arX

iv:1

608.

0253

5v1

[phy

sics

.che

m-p

h] 8

Aug

201

6

Stabilized density gradient theory algorithm for modelinginterfacial propertiesof pure and mixed systems

Xiaoqun Mua, Florian Frankb, Faruk O. Alpakc, Walter G. Chapmana,∗

aDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, RiceUniversitybDepartment of Computational and Applied Mathematics, RiceUniversity

cShell International Exploration and Production Inc.

Abstract

Density gradient theory (DGT) allows fast and accurate determination of surface tension and density profile througha phase interface. Several algorithms have been developed to apply this theory in practical calculations. While theconventional algorithm requires a reference substance of the system, a modified “stabilized density gradient theory”(SDGT) algorithm is introduced in our work to solve DGT equations for multiphase pure and mixed systems. Thisalgorithm makes it possible to calculate interfacial properties accurately at any domain size larger than the interfacethickness without choosing a reference substance or assuming the functional form of the density profile. As part ofDGT inputs, the perturbed chain statistical associating fluid theory (PC-SAFT) equation of state (EoS) was employedfor the first time with the SDGT algorithm. PC-SAFT has excellent performance in predicting liquid phase propertiesas well as phase behaviors. The SDGT algorithm with the PC-SAFT EoS was tested and compared with experimentaldata for several systems. Numerical stability analyses were also included in each calculation to verify the reliabilityof this approach for future applications.

Keywords: density gradient theory, stabilized algorithm, interfacial properties, surface tension, PC-SAFT EoS

1. Introduction

In the petroleum industry, interfacial properties areof great interest since they affect various producing pro-cesses significantly such as gas injection and secondaryoil recovery. An accurate and fast determination ofthese properties, for example surface tension and den-sity profiles, is crucial in making appropriate businessdecisions and further to instruct industrial productions.Considering the fact that experimental measurementsare costly and time-consuming, a reliable theoreticalmethod to predictively model interfacial properties is inhigh demand. Among many theoretical methods thathave been developed so far, DGT is one of the mostpopular and successful method that has been applied inpractical calculations.

DGT was first proposed by Van der Waals [1]. In hiswork, an interface area was described by a diffuse thin

∗Corresponding authorEmail address:wgchap@rice.edu (Walter G. Chapman)

layer where a smooth density variation exists. The freeenergy is expressed by a function of the local densityand its gradient. It was later reformulated by Cahn andHillard [2] and DGT started to be widely studied subse-quently.

Significant contributions to this theory were made byCarey et al. [3] by reformulating the DGT equations todifferent differential equations in which a reference fluidis selected and the functions are solved accordingly.Later applications of DGT are largely based on Carey’sreference fluid (RF) algorithm. Cornelisse et al. [4, 5]compared the performance of DGT with the parachormethod in several binary and ternary systems, and itwas found that DGT is able to compute surface ten-sion with a higher accuracy in various circumstances.Poser et al. [6] and Enders et al. [7] applied this the-ory to immiscible liquid–liquid phase interfaces. Telet-zke et al. [8] investigated wetting transitions using DGT.They modeled the physics of wetting qualitatively whileadditional experiments are still needed to determine it’squantitative accuracy. In order to avoid the calculation

Preprint submitted to Fluid Phase Equilibria August 9, 2016

of density profiles, Zuo and Stenby [9] developed lin-ear gradient theory (LGT) by assuming that the densitydistributions of different components are independentof each other in a mixture. Miqueu et al. [10, 11, 12]summarized the previous work and systematically de-veloped DGT by generalizing its algorithm for multi-component systems.

Although DGT gives the possibility to describe in-terfacial properties adequately, the lack of efficiencyand robustness when solving the DGT equations bot-tlenecks its further development and not much progress[9, 13] has been made after Carey’s reference fluid al-gorithm. In this paper, we developed a modified sta-bilized algorithm to improve the robustness of solvingthe DGT equations. Since the original DGT equationsare rather sensitive to the chosen domain size, an evo-lution term was introduced so that the ill-conditionedboundary value problem (BVP) becomes a sequenceof well-conditioned BVPs, each of which is solved us-ing a semi-implicit scheme in time by convex–concavesplitting of the homogeneous free energy in a stablefashion. Therefore, no reference fluid is needed in thecalculation as opposed to the RF algorithm. The SDGTalgorithm has several major advantages over the con-ventional RF algorithm and it shows great potential tooperate with DGT for more complex systems.

Cubic equations of state, including Van der Waals,Peng–Robinson, and Soave–Redlich–Kwong EoS, werewidely used in DGT at early years [3, 4, 5, 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 9, 8]. While good results were obtainedin vapor–liquid equilibrium system, significant errorswere encountered in liquid–liquid equilibrium calcula-tions, especially with the existence of associating fluids.In a series of papers [19, 20, 21], Chapman et al. in-troduced the statistical associating fluid theory (SAFT)EoS. Based on Wertheim’s thermodynamic perturbationtheory of first order [22, 23, 24, 25], SAFT models themolecule by having spherical segments to form chainsand counting the interactions among chain molecules.In comparison with other equations of state, SAFTdemonstrates a much better performance in describ-ing liquid densities and phase behavior [26]. In ourwork, PC-SAFT [27, 28] was employed to express theHelmholtz free energy as well as to conduct phase equi-librium calculations.

This paper is organized as follows: In Section2, DGTand PC-SAFT EoS, including their basic theories andequations, are introduced. Section3 summarizes theexisting DGT algorithms and their limitations. A modi-

fied multiphase multicomponent SDGT algorithm is de-scribed afterwards. The performance of this algorithmwas validated physically and numerically for severalpure and mixture systems as presented in Section4.

