About the numerical pitfalls characteristic for SAFT EOS models

Estimating the liquid properties of 1-alkanols from C5 to C12 by FT-EoS and CP-PC-SAFT: Simplicity versus complexity

“…However this drawback of Equation 10 can be avoided by reducing the expansion of its exponential function into a polynomial form as follows: (11) In this study the predictions of the FT EoS expressed by Equations 4 and 11 are compared with a much more complex CP-PC-SAFT EoS [34], which presents a revision of PC-SAFT [37]. CP-PC-SAFT targets addressing two issues, namely removal of the numerical problems affecting the original version of PC-SAFT [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66], and allowing simultaneous modeling of critical and sub-critical data.…”

Testing the ability of various equations of state to reproduce high-pressure isotherm crossings in the (α, P) plane

“…Due to its popularity, some authors have extensively worked on its application to associating and polar fluids [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Note also that Polishuk et al [27,28] and Privat et al [29,30] have recently pointed out some deficiencies of the PC-SAFT EoS. For the purposes of this work, we will only consider the original version of this model [14].…”

Some Observations Regarding the SAFT-VR-Mie Equation of State

“…The SAFT with attractive potentials of Variable Range and Mie's monomer hard-core potential (SAFT-VR-Mie) [6] is one of the most successful versions of SAFT due to its advantages in predicting the auxiliary properties [7][8][9][10]. In addition, previously [11] it has been concluded that SAFT-VR-Mie is free of the fictitious phase equilibria numerical pitfall characteristic for several other versions of SAFT [12][13][14][15]. The current study aims answering two questions:…”