroleum Systems", Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas (1973).
Hayden-O’Connell The Hayden-O’Connell equation-of-state calculates
thermodynamic properties for the vapor phase. It is used in
property methods NRTL-HOC, UNIF-HOC, UNIQ-HOC, VANL-
HOC, and WILS-HOC, and is recommended for nonpolar, polar,
and associating compounds. Hayden-O’Connell incorporates the
chemical theory of dimerization. This model accounts for strong
association and solvation effects, including those found in systems
containing organic acids, such as acetic acid. The equation-of-state
is:
Bp
Zm = 1 +
RT
Where:
B=∑ ∑ x x B (T )
i j ij
i j
Bij = ( B free− nonpolar ) ij + ( B free− polar ) ij + ( Bmetastable ) ij + ( Bbound ) ij + ( Bchem ) ij

• For nonpolar, non-associating species:
B free− nonpolar = f I ( σ np , ε np , ω np , T )
, with
σ np = g1 (ω np , Tc , pc )
εnp = g2 (ωnp , Tc )
, where
ω np = f 2 (r gyr
)
• For polar, associating species:
B free− nonpolar = f 3 ( σ fp , ε fp , ω np , T )
, with
σ fp = g3 ( σ np , ω np , ξ )
ε fp = g 4 ( ε np , ω np , ξ )
, where
ξ = γ 5 ( σ np , ε np , ω np , p, T )
• For chemically bonding species:
Bmetastable + Bbound = f 4 ( σ c , ε c , p, T ) , and
Bchem = f 5 ( σ c , ε c , η, T )
σ c = g3 ( σ np , ω np , ξ )
ε c = g 6 ( ε np , ω np , ξ, η)
Cross-Interactions
The previous equations are valid for dimerization and cross-

dimerization if these mixing rules are applied:
1 1
ε = 0.7( ε i ε j )1/ 2 + 0.6 + 
 εi ε j 
σ = ( σ i σ j )1/ 2
1 1
ε = 0.7( ε i ε j )1/ 2 + 0.6 + 
 εi ε j 
σ = ( σ i σ j )1/ 2
(ω n , pi + ω n, pj )
ω np =
2
p = ( pi p j )1/ 2
η = 0 unless a special solvation contribution can be justified (for
example, i and j are in the same class of compounds). Many η
values are present in the Aspen Physical Property System.
Chemical Theory
When a compound with strong association ( η ≥ 4.5) is present in a

mixture, the entire mixture is treated according to the chemical
theory of dimerization.
The chemical reaction for the general case of a mixture of
dimerizing components i and j is:
K
ij
i + j = ij
Where i and j refer to the same component.
The equation-of-state becomes:
nc nc
 Bp  B=∑
pV
RT
= nt 1 +
 RT 

i =1
∑y
j =1
ij ( B free ) ij
with
In this case, molar volume is equal to:
V
nt
This represents true total volume over the true number of species
n t . However, the reported molar volume is:
V
na
This represents the true total volume over the apparent number of
a a
species n . If dimerization does not occur, n is defined as the
V
a
number of species. n reflects the apparently lower molar volume
of an associating gas mixture.
The chemical equilibrium constant for the dimerization reaction on
K
pressure basis p , is related to the true mole fractions and fugacity
coefficients:
y ij ϕ ij
= K ij p
yi y j ϕ i ϕ j
Where:
y i and y j = True mole fractions of monomers
y ij = True mole fraction of dimer

ϕi = True fugacity coefficient of component i
K ij = Equilibrium constant for the dimerization of i
and j, on a pressure basis
= − ( Bbound + Bmetastable + Bchem )ij ( 2 − δ ij ) / RT
δ ij = 1 for i=j
= 0 for i ≠ j
a
Apparent mole fractions y i are reported, but in the calculation real
y y
mole fractions y i , j , and ij are used.
The heat of reaction due to each dimerization is calculated
according to:
d ( ∆ r Gm ) d (ln K ij )
∆ r H m = −T 2 = RT 2
dT dT
The sum of the contributions of all dimerization reactions,
corrected for the ratio of apparent and true number of moles is
ν
added to the molar enthalpy departure H m − H m .
ig
Parameter Name/ Symbol Default MDS Lower Upper Units
Element Limit Limit
TC Tci — — 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PC p ci — — 10 5 108 PRESSURE
RGYR ri gyr — — 10 −11 5 x 10 −9 LENGTH
MUP pi — — 0.0 5 x 10 −24 DIPOLEMOMENT
HOCETA η 0.0 X — — —
The binary parameters HOCETA for many component pairs are
available in the Aspen Physical Property System. These parameters
are retrieved automatically when you specify any of the following
property methods: NRTL-HOC, UNIF-HOC, UNIQ-HOC, VANL-
HOC, and WILS-HOC.
References
J.G. Hayden and J.P. O’Connell, "A Generalized Method for

Predicting Second Virial Coefficients," Ind. Eng. Chem., Process
Des. Dev., Vol. 14,No. 3, (1974), pp. 209 – 216.
HF Equation-of-State HF forms oligomers in the vapor phase. The non-ideality in the
vapor phase is found in important deviations from ideality in all
thermodynamic properties. The HF equation accounts for the vapor
phase nonidealities. The model is based on chemical theory and
assumes the formation of hexamers.
Species like HF that associate linearly behave as single species.
For example, they have a vapor pressure curve, like pure
components. The component on which a hypothetical unreacted
system is based is often called the apparent (or parent) component.
Apparent components react to the true species. Electrolyte
Calculation, Chapter 5, discusses apparent and true species. Abbott
and van Ness (1992) provide details and basic thermodynamics of
reactive systems.
The temperature-dependent hexamerization equilibrium constant,
can fit the experimentally determined association factors. The
built-in functionality is:
C1 (1)
10
log K = C0 + + C2 ln T + C3T
T
The constants C0 and C1 are from Long et al. (1943), and C2 and
C3 are set to 0. The correlation is valid between 270 and 330 K,
and can be extrapolated to about 370 K (cf. sec. 4). Different sets
of constants can be determined by experimental data regression.
Molar Volume Calculation
The non-ideality of HF is often expressed using the association

factor, f, indicating the ratio of apparent number of species to the
real number or species. Assuming the ideal gas law for all true
species in terms of (p, V, T) behavior implies:
 1 (2)
pVm =   RT
f
1
Where the true number of species is given by f . The association
factor is easily determined from (p, V, T) experiments. For a
critical evaluation of data refer to Vanderzee and Rodenburg
(1970).
If only one reaction is assumed for a mixture of HF and its
associated species, (refer to Long et al., 1943), then:
6 HF ↔ ( HF ) 6 (3)
If p1 represents the true partial pressure of the HF monomer, and

p6 represents the true partial pressure of the hexamer, then the
equilibrium constant is defined as:
p6 (4)
K=
( p1 ) 6
The true total pressure is:
p = p1 + p6 (5)
If all hexamer were dissociated, the apparent total pressure would
be the hypothetical pressure where:
p a = p1 + 6 p6 = p + 5 p6 (6)
When physical ideality is assumed, partial pressures and mole
fractions are proportional. The total pressure in equation 5
represents the true number of species. The apparent total pressure
from equation 6 represents the apparent number of species:
pa p + 6 p6 p + 5 p6 (7)
f = = 1 = = 1 + 5 y6
p p1 + p6 p
Note that the outcome of equation 7 is independent of the
assumption of ideality. Equation 7 can be used to compute the
1
number of true species f for a mixture containing HF, but the
association factor is defined differently.
If p1 and p6 are known, the molar volume or density of a vapor
containing HF can be calculated using equations 2 and 7. The
molar volume calculated is the true molar volume for 1 apparent
mole of HF. This is because the volume of 1 mole of ideal gas (the
true molar volume per true number of moles) is always equal to
about 0.0224 m3/mol at 298.15 K.
True Mole Fraction (Partial Pressure) Calculation
If you assume the ideal gas law for a mixture containing HF, the
apparent HF mole fraction is:
p1a p + 6 p6 (8)
y = a = 1
a
p p + 5 p6
The denominator of equation 8 is given by equation 6. The
numerator (the apparent partial pressure of HF) is the hypothetical
partial pressure only if all of the hexamer was dissociated. If you
substitute equation 4, then equation 8 becomes:
p1 + 6 K ( p1 ) 6 (9)
ya =
p + 5 K ( p1 ) 6
K is known from Long et al., or can be regressed from (p,V,T)
a
data. The apparent mole fraction of HF, y , is known to the user
and the simulator, but
p
y= 1
p1 , or p must also be known in order to calculate the
thermodynamic properties of the mixture. Equation 9 must be
solved for. p1
Equation 9 can be written as a polynomial in p1 of degree 6:

K ( 6 − 5 y a )( p1 )6 + p1 − py a = 0 (9a)
A second order Newton-Raphson technique is used to determine
p1 . Then p6 can be calculated by equation 5, and f is known
(equation 7).
Gibbs Energy and Fugacity
The apparent fugacity coefficient is related to the true fugacity

coefficient and mole fractions:
 y  (10)
ln ϕ ai = ln ϕ i = ln  1a 
y 
Equation 10 represents a correction to the ideal mixing term of the
fugacity. The ratio of the true number of species to the apparent
number of species is similar to the correction applied in equation 2.
Since the ideal gas law is assumed, the apparent fugacity
coefficient is given by the equation. All variables on the right side
are known.
y1 p (11)
ϕ ai = a
= 1a
y py
For pure HF, y = 1:

a
ln ϕ *,i a = ln y1
From the fugacity coefficient, the Gibbs energy departure of the
mixture or pure apparent components can be calculated:
p (12)
G − G ig = RT ∑ ln ϕ ai + RT ln
i p ref
p (12a)
µ − µ *,ig = RT ln ϕ *,i a + RT ln
p ref
Enthalpy and Entropy
For the enthalpy departure, the heat of reaction is considered. For

an arbitrary gas phase reaction:
v A A + v B B = v C C + vDD (13)
pCv c pDvD (14)
RT ln K = RT ln
p Av A pBv B
Where µ i is the pure component thermodynamic potential or

*
molar Gibbs energy of a component. Equation 4 represents the first

two terms of the general equation 14. The second or third equality
relates the equilibrium constant to the Gibbs energy of reaction,
which is thus related to the enthalpy of reaction:
d∆ r G m ∂(ln K ) (15)
∆ r H m = −T 2 = RT 2
dT ∂T
All components are assumed to be ideal. The enthalpy departure is
equal to the heat of reaction, per apparent number of moles:
1 (16)
H m − H mig = ∆r Hm
f
1 (17)
*
H HF − H HF
*,ig
= ∆r Hm
f
From the Gibbs energy departure and enthalpy departure, the
entropy departure can be calculated:
Gm = H m − TS m (18)
Temperature derivatives for the thermodynamic properties can be
obtained by straightforward differentiation.
Usage
The HF equation-of-state should only be used for vapor phase

calculations. It is not suited for liquid phase calculations.
The HF equation-of-state can be used with any activity coefficient
model for nonelectrolyte VLE. Using the Electrolyte NRTL model
and the data package MHF2 is strongly recommended for aqueous
mixtures (de Leeuw and Watanasiri, 1993).
ESHFK/1 C0 43.65 — — — —
ESHFK/2 C1 -8910 — — — —
ESHFK/3 C2 0 — — — —
ESHFK/4 C3 0 — — — —
M. M. Abbott and H. C. van Ness, "Thermodynamics of Solutions

Containing Reactive Species, a Guide to Fundamentals and
Applications," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 77, (1992) pp. 53 – 119.
V. V. De Leeuw and S. Watanasiri, "Modelling Phase Equilibria
and Enthalpies of the System Water and Hydroflouric Acid Using
an HF Equation-of-state in Conjunction with the Electrolyte NRTL
Activity Coefficient Model," Paper presented at the 13th European
Seminar on Applied Thermodynamics, June 9 – 12, Carry-le-
Rouet, France, 1993.
R. W. Long, J. H. Hildebrand, and W. E. Morrell, "The
Polymerization of Gaseous Hydrogen and Deuterium Flourides," J.
Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 65, (1943), pp. 182 – 187.
C. E. Vanderzee and W. WM. Rodenburg, "Gas Imperfections and
Thermodynamic Excess Properties of Gaseous Hydrogen
Flouride," J. Chem. Thermodynamics, Vol. 2, (1970), pp. 461 –
478.
Ideal Gas The ideal gas law (ideal gas equation-of-state) combines the laws
of Boyle and Gay-Lussac. It models a vapor as if it consisted of
point masses without any interactions. The ideal gas law is used as
a reference state for equation-of-state calculations, and can be used
to model gas mixtures at low pressures (without specific gas phase
interactions).
The equation is:
RT
p=
Vm
Lee-Kesler This equation-of-state model is based on the work of Lee and
Kesler (1975). In this equation, the volumetric and thermodynamic
properties of fluids based on the Curl and Pitzer approach (1958)
have been analytically represented by a modified Benedict-Webb-
Rubin equation-of-state (1940). The model calculates the molar
volume, enthalpy departure, Gibbs free energy departure, and
entropy departure of a mixture at a given temperature, pressure,
and composition for either a vapor or a liquid phase. Partial
derivatives of these quantities with respect to temperature can also
be calculated.
Unlike the other equation-of-state models, this model does not
calculate fugacity coefficients.
The compressibility factor and other derived thermodynamic
functions of nonpolar and slightly polar fluids can be adequately
represented, at constant reduced temperature and pressure, by a
linear function of the acentric factor. In particular, the
compressibility factor of a fluid whose acentric factor is ω , is
given by the following equation:
Z = Z ( 0 ) + ωZ (1)
Where:
Z ( 0) = Compressibility factor of a simple fluid (ω = 0 )
Z (1) = Deviation of the compressibility factor of the real fluid
( 0)
from Z
Z ( 0 ) and Z (1) are assumed universal functions of the reduced
temperature and pressure.
Curl and Pitzer (1958) were quite successful in correlating
thermodynamic and volumetric properties using the above
approach. Their application employed tables of properties in terms
of reduced temperature and pressure. A significant weakness of
this method is that the various properties (for example, entropy
departure and enthalpy departure) will not be exactly
thermodynamically consistent with each other. Lee and Kesler
(1975) overcame this drawback by an analytic representation of the
tables with an equation-of-state. In addition, the range was
extended by including new data.
In the Lee-Kesler implementation, the compressibility factor of
any fluid has been written in terms of a simple fluid and a
reference as follows:
Z = Z ( 0) + ( Z ( r ) − Z ( 0 ) ) ω ω( r )
( 0) (1)
In the above equation both Z and Z are represented as
generalized equations of the BWR form in terms of reduced
temperature and pressure. Thus,
Z ( 0 ) = f ( 0 ) ( T Tc , P Pc )
Z ( r ) = f ( r ) ( T Tc , P Pc )
Equations for the enthalpy departure, Gibbs free energy departure,
and entropy departure are obtained from the compressibility factor
using standard thermodynamic relationships, thus ensuring
thermodynamic consistency.
In the case of mixtures, mixing rules (without any binary
parameters) are used to obtain the mixture values of the critical
temperature and pressure, and the acentric factor.
This equation has been found to provide a good description of the
volumetric and thermodynamic properties of mixtures containing
nonpolar and slightly polar components.
Symbol Parameter Name Default Definition
Tc TCLK TC Critical temperature
Pc PCLK PC Critical pressure
ω OMGLK OMEGA Acentric factor
B. I. Lee and M.G. Kesler, AIChEJ, Vol. 21, (1975), p. 510.
R. F. Curl and K.S. Pitzer, Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 50, (1958), p.
265.
M. Benedict, G. B. Webb, and L. C. Rubin, J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 8,
(1940), p. 334.
Lee-Kesler-Plöcker The Lee-Kesler-Plöcker equation-of-state is the basis for the LK-
PLOCK property method. This equation-of-state applies to
hydrocarbon systems that include the common light gases, such as
H2 S and CO2 . It can be used in gas-processing, refinery, and
petrochemical applications.
The general form of the equation is:
ω
Z m = Z mo + ( Z mo − Z mR )
ωR
Where:
Z mo = f o (T , Tc , Vm , Vcm )
Z mR = f R (T , Tc , Vm , Vcm )
The f o and f R parameters are functions of the BWR form. The f o
parameter is for a simple fluid, and f R is for reference fluid n-
octane.
pc = Zcm RTc / Vcm
The mixing rules are:
Vcm = ∑ ∑ i j
x i x jVcij
= ∑ ∑
1 1
Vcm4 Tc i j
x i x jVcij4 Tcij
ω = ∑xω i i
i
Zm = ∑x Z i ci
i
Where:
[ ]
3
Vcij = Vci 3 + Vcj 3
1 1 8
Tcij = (1 + k ij )(Tci Tcj )

1
2
Zci = 0.2905 − 0.085ω i  ( Method 1)

 pciVci 
 RTci  ( Method 2)
kij = k ji
k
The binary parameter ij is determined from phase-equilibrium
data regression, such as VLE data. The Aspen Physical Property
System stores the binary parameters for a large number of
component pairs. These binary parameters are used automatically
with the LK-PLOCK property method. If binary parameters for
certain component pairs are not available, they can be estimated
using built-in correlations. The correlations are designed for binary
interactions among the components CO, CO2 , N 2 , H 2 , CH 4
alcohols and hydrocarbons. If a component is not
CO, CO2 , N 2 , H 2 , CH 4 or an alcohol, it is assumed to be a
hydrocarbon.
Name/ Limit Limit
Element
TCLKP Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCLKP pci PC x 105 108 PRESSURE
VCLKP Vci VC x 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
OMGLKP ωI OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
LKPZC Zci fcn(ω ) x 0.1 0.5 —
(Method 1)
fcn( pci ,Vci , Tci )
(Method 2)
LKPKIJ kij fcn(TciVci / TcjVcj ) x 5.0 5.0 —
Method 1 is the default; Method 2 can be invoked by setting the

value of LKPZC equal to zero.
Binary interaction parameters LKPKIJ are available for a large
number of components in the Aspen Physical Property System.
References
B.I. Lee and M.G. Kesler, AIChE J., Vol. 21, (1975) p. 510; errata:
AIChE J., Vol. 21, (1975) p. 1040.
V. Plöcker, H. Knapp, and J.M. Prausnitz, Ind. Eng. Chem.,
Process Des. Dev., Vol. 17, (1978), p. 324.
NBS/NRC Steam Tables The NBS/NRC Steam Tables are implemented like any other
equation-of-state in the Aspen Physical Property System. These
steam tables can calculate any thermodynamic property of water.
The tables form the basis of the STEAMNBS and STMNBS2
property methods. There are no parameter requirements. They are
the most accurate steam tables in the Aspen Physical Property
System. The STMNBS2 model uses the same equations as
STEAMNBS but with different root search method. The
STMNBS2 method is recommended for use with the SRK, BWRS,
MXBONNEL and GRAYSON2 property methods.
References
L. Haar, J.S. Gallagher, and J.H. Kell, "NBS/NRC Steam Tables,"

(Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1984).
Nothnagel The Nothnagel equation-of-state calculates thermodynamic
properties for the vapor phase. It is used in property methods
NRTL-NTH, UNIQ-NTH, VANL-NTH, and WILS-NTH. It is
recommended for systems that exhibit strong vapor phase
association. The model incorporates the chemical theory of
dimerization to account for strong association and solvation
effects, such as those found in organic acids, like acetic acid. The
equation-of-state is:
RT
p=
Vm − b
Where:
b = nc nc i
∑ y b + ∑∑ y b
i =1
i i
i =1 j =1
ij ij
bij = ( bi
1 3
+ b j )3
1 3
8
nc = Number of components in the mixture
The chemical reaction for the general case of a mixture of
dimerizing components i and j is:
K
i + j = ij
The chemical equilibrium constant for the dimerization reaction on
K
pressure basis p is related to the true mole fractions and fugacity
coefficients:
y ij ϕ ij
= K ij p
yi y j ϕ i ϕ j
Where:
y i and y j = True mole fractions of monomers
y ij = True mole fraction of dimer

ϕi = True fugacity coefficient of component i
K ij = Equilibrium constant for the dimerization of i
and j, on a pressure basis
When accounting for chemical reactions, the number of true
V 
 t
 
species n in the mixture changes. The true molar volume n is
t
t
calculated from the equation-of-state. Since both V and n change
in about the same proportion, this number does not change much.
However, the reported molar volume is the total volume over the
V
a
apparent number of species: n . Since the apparent number of
species is constant and the total volume decreases with association,
V
a
the quantity n reflects the apparent contraction in an associating
mixture.
The heat of reaction due to each dimerization can be calculated:
d ( ∆ r Gm ) d (ln K ij )
∆ r H m = −T 2 = RT 2
dT dT
The sum of the contributions of all dimerization reactions,
corrected for the ratio of apparent and true number of moles, is
added to the molar enthalpy departure:
( H mv − H mig )
The equilibrium constants can be computed using either built-in
calculations or parameters you entered.
• Built-in correlations:
ln( RTK IJ ) = fcn(T , bi , b j , d i , d j , pi , p j )
The pure component parameters b, d, and p are stored in the
Aspen Physical Property System for many components.
Parameters you entered:
B
ln K ii = A i + i T + Ci ln T + DT
i
In this method, you enter Ai Bi , Ci , and Di on the Properties

Parameters Unary.T-Dependent form. The units for K ii is
pressure −1 ; use absolute units for temperature. If you enter K ii and
K jj , then K jj is computed from
K ij = 2 K ii K jj
If you enter Ai Bi , Ci , and Di , the equilibrium constants are
computed using the parameters you entered. Otherwise the
equilibrium constants are computed using built-in correlations.
Parameter Symbol Default Lower Limit Upper Limit Units
Name/Element
TC Tci — 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
TB Tbi — 4.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PC p ci — 105 108 PRESSURE
NTHA/1 bi 0.199 RTci / pci 0.01 1.0 MOLE-VOLUME
NTHA/2 di 0.33 0.01 3.0 —
NTHA/3 pi 0 0.0 1.0 —
NTHK/1 Ai — — — PRESSURE
NTHK/2 Bi 0 — — TEMPERATURE
NTHK/3 Ci 0 — — TEMPERATURE
NTHK/4 Di 0 — — TEMPERATURE
References
K.-H. Nothnagel, D. S. Abrams, and J.M. Prausnitz, "Generalized

Correlation for Fugacity Coefficients in Mixtures at Moderate
Pressures," Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Dev., Vol. 12, No. 1
(1973), pp. 25 – 35.
Peng-Robinson-Boston- The Peng-Robinson-Boston-Mathias equation-of-state is the basis
Mathias for the PR-BM property method. It is the Peng-Robinson equation-
of-state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function (see Peng-
Robinson Alpha Functions). It is recommended for hydrocarbon
processing applications such as gas processing, refinery, and
petrochemical processes. Its results are comparable to those of the
Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation-of-state.
The equation for the BM model is:
p = RT a
−
V m − b V m (V m + b) + b(V m − b)
Where:
b = ∑x b i i
i
a = ∑∑ x x
i j
i j ( a i a j ) 0.5 (1 − k ij )
bi = fcn(Tci , pci )
ai = fcn(T , Tci , pci , ω i )
kij = k ji
The parameter α i is calculated by the standard Peng-Robinson
formulation at supercritical temperatures. If the component is
supercritical, the Boston-Mathias extrapolation is used (see Peng-
Robinson Alpha Functions).
k
For best results, the binary parameter ij must be determined from
phase equilibrium data regression, (for example, VLE data).
Parameter Symbol Default MDS Lower Upper Limit Units
Name/Element Limit
TCPR Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCPR pci PC x 105 108 PRESSURE
OMGPR ωi OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
PRKIJ kij 0 x -5.0 5.0 —
Binary interaction parameters PRKIJ are available for a large

References
D.-Y. Peng and D. B. Robinson, "A New Two-Constant Equation-

of-state," Ind Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, (1976), pp. 59–64.
Peng-Robinson-MHV2 This model uses the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state for pure
compounds. The mixing rules are the predictive MHV2 rules.
Several alpha functions can be used in the Peng-Robinson-MHV2
equation-of-state model. For a more accurate description of the
pure component behavior. The pure component behavior and
parameter requirements are described in Standard Peng-Robinson,
or in Peng-Robinson Alpha Functions.
The MHV2 mixing rules are an example of modified Huron-Vidal
mixing rules. A brief introduction is provided in Huron-Vidal
Mixing Rules. For more details, see MHV2 Mixing Rules., this
chapter.
Predictive SRK (PSRK) This model uses the Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation-of-state for
pure compounds. The mixing rules are the predictive Holderbaum
rules, or PSRK method. Several alpha functions can be used in the
PSRK equation-of-state model. For a more accurate description of
the pure component behavior. The pure component behavior and
parameter requirements are described in Standard Redlich-Kwong-
Soave and in Soave Alpha Functions.
The PSRK method is an example of modified Huron-Vidal mixing
rules. A brief introduction is provided in Huron-Vidal Mixing
Rules. For more details, see Predictive Soave-Redlich-Kwong-
Gmehling Mixing Rules., this chapter.
Peng-Robinson-Wong- This model uses the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state for pure
Sandler compounds. The mixing rules are the predictive Wong-Sandler
rules. Several alpha functions can be used in the Peng-Robinson-
Wong-Sandler equation-of-state model. For a more accurate
description of the pure component behavior. The pure component
behavior and parameter requirements are described in Peng-
Robinson, and in Peng-Robinson Alpha Functions.
The Wong-Sandler mixing rules are an example of modified
Huron-Vidal mixing rules. A brief introduction is provided in
Huron-Vidal Mixing Rules. For more details see Wong-Sandler
Mixing Rules., this chapter.
Redlich-Kwong The Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state can calculate vapor phase
thermodynamic properties for the following property methods:
NRTL-RK, UNIFAC, UNIF-LL, UNIQ-RK, VANL-RK, and
WILS-RK. It is applicable for systems at low to moderate
pressures (maximum pressure 10 atm) for which the vapor-phase
nonideality is small. The Hayden-O’Connell model is
recommended for a more nonideal vapor phase, such as in systems
containing organic acids. It is not recommended for calculating
liquid phase properties.
The equation for the model is:
p = a 0.5
RT T
−
Vm − b Vm (Vm + b)
Where:
a = ∑x i ai
i
b = ∑x b i i
i
ai = 0.42748023 R 2Tci1.5
pci
bi = 0.08664035 RTci
pci

Name/Element Limit
PC pci — — 10 5
10 8
PRESSURE
References
O. Redlich and J.N.S. Kwong, "On the Thermodynamics of

Solutions V. An Equation-of-state. Fugacities of Gaseous
Solutions," Chem. Rev., Vol. 44, (1979), pp. 223 – 244.
Redlich-Kwong-Aspen The Redlich-Kwong-Aspen equation-of-state is the basis for the
RK-ASPEN property method. It can be used for hydrocarbon
processing applications. It is also used for more polar components
and mixtures of hydrocarbons, and for light gases at medium to
high pressures.
The equation is the same as Redlich-Kwong-Soave:
p = RT a
−
A quadratic mixing rule is maintained for:
a = ∑∑x x
i j
i j ( a i a j ) 0.5 (1 − k a ,ij )
An interaction parameter is introduced in the mixing rule for:

b = (bi + b j )
∑∑ xi x j 2
(1 − kb,ij )
i j
For ai an extra polar parameter is used:

ai = fcn(T , Tci , pci , ω i , ηi )
The interaction parameters are temperature-dependent:
ka ,ij = T
ka0,ij + k a1,ij
1000
kb,ij = T
kb0,ij + k b1,ij
1000
k
For best results, binary parameters ij must be determined from
phase-equilibrium data regression, such as VLE data.
Name/Element Limit
TCRKA Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKA pci PC x 105 108 PRESSURE
OMGRKA ωi OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
RKAPOL ηi 0 x -2.0 2.0 —
RKAKA0 ka0, ij 0 x -5.0 5.0 —
RKAKA1 ka1,ij 0 x -15.0 15.0 TEMPERATURE
RKAKB0 kb0,ij 0 x -5.0 5.0 —
RKAKB1 kb1,ij 0 x -15.0 15.0 TEMPERATURE
Absolute temperature units are assumed for RKAKA1 and

RKAKB1.
References
Mathias, P.M., "A Versatile Phase Equilibrium Equation-of-state",

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 22, (1983), pp. 385 –
391.
Redlich-Kwong-Soave- The Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Boston-Mathias equation-of-state is
Boston-Mathias the basis for the RKS-BM property method. It is the Redlich-
Kwong-Soave equation-of-state with the Boston-Mathias alpha
function (see Soave Alpha Functions). It is recommended for
hydrocarbon processing applications, such as gas-processing,
refinery, and petrochemical processes. Its results are comparable to
those of the Peng-Robinson-Boston-Mathias equation-of-state.
The equation is:
p = RT a
−
Where:
a = ∑ ∑ x x (a a
i j
i j i j )0.5 (1 − kij )
b = ∑x b i i
i

kij = k ji
The parameter ai is calculated by the standard Soave formulation
at supercritical temperatures. If the component is supercritical, the
Boston-Mathias extrapolation is used (see Soave Alpha Functions).
k
phase-equilibrium data regression (for example, VLE data).
Name/Element Limit
TCRKS Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKS pci PC x 105 108 PRESSURE
OMGRKS ωi OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
RKSKIJ kij 0 x -5.0 5.0 —
Binary interaction parameters RKSKIJ are available for a large

References
G. Soave, "Equilibrium Constants for Modified Redlich-Kwong

Equation-of-state," Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, (1972), pp. 1196 –
1203.
Redlich-Kwong-Soave- This equation-of-state model uses the Redlich-Kwong-Soave
Wong-Sandler equation-of-state for pure compounds. The predictive Wong-
Sandler mixing rules are used. Several alpha functions can be used
in the Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Wong-Sandler equation-of-state
model for a more accurate description of the pure component
behavior. The pure component behavior and parameter
requirements are described in Standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave,
and in Soave Alpha Functions.
The Wong-Sandler mixing rules are an example of modified
Huron-Vidal mixing rules. A brief introduction is provided in
Huron-Vidal Mixing Rules. For more details, see Wong-Sandler
Mixing Rules., this chapter.
Redlich-Kwong-Soave- This equation-of-state model uses the Redlich-Kwong-Soave
MHV2 equation-of-state for pure compounds. The predictive MHV2
mixing rules are used. Several alpha functions can be used in the
RK-Soave-MHV2 equation-of-state model. For a more accurate
description of the pure component behavior. The pure component
behavior and its parameter requirements are described in Standard
Redlich-Kwong-Soave, and in Soave Alpha Functions.
The MHV2 mixing rules are an example of modified Huron-Vidal
mixing rules. A brief introduction is provided in Huron-Vidal
Mixing Rules. For more details, see MHV2 Mixing Rules., this
chapter.
Schwartzentruber-Renon The Schwartzentruber-Renon equation-of-state is the basis for the
SR-POLAR property method. It can be used to model chemically
nonideal systems with the same accuracy as activity coefficient
property methods, such as the WILSON property method. This
equation-of-state is recommended for highly non-ideal systems at
high temperatures and pressures, such as in methanol synthesis and
supercritical extraction applications.
The equation for the model is:
p = RT a
−
V M + c − b (Vm + c )(Vm + c + b )
Where:
a = ∑ ∑ x x (a a
i j
i j i j )0.5 [1 − ka ,ij − lij ( x i − x j )]
b = bi + b j
∑∑ x x i j
2
(1 − kb,ij )
i j
c = ∑x c i i i
ai = fcn(T , Tci , pci , ω i , q0i , q1i , q2i )

ci = T 
fcn , c0i , c1i , c2i 
 Tci 
ka ,ij = ka0,ij + ka1,ij T + ka2,ij T
lij = lij0 + lij1 T + lij2 T

kb,ij = kb0,ij + kb1,ij T + kb2,ij T
ka ,ij = ka , ji
lij = −l ji
kb,ij = kb, ji
ka ,ij kb,ij l
The binary parameters , , and ij are temperature-
k0 l0
dependent. In most cases, a ,ij and ij are sufficient to represent the
system of interest.
VLE calculations are independent of c. However, c does influence
the fugacity values and can be adjusted to (liquid) molar volumes.
For a wide temperature range, adjust cio to the molar volume at
298.15K or at boiling temperature.
Name/Element Limit
TCRKU Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKU p ci PC x 105 108 PRESSURE
OMGRKU ωi OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
RKUPP0 q0 i — x — — —
RKUPP1 q1i 0 x — — —
RKUPP2 q2 i 0 x — — —
RKUC0 c0 i 0 x — — —
RKUC1 c1i 0 x — — —
RKUC2 c2 i 0 x — — —
RKUKA0 ka0, ij 0 x — — —
RKUKA1 ka1,ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
RKUKA2 ka2,ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
RKULA0 lij0 0 x — — —
RKULA1 lij1 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
RKULA2 lij2 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
RKUKB0 kb0,ij 0 x — — —
RKUKB1 kb1,ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
RKUKB2 kb2,ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
For polar components (dipole moment >> 0), if you do not enter
q0 i , the system estimates q0 i , q1i , q2 i from vapor pressures using
the Antoine vapor pressure model.
k0 k2
If you do not enter at least one of the binary parameters a , ij , a ,ij ,
lij0 lij2 kb0,ij k2 k0 k2 l0 l2
, , , or b,ij the system estimates a , ij , a ,ij , ij , and ij from
the UNIFAC model.
Absolute temperature units are assumed for RKUKA2, RKULA2,
and RKUKB2.
References

Equation-of-state," Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, (1972), pp. 1196 -
1203.
Pressures and Temperatures by the Use of a Cubic Equation-of-
State," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 28, (1989), pp. 1049 – 1955.
A. Peneloux, E. Rauzy, and R. Freze, "A Consistent Correction For
Redlich-Kwong-Soave Volumes", Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 8, (1982),
pp. 7–23.
Soave-Redlich-Kwong The Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state is the basis of the
SRK property method. This model is based on the same equation
of state as the Redlich-Kwong-Soave model. However, this model
has several important differences.
• A volume translation concept introduced by Peneloux and
Rauzy is used to improve molar liquid volume calculated from
the cubic equation of state.
• Improvement in phase equilibrium calculations for mixtures
containing water and hydrocarbons is achieved by using the
Kabadi-Danner modification for the mixing rules.
• Improvement in enthalpy of water is achieved by using the
NBS Steam Table
• Improvement in speed of computation for equation based
calculation is achieved by using composition independent
fugacity.
This equation-of-state can be used for hydrocarbon systems that
include the common light gases, such as H 2S , CO 2 and N 2 .
The form of the equation-of-state is:
RT a
p = −
Vm + c − b (Vm + c) (Vm + c + b)
Where:
a= ∑∑ x x a
i j
i i ij + ∑ a wi
i
’’
x w2 xi
aij = a ji ; aij = (ai a j ) 0.5 (1 − k ij )
k ij = a ij + bij T k ij = k ji
;
aij = a wj
’
If the Kabadi – Danner option is used, then , where i is
water and j is a hydrocarbon.
’
a wj = (a w a j )1 / 2 (1 − k wj )
k
The best values of wj were obtained from experimental data.
Results are given for seven homologous series(see table 1).
∑a ’’
wi x w2 xi
The term i is used only when the Kabadi – Danner
option is enabled, where:
  T  0.80 
a ’’
wi = Gi 1 −   
  Tcw  
Gi
is the sum of the group contributions of different groups which
make up a molecule of hydrocarbon i.
Gi = ∑g l
gl
is the group contribution parameter for groups constituting
hydrocarbons(see table 2).
b= ∑x b
i
i i
c= ∑x c
i
i i
a i = f (T , Tci , Pci , ω i )
bi = f (T , Tci , Pci )
ci = 0.40768 ( )(0.29441 − z
RTci
Pci RAi )
kij
For best results, the binary parameter must be regressed using
phase-equilibrium data such as VLE.
This model is very flexible and has many options that you can
select as described in the following table:
Option Code Value Description
1 0 Standard SRK alpha function for Tr < 1, Boston-Mathias alpha function
for Tr > 1
1 Standard SRK alpha function for all
2 Grabovsky – Daubert alpha function for H2 and standard SRK alpha
function for others (default)
2 0 Standard SRK mixing rules (default)
1 Kabadi – Danner mixing rules
3 0 Do not calculate enthalpy of water from steam table
1 Calculate enthalpy of water from steam table (default)
4 0 Do not apply the Peneloux liquid volume correction
1 Apply the liquid volume correction (default)
5 0 Use analytical method for root finding (default)
2 Use numerical method for root finding
k wj
Best Fit Values of for Different Homologous Series with Water
Homologous series k wj
Alkanes 0.500
Alkenes 0.393
Dialkenes 0.311
Acetylenes 0.348
Naphthenes 0.445
Cycloalkenes 0.355
Aromatics 0.315
Group Constituting Hydrocarbons and Their Group Contribution
Parameters
Group l g l , atm m 6 × 105
CH4 1.3580
– CH3 0.9822
– CH2 – 1.0780
> CH – 0.9728
>C< 0.8687
– CH2 – (cyclic) 0.7488
> CH – (cyclic) 0.7352
– CH = CH – (cyclic) † 0.6180
CH2 = CH2 1.7940
CH2 = CH – 1.3450
CH2 = C< 0.9066
CH ≡ CH 1.6870
CH ≡ C – 1.1811
– CH = 0.5117
> C = (aromatic) 0.3902
† This value is obtained from very little data. Might not be reliable.
Name/ Limit Limit
Element
SRKTC Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
SRKPC pci PC x 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
SRKOMG ωi OMEGA x –0.5 2.0 —
SRKWF Gi 0 x — — —
SRKWK k wi 0 x — — —
SRKZRA z RA RKTZRA x — — —
SRKAIJ aij 0 x — — —
SRKBIJ bij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
References

Equation-of-state," Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, (1972), pp. 1196 -
1203.
pp. 7–23.
V. Kabadi, and R. P. Danner, "A Modified Soave-Redlich-Kwong
Equation of State for Water-Hydrocarbon Phase Equilibria", Ind.
Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 24, No. 3, (1985), pp. 537-
541.
Standard Peng-Robinson The Standard Peng-Robinson equation-of-state is the basis for the
PENG-ROB property method. It is the Peng-Robinson equation-of-
state with the Boston-Mathias alpha function (see Peng-Robinson
Alpha Functions). It is recommended for hydrocarbon processing
applications such as gas processing, refinery, and petrochemical
processes. Its results are comparable to those of the Standard
Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation-of-state.
The equation for the BM model is:
RT a
p= −
Vm − b Vm (Vm + b ) + b(Vm − b )
Where:
b = ∑x bi i
i
a = ∑ ∑ x x (a a
i j
i j i j )0.5 (1 − kij )
kij = k ji
The parameter a i is calculated according to the standard Peng-

Robinson formulation (see Peng-Robinson Alpha Functions,
equations 1 through 5).
k
For best results, the binary parameter ij must be determined from
phase equilibrium data regression, (for example, VLE data). The
k
Aspen Physical Property System also has built-in ij for alarge
number of component pairs. These parameters are used
automatically with the PENG-ROB property method.
Name/Element Limit
TCPRS Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCPRS pci PC x 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
OMGPRKSS ωi OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
PRKIJ kij 0 x -5.0 5.0 —
References
D.-Y. Peng and D. B. Robinson, "A New Two-Constant Equation-

of-state," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, (1976), pp. 59–64.
Standard Redlich-Kwong- The Standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Boston-Mathias equation-of-
Soave state is the basis for the RK-SOAVE property method. It is
recommended for hydrocarbon processing applications, such as
gas-processing, refinery, and petrochemical processes. Its results
are comparable to those of the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state.
The equation is:
RT a
p= −
Vm − b Vm (Vm + b )
Where:
a = ∑ ∑ x x (a a
i j
i j i j )0.5 (1 − kij )
b = ∑x b i i
i

kij = k ji
The parameter a i is calculated according to the standard Soave

formulation (see Soave Alpha Functions, equations 1, 2, 3, 5, and
6).
k
phase-equilibrium data regression (for example, VLE data). The
k
Aspen Physical Property System also has built-in ij for a large
number of component pairs. These binary parameters are used
automatically with the RK-SOAVE property method.
Name/Element Limit
TCRKSS Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKSS pci PC x 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
OMRKSS ωi OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
RKSKIJ kij 0 x -5.0 5.0 —
Binary interaction parameters RKSKIJ are available for a large

References

Equation-of-state," Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, (1972), pp. 1196 –
1203.
state," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 28, (1989), pp. 1049 – 1955.
pp. 7–23.
VPA/IK-CAPE Equation- The VPA/IK-CAPE equation of state is similar to the HF equation
of-State of state but allows dimerization, tetramerization and
hexamerization to occur simultaneously. The main assumption of
the model is that only molecular association causes the gas phase
nonideality. Attractive forces between the molecules and the
complexes are neglected.
There are three kinds of associations, which can be modeled:
• Dimerization (examples: formic acid, acetic acid)
• Tetramerization (example: acetic acid)
• Hexamerization (example: hydrogen fluoride)
To get the largest possible flexibility of the model all these kinds
of association can occur simultaneously, for example, in a mixture
containing acetic acid and HF. Up to five components can
associate, and any number of inert components are allowed. This is
the only difference between this model and the HF equation of
state, which account only the hexamerization of HF.
Symbols
In the following description, these symbols are used:

yi = Apparent concentration
z in = True concentration, for component i and

degree of association n=1, 2, 4, 6
z i 2 = z i 4 = z i 6 = 0 for i > 5
z Mij = True concentration of cross-dimers of components i and

j, for i,j 1 to 5.
p0 = Reference pressure
k = Number of components
Association Equilibria
Every association equilibrium reaction

n ⋅ (i ) ↔ (i ) n (1)
(i ) + ( j ) ↔ (ij ) (2)
is described by the equilibrium constants
z in (3)
K in = n −1
z in1 ( p / p0 )
z Mij (4)
K Mij =
z i1 z j1 ( p / p0 )
By setting
Bin (5)
ln K in = Ain +
T
K Mij = 2 K i 2 K j 2 (6)
their temperature dependence can be reproduced.
To evaluate the true concentration of every complex z in , the

following nonlinear systems of equations are to be solved:
Total mass balance:
The sum of true concentrations is unity.
∑∑ zin + ∑∑ z Mij = 1
i n i j >i
∑∑ K in zin1 ( p / p0 ) n−1 + ∑∑ K Mij zi1 z j1 ( p / p0 ) = 1 (7)

i n i j >i
Mass balance for every component i>1:

The ratio of the monomers of each component i>1 and component
i=1 occurring in the various complexes must be equal to the ratio
of their apparent concentrations.
∑ nzin + ∑ z Mij yi
n j ≠i
=
∑ nz1n + ∑ z M 1 j y1
n j ≠1
∑ nK in zin1 ( p / p0 ) n−1 + ∑ K Mij zi1 z j1 ( p / p0 ) yi

(8)
j ≠ i , j ≤5
=
n
∑ n
nK1n z11 (p/ p0 ) n −1
+ ∑ K M 1 j z11 z j1 ( p / p0 ) y1
n j ≠1, j ≤5
z
Thus, a system of k nonlinear equations for k unknowns i1 has
z z
been developed. After having solved it, all the in and Mij can be
determined using equations (3, 4). This is the main step to evaluate
all the properties needed for a calculation.
Specific Volume of the Gas Phase
The compressibility factor is defined by the ratio between the

number of complexes and the number of monomers in the
complexes.
RT
∑ ∑ zin + ∑∑ zMij
j >i
v=
i n i
P ∑ ∑ nzin + 2∑∑ zMij
i n i j >i
RT 1 (9)
=
P ∑ ∑ nzin + 2∑∑ z Mij
i n i j >i
The compressibility factor itself is

1 (10)
Z=
∑ ∑ nzin + 2∑∑ zMij
i n i j >i
Fugacity Coefficient
As is well-known from thermodynamics, the fugacity coefficient

can be calculated by
z i1 (11)
ϕi =
yi
Isothermal Enthalpy Departure
According to the ASPEN enthalpy model, an equation of state

must supply an expression to compute the isothermal molar
enthalpy departure between zero pressure and actual pressure. In
the following section this enthalpy contribution per mole
monomers is abbreviated by ∆ha .
Taking this sort of gas phase non-ideality into account, the specific
enthalpy per mole can be written as
hv = ∑ y i hiv + ∆ha (12)
i
with
T (13)
hiv = hi0 + ∫ c ipi. g .dT
To
∆h a
to evaluate , a mixture consisting of N monomers integrated in
the complexes is considered. The quota of monomers i being
integrated in a complex of degree n is given by
N in nzin (14)
=
N ∑ ∑ nzin + 2∑∑ zMij
i n i j >i
and
N Mij 2 z Mij (16)
=
N ∑ ∑ nzin + 2∑∑ zMij
i n i j >i
respectively. For the reactions mentioned above:

n ⋅ (i ) ↔ (i ) n (1)
(i ) + ( j ) ↔ (ij ) (2)
the enthalpies of reaction are
∆hin = − RBin (17)
R (18)
∆hMij = − ( Bi 2 + B j 2 )
2
as the van’t Hoff equation
 ∂ ln K  (19)
∆h = RT 2  
 ∂T 
holds for this case.
For each monomer being integrated in a complex of degree n, its
∆h / 2
contribution to the enthalpy departure is ∆hin / n or Mij ,
respectively. Hence, ∆ha can easily be derived by
∑ ∑ N in ∆hin / n + ∑∑ N Mij ∆hMij / 2

j >i
∆ha =
i n i
N
∑ ∑ zin ∆hin + ∑∑ zMij ∆hMij (20)

i n ≠1 j >i
∆ha =
i
∑ ∑ nzin + 2∑∑ zMij

i n i j >i
Isothermal entropy and Gibbs energy departure:
A similar expression for ∆g a should hold as it does for the

enthalpy departure (eq. 20):
∑ ∑ zin ∆g in + ∑∑ z Mij ∆g Mij (21)

i n ≠1 i j >i
∆g a =
∑ ∑ nzin + 2∑∑ z Mij
i n i j >i
using
∆g in = − RT ln K in (22)
and
∆g Mij = − RT ln K Mij (23)
∆s mix
id
= − R ∑ y i ln yi (24)
i
Using the association model, more different species occur than can
be distinguished. Thus, the equivalent expression for the entropy of
mixing should be written with the true concentrations. As eq. 24
refers to 1 mole monomers, the expression should be weighted by
the compressibility factor representing the true number of moles.
The new expression is
  (25)
∆s mix
a
= − RZ  ∑∑ z in ln z in + ∑∑ z Mij ln z Mij 
 i n 
 i j >i 
∆g a
For we obtain
∆g a = ∆ha − T (∆smix
a
− ∆smix
id
) (26)
and, analogously,
∆ha − ∆g a (27)
∆s a =
T

Name/Element Limit
DMER/1 Ai 2 0 X – – –
DMER/2 Bi 2 0 X – – TEMPERATURE
TMER/1 Ai 4 0 X – – –
TMER/2 Bi 4 0 X – – TEMPERATURE
HMER/1 Ai 6 0 X – – –
HMER/2 Bi 6 0 X – – TEMPERATURE
References
M. M. Abbott and H. C. van Ness, "Thermodynamics of Solutions

Containing Reactive Species, a Guide to Fundamentals and
Applications," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 77, (1992) pp. 53–119.
V. V. De Leeuw and S. Watanasiri, "Modeling Phase Equilibria
and Enthalpies of the System Water and Hydrofluoric Acid Using
an HF Equation-of-state in Conjunction with the Electrolyte NRTL
Activity Coefficient Model," Paper Presented at the 13th European
Seminar on Applied Thermodynamics, June 9–12, Carry-le-Rouet,
France, 1993.
R. W. Long, J. H. Hildebrand, and W. E. Morrell, "The
Polymerization of Gaseous Hydrogen and Deuterium Fluorides," J.
Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 65, (1943), pp. 182–187.
C. E. Vanderzee and W. Wm. Rodenburg, "Gas Imperfections and
Thermodynamic Excess Properties of Gaseous Hydrogen
Fluoride," J. Chem. Thermodynamics, Vol. 2, (1970), pp. 461–478.
Peng-Robinson Alpha The pure component parameters for the Peng-Robinson equation-
Functions of-state are calculated as follows:
R 2Tci2 (1)
a i = α i 0.45724
pci
RTci (2)
bi = 0.07780
pci
These expressions are derived by applying the critical constraints
to the equation-of-state under these conditions:
α i (Tci ) = 10
. (3)
The parameter α is a temperature function. It was originally
introduced by Soave in the Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state. This
parameter improves the correlation of the pure component vapor
pressure. This approach was also adopted by Peng and Robinson:
α i (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tri 2 )]2 (4)
1
Equation 3 is still represented. The parameter mi can be correlated

with the acentric factor:
mi = 0.37464 + 154226
. ω i − 0.26992ω i2 (5)
Equations 1 through 5 are the standard Peng-Robinson
formulation.
Name/Element Limit
TCPR Tci TC X 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCPR pci PC X 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
OMGPR ωi OMEGA X -0.5 2.0 —
Boston-Mathias Extrapolation
For light gases at high reduced temperatures (> 5), equation 4

gives unrealistic results. The boundary conditions are that
attraction between molecules should vanish for extremely high
temperatures, and α reduces asymptotically to zero. Boston and
Mathias derived an alternative function for temperatures higher
than critical:
α i (T ) = [exp[ci (1 − Tridi )]]2 (6)
With
di = mi
1+
2
ci = 1
1−
di
Where mi is computed by equation 5, and equation 4 is used for

subcritical temperatures. Additional parameters are not needed.
Mathias-Copeman Alpha Function
mi is a constant for each component in equation 4. For very high

accuracy or strongly curved vapor pressure behavior as a function
of temperature, the Mathias-Copeman function is highly flexible
α i( T ) = [1 + c1,i (1 − Tri 2 ) + c2,i (1 − Tri 2 )2 + c3,i (1 − Tri 2 )3 ]2 (7)
1 1 1
c2,i = 0
For and this expression reduces to the standard Peng-
c = mi
Robinson formulation if 1,i . You can use vapor pressure data
if the temperature is subcritical to regress the constants. If the
c c
temperature is supercritical, 2,i and 3,i are set to 0.
Name/Element Limit
PRMCP/1 c1, i — X — — —
PRMCP/2 c2, i 0 X — — —
PRMCP/3 c3, i 0 X — — —
Schwartzentruber-Renon-Watanasiri Alpha Function
This method combines the flexibility of the Mathias-Copeman

approach and the correction for highly reduced temperatures by
Boston and Mathias:
α i (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tri 2 ) − (1 − Tri 2 )( p1,i + p2,i Tri + p3,1Tri2 )]2 (8)
1 1
p
Where mi is computed by equation 5. The polar parameters 1,i ,
p2,i p
and 3,i are comparable with the c parameters of the Mathias-
Copeman expression. Equation 8 reduces to the standard Peng-
Robinson formulation if the polar parameters are zero. You can use
vapor pressure data to regress the constants if the temperature is
subcritical. Equation 8 is used only for below-critical temperatures.
For above-critical temperatures, the Boston-Mathias extrapolation
is used. Use equation 6 with:
di = 1 + 1
2 mi − ( p1,i + p2,i + p3,i ) (9)
1 (10)
ci = 1 −
di

Name/Element Limit
PRSRP/1 p1,i — X — — —
PRSRP/2 p2,i 0 X — — —
PRSRP/3 p3,i 0 X — — —
Use of Alpha Functions
The alpha functions in Peng-Robinson-based equation-of-state

models is provided in the following table. You can verify and
change the value of possible option codes on the Properties
Property Method Model form.
Alpha function Model name First Option code
Standard Peng Robinson ESPRSTD0, ESPRSTD —
Standard PR/Boston- ESPR0, ESPR —
Mathias ESPRWS0, ESPRWS 1
ESPRV20, ESPRV2 1
Mathias-Copeman ESPRWS0, ESPRWS 2
ESPRV20, ESPRV2 2
Schwartzentruber-Renon- ESPRWS0, ESPRWS 3 (default)
Watanasiri ESPRV20, ESPRV2 3 (default)
References
J. F. Boston and P.M. Mathias, "Phase Equilibria in a Third-

Generation Process Simulator" in Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Phase Equilibria and Fluid Properties
in the Chemical Process Industries, West Berlin, (17-21 March
1980) pp. 823-849.
D.-Y. Peng and D.B. Robinson, "A New Two-Constant Equation-
of-state," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, (1976), pp. 59-64.
P.M. Mathias and T.W. Copeman, "Extension of the Peng-
Robinson Equation-of-state To Complex Mixtures: Evaluation of
the Various Forms of the Local Composition Concept",Fluid Phase
Eq., Vol. 13, (1983), p. 91.
J. Schwartzentruber, H. Renon, and S. Watanasiri, "K-values for
Non-Ideal Systems:An Easier Way," Chem. Eng., March 1990, pp.
118-124.
Equation-of-state," Chem Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, (1972), pp. 1196-
1203.
Soave Alpha Functions The pure component parameters for the Redlich-Kwong equation-
of-state are calculated as:
R 2Tci2 (1)
a i = α i 0.42747
pci
RTci (2)
bi = 0.08664
pci
These expressions are derived by applying the critical constraint to
the equation-of-state under these conditions:
α i (Tci ) = 10
. (3)
In the Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state, alpha is:
1 (4)
αi = 1
Tri 2
It was not referred to as alpha but equation 4 was incorporated into
equation 1.
Name/Element Limit
PC pci — — 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
Soave Modification
The parameter α is a temperature function introduced by Soave in

the Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state to improve the correlation of
the pure component vapor pressure:
α i (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tri 2 )]2 (5)
1
Equation 3 still holds. The parameter mi can be correlated with the

acentric factor:
mi = 0.48 + 1.57ω i − 0176
. ω i2 (6)
Equations 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are the standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave
formulation.
Name/Element Limit
TCRKS Tci TC X 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKS pci PC X 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
OMGRKS ωi OMEGA X -0.5 2.0 —
Boston-Mathias Extrapolation
For light gases at high reduced temperatures (> 5), equation 4

gives unrealistic results. The boundary conditions are that
attraction between molecules should vanish for extremely high
temperatures, and α reduces asymptotically to zero. Boston and
Mathias derived an alternative function for temperatures higher
than critical:
α i (T ) = [exp[ci (1 − Tridi )]]2 (7)
With
di = mi
1+
2
ci = 1
1−
di
Where:
mi = Computed by equation 6
Equation 5 = Used for subcritical temperatures
Additional parameters are not needed.
Mathias Alpha Function
In equation 4, mi is a constant for each component. For high

accuracy or for highly curved vapor pressure behavior as a
function of temperature, such as with polar compounds, the
Mathias function is more flexible:
α i (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tro2 ) − ηi (1 − Tri 2 )( 0.7 − Tri )]2 (8)
1 1
For ηi = 0 , equation 8 reduces to the standard Redlich-Kwong-

Soave formulation, including equation 6 for mi . For temperatures
above critical, the Boston-Mathias extrapolation is used, that is,
equation 6 with:
mi (9)
di = 1 + + 0.3ηi
2
1 (10)
ci = 1 −
di