2. Theory

2.1. Density gradient theory

In DGT, the free energyA as functional of molar den-sity fieldsρi , is derived as an expansion about the freeenergy of a homogeneous fluid which can be expressedby an EoS, and the free energy of an inhomogeneousfluid which depends on the density gradient in that area(fourth and higher order gradient terms are neglected):

A[ρ] =∫

V

a0(ρ) +N∑

i, j=1

12

vi j ∇ρi · ∇ρ j

dV , (1)

whereN denotes the number of components in the sys-tem, a0 the homogeneous Helmholtz free energy den-sity, which is given by a bulk EoS, andvi j the so-called influence parameter. In most cases, the density-dependence of the influence parameter is neglected sothat ∂v jk/∂ρi = 0. The vector of molar densitiesρ inarguments indicate the dependency of all molar densi-tiesρi .

In an open, isothermal system with no external fields,the grand potentialΩ can be expressed as:

Ω[ρ] = A[ρ] −∫

V

N∑

i=1

ρi µi,bulk dV ,

whereµi,bulk is the (constant) bulk chemical potential ofcomponenti. When the system has reached a stationarystate, the grand potential is minimized, i. e. the func-tional derivatives ofΩ vanish:

δΩ[ρ]δρi

=∂a0(ρ)∂ρi

− µi,bulk −N∑

j=1

vi j ∇ · ∇ρ j = 0 , (2)

for i = 1, . . . ,N, i. e., the molar densities of the systemmust satisfy the Euler–Lagrange equation at stationarystate. Here, we assumedvi j = v ji (cf. Eqn. (8)).

In the case of a planar interface, the density onlyvaries inz-direction, and Eqn. (2) simplifies to

µi(ρ) − µi,bulk =

N∑

j=1

vi jd2ρ j

dz2, (3a)

2

Table 1: Influence parametersvi for pure components(PC-SAFT).

ComponentT

[K]σ

[mN/m]vi · 1020

[J m5/mol2]

Methane 104.50 14.36 [29] 1.995Propane 332.92 3.09 [30] 10.460n-Pentane 249.34 20.42 [31] 24.779n-Hexane 244.81 23.66 [31] 35.575Toluene 332.15 23.88 [32] 32.152

where the (homogeneous) chemical potential of compo-nenti is given byµi(ρ) = ∂a0(ρ)/∂ρi . Solving Eqn. (3a)yields the density distributionsρi(z) across the planar in-terface region. It is subjected to the following boundaryconditions:

ρi(0) = ρi,A , ρi(D) = ρi,B , (3b)

for i = 1, . . . ,N, whereρi,A andρi,B are (constant) bulkdensities of componenti in phase A and B, respectively.The symbolD denotes any distance that is greater thanthe interface thicknessL in order to ensure that the do-main boundaries are located in bulk phases. Once thedensity profiles are determined, the surface tensionσ isevaluated by

σ =

∫ ∞

−∞

N∑

i=1

N∑

j=1

vi jdρi

dz

dρ j

dzdz. (4)

Values of the pure component influence parametersvi

(cf. Eqn. (8)) are obtained by fitting with experimentallymeasured surface tension at fixed temperature. Influ-ence parameters used in this paper are listed in Table1.

2.2. PC-SAFT EoS

The SAFT EoS was originally developed by Chap-man et al. by a series of papers [19, 20, 21] using an ex-tension of Wertheim’s thermodynamic perturbation the-ory of first order (TPT1). In the SAFT framework, a sys-tem in which only hard sphere segments exist is definedas a reference fluid. Based on this, mixtures of poly-atomic associating molecules are modeled by addingperturbations of the association interactions to the ref-erence fluid as well as the chain formation contributionsby assuming infinitely strong association attractions be-tween hard spheres.

Later, the contribution from long range attractions(dispersion) in SAFT was revisited and improved byGross and Sadowski who developed the PC-SAFT EoS[27, 28]. In PC-SAFT, a system with only hard chainrepulsion force is defined as a reference fluid instead.The perturbation theory of Baker and Henderson [33]was introduced to the reference system. The homoge-neous Helmholtz free energy of PC-SAFT is expressedas:

A0 = Aideal0 + Ahs

0 + Ahc0 + Adisp

0 + Aassoc0 , (5)

where Aideal is the ideal gas Helmholtz free energyknown from thermodynamics,Ahs

0 and Ahc0 are the

Helmholtz free energy due to the hard spheres andthe formation of hard chains respectively,Adisp

0 is theHelmholtz free energy of dispersion attraction andAassoc

0accounts for the associating energy between molecules.

For non-associating substances, three PC-SAFT pa-rameters are required:mi , the effective number ofsegments within molecule which represents the chainlength; σi , the diameter of each segment; andǫi , thedepth of pair potential energy between same segment.Another two parameters are necessary for substanceswith association sites:ǫA iBi , the association energy ofinteraction andκA iBi the effective volume of interactionbetween site A and site B on moleculei.

When applied in mixtures, parameters of binary com-ponent combinations are calculated by the followingmixing rules:

σi j =12

(σi + σ j) ,

ǫi j = (1− ki j )√ǫiǫ j ,

whereki j is the binary interaction parameter. If asso-ciating interactions exist, the cross-association parame-ters can be determined using the mixing rule suggestedby Wolbach and Sandler [34]:

ǫA iB j =12

(ǫA iBi + ǫA jB j ) ,

κA iB j =√

κA iBiκA jB j

√σiiσ j j

12(σii + σ j j )

3

.

PC-SAFT parameters used in this paper are listed in Ta-ble2. For more details about the derivations and param-eters of PC-SAFT, one can refer to the original SAFT[19, 20, 21] and PC-SAFT papers [27, 28].

3

Table 2: PC-SAFT parameters of non-associating purecomponent.

