You are on page 1of 16

Soo&ty of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 30316 Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils

Giambattista De Ghetto*, Francesco Paone, and Marco Villa*, AGIP S.p.A. * SPE Member


1Ss5, Sdety

Of Petmfeum Engineers, Inc. tiaavy Oil Sympmium held in Calgsry, Albarta, CenaOs, 1S-21 JunelSS5

This papar was prepared for praaametion et the Infematiwml

This peper was aektad for pmsantarion by an SPE Progrsm CommMae fallowing reviaw of inforrnatii mnteinad in an atstrsct submiied by the author(s). contents of the paper, es praaentsd by ttw sufhor(s), Tha meteriel, aa prasentad, does not neceeserily reflecf any position of the Z~*~~tk M~of Pet*~E_maMam_tim~ 4 . . . . . ..”.... *-. ., h e,,,., 1“ ., D*,* GMi-m iti* bjj E.WI.I ..1,,,0001-..,... .-*,,... .- .. .. . . . ..a.-.. SOdOty of Petrobum Engineers, its ofkers, or members. Papars presntad ai SPiE tirrgs are aubjacf io piibbtifii Pwmiaeh to oopy is reetrktad to an abstrect of not rmra than S00 words. Ifluatrafions mey not be mpiad. The ebatrmt should mntain ooneR@uws SdmowMgmenf orwhereandtywhom Uta paper is pmaanted. Write Libmrfsn, SPE, PO. Sox SSSSSS, Riirdaon, TX 7S0SS-SS2S, U.S.A. (Facsimile 214-S52-94S5).

ABSTRACT: Thepaper

evaluates the reliability

of the most common empirical correlations used for determining

reservoir fluid properties dead-oil

whenever laboratory PVT data are not available: bubblepoint pressure, solution GOR, bubblepoint OFVF. viscosity, gas-saturated oil viscosity and undersaturated oil viscosity.

isothermal compressibility,

The reliability has been evaluated against a set of shout 65 heavy and extra-heavy oil samples. About 1200 measured data points have been collected and investigated. All measured data points are reported in the paper. For all the correlations, the following statistical parameters have been calculated: a) relative deviation between estimated and experimental values, b) average absolute percent error, c) standard deviation;
011 samples have been divided in two different API gravity ciasses: extra-heavy oils for ‘API< The kst correlations for each class of API gravity have been evaluated for each oil-property.

10, heavy oils for 10< “API<


The functional forms of the comelations that gave the best results for each oil property have been used for finding a better comelation with errors reduced, on average. by 10%. In particular, for extra-heavy oils, since no correlations are available in literature (except for viscosity), a special investigation has been performed and new equations are propmed.

INTRODUCTION The calculation of reserves in an oil reservoir or the determination of its performance and economics, requires a good knowledge of the fluids physical properties. Bubblepoint pressure, GOR, OFVF and compressibility are of primary importance in material balance calculation, whereas viscosity plays an important role in production
test interpretation and in properties are determined well problem analysis. Ideally. these from laboratory studies on samples

reliability only in a well-defined range of reservoir fluid characteristics. This is due to the fact that each correlation has been developed by using samples belonging to a restricted geographical area, with similar fluid compositions and API gravity. In particular for oils with gravity less than 22 ‘API the literature is very poor and nearly absent for oils with gravity less than 10 ‘API. This work is aimed at anaiysing tiie reliability of literature correlations, listed in table 1, relevant to heavy and extra-heavy Agip’s reservoir fluid samples, shown in table 2. This will make it prwible to evaluate the use of some correlations in -----;.. . . . :,.I. _C A 1 —.,:.., *;-”. “9.m ... UI nPI ~IWI1y l!! whl~ll IIU fi,.-,,li~,a,,”,,. h .,. ha” ~,,, tia.- -,, ~,+osed yet (except for viscosity): for oils with density lower than 10 ‘API.

collected from the bottom of the wellbore or from the surface. Such experimental data am however not always available because of one or more of these reasons: a) sampies coiiecWi are not reiiabie. b) samples have not been taken because of cost saving. c) PVT analyses are not available when needed. This situation often occurs in production-test interpretation in exploration wells. In such cases PVT properties must be determined by using empirical derived correlations. Obviously the accuracy of such correlations is critical for the above mentioned calculations and it is not often known in advance. Despite the great number of work performed in the past 50 years on PVT correlations. each of them seems to be applicable with a good


presents a review of the most known correlations published in literature. The range of input data used by each Author in developing his correlation are provided in tables 3 and 4.