Name/Element Limit
TCRKA Tci TC X 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKA pci PC X 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
OMGRKA ωi OMEGA X -0.5 2.0 —
RKAPOL ηi — X -2.0 2.0 —
Extended Mathias Alpha Function
An extension of the Mathias approach is:

α i (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tri 2 ) − p1,i (1 − Tri 2 )(1 + p2,i T + p3,i Tri2 )]2 (11)
1 1
p
Where mi is computed by equation 6. If the polar parameters 1,i ,
p2,i p
and 3,i are zero, equation 11 reduces to the standard Redlich-
Kwong-Soave formulation. You can use vapor pressure data to
regress the constants if the temperature is subcritical. Equation 11
is used only for temperatures below critical.
The Boston-Mathias extrapolation is used for temperatures above
critical, that is, with:
di = 1
2 mi − p1,i (1 + p2,i + p3,i ) (12)
1 (13)
ci = 1 −
di

Name/Element Limit
TCRKU Tci TC X 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKU pci PC X 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
OMGRKU ωi OMEGA X -0.5 2.0 —
RKUPP0 p1,i — X — — —
RKUPP1 p2,i 0 X — — —
RKUPP2 p3,i 0 X — — —
Mathias-Copeman Alpha Function
The Mathias-Copeman Alpha Function approach is another

extension of the Mathias approach. For high accuracy or strongly
curved vapor pressure behavior as a function of temperature, the
Mathias-Copeman function is highly flexible:
α i (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tri 2 ) + c2,i (1 − Tri 2 )2 + c3,i (1 − Tri 2 )3 ]2 (14)
1 1 1
c 2 ,i = 0 c3,i = 0
For and this expression reduces to the standard
c = mi
Redlich-Kwong-Soave formulation if 1,i . If the temperature
is subcritical, use vapor pressure data to regress the constants. If
c c
the temperature is supercritical, set 2,i and 3,i to 0.
Name/Element Limit
TCRKS Tci TC X 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCRKS pci PC X 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
RKSMCP/1 c1, i — X — — —
RKSMCP/2 c2, i 0 X — — —
RKSMCP/3 c3, i 0 X — — —
Schwartzentruber-Renon-Watanasiri Alpha Function
This method combines the flexibility of the Mathias-Copeman

approach and the correction for high reduced temperatures by
Boston and Mathias:
α i (T ) = [1 + mi (1 − Tri 2 ) − (1 − Tri )( p1,i + p2,i Tri + p3,i Tri2 )]2 (15)
1
p
Where mi is computed by equation 6 and the polar parameters 1,i
p p
, 2,i and 3,i are comparable with the c parameters of the Mathias-
Copeman expression. Equation 15 reduces to the standard Redlich-
Kwong-Soave formulation if the polar parameters are zero. Use
vapor pressure data to regress the constants if the temperature is
subcritical. Equation 15 is very similar to the extended Mathias
equation, but it is easier to use in data regression. It is used only for
temperatures below critical. The Boston-Mathias extrapolation is
used for temperatures above critical, that is, use equation 6 with:
mi (16)
di = 1 + − ( p1,i + p2,i + p3,i )
2
1 (17)
ci = 1 −
di
Name/Element Limit
RKSSRP/1 p1,i — X — — —
RKSSRP/2 p2,i 0 X — — —
RKSSRP/3 p3,i 0 X — — —
Use of Alpha Functions
The use of alpha functions in Soave-Redlich-Kwong based

equation-of-state models is given in the following table. You can
verify and change the value of possible option codes on the
Properties Property Method Model form.
Alpha Function Model Name First Option
Code
original RK ESRK0, ESRK —
standard RKS ESRKSTD0, ESRKSTD —
standard RKS/Boston-Mathias ESRKS0, ESRKS0 —
ESRKSWS0, ESRKSWS 1
ESRKSV10, ESRKV1 1
ESRKSV20, ESRKSV2 1
Mathias/Boston-Mathias ESRKA0, ESRKA —
Extended Mathias/Boston- ESRKU0, ESRKU —
Mathias
Mathias-Copeman ESRKSW0, ESRKSW 2
ESRKSV10, ESRKSV1 2
ESRKSV20, ESRKSV2 2
Schwartzentruber-Renon- ESPRWS0, ESPRWS 3 (default)
Watanasiri ESRKSV10, ESRKSV1 3 (default)
ESRKSV20, ESRKSV2 3 (default)
References
J. F. Boston and P.M. Mathias, "Phase Equilibria in a Third-

Generation Process Simulator" in Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Phase Equilibria and Fluid Properties
in the Chemical Process Industries, West Berlin, (17-21 March
1980), pp. 823-849.
P. M. Mathias, "A Versatile Phase Equilibrium Equation-of-state",
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 22, (1983), pp. 385–391.
P.M. Mathias and T.W. Copeman, "Extension of the Peng-
Robinson Equation-of-state To Complex Mixtures: Evaluation of
the Various Forms of the Local Composition Concept", Fluid
Phase Eq., Vol. 13, (1983), p. 91.
O. Redlich and J. N. S. Kwong, "On the Thermodynamics of
Solutions V. An Equation-of-state. Fugacities of Gaseous
Solutions," Chem. Rev., Vol. 44, (1949), pp. 223–244.
state," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 28, (1989), pp. 1049–1055.
J. Schwartzentruber, H. Renon, and S. Watanasiri, "K-values for
Non-Ideal Systems:An Easier Way," Chem. Eng., March 1990, pp.
118-124.
Equation-of-state," Chem Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, (1972), pp. 1196-
1203.
Huron-Vidal Mixing Rules Huron and Vidal (1979) used a simple thermodynamic
relationship to equate the excess Gibbs energy to expressions for
the fugacity coefficient as computed by equations of state:
GmE = RT ln ϕ − ∑ x i RT ln ϕ *i (1)
i
Equation 1 is valid at any pressure, but cannot be evaluated unless

some assumptions are made. If Equation 1 is evaluated at infinite
pressure, the mixture must be liquid-like and extremely dense. It
can be assumed that:
V ( p = ∞) = b (2)
V E ( p = ∞) = 0 (3)
Using equations 2 and 3 in equation 1 results in an expression for
a/b that contains the excess Gibbs energy at an infinite pressure:
a a 1 (4)
= ∑ x i i − GmE ( p = ∞ )
b i bi Λ
Where:
1  1 + λ1  (5)
Λ= ln  
λ1 − λ 2  1 + λ 2 
The parameters λ 1 and λ 2 depend on the equation-of-state used. In

general a cubic equation-of-state can be written as:
RT a (6)
p= −
(Vm − b) (V + λ1b )(Vm + λ 2 b )
Values for λ 1 and λ 2 for the Peng-Robinson and the Soave-
Redlich-Kwong equations of state are:
Equation-of-state λ1 λ2
Peng-Robinson 1− 2 1+ 2
Redlich-Kwong-Soave 1 0
This expression can be used at any pressure as a mixing rule for
the parameter. The mixing rule for b is fixed by equation 3. Even
when used at other pressures, this expression contains the excess
Gibbs energy at infinite pressure. You can use any activity
coeffecient model to evaluate the excess Gibbs energy at infinite
pressure. Binary interaction coefficients must be regressed. The
mixing rule used contains as many binary parameters as the
activity coefficient model chosen.
This mixing rule has been used successfully for polar mixtures at
high pressures, such as systems containing light gases. In theory,
any activity coefficient model can be used. But the NRTL equation
(as modified by Huron and Vidal) has demonstrated better
performance.
The Huron-Vidal mixing rules combine extreme flexibility with
thermodynamic consistency, unlike many other mole-fraction-
dependent equation-of-state mixing rules. The Huron-Vidal mixing
rules do not allow flexibility in the description of the excess molar
volume, but always predict reasonable excess volumes.
The Huron-Vidal mixing rules are theoretically incorrect for low
pressure, because quadratic mole fraction dependence of the
second virial coefficient (if derived from the equation-of-state) is
not preserved. Since equations of state are primarily used at high
pressure, the practical consequences of this drawback are minimal.
The Gibbs energy at infinite pressure and the Gibbs energy at an
arbitrary high pressure are similar. But the correspondence is not
close enough to make the mixing rule predictive.
There are several methods for modifying the Huron-Vidal mixing
rule to make it more predictive. The following three methods are
used in Aspen Physical Property System equation-of-state models:
• The modified Huron-Vidal mixing rule, second order
approximation (MHV2)
• The Predictive SRK Method (PSRK)
• The Wong-Sandler modified Huron-Vidal mixing rule (WS)
These mixing rules are discussed separately in the following
sections. They have major advantages over other composition-
dependent equation-of-state mixing rules.
M.- J. Huron and J. Vidal, "New Mixing Rules in Simple
Equations of State for representing Vapour-liquid equilibria of
strongly non-ideal mixtures," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 3, (1979), pp.
255-271.
MHV2 Mixing Rules Dahl and Michelsen (1990) use a thermodynamic relationship
between excess Gibbs energy and the fugacity computed by
equations of state. This relationship is equivalent to the one used
by Huron and Vidal:
GmE  f   f  (1)
= ln   − ∑ x i ln i 
RT  RT  i
 RT 
The advantage is that the expressions for mixture and pure
component fugacities do not contain the pressure. They are
functions of compacity V/b and α :
 f i*   Vi*  (2)
ln   + ln bi = Q , α i 
 RT   bi 
Where:
ai (3)
αi =
bi RT
and
 f  V  (4)
ln   + ln bi = Q m , α
 RT   b 
With:
a (5)
α=
bRT
The constants λ 1 and λ 2 ,which depend only on the equation-of-

state (see Huron-Vidal Mixing Rules, this chapter) occur in
equations 2 and 4.
Instead of using infinite pressure for simplification of equation 1,
the condition of zero pressure is used. At p= 0 an exact relationship
between the compacity and α can be derived. By substitution the
simplified equation q( α ) is obtained, and equation 1 becomes:
GmE ( p = 0) b  (6)
+ ∑ x i ln  i  = q(α ) − ∑ x i q(α i )
RT i
 b i
However, q( α ) can only be written explicitly for α = 5.8 . Only an

approximation is possible below that threshold. Dahl and
Michelsen use a second order polynomial fitted to the analytical
solution for 10 < α < 13 that can be extrapolated to low alpha:
q( α ) = qi α + q 2 α 2 (7)
Since q( α ) is a universal function (for each equation-of-state), the

combination of equations 6 and 7 form the MHV2 mixing rule.
Excess Gibbs energies, from any activity coefficient model with
parameters optimized at low pressures, can be used to determine α
, if α i , bi , and b are known. To compute b, a linear mixing rule is
assumed as in the original Huron-Vidal mixing rules:
b = ∑ x i bi (8)
i
This equation is equivalent to the assumption of zero excess molar

volume.
The MHV2 mixing rule was the first successful predictive mixing
rule for equations of state. This mixing rule uses previously
determined activity coefficient parameters for predictions at high
pressures. UNIFAC was chosen as a default for its predictive
character. The Lyngby modified UNIFAC formulation was chosen
for optimum performance (see UNIFAC (Lyngby Modified)).
However, any activity coefficient model can be used when its
binary interaction parameters are known.
Like the Huron-Vidal mixing rules, the MHV2 mixing rules are
not flexible in the description of the excess molar volume. The
MHV2 mixing rules are theoretically incorrect at the low pressure
limit. But the practical consequences of this drawback are minimal
(see Huron-Vidal Mixing Rules, this chapter).
S. Dahl and M.L. Michelsen, "High-Pressure Vapor-Liquid
Equilibrium with a UNIFAC-based Equation-of-state," AIChE J.,
Vol. 36, (1990), pp. 1829-1836.
Predictive Soave- These mixing rules by Holderbaum and Gmehling (1991) use a
Redlich-Kwong-Gmehling relationship between the excess Helmholtz energy and equation-of-
Mixing Rules state. They do not use a relationship between equation-of-state
properties and excess Gibbs energy, as in the Huron-Vidal mixing
rules. The pressure-explicit expression for the equation-of-state is
substituted in the thermodynamic equation:
 ∂A  (1)
p = − 
 ∂V  T
E
The Helmholtz energy is calculated by integration. A is obtained
by:
AmE = Am − ∑ x i Ai* − RT ∑ x i ln x i (2)
i I
* *
Where both Ai and Am are calculated by using equation 1. Ai
and Am are written in terms of equation-of-state parameters.
The simplification of constant packing fraction (Vm / b ) is used:

Vi*,l Vml (3)
=
bi b
With:
b = ∑ x i bi (4)
i
Therefore:
VmE ( p = ∞ ) = 0 (5)
The mixing rule is:
a a 1 E (6)
= ∑ xi i − Am ( p )
b i bi Λ’
Where Λ’ is slightly different from Λ for the Huron-Vidal mixing

rule:
 Vm  (7)
 + λL1 
1
Λ’= ln  b 
λ 1 − λ 2  Vm + λ 
 b 2

Where λ 1 and λ 2 , depend on the equation-of-state (see Huron-

Vidal Mixing Rules, this chapter). If equation 6 is applied at
infinite pressure, the packing fraction goes to 1. The excess
Helmholtz energy is equal to the excess Gibbs energy. The Huron-
Vidal mixing rules are recovered.
The goal of these mixing rules is to be able to use binary
interaction parameters for activity coefficient models at any
pressure. These parameters have been optimized at low pressures.
UNIFAC is chosen for its predictive character. Two issues exist:
the packing fraction is not equal to one, and the excess Gibbs and
Helmholtz energy are not equal at the low pressure where the
UNIFAC parameters have been derived.
Fischer (1993) determined that boiling point, the average packing
fraction for about 80 different liquids with different chemical
natures was 1.1. Adopting this value, the difference between liquid
excess Gibbs energy and liquid excess Helmholtz energy can be
computed as:
Vml = b Vi*,l = b (8)
AmE ,l ( p ) = GmE ,l ( p = 1atm) + ∫ pdVml − ∑ x i ∫ pdVi*,l
Vml =11
. b i Vi*, l =11
.b
The result is a predictive mixing rule for cubic equations of state.

But the original UNIFAC formulation gives the best performance
for any binary pair with interactions available from UNIFAC. Gas-
solvent interactions are unavailable.
At the University of Oldenburg in Germany, the UNIFAC groups
were extended with often-occurring gases. New group interactions
were determined from gas-solvent data, specific to the Redlich-
Kwong-Soave equation-of-state. The new built-in parameters to
the Aspen Physical Property System are activated when using the
PSRK equation-of-state model.
The PSRK method has a lot in common with the Huron-Vidal
mixing rules. The mole fraction is dependent on the second virial
coefficient and excess volume is predicted. These are minor
disadvantages.
T. Holderbaum and J. Gmehling, "PSRK: A Group Contribution
Equation-of-state based on UNIFAC," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 70,
(1991), pp. 251-265.
K. Fischer, "Die PSRK-Methode: Eine Zustandsgleichung unter
Verwendung des UNIFAC-Gruppenbeitragsmodells," (Düsseldorf:
VDI Fortschrittberichte, Reihe 3: Verfahrenstechnik, Nr. 324, VDI
Verlag GmbH, 1993).
Wong-Sandler Mixing These mixing rules use a relationship between the excess
Rules Helmholtz energy and equation-of-state. They do not use a
relationship between equation-of-state properties and excess Gibbs
energy, as in the Huron-Vidal mixing rules. The pressure-explicit
expression for the equation-of-state is substituted in the
thermodynamic equation:
 ∂A  (1)
p = − 
 ∂V  T
E
The Helmholtz energy is obtained by integration, A is obtained
by:
AmE = Am − ∑ x i Ai* − RT ∑ x i ln x i (2)
i i
* *
Where both A and Am are calculated by using equation 1. Ai and
i
Am are written in terms of equation-of-state parameters.
Like Huron and Vidal, the limiting case of infinite pressure is used.
*
This simplifies the expressions for Ai and Am . Equation 2
becomes:
a a 1 (3)
= ∑ x i i − AmE ( p = ∞ )
b i bi Λ
Where Λ depends on the equation-of-state (see Huron-Vidal

Mixing Rules, this chapter).
Equation 3 is completely analogous to the Huron-Vidal mixing
rule for the excess Gibbs energy at infinite pressure. (See equation
4, Huron-Vidal Mixing Rules., this chapter.) The excess Helmholtz
energy can be approximated by the excess Gibbs energy at low
pressure from any liquid activity coefficient model. Using the
Helmholtz energy permits another mixing rule for b than the linear
mixing rule. The mixing rule for b is derived as follows. The
second virial coefficient must depend quadratically on the mole
fraction:
B(T ) = ∑ ∑ x i x j Bij (4)
i j
With:
( Bii + B jj ) (5)
Bij = (1 − k ij )
2
The relationship between the equation-of-state at low pressure and
the virial coefficient is:
a (6)
B = b−
RT
ai (7)
Bii = bi −
RT
Wong and Sandler discovered the following mixing rule to satisfy
equation 4 (using equations 6 and 7):
∑∑ x x B i j ij
b=
i j
AmE ( p = ∞ )
1− − ∑ x i Bij
ΛRT i
The excess Helmholtz energy is almost independent of pressure. It

can be approximated by the Gibbs energy at low pressure. The
k
difference between the two functions is corrected by fitting ij
until the excess Gibbs energy from the equation-of-state (using the
mixing rules 3 and 8) is equal to the excess Gibbs energy
computed by an activity coeffecient model. This is done at a
specific mole fraction and temperature.
This mixing rule accurately predicts the VLE of polar mixtures at
high pressures. UNIFAC or other activity coeffecient models and
parameters from the literature are used. Gas solubilities are not
predicted. They must be regressed from experimental data.
Unlike other (modified) Huron-Vidal mixing rules, the Wong and
Sandler mixing rule meets the theoretical limit at low pressure. The
k
use of ij does influence excess molar volume behavior. For
calculations where densities are important, check whether they are
realistic.
References
D. S. Wong and S. I. Sandler, "A Theoretically Correct New

Mixing Rule for Cubic Equations of State for Both Highly and
Slightly Non-ideal Mixtures," AIChE J., Vol. 38, (1992), pp. 671 –
680.
D. S. Wong, H. Orbey, and S. I. Sandler, "Equation-of-state
Mixing Rule for Non-ideal Mixtures Using Available Activity
Coefficient Model Parameters and That Allows Extrapolation over
Large Ranges of Temperature and Pressure", Ind Eng Chem. Res.,
Vol. 31, (1992), pp. 2033 – 2039.
H. Orbey, S. I. Sandler and D. S. Wong, "Accurate Equation-of-
state Predictions at High Temperatures and Pressures Using the
Existing UNIFAC Model," Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 85, (1993), pp.
41 – 54.
Activity Coefficient The Aspen Physical Property System has 18 built-in activity
Models coefficient models. This section describes the activity coefficient
models available.
Model Type
Bromley-Pitzer Electrolyte
Chien-Null Regular solution, local composition
Constant Activity Coefficient Arithmetic
Electrolyte NRTL Electrolyte
Ideal Liquid Ideal
NRTL (Non-Random-Two-Liquid) Local composition
Pitzer Electrolyte
Polynomial Activity Coefficient Arithmetic
Redlich-Kister Arithmetic
Scatchard-Hildebrand Regular solution
Three-Suffix Margules Arithmetic
UNIFAC Group contribution
UNIFAC (Lyngby modified) Group contribution
UNIFAC (Dortmund modified) Group contribution
UNIQUAC Local composition
Van Laar Regular solution
Wagner interaction parameter Arithmetic
Wilson Local composition
Wilson with Liquid Molar Volume Local composition
Bromley-Pitzer Activity The Bromley-Pitzer activity coefficient model is a simplified Pitzer
Coefficient Model activity coefficient model with Bromley correlations for the
interaction parameters. See Appendix A for a detailed description.
This model has predictive capabilities. It can be used up to 6M
ionic strength, but is less accurate than the Pitzer model if the
parameter correlations are used.
The Bromley-Pitzer model in the Aspen Physical Property System
involves user-supplied parameters, used in the calculation of
binary parameters for the electrolyte system.
Parameters β , β , β , β and θ have five elements to

(0) ( 1) (2) ( 3)
account for temperature dependencies. Elements P1 through P5

follow the temperature dependency relation:
1 1   T 
f (T ) = P1 + P2 (T − T ref ) + P3  − ref  + P4 ln  ref  + P5 (T 2 − (T ref )2 )
T T  T 
Where:
T ref = 298.15K
The user must:
• Supply these elements using a Properties Parameters Binary.T-
Dependent form.
• Specify Comp ID i and Comp ID j on this form, using the same
order that appears on the Components Specifications Selection
sheet form.
Parameter Name Symbol No. of Elements Default Units
Ionic Unary Parameters

GMBPB β ion 1 0 —
GMBPD δ ion 1 1 0 —
Cation-Anion Parameters
GMBPB0 β(0) 5 0 —
GMBPB1 β ( 1) 5 0 —
GMBPB2 β(2) 5 0 —
GMBPB3 β ( 3) 5 0 —
Cation-Cation Parameters
GMBPTH θ cc’ 5 0 —
Anion-Anion Parameters
GMBPTH θ aa’ 5 0 —
Molecule-Ion and Molecule-Molecule Parameters
GMBPB0 β(0) 5 0 —
GMBPB1 β ( 1) 5 0 —
Chien-Null The Chien-Null model calculates liquid activity coefficients and it

can be used for highly non-ideal systems. The generalized
expression used in its derivation can be adapted to represent other
well known formalisms for the activity coefficient by properly
defining its binary terms. This characteristic allows the model the
use of already available binary parameters regressed for those
other liquid activity models with thermodynamic consistency.
The equation for the Chien-Null liquid activity coeficient is:
 ∑ A ji x i ∑ R ji x j ∑A x ∑R xj  
1 j
jk i
 Aik
jk
Rik S ik Vik  
ln γ i =  + ∑ xk + − −
j j j
 
2  ∑ S ji x j ∑ V ji x j k ∑ S jk x j ∑ V jk x j  ∑ A jk x j ∑ jk j ∑ S jk x j
R x ∑ V jk x j  
 j j j j j j j j 
Where:
A ji
R ji =
Aij
Aii = 0
A ji
=1
Aij
bij
Aij = a ij +
T
Subscripts i and j are component indices.
The choice of model and parameters can be set for each binary pair
constituting the process mixture by assigning the appropriate value
to the ICHNUL parameter.
The Regular Solution and Scatchard-Hamer models are regained
by substituting in the general expression (ICHNUL = 1 or 2).
V j*,l
V ji = S ji =
Vi*,l
Where:
V j*,l = Liquid molar volume of component i
The Chien-Null activity coefficient model collapses to the

Margules liquid activity coefficient expression by setting
(ICHNUL = 3):
V ji = S ji = 1
The Van Laar Liquid activity coefficient model is the obtained
when the V and S parameters in the Chien-Null models are set to
the ratio of the cross terms of A (ICHNUL = 4:)
A ji
V ji = S ji =
Aij
Finally, the Renon or NRTL model is obtained when we make the
following susbstitutions in the Chien-Null expression for the liquid
activity (ICHNUL = 5).
A ji
S ji = R ji
Aij
A ji = 2τ ji G ji
V ji = G ji
The following are defined for the Non-Random Two-Liquid
activity coefficient model, where:
( − C ji τ ji )
G ji = e
bij
τ ij = a ij +
T
Cij = cij + dij (T − 27315
. K)
c ji = cij
d ji = d ij
The binary parameters CHNULL/1, CHNULL/2, and CHNULL/3
can be determined from regression of VLE and/or LLE data. Also,
if you have parameters for many of the mixture pairs for the
Margules, Van Laar, Scatchard-Hildebrand, and NRTL (Non-
Random-Two-Liquid) activity models, you can use them directly
with the Chien-Null activity model after selecting the proper code
(ICHNUL) to identify the source model and entering the
appropriate activity model parameters.
Parameter Symbol Default Upper Lower Units
ICHNUL — 3 1 6 —
CHNULL/1 a ij 0 — — —
CHNULL/2 bij 0 — — —
CHNULL/3 Vij 0 — — —
The parameter ICHNUL is used to identify the activity model
parameters available for each binary pair of interest. The following
values are allowed for ICHNUL:
ICHNUL = 1 or 2, sets the model to the Scatchard-Hamer or
regular solution model for the associated binary;
ICHNUL = 3, sets the model to the Three-Suffix Margules activity
model for the associated binary;
ICHNUL = 4, sets the model to the Van Laar formalism for the
activity model for the associated binary;
ICHNUL = 5, sets the model to the NRTL (Renon) formalism for
the activity model for the associated binary.
ICHNUL = 6, sets the model to the full Chien-Null formalism for
the activity model for the associated binary.
When you specify a value for the ICHNUL parameter that is
different than the default, you must enter the appropriate binary
model parameters for the chosen activity model directly. The
routine will automatically convert the expressions and parameters
to conform to the Chien-Null formulation.
Constant Activity This approach is used exclusively in metallurgical applications
Coefficient where multiple liquid and solid phases can coexist. You can assign
any value to the activity coefficient of component i. Use the
Properties Parameters Unary.Scalar form.
The equation is:
γ i = ai
Parameter Symbol Default MDS Upper Lower Units
GMCONS ai 1.0 x — — —
Electrolyte NRTL Activity The Aspen Physical Property System uses the electrolyte NRTL
Coefficient Model model to calculate activity coefficients, enthalpies, and Gibbs
energies for electrolyte systems. Model development and working
equations are provided in Appendix B.
The adjustable parameters for the electrolyte NRTL model include
the:
• Pure component dielectric constant coefficient of nonaqueous
solvents
• Born radius of ionic species
• NRTL parameters for molecule-molecule, molecule-
electrolyte, and electrolyte-electrolyte pairs
The pure component dielectric constant coefficients of nonaqueous
solvents and Born radius of ionic species are required only for
mixed-solvent electrolyte systems. The temperature dependency of
the dielectric constant of solvent B is:
1 1
ε B (T ) = AB + BB  − 
 T CB 
Each type of electrolyte NRTL parameter consists of both the
nonrandomness factor, α , and energy parameters, τ . The
temperature dependency relations of the electrolyte NRTL
parameters are:
• Molecule-Molecule Binary Parameters:
BBB’
τ BB’ = ABB’ +
+ FBB’ ln(T ) + GBB ’T
T
• Electrolyte-Molecule Pair Parameters:
Dca , B  (T ref − T )  T 
τ ca , B = Cca , B + + Eca , B  + ln  ref 
T  T T 
DB,ca  (T ref − T )  T 
τ B ,ca = CB ,ca + + E B ,ca  + ln  ref 
T  T T 
• Electrolyte-Electrolyte Pair Parameters:
For the electrolyte-electrolyte pair parameters, the two electrolytes
must share either one common cation or one common anion:
Dc ’a , c ’’a  (T ref − T )  T 
τ c ’a , c ’’a = Cc ’a , c ’’a + + Ec ’a , c ’’a  + ln  ref 
T  T T 
Dca ’,ca ’’  (T ref − T )  T 

τ ca ’,ca ’’ = Cca ’,ca ’’ + + Eca ’,ca ’’ + ln  ref 
T  T T 
Where:
T ref = 298.15K
Many parameter pairs are included in the electrolyte NRTL model
parameter databank (see Physical Property Data, Chapter 1).
Parameter Symbol No. of Default MDS Units
Name Elements
Dielectric Constant Unary Parameters

CPDIEC AB 1 — — —
BB 1 0 — —
CB 1 298.15 — TEMPERATURE
Ionic Born Radius Unary Parameters
RADIUS ri 1 3x10−10 — LENGTH
Molecule-Molecule Binary Parameters
NRTL/1 ABB — 0 x —
AB’B — 0 x —
NRTL/2 BBB’ — 0 x TEMPERATURE
BB’B — 0 x TEMPERATURE
NRTL/3 α BB’ = α B’B — .3 x —
NRTL/4 — — 0 x TEMPERATURE
NRTL/5 FBB’ — 0 x TEMPERATURE
FB’B — 0 x TEMPERATURE
NRTL/6 GBB’ — 0 x TEMPERATURE
GB ’B — 0 x TEMPERATURE
Electrolyte-Molecule Pair Parameters
GMELCC C ca , B 1 0 x —
CB,ca 1 0 x —
GMELCD Dca , B 1 0 x TEMPERATURE
DB,ca 1 0 x TEMPERATURE
GMELCE Eca , B 1 0 x —
E B,ca 1 0 x —
GMELCN α ca , B = α B, ca 1 .2 x —
Electrolyte-Electrolyte Pair Parameters

GMELCC C ca ’, ca ’’ 1 0 x —
Cca ’’,ca ’ 1 0 x —
Cc ’a , c ’’a 1 0 x —
Cc ’’a , c ’a 1 0 x —
GMELCD Dca ’,ca ’’ 1 0 x TEMPERATURE
Dca ’’,ca ’ 1 0 x TEMPERATURE
Dc ’a , c ’’a 1 0 x TEMPERATURE
Dc ’’a , c ’a 1 0 x TEMPERATURE
GMELCE Eca ’,ca ’’ 1 0 x —
Eca ’’,ca ’ 1 0 x —
Ec ’a , c ’’a 1 0 x —
Ec ’’a , c ’a 1 0 x —
GMELCN α ca ’, ca ’’ = α ca ’’, ca ’ 1 .2 x —
α c ’a , c ’’a = α c ’’a , c ’a 1 .2 x —
Ideal Liquid This model is used in Raoult’s law. It represents ideality of the
liquid phase. This model can be used for mixtures of hydrocarbons
of similar carbon number. It can be used as a reference to compare
the results of other activity coefficient models.
The equation is:
ln γ i = 0
NRTL (Non-Random The NRTL model calculates liquid activity coefficients for the
Two-Liquid) following property methods: NRTL, NRTL-2, NRTL-HOC,
NRTL-NTH, and NRTL-RK. It is recommended for highly non-
ideal chemical systems, and can be used for VLE and LLE
applications. The model can also be used in the advanced equation-
of-state mixing rules, such as Wong-Sandler and MHV2.
The equation for the NRTL model is:
∑x τ j ji G ji 

x j Gij ∑x τ G m mj mj


ln γ i = +∑  τ ij −
j m

∑x Gk
k ki j ∑ x k G kj 
k 
∑x Gk
k kj 

Where:
Gij = exp ( −α ij τ ij )
τ ij = bij
a ij + T + eij ln T + f ij T
α ij = cij + d ij (T − 27315
. K)
τ ii = 0
Gii = 1
a ij ? a ji
bij ? b ji
cij ? c ji
d ij ? d ji
cij
Recommended Values for Different Types of Mixtures
cij Mixtures
0.30 Nonpolar substances; nonpolar with polar non-associated

liquids; small deviations from ideality
0.20 Saturated hydrocarbons with polar non-associated liquids
and systems that exhibit liquid-liquid immiscibility
0.47 Strongly self-associated substances with nonpolar substances
a b c d e f
The binary parameters ij , ij , ij , ij , ij , and ij can be
determined from VLE and/or LLE data regression. The Aspen
Physical Property System has a large number of built-in binary
parameters for the NRTL model. The binary parameters have been
regressed using VLE and LLE data from the Dortmund Databank.
The binary parameters for the VLE applications were regressed
using the ideal gas, Redlich-Kwong, and Hayden O’Connell
equations of state. See Physical Property Data, Chapter 1, for
details.
Name/Element Limit
NRTL/1 a ij 0 x -100.0 100.0 —
NRTL/2 bij 0 x -30000 30000.0 TEMPERATURE
NRTL/3 cij 0.30 x 0.0 1.0 —
NRTL/4 d ij 0 x -0.02 0.02 TEMPERATURE
NRTL/5 eij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
NRTL/6 f ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
References
H. Renon and J.M. Prausnitz, "Local Compositions in

Thermodynamic Excess Functions for Liquid Mixtures," AIChE J.,
Vol. 14, No. 1, (1968), pp. 135 – 144.
Pitzer Activity Coefficient The Pitzer model is commonly used in the calculation of activity
Model coefficients for aqueous electrolytes up to 6 molal ionic strength.
Do not use this model if a non-aqueous solvent exists. The model
development and working equations are provided in Appendix C.
Parameter conversion between the Pitzer notation and our notation
is also provided.
The Pitzer model in the Aspen Physical Property System involves
user-supplied parameters that are used in the calculation of binary
and ternary parameters for the electrolyte system.
Five elements (P1 through P5) account for the temperature
( 0) (1) (2) ( 3)
dependencies of parameters β , β , β , β , c , and θ . These
ϕ
parameters follow the temperature dependency relation:

1 1   T 
( (
f (T ) = P1i + P2 i (T − T ref ) + P3i  − ref  + P4 i ln  ref  + P5i T 2 − T ref
T T  T 
)
2
)
Where:
Tref = 298.15 K
The user must:
• Supply these elements using a Properties Parameters Binary.T-
Dependent form.
• Specify Comp ID i and Comp ID j on this form, using the same
order that appears on the Components Specifications Selection
sheet form.
The parameters are summarized in the following table. There is a
Pitzer parameter databank in the Aspen Physical Property System
(see Physical Property Data).
Parameter Symbol No. of Default MDS Units
Name Elements
Cation-Anion Parameters
GMPTB0 β(0) 5 0 x —
GMPTB1 β ( 1) 5 0 x —
GMPTB2 β(2) 5 0 x —
GMPTB3 β ( 3) 5 0 x —
GMPTC Cθ 5 0 x —
Cation-Cation Parameters
GMPTTH θ cc’ 5 0 x —
Anion-Anion Parameters
GMPTTH θ aa’ 5 0 x —
Cation1-Cation 2-Common Anion Parameters
GMPTPS Ψcc ’a 1 0 x —
Anion1-Anion2-Common Cation Parameters
GMPTPS Ψca a ’ 1 0 x —
Molecule-Ion and Molecule-Molecule Parameters

GMPTB0 β(0) 5 0 x —
GMPTB1 β ( 1) 5 0 x —
GMPTC Cθ 5 0 x —
Polynomial Activity This model represents activity coeficient as an empirical function
Coefficient of composition and temperature. It is used frequently in
metallurgical applications where multiple liquid and solid solution
phases can exist.
The equation is:
ln γ i = Ai + Bi x i + Ci x i2 + Di x i3 + E i x i4
Where:
Ai = a i1 T + a i 2 + a i3 ln(T )
Bi = b i1 T + b i 2 + b i 3 ln(T )
Ci = c i1 T + c i 2 + c i 3 ln(T )
Di = d i1 T + d i 2 + d i3 ln(T )
Ei = ei1 T + ei 2 + ei 3 ln(T )
For any component i, the value of the activity coefficient can be
fixed:
γ i = fi
GMPLYP/1 a i1 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/2 a i2 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/3 a i3 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/4 bi1 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/5 bi 2 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/6 bi3 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/7 ci1 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/8 ci 2 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/9 ci3 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/10 d i1 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/11 d i2 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/12 d i3 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/13 ei1 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/14 ei2 0 x — — —
GMPLYP/15 ei3 0 x — — —
GMPLYO fi — x — — —
Redlich-Kister This model calculates activity coefficients. It is a polynomial in the
difference between mole fractions in the mixture. It can be used for
liquid and solid mixtures (mixed crystals).
The equation is:
nc  5
( )n−2 (nxi − x j )− 12 ∑∑ x j xk An, jk (x j − xk )n−2 [(2n − 1)x j − xk ]
nc 5
ln γ i = ∑ ∑ x j An,ij xi − x j
j =1  n =1 k =1 n =1 
Where:
nc = Number of components
A1,ij = a ij T + bij
A2,ij = cij T + d ij
A3,ij = eij T + f ij
A4,ij = gij T + hij
A5,ij = mij T + nij

fixed:
γ i = vi
Parameter Name/ Symbol Default MDS Lower Upper Units
Element Limit Limit
GMRKTB/1 a ij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/2 bij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/3 cij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/4 d ij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/5 eij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/6 f ij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/7 g ij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/8 hij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/9 mij 0 x — — —
GMRKTB/10 nij 0 x — — —
GMRKTO vi — x — — —
Scatchard-Hildebrand The Scatchard-Hildebrand model calculates liquid activity
coefficients. It is used in the CHAO-SEA property method and the
GRAYSON property method.
The equation for the Scatchard-Hildebrand model is:
Vi*,l
ln γ i =
RT
∑∑ϕ ϕ j k ( A ji − 1 2 A jk )
j k
Where:
( )
2
Aij = 2 δi − δ j
ϕi = x iVi*,l
Vml
Vm*, L = ∑xV
i
i i
*,l
The Scatchard-Hildebrand model does not require binary

parameters.
Parameter Symbol Default MDS Lower Limit Upper Limit Units
Name/Element
TC Tci — x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
DELTA δi — x 10 3 10 5 SOLUPARAM
VLCVT1 Vi*, CVT — x 0.0005 1.0 MOLE-VOLUME
GMSHVL Vi*, I Vi*, I = Vi*,CVT x 0.01 1.0 MOLE-VOLUME
 29815
. 
5.7 + 3.0 
 Tci 
Three-Suffix Margules This model can be used to describe the excess properties of liquid
and solid solutions. It does not find much use in chemical
engineering applications, but is still widely used in metallurgical
applications. Note that the binary parameters for this model do not
have physical significance.
The equation is:
2 ∑ (kij + k ji )x j − ∑∑ k jl x j xl + ∑ (kij − k ji )x j (x j )∑∑ (k jl − klj )xl x 2j

nc nc nc nc nc nc
ln γ i = 1 2 − xi
j j l j j l
k ij
Where is a binary parameter:
k ij = a ij T + bij + cij ln(T )
fixed:
γ i = di
Parameter Name/ Symbol Default MDS Lower Upper Limit Units
Element Limit
GMMRGB/1 a ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
GMMRGB/2 bij 0 x — — —
GMMRGB/3 cij 0 x — — —
GMMRGO di — x — — —
References
M. Margules, "Über die Zusammensetzung der gesättigten Dämpfe

von Mischungen," Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Vienna, Vol. 104,
(1895), p. 1293.
D.A. Gaskell, Introduction to Metallurgical Thermodyanics, 2nd
ed., (New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1981), p. 360.
R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, and B.E. Poling, The Properties of
Gases and Liquids, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987).
UNIFAC The UNIFAC model calculates liquid activity coefficients for the
following property methods: UNIFAC, UNIF-HOC, and UNIF-
LL. Because the UNIFAC model is a group-contribution model, it
is predictive. All published group parameters and group binary
parameters are stored in the Aspen Physical Property System.
The equation for the original UNIFAC liquid activity coefficient
model is made up of a combinatorial and residual term:
ln γ = ln γ ic + ln γ ir
ln γ ci = Φ  Φ Z Φ Φ 
ln  i  + 1 − i − ln i + 1 − i 
 xi  xi 2  θi θi 
Where the molecular volume and surface fractions are:
z
xi
qi
x i ri
Φi = nc
θ i = nc 2
z
∑x r j j ∑j x j 2 q j
j
and
Where nc is the number of components in the mixture. The
coordination number z is set to 10. The parameters ri and qi are
calculated from the group volume and area parameters:
ng ng
ri = ∑ v ki Rk qi = ∑ v ki Qk
k and k
Where ν ki is the number of groups of type k in molecule i, and ng

is the number of groups in the mixture.
The residual term is:
[ ]
ng
ln γ = ∑ ν ki ln Γk − ln Γki
r
i
k
Γk is the activity coefficient of a group at mixture composition,
and Γk is the activity coefficient of group k in a mixture of groups

i
corresponding to pure i. The parameters Γk and Γk are defined by:

i
  
  

ng ng
 θ m τ km  
ln Γk = Qk 1 − ln ∑ θ m τ mk − ∑ ng
 m  
  ∑ θ n τ nm  
m
  n 
With:
z
Xk Qk
θ k = ng 2
z
∑
m
X m Qm
2
And:
τ mn = e − bmn / T
The parameter X k is the group mole fraction of group k in the

liquid:
nc
∑ν kj xj
Xk =
j
nc ng
∑∑ν mj xj
j m

Name/Element Limit
UFGRP ( ν ki ν mi ...) — — — — —
GMUFQ Qk — — — — —
GMUFR Rk — — — — —
GMUFB bkn — — — — TEMPERATURE
The parameter UFGRP stores the UNIFAC functional group

number and number of occurrences of each group. UFGRP is
stored in the Aspen Physical Property System pure component
databank for most components. For nondatabank components,
enter UFGRP on the Properties Molecular Structure Functional
Group sheet. See Physical Property Data, Chapter 3, for a list of
the UNIFAC functional groups.
References
Aa. Fredenslund, J. Gmehling and P. Rasmussen, "Vapor-Liquid

Equilibria using UNIFAC," (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1977).
Aa. Fredenslund, R.L. Jones and J.M. Prausnitz, AIChE J., Vol.
21, (1975), p. 1086.
H.K. Hansen, P. Rasmussen, Aa. Fredenslund, M. Schiller, and J.
Gmehling, "Vapor-Liquid Equilibria by UNIFAC Group
Contribution. 5 Revision and Extension", Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
Vol. 30, (1991), pp. 2352-2355.
UNIFAC (Dortmund The UNIFAC modification by Gmehling and coworkers (Weidlich
Modified) and Gmehling, 1987; Gmehling et al., 1993), is slightly different in
the combinatorial part. It is otherwise unchanged compared to the
original UNIFAC:
 Φ′  Φ z  Φ Φ 
ln γ ci = ln  i  + 1 − i − qi  ln i + 1 − i 
 xi  xi 2  θi θi 
With:
Φ ′i
3
ri 4
=
∑ j x j rj 4
3
xi
The temperature dependency of the interaction parameters is:

a mn = a mn,1 + a mn, 2T + a mn, 3T 2
Name/Element Limit
UFGRPD ( kν ki mν mi ...) — — — — —
GMUFDQ Qk — — — — —
GMUFDR Rk — — — — —
UNIFDM/1 a mn,1 0 — — — TEMPERATURE
The parameter UFGRPD stores the group number and the number
of occurrences of each group. UFGRPD is stored in the Aspen
Physical Property System pure component databank. For
nondatabank components, enter UFGRPD on the Properties
Molecular Structure Functional Group sheet. See Physical Property
Data, Chapter 3, for a list of the Dortmund modified UNIFAC
functional groups.
U. Weidlich and J. Gmehling, "A Modified UNIFAC Model 1.
Prediction of VLE, h and γ ," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 26,
E ∞
(1987), pp. 1372–1381.

J. Gmehling, J. Li, and M. Schiller, "A Modified UNIFAC Model.
2. Present Parameter Matrix and Results for Different
Thermodynamic Properties," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 32,
(1993), pp. 178–193.
UNIFAC (Lyngby The equations for the "temperature-dependent UNIFAC" (Larsen
Modified) et al., 1987) are similar to the original UNIFAC:
ln γ i = ln γ ci + ln γ ri ,
ω  ω
ln γ ci = ln  i  + 1 − i
 xi  xi
Volume fractions are modified:
2
x i ri 3
ωi = nc
∑x r
2
3
j j
j
With:
ng
ri = ∑ ν ki Rk
k
( )
ng
ln γ ri = ∑ ν ki ln Γk − ln Γki
k
Where Γk and Γk have the same meaning as in the original

i
UNIFAC, but defined as:

  
 ng  
z  ng
 θ τ
ln Γk = Qk 1 − ln  ∑ θ m τ mk  + ∑  ng m km  
2   m  m  
  ∑ θ n τ nm  
  n 
With:
z
Qk Xk
θ k = ng 2
z
∑m X m 2 Qm
τ mn = e − amn T
The temperature dependency of a is described by a function instead
of a constant:
 29815
. 
a mn = a mn,1 + a mn, 2 (T − 29815
. ) + a mn, 3  T ln + T − 29815
. 
 T 
Name/Element Limit
UFGRPL ( ν ki ν mi ...) — — — — —
GMUFLQ Qk — — — — —
GMUFLR Rk — — — — —
UNIFLB/1 a mn,1 0 — — — TEMPERATURE
The parameter UFGRPL stores the modified UNIFAC functional

group number and the number of occurrences of each group.
UFGRPL is stored in the Aspen Physical Property System pure
component databank. For nondatabank components, enter UFGRP
on the Properties Molec-Struct.Func Group form. See Physical
Property Data, Chapter 3, for a list of the Larsen modified
UNIFAC functional groups.
B. Larsen, P. Rasmussen, and Aa. Fredenslund, "A Modified
UNIFAC Group-Contribution Model for Prediction of Phase
Equilibria and Heats of Mixing," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 26,
(1987), pp. 2274 – 2286.
UNIQUAC The UNIQUAC model calculates liquid activity coefficients for
these property methods: UNIQUAC, UNIQ-2, UNIQ-HOC,
UNIQ-NTH, and UNIQ-RK. It is recommended for highly non-
ideal chemical systems, and can be used for VLE and LLE
applications. This model can also be used in the advanced
equations of state mixing rules, such as Wong-Sandler and MHV2.
The equation for the UNIQUAC model is:
Φi z θ Φ
ln γ i = ln + qi ln i − qi′ ln ti′ − qi′∑ θ ′jτ ij t ′j + li + qi′ − i ∑x l
xi 2 Φi j xi j
j j
Where:
θi =
qi x i qT ; qT = ∑ qk x k
k
θ ′i =
qi′xi qT′ ; qT′ = ∑ qk′ x k
k
Φi =
Φ i = ri x i rT ; rT = ∑ rk x k
k
li = z
(ri − qi ) + 1 − ri
2
t i′ =
∑ θ′ τ
k
k ki
τ ij = exp( a ij + bij T + Cij ln T + d ij T
z = 10
a ij = a ji
bij = b ji
cij = c ji
d ij = d ji
a b c d
The binary parameters ij , ij , ij , and ij can be determined from
VLE and/or LLE data regression. The Aspen Physical Property
System has a large number of built-in parameters for the
UNIQUAC model. The binary parameters have been regressed
using VLE and LLE data from the Dortmund Databank. The
binary parameters for VLE applications were regressed using the
ideal gas, Redlich-Kwong, and Hayden-O’Connell equations of
state. See Physical Property Data, Chapter 1, for details.
Name/Element Limit
GMUQR ri — x — — —
GMUQQ qi — x — — —
GMUQQ1 qi′ q x — — —
UNIQ/1 a ij 0 x -50.0 50.0 —
UNIQ/2 bij 0 x -15000.0 15000.0 TEMPERATURE
UNIQ/3 cij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
UNIQ/4 d ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
Absolute temperature units are assumed.
References
D.S. Abrams and J.M. Prausnitz, "Statistical Thermodynamics of

liquid mixtures: A new expression for the Excess Gibbs Energy of
Partly or Completely Miscible Systems," AIChE J., Vol. 21,
(1975), p. 116.
A. Bondi, "Physical Properties of Molecular Crystals, Liquids and
Gases," (New York: Wiley, 1960).
Simonetty, Yee and Tassios, "Prediction and Correlation of LLE,"
Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Dev., Vol. 21, (1982), p. 174.
Van Laar The Van Laar model (Van Laar 1910) calculates liquid activity
coefficients for the property methods: VANLAAR, VANL-2,
VANL-HOC, VANL-NTH, and VANL-RK. It can be used for
highly nonideal systems.
[
ln γ i = Ai (1 − z i ) 1 + Ci z i ( z i − 2 3 ) + 2 z i ( Ai Bi Ai Bi − 1)
2
]
Where:
zi = Ai xi
Ai xi + Bi (1 − xi )
Ai = ∑x j Aij (1 − x i )
j
Bi = ∑x j A ji (1 − x i )
j
Ci = ∑x Cj
j ij (1 − x i )
Aij = a ij + bij T
Cij = cij + d ij T
Cij = C ji
Aii = Bii = Cii = 0

a ij = a ji
bij = b ji
Parameters Symbo Default MDS Lower Limit Upper Limit Units

Name/Element l
VANL/1 a ij 0 x -50.0 50.0 —
VANL/2 bij 0 x -15000.0 15000.0 TEMPERATURE
VANL/3 cij 0 x -50.0 50.0 —
VANL/4 d ij 0 x -15000.0 15000.0 TEMPERATURE
References
J.J. Van Laar, "The Vapor Pressure of Binary Mixtures," Z. Phys.

Chem., Vol. 72, (1910), p. 723.
Gases and Liquids, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987).
Wagner Interaction The Wagner Interaction Parameter model calculates activity
Parameter coefficients. This model is used for dilute solutions in
metallurgical applications.
The relative activity coefficient with respect tothe reference
activity coefficient of a solute i (in a mixture of solutes i, j, and l
and solvent A) is:
( )
nc
ln γ i γ ref
i = ln γ A + ∑ k ij x i j≠A
j =1
Where:
nc nc
ln γ A = − 1 2 ∑ ∑ k jl x j x l j and l ≠ A
j l
The parameter γ i is the reference activity coefficient of solute i:

ref
ln γ ref
i = a i T + bi + ci ln(T )
kij
is a binary parameter:
kij = d ij T + eij + f ij ln (T )
fixed:
γ i = gi
This model is recommended for dilute solutions.
Parameter Name/ Symbol Default MDS Lower Limit Upper Limit Units
Element
GMWIPR/1 ai 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
GMWIPR/2 bi 0 x — — —
GMWIPR/3 ci 0 x — — —
GMWIPB/1 d ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
GMWIPB/2 eij 0 x — — —
GMWIPB/3 f ij 0 x — — —
GMWIPO gi — x — — —
GMWIPS — 0 x — — —
GMWIPS is used to identify the solvent component. You must set
GMWIPS to 1.0 for the solvent component. This model allows
only one solvent.
References
A.D. Pelton and C. W. Ball, "A Modified Interaction Parameter

Formalism for Non-Dilute Solutions," Metallurgical Transactions
A, Vol. 17A, (July 1986), p. 1211.
Wilson The Wilson model calculates liquid activity coefficients for the
property methods: WILSON, WILS2, WILS-HOC, WILS-NTH,
WILS-RK, and WILS-HF. It is recommended for highly nonideal
systems, especially alcohol-water systems. It can also be used in
the advanced equation-of-state mixing rules, such as Wong-
Sandler and MHV2. This model cannot be used for liquid-liquid
equilibrium calculations.
The equation for the Wilson model is:
  A ji x j
ln γ i = 1 − ln  ∑ Aij x j  − ∑
 j  j ∑ A jk x k
k
Where:
ln Aij = a ij + bij T + cij ln T + d ij T
a ij = a ji
bij = b ji
cij = c ji
d ij = d ji
a b c d
The binary parameters ij , ij , ij , and ij must be determined
from VLE data regression. The Aspen Physical Property System
has a large number of built-in binary parameters for the Wilson
model. The binary parameters have been regressed using VLE data
from the Dortmund Databank. The binary parameters were
regressed using the ideal gas, Redlich-Kwong, and Hayden-
O’Connell equations of state. See Physical Property Data, Chapter
1, for details.
Name/Element
WILSON/1 a ij 0 x -50.0 50.0 —
WILSON/2 bij 0 x -15000.0 15000.0 TEMPERATURE
WILSON/3 cij 0 x -— — TEMPERATURE
WILSON/4 d ij 0 x — — TEMPERATURE

References
G.M. Wilson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 86, (1964), p. 127.