ComponentMi

[g/mol]mi

[1]σi

[Å]ǫi/kB

[K]

Methane 16.043 1.0000 3.7039 150.03Propane 44.096 1.6069 3.5206 191.42n-Pentane 72.146 2.6896 3.7729 231.2n-Hexane 86.177 3.0576 3.7983 236.77Toluene 92.141 2.8149 3.7169 285.69

3. Challenges and algorithms

Derived by minimizing the grand potential energyΩ,the BVP (3) is solved to obtain the equilibrium den-sity profile, and the surface tension is calculated accord-ingly. However, certain numerical challenges exist inthe solving process of this BVP: Although theoreticallythe domain sizeD in the boundary conditions can beany value that is greater than the interface thicknessL,a stable convergence in the solving process will happenonly if a close estimation ofD to L is given. This isbecause Eqn. (3) is rather sensitive to the boundary val-ues and becomes ill-conditioned with an overestimatedor underestimated value ofD. The numerical nonlin-ear solver will have severe stability issues and conver-gence failure occurs easily. Nevertheless, finding an ad-equate estimation of the interface thickness for an un-known system is challenging, which makes this BVPfairly difficult to solve.

3.1. Established algorithms

Different algorithms have been developed to tacklethe stability issues encountered in solving DGT equa-tions, such as the LGT algorithm [9] and the RF algo-rithm [3, 16].

3.1.1. Linear gradient theory

The LGT algorithm simply assumes that intermolec-ular interactions have no impact on interface density dis-tributions, and thus the density profiles of each compo-nent are calculated independently in a mixture. Theseassumptions simplify the DGT model and makes thecalculation faster, but it loses most of the interfacephysics at the same time. Therefore, the LGT algorithmis not recommended.

3.1.2. Reference fluid algorithm

The reference fluid (RF) algorithm, meanwhile, is themost widely used algorithm so far. According to thisalgorithm, one componentρref is selected as a referencefluid in the system and by certain manipulations [16],the original differential equations ofρi(z) defined in anunknown domain [0,D] are transformed to a problemof ρi(ρref) for i , ref in the known domain [ρref,A , ρref,B]with boundary conditions

ρi(ρref,A) = ρi,A , ρi(ρref,B) = ρi,B .

Here,ρref,A andρref,B are determined directly by phaseequilibrium calculations—no estimation of interfacethickness is needed. Solving the RF DGT yields thedensity dependence of each substance to the referencefluid, i. e. ρi(ρref). With these results, the density profileand surface tension are calculated by:

z= z0 +

∫ ρref

ρref,A

√

C2(a0 −

∑

i ρiµi,bulk + P0)dρref ,

σ =

∫ ρref,B

ρref,A

√

2C(a0 −∑

i

ρiµi,bulk + P0) dρref ,

whereP0 is the bulk pressure and

C =N∑

i=1

N∑

j=1

vi jdρi

dρref

dρ j

dρref.

3.1.3. Limitations

By reformulating the DGT equations, the RF algo-rithm makes the solving process numerically straight-forward and it has been successfully applied to calculateinterfacial properties in many vapor–liquid and liquid–liquid equilibrium systems [3]–[18]. However, this al-gorithm has several drawbacks that limit the applicationof DGT to a wider range of systems:

First, no general strategy of selecting the referencefluid is available in this algorithm. Although bound-ary conditions can be provided by phase equilibriumcalculations, a suitable reference fluid needs to be cho-sen before starting the calculation. The main require-ment of the reference fluid is that its density must bea monotonic function of the distancez across the in-terface. If the monotonicity of a preselected referencefluid changes in the interface area, it must be switched toa different component according to the density functionbehavior, and this procedure will be repeated if the new

4

reference fluid becomes non-monotonic again. This isa time-consuming process. More importantly, failure toselect the suitable reference fluid will lead to numericalerrors in the solving process and some interfacial phe-nomena like surface density accumulations cannot bedescribed correctly. In most cases, the determination ofthe reference fluid is based on experience, introducing afactor of uncertainty to the calculations.

Second, the RF algorithm is no longer valid when anyadditional term is added to the DGT functional. As wementioned before, the BVP solved in the RF algorithmis transformed from the original DGT equations (1)–(3)by certain manipulations (more details about this ma-nipulation process can be found from Carey et al. [3]or Sahimi et al. [16]). Noticeably, the prerequisite ofthis manipulation process is that the original DGT func-tional form must be strictly followed. In other words,the RF algorithm, if applicable, works exclusively forthis specific DGT functional form. Any extensions ofDGT functions are not allowed or the manipulation pro-cess won’t work. This will prevent the future applica-tion of DGT to systems like polymer or colloidal mix-tures, in which molecules are considered to have morecomplex structures that require additional energy terms.

3.2. Stabilized DGT algorithm

3.2.1. Modified DGT equations

Since there exists the dual challenges of selectinga suitable reference fluid as well as extending DGTfunctional forms in the RF algorithm, a novel and effec-tive SDGT algorithm was developed for DGT equationsin this paper.

We revisited the original DGT model. As was dis-cussed before, solving the BVP (3) requires a good esti-mation of the interface thicknessL or severe numericalissues will be encountered. In order to avoid this, anevolution term∂ρi/∂s was added to Eqn. (3a) such thatit becomes a time-dependent partial differential equa-tion. This idea was also used by Qiao and Sun [35],where they applied DGT with Peng–Robinson EoS ina single component vapor–liquid equilibrium system. Inour work, we generalize this algorithm to a multiphasemulticomponent system with PC-SAFT EoS.