References and illustrations at end of papaer


suggested for using the correlations with oils of a different compositional nature. GOR and API gravity. western and midcontinentrd U. ‘llw average error of the equation with Tp was slightly lower than the modified Beggs and Robinson correlation (-4. Because the physical properties of each geological formation in Western Canada exhibited different behaviottr. and Creage#y developed an !n M)90 RoUi~ empirical equation to estimate stock-tank GOR as a limction of separator pressure and temperature {Psp. as a function of Tr. Gkso alar) provided a method for correcting the predicted Pb for the presence of C02. ! 58 pressures tlom 137 measured bubblepoint experimentally independent crude oil systems from Canada. OFVF at bubblepoint and total OFVF for the Middle Bast crude oils.. obtained by addhg the stocktznk GOR from equation to the field-determined separator GOR. In 1989 Labedi/lv published a new set of equations for estimating OFVF. with regard to the pol correlation. GOR and API. The correlation for pod was developed from data obtained from 26 crude oil samples. by definition. . . Tr and GOR.2 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316 published two correlations for determining. Applying these equations to a differential process might lead to errors of up to 20%. solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) at bubble point.ily-measurable parameter on field the latter correlation has not been investigated in this study. ‘fire correlations were baaed on more than 310 different crude oil sampks from Western Canada.. OFVF and GOR (at and below bubblepoint) as a function of yg. . The equations resulted tiurrt a study of 2533 viscosity measurements involving 600 different crude oil systems. the Authors believed that important chemical compositional aspects of crude oil could be considered in the viscosity correlation by introducing this parameter. In 1947 Standi&my respectively. Since Tp is not an ez. has been affected by an average error of less than 3%. yg. In ail. the paper has not been considered in this work since information about the geological formation of crude oil samples wem not available. the average error increased to 114. a correlation to normalise ~ to a separation pressure of 114. In all.27%. an adjustment to the API gravity term WZ.64% for the dead-oil viscosity correlation was found when tested against the data used for its work. Ltd. The Authors found w to be a strong correlating parameter in the development of the GOR correlation. llre second one introduced a new parameter to estimate the Kod: the pour point temperature (Tp) which is. A total of 69 PVT analyses of bottomhole fluid samples were available for the development of congelations.“ fimetinn of eYW~!v. representing the fluids of the entire producing reservoirs in Libya Each equation developed is a function of easily-obtainable datz such as API. Because Tp seemed to be related to crude oil paraffin content (it increases with the paraffin content). oil density at and below bubblepoint.”. as a function of cmde oil API gravity. ‘flu correlation was developed using 253 determined oil viscosity values on 41 different oil North Africa and Middle-East oil reservoirs. In 1977 Vasqaez and BeggsY’ presented correlations for pre&cting GOR and OFVF of a gas-saturated crude oil. pol and po. in 19SS Marhou#w published empirical correlations for estimating Pb. all equations previously published correlate @to pod and GOR. W. and because this information is not easy to gain on fiPiIi .mtir ss ~ . separator gas gravity (OOPsp). which can be easily done in the field by flashing the well dirtxxly to the stock-tank. fl.. In 198S Egbogah and Jackml proposed two different correlations for estimating pod. . S.3% vs. API. N2 and H2S in the total surface gases. Lzbed also published a relationship between differential and flash API. California and Alaska and a reaaonabk group from literature. ?g. the relation between wol and the corresponding p od is a straight line on logarithmic co-ordhtates. ‘W plot shown a series of straight lines of a constant slope whose intercepts could bz represented as a function of APl and GOR. oil gravity (w) and gas gravity OS).i. The new correlations were developed using the functional form of the previously published ones which gave the best estimate. Pb. API and GGPsp. in 1990 Mti Kattan and Salnm#4 proposed a new general vol. GOR and experimentally sampb from correlation is correlation for estimating po as a function of R. llte correlation was developed from 457 crude oil samples tkom Canada. In 195S Laaate#a presented a new correlation for Pb. Although the average errors of the correlations are very low. 6004 data points were used. USA and South America. it was necessary to develop correlations for 3 different geological formations. llw correlation was obtained using a logarithmic model on a total of 301 black oil samples. In 1992 Labedi/l& published a new set of correlations to predict pod. In 1959 Chew and ConttaU#5/ proposed a correlation to predict the gas-saturated oil viscosity (pol) as a function of dead-oil viscosity (. wI. and South America were used in his work. distributed into two groups (less than 30 “API and greater than 30 “API) because ofvariations in the volatility of crude oil. In particular. and Co of the African m. McLauchlinj Wong and Cheum#” presented a new set of correlations to estimate Pb. ‘fire study showed that at a fixed GOR. In 19S0 Glttw@ presented correlations for estimating Pb. R and Tr. (the latter converted to flash using the above mentioned conversion factor). Ilre Author also presented a correlation to convert OFVF and GOR from differential to flash liberation process at the separator condition. KO and Co as a timction of measurable parameters such as Tr. In 1988 Asgarpour. Because the first two correlations were developed using data from 45 oil samples with paraftinicities equivalent to North sea oils. The data-bank for the development of correlations consisted of about one hundred laboratory analyses.. vod. . In 1990 Kartoatmodjt4’3’ presented new empirical correlations for predicting OFVF.. A total of about 1400 different samples were used to develop the correlations. .~ . stage separator pressure and GOR. Only the correlation for Pb has been considered in this work. In 1975 Begga and RobIrtao# published two new correlations for calculating pod and pol. using 4486 data points for the Co correlation and 3593 data points for the po correlation. . An accuracy of -0. total surface gas gravity. the lowest temperature at which the oil is observed to flow. The derived from plotting (R-Pb) Vs (po+tol) on a log-log paper. -. The OFVF.“. Even if the API used in all of the oil viscosity correlations developed in this study was obtained by flashing the fluid sample to the atmospheric pressure. AP1. R and Tr.. Pb. In total. When tested against 93 cases from literature. Vasquez and Beggs also investigated the viscosity (PO) and the isothermal compressibility (Co) of under saturated oils. Because w is dependent on the conditions under which the gas is separated from oil... GOR and Pb correlations were developed using both flash vaporisation data and differential vaporisation data. — . 105 ex~~nt~ly determined data points on 22 different cmde-oil/naturzl-gas mixtures from California were used. Most of them were extmcted by PVT reports from South East Asia. reservoir temperature and pressure (R). API and R.RU~~e . N@eria and Angola reservoirs.pod) and GOR. OFVF and pod. from known values of reservoir temperature (T’r). API and GOR. The solution GOR. pararnetem more easilymeasurable in the field than GOR..”.. McCaht Jr.. Kartoatmodjo stated that these correlations are applicable to a flash process only.. ‘fire first one was a nrorMied Beggs and Robinson correlation obtained by using 394 oil systems from laboratories of AGAT Engineering. -5. the bubblepoint pressure (Pb) and the oil-formation volume factor (OFVF) at bubblepoint. ‘f?te Authors did not explain the reason for the large errors but simply warned that the extrapolation outside the range of the data mwd to develop the correlation should & done with care.7 psia was also developed by the Authors and tested against 124 data points from 27 different fluids. as a function of Tr. PVT data for 128 samples were collected from IJbya. . Only the compressibility correlation has bum considered in this study. Tsp)..nMM. 13%). . In this study ptrl is a direct fimction of pod. this relation makes it possible to utilise the viscosity 648 .“-.— tkld @@ ss first.

