Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

Prediction of gas condensate properties by

EsmaeilzadehRoshanfekr equation of state
M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Received 23 February 2007; received in revised form 21 July 2007; accepted 22 July 2007
Available online 11 August 2007

Abstract
The EsmaeilzadehRoshanfekr (ER) equation of state (EOS) is used to predict the PVT properties of gas condensate reservoir fluids. Three gas
condensate fluid samples taken from three wells in a real field in Iran, referred here as SA1, SA4 and SA8, as well as five samples from literature
have been used to check the validity of the ER EOS in calculating the PVT properties of gas condensate mixtures. Some experiments such as
constant composition expansion (CCE), constant volume depletion (CVD) and dew point pressures are carried out on these samples. In order to
have an unbiased comparison between the ER and the PengRobinson (PR) equation of state, van der Waals mixing rules are used without using
any adjustable parameters (kij = 0). Also, no pure component parameters are adjusted. The critical properties and acentric factor for plus-fraction
are estimated by the KeslerLee, Pedersen et al. and RiaziDaubert characterization methods. The results of dew point pressure calculations show
that the ER EOS has smaller error than the PR EOS. For some mixtures, relative volume, gas compressibility factor and condensate drop-out in
CVD and CCE test were also predicted. Comparison results between experimental and calculated data indicate that the ER EOS has smaller error
than the PR EOS. The total average absolute deviation was found to be 0.82% and 2.97% for calculating gas compressibility factor and gas specific
gravity in CVD test. Also, the total average absolute deviation was found to be 2.06% and 3.42% for calculating gas compressibility factor and
relative volume in CCE test.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Dew point pressure; Equation of state; Gas condensate; Mixture; PVT properties

1. Introduction
Pressurevolumetemperature (PVT) properties are critical
data, in particular, to reservoir and production engineers. PVT
properties for reservoir fluids can be obtained from laboratory
tests. Most reservoirs are produced by depletion in which the
reservoir pressure declines as fluids are recovered. The reservoir
temperature stays practically constant in most recovery methods. The main variable that determines the behavior of fluids,
under reservoir conditions, during depletion is, therefore, the
reservoir pressure. Hence, relatively simple tests that simulate
recovery processes are conducted by varying the fluid pressure.
The two most common tests for gas condensate reservoirs are

Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, P.O. Box 7134851154, Namazi square, Shiraz, Iran.
Tel.: +98 711 234 3833; fax: +98 711 628 7294.
E-mail addresses: Bonyadi@spemail.org (M. Bonyadi),
Esmaeil@shirazu.ac.ir (F. Esmaeilzadeh).
0378-3812/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fluid.2007.07.075

the constant composition expansion, CCE, and constant volume

depletion, CVD [1]. However, these experiments are relatively
time consuming and expensive. The use of equations of state
(EOS) to model fluid properties is necessary to have an internally consistent set of PVT properties. These properties are
especially essential when compositional simulators are used to
model two-phase reservoirs such as gas condensate reservoirs.
Gas condensates and petroleum fractions are complex mixtures
of mainly paraffinic, naphthenic and aromatic compounds. For
these types of mixtures, it is unpractical to list all the components that have carbon numbers equal to or greater than 6 or
7, thus they are presented as C6+ or C7+ fractions. Characterization of plus-fractions is an important step in the application
of equations of state for pressurevolumetemperature (PVT)
predictions and phase behavior calculations of gas condensates
and petroleum fractions [2]. Such a procedure is needed in
simulation, design, and operation of systems containing plusfractions. Several methods have been presented to calculate
critical properties and acentric factors of plus-fractions com-