In a system withN components, the SDGT algorithm

has the following form:

∂ρi

∂s+ µi(ρ) − µi,bulk =

N∑

j=1

vi j∂2ρ j

∂z2, (6a)

for i = 1, . . . ,N, whereρi = ρi(s, z) is now to be consid-ered a function also ofs, which may be interpreted astime variable. This equation is subjected to the bound-ary conditions

ρi(s, 0) = ρi,A , ρi(s,D) = ρi,B , (6b)

for all time pointss. In Eqn. (6a), the time deriva-tive ∂ρi/∂s serves as a stabilizing term to ensure a sta-ble convergence. These BVP functions do not preservemass (open system) and thus give a lot of freedom inchoosing initial data. An easy and good initial condi-tion for this system of differential equations is the lineardensity distribution of each component across the do-main interpolating the boundary values of Eqn. (6b):

ρi(0, z) = ρi,A +ρi,B − ρi,A

Dz. (6c)

The system of time-dependent BVPs (6) is solved witha time marching scheme until a stationary state isreached. In fact, the SDGT algorithm is quite robustwith regards to initial conditions—even when an unfa-vorable density distribution estimation is chosen. Thisattribute will be further discussed in Section4.

3.2.2. Time Discretization

In order to apply the new algorithm more efficiently,a convex–concave splitting of the non-linear energy wasfollowed, cf. [36, 37]. The convex part of the ho-mogeneous free energyA0 in Eqn. (5) is treated time-implicitly using the backward Euler method, while theconcave part is treated time-explicitly by a forward Eu-ler method. This splitting scheme makes the time dis-cretization unconditionally stable, i. e. there is no re-striction in time step size (however, large time stepsimply a large condition number in the linear systemthat has to be solved in every Newton iteration cf. Sec-tion 3.2.3). It also ensures a monotonic dissipation offree energy with respect of time (Fig.4, 10).

It is simple to prove that the ideal gas Helmholtz freeenergyAid

0 is a convex function with respect toρi . In theexcess Helmholtz free energy, the repulsion force be-tween molecules, as justified by Qiao and Sun in theirwork [35], must result in a convex contribution whilethe attraction force should have a concave contribution

5

so as to have phase splitting occur. In PC-SAFT, wehave the hard sphereAhs

0 and hard chainAhc0 contribu-

tions to the excess Helmholtz free energy as a resultof repulsion forces, and associationAassoc

0 and disper-

sion Adisp0 contributions as a result of attraction forces,

cf. Eqn. (5):

Aconvex0 = Aid

0 + Ahs0 + Ahc

0 ,

Aconcave0 = Adisp

0 + Aassoc0 .

Discretizing Eqn. (6a) in time while applying theconvex–concave splitting yields:

ρn+1i − ρn

i

∆s+ µconvex

i (ρn+1) + µconcavei (ρn)

= µi,bulk +

N∑

j=1

vi j

d2ρn+1j

dz2,

whereµconvexi (ρ) = ∂aconvex

0 (ρ)/∂ρi and µconcavei (ρ) =

∂aconcave0 (ρ)/∂ρi .

3.2.3. Space discretization and boundary conditions

In each time step, we have a system ofN nonlinearequations that are solved by finite difference method us-ing Newton’s iteration. Stepping forward in time, thesystem will evolve to an equilibrium state, which isreached when the stopping criteria

N∑

i=1

M∑

k=1

|ρn+1i,k − ρ

ni,k| < ε (7)

is satisfied, whereM is the number of grid points inspace, 0< ε ≪ 1 a tolerance, andρn+1

i,k the densityof componenti in position k at time stepn + 1. Theobtained equilibrium density distribution is an approx-imation of the solution of the original DGT model (3).Surface tension can be computed via Eqn. (4).

The SDGT algorithm uses the same boundary con-ditions as given in the original DGT, cf. Eqn. (3b)and (6b). However, as opposed to the original DGT al-gorithm, the domain sizeD does not necessarily need tobe close to the interface thicknessL and any value that islarger thanL is suitable. This is validated through sev-eral numerical stability tests in the next section. Notethat, although the first guess ofD might not be largeenough, the underestimation can be detected immedi-ately from the converging behavior of the SDGT algo-rithm. Figure1a shows the desired converging behavior

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

Hexane

(a) Density profile of hexane(352.49 K) after 10 time stepson D = 8 nm. Diffuse inter-face occurs in the middle ofthe domain.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

Hexane

(b) Density profile of hexane(352.49 K) after 10 time stepson D = 1 nm. Diffuse in-terface occurs right next toboundaries.

Figure 1: A domain sizeD that is wider than the inter-face thicknessL is needed for a correct convergence asshown in (a). If an underestimation ofD is given, it canbe detected easily from the shape of the density profileas shown in (b).

when the prescribedD is larger than the interface thick-ness. After 10 time steps, densities close to the bound-aries converge to bulk densities and the diffusive inter-face only occurs inside the domain. If the value ofD issmaller than the interface thicknessL, diffusion will oc-cur right next to the boundaries as shown in Figure1b,which means the whole domain is inside the interfacearea. In this case, a larger domain size is required torestart the iteration. It is usually safe to start from a verylarge value ofD for a new system and switch to othervalues according to research purposes. We demonstratebelow that the SDGT algorithm works quite well evenon a greatly overestimated domain size.

4. Results and discussions

The performance of the SDGT algorithm withPC-SAFT EoS was tested in several pure and mixedvapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) systems from bothphysical and numerical aspects so as to validate the po-tential of applying this algorithm to perform predictivecalculations.

4.1. One component VLE system

Crude oil in reservoir is a multicomponent mixtureconsisting primarily of hydrocarbons [38]. Among dif-ferent types of hydrocarbons, alkanes are of the mostones in crude oil. Therefore, a successful description

6

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

(a) s= 0.

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

(b) s= 0.2.

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

(c) s= 0.6.

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

(d) s= 4.