the dispersion of the ~ around their average value ~. .-1 .value diagrams wete created for each pmmeter studied in order to have a clear and immediate view of the behaviour of each correlation.-.A h-d Of ~ I !~bo~tory rvm.3 ‘l%e second class correspond to a standard classification of Oil/-w”on the basis of the API gravi~. . Od y the compressibility correlation has been considered in this work. -. qI. Audhors fount+ tiiai thdr correlations could predict the PVT properties with average absolute errors ranging tlom 0.l-ll.w. 11..AA :.5.. When equal ~ was found for more correlations. ptp. Sofstdan gas-oil ratio ~ best results are provided by the Standing and Vasquez-Beggs correlations with errors of 13. The correlations were developed specifically for Gulf of Mexico crude oils but Authors said that the same equations could be used in other regions of the world.1% for heavy oils. In this way. For reasons of space. in particular they should not be extrapolated for crudes of less than 32 ‘APL In this study it was decided to extent the Labedi’s correlations to heavy and extra heavy oils.-1... The qualitative analysis carried out by means of diagrams was accompanied by a statistical analysis... oil companies have become increasingly interested in reservoirs with the extra-heavy oilsnsn”. but they should be used within the limit of input ds~. under saturated oil viscosity and isothermal compressibility. especially .rn.13 snd14c Bnbblepointpressrm Stsndhrg’s correlatiodlw has given the best results with average errors of 9.&. . Africa and the Persian Gulf. thus defined (1) IO!LIABILITV ANALYSIS LITERATURE m cortstmmorm Ttds work analyses the most well-known correlations described in literature for estimating PVT properties such as bubblepoint pressure.. The highest errors did not exceed 1. . It does not however include those correlations which require. .7% for extra-heavy oils and 25.e.SPE30316 G. relative I.I..wmw. for the different parameters estimated. i.. nave ucm mmmwu to show a single diagram which gathers the beat reds decided obtained for in&idual classes of oil . This was made because no literature correlations are available for oils with API < 14..t~.-#-_--. :. . OFVF and Co. I ne aemmy or an UII IS u IUIWIHIUI CMSCCG*AC its R dktt its chemical composition. Calculated (~) vs.. dead-oil viscosity.3. but differentially liberated.. using the following equations (2) SD= { ~i~. Tables 3 and 4 list the range of input and output parameters upon which each Author based the development of his correlation (Author’s defined range). kWLTS OF RELIABILITY ANALYSIS PSIWORMED ON AGIP’S AMPLES S All the results are discussed with reference to Table 6 and to figures 1.:1. measured PVT data involved in the present study (about 1200 data pohta). Vasqrtez-Beggs’s correlation gave the best performance for the both classes. Starting exclusively with the PVT studies carried out over the last 30 years on Agip oils.. as input dst& psrametem which ate not easily measurable on field or not obtsinsbie from PVT reports. variations in the properties of crudes preame of the most heavy hydrocarbonst2%%%i9iTfly ‘n ‘k 649 .la < —. in 1993 Petraaky asd Farshad/’7’ presented new empirical PVT correlations for estimating Pb. -:1 --—.. oil formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio at bubblepoint. OUfmttation vohtme factor at bubblepoint Of the seven propenies anslysed.3. gas-saturated oil viscosity..7 for extra-heavy oils.7. tlds one was estimated in the best way. Table 2 lists the range of input and output pamneters of -*! AJ. Even if the class of “extra heavy oils” does not compare in the standard classifications. a selection was made excluding those lacking all the input data necessary to use PVT correlations. . For this reason.. Below is a discussion of the rtaulta obtained for each property estimated. not all the calculated-value vs. as a function of wd~hlI+=tn PVT analysis. in the past few years.* a. VILLA 3 dsta from the samples that are not flashed to the atmospheric pressure.5. No analyses were made for the whole group because it is plausible that samples belonging to the asme class are physically and chemically more comparable than samples tlom dtfferent classes. in order to ensure that the conclusions obtained from this analysis would be generally valid and have an extensive applicability to wide range of operative situations. a very heterogeneous sample of 63 crude oils was set up. the Ioweat errors bektg greater than 30% .AA.. of which the starting Pint was the dative deviation between estimated and experimental value (Ei).l. for the two API gravity classes. m-l” a. w .5% for heavy oils to 38.. The new correlations can be applied to other geographical areas such as the Middle East. M.66% for Co. _& to c%chCOfRi~tiWi. F. -— III W.y= all Aslp S Ull 511111@% WIIIIG I autG J .4 (see tables 3 and 4).. PAONE.1% for extra-heavy oils and 15. _* __ _.:.7.... the North Sea and some pats of North and South America. For this reason all the analysed correlations were applied over the range of input data reported by the Author’s. the lowest standard deviation value defined the best one. except for viscosity. ‘l%e reliability study was carried out using graphic and statistical instruments. there am no correlations in literature which cover the range of oils with ‘API S 10. GOR..7% for heavy oils. . The diagrams for each proprxty estimated are shown in figures 1. Table 6 provides the best results obtdned from the statistical analysis.. mad-d Viseos@ The estimation of this property exhibited the highest ewor. DE GHEITO. I.__.”.r... on which all the fluids main properties depend..+—tall . the API gravity was chosen in this study among all the different parameters used for classifying oil% tberefom Agip’s oil sample was divided into 2 different classes of API gravity as follows q extra-heavy oils ‘API s 10 10< s heavy dla “API ~ 22. 13 and 14. G-IA ---.9...G—.. The 63 oils come from the Meditemanean Basin. Vasquez-Beggs’s yu~#~ f?ve -m of tin.9. Ilre errors are very high. results wtne subjected to a statistics] analysis calculating the average arithmetical value (Q of the I+ and their standard deviation (SD). representative of diverse reservoir conditions.+.64% for OFVF to 6.. The reliability of each correlation and for each parameter was therefore tited for each API gravity class.5%. measured-value graphs. meawm%l (Mi) .. A....? than half of those indicated by the Isothermal C-Sdbif@ ‘IRe estimation errors nmge from 25.. . except for dead-oil viscosity (Egbogsh-Jack correlation). 11.. ---made on crude oils extracted from reservoirs offshote Texas and Louisiana were used to deveiop tiie correlations. the extremes of the ranges which identify the class can vary as there is no univerwdly recognised classification. Table 1 shows schematically the Authors and the relative correlations considered for each property examined..[Ei - %]’ N-1 (3) l%e correlation providing the smallest ~ value was judged to be the best. in this study it was decided to mal yse separately oils with API < 10 mainly for the following reason5 After having calculated the Ei for all the available samples.1 .