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

ponents. The most widely used methods are the KeslerLee

[3,4], Pedersen et al. [5] and Riazi and Daubert [6,7]. The
PengRobinson (PR) EOS is usually used to predict the phase
behavior of petroleum mixture. However, the PR EOS/1976
[8] is not currently used in the modeling of reservoir fluids or
gas condensates, in particular. The reason is its poor ability to
predict equilibrium and volumetric data, especially dew points
and injection test. If the acentric factors are larger than 0.49,
the version PR EOS/1978 should be used. The PR EOS/1978
was an extension made by Peng and Robinson to their earlier
equation of state, with the aim of covering a wide range of acentric factors [0.1, 2.0]. For acentric factors less than 0.45, the
PR EOS/1978 behaves similarly to the PR EOS/1976, but the
prediction of the vaporliquid equilibrium is better for components with acentric factors larger than 0.45. Therefore, nowadays
the most used version is the PengRobinson (PR/1978) EOS
[9] with the inclusion of the volume shift concept. Recently,
EsmaeilzadehRoshanfekr (ER) [10] developed a new cubic
EOS with special attention to the application for reservoir fluids. The ER EOS is a slightly more complex model than the
PR-EOS/1978. However, they showed that the prediction of
thermodynamic properties of light and intermediate hydrocarbons by using the ER-EOS is superior to other EOS (PTV, PT
and PR) studied in their work. The ER EOS predicted saturated liquid density more accurately than the PR EOS for pure
components. Also, the results for the calculation of vapor pressure of pure components for light hydrocarbons showed that
the ER EOS has lower deviation than the PR EOS. However, at
reduced temperature, Tr, less than 0.75 for benzene, toluene and
heavy hydrocarbons, the accuracy of the ER EOS is less than
the PR EOS. The inaccuracy is eliminated at reduced temperatures above 0.75. Moreover, this EOS predicts quite accurately
pure component properties. Considering this ability, one can
expect to get similar quality for multicomponent mixtures. In
this paper, we shall demonstrate the ability of the ER EOS to
predict the PVT properties of gas condensate mixtures occurring in petroleum industry. Three gas condensate fluid samples
taken from three wells in a real field in Iran and five samples
from literature have been used to check the validity of the ER
EOS in calculating the PVT properties of gas condensate mixtures. Only van der Waals type mixing rules are applied to the
ER EOS without using any adjustable parameters; the results are
remarkable with respect to the PR EOS. Also, the effect of using
three methods for calculating critical properties and acentric
factors of plus-fractions components is studied. Comparisons
between the calculated and experimental data of gas condensate
PVT properties reveal further outstanding characteristics of the
ER EOS.

where R is the universal gas constant, a a function of temperature and b and c are constants. For a pure compound:


R2 TC2
(Tr )
(2)
a(T ) = a
PC


RTC
(3)
b = b
PC


RTC
c = c
(4)
PC
where
b = 2c 1 + 3c

(5)

a = 3c2 + c2 + 2b c + 2c

(6)

and c is the smallest positive root of the cubic:





5
3
3
3
2
2
c + 3c
c + 3c c c + c3 c2 = 0
8
4
8
(7)
the following function has been used for (Tr ):
2

= [m1 + m2 (1 Tr0.5 )]

(8)

In Eqs. (5)(8), the values of the parameters c , m1 and m2 have

been correlated with the acentric factor. The resulting correlations are given by:
c = 0.3284438 0.0690264 + 0.00787112

(9)

m1 = 0.999035 0.01061842 0.00811742

(10)

m2 = 0.4400108 + 1.5297151 0.47107522

(11)

c was calculated by Esmaeilzadeh and Roshanfekr [10] as

follows:
For Tr < Tr :
c is obtained from Eq. (10).
For Tr > Tr :
 

T Tr 2
c = c (c Zc ) r 
(12)
Tr 1
where
Tr = 0.789216 + 0.1585581 0.1331932

(13)

For heavy hydrocarbons, Zc can be obtained from the Nath

correlation [11] as follows:
Zc = 0.2918 0.0928

(14)

To predict mixture properties, the following van der Waals

mixing rules are used:

b=
xj bj
(15)

2. The ER equation of state

The ER equation of state (EOS) [10] is a three-parameter
EOS which has the following form:
RT
a(T )
P=

v b v(v + c) + c(v c)

327

(1)

and
a=


i

xi xj aij

(16)

328

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

Table 1
Analyses (mol%) of gas condensate mixtures used in this work
Components

CO2
N2
CH4
C2 H6
C3 H8
i-C4 H10
n-C4 H10
i-C5 H12
n-C5 H12
n-C6 H14
n-C7 H16
n-C8 H18
n-C9 H20
n-C10 H22
n-C11 H24
C7+
C12+
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h

Mixtures
Aa

Bb

Cc

Dd

Ee

Ff

Gg

Hh

0.6954
5.3159
86.0031
3.4912
1.4032
0.3573
0.5237
0.2812
0.1842
0.4004
0.3272
0.2877
0.1577
0.1478
0.1048

