JUL 14 1S66

^ecltnical ^iote CHo. 333

THE VISCOSITY AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

COEFFICIENTS OF DILUTE ARGON BETWEEN

100 AND 2000°K

H. J. M. HANLEY

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards is a principal focal point in the Federal Government for assuring

maximum application of the physical and engineering sciences to the advancement of (technology in industry and commerce. Its responsibilities include development and maintenance of the national stand- ards of measurement, and the provisions of means for making measurements consistent with those standards; determination of physical constants and properties of materials; development of methods

for testing materials, mechanisms, and structures, and making such tests as may be necessary, particularly for government agencies; cooperation in the establishment of standard practices for incorporation in codes and specifications; advisory service to government agencies on scientific and technical problems; invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government; assistance

to industry, business, and consumers in the development and acceptance of commercial standards and

simplified trade practice recommendations; administration of programs in cooperation with United

States business groups and standards organizations for the development of international standards of

practice; and maintenance of a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of scientific, technical, and engineering information. The scope of the Bureau's activities is suggested in the following

listing of its four Institutes and their organizational units. Institute for Basic Standards. Electricity. Metrology. Heat. Radiation Physics. Mechanics. Applied Mathematics. Atomic Physics. Physical Chemistry. Laboratory Astrophysics.* Radio Standards Laboratory: Radio Standards Physics; Radio Standards Engineering.** Office of Standard Ref- erence Data. Institute for Materials Research. Analytical Chemistry. Polymers. Metallurgy. Inorganic Materials. Reactor Radiations. Cryogenics.** Office of Standard Reference Materials. Central Radio Propagation Laboratory.** Ionosphere Research and Propagation. Troposphere

and Space Telecommunications. Radio Systems. Upper Atmosphere and Space Physics.

Institute for Applied Technology. Textiles and Apparel Technology Center. Building Research.

Industrial Equipment. Information Technology. Performance Test Development. Instrumentation.

Transport Systems. Office of Technical Services. Office of Weights and Measures. Office of Engineering Standards. Office of Industrial Services.

* NBS Group, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of Colorado. ** Located at Boulder, Colorado.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

technical Ntote 333

ISSUED March 11, 1966

THE VISCOSITY AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY COEFFICIENTS

OF DILUTE ARGON BETWEEN 100 AND 2000 °K

H. J. M. Hanley

Cryogenics Division

Institute for Materials Research

National Bureau of Standards

Boulder, Colorado

NBS Technical Notes are designed to supplement the Bureau's regular publications program. They provide a means for making available scientific data that are of transient or limited interest. Technical Notes may be

listed or referred to in the open literature.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Prlntinq Office Washington, D.C. 20402

Price: 25£

CONTENTS

Abstract 1

1. Introduction 1

2. The Potential Functions 2

3. Kinetic Theory Expressions for the Transport Coefficients 2

k. Method of Calculation and Results 3

k.l The Lennard-Jones Potential k

k.2 The Exp: 6 Potential k

It-. 3 The Kihara Potential - - 10

5. Thermal Conductivity 10

6. Self-Diffusion - — - 10

7- Conclusion 10

8. Acknowledgement 10

9. Appendix I 13

10. Appendix II 16

11. Appendix III — - 19

12. References 22

iii

THE VISCOSITY AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY COEFFICIENTS OF DILUTE ARG-ON BETWEEN 100 AND 2000 °K FROM THE KIHARA POTENTIAL FUNCTION

H. J. M. HanLey

The variation of the force constants of the Lennard-Jones, Exp: 6, and Kihara

potential functions was investigated by comparing the Chapman-Enskog kinetic theory

expression for the viscosity coefficient with the experimental viscosity of dilute

argon. It was found that this variation was more pronounced than expected. It was necessary to rationalize the choice of the force constants of each function before

using the function to compare theory with experimental data. Of the three, the Kihara

was found to give the best correlation, and tables of the viscosity and thermal

conductivity coefficients of dilute argon between 100 and 2000 °K were computed from

this potential and the Chapman-Enskog equations.

Key Words: Force-constants, Potential functions, Lennard-Jones , Kihara, Exp: 6,

Viscosity, Argon, Correlation, Thermal conductivity, Self-diffusion,

Kinetic theory

1 . INTRODUCTION

In this note the Chapman-Enskog kinetic theory expressions for the viscosity, thermal conductivity, and self-diffusion coefficients were correlated with experimental data and tables of the two former properties are presented.

Argon was chosen because it is the simplest molecule to treat theoretically and because of the relatively large amount of experimental data available. Although, of course, there are numerous discussions on this topic, and there are several tables of argon transport properties in the literature [1-5]*,

a really satisfactory treatment of even dilute argon has not been achieved. This is not unexpected in view of the difficulties of examining any realistic model in a non-equilibrium system. For instance, not only are there many claims that a particular potential function is to be recommended, but there is also wide disagreement over the recommended values for the force-constants or parameters for a given

function, such as the Lennard-Jones , (Table I)

.

TABLE I

e/k,°K a, A Ref.

93-3 3.5^2 2 119.1 3-%l 3 119.5 3. ^21 k 128.0 3.398 6 152 3.305 7

Table I. Parameters for the Lennard-Jones function, (Eq. l) selected by various workers.

In view of this rather unsatisfactory situation it was felt that still another examination of the data was justified. This has turned out to be fruitful in that the potential function was found to vary in a manner not fully discussed previously [6, 8]. It will also be shown that the correlation

between theory and experimental data is much more affected by the choice of the force-constants than

previously reported. It is hoped that the method given will be suitable for other gases of relatively

simple structure.