Wilson Model with Liquid This Wilson model calculates liquid activity coefficients using the
Molar Volume original formulation of Wilson (Wilson 1964) except that liquid
molar volume is calculated at system temperature, instead of at
25°C. It is recommended for highly nonideal systems, especially
alcohol-water systems. It can be used in any activity coefficient
property method or in the advanced equation-of-state mixing rules,
such as Wong-Sandler and MHV2. This model cannot be used for
liquid-liquid equilibrium calculations.
The equation for the Wilson model is:
  Aji x j
ln γ i = 1 − ln ∑ Aij x j  − ∑
 j  j ∑ Ajk xk
k
Where:
ln Aij = Vj bij
ln Vi + T
bij = b ji
Vi and V j are liquid molar volume at the system temperature

calculated using the Rackett model.
b b
The binary parameters ij and ji must be determined from VLE
data regression. There are no built-in binary parameters for this
model.
Name/Element Limit
WSNVOL/1 b ij 0 x -15000.0 15000.0 TEMPERATURE
Pure component parameters for the Rackett model are also
required.
G.M. Wilson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 86, (1964), p. 127.
Vapor Pressure and The Aspen Physical Property System has 4 built-in vapor pressure
Liquid Fugacity and liquid fugacity models. This section describes the vapor
Models pressure and liquid fugacity models available.
Model Type
Extended Antoine/Wagner/IK-CAPE Vapor pressure
Chao-Seader Fugacity
Grayson-Streed Fugacity
Kent-Eisenberg Fugacity
Maxwell-Bonnell Vapor pressure
Extended The vapor pressure of a liquid can be calculated using the extended
Antoine/Wagner/IK-CAPE Antoine equation, the Wagner equation, or the IK-CAPE equation.
Extended Antoine Equation
Many parameters are available for the extended Antoine equation

from the Aspen Physical Property System pure component
databank. This equation is used whenever the parameter PLXANT
is available.
The equation for the extended Antoine vapor pressure model is:
C 2i
ln pi*,l = C1i + + C 4i T + C 5i ln T + C 6i T C7 i for C8i ≤ C9i
T + C3i
*,l
Extrapolation of ln pi versus 1/T occurs outside of temperature
bounds.
Name/Element
PLXANT/1 C1i — x — — PRESSURE,
TEMPERATURE
PLXANT/2 C2 i — x — — TEMPERATURE
PLXANT/3, . . . C3i ,..., C7 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
,7
PLXANT/8 C8 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
PLXANT/9 C9 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
If elements 5, 6, or 7 are non-zero, absolute temperature units are

assumed for elements 1 through 7.
Wagner Vapor Pressure Equation
The Wagner vapor pressure equation is the best equation for

correlation. However, its results are sensitive to the values of Tc
and pc. The equation is used if the parameter WAGNER is
available:
( )
ln pri*,l = C1i (1 − Tri ) + C2i (1 − Tri )1.5 + C3i (1 − Tri )3 + C4i (1 − Tri )6 Tri
Where:
T ri = T T ci
pri*,l = pi*,l pci

Name/Element
WAGNER/1 C1i — x — — —
WAGNER/2 C2 i 0 x — — —
WAGNER/3 C3i 0 x — — —
WAGNER/4 C4 i 0 x — — —
TC Tci — — — — TEMPERATURE
PC pci — — — — PRESSURE
IK-CAPE Vapor Pressure Equation
The IK-CAPE model is a polynomial equation. If the parameter

PLPO is available, the Aspen Physical Property System uses the
IK-CAPE vapor pressure equation:
ln pi*,l = C1i + C2iT + C3iT 2 + C4iT 3 + C5iT 4 + C6iT 5 + C7iT 6 + C8iT 7 + C9iT 8 + C10iT 9
for C11i ≤ T ≤ C12i

Name/Element Limit
PLPO/1 C1i — X — — PRESSURE
TEMPERATURE
PLPO/2,…,10 C10 i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
PLPO/11 C11i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
PLPO/12 C12 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE
References
Reid, Prausnitz, and Poling, The Properties of Gases and Liquids,

4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987).
Harlacher and Braun, "A Four-Parameter Extension of the
Theorem of Corresponding States," Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev., Vol. 9, (1970), p. 479.
W. Wagner, Cryogenics, Vol. 13, (1973), pp. 470-482.
Chao-Seader The Chao-Seader model calculates pure component fugacity
coefficient, for liquids. It is used in the CHAO-SEA property
method. This is an empirical model with the Curl-Pitzer form. The
general form of the model is:
ln ϕ *,i l = ln ν (i 0 ) + ω i ln ν (i1)
Where:
ν (i 0 ) , ν (i1) = fcn (T , T ci , p, p ci )

Name/Element
OMEGA ωi — — -0.5 2.0 —
References
K.C. Chao and J.D. Seader, "A General Correlation of Vapor-

Liquid Equilibria in Hydrocarbon Mixtures," AIChE J., Vol. 7,
(1961), p. 598.
Grayson-Streed The Grayson-Streed model calculates pure component fugacity
coefficients for liquids, and is used in the
GRAYSON/GRAYSON2 property methods. It is an empirical
model with the Curl-Pitzer form. The general form of the model is:
ln ϕ *,i l = ln ν (i 0 ) + ω i ln ν(i1)
Where:
ν(i 0 ) , ν(i1) = fcn(T , Tci , p, pci )
Name/Element
5 8
PC pci — — 10 10 PRESSURE
OMEGA ωi — — -0.5 2.0 —
References
H.G. Grayson and C.W. Streed, Paper 20-PO7, Sixth World

Petroleum Conference, Frankfurt, June 1963.
Kent-Eisenberg The Kent-Eisenberg model calculates liquid mixture component
fugacity coefficients and liquid enthalpy for the AMINES property
method.
The chemical equilibria in H 2 S + CO2 + amine systems are
described using these chemical reactions:
K1
RR ′NH 2+ H + + RR ′NH
=
K2
RR ′NCOO − + H 2 O RR ′NH + HCO3−
=
K3
H 2 O + CO2 H + + HCO3−
=
K4
H2O H + + OH −
=
K5
HCO3− H + + CO32−
=
K6
H2S H + + HS 2−
=
K7
HS − H + + S 2−
=
Where:
R′ = Alcohol substituted alkyl groups
The equilibrium constants are given by:
ln K i = A1i + A2 i T + A3i T 2 + A4 i T 3 + A5 i T 4
The chemical equilibrium equations are solved simultaneously
with the balance equations. This obtains the mole fractions of free
H 2 S and CO2 in solution. The equilibrium partial pressures of
H 2 S and CO2 are related to the respective free concentrations by
Henry’s constants:
ln H i = B1i + B2i T
The apparent fugacities and partial molar enthalpies, Gibbs
energies and entropies of H 2 S and CO2 are calculated by standard
thermodynamic relationships. The chemical reactions are always
considered.
The values of the coefficients for the seven equilibrium constants
( A1i ,..., A5i ) and for the two Henry’s constants B1i and B2i are built
into the Aspen Physical Property System. The coefficients for the
equilibrium constants were determined by regression. All available
data for the four amines were used: monoethanolamine,
diethanolamine, disopropanolamine and diglycolamine.
You are not required to enter any parameters for this model.
References
R.L. Kent and B. Eisenberg, Hydrocarbon Processing, (February

1976), pp. 87-92.
Maxwell-Bonnell The Maxwell-Bonnell model calculates vapor pressure using the
Maxwell-Bonnell vapor pressure correlation for all hydrocarbon
pseudo-components as a function of temperature. This is an
empirical correlation based on API procedure 5A1.15, 5A1.13.
This model is used in property method MXBONNEL for
calculating vapor pressure and liquid fugacity coefficients (K-
values).
References
API procedure 5A1.15 and 5A1.13.
Heat of Vaporization The Aspen Physical Property System uses two models to calculate
Model pure component heat of vaporization: the Watson/DIPPR/IK-
CAPE model and the Clausius-Clapeyron model. For the
Watson/DIPPR/IK-CAPE model, the DIPPR equation is the
primary equation used for all components. The Watson equation is
used in PCES. The IK-CAPE equation is a polynomial equation,
and is used when the parameter DHVLPO is available.
DIPPR Equation The equation for the DIPPR heat of vaporization model is:
∆ vap H i* = C1i (1 − Tri )( ) for C ≤ T ≤ C

C2 i + C3 i Tri + C4 i Tri2 + C5 i Tri3
6i 7i
Where:
Tri = T Tci
∆ vap H i*
Extrapolation of versus T occurs outside of temperature
bounds.
Name/Element Limit
DHVLDP/1 C1i — x — — MOLE-ENTHALPY
DHVLDP/2, . , 5 C2 i ,..., C5i 0 x — — —
DHVLDP/6 C6 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
DHVLDP/7 C7 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
Watson Equation The equation for the Watson model is:
ai + bi (1−T Tci )
 1 − T Tci 
∆ vap H (T ) = ∆ vap H (T1 )
* *
 for T > Tmin
−
i i
 1 T1 Tci 
Where:
∆ vap H i* (T1 ) = T1
Parameter Symbol Default Lower Upper Limit Units

Name/Element Limit
DHVLWT/1 ∆ vap H i* (T1 ) — 5X10 4 5X10 8 MOLE-ENTHALPY
DHVLWT/2 T1 — 4.0 3500.0 TEMPERATURE

DHVLWT/3 ai 0.38 -2.0 2.0 —
DHVLWT/4 bi 0 -2.0 2.0 —
DHVLWT/5 Tmin 0 0.0 1500.0 TEMPERATURE
IK-CAPE Equation The equation for the IK-CAPE model is:
∆ vap H i* (T ) = C1i + C 2i T + C 3i T 2 + C 4i T 3 + C 5i T 4 + C 6i T 5 + C 7 i T 6 + C8i T 7 + C9i T 8 + C10i T 9
for C11i ≤ T ≤ C12 i

DHVLPO/1 C1i — X — — MOLE-ENTHALPY
DHVLPO/2,…,10 C10 i 0 X — — MOLE-ENTHALPY
TEMPERATURE
DHVLPO/11 C11i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
DHVLPO/12 C12 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE
Clausius-Clapeyron The Aspen Physical Property System can calculate heat of

Equation vaporization using the Clausius-Clapeyron equation:
d pi*, l
∆ vap Hi* = T (Vi *, v − Vi *, l )
dT
Where:
d pi*, l = Slope of the vapor pressure curve calculated from
dT the Extended Antoine equation
Vi *, v = Vapor molar volume calculated from the

Redlich-Kwong equation-of-state
Vi *, l = Liquid molar volume calculated from the Rackett
equation
For parameter requirements, see Extended Antoine/Wagner, the
Rackett model, and Redlich-Kwong., all in this chapter.
Molar Volume and The Aspen Physical Property System has nine built-in molar
Density Models volume and density models available. This section describes the
molar volume and density models.
Model Type
API Liquid Volume Liquid volume
Brelvi-O’Connell Partial molar liquid
volume of gases
Clarke Aqueous Electrolyte Volume Liquid volume
Costald Liquid Volume Liquid volume
Debije-Hückel Volume Electrolyte liquid volume
Rackett/DIPPR/IK-CAPE Pure Component Liquid volume/liquid
Liquid Volume density
Rackett Mixture Liquid Volume Liquid volume
Modified Rackett Liquid volume
Aspen/IK-CAPE Solids Volume Solid volume
API Liquid Volume This model calculates liquid molar volume for a mixture, using the
API procedure and the Rackett model. Ideal mixing is assumed:
Vml = x pVpl + xrVrl
Where:
xp = Mole fraction of pseudocomponents
xr = Mole fraction of real components
For pseudocomponents, the API procedure is used:
Vpl = fcn(T , Tb , API )
Where:
fcn = A correlation based on API Figure 6A3.5 (API Technical
Data Book, Petroleum Refining, 4th edition)
For real components, the mixture Rackett model is used:
RTc Z
[
RA 1+(1− Tr )
27
]
V =
r
l
pc
See the Rackett model for descriptions.
TB Tb — — 4.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
API API — — -60.0 500.0 —
TC Tc — — 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PC pc — — 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
RKTZRA RA ZC — 0.1 0.5 —
Z
r
Brelvi-O’Connell The Brelvi-O’Connell model calculates partial molar volume of a
supercritical component i at infinite dilution in pure solvent A.
Partial molar volume at infinite dilution is required to compute the
effect of pressure on Henry’s constant. (See Henry’s Constant.)
The general form of the Brelvi-O’Connell model is:
(
ViA∞ = fcn Vi BO , V ABO , V A*l )
Where:
i = Solute or dissolved-gas component
A = Solvent component
The liquid molar volume of solvent is obtained from the Rackett
model:
RTcA Z A
[
RA 1+(1−TrA )
27
]
Vi*,l =
pcA
Name/Element Limit
TC TcA — — 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PC pcA — — 105 108 PRESSURE
RKTZRA Z ARA ZC x 0.1 1.0 —
VLBROC/1 Vi BO VC x -1.0 1.0 MOLE-VOLUME
VLBROC/2 — 0 x -0.1 0.1 TEMPERATURE
References
S.W. Brelvi and J.P. O’Connell, AIChE J., Vol. 18, (1972), p.
1239.
S.W. Brelvi and J.P. O’Connell, AIChE J., Vol. 21, (1975), p. 157.
Clarke Aqueous The Clarke model calculates liquid molar volume for electrolytes
Electrolyte Volume solutions. The model is applicable to mixed solvents and is based
on:
• Amagat’s law (equation 1)
• The relationship between the partial molar volume of an
electrolyte and its mole fraction in the solvent (equation 2)
All quantities are expressed in terms of apparent components.
Apparent Component Approach
Amagat’s law is:

Vml = ∑ix iVi (1)
For water and molecular solutes, Vi = Vi and is computed from the

*
Rackett equation. If water is the only molecular component, the

*
ASME steam table is used to compute Vi for water.
For electrolytes:
x ca (2)
Vca = Vca∞ + Aca
1 + x ca
Where:
x ca = Apparent electrolyte mole fraction
The mole fractions x ca are reconstituted arbitrarily from the true

ionic concentrations, even if you use the apparent component
approach. This technique is explained in Electrolyte Calculation,
Chapter 5.
The result is that electrolytes are generated from all possible
combinations of ions in solution. For example: given an aqueous
+ 2− −
solution of Ca , Na , SO 4 , Cl four electrolytes are found:
2+
CaCl 2 , Na 2SO 4 , CaSO 4 and NaCl. The Clarke parameters of all

four electrolytes are used. You can rely on the default, which
calculates the Clarke parameters from ionic parameters. Otherwise,
you must enter parameters for any electrolytes that may not exist in
the components list. If you do not want to use the default, the first
step in using the Clarke model is to enter any needed component
ID’s for electrolytes not in the components list.
The mole fractions of apparent electrolytes used in the calculation
are all nonzero, but are arbitrary values. For a given ionic solution,
the Clarke model always yields the same volume, independent of
the mole fractions of the electrolytes. Constraints between the
Clarke parameters result:
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
VCaCl 2
+ VNa 2 SO4
= VCaSO4
+ 2VNaCl
A similar equation exists for Aca You can consider these

constraints in simple parameter input and in data regression.
True Component Approach
The true molar volume is obtained from the apparent molar

volume:
na
V l ,t
=Vl ,a
m m
nt
Where:
Vml,t = Liquid volume per number of true species
l
Vml,a =
Liquid volume per number of apparent species, Vm of
equation 1
na = Number of apparent species
nt = Number of true species
The apparent molar volume is calculated as explained in the
preceding subsection.
Temperature Dependence
The temperature dependence of the molar volume of the solution is

approximately equal to the temperature dependence of the molar
volume of the solvent mixture:
( 298 K ) ∑
x V (T ) *,l
V (T ) = V
l l B B B
∑ x V (298 K )
m m *,l
B B B
Where:
B = Any solvent
Parameter Applicable Symbol Default Units

Name/Element Components
VLCLK/1 Cation-Anion V ∞ † MOLE-VOLUME
ca
VLCLK/2 Cation-Anion Aca 0.020 MOLE-VOLUME
† If VLCLK/1 is missing, it is calculated based on VLBROC and

CHARGE. If VLBROC is missing, the default value of
. x10−2 is used.
− 012
COSTALD Liquid Volume The equation for the COSTALD liquid volume model is:
(
Vmsat = VmCTDVmR , 0 1 − ωVmR ,δ )
Where:
R ,δ
VmR,0 and Vm are functions or Tr for 0.25 < Tr ≤ 0.95
For 0.95 < Tr ≤ 10. , there is a linear interpolation between the

liquid density at
Tr = 0.95 and the vapor density at Tr = 1.05. This model can be
used to calculate saturated and compressed liquid molar volume.
The compresed liquid molar volume is calculated using the Tait
equation.
Mixing Rules:
  
VmCTD = 1  ∑ xiVi*.CTD + 3∑ xi (Vi*.CTD ) 2 / 3  ∑ xi (Vi*,CTD )1 / 3 
4 
 i i  i 
VmCTD Tc = ∑ ∑ x i x jVijCTD Tcij
i j
ω = ∑ xi ω i
i
Where:
( )
1
VijCTD Tcij = Vi*,CTD TciV j*,CTD Tcj

2

Name/Element Limit
VSTCTD Vi*, CTD VC X 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
OMGCTD ωi OMEGA X -0.5 2.0 —
References
R.W. Hankinson and G.H. Thomson, AIChE J., Vol. 25, (1979), p.
653.
G.H. Thomson, K.R. Brobst, and R.W. Hankinson, AIChE J., Vol.
28, (1982), p. 4, p. 671.
Debije-Hückel Volume The Debije-Hückel model calculates liquid molar volume for
aqueous electrolyte solutions.
The equation for the Debije-Hückel volume model is:
Vm = x wVw* + ∑k x kVk
Where:
Vk∞ is the molar volume for water and is calculated from the
ASME steam table.
Vk is calculated from the Debije-Hückel limiting law for ionic
species. It is assumed to be the infinite dilution partial volume for
molecular solutes.
A 
Vk = Vk∞ + z k 10 −3  V  ln 1 + bI 2
 3b 
1
( )
Where:
Vk∞ = Partial molar ionic volume at infinite dilution
zk = Charge number of ion k
AV = Debije-Hückel constant for volume
b = 1.2
I = 1
2 ∑m z 2
k k
k the ionic strength, with
mk = Molarity of ion k
AV is computed as follows:
 ∂l ln ε w 1 ∂ρ w 
AV = −2 x 10 6 Aϕ R 3 + 
 ∂p pw ∂p 
Where:
Aϕ = Debije-Hückel constant for the osmotic
coefficients (Pitzer, 1979)
3
 Qe2 
( ( ) )
2
1
−3
2π 10 ρ w N A  
2
1
 ε w k BT 
3
ρw = -3
Density of water (kg / m )
εw = Dielectric constant of water ( Fm , a function of
−1
pressure and temperature (Bradley and Pitzer,

1979)
Parameter Name Applicable Symbol Default Units

Components
VLBROC Ions, molecular Solutes Vk∞ 0 MOLE-VOLUME
References
D. J. Bradley, K. S. Pitzer, "Thermodynamics of Electrolytes," J.

Phys. Chem., 83 (12), 1599 (1979).
H.C. Helgeson and D.H. Kirkham, "Theoretical prediction of the
thermodynamic behavior of aqueous electrolytes at high pressure
and temperature. I. Thermodynamic/electrostatic properties of the
solvent", Am. J. Sci., 274, 1089 (1974).
K.S. Pitzer, "Theory: Ion Interaction Approach," Activity
Coefficients in Electrolyte Solutions, Pytkowicz, R. ed., Vol. I,
(CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1979).
Rackett/DIPPR/IK-CAPE Three equations are available for pure component liquid molar
Pure Component Liquid volume: the Rackett equation, the DIPPR equation, and the IK-
Volume CAPE equation. The DIPPR equation is used if the parameter
DNLDIP is available for a given component. The Rackett equation
is used if the parameter RKTZRA is available. The IK-CAPE
equation is used if the parameter VLPO is available.
For liquid molar volume of mixtures, the Rackett mixture equation
is always used. This is not necessarily consistent with the pure
component molar volume or density.
DIPPR
The DIPPR equation is:
ρ i = C1i / C2i
*,l (1+ (1−T / C 3i )
C4 i
) for C ≤ T ≤ C
6i 7i
1
Vi *,l =
ρi
*,l
This equation is similar to the Rackett equation. The model returns

liquid molar volume for pure components.
Name/Element Limit
DNLDIP/1 C1i — x — — MOLE-DENSITY
DNLDIP/2 C2 i 0 x — — —
DNLDIP/3 C3i Tci x — — TEMPERATURE
DNLDIP/4 C4 i 0 x — — —
DNLDIP/5 C5i 0 x — — —
DNLDIP/6 C6 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
DNLDIP/7 C7 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
If element 3 is non-zero, absolute temperature units are assumed

for element 3. (See Chapter 5.)
IK-CAPE
The IK-CAPE equation is:

Vi *,l = C1i + C2iT + C3iT 2 + C4iT 3 + C5iT 4 + C6iT 5 + C7iT 6 + C8iT 7 + C9iT 8 + C10iT 9

Name/Element Limit
VLPO/1 C1i — X — — MOLE-VOLUME
VLPO/2,…,10 C10 i 0 X — — MOLE-VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
VLPO/11 C11i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
VLPO/12 C12 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE
Rackett
The equation for the Rackett model is:
RTci  Z i*, RA [ ] 
1+ ( 1− Tr )
27
 
Vi *,l
=
pci
Where:
Tr = T
Tci

Name/ Element Limit
RKTZRA Zi*,RA ZC x 0.1 1.0 —
References
H.G. Rackett, J.Chem, Eng. Data., Vol. 15, (1970), p. 514.

C.F. Spencer and R.P. Danner, J. Chem. Eng. Data, Vol. 17,
(1972), p. 236.
Rackett/Campbell- The Rackett equation calculates liquid molar volume for all
Thodos Mixture Liquid activity coefficient-based and petroleum-tuned equation-of-state
Volume based property methods. In the last category of property methods,
the equation is used in conjunction with the API model. The API
model is used for pseudocomponents, while the Rackett model is
used for real components. (See API Liquid Volume .) Campbell-
Thodos is a variation on the Rackett model which allows the
*, RA
compressibility term Zi to vary with temperature.
Rackett
The equation for the Rackett model is:

 2 
( ) RA 1+(1− Tr ) 
7
RTc Z
Vml =
m
Pc
Where:
Tc =
∑∑ x x V V (T T ) (1 − k )
1
2
i j ci cj ci cj ij Vcm2
i j
Tc = Tci
Pc
∑x i i
Pci
ZmRA = ∑xZ
i
i i
*, RA
Vcm = ∑ xV
i
i ci
Tr = T
Tc

Name/Element Limit
VCRKT Vci VC x 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
RKTZRA Zi*, RA ZC x 0.1 1.0 —
RKTKIJ kij
1−
(
8 VciVcj )1 2 x -5.0 5.0 —
3
 V 1 3 + V 13 
 ci cj 
 
Campbell-Thodos
The Campbell-Thodos model uses the same equation and

RA
parameters as the Rackett model, above, except that Zm is allowed
to vary with temperature:
ZmRA = ∑ xi Z i*,RA [1 + d i (1 − Tr )]
i
Name/Element Limit
RACKET/3 di none x 0 0.11 —
The Campbell-Thodos model is used when RACKET/3 is set to a
value less than 0.11. The default value, 2/7, indicates that the
standard Rackett equation should used. When Campbell-Thodos is
not used, RACKET/3 should be kept at its default value of 2/7 for
all components.
References

(1972), p. 236.
Modified Rackett The Modified Rackett equation improves the accuracy of liquid
mixture molar volume calculation by introducing additional
parameters to compute the pure component parameter RKTZRA
k
and the binary parameter ij .
The equation for the Modified Rackett model is:
 2 
1+(1− Tr ) 
RTc ( ZmRA ) 
7
Vm =
l
Pc
Where:
Tc =
∑ ∑ xi x jVciVcj Tci Tcj ( ) (1 − k )
1
2
ij Vcm2
i j
kij = Aij + Bij T + Cij T 2
Tc = Tci
Pc
∑x i i
Pci
ZmRA = ∑xZ
i
i i
*, RA
Z i*, RA = a i + bi T + ci T 2
Vcm = ∑ xV
i
i ci
Tr = T
Tc
MRKZRA/1 ai RKTZRA x 0.1 0.5 —
MRKZRA/2 bi 0 x — — —
MRKZRA/3 ci 0 x — — —
MRKKIJ/1 Aij
1−
(
8 VciVcj )1 2 x — — —
3
 V 1 3 + V 13 
 ci cj 
 
MRKKIJ/2 Bij 0 x — — —
MRKKIJ/3 Cij 0 x — — —
References

(1972), p. 236.
Aspen/IK-CAPE Solids Two equations are available for pure component solid molar
Volume volume.
The Aspen Physical Property When this parameter is available
System uses this equation for a given component
Aspen VSPOLY
IK-CAPE VSPO
Aspen Polynomial
The equation for the Aspen solids volume polynomial is:

Vi *,s = C1i + C2T + C3iT 2 + C4iT 3 + C5iT 4 forC6i ≤ T ≤ C7 i
Parameter Applicable Symbol MDS Default Units
Name Components
VSPOLY/1 Salts, CI solids C1i x — MOLE-VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
VSPOLY/2, . . . , Salts, CI solids C2 i ,..., C5i x 0 MOLE-VOLUME
5 TEMPERATURE
VSPOLY/6 Salts, CI solids C6 i x 0 MOLE-VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
VSPOLY/7 Salts, CI solids C7 i x 1000 MOLE-VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
IK-CAPE Equation
The IK-CAPE equation is a polynomial equation containing 10

terms. If the parameter VSPO is available, the Aspen Physical
Property System uses the IK-CAPE equation.
Vi *,s = C1i + C2iT + C3iT 2 + C4iT 3 + C5iT 4 + C6iT 5 + C7iT 6 + C8iT 7 + C9iT 8 + C10iT 9

Name/Element Limit
VSPO/1 C1i — X — — MOLE-VOLUME
VSPO/2,…,10 C10 i 0 X — — MOLE-VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
VSPO/11 C11i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
VSPO/12 C12 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE
Heat Capacity Models The Aspen Physical Property System has five built-in heat capacity
models. This section describes the heat capacity models available.
Model Type
Aqueous Infinite Dilution Heat Capacity Electrolyte liquid
Polynomial
Criss-Cobble Aqueous Infinite Dilution Ionic Electrolyte liquid
Heat Capacity
DIPPR/IK-CAPE Liquid Heat Capacity Liquid
Ideal Gas Heat Capacity/DIPPR Ideal gas
Solids Heat Capacity Polynomial Solid
IK-CAPE Heat Capacity Polynomial Ideal gas, Liquid and
Solid
Aqueous Infinite Dilution The aqueous phase infinite dilution enthalpies, entropies, and
Heat Capacity Gibbs energies are calculated from the heat capacity polynomial.
The values are used in the calculation of aqueous and mixed
solvent properties of electrolyte solutions:
C4 i C5i C6 i
C p∞,,iaq = C1 + C2T + C3i T 2 + + 2 + for C7 i ≤ T ≤ C8 i
T T T
C p∞,,iaq
is linearly extrapolated using the slope at C7 i for T < C7 i
C p∞,,iaq
is linearly extrapolated using the slope at C8 i for T > C8 i
Parameter Applicable Symbol Default
Name/Element Components
CPAQ0 Ions, molecular solutes C1i —
CPAQ0 Ions, molecular solutes C2 i ,..., C5i 0
CPAQ0 Ions, molecular solutes C6 i 0
CPAQ0 Ions, molecular solutes C7 i 1000
The units are TEMPERATURE and HEAT CAPACITY.

Criss-Cobble Aqueous The Criss-Cobble correlation for aqueous infinite dilution ionic
Infinite Dilution Ionic Heat heat capacity is used if no parameters are available for the aqueous
Capacity infinite dilution heat capacity polynomial. From the calculated heat
capacity, the thermodynamic properties entropy, enthalpy and
Gibbs energy at infinte dilution in water are derived:
((
C p∞,,iaq = f S a∞ ,aq (T = 298) or S c∞ ,aq (T = 298), ion type, T ))
Parameter Applicable Symbol Default Units
Name Components
IONTYP Ions Ion Type 0 —
SO25C Anions S ∞, aq
a
∆f H ∞ ,aq
a (T − 298) − ∆ f G ∞ ,aq
a (T = 298) MOLE-ENTROPY
29815
.
Cations S a∞,aq ∆ f H a∞ ,aq (T − 298) − ∆ f Ga∞ ,aq (T = 298) MOLE-ENTROPY
29815
.
DIPPR/IK-CAPE Liquid The DIPPR/IK-CAPE liquid heat capacity model is used to

Heat Capacity calculate pure component liquid heat capacity and pure component
liquid enthalpy. To use this model, two conditions must exist:
• The parameter CPLDIP or CPLIKC is available.
• The component is not supercritical (HENRY-COMP).
The model uses a specific method (see Chapter 4):
T
H *,l
i (T ) − H *,l
i (T ) = ∫ C
ref *,l
p ,i dT
T ref
( ) is calculated as:
H i*,l T ref
( ) (
H i*,l T ref = H i*,ig + H i*,v − H i*,ig − ∆ vap H i*,l )
T ref is the reference temperature; it defaults to 298.15 K. You can
enter a different value for the reference temperature. This is useful
when you want to use this model for very light components or for
components that are solids at 298.15K.
Activate this method by specifying the route DHL09 for the
property DHL on the Properties Property Methods Routes sheet.
For equation-of-state property method, you must also modify the
route for the property DHLMX to use a route with method 2 or 3,
instead of method 1. For example, you can use the route
DHLMX00 or DHLMX30. You must ascertain that the route for
DHLMX that you select contains the appropriate vapor phase
model and heat of mixing calculations. Click the View button on
the form to see details of the route.
Optionally, you can specify that this model is used for only certain
components. The properties for the remaining components are then
calculated by the standard model. Use the parameter COMPHL to
specify the components for which this model is used. By default,
all components with the CPLDIP or CPLIKC parameters use this
model.
If this parameter is The Aspen Physical Property System uses this
available equation
CPLDIP DIPPR
CPLIKL IK-CAPE
DIPPR Liquid Heat The DIPPR equation is:
Capacity
C *,p,li = C1i + C2 i T + C3i T 2 + C4 i T 3 + C5i T 4 for C6i ≤ T ≤ C7i
C *,p l
Linear extrapolation occurs for versus T outside of bounds.
CPLDIP/1 C1i — x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY,
T TEMPERATURE
CPLDIP/2,...,5 C2 i ,..., C5i 0 x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY,
TEMPERATURE
CPLDIP/6 C6 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
CPLDIP/7 C7 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
TREFHL T ref 298.15 — — — TEMPERATURE
COMPHL — — — — — —
To specify that the model is used for a component, enter a value of
1.0 for COMPHL.
IK-CAPE Liquid Heat The IK-CAPE equation is:
Capacity
C 5i
C *,p ,li = C1i + C 2i T + C 3i T 2 + C 4i T 3 + for C 6i ≤ T ≤ C 7 i
T2
C *,p l
Linear extrapolation occurs for versus T outside of bounds.
CPLIKC/1 C1i — x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY
T
CPLIKC/2,...,4 C 2i ,...,C 4 i 0 x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY,
TEMPERATURE
CPLIKC/5 C 5i 0 x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY,
TEMPERATURE
CPLIKC/6 C6 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
CPLIKC/7 C7 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
If element 5 is non-zero, absolute temperature units are assumed.

Ideal Gas Heat The DIPPR ideal gas heat capacity equation is used for most
Capacity/DIPPR components in the Aspen Physical Property System pure
components databank. It is used when the parameter CPIGDP is
available for a given component.
DIPPR
The equation for the DIPPR ideal gas heat capacity model by Aly
and Lee 1981 is:
2 2
 C3 i T   C5 i T 
C *,ig
= C1i + C2i   + C4i   forC6i ≤ T ≤ C7i
p
 sinh (C 3 i T )   cosh (C 5 i T ) 
This model is also used to calculate ideal gas enthalpies, entropies,
and Gibbs energies.
CPIGDP/1 C1i — x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY
CPIGDP/2 C2 i 0 x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY
CPIGDP/3 C3i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
CPIGDP/4 C4 i 0 x — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY
CPIGDP/5 C5i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
CPIGDP/6 C6 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
CPIGDP/7 C7 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
If elements 3 or 5 of CPIGDP are non-zero, absolute temperature

units are assumed.
Ideal Gas Heat Capacity Polynomial
The ideal gas heat capacity polynomial is used for components

stored in ASPENPCD, AQUEOUS, and SOLIDS databanks. This
model is also used in PCES.
C *,p ig = C1i + C2iT + C3iT 2 + C4iT 3 + C5iT 4 + C6iT 5 forC7i ≤ T ≤ C8i
C *,p ig = C9 i + C10 i T C11i for T < C7i
C *,p ig
is linearly extrapolated using slope at C8 i for T > C8 i
This model is also used to calculate ideal gas enthalpies, entropies,
and Gibbs energies.
CPIG/1 C1i — — — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY,
TEMPERATURE
CPIG/2, . . . , 6 C2 i ,..., C6 i 0 — — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY,
TEMPERATURE
CPIG/7 C7i 0 — — — TEMPERATURE
CPIG/8 C8 i 1000 — — — TEMPERATURE
CPIG/9, 10, 11 C 9 i , C 1 0 i , C 1 1 i — — — — MOLE-HEAT-CAPACITY,
TEMPERATURE
If elements 10 or 11 of CPIG are non-zero, absolute temperature
units are assumed for elements 9 through 11.
References
Data for the Ideal Gas Heat Capacity Polynomial: Reid, Prausnitz
and Poling, The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 4th ed., (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1987).
The Aspen Physical Property System combustion data bank,
JANAF Thermochemical Data, Compiled and calculated by the
Thermal Research Laboratory of Dow Chemical Company.
F. A. Aly and L. L. Lee, "Self-Consistent Equations for
Calculating the Ideal Gas Heat Capacity, Enthalpy, and Entropy,
Fluid Phase Eq., Vol. 6, (1981), p. 169.
Solids Heat Capacity The enthalpy, entropy, and Gibbs energy of solids are calculated
Polynomial from the heat capacity polynomial:
C4i C5i C6 i
C *,p ,si = C1i + C2i T + C3i T 2 + + 2 + for C7i ≤ T ≤ C8 i
T T T
C *,8
p ,i
linearly extrapolated using the slope at C7 i for T < C7i and
C *,8
p ,i
linearly extrapolated using the slope at C8 i for T > C8 i
Parameter Name Applicable Symbol MDS Default
Components
CPSPO1/1 Solids, Salts C1i x —
CPSPO1/2, . . . , 6 Solids, Salts C2 i ,..., C6 i x 0
CPSPO1/7 Solids, Salts C7i x 0
CPSPO1/8 Solids, Salts C8 i x 1000

The units are TEMPERATURE and HEAT CAPACITY.
IK-CAPE Heat Capacity If the parameters CPIGPO or CPLPO or CPSPO are available, the
Polynomial IK-CAPE heat capacity polynomial is used to calculate either:
• Pure component ideal gas heat capacity and enthalpy
(CPIGPO)
• Liquid heat capacity and enthalpy (CPLPO)
• Solid heat capacity and enthalpy (CPSPO)
The equation is:
C *p = C1i + C 2i T + C 3i T 2 + C 4i T 3 + C 5i T 4 + C 6i T 5 + C 7i T 6 + C8i T 7 + C 9i T 8 + C10i T 9

CPIGPO/1 C1i — X — — MOLE-CAPACITY
CPLPO/1
CPSPO/1
CPIGPO/2,…,10 C10 i 0 X — — MOLE-CAPACITY
CPLPO/2,…,10 TEMPERATURE
CPSPO/2,…,10
CPIGPO/11 C11i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
CPLPO/11
CPSPO/11
CPIGPO/12 C12 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE
CPLPO/12
CPSPO/12
Solubility The Aspen Physical Property System has two built-in solubility
Correlations correlation models. This section describes the solubility correlation
models available.
Model Type
Henry's constant Gas solubility in liquid
Water solubility Water solubility in organic liquid
Henry’s Constant The Henry’s constant model is used when Henry’s Law is applied
to calculate K-values for dissolved gas components in a mixture.
Henry’s Law is available in all activity coefficient property
methods, such as the WILSON property method. The model
calculates Henry’s constant for a dissolved gas component (i) in
one or more solvents (A or B):
( )
ln H i γ ∞i = ∑ w A ln H iA γ ∞iA ( )
A
Where:
wA = x A (VcA )
2
3
∑ x B (VcB )
2
3
(
ln H iA T , p *,A l ) = a iA + biA T + ciA ln T + d iAT for TL ≤ T ≤ TH
H iA (T , P) =  1 p 
(
H iA T , p *,A l exp )
 RT ∫*,l iA 
V ∞
dp
 pa
∞
The parameter ViA is obtained from the Brelvi-O’Connell model.
p *,A l is obtained from the Antoine model. γ ∞ is obtained from the
appropriate activity coefficient model.
The Henry’s constants a iA , biA , ciA , and d iA are specific to a solute-

solvent pair. They can be obtained from regression of gas
solubility data. The Aspen Physical Property System has a large
number of built-in Henry’s constants for many solutes in solvents.
These parameters were obtained using data from the Dortmund
Databank. See Physical Property Data, Chapter 1, for details.
Name/Element Limit
VC VcA — — 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
HENRY/1 a iA — x — — PRESSURE,
TEMPERATURE
HENRY/2 biA 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
HENRY/3 ciA 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
HENRY/4 d iA 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
HENRY/5 TL 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
HENRY/6 TH 2000 x — — TEMPERATURE
H iA
ln
If a iA is missing, γ ∞iA is set to zero and the weighting factor w A
is renormalized.
If elements 2 or 3 are non-zero, absolute temperature units are
Water Solubility This model calculates solubility of water in a hydrocarbon-rich
liquid phase. The model is used automatically when you model a
hydrocarbon-water system with the free-water option. See Chapter
6 for details.
The expression for the liquid mole fraction of water in the ith
hydrocarbon species is:
C2 i
ln x wi = C1i + + C3i T for C4 i ≤ T ≤ C5i
T
The parameters for 60 hydrocarbon components are stored in the
Aspen Physical Property System pure component databank.
Parameter Symbol Default MD Lower Upper Units
Name/Element S Limit Limit
WATSOL/1 C1i fcn( Tbi , ASGi , M i ) — -10.0 33.0 TEMPERATURE
WATSOL/2 C2 i fcn( Tbi , ASGi , M i ) — -10000.0 3000.0 TEMPERATURE
WATSOL/3 C3i 0 — -0.05 0.05 TEMPERATURE
WATSOL/4 C4 i 0 — 0.0 500 TEMPERATURE
WATSOL/5 C5i 1000 — 4.0 1000 TEMPERATURE
Absolute temperature units are assumed for elements 1 through 4.

Other The Aspen Physical Property System has four built-in additional
Thermodynamic thermodynamic property models that do not fit in any other
Property Models category. This section describes these models:
• Cavett Liquid Enthalpy Departure
• BARIN Equations for Gibbs Energy, Enthalpy, Entropy and
Heat Capacity
• Electrolyte NRTL Enthalpy
• Electrolyte NRTL Gibbs Energy
• Liquid Enthalpy from Liquid Heat Capacity Correlation
• Enthalpies Based on Different Reference States
• Helgeson Equations of State
Cavett The general form for the Cavett model is:
(H *,l
i ) (
− H i*,ig = fcn T , Tci , p , pci , Zλ*i )
(H l
m − H mig ) = ∑ x (H i
*,l
i − H i*,ig )
i

Name/Element Limit
PC pci — — 10 5 108 PRESSURE
DHLCVT Zλ∞, i ZC X 0.1 0.5 —
BARIN Equations for The following equations are used when parameters from the Aspen
Gibbs Energy, Enthalpy, Physical Property System inorganic databank are retrieved.
Entropy, and Heat
Capacity
• Gibbs energy:
Gi*,α = a nα,i + bnα,i T + cnα,i (T ln T ) + d nα,i T 2 + enα,i T 3 + f nα,i T 4 + g nα,i T −1 + hnα,i T −2 (1)
• Enthalpy:
H i*,α = aαn,i − cαn,iT − d nα,iT 2 − 2enα,iT 3 − 3 f nα,iT 4 + 2 g αn,iT −1 + 3hnα,iT −2 (2)
• Entropy:
S i*,α = − bnα,i − cnα,i (1 + ln T ) − 2 d nα,i T − 3enα,i T 2 − 4 f nα,i T 3 + g nα,i T −2 + 2hnα,i T −3 (3)
• Heat capacity:
C *,p,αi = −cnα,i − 2d nα,i T − 6enα,i T 2 − 12 f nα,i T 3 − 2 g nα,i T −2 − 6hnα,i T −3 (4)
α refers to an arbitrary phase which can be solid, liquid, or ideal
gas. For each phase, multiple sets of parameters from 1 to n are
present to cover multiple temperature ranges. The value of the
parameter n depends on the phase. (See tables that follow.)
C
The four properties p , H, S, and G are interrelated as a result of
the thermodynamic relationships:
T
H i*,α (T ) − H i*,α T ref = ( ) ∫C ref

*,α
p ,i dT
T
T
C *,p ,αi
S i*,α (T ) − S i*,α T ref =( ) ∫ ref T
dT
T
Gi*,α = H i*,α − TS i*,α
There are analytical relationships between the expressions
C
describing the properties p , H, S, and G (equations 1 to 4). The
a h
parameters n ,i to n ,i can occur in more than one equation.
Solid Phase
The parameters in range n are valid for temperature:

Tns,l < T < Tns,h
Parameter Name Symbol Default MDS Lower Upper Limit Units
/Element † Limit
CPSXPn/1 Tns, l — x — — TEMPERATURE
CPSXPn/2 Tns,h — x — — TEMPERATURE
CPSXPn/3 a ns , i — x — — ††
CPSXPn/4 bns,i 0 x — — ††
CPSXPn/5 cns , i 0 x — — ††
CPSXPn/6 d ns,i 0 x — — ††
CPSXPn/7 ens ,i 0 x — — ††
CPSXPn/8 f ns,i 0 x — — ††
CPSXPn/9 g ns ,i 0 x — — ††
CPSXPn/10 hns, i 0 x — — ††
† n is 1 through 7. CPSXP1 vector stores solid parameters for the

first temperature range. CPSXP2 vector stores solid parameters for
the second temperature range, and so on.
†† TEMPERATURE, ENTHALPY, ENTROPY
Liquid Phase
Tnl,l < T < Tnl,h

/Element † Limit
CPLXPn/1 Tnl,l — x — — TEMPERATURE
CPLXPn/2 Tnl,h — x — — TEMPERATURE
CPLXPn/3 a nl , i — x — — ††
CPLXPn/4 bnl ,i 0 x — — ††
CPLXPn/5 cnl , i 0 x — — ††
CPLXPn/6 d nl ,i 0 x — — ††
CPLXPn/7 enl ,i 0 x — — ††
CPLXPn/8 f nl,i 0 x — — ††
CPLXPn/9 g nl ,i 0 x — — ††
CPLXPn/10 hnl ,i 0 x — — ††
† n is 1 through 2. CPLXP1 stores liquid parameters for the first

temperature range. CPLXP2 stores liquid parameters for the
second temperature range.
Ideal Gas Phase
Tnig,l < T < Tnig, h

/Element † Limit
CPIXPn/1 Tnig,l — x — — TEMPERATURE
CPIXPn/2 Tnig,l — x — — TEMPERATURE
CPIXPn/3 a nig,i — x — — ††
CPIXPn/4 bnig,i 0 x — — ††
CPIXPn/5 cnig,i 0 x — — ††
CPIXPn/6 d nig,i 0 x — — ††
CPIXPn/7 enig,i 0 x — — ††
CPIXPn/8 f nig,i 0 x — — ††
CPIXPn/9 g nig,i 0 x — — ††
CPIXPn/10 hnig,i 0 x — — ††
† n is 1 through 3. CPIXP1 vector stores ideal gas parameters for

the first temperature range. CPIXP2 vector stores ideal gas
parameters for the second temperature range, and so on.
Electrolyte NRTL The equation for the electrolyte NRTL enthalpy model is:
Enthalpy
H m* = x w H w* + ∑k x k H k∞ + H m* E
* *E
The molar enthalpy H m and the molar excess enthalpy H m are
defined with the asymmetrical reference state: the pure solvent
water and infinite dilution of molecular solutes and ions. (here *
refers to the asymmetrical reference state.)
H w* is the pure water molar enthalpy, calculated from the Ideal Gas
model and the ASME Steam Table equation-of-state. (here * refers
to pure component.)
H w* = ∆H *,f ig (T = 29815
. )+∫ ( (
C pig,k dT + H w T , p ) − H wig (T , p) ))
T
298.15
∞
The property H k is calculated from the infinite dilution aqueous
phase heat capacity polynomial model, by default. If polynomial
model parameters are not available, it is calculated from the Criss-
Cobble model for ions and from Henry’s law for molecular solutes.
The subscript k can refer to a molecular solute (i), to a cation (c),
or an anion (a):
T
H k∞ = ∆ f H k∞ ,aq + ∫ C p∞,,kaq
298.15
H m* E is excess enthalpy and is calculated from the electrolyte

NRTL activity coefficient model.
See Criss-Cobble model and Henry’s law model, this chapter, for
more information.
Components
IONTYP Ions Ion 0 —
SO25C Cations S ∞ ,aq
c (T = 298) — MOLE-ENTROPY
Anions S a∞ ,aq (T = 298) — MOLE-ENTROPY
DHAQFM Ions, Molecular Solutes ∆ f H k∞,aq — MOLE-ENTHALPY
CPAQ0 Ions, Molecular Solutes C p∞,,kaq — HEAT-CAPACITY
DHFORM Molecular Solutes ∆ f H i*,ig — MOLE-ENTHALPY
Water ∆ f H w*,ig — MOLE-ENTHALPY
CPIG Molecular Solutes C *p ,,igi — See note

Water C *,p,igw — See note
IONTYP is not needed if CPAQ0 is given for ions.

DHFORM is not needed if DHAQFM and CPAQ0 are given for
molecular solutes.
The unit keywords for CPIG are TEMPERATURE and HEAT-
CAPACITY. If elements 10 or 11 of CPIG are non-zero, absolute
temperature units are assumed for all elements.
Electrolyte NRTL Gibbs The equation for the NRTL Gibbs energy model is:
Energy
Gm* = x w µ *w + ∑k x k µ ∞k + ∑ j x j ln x j + Gm*E
*
The molar Gibbs energy and the molar excess Gibbs energy Gm
*E
and Gm are defined with the asymmetrical reference state: as pure
water and infinite dilution of molecular solutes and ions. (* refers
to the asymmetrical reference state.) The ideal mixing term is
calculated normally, where j refers to any component. The molar
Gibbs energy of pure water (or thermodynamic potential) µ w is
*
calculated from the ideal gas contribution. This is a function of the

ideal gas heat capacity and the departure function. (here * refers to
the pure component.)
(
µ *w = µ *,wig + µ *w − µ *,wig )
The departure function is obtained from the ASME steam tables.
∞
The aqueous infinite dilution thermodynamic potential µ k is
calculated from the infinite dilution aqueous phase heat capacity
polynomial model, by default. k refers to any ion or molecular
solute. If polynomial model parameters are not available, it is
calculated from the Criss-Cobble model for ions and from Henry’s
law for molecular solutes:
(
µ ∞k = fcn ∆ f Gk∞ ,aq , C pk
∞ ,aq
)
G * E is calculated from the electrolyte NRTL activity coefficient
model.
See the Criss-Cobble model and Henry’s law model, this chapter,
for more information.
Components
IONTYP Ions Ion 0 —
SO25C Cations S ∞ ,aq
c (T = 298) — MOLE-ENTROPY
Anions S a∞ ,aq (T = 298) — MOLE-ENTROPY
DGAQFM Ions, molecular solutes ∆ f Gk∞,aq — MOLE-ENTHALPY
CPAQ0 Ions, molecular solutes C p∞,,kaq — HEAT-CAPACITY
DGFORM Molecular solutes ∆ f Gi — MOLE-ENTHALPY
Water ∆ f Gw — MOLE-ENTHALPY
CPIG Molecular solutes C *p ,,igi — See note.
Water C *,p,igw — See note.
IONTYP and SO25C are not needed if CPAQ0 is given for ions.
DGFORM is not needed if DHAQFM and CPAQ0 are given for
molecular solutes.
The unit keywords for CPIG are TEMPERATURE and HEAT-
CAPACITY. If elements 10 or 11 of CPIG are non-zero, absolute
temperature units are assumed for all elements.
Liquid Enthalpy from Liquid enthalpy is directly calculated by integration of liquid heat
Liquid Heat Capacity capacity:
Hi*, l ( T ) = Hi*, l (T ref ) + ∫ ref C*,p , li dT

Correlation T
ref
The reference enthalpy is calculated at T as:
Hi*, l (T ref ) = Hi*, ig + ( Hi*, v − Hi*, ig ) − ∆ vap Hi*, l
Where:
Hi*, ig = Ideal gas enthalpy
Hi*, v − Hi*, ig = Vapor enthalpy departure from

equation-of-state
∆ vap Hi*, l = Heat of vaporization from
Watson/DIPPR/IK-CAPE model
T ref = Reference temperature, specified by user.
Defaults to 298.15 K
See DIPPR/IK-CAPE Liquid Heat Capacity for parameter
requirement and additional details.
Enthalpies Based on Two property methods, WILS-LR and WILS-GLR, are available to
Different Reference calculate enthalpies based on different reference states. The
States WILS-LR property method is based on saturated liquid reference
state for all components. The WILS-GLR property method allows
both ideal gas and saturated liquid reference states.
These property methods use an enthalpy method that optimizes the
accuracy tradeoff between liquid heat capacity, heat of
vaporization, and vapor heat capacity at actual process conditions.
This highly recommended method eliminates many of the
problems associated with accurate thermal properties for both
phases, especially the liquid phase.
The liquid enthalpy of mixture is calculated by the following
equation (see the table labeled Liquid Enthalpy Methods):
Hml = Hmig + ( Hml − Hmig )

Where:
Hmig = Enthalpy of ideal gas mixture
= ∑x H
i
i i
*, ig
Hi*, ig = Ideal gas enthalpy of pure component i
(H l
m − Hmig ) = Enthalpy departure of mixture
For supercritical components, declared as Henry’s components, the
enthalpy departure is calculated as follows:
 δ ln Φil 
H − H = − RT ∑ xi 
l ig
 2
m
i  δT 
m
For subcritical components:

Hml − Hmig = ∑ x (H
A
A
*, l
A )
− H *,A ig + H mE , l
HmE , l =  δ ln γ B 
− RT 2 ∑ xB  
B
 δT 
H *,A l − H A*, ig = Enthalpy departure of pure component A
H *, ig and H *, l can be calculated based on either saturated liquid or

ideal gas as reference state.
Saturated Liquid as Reference State
The saturated liquid enthalpy at temperature T is calculated as

follows:
Hi*, l = Hiref , l + ∫ ref , l Cp*,, li dT

T
Ti
Where:
ref , l
Hiref , l =
Reference enthalpy for liquid state at Ti
ref , l
=
0 at Ti of 273.15 K by default
C*,p , li = Liquid heat capacity of component i
The ideal gas enthalpy at temperature T is calculated from liquid

enthalpy as follows:
Hi*, ig = Hiref , l + ∫ ref , l C p*,, li dT + ∆ vap Hi* (Ti con , l ) − ∆Hv*, i (Ti con , l , pi*, l ) + ∫ con , l C *,p , igi dT
Ti con , l T
Ti Ti
Where:
Ti con , l = Temperature of conversion from liquid to
vapor enthalpy for component i
∆ vap Hi* (Ti con , l ) = Heat of vaporization of component i at
con , l
temperature of T
∆Hv*, i (T con , l , pi*, l ) = Vapor enthalpy departure of component i
at the conversion temperature and vapor
*, l
pressure pi
pi*, l = Liquid vapor pressure of component i
C*,p , igi = Ideal gas heat capacity of component i
Ti con , l is the temperature at which one crosses from liquid state to

the vapor state. This is a user-defined temperature that defaults to
con , l
the system temperature T. Ti may be selected such that heat of
vaporization for component i at the temperature is most accurate.
The vapor enthalpy is calculated from ideal gas enthalpy as
follows:
Hi*, v = Hi*, ig + ∆Hv*, i ( T , P )
Where:
∆Hv*, i (T , P) = Vapor enthalpy departure of pure component i
at the system temperature and pressure
The liquid heat capacity and the ideal gas heat capacity can be
calculated from the ASPEN, DIPPR, IK-CAPE, or BARIN models.
The heat of vaporization can be calculated from the
Watson/DIPPR/IK-CAPE model. The enthalpy departure is
obtained from an equation-of-state.
Name/Element Limit
RSTATE † — 2 — — — —
TREFHL Ti ref , l †† — — — TEMPERATURE
DHLFRM Hiref , l O — — — MOLE-ENTHALPY
TCONHL Ti con , l T — — — TEMPERATURE
† Enthalpy reference state, RSTATE=2 denotes saturated liquid as

reference state.
†† For WILS-LR property method TREFHL defaults to 273.15K.
For WILS-GLR property method, TREFHL defaults to 298.15 K.
Liquid heat capacity is required for all components.
Ideal Gas as Reference State
The saturated liquid enthalpy is calculated as follows:
+ ∫ ref , ig C p*,, igi dT + ∆Hv*,i (Ti con , ig , pi*, l ) − ∆ vap Hi* (Ti con , ig , pi*, l ) + ∫ con , ig Cp*,, li dT
con , ig
T T
H i
*, l
=H i
ref , ig
Ti Ti
Where:
ref , ig
Hiref , ig =
Reference state enthalpy for ideal gas at Ti
= Heat of formation of ideal gas at 298.15 K by
default
ref , ig
Ti ref , ig =
Reference temperature corresponding to Hi .
Defaults to 298.15 K
Ti con , ig = The temperature at which one crosses from vapor
state to liquid state. This is a user-defined
temperature that defaults to the system temperature
con , ig
T. Ti may be selected such that heat of
vaporization of component i at the temperature is
most accurate.
The ideal gas enthalpy is calculated as follows:
Hi*, ig = Hiref , ig + ∫ ref , ig C p*,, igi dT

T
Ti
The vapor enthalpy is calculated as follows:

Hi*, v = Hi*, ig + ∆Hv , i ( T , P )
The liquid heat capacity and the ideal gas heat capacity can be
calculated from the ASPEN, DIPPR, IK-CAPE, or BARIN models.
The heat of vaporization can be calculated from the
Watson/DIPPR/IK-CAPE model. The enthalpy departure is
obtained from an equation-of-state.
Name/Element Limit
RSTATE — 1 or 2 † — — — —
TREFHI Ti ref ,ig †† — — — TEMPERATURE
DHFORM Hiref , ig — — — — MOLE-ENTHALPY
TCONHI Ti con , l T — — — TEMPERATURE
† Enthalpy reference state. RSTATE can be 1 (for ideal gas) or 2

(for liquid)
†† For components with TB < 298.15 K, RSTATE defaults to 1
(ideal gas). TREFHI defaults to 298.15 K.
For components with TB > 298.15 K, RSTATE defaults to 2
(liquid). TREFHL defaults to 298.15 K.
o
Helgeson Equations of The Helgeson equations of state for standard volume V , heat
State Co
capacity p , entropy S , enthalpy of formation ∆H , and Gibbs
o o
energy of formation ∆G at infinite dilution in aqueous phase are:

o
 1    1   1  1  ∂ω 
= a +a   + a 3 + a 4     − ω Q +  − 1  
o
V 1 2
 p + ψ    p + ψ   T − θ   ε  ∂ p T
  p +ψ   ∂ω 
c + (T c− θ )
2T
C po = −  a 3 ( p − p r ) + a 4 ln    + ω TX + 2 TY  
2
1 2
(T −θ)
3
  pr + ψ   ∂T  p
1  ∂ ω 
2
− T  − 1  
ε   ∂T 2  p
T  1 1  T (T − θ )  
S o = S Tro Pr + c 1 ln   − c 2 
1
− + ln  r 
 Tr  θ  T − θ Tr − θ θ  T (Tr − θ )  
 1    p +ψ   ∂ω 
2
1
+   a 3 ( p − p r ) + a 4 ln    + ω Y −  − 1   − ω Tr Pr YTr Pr
T −θ   pr + ψ  ε   ∂T  p
 1 1   p +ψ 
∆ H o = ∆ H of + c 1 (T − Tr ) − c 2  −  + a 1 ( p − p r ) + a 2 ln  
 T − θ Tr − θ   pr + ψ 
 2T − θ    p +ψ  1 
+  2   a 3 ( p − p r ) + a 4 ln 
   + ω  − 1 + ω TY
 (T − θ )    pr + ψ  ε 
1  ∂ω   1 
− T  − 1   − ω Tr Pr  − 1 − ω Tr Pr Tr YTr Pr
ε   ∂T  p  ε Tr Pr 
 T   p +ψ 
∆G o
= ∆ G fo − S Tro Pr (T − Tr ) − c 1 T ln   − T + Tr  + a 1 ( p − p r ) + a 2 ln  
  Tr    pr + ψ 
 1 1 θ − T  T  Tr (T − θ )  
− c 2  −   − 2 ln  
  T − θ Tr − θ   θ  θ  T (Tr − θ )  
1   p +ψ  1 
+  a 3 ( p − p r ) + a 4 ln    + ω  − 1
ε 
T −θ   pr + ψ  
 1 
− ω Tr Pr  − 1 + ω Tr Pr YTr Pr (T − Tr )
 ε Tr Pr 
Where:
1  ∂ lnε 
Q=  
ε  ∂P  T
1  ∂ 2 lnε   ∂ lnε  
2
X =   −  
ε  ∂T 2  P  ∂T  P 
 
1  ∂ lnε 
Y=  
ε  ∂T  P
Where:
ψ = Pressure constant for a solvent (2600 bar for water)
θ = Temperature constant for a solvent (228 K for water)
ω = Born coefficient
ε = Dielectric constant of a solvent
Tr = Reference temperature (298.15 K)
Pr = Reference pressure (1 bar)

AHGPAR/1, . , 4 a1 ,..., a 4 0 — — — —
CHGPAR/1, . , 2 c1 , c2 x — — — —
DHAQHG ∆H of 0 — − 0.5 × 1010 0.5 × 1010 MOLE-ENTHALPY
DGAQHG ∆G fo 0 — − 0.5 × 1010 0.5 × 1010 MOLE-ENTHALPY
S25HG S Tro Pr 0 — − 0.5 × 1010 0.5 × 1010 MOLE-ENTROPY

OMEGHG ω Tr Pr 0 — − 0.5 × 1010 0.5 × 1010 MOLE-ENTHALPY
If pressure is under 200 bar, AHGPAR may not be required.