0.31

0.60
5.56
85.19
3.57
1.54
0.37
0.57
0.27
0.23

2.10

0.44
5.47
85.48
3.50
1.46
0.37
0.58
0.28
0.23

2.14

91.35
4.03
1.53

0.82

0.34
0.39

1.54

0.61
0.46
68.64
13.9
6.89
0.66
2.66
0.62
0.94
1.14

3.48

2.44
0.08
82.10
5.78
2.87
0.56
1.23
0.52
0.60
0.72

3.10

2.26
5.67
45.74
11.47
7.59

6.38

4.31
5.92

10.66

0.3000
0.7200
79.1700
7.4800
3.2900
0.5200
1.2500
0.3600
0.5500
0.6200
1.0000
0.7100
0.4700
0.3100

2.2500

SA1 mixture, C12+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.8314, MW = 213, Tb = 554.77 K.

SA4 mixture, C7+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.7734, MW = 129.81, Tb = 428.20 K.
SA8 mixture, C7+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.7861, MW = 143.60, Tb = 451.74 K.
[11] C7+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.7961, MW = 138.78, Tb = 444.7 K.
[12] C7+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.7763, MW = 152.30, Tb = 461.25 K.
[13] C7+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.7740, MW = 132, Tb = 430.96 K.
[14] C7+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.8044, MW = 148, Tb = 462.89 K.
[1] C12+ specification: SG (60/60) = 0.8438, MW = 231, Tb = 579.60 K.

where aij = ai aj (1 kij ). The fugacity coefficient of component i in a mixture is calculated from:


bi
B

ln i =
ln(Z B)
b ZB
 
 

2 j xj aij
A
ci
Z + 2 2C

ln
a
C
2 2C
Z 2 2C


ci
Z
+
Z
(17)
C
ZB
where Z is the compressibility factor, A = ap/(R2 T2 ), B = bp/RT
and C = cp/RT.
3. Results and discussion
To illustrate the ability of the ER EOS for predicting the PVT
properties of multicomponent mixtures, its results are compared

with the experimental data and the PR EOS as well. The PR/1978
EOS has been chosen because it is known as a strong tool for predicting the properties of hydrocarbon mixtures. Table 1 presents
the analysis of gas condensate mixtures used in this work. The
A, B and C mixtures are the very lean gas condensate systems taken from three gas condensate wells in a real field in
Iran (SA1, SA4 and SA8). Mixture D, E and F are called the
HoffmannCrumpHoccott [12], DonohueBuchanan [13] and
FiroozabadiHekimKatz [14] gas condensate system, respectively. Mixture G is a rich-gas condensate sample [15]. This
fluid is near to its critical condition because the critical temperature was 310 F and the reservoir temperature was 325 F.
Mixture H is a North Sea gas condensate sample [1]. Critical
properties and acentric factors of pseudocomponents are determined for all mixtures using the KeslerLee [3,4], Pedersen et
al. [5] and Riazi and Daubert [6,7] correlations. For the Riazi and
Daubert characterization method, acentric factor is determined
using the Edmister [16] correlation. For mixture B, erroneous

Table 2
Calculated acentric factors of plus fractions components for mixtures AH using KeslerLee, Pedersen et al. and Esmiter correlations
A

KeslerLee
Pedersen et al.
Edmister
a
b

0.6937
1.0219
0.5911

B
PS1a

PS2b

0.36327
0.78754
0.32407

0.83901
1.10640
0.71052

First pseudocomponent in mixture B.

Second pseudocomponent in mixture B.

0.4665
0.8670
0.4092

0.4391
0.8534
0.3842

0.4956
0.8863
0.4361

0.4239
0.8360
0.3746

0.4758
0.8763
0.4143

0.7510
1.0573
0.6371

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

329

Table 3
Experimental and calculated dew point pressure for mixtures AH using the ER and PR EOS
Temperature (K)

Mixture A
379.8167
%Dev (KeslerLee)
%Dev (Pedersen et al.)
%Dev (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture B
305.3722
322.0389
355.3722
377.5944
382.0389
%AADb (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture C
305.3722
322.0389
355.3722
372.5944
377.5944
386.4833
%AAD (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture D
366.9833
%Dev (KeslerLee)
%Dev (Pedersen et al.)
%Dev (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture E
363.0000
%Dev (KeslerLee)
%Dev (Pedersen et al.)
%Dev (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture F
355.6000
%Dev (KeslerLee)
%Dev (Pedersen et al.)
%Dev (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture G
435.9278
%Dev (KeslerLee)
%Dev (Pedersen et al.)
%Dev (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture H
394.0000
%Dev (KeslerLee)
%Dev (Pedersen et al.)
%Dev (RiaziDaubert)
Total %AADb (KeslerLee)
Total %AAD (Pedersen et al.)
Total %AAD (RiaziDaubert)
a