* Numbers in brackets refer to references.
The selection of a function and a choice of "best values" for the corresponding force-constants

was based on an examination of the viscosity coefficient alone. Experimental thermal conductivity and

self-diffusion coefficients are not as extensive nor as reliable as desired, and it is well known

that potential parameters obtained from sources such as the equation of state , often lead to discrepancies when applied to transport phenomena (this point will be briefly commented on in Appendix III)

.

2. THE POTENTIAL FUNCTIONS

The discussion was restricted to the three most commonly used functions, the Lennard-Jones

,

the Exp: 6, and the Kihara. The Kihara, in particular, has received much attention in the literature

recently [3, 9, 10 ] . As the functions are well known and have been fully discussed [l, 11, 12], it

is only necessary to outline them here. If U(r) is the interaction potential of two molecules

separated by distance r, and e is the maximum energy of attraction, or energy minimum, the potentials

are written;

Lennard-Jones

U(r) = he [ (a/r) 12

- (a/r) 6 ] , (l)

where a is the value of r at U(r) = 0.

Exp: 6 »w-i^-[;^(1'r/rJ

-C'-/r)

6 ] , w

where rm is the value of r at the energy minimum and a a parameter which

represents the steepness of the repulsive part of the function.

Kihara

U(r) = <*, r s a .

Here the finite size of the molecule is taken into consideration by including

a core diameter, a. (For the Lennard-Jones, a = 0.)

3. KINETIC THEORY EXPRESSIONS FOR THE TRANSPORT COEFFICIENTS

The kinetic theory for a dilute gas (see Appendix II) is formally complete [l], the ChapmanEnskog treatment of the Boltzmann equation giving the transport coefficients in terms of collision

integrals which are functions of the gas dynamics and thus, of the intermolecular potential. It is the lack of knowledge of the latter which restricts the applicability of the kinetic theory expressions. The expressions used for the calculations are;

Viscosity (q)

_ 266.93 (MT)V B f

" R

2

fi <2 ' S) V) ^ g cm" sec" , (k)
Thermal Conductivity (X)

R fl

l ' ' (T*)

_-l -. -l j _-l

(5) 15 d? , n7 n -1 -1 j -1

-r

1

rr TilO cal cm sec deg , 4 M

Self Diffusion (D)

_ 0.002628 (TVM) 1/

3

2 _! ,,, D %e2 ^V) fD Cm S6C

' (6)

where: M = molecular weight. (M = 39-9 1*-8 for argon) R = a distance parameter i.e., R = a for the Lennard-Jones and Kihara, and R = rm for the Exp: 6. T = the absolute temperature, °K

ffi. = the gas constant per mole

0,(2,2) (<£*) and ft* 1

' ' (T ) = the reduced collision integrals (reduced by dividing

by the integrals for the rigid sphere case) at the reduced temperature T , where T = T/(e/k) with k the Boltzmann constant.

f^, f-y, and fp are terms accounting for higher mathematical approximations to r\, X, and D and are slowly varying functions of T which seldom differ from unity by more than about 0.5/0. To be

consistent with the accuracy of the experimental viscosity data at extreme temperatures, they can be

omitted from Eqs . k, 5> and 6 without significant error.

* Tables of the collision integrals as a function of T for each of the potentials can be

obtained from several sources (e.g., Refs. 1, 3) > "the numerical values of the integrals depend on the method

of integration but it was verified that the choice of any particular set of tables made no significant

difference to the results presented here. The tables used were, in fact, taken from Refs. 1, 3} and 11.

Note that Eq. 5 for the thermal conductivity is only applicable to monatomic gases. For polyatomic

gases a separate correction is necessary for any internal degree of freedom. The coefficient of self- diffusion is an artificial quantity but is included as a further check on the potential and the force constants chosen.

h. METHOD OF CALCULATION AND RESULTS*

It was first necessary to determine the "best values" for the parameters for each of the functions. As has been stated, the preliminary calculations require the experimental viscosity

coefficients only. The general method is now outlined.

For all functions, the first step was to substitute experimental values of t|, corresponding

temperatures T, and a sensible value for R into Eq. h } hence obtaining fi ( 3,s '* (t) as a function

of T. An interpolation routine next generated T* by interpolating for these Q ' 2 ' 2 ' (T ) values in the given set of Q

(2 > 2

' (T*) and T* for the function in question. As e/k = T/T*, e/k was then

found as a function of T for a particular R. Incidently, these e/k versus T curves were very

sensitive to a change in the experimental viscosity coefficient and gave clear indications as to which

sets of experimental data were internally consistent. (The viscosity coefficients at one atmosphere

Much of this section is taken from the account in Ref. 13. The material is included for completeness.
were taken from Refs . 14-21; the same experimental data were used for all three potentials.) The procedure was repeated with several values of R, varying R by about &jo overall. It was found that the shape of the e/k versus T* curves indicated the best value of R. After selection of R and e/k the potentials were compared by examining the deviation curves between theory and experiment.

