A quick comparison of the results found by use of the Matlab programs with those found using Aspen for the ideal cases in Example 3.2 in BGW show a remarkable agreement as they should. Slight differences in the vapor pressure functions used in the two cases probably account for the differences seen in the third decimal places. Here is a summary of those results and those reported in BGW.
Case 1: P and Fraction of Toluene recovered in the vapor Specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case 2: P and T specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case 3: P and V/F specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examples 7.3 and 7.4 offered more contrast between the simulations found with Matlab and Aspen, but most of the differences can be accounted for in activity coefficient models used in the different simulatiors. In this example T= 343K and P=1atm.
|
|
|
|
From Aspen using Wilson with built in binary data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Aspen using Wilson with built in binary data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|