Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fluid Phase Equilibria

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / fl u i d

A new viscosity model based on Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of

state
Mohammad Bonyadi a, *, Mina Rostami b
a
Chemical Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
b
Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study based on the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state (SRK EOS), a new viscosity model for
Received 19 January 2017 light hydrocarbons, CO2 and N2 has been proposed. The proposed model can be applied in both liquid
Received in revised form and gas phases and in high and low ranges of pressure and temperature. The optimal values of the
10 July 2017
parameters in the proposed model are determined by using the Genetic algorithm and generalized in
Accepted 17 July 2017
Available online 18 July 2017
term of acentric factor. The performance of the proposed model has been compared with the perfor-
mance of Peng-Robinson EOS-based viscosity model of Guo et al. (2001), the Peng-Robinson EOS-based
viscosity model of Fan and Wang (2006) and the Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