The details are as follows:

4.1 LENNARD-JONES

The e/k versus T curves for the a's of Table I obtained by following the above procedure

are shown in Fig. 1. The theoretical collision integrals were taken from the tables in Ref. 3. The "best value" for a was taken to be that associated with the curve with the least variation of

e/k over the widest temperature range allowing for the experimental scatter and interpolation error

(about Vfo ) . Trial and error selected a = 3-^1 A- A corresponding best value of e/k was about 125°K

from Fig. 1 and this was adjusted to e/k = 124. 9 °K to obtain agreement between the experimental and

calculated viscosity coefficients at 293 °K. 293 °K was chosen because the experimental viscosity

coefficient at this temperature has been carefully measured by many workers [e.g., Refs . 16, 18, 20]

with agreement of about 0.2$. Using the selected a and e/k, (Table II) , a percentage deviation curve over the temperature range 90 to 1200 °K was plotted, Fig. 2. It is to be noted in this figure that

agreement between theory and experiment is substantially better than obtained by previous correlations

[2-4].

TABLE II

Function e/k,°K R,A

L - J 124.9 3.^1

Exp: 6 122.9 3.86 Kihara 139-8 3-35

Table II. Best values of the parameters obtained by the method explained in the text.

4.2 EXP: 6

For this function a had to be selected first. It was initially taken as 12 and curves of

, o e/k versus T generated around rm = 3-5A using the collision integrals from Ref. 1 , 11 . When rm was varied by about 6/0 , exactly the same pattern of curves were obtained as for the Lennard-Jones

,

Fig. 1. The curve for the best value of rm for a = 12 was selected as above and shown in Fig. 3- The procedure was repeated for a = 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 with the same results, and corresponding

curves for the best values are plotted in Fig. 3. It is seen that there is virtually no difference in the curves so a = 14 was chosen to agree with Refs . 1, 11, and 12. Best values of e/k and rm were thus selected, (Table II) as outlined above and a deviation curve plotted, Fig. 2. The Exp: 6 function does not reproduce the data at high temperatures as well as the Lennard- Jones ._

4.3 KIHARA

The variation of the reduced parameter y (with y defined as a/a) was first investigated,

letting y be 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 (y = is equivalent to the Lennard-Jones) . The tables from

Ref. 3 were used. It was found that the Lennard-Jones pattern of curves was only observed when y = 0.1

and 0.2; the other values gave different patterns when a was varied, e/k was always high at the lower

temperatures. Typical curves are shown in Fig. 4 and 5. y was taken as 0.1 [3, 22] and a best value of

e/k found by fitting to 293 °K as before, Table II. The deviation curve is shown in Fig. 2. It is seen

that the Kihara appears to be slightly better than the Lennard-Jones overall and decidedly superior at low temperatures.

4
90

200 400 600

TEMPERATURE,

800 1000 1200

IB-smv, I

Fig. 1. Variation of e/k °K versus T°K for various best values of a, selected by

other authors, using the Lennard-Jones potential function. The dotted curve represents the best value of a selected here . Similar curves were obtained

for the Exp: 6 and Kihara functions when R was varied, except when

y = 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5.
5

4

-r

[ | | ~T T

REF

A - /4

® - 15 • -16

A -17 ^ - 18 O - 19

U -20

x -21

*

XA

*>x A

LENNARD - JONES

3

2

1

-1

-2

•* D

CP X

x x x x

z

o

H 3 <>

UJ - Q "= HZ 1 UJo

oc

uj o

Q.

-1

-2

£>7V 5

X•~ •?? . * * X **tf>°V 2

x

x

X A x

A x

2 • ' ' KIHARA

1

-1

-5>

o

X••O DDDD

J* «^l * X v X X V „ ^0 /ffc Iff x I X AXQ

Ax

XA IS x^

200 400 600 800

TEMPERATURE,°K

1000 1200

IB- S61VS 1

Fig . 2. Percentage deviation plots ( (

n»* P - ^caie j x 100 . of experimental

and calculated viscosity coefficients for the three potential functions

using the best values from Table II (Note: data from Ref. Ik is obtained by- extrapolation to a pressure of one atmosphere)

.
o1 o

00 o1 o

CO oo

CD oo

CD o

£1

CO o<\

ro

G)

ro/

O

sf c <o

CO

O

sf

-poH

cfl ro

ii

ii [ bl oo

C\J

LO

II

ronb oo

CM ^ 6

potent!

67*. ) o .. m i •* & „ i i O)2 i 1 UJ

a:3 & 1 m

C\J

— c o o

ro ' c O

CM

£i CD

CD r-<

a:

O £

COCD t—

pi

H o O LxJ ro n o

00

O

00 a.

LU > 3

COO T3

•H fl ^ CO \ oo

CD - oo

CD

hCO> ~? U -d- o c~- m

o<\ c < B II O o CD Oo D o — o CO _ CHO CD

II

sl- ro

ii <t CO CD 3 §

CM

b o 5; bl

OO

CM

H

CO> VO

ii v^ oC\J

a

— 4*

H

CO II CD PP 6 i 1 )> "X. 1 i

no o

cm o c ~ c o

ro o

CM

C

O •H

fa o

vi>
o \ o

00o \ o

CD

o<

OO

CM / <fr

C\J ro7 o ii / o

II 1

b(i o

CMO c> o c5 Is" CD u"> o

IIo o oo

00oo

CDOOOO

CM

O o O

CM

—

CM CM

roO

ii o I O

CM

_L oa o oo

00oo

CD oo

COoo

CDoooo

CM o

00 <

Ld

Q_

Ld

•H o •H-P

cS o CD P

01 *- -PO T)

P( CD

CSH o <H o S

co •H CM v ^ M ^ i ?- o -3- cw

f* o •H

O LU

09 ^

(T so 3 on Ha r— O CS

•>

a
460

450

440

-^"A

270

260

250

X=0.5

CT=2.90 A

cr=3.l3 A-

€/K, °K

^

210

200

190

180

170

0"=3.26 A

200 400 600 800

TEMPERATURE, °K

Fig. 5. The pattern of curves for

o o a = 3.13A and a = 3.26A.