Figure 2: Density profile of hexane (352.49 K) at different time step (∆s = 0.1). A linear density distribution wasused as initial condition ats= 0 and the system reaches stable state ats= 4.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sity

(m

ol/m

3 )

SDGT algorithm resultsRF algorithm results

Figure 3: Comparison of equilibrium density profile(hexane, 352.49 K): the SDGT algorithm (blue solidline) and RF algorithm (red dashed line).

of alkane interfacial properties will be of great inter-est to petroleum industry. Hexane (C6), an alkane thatconsists six carbon atoms was used in the first experi-ment. In Figure2, the density profiles of hexane at var-ious time steps are presented. The calculation startedfrom a linear density distribution as initial condition ona 8 nm domain. With a time step of∆s = 0.1, thesystem evolves quickly and steadily to reach an equi-librium state after 40 time steps when the density differ-ence between two time steps meets the stopping criteria.The equilibrium density profile (Figure2d) is comparedwith the one given by the RF algorithm in Figure3.The two density profiles match in the interface regionwhich proves that the SDGT algorithm can reproducethe equilibrium density profile. However, the compu-tation of the RF algorithm is restricted in the interface

Table 3: Numerical test results of the SDGT algorithmin one component system* .

Density distribution D [nm] σ [mN/m] AD (%)

Linear 8 12.3557 0.127Linear 12 12.3562 0.131Linear 20 12.3580 0.146Random 10 12.3560 0.129* Experimental surface tensionσ of hexane at 352.49 K:12.34 mN/m [31]. Interfacial thickness: 2.7 nm.

region, while the SDGT algorithm provides additionalinformation extending from the interface region to bulkphases. During the calculation process, we also mon-

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Time

Gra

nd

Po

ten

tial (J

/m2)

Figure 4: The dissipating process of grand potential en-ergy (hexane, 352.49 K) during calculation.

itored the dissipation of the grand potential energy asshown in Figure4. It can be seen that the initial densitydistribution generates a very high energy environmentwhich monotonically dissipates until the system reachesa stationary state.

7

80 100 120 140 160 180 2000

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Temperature (K)

Su

rfac

e te

nsi

on

(m

N/m

)

SDGT calculationExperimental data

(a) Methane.

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 5500

5

10

15

20

25

Temperature (K)

Su

rfac

e te

nsi

on

(m

N/m

)

SDGT calculation

Experimental data

(b) Hexane.

Figure 5: Comparison of the SDGT calculation results(blue solid line) with experimental data (red square dot)for surface tension: (a) Methane [29], (b) Hexane [31].

The surface tension of the system is calculated ac-cording to Eqn. (4) using the equilibrium density pro-files. Calculation results are illustrated in Figure5 assolid lines. The predicted surface tension decreases asa function of increasing temperature. This is becausecohesive forces between molecules decreases with anincrease of system thermal energy. The surface tensiontrend and values are further verified by comparing withexperimental data (rectangular dots) [29, 31]. Excellentagreements are observed throughout a wide temperaturerange for both systems.

We also conducted numerical stability and robustnesstests on the SDGT algorithm. In the first test case, a ran-dom density distribution is used as initial condition, inwhich local densities are produced by a random numbergenerator bounded by bulk densities, as shown in Fig-

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

(a) s= 0.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

(b) s= 1.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

(c) s= 5.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

(d) s= 20.

Figure 6: Numerical stability test: use random densitydistribution as initial guess (hexane, 352.49 K).

Table 4: Numerical test results of the SDGT algorithmin binary mixture system* .

Density distribution D [nm] σ [mN/m] AD (%)

Linear 10 2.1789 0.127Linear 15 2.1796 0.131Linear 25 2.1796 0.146Random 10 2.1799 0.129* Experimental surface tensionσ of methane–propaneat 303.15 K, 60 bar: 2.14 mN/m [39]. Interfacial thick-ness: 8.09 nm.

ure 6a. This is an extreme situation in which differentphases in the system are evenly mixed. The convergingprocess from Figure6a to Figure6d demonstrates therobustness of this algorithm dealing with such a subop-timal condition. Without being subjected to a mass con-servation, the system first converges to an oscillatory butsmooth line, and then reaches its equilibrium state after20 time steps. The surface tension result of this test isreported and compared with experimental data in Table3 with a high accuracy. This test verifies our statementin Section3.2.2that the SDGT algorithm is numericallyflexible with initial conditions which are usually diffi-cult to estimate. In practical calculations, a linear den-sity distribution will function as a simple and adequateinitial condition.

8

0 5 10 151000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

Methane

Propane

(a) s= 0.

0 5 10 151000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

Methane

Propane

(b) s= 1.

0 5 10 151000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

Methane

Propane

(c) s= 5.

0 5 10 151000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Distance (nm)

De

ns

ity

(m

ol/

m3)

Methane

Propane

(d) s= 30.

Figure 7: Density profile of methane–propane mixture (303.15 K, 60 bar) at different time (∆s= 1). A linear densitydistributions for both components were used as initial condition at s= 0 and the system reaches equilibrium ats= 30.

Another test is solving for interfacial properties of thesame system on different domain sizes. From Figure3,it can be concluded that the interface thickness of hex-ane at 352.49 K is 2.7 nm. Table3 reports the surfacetension calculation results of hexane on a domain size of8 nm, 12 nm and 20 nm at 352.49 K. By using the SDGTalgorithm, even given a much wider domain size (20 nmfor example), the system still converges steadily to gen-erate an accurate surface tension result, which furtherdemonstrates the robustness of the SDGT algorithm ondifferent boundary conditions as stated in Section3.2.3.

4.2. Multi-component VLE system

In our work, the SDGT algorithm was for the firsttime applied to a multicomponent system. Comparedwith the RF algorithm, no reference substance is neededto start the calculation. Crossing influence parameterscan be calculated by a mixing rule of pure componentinfluence parameters:

vi j = (1− βi j )√

vi v j , (8)

whereβi j is the binary interaction parameter of influ-ence parameter.