References
Tanger J.C. IV and H.C. Helgeson, Calculation of the

thermodynamic and transport properties of aqueous species at high
pressures and temperatures: Revised equation of state for the
standard partial properties of ions and electrolytes, American
Journal of Science, Vol. 288, (1988), p. 19-98.
Shock E.L. and H.C. Helgeson, Calculation of the thermodynamic
and transport properties of aqueous species at high pressures and
temperatures: Correlation algorithms for ionic species and equation
of state predictions to 5 kb and 1000 °C, Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 52, p. 2009-2036.
Shock E.L. H.C. Helgeson and D.A. Sverjensky, Calculation of the
thermodynamic and transport properties of aqueous species at high
pressures and temperatures: Standard partial molal properties of
inorganic neutral species, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.
53, p. 2157-2183.
Transport Property Models
This section describes the transport property models available in
the Aspen Physical Property System. The following table provides
an overview of the available models. This table lists the Aspen
Physical Property System model names, and their possible use in
different phase types, for pure components and mixtures.
Transport Property Models
Viscosity models Model name Phase(s) Pure Mixture
Andrade/DIPPR/IK-CAPE MUL0ANDR, L X X
MUL2ANDR
API Liquid Viscosity MUL2API L — X
Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw MUV0CEB V X —
/DIPPR/IK-CAPE
Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw- MUV2BROK, V — X
Wilke Mixing Rule MUV2WILK
Chung-Lee-Starling Low MUL0CLSL, V X X
Pressure MUL2CLSL
Chung-Lee-Starling MUV0CLS2, VL X X
MUV0CLS2,
MUL0CLS2,
MUL2CLS2
Dean-Stiel Pressure MUV0DSPC, V X X
Correction MUV2DSPC
IAPS Viscosity MUV0H2O V X —
MUL0H2O L X —
Jones-Dole Electrolyte MUL2JONS L — X
Correction
Letsou-Stiel MUL0LEST, L X X
MUL2LEST
Lucas MUV0LUC, V X X
MUV2LUC
TRAPP viscosity MUL0TRAP, VL X X
MUL2TRAP,
MUV0TRAP,
MUV2TRAP
Thermal conductivity Model name Phase(s) Pure Mixture
models
Chung-Lee- KV0CLS2, VL X X
StarlingThermal KV2CLS2,
Conductivtity KL0CLS2,
KL2CLS2
IAPS Thermal KV0H2O V X —
Conductivity KL0H2O L X —
Li Mixing Rule KL2LI L X X
Riedel Electrolyte KL2RDL L — X
Correction
Sato-Riedel/DIPPR/IK- KL0SR, L X X
CAPE KL2SRVR
Stiel-Thodos/DIPPR/IK- KV0STLP V X —
CAPE
Stiel-Thodos Pressure KV0STPC, V X X
Correction KV2STPC
TRAPP Thermal KV0TRAP, VL X X
Conductivity KV2TRAP,
KL0TRAP,
KL2TRAP
Vredeveld Mixing Rule KL2SRVR L X X
Diffusivity models Model name Phase(s) Pure Mixture
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke- DV0CEWL V — X
Lee Binary
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke- DV1CEWL V — X
Lee Mixture
Dawson-Khoury- DV1DKK V — X
Kobayashi Binary
Dawson-Khoury- DV1DKK V — X
Kobayashi Mixture
Nernst-Hartley ElectrolytesDL0NST, L — X
DL1NST
Wilke-Chang Binary DL0WC2 L — X
Surface tension models Model name Phase(s) Pure Mixture
API Surface Tension SIG2API L — X
Hakim-Steinberg- SIG0HSS, L X —
Stiel/DIPPR SIG2HSS
/IK-CAPE
IAPS surface tension SIG0H2O L X —
Onsager-Samaras SIG2ONSG L — X
Electrolyte Correction
Viscosity Models The Aspen Physical Property System has 12 built-in viscosity
models.
Model Type
Andrade/DIPPR/IK-CAPE Liquid
API liquid viscosity Liquid
Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw/DIPPR/IK-CAPE Low pressure vapor, pure
components
Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw-Wilke Mixing Rule Low pressure vapor,
mixture
Chung-Lee-Starling Low Pressure Low pressure vapor
Chung-Lee-Starling Liquid or vapor
Dean-Stiel Pressure correction Vapor
IAPS viscosity Water or steam
Jones-Dole Electrolyte Correction Electrolyte
Letsou-Stiel High temperature liquid
Lucas Vapor
TRAPP viscosity Vapor or liquid
Andrade/DIPPR/IK-CAPE The liquid mixture viscosity is calculated by the equation:
( )
Liquid Viscosity
ln η l = ∑ xi ln ηi*,l + ∑∑ kij xi x j + mij xi2 x 2j
i i j
Where:
kij = bij
aij +
T
mij = dij
cij +
T
The pure component liquid viscosity ηi can be calculated by three

*,l
models:
• Andrade
• DIPPR liquid viscosity
• IK-CAPE
The binary parameters kij and mij allow accurate representation of
complex liquid mixture viscosity. Both binary parameters default
to zero.
Name/Element Limit
ANDKIJ/1 aij 0 — — — —
ANDKIJ/2 bij 0 — — — —
ANDMIJ/1 cij 0 — — — —
ANDMIJ/2 dij 0 — — — —
Andrade Liquid Viscosity
The Andrade equation is:

Bi
ln ηi*, l = Ai + + Ci ln T for Tl ≤ T ≤ Th
T
Name/Element Limit
MULAND/1 Ai — X — — VISCOSITY,
TEMPERATURE
MULAND/2 Bi — X — — TEMPERATURE
MULAND/3 Ci — X — — TEMPERATURE
MULAND/4 Tl 0.0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MULAND/5 Th 500.0 X — — TEMPERATURE
If elements 2 or 3 are non-zero, absolute temperature units are

assumed for elements 1 to 3.
DIPPR Liquid Viscosity
The equation for the DIPPR liquid viscosity model is:

ln η*,i l = C1i + C2 i T + C3i ln T + C4 i T C5 i for C6 i ≤ T ≤ C7 i
If the MULDIP parameters for a given component are available,
the DIPPR equation is used instead of the Andrade model. The
Andrade model is also used by PCES.
MULDIP/1 C1i — X — — VISCOSITY,
TEMPERATURE
MULDIP/2,..., 5 C2 i ,..., C5i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MULDIP/6 C6 i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MULDIP/7 C7 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE

assumed for elements 1 to 5.
IK-CAPE Liquid Viscosity Model
The IK-CAPE liquid viscosity model includes both exponential

and polynomial equations.
Exponential
C 
η i*,l = C1i exp 2i  + C 3i for C 4i ≤ T ≤ C 5i
 T 
If the parameter MULIKC is available, the Aspen Physical
Property System uses the exponential IK-CAPE equation.
Name/Element Limit
MULIKC/1 C1i — X — — VISCOSITY
MULIKC/2 C 2i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MULIKC/3 C 3i 0 X — — VISCOSITY
MULIKC/4 C 4i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MULIKC/5 C5 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE

for elements 1 to 3.
Polynomial
η i*,l = C1i + C 2i T + C 3i T 2 + C 4i T 3 + C 5i T 4 + C 6i T 5 + C 7 i T 6 + C8i T 7 + C 9i T 8 + C10i T 9

If the parameter MULPO is available, the Aspen Physical Property
System uses the polynomial equation.
Name/Element Limit
MULPO/1 C1i — X — — VISCOSITY
MULPO/2,..., 10 C 2i ,...,C10 i 0 X — — VISCOSITY,
TEMPERATURE
MULPO/11 C11i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MULPO/12 C12 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE
References

Gases and Liquids, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987), p.
439.
API Liquid Viscosity The liquid mixture viscosity is calculated using a combination of
the API and Andrade/DIPPR equations. This model is
recommended for petroleum and petrochemical applications. It is
used in the CHAO-SEA, GRAYSON, LK-PLOCK, PENG-ROB,
and RK-SOAVE option sets.
For pseudocomponents, the API model is used:
(
ηl = fcn T , x , Tbi , API i , Vml )
Where:
fcn = A correlation based on API Procedures and Figures
11A4.1, 11A4.2, and 11A4.3 (API Technical Data Book,
Petroleum Refining, 4th edition)
Vml is obtained from the API liquid volume model.
For real components, the Andrade/DIPPR model is used.

Name/Element Limit
TB Tbi — — 4.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
API API i — — -60.0 500.0 —
*, ν
The pure component low pressure vapor viscosity ηi (p = 0) can
Chapman-Enskog-
Brokaw/DIPPR/IK-CAPE
be calculated using three models:
• Chapman-Enskog
• DIPPR vapor viscosity
• IK-CAPE
Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw
The equation for the Chapman-Enskog model is:

M iT
η*,i ν ( p = 0) = 2.669 x 10 −26
σ i2 Ω η
Where:
Ωη = fcn(T , ε i k )
Polar parameter δ is used to determine whether to use the

Stockmayer or Lennard-Jones potential parameters: ε k (energy
parameter) and σ (collision diameter). To calculate δ , the dipole
moment p and either the Stockmayer parameters or the dipole
moment Tb and Vbm are needed. The polarity correction is from
Brokaw.
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
MUP pi — — 0.0 5x10-24 DIPOLEMOMENT
STKPAR/1
(ε i k ) ST fcn(Tbi ,Vbi , pi ) — X — TEMPERATURE
STKPAR/2 σ iST fcn(Tbi ,Vbi , pi ) X — — LENGTH

LJPAR/1
(ε i k ) LJ fcn(Tci ,ω i ) X — — TEMPERATURE
LJPAR/2 σ iLJ fcn(Tci , pci ,ω i ) X — — LENGTH

DIPPR Vapor Viscosity
The equation for the DIPPR vapor viscosity model is:
ηi*,ν ( p = 0) = C1i T C2i

(1 + C
3i T + C4i / T 2 ) for C6i ≤ T ≤ C7i
If the MUVDIP parameters for a given component are available,
the DIPPR equation is used instead of the Chapman-Enskog-
Brokaw model. PCES uses the DIPPR vapor viscosity model.
Parameter Symbol Default MDS LoweLimitUpper Limit Units
Name/Element
MUVDIP/1 C1i — X — — VISCOSITY
MUVDIP/2 C2 i 0 X — — —
MUVDIP/3, 4 C3i , C4 i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MUVDIP/5 C5i 0 X — — —
MUVDIP/6 C6 i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MUVDIP/7 C7 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE

IK-CAPE Vapor Viscosity
The IK-CAPE vapor viscosity model includes both the Sutherland

equation and the polynomial equation.
Sutherland Equation
η i*,ν ( p = 0) = C1i T 0.5 (1 + C 2i T ) for C 3i ≤ T ≤ C 4i

If the parameter MUVSUT is available, the Aspen Physical
Property System uses the Sutherland equation.
Name/Element Limit
MUVSUT/1 C1i — X — — VISCOSITY
MUVSUT/2 C 2i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE

for elements 1 to 2.
Polynomial
ηi*,ν ( p = 0) = C1i + C2iT + C3iT 2 + C4iT 3 + C5iT 4 + C6iT 5 + C7iT 6 + C8iT 7 + C9iT 8 + C10iT 9

If the parameter MUVPO is available, the Aspen Physical Property
System uses the polynomial equation.
MUVPO/1 C1i — X — — VISCOSITY
MUVPO/2,..., 10 C 2i ,...,C10 i 0 X — — VISCOSITY,
TEMPERATURE
MUVPO/11 C11i 0 X — — TEMPERATURE
MUVPO/12 C12 i 1000 X — — TEMPERATURE
References
R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, and B.E. Poling. The Properties of

392.
Chapman-Enskog- The low pressure vapor mixture viscosity is calculated by the
Brokaw-Wilke Mixing Wilke approximation of the Chapman-Enskog equation:
Rule
yiηi*,ν ( p = 0)
η ( p = 0) = ∑i
ν
∑ j y j Φij
Φ ij
For ,the formulation by Brokaw is used:
1/ 2
 η *,ν ( p = 0 ) 
Φ ij =  *,i ν  S ij Aij
η j ( p = 0) 
Where:
Aij = (
fcn M i , M j ) , and the correction factor for polar gases
Sij =
(
fcn δ , ( ε k ) , T
ST
)
parameter ) and σ (collision diameter). To calculate δ , the dipole
moment p, and either the Stockmayer parameters or Tb and Vbm are
needed.
*, ν
The pure component vapor viscosity ηi (p = 0) can be calculated
using the Chapman- Enskog-Brokaw/DIPPR (or another) low
pressure vapor viscosity model.
*, ν
Ensure that you supply parameters for ηi (p = 0).
Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
MUP pi — — 0.0 5x10-24 DIPOLEMOMENT
STKPAR/1
(ε i k ) ST fcn(Tbi ,Vbi , pi ) — X — TEMPERATURE
STKPAR/2 σ iST fcn(Tbi ,Vbi , pi ) X — — LENGTH
References
R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, and T.K. Sherwood, The Properties of

Gases and Liquids, 3rd ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977),
pp. 410–416.
Chung-Lee-Starling Low- The low-pressure vapor viscosity by Chung, Lee, and Starling is:
Pressure Vapor Viscosity
0.40785( MT ) 2 FC
1
η ( p = 0) =
ν
V cm3 Ω η
2
Where the viscosity collision integral is:

Ω η = fcn(T r )
The shape and polarity correction is:
Fc = fcn(Ω, pr , κ ′ )
The parameter p r is the reduced dipolemoment:
p
pr = 4.152
(V T ) cm c
1
2
The polar parameter κ ′ is tabulated for certain alcohols and

carboxylic acids. The previous equations can be used for mixtures
when applying these mixing rules:
Vcm = ∑i∑ j y i y jVcij
Tc =
∑∑ i j
y i y j TcijVcij
Vcm
 ∑ ∑ x i x j TcijVcij3 M ij 
2 2
M= 
i j
 
2
TcVcm3
 
ω=
∑∑i j
x i x j ω ijVcij
Vcm
1313
. p
pr = 1
VcmTc 2
p 4
=
∑∑ i j
x i x j pi2 p 2j Vc
Vcij
κ = ∑i∑ j x i x j κ ij
Where:
Vcij = (1 − ξ )(V V ) ij ci cj
1
2
ξ ij = 0 (in almost all cases)
Tcij =
( )( )
1
1 − ζ ij Tci Tcj
2
ζ ij = 0 (in almost all cases)
ω ij = (ω i +ωj )
2
1
M ij =  2 Mi M j 
2
 
(
 M i + M j ) 
κ ij =
(κ κ )
1
2
i j

Name/Element Limit
TCCLS Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
VCCLS Vci VC x 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
MUP pi — — 0.0 5 x10 −24 DIPOLEMOMENT
OMGCLS ωi OMEGA x -0.5 2.0 —
CLSK κi 0.0 x 0.0 0.5 —
CLSKV ξ ij 0.0 x -0.5 -0.5 —
CLSKT ζ ij 0.0 x -0.5 0.5 —
The model specific parameters also affect the Chung-Lee-Starling

Viscosity and the Chung-Lee-Starling Thermal Conductivity
models.
References

396, p. 413.
Chung-Lee-Starling The Chung-Lee-Starling viscosity equation for vapor and liquid,
Viscosity high and low pressure is:
40.785( MT ) 2 FC 36.344( MTc )

1 1
2
ν
η = f1 + f2
Vcm3 Ω η
2 2
Vcm3
With:
f1 = fcn(ρ m , Vcm , ω , pr , κ )
f2 = fcn(ω, pr , κ )
F2 = fcn(ω, pr , κ )
The molar density can be calculated using an equation-of-state
model (for example, the Benedict-Webb-Rubin). The parameter pr
is the reduced dipolemoment:
p
pr = 4.152
(V T )
cm c
1
2
The polar parameter κ is tabulated for certain alcohols and
carboxylic acids.
For low pressures, f1 is reduced to 1.0 and f 2 becomes negligible.

The equation reduces to the low pressure vapor viscosity model by
Chung-Lee and Starling.
The previous equations can be used for mixtures when applying
these mixing rules:
Vcm = ∑i∑ j y i y jVcij
Tc =
∑∑ i j
y i y j TcijVcij
Vcm
2 2
M= 
i j
 
2
TcVcm3
 
ω=
∑∑i j
x i x j ω ijVcij
Vcm
1313
. p
pr = 1
VcmTc 2
p 4
=
∑∑ i j
x i x j pi2 p 2j Vc
Vcij
Where:
Vcij = (1 − ξ )(V V )
ij ci cj
1
2
Tcij =
(1 − ζ )(T T )
1
2
ij ci cj
2
1
M ij =  2 Mi M j 
2
 
(
 M i + M j ) 
κ ij =
(κ κ )
1
2
i j

Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
MUP pi — — 0.0 5 x10 −24 DIPOLEMOMENT
CLSK κi 0.0 x 0.0 0.5 —
CLSKV ξ ij 0.0 x -0.5 -0.5 —
CLSKT ζ ij 0.0 x -0.5 0.5 —
The model specific parameters affect the results of the Chung-Lee-

Starling Thermal Conductivity and Low Pressure Viscosity models
as well.
References

427.
Dean-Stiel Pressure The pressure correction to low pressure vapor viscosity or the
Correction residual vapor viscosity by Dean and Stiel is:
η ν ( p ) − η ν ( p = 0) =
.  1.439ρm
108
10 − 10
( −1.111ρ1rm.858 ) 
ξ  
ν
Where η (p = 0) is obtained from a low pressure viscosity model
(for example, Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw). The dimensionless-
making factor ξ is:
ξ = Tc 6
2
1
N A
1 2
M 2 pc 3
Tc = ∑yT i i ci
M = ∑y Mi i i
pc = Z cm RTc
Vcm
Vcm = ∑y Vi i ci
Z cm = ∑yZ i i ci
ρ rm = Vcm
Vmν
ν
The parameter Vm is obtained from Redlich-Kwong equation-of-
state.
Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
VC Vci — — 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
IAPS Viscosity for Water The IAPS viscosity models, developed by the International
Association for Properties of Steam, calculate vapor and liquid
viscosity for water and steam. These models are used in option sets
STEAMNBS and STEAM-TA.
The general form of the equation for the IAPS viscosity models is:
ηw = fcn(T , p )
Where:
fcn = Correlation developed by IAPS
The models are only applicable to water. There are no parameters
required for the models.
Jones-Dole Electrolyte The Jones-Dole model calculates the correction to the liquid
Correction mixture viscosity of a solvent mixture, due to the presence of
electrolytes:
 l 
ηl = ηsolv 1 + ∑ ∆ηca 
 ca 
Where:
ηsolv = Viscosity of the liquid solvent mixture, calculated by
the Andrade/DIPPR model
∆ηlca = Contribution to the viscosity correction due to
apparent electrolyte ca
The parameter ∆ηca can be calculated by three different equations.
l
If these parameters are available Use this equation

IONMOB and IONMUB Dole-Jones
IONMUB Breslau-Miller
— Carbonell
Jones-Dole
The Jones-Dole equation is:
∆ηlca = Aca ccaa + Bca ccaa (1)
Where:
x caa = Concentration of apparent electrolyte ca (2)
ccaa =
Vml
x caa = Mole fraction of apparent electrolyte ca (3)

Aca =
145
. L + L Lc − La  (4)
 c a
− 
ηlsolv ( 2εT )  4 Lc La (3 + 2 Lc La ( Lc + La )) 
1
2
 
La = la ,1 + la , 2 T (5)
Lc = lc ,1 + lc , 2T (6)
Bca = (bc ,1 + bc , 2T ) + (ba ,1 + ba , 2T ) (7)
Breslau-Miller
The Breslau-Miller equation is:
( )
2
∆ηlca = 2.5Ve ccaa + 10.05Ve ccaa (8)
Where the effective volume Vc is given by:
Ve =
( Bca − 0.002) (9)
2.60 for salts involving univalent ions
Ve =
( Bca − 0.011) (9a)
5.06 for other salts
Carbonell
The Carbonell equation is:

  a  cca
a
 (10)
∆η = exp 0.48193 ∑ M k xk   − 10
l
.
ca
  k  T 
Where:
Mk = Molecular weight of an apparent electrolyte
component k
You must provide parameters for the Andrade model, used for the
calculation of the liquid mixture viscosity of the solvent mixture.
Name/Element Limit
CHARGE z 0.0 — — —
MW M — 1.0 5000.0 —
IONMOB/1 I1 — — — AREA, MOLES
IONMOB/2 I2 0.0 — — AREA, MOLES,
TEMPERATURE
IONMUB/1 b1 — — — MOLE-VOLUME
IONMUB/2 b2 0,0 — — MOLE-VOLUME,
TEMPERATURE
References
A. L. Horvath, Handbook of Aqueous Elecrolyte Solutions,

(Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1985).
Letsou-Stiel The Letsou-Stiel model calculates liquid viscosity at high
temperatures for 0.76 ≤ Tr ≤ 0.98 . This model is used in PCES.
The general form for the model is:
( ) ( )
0 1
ηl ε = η l ε + ω ηl ε
Where:
( η ε)
l 0
= fcn(T , x i , Tci )
( η ε)
l 1
= fcn(T , x i , Tci )
ε = fcn( x i , M i , Tci , pci ,ω i )

ω = ∑xω i i i

Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
OMEGA ωi — — -0.5 2.0 —
References
R.C. Reid, J.M. Pransnitz, and B.E. Poling, The Properties of

471.
Lucas Vapor Viscosity The equation for the Lucas vapor viscosity model is:
( )
YF p FQ
ην = ην ( p = 0)ξ
ξ
Where the dimensionless low pressure viscosity is given by:
( η ( p = 0)ξ) = fcn(T ) F ( p = 0) F ( p = 0)
ν
r P Q
The dimensionless-making group is:

1
Tc 6
ξ=N 2
A 1 2
M 2 p c3
The pressure correction factor Y is:
Y = fcn( p r , T r )
The polar and quantum correction factors at high and low pressure
are:
FP = fcn( Y , FP ( p = 0))
FQ = (
fcn Y , FQ ( p = 0) )
FPi ( p = 0) = fcn(Tri , pci , Zci , pi )
FQi ( p = 0) = fcn(Tri )
, but is only nonunity for the quantum
gates i = H 2 , E2 and He.
The Lucas mixing rules are:

Tc = ∑yT i i ci
pc =
RTc
∑ yZ i i ci
,
∑ yV i i ci
RZciTci
Vci =
pci
M = ∑y Mi i i
FP ( p = 0) = ∑ y F ( p = 0)
i Pi
FQ ( p = 0) = A∑ y F ( p = 0)
i Qi
Where A differs from unity only for certain mixtures.
Name/Element Limit
TCLUC Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCLUC pci PC x 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
ZCLUC Zci ZC x 0.1 0.5 —
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
References

Gases and Liquids, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987),
p. 421, 431.
TRAPP Viscosity Model The general form for the TRAPP viscosity model is:
η = fcn(t , p, x , M i , Tci , pci , Vci , Zci , ω i )
Where:
The parameter x is the mole fraction vector; fcn is a
corresponding states correlation based on the model for vapor and
liquid viscosity TRAPP, by the National Bureau of Standards
(NBS, currently NIST) . The model can be used for both pure
components and mixtures. The model should be used for nonpolar
components only.
Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
TCTRAP Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCTRAP pci PC x 10 5 10 8 PRESSURE
VCTRAP Vci VC x 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
ZCTRAP Zci ZC x 0.1 1.0 —
OMGRAP ωi OMEGA x -0.5 3.0 —
References
J.F. Ely and H.J.M. Hanley, "Prediction of Transport Properties. 1.

Viscosities of Fluids and Mixtures," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam.,
Vol. 20, (1981), pp. 323–332.
Thermal Conductivity The Aspen Physical Property System has eight built-in thermal
Models conductivity models. This section describes the thermal
conductivity models available.
Model Type
Chung-Lee-Starling Vapor or liquid
IAPS Water or stream
Li Mixing Rule Liquid mixture
Riedel Electrolyte Correction Electrolyte
Sato-Riedel/DIPPR/IK-CAPE Liquid
Stiel-Thodos/DIPPR/IK-CAPE Low pressure vapor
Stiel-Thodos Pressure Correction Vapor
TRAPP Thermal Conductivity Vapor or liquid
Vredeveld Mixing Rule Liquid mixture
Wassiljewa-Mason-Saxena Mixing Rule Low pressure vapor
Chung-Lee-Starling The main equation for the Chung-Lee-Starling thermal
Thermal Conductivity conductivity model is:
. η( p = 0) Ψ
312
λ= f1 + f 2
M
Where:
f1 = fcn(ρ m , ω, pr , κ )
f2 = fcn(Tc , M , Vcm , ρ rm , ω, pr , κ )
Ψ = fcn( Cν , ω, Tr )
η( p = 0)
can be calcuated by the low pressure Chung-Lee-Starling
model. The molar density can be calculated using an equation-of-
state model (for example, the Benedict-Webb-Rubin equation-of-
state). The parameter pr is the reduced dipolemoment:
p
pr = 4.152
(
VcmTc
1
2
)
The polar parameter κ is tabulated for certain alcohols and
carboxylic acids.
For low pressures, f1 is reduced to 1.0 and f 2 is reduced to zero.

This gives the Chung-Lee-Starling expression for thermal
conductivity of low pressure gases.
The same expressions are used for mixtures. The mixture
expression for η( p = 0) must be used. (See Chung-Lee-Starling
Low-Pressure Vapor Viscosity.)
Cν = ∑ i x i Cν , i
2 2
M= 
i j
 
2
TcVcm3
 
ω=
∑∑i j
x i x j ω ijVcij
Vcm
1313
. p
pr = 1
VcmTc 2
p 4
=
∑∑ i j
x i x j pi2 p 2j Vc
Vcij
Where:
Vcij = (1 − ξ )(V V ) ij ci cj
1
2
Tcij =
(1 − ζ )(T T )
1
2
ij ci cj
2
1
M ij =  2 Mi M j 
2
 
(
 M i + M j ) 
κ ij =
(κ κ )
1
2
i j
Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
CLSK κi 0.0 x 0.0 0.5 —
CLSKV ξ ij 0.0 x -0.5 -0.5 —
CLSKT ζ ij 0.0 x -0.5 0.5 —
The model-specific parameters also affect the results of the Chung-

Lee-Starling viscosity models.
References

505, 523.
IAPS Thermal The IAPS thermal conductivity models were developed by the
Conductivity for Water International Association for Properties of Steam. These models
can calculate vapor and liquid thermal conductivity for water and
steam. They are used in option sets STEAMNBS and STEAM-TA.
The general form of the equation for the IAPS thermal
conductivity models is:
λ w = fcn(T , p)
Where:
The models are only applicable to water. No parameters are
required.
Li Mixing Rule Liquid mixture thermal conductivity is calculated using Li
equation (Reid et.al., 1987):
λl = ∑i ∑ j Φi Φ j λij
Where:
( )
−1 − 1
λij = 2 (λ*,i l ) + λ*,j l 
−1
 
*,l
xV
Φi = i i
∑ j xV
i j
*,l
*,l
The pure component liquid molar volume Vi is calculated from
the Rackett model.
The pure component liquid thermal conductivity λi can be

*,l
calculated by three models:

• Sato-Riedel
• DIPPR
• IK-CAPE
See the Sato-Riedel/DIPPR/IK-CAPE model for descriptions.
550.
Riedel Electrolyte The Riedel model can calculate the correction to the liquid mixture
Correction thermal conductivity of a solvent mixture, due to the presence of
electrolytes:
 l x caa  λlsolv (T )
λ (T ) = λ solv (T = 293) + ∑ (a c + a a ) l  l
l
 ca Vm  λ solv (T = 293)
Where:
λlsolv = Thermal conductivity of the liquid solvent mixture,
calculated by the Sato-Riedel model
x caa = Mole fraction of the apparent electrolyte ca
ac , aa = Reidel ionic coefficient
Vml = Apparent molar volume computed by the Clarke

density model
Apparent electrolyte mole fractions are computed from the true ion
mole-fractions and ionic charge number. They can also be
computed if you use the apparent component approach. A more
detailed discussion of this method is found in Chapter 5.
You must provide parameters for the Sato-Riedel model. This
model is used for the calculation of the thermal conductivity of
solvent mixtures.
Name/Element
CHARGE z 0.0 — — —
IONRDL a 0.0 — — THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY,
MOLE-VOLUME
Sato-Riedel/DIPPR/IK- The pure component liquid thermal conductivity can be calculated

CAPE Liquid Thermal by three models:
Conductivity
• Sato-Riedel
• DIPPR liquid thermal conductivity
• IK-CAPE
Sato-Riedel
The Sato-Riedel equation is (Reid et al., 1987):

 3 + 20(1 − Tri ) 3 
2
.
11053152  
λ =
*,l
M i 2  3 + 20(1 − Tbri ) 3 
i 1 2
Where:
Tbri = Tbi Tci
Tri = T Tci

Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
DIPPR Liquid Thermal Conductivity
The DIPPR equation is:

λ*,i l = C1i + C2 iT + C3i T 2 + C4 iT 3 + C5i T 4 for C6 i ≤ T ≤ C7 i
Linear extrapolation of λ versus T occurs outside of bounds.

*,l
If the KLDIP parameters for a given component are available, the

DIPPR model is used instead of the Sato-Riedel model. The
DIPPR model is also used by PCES.
Name/Element Limit
KLDIP/1 C1i — x — — THERMAL-
CONDUCTIVITY,
TEMPERATURE
KLDIP/2, … , 5 C2 i ,..., C5i 0 x — — THERMAL-
CONDUCTIVITY,
TEMPERATURE
KLDIP/6 C6 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
KLDIP/7 C7 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
IK-CAPE
The IK-CAPE equation is a polynomial containing 10 terms. If the

parameter KLPO is available, the Aspen Physical Property System
uses the IK-CAPE equation.
λ*,i l = C1i + C 2i T + C 3i T 2 + C 4i T 3 + C 5i T 4 + C 6i T 5 + C 7 i T 6 + C8i T 7 + C 9i T 8 + C10i T 9
Linear extrapolation of λ versus T occurs outside of bounds.

*,l

Name/Element Limit
KLPO/1 C1i — x — — THERMAL-
CONDUCTIVITY
KLPO/2, … , 10 C 2i ,...,C10 i 0 x — — THERMAL-
CONDUCTIVITY,
TEMPERATURE
KLPO/11 C11i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
KLPO/12 C12 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
References

533.
550.
Vredeveld Mixing Rule Liquid mixture thermal conductivity is calculated using the
Vredeveld equation (Reid et al., 1977):
( )
1
  λ*,l 2  
2
λ = ∑i 
  xi M i  ∑ j j j 
l  i
x M 
   
Pure component liquid thermal conductivity λ i can be calculated

*, l
by two equations:
• Sato-Riedel
• DIPPR
• IK-CAPE
See the Sato-Riedel/DIPPR/IK-CAPE model for descriptions.
533.
Stiel-Thodos/DIPPR/IK- The pure component vapor thermal conductivity for low pressure
CAPE Vapor Thermal gasses can be calculated by three models:
Conductivity
• Stiel-Thodos
• DIPPR vapor thermal conductivity
• IK-CAPE polynomial
Stiel-Thodos
The Stiel-Thodos equation is:
( (
λ*,i ν = η*,i ν 115 )
. C *,piig − R + 169
. x 10 4 ) Mi
Where:
η*,i ν ( p = 0)
can be obtained from the Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw
model.
C *,piig
is obtained from the Ideal Gas Heat Capacity model.
R is the universal gas constant.
Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
DIPPR Vapor Thermal Conductivity
The DIPPR equation for vapor thermal conductivity is:
( )
λ*,i l = C1i T C2 i 1 + C3i T + C4i T 2 for C6i ≤ T ≤ C7 i
*ν
Linear extrapolation of λ i versus T occurs outside of bounds.
If the KVDIP parameters for a given component are available, the
DIPPR equation is used instead of the Stiel-Thodos equation. The
DIPPR equation is also used in PCES.
Name/Element Limit
KVDIP/1 C1i — x — — THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY
KVDIP/2 C2i 0 x — — —
KVDIP/3, 4 C3i , C4 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
KVDIP/5 — 0 x — — —
KVDIP/6 C6 i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
KVDIP/7 C7 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
IK-CAPE Polynomial
λ*,i v = C1i + C 2i T + C 3i T 2 + C 4i T 3 + C 5i T 4 + C 6i T 5 + C 7i T 6 + C8i T 7 + C 9i T 8 + C10i T 9
Linear extrapolation of λ versus T occurs outside of bounds. If

*, v
the parameter KVPO is available, the Aspen Physical Property

System uses the IK-CAPE equation.
KVPO/1 C1i — x — — THERMAL-
CONDUCTIVITY
KVPO/2, … , 10 C 2i ,...,C10 i 0 x — — THERMAL-
CONDUCTIVITY,
TEMPERATURE
KVPO/11 C11i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
KVPO/12 C12 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
References
R.C. Reid, J.M. Praunitz, and B.E. Poling, The Properties of Gases
and Liquid, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987), p. 494.
Stiel-Thodos Pressure The pressure correction to a pure component or mixture thermal
Correction Model conductivity at low pressure is given by:
(
λν = fcn λn ( p = 0), ρ rm , y i , M i , Tci , Vci , Zci )
Where:
ρ rm = Vci
∑y i i
Vmν
ν
The parameter Vm can be obtained from Redlich-Kwong.
λν ( p = 0)
can be obtained from the low pressure Stiel-Thodos
Thermal Conductivity model (Stiel-Thodos/DIPPR).
This model should not be used for polar substances, hydrogen, or
helium.
Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
PC — — — 105 108 PRESSURE
VC Vci — — 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
ZC Zci — — 0.1 0.5 —
References
and Liquids, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987), p. 521.
TRAPP Thermal The general form for the TRAPP thermal conductivity model is:
Conductivity Model
(
λ = fcn T , P, x , M i , Tci , pci , Vci , Zci , ω i , C *,pi ig )
Where:
x = Mole fraction vector
C *,pi ig = Ideal gas heat capacity calculated using the Aspen
Physical Property System or DIPPR ideal gas heat
capacity equations
fcn = Corresponding states correlation based on the model
for vapor and liquid thermal conductivity made by
the National Bureau of standards (NBS, currently
NIST)
The model can be used for both pure components and mixtures.
The model should be used for nonpolar components only.
Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
TCTRAP Tci TC x 5.0 2000.0 TEMPERATURE
PCTRAP pci PC x 105 108 PRESSURE
VCTRAP Vci VC x 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
ZCTRAP Zci ZC x 0.1 1.0 —
OMGRAP ωi OMEGA x -0.5 3.0 —
References
J.F. Ely and H.J. M. Hanley, "Prediction of Transport Properties. 2.

Thermal Conductivity of Pure Fluids and Mixtures," Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fundam., Vol. 22, (1983), pp. 90–97.
Wassiljewa-Mason- The vapor mixture thermal conductivity at low pressures is
Saxena Mixing Rule calculated from the pure component values, using the Wassiljewa-
Mason-Saxena equation:
y i λ*,i ν ( p = 0)
λ ( p = 0) = ∑ i
ν
∑ j y j Aij
1
  n *,ν ( p = 0)  
1 2
[( )]
2
( )
1
Aij = 1 +  i*,ν 
1
8 1 + Mi M j
2

4
M j Mi
  n j ( p = 0)  
 
Where:
λ*,i ν = Calculated by the Stiel-Thodos model or the
DIPPR thermal conductivity model (Stiel-
Thodos/DIPPR)
η*,i ν ( p = 0) = Obtained from the Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw
model
C *,piig = Obtained from the Ideal Gas Heat Capacity
model
R = Universal gas constant
You must supply parameters for ηi ( p = 0) and λ i .

*, ν *., ν

Name/Element Limit
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
References

Gases and Liquids, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987), pp.
530–531.
Diffusivity Models The Aspen Physical Property System has seven built-in diffusivity
models. This section describes the diffusivity models available.
Model Type
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee (Binary) Low pressure vapor
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee (Mixture) Low pressure vapor
Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi (Binary) Vapor
Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi (Mixture) Vapor
Nernst-Hartley Electrolyte
Wilke-Chang (Binary) Liquid
Wilke-Chang (Mixture) Liquid
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke- D ν ( p = 0)
Lee (Binary) The binary diffusion coefficient at low pressures ij is
calculated using the Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee model:
T 3 f ( M)
2
ν
ij . [
D ( p = 0) = 21989 x 10 −22
− 5.0665 x 10 f ( M ) −3
] [ pσ 2
ΩD ]
ok
Where:
f ( M) = [( M + M ) ( M M )]
1
2
i j i j
The collision integral for diffusion is:

ΩD = (
fcn T , ε ij k )
The binary size and energy parameters are defined as:
σ ij = (σ i +σj )
2
ε ij =
(ε ε )
1
2
i j

parameter ) and σ (collision diameter). To calculate δ , the dipole
moment p, and either the Stockmayer parameters or Tb and Vbm are
needed.
MW Mi — — 1.0 5000.0 —
MUP pi — — 0.0 5X10 −24 DIPOLEMOMENT
STKPAR/1 (ε k ) ST fcn( pi , Tbi ,Vbi )x — — TEMPERATURE
STKPAR/2 σ ST fcn( pi , Tbi ,Vbi )x — — LENGTH

LJPAR/1 (ε k ) LJ fcn(Tci ,ω i ) x — — TEMPERATURE
LJPAR/2 σ LJ fcn(Tci , pi ,ω i ) x — — LENGTH
References
and Liquids, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987), p. 587.
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke- The diffusion coefficient of a gas into a gas mixture at low
Lee (Mixture) pressures is calculated using Blanc’s law:
 Dijν ( p = 0) 
D ( p = 0) = ∑ y j  ∑
i
ν

j≠i  j ≠ i yj 
D ν ( p = 0)
The binary diffusion coefficient ij at low pressures is
calculated using the Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee model. (See
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee (Binary).)
You must provide parameters for this model.
Name/Element Limit
DVBLNC — 1 x — — —
DVBLNC is set to 1 for a diffusing component and 0 for a non-
diffusing component.
References

597.
Dawson-Khoury- Dν
Kobayashi (Binary) The binary diffusion coefficient ij at high pressures is calculated
from the Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi model:
[
Dijνρ mν = 1 + a1ρ rm
ν
( )
ν
+ a 2 prm
2
( ) ] D ( p = 0)ρ ( p = 1atm)
ν
+ a3 prm
3 ν
ig m
ν
ρ rm = Vcm Vmν
ρ νm = 1 Vmν
y iVci* + y jVcj*
Vcm =
yi + y j
Dijν ( p = 0)
is the low-pressure binary diffusion coefficient obtained
from the Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee model.
ν ν
The parameters ρ m and Vm are obtained from the Redlich-Kwong
equation-of-state model.
You must supply parameters for these two models.
Subscript i denotes a diffusing component. j denotes a solvent.
Name/Element Limit
VC Vci — x 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
References
R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, and T.K. Sherwood. The Properties of

Gases and Liquids, 3rd ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977), pp.
560-565.
Dawson-Khoury- The diffusion coefficient of a gas into a gas mixture at high
Kobayashi (Mixture) pressure is calculated using Blanc’s law:
 Dijν 
D = ∑ y j ∑
i
ν

j≠i  j ≠ i y j 
Dν
The binary diffusion coefficient ij at high pressures is calculated
from the Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi model. (See Dawson-
Khoury-Kobayashi (Binary).)
You must provide parameters for this model.
Name/Element Limit
DVBLNC — 1 — — — —
DVBLNC is set to 1 for a diffusing component and 0 for a
nondiffusing component.
References

597.
Nernst-Hartley The effective diffusivity of an ion i in a liquid mixture with
electrolytes can be calculated using the Nernst-Hartley model:
 RT  (1)
Di =   (l1,i + le,i T )∑ x k
 zi F 2  k
Where:
F = 9.65 x 10 7 C/kmole (Faraday’s number)
xk = Mole fraction of any molecular species k
zi = Charge number of species i
The binary diffusion coefficient of the ion with respect to a
molecular species is set equal to the effective diffusivity of the ion
in the liquid mixture:
Dik ≡ Di (2)
The binary diffusion coefficient of an ion i with respect to an ion j
is set to the mean of the effective diffusivities of the two ions:
Dij =
(D + D )
i j
Parameter Symbol Default Lower Upper Units

CHARGE z 0.0 — — —
IONMOB/1 I1 — — — AREA, MOLES
IONMOB/2 I2 0.0 — — AREA, MOLES, TEMPERATURE
References
A. L. Horvath, Handbook of Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions,

(Chichester: Ellis Horwood, Ltd, 1985).
Wilke-Chang (Binary) The Wilke-Chang model calculates the liquid diffusion coefficient
of component i in a mixture at finite concentrations:
( ) (D )
xj ∞ ,l xi
Dijl = Dij∞ ,l ji
The equation for the Wilke-Chang model at infinite dilution is:
(ϕ )
1
2
∞ ,l −16 jMj T
D = 117282
. x 10
n (V )
ij
l *,l 0.6
j bi
Where i is the diffusing solute and j the solvent:

ϕj = Association factor of solvent
n lj = Liquid viscosity of the solvent calculation. This can be
obtained from the Andrade/DIPPR model. You must
provide parameters for one of these models.

Name/Element Limit
MW Mj — 1.0 5000.0 —
VB Vbi*,l — 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
References

598–600.
Wilke-Chang (Mixture) The Wilke-Chang model calculates the liquid diffusion coefficient
of component i in a mixture.
The equation for the Wilke-Chang model is:
(ϕ M )
1
2
−16 T
D = 117282
l
. x 10
( )
i
*, l 0.6
nl V bi
With:
∑x ϕ
j≠i
j j Mj
ϕM =
∑x
j≠i
j
Where:
ϕj = Association factor of solvent
nl = Mixture liquid viscosity of all nondiffusing

components. This can be obtained from the
Andrade/DIPPR or another liquid mixture viscosity
model. You must provide parameters for one of these
models.
Parameter Symbol Default Lower Limit Upper Units

Name/Element Limit
MW Mj — 1.0 5000.0 —
VB Vbi*,l — 0.001 3.5 MOLE-VOLUME
DLWC — 1 — — —
References
R.C. Reid, J.M. Praunsnitz, and B.E. Poling, The Properties of

618.
Surface Tension The Aspen Physical Property System has four built-in surface
Models tension models.This section describes the surface tension models
available.
Model Type
API Liquid-vapor
IAPS Water-stream
Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/DIPPR/IK-CAPE Liquid-vapor
Onsager-Samaras Electrolyte Correction Electrolyte liquid-vapor
API Surface Tension The liquid mixture surface tension for hydrocarbons is calculated
using the API model. This model is recommended for petroleum
and petrochemical applications. It is used in the CHAO-SEA,
GRAYSON, LK-PLOCK, PENG-ROB, and RK-SOAVE option
sets. The general form of the model is:
σ l = fcn(T , x , Tbi , SG, Tci )
Where:
fcn = A correlation based on API Procedure 10A32 (API
Technical Data Book, Petroleum Refining, 4th edition)

Name/Element Limit
SG SG — — 0.1 2.0 —
TC Tci — — 5.0 2000 TEMPERATURE
IAPS Surface Tension for The IAPS surface tension model was developed by the
Water International Association for Properties of Steam. It calculates
liquid surface tension for water and steam. This model is used in
option sets STEAMNBS and STEAM-TA.
The general form of the equation for the IAPS surface tension
model is:
σ w = fcn(T , p)
Where:
The model is only applicable to water. No parameters are required.
Hakim-Steinberg- The liquid mixture surface tension is calculated using the equation:
Stiel/DIPPR/IK-CAPE σ l = ∑ x i σ *,i l
i
The pure component liquid surface tension can be calculated by

three models:
• Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel
• DIPPR liquid surface tension
• IK-CAPE polynomial
Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel
The Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel equation is:
 1 − Tri 
mi
−7
σ = 4.60104 x 10 pci Tci Q pi  
*,l 2 1
3 3
i
 0.4 
Where:
Q pi = 01574
. + 0.359ω i − 1769
. χ i − 13.69χ i2 − 0.510ω i2 + 1298
. ω iχi
mi = 1210
. + 0.5385ω i − 14.61χ i − 32.07χ 2i − 1656
. ω 2i + 22.03ω i χ i
The parameter χ i is the Stiel polar factor.

Name/Element
PC pci — 105 108 PRESSURE
OMEGA ωi — -0.5 2.0 —
CHI χi 0 — — —
DIPPR Liquid Surface Tension
The DIPPR equation for liquid surface tension is:
σ *,i l = C1i (1 − Tri ) ( )

C2 i + C3 iTri + C4 iTri2 + C5 iTri3
Where:
Tri = T Tci
If the SIGDIP parameters for a given component are available, the
Aspen Physical Property System uses the DIPPR equation. The
DIPPR model is also used by PCES.
Name/Element
SIGDIP/1 C1i — — — SURFACE-TENSION
SIGDIP/2, . . . , 5 C2 i ,..., C5i 0 — — —
SIGDIP/6 C6 i 0 — — TEMPERATURE
SIGDIP/7 C7 i 1000 — — TEMPERATURE
IK-CAPE Polynomial
The IK-CAPE model is a polynomial equation containing 10

terms. If the parameter SIGPO is available, the Aspen Physical
Property System uses the IK-CAPE equation.
σ i*,l = C1i + C 2i T + C 3i T 2 + C 4i T 3 + C 5i T 4 + C 6i T 5 + C 7 i T 6 + C8i T 7 + C 9i T 8 + C10i T 9
Linear extrapolation of σ i versus T occurs outside of bounds.

*,l

SIGPO/1 C1i — x — — SURFACE-TENSION
SIGPO/2, … , 10 C 2i ,...,C10 i 0 x — — SURFACE-TENSION
TEMPERATURE
SIGPO/11 C11i 0 x — — TEMPERATURE
SIGPO/12 C12 i 1000 x — — TEMPERATURE
References

Gases and Liquids, 4th. ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987), p.
638.
Onsager-Samaras The Onsager-Samaras model calculates the correction to the liquid
mixture surface tension ofa solvent mixture, due to the presence of
electrolytes:
σ = σ solv + ∑ x caa ∆σ ca (1)
ca
Where:
σ solv = Surface tension of the solvent mixture calculated by
the Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel model
x caa = Mole fraction of the apparent electrolyte ca
∆σ ca = Contribution to the surface tension correction due to
apparent electrolyte ca
For each apparent electrolyte ca, the contribution to the surface
tension correction is calculated as:
. x10 −13 (ε solv T ) 

113 (2)
3
80.0 a
∆σ ca = cca log  
ε solv  ccaa 
Where:
ε solv = Dielectric constant of the solvent mixture
ccaa = x caa
Vml
Vml = Liquid molar volume calculated by the Clarke model

Apparent electrolyte mole fractions are computed from the true ion
mole-fractions and ionic charge number. They are also computed if
you use the apparent component approach. See Chapter 5 for a
more detailed discussion of this method.
You must provide parameters for the Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel
model, used for the calculation of the surface tension of the solvent
mixture.
Name/Element
CHARGE z 0.0 — — —
References
A. L. Horvath, Handbook of Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions,

(Chichester: Ellis, Ltd. 1985).
Nonconventional Solid Property
Models
This section describes the nonconventional solid density and
enthalpy models available in the Aspen Physical Property System.
The following table lists the available models and their model
names. Nonconventional components are solid components that
cannot be characterized by a molecular formula. These
components are treated as pure components, though they are
complex mixtures.
Nonconventional Solid Property Models
General Enthalpy and Density Model name Phase(s)
Models
General density polynomial DNSTYGEN S
General heat capacity ENTHGEN S
polynomial
Enthalpy and Density Models Model name Phase(s)
for Coal and Char
General coal enthalpy model HCOALGEN S
IGT coal density model DCOALIGT S
IGT char density model DCHARIGT S
General Enthalpy and The Aspen Physical Property System has two built-in general
Density Models enthalpy and density models. This section describes the general
enthalpy and density models available.
Model
General Density Polynomial
General Heat Capacity Polynomial
General Density DNSTYGEN is a general model that gives the density of any
Polynomial nonconventional solid component. It uses a simple mass fraction
weighted average for the reciprocal temperature-dependent specific
densities of its individual constituents. There may be up to twenty
constituents with mass percentages. You must define these
constituents, using the general component attribute GENANAL.
The equations are:
1
ρ is =
wij
∑ρi
ij
ρis, j = ai, j1 + ai, j 2T + a i, j 3T 2 + ai , j 4T 3
Where:
wij = Mass fraction of the jth constituent in component
i
ρis, j = Density of the jth consituent in component i
Parameter Symbol Default MDS Lower Upper Limit

Name/Element Limit
DENGEN/1+4 (J-1) ai , j1 x — — —
DENGEN/2+4 (J-1) ai , j 2 x 0 — —
DENGEN/3+4 (J-1) ai , j 3 x 0 — —
DENGEN/4+4 (J-1) ai , j 4 x 0 — —
The units are MASS-DENSITY and TEMPERATURE.

Use the elements of GENANAL to input the mass percentages of
the constituents. The structure of DENGEN is: four coefficients for
the first constituent, four coefficients for the second constituent,
and so on.
General Heat Capacity ENTHGEN is a general model that gives the specific enthalpy of
Polynomial any nonconventional component as a simple mass-fraction-
weighted-average for the enthalpies of its individual constituents.
You may define up to twenty constituents with mass percentages,
using the general component attribute GENANAL. The specific
enthalpy of each constituent at any temperature is calculated by
combining specific enthalpy of formation of the solid with a
sensible heat change. (See Chapter 1.)
The equations are:
his = ∑ wi , j his, j
i
T
his, j = ∆ f h sj + ∫ C ps , j dT
298.15
C ps , j = ai, j1 + ai, j 2T + ai, j 3T 2 + ai , j 4T 3

Where:
wij = Mass fraction of the jth constituent in component i
his = Specific enthalpy of solid component i
∆ f h sj = Specific enthalpy of formation of constituent j
CPsi , j = Heat capacity of the jth constituent in component i
Name/Element Limit
DHFGEN/J ∆ f h sj x 0 — — MASS-ENTHALPY
HCGEN/1+4 (J-1) ai, j1 x — — — See note.