It should also be pointed out that the ertur in estimating the viscosity normally becomes smaller attd smaller as we go from atmospheric pressure viscosity to reservoir pressure viscosity. the average errors in determining PVT properties are still high.J -. which on the other hand. reservoir pressure attd 00R).”. This behaviour is justifiable bearing in mind that the correlations estimate this property with only two input variables: “API and reservoir temperature.. Standing’s correlation WM sufficiently reliable for atimating oils’ bubblepoint pressure with “API c 10.. For this reason the need to improve the reliability of the literature correlations has been y recognised.— Mid %sm. To attempt to estimate a quantity 650 . 2. results of Tab. The same applies to the correlations relative to the undersatttrated oil viscosity which have the gas-saturated oil viscosity among the inputs. The error decreased from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 30 percentage points for extra-heavy oils. Tire new correlations twduced the estimation errors of 4.l”$&~ ~~ o*~ @ rn&~ !a~ . Sofulibn gus-ail #a ‘flte quations used as model were those of Standing for extra-heavy oils and Vasqtrez-Beggs for heavy oils. In order to test the reliability of the modified quations. the greater the correlation error. have heen used as models for a best-fit activity aimed at improving the accuracy of literature correlations in predcting PVT properties for typical Agip’s oils. Bubblepoint pressure ‘fire starting models used for improving the estimate of this property was Standing’s correlations for the both classes of oils. regression more reliabl~ however. estimate the same property. #’.. except for the OFVF comelation. For this reason. in order to be able to compare the two sets of graphs more adequately. linear and non-linear regressions by means of the SAS program which carries out these regression analyses using the minimum squared method..=lJW %.. “is not shown. llre new quations reduced the estimation error from a minimum of 7.3% (Labe& extm-heavy oils). The functional forms of the correlations that in the previous reliability analysis on Agip’s samples gave the best results..2 to a maximum of 8. showed excellent results even for the other classes of oil..4 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS ~R HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316 with regard to the cla. the same graphic-statistical instruments as those in the previous study were used. Gas-safrrmted oil viscosity The average errors of the best correlations range between 14% attd 16%. Each histogram shows the value of the most important statistical parameter (~. characterise the phenomenon better than the inputs of the dead-oil viscosity (“API attd reservoir temperature). .yrd . The difference is due to the fact that by incltrdlng a calculated rather than a measured input in an equation. 4)..”. In some cases. Comparing the diagrams in fig. . the exclusions never exceeded 5% of the entire group. new equations were pruposed only for each API gravity class and not for all the group of Agip’s oils.1. and are compared with those of Table 6... . Appendix A shows the analytical form of the new correlations. the lower the estimation error of the dead-oil viscosity. Figure 14 shows the results of the same correlations where the calculated value was used as input data of the dead-oil viscosity. 6 and 7) for the class of heavy oils. Regression in the class of extra-heavy oils. In order to allow an easy interpretation of the results obtained with the reiiabilit y studies perfomred in this work.. for each PVT property. the estimation error of the equation in some way combines with that made on the calculated input even if the latter has been calculated with the best correlation. In fact. The observations made can be naturally and easily extended to all the other Ptopertie% in fact. Prowy (= fig..6.15 to 20). -. Dead-d viscosfty The models chosen was Egbogah-Jack’s correlation for the both classes.s of heavy oils. but this is not always true. In fact oils from the same class are more comparable than oils from dKferent classes. the viscosity. to isothermal eonrpressibility Ilre model to regress was Vasquez-Beggs’ correlation for both the classes of oils. . This proves the importance of correctly determining the dead-oil viscosity.----* . the best results of the statistical analyses are compared in a histogram for each PVT Undkrsatnmted oil viscosfty The best correlations showed a maximum error of 12. 10 attd 12.— Uwn.“.. It is likely that the input variables which estimate the reservoir oil viscosity (bubble point pressure.4. IIds setof new quations provided the most significant improvements. The dead-oil viscosity is the most critical property to estimate with empirical equations. ~VELOPMENT OF MODIFIED CORRELATIONS ‘fhe results obtained from the atmve-explained reliability analysis shows that. The results obtained are shown in Table 7 and in fig. Comparing the diagrams in fig..3 and 4 shows that the most obvious improvements wete in the 00R range bdOW 250 scf/STB. this was done every time the starting model was a Vaaquez-Beggs correlation..~ W. . lle greater the error on this input. i Q ~ 10-6 paia-t.V.. . :v~~rs comparable with those found by the Author in his own Figure 9 shows the distribution of the @“nts calculated with tire best correlations where the input variables (dead-oil viscosity and solution gas-oil ratio) are measured values obtained from PVT repnrts. On the other hand. although the errors dropped down to 13 pementage points with the new quatiorrs (extra heavy oils). the better the estimation of the gas-saturated oil viscosity.*h. Note that Labedi’s correlationllw which had in fact been gauged with oils with ‘API >32 (Tab.... n.s. W. Since the correlations which estimate the viscosity values at different presstrms are all inter-connected. The study did not take into consideration the correlations which estimate the oil formation volume factor at bubble point as the estimation of this prrpwty carried out using the equations chosen from literature was felt to be very satisfactory. M -a. 7 obtained for the different properties are shown ‘llre below. me still present. is the property calculated in the worst way... Maintaining the same functional pattern of the starling model. The modified correlations were obtained for each class of density into which the Agip’s oil sample was . 1 and 2 it can be seen that the most significant improvement in the new correlation is in the pressure range below 20(N paia.= -s. it was necemry to eliminate ml. Noteworthy is the increase in dispersions of the points around the bisector which corresponds to an average error increase of more than 15 percentage points.lh” vs. a quantity estimated by using measured input variables will undoubted y be more reliable than one estimated with ~~i~~l~fd inputs. prepared in the same way as those for the analysis on the literature equations. and then the availability of two different equations. is certainly more reliable than a single correlation for all the sample..7 percentage points. ‘llre regression of VasquezBeggs’ qttation was carried out keeping fixed the quation of the ~orr provided by the Authors.9 percentage points (aes Tab. .5 and 6 it can seen that the greatest :-— . values higher than 30% (heavy oils). especially when oils are beyond the Author’s defined range. average absolute error) for the two classes of oil into which the sample was divided. especially where high viscosity are concerned. bin. the numerical Ctrefflcients of the different quations were m-calculated by applying multiple. The comparison between the diagrams in iig. worn.-l llllPIU+GIIlclIcm = OU.-n. All the correlations assume that the fluid can be considered Newtonian. lit” WW-n “=. having given results worse than the starting c~si~ model..... ‘f?re correct measurement of this property is difficult to achieve even in the laboratory. 8. one for each class. ~LTS OF RIZLIABILITY ANALYSJSPERFORMED ON MODJFIED CORRELAITONS. not being a state property also depends on the behaviour of the fluid. The best results were provided by Kartoatmodjo’s correlations. .. -vmY. ....

Resewoir pressure. ‘F. collected from the Agip’s viscosity meawrements reports. differences of 10% between two measurements taken on the same sample by two different quipment. results obtained in this representatives as those of the class have to be considered not as heavy oils class (50 samples). Table 6. Poor point temperature. scf/STB. Ilse new PVT correlations proposed in the paper gave errors lower. DE GHEITG. for heavy oils. “API Calculated value Isothermal compressibility of undersatursted oil. The diagrams in figures 7 and 8 compare the trend between the old and the new quations. a group of 45 oils samples. ~. the multiple non-linear regression was carried out by keeping the quation supplied by the Author fixed for the input variable ~corr. However results by Table 9 for extra heavy oils are better than the corresponding by Table 6. For the extra heavy oils the poor number of samples makes the results less representatives. LQ8 Ln Mi N OFVF.. me regression reduced the estimation error from a minimum of 2. 39% and 42% respectively. q q Usdesmtssratsd dl viscosity : an increase of 1. Gas Specific gravity at separator pressure of 114. for the isothermal compressibility of extra-heavy oils. psia.4% for dead-oil viscosity. are normal. Ilse complete data bank is given in Table 8. Logarithm on base 10 Natural logarithm Experimental value Number of data points Bubblepoint bblls’m oil formation volume factor. They reveal that the most significant improvements are to be found in the range of viscosity greater than Iocp. Standard deviation Reservoir temperature. am given in Table 9. Pb Pr. The reliability analysis of the literature PVT correlations earned out on 63 oil samples from Mediterranean Basin. scf/STB. In particular. there are no PVT correlations for extra-heavy oils (“API S 10). Separator gas-oil ratio. Co and pod estimates were less precise the maximum errors were about 26%. The proposed new equations for such oils provide average error of 6. The estimates of Pb. 17.5%. relatives to the best literature correlations. performed on this sample using the same statistical index as before. Since the extra heavy oils are only 5. % Average absolute error. Sdssrded dl viacoaity : Em increased by 7. The diagrams in fig. AAE GOR. scf/STB. gauged in the same way. D~agrams in fig. The results of the statistical analysis. Comparing this results with those listed in Table 7 and. It is believed that the new correlations are sutlkiently extendible as they were obtained on a very heterogeneous sample of oils. “F Separator temperature.D Tr. 9 and 10 show that the new correlations improve the estimate in the range between 10 and 100 cp. we can say that: q NOMENCLATURE API a co Ei Em.psia. lWs analysis involved only the viscosity correlation because of lack of literature data about the estimation of the others PVT properties. 16% and 12% respective y.2 percentage points for extra heavy oils and by 8. estimated and Bubblepoint prwssure.3 (heavy oils) percentage Pints (see Tables 6 and 7). Mole tkaction of C02 in total surface gases. For a snore general validity of the results obtained in the previous analysis. has shown that the results obtained with the new equations have a general validity. Stock-tank gas-oil ratio. I I and 12. with maximum errors lower than 1.3 points in the class of heavy oils confirm the general validity of the new corresponding correlations. it was decided to test the new quations using a sww group of oi Is collected tlom literature. F. T Tp Tsp YC02 YH2S YN2 Botb ft$. This procedure was also followed for the other properties whenever the starting model was one of Kartostrnmljo’s equations. GG(av) ygcorr. % mol: Glaso’~ bubblepoint correlation Average S@fiC gSWity Of total Dead dl viscosity : the Em increased by about 9 percentage points for extra heavy oils and decreased by 2. % mol: Glaso’sW bubblepoint correlation. To make more representative the results of this analysis. For this reason it was possible to collect thm Iiteratum only 10 oil samples. Gsw-sotrmrted oil viscosity The starting model for the regression was Kartoatmodjo’s correlation for the both classes. PAONE. Ilre new quations brought the maximum estimation error to 6% (Tab. A deep literature review has shown that. VILLA 5 of this kind using equations which only use two input variables (“API and reservoir temperature) becomes even more difficult. on average. particularly in the range of high viscosity. % Rtot Solution gas-oil ratio from flash test. “F. has been added to the oils from literature. psia. A deep literature review has shown that the Author’s are usually reluctant to publish the oil data bank used for testing their correlations. Understslnmted oil viscosi@ Ilre models to regress were Labedi’s correlation for extra heavy oils and Kssrtoatmodjo’s correlation for heavy oils. performed on a new different group of oil samples (ftum literature and Agip’s reports). Separator pressure. P Psp Rst Rsp S.1 Relative deviation between experimental value. not even laboratory measurements of viscosity can be considered completely reliable: in fact. 8. Bo. psia. In this way an heterogeneous sample of 55 oils has been obtained. FURTNER INVESTIGATION TNE NEW MOBWIED CORRELATION ON TNAT ESTTMATETHE VISCOSSTV The new modified correlations have been obtdned analysing Agip’s oils sample. 651 .5% for isothermrd compressibility. the new correlation revealed an error lower than 30 percentage points.5% for solution GOR. which compare the trend of the old and new quations. pol and VO exhibited maximum errors of about 15%. Africa and Persian Gulf. GGcorr SU&2C @eS. ‘l%e result for the heavy oils is very good and confirm the general validity of the new corresponding correlation. gave the best results for the estimate of the OFVF. than 10 percentage points when compared with the best literature correlation for each PVT propefiy. M.SPE 30316 G. secondly. For the Kartoatmodjo’s correlation.7 point. with dsta available for the ordy viscosity correlation analysis.7 psia.9 percentage points for the Em in the clRssof extra heavy and a &crease of 0.1 (extra heavy oils) to a maximum of 4. Mole tiadon of H2S in total surface gases. 12. Stock-tank oil gravity.4 points for heavy oils.6% for gas-saturated oil viscosity and 4% for undersaturated oil viscosity. A further investigation of the new modified correlations. % mol: Glaso’slw bubblepoint correlation. In any case. The GOR. Mole fraction of N2 in total surface gases. show that the improvements are distributed along the entire viscosity range. except for viscosity. 7).