0.5 is illustrated by a = 2. 90A,
The conclusion from the above is that care must be taken to rationalize the choice of R and

e/k -when comparing one potential function with another. It is seen that less than a 6$ variation in R

will make comparisons over a wide temperature range meaningless, a factor neglected by many authors. It

is shown here that for argon the Lennard-Jones gives a much better correlation with experiment than

before realized and that the Kihara potential is even better. In fact, in the temperature range 100 to 1500 °K, the correlation is almost as good as could be obtained from an empirical polynomial fit [23]. The deviations at high and low temperatures have not been satisfactorily explained. It has been

suggested that the experimental viscosity coefficients are too low at the higher temperatures [5, ll]. It will be shown that correlation curves for the thermal conductivity and self -diffusion coefficients

tend to support this. The deviations at the lower temperatures are not likely to be caused by quantum

effects and the reason is still really unsolved (see, however, Ref. 5). Although the Kihara is thus recommended as the most realistic function it is clear that, in practice, there is really very little

to choose from among these functions. In fact, the method illustrates the arbitrariness in choosing a potential function.

5. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

The experimental and kinetic theory viscosity coefficients have been shown to be satisfactorily

correlated with the Kihara potential and the parameters given in Table II. The corresponding thermal

conductivity expression, Eq. 5 should be equally applicable for dilute argon. This was tested by

plotting the deviation curve of the resulting theoretical coefficient from the experimental coefficient,

Fig. 6 (the experimental values, at one atmosphere, were taken from Refs . 2^-32). As is well known the scatter in these experimental values is large, especially at temperatures outside the range 200 to 600 °K. It is seen, however, that the kinetic theory, with the Kihara potential gives an adequate

correlation. Of course, as Eq. 5 was used, the same deviations observed with the viscosity correlation

will be introduced into the thermal conductivity correlation. This is apparent at low temperatures,

but not at high temperatures. The experimental viscosity coefficients at these high temperatures may be

low, but thermal conductivity data are not reliable enough to give any definite conclusions. Thus, tables of the thermal conductivity coefficients computed with the Kihara are reasonable above 100 °K, although there must be uncertainty above 1200 °K.

6. SELF-DIFFUSION

For completeness the self-diffusion coefficient, Eq. 6, was included and a deviation curve plotted, Fig. 7. The experimental data, taken from Refs . 33-37, are scarce and so the correlation,

although reasonably satisfactory, is not very meaningful.

7. CONCLUSION

The above three deviation plots (Figs. 2, 6, and 7) indicate that the kinetic theory expressions

for the transport coefficients can be used to compute tables for dilute argon, at least to within about

four percent between 100 and 1200 °K. Thus, tables of the viscosity and thermal conductivity coefficients

for temperatures from 100 to 2000 °K have been computed and are given in Appendix I. It is recognized

that the error in any fitted function tends to increase as the independent variable, temperature in

this case, increases beyond the range of the data.

8 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by a grant from NASA. Thanks are given to Gregg Childs for assistance

with the preparation of the data, and to Max Klein, J. G. Hust, R. B. Stewart, and R. D. McCarty for valuable discussions.

10
V "o <o K <fc o> o ^ [jjC\jCViCV|CVic\icvilf5liSl»S

Cfc I I I I I I I I |

o

o

o

D °

«2

o

p

®->»

o

o

OJ

o

o

o

o

o

00

o

LJ

O 3

LJ

Q.

UJ

O

o

o

o

<0 OJ OJ (0

N0I1VIA3Q ±N3DU3d

0)

.ci ra -p

-P

c! -p

<l> 05 •H ,G O +3 •H

<(H <D ri

=H +3 (l)

(1) O -p B ffj O

>i (i) -H ro Jh •H> • -p

•H CH o

•P (D ei

C) K

3 m

T) H •H

fl o

o fH CO o <u -p

rH 01 (I) 01 H •H d O

fc H

(1) bl) r+H A OJ <M

-H -P (1) ti () H •H o

01 -P G ^

O p

o

o

t-a

ca 5

a

o

Sh cm

-P

I*o

ho •H

11
/-~A

N0I1VA3Q !N3DU3d

12
9- APPENDIX I

THE VISCOSITY AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY COEFFICIENTS OF DILUTE ARGON FROM 100 TO 2000 °K

The tables were computed from Eqs. k and 5 using the Kihara collision integrals from Ref . 3 and letting y = 0.1, a = 3-35^, and e/k = 139.8°K.

13
VISCOSITY AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF GASEOUS ARGON*

TEMPERATURE VISCOSITY THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

TEMPERATURE VISCOSITY THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

K G/CM-SEC CAL/CM-SEC-DEG K G/CM-SEC CAL/CM-SEC-DEG

77 x I0 6 X xlO67) x I06 X x I06

500 334.9 62.5

510 339.8 63.4

520 344.5 64.3

530 349.2 65.1

540 353.8 66.0

550 358.3 66.8

560 362.9 67.7

570 367*4 68.5

580 371.9 69.4

590 376.4 70.2

100 82.5 15.4 600 380.8 71.0

110 90.6 16.9 610 385.1 71.8

120 98.7 18.4 620 389.5 72.6

130 106.8 19.9 630 393.8 73.4

1*0 114.