%Dev = 100
%AAD =

Calculated Pdew (MPa)

%Deva in Pdew

ER

PR

ER

PR

26.9861

25.6083

24.2613

5.1055
5.1055
11.3480
14.0134

10.0970
10.0970
9.9305
19.0293

38.7003
37.8729
36.0803
34.2187
32.9087

40.9230
38.7628
35.1955
32.7069
32.1727

31.2281
31.6933
31.2037
29.9166
29.5723

5.7435
2.3497
2.4521
4.4181
2.2365
3.4400
13.5456
16.6000

19.3079
16.3167
13.5160
12.5724
10.1384
14.3702
6.7262
23.5646

41.4582
40.8377
39.4587
38.2866
38.0108
37.3213

31.4657
30.853
28.2061
26.0502
25.313
23.8656

28.1564
27.9787
25.9290
23.9751
23.2848
21.9075

24.1025
24.4497
28.5175
31.96
33.4057
36.0537
29.7482
29.8520
30.9066

32.0848
31.4881
34.2883
37.3799
38.7416
41.3003
35.8805
34.1127
40.6089

26.4600

20.5850

19.3336

22.2040
22.2040
29.4970
27.1320

26.9327
26.9327
27.8163
31.9346

23.5365

21.5937

20.7180

8.2558
8.2558
11.7980
12.4690

11.9751
11.9751
9.3536
16.4281

28.1003

22.7603

21.7178

19.0040
19.0040
22.3910
22.4980

22.7133
23.0350
20.1753
26.2988

20.8566

20.6939

18.3811

0.7816
0.7816
21.2600
5.0163

11.8692
12.2920
21.1328
15.9882

47.0361

40.3026

34.8561

14.3150
14.3150
6.7651
25.0590
15.6091
20.4058
22.0369

25.8950
25.8950
24.6483
32.7746
23.3742
20.6685
29.6429

Experimental Pdew (MPa)

 (Cal(i)Exp(i))

100
n

n

i

Exp(i)

|Cal(i)Exp(i)|
.
Exp(i)

330

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

Table 4
Experimental and calculated gas compressibility factors in CVD test for mixtures B, C and H
Pressure (MPa)

Experimental (Zv)

Mixture B
CVD at T = 382.0389 K
29.04762
22.15286
15.2581
8.363344
3.537012
%AAD (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture C
CVD at T = 386.4833 K
30.42658
23.53182
16.63706
9.742296
3.537012
%AAD (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture H
CVD at T = 394 K
39.9896
33.9912
26.9930
20.9945
13.9964
7.9979
%AADb (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Total %AAD (KeslerLee)
Total %AAD (Pedersen et al.)
Total %AAD (RiaziDaubert)
a

%Dev = 100
%AAD =

ER

PR

ER

PR

0.9740
0.9425
0.9294
0.9419
0.9688

0.9962
0.9513
0.9304
0.9418
0.9686

0.9478
0.9124
0.9008
0.9228
0.9595

2.2748
0.9363
0.1081
0.0158
0.0233
0.6717
0.7618
0.6712

2.6899
3.1936
3.0773
2.0278
0.9600
2.3897
2.3836
2.4064

0.9940
0.9565
0.9365
0.9410
0.9704

1.0082
0.9564
0.9410
0.9478
0.9740

0.9602
0.9157
0.9067
0.9251
0.9645

1.4286
0.0105
0.4805
0.7226
0.3710
0.6026
0.6675
0.6195

3.4004
4.2656
3.1821
1.6897
0.6080
2.6291
2.6385
2.6331

1.0767
1.0056
0.9479
0.9176
0.9171
0.9476

1.0984
1.0170
0.9504
0.9165
0.9072
0.9277

1.0401
0.9633
0.9063
0.8819
0.8814
0.9102

2.0109
1.1308
0.2641
0.1247
1.0832
2.1001
1.1190
1.3840
1.2062
0.8178
0.9656
0.8557

3.3993
4.2064
4.3886
3.8906
3.8927
3.9468
3.9541
4.1566
3.8529
3.0512
3.1281
3.0197

 (Cal(i)Exp(i))

