MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411988520 · doi:10.1002/cjce.70011

A straightforward model for determining gas hydrate phase equilibrium conditions and enthalpy of hydrate dissociation for natural gas components

2025· article· en· W4411988520 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Rasoolzadeh, Ali Bakhtyari, Jafar Javanmardi, Amir H. Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural gasClathrate hydrateHydrateDissociation (chemistry)Gas phaseThermodynamicsEnthalpyPhase equilibriumChemistryMaterials sciencePhase (matter)Physical chemistryPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A significant challenge in natural gas transportation through pipelines is the occurrence of gas hydrate formation. An adequate understanding of the phase equilibrium conditions of gas hydrate is essential for implementing an effective gas hydrate prevention plan. The van der Waals‐Platteeuw (vdW‐P) model is the most commonly employed statistical model to estimate the phase equilibrium conditions of gas hydrates. However, this model is complex and highly sensitive to the values of the Kihara potential parameters and thermodynamic reference properties. Several correlation‐based alternatives have been proposed to replace the vdW‐P model. Although some of those models work very well in gas hydrate phase equilibrium calculations, the majority of them exhibit inaccuracies and are constrained by their inability to accurately predict behaviour under extreme pressure–temperature conditions. This work seeks to present a concise theoretical equation for determining the gas hydrate dissociation conditions of simple gas hydrates of several gas hydrate formers, such as methane, ethane, propane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide, and oxygen. The basis of this model is the slight variation in the enthalpy of hydrate dissociation with temperature. The model is capable of determining both hydrate dissociation pressure and temperature. The results from the proposed model are compared to those from the vdW‐P model using both the old Kihara potential parameters reported in the literature and the new Kihara potential parameters optimized in this study, along with a comprehensive database of reliable experimental data. The proposed model accurately predicts the gas hydrates dissociation conditions for 1879 experimental data points of seven hydrate formers at pressures ranging from 0.093 to 493 MPa. The average absolute deviation (AAD) T and the average absolute relative deviation (AARD) P of the proposed model results for all data are 0.25 K and 2.82%, respectively. The enthalpy of hydrate dissociation () was computed after performing phase equilibrium calculations. The results demonstrate that the proposed model can accurately compute for all hydrate formers. This fact is well demonstrated by comparing the calculated () with experimental results.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering→Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→