B

21.4 640 398.0 74.2

150 122.7 22.9 650 402.3 75.0

160 130.4 24.3 660 406.5 75.8

170 138.1 25.8 670 410.6 76.6

180 145.7 27.2 680 414.8 77.4

190 153.1 28.6 690 418.9 78.1

200 160.4 29.9 700 423.0 78.9

210 167.7 31.3 710 427.1 79.7

220 174.6 32.6 720 431.1 80.4

230 181.6 33.9 730 435.1 81.2

2*0 188.5 35.2 740 439.1 81.9

250 195.2 36.4 750 443.1 82.6

260 201.8 37.6 760 447.1 83.4

270 208.3 38.9 770 451.0 84.1

280 214.7 40.0 780 454.7 84,8

290 220.9 41.2 790 458.4 85.5

300 227.1 42.4 800 462.5 86.3

310 233.3 43.5 810 466.3 87.0

320 239.4 44.6 820 470.0 87.7

330 245.2 45.7 830 473.8 88.4

340 251.0 46.8 840 477.6 89.1

350 256.7 47.9 850 481.3 89.8

360 262.4 48.9 860 485.0 90.5

370 268.

1

50.0 870 488.7 91.2

380 273.6 51.0 880 492.4 91.9

390 279.1 52.1 890 496.1 92.5

400 2R4.5 53.1 900 499.8 93.2

410 289.8 54.1 910 503.5 93.9

420 29b.

1

55.0 920 507.1 94.6

430 30U.4 56.0 930 510.7 95.3

440 305. 5 57.0 940 514-4 95.9

450 310.5 57.9 950 518.0 96.6

460 315.5 58.9 960 521.5 97.3

470 320.5 59.8 970 525.1 97.9

480 325.4 60.7 980 528.7 98.6

490 330.3 61.6 990 532.2 99.3

* Calculated for the dilute gas by the Kihara potential, with y = . 1 , o Figure 11 defines temperature and pressure range for the dilute gas.

3. 35 A, e/k =139.8°K.

Ik
VISCOSITY AND THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF GASEOUS ARGON

EMPERATURE VISCOSITY THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

K G/CM-SEC CAL/CM-SEC-DEG

77 x 10s X x I06

1000 535.6 99.9

1010 539.0 100.5

1020 542.6 101.2

10J0 546.0 101.8

1040 549.4 102.5

1050 552.9 103.1

1060 556.3 103.8

1070 559.7 104.4

1080 563.0 105,0

1090 566.4 10b.

6

1100 b69.8 106.3

1110 573.1 106.9

1120 576.5 107.5

1130 579.8 108.1

11*0 583.

1

108.8

llbO 586.4 109.4

1160 589.7 110.0

1170 593.0 110.6

1180 596.3 111.2

1190 b99.5 111.8

1200* 602.8 112.4

1210* 606.0 113.0

1220* 609.2 113.6

1230* 612.4 114.2

1240* 615.5 114.8

1250* 618.8 115.4

1260* 622.0 116.0

1270* 625.2 116.6

128o* 628.3 117.2

1290* 631.4 117.8

1300* 634.6 118.4

1310* 637.7 118.9

1320* 640.8 119.5

1330* 643.9 120.1

1340* 6*7.0 120.7

1350* 650.1 121.3

1360* 653.2 121.8

137u* 656.3 122.4

1380* 659.4 123.0

1390* 662.4 123.6

1400* 665.5 124.1

1410* 668.5 124.7

1420* 671.6 125.3

1430* 674.6 125.8

1440* 677.6 126.4

1450* 680.5 12 6 .9 1460* 683.5 127.5

1470* 686.4 128.0

14g0* 689.5 128.6

149o* 692.5 129.2

TEMPERATURE VISCOSITY THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

K G/CM-sEC CAL/CM-SEC-DE

7) x lO6 X x 10s

1500* 695.4 129.7

1510* 698.4 130.3

1520* 701.3 130.8

1530* 704.3 131.4

1540* 707.2 131.9

1550* 710.1 132.4

1560* 713.0 133.0

1570* 715.9 133.5

1580* 718.9 134.1

1590* 721.7 134.6

1600* 724.6 135.2

1610* 727.5 135.7

1620* 730.4 136.2

1630* 733.3 136.8

1640* 736.1 137.3

1650* 739.0 137.8

1660* 741.8 138.4

1670* 744.7 138.9

1680* 747.4 139.4

1690* 750.2 139.9

1700* 753.0 140.4

1710* 755.8 141.0

1720* 758.6 14L5

1730* 761.6 142.1

1740* 764»4 142.6

1750* 767.2 143.1

1760* 770.0 143.6

1770* 772.7 144.1

1780* 775.5 144.6

1790* 778.3 145.2

1800* 781.0 145.7

1810* 783.8 146.2

1820* 786.5 146.7

1830* 789.3 147.2

1840* 792.0 147.7

1850* 794.7 148.2

I860* 797.4 148.7

1670* 800.1 149.2

1880* 802*8 149.7

1890* 805.5 150.2

1900* 808.2 150.7

1910* 810.8 151.2

1920* 813.5 151.7

1930* 816.2 152.2

1940* 818.8 152.7

1950* 821.5 153.2

I960 * 824.1 153.7

1970* 827.0 154.3

1980* 82g.7 154. 7 1990 832.3 155.2

2000 834.9 155.7

There is some uncertainty in these values , see text.