100
n

n


Exp(i)

%Deva in Zv

Calculated Zv

|Cal(i)Exp(i)|
.
Exp(i)

predictions can result if the plus fraction is used directly as a

single component in the mixture phase behavior calculations.
Hence, the C7+ fraction was split into two pseudocomponents
by the Whitson [17] method. Table 2 shows the calculated acentric factors of pseudocomponents for mixtures AH using the
KeslerLee, Pedersen et al. and RiaziDaubert methods. Table 3
presents experimental and predicted dew point pressure for mixtures AH. As can be seen, the predicted dew point pressures
using the ER EOS and KeslerLee characterization method are
closer to the experimental values. The total average absolute
deviation percents (%AAD) using the KeslerLee characterization method are 15.61% and 23.37% for the ER and PR EOS,
respectively. Table 4 compares the calculated and experimental
gas compressibility factor in CVD test for mixtures B, C and
H. As can be seen, the gas compressibility factors are calculated quite accurately by using the ER EOS. In other words,
for predicting the gas compressibility factors of mixtures B, C

and H, using three methods of characterization, the ER EOS

is superior. The ER EOS with the KeslerLee method has less
total %AAD. Fig. 1 compares the experimental and calculated
gas density in CVD test for mixture B. Critical properties and
acentric factors of pseudocomponents are calculated using the
KeslerLee method. The %AAD for the ER EOS were found to
be 5.39%, 5.45% and 5.44%, using the KeslerLee, Pedersen et
al. and RiaziDaubert methods, respectively. Also, the %AAD
for PR EOS were found to be 8.37%, 8.27% and 8.65%, using
KeslerLee, Pedersen et al. and RiaziDaubert methods, respectively. The results show that three methods with the ER EOS
have a smaller %AAD than the PR EOS. In addition, Table 5
shows the experimental and calculated gas specific gravity of
produced gas in CVD test for mixtures A, C and H. As can be
seen, for mixtures C and H the gas specific gravity calculated
by the ER EOS with three characterization methods has smaller
error than the PR EOS. For mixture A, the results of the ER EOS

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

331

Table 5
Experimental and calculated specific gravity (relative to air) of produced gas in CVD test for mixtures A, C and H
Pressure (MPa)

Experimental specific gravity (Sg )

Mixture A
CVD at T = 379.8167 K
24.2330
20.7856
17.3383
13.8909
10.4435
6.9961
3.5487
%AADb (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture C
CVD at T = 386.4833 K
30.4266
23.5318
16.6371
9.7423
3.5370
%AADb (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture H
CVD at T = 394 K
39.9896
33.9912
26.9930
20.9945
13.9964
7.9979
%AAD (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Total %AAD (KeslerLee)
Total %AAD (Pedersen et al.)
Total %AAD (RiaziDaubert)
a

%Dev = 100
%AAD =

ER

PR

ER

PR

0.6802
0.6731
0.6854
0.6679
0.6722
0.6750
0.6953

0.6970
0.6886
0.6821
0.6770
0.6732
0.6713
0.6744

0.7014
0.6905
0.6827
0.6770
0.6729
0.6710
0.6742

2.4699
2.3028
0.4815
1.3625
0.1488
0.5481
3.0059
1.4742
1.7152
1.6438

3.1165
2.5853
0.4002
1.3575
0.1115
0.5862
3.0275
1.5978
1.5967
1.7584

0.6890
0.6635
0.6495
0.6416
0.6481

0.7311
0.7311
0.6883
0.6662
0.6660

0.7311
0.7311
0.6945
0.6694
0.6690

6.1046
10.1825
5.9804
3.8311
2.7608
5.7719
6.5768
6.1319

6.1046
10.1825
6.9268
4.3370
3.2298
6.1561
6.4726
6.6251

0.8890
0.8450
0.7970
0.7600
0.7370
0.7280

0.9439
0.8663
0.8056
0.7714
0.7470
0.7402

0.9488
0.9179
0.8033
0.7624
0.7388
0.7344

6.1774
2.5222
1.0734
1.4981
1.3502
1.6706
2.3820
3.7348
3.8055
2.9706
3.7388
3.6111

6.7267
8.6272
0.7905
0.3158
0.2442
0.8791
2.9306
2.8138
4.3940
3.3083
3.3568
3.9888

 (Cal(i)Exp(i))

100
n

n


Exp(i)