HCGEN/2+4 ai, j 2 x 0 — — See note.
HCGEN/3+4 (J-1) ai, j 3 x 0 — — See note.
HCGEN/4+4 (J-1) ai, j 4 x 0 — — See note.
The units for HCGEN are MASS-ENTHALPY and

TEMPERATURE.
The elements of GENANAL are used to input the mass
percentages of the constituents. The structure for HCGEN is: four
coefficients for the first constituent, four coefficients for the
second constituent, and so on.
Enthalpy and Density Coal is modeled in the Aspen Physical Property System as a
Models for Coal and nonconventional solid. Coal models are empirical correlations,
Char which require solid material characterization information.
Component attributes are derived from constituent analyses.
Definitions of coal component attributes are given in the
Aspen Plus User Guide, Chapter 6.
Enthalpy and density are the only properties calculated for
nonconventional solids. This section describes the special models
available in the Aspen Physical Property System for the enthalpy
and density of coal and char. The component attributes required by
each model are included. The coal models are:
• General coal enthalpy
• IGT Coal Density
• IGT Char Density
Notation
Most correlations for the calculation of coal properties require

proximate, ultimate, and other analyses. These are converted to a
dry, mineral-matter-free basis. Only the organic portion of the coal
is considered.
Moisture corrections are made for all analyses except hydrogen,
according to the formula:
 w 
w d =  
 1 − w H2O 
Where:
w = The value determined for weight fraction
wd = The value on a dry basis
wH2O = The moisture weight fraction
For hydrogen, the formula includes a correction for free-moisture
hydrogen:
wH − 0119
. wH2O
wHd =
1 − wH2O
The mineral matter content is calculated using the modified Parr

formula:
w MM = 113
. w A + 0.47 wSp + wCl
The ash term corrects for water lost by decomposition of clays in
the ash determination. The average water constitution of clays is
assumed to be 11.2 percent. The sulfur term allows for loss in
weight of pyritic sulfur when pyrite is burned to ferric oxide. The
original Parr formula assumed that all sulfur is pyritic sulfur. This
formula included sulfatic and organic sulfur in the mineral-matter
calculation. When information regarding the forms of sulfur is
available, use the modified Parr formula to give a better
approximation of the percent of inorganic material present.
Because chlorine is usually small for United States coals, you can
omit chlorine from the calculation.
Correct analyses from a dry basis to a dry, mineral-matter-free
basis, using the formula:
w d − ∆w d
w dm =
1 − w MM
Where:
∆w d = Correction factor for other losses, such as the loss of
carbon in carbonates and the loss of hydrogen present
in the water constitution of clays
∆wCd = 0.014WAd + 0.005Wspd
∆w Hd = 0.013w Ad − 0.02wSp
d
The oxygen and organic sulfur contents are usually calculated by

difference as:
WOdm = 1 − WCdm − WHdm − WSodm − WNdm
wSdm = wStdm − wSp
dm
− wSsdm
Where:
Cp = Heat capacity / (J/kgK)
cp = Heat capacity / (cal/gC)
h = Specific enthalpy
∆ch = Specific heat of combustion
∆fh = Specific heat of formation
RO = Mean-maximum relectance in oil
T = Temperature/K
t = Temperature/C
w = Weight fraction
ρ = Specific density
Subscripts:
A = Ash
C = Carbon
Cl = Chlorine
FC = Fixed carbon
H = Hydrogen
H 2O = Moisture
MM = Mineral matter
N = Nitrogen
O = Oxygen
So = Organic sulfur
Sp = Pyritic sulfur
St = Total sulfur
S = Other sulfur
VM = Volatile matter
Superscripts:
d = Dry basis
m = Mineral-matter-free basis
General Coal Enthalpy The general coal model for computing enthalpy in the Aspen
Model Physical Property System is HCOALGEN. This model includes a
number of different correlations for the following:
• Heat of combustion
• Heat of formation
• Heat capacity
You can select one of these correlations using an option code in the
Properties Advanced NC-Props form. (See the Aspen Plus User
Guide, Chapter 6). Use option codes to specify a calculation
method for properties. Each element in the option code vector is
used in the calculation of a different property.
The table labeled HCOALGEN Option Codes (below) lists model
option codes for HCOALGEN. The table is followed by a detailed
description of the calculations used for each correlation.
The correlations are described in the following section. The
component attributes are defined in Aspen Plus User Guide,
Chapter 6.
Heat of Combustion Correlations
The heat of combustion of coal in the HCOALGEN model is a

gross calorific value. It is expressed in Btu/lb of coal on a dry
mineral-matter-free basis. ASTM Standard D-2015 defines
standard conditions for measuring gross calorific value. Initial
oxygen pressure is 20 to 40 atmospheres. Products are in the form
of ash; liquid water; and gaseous CO2 , SO2 , and NO2 .
You can calculate net calorific value from gross calorific value by
making a deduction for the latent heat of vaporization of water.
Heat of combustion values are converted back to a dry, mineral-
matter-containing basis with a correction for the heat of
combustion of pyrite. The formula is:
∆ c hid = (1 − w MMi )∆ c hidm + 5400wsp, i
The heat of combustion correlations were evaluated by the Institute
of Gas Technology (IGT). They used data for 121 samples of coal
from the Penn State Data Base (IGT, 1976) and 457 samples from
a USGS report (Swanson, et al., 1976). These samples included a
wide range of United States coal fields. The constant terms in the
HCOALGEN correlations are bias corrections obtained from the
IGT study.
Boie Correlation:
[ ]
∆ c hidm = a1i wCdm,i + a 2 i w Hdm, i + a3i wStdm, i + a 4 i wOdm,i + a5i wNdm,i 10 2 + a 6 i
Parameter Name/Element Symbol Default
BOIEC/1 a1i 151.2
BOIEC/2 a 2i 499.77
BOIEC/3 a3i 45.0
BOIEC/4 a 4i -47.7
BOIEC/5 a5i 27.0
BOIEC/6 a 6i -189.0
Dulong Correlation:
[
∆ c hidm = a1i wCdm,i + a 2 i wHdm,i + a3i wSdm,i + a 4 i wOdm,i + a5i wNdm,i 10 2 + a5i ]
DLNGC/1 a1i 145.44
DLNGC/2 a 2i 620.28
DLNGC/3 a3i 40.5
DLNGC/4 a 4i -77.54
DLNGC/5 a5i -16.0
Grummel and Davis Correlation:
(a + a 2 i wHdm, i )
∆ h dm
=
5i
(a )
wCdm, i + a 2 i wHdm, i + a3i wSdm,i + a 4 i wOdm,i 10 2 + a6 i
c i
(1 − w ) d
A, i
1i

GMLDC/1 a1i 0.3333
GMLDC/2 a 2i 654.3
GMLDC/3 a3i 0.125
GMLDC/4 a 4i 0.125
GMLDC/5 a5i 424.62
GMLDC/6 a 6i -2.0
Mott and Spooner Correlation:
[ ]
∆ c hidm = a1i wCdm,i + a 2 i wHdm, i + a3i wSdm,i − a 4 i wOdm, i 10 2 + a 7 i for wOdm,i ≤ 015
.
  a5i wOdm,i  dm  2
∆ h dm
= a1i wC ,i + a 2 i wH , i + a3i wS ,i −  a 6 i −
dm dm dm
 wO ,i 10 + a7 i for wOdm, i ≤ 015
.
−
c i
 A, i 
d
 1 w 
MTSPC/1 a1i 144.54
MTSPC/2 a 2i 610.2
MTSPC/3 a3i 40.3
MTSPC/4 a 4i 62.45
MTSPC/5 a5i 30.96
MTSPC/6 a 6i 65.88
MTSPC/7 a 7i -47.0
IGT Correlation:
[ ]
∆ c hidm = a1i wCd ,i + a 2 i wHd ,i + a3i wSd,i + a 4 i w Ad , i 10 2 + a5i
CIGTC/1 a1i 178.11
CIGTC/2 a 2i 620.31
CIGTC/3 a3i 80.93
CIGTC/4 a 4i 44.95
CIGTC/5 a5i -5153.0
User Input Value of Heat Combustion
HCOMB ∆ c hid 0
Standard Heat of Formation Correlations
There are two standard heat of formation correlations for the

HCOALGEN model:
• Heat of combustion-based
• Direct
Heat of Combustion-Based Correlation This is based on the
assumption that combustion results in complete oxidation of all
elements except sulfatic sulfur and ash, which are considered inert.
The numerical coefficients are combinations of stoichiometric
coefficients and heat of formation for CO2 , H 2 O , HCl , and NO2
.at 298.15K:
∆ f hid = ∆ c hid − (1418
. x10 6 wHd ,i + 3.278 x105 wCd ,i + 9.264 x10 4 wSd,i
− 2.418 x10 6 wNd , i − 1.426 x10 4 wCld , i )10 2
Direct Correlation Normally small, relative to its heat of
combustion. An error of 1% in the heat of a combustion-based
correlation produces about a 50% error when it is used to calculate
the heat of formation. For this reason, the following direct
correlation was developed, using data from the Penn State Data
Base. It has a standard deviation of 112.5 Btu/lb, which is close to
the limit, due to measurement in the heat of combustion:
[
∆ f hid = a1i wcdm,i + a 2 i wHdm,i + a3i wHd ,i + a 4 i wSp
d
+ a5i wSsd 10 2 ]
[ (
+ a 6 i Ro, i + a 7 i wCd ,i + wFC
d
)
, i + a 8 i wVM 10
d 2
]
[ ( ) + a (w ) + a (w − w ) + a (w )
+ a9 i wCdm, i
2
10 i
dm 2
St , i 11i
d
c,i
d
FC , i
2
12 i
d
VM , i
2
]10 4
( R ) + a ( w )( w − w ) 10 + a
2
+ a13i o,i 14 i
d
VM , i
d
C,i
d
FC , i
4
15 i
Where:
HFC/1 a1i 1810.123
HFC/2 a 2i -502.222
HFC/3 a3i 329.1087
HFC/4 a 4i 121.766
HFC/5 a5i -542.393
HFC/6 a 6i 1601.573
HFC/7 a 7i 424.25
HFC/8 a8i -525.199
HFC/9 a9i -11.4805
HFC/10 a10i 31.585
HFC/11 a11i 13.5256
HFC/12 a12i 11.5
HFC/13 a13i -685.846
HFC/14 a14i -22.494
HFC/15 a15i -64836.19
Heat Capacity Kirov Correlations
The Kirov correlation (1965) considered coal to be a mixure of

moisture, ash, fixed carbon, and primary and secondary volatile
matter. Primary volatile matter is any volatile matter equal to the
total volatile matter content, up to 10%. The correlation developed
by Kirov treats the heat capacity as a weighted sum of the heat
capacities of the constituents:
ncn
C pd,i = ∑ w j C p,ij
j =1
C p,ij = a i, j1 + ai , j 2T + a i, j 3T 2 + a i, j 4T 3
Where:
i = Component index
j = Constituent index j = 1, 2 , ... , ncn
1 = Moisture
2 = Fixed carbon
3 = Primary volatile matter
4 = Secondary volatile matter
5 = Ash
wj = Mass fraction of jth constituent on dry basis

CP1C/1 a i,11 1.0
CP1C/2 a i,12 0
CP1C/3 a i,13 0
CP1C/4 a i,14 0
CP1C/5 a i,21 0.165
CP1C/6 a i,22 6.8 x 10 −4
CP1C/7 a i,23 −4.2 x 10 −7
CP1C/8 a i,24 0
CP1C/9 a i,31 0.395
CP1C/10 a i,32 . x 10 −4
81
CP1C/11 a i,33 0
CP1C/12 a i,34 0
CP1C/13 a i,41 0.71
CP1C/14 a i,42 . x 10 −4
61
CP1C/15 a i,43 0
CP1C/16 a i,44 0
CP1C/17 a i,51 0.18
CP1C/18 a i,52 . x 10 −4
14
CP1C/19 a i,53 0
CP1C/20 a i,54 0
Cubic Temperature Equation
The cubic temperature equation is:

c dp = a1i + a 2i t + a3i t 2 + a 4i t 3
CP2C/1 a1i 0.438
CP2C/2 a 2i −7.576 x10 −3
CP2C/3 a3i 8.793 x10 −5
CP2C/4 a 4i −2.587 x10 −7
The default values of the parameters were developed by Gomez,
Gayle, and Taylor (1965). They used selected data from three
lignites and a subbituminous B coal, over a temperature range from
32.7 to 176.8°C.
HCOALGEN Option Codes
Option Code Option Calculation Parameter Component
Number Code Method Names Attributes
Value
1 Heat of Combustion
1 Boie correlation BOIEC ULTANAL
SULFANAL
PROXANAL
2 Dulong correlation DLNGC ULTANAL
SULFANAL
PROXANAL
3 Grummel and GMLDC ULTANAL
Davis correlation SULFANAL
PROXANAL
4 Mott and Spooner MTSPC ULTANAL
correlation SULFANAL
PROXANAL
5 IGT correlation CIGTC ULTANAL
PROXANAL
6 User input value HCOMB ULTANAL
PROXANAL
Option Code Option Calculation Parameter Component
Number Code Method Names Attributes
Value
2 Standard Heat of Formation

1 Heat-of- — ULTANAL
combusion- based SULFANAL
correlation
2 Direct correlation HFC ULTANAL
SULFANAL
PROXANAL
3 Heat Capacity
1 Kirov correlation CP1C PROXANAL
2 Cubic temperature CP2C —
equation
4 Enthalpy Basis
1 Elements in their — —
standard states at — —
298.15K and 1 atm
2 Component at — —
298.15 K
Default = 1 for each option code
IGT (Institute of Gas Technology), Coal Conversion Systems
Technical Data Book, Section PMa. 44.1, 1976.
V.E. Swanson et al., Collection, Chemical Analysis and Evaluation
of Coal Samples in 1975, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File
Report (1976), pp. 76–468.
N.Y. Kirov, "Specific Heats and Total Heat Contents of Coals and
Related Materials are Elevated Temperatures," BCURA Monthly
Bulletin, (1965), pp. 29, 33.
M. Gomez, J.B. Gayle, and A.R. Taylor, Jr., Heat Content and
Specific Heat of Coals and Related Products, U.S. Bureau of
Mines, R.I. 6607, 1965.
IGT Coal Density Model The DCOALIGT model gives the true (skeletal or solid-phase)
density of coal on a dry basis. It uses ultimate and sulfur analyses.
The model is based on equations from IGT (1976):
ρ idm
ρi =
[ρ (0.42w
dm
i
d
A,i − 015 d
. wSp )
,i + 1 − 113
. w Ad ,i − 0.5475wSp
d
,i ]
1
ρ idm =
( ) ( )
3
a1i + a2 i w Hdm,i + a3i wWHd,,im + a 4i w Hdm,i
dm
=
(
10 2 WHd,i − 0.013w Ad ,i + 0.02wSp
d
,i )
(1 − 113 )
W
− 0.475wSp
H ,i d d
. w A ,i ,i
The equation for ρ i is good for a wide range of hydrogen

dm
contents, including anthracities and high temperature cokes. The

standard deviation of this correlation for a set of 190 points
−6 3
collected by IGT from the literature was 12 x 10 m kg . The
points are essentially uniform over the whole range. This is
equivalent to a standard deviation of about 1.6% for a coal having
a hydrogen content of 5%. It increases to about 2.2% for a coke or
anthracite having a hydrogen content of 1%.
DENIGT/1 a1i 0.4397
DENIGT/2 a 2i 0.1223
DENIGT/3 a3i -0.01715
DENIGT/4 a 4i 0.001077
IGT Char Density Model The DGHARIGT model gives the true (skeletal or solid-phase)
density of char or coke on a dry basis. It uses ultimate and sulfur
analyses. This model is based on equations from IGT (1976):
3ρ idm
ρ id =
(
w Ad ,i ρ idm + 3 1 − w Ad ,i )
1
ρ id =
( ) ( )
2 3
a1i + a 2i w Hdm,i + a2 i wHd ,,mi + a3i w Hdm,i
w Hd ,i
w dm
=
H ,i
(1 − w )d
A, i

DENIGT/1 a1i 0.4397
DENIGT/2 a 2i 0.1223
DENIGT/3 a3i -0.01715
DENIGT/4 a 4i 0.001077
The densities of graphitic high-temperature carbons (including

3 3
cokes) range from 2.2 x 10 to 2.26 x10 kg m . Densities of
3
nongraphitic high-temperature carbons (derived from chars) range

3 3
from 2.0 x 10 to 2.2 x 10 kg m . Most of the data used in
3
developing this correlation were for carbonized coking coals.
Although data on a few chars (carbonized non-coking coals) were
included, none has a hydrogen content less than 2%. The
correlation is probably not accurate for high temperature chars.
References
I.M. Chang, B.S. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

1979.
M. Gomez, J.B. Gayle, and A.R. Taylor, Jr., Heat Content and
Specific Heat of Coals and Related Products, U.S. Bureau of
Mines, R.I. 6607, 1965.
IGT (Institute of Gas Technology), Coal Conversion Systems
Technical Data Book, Section PMa. 44.1, 1976.
N.Y. Kirov, "Specific Heats and Total Heat Contents of Coals and
Related Materials are Elevated Temperatures," BCURA Monthly
Bulletin, (1965), pp. 29, 33.
V.E. Swanson et al., Collection, Chemical Analysis and Evaluation
of Coal Samples in 1975, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File
Report (1976), pp. 76–468.
CHAPTER 4
Property Calculation Methods

and Routes
Overview
In the Aspen Physical Property System the methods and models
used to calculate thermodynamic and transport properties are
packaged in property methods. Each property method contains all
the methods and models needed for a calculation. A unique
combination of methods and models for calculating a property is
called a route.
The Aspen Plus User Guide, Chapter 7, describes the property
methods available in the Aspen Physical Property System,
provides guidelines for choosing an appropriate property method
for your calculation, and describes how to modify property
methods to suit your calculation needs by replacing property
models.
This chapter discusses:
• Major, subordinate, and intermediate properties in the Aspen
Physical Property System
• Calculation methods available
• Routing concepts
• Property models available
• Tracing routes
• Modifying and creating property methods
• Modifying and creating routes
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Property Calculation Methods and Routes • 4-1
Introduction
Most properties are calculated in several steps. An example is the
calculation of the fugacity coefficient of a component in a liquid
mixture:
ϕ li = γ i ϕ *,i l (1)
Where:
ϕ *,i l = pi*,l (2)
ϕ *,i ν
p
Equations 1 and 2 are both derived from thermodynamics. The
ϕ l , ϕ *,l
equations relate the properties of interest i i to other
( )
( )
γ , ϕ *,v , pi*,l and state variables ( x i , p) . In general, this
properties i i
type of equation is derived from universal scientific principles.
These equations are called methods.
In the computation of the liquid mixture fugacity, you need to
calculate:
• Activity coefficient (γ i )
• Vapor pressure
(p ) *, l
i
• Pure component vapor fugacity coefficient

This type of property is usually calculated using equations that
depend on universal parameters like Tc and pc ; state variables,
such as T and p; and correlation parameters. The use of correlation
parameters makes these equations much less universal and more
subjective than methods. For distinction, we call them models.
Often several models exist to calculate one property. For example,
to calculate γ i you can use the NRTL, UNIQUAC, or UNIFAC
model.
The reason for treating models and methods separately is to allow
for maximum flexibility in property calculations. Therefore the
descriptions provided should help show the flexibility of the Aspen
Physical Property System, rather than constitute definitions. For
detailed descriptions and lists of available methods and models, see
Methods and Routes and Models, this chapter.
A complete calculation route consists of a combination of methods
and models. A number of frequently used routes have been defined
in the Aspen Physical Property System. Routes that belong
logically together have been grouped to form property methods.
4-2 • Property Calculation Methods and Routes Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
For more about property methods, see Chapter 2. Routes are
discussed in detail in Routes and Models, this chapter.
To choose a different calculation route for a given property route
than what is defined in a property method, you can exchange
routes or models in property methods (See Modifying and Creating
Property Methods, this chapter).
For a specific property, there are many choices of models and
methods used to build a route. Therefore the Aspen Physical
Property System does not contain all possible routes as predefined
routes. However you can freely construct calculation routes
according to your needs. This is a unique feature of the Aspen
Physical Property System. Modifying and creating new routes
from existing methods, routes and models, and using them in
modified or new property methods is explained in Modifying and
Creating Routes, this chapter.
Physical Properties in the Aspen

Physical Property System
The following properties may be required by Aspen Physical
Property System calculations:
• Thermodynamic Properties
• Fugacity coefficients (for K-values)
• Enthalpy
• Entropy
• Gibbs energy
• Molar volume
• Transport Properties
• Viscosity
• Surface tension
.The properties required by unit operation models in the Aspen
Physical Property System are called major properties and are listed
in the table labeled Major Properties in the Aspen Physical
Property System. A major property may depend on other major
properties. In addition, a major property may depend on other
properties that are not major properties. These other properties can
be divided into two categories: subordinate properties and
intermediate properties.
Subordinate properties may depend on other major, subordinate or
intermediate properties, but are not directly required for unit
operation model calculations. Examples of subordinate properties
are enthalpy departure and excess enthalpy. The table labeled
Subordinate Properties in the Aspen Physical Property System lists
the subordinate properties.
Intermediate properties are calculated directly by property models,
rather than as fundamental combinations of other properties.
Common examples of intermediate properties are vapor pressure
and activity coefficients. The table labeled Intermediate Properties
in the Aspen Physical Property System lists the intermediate
properties.
Major and subordinate properties are obtained by a method
evaluation. Intermediate properties are obtained by a model
evaluation.
Major Properties in the Property Symbol Description
Aspen Physical Property Name
System PHlV ϕ *,i v Vapor pure component fugacity
coefficient
PHIL ϕ *,i l Liquid pure component fugacity
coefficient
PHlS ϕ *,i s Solid pure component fugacity
coefficient
PHlV ϕ vi Vapor fugacity coefficient of a
component in a mixture
PHlLMX ϕ li Liquid fugacity coefficient of a
PHlSMX ϕ si Solid fugacity coefficient of a
HV H i*, v Vapor pure component molar
enthalpy
HL H i*,l Liquid pure component molar
enthalpy
HS H i*, s Solid pure component molar
enthalpy
HVMX H iv Vapor mixture molar enthalpy
HLMX H il Liquid mixture molar enthalpy
HSMX H is Solid mixture molar enthalpy
GV µ *,i v Vapor pure component molar Gibbs
free energy
GL µ *,i l Liquid pure component molar Gibbs
free energy
Property Symbol Description
Name
GS µ *,i s Solid pure component molar Gibbs
free energy
GVMX Giv Vapor mixture molar Gibbs free
energy
GLMX Gil Liquid mixture molar Gibbs free
energy
GSMX Gis Solid mixture molar Gibbs free
energy
SV S i*,v Vapor pure component molar
entropy
SL S i*,l Liquid pure component molar
entropy
SS S i*,s Solid pure component molar
entropy
SVMX S iv Vapor mixture molar entropy
SLMX S il Liquid mixture molar entropy
SSMX S is Solid mixture molar entropy
VV Vi*, v Vapor pure component molar
volume
VL Vi*, l Liquid pure component molar
volume
VS Vi*, s Solid pure component molar
volume
VVMX Vi v Vapor mixture molar volume
VLMX Vi l Liquid mixture molar volume
VSMX Vi s Solid mixture molar volume
MUV η*,i v Vapor pure component viscosity
MUL η*,i l Liquid pure component viscosity
MUVMX ηvi Vapor mixture viscosity
MULMX ηli Liquid mixture viscosity
KV λ*,i v Vapor pure component thermal
conductivity
KL λ*,i l Liquid pure component thermal
conductivity
KS λ*,i s Solid pure component thermal
conductivity
KVMX λvi Vapor mixture thermal conductivity
Name
KLMX λli Liquid mixture thermal conductivity
KSMX λsi Solid mixture thermal conductivity
DV Dijv Vapor binary diffusion coefficient
DL Dijl Liquid binary diffusion coefficient
DVMX Div Vapor diffusion coefficient of a

DLMX Dil Liquid diffusion coefficient of a
SIGL σ *,i l Pure component surface tension
SIGLMX σl Mixture surface tension
Subordinate Properties in Property Symbol Description
the Aspen Physical Name
Property System DHV H i*,v − H i*,ig Vapor pure component molar
enthalpy departure
DHL Hi − Hi
*, l *, ig Liquid pure component molar
enthalpy departure
DHS Hi − Hi
*, s *, ig Solid pure component molar
enthalpy departure
DHVMX Hm − Hm
v ig Vapor mixture molar enthalpy
departure
DHLMX H ml − H mig Liquid mixture molar enthalpy
departure
DHSMX H ms − H mig Solid mixture molar enthalpy
departure
DHVPC H i*, v ( p ) − H i*, v ( pi* ) Vapor pure component molar
enthalpy departure pressure
correction
DHLPC H i ( p ) − H i ( pi )
*, l *, l * Liquid pure component molar

correction
DHSPC H i ( p ) − H i ( pi )
*, s *, s * Solid pure component molar

correction
DGV µi − µi
*, v *, ig Vapor pure component molar Gibbs
energy departure
DGL µi − µi
*, l *, ig Liquid pure component molar Gibbs
energy departure
DGS µ *,i s − µ *,i ig Solid pure component molar Gibbs
energy departure
Name
DGVMX Gmv − Gmig Vapor mixture molar Gibbs energy
departure
DGLMX Gm − Gm
l ig Liquid mixture molar Gibbs energy
departure
DGSMX Gm − Gm
s ig Solid mixture molar Gibbs energy
departure
DGVPC µ i ( p ) − µ i ( pi ) Vapor pure component molar Gibbs
*, v *, v *
energy departure pressure correction

DGLPC µ i ( p ) − µ i ( pi ) Liquid pure component molar Gibbs
*, l *, l *

DGSPC µ *,i s ( p ) − µ *,i s ( pi* ) Solid pure component molar Gibbs
DSV S i*, v − S i*,ig Vapor pure component molar
entropy departure
DSL S i*,l − S i*,ig Liquid pure component molar
entropy departure
DSS S i*, s − S i*,ig Solid pure component molar
entropy departure
DSVMX Sm − Sm
v ig Vapor mixture molar entropy
departure
DSLMX Sm − Sm
l ig Liquid mixture molar entropy
departure
DSSMX Sm − Sm
s ig Solid mixture molar entropy
departure
HNRY H iA Henry’s constant of supercritical
component i in subcritical
component A
HLXS Hm E ,l Liquid mixture molar excess
enthalpy
HSXS H E ,s Solid mixture molar excess enthalpy
m
GLXS GmE ,l Liquid mixture molar excess Gibbs

energy
GSXS GmE , s Solid mixture molar excess Gibbs
energy
PHILPC θ*,l Pure component liquid fugacity
coefficient pressure correction
PHISPC θ*,s Pure component solid fugacity
coefficient pressure correction
GAMPC θE Liquid activity coefficient pressure
correction, symmetric convention
GAMPC1 θ*E Liquid activity coefficient pressure
correction, asymmetric convention
Name
HNRYPC θ ∞iA Henry’s constant pressure correction
for supercritical component i in
subcritical component A
XTRUE x true True composition
MUVLP η*,i v ( p = 0) Pure component low pressure vapor
viscosity
MUVPC ηi ( p ) − ηi ( p = 0Pure component vapor viscosity
*, v *, v
pressure correction
MUVMXLP η ( p = 0)
v Low pressure vapor mixture
viscosity
MUVMXPC η ( p ) − η ( p = 0 ) Vapor mixture viscosity pressure
v v
correction
KVLP λ i ( p = 0)
*, v Pure component low pressure vapor
thermal conductivity
KVLP λ i ( p = 0 ) − λ i ( p Pure component vapor thermal
*, v *, v
conductivity pressure correction

KVMXLP λv ( p = 0 ) Low pressure, vapor mixture
thermal conductivity
KVMXPC λv ( p ) − λv ( p = 0 ) Vapor mixture thermal conductivity
pressure correction
Intermediate Properties in Property Symbol Description
the Aspen Physical Name
Property System GAMMA γ Liquid phase activity coefficient
GAMUS γ* Liquid phase activity coefficient,
unsymmetric convention
GAMMAS γs Solid phase activity coefficient
WHNRY w Henry’s constant mixing rule
weighting factor
PL pi*,l Liquid pure component vapor
pressure
PS pi*, s Solid pure component vapor
pressure
DHVL ∆ vap H i* Pure component enthalpy of
vaporization
DHLS ∆ fus H i* Pure component enthalpy of fusion
DHVS ∆ sub H i* Pure component enthalpy of

sublimation
VLPM Vi l Partial molar liquid volume
Methods
This section describes the methods available for calculating the
major and subordinate properties in the Aspen Physical Property
System.
A method is an equation used to calculate physical properties
based on universal scientific principles only, such as
thermodynamics. This equation may contain assumptions, such as
the vapor can be treated as ideal gas or the pressure is low enough
to neglect the pressure correction. The equation may need
properties and state variables but not correlation parameters to
calculate a specific property.
Applied thermodynamics indicate that there usually is more than
one method for calculating a particular property. For example, the
enthalpy departure of a component in the liquid phase, H i − H i
*, l *, ig
can be calculated from its fugacity coefficient in the liquid phase:

∂ ln ϕ *,i l
H i*,l − H i*, ig = − RT 2
∂T
This method is often used for supercritical solutes in liquid
solution. Alternatively, the liquid departure function can be
calculated from the vapor enthalpy departure and the heat of
vaporization:
H i*,l − H i*,ig = H i*,ν − H i*,ig − ∆ vap H i
Both methods are equally valid. There is another possibility, which
is to calculate the departure function directly by an equation of
state. Equations of state use correlation parameters and are
therefore classified as models, so:
H i*,l − H i*, ig = f ( p, T , correlation parameters)
This is not a method but rather a valid alternative to calculate the
enthalpy departure. To make the model available to the list of
methods, a simple method is used that refers to a model:
H i*,l − H i*, ig = f ( p, T , specified model)
In general, a list of methods available for a property will be similar
to the list presented here for the enthalpy departure. Compare these
tables:, which appear later in this chapter:
Vapor Fugacity Coefficient Vapor Entropy Methods
Methods
Liquid Fugacity Coefficient Liquid Entropy Methods
Methods
Solid Fugacity Coefficient Solid Entropy Methods
Methods
Vapor Enthalpy Methods Molar Volume Methods
Liquid Enthalpy Methods Viscosity Methods
Solid Enthalpy Methods Thermal Conductivity Methods
Vapor Gibbs Energy Methods Diffusion Coefficient Methods
Liquid Gibbs Energy Methods Surface Tension Methods
Solid Gibbs Energy Methods
In a method you can have any number of major properties,
subordinate properties, or models. Usually there is a method that
can be used with an equation-of-state approach and an alternative
that is used with the activity coefficient approach (see Chapter 1).
There is always a method that refers to a model. Although there are
a limited number of thermodynamic methods, in general, all the
existing thermodynamic methods for each property are present.
Transport property methods are not as universal as thermodynamic
methods. Therefore the transport property methods offered in the
Aspen Physical Property System might not be exhaustive, but
multiple methods for one property also exist.
All physical property methods available for calculating major and
subordinate properties in the Aspen Physical Property System are
provided in the physical property methods tables listed above. For
each major or subordinate property, these tables list:
• Property symbol and name
• Property type: major or subordinate
• Methods available for calculating the property
For each method the fundamental equation is given. The table also
lists which information is needed to specify each step in the
method (see Routes and Models, this chapter).
Example: Methods for From the table labeled Liquid Enthalpy Methods, there are four
calculating liquid mixture methods for calculating HLMX:
enthalpy
Method 1 HLMX is calculated directly by an empirical model. The
model may depend on temperature T, pressure p, liquid
composition, and certain model-specific parameters.
H l = f l (T , p, x i , parameters)
Method 2 HLMX is calculated from the ideal liquid mixture
enthalpy and excess enthalpy.
H ml = ∑ x i H i*,l + H mE ,l
( HLMX = ∑ x i HLi + HLXS )
The major property HLMX depends on the liquid pure component
enthalpy, HL, and the liquid mixture excess enthalpy, HLXS. HL
is also a major property, while HLXS is a subordinate property.
Method 3 HLMX is calculated from the ideal gas mixture
enthalpy, HIGMX, and the liquid mixture enthalpy departure,
DHLMX.
(
H ml = H mig + H ml − H mig )
( HLMX = HIGMX + DHLMX )
The subordinate property DHLMX can be calculated by one of the
methods listed in the table labeled Liquid Enthalpy Methods. In all
the equation-of-state property methods, DHLMX is calculated
directly by an equation of state (that is, method 1 is used for
DHLMX).
Method 4 HLMX is calculated directly by the Electrolyte model.
( )
H ml = f x t
Where:
xt = The component true mole fractions
t
( x is also the symbol for the subordinate property XTRUE:
HLMX = f (XTRUE)).
Vapor Fugacity
Coefficient Methods
Property
Symbol Property Method Method Route Structure Information Required
and Name Type Code
ϕ *,i v Major 1 Specified model ϕ *,v

i Model name
PHIV
Specified model ϕ v
ϕ iv i Model name (Default: ϕ i = 1)
Major 1 v
PHIVMX
2 (
ϕ iv = f y i , ϕ *,i v ) ϕ *,i v Route ID
ϕ iv Model name
3 ϕ iv = f ( γ i ) γ i Model name
ϕ iv Model name
Liquid Fugacity
Coefficient Methods
Property Property Method Route Structure
Symbol and Type Code Method Information Required
Name
ϕ *,i l Major 1 Specified model ϕ *,i l Model name

PHIL
2
( )
ϕ *,i v T , pi*,l pi*,l θ*,i l p *,l Model name
p ϕ *,i v Model name
(Default: ϕ = 1 )
*,v
θ*,l Route ID
(Default: θ i = 1
*, l
3 Specified model for supercritical ϕ *,i l Model name

components For subcritical
components: p *,l Model name
 1  ϕ i Model name
*, l
(T , p ) pi*, l p
ϕ exp ∫pi*,l V dp V *,l
*, v *, l *, l
i i
p  RT
i Model Name
θ*,i l Subord. 1  1 p  p *,l Model name

exp ∫*,lV dp 
*,l
PHILPC  RT  Vi*, l Model Name
 pi 
Integration option code
(Default:1 point)
2 Specified model θ*,i l Model name
ϕ li Major 1 Specified model ϕ li Model name
PHILMX
2 γ i ϕ *,i l θ iE γ i Model name
(Default: γ i = 1)
ϕ *,i l Route ID
θ iE Route ID
(Default: θ i = 1 )
E
3 Unsymmetric Convention
For subcritical components (A or B): ϕ *,Al Route ID
ϕ lA = δ A γ A ϕ *,Al γ A Model name
(Default: γ A = 1 )
Name
For supercritical components (i or j)
 H 
ϕ li = γ i  i∞ 
 pγ i 
Where:
w   H iA   H j  H jA Route ID
ln δ A = A ∑ x j ln γ ∞  − ln γ ∞ 
 
xA j  jA j 
H  H  wB Model name
ln  ∞i  = ∑ wB ln  ∞ 
iB
γi  B  γ iB 
ln γ i∞ = lim (ln γ i ) wB Model option code (see
∑ j x j →0
Model Option Code Help)
∑w
B
B =1 Method Option code
0: Do not calculate H i
1: Calculate H i
(Default = 0 )
4 γ i ϕ *,i l θ iE γ i Model name
(Default: γ i = 1)
ϕ *,i l Route ID
θ iE Route ID
(Default: θ i = 1 )
E
Where:
γ i = f xt ( ) (Default: θ i = 1 )
E
x t Route ID
5 Unsymmetric Convention
For subcritical components (A or B): ϕ *,i l Route ID
ϕ lA = δ A γ A ϕ *,Al γ A Model name
(Default: γ A = 1 )
Where:
γ A = f xt ( ) x t Route ID
For supercritical components (i or j)
 H 
ϕ li = γ i  i∞ 
 pγ i 
Name
Where:
WA   H iA   H j  H jA Route ID
ln δ A = ∑ j  γ ∞   γ ∞ 
x  ln   − ln
XA j  jA j
H   H iB  wB Model name
ln  ∞i  = ∑ wB ln  ∞ 
 γi  B  γ iB 
ln γ i∞ = lim (ln γ i ) wB Model option code (see
∑ j x j →0
Model Option Code Help)
∑w B =1 Method Option code
B 0: Do not calculate H i
1: Calculate H i
(Default = 0 )
6 ϕ li = f ( γ i ) γ i Model name
ϕ li Model name
xt Subord. 1 x t = f (T , x i , γ i , Chemistry) γ i Model name
XTRUE
θ iE Subord. 1  1 p  Vi l Model name
exp ∫ (V − Vi ) dp
l *, l
GAMPC i
 RT p ref 
Vi*, l Model name
(Default: 1 point)
2 Specified model θ iE Model name
θ*,i E Subord. 1  1 p  Vi l Model name
GAMPC1 exp ∫ref i 
V dp l
 RT p

(Default: 1 point)
2 Specified model θ*,i E Model name
HiA Subord. 1 Specified model HiA Model name
HNRY
2
(
H iA p ref , T θ ∞iA ) HiA Model name
θ ∞iA Route ID
∞
(Default: θ iA = 1)
Name
p ref defined by the p ref option

code of HNRYPC
∞
θ Subord. 1  1 p  p*,A l Model name (if needed for
exp ∫ref i 
iA
l
HNRYPC V dp
 RT p
p ref
p ref Option code

ref
1: p = 0
ref
2: p = 1 atm
ref *, l
3: p = p A (T)
(Default = 2)
Vi ∞ Model name
Integration code
(Default: 1 point)
2 Specified model θ ∞iA Model name
Solid Fugacity Coefficient
Methods
Name
ϕ *,i s Major 1 Specified Model ϕ *,i s Model name

PHIS
2 θ*,i s
( )
ϕ *,i v T , pi*, s pi*, s
pi*, s Model name
p ϕ *,i v Model name
(Default: ϕ i = 1)
*, v
θ*,i s Route ID
(Default: θ i = 1)
*, s
3 ϕ *,i s ϕ *,i l ϕ *,i s Model name

ϕ *,i l Route ID
θ*,i s Subord. 1  1 p  pi*, s Model name
PHISPC exp ∫*,s i 
V *, s
dp
 RT p
Vi*, s Model name
(Default: 1 point)
2 Specified model θ*,i s Model name
ϕ is Major 1 Specified model ϕ is Model name
PHISMX
2
(
ϕ is = f x is , ϕ *,i s ) ϕ *,i s Route ID
ϕ is Model name
3 γ is ϕ *,i s γ si Model name

ϕ *,i s Route ID
Vapor Enthalpy Methods

Name
H i*,ν Major 1 Specified model H i*,ν Model name

HV
2
(
H i*, ig + H i*, ν − H i*, ig ) (H *, ν
i − H i*, ig ) Route ID
*, ν
(Default: H i − H i = 0)
*, ig
3 H i*, l + ∆ vap H i* H i*,l Route ID

∆ vap H i*
Model name
H *, ν
i −H *, ig
i
Subord. 1 Specified model (H *, ν
i − H i*, ig ) Model name
DHV
2  ln ϕ i*,v
2∂
 ϕ *,i v Model name
− RT  

 ∂T 
H mν Major 1 Specified model H mν Model name
HVMX
2
∑y H i
*,ν
i H i*,ν Route ID
i
3
(
H mig + H mν − H mig ) (H ν
m − H mig ) Route ID
ν
(Default: H m − H m = 0 )
ig
H mν − H mig Subord. 1 Specified model (H ν

m − H mig ) Model name
DHVMX
2  ∂ ln ϕ iv  ϕ iv
− RT 2 ∑ y i  

Model name
i  ∂T 
3 H mv − H mig = f (γ i ) γ i Model name
Equation of state model name
Liquid Enthalpy Methods

Name
H i*,l Major 1 Specified model H i*,l Model name

HL
2
(
H i*, ig + H i*,l − H i*,ig ) (H *, l
H i*, l − H i*,ig Subord. 1 Specified model (H *, l
DHL
2  ∂ ln ϕ *,i l  ϕ *,i l Model name
− RT  2

 ∂T 
3
( H (T , p ) − H ( T ) ) − ∆
i
*,v *,l
i i
*,ig
vap Hi* ( T ) pi Model name
l
+ ( H (T , p) − H (T , p ))
i
*,l
i
*,l *,l
i
( H i*, v − H i*, ig ) Route ID
(Default: H i − H i = 0)
*, v *, ig
∆ vap H il
Model name
( (
Hi*,l (T , p) − Hi*,l T , pi*,l ) ) Route
ID
(Default:
(
Hi*,l (T , p) − Hi*,l T, pi*,l )
= 0)
H i*,l (T , p) − Subord. 1 ( H (T , p ) − H ( T )) −
*, l
i
*, ig
i pi*,l Model name
( )
( H ( T , p ) − H (T )) ( ) Route ID
H i*,l T , pi*,l *, l
i
*, l
pi
*, ig
i
H i*,l − H i*, ig
DHLPC
2 p  *,l  ∂Vi*,l   pi*,l Model name
∫p Vi − T  ∂T   dp
i  p
Vi*,l Model name

(Default: 1 point )
3 Specified model (H *,l
i (T , p) − Hi*,l ( T , pi*,l ) ) Model
name
H l Major 1 Specified model H ml Model name
m
HLMX
Name
2
∑x H i
*,l
i + H mE ,l H i*,l Route ID
i
H iE ,l Route ID
E ,l
(Default: H i =0)
3
( )
H mig + H ml − H mig (H l
4
Electrolyte model
(x ) t
H ml Model name
x t Route ID
H ml − H mig Subord. 1 Specified model (H l
DHLMX
2
∑x (H i
*, l
i )
− H i*, ig + H mE , I (H *, l
i − H i*,ig ) Route ID
i
H mE ,l Route ID
E ,l
(Default: H m = 0)
3 Unsymmetric convention
For subcritical components A or B:
(H *, I
A − H A*,ig ) Route ID
∑x (H A
*, I
A )
− H A*,ig + H mE , I where:
γ B Model name
i
 ∂ ln γ B 
H mE , I = − RT 2 ∑ x B  
B  ∂T 
For supercritical component i or j:
 ∂ ln ϕ Ij 
− RT 2 ∑ x j  
 ∂T 
j  
where:
 H 
ϕ Ιι = γ i  i∞ 
 pγ i 
H  H  H iB Route ID
ln  ∞i  = ∑ Βω B ln  ∞iB 
γι   γ ιΒ 
ln = lim (ln γ ι )
∑ i xi →0 wB Model name
∑ wB = 1 wB Model option code
B
(see Model Option Code Help)
Name
4 Special mixing rule for Polymers Plus M i Reference mole weight
∑ x (H
i
i
*,l
i −H *,ig
i )− (from parameter MW)
M it
M  ∂ ln γ i  True number-average mole
RT 2 ∑ xi  it   weight
i
 Mi  ∂T 
γ i Model name
5 Unsymmetric convention for Polymers H *, I − H *,ig
Plus
A A (
Route ID
)
For subcritical components A or B: where:
∑x (H A
*, I
A )
− H A*,ig + H mE , I γ B Model name
i Mi Reference mole weight
M  ∂ ln γ B 
H mE , I = − RT 2 ∑ x B  it   (from parameter MW)
B  Mi  ∂ T  Mt
i True number-average mole
For supercritical component i or j:
weight
 ∂ ln ϕ Ij 
− RT ∑ x j 
2 
 ∂T 
j  
where:
 H 
ϕ Ιι = γ i  i∞ 
 pγ i 
H  H  H iB Route ID
ln  ∞i  = ∑ Βω B ln  ∞iB 
γι   γ ιΒ 
ln = lim (ln γ ι ) wB Model name
∑ i xi →0
wB Model option code
∑ wB = 1
B (see Model Option Code Help)
H mE ,l Subord. 1 Specified model H mE ,l Model name
HLXS
2  ∂ ln γ i  γ i Model name
H mE ,l = − RT 2 ∑ x i  
i  ∂T 
3 Method for Polymers Plus only: γ i Model name
M  ∂ ln γ i 
H mE ,l = − RT 2 ∑ xi  it   Mi Reference mole weight
i
 Mi  ∂T  (from parameter MW)
M it
True number-average mole
weight
Solid Enthalpy Methods

Name
H i*, s Major 1 Specified model H i*,s Model name

HS
2
(
H i*,ig + H i*, s − H i*,ig ) (H *, s
H i*, s − H i*,ig Subord. 1 Specified model (H *, s
DHS
2 ( H ( T , p ) − H (T )) − ∆
*,v
i
*, s
i
*, g
i sub Hi* (T ) pi*, s Model name
+( H (T , p) − H ( T , p ) )
*, s
i
*, s
i
*, s
i (H *, v
(Default: H i − H i = 0 )
*, v *, ig
∆ sub H i* (T )
Model name
(H *,s
i (T , p) − Hi*,s ( T , pi*,s ) ) Route ID
(Default:
(
Hi*,s (T , p) − Hi*,s T, pi*,s ) = 0)
Hi*,s (T , p) − Subord. 1 p
 *,s  ∂Vi*,s   pi*, s Model name
(
Hi*,s T , pi*,s ) ∫ i
V − T 
 ∂T
  dp
 Vi*, s Model name
p 

DHSPC
(Default: 1 point)
H ms Major 1 Specified model Model name
HSMX
2
∑x i
s
i H i*,s + H mE ,s H ms Route ID
H i*, s Route ID
H mE , s
E ,s
(Default: H m = 0 )
3
(
H mig + H ms − H mig ) (H s
H ms − H mig Subord. 1 Specified model (H s
DHSMX
2
∑x (H s
i
*, s
i )
− H i*, ig + H mE , s (H *, s
i
H mE , s Route ID
E ,s
(Default: H m = 0 )
Name
H mE , s Subord. 1 Specified model H mE , s Model name

HSXS
2  ∂ ln γ is  γ i Model name
H mE , s = − RT 2 ∑ x is  
i  ∂T 
Vapor Gibbs Energy
Methods

Name
µ i*, v Major 1 Specified model µ i*,v Model name
GV
2 (
µ i*,ig + µ i*,v − µ i*,ig ) (µ *,v
i − µ i*,ig )Route ID
(Default:
µ i*,v − µ i*,ig = 0 )
µ *,i v − µ *,i ig Subord. 1 Specified model (µ *,v
i − µ i*,ig )Model name
DGV
2  p  ϕ i*,v Route ID
RT ln ϕ i*,v + RT ln ref 
p 
Gmv Major 1 Specified model Gmv Model name
GVMX
2
∑ yi µ i*,v + RT ∑ yi ln yi µ i*,v Route ID
i i
3 G + G −G
ig
m ( v
m
ig
m ) (G v
m − Gmig ) Route ID
(Default: Gm − Gm = 0 )
v ig
Gmv − Gmig Subord. 1 Specified model (G v

m − Gmig ) Model name
DGVMX
2  p  ϕ iv
RT ∑ y i ln ϕ iv + RT ln ref  Route ID
i p  ϕ iv
(Default: =1)
3 Gmv − Gmig = f (γ i ) γ i Model name
Liquid Gibbs Energy
Methods
Name
µ i*,l Major 1 Specified model µ i*,l Model name

GL
2 (
µ i*,ig + µ i*,l − µ i*,ig ) (µ *,l
µ i*,l − µ i*,ig Subord. 1 Specified model (µ *,l
DGL
2  p  ϕ *,i l Route ID
RT ln ϕ *,l + RT ln  ref 
p 
3 (µ (T , p ) − µ (T )) +
*,l
i
*,l
i
*,ig
i
pi*,l Model name
(µ (T , p ) − µ (T , p ))
*,l
i
*,l
i
*,l
i (µ *,l
(Default: i
µ *,l − µ *,ig
i = 0)
( ( ))
µ i (T , p ) − µ i T , pi Route ID
*,l *,l *,l
(Default: i
( )
µ *,l (T , p ) − µ i*,l T , p i*,l = 0
)
µ *, l
i (T , p ) − Subord. 1 (µ (T , p ) −
*,l
µ i*,ig (T )) − pi*,l Model name
(
µ *,i l T , pi*, l ) (µ (T , p ) − µ
*,l
i
*,l
i
*,ig
i (T )) (µ *,l
DGLPC
2 p
pi*,l Model name
∫ Vi dp
*, l
p i*,l Vi*, l Model Name

(Default: 1 point)
Gml Major 1 Specified model Gml Model name
GLMX
2
∑ xi µi*,l + µ i*,l Route ID
i
GmE ,l Route ID
RT ∑ xi ln xi + GmE ,l
i E ,l
(Default: Gm = 0 )
3 Gmig + Gml − Gmig ( )
4
(x ) t Model name
x t Route ID
Name
Gml − Gmig Subord. 1 Specified model (G l

DGLMX
2
∑ xi (µ i*,l − µ i*,ig ) + GmE ,l (µ *,l
i − µ i*,ig ) Route ID
i
GmE ,l Route ID
E ,l
(Default: Gm = 0 )
3 RT ∑ xi ln ϕ il + ϕ il Route ID
i
 p 
RT ln ref 
p 
4 Gml − Gmig = f (γ i ) γ i Model name
GmE ,l Subord. 1 Specified model GmE ,l Model name
GLXS
2 RT ∑ x i lnγ i γ i Model name
i
Solid Gibbs Energy
Methods
Name
µ i*,s Major 1 Specified model µ i*,s Model name

GS
2 µ i*,ig + µ i*,s − µ i*,ig( ) (µ *,s
µ i*,s − µ i*,ig Subord. 1 Specified model (µ *,s
DGS
2  p  ϕ *,i s Route ID
RT ln ϕ *, s + RT ln  ref 
p 
3 (µ (T , p ) − µ (T )) +
*, s
i
*, s
i
*,ig
i
pi*, s Model name
(µ (T , p ) − µ (T , p ))
*, s
i
*, s
i
*, s
i (µ (T , p ) − µ (T ))Route ID
*, s
i
*,s
i
*,ig
i
(Default:
µ (T , p ) − µ (T ) =
*,s
i
*,s
i
*,ig
i
0)
( ( ))
µ i*,s (T , p ) − µ i*,s T , p i*,s Route ID
(Default: i
(
µ *,s (T , p ) − µ i*,s T , pi*,s = 0 )
)
µ i*,s (T , p ) − Subord. 1 p
pi*,l Model name
( ) ∫V
*, l
dp
µ i*,s T , p i*, s i
Vi*, l Model Name
p i*,l
DGSPC
(Default: 1 point)
Gms Major 1 Specified model Gms Model name
GSMX
2
∑ xis µi*,s + GmE ,s + µ i*,s Route ID
i
GmE , s Route ID
RT ∑ xis ln xis
i E ,s
(Default: Gm = 0 )
3 Gmig + Gms − Gmig ( )
Gms − Gmig Subord. 1 Specified model (G s
DGSMX
Name
2
∑ xis (µ i*,s − µ i*,ig ) + GmE ,s (µ *,s
i
GmE , s Route ID
E ,s
(Default: Gm = 0 )
GmE , s Subord. 1 Specified model GmE , s Model name
GSXS
2 RT ∑ x is lnγ is γ i Model name
i
Vapor Entropy Methods
Property Property Method Method Route Structure

Symbol and Type Code Information Required
Name
S i*, v
SV
Major 1
(
1 *,v
T
H i − µ i*,v ) H i*, v Route ID
2
(
S i*,ig + S i*, v − S i*, ig ) (S *, v
i − S i*,ig ) Route ID
(Default: S i − S i = 0 )
*, v *, ig
3 Specified model S i*, v Model name

S i*, v − S i*, ig Subord. 1  H i*,v − H i*,ig


− (H *, v
DSV  T 
 
(Default: H i − H i = 0 )
*, v *, ig
 µ i*,v − µ i*,ig


 (µ *,v
 T 
  µ i*,v − µ i*,ig = 0)
(Default:
2
−
∂
(
µ i*,v − µ i*,ig ) (µ *,v
∂T
( )
S mv Major 1 1 H mv Route ID
H mv − Gmv
SVMX T Gmv Route ID
2
(
S mig + S mv − S mig ) (S v
m − S mig ) Route ID
(Default: S m − S m = 0 )
v ig
3 Specified model S mv Model name

S mv − S mig Subord. 1 Specified model (S v
m − S mig ) Model name
DSVMX
2  H mv − H mig


  Gmv − Gmig
−
 



(H v
 T   T 
(Default: H m − H m = 0 )
v ig
(G v
m − Gmig ) Route ID
(Default Gm − Gm = 0)
v ig
3
−
∂
(
Gmv − Gmig ) (G v
∂T
4 S mv − S mig = f (γ i ) γ i Model name
Liquid Entropy Methods

Name
S i*, l
SL
Major 1
(
1 *,l
T
H i − µ i*,l ) H i*,l Route ID
µ i*,l Route ID
2
(
S i*,ig + S i*, v − S i*, ig ) (S *, l
i − S i*,ig ) Route ID
3 Specified model S i*,l Model name
S i*,l − S i*, ig Subord. 1  H i*,l − H i*,ig   µ i*,l − µ i*,ig
 −

 (H *, l
DSL  T   T 
   
2
−
∂
(µ i*,l − µ i*,ig ) (µ *,l
i − µ i*,ig ) Route ID
∂T
(µ *,l
i − µ i*,ig ) Model name
3 Specified Model (S *, l
i − S i*,ig ) Model name
( )
S ml Major 1 1 H ml Route ID
H ml − Gml
SLMX T Gml Route ID
2
(
S mig + S ml − S mig ) (S l
3 Specified model S ml Model name
4
(
S ml = f H ml , Gml , x t ) H ml model
Gml model
x t Route ID
S ml − S mig Subord. 1 Specified model (S l
DSLMX
2  H ml − H mig   Gml − Gmig 
  −  (H l
   
(G ) Route ID
T T l
m − Gmig
3
−
∂
(
Gml − Gmig ) (G l
∂T
4 S ml − S mig = f (γ i ) γ i Model name
Solid Entropy Methods

Name
S i*, s Major 1 Specified model S i*, s Model name

SS
2
(
1 *,s
T
H i − µ i*,s ) H i*, s Route ID
µ i*,s Route ID
S i*, s − S i*,ig Subord. 1  H i*,s − H i*,ig

  µ i*, s − µ i*,ig
− (
 H i*, s − H i*, ig
 )
Route ID
   
( ) Route ID
DSS T T
    µ *,s − µ *,ig
i i
2 Specified model (S *, s
i − S i*, ig ) Model name
( )
S ms Major 1 1 H ms Route ID
H ms − Gms
SSMX T Gms Route ID
2
(
S mig + S ms − S mig ) (S s
S ms − S mig Subord. 1 Specified model (S s
DSSMX
2  H ms − H mig   Gms − Gmig 
  −  (H s
   
(G ) Route ID
T T s
m − Gmig
3
−
∂
(
Gms − Gmig ) (G s
∂T
Molar Volume Methods

Name
Vi*, v Major 1 Specified model Vi*, v Model name

VV
Vmv Major 1 Specified model Vmv Model name
VVMX
2
(
Vmv = f y i ,Vi*,v ) Vi*, v Route ID
Vmv Model name
3 Vmv = f ( γ i ) γ i Model name
Vmv Model name (eos only)
Vi*,l Major 1 Specified model Vi*,l Model name
VL
Vml Major 1 Specified model Vml Model name
VLMX
2
(
Vml = f x i ,Vi*,l ) Vi*,l Route ID
Vml Model name
3
Electrolyte model
(x ) t
Vi*,l Model name
x t Route ID
4 Vml = f ( γ i ) γ i Model name
Vml Model name (eos only)
Vi*,s Major 1 Specified model Vi*,s Model name
VS
Vms Major 1 Specified model Vms Model name
VSMX
2
(
Vms = f x is ,Vi*,s ) Vi*,s Route ID
Vms Model name
Viscosity Methods

Name
ni*, v Major 1 Specified model η i*,v Model name

MUV
2 η i*,v = η i*,v ( p = 0) (η *,v
i ( p = 0))Route ID
3 η i*,v = f Vi*,v ( ) Vi*,v Route ID
η i*,v Model name
4 η i*,v = η i*,v ( p = 0 ) (η *,v
( p = 0)) Route ID
( ( p = 0))
i
+ η i*,v ( p) − η i*,v
(ηi*,v ( p ) − ηi*,v ( p = 0)) Route ID
η i*,v ( p = 0) Subord. 1 Specified model (η *,v
i ( p = 0))Model name
MUVLP
ηi*,v ( p ) −  Subord. 1
 
Specified model (η *,v
i ( p ) − η o*,v ( p = 0))Model name
η *,v ( p = 0)
 i 
MUVPC
2 (η *,v
i ( p ) − η o*,v ( p = 0)) = ( )
f Vi*,v Vi*,v Route ID
Model name
n v Major 1 Specified model η v Model name
MUVMX
2 η v = f yi ,η i*,v( ) η i*,v Route ID
η v Model name
3 η v = η v ( p = 0) (η v
( p = 0))Route ID
4 η v = f Vmv ( ) Vmv Route ID
5 ηiv = ηiv ( p = 0) + η v Model name
(η v
i ( p ) − ηiv ( p = 0)) (η v
( p = 0))Route ID
(η i ( p ) − η i ( p = 0 ))Route ID
v v
(η v
( p = 0)) Subord. 1 Specified model (η v
( p = 0))Model name
MUVMXLP
2 (η v
( p = 0)) = ( )
f y i ,η i*,v ( p = 0) (η *,v
i ( p = 0))Route ID
(η v
( p = 0))Model name
Name
η v ( p ) − 
 
Subord. 1 Specified model (η v
( p ) − η v ( p = 0))Model name
 η v ( p = 0 )
 
MUVMXPC
2 (η v
( p ) − η v ( p = 0)) = ( )
f V mv Vmv Route ID
(η v
( p ) − η v ( p = 0))Model name
η i*,l Major 1 Specified model η i*,l Model name
MUL
2 η i*,l = f Vi*,l ( ) Vi*,l Route ID
η*,i l Model Name
ηl Major 1 Specified model η l Model name

MULMX
2 (
η l = f xi ,ηi*,l ) η i*,l Route ID
η l Model name
3 η l = f Vml ( ) Vml Route ID
η l Model name
4
Electrolyte model x
t
( ) η l Model name
x t Route ID
Thermal Conductivity
Methods
Name
λ*,i v Major 1 Specified model λ*,i v Model name

KV
2
(
λ*,i v = λ*,i v ( p = 0) ) ( λ ( p = 0)) Route ID
*, v
i
3 λ*,i v = λ*,i v ( p = 0)
( λ ( p = 0)) Route ID
*, v
i
(
+ λ*,i v ( p) − λ*,i v ( p = 0) )
( λ ( p) − λ ( p = 0)) Route ID
*, v
i
*, v
i
4
(
λ*,i v = f Vi*, v , η*,i v ( p = 0) ) Vi*,v Route ID
η*,i v ( p = 0)
Model name
λ*, v
i Model Name
λ ( p = 0)
*, v
i
Subord. 1 Specified model λ*, v
i ( p = 0) Model name
KVLP
2 λ*,i v ( p = 0) = f η*,i v ( p = 0)( ) η*,i v ( p = 0)
Route ID
λ*, v
i Model name
λ
λ
*, v
i
*, v
( p) −
( p = 0)
Subord. 1 Specified model ( λ ( p) − λ ( p = 0)) Model name
*, v
i
*, v
i
i
KVPC
2 ( λ ( p ) − λ ( p = 0) ) = f ( V )
*, v
i
*, v
i i
*, v
Vi*,v Route ID
( λ ( p) − λ ( p = 0)) Model name
*, v
i
*, v
i
λv Major 1 Specified model λv Model name

KVMX
2
(
λv = f y i , λ*,i v ) λ*,i v Route ID
λv Model name
3 λv = λv ( p = 0) ( λ ( p = 0)) Route ID
v
4 λv = λv ( p = 0) + ( λ ( p = 0)) Route ID
v
( λ ( p) − λ ( p = 0))
v v
( λ ( p) − λ ( p = 0)) Route ID
v v
5 (
λv = f Vmv ,η v ( p = 0) ) Vmv Route ID
(η v
( p = 0))Route ID
λv Model name
Name
λv ( p = 0) Subord. 1 Specified model (λ ( p = 0))Model name

v
KVMXLP
2 λv ( p = 0) = λ*,i v Route ID
(
f y i , λ*,i v ( p = 0), η*,i v ( p = 0) ) η i*,v ( p = 0) Route ID
(λ ( p = 0))Model name
v
λv ( p ) − Subord. 1 Specified model (λ ( p ) − λ ( p = 0))Model name

v v
λv ( p = 0 )
KVMXPC
2
( λ ( p ) − λ ( p = 0) ) = f ( V )
v v
m
v
Vmv
oute ID
(λ ( p ) − λ ( p = 0))Model name
v v
λ*,i l Major 1 Specified model λ*,i l Model name

KL
2
(
λ*,i l = f Vi*, l , η*,i v ( p = 0) ) Vi*,l Route ID
(η *,v
i ( p = 0))Route ID
λ*,i l Model name
λl Major 1 Specified model λl Model name
KLMX
2
(
λl = f x i , λ*,i l ) λ*,i l Route ID
λl Model name
3
(
λl = f Vml , ηv ( p = 0) ) Vml Route ID
( η ( p = 0)) Route ID
v
λl Model name
4
Electrolyte model x
t
( ) λl Model name
x t Route ID
λ*,i s Major 1 Specified model λ*,i s Model name
KS
λs Major 1 Specified model λs Model name
KSMX
2
(
λs = f x is , λ*,i s ) λ*,i s Route ID
λs Model name
Diffusion Coefficient
Methods
Property
Symbol Property Method Route Structure
and Name Type Code Method Information Required
Dijv Major 1 Specified model Dijv

Model name
DV
Div Major 1 Specified model Div Model name
DVMX
2
(
Div = f y i , Dijv ) Dijv
Route ID
yi Model name
Dijl Major 1 Specified model Model name
DL
Dil Major 1 Specified model Model name
DLMX
2
(
Dil = f x i , Dijl ) Dijl
Route ID
l
D i Model name
3 D = f x i ,η
i
l
( l
) η Route ID
l
Dil
Model name
4
Electrolyte model x
t
( ) Dil Model name
x t Route ID
Surface Tension Methods
Property
Symbol Property Method Route Structure
and Name Type Code Method Information Required
σ *,i l Major 1 Specified model Model name

SIGL
σl Major 1 Specified model Model name
SIGLMX
2
(
σ l = f x i , σ *,i l ) σ *,i l Route ID
σ l Model name
3
Electrolyte model x
t
( ) σ l Model name
x t Route ID
Routes And Models
This section explains the structure of physical property calculations
by showing the relationship between models and routes, and
between routes on different levels. It also explains how to trace a
calculation route.
Concept of Routes Each property value needed for a method evaluation is obtained
from either another method evaluation or a model evaluation.
Properties obtained by method evaluation are major or subordinate
properties. Properties obtained by a model evaluation are
intermediate properties. The calculation of the top-level property is
dictated by:
• Property name
• Method
• Sub-level route for each major or subordinate property
• Model name for each intermediate property (sometimes with a
model option code)
This information is called a route. There is not necessarily a major
or subordinate property in each method, but if one occurs in the
method of the property of interest, then the route depends on
sub-level routes. There can be any number of levels in a route.
Each level needs the information listed previously to be completely
specified. This way a tree of information is formed. Since a model
does not depend on lower-level information, you can think of it as
an end-point of a tree branch. Model option codes are discussed in
Models. (Example 1 discusses a route that does not depend on
other routes.)
Each built-in route in the Aspen Physical Property System has a
unique route ID, which is composed of the property name (see the
tables labeled Major Properties in the Aspen Physical Property
System, Subordinate Properties in the Aspen Physical Property
System, and Intermediate Properties in the Aspen Physical
Property System) and a number, for example HLMX10. Therefore
the route ID can be used to represent the route information. (See
example 2 for a route which depends on a secondary route.)
Route IDs associated with the route information represent a unique
combination of sub-level routes and models. Therefore, a top-level
route ID specifies the full calculation tree. Because of the
uniqueness of route IDs, you can use them for documenting your
calculation.
A property method can calculate a fixed list of properties (see
Physical Properties in the Aspen Physical Property System). The
calculation procedure of each property constitutes a route and has a
route ID. Therefore, a property method consists of a collection of
the route IDs of the properties it can calculate. The Property
Methods Routes sheet shows the routes used in a property method.
If you want to see all of the built-in routes used for calculating the
property specified in the Property field, use the list box in a Route
ID field (see the figure labeled Properties Property Methods
Routes Sheet.
Properties Property Methods Routes Sheet
Example 1 shows route information for PHILMX, method 1.

