Equilibrium constant automatic calculation

Since we could not possibly store each possible variation on the basis, it is important for us to be able at any point in the calculation to adapt the basis to match the current system. It may be necessary to change the basis (make a basis swap, in modeling vernacular) for several reasons. This chapter describes how basis swaps can be accomplished in a computer model, and Chapter 11 shows how this technique can be applied to automatically balance chemical reactions and calculate equilibrium constants. 

SC (simultaneous correction) method. The MESH equations are reduced to a set of N(2C +1) nonlinear equations in the mass flow rates of liquid components ltJ and vapor components and the temperatures 2J. The enthalpies and equilibrium constants Kg are determined by the primary variables lijt vtj, and Tf. The nonlinear equations are solved by the Newton-Raphson method. A convergence criterion is made up of deviations from material, equilibrium, and enthalpy balances simultaneously, and corrections for the next iterations are made automatically. The method is applicable to distillation, absorption and stripping in single and multiple columns. The calculation flowsketch is in Figure 13.19. A brief description of the method also will be given. The availability of computer programs in the open literature was cited earlier in this section. 

The input of the problem requires total analytically measured concentrations of the selected components. Total concentrations of elements (components) from chemical analysis such as ICP and atomic absorption are preferable to methods that only measure some fraction of the total such as selective colorimetric or electrochemical methods. The user defines how the activity coefficients are to be computed (Davis equation or the extended Debye-Huckel), the temperature of the system and whether pH, Eh and ionic strength are to be imposed or calculated. Once the total concentrations of the selected components are defined, all possible soluble complexes are automatically selected from the database. At this stage the thermodynamic equilibrium constants supplied with the model may be edited or certain species excluded from the calculation (e.g. species that have slow reaction kinetics). In addition, it is possible for the user to supply constants for specific reactions not included in the database, but care must be taken to make sure the formation equation for the newly defined species is written in such a way as to be compatible with the chemical components used by the rest of the program, e.g. if the species A1H2PC>4+ were to be added using the following reaction ... 

The computing problem is concerned with calculating the maximum number of unknown parameters of a proposed reaction system from available experimental data. This data can be any combination of values for constant parameters (rate and equilibrium constants) and variable parameters (concentration versus time data). Moreover, data for different variable parameters need not have the same time scale. When the unknown parameters are calculated, it is important that the mathematical validity of the proposed model be determined in terms of the experimental accuracy of the data. Also, if it is impossible to solve for all unknown parameters, then the model must be automatically reduced to a form that contains only solvable parameters. Thus, the input to CRAMS consists of 1) a description of a proposed reaction system model and, 2) experimental data for those parameters that were measured or previously determined. The output of CRAMS is 1) information concerning the mathematical validity of the model and 2) values for the maximum number of computable unknown parameters and, if possible, the associated reliabilities. The system checks for model validity only in those reactions with unknown rate constants. Thus a simulation-only problem does not invoke any model validation procedures. 

In addition to the solvent, the procedure to be used in the determination of the thermodynamic data must also be selected with great care. If the dG, AH and AS data must be obtained from the temperature dependence of the equilibrium constant, the accuracy of the measurements already automatically considerably limits the accuracy of the data. Particularly in the narrow temperature interval that can be employed for aqueous solutions (from 0 °C to at most 50-60 °C), in many cases the temperature dependence of the equilibrium constant is not much greater than the experimental error. The thermodynamic data calculated from these will thus at best be approximate values of an informatory nature. 

Nowadays, in modern process simulation programs the possible electrolyte reactions and the equations for equilibrium calculation are generated automatically. The user only has to check the reactions in order to simplify the chemistry as much as possible, that is, to eliminate equilibrium reactions with extremely high or low equilibrium constants, as in these cases the equilibrium will be completely on one side of the reaction. Considering these reactions as equilibrium reactions will often yield to a drastically increased calculation time and has often a bad influence on the convergence. 

In Equations (6.1) to (6.3), is the reactor outlet temperature in °C, and Tapp is the approach temperature calculated from the gas analysis for the Boudouard reaction in K. The according pressure-based equilibrium constant is represented by p,B in bar and was fitted (ln(/ p) over 1/T) with a third-order polynomial expression, is the total system pressure in bar and xqo is the mole fraction of CO in the product gas. All variables are imported automatically and the equations are solved iteratively. Of course, the Boudouard reaction itself is not valid as soon as carbon is set as inert. However, the calculation procedure provides a temperature and pressure dependent empirical ( pseudo-Boudouard ) expression that relates to CO2/CO and permits a robust correlation for this generic model with a smooth transition to the zone where carbon is present. Including this modification, the model results for the validation case indicate the right order of magnitude for the CO2 concentration (1.22% deviation of the molar flows). The hydrogen balance of the case from the literature had a feilure rate of 3.13% hence, the model with a closed balance predicts the same excessive amount All error for the other components could be reconciled to less than 1.3% each. 

However, the total number of equilibrium stages N, N/N,n, or the external-reflux ratio can be substituted for one of these three specifications. It should be noted that the feed location is automatically specified as the optimum one this is assumed in the Underwood equations. The assumption of saturated reflux is also inherent in the Fenske and Underwood equations. An important limitation on the Underwood equations is the assumption of constant molar overflow. As discussed by Henley and Seader (op. cit.), this assumption can lead to a prediction of the minimum reflux that is considerably lower than the actual value. No such assumption is inherent in the Fenske equation. An exact calculational technique for minimum reflux is given by Tavana and Hansen [Jnd. E/ig. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 18, 154 (1979)]. A computer program for the FUG method is given by Chang [Hydrocarbon Process., 60(8), 79 (1980)]. The method is best applied to mixtures that form ideal or nearly ideal solutions. 

The FLUX matrix is a convenient way to concisely represent systems of equations and representations of reaction systems. However, the rules for manipulating the FLUX matrix to formulate a solvable set of equations are complex, and they are the subject of much of the research presented in this paper. In the SELECTOR module, the FLUX matrix is manipulated in such a way as to (1) reduce the number of differential equations representing the system and (2) allow for both variable and constant parameters to be used in the computation, and (3) make the calculation on the equilibrium portion of the model considerably more efficient. The first two concepts are illustrated next with the reaction model given above. The algorithm that is used to automatically accomplish these objectives is discussed in Section 3.2. 

In the previous section we have summarized the use of calculations of energy, force, and stress to determine simple crystal structures and the restoring forces and stresses for distorted structures. In this section we turn to the case of crystal structures containing degrees of freedom-the shape of the unit cell or the positions of the atoms in the unit cell. In these cases it is even more useful to have forces and stresses to determine the equilibrium structure (where all forces and stresses vanish). Furthermore, in the search for the equiibrium structure, one automatically finds forces and stresses for distorted structures, i.e., one calculates phonon frequencies, elastic constants, etc. 

---