On the Evaluation of Interfacial Tension (IFT) of CO2–Paraffin System for Enhanced Oil Recovery Process: Comparison of Empirical Correlations, Soft Computing Approaches, and Parachor Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon dioxide-based enhanced oil-recovery (CO2-EOR) processes have gained considerable interest among other EOR methods. In this paper, based on the molecular weight of paraffins (n-alkanes), pressure, and temperature, the magnitude of CO2–n-alkanes interfacial tension (IFT) was determined by utilizing soft computing and mathematical modeling approaches, namely: (i) radial basis function (RBF) neural network (optimized by genetic algorithm (GA), gravitational search algorithm (GSA), imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), and ant colony optimization (ACO)), (ii) multilayer perception (MLP) neural network (optimized by Levenberg-Marquardt (LM)), and (iii) group method of data handling (GMDH). To do so, a broad range of laboratory data consisting of 879 data points collected from the literature was employed to develop the models. The proposed RBF-ICA model, with an average absolute percent relative error (AAPRE) of 4.42%, led to the most reliable predictions. Furthermore, the Parachor approach with different scaling exponents (n) in combination with seven equations of state (EOSs) was applied for IFT predictions of the CO2–n-heptane and CO2–n-decane systems. It was found that n = 4 was the optimum value to obtain precise IFT estimations; and combinations of the Parachor model with three-parameter Peng–Robinson and Soave–Redlich–Kwong EOSs could better estimate the IFT of the CO2–n-alkane systems, compared to other used EOSs.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".