A methane–propane mixed system was used to testthe performance of the SDGT algorithm for mixtures.Figure 7 shows the density profile solving process ofthe mixture at 303.15 K, 60 bar. Starting from a lin-ear density distribution (Figure7a), the density profilesevolve gradually and reach the equilibrium distributionafter 30 time steps as shown in Figure7d. An adsorp-tion of methane on the propane rich liquid surface is ob-served in the equilibrium density profile. This is to keepthe minimum system free energy which can be betterillustrated on a free energy contour map.

200000

2000

00200000

400000

400000

4000

00

400000

4000

00

6000

00

600000

600000

8000

00

800000

800000

1000000

1000000

1200000

6000

00

1400000

Propane [mole/m3]

Met

han

e [m

ole

/m3 ]

Free energy contour, 303.15 K, 60 bar

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80002200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

A

B

Figure 8: The free energy contour of methane–propanemixture at 303.15 K, 60 bar. The while line is the equi-librium density profile from the SDGT calculations.

Figure 8 shows a contour map of the methane–propane system free energy as a function of their den-sities. This free energy surface is generated by sub-tracting the tangent plane from the Helmholtz free en-ergy surface [40]. The white path line is plotted on thecontour map using the equilibrium density profile fromSDGT calculations. It can be observed that in order tominimize the free energy along the path from the vaporrich phase (point A) to the liquid rich phase (point B),the density of methane must increase toward the saddlepoint of the energy surface so as to avoid the high energyhills, resulting in the surface accumulation of methane.A same description was presented by Sergio Cisneroset al. [41]. Besides, this methane surface adsorption isalso validated by molecular simulations [42].

The equilibrium density profiles from the SDGT al-

9

0 5 10 151000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Distance (nm)

Den

sity

(m

ol/m

3 )

RF algorithm: methane

RF algorithm: propane

SDGT algorithm: methane

SDGT algorithm: propane

Figure 9: Comparison of equilibrium density pro-file (methane–propane system, 303.15 K, 60 bar): theSDGT algorithm (solid line) and the RF algorithm(dashed line).

gorithm (cf. Figure7d) are compared with the resultsfrom the RF algorithm. A remarkable agreement be-tween the two density profiles in the interface region isseen in Figure9 where solid lines represent results fromthe SDGT algorithm and dashed lines represent resultsfrom the RF algorithm. Again, the calculation of the RFalgorithm stops immediately when it reaches the bulkphases while the SDGT algorithm presents the densitydistribution in the whole domain, including both the in-terface region and bulk region.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35−0.089

−0.088

−0.087

−0.086

−0.085

−0.084

−0.083

−0.082

Time

Gra

nd

Po

ten

tial (J

/m2)

Figure 10: The dissipating process of grand potentialenergy (methane–propane, 303.15 K, 60 bar) during cal-culation.

The grand potential energy of the mixture wasrecorded during the evolutionary convergence processand results are displayed in Figure10. The energy main-

tains a high value at the initial condition and decreasesmonotonically afterwards. It reaches a minimum wherethe system achieves equilibrium.

10 20 30 40 50 60 700

1

2

3

4

5

6

Pressure (bar)

Su

rfac

e te

nsi

on

(m

N/m

)

SDGT calculationExperimental data

(a) Methane–propane,T = 303.15 K.

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.3515

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Pressure (bar)

Su

rfac

e te

nsi

on

(m

N/m

)

SDGT calculationExperimental data

(b) Pentane–toluene,T = 288.15 K.

Figure 11: Comparison of the SDGT calculation re-sults (blue solid line) with experimental data (red squaredot) for surface tension: (a) Methane–propane [39], (b)Pentane–toluene[43].

Based on the equilibrium density profile, surface ten-sion was calculated and plotted together with experi-mental data for methane–propane mixture (Figure11a)[39] and pentane–toluene mixture (Figure11b) [43].Results are promising and it reveals that the SDGT al-gorithm operates in mixture systems with satisfactoryaccuracy as well.

In the numerical stability test, random density distri-butions are used as initial condition to start the calcu-lation. Densities on each local point are produced bya random number generator bounded by bulk densities,as shown in Figure12a. The density profile success-

10

fully evolves to an equilibrium state with a time step of∆s= 0.1. Based on the equilibrium density distribution,the surface tension is calculated and compared with ex-perimental data in Table.4. A very good agreement isobtained with AD 0.129%.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

Methane

Propane

(a) s= 0.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

Methane

Propane

(b) s= 1.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

Methane

Propane

(c) s= 5.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

Methane

Propane

(d) s= 10.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

Methane

Propane

(e) s= 20.

0 2 4 6 8 100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

Methane

Propane

(f) s= 30.

Figure 12: Numerical stability test: use random den-sity distributions as initial guess (methane–propane,303.15 K, 60 bar).

Another numerical experiment is conducting the cal-culations on different domain sizes. Robust conver-gence results are obtained for methane–propane sys-tem on a domain size that is close to the interfacewidth (10 nm) as well as on a much wider domain(25 nm). Surface tension results are documented in Ta-ble4 which have a deviation to the experimental data ofless than 0.2%.