%Deva in Sg

Calculated Sg

|Cal(i)Exp(i)|
.
Exp(i)

with the KeslerLee and RiaziDaubert characterization methods are superior, while the results of the PR EOS are superior
for the Pedersen et al. characterization method. However, the
ER EOS with the KeslerLee method has the smallest %AAD.
Fig. 2 presents the experimental and calculated condensate-drop
out in CVD test for mixtures A, B and H using KeslerLee
method for the estimation of critical properties and acentric factors of plus fractions components. For the ER EOS the total
average absolute deviations of condensate drop out were found
to be 36.79%, 36.29% and 46.27% using KeslerLee, Pedersen et al. and RiaziDaubert methods, respectively. Also, for
the PR EOS the total average absolute deviations of condensate drop out were found to be 63.56%, 50.52% and 56.26%
using KeslerLee, Pedersen et al. and RiaziDaubert methods,
respectively. The results are poor for both EOS. The condensate

drop out in CVD test has been defined as the ratio of the liquid
volume to the volume at the dew point. In most gas condensate reservoirs, the condensate drop out seldom exceeds more
than 1519%. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the maximum condensate drop out for mixture H is 0.1132. Therefore, a little
error in liquid volume calculation causes a significant error in
the results. Note that adjustable parameters were not used and
no volume translation method was incorporated. In addition,
the EOS deficiency could be related to the problem found with
heavier components. In CVD test, the liquid becomes heavier
due to the extraction of the lightest components in the gas; however for the three critical properties of calculation methods, the
ER EOS has smaller %AAD than the PR EOS. Table 6 shows
the experimental and calculated relative volume in CCE test for
mixtures A, B, G and H. As can be seen, using three charac-

332

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

Table 6
Experimental and calculated relative volume in CCE test for mixtures A, B, G and H
Pressure (MPa)

Mixture A
CCE at T = 379.8167 K
41.4699
38.0225
34.5752
31.1278
27.6804
26.9909
24.2330
20.7856
17.3383
13.8909
10.4435
%AADb (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture B
CCE at T = 382.0389 K
41.4582
38.0108
34.5634
32.9087
31.8055
30.4266
29.0476
27.6687
26.2897
24.2213
22.1529
20.0844
17.3265
14.5686
11.1212
8.0186
%AAD (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Mixture G
CCE at 435.9278 K
63.8110
55.1581
48.2633
41.3686
34.4738
27.5790
20.8566
20.7877
20.7188
20.6498
20.4774
20.3395
19.9948
19.3053
15.2029
12.6519
10.2732
8.0324
%AADb (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)

Experimental (Vrel = Vt /Vsat )

%Deva in Vrel

Calculated Vrel
ER

PR

ER

PR

0.7472
0.7779
0.8286
0.8888
0.9754
1.0000
1.0900
1.2504
1.6586
1.8646
2.5086

0.7075
0.7476
0.7971
0.8592
0.9395
0.9585
1.0484
1.2017
1.4241
1.7691
2.3608

0.6688
0.7080
0.7563
0.8171
0.8958
0.9143
1.0011
1.1526
1.3724
1.7139
2.3012

5.3132
3.8951
3.8016
3.3303
3.6805
4.1500
3.8165
3.8948
14.1384
5.1217
5.8917
5.1854
10.4615
12.7215

10.4925
8.9857
8.7256
8.0671
8.1608
8.5700
8.1560
7.8215
17.2555
8.0822
8.2676
9.3258
9.1925
17.3574

0.8626
0.9099
0.9680
1.0000
1.0252
1.0594
1.0980
1.1408
1.1924
1.2800
1.3950
1.5283
1.7644
2.1071
2.7808
3.8857

0.7766
0.8470
0.9315
0.9783
1.0091
1.0433
1.0814
1.1238
1.1713
1.2542
1.3550
1.4796
1.6983
2.0098
2.6369
3.6912

0.7888
0.8346
0.8909
0.9228
0.9463
0.9784
1.0147
1.0562
1.1027
1.1838
1.2822
1.4036
1.6169
1.9210
2.5347
3.5694

9.9726
6.9120
3.7718
2.1673
1.5722
1.5151
1.5148
1.4941
1.7723
2.0130
2.8646
3.1857
3.7458
4.6199
5.1746
5.0067
3.5814
2.9994
13.7670

8.5555
8.2756
7.9649
7.7200
7.6961
7.6458
7.5865
7.4158
7.5226
7.5156
8.0860
8.1594
8.3598
8.8320
8.8500
8.1401
8.0204
5.4933
16.0024