R. pp 5660. 2. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.” ‘he Journal of Canadkm Petroleum Technology. Jr.: “Correlating the PVT properties of Nigerian CrudesU Transaction ASME (1987) Vol lo9. R.1589873= m3 23 Obomanu D. B.L. OK (1947) 35.A. Wong D. “New Correlations for Estimating Hydrocarbon Liquid Pmperdes” (71eaki). pp 197-200. A. (Gennaio I 992). (October l@lm nn l&25. D. of Reservoir Fluids. Farshad F. Puttagunta V. PP 115-116.Flarnmengo (LACH) e ADFO. (February 1990). Norman.: “Pressrrre-Volume-Tempemtum Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude oils.” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.L. (September 1975)..” SPE Reservoir En~nee~ng. 5 (1991). po. pp 785-95. Pressrrre-Volrrme-Temperature “Generalised 8 Glaao O.. 10 A1-Marhorrn MA. & Beggs H. pp 375-90.C.” Engineer International.: ‘Two-Phase Vertical Flow in Oils Wells-Mlction of Pressure Drop. B. De Ghetto G. Op 266-272. ‘Ilte University of Tul~ The Graduate School. Richardson. Vol 29. P. . cp.: “A Pressure-Voirrme-Temperature Comeiation for Mixtures of Crdifomia Oils and Gases.36 A1-Blehed Viscosity petroleum 37 1<7 -.: “Evaluation of Correlation for Estimating the Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Fluids: Journal of Petroleum.R..: Correlations” JPT (May 1980). w 92-94. IJP54-127 29 Spiegel: ”Statistics”.:”Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology”. 7 Vaaquez M.-. Frick T. H.:”A Viscosity Correlation for GasSaturated Cmde Oils” Transactions AIME.Ng “An Improved Tempemtrrre-Viscosity Correlation for Crude Oil Systems. M.: “Studio di Affidabilitk delle Correlazioni che Stimano Ie Pmprietk degli Oli di Gktcimento”. 22 Majeed G..” Drill& Prod. (November 1993).A.=”.(ed.” Transaction AIME (1957) 210.7= psig ‘C XI.D. S.. Donohue D.. R.Science and Engineering.6 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316 n~p.D.. 30 Chierici G. Jr.M.H.: “Compressibility of Under saturated Hydrocarbon Reservoir Fluids. S1 METRIC CONVERSION FACI’ORS q Nm3/m3 q q q (*)=gcm3 x 5. McLaughlin L. AgipS. (May-June 1990)..E. B. 17 Petrosky G. Sclocchi G. 32 Paone F. rr -. (August 1993).. No. (June 1993).D.S. A.H..--39 McCain W.F.: “use of Production Data to Estimate Volume Factor.B. pp 927-38. 25 Sutton R. (1993). Transaction AIME. Richardson. pp 341-44.” Journal of Petroleum Science and Fxgineering. TX. .B. Undersaturatcd oil viscosity. ! c L~H_~ pressiim. M. B. 29.J. McCtdn W. 11 Asgapur S. Natural Gas.P. pp 395-406. (July-August 1990).wp G= Specific grWity Zi amy *~ZiiiGi ~~~~. (May 1976). Oil and Gas Property Evaluation and Resewe Estimates.5519= SCf/STB KPa x O. 257. Pmct.: “Estimation of singhB. & Jack T. pp 1140-41. Vo pod.. SPE. 8 (i992k pp 22i -234.: “PressrrreVoiume-Tem~mm Correlations for Western Canadian GSSCS and oils” Petroleum Sochsty of CIM. .. Standing M. .D. Ninth Printing (1981).E. Pp 24-27. Collana kchaum. 33 Closmann P. jtxt GG(Psp). bbl x 0. Creeger J. 19 Slotte in Frick T..-. (May 1991).” Petroleum Engineer International.D.D. pp 38 McCain W.” SPE 26644.:”Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems” JPT.R.R. JC “Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering: University of Oklahoma Press. 3 Standing M. Journal of Canadian Pettolerun Technology. New York (1973). JPT (Jfmu?u’Y GOR 1990).3r r. Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at 011 Field Temperature and pressures..” Hydrrwarbon processing. pp ~~.894757= psia -1 q q cpxl.A. Singh : “Simple concept predicts viscosity of heavy Oii and bitumen. Property Prediction... 216.: Kattan R. .. cp. 21 Trube A. and Farahad F.. & Salman N.: “Black Oils and Volatile Oils-What’s the mffercnce?” Petroleum Engineer International. 28 Davis J. pp 79-86.K.A.: “Evaluation of Empirically Derived PVT Pmoetties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils. (1977). Gas-saturated oil viscosity. (1959) Vol. (1990) !A Maj~ G. 1993) no 71-73. 27 Lang K. J.Jr. Univeraiti degli Studi di Bologn& (13 ottobre 1993).A. 1. H.R.P. -fo.8+32=”F KPa -1 x 6. VOi. pp 23-25. Sayyouh M. pp 275-87.. and Sahnan N.” S~ Rmoir Engineering.D. SPE-AIME. 16? .: “Heavy Oil ViSCOSity range from one teat. (1970). pp 650-66.: “Bubble Point Pressure Correlation..: “Oil-System Correlations” Petroleum Pmd~#ction Handbook.M. .. Water. cp... pp214-16.T. Tesi di Laurea in Ingegneria Mineraria.:”Studio di Affidabilit~ di Correlazioni per la Stima delle Pmprieth di Oli di Giacinrento. & Connally C.pp351-69..C.” JVT (August 1974). 4..:”Principi di Ingegneria dd Giacirnenti Petroliferi. 4 Laaater J.: “Chendcal Composition Ddmmkea Behaviour of Reservoir Fluids. Jr. paper No 88-39-62 (1988). 24 Ali J. pp 379-81.T..: “API Gravity and Deterndne Cmde Oil Sulphur Concentration. & Okpobori G. 35 Puttagunta V.” Transaction AIME (1958) 213.: ‘The Viscosity of Air.: “New correlation for estimating the viscosity of under saturated crude oils”. “Reservoir-fluid property correlations-State of t~ Afi. Cheung V.C. Mittdmrye A. Vol 2.” Journal of Petroleum Technology.@q~ Q~!Spific gravity. Density and Compressibility 13 Kattoatrnodjo T. REFERENCES 1 Standing M.. 15 Rollins J. (aettembrz 1991 ). 18 Beat C.” Agip (internal report). 6 Begga H.: “petroleum production Handbook” SPEAIME. No. John Wiley & Sons. Reprint Series. Cap 19. 80hltiOll of Black OilS”. API (1947).” Vol 1.:’’Comelations for Fluid Physical 9 Egbogah E.14. Vod pol. pp 80-85. Vol Dead-oil or gas-free oil viscosity.. 20 Calhoun J.A.: “A correlation of viscosity and molecular weight. Ciucci G. 31 Chierici G. TX (1%2) Vol.: “An empirical Correlation for Oil FVF Prediction. & Robinson J.C. Jr. .O=mPaxs. Deaorrky S. 34 McCain W. “lm~ved correlations for predicting the viscosity of light crudes”.H..D. ( 1%2)..” Oii & Gas Joumai (Mar . 5 (1990).: “Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field Hydrocarbon System”.: “PVT Correlations for Middle East Cmde oils? JPT (May 1988). 26 Callegari A.O. .i i~~-~& I z W! R..” SPE 6719.). 5 Chew J. Miadonye A.3. Senior Series Edito~”PE 406-Petroleum Engineering IHRDC E and P Video Library” edizione in Lingua Italiana a curs di G. Seba R. 4 (1990). SPE.14504= psia psia . .

