Prediction of Liquid Viscosity of Alkane

Extended hard-sphere model for predicting the viscosity of long-chain n-alkanes

“…The data of Queimada and co-workers for other fluids studied in this work ( n-C 20 H 42 and n-C 22 H 46 ) are reproduced with the maximum deviation of 2.5 %, while as discussed previously the data for shorter chain alkanes (n-C 7 H 16 , n-C 10 H 22 and n-C 16 H 34 ) are reproduced within the overall AAD of 2.2 % and the maximum deviation of 5.1 %, so it is not too surprising to observe under prediction of 6.6 % to 6.9 % for n-C 24 H 50 . An indication that the uncertainty of these measurements might be higher than for other [46]; () n-C20H42 [47]; () n-C20H42 [48]; () n-C20H42 [49]; () n-C22H46 [48]; () n-C24H50 [48]; () n-C24H50 [50]; () n-C28H58 [44]; () n-C32H66 [51]; ( ) n-C36H74 [44]; () n-C44H90 [51]; alkanes is provided by the good agreement of the model with the data of Wakefeld and coworkers [50], who also measured the viscosity of tetracosane but in a capillary viscometer, and whose data is reproduced within 1-2 %. The four high pressure data points ( P > 42 Table 4.…”

“…A literature search indicates that the measurements of viscosity of long-chain n-alkanes are scarce and only 15 datasets could be used in the development of the correlation. Table 3 summarizes the available data [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] detailing the technique employed to perform the measurements, the temperature and pressure ranges and the authors' claimed uncertainty.…”

“…Only for two alkanes were the measurements reported by more than a single laboratory. The viscosity of icosane (n-C 20 H 42 ) has been measured by three different authors [47][48][49], while the viscosity of tetracosane (n-C 24 H 50 ) has been measured by two investigators [48,50], in the overlapping temperature range at atmospheric pressure. The data on icosane agrees within ±1.5 % with each other, while for tetracosane we observe a systematic difference of approximately 5 %, with the viscosity data of Queimada et al [48] being lower than that measured by Wakefield et al [50].…”