0.6990
0.7190
0.7419
0.7718
0.8132
0.8771
1.0000
1.0028
1.0060
1.0093
1.0157
1.0221
1.0350
1.0672
1.3235
1.5834
1.9703
2.6179

0.6587
0.6849
0.7119
0.7471
0.7959
0.8699
0.9957
0.9975
0.9993
1.0020
1.0130
1.0196
1.0349
1.0672
1.3310
1.5956
1.9765
2.5647

0.6206
0.6448
0.6697
0.7023
0.7473
0.8153
0.9308
0.9324
0.9341
0.9358
0.9400
0.9435
0.9524
0.9715
1.2423
1.4954
1.8611
2.4280

5.7610
4.7376
4.0485
3.1996
2.1223
0.8247
0.4276
0.5263
0.6625
0.7265
0.2693
0.2478
0.0135
0.0034
0.5691
0.7695
0.3122
2.0309
1.5140
16.6850
4.0547

11.2160
10.3199
9.7318
9.0049
8.1038
7.0459
6.9200
7.0203
7.1471
7.2823
7.4530
7.6900
7.9807
8.9674
6.1352
5.5577
5.5423
7.2539
7.7985
15.2322
10.5869

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

333

Table 6 (Continued )
Pressure (MPa)

Experimental (Vrel = Vt /Vsat )

Mixture H
CCE at T = 394 K
49.5251
48.9873
47.9875
47.0361
46.4914
45.4916
43.9886
41.9891
38.9899
34.9909
30.9919
26.9930
22.9940
17.9953
%AAD (KeslerLee)
%AAD (Pedersen et al.)
%AAD (RiaziDaubert)
Total %AAD (KeslerLee)
Total %AAD (Pedersen et al.)
Total %AAD (RiaziDaubert)
a

%Dev = 100
%AAD =

0.9787
0.9826
0.9935
1.0000
1.0068
1.0174
1.0312
1.0550
1.0971
1.1687
1.2632
1.3959
1.5841
1.9773

 (Cal(i)Exp(i))

100
n

n


Exp(i)

%Deva in Vrel

Calculated Vrel
ER

PR

ER

PR

0.9094
0.9137
0.9219
0.9301
0.9350
0.9442
0.9589
0.9802
1.0198
1.0911
1.1847
1.3117
1.4916
1.8505

0.8429
0.8468
0.8545
0.8621
0.8666
0.8751
0.8888
0.9086
0.9425
0.9979
1.0931
1.2182
1.3933
1.7402

7.0808
7.0120
7.2068
6.9900
7.1315
7.1948
7.0112
7.0900
7.0458
6.6399
6.2144
6.0320
5.8393
6.4128
6.7787
3.0254
13.3043
3.4282
8.5721
10.4993

13.8755
13.8205
13.9909
13.7900
13.9253
13.9866
13.8092
13.8768
14.0917
14.6145
13.4658
12.7301
12.0447
11.9911
13.5723
12.7954
18.5410
9.5135
10.8869
15.2052

|Cal(i)Exp(i)|
.
Exp(i)

terization methods the ER EOS is superior for mixtures A, B

and H. For mixture G, the ER EOS with the KeslerLee and
RiaziDaubert method has smaller %AAD than the PR EOS,
while for the Pedersen et al. method, the PR EOS is superior.
However, the ER EOS with the KeslerLee method has less total
%AAD for relative volume calculation. Fig. 3 compares the calculated and experimental gas compressibility factors in CCE test
for mixtures G and H using KeslerLee method. It can be seen
that the ER EOS predictions are better than the PR EOS. The

total average absolute deviation (%AAD) using Pedersen et al.

correlations were found to be 2.07% and 4.38% for the ER and
PR EOS, respectively. Also, the results show the RiaziDaubert
correlations with the ER EOS has less total %AAD
(2.06%).
It should be noted that the prediction of PVT properties does
not only depend on EOS, but also on other things such as number
of pseudocomponents, characterization of pseudocomponents,
and binary interaction coefficients.

Fig. 1. Experimental values and calculated gas density in CVD test for mixture
B at T = 382.04 K using the KeslerLee characterization method.

Fig. 2. Experimental values and calculated condensate drop out in CVD test
for mixtures A (T = 379.82 K), B (T = 382.04 K) and H (T = 394 K) using the
KeslerLee characterization method.