5. Conclusion

In this paper, a stabilized density gradient theory al-gorithm (SDGT) is introduced to solve for interfacialproperties of pure and mixed systems. PC-SAFT equa-tion of state is employed which accurately describesphase equilibrium for a variety of mixtures. Com-pared with the conventional reference fluid algorithm,the SDGT has the advantages that no reference fluid isrequired and no estimation of the interface thickness isrequired. The physical performance of this algorithm isinvestigated by running interfacial property calculationsand comparing the results with reported modeling andexperimental data in several pure and mixed systems.Remarkable agreements are achieved in a wide tem-perature and pressure range. The numerical stability isdemonstrated using several extreme conditions like ran-dom initial conditions and overestimated domain sizes,which are potential risks of failing calculation in prac-tical applications. The robustness and expandability ofthis stabilized algorithm is a proof for its practical util-ity to a wider application of density gradient theory. Asnext upcoming step, interfacial properties of mixtureswith associating components (water for example) willbe calculated by using stabilized density gradient the-ory with PC-SAFT EoS.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Shell Interna-tional Exploration and Production Inc. for the finan-cial support. The authors would also like to thankBirol Dindoruk for valuable discussions.

List of symbols

Symbol Units DescriptionA0 J Homogeneous Helmholtz free energyAid

0 J Ideal gas contribution toA0

Ahs0 J Hard sphere contribution toA0

Ahc0 J Hard chain contribution toA0

Adisp0 J Dispersion contribution toA0

Aassoc0 J Association contribution toA0

a0 J/m3 Helmholtz free energy densityβi j 1 Mixing factor for influence parameter

11

D m Domain size of calculationǫi J Depth of pair potentialǫA iBi J Association energyki j 1 Binary interaction parameterκA iBi 1 Effective association volumeL m Interface thicknessµi J/mol Chemical potential of comp.iµi,bulk J/mol Bulk chemical potential of comp.iN 1 Number of components in systemΩ J Grand potential energyP0 Pa Bulk pressureρi mol/m3 Molar density of comp.iρi,A mol/m3 Bulk density of comp.i in phase Aρref mol/m3 Molar density of the reference fluidσi m Segment diameter of comp.iT K Temperaturevi Jm5/mol2 Influence parameter of comp.ivi j Jm5/mol2 Influence parameterz m Distance

Abbreviations

BVP Boundary value problemDGT Density gradient theoryEoS Equation of stateLGT Linear gradient theoryPC-SAFT Perturbed chain SAFTRF Reference fluidSAFT Statistical associating fluid theorySDGT Stabilized density gradient theoryVLE Vapor-liquid equilibrium

References

References

[1] J. Rowlinson, “Translation of jd van der waals ”the thermody-namik theory of capillarity under the hypothesis of a continu-ous variation of densit”,”Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 20,no. 2, pp. 197–200, 1979.

[2] J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, “Free energy of a nonuniformsystem. I. Interfacial free energy,”The Journal of ChemicalPhysics, vol. 28, pp. 258–267, Feb. 1958.

[3] B. S. Carey,The gradient theory of fluid interfaces. PhD thesis,University of Minnesota, 1979.

[4] P. M. W. Cornelisse, C. J. Peters, and J. de Swaan Arons, “Ap-plication of the Peng–Robinson equation of state to calculate in-terfacial tensions and profiles at vapour-liquid interfaces,” FluidPhase Equilibria, vol. 82, pp. 119–129, Feb. 1993.

[5] P. M. W. Cornelisse, C. J. Peters, and J. de Swaan Arons, “Non-classical interfacial tension and fluid phase behaviour,”FluidPhase Equilibria, vol. 117, pp. 312–319, Mar. 1996.

[6] C. I. Poser and I. C. Sanchez, “Interfacial tension theory of lowand high molecular weight liquid mixtures,”Macromolecules,vol. 14, pp. 361–370, Mar. 1981.

[7] S. Enders and K. Quitzsch, “Calculation of interfacial proper-ties of demixed fluids using density gradient theory,”Langmuir,vol. 14, pp. 4606–4614, Aug. 1998.

[8] G. F. Teletzke, L. E. Scriven, and H. T. Davis, “Gradient theoryof wetting transitions,”Journal of Colloid and Interface Science,vol. 87, pp. 550–571, June 1982.

[9] Y.-X. Zuo and E. H. Stenby, “A linear gradient theory model forcalculating interfacial tensions of mixtures,”Journal of Colloidand Interface Science, vol. 182, pp. 126–132, Sept. 1996.

[10] C. Miqueu, B. Mendiboure, A. Graciaa, and J. Lachaise, “Mod-elling of the surface tension of pure components with the gradi-ent theory of fluid interfaces: a simple and accurate expressionfor the influence parameters,”Fluid Phase Equilibria, vol. 207,pp. 225–246, May 2003.

[11] C. Miqueu, B. Mendiboure, C. Graciaa, and J. Lachaise, “Mod-elling of the surface tension of binary and ternary mixtureswiththe gradient theory of fluid interfaces,”Fluid Phase Equilibria,vol. 218, pp. 189–203, Apr. 2004.

[12] C. Miqueu, B. Mendiboure, A. Graciaa, and J. Lachaise, “Mod-eling of the surface tension of multicomponent mixtures withthe gradient theory of fluid interfaces,”Industrial & Engineer-ing Chemistry Research, vol. 44, pp. 3321–3329, Apr. 2005.

[13] J. Kou, S. Sun, and X. Wang, “Efficient numerical methods forsimulating surface tension of multi-component mixtures withthe gradient theory of fluid interfaces,”Computer Methods inApplied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 292, pp. 92–106,2015.

[14] B. S. Carey, L. E. Scriven, and H. T. Davis, “Semiempirical the-ory of surface tensions of pure normal alkanes and alcohols,”AIChE Journal, vol. 24, pp. 1076–1080, Nov. 1978.

[15] B. S. Carey, L. E. Scriven, and H. T. Davis, “Semiempiricaltheory of surface tension of binary systems,”AIChE Journal,vol. 26, pp. 705–711, Sept. 1980.