15
10. APPENDIX II

AN ESTIMATE OF THE EXTENT OF VALIDITY OF THE TRANSPORT PROPERTY TABLES

It is interesting to estimate the experimental conditions for which the tables are valid. These

tables are, of course, only applicable when the gas is dilute, where a dilute gas can be defined as a gas in which only binary molecular collisions are of consequence: in other words, the gas dynamics and

the intemolecular interactions are completely determined by the collisions and interactions between

pairs of molecules alone. The gas must not be so rarefied, however, that gas-wall collisions are of any

account. Furthermore, the viscosity coefficient, Eq. 4, must be independent of pressure, Thus,

the tables are inapplicable for experimental conditions where Eq. 4 no longer reproduces the experimental data (to within about 0.5$ in the temperature range of 100 to 1500°K). Also if Eq. 4 does not reproduce the data the gas cannot be regarded as dilute as defined. Therefore, a straightforward procedure could be to compare experimental viscosity coefficients at pressures greater than one atmosphere with the equivalent theoretical values from Eq. 4 at the corresponding temperatures,

and observe when the percentage deviation becomes appreciable. This was indeed done with the experimental data from Refs. 1, 14, 38-40 and percentage deviations calculated for the given temperatures

and pressures. A qualitative, but simple, way to examine the results was to plot the percentage

deviations versus a reduced mean free path XR

. As the results were only qualitative, the elementarykinetic theory expression for the mean free path was used:

X = 3_3_*. cm , ( 7 ) P V M

where R is the gas constant per mole. P the pressure in dynes and V = (SRT/ttM) 1 /

2

. A was reduced

by dividing by the mean free path of argon at one atmosphere and at 293°K, (t|2qo° = 2.23 x 10~ 4 g cm

-1 sec

-1

). We then obtain:

XR

= 257 T) (T)72 /P , ( 8 )

where t) is the viscosity coefficient at temperature T and pressure P (P now in atmospheres)

.

Figure 8 shows the plot and it is seen that there is an appreciable rise at XR

= 0.07 and percentage

deviation = 1$. It is reasonable to take this point as the extent of validity of Eq. 4 and

as the limit of dilution. The limiting value of X was then used (Eq. 7) to construct Fig. 9 which

shows an approximate limiting P-T curve above which argon cannot be considered dilute. A curve for a 2$ deviation (XR

= 0.05) is also included. Unfortunately, the experimental work was not carried out

at high temperatures and the higher temperature data available (Ref . 38) do not agree too well with

other workers, Fig. 8.

The above exercise is very qualitative; even for argon there is uncertainty in the values of force-constants, the experimental data are not as extensive as desired and obviously Eq. 7 is only

approximate. Also, more seriously, one cannot be sure how the failure of the potential function to exactly reproduce the data, especially at the higher temperatures, is contributing to the rise in the

^urve in Fig. 8. However, Fig. 9 is certainly reasonable and it is expected that similar curves would

approximately represent the limit of dilution for simple gases at temperatures and pressures removed

from the critical and boiling regions.

16
10

8

<

> 4

Ld

O

o - 7 - 14 • -38

-39

A - 40

1.0 .8 .6 .3 .2 0.1 .08 .06 .04 .03 02

Fig. 8 . Plot of the percentage deviation of the experimental and theoretical

viscosity coefficients calculated from Eq. 1+ versus the reduced mean free path Xjj, Eq. 8.

17
80

70

60

CO

a> jj 50

Q.

COo

I 40 O

UJ

* 30

</)

</) UJ

£ 20

/

/

/

/

/

®,

( TV

>

*/B.R :ur VE

200 400 600

TEMPERATURE, °K

800

Fig. 9- Plot of the pressure versus temperature limiting dilution curves for

argon. The gas can be assumed to be dilute for all pressures and

temperatures below curve 1. Curve 1 was constructed by comparing

experimental viscosity coefficients with the theoretical, Eq. k,

and is the curve for a lfo deviation (See explanation in the text). Curve 2 which represents a 2/o deviation between theory and

experiment is included for comparison. Curve 1 represents a constant density curve of 0.025 g cm

-3

.

18
11. APPENDIX III (With A. L. Gosman1")

THE SELECTION OF FORCE CONSTANTS

Force constants, for a particular potential function,, are often determined from as many different

experimental sources as possible [l, 2, 4], "but it is well known that constants obtained in this general

way often lead to anomalous results when they are applied to a single experiment. For example, values

of the constants found from, say, equation of state, Joule-Thomson, or crystal structure data, when

applied to the transport coefficients do not always give as good results as the values of the constants determined from transport data alone. This is to be expected because the potential function is not

exact. The inconsistency has not been discussed quantatively (see, however, Ref. kl) .

The above can be illustrated by comparing the curves for the variation of e/k with T for the Lennard-Jones at several values of a (Fig. l) with equivalent curves calculated from second virial

coefficients, B(t) , B(T) = b B*(T*)

(9) b = |

tt No3

•where N = Avagadro's number and B (T ) is the reduced second virial at the reduced temperature T*. (In Ref. 22, e/k and b were found to depend on the temperature but the temperature range was restricted from 90 to l4O0°K.)