334

M. Bonyadi, F. Esmaeilzadeh / Fluid Phase Equilibria 260 (2007) 326334

A, B, C
ER
m 1 , m2
P
PR
R
Sg
SL
T
VL
Vrel
Vsat
Vt
Z
Fig. 3. Experimental values and calculated gas compressibility factor in CCE
test for mixtures G (T = 435.93 K) and H (T = 394 K) using the KeslerLee
characterization method.

4. Conclusions
The objective of this work was to evaluate the ER EOS for
predicting gas condensate PVT properties. The accuracy of the
ER EOS is compared to the PR EOS. For this purpose, eight gas
condensate mixtures from a real field in Iran and from literature
were selected. Some experiments such as constant composition
expansion (CCE), constant volume depletion (CVD) and dew
point pressures are carried out on these samples. In this study,
three of the most well-known methods are used to estimate critical properties and acentric factors of the plus-fractions. The
results of the calculations of dew point pressures using the ER
EOS and PR EOS for all the gas condensate samples available
to this study, show that this property is sensitive to the methods of calculation of critical properties and acentric factors of
plus-fractions. However, the results of the ER EOS are closer to
the experimental data than the PR EOS. It also indicates that the
KeslerLee characterization method with the ER EOS has the
smallest error in estimating the dew point pressures for all the
gas condensate samples. The total average absolute deviations
for calculating the gas compressibility factor in the CVD test
and the relative volume in the CCE test were 0.82% and 3.43%,
respectively, using the ER EOS with the KeslerLee characterization method. The results obtained for predicting the PVT
properties of gas condensate systems, indicate that the ER EOS
with the KeslerLee characterization method has the best overall
accuracy.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the Shiraz University for supporting this research.
List of symbols
a, b, c defined by Eqs. (1)(4), respectively

used in Eq. (17)

EsmaeilzadehRoshanfekr equation of state
variables defined by Eqs. (11) and (12), respectively
pressure (MPa)
PengRobinson equation of state
universal gas constant (MPa m3 kmol1 K1 )
gas specific gravity
liquid saturation in CVD test (VL Vsat 1 )
temperature (K)
volume of retrograde liquid
relative volume in CCE test (Vt Vsat 1 )
hydrocarbon volume at saturation pressure (m3 )
total hydrocarbon volume (m3 )
compressibility factor

Greek letters
c
empirical compressibility factor

density (kg m3 )

partial fugacity coefficient

a , b , c parameters of EOS obtained from Eqs. (5)(7)
Subscripts
cal
calculated value
exp
experimental value
g
gas phase
L
liquid phase
rel
relative volume
i
ith data point
n
number of data points
References
[1] A. Danesh, PVT and Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, Elsevier Science B.V., London, 1998.
[2] A. Shariati, C.J. Peters, M. Moshfeghian, Fluid Phase Equilib. 179 (2001)
2341.
[3] M.G. Kesler, B.I. Lee, Hydrocarb. Process. (1976) 153158.
[4] B.I. Lee, M.G. Kesler, Hydrocarb. Process. (1980) 163167.
[5] K.S. Pedersen, Q. Thomassen, A. Fredenslund, Proceedings of the Presentation at the 1988 AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 610
March, 1988.
[6] M.R. Riazi, T.E. Daubert, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 26 (1987) 755759.
[7] M.R. Riazi, T.E. Daubert, Hydrocarb. Process. (1980) 115116.
[8] D. Peng, D. Robinson, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 15 (1976) 5964.
[9] D. Peng, D. Robinson, GPA Research Report 28, Tulsa, 1978.
[10] F. Esmaeilzadeh, M. Roshanfekr, Fluid Phase Equilib. 239 (2006) 83
90.
[11] T. Ahmed, Hydrocarbon Phase Behavior, Gulf Publishing, Houston,
1989.
[12] A.E. Hoffmann, J.S. Crump, C.R. Hocott, Trans. AIME 198 (1953)
110.
[13] C.W. Donohue, R.D. Buchanan, JPT (1981) 263270.
[14] A. Firoozabadi, Y. Hekim, D.L. Katz, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 56 (1978)
610615.
[15] K.H. Coats, JPT (1985) 18701886.
[16] W.C. Edminster, Pet. Refiner 37 (1958) 173179.
[17] C.H. Whitson, Proceedings of the Presentation at the European Offshore
Petroleum Conference, London, October, 1980.