Example 2 shows Route information for HLMX, method 3.
Example 1: Route The first method from the table labeled Liquid Fugacity
information for PHILMX, Coefficient Methods for the calculation of the fugacity coefficient
method 1 of component in a liquid mixture is specified model. The model
can be an equation-of-state model, that calculates the fugacity
coefficient as a function of state variables and correlation
parameters:
ϕ li = f ( p, T , xi , correlation parameters)
ϕl
There are many models that can be used to calculate i , such as
the Redlich-Kwong-Soave model, the Peng-Robinson model, or
the Hayden-O’Connell model. It is sufficient to select a model
name in order to completely specify a route according to this
method.
Example 2: Route H ml
information for HLMX, The third method for calculating the liquid mixture enthalpy
method 3 (see the table labeled Liquid Enthalpy Methods) is:
(
H ml = H igm + H ml − H igm )
H ml
In this method, depends on the ideal gas enthalpy and the
H ml − H igm
enthalpy departure , a subordinate property. The table
labeled Liquid Enthalpy Methods indicates in the rightmost
column that the required information is the route ID for the
subordinate property. The top-level route now refers to a sub-level
route ID. For all methods that use both an ideal gas contribution
and a departure function, the Aspen Physical Property System
automatically fills in the ideal gas calculation. You need to specify
only the departure function. To specify the sub-level route for the
enthalpy departure, you must choose a method. For example,
method 1: specified model (see the table labeled Liquid Enthalpy
Methods). For this method, the required information is the model
name, such as the Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation-of-state model.
Models A model consists of one or more equations to evaluate a property,
and has state variables, universal parameters, and correlation
parameters as input variables. Properties obtained by model
evaluation are called intermediate properties. They never depend
on major or subordinate properties, which need a method
evaluation. In contrast to methods which are based on universal
scientific principles only, models are much more arbitrary in
nature, and have constants which need to be determined by data
fitting. An example of a model is the Extended Antoine vapor
pressure equation (see Chapter 3). Equations of state have built-in
correlation parameters and are also models.
Models are sometimes used in multiple routes of a property
method. For example, an equation-of-state model can be used to
calculate all vapor and liquid departure functions of an
equation-of-state-based property method. The Rackett model can
be used to calculate the pure component and mixture liquid molar
V *,l Vl
volumes, ( i and m ), and it can also be used in the calculation
of the Poynting correction factor, as part of the calculation of the
pure component liquid fugacity coefficient.
The Properties Property Methods Models sheet displays the models
that are globally used in the routes of the current property method
(see the figure labeled Properties Property Methods Models Sheet).
In specific routes, exceptions to the global usage may occur.
Modifying and Creating Routes discusses how to identify these
exceptions. For a given model, click on the Affected Properties
button to display a list of properties which are affected by the
model calculations. Use the list box on the Model Name field to
display a list of all available models for a specific property. You
can also use the tables labeled Thermodynamic Physical Property
Models , Transport Physical Property Models , and
Nonconventional Solid Property Models on page . If you need to
use a proprietary model or a new model from the literature, you
can interface these to the Aspen Physical Property System (See
Aspen Plus User Models.)
Properties Property Methods Models Sheet
Some models have model option codes to specify different

possible calculation options. For example, the model WHNRY has
three options to calculate the weighting factor from the critical
molar volume. The calculation option is identified by the model
option code. On the Property Methods Models sheet, first select the
model, then click the Option Codes button to display a list of
option code values for the model. Use Help for descriptions of the
option codes.
Thermodynamic Physical
Property Models
Thermodynamic Properties Model Model Name Phase Properties
Antoine/Wagner PL0XANT L L1 L2 PL
API liquid volume VL2API L VLMX
Aqueous Electrolyte NRTL Enthalpy HAQELC L HLMX
Aqueous Electrolyte NRTL Gibbs GAQELC L GLMX
Energy
†
ASME Steam Tables ESH2O0,ESH2O VL
Brelvi-O’Connell VL1BROC L VLPM
Bromley-Pitzer GMPT2 L GAMMA
Bromley-Pitzer Enthalpy HAQPT2 L HLMX
Bromley-Pitzer Gibbs Energy GAQPT2 L GLMX
† ††
BWR-Lee-Starling ESBWR0, ESCSTBWR VL ,
Cavett Liquid Enthalpy Departure DHL0CVT, DHL2CVT L DHL,DHLMX
Chao-Seader PHL0CS L PHIL
Clarke Aqueous Electrolyte Density VAQCLK L VLMX
Constant Activity Coefficient GMCONS S GAMMA
Costald Liquid Volume VL0CTD,VL2CTD L VL,VLMX
Debije-Hückel Volume VAQDH L VLMX
DIPPR Liquid Heat Capacity HL0DIP, DHL0DIP L HL, DHL
Electrolyte NRTL GMENRTL L L1 L2 GAMMA
Electrolyte NRTL Enthalpy HMXENRTL L HLMX
Electrolyte NRTL Gibbs Energy GMXENRTL L GLMX
Grayson-Streed PHL0GS L PHIL
† ††
Hayden-O'Connell ESHOC0, ESHOC V ,
Henry’s constant HENRY1 L HNRY,WHNRY
† ††
HF equation of state ESHF0, ESHF V ,
† ††
Ideal Gas ESIG0, ESIG V ,
Kent-Eisenberg ESAMIN L PHILMX, GLMX, HLMX,
SLMX
†††
Lee-Kesler ESLK VL
† ††
Lee-Kesler-Plöcker ESLKP0, ESLKP VL ,
Modified UNIFAC Dortmund GMUFDMD L L1 L2 GAMMA
† ††
NBS/NCR Steam Tables ESSTEAM0, ESSTEAM VL ,
† ††
Nothnagel ESNTH0, ESNTH V ,
NRTL (Non-Random Two Liquid) GMRENON L GAMMA
† ††
Peng-Robinson-Boston-Mathias ESPR0, ESPR VL ,
Pitzer GMPT1 L GAMMA
Pitzer Enthalpy HAQPT1 L HLMX
Pitzer Gibbs Energy GAQPT1 L GLMX
Polynomial Activity Coefficient GMPOLY S GAMMA
†††
Predictive SRK ESRKSV10, ESRKSV1 VL
†††
Peng-Robinson-Wong-Sandler ESPRWS0, ESPRWS VL
†††
Peng-Robinson-MHV2 ESPRV20, ESPRV2 VL
Rackett / DIPPR Liquid Density VL0RKT, VL2RKT L VL,VLMX
Redlich-Kister GMREDKIS LS GAMMA
† ††
Redlich-Kwong ESRK0, ESRK V ,
† ††
Redlich-Kwong-Soave-Boston- ESRKS0, ESRKS VL ,
Mathias
† ††
Redlich-Kwong-Aspen ESRKA0, ESRKA VL ,
†††
RKS-MHV2 ESRKSV20, ESRKSV2 VL
†††
RKS-Wong-Sandler ESRKWSWS0, VL
ESRKSWS
† ††
Schwartzentruber-Renon ESRKU0, ESRKU VL ,
Scatchard-Hildebrand GMXSH L GAMMA
Solids Heat Capacity Polynomial HS0POLY S HS
Solids Volume Polynomial VS0POLY S VS
† ††
Standard Peng-Robinson ESPRSTD0, ESPRSTD VL ,
† ††
Standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave ESRKSTD0, ESRKSTD VL ,
Three-Suffix Margules GMMARGUL LS GAMMA
UNIFAC GMUFAC L L1 L2 GAMMA
UNIQUAC GMUQUAC L L1 L2 GAMMA
Van Laar GMVLAAR L GAMMA
Wagner interaction parameter GMWIP S GAMMA
Watson / DIPPR DHVLWTSN L DHVL
Wilson GMWILSON L GAMMA
† A pure component equation-of-state model calculates:
PHIL,PHIV,DHL,DHV,DGL,DGV,DSL,DSV,VL,VV
†† A mixture equation-of-state model calculates:
PHILMX,PHIVMX,DHLMX,DHVMX,DGLMX,DGVMX,DSLMX,DSVMX,VLMX,VVMX
††† DHLMX,DHVMX,DGLMX,DGVMX,DSLMX,DSVMX,VLMX,VVMX
Transport Property
Models

Andrade / DIPPR MUL0ANDR, L MUL, MULMX
MUL2ANDR
API liquid viscosity MUL2API L MULMX
API surface tension SIG2API L SIGLMX
Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw / DIPPR MUV0CEB V MUVLP
Chapman-Enskog-Brokaw mixing rule MUV2CEB V MUVMXLP
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee Binary DV0CEWL V DV
Chapman-Enskog-Wilke-Lee Mixture DV1CEWL V DVMX
Chung-Lee-Starling low pressure MUL0CLSL, V MUVLP, MUVMXLP
Viscosity MUL2CLSL
Chung-Lee-Starling Viscosity MUV0CLS2, VL MUV, MUVMX
MUV0CLS2
Chung-Lee-Starling KV0CLS2, KV2CLS2 V KV, KVMX
thermal conductivity KL0CLS2, KL2CLS2 L KL, KLMX
Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi Binary DV1DKK V DV
Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi Mixture DV1DKK V DVMX
Dean-Stiel pressure correction MUV0DSPC, V MUVPC, MUVMXPC
MUV2DSPC
Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel / DIPPR SIG0HSS, SIG2HSS L SIGL, SIGLMX
IAPS viscosity MUV0H2O V MUV
MUL0H2O L MUL
IAPS thermal conductivity KV0H2O V KV
KL0H2O L KL
IAPS thermal surface tension SIG0H2O L SIGL
Jones-Dole electrolyte correction MUL2JONS L MULMX
Letsou-Stiel MUL0LEST, L MUL, MULMX
MUL2LEST
Lucas MUV0LUC, MUV2LUC V MUV, MUVMX
Nernst-Hartley DL0NST, DL1nst L DL, DLMX
Onsager-Samaras electrolyte SIG2ONSG L SIGLMX
correction
Riedel electrolyte correction KL2RDL L KLMX
Sato-Riedel / DIPPR KL0SR, KL2SRVR L KL, KLMX
Stiel-Thodos / DIPPR KV0STLP V KVLP
Stiel-Thodos pressure correction KV0STPC, KV2STPC V KVPC
TRAPP viscosity MUV0TRAP, V MUV, MUVMX, MUL,
MUV2TRAP L MULMX
MUL0TRAP,
MUL2TRAP
TRAPP thermal conductivity KV0TRAP, KV2TRAP V KV, KVMX
KL0TRAP, KL2TRAP L KL, KLMX
Wassiljewa-Saxena-Maxon mixing KV2WMSM V KVMXLP
rule
Wilke-Chang binary DL0WC2 L DL
Wilke-Chang mixture DL1WC L DLMX
Nonconventional Solid
Property Models
Thermodynamic Properties Model Model Name Phase
General Coal Enthalpy Model HCOALGEN S
General Density Polynomial DNSTYGEN S
General Heat Capacity Polynomial ENTHGEN S
IGT Coal Density Model DCOALIGT S
IGT Char Density Model DCHARIGT S
Property Model The following tables list the model option codes available:
Option Codes • Option Codes for Transport Property Models
• Option Codes for Activity Coefficient Models
• Option Codes for Equation of State Models
• Option Codes for K-value Models
• Option Codes for Enthalpy Models
Option Codes for
Transport Property
Models
Model Name Option Value Descriptions

Code
SIG2HSS 1 1 Exponent in mixing rule (default)
-1,-2,-3 Exponent in mixing rule
SIG2ONSG 1 1 Exponent in mixing rule (default)
-1,-2,-3 Exponent in mixing rule
MUL2API, 1 0 Release 9 method. First, the API, SG of the mixture is calculated,
MULAPI92 then the API correlation is used (default)
1 Pre-release 9 method. Liquid viscosity is calculated for each
pseudocomponent using the API method. Then mixture viscosity is
calculated by mixing rules.
Option Codes for Activity
Coefficient Models

Code
GMXSH 1 0 No volume term (default)
1 Includes volume term
WHENRY 1 1 Equal weighting
2 Size - VC
1/ 3
3 2/ 3
Area - VC (default)
4 Volume - VC
Code
GMELC, HAQELC, 1 Defaults for pair parameters
HMXELC, 1 Pair parameters default to zero
GAQELC,
GMXELC 2 Solvent/solute pair parameters default to water parameters.
Water/solute pair parameters default to zero (default)
3 Default water parameters to 8, -4. Default solvent/solute
parameters to 10, -2
2 Vapor phase EOS for liquid enthalpy and Gibbs energy
0 Ideal gas EOS (default)
1 HF EOS for hydrogen fluoride
3 Solvent/solvent binary parameter names
0 Use scalar GMELCA, GMELCB and GMELCM (default)
1 Use vector NRTL(8)
GMENRTL, 1 Defaults for pair parameters
HMXENRTL, 1 Pair parameters default to zero
GMXENRTL 2 Solvent/solute pair parameters default to water parameters.
Water/solute pair parameters default to zero
parameters to 10, -2 (default)
GMXENRHG, 1 Defaults for pair parameters
GMENRHG, 1 Pair parameters default to zero
HMXENRHG 2 Solvent/solute pair parameters default to water parameters.
Water/solute pair parameters default to zero
parameters to 10, -2 (default)
4 Standard enthalpy calculation
0 Standard electrolytes method (Pre release 10)
1 Helgeson method (default)
Code
5 Reaction temperature dependency estimation
0 Do not calculate
1 Calculate (default)
GMPT1 1 Defaults for pair mixing rule
-1 No unsymmetric mixing
0 Unsymmetric mixing polynomial (default)
1 Unsymmetric mixing integral
GAQPT3, GMPT3, 1 Defaults for pair mixing rule
HAQPT3 -1 No unsymmetric mixing
0 Unsymmetric mixing polynomial (default)
1 Unsymmetric mixing integral
2 Standard enthalpy calculation
0 Standard electrolytes method (Pre-release 10)
1 Helgeson method (Default)
3 Estimation of K-stoic temperature dependency
0 Use value at 298.15 K
1 Helgeson Method (default)
HS0POL1, 1 Reference temperature usage
GS0POL1, 0 Use standard reference temperature (default)
SS0POL1 1 Use liquid reference temperature
Option Codes for
Equation of State Models

Code
ESHOC, ESHOC0, 1 0 Hayden-O’Connell model. Use chemical theory only if one
PHV0HOC component has HOCETA=4.5 (default)
1 Always use the chemical theory regardless of HOCETA values
2 Never use the chemical theory regardless of HOCETA values
ESPR, ESPR0 1 0 ASPEN Boston/Mathias alpha function (default)
1 Original literature alpha function
ESPRSTD, 1 0 ASPEN Boston/Mathias alpha function
ESPRSTD0
1 Original literature alpha function (default)
ESRKS, ESRKS0 1 0 ASPEN Boston/Mathias alpha function (default)
2 Grabowski and Daubert alpha function for H2 above TC
( α = 1202
. exp( −0.30228 × Tri ) )
ESRKSTD, 1 0 ASPEN Boston/Mathias alpha function
ESRKSTD0
Code
1 Original literature alpha function (default)
( α = 1202
. exp( −0.30228 × Tri ) )
ESRKSW, 1 0 ASPEN Boston/Mathias alpha function (default)
ESRKSW0
( α = 1202
. exp( −0.30228 × Tri ) )
ESRKU, ESRKU0 1 Initial temperature for binary parameter estimation
0 At TREF=25 C (default)
1 The lower of TB(i) or TB(j)
2 (TB(i) + TB(j))/2
>2 Value entered used as temperature
2 VLE or LLE UNIFAC
0 VLE (default)
1 LLE
3 Property diagnostic level flag (-1 to 8)
4 Vapor phase EOS used in generation of TPxy data with
UNIFAC
0 Hayden-O’Connell (default)
1 Redlich-Kwong
5 Do/do not estimate binary parameters
0 Estimate (default)
1 Set to zero
ESHF, ESHF0 1 0 Equation form for Log(k) expression:
log( K ) = A + B / T + C ⋅ ln( T) + D ⋅ T (default)
1 log( K ) = A + B / T + C ⋅ T + D / T 2 + E ⋅ log( P )
ESPRWS, 1 Equation form for alpha function
ESPRWS0,
ESPRV1, ESPRV10, 1 Original literature alpha function
ESPRV2, ESPRV20, 2 Mathias-Copeman alpha function
3 Schwartzentruber-Renon alpha function (default)
ESRKSWS, 1 Equation form for alpha function
ESRKSWS0 ,
ESRKSV1, 1 Original literature alpha function
ESRKSV10,
ESRKSV2, 2 Mathias-Copeman alpha function
ESRKSV20,
3 Schwartzentruber-Renon alpha function (default)
Code
ESSTEAM, 1 0 ASME 1967 correlations
ESSTEAM0 1 NBS 1984 equation of state (default)
ESH2O, ESH2O0 1 0 ASME 1967 correlations (default)
1 NBS 1984 equation of state
Option Codes for K-Value
Models
Model Option Value Descriptions

Name Code
BK10 1 0 Treat pseudocomponents as paraffins (default)
1 Treat pseudocomponents as aromatics
Option Codes for
Enthalpy Models

Code
DHL0HREF 1 1 Use Liquid reference state for all components (Default)
2 Use liquid and gaseous reference states based on the state of each
component
Tracing a Route The structure of a full calculation route is generally shaped as a
tree control. Each point in the tree where a branch splits off (a
node) represents a method. The branches themselves are the routes.
The ends of the branches are models. The starting point for tracing
a route is usually finding a route ID on the Property Methods
Routes sheet, for which you want to know the calculation
procedure. Example 1 describes how you can trace a known route
ID.
Example 1: Tracing the The route ID is on the Properties Property Methods Routes sheet
route HLMX08 for the Wilson property method. It appears in the second column,
next to the property HLMX: HLMX08 (a similar sheet is shown in
the figure labeled Properties Property Methods Routes Sheet).
Click on the property HLMX or the route ID HLMX08, then click
the View button. The View Route dialog box appears.
If you click on a route or model on the tree, a short descriptions of

the route or model appears in the Prompt area. At the first node,
the route HLMX08 appears, which uses method 3. In this method,
the liquid mixture enthalpy is calculated from the ideal gas
enthalpy and the enthalpy departure. the Aspen Physical Property
System automatically fills in the ideal gas calculations. Only the
departure function route ID must be specified. Therefore, there is
only one branch attached to the node for route HLMX08.
There are two ways to look up the equation corresponding to the
method number of a route.
The first method, if you are in the Aspen Physical Property System
is to:
1 Close the View Route dialog box.
2 Go to the Property field corresponding to the route.
3 Use Help to get online help on methods corresponding to this
property.
4 Locate the formula corresponding to the method number.
The second method is to look up the method in the table labeled
Vapor Fugacity Coefficient Methods in the section corresponding
to the property for which you trace the route (HLMX). The
formula is listed next to the method number.
The next step in the route HLMX08 is the calculation of the liquid
mixture enthalpy departure with route ID: DHLMX08. This
calculation is based on method 2, which calculates DHLMX as the
mole fraction average of pure component enthalpy departure
(DHL) and the excess enthalpy (HLXS). Therefore, two branches
split from this route and the complete route can be traced this way.
These two steps in tracing the route HLMX08 show that a route ID
is characteristic for the methods, routes and models specified on its
own level. However, by specifying DHLMX08 on the top level,
the top level route is also characteristic for the level below because
DHLMX08 stands for a full specification on its secondary level. If
we continue this reasoning down the tree to the models, then it
becomes clear that HLMX08 represents the full specification of the
full tree. And DHLMX08 represents the full specification of the
full tree, minus the top level. Therefore every built-in route has a
unique ID. This feature will be used in Modifying and Creating
Routes.
Modifying and Creating Property
Method
The built-in property methods in the Aspen Physical Property
System contain choices of major property routes that fit most
engineering needs. The combinations of the routes for different
properties are chosen in a logical way, as explained in Chapter 2.
You may sometimes need to customize property methods. For
example, to change models or routes on a main or a sub-level. This
section explains how to do this and gives examples of how to
implement the most frequently used modifications.
Modifying Existing The following subsections explain the different types of
Property Methods modifications that can be made to property methods.
• Replacing Routes
• Replacing Models and Using Multiple Data Sets
• Conflicting Route and Model Specifications
Replacing Routes The Property Methods Routes sheet allows you to see which routes
are used in a certain property method and to trace a route (see
Routes and Models). This form also allows you to replace routes.
A route replacement influences the calculations of one property at
a time.
To replace routes:
1 From the Data menu, select Properties, then Property Method.
The Property Methods Object Manager appears.
2 Select the property method and click on Edit.
The Property Methods form appears.
3 Go to the Routes sheet.
4 In the Route ID field of the property of interest, use List to list
all available routes for this property.
As you scroll through the list, the prompt displays a short
description of the route. When you gain experience, the
description from the prompt should be sufficient. If you require
more information,
• Select the route, the click on the View button to get the tree
diagram for this route (see Routes and Models). You can
now trace the route in detail.
• Close the View Route dialog box to return to the Routes
sheet.
5 Select a route that fits your needs.
The newly selected route changes color, so that you are able to
locate your property method modifications immediately on this
sheet.
The technique is identical for subordinate properties.
Example 1: Using In the PENG-ROB property method, the Rackett equation is used
COSTALD liquid molar for the liquid molar volume (route VLMX01, property VLMX).
volume in PENG-ROB For high pressure calculations, use the COSTALD model which is
suited for compressed liquids. The route selected is VLMX22. For
consistency with pure component results, replace the VL
calculation with VL06.
Example 2: Using Lee- For a high pressure hydrocarbon application, use the Lee-Kesler
Kesler liquid volume in liquid molar volume calculation rather than the atmospheric API
RK-Soave density calculation. Select VLMX13 for VLMX. No corresponding
pure component routes are available, since these calculations are
for complex petroleum mixtures, of which the pure components are
only partially known.
Example 3: Using ideal You want to compare the Rackett mixture equation with ideal
mixing for the liquid molar mixing. The pure component liquid molar volume should remain
volume in WILSON as it is (Model: VL0RKT, Route ID: VL01). Select the route
VLMX23 to use the ideal mixing rule (mole fraction average of
pure component liquid molar volumes).
Example 4: Removing The Poynting correction is the pressure correction to the pure
Poynting correction of an component liquid fugacity coefficient. For validation purposes,
activity coefficient you need to compare your calculation with previous results that
have been obtained without the Poynting correction.
In all activity coefficient based property methods with the
Redlich-Kwong equation of state as the vapor phase model, the
route PHIL04 is used for the pure component liquid fugacity
coefficient. Tracing PHIL04 (using the View button) shows that
the pressure correction is calculated by the subordinate property
PHILPC with route ID PHILPC01.
On the Property Methods Routes sheet, select Subordinate property
in the Property route field. Locate the property PHILPC in the
Property field, then replace PHILPC01 with PHILPC00 (no
correction) in the Route ID field. If you trace PHIL04 again (using
the View button), you will notice that the tree is dynamic; it
reflects the changes you made in a sub-level route, in this case for
PHILPC.
In the activity coefficient based property methods with the ideal
gas law as the vapor phase model, the route PHIL00 is used.
Tracing PHIL00 shows that PHILPC00 is used by default. No
changes are needed.
Replacing Models and The Property Methods Models sheet allows you to see which
Using Multiple Data Sets models are used in a certain property method (see Routes and
Models). This sheet also allows you to replace models. Route
replacements influence only one property at a time. In contrast, a
model replacement influences all the properties that use the same
model. You can trace the routes of these properties to determine
where exactly the model is used in the calculation. If you want to
limit the effect of a model replacement to a single route, you can
modify an existing route or create a new route (see Modifying and
Creating Routes). Click the Affected properties button to see a list
of properties affected by the model.
If you need to change both routes and models, you must change the
routes first using the Routes sheet, then change the models. If you
use the Models sheet before using the Routes sheet, the changes
you made on the Models sheet will be lost.
To replace models:
1 From the Data menu, select Properties, then Property Methods.
3 Go to the Models sheet.
4 On the Model name field of the property of interest, use List
for all available models for this property. (You can also use the
table labeled Liquid Fugacity Coefficient Methods.)
As you scroll through the list, the prompt displays a short
description of
the model.
5 Select a model.
The newly selected model changes color, so that you are able
to locate your property method modifications immediately on
this form. All properties using the same model will also be
changed.
If you draw a tree diagram of a property in which the new model is
used, the modification is also shown (see Tracing a Route).
Conflicting Route and If you specify a route for a certain property and you also specify a
Model Specifications model that calculates a property that is part of the route you
specified, the information can be conflicting. In the Aspen Physical
Property System both replacements will be executed. The result, in
most cases, is that the model takes precedence, but you can always
predict the result by analyzing the route and checking if there is an
occurrence of this type of model in the tree.
Example 1 describes how to use COSTALD liquid molar volume
in PENG-ROB. Example 2 describes how to use Peng-Robinson
for vapor phase properties in NRTL-RK.
Example 1: Using The reasoning is the same as in Example 1, Replacing Routes, this
COSTALD liquid molar chapter. The approach here is to replace the Rackett models
volume in PENG-ROB: (VL0RKT, VL2RKT) by the COSTALD models (VL0CTD,
Replacing Models VL2CTD). The result is exactly the same as for the route
replacement.
Example 2: Using Peng- You want to use the Peng-Robinson equation of state as the vapor
Robinson for vapor phase phase model of an activity coefficient based property method.
properties in NRTL-RK Instead of replacing every vapor phase property route, it is more
efficient to replace the equation-of-state model used for all vapor
phase properties. In the model field, if you select ESPR for a single
vapor phase property, the Aspen Physical Property System
replaces all other vapor phase properties by the ESPR model as
well. For consistency, use ESPR0 for pure component vapor phase
properties.
Creating New The purpose of creating new property methods is not so much to
Property Methods build the collection of routes from scratch, although this is
possible. It is more a matter of methodology and documentation of
your work. Suppose you make changes to existing property
methods, and you have successfully completed your calculations.
One year later you may have a similar project where you begin
with your old calculation models. You may not remember that the
WILSON property method you used is not the standard version.
Therefore, it is recommended that you:
1 Create a new property method with an ID similar to the
property method on which it is based.
2 Copy the base property method to the new property method
3 Make your changes.
There are two ways to begin the creation of a property method.
The first way to begin is:
1 On the Properties Specifications Global sheet, select the base
property method on the Base method field.
2 Check the Modify property models checkbox. The Modify
Property Method dialog box appears.
3 Enter the new property method name, then click OK.
4 Go to the Properties Property Methods Object Manager.
5 Select the new property method, then click Edit.
The second way to begin is:
2 Click on New and enter the new property method name.
Then for both methods do the following steps:
1 Select the Property Methods .Routes or the Property Methods
.Models sheet.
2 On the Base property method field, use List and select an
existing property method name.
The Aspen Physical Property System fills in all the routes and
models in both sheets.
3 Make your changes.
4 Use the newly created property method in a flowsheet, a block,
a property analysis, or a column section.
Using Multiple Data Sets To use a second data set with a model:
in Multiple Property
Methods
3 Go to the Models sheet.
The DataSet column is to the right of the Model name column.
The default for a data set number is 1.
4 Change the data set number to 2 to introduce a second set of
parameters for a model.
A second data set is frequently used for activity coefficient models.
For example, the VLE are calculated with one set of parameters,
the LLE with another set. If you introduce a second data set for an
activity coefficient model, it is effective throughout the property
method. To use two data sets in different parts of the flowsheet or a
distillation column, you must use two property methods: one
property method that uses the default data set 1, and another
property method that uses the data set 2. If you create a second
data set for a model, the Aspen Physical Property System
automatically defines the second set of parameters on the
Properties Parameters forms. So you must enter the parameters
values for the second data set after creating the property method in
which they are to be used.
Modifying and Creating Routes
The built-in routes in the Aspen Physical Property System cover
most engineering needs (see Routes and Models). However, while
modifying or creating property methods you may need a route that
is not built-in (see Modifying and Creating Property Methods).
You can create such a route based on the available methods. This
section explains and gives examples of modifying and creating
routes.
To decide if you want to create a new route or modify an existing
route, apply the same reasoning as for deciding whether to modify
or create a new property method (see Creating New Property
Methods). We recommend you choose a new route ID.
To modify an existing route or create a new route:
1 Follow the procedure to trace routes, and consider the available
methods for the property of interest. Decide on the route you
want to modify, or the method you want to use to create a
route.
2 From the Data menu, select Properties, then Advanced, then
Routes.
The Routes Object Manager appears. There are no objects
listed because there are hundreds of available routes. So you
need to know from the analysis you did on the Property
Methods Routes sheet which route you want to modify.
3 Click on New. Enter a new route ID to create a new route, or
enter an existing route ID to modify an existing route.
The Routes Specifications sheet appears. At the top are the:
• Property name
• Method code
• Route ID of the route to modify
4 When you base your new route on an existing route, enter the
property name in the Property name field and the base route ID
in the Copy route from field, and make your changes.
Or
When you create a completely new route, enter the property
name and method code. Fill the Route ID and Model name
fields.
5 Use the Property Methods Routes sheet and enter the new route
in a property method.
Or
Use the Routes Specifications sheet of another route to use the
newly created route in another route.
Example 1 describes how to use a second data set of NRTL
parameters for HLXS. Example 2 describes how to use your own
model for the liquid enthalpy.
Example 1: Use a second The representation of two properties with one data set is sometimes
data set of NRTL not satisfactory, for example with VLE and excess enthalpy data. If
parameters two data sets can describe the properties separately, you will need
to use both sets in the calculation.
In this example, one set of binary parameters for the NRTL model
is used for VLE calculations. A second set of binary parameters is
used for excess enthalpy (HLXS).
Create a new route to calculate HLXS. The simplest way is to
modify the existing route used in the NRTL property method. The
Route ID is HLXS10. On the Properties Advanced Routes
Specification sheet, change Data Set from 1 to 2.
Example 2: Using your Your company has developed a correlation for the enthalpy in a
own model for the liquid specific process stream that you want to use. The necessary user
enthalpy model subroutines have been written according to Aspen Plus User
Models. All built-in routes in the Aspen Physical Property System
for the liquid molar enthalpy are based on methods 2, 3 or 4.
However, to use the user model, method 1 (Specified model) is
needed. Because no existing route uses method 1 or needs this type
of model, there is no model for liquid enthalpy on the Property
Methods Models sheet.
Create a new route, for example HLMXAP, using method 1. On
the Routes Specifications sheet. the property name HLMX appears
in the Model area. Use List from the Model name field to select
HL2USR, the liquid mixture enthalpy user model.
Reference the route HLMXAP in the property method on the
Property Methods Routes sheet. You can check that the user
enthalpy model HL2USR appears on the Property Methods Models
sheet.
CHAPTER 5
Electrolyte Calculation
Overview
Electrolyte process calculation has many applications. In the
Aspen Physical Property System, you can analyze and optimize
processes involving ionic species, complex ions, salt precipitation,
with strong acids, weak acids and bases.
Examples of applications for electrolyte process calculation with
the Aspen Physical Property System include:
• Sour water stripping (petrochemical industry)
• Caustic brine evaporation and crystallization (chlor-alkali
industry)
• Acid gas removal (chemical and gas industries)
• Nitric acid separation (nuclear chemical industry)
• Trona processing (mining industry)
• Organic salt separation (biochemical industry)
• Black liquor evaporation (pulp and paper industry)
Electrolyte systems have three important characteristics:
• Solution chemistry in the liquid phase
• Apparent and true component compositions are different
• Non-ideal liquid phase thermodynamic behavior
This chapter describes applications of electrolyte process
calculation and reviews the following fundamental characteristics
of electrolyte systems:
• Solution chemistry
• Apparent component and true component approaches
• Electrolyte thermodynamics models
• Electrolyte data regression
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Electrolyte Calculation • 5-1

The solution chemistry involves a variety of chemical reactions in
Solution Chemistry
the liquid phase. Examples of such chemical reactions are:
• Complete dissociation of strong electrolytes
• Partial dissociation of weak electrolytes
• Ionic reactions among ionic species
• Complex ion formation
• Salt precipitation and dissolution
These chemical reactions occur rapidly in solution, so chemical
equilibrium conditions are assumed.
Solution chemistry affects electrolyte process calculation by
influencing physical properties, phase equilibrium, and other
fundamental characteristics of electrolyte systems. For most
nonelectrolyte systems, chemical reactions occur only in reactors.
For electrolyte systems, chemical equilibrium calculations are
essential to all types of unit operations modeling.
Solution chemistry dictates the true components in solution and
imposes equality constraints on their composition. The chemical
equilibrium relationship for reaction j is expressed as:
ln K j = ∑ v i, j ln ai (1)
i
Where:
Kj = Chemical equilibrium constant
v i, j = Reaction stoichiometric coefficient of
component i
ai = Activity of component i
Computation of the solution chemistry is often combined with
phase equilibrium calculations. Typical electrolyte calculations
involving solution chemistry are:
• Liquid (aqueous) phase equilibrium (for example, calculating
the pH for the titration of organic acid with caustic solution)
• Vapor-liquid (aqueous) phase equilibrium (for example,
extractive distillation with salts as extractive agents, and sour
water stripping)
• Liquid (aqueous)-liquid (organic) phase equilibrium (for
example, hydrocarbon-sour water system and liquid-liquid
extraction of metals)
• Liquid (aqueous)-solid equilibrium of salt precipitation (for
example, crystallization of organic or inorganic salts)
5-2 • Electrolyte Calculation Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

To simulate an electrolyte system, you must properly identify all
relevant chemical reactions. Physical interactions in solutions are
sometimes described by postulating chemical reactions at
equilibrium. The chemical theory of solutions is used only for real
chemical reactions. Incorrect assumptions about the solution
chemistry is the major cause of inaccuracies in calculations of
reactive chemical systems.
Use the Electrolyte Expert System to identify all relevant chemical
reactions. Starting from this set of reactions, you can remove
and/or add reactions as required to properly represent your process.
You can use the Reactions Chemistry form to describe the solution
chemistry and to enter the chemical equilibrium constants.
However, we strongly recommend that you use the Elec Wizard on
the Components Specifications Selection sheet and allow the
Electrolyte Expert System to set up the property specifications for
you.
For a system with a solvent dielectric constant less than 10, ionic
reactions do not take place. Therefore, the Aspen Physical Property
System bypasses all solution chemistry calculations for such
systems.
If you define the reactions on the Reactions Chemistry form, the
Aspen Physical Property System checks for infeasible or redundant
reactions. If such reactions exist, the Aspen Physical Property
System ignores them during the calculations.
Apparent Component As a result of the solution chemistry, a set of true species is present
and True Component in the liquid phase that differs from apparent molecular
Approaches components. Apparent or parent components are present in the
system if no reactions occurred. For example, the sour water
stripper system has three apparent molecular components: water,
ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. The three molecular components
dissociate in the liquid phase.
There are four ionic reactions:
2 H2O ↔ H 3O + + OH − (2)
+
NH 3 + H 2 O ↔ NH 4 + OH − (3)
H2 S + H2O ↔ H 3 O + + HS − (4)
HS − + H 2 O ↔ H 3 O + + S −2 (5)
Five ionic species are thereby produced from these aqueous phase
ionic reactions. All components in these reactions exist at chemical
equilibrium conditions and are the true components of the

electrolyte system. The apparent components are H 2 O NH3 ,and
H2 S .
These two sets of components have major effects on the treatment

of electrolyte process calculation. Apparent components are of
major concern to some electrolyte processes since process
measurements are usually expressed in terms of apparent
components. To other electrolyte processes, expression in terms of
true species is the only way to characterize an electrolyte system.
The selection of apparent components or true components
therefore depends on the type of electrolyte system you simulate.
Three types of molecular components may be present in an
electrolyte system: solvents, molecular solutes, and electrolytes. As
a result of electrolyte solution chemistry, ions, salts, and
nonvolatile molecular solutes may be present as additional true
species. These components are defined as:
• Solvent: water is the solvent for aqueous electolyte systems.
For mixed-solvent electrolyte systems, there are other solvent
components in addition to water.
• Molecular solutes are molecular species, other than solvent
compounds, that exist in the liquid phase in molecular form.
All molecular solutes are treated with Henry’s law. They are
often supercritical components.
• Electrolytes are also molecular species. However, strong
electrolytes dissociate completely to ionic species in the liquid
phase. Undissociated weak electrolytes can be solvent
components or molecular solutes.
• Ions are nonvolatile ionic species that exist only in the liquid
phase.
• Salts are nonvolatile molecular species that exist as solids.
Choosing the True or The apparent component approach and the true component
Apparent Approach approach are interchangeable because solution chemistry based on
apparent component composition defines the true component
composition of a system. The Aspen Physical Property System
calculates thermodynamic properties of components and mixtures
expressed in terms of apparent component composition from
properties expressed in terms of true component composition. For
example, the liquid fugacity coefficient of ammonia with the
apparent component approach is calculated from the liquid
fugacity coefficient of ammonia with the true component
approach:
x it (6)
ϕ ai ,l = ϕ ti ,l
x ia

Where:
ϕ ai , l = Fugacity coefficient of apparent component i
ϕ it ,l = Fugacity coefficient of true component i

xi = Liquid component mole fraction of component i
(superscript a indicates apparent composition, t
indicates true composition)
Similar relationships are established for other properties (Chen et
al., 1983). However, the apparent component mole fractions are
not always calculated from the true component mole fractions
because ambiguity can exist in the stoichiometric relations.
Using the apparent component approach in vapor-liquid
equilibrium implies:
• The vapor-liquid equilibrium is solved in terms of apparent
components only.
• The liquid solution chemistry in the liquid is solved in terms of
true and apparent components.
This approach restricts the specification of the chemistry, because
the reaction products (which are true components only by
definition) cannot contain volatile components. Only apparent
components can take part in vapor-liquid equilibrium. The true
component approach does not have this restriction.
In process calculation, the true component approach requires that
you specify the process in terms of true components. The Aspen
Physical Property System carries true components and their
compositions in each process stream and each unit operation. Unit
operation computational algorithms have been developed to solve
the chemical equilibrium relationship in addition to the unit-
operation describing equations.
The apparent component approach requires that you specify the
process only in terms of apparent components. The solution
chemistry and the true components are handled by the physical
property system and are transparent to process flowsheets and unit
operations.
The apparent component approach makes it possible to use
existing unit operation computational algorithms, such as:
• Flash algorithms for vapor-liquid equilibrium
• Liquid phase splitting algorithms for liquid-liquid equilibrium
• Distillation algorithms
Rigorous representation of the (effective) partial molar properties
of apparent components requires the solution of the chemical

equilibrium and the knowledge of the partial molar properties of
the true components.
Deciding whether to use the apparent component or true
component approach can depend on:
• Your personal preference
• The way you specify the process (in terms of apparent
components or true components)
• Convergence considerations
Generally, the apparent component approach is preferred for
simple electrolyte systems. It offers the advantage that only
apparent components need to be comsidered. When the system
grows more complex and it becomes difficult to select the apparent
components, the true component approach is preferred. For
complex distillation columns or flowsheet specifications, the true
component approach can improve convergence. When the apparent
components yield volatile reaction products, always use the true
component approach.
If you use the apparent component approach, solution chemistry is
required.
Reconstitution of Several electrolyte property models in the Aspen Physical Property
Apparent Component System use the technique of constructing a set of arbitrary mole
Mole Fractions fractions of all possible apparent components from a mixture
described in terms of compositions of true components. These
models are listed in the following table, and are discussed in detail
in Chapter 3.
Model Name Property
Clarke Aqueous Electrolyte Volume Molar volume
Jones-Dole Viscosity
Riedel Thermal conductivity
Nernst-Hartley Diffusivity
Onsager-Samaras Surface tension
The mole fractions of the apparent components are reconstituted
from mole fractions of true components, even if you use the
apparent component approach. All possible apparent components
ca from cations c and anions a are considered. For example, if you
dissolve calcium sulphate and sodium chloride in water, then the
+ 2− −
solution contains: Na , Ca , SO4 , and Cl . This solution could
2+
have been made from water and an infinite number of different

combinations of amounts of the apparent components CaSO4 ,
CaCl2 , NaCl , and Na 2 SO4 .

From all possible solutions, the Aspen Physical Property System
uses one arbitrary solution of the amounts of apparent electrolytes:
nct nat (7)
ncaa =
∑ z c nct
c
This solution generates all possible combinations of anions and

cations. However, for the case of 2-2 electrolytes, the amount is
multiplied by 2, to avoid the creation of, for example,
( Ca2 SO4 ) 2
instead of CaSO4 . In general, the correction factor should be the
highest common factor of the charges ( z c ) and ( z a ) , but the 3-3 or
2-4 electrolytes are not known.
From this the total amount of apparent moles and apparent mole
fractions can be calculated:
nka (8)
x ka = a
ntot
Where k can refer to any solvent B, molecular solute i, or apparent
electrolyte ca.
Electrolyte In electrolyte process calculation, the following thermophysical
Thermodynamic properties must be computed at a given temperature, pressure and
Models composition:
• Activity coefficient
• Enthalpy
• Reference state Gibbs energy
These properties are necessary to perform phase equilibrium,
chemical equilibrium, and mass and energy balance calculations.
Activity coefficients are the most critical properties for process
calculation. They determine the flow rates, compositions, and
stability of phases.
Advances in electrolyte thermodynamics have produced several
semi-empirical excess Gibbs energy models that correlate and
predict: activity coefficients of individual ions, mean ionic activity
coefficients, and activity coefficients of molecular solvents and
solutes. The Pitzer equation, the Electrolyte NRTL Model, and the
Zemaitis equations are the most widely adopted equations among
these models.
Pitzer Equation The Pitzer equation is a virial expansion equation. The model
requires second-order parameters at low concentrations, and both
second- and third-order parameters at high concentrations. The
equation has been applied successfully to represent data within

experimental error from dilute solutions up to an ionic strength of
six molal for both aqueous single strong electrolyte systems and
multicomponent strong electrolyte systems (Pitzer, 1973). The
Pitzer equation is also extended to model aqueous weak electrolyte
systems (Chen et al., 1982). It provides a thermodynamically
consistent model that accurately represents electrolyte nonideality
for many industrial aqueous electrolyte systems.
This model is the basis for the PITZER property method. For
details on the model, see Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model.
Electrolyte NRTL The electrolyte NRTL equation provides another
Equation thermodynamically consistent model for aqueous electrolyte
systems. This equation was developed with the local composition
concept. This concept is similar to the NRTL (Non-Random Two
Liquid) model for nonelectrolyte systems (Renon and Prausnitz,
1968). With only binary parameters, the equation satisfactorily
represents physical interactions of true species in aqueous single
electrolyte systems and multicomponent electrolyte systems over
wide ranges of concentrations and temperatures. This model can
represent infinitely dilute electrolyte systems (where it reduces to
the Debije-Hückel model), nonelectrolyte systems (where it
reduces to the NRTL model), and pure fused salts. It connects
these limiting systems. The equation has been extended to model
mixed solvent electrolyte-systems (Mock et al., 1984).
This model is the basis for the ELECNRTL property method. For
details on the model, see Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient
Model.
Zemaitis Equation The Zemaitis equation is based on the Bronsted-Guggenheim mean
ionic activity coefficient equation with the Guggenheim β term
(Bromley-Pitzer Model)
expressed in Bromley's form as an expansion of ionic strength. The
activity of solvent water in single electrolyte systems is then
computed by application of the Gibbs-Duhem integration on the
mean ionic activity coefficient equation. In multicomponent
electrolyte systems, the activity coefficient of solvent water is
computed with the Meissner approximation to avoid excessive
Gibbs-Duhem integration (Bromley, 1973). Activity coefficients of
molecular solutes are estimated with the Setschenow equation. The
Zemaitis equation is not a thermodynamically consistent model,
and binary parameters are empirical functions of ionic strength.
The model offers the advantage of predicting mean ionic activity
coefficients for unmeasured electrolyte systems from Bromley's
correlation of binary parameters (Meissner and Kusik, 1973). For
details on the model, see Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient
Model.

Future Models Active research is being conducted in the field of electrolyte
thermodynamics (Mauer, 1983). For example, models based on
Mean Spherical Approximation (Planche and Renon, 1981,
Watanasiri et al., 1982) and equation of state electrolyte models
(Fürst and Renon, 1993) are being developed. Generally, the trend
is toward developing thermodynamically consistent models with
fewer adjustable parameters, broader applicability, and greater
predictive capability. A broad range of electrolyte activity
coefficient models will soon be available.
Electrolyte Data Data regression is a critical part of electrolyte process calculation.
Regression For example, electrolyte activity coefficient models require
regression of experimental data to determine model parameters. It
may also be necessary to determine chemical equilibrium constants
by data regression.
The Aspen Physical Property System Data Regression System
(DRS) can be used for electrolytes. There are two unique
considerations for electrolyte systems:
• Ions are nonvolatile, so vapor-liquid phase equilibrium
constraints for ions are not applicable.
• The chemical equilibrium constraint of the solution chemistry
must be satisfied.
Experimental data for electrolyte systems can be divided into four
main categories for both single electrolyte systems and
multicomponent electrolyte systems:
• Electrolyte properties, such as mean ionic coefficients
• Molecular properties, such as osmotic coefficient, solvent
vapor pressure, vapor-liquid phase equilibrium data, and
liquid-liquid phase equilibrium data
• Solution properties, such as liquid mixture enthalpy and
density
• Salt solubility
Electrolyte data regression is most often performed on electrolyte
properties and molecular properties to determine activity
coefficient model parameters. Solution enthalpy data provide
valuable information on temperature derivatives of activity
coefficients and can be used with other data to determine the
temperature dependency of activity coefficient model parameters.
These data can also be used to regress chemical equilibrium
constants and activity coefficient model parameters. Salt saturation
limits can be used to obtain equilibrium constants for salt
precipitation (salt solubility product).
See Aspen Plus User Guide, Chapter 31 or Aspen Properties User
Guide, for details on data regression.

References
L.A. Bromley, "Thermodynamic Properties of Strong Electrolytes
in Aqueous Solutions," AIChE J., Vol. 18, (1973), p. 313.
C.C. Chen, H.I. Britt, J.F Boston, and L.B. Evans, "Local
Composition Model for Excess Gibbs Energy of Electrolyte
Systems," AIChE J., Vol. 28, (1982), p. 588.
C.C. Chen, H.I. Britt, J.F. Boston, and W.M. Clarke,
"Thermodynamic Property Evaluation in Computer-Based
Flowsheet Simulation for Aqueous Electrolyte Systems," Paper
presented at the Denver AIChE Meeting, August, 1983.
W. Fürst and H. Renon. "Representation of Excess Properties of
Electrolyte Solutions Using a New Equation of State." AIChE J.,
Vol. 39, No. 2, (1993), pp. 335-343.
G., Mauer, "Electrolyte Solutions," Fluid Phase Equilibria,
Vol. 13, (1983), p. 269.
H.P. Meissner and C.L. Kusik, "Aqueous Solutions of Two or
More Strong Electrolytes-Vapor Pressures and Solubilities," Ind.
Eng. Chem. Process Res. Develop., Vol. 12, (1973), p. 205.
B. Mock, L.B. Evans, and C.-C. Chen, "Phase Equilibria in
Multiple-Solvent Electrolyte Systems: A New Thermodynamic
Model," Paper presented at the Boston Summer Computer
Simulation Conference, July 1984.
Pitzer, K.S., "Thermodynamics of Electrolytes.I. Theoretical Basis
and General Equations," J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 77, (1973), p. 268.
H. Planche and H. Renon, "Mean Spherical Approximation
Applied to a Simple but Nonprimitive Model of Interaction for
Electrolyte Solutions and Polar Substance," J. Phys. Chem,
Vol. 85, (1981), p. 3924.
H. Renon and J.M. Prausnitz, "Local Compositions in
Thermodynamic Excess Function for Liquid Mixtures," AIChE J.,
Vol. 14, (1968), p. 135.
S. Watanasiri, M.R. Brule, and L.L. Lee, "Prediction of
Thermodynamic Properties of Electrolytic Solutions Using the Me
an Spherical Approximation," J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 86, (1982),
p. 282.

