Phase Behavior of Heavy-Oil/Propane Mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The phase behavior of heavy-oil/propane mixtures was mapped from temperatures ranging from 20 to 180°C and pressures up to 10 MPa. Both vapor/liquid (VL1) and liquid/liquid (L1L2) regions were observed. Saturation pressures (VL1 boundary) were measured in a Jefri 100-cm3 pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) -cell and blind-cell apparatus. The propane content at which a light propane-rich phase and a heavy bitumen-rich (or pitch) phase formed (L1/L1L2 boundary) was visually determined with a high-pressure microscope (HPM) while titrating propane into the bitumen. High-pressure and high-temperature yield data were measured using a blind-cell apparatus. Here, yield is defined as the mass of the indicated component(s) in the pitch phase divided by the mass of bitumen in the feed. A procedure was developed and used to measure propane-rich-phase and pitch-phase compositions in a PVT cell. Pressure/temperature and pressure/composition phase diagrams were constructed from the saturation-pressure and pitch-phase-onset data. High-pressure micrographs demonstrated that, at lower temperatures and propane contents, the pitch phase appeared as glassy particles, whereas at higher propane contents and temperatures, it appeared as a liquid phase. Ternary diagrams were also constructed to present phase-composition data. The ability of a volume-translated Peng-Robinson cubic equation of state (CEOS) (Peng and Robinson 1976) to match the experimental measurements was explored. Two sets of binary-interaction parameters were tested: temperature-dependent binary-interaction parameters (SvdW) and composition-dependent binary-interaction parameters (CDvdW). Models derived from both types of binary-interaction parameters matched the saturation pressures and the L1L2 boundaries at one pressure but could not match the pressure dependency of the L1L2 boundary or the measured L1L2 phase compositions. The SvdW model could not match the yield data, whereas the CDvdW model matched yields at temperatures up to 90°C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".