It was straightforward to find the variation of e/k with T at constant o by following the

viscosity procedure and referring to the reduced second virials in Ref. 1. The experimental data are given in Ref. 22. The resulting curves are shown in Fig. 10. When compared to Fig. 1 over a similar

temperature range it is seen that the pattern is different and that the second virial does not appear

to be as sensitive to a change in a as the viscosity coefficient. A "best value" for e/k in the

90 to 400°K temperature range is approximately e/k = 119 °K. Thus, according to Figs. 1 and 10 it would

be best not to interchange the values of the parameters. However, it is instructive to see if a less

sensitive relation exists between T] and B(t) . T| and B(T) can be related if a common e/k exists

because from Eqs . k and 9

,

l/fi (2 ' 2 >* (T*) = F(B*(T*)) . (10)

From the experimental data one can calculate

,

and

l/n(8.a) *

(T*

} = -^ |g_|l (MT) i/2 (11)

B*(T*) = B 8XP /IttNo3

. (12)

This has been done for three values of a and the results drawn as points in Fig. 11. The full curve

in Fig. 11 represents Eq. 10 constructed from the theoretical tables in Refs. 1 and 3- The sources of the viscosity coefficient experimental data are given in Section k and the second virial in Ref. 22. It is seen that when a = ^.k-2 A, agreement between theory and experiment is excellent and thus it would

appear that a consistent pair of values for e/k and a would result from independent examination of both viscosity and second virial experimental data, but clearly, this latter method is not as sensitive

as the former

.

' Present address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

19
(U

a1 H H P<S T^ EH fl o

^-^ 03 o b CM

<fr o

(0CU 1>H

CIS P<

a)>

CU

OJ

=H

CD «a

ch

Pi

cu a * CO CO +3 oo o Pio

Pi

CU •H ro LU CU

-p

O

•H oc CU . 3 cd O -4- h- 0)& H

Pio < 0)

C8 •H

•P DC -p Pi

cu UJ to

to

Pi > CO Q_ d

Pi •H 2 > oo -d UJ CU

CO CU

OO

hti> rH

-P CM

CH

-p 2 o •p CU

fl t 3 o d

•H -d cu -P

CS 1 oO

•H o Pi

Pi th P)

CO> CO2

CU

0)

p •p

,3-p P!o

bO

<4H •rl •H

O

O -P

CS Iso O -PO Pi d

r-\ OJ o

PM > <H oH

tlb •H

Pn

m

CM

O

(VI to

Xo V9

20
0.0

-1.0

B*(T*)

-2.0

-3.0

-4.0

o

' 0"A

O - 3.52 • - 3.42 - 3.40

0.6

/a

0.8

(2,2)*

1.0 1.2 (T*)

Fig. 11. Plot of B*(T*) versus l/fi (s ' 2) *(T*) . The solid curve was generated from

Eq. 10 using the second virial and collision integral tables from Refs . 1 and 3. The points represent the curve from experimental data with three

values of a.

21
12 . REFERENCES

1. J. 0. Hirschfelder, C. F. Curtiss, and R. B. Bird, MOLECULAR THEORY OF GASES AND LIQUIDS,

John Wiley & Sons, New York (1964) Second Printing.

2. R. A. Svehla, Estimated Viscosities and Thermal Conductivities of Gases at High Temperatures,

Natl. Aeronaut. Space Admin. Tech. Rept. R-I32 (1962) , DDC AD 272 963.

3. J. A. Barker, W. Fock, and F. Smith, Calculation of Gas Transport Properties and the Interaction

of Argon Atoms, Phys. Fluids J_, 897-903 (1964)

.

4. J. Hilsenrath, C. W. Beckett, W. S. Benedict, L. Fano, H. J. Hoge, J. F. Masi, R. L. Nuttall,

Y. S. Touloukian, and H. W. Woolley, Tables of Thermal Properties of Gases, Natl. Bur. Standards

Circ. No. 564 (Nov 1955).

5. R. J. Munn and F. J. Smith, Interaction of the Inert Gases II, Univ. Maryland, Inst. Molecular

Phys. IMP-NASA-47 (May 1965)

6. J. H. Milligan and P. E. Liley, Lennard-Jones Potential Parameter Variation as Determined from

the Viscosity Data for Twelve Gases, Am. Soc . Mech. Engrs . Paper No. 64-HT-20 (1964)

.

7. J. Kestin and J. H. Whitelaw, A Relative Determination of the Viscosity of Several Gases by the Oscillating Disk Method, Physica 29, 335-56 (1963)

•

8. E. Whalley and W. G. Schneider, The Lennard-Jones 12-6 Potential and the Viscosity of Gases,

J. Chem. Phys. 20, 657-61 (1952).

9. J. S. Rowlinson, A Test of Kihara's Intermolecular Potential, Mol. Phys. 9, No. 2, 197-98 (1965).

10. J. P. O'Connell and J. M. Prausnitz, Applications of the Kihara Potential to Thermodynamic and

Transport Properties of Gases, ADVANCES IN THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES AT EXTREME TEMPERATURES AND

PRESSURES, 19-31 Am. Soc. Mech. Engr., New York (1965).

11. E. A. Mason and W. E. Rice, The Intermolecular Potentials for Some Simple Non-polar Molecules,

J. Chem. Phys. 22, 843-51 (1954)

.

12. A. G. de Rocco and J. 0. Halford, Intermolecular Potentials of Argon, Methane and Ethane, J. Chem. Phys. 28, 1152-54 (1958).

13. H. J. M. Hanley, Comparison of the Lennard-Jones, Exp: 6, and Kihara Potential Functions Using

Viscosity Data of Dilute Argon, to be published in J. Chem. Phys. 1966.

14. A. Michels, A. Botzen, and W. Schuurman, The Viscosity of Argon at Pressures up to 2000 Atmospheres,

Physica 20, 1141-48 (1954).

15- A. Van Itterbeek and 0. Van Paemel, Measurements on the Viscosity of Argon Gas at Room Temperature

and Between 90° and 55°K, Physica 5, 1009-11 (1938)

.