PI .0335+1. 1+0.los where ‘fP ~Rcorr = 7RP..API Yg .M.oiw.001567.7885 (A-1) Heavy dk Modified Kartoatmodjo’s correlation F2 (A -9) Pol = -0.0099.W08 i ~Rs r ) .MODIFtEDCORRELATIONS l-Bubbiepaint Pressure: q ~gcorr = TRP. AFt ‘v A yRCoW = YKp~p 1+0. ) Modified Stanclktg’s correlation 0.i595 APIO’m8 . y=lo AP1°’w8 .5912 APl. Jr.611410-0 ”000845’m -0.3945+0. ‘s= ‘g ‘[ 10. Bridges B. Willxe (A -8) ----.7) tog iog S-Gas-sxtorxted dl 4’kOZity . 0.W39Tg-1230.3132 “pod io0.(7’’)-0”2*. F+0.002763 .1374. i9 P “ [ i.6+3.10) P.078 .4P.Tfp LOX — [ [11 114. f.An-o. Ap. Extra-hexvy oikx Modified Labedi’s correlation Rs=%=+’ where Hezvy oils: Modifti Vsaquez-Beggs correlation 1.01 I*B. m0.F-0.DE GHETTG.9267.988ti.ygw= co= (~fp)-0”2’% * 11 [ ii4.sp i+0.rp ~ 1+0.oR Heavy oils: Modifkd Vssquez-lkggs -2M1.0.7025 q oil viscosity: .SPE30316 G.0785.Tp [ q Y~corr = 1+0.4078 20Tg Pg -627. API q .7 ( Pb .003653.0 lo.. oils: Modified Kartoxtmodio’s correlation .fp = (A -4) . .bg * H] APPENDIX A . K ‘1[)‘] .9ij296_.0-4 Mkad-oil q viscosity Extra-heavy ok +1]= (A.D.70226 .91 API co.00.( P.F.U.--1 .7 [11 [ . (January i994j.5912. -0.(Tv)-02%mg ExtrR-hezvy oik Modified Stsnding’s correlation T)) ’””2s (#$ . 1595.UIXM9 ----- Heavy dim Modiiied Egbogah-Jack’s corteiation Pd () + i = 2.2057 .-4 Heavy oils: Modified Jktoatm@o’s corrziation II - (A .5912 . F= -0.solution GOR... Log — 114. 653 .2478 +0.(O —.434 (A -3) .06492-0.6) Modiikcl Egbogah-Jazk’s correlation <. Tv.6311 +1. Whete F= ( 0. AFl/(T+460) 56.0142. I +0.00081.-4 correlation””’”””’ ) ( ) R. Oi i53v~3 [ +0..00.MR s+25.7 . IW\Tgf ) Iw”lw(Pd q i.: “Volatile oils and Retrograde Gases-What’s the Diffemnce7° Petroleum Engineer International.Fb) .4476.iog(Tg) (A.5yg - ‘T (11 — 114.p~’+05’58”y) y=io 2.VJ .. +0.7286.3 105 .8+2.0020T . “1[ io-2. ~) 64Jnderaxturated (~]~ ii4. q ~xcorr = ~gP.7 -81.m156..i595 [ q Heavy oikx Pb= 15.8927.7 where YgP. pp 35-36.VILLA 7 40 McCain W.0179 API -0.055. Extra-heaw .APIF~p. %+ ~~corrYRP.P AONE. F2 Vol = 2.! -0. Po. -0. Po=Poi - [[ J-.03 i6qI~i5939 ) (A-ii) 3-Iaothermd Compressibility: q Extm-heavy oikx Modified Vaaquez-Begga correlation 889. (A -5) Pg..10-0”-’”% . = 0.

cmqm?siity Lsbali ‘z.62 4.4ta 230. I.Las2tcr~.49 t07411. htoatmdjo Vuqucz-13qEW Glaso.) I I I oiifmlldkmvolIlmosdar@bl/sTB) 11.4ti334. Fetros&Fsrsha@7’ un&@Ulmdoil Vi2c08ity Vasqued3qWSKmt@modjo.1 to 575.9 21tow5.abali fl~ ITAB152 AOIP’S ANGE POR PVT PROPERTIES R SAMPI.5 to 9RS 7.362 10 % I 3.057to 1. w20@ Staaiiiiiziii Ibtodmdjo I ‘lwJU-Marhounnw “’. Majccd-Kattan-Salman ’14.39 t031L41 0.02 to 429 %iliMu&x .7to 13s6.Dedd ViIcody ((p) ~clilvimaily(cp) Udmdmidosviaccdy ((al) 12. Rollinf5-MabCm&r IOFVF SVqudkggs.34 I 131.ITABIZ 1: FUJIDPROPER’IY CORRELATIONS I lpbdd roper& P IBubblepoint premlrc I 1.7 w 59 to 177.9 I I i Mobhctkmafco2rntdxl gaam(%mal. n~ SolutionGOR s- V-- Km@modjo. Kart@mdjo.X I I I r-ati) ‘Lwlirtalmlumm ] 1038.8 11.6 I .