CHAPTER 6
Free-Water and Rigorous Three-

Phase Calculations
Overview
This chapter describes free-water and rigorous three-phase
calculations in the Aspen Physical Property System. Guidelines to
help you choose the most appropriate method are included.
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Free-Water and Rigorous Three-Phase Calculations • 6-1
The following table lists the unit operation models that allow three-
phase calculations. The table shows, for each model, whether or
not free-water and/or rigorous three-phase calculations can be
performed.
Unit Operation Models That Allow Three-Phase Calculations
Free-Water Water Decant Rigorous Three-Phase
Name Description Calculations Stream Calculations
Mixer Stream mixer YES YES YES
FSplit Stream splitter YES NO YES
Sep Component separator YES NO YES
Sep2 Two outlet separator YES NO YES
DSTWU Shortcut distillation design YES † YES NO
Distl Shortcut distillation rating YES † YES NO
SCFrac Shortcut petroleum YES † YES NO
RadFrac distillation YES YES YES
MultiFrac Rigorous distillation YES YES NO
PetroFrac Rigorous multicolumn YES YES NO
BATCHFRAC distillation YES † NO YES
RATEFRAC Rigorous petroleum YES † YES NO
Extract distillation NO NO ††
Rigorous batch distillation
Rate-based distillation
Rigorous liquid-liquid
extractor
Heater Heater/cooler YES YES YES
Flash2 Two outlet flash YES YES YES
Flash3 Three outlet flash NO NO YES
Decanter Liquid-liquid decanter YES NO ††
Heatx Two stream heat exchanger YES YES YES
MHeatx Multistream heat exchanger YES YES YES
RStoic Stoichiometric reactor YES YES YES
RYield Yield reactor YES YES YES
RGibbs Equilibrium reactor
Gibbs energy minimization NO NO YES †††
Pump Pump/hydraulic turbine YES YES YES
Compr Compressor/turbine YES YES YES
MCompr Multistage YES YES YES
compressor/turbine
Crystallizer Crystallizer NO NO NO
Pipeline Pipeline YES NO YES
Dupl Stream duplicator — — —
Mult Stream multiplier — — —
† Condenser only
†† Rigorous liquid-liquid equilibrium calculations
††† RGibbs handles any number of phases rigorously.
6-2 • Free-Water and Rigorous Three-Phase Calculations Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Free-Water The unit operation models in the table labeled Unit Operation
Immiscibility Models That Allow Three-Phase Calculations can handle the
Simplification presence and the decanting of free water, when performing flash
calculations or liquid-liquid equilibrium calculations on water-
organic systems in which the water phase is essentially pure.
Free-water calculations involve special methods for calculating the
solubility of water in the organic phase and a test for the presence
of a pure water phase. Free-water calculations are always faster
than rigorous three-phase calculations and require minimal
physical property data preparation.
For water-hydrocarbon systems, free-water calculations are
normally adequate. The hydrocarbon solubility in the water phase
is generally negligible. In applications where the hydrocarbon
solubility in the water phase is of great concern (such as in an
environmental study), use rigorous three-phase calculations.
For chemical systems such as water-higher alcohols, free-water
calculations do not apply. Solubility of the organics in the water
phase is significant. Rigorous three-phase calculations are
required.
Specifying Free-Water The free-water calculations are completely rigorous, except for the
Calculations assumption that the water phase is pure. If free water is present and
you specify a decant stream for the block, the Aspen Physical
Property System places the water phase in the decant stream. If
you do not specify a decant stream, the Aspen Physical Property
System mixes the water phase with the organic phase.
To request free-water Use the Free-Water field on the
calculations for
The entire flowsheet Setup Specifications Global sheet
An individual unit operation block Blockops form for the block
An individual outlet stream in some Flash-Specs form for the block
blocks
For all unit operation blocks except the distillation models, you can
select two types of free-water calculations using the following
flash specification:
• Valid Phases=Vapor-Liquid, to consider vapor and liquid
phases
• Valid Phases=Liquid-Only, to consider only liquid phases
Valid Phases=Vapor-Liquid-Liquid is reserved for rigorous three-
phase calculations. If you specify Valid Phases=Vapor-Liquid-
Liquid, any free-water specification is ignored.
For all distillation models except RadFrac, MultiFrac, and
PetroFrac, free water calculations are performed in the condenser
only. For RadFrac, MultiFrac, and PetroFrac, you can request free-
water calculations for additional stages in the column. For details,
please see the Aspen Plus User Guide, Chapter 10.
Free-Water Phase *
Properties The free-water phase K-value, K w , is calculated as follows:

K w* = ϕ *,w l ϕ vw
Where:
ϕ *,w l = The fugacity coefficient of pure liquid water,
calculated using a free-water property method (for
example, the STEAM-TA property method)
ϕ vw = The fugacity coefficient of water in the vapor phase
mixture, calculated using the primary property
method
When a free-water phase is present, its other thermodynamic
properties (such as enthalpy) and transport properties (such as
viscosity) are calculated using the free-water property method.
Organic Phase Properties The K-value of water in the organic phase is:
K w* = γ w ϕ *,w l ϕ vw
Where:
γw = The activity coefficient of water in the organic phase
ϕ *,w l = The fugacity coefficient of pure liquid water, calculated

using the free-water property method
ϕ vw = The fugacity coefficient of water in the vapor phase
mixture, calculated using the primary property method
You can select the calculation methods for γ w and ϕ w using the
v
Water solubility field on the Properties Specifications Global sheet

or the Blockops form.
γ w from
Calculate ϕ w from
Solu-water v
Calculate
option
0 1 Free-water property
γw = method
x wsol
1 1 Primary property method
γw =
x wsol
2 γ w = f (T , x w ) Primary property method
where
1
γw =
x wsol when x w = x wsol
3 Primary property method Primary property method
Solu-water option 3 is not recommended unless binary interaction
parameters regressed from liquid-liquid equilibrium data are
available.
The limiting solubility of water in the organic phase

( x ) is sol
w
calculated as a mole fraction weighted average of the solubilities of

water in the individual organic species:
a
x wsol =
1+ a
x wisol
a = ∑ xi
i 1 − x wisol
Where:
xi = Water-free mole fraction of the ith organic
species
x wisol = Mole fraction solubility of water in the ith
species
sol
The value of x wi is calculated as a function of temperature, using
the Water Solubility model (WATSOL).
Rigorous Three- The unit operation models that can perform rigorous three-phase or
Phase Calculations two-liquid-phase calculations are indicated in the table labeled
Unit Operation Models That Allow Three-Phase Calculations.
These calculations make no assumptions about the nature of the
two liquid phases. The Aspen Physical Property System uses the
primary property method to calculate the K-values of all
components in both liquid phases. The second liquid phase does
not have to be aqueous. If the second liquid phase is aqueous, the
solubility of organics in water is treated rigorously. To obtain
correct three-phase results, you must use the appropriate binary
parameters for the property model used in the property method.
Specify rigorous three-phase calculations at the individual block
level, using the flash option Valid Phases=Vapor-Liquid-Liquid,
except for Flash3. Flash3 has no flash options, since it performs
only rigorous three-phase flashes.
Extract always performs rigorous two-liquid-phase calculations.
CHAPTER 7
Petroleum Components
Characterization Methods
Overview
The Aspen Physical Property System provides a wide range of
methods for characterization of petroleum components, or
pseudocomponents. These methods are used to estimate property
parameters, such as critical properties, ideal gas heat capacity,
vapor pressure, and liquid viscosity. The following table lists the:
• Parameters that the Aspen Physical Property System estimates
for petroleum components
• Methods available. The literature references for each method
are listed at the end of this chapter.
Petroleum Components Characterization Methods
Parameter Description Model Available
MW Molecular weight Brule et al. (1982)
Hariu-Sage (1969)
Hariu-Sage-Aspen (1994)
Kesler-Lee (1976)
Riazi API (1987)
Riazi-Daubert (1980)
Tsang-Aspen (1978)
TC Critical temperature Brule et al. (1982)
Cavett (1962)
Kesler-Lee (1976)
Riazi API (1987)
Tsang-Aspen (1978)
Twu (1984)
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Petroleum Components Characterization Methods • 7-1
Parameter Description Model Available
PC Critical pressure Cavett (1962)
Kesler-Lee (1976)
Riazi API (1987)
Tsang-Aspen (1978)
Twu (1984)
VC Critical volume Brule et al. (1982)
Reidel (1954)
Twu (1984)
PL Vapor pressure BK-10
Kesler-Lee (1980)
Maxwell-Bonnell (1955)
Tsang-SWAP (1978)
CPIG Ideal gas heat Brule et al. (1982)
capacity Cavett (1962)
Kesler-Lee (1976)
Mathias-Monks (1982)
Tsang-Aspen (1978)
VL Liquid molar volume Cavett
Rackett (Spencer, 1972)
DHVL Enthalpy of Vetere (1973)
vaporization
OMEGA Acentric factor Defining relation
Kesler-Lee (1976)
Kesler-Lee-Aspen (1994)
MUL Liquid viscosity Watson (1935)
BWRGMA BWR orientation Brule et al. (1982)
parameter
TCBWR BWR critical Brule et al. (1982)
temperature
VCBWR BWR critical volume Brule et al. (1982)
DHFORM Standard enthalpy of Default to zero
formation Montgomery (1988)
DGFORM Standard Gibbs Default to zero
energy of formation Montgomery (1988)
WATSOL Water solubility in Aspen Physical Property System
hydrocarbon API Kerosene
Hibbard-Schalla
RKSKIJ RKS binary API 1978
parameters API 1987
7-2 • Petroleum Components Characterization Methods Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Since there are several methods available for estimation of a given
Property Methods for
parameter, the Aspen Physical Property System selects the most
Characterization of
appropriate method for a given application. These selected
Petroleum
methods are used to create an property method. There are five
Components
property methods available:
• The API-METH property method consists of methods based
mainly on the API procedure. This property method is
appropriate for refinery applications.
• COAL-LIQ property method consists of methods developed
for coal liquid applications. The database used to develop the
correlations contains a large percentage of aromatic
compounds.
• ASPEN property method consists of methods developed by
AspenTech for petroleum components and methods based on
the API procedure. This method is recommended.
• LK property method is based mainly on the methods of Kesler
and Lee.
• API-TWU property method is based on the ASPEN property
method, but uses the Twu correlations for critical properties.
The property methods available for characterization of
pseudocomponents are listed in the following table.
Property Methods for Pseudocomponents Characterization
Property Method ASPEN: Aspen Tech and API procedures
Property Method
Molecular weight Hariu-Sage-ASPEN
Tc Riazi-Daubert
Pc Riazi-Daubert
Vc Reidel
Vapor pressure BK-10
Ideal gas capacity Kesler-Lee
Enthalpy of vaporization Vetere
Acentric factor Kesler-Lee-ASPEN
Viscosity Watson
Water solubility Aspen Physical Property System
Standard enthalpy of formation Montgomery
Standard Gibbs energy of formation Montgomery
RKS binary parameters API 1978
Property Method API-METH: API Procedures
Property Method
Molecular weight Hariu-Sage
Tc Riazi-Daubert
Pc Riazi-Daubert
Vc Reidel
Vapor pressure Maxwell-Bonnell
Ideal gas heat capacity Kesler-Lee
Acentric factor Kesler-Lee
Viscosity Watson
Water Solubility Aspen Physical Property System
Standard enthalpy of formation Default to zero
Standard Gibbs energy of formation Default to zero
Water solubility in hydrocarbon Aspen Physical Property System
Property Method API-METH: For COAL-LIQ; for Coal Liquids
Property Method
Molecular weight Hariu-Sage
Tc Tsang-ASPEN
Pc Tsang-ASPEN
Vc Reidel
Vapor pressure Tsang-SWAP
Ideal gas heat capacity Mathias-Monks
Viscosity Watson
BWR orientation parameter Brule et al.
BWR Tc Brule et al.
BWR Vc Brule et al.
Standard enthalpy of formation Default to zero
Standard Gibbs energy of formation Default to zero
Property Method LK: Lee-Kesler
Property Method
Molecular weight Kesler-Lee
Tc Kesler-Lee
Pc Kesler-Lee
Vc Reidel
Vapor pressure Kesler-Lee
Viscosity Watson
Standard enthalpy of formation Aspen Physical Property System
Water solubility in hydrocarbon Montgomery
Property Method API-TWU: AspenTech, API, and Twu
Property Method
Molecular weight Hariu-Sage-ASPEN
Tc Twu
Pc Twu
Vc Twu
Vapor pressure BK-10
Acentric factor Kesler-ASPEN
Viscosity Watson
Water solubility API kerosene-line
Standard enthalpy of formation Montgomery
Water Solubility in Petroleum
Pseudocomponents
The solubility of water in the hydrocarbon phase is calculated by
the water-solubility correlation. Coefficients for this correlation for
a pseudocomponent can be calculated using any of the following:
• The Kerosene line correlation (API Technical databook
procedure 9A1.4).
• An AspenTech proprietary correlation which depends on TB,
SG and MW.
• The Hibbard & Schalla Correlation. API Technical Data Book
Procedure 9A1.5
The NRTL and UNIQUAC binary parameters for water and
pseudocomponents are intended for use in LLE calculations, as
water and hydrocarbons tend to form two liquid phases. These
interaction parameters are estimated from the mutual solubility
data. The solubility of water is estimated from one of the methods
described above. The solubility of pseudocomponent in water is
estimated from the API procedure 9A2.17.
Since water and hydrocarbons are essentially immiscible, the
mutual solubilities are very low. As a result, the solubility is
inversely proportional to the infinite dilution activity coefficients.
For infinitely dilute binary system, binary interaction parameters
for the NRTL and UNIQUAC models can be computed directly
from infinite-dilution activity coefficient data.
References
M.R. Brulé, C.T. Lim, L.L. Lee, and K.E. Starling, AICHE J., 28,
p. 616 (1982).
R.H. Cavett, "Physical Data for Distillation Calculations – Vapor-
Liquid Equilibria," Presented at 27th Midyear Meeting of API
Division of Refining, May 15, 1982.
R.H. Cavett, FLOWTRAN Physical Properties Reference Manual,
Monsanto Company.
C.W. Edmister, e. Applied Hydrocarbon Thermodynamics, 2nd
edition, Gulf Publishing Co., (1988).
O.H. Hariu and R.C. Sage, Hydro. Proc., (1969).
M.G. Kesler and B.I. Lee, Hydro. Proc., 55 (3), p. 153, (1976).
M.G. Kesler and B.I. Lee, Hydro. Proc., 59 (7), p. 163, (1980).
P.M. Mathias, and K.G. Monks, SRC-I Quarterly Progress Report,
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., April – June 1982.
Maxwell and Bonnell, API Procedure 5A1.15.
L. Reidel, API Prodedure 4A3.1.
M.R. Riazi and T.E. Daubert, Hydro. Proc., 59 (3), p. 115, (1980).
D. B. Robinson and D. Y. Peng "The Characterization of the
Heptanes and Heavier Fractions for the GPA Peng-Robinson
Programs," GPA Research Report RR-28, March (1978).
C.F. Spencer and R.P. Danner, J. Chem Eng. Data., 17, (1972).
M. Tsang, Computer-Aided Industrial Process Design, The
ASPEN Project, Second Annual Report, June 1, 1977 to May 30,
1978; Submitted to U.S. D.O.E. by M.I.T. Department of Chemical
Engineering and Energy Laboratory under Contract No. E(49–18)
2295, Task No. 9, June 15, 1978.
A. Vetere, "Modification of the Kistiakowsky Equation for the
Calculation of the Enthalpies of Vaporization of Pure
Compounds," Laboratory Richerche Chimica Industriale SNAM
PROGETTI, San Donato, Milanese, 1973.
K. Watson et al., API Figure 11A4.1.
C. H. Twu, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 16, p. 137 (1984).
CHAPTER 8
Property Parameter Estimation
Overview
This chapter describes:
• Estimation methods used by the Property Constant Estimation
System (PCES)
• How to generate a report for the estimated parameters
If you request estimation, the Aspen Physical Property System, by
default, estimates all missing property parameters required by
physical property models. These parameters include any not
available in the databank and not specified on Properties
Parameters forms. The following table labeled Parameters
Estimated by the Aspen Physical Property System lists all the
parameters that the Aspen Physical Property System can estimate.
Parameters Estimated by Pure Component Constants
the Aspen Physical Parameter Description Model †
Property System
MW Molecular weight
TB Normal boiling point
TC Critical temperature
PC Critical pressure
VC Critical volume
ZC Critical compressibility factor
DHFORM Standard heat of formation at 25° C
DGFORM Standard Gibbs free energy of
formation at 25° C
OMEGA Pitzer acentric factor
DHVLB Heat of vaporization at TB
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Property Parameter Estimation • 8-1
Pure Component Constants
Parameter Description Model †
VB Liquid molar volume at TB
VLSTD Standard liquid volume
RGYR Radius of gyration
DELTA Solubility parameter at 25° C
GMUQR UNIQUAC R parameter UNIQUAC
GMUQQ UNIQUAC Q parameter UNIQUAC
PARC Parachor ††
DHSFRM Solid enthalpy of formation at 25° C
DGSFRM Solid Gibbs energy of formation at
25° C
DHAQHG Aqueous infinite dilution enthalpy of Helgeson
formation
DGAQHG Aqueous infinite dilution Gibbs Helgeson
energy of formation
S25HG Entropy at 25° C Helgeson
Temperature-Dependent Property Correlation Parameters
CPIG Ideal gas heat capacity Ideal Gas Heat
Capacity/DIPPR
CPLDIP Liquid heat capacity Liquid Heat
Capacity, DIPPR
CPSPO1 Solid heat capacity Solid Heat
Capacity
PLXANT Vapor pressure Antoine/Wagner
DHVLWT Heat of vaporization Watson/DIPPR
RKTZRA Liquid molar volume Rackett/DIPPR
OMEGHG Helgeson OMEGA heat capacity Helgeson
coefficient
CHGPAR Helgeson C Heat Capacity Coefficient Helgeson
MUVDIP Vapor viscosity Chapman-
Enskog-
Brokaw/DIPPR
MULAND Liquid viscosity Andrade/DIPPR
KVDIP Vapor thermal conductivity Stiel-
Thodos/DIPPR
KLDIP Liquid thermal conductivity Sato-
Riedel/DIPPR
SIGDIP Surface tension Hakim-Steinberg-
Stiel/DIPPR
8-2 • Property Parameter Estimation Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Binary Parameters
WILSON/1, Wilson parameters Wilson
WILSON/2
NRTL/1, NRTL parameters NRTL
NRTL/2
UNIQ/1, UNIQUAC parameters UNIQUAC
UNIQ/2
UNIFAC Group Parameters
GMUFR UNIFAC R Parameter UNIFAC
GMUFQ UNIFAC Q Parameter UNIFAC
GMUFDR R parameter for Dortmund UNIFAC Dortmund
UNIFAC
GMUFDQ Q parameter for Dortmund UNIFAC Dortmund
UNIFAC
GMUFLR R parameter for Lyngby UNIFAC Lyngby UNIFAC
GMUFLQ Q parameter for Lyngby UNIFAC Lyngby UNIFAC
† See Chapter 3 for more information on models.
†† Parachor is needed in estimating surface tension and radius of
gyration
Description of Estimation Methods

This section describes the:
• Methods available for estimating property parameters
• Application range for each method (when appropriate)
• Expected error for each method (when appropriate)
The expected error information can help you to evaluate a method.
Molecular Weight (MW) If you use the general method to enter molecular structure on the
Properties Molecular Structure General sheet, the Aspen Physical
Property System estimates molecular weight from the molecular
formula. If you do not use the general method, then either:
• You must enter molecular weight using the Properties
Parameters Pure Component Scalar form
• The molecular weight must be available from the Aspen
Physical Property System databank.
Normal Boiling Point (TB) The Aspen Physical Property System uses the normal boiling point
to estimate many other parameters, such as critical temperature and
critical pressure, if they are missing. Normal boiling point is one of
the most important pieces of information required for
property/parameter estimation. Therefore, if you have an
experimental normal boiling point, you should enter it using the
Properties Parameters Pure Component Scalar form.
PCES provides the following methods for estimating normal
boiling point:
Method Information Required
Joback Structure
Ogata-Tsuchida Structure
Gani Structure
Mani TC, PC, Vapor pressure data
Joback Method
The Joback method gives only an approximate estimate of normal

boiling point. Absolute average error is 12.9 K for 408 diverse
organic compounds. The Joback method is less accurate than the
Ogata-Tsuchida method, but it is easier to use and applies to a
wider range of compounds.
Table 3.5 in Physical Property Data lists the functional groups for
the Joback method.
Ogata-Tsuchida Method
The Ogata-Tsuchida method is for compounds with a single

functional group (such as -OH) and a radical type (such as methyl).
This method performed reliably for 600 compounds tested; 80%
were within 2 K, 89% were within 3 K, and 98% were within 5 K.
Deviations larger than 5 K were generally for compounds
containing the methyl radical.
the Ogata-Tsuchida method.
Gani Method
The Gani method uses contributions from both first-order and

second-order groups. The second order groups account for the
effect of neighboring atoms. Use of second order groups results in
higher accuracy. The estimation error of this method is about 2/5
of that of the Joback method. (AIChE J. 40,1697,1994).
Table 3.4A in Physical Property Data lists the functional groups
for this method.
Mani Method
The Mani method was developed by Juan-Carlos Mani of Aspen

Technology. This method estimates TB from the Riedel equation
when one or two experimental vapor pressure data are available.
This method can also be used to estimate TC and vapor pressure.
This method provides very accurate and reliable estimate of TB,
TC and vapor pressure curve when some experimental vapor
pressure data is available. It is very useful for complex compounds
that decompose at temperatures below the normal boiling points.
Critical Temperature (TC) PCES provides the following methods for estimating critical
temperature :
Joback Structure, TB
Lydersen Structure, TB
Ambrose Structure, TB
Fedors Structure
Simple MW, TB
Gani Structure
Mani PC, Vapor pressure
Joback Method
The Joback method is based on the Lydersen method, except it

uses a larger database and has fewer functional groups. Joback
tested approximately 400 organic compounds. The average relative
error is 0.8%. The average error is 4.8K.
the Joback method.
Lydersen Method
The Lydersen method is one of the first successful methods for

estimating critical parameters. The functional groups listed in
Table 3.7, Physical Property Data, are almost identical to those for
the Joback method. The estimated error for TC is usually less than
2%. For high molecular weight nonpolar compounds (MW >>
100), the errors are 5% or higher.
Ambrose Method
The Ambrose method yields smaller errors than the Joback and
Lydersen methods, but is more difficult to use. Table 3.1 in
Physical Property Data lists the functional groups for this method.
The errors for approximately 400 organic compounds are: average
relative error = 0.7%; average error=4.3K.
Fedors Method
The Fedors method is not as accurate as the Joback, Lydersen, and

Ambrose methods. For some compounds, the errors can be very
large. Klincewicz and Reid (AIChE J. 30, 137, 1984) reported an
average error of 4% for 199 compounds. Use this method only
when TB is unknown. Table 3.4 in Physical Property Data lists the
functional groups for this method.
Simple Method
The Simple method does not depend on molecular structure, but

requires MW and TB as input. This method was developed by
Klincewicz and Reid. The average error for about 200 diverse
organic compounds tested is 2.3%.
Gani Method

higher accuracy (AIChE J. 40,1697,1994). Estimation accuracy is
generally superior to other methods For 400 compounds tested,
the average relative error is 0.85%. The average error is 4.85K.
for this method.
Mani Method

Technology. This method estimates TC from the Riedel equation
when one or two experimental vapor pressure values are available.
This method can also be used to estimate TB and vapor pressure.
This method provides very accurate and reliable estimate of TB,
pressure data is available. It is very useful for complex compounds
that decompose at temperatures below the normal boiling points.
Critical Pressure (PC) PCES provides the following methods for estimating critical
pressure:
Joback Structure
Lydersen Structure, MW
Ambrose Structure, MW
Gani Structure
Joback Method

uses a larger database and has fewer functional groups. For 390
organic compounds tested, the average relative error is 5.2%; the
average error is 2.1bar.
the Joback method.
Lydersen Method

Table 3.7, Physical Property Data, are almost identical to those for
the Joback method. The estimated error is approximately 4%.
Ambrose Method
For 390 organic compounds tested, the average relative error is 4.6
%; the average error is 1.8 bar.
Gani Method

generally superior to other methods. For 390 organic compounds
tested, the average relative error is 2.89 %; the average error is
1.13 bar. Table 3.4A in Physical Property Data lists the functional
groups for this method.
Critical Volume (VC) PCES provides the following methods for estimating critical
volume:
Joback Structure
Lydersen Structure
Ambrose Structure
Riedel TB, TC, PC
Fedors Structure
Gani Structure
Joback Method

uses a larger database and has fewer functional groups. For 310
organic compounds tested, the average relative error is 2.3%; the
average error is 7.5 cc/mole.
the Joback method.
Lydersen Method

Table 3.7 Physical Property Data are almost identical to those for
the Joback method. The estimated error is approximately 4%.
Ambrose Method
For 310 organic compounds tested, the average relative error is
2.8%; the average error is 8.5 cc/mole.
Riedel Method
This method is recommended for hydrocarbons only.

Fedors Method
The Fedors method is not as accurate as the Joback, Lydersen, and

Ambrose methods. For some compounds, the errors can be very
large. Klincewicz and Reid (AIChE J. 30, 137, 1984) reported an
average error of 4% for 199 compounds. Use this method only
when TB is unknown. Table 3.4 in Physical Property Data lists the
functional groups for this method.
Gani Method

generally superior to other methods. For 310 organic compounds
tested, the average relative error is 1.79%; the average error is 6.0
cc/mole. Table 3.4A in Physical Property Data lists the functional
groups for this method.
Critical Compressibility The Aspen Physical Property System calculates the critical
Factor (ZC) compressibility factor (ZC) by:
PV
Zc = c c
RTc
Where:
R = Universal gas constant
Pc = Critical pressure
Vc = Critical volume
Tc = Critical temperature
Acentric Factor (OMEGA) PCES provides two methods for estimating acentric factor:
• Definition method
• Lee-Kesler method
Definition Method
When you use the definition method, the acentric factor is

calculated from its definition:
 P* 
ω i = − log10  i  − 10
.
 Pci 
*
Where Pi is vapor pressure calculated at reduced temperature,
T
Tci
( ) of 0.7.
When you use the definition method, the vapor pressure correlation
parameters PLXANT, TC, and PC must be available from the
databank or estimated.
Lee-Kesler Method
The Lee-Kesler method depends on TB, TC, and PC. This method
is recommended for hydrocarbons. Lee and Kesler reported that
this method yields values of acentric factors close to those selected
by Passut and Danner (Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 12, 365,
1973).
Standard Enthalpy of PCES provides the following methods for estimating standard
Formation (DHFORM) enthalpy of formation:
Benson Structure
Joback Structure
BensonR8 Structure
Gani Structure
All methods are group contribution methods that apply to a wide
range of compounds. The Benson Method is recommended.
Benson Method
The Benson method is a second-order group contribution method.

This method:
• Accounts for the effect of neighboring atoms
• Is more complex to use than the Joback method
• Reports more accurate results than Joback (average error is 3.7
kJ/mol)
the Benson method.
Joback Method
The Joback method is a first-order group contribution method. It is

simpler to use than the other available methods, but is less
accurate. Reported average error is 8.9 kJ/mol.
the Joback method.
BensonR8 Method
This is the Benson method provided with Release 8 of Aspen Plus.

It is retained for upward compatibility. The Benson method is
preferred.
Gani Method

higher accuracy than the Joback method (average error is 3.71
kJ/mol) (AIChE J. 40,1697,1994).
for this method.
Standard Gibbs Free PCES provides the following methods for estimating standard
Energy of Formation Gibbs free energy of formation:
(DGFORM)
Joback Structure
Benson Structure
Gani Structure
Benson Method
The Benson method is a second-order group contribution method.

For this property, the Benson method requires you to enter the
symmetry number and the number of possible optical isomers, if
applicable. The Aspen Physical Property System does not generate
this information automatically from the general molecular
structure.
the Benson method.
Joback Method

simpler to use than the other available methods, but is less
accurate. Reported errors are in the range of 5 to 10 kJ/mol. The
errors are larger for complex materials.
the Joback method.
Gani Method

higher accuracy (AIChE J. 40,1697,1994).
The Gani method:
• Is more complex to use than the Joback method
• Reports more accurate results than Joback (average error is
3.24 kJ/mol)
for this method
Heat of Vaporization at PCES estimates heat of vaporization at the normal boiling point by
TB (DHVLB) applying the heat of vaporization correlation (DHVLWT) at TB.
Liquid Molar Volume at PCES estimates liquid molar volume at the normal boiling point by
TB (VB) applying the Rackett equation (RKTZRA) at TB.
Standard Liquid Volume PCES estimates standard liquid volume by applying the Rackett
(VLSTD) liquid molar volume correlation (RKTZRA) at 60° F.
Radius of Gyration PCES estimates radius of gyration from parachor (PARC).
(RGYR)
Solubility Parameter The solubility parameter is calculated from the definition.

(DELTA)
UNIQUAC R and Q PCES provides the Bondi method for estimating the UNIQUAC R
Parameters (GMUQR, and Q parameters. This method requires only molecular structure
GMUQQ) as input. Table 3.3 in Physical Property Data lists the functional
groups.
Parachor (PARC) PCES provides one method for estimating Parachor. The Parachor
method is a group-contribution method. The functional groups for
this method are listed in Table 3.10 in Physical Property Data.
Ideal Gas Heat Capacity PCES provides three methods for estimating ideal gas heat
(CPIG) capacity:
Data Ideal gas heat capacity data
Benson Structure
Joback Structure
PCES uses the Ideal-Gas-Heat-Capacity-Polynomial model for this
property. Both the Benson and Joback methods are group-
contribution methods that apply to a wide range of compounds.
Do not use the Benson or Joback methods outside the temperature
range of 280 to 1100 K. Errors are generally less than 1 to 2%.
Benson Method
Benson is the recommended method. It accounts for the effect of

neighboring atoms. In comparison with the Joback method,
Benson:
• Is more complex to use
• Reports more accurate results (average error 1.1% for 27
diverse compounds)
the Benson method.
Joback Method

simpler to use than the Benson method, but is less accurate.
Reported average error is 1.4% for 28 diverse components.
the Joback method.
Data Method
The Data method determines parameters for the ideal gas heat
capacity polynomial. Experimental ideal gas heat capacity data are
fitted. You enter this data on the Properties Data Pure Component
form.
Vapor Pressure PCES provides the following methods for estimating vapor
(PLXANT) pressure:
Data Vapor pressure data
Riedel TB, TC, PC, (vapor pressure data)
Li-Ma Structure, TB, (vapor pressure data)
Mani TC, PC, (vapor pressure data)
The Extended Antoine model is used for this property.
Data Method
The Data method determines parameters for the Extended Antoine

equation by fitting experimental vapor pressure data that you enter
on the Properties Data Pure Component form.
Riedel Method
The Riedel method estimates parameters for the Extended Antoine

vapor pressure equation by applying the Riedel parameter and the
Plank-Riedel constraint at the critical point. It also makes use of
the condition that at the normal boiling point, the vapor pressure is
1 atm. The parameters are valid from TB to TC. This method is
accurate for nonpolar compounds, but not for polar compounds.
Li-Ma Method
The Li-Ma method is a group contribution method for estimating

parameters for the Extended Antoine vapor pressure equation. The
parameters are valid from TB to TC. This method is accurate for
polar and nonpolar compounds. For 28 diverse compounds, the
reported average error was 0.61% (Fluid Phase Equilibria, 101,
101, 1994).
for this method.
Mani Method

Technology. This method estimates parameters for the Extended
Antoine vapor pressure equation using the Riedel equation when
one or two experimental vapor pressure data values are available.
This method can also be used to estimate TB and TC.
This method provides very accurate and reliable estimates of TB,
pressure data values are available. It is very useful for complex
compounds that decompose at temperatures below the normal
boiling points. The vapor pressure equation is applicable from the
lowest temperature data point to the critical temperature.
Heat of Vaporization PCES provides the following methods for estimating heat of
(DHVLWT) vaporization:
Data Heat of vaporization data
Definition TC, PC, PL, (Heat of vaporization data)
Vetere MW, TB, (Heat of vaporization data)
Gani Structure, (Heat of vaporization data)
Ducros Structure, (Heat of vaporization data)
Li-Ma Structure, TB, (Heat of vaporization data)
The Watson model is used for this property.
Data Method
The Data method determines the Watson parameters by fitting

experimental heat of vaporization data that you enter on the
Properties Data Pure Component form.
Definition Method
The Definition method calculates heat of vaporization from the

Clausius-Clapeyron equation. It requires vapor pressure, TC, and
PC as input. The calculated heat of vaporization values are used to
determine the parameters for the Watson equation. When the
Riedel method was used to estimate vapor pressure, reported
average error for the heat of vaporization was 1.8% for 94
compounds.
Vetere Method
The Vetere method estimates heat of vaporization at TB, then uses

the Watson equation to extrapolate heat of vaporization to TC.
Reported average error is 1.6%.
Gani Method
The Gani method is a group contribution method for estimating

heat of vaporization at 298K. It uses the Watson equation to
extrapolate heat of vaporization to TC. This method requires only
molecular structure as input.
for this method.
Ducros Method
The Ducros method is a group contribution method for estimating

heat of vaporization at 298K. It uses the Watson equation to
extrapolate heat of vaporization to TC (Thermochimica Acta, 36,
39, 1980; 44, 131, 1981; 54, 153, 1982; 75, 329, 1984). This
method:
• Uses more complex structure correction
• Can be applied to organo-metallic compounds
for this method.
Li-Ma Method

heat of vaporization at different temperatures. This method
requires molecular structure and TB as input. Reported average
error for 400 diverse compounds was 1.05% (Fluid Phase
Equilibria, 1997).
for this method.
Liquid Molar Volume PCES provides three methods for estimating liquid molar volume:
(RKTZRA)
Data Liquid molar volume data
Gunn-Yamada TC, PC.OMEGA
Le Bas Structure
The Rackett model is used for this property.
Gunn-Yamada Method
The Gunn-Yamada method estimates saturated liquid molar

volume, when the reduced temperature is less than 0.99. The
calculated values are used to determine the Rackett parameter. This
method:
• Applies to nonpolar and slightly polar compounds
• Is more accurate than the Le Bas method
Le Bas Method
The Le Bas method estimates liquid molar volume at TB. The

result is used to determine the Rackett parameter. For 29 diverse
compounds, an average error of 3.9% is reported. This method
requires only molecular structure as input. Table 3.6 in Physical
Property Data lists the functional groups.
Data Method
The Data method determines the Rackett parameter by fitting the

experimental liquid molar volume data that you enter on the
Properties Data Pure Component form.
Liquid Viscosity PCES provides the following methods for estimating liquid
(MULAND) viscosity:
Data Liquid viscosity data
Orrick-Erbar Structure, MW, VL, ZC, TC, PC
Letsou-Stiel MW, TC, PC, OMEGA
The Andrade model is used for this property.
Orrick-Erbar Method
Orrick-Erbar is a group-contribution method that depends on liquid

molar volume. It is limited to low temperatures, ranging from
above the freezing point to the reduced temperature of 0.75. This
method:
• Is not reliable for highly branched structures
• Does not apply to inorganic liquids or sulfur compounds
• Reports an average error of 15% for 188 organic liquids
this method.
Letsou-Stiel Method
The Letsou-Stiel method is appropriate for high temperatures and

for reduced temperatures of 0.76 to 0.92. The average error is 3%
for 14 liquids.
Data Method
The Data method determines the Andrade parameters by fitting

experimental liquid viscosity data that you enter on the Properties
Data Pure Component form.
Vapor Viscosity PCES provides the following methods for estimating vapor
(MUVDIP) viscosity:
Data Vapor viscosity data
Reichenberg Structure, MW,TC, PC
The DIPPR vapor viscosity correlation is used for this property.
Reichenberg Method
Reichenberg is a group-contribution method. For nonpolar

compounds, the expected error is between 1 and 3%. For polar
compounds, the errors are higher, but usually less than 4%. Table
3.11 in Physical Property Data lists the functional groups for this
method.
Data Method
The Data method determines the DIPPR vapor viscosity

correlation parameters by fitting experimental vapor viscosity data
you enter on the Properties Data Pure Component form.
Liquid Thermal PCES provides the following methods for estimating liquid
Conductivity (KLDIP) thermal conductivity:
Data Liquid thermal conductivity data
Sato-Riedel MW, TB, TC
The DIPPR liquid thermal conductivity correlation is used for this
property.
Sato-Riedel Method
When you use the Sato-Riedel method, accuracy varies widely

from 1 to 20% for the compounds tested. The accuracy is poor for
light and branched hydrocarbons.
Data Method
The Data method determines the DIPPR liquid thermal

conductivity correlation parameters. This method fits experimental
liquid thermal conductivity data. Enter this data on the Properties
Data Pure Component form.
Vapor Thermal No estimation method is available for estimating vapor thermal
Conductivity (KVDIP) conductivity. You can use the Data method to fit experimental data
directly to the DIPPR vapor thermal conductivity correlation. Use
the Properties Data Pure Component form to enter experimental
vapor thermal conductivity data.
Surface Tension PCES provides the following methods for estimating surface
(SIGDIP) tension:
Data Surface tension data
Brock-Bird TB, TC, PC
Macleod-Sugden TB, TC, PC, VL, PARC
Li-Ma Structure, TB
The DIPPR surface tension correlation is used for this property.
Data Method
The Data method determines the DIPPR surface tension correlation

parameters by fitting experimental surface tension data. Enter this
data on the Properties Data Pure Component form.
Brock-Bird Method
The Brock-Bird method applies to non-hydrogen-bonded liquids.

The expected error is less than 5%.
Macleod-Sugden Method
The Macleod-Sugden method applies to nonpolar, polar, and

hydrogen-bonded liquids. For hydrogen-bonded liquids, errors are
normally less than 5 to 10%.
Li-Ma Method

surface tension at different temperature. This method requires only
molecular structure and TB as input. Reported average error for
427 diverse compounds was 1.09% (Fluid Phase Equilibria, 118,
13, 1996).
for this method.
Liquid Heat Capacity PCES provides the following methods for estimating liquid heat
(CPLDIP) capacity:
Data Liquid heat capacity data
Ruzicka Structure
The DIPPR liquid heat capacity correlation is used for this
property.
Data Method
The Data method determines the DIPPR liquid heat capacity

correlation parameters by fitting experimental liquid heat capacity
data. Enter this data on the Properties Data Pure Component form.
Ruzicka Method
The Ruzicka method is a group contribution method for estimating

parameters for the DIPPR liquid heat capacity correlation. The
parameters are valid from the melting point to the normal boiling
point. This method requires only molecular structure as input. For
9772 diverse compounds, reported average errors were 1.9% and
2.9% for nonpolar and polar compounds, respectively (J. Phys.
Chem. Ref. Data, 22, 597, 1993; 22, 619, 1993).
for this method.
Solid Heat Capacity PCES provides the following methods for estimating solid heat
(CPSPO1) capacity:
Data Solid heat capacity data
Mostafa Structure
The solid heat capacity correlation is used for this property.
Data Method
The Data method determines the solid heat capacity correlation

parameters by fitting experimental liquid heat capacity data. You
enter this data on the Properties Data Pure Component form.
Mostafa Method
The Mostafa method is a group contribution method for estimating

parameters for the solid heat capacity correlation. This method is
applied to solid inorganic salts which are divided to cations, anions
and ligands. Reported average errors for 664 diverse solid
inorganic salts, was 3.18% (Ind. Eng. Chem. RES., 35, 343, 1996).
for this method.
Solid Standard Enthalpy Only the Mostafa method is available for estimating solid standard
of Formation (DHSFRM) enthalpy of formation.
Mostafa Method
The Mostafa method is a group contribution method. This method

applies to solid inorganic salts which can be divided to cations,
anions and ligands. Reported average errors for 938 diverse solid
inorganic salts was 2.57% (Ind. Eng. Chem. RES., 34, 4577, 1995).
for this method.
Solid Standard Gibbs Only the Mostafa method is available for estimating solid standard
Free Energy of Formation Gibbs free energy of formation.
(DGSFRM)
Mostafa Method
The Mostafa method is a group contribution method. This method

applies to solid inorganic salts which can be divided to cations,
anions and ligands. Reported average errors for 687 diverse solid
inorganic salts was 2.06% (Ind. Eng. Chem. RES., 34, 4577, 1995).
for this method.
Standard Enthalpy of PCES provides the following methods for estimating standard
Formation of Aqueous enthalpy of formation of aqueous species for the Helgeson
Species (DHAQHG) electrolyte model:
AQU-DATA DHAQFM
THERMO DGAQFM, S025C
AQU-EST1 DGAQFM
AQU-EST2 S025C
AQU-DATA Method
The AQU-DATA method uses directly experimental standard

enthalpy of formation at infinite dilution (DHAQFM) if it exists in
the databank.
THERMO Method
The THERMO method estimates standard enthalpy of formation

according to thermodynamic relationship if DGAQFM and S025C
exist in the databank, as follows:
DHAQHG = DGAQFM + 298.15 * (S025C − S025E)
where S 025 E is the sum of absolute entropy of the constituent

elements of a compound at 25° C.
AQU-EST1 Method
If DGAQFM is in the databank, the AQU-EST1 method estimates

standard enthalpy of formation using an empirical relation
developed by Aspen Technology, as follows:
DHAQHG = 1105
. * DGAQFM − 12822.8
AQU-EST2 Method
If S025C is in the databank, the AQU-EST2 method estimates

standard enthalpy of formation using an empirical relation
developed by Aspen Technology, as follows:
DHAQHG = 1221113214
. + 3137.4034 * ( S 025C − S 025 E )

Standard Gibbs Free PCES provides the following methods for estimating standard
Energy of Formation of Gibbs free energy of formation of aqueous species for the
Aqueous Species Helgeson electrolyte model:
(DGAQHG) Method Information Required
AQU-DATA DGAQFM
THERMO DHAQFM, S025C
AQU-EST1 DHAQFM
AQU-EST2 S025C
AQU-DATA Method
The AQU-DATA method uses directly experimental standard

Gibbs free energy of formation at infinite dilution (DGAQFM) if it
exists in the databank.
THERMO Method
If DHAQFM and S025C are in the databank, the THERMO

method estimates standard Gibbs free energy of formation
according to thermodynamic relationship, as follows:
. * ( S 025C − S 025 E )
DGAQHG = DHAQFM − 29815

AQU-EST1 Method
If DHAQFM is in the databank, the AQU-EST1 method estimates

standard Gibbs free energy of formation using an empirical
relation developed by Aspen Technology, as follows:
DGAQHG =
( DHAQFM + 12822.8)
1105
.
AQU-EST2 Method
If S 025C is in the databank, the AQU-EST2 method estimates

standard Gibbs free energy of formation using an empirical
relation developed by Aspen Technology, as follows:
DGAQHG = 122110.2752 + 2839.2534 * ( S 025C − S 025 E )

Absolute Entropy of PCES provides the following methods for estimating absolute
Aqueous Species entropy of aqueous species for the Helgeson electrolyte model:
(S25HG) Method Information Required
AQU-DATA S025C
THERMO DGAQFM, DHAQFM
AQU-EST1 DGAQFM
AQU-EST2 DHAQFM
AQU-DATA Method
The AQU-DATA method uses directly the experimental absolute

entropy (S025C) if it exists in the databank.
THERMO Method
If DGAQFM and DHAQFM are in the databank, the THERMO

method estimates absolute entropy according to thermodynamic
relationship, as follows:
S 25 HG =
(DHAQFM − DGAQFM ) + S 025E
298.15
AQU-EST1 Method
If DGAQFM is in the databank, the AQU-EST1 method estimates

absolute entropy using an empirical relation developed by Aspen
Technology, as follows:
S 25 HG = 3.52205 x10 −4 ∗ DGAQFM − 43.00788 + S 025 E
AQU-EST2 Method
If DHAQFM is in the databank, the AQU-EST2 method estimates

absolute entropy using an empirical relation developed by Aspen
Technology, as follows:
S 25 HG = 3.187349 x10 −4 ∗ DHAQFM − 38.9208 + S 025 E
Born Coefficient Only the Helgeson method is available for estimating the Born
(OMEGHG) coefficient of aqueous species for the Helgeson electrolyte model.
This method requires S25HG and CHARGE as input.
Helgeson Capacity PCES provides the following methods for estimating the Helgeson
Parameters (CHGPAR) capacity parameters of aqueous species for the Helgeson
electrolyte model:
HG-AUQ OMEGHG, CPAQ0
HG-CRIS OMEGHG, S25HG, CHARGE, IONTYP
HG-EST OMEGHG, S25HG
HG-AQU Method
The HG-AQU method estimates the Helgeson capacity parameters

from the infinite dilution heat capacity CPAQ0.
HG-CRIS Method
The HG-CRIS method estimates the Helgeson capacity parameters

according to the Criss-Cobble method.
HG-EST Method
The HG-EST method estimates the Helgeson capacity parameters

using an empirical relation developed by Aspen Technology.
Binary Parameters PCES estimates binary parameters for the WILSON, NRTL, and
(WILSON, NRTL, UNIQ) UNIQUAC models, using infinite-dilution activity coefficients.
Infinite-dilution activity coefficients can be supplied by:
• Laboratory data entered on the Properties Data Mixture form,
with data type=GAMINF
• Estimation, using the UNIFAC, UNIF-LL, UNIF-DMD or
UNIF-LBY method
For best results, use experimental infinite-dilution activity
coefficient data. Of the four UNIFAC methods, the Dortmund
method (UNIF-DMD) gives the most accurate estimate of infinite-
dilution activity coefficients. This method is recommended. See
UNIFAC, UNIFAC (Dortmund modified), and UNIFAC (Lyngby
modified) for detailed descriptions of these methods.
If the data is at a single temperature, PCES estimates only the
second element of the parameter, such as WILSON/2. If the data
cover a temperature range, PCES estimates both elements of the
parameter, such as WILSON/1 and WILSON/2.
UNIFAC R and Q PCES provides the Bondi method for estimating the R and Q
Parameters (GMUFR, parameters for UNIFAC functional groups. the Aspen Physical
GMUFQ, GMUFDR, Property System uses these parameters in the UNIFAC, Dortmund
GMUFDQ, GMUFLR, UNIFAC, and Lyngby UNIFAC models. The Bondi method
GMUFLQ) requires only molecular structure as input. Table 3.3 in Physical
Property Data lists the functional groups for the Bondi method.
APPENDIX A
Bromley-Pitzer Activity
Coefficient Model
Overview
The Bromley-Pitzer activity coefficient model is a simplified Pitzer
model with the interaction parameters estimated with the
Bromley’s method. It can be used to compute activity coefficients
for aqueous electrolytes up to 6 molal ionic strength. This model is
less accurate than the Pitzer model. The model should not be used
for mixed-solvent electrolyte systems
Working Equations
The complete Pitzer equation (Fürst and Renon, 1982) for the
excess Gibbs energy is (see also Appendix C, equation 4):
GE  1   1 
= nW  f ( I ) + ∑ ∑ Bij mi m j + ∑ ∑ θ ij mi m j + ∑ ∑  ∑ mk z k  Cij mi m j + ∑ ∑ ∑ ψ ijk mi m j mk 
RT  i j i j 2 i j  k  6 i j k  (1)
Where:
GE = Excess Gibbs energy
R = Gas constant
T = Temperature
nw = Kilograms of water
zi = Charge number of ion i
x i  M w  ni = molality of ion i
mi =  =
x w  1000  nw
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model • A-1
Where:
xi = Mole fraction of ion i
xw = Mole fraction of water
Mw = Molecular weight of water (g/mol)
ni = Moles of ion i
B, C, θ and ψ are interaction parameters, and f(I) is an

electrostatic term as a function of ionic strength; these terms are
discussed in Appendix C. See Appendix C for a detailed discussion
of the Pitzer model.
The C term and the ψ term are dropped from equation 1 to give
the simplified Pitzer equation.
GE   (2)
= nW  f ( I ) + ∑ ∑ Bij mi m j + ∑ ∑ θ ij mi m j 
RT  i j i j 
Where:
Bij = (
f β (ij0) , β (ij1) , β (ij2) , β(ij3) )
Therefore, the simplified Pitzer equation has two types of binary
interaction parameters, β ’s and θ ’s. There are no ternary
interaction parameters with the simplified Pitzer equation.
Note that the Pitzer model parameter databank described in
Physical Property Data, Chapter 1, is not applicable to the
simplified Pitzer equation.
( 0) (1)
A built-in empirical correlation estimates the β and β
parameters for cation-anion pairs from the Bromley ionic
parameters, β ion and δ ion (Bromley, 1973). The estimated values of
β ( 0) ’s and β (1) ’s are overridden by the user’s input. For parameter
naming and requirements, see Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient
Model.
L.A. Bromley, "Thermodynamic Properties of Strong Electrolytes
in Aqueous Solution, " AIChE J., Vol. 19, No. 2, (1973), pp. 313 –
320.
Fürst and H. Renon, "Effect of the Various Parameters in the
Application of Pitzer's Model to Solid-Liquid Equilibrium
Preliminary Study for Strong 1-1 Electrolytes, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Des. Dev., Vol. 21, No. 3, (1982),
pp. 396 – 400.
A-2 • Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
Parameter Conversion
( 3) (1)
For 2-2 electrolytes, the parameter β corresponds to Pitzer’s β ;
β ( 2) is the same in both Aspen Physical Property System and
original Pitzer models. Pitzer refers to the 2-2 electrolyte
(1) ( 2) ( 0) ( 0) ( 2)
parameters as β , β , β , β and β retain their meanings in
(1)
both models, but Pitzer’s β is Aspen Physical Property System
β( 3) Be careful to make this distinction when entering 2-2
electrolyte parameters.
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model • A-3
A-4 • Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
APPENDIX B
Electrolyte NRTL Activity

Coefficient Model
Overview
The Electrolyte Non-Random Two Liquid (NRTL) model is a
versatile model for the calculation of activity coefficients. Using
binary and pair parameters, the model can represent aqueous
electrolyte systems as well as mixed solvent electrolyte systems
over the entire range of electrolyte concentrations. This model can
calculate activity coefficents for ionic species and molecular
species in aqueous electrolyte systems as well as in mixed solvent
electrolyte systems. The model reduces to the well-known NRTL
model when electrolyte concentrations become zero (Renon and
Prausnitz, 1969).
The electrolyte NTRL model uses the infinite dilution aqueous
solution as the reference state for ions. It adopts the Born equation
to account for the transformation of the reference state of ions from
the infinite dilution mixed solvent solution to the infinite dilution
aqueous solution.
Water must be present in the electrolyte system in order to
compute the transformation of the reference state of ions. Thus, it
is necessary to introduce a trace amount of water to use the model
for nonaqueous electrolyte systems.
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient Model • B-1
Theoretical Basis and Working
Equations
In this appendix, the theoretical basis of the model is explained and
the working equations are given. The different ways parameters
can be obtained are discussed with references to the databank
directories and the Data Regression System (DRS). The parameter
requirements of the model are given in Electrolyte NRTL Activity
Coefficient Model.
Development of the The Electrolyte NRTL model was originally proposed by Chen et
Model al., for aqueous electrolyte systems. It was later extended to mixed
solvent electrolyte systems (Mock et al., 1984, 1986). The model is
based on two fundamental assumptions:
• The like-ion repulsion assumption: states that the local
composition of cations around cations is zero (and likewise for
anions around anions). This is based on the assumption that the
repulsive forces between ions of like charge are extremely
large. This assumption may be justified on the basis that
repulsive forces between ions of the same sign are very strong
for neighboring species. For example, in salt crystal lattices the
immediate neighbors of any central ion are always ions of
opposite charge.
• The local electroneutrality assumption: states that the
distribution of cations and anions around a central molecular
species is such that the net local ionic charge is zero. Local
electroneutrality has been observed for interstitial molecules in
salt crystals.
Chen proposed an excess Gibbs energy expression which contains
two contributions: one contribution for the long-range ion-ion
interactions that exist beyond the immediate neighborhood of a
central ionic species, and the other related to the local interactions
that exist at the immediate neighborhood of any central species.
The unsymmetric Pitzer-Debije-Hückel model and the Born
equation are used to represent the contribution of the long-range
ion-ion interactions, and the Non-Random Two Liquid (NRTL)
theory is used to represent the local interactions. The local
interaction contribution model is developed as a symmetric model,
based on reference states of pure solvent and pure completely
dissociated liquid electrolyte. The model is then normalized by
infinite dilution activity coefficients in order to obtain an
unsymmetric model. This NRTL expression for the local
interactions, the Pitzer-Debije-Hückel expression, and the Born
B-2 • Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient Model Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
equation are added to give equation 1 for the excess Gibbs energy
(see the following note).
Gm*E Gm*E , PDH Gm*E , Born Gm*E ,lc (1)
= + +
RT RT RT RT
This leads to
ln γ *i = ln γ *i PDH + ln γ *i Born + ln γ *i lc (2)
Note: The notation using * to denote an unsymmetric reference

state is well-accepted in electrolyte thermodynamics and will be
maintained here. The reader should be warned not to confuse it
with the meaning of * in classical thermodynamics according to
IUPAC/ISO, referring to a pure component property. In fact in the
context of G or γ , the asterisk as superscript is never used to
denote pure component property, so the risk of confusion is
minimal. For details on notation, see Chapter 1.
Long-Range The Pitzer-Debije-Hückel formula, normalized to mole fractions of

Interaction unity for solvent and zero for electrolytes, is used to represent the
Contribution long-range interaction contribution.
1
(3)
   1000   4 Aϕ I x 
( )
2
Gm*E , PDH
= − ∑ x k      ln 1 + ρI x 2
1
RT  k  MB   ρ 
Where:
xk = Mole fraction of component k
MB = Molecular weight of the solvent B
Aϕ = Debije-Hückel parameter:
Aϕ = 3
(4)
2πN A d  2  Qe2 
1
1 
2
3   
 1000   ε w kT 
NA = Avogadro's number
d = Density of solvent
Qe = Electron charge
εw = Dielectric constant of water
T = Temperature
k = Boltzmann constant
Ix = Ionic strength (mole fraction scale):
Ix = 1
2 ∑x z 2
i i
(5)
i
xi = Mole fraction of component i

zi = Charge number of ion i
ρ = "Closest approach" parameter
Taking the appropriate derivative of equation 3, an expression for
the activity coefficient can then be derived.
1
 2 z i2  (6)
 1000  z i2 I x 2 − 2 I x 2 
( )
2 1 3
ln γ = −  Aϕ   ln 1 + ρI x +
* PDH 1
2

 MB   ρ  1 + ρI x 2 
i 1
The Born equation is used to account for the Gibbs energy of

transfer of ionic species from the infinite dilution state in a mixed-
solvent to the infinite dilution state in aqueous phase.
 ∑ x z2  (7)
Gm*E , Born Qe2  1 1   i i i  −2
=  − 
2 kT  ε ε w   ri 
10
RT
 