16. H. L. Johnston and E. R. Grilly, Viscosities of Carbon Monoxide, Helium, Neon, and Argon Between

80° and 300°K Coefficients of Viscosity, J. Phys. Chem. 46, 948-63 (1942).

17. M. Trautz and R. Zink, Die Reibung, Warmeleitung und Diffusion in Gasmischungen. XII. Gasreibung

bei hoheren Temperaturen, (The Viscosity, Heat Conduction and Diffusion of Gas Mixtures. XII. The Viscosity of Gases at High Temperatures), Ann. Physik 7, 427-52 (1930).

18. V. Vasilesco, Recherches Experimentales sur la Viscosite des Gaz aux Temperatures Elevees, (Experimental Research on the Viscosity of Gas at High Temperatures), Ann. Phys. (Paris) 20, 137-76 (1945)

.

19. G. P. Filippova and I. P. Ishkin, The Viscosity of Air, Nitrogen, and Argon at Low Temperatures and

at Pressures up to 150 Atmospheres, Inzh. Fiz. Zh. Akad. Nauk Belorussk SSR 4, 105-09 (1961)

.

20. R. Wobser and F. Muller, Die innere Reibung von Gases und Dampfen und ihre Messung im Hoppler- Viskosimeter, (The Viscosity of Gases and Vapors and their Measurement with the Hoppler Viscometer),

Kolloid-Beih. 52, 165-276 (l94l)

.

21. F. G. Keyes, The Heat Conductivity, Viscosity, Specific Heat and Prandtl Numbers for Thirteen

Gases, Mass. Inst, of Technol., Proj. Squid, Tech. Rept. No. 37 (1952), DDC ATI 167 173-

22. A. L. Gosman, Thermodynamic Properties of Argon in the Liquid and Gaseous State for Temperatures

from the Triple Point to 300°K and Pressures to 1000 Atmospheres, State Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City,

Ph. D. Thesis (1965).

22
23- Thermophysical Properties Research Center, DATA BOOK, Vol. 2, Purdue University,

Lafayette, Ind. (1964).

24. F. G. Keyes, Thermal Conductivity of Gases, Trans. ASME 77, 1 395-96 (1955).

25- F. G. Keyes and R. G. Vines, The Thermal Conductivity of Nitrogen and Argon, J. Heat Transfer 87,

No. 2, 177-83 (1965). _

26. A. Michels, J. V. Sengers, and L. J. M. Van de KTundert, The Thermal Conductivity of Argon at Elevated Densities, Physica 29, 149-60 (1963) •

27. A. Uhlir, Thermal Conductivity of Fluid Argon and Nitrogen, J. Chem. Phys . 20, 463-72 (1952) .

28. A. Eucken, Uber die Temperaturabhangigkeit der Warmeleitfahigkeit. einiger Gase, (Concerning the Temperature Dependence of Thermal Conductivity of Several Gases), Physik Z. 12, 1101 -17 (l91l)

29. H. Ziebland, and J. T. A. Burton, The Thermal Conductivity of Nitrogen and Argon in the Liquid

and Gaseous States, Brit. J. Appl. Phys. 9, 52-59 (1958)

.

30. L. D. Ikenberry and S. A. Rice, Kinetic Theory of Dense Fluids. XIV. Experimental and Theoretical

Studies of Thermal Conductivity in Liquid Ar, Kr , Xe and CH^ , J. Chem. Phys. 39, 1561-71 (1963)

.

31. A. J. Rothman, Thermal Conductivity of Gases at High Temperatures, U. S. Atomic Energy Comm. UCRL 2339, 8-114 (1953).

32. W. G. Kannuluik and E. H. Carman, The Thermal Conductivity of Rare Gases, Proc . Phys. Soc . (London)

B65, 701-09 (1952).

33- F. Hutchinson, Self-Diffusion in Argon, J. Chem. Phys. 17, No. 11, 1081-86 (194-9).

34. E. B. Winn, The Temperature Dependence of the Self-Diffusion Coefficients of Argon, Neon, Nitrogen,

Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide and Methane, Phys. Rev. 80, No. 6, 1024- (1950).

35- I- Amdur and T. F. Schatzki, Diffusion Coefficients of the Systems Xe-Xe and A-Xe, J. Chem. Phys.

27, No. 5, 1049-54 (1957).

36. I. Amdur, Low Temperature Transport Properties of Gases. II. Neon, Argon, Krypton, and Xenon,

J. Chem. Phys. 16, 190-94 (1948)

.

37. B. N. Srivastava and K. P. Srivastava, Mutual Diffusion of Pairs of Rare Gases at Different

Temperatures, J. Chem. Phys. 30, No. 4, 984-90 (1959)

.

38. J. Kestin and W. Leidenfrost, An Absolute Determination of the Viscosity of Eleven Gases over a Range of Pressures, Physica 25, 1033-62 (1959)

.

39. J. Kestin and H. E. Wang, The Viscosity of Five Gases, A Re-evaluation, Trans. ASME 80, 11-17 (1958)

40. G. P. Flynn, R. V. Hanks, N. A. Lemaire, and J. Ross, The Viscosity of Nitrogen, Helium, Neon and

Argon from -78.5 to 100 °C below 200 Atmospheres, Brown University, Metclaf Chem. Lab., Providence,

R. I., Tech. Rept. No. BRN-3-P (Nov 1962) , NASA N63 11774.

41. M. KLein, The Determination of Intermolecular Potential Functions from Macroscopic Measurements,

to be published.

23


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OP COMMEF

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

J