65 to 1.088 to 2.92 - Tank-d ~vity ~APl) BubblepOidpmsum (pllia) ~~m OFVF d 16.752 to 1.1 165t07142 8oto280 1.l178to 1.032 to 1.9to 51.4 to 58.4824to L668 vMqurz-Beg@ 15.588 90 to 2637 117.022 to 2.3 to 59.3 to 48. 12 to 1742 - Solution 00R(acflSTB) BIMM ~ (W@ De40s ViaxJdy (q) ouutw@60sviwodh’(cP) .025 to 2.TABLE3 AUTHORS DEFINED WOE FOR BUBBLEKXNT PRELSm - f X.2 to 48 520106358 12810306 1.024 t02.8 130t07000 100t0258 Ilubbw (bwsTB) I 1. Sto&tmk OOR (sc@STB) Sqmmtor OOR(IC@TB) .5 15t06055 170 (Oll!aa) 1.124 29.367 20t03573 Rolsm-MdhilI lsto53.579to 1.5781 to 0.OFVFAND COMPRESSLBIIIIY CORRELATIONS O&o 22.7to 3114. 100 3s to 294 loto6000 .511to L351 .8519 - ~~ 32.4 to 44. 34.6 130 to 3!573 74to 240 1.15 120to 1425 Solution OOR(dSTB) 0.7 60 tal220 1700to 10692 .95 oto6040 75 to 320 1.3 to 45 1574to 6523 l14to 288 1.1 48t05780 82t0272 I13t02905 K@@-#o 14.LITION OOR.7 to 789.6229 217to 1406 0.5 to 63. 6oto565 76 to 150 141t09515 AIMafhmlll 19.226 oto2199 o.997 26 to Mm 0.5 0.028 to 2.7 6oto ml 4t0220 -F16.747 oto2890 0.276 415 (ImaO) 125 (mean) .

924 LL LL 3.217 L281 * Lm L2m 8.22 mL42 227.8 ll&6 MO 3Z0 10Lo 4L0 104.21 lm.m 1034. m.0 MO W1.2 M.42 M18.42 723.37 M12 4.27 -. 4 la 4 u o * o 4%8 48.S m.o1 3a.4 m.72 m la8Loo 2S37 224.6 741M 122L0 m.41 7 L143 L202 Lom 2323 3347 L222 Lm2 w 3142.m W53 4640 32.27 ms.1 72.22 3$37 847.04 38.72 224L80 142L22 Ilmw mb7! 480SM 4329.7i 3S7 lm4.28 784.2 n 6 20.6 100.43 M 48041 23X4 an W24 32.m 224. nm3 03?.21 24L80 mu m%m mt.44 mm 224. e 482642 48W2 ma 4882M a23.84 M&a M644 888.87 4U3 sot 2L21 *U 2L48 10L82 228.s7 22L44 124.m 2423.m 2.48 w 7413.11 % 3 w 24.33 24.92 mn 2oYl 8L23 4a23 %w #1#4 1L20 8.(M 44?234 2mu 2208J 1 W.422 3.27 34W 20.0 1248 424 IM3 1%0 Xl 1s0 247. o a o la 4 8Lo 28.78 -q 4823. 33.22 102.TABLE !k EXPERIMENTALLY NlEASURED PVT DATA 4mdl 1 1 414M4 2228. = m m.2 all m47.42 20.8 862 84.n 052 0.8 U4.n Isa 224.22 S.83 am 22.44 320217 227.07 Mm mm 73.6 -X 228t.734 L2m 12.42 142.04 3Ln 4.32 1047.24 La3 lqn Ll~ 7.41 10.42 !!liiI Ll a a 4.s3 784.40 m.2 2m2 1 I 4.m 4a04 :78.21 2n&m 20.44 22.L L81 t L L L L L1 L L m 1 m2u 24 1 n mm! 4m7. 1 1 288.. 4 73.u LI* L2X 22.23’ L3m w L044 L2m 0288 @m L128 2.42 2L02 llw.24 Z20 4.1 2o121 6.77 27.4! 4410.0 12L2 m 2ao Imo M2 2ao 3s.m 43.42 Lm 44.01 %24 44.824 L4m 3.84 m14.X Z7.84 mm 202m 22La m I 4% 1L44 n 07847 .1I %’32 860 1 82.! 1448.43 784.8 1 nw.09 M 7 w am e.44 24. 4484.n 4m.o! 4a04 ‘W# 23.07 lLOl 7Lol 227.n w 22L41 m m.2 17822 mm.02mm 82.22 mu 14.27 12a w % n .20 73.24 W7 424.44 mm 72274 23801 1748/ i 4824.4 e .44 .a 2727.44 lam.21 0.27 488.2 14L2 =0 m.1O 84.% O@ 12.48 483 1424.22 nw w 823.n 88.828 w 28.48 L224 Ia40 2.42 1% u 122L04 94.m 52.37 7L07 280222 6W.24 17.14 23L47 334.22 8sS7 U8M3 224.23.00 $732 220. .81 28.O 424 4 2n8.44 m 3L42 2L22 l.02 L2m %33 llLfi mm Mm ann 2?2.0 228.n 3232 4s.22 ?a30 3333 1 w 464 1 Mm .71 24.27 2mm 14.22 0.80 2M2 22.81 8L22 0. m m.o 2a2 22L0 v7.! 22M3 244.23 41 7 28.44 23?S4 U.322 wm am W.41 1 L828 2.1 4.%6 m.2 24.o me 3.22 848. n M63 N 224.20 442 7.47 47.23 m m.28 24. 97.42 27.02 M7 8. 448 7.4m U44 L4m 22L4 22L0 Im.42 ma 2aa W 31.3I 20.22 222.7 1 w 2m.m4 28un law 4nm 240.m 4234 84.00 22L24 200.a no7 7L87 w 287.22 m 1724.2 1 28am 2m%m m.8 20.0s 44.722 12.4 4227.48 4.08 42.4 3L2 m o 72.1 9 ua =4 1 K2 1 2292 Ua la 22 0.44 83.

.4 I “o 7 — I M-~ I — 6.2 S.2 I I .3 SD 9.1 13.*W — — — — ~@ OFVF ~ 1. Ba6.7 45. 9L 15.9 Onax@alosl&iiiJ ? 13:0 16.3 m Cn -1 ) mm TABLE 7: STATISTICAL ANAUSYS PERFORMED fiiiODIFIED (AAE=A <=10 “AM Auumr St8adh8 9.1 Wdm@mddosLabus 12.1 ME ‘“ SD Author 10< “AFI c= 22.0 I 3.9 tb6-OilVkOdly <-10 “AM ygr SD pgc 10 c OAFIC= 22.—.1 16.8 10.0 7.3 SD 24:9 : + Abduta k.8 M-StdiOS 10.1 CORRELATIONS I “ST”-* ~--:=~ I <=1O”AFI .6 lAutbur lREdWabkk ] M-hhtmdjo I 10.0 4.1 — 10”5 I&4k01d cuWe&wilY ugldk3WJ 219 v8qu5Be&8J 23. % SD .2 Sduth QOR sh&s 179 vuq0d3q# 25..5 — 10< “m c= 22.4 1.oilvi8cdtY Ondm8tdos ViMsy wdanmmdosM-hbcdi M-KarWm@io Ausmr M-E#mglhJuk ISD I 17.— TABLE 6: BEST RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANAUSYS FERllXIMED ON AOIF’SSAMPUN (AAE =Aq Om <-10 “API AAE SD Aulha SD T .2 vuqufA&y 1.3 7.s 19.4 12.