[16] M. Sahimi, H. T. Davis, and L. E. Scriven, “Thermodynamicmodeling of phase and tension behavior of CO/sub 2//Hydrocar-bon Systems,”SPEJ, Soc. Pet. Eng. J.; (United States), vol. 25:2,Apr. 1985.

[17] M. Sahimi and B. N. Taylor, “Surface tension of binary liquid–vapor mixtures: A comparison of mean-field and scaling theo-ries,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 95, pp. 6749–6761,Nov. 1991.

[18] H. Lin, Y.-Y. Duan, and Q. Min, “Gradient theory modeling ofsurface tension for pure fluids and binary mixtures,”Fluid PhaseEquilibria, vol. 254, no. 1, pp. 75–90, 2007.

[19] W. G. Chapman, G. Jackson, and K. E. Gubbins, “Phase equilib-ria of associating fluids: chain molecules with multiple bondingsites,”Molecular Physics, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1057–1079, 1988.

[20] W. G. Chapman, K. E. Gubbins, G. Jackson, and M. Radosz,“Saft: Equation-of-state solution model for associating fluids,”Fluid Phase Equilibria, vol. 52, pp. 31–38, 1989.

[21] W. G. Chapman, K. E. Gubbins, G. Jackson, and M. Radosz,“New reference equation of state for associating liquids,”In-dustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 29, no. 8,pp. 1709–1721, 1990.

[22] M. Wertheim, “Fluids with highly directional attractive forces.I. statistical thermodynamics,”Journal of Statistical Physics,vol. 35, no. 1-2, pp. 19–34, 1984.

[23] M. Wertheim, “Fluids with highly directional attractive forces.II. thermodynamic perturbation theory and integral equations,”Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 35, no. 1-2, pp. 35–47, 1984.

[24] M. Wertheim, “Fluids with highly directional attractive forces.III. multiple attraction sites,”Journal of Statistical Physics,

12

vol. 42, no. 3-4, pp. 459–476, 1986.[25] M. Wertheim, “Fluids with highly directional attractive forces.

IV. equilibrium polymerization,”Journal of Statistical Physics,vol. 42, no. 3-4, pp. 477–492, 1986.

[26] L. F. Vega and G. Jackson, “20 years of the SAFT equation ofstate–recent advances and challenges: Symposium held in bel-laterra, barcelona, 19–21 september 2010,”Fluid Phase Equi-libria , vol. 306, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 2011.

[27] J. Gross and G. Sadowski, “Perturbed-chain SAFT: An equationof state based on a perturbation theory for chain molecules,”Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 40, no. 4,pp. 1244–1260, 2001.

[28] J. Gross and G. Sadowski, “Application of the perturbed-chainSAFT equation of state to associating systems,”Industrial& En-gineering Chemistry Research, vol. 41, no. 22, pp. 5510–5515,2002.

[29] V. Baidakov, K. Khvostov, and G. Muratov, “Surface-tensionof nitrogen, oxygen and methane in a wide temperature-range,”Zhurnal Fizicheskoi Khimii, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 814–817, 1982.

[30] V. Baidakov and I. Sulla, “Surface propane and isobutanetension at temperatures close to critical,”Zhurnal FizicheskoiKhimii, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 955–957, 1985.

[31] B. Grigoryev, B. Nemzer, D. Kurumov, and J. Sengers, “Surfacetension of normal pentane, hexane, heptane, and octane,”Inter-national Journal of Thermophysics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 453–464,1992.

[32] M. Kalbassi and M. Biddulph, “Surface tensions of mixturesat their boiling points,”Journal of Chemical and EngineeringData, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 473–476, 1988.

[33] J. A. Barker and D. Henderson, “Perturbation theory andequa-tion of state for fluids. ii. a successful theory of liquids,”TheJournal of Chemical Physics, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 4714–4721,1967.

[34] J. P. Wolbach and S. I. Sandler, “Using molecular orbital calcu-lations to describe the phase behavior of cross-associating mix-tures,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 37,no. 8, pp. 2917–2928, 1998.

[35] Z. Qiao and S. Sun, “Two-phase fluid simulation using a diffuseinterface model with Peng–Robinson equation of state,”SIAMJournal on Scientific Computing, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. B708–B728,2014.

[36] C. M. Elliott and A. M. Stuart, “The global dynamics of discretesemilinear parabolic equations,”SIAM J. Numer. Anal., vol. 30,no. 6, pp. 1622–1663, 1993.

[37] D. J. Eyre, “An unconditionally stable one-step schemefor gra-dient systems,”Unpublished article, 1998.

[38] K. S. Pedersen, P. L. Christensen, and J. A. Shaikh,Phase be-havior of petroleum reservoir fluids. CRC Press, 2014.

[39] C. F. Weinaug and D. L. Katz, “Surface tensions of methane-propane mixtures,”Industrial&Engineering Chemistry, vol. 35,no. 2, pp. 239–246, 1943.

[40] J. S. Rowlinson and B. Widom,Molecular Theory of Capillar-ity. Courier Corporation, 2013.

[41] Sergio E. Quinones-Cisneros, Eder L. Granados-Bazan and Ul-rich K. Deiters, “Estimation of multicomponent interfacial den-sity profiles from a direct minimization of the free energy sur-face,” inNineteenth Symposium on Thermophysical Properties,Boulder, CO, USA, 2015.

[42] C. Herdes, T. S. Totton, and E. A. Muller, “Coarse grained forcefield for the molecular simulation of natural gases and conden-sates,”Fluid Phase Equilibria, vol. 406, pp. 91–100, 2015.

[43] B. Mahl, P. Singh, and S. Chopra, “Surface-tension ofbinary-mixtures,”Zeitschrift fur physikalische Chemie Leipzig,vol. 249, no. 5-6, p. 337, 1972.

13

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)

0 2 4 6 80

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Distance (nm)

Den

sit

y (

mo

l/m

3)