Where:
ri = Born radius
The expression for the activity coefficient can be derived from (7):
Qe2  1 1  z i2 −2 (8)
ln γ *i Born =  −  10
2kT  ε ε w  ri
Local Interaction The local interaction contribution is accounted for by the Non-
Contribution Random Two Liquid theory. The basic assumption of the NRTL
model is that the nonideal entropy of mixing is negligible
compared to the heat of mixing: this is indeed the case for
electrolyte systems. This model was adopted because of its
algebraic simplicity and its applicability to mixtures that exhibit
liquid phase splitting. The model does not require specific volume
or area data.
X
The effective local mole fractions ji and X ii of species j and i,
respectively, in the neighborhood of i are related by:
X ji  Xj (9)
=   G ji
X ii  X i 
Where:
Xj = x jC j Cj = z j Cj
for ions and = unity for
molecules)
e( )
G ji = −α ji τ ji
τ ji = g ji − g ii
RT
α ji = Nonrandomness factor
g ji
and g ii are energies of interaction between species j and i, and i
g α
and i, respectively. Both ij and ij are inherently symmetric
g = g ij α = α ij
( ji and ji ).
Similarly,
X ji  Xj (10)
=  G ji , ki
X ki  X k 
Where:
e( )
G ji, ki = −α ji ,ki τ ji ,ki
τ ji, ki = g ji − g ki
RT
α ji, ki = Nonrandomness factor
Apparent Binary The derivations that follow are based on a simple system of one
Systems completely dissociated liquid electrolyte ca and one solvent B.
They will be later extended to multicomponent systems. In this
simple system, three different arrangements exist:
c a c
B a B B B B
B c a
a c a B B c
solvent at cation at anion at

center center center
In the case of a central solvent molecule with other solvent
molecules, cations, and anions in its immediate neighborhood, the
principle of local electroneutrality is followed: the surrounding
cations and anions are such that the neighborhood of the solvent is
electrically neutral. In the case of a central cation (anion) with
solvent molecules and anions (cations) in its immediate
neighborhood, the principle of like-ion repulsion is followed: no
ions of like charge exist anywhere near each other, whereas
opposite charged ions are very close to each other.
The effective local mole fractions are related by the following
expressions:
X cB + X aB + X BB = 1(central solvent cells) (11)
X Bc + X ac = 1 (central cation cells) (12)
X Ba + X ca = 1 (central anion cells) (13)
Using equation 11 through 13 and the notation introduced in

equations 9 and 10 above, expressions for the effective local mole
fractions in terms of the overall mole fractions can be derived.
X i GiB (14)
X iB =
X a GcB + X c GcB + X B GBB i = c, a, or B
Xa (15)
X ac =
X a + X B GBc ,ac
Xc (16)
X ca =
X c + X B GBa ,ca
To obtain an expression for the excess Gibbs energy, let the
residual Gibbs energies, per mole of cells of central cation, anion,
or solvent, respectively, be Gm ( c − cell ) , Gm ( a − cell ) , and
Gm ( B − cell )
. These are then related to the effective local mole
fractions:
Gm ( c − cell ) = z c ( X Bc g Bc + X ac g ac ) (17)
Gm ( a − cell ) = z a ( X Ba g Ba + X ca g ca ) (18)
Gm ( B − cell ) = X aB g aB + X cB g cB + X BB g BB (19)
The reference Gibbs energy is determined for the reference states
of completely dissociated liquid electrolyte and of pure solvent.
The reference Gibbs energies per mole are then:
Gm ( c − cell ) = z c g ac (20)
Gm ( a − cell ) = z a g ca (21)
Gm ( B − cell ) = g BB (22)
Where:
zc = Charge number on cations
za = Charge number on anions
The molar excess Gibbs energy can be found by summing all
changes in residual Gibbs energy per mole that result when the
electrolyte and solvent in their reference state are mixed to form
the existing electrolyte system. The expression is:
( ) (
GmE , lc = x m Gm ( B − cell ) − Gmref ( B − cell ) + x c Gm ( c − cell ) − Gmref ( c − cell ) ) (23)
+ x ( G ( a − cell ) − G ( a − cell ))
a m
ref
m
Using the previous relation for the excess Gibbs energy and the
expressions for the residual and reference Gibbs energy (equations
17 to 19 and 20 to 22), the following expression for the excess
Gibbs energy is obtained:
GmE ,lc (24)
= X B X cB τ cB + X B X aB τ aB + X c X Bc z c τ Bc , ac + X a X Ba z a τ Ba , ca
RT
The assumption of local electroneutrality applied to cells with
central solvent molecules may be stated as:
X aB = X cB (25)
Combining this expression with the expression for the effective
local mole fractions given in equations 9 and 10, the following
equality is obtained:
GaB = GcB (26)
The following relationships are further assumed for
nonrandomness factors:
α aB = α cB = α ca , B (27)
α Bc , ac = α Ba , ca = α B, ca (28)
and,
α ca , B = α B, ca (29)
It can be inferred from equations 9, 10, and 26 to 29 that:
τ aB = τ cB = τ ca , B (30)
τ Bc , ac = τ Ba , ca = τ B, ca (31)
α τ τ
The binary parameters, ca , B , ca , B and B,ca are now the
adjustable parameters for an apparent binary system of a single
electrolyte and a single solvent.
The excess Gibbs energy expression (equation 24) must now be
normalized to the infinite dilution reference state for ions:
Gm*E ,lc GmE , lc (32)
= − x c ln γ ∞c − x a ln γ ∞a
RT RT
This leads to:
Gm*E ,lc (33)
= X B ( X cB + X aB )τ ca , B + X c X Bc τ B,ca + X a X Ba τ B, ca
RT
− X c ( τ B,ca + Gc τ ca , B ) − X a ( τ B, ca + GaB τ ca , B )
By taking the appropriate derivatives of equation 33, expressions

for the activity coefficients of all three species can be determined.
1 X B2 τ cB GcB X a τ Ba X B GBa (34)
ln γ *clc = +
zc ( X c GcB + X a GaB + X B ) ( X c + X B GBa ) 2
2
X B τ Bc GBc
+ −τ −G τ
( X a + X B GBc ) Bc cB cB
1 X B2 τ aB GaB X c τ Bc X B GBc (35)
ln γ *alc = +
za ( X c GcB + X a GaB + X B ) ( X a + X B GBc )2
2
X B τ Ba GBa
+ −τ −G τ
( X c + X B GBa ) Ba aB aB
X c GBc τ B X a X a GBa τ Ba X c (36)
ln γ lcB = X cB τ cB + X aB τ aB + +
( X a + GBc X B ) 2
( X c + GBa X B ) 2
X c X B GcB τ cB X a X B GaB τ aB
− −
( X c GcB + X a GaB + X B ) 2
( X c GcB + X a GaB + X B ) 2
Multicomponent The Electrolyte NRTL model can be extended to handle
Systems multicomponent systems.
The excess Gibbs energy expression is:
GmE ,lc
∑X G j jB τ jB 
 Xa  j
 ∑ X j G jc ,a ′c τ jc , a ′c (37)
= ∑ XB + ∑ Xc ∑
j

RT B ∑X k
k GkB c a ′  ∑ X a ′′ 
 a ′′ 
∑k X k Gkc,a ′c
  ∑ X j G ja ,c ′a τ ja , c ′a
 X c′  j
+ ∑ Xa ∑ 
c ′  ∑ X c ′′  ∑ X k Gka ,c′a
 c ′′ 
a
k
Where:
j and k can be any species (a, C, or B)
The activity coefficient equation for molecular components is
given by:
∑X G j jB τ jB
X B′ GBB′ 
 ∑k X k GkB′ τ kB′  (38)
ln γ = +∑  τ BB′ −
lc j
∑X B ′ ∑ X k GkB ′  ∑ X k GkB ′ 
B
GkB
 
k
k k k
Xa X c GBc , a ′c 
 ∑k X k Gkc,a ′c τ kc,a ′c 
+ ∑∑ τ Bc ,a ′c −
c a ′ ∑ X a ′′
a ′′
∑k X k Gkc,a ′c  ∑k X k Gkc,a ′c 
X c′ X a GBa ,c ′a 
 ∑k X k Gka ,c′a τ ka ,c′a 
+ ∑∑ τ Bc , c ′a −
a c ′ ∑ X c ′′
c ′′
∑k X k Gka ,c′a  ∑k X k Gka ,c′a 
The activity coefficient equation for cations is given by:
 X a′  ∑ ∑ X k GkB τ kB  (39)
  X k Gkc ,a ′c τ kc ,a ′c 
1 X B GcB 
ln γ c = ∑ 
lc

k
+∑  τ cB − k
zc a ′  ∑ X a ′′  ∑ X k Gkc ,a ′c B ′ ∑ X k GkB  ∑ X k GkB 
 a ′′  k k  k 
 
 X c ′  X a Gca ,c ′a 
 ∑k X k Gka ,c′a τ ka ,c′a 
+ ∑∑  τ
 ca , c ′a −
a c ′  ∑ X c ′′  ∑ X k Gka , c ′a  ∑ X k Gka ,c ′a 
 c ′′  k  k 
The activity coefficient equation for anions is given by:
1

 X c′ 
 ∑X G k ka , c ′a τ ka ,c ′a
X Bm GaB 
 ∑ X k GkB τ kB  (40)
ln γ a = ∑ 
lc

k
+∑  τ aB −
k
za c ′  ∑ X c ′′ 
 c ′′ 
∑X G k ka , c ′a B ∑ X k GkB 

∑ X k GkB 
k k k
 
 X a ′  X c Gac, a ′c 
 ∑k X k Gkc,a ′c τ kc,a ′c 
+ ∑∑   τ ac,a ′c −
c a ′  ∑ X a ′′  ∑ X k Gkc , a ′c 
 a ′′  k 
∑k X k Gkc,a ′c 
Where:
∑X G a ca , B
(41)
GcB = a
∑X a′
a′
∑X G c ca , B
(42)
GaB = c
∑X c′
c′
∑X α a B , ca
(43)
α Bc = α cB = a
∑X a′
a′
∑X α c B , ca
(44)
α Ba = α aB = c
∑X c′
c′
ln GcB (45)
τ cB = −
α cB
ln GaB (46)
τ aB = −
α cB
τ Ba ,ca = τ aB − τ ca , B + τ B, ca (47)
τ Bc ,ac = τ cB − τ ca ,B + τ B,ca (48)
Parameters The model adjustable parameters include:
• Pure component dielectric constant coefficient of nonaqueous
solvents
• Born radius of ionic species
• NRTL interaction parameters for molecule-molecule,
molecule-electrolyte, and electrolyte-electrolyte pairs
Note that for the electrolyte-electrolyte pair parameters, the two
electrolytes must share either one common cation or one common
anion.
Each type of the electrolyte NRTL parameter consists of both the
nonrandomness factor, α , and energy parameters, τ .
The pure component dielectric constant coefficients of nonaqueous
solvents and Born radius of ionic species are required only for
mixed-solvent electrolyte systems.
The temperature dependency relations of these parameters are
given in Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient Model.
Heat of mixing is calculated from temperature derivatives of
activity coefficients. Heat capacity is calculated from secondary
temperature derivative of the activity coefficient. As a result, the
temperature dependent parameters are critical for modeling
enthalpy correctly. It is recommended that enthalpy data and heat
capacity data be used to obtain these temperature dependency
parameters. See also Electrolyte NRTL Enthalpy and Electrolyte
NRTL Gibbs Energy.
Obtaining Parameters
In the absence of electrolytes, the electrolyte NRTL model reduces
to the NRTL equation which is widely used for non-electrolyte
systems. Therefore, molecule-molecule binary parameters can be
obtained from binary nonelectrolyte systems.
Electrolyte-molecule pair parameters can be obtained from data
regression of apparent single electrolyte systems.
Electrolyte-electrolyte pair parameters are required only for mixed
electrolytes with a common ion. Electrolyte-electrolyte pair
parameters can affect trace ionic activity precipitation. Electrolyte-
electrolyte pair parameters can be obtained by regressing solubility
data of multiple component electrolyte systems.
When the electrolyte-molecule and electrolyte-electrolyte pair
parameters are zero, the electrolyte NRTL model reduces to the
Debije-Hückel limiting law. Calculation results with electrolyte-
molecule and electrolyte-electrolyte pair parameters fixed to zero
should be adequate for very dilute weak electrolyte systems;
however, for concentrated systems, pair parameters are required
for accurate representation.
See Physical Property Data, Chapter 1, for the pair parameters
available from the electrolyte NRTL model databank. The table
contains pair parameters for some electrolytes in aqueous solution
at 100°C. These values were obtained by using the Aspen Physical
Property Data Regression System (DRS) to regress vapor pressure
and mole fraction data at T=100°C with SYSOP15S (Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics, 1975). In running the DRS, standard
deviations for the temperature (°C), vapor pressure (mmHg), and
mole fractions were set at 0.2, 1.0, and 0.001, respectively. In
addition, complete dissociation of the electrolyte was assumed for
all cases.
References
C.-C. Chen, H.I. Britt, J.F. Boston, and L.B. Evans, "Local
Compositions Model for Excess Gibbs Energy of Electrolyte
Systems: Part I: Single Solvent, Single Completely Dissociated
Electrolyte Systems:, AIChE J., Vol. 28, No. 4, (1982), p. 588-596.
C.-C. Chen, and L.B. Evans, "A Local Composition Model for the
Excess Gibbs Energy of Aqueous Electrolyte Systems," AIChE J.,
Vol. 32, No. 3, (1986), p. 444-459.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 56th Edition, CRC Press,
1975, p. E-1.
B. Mock, L.B. Evans, and C.-C. Chen, "Phase Equilibria in
Multiple-Solvent Electrolyte Systems: A New Thermodynamic
Model," Proceedings of the 1984 Summer Computer Simulation
Conference, p. 558.
B. Mock, L.B. Evans, and C.-C. Chen, "Thermodynamic
Representation of Phase Equilibria of Mixed-Solvent Electrolyte
Systems," AIChE J., Vol. 32, No. 10, (1986), p. 1655-1664.
H. Renon, and J.M. Prausnitz, "Local Compositions in
Thermodynamic Excess Functions for Liquid Mixtures", AIChE J.,
Vol. 14, No. 1, (1968), pp. 135-144.
APPENDIX C
Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model
Overview
The Pitzer model was developed as an improvement upon an
earlier model proposed by Guggenheim (1935, 1955). The earlier
model worked well at low electrolyte concentrations, but contained
discrepancies at higher concentrations (>0.1M). The Pitzer model
resolved these discrepancies, without resorting to excessive arrays
of higher-order terms.
The model can be used for aqueous electrolyte systems, up to 6
molal ionic strength. It cannot be used for mixed solvent
electrolyte systems.
This appendix provides theoretical background for the model. All
model equations are included. Parameter requirements are
discussed in Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model.
Model Development
The Pitzer model analyzes "hard-core" effects in the Debije-
Hückel theory. It uses the following expansion as a radial
distribution function:
g ij ( r ) = 1 − qij ( r ) + 1 2 qij2 ( r ) (1)
Where:
gij = Distribution function
r = Radius
qij = Ψj ( r)
z i Qe
kT (pair potential of mean force)
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model • C-1
With:
zi = Charge of ion i
Qe = Electron charge
Ψj (r) = Average electric potential for ion j
k = Boltzmann’s constant
T = Temperature
This radial distribution function is used in the so-called pressure
equation that relates this function and the intermolecular potential
to thermodynamic properties. From this relation you can obtain an
expression for the osmotic coefficient.
Pitzer proposes a general equation for the excess Gibbs energy.
The basic equation is:
GE (2)
= f (1) + ∑ ∑ λ ij ( I ) mi m j + ∑ ∑ ∑ µ ijk mi m j mk
nw RT i j i j k
Where:
GE = Excess Gibbs energy
R = Gas constant
T = Temperature
nw = Kilograms of water
mi = x i  M w  ni
 =
x w  1000  nw (molality of ion i)
With:
xi = Mole fraction of ion i
xw = Mole fraction of water
Mw = Molecular weight of water (g/mol)
ni = Moles of ion i
The function f(I) is an electrostatic term that expresses the effect of
long-range electrostatic forces between ions. This takes into
account the hard-core effects of the Debije-Hückel theory. This
term is discussed in detail in the following section. The parameters
λ ij
are second virial coefficients that account for the short-range
µ
forces between solutes i and j. The parameters ijk account for the
λ
interactions between solutes, i, j, k. For ion-ion interactions, ij is
C-2 • Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1
a function of ionic strength. For molecule-ion or molecule-
molecule interactions this ionic strength dependency is neglected.
µ
The dependence of ijk on ionic strength is always neglected. The
λ µ
matrices ij and ijk are also taken to be symmetric (that is,
λ ij = λ ji
).
Pitzer modified this expression for the Gibbs energy by identifying
combinations of functions. He developed interaction parameters
that can be evaluated using experimental data. He selected
mathematical expressions for these parameters that best fit
experimental data.
Pitzer’s model can be applied to aqueous systems of strong
electrolytes and to aqueous systems of weak electrolytes with
molecular solutes. These applications are discussed in the
following section.
Application of the Pitzer Model to

Aqueous Strong Electrolyte Systems
Pitzer modified his basic equation to make it more useful for data
correlation of aqueous strong electrolytes. He defined a set of more
directly observable parameters to represent combinations of the
second and third virial coefficients. The modified Pitzer equation
is:
      (3)
 f ( I ) + 2∑ ∑ mc ma  Bca +  ∑ mc z c  Cca  
e  c a   c   
G
= nw  
RT  
 ∑a ma Ψcc′a  
 ∑c mc Ψcaa ′  
+ ∑ ∑ mc mc ′  θ cc ′ +  + ∑ ∑ ma ma ′  θ aa ′ + 
 c c′  2  a a′  2 
    
zi = Charge of ion i
Subscripts c, c ′ , and a, a ′ denote cations and anions of the
solution. B, C, θ , and Ψ are interaction parameters. f(I) is an
electrostatic term as a function of ionic strength. The cation-anion
parameters B and C are characteristic for an aqueous single-
electrolyte system. These parameters can be determined by the
properties of pure (apparent) electrolytes. B is expressed as a
( 0) (1) (0) ( 2) ( 3)
function of β and β or β , β and β (see equations 11
through 15).
The parameters θ and Ψ are for the difference of interaction of
unlike ions of the same sign from the mean of like ions. These
parameters can be measured from common-ion mixtures.
Examples are NaCl + KCl + H 2 0 or NaCl + NaNO3 + H 2 0 (sic,
Pitzer, 1989). These terms are discussed in detail later in
subsequent sections of this chapter.
Fürst and Renon (1982) propose the following expression as the
Pitzer equation for the excess Gibbs energy:
    (4)
 f ( I ) + ∑ ∑ Bij mi m j + ∑ ∑ θ ij mi m j + 1 2 ∑ ∑  ∑ mk z k  Cij mi m j 
j  k 
E
G
= nw  i j i j i 
+ 1 
 6 ∑ ∑j ∑k Ψijk mi m j mk
RT
i

The difference between equations 3 and 4 is that Pitzer orders

cation before anions. Fürst and Renon do not. All summations are
taken over all ions i and j (both cations and anions). This involves
B C θ Ψ
making the parameter matrices ij , ij , ij , and ijk symmetric, as
follows:
B
Second-order parameters are written ij if i and j are ions of
B =0
if the sign of z i = sign of j , and Bii = 0 .
z
different sign. ij
B = B ji
Since cations are not ordered before anions, ij . This
eliminates the 2 in the second term in brackets in Pitzer's original
θ
expression (equation 3). Second-order parameters are written ij if
θ =0
i and j are ions of the same sign. Thus ij if the sign of z i is
θ = θ ji
, and θ ii = 0 with ij
zj
different from the sign of .
C
Third-order parameters are written ij if i and j are ions with
C =0
different signs. ij if the sign of z i = sign of z i , and Cii = 0
C = C ji
with ij . The factor of 2 in the fifth bracketed term in Pitzer's
original expression (equation 3) becomes 1/2 in equation 4. The
matrix C is symmetric and ∑ k k is extended to all ions to make
m z
the equation symmetric.
Ψijk Ψ = Ψkij = Ψ jki
is written for three different ions ijk , and
Ψ
Ψikk = 0 . ijk = 0
if the sign of z i =sign of z i =sign of z k . The
factor of 1/6 is different from 1/2 in the last term in brackets in
Pitzer's original expression. Pitzer distinguishes between cations
and anions. In Pitzer's original model this parameter appears twice,
as Ψcc ′a and Ψc ′ca . In this modified model, it appears six times, as
Ψcc ′a , Ψc ′ca , Ψacc′ , Ψac ′c , Ψcac′ and Ψc ′ac . Fürst and Renon's
expression, equation 4, calculates the expressions for activity
coefficients and osmotic coefficients.
Calculation of Activity Coefficients

The natural logarithm of the activity coefficient for ions is
calculated from equation 4 to give:
 GE  (5)
∂ 
 RT 
ln γ *m,i =
∂ni
= 1
2 z i2 f ′ + 2∑ m j Bij + 1 2 z i2 ∑ ∑ Βij ′ m j mk
j i k
+ 2∑ θ ij m j + 1 2 z i ∑ ∑ C jk m j mk
j j k
 
+ ∑  ∑ mk z k  Cij m j + 1 2 ∑ ∑ Ψijk m j mk
j  k  j k
Where θ ′ is neglected.
For water the logarithm of the activity coefficient is calculated
similarly, as follows:
Applying:
 GE 
∂ 
 RT 
ln γ m, w =
∂nw
to equation 3 and using:
N w Mw
nw =
1000
Where N w moles water, gives:

1000 (6)
ln γ m, w = f − If ′ − ∑ ∑ mi m j Bij − ∑ ∑ Bij ′ I − ∑ ∑ mi m j θ ij
Mw i j i j i j
− ∑ ∑ Σ k mk z k mi m j Cij − 13 ∑ ∑ ∑ mi m j mk Ψijk
i j i j k
f(I), the electrostatic term, is expressed as a function of ionic

strength I :
 4I 
[ (
f ( I ) = − Aϕ   ln 1 + bI 2
 b
1
)]
(7)
I, the ionic strength, is defined as:
I= 1
2 ∑m z 2
i i
(8)
i
Taking the derivative of equation 7 with respect to I, gives:

 I2 
( )
df 2
1
(9)
f ′( I ) = = −2 Aϕ  + ln 1 + bI 2 
1
1 + bI
1
dI b 
2
So that:
−2 Aϕ I
3
2 (10)
f − If ′ =
1 + bI
1
2
This equation is used in equation 6. In equations 7 and 9, is the

usual Debije-Hückel constant for the osmotic coefficient,
determined from:
3
(11)
 2 πN A d w   Qe 
1 2
2 2
Aϕ = 13    
 1000   ε B kT 
Where:
NA = Avogadro's constant
dw = Water density
εB = Dielectric constant of solvent B
b is an adjustable parameter, which has been optimized in this
model to equal 1.2.
B and B ′ need expressions so that equations 5 and 6 can
completely be solved for the activity coefficients. The parameter B
is determined differently for different electrolyte pairings. For 1-n
electrolytes (1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and so on) the following expression
gives the parameter B:
2β (ij1)  
 − α I 12  (12)
( )
 1
(0)
B = β ij + 2 1 − 1 + α1 I e  
1
2

α1 I  
with α1 =2.0.
For 2-2 electrolytes, B is determined by the following expression:
2β (ij2)  
 − α I 12 
2β (ij3)    (13)
 − α I 12 
( ) ( )
 
( 0)    
B = β ij + 2 1 − 1 + α 2 I e + 2 − + α
1 2 1 3
2
 1 1 I 2
e 
α 2 I   α 3 I
3
 
with α 2 = 12.0 and α 3 = 1.4 .

By taking appropriate derivatives, expressions for B ′ can be
derived for 1 – n electrolytes:
2β (1)  
 −2 I 1 2  (14)
( )

 
B′ = − + + +
1
2  1 1 2 I 2
2 I e 
4 I  
and for 2-2 electrolytes:
2β ( 2)  
 −12 I 1 2  (15)
( )

 
B′ = −1 + 1 + 12 I + 72 I e
2

144 I 2  
+
2β (3)  
−1 + 1 + 1.4 I +
1
2
(1.4) I   −1.4 I 2  
2
e
1

(1.4) 2 I 2   2  
( 0) (1) ( 2) ( 3)
The parameters β , β , β , β and also C, θ , and Ψ can be
found in Pitzer’s articles .
After the activity coefficients are calculated, they can be converted
to the mole fraction scale from the molality scale by the following
relations:
For ions:
 m  M  (16)
γ x , i = γ m, i  i   w 
 x i   1000 
For water:
 − ∑ mi M w  (17)
 
γ m,i exp i 
 1000 
 
γ x ,w =
xw
Where:
γm = Activity coefficient (molality scale)
γx = Activity coefficient (mole fraction scale)
Application of the Pitzer Model to

Aqueous Electrolyte Systems with
Molecular Solutes
In aqueous weak electrolyte systems with molecular solutes, the
second and third virial coefficients in the basic Pitzer equation for
molecule-ion and molecule-molecule interactions must be
considered. The following extensions of Pitzer’s interaction
parameters are made.
B
The second-order parameters ij are extended to include molecule-
molecule and molecule-ion interaction parameters.
Ψ
The third-order parameters ijk are extended to molecule-
molecule-molecule interactions. The following expressions relate
Ψijk µ
to Pitzer’s original ijk :
Ψiii = 6µ iii
However, molecule-molecule interactions were not taken into
account by Pitzer and coworkers. So µ iii is an artificially
introduced quantity.
The equations for activity coefficients and the Gibbs free energy
are the same as equations 3 through 6.
Parameters The Pitzer model in the Aspen Physical Property System involves
user-supplied parameters. These parameters are used in the
calculation of binary and ternary parameters for the electrolyte
(0)
system. These parameters include the cation-anion parameters β
(1) (2 ) ( 3)
, β , β , β and C , cation-cation parameter θ cc′ , anion-
Φ
anion parameter θ aa′ , cation1-cation2-common anion parameter

Ψ cc′a , anion1-anion2-common cation parameter Ψ caa′ , and the
(0) (1)
molecule-ion and molecule-molecule parameters β , β and,
C Φ . The parameter names in the Aspen Physical Property System
and their requirements are discussed in Pitzer Activity Coefficient
Model.
( 3) (1)
For 2-2 electrolytes the parameter β corresponds to Pitzer’s β
Parameter Conversion
(2 )
. β is the same in both the Aspen Physical Property System and
original Pitzer models. Pitzer refers to the 2-2 electrolyte
(1) (2 ) (0) (0) (2 )
parameters as β , β , β . β and β retain their
(1) ( 3)
meanings in both models, but Pitzer’s β is β in the Aspen
Physical Property System. Be careful to make this distinction when
entering 2-2 electrolyte parameters.
(0) (1) (2 ) ( 3)
Pitzer often gives values of β , β , β , β , and C that are
Φ
corrected by some factors (see Pitzer and Mayorga (1973) for

examples). These factors originate from one of Pitzer’s earlier
expressions for the excess Gibbs energy:
GE (18)
GE
= f + m (2ncna ) B + m 2(ncna ) 
Cca
3 2
3
GE 2 GE
nw RT  
Where:
= 1 2 Ccaφ
E
CcaG
na = Mole number of anions
nc = Mole number of cation
(0) (1) (2 ) ( 3)
Here β , β , β , and β are multiplied by a factor of 2ncna .
2(nc na )
3
2
C is multiplied by a factor of .
Aspen Physical Property System accounts for these correcting
factors. Enter the parameters without their correcting factors.
M g Cl2
For example, Pitzer gives the values of parameters for as:
4 3 β ( 0) = 0.4698
4 3 β (1) = 2.242
25 2 φ = 0.00979
C
3
Perform the necessary conversions and enter the parameters as:
( 0)
β Mg 2+
,Cl −
= 0.3524
( 0)
β Mg 2+
,Cl −
= 1.6815
C φMg 2+ ,Cl − = 0.00520
Parameter Sources Binary and ternary parameters for the Pitzer model for various
electrolyte systems are available from Pitzer’s series on the
thermodynamics of electrolytes. These papers and the electrolyte
parameters they give are:
Reference Parameters available
(Pitzer, 1973)
Binary parameters
( β ( ) , β ( ) ,C )
0 1 φ
for 13 dilute aqueous electrolytes
(Pitzer and Mayorga, 1973) Binary parameters for 1-1 inorganic electrolytes, salts of carboxylic acids
(1-1), tetraalkylammonium halids, sulfonic acids and salts, additional 1-1
organic salts, 2-1 inorganic compounds, 2-1 organic electrolytes, 3-1
electrolytes, 4-1 and 5-1 electrolytes
(Pitzer and Mayorga, 1974) Binary parameters for 2-2 electrolytes in water at 25°C
(Pitzer and Kim, 1974) Binary and ternary parameters for mixed electrolytes, binary mixtures
without a common ion, mixed electrolytes with three or more solutes
(Pitzer, 1975) Ternary parameters for systems mixing doubly and singly charged ions
(Pitzer and Silvester, 1976) Parameters for phosphoric acid and its buffer solutions
(Pitzer, Roy and Silvester, Parameters and thermodynamic properties for sulfuric acid
1977)
(Pitzer and Silvester, 1977) Data for NaCl and aqueous NaCl solutions
(Pitzer, Silvester, and Peterson, Rare earth chlorides, nitrates, and perchlorates
1978)
(Peiper and Pitzer, 1982) Aqueous carbonate solutions, including mixtures of sodium carbonate,
bicarbonate, and chloride
(Phutela and Pitzer, 1983) Aqueous calcium chloride
(Pitzer, Conceicao, and deLima, Saturated aqueous solutions, including mixtures of sodium chloride,
1983) potassium chloride, and cesium chloride
References
C.-C. Chen, H.I. Britt, J.I. Boston and L.B. Evans, "Extension and
Application of the Pitzer Equation for Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
of Aqueous Electrolyte Systems with Molecular Solutes,"
AIChE.J., Vol. 25, (1979), pp. 820-831.
M. Conceicao, P. de Lima, and K.S. Pitzer, "Thermodynamics of
Saturated Aqueous Solutions Including Mixtures of NaCl, KCl,
and CsCl, "J. Solution Chem, Vol. 12, No. 3, (1983), pp. 171-185.
W. Fürst and H. Renon, "Effects of the Various Parameters in the
Application of Pitzer's Model to Solid-Liquid Equilibrium.
Preliminary Study for Strong 1-1 Electrolytes," Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Des. Dev., Vol. 21, No. 3, (1982), pp. 396-400.
E.A. Guggenheim, Phil. Mag., Vol. 7, No. 19, (1935), p. 588.
E.A. Guggenheim and J.C. Turgeon, Trans. Faraday Soc., Vol. 51,
(1955), p. 747.
J.C. Peiper and K.S. Pitzer, "Thermodynamics of Aqueous
Carbonate Solutions Including Mixtures of Sodium Carbonate,
Bicarbonate, and Chloride," J. Chem. Thermodynamics, Vol. 14,
(1982), pp. 613-638.
R.C. Phutela and K.S. Pitzer, "Thermodynamics of Aqueous
Calcium Chloride," J. Solution Chem., Vol. 12, No. 3, (1983), pp.
201-207.
K.S. Pitzer, "Thermodynamics of Electrolytes. I. Theoretical Basis
and General Equations, " J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 77, No. 2, (1973),
pp. 268-277.
K.S. Pitzer, J. Solution Chem., Vol. 4, (1975), p. 249.
K.S. Pitzer, "Theory: Ion Interaction Approach," Activity
Coefficients in Electrolyte Solutions, Pytkowicz, R. ed., Vol. I,
(CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1979).
K.S. Pitzer, "Fluids, Both Ionic and Non-Ionic, over Wide Ranges
of Temperature and Composition," J. Chen. Thermodynamics, Vol.
21, (1989), pp. 1-17. (Seventh Rossini lecture of the commission
on Thermodynamics of the IUPAC, Aug. 29, 1988, Prague, ex-
Czechoslovakia).
K.S. Pitzer and J.J. Kim, "Thermodynamics of Electrolytes IV;
Activity and Osmotic Coefficients for Mixed Electrolytes," J.Am.
Chem. Soc., Vol. 96 (1974), p. 5701.
K.S. Pitzer and G. Mayorga, "Thermodynamics of Electrolytes II;
Activity and Osmotic Coefficients for Strong Electrolytes with
One or Both Ions Univalent,"
J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 77, No. 19, (1973), pp. 2300-2308.
K.S. Pitzer and L.F. Silvester, "Thermodynamics of Electrolytes
VI. Weak Electrolytes Including H3 PO4 ," J. Solution Chem., Vol.
5, (1976), p. 269.
K.S. Pitzer and G. Mayorga, J. Phys Chem., Vol. 77, (1973), p.
2300.
K.S. Pitzer and G. Mayorga, J. Solution Chem., Vol. 3, (1974), p.
539.
K.S. Pitzer and L.F. Silvester, J. Solution Chem., Vol. 5, (1976), p.
269.
K.S. Pitzer and R.N. Roy, and L.F. Silvester, "Thermodynamics of
Electrolytes 7 Sulfuric Acid," J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 99, No. 15,
(1977), pp. 4930-4936.
K.S. Pitzer, J.R. Peterson, and L.F. Silvester, "Thermodynamics of
Electrolytes. IX. Rare Earth Chlorides, Nitrates, and Perchlorates,
"J. Solution Chem., Vol. 7, No. 1, (1978), pp. 45-56.
H. Renon, "Deviation from Ideality in Electrolyte Solutions,"
Foundation of Computer-Aided Chemical Process Design, Vol. II,
Engineering Foundations, (1981), New York.
L.F. Silvester and K.S. Pitzer, "Thermodynamics of Electrolytes 8
High-Temperature Properties, Including Enthalpy and Heat
Capacity, With Application to Sodium Chloride, "J. Phys. Chem.,
Vol. 81, No. 19, (1977), pp. 1822-1828.
Index
Aspen polynomial equation: 3-103
A ASPEN pseudocomponent property method:
7-3
Acentric factor estimation methods: 8-8
Activity coefficient method
B
for calculating phase equilibrium: 1-2
list: 1-8 BARIN equations thermodynamic property
Activity coefficient method: 1-2, 1-8 model: 3-112
Activity coefficient models Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling
characteristics of: 1-29 property model: 3-11
common models for: 2-56 Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling: 3-11
list of property methods: 2-47 Binary parameters estimation methods: 8-22
list of property models: 3-64 BK10 property method: 2-11
Activity coefficient models: 1-29, 2-47, 2- B-PITZER property method: 2-66
56, 3-64 Brelvi-O’Connell model: 3-94
AMINES property method: 2-58 Bromley-Pitzer activity coefficient model:
Andrade/DIPPR viscosity model: 3-127 3-64, A-1
Antoine/Wagner vapor pressure model: 3-87 BWR-Lee-Starling property model: 3-10
API model BWR-LS property method: 2-22
liquid viscosity: 3-130
liquid volume: 3-93 C
surface tension: 3-158
Cavett thermodynamic property model: 3-
API model: 3-93, 3-130, 3-158
112
API-METH property method: 7-3
CHAO-SEA property method: 2-11, 2-12
APISOUR property method: 2-60
Chao-Seader fugacity model: 3-89
API-TWU pseudocomponent property
Chapman-Enskog
method: 7-3
Brokaw/DIPPR viscosity model: 3-130
Apparent component
Brokaw-Wilke mixing rule viscosity
approach: 5-3
model: 3-132
mole fractions: 5-6
Wilke-Lee (binary) diffusion model: 3-
Apparent component: 5-3, 5-6
153
Applications
Wilke-Lee (mixture) diffusion model: 3-
chemical: 1-15
154
liquid-liquid equilibrium: 1-20
Chapman-Enskog: 3-130, 3-132, 3-153, 3-
metallurgical: 1-15, 3-68
154
petrochemical: 1-15
Chemical reactions for electrolytes: 5-2
Applications: 1-15, 1-20, 3-68
Chemistry: 5-2
Aqueous infinite dilution heat capacity
Chien-Null activity coefficient model: 3-65
model: 3-104
Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Index • 1

Chung-Lee-Starling model liquid surface tension: 3-159
low pressure vapor viscosity: 3-133 liquid thermal conductivity: 3-147
thermal conductivity: 3-143 liquid volume: 3-99
viscosity: 3-135 surface tension: 3-159
Chung-Lee-Starling model: 3-133, 3-135, 3- vapor thermal conductivity: 3-149
143 vapor viscosity: 3-130
Clarke electrolyte liquid volume model: 3- viscosity: 3-127, 3-130
95 DIPPR model: 3-91, 3-99, 3-107, 3-127, 3-
Classes of property methods: 2-1 130, 3-147, 3-149, 3-159
Clausius-Clapeyron equation for heat of DIPPR/IK-CAPE model
vaporization: 3-92 liquid heat capacity: 3-105
Coal property models: 3-164 DIPPR/IK-CAPE model: 3-105
COAL-LIQ property method: 7-3 DIPPR: 3-3
Constant activity coefficient model: 3-68 DNSTYGEN nonconventional component
COSTALD liquid volume model: 3-97 density model: 3-162
Criss-Cobble aqueous infinite dilution ionic
heat capacity model: 3-105 E
Critical compressibility factor estimation
ELECNRTL property method: 2-61
methods: 8-8
Electrolyte activity coefficient models: 1-31
Critical pressure estimation methods: 8-6
Electrolyte calculation
Critical temperature estimation methods: 8-5
overview: 5-1
Critical volume estimation methods: 8-7
Electrolyte calculation: 5-1
Cubic equations of state: 1-21
Electrolyte data regression overview: 5-9
Electrolyte models
D
Clarke liquid volume: 3-95
Data regression electrolyte NRTL enthalpy: 3-115
and electrolytes: 5-9 Gibbs energy: 3-116
Data regression: 5-9 Jones-Dole viscosity: 3-138
Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi diffusion model Nernst-Hartley diffusion: 3-156
binary: 3-154 Onsager-Samaras surface tension: 3-160
mixture: 3-155 Riedel thermal conductivity: 3-146
Dawson-Khoury-Kobayashi diffusion Electrolyte models: 3-95, 3-115, 3-116, 3-
model: 3-154, 3-155 138, 3-146, 3-156, 3-160
DCOALIGT coal density model: 3-173 Electrolyte NRTL
Dean-Stiel pressure correction viscosity activity coefficient model: 3-68, B-1
model: 3-137 enthalpy thermodynamic property model:
Debije-Huckel volume model: 3-97 3-115
DGHARIGT char density model: 3-174 equation: 5-8
Diffusion coefficient property methods: 1- Gibbs energy thermodynamic property
33, 4-35 model: 3-116
Diffusivity models list: 3-153 Electrolyte NRTL: 3-68, 3-115, 3-116, 5-8,
DIPPR B-1
equations: 3-3 Electrolyte property methods
DIPPR model ELECNRTL: 2-61
heat of vaporization: 3-91 ENRTL-HF: 2-63
ideal gas heat capacity: 3-107
2 • Index Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

Electrolyte property methods: 2-56, 2-61, 2- General models for nonconventional
63, 2-68 components: 3-162, 3-163, 3-167
Electrolyte thermodynamic models Gibbs energy of formation estimation
overview: 5-7 methods
ENRTL-HF property method: 2-63 aqueous species: 8-19
ENRTL-HG property method: 2-63 solid: 8-18
Enthalpies model based on different standard ideal gas: 8-10
reference states: 3-118 Gibbs energy of formation estimation
Enthalpy and density models for coal and methods: 8-10, 8-18, 8-19
char: 3-164 GRAYSON property method: 2-11, 2-13
Enthalpy balances Grayson-Streed fugacity model: 3-89
nonconventional components: 1-34 Group contribution activity coefficient
Enthalpy balances: 1-34 models
Enthalpy of formation estimation methods Dortmund-modified UNIFAC: 2-48, 3-79
solid: 8-18 Lyngby-modified UNIFAC: 2-48, 3-80
standard ideal gas: 8-9 UNIFAC: 2-48, 3-77
Enthalpy of formation estimation methods: Group contribution activity coefficient
8-9, 8-18 models: 1-30, 2-48, 3-77, 3-79, 3-80
ENTHGEN nonconventional component
heat capacity model: 3-163 H
Equation-of-state
Hakim-Steinberg-Stiel/DIPPR surface
common models for property methods: 2-
tension: 3-159
28
Hayden-O’Connell
method for phase equilibrium: 1-2, 1-3
property methods: 2-44
property methods
for high-pressure hydrocarbon applications: 2-
property model: 3-15
21 Hayden-O’Connell: 2-44, 3-15
property models: 1-20, 3-9 HCOALGEN general coal model for
Equation-of-state: 1-2, 1-3, 1-20, 2-21, 2-28, enthalpy: 3-167
3-9 Heat capacity models list: 3-104
Heat of vaporization
F estimation method at TB: 8-11
estimation methods: 8-13
Flexible and predictive property methods model: 3-91
equation-of-state: 2-29 Heat of vaporization: 3-91, 8-11, 8-13
Flexible and predictive property methods: 2- Helgeson property model
29 ENRTL-HG property method: 2-63
Free-water calculations: 6-1 PITZ-HG property method: 2-68
Fugacity models list: 3-87 Helgeson property model: 2-63, 2-68
Helgeson thermodynamic property model:
G 3-122
General models for nonconventional Henry’s constant solubility correlation
components model: 3-110
coal model for enthalpy: 3-167 Henry’s Law
density polynomial model: 3-162 noncondensable components: 2-7
enthalpy and density models list: 3-162 Henry’s Law: 2-7
heat capacity polynomial model: 3-163 HF equation of state

ENRTL-HF property method: 2-63 Liquid enthalpy
property methods using: 2-45 methods: 4-18
property model: 3-18 thermodynamic property model: 3-118
HF equation of state: 2-45, 2-63, 3-18 Liquid enthalpy: 3-118, 4-18
Huron-Vidal mixing rules: 3-56 Liquid entropy methods: 4-28
Liquid fugacity coefficient methods: 4-12
I Liquid Gibbs energy methods: 4-23
Liquid heat capacity estimation methods: 8-
IAPS models for water
17
surface tension: 3-158
Liquid molar volume
thermal conductivity: 3-145
estimation methods (at TB): 8-11
viscosity: 3-138
IAPS models for water: 3-138, 3-145, 3-158
Liquid molar volume: 8-11, 8-14
Ideal gas heat capacity estimation methods:
Liquid thermal conductivity estimation
8-11
methods: 8-16
Ideal gas law
Liquid viscosity estimation methods: 8-15
property methods using: 2-42
Liquid-liquid equilibria
activity coefficient method: 1-12
Ideal gas law: 1-20, 2-42, 3-22
equation-of-state method: 1-5
Ideal gas/DIPPR heat capacity model: 3-107
Liquid-liquid equilibria: 1-5, 1-12
Ideal liquid activity coefficient model: 3-70,
Liquid-liquid-vapor equilibria
3-71
IDEAL property method: 2-7
Liquid-liquid-vapor equilibria: 1-12
IGT density model for
LK property method: 7-3
char: 3-174
LK-PLOCK property method: 2-25
coal: 3-173
Lucas vapor viscosity model: 3-141
IGT density model for: 3-173, 3-174
Intermediate properties: 4-3
M
J Major properties: 4-3
Mathias alpha function: 3-51
Jones-Dole electrolyte correction viscosity
Mathias-Copeman alpha function: 3-48, 3-
model: 3-138
51
Maxwell-Bonnell vapor pressure model: 3-
K
91
Kent-Eisenberg fugacity model: 3-89 Metallurgical applications
phase equilibria: 1-15, 2-69
L Metallurgical applications: 1-15, 2-69
Lee-Kesler Plöcker property model: 3-24 MHV2 mixing rules: 3-58
Lee-Kesler property model: 3-23 Models (physical properties)
Letsou-Stiel viscosity model: 3-140 definition: 4-38
Li mixing rule thermal conductivity model: replacing: 4-51
3-145 Models (physical properties): 4-38, 4-51
Liquid activity coefficient property methods Modified Rackett model for molar volume:
list: 2-40 3-102
Liquid activity coefficient property methods: Molar volume and density models list: 3-93
2-40 Molar volume methods: 4-30

Molecular weight estimation method: 8-3 Petroleum components characterization
methods: 7-1
N Petroleum mixtures
common models for: 2-20
Nernst-Hartley electrolyte diffusion model:
property methods for: 2-10, 2-20
3-156
Petroleum mixtures: 2-10, 2-20
Nonconventional components
Petroleum-tuned equation-of-state property
enthalpy calculations: 1-34
methods: 2-15
Nonconventional components: 1-34
Phase equilibria and solids
Nonconventional solid property models
density: 3-162
Phase equilibria and solids: 1-15
enthalpy: 3-162
Phase equilibrium calculation: 1-2
list of: 3-162
Physical properties
Nonconventional solid property models: 3-
calculation methods: 4-9
162, 4-43
major and subordinate properties: 4-3
Normal boiling point estimation methods: 8-
models: 3-6, 3-9, 4-38
3
overview: 4-3
Nothnagel
routes: 4-36
property methods: 2-43
Physical properties: 3-6, 3-9, 4-3, 4-9, 4-36,
4-38
Nothnagel: 2-43, 3-27
Pitzer activity coefficient model: 3-72, 5-7,
NRTL
C-1
PITZER property method: 2-64
NRTL activity coefficient model: 2-47
PITZ-HG property method: 2-68
NRTL: 3-68
Polynomial activity coefficient model: 3-73
PR-BM property method: 2-26
O
Predictive property methods
Onsager-Samaras electrolyte surface tension common models for: 2-38
model: 3-160 equation-of-state: 2-29
Predictive property methods: 2-29, 2-38
P Predictive Soave-Redlich-Kwong-Gmehling
Parachor estimation method: 8-11 mixing rules: 3-59
PCES Predictive SRK property model (PSRK): 3-
estimation methods: 8-1 30
PCES: 8-1 PRMHV2 property method: 2-31
PENG-ROB property method: 2-16 Property Constant Estimation System
Peng-Robinson estimation methods: 8-1
alpha functions: 3-48 Property Constant Estimation System: 8-1
Boston-Mathias property model: 3-29 Property methods
MHV2 property model: 3-30 activity coefficient common models: 2-56
property method: 2-16 classes of: 2-1
property model: 3-40 common models for equation-of-state: 2-
Wong-Sandler property model: 3-31 28
Peng-Robinson: 2-16, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3- common models for petroleum mixtures:
40, 3-48 2-20
creating: 4-49, 4-52

definition: 2-1, 4-1 Redlich-Kwong
disffusion coefficient: 1-33 alpha function: 3-51
equation-of-state: 2-15, 2-21 equation-of-state: 2-17, 2-27, 2-29, 2-43,
flexible and predictive equation-of-state: 2-61, 2-64
2-29 property model: 3-31
flexible and predictive models: 2-38 Redlich-Kwong: 2-17, 2-27, 2-29, 2-43, 2-
for characterizing petroleum components: 61, 2-64, 3-31, 3-51
7-3 Redlich-Kwong-Aspen property model: 3-
for electrolyte solutions: 2-56, 2-68 32
for K-value models: 2-11 Redlich-Kwong-Soave
for liquid fugacity: 2-11 alpha function equations: 3-51
for petroleum mixtures: 2-10 alpha function list: 3-51
liquid activity coefficient: 2-40 Boston-Mathias property model: 3-33
list: 1-1 MHV2 property model: 3-34
modifying: 4-49 Soave-Redlich-Kwong property model: 3-
petroleum-tuned equation-of-state: 2-15 37
surface tension: 1-34 Wong-Sandler property model: 3-34
thermal conductivity: 1-32 Redlich-Kwong-Soave property model: 3-41
thermodynamic: 1-2 Redlich-Kwong-Soave: 3-33, 3-34, 3-37, 3-
transport: 1-32 51
viscosity: 1-32 Riedel electrolyte correction thermal
Property methods: 1-1, 1-2, 1-32, 1-33, 1- conductivity model: 3-146
34, 2-1, 2-10, 2-11, 2-15, 2-20, 2-21, 2- Rigorous three-phase calculations
28, 2-29, 2-38, 2-40, 2-56, 2-68, 4-1, 4- list of unit operation models: 6-1
49, 4-52, 7-3 Rigorous three-phase calculations: 6-1
Property models RK-ASPEN property method: 2-34
equation-of-state list: 3-9 RKS-BM property method: 2-27
list of: 3-1 RKSMHV2 property method: 2-35
thermodynamic list: 3-6 RK-SOAVE property method: 2-17
Property models: 3-1, 3-6, 3-9 RKSWS property method: 2-36
Property parameters Routes
estimating: 8-1 conflicting: 4-51
Property parameters: 8-1 creating: 4-54
PRWS property method: 2-32 definition: 4-1, 4-36
PSRK modifying: 4-54
property method: 2-33 replacing: 4-49
property model: 3-30 tracing: 4-47
PSRK: 2-33, 3-30 Routes: 4-1, 4-36, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51, 4-54
R S
Rackett mixture liquid volume model: 3-100 Sato-Riedel/DIPPR thermal conductivity
Rackett/DIPPR pure component liquid model: 3-147
volume model: 3-99 Scatchard-Hildebrand activity coefficient
Radius of gyration estimation method: 8-11 model: 3-76
Redlich-Kister activity coefficient model: 3- Schwartzentruber-Renon property model: 3-
75 35

Soave-Redlich-Kwong property model: 3-37 Steam tables: 2-73, 3-9, 3-26
Solid enthalpy methods: 4-21 STEAMNBS property method: 2-74, 3-26
Solid enthalpy of formation of aqueous STEAM-TA property method: 2-73
species estimation methods: 8-19 Stiel-Thodos pressure correction thermal
Solid entropy methods: 4-29 conductivity model: 3-151
Solid fugacity coefficient methods: 4-16 Stiel-Thodos/DIPPR thermal conductivity
Solid Gibbs energy methods: 4-25 model: 3-149
Solid heat capacity estimation methods: 8- STMNBS2 property method: 2-74
18 Subordinate properties: 4-3
Solid standard enthalpy of formation Surface tension
estimation methods: 8-18 estimation methods: 8-16
Solid standard Gibbs free energy of models list: 3-158
formation estimation methods: 8-18 property methods: 1-34
Solids activity coefficient method: 1-15 Surface tension methods: 4-35
Solids polynomial heat capacity model: 3- Surface tension: 1-34, 3-158, 8-16
108
SOLIDS property method: 2-69 T
Solubility correlation models
Thermal conductivity
list: 3-109
models list: 3-143
Solubility correlation models: 3-109
property method: 1-32
Solubility parameter estimation method: 8-
Thermal conductivity methods: 4-33
11
Thermal conductivity: 1-32, 3-143
Solution chemistry: 5-2
Thermodynamic property
SRK property method: 2-18
list of additional models: 3-111
SR-POLAR property method: 2-37
methods: 1-2
Standard enthalpy of formation
models list: 3-6
aqueous species: 8-19
Thermodynamic property models: 4-40
Thermodynamic property: 1-2, 3-6, 3-111
Standard enthalpy of formation: 8-9, 8-19
Three-suffix Margules activity coefficient
Standard Gibbs free energy of formation
model: 3-76
aqueous species: 8-20
Tracing routes: 4-47
Transport property
Standard Gibbs free energy of formation: 8-
methods: 1-32
10, 8-20
models list: 3-125
Standard liquid volume estimation method:
Transport property models: 4-41
8-11
Transport property: 1-32, 3-125
Standard Peng-Robinson property model: 3-
TRAPP
40
thermal conductivity model: 3-151
Standard Redlich-Kwong-Soave property
viscosity model: 3-142
model: 3-41
TRAPP: 3-142, 3-151
Steam tables
True component approach: 5-3
ASME: 2-73
list: 2-73
U
NBS/NRC: 3-26
property methods: 2-73 UNIFAC
property models: 3-9 activity coefficient model: 2-48, 3-77

Dortmund modified activity coefficient Virial equations of state: 1-24
model: 3-79 Viscosity
Lyngby modified activity coefficient models: 3-127
model: 3-80 property method: 1-32
R and Q parameters estimation method: 8- Viscosity methods: 4-31
22 Viscosity: 1-32, 3-127
UNIFAC: 2-48, 3-77, 3-79, 3-80, 8-22 VPA/IK-CAPE equation of state: 2-46
UNIQUAC
activity coefficient model: 2-51, 3-81 W
R and Q parameters estimation method: 8-
Wagner Interaction Parameter activity
11
coefficient model: 3-84
UNIQUAC: 2-51, 3-81, 8-11
Wagner vapor pressure model: 3-87
Unit operation models
Wassiljewa-Mason-Saxena mixing rule for
rigorous three-phase calculations: 6-1
thermal conductivity: 3-152
Unit operation models: 6-1
Water solubility model: 3-111
Watson equation for heat of vaporization: 3-
V
92
Van Laar activity coefficient model: 2-52, 3- Wilke-Chang diffusion model
83 binary: 3-156
Vapor enthalpy methods: 4-17 mixture: 3-157
Vapor entropy methods: 4-27 Wilke-Chang diffusion model: 3-156, 3-157
Vapor fugacity coefficient methods: 4-11 WILS-GLR property method: 3-118
Vapor Gibbs energy methods: 4-22 WILS-LR property method: 3-118
Vapor phase association: 1-24 Wilson (liquid molar volume) activity
Vapor pressure estimation methods: 8-12 coefficient model: 3-86
Vapor pressure model list: 3-87 Wilson activity coefficient model: 2-54, 3-
Vapor thermal conductivity estimation 85
methods: 8-16 Wong-Sandler mixing rules: 3-61
Vapor viscosity estimation methods: 8-15
Vapor-liquid equilibria activity coefficient Z
method: 1-10
Zemaitis equation: 5-8
Vapor-liquid equlibria equation-of-state
method: 1-4

Physical Property Methods and Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical Property Methods and Models

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physical Property Methods and Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the different thermodynamic property methods discussed?

What are the different thermodynamic property methods discussed?

What are the different transport property methods discussed?

What are the different transport property methods discussed?

Part Number: Aspen Physical Property System 11.

BATCHFRAC and RATEFRAC are trademarks of Koch Engineering Company, Inc.

For More Information.......................................................................................................viii

Overview of Aspen Physical Property Methods 1-1

Property Method Descriptions 2-1

Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Contents • iii

Property Model Descriptions 3-1

iv • Contents Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

Property Calculation Methods and Routes 4-1

Electrolyte Calculation 5-1

Free-Water and Rigorous Three-Phase Calculations 6-1

Petroleum Components Characterization Methods 7-1

Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 Contents • v

Bromley-Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model A-1

Electrolyte NRTL Activity Coefficient Model B-1

Pitzer Activity Coefficient Model C-1

vi • Contents Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

Phone Support Phone Numbers

Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1 About This Manual • ix

E-mail Support Centers E-mail

x • About This Manual Physical Property Methods and Models 11.1

Overview of Aspen Physical

Thermodynamic Property Methods

fil = Fugacity of component i in the liquid phase

Where ϕ i is calculated according to equation 4,

γi = Liquid activity coefficient of component i

f i*,l = Liquid fugacity of pure component i at mixture

The correction factor ϕ i is the fugacity coefficient. For a vapor at

moderate pressures, ϕ i is close to unity. The same equation can be

Fluid phase equilibria depend not only on temperature but also on

type equations of state can model the pressure dependence of

Phase Envelope of a Methane-Rich Hydrocarbon Mixture

Compressing the methane-rich mixture shown in the figure labeled

Liquid-liquid separation occurs in systems with very dissimilar

Solve p(T ,Vm ) for Vm .

∆ f H iig = Standard enthalpy of formation for ideal gas at

Vapor and liquid volume is computed by solving p(T,Vm) for Vm

The activity coefficient γ i represents the deviation of the mixture

In the majority of mixtures, γ i is greater than unity. The result is a

It is less common that γ i is smaller than unity. Using the same

The vapor phase fugacity coefficient ϕ i is computed from an

equation of state (see Equation-of-State Method). The liquid

For an ideal gas, ϕ i = 1. For an ideal liquid, γ i = 1. Combining this

with equation 26 gives Raoult’s law:

For dissolved gases: Light gases (such as O2 and N 2 ) are usually

The activity coefficient γ i is converted to the infinite dilution

To compute H i , you must supply the Henry’s constant for the

The vapor-liquid equilibrium equations 26 and 30, only apply for

Equation 31 can be derived from the liquid-vapor equilibrium

The phase diagram of n-butanol + water at 1 bar is shown in this

Molar Gibbs Energy of Butanol-1 and Water at 365 K and 1 atm

The technique of Gibbs energy minimization can be used for any

Electrolytes in solution often have a solid solubility limit. Solid

Mineral and metallic solids can undergo phase equilibria in a

Thermodynamic Potential of Mercury at 1, 5, 10, and 20 bar

The majority of solid databank components occur in the