0 m 44 2$4 3.19 2A73.s9 IQ1O 19138 16s.73 28s8.0 753 S3.41 2!q31 315@ 419.01 476&ol 28s0.7 21.1 Vo A&LAdi 59 SD 10-22.s 207.0 19.6 179.8 93.63 m in.08 6ss7.73 4993.0 2120 2120 2120 215.21 4978.40 1038.74 4281.S3 %0.S8 4281S8 3723.3 213 21.8 180. M= Wditkd) f Vod w 19.04 4s89.07 28sQln 4S09.6 N6 220 161 15.0 177.17 2426 144.09 3q76 m.24 2671.S8 4281.76 177839 1991.66 72S.7 S.7 w 2104.26 1807.4 75.8 1002 111.7 117.6 5.02 786.0 148.69 1834.41 2S602SI 12.18 497831 6400$2 4978.3 2113 2113 2113 211.1 213 21.1 9.62 26Q11 24733 xq14 lwg3 IIm 15207 229.7 21.1 75 82 82 9.4s 768@ 2q7s 228.2 2.7 160 769 93 1s.1 18Q0 10QO lnll 118.0 S28.8 2048 20&o 212.8s 497821 I I 82.6 7.W 480s.3 2120 193.4 S40 ao 119 229 72 23. 7.1 ls4# 2120 212.4 w 413 4Q0 Q7 373 39.3 211.73 28s8.73 16SQ36 Z61.%73 2364.2 1S6 10.4 163.82 21sgl 143@ 73.s1 4944s1 W&3 121.6 14.7 218.0 212.7s 189.1 3098 235 %6 18.7 9.70 208.23 28SQCU 4766.S0 497821 4978.0 179.0 190.s 23 23 t (ME-A o~ TABLE 9: St&tiOd RcdbofVii10Vcd@h wmge AbR&MG%SD=Stmd Dw.8 181.0 1s4.38 4281.6 37.l 13 1.0 1%0 1$1 ISJ M.s 1Q6 1Q6 11.s8 711.42 m 47$.13 1763.0 19.s m =4 334Q0 12S.4 2.2 192 19.14 2A17$W 24x@2 6829 797.73 428138 4281s 42a138 42a138 428158 4281s 428138 4281>8 4281.6 8.49 663.8 4911.9 161 12.88 S21.0 3%6 w 703 1247 36Ql 773 2Q1 41.81 437.0 7.9 2283 i 1Z7 21.8 403 683” 563 5S.1 393 6Q6 37.o m.47 mo 543 159 527 32.0 120 1%0 13.10 46s.74 2319.4 203 %6 80.0 149.8 243 161 122 1S.46 2s&44 W&m 197.8 12J 12.0s 4s6s.8 I bllOr <=10 w lwabO@lbKlrw8Ll 2i.7 7.20 1393#3 180720 101238 main 2062.0 %89.8 22.20 1807.1s 193433 2s7446 2783 4s1.73 11s1.8 21Q2 1s4.3 2113 1%0 207.00 444.1 S2 14.8 M.74 499’3.s8 428138 4281..3 211.10 2s2s6 7w2n) 83206 18921 378@ 18s.6 179.0 19.4 2113 211.S8 4281.16 374733 91830 313634 142.64 471s.8 1%7 4Q0 3.0 I*4 13Z0 IQ 1s.O 160 164 173 179 l&o 16.0 7.6 16.73 49W.38 412.7 73 302 17.63 493.17 28s&74 28s&74 28S8.8 23 22 41 1.20 3373$6 5333.18 49q73 -73 4993.0 13.17 4993.8 18.0 22.7 35.6 no 21.2 113 113 lN 126 1*O 13.3 211.8 21.21 I 75.0 40 I&o So@ 7.21 4281.48 3430.64 753J7 46%75 19s.72 668.3 AM% 13 w M-EgbO@ MxmtOdm WKmlOdm 5.4 193.4 163.83 2261.2 7.7 11.2 37.3 211.87 34s>s 91.4 119 17.0 2120 moo 218.86 4376.2 10.3 9.q API I m(w) I Pr(glh ) lw9dmB)l Pe(jldD) (q) 1 Vd (c@ I Vo(Cp) I ?%6 I 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 m 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 28 w 30 31 32 33 34 35 36* 3P 3~* 39 40 41 42 43 44 45* w 47 43 49 so 51* 32 530 ~.7 11120 1M6 103.63 72s.7 23 7.2 19.6 m 17Q1 201.417.S8 4976.0 10.W 37692 202.21 1182.6 8.8 3.9 153 13.3 19.6 11.0 19.62 28s674 4993.83 79627 499.6 233 to 13.0 217.7 1.4 20J3 .8 IZ8 14# 14# 14.1 %3 142’ 47 21.6 9.6 22 5.0 420 17.1 66 1.8 148 1s.n 4993.0 193.

o / s — —. - Fiisbdkmldaqrawdy “ hlllitmtm “ q lmaaiddw08 659 .. -----—.al m m 8 s s ! R w q ! Si 4 m mocna) so m Fw3:SoMionOOILbatcurdaWI u - hldadure / q q q /’ m u q q 9 ““*” a..

F@ 12 Wkdumtd F% 11: undauWdoilVi&dy. batcud8tKu“ hnliilaahm n 1 m . .- s m.9~dkdy. bdcamekthfiatulilmilm ii cilviumdly. =s IoD.. m “2 1 kc 1 Fig. 8 1 Fg 8Dd.pradmlrk .. .dvi8cdlyspraatwcfk Ma E MB .

lmte q 25 rror 30 35 Average 1 Prosont W ork IO-22. gs o 5 10 15 20 Arersce 25 qbsolate 30 qrror 35 40 4s 50 F~17b0tbrmde0mwdb@ ~~~~- 661 .3 API R8mge <10 -s-ding Stsndins 10 ATers~e 1s absolute error 20 25 30 o 5 t Pro-ant 10-22.3 Vasquez-Be~ga API R~nge roscmt Work c 10 Vasquoz-B*.3 W ork Vssqucz-Beggc API Ramge ?rssomt W ork <10 o i 10 Is 20 q bs.10-22.

I..Proscnt 10 223 W ork Bgbogah J-ok API R80C0 Proseat <10 =-L--.~ 0fbt6t - Prcsoat 10223 W ork K qrtoatm odjo API Romgo < Iu rcaoat W ork 1 0 2 4 A~orsgo 6 sbsolato 8 10 12 14 qrror “ ..lute Ftg 19 GHaumtdcdlWcOmtycOnddm. -5 --=-l. b ---- W ork 0 10 20 Average 30 qbsoluto qrror 40 50 Fw18D60&trlm6c0aly~~ dlld rOOub 10223 API Komga <10 0 5 10 15 20 qrror 25 30 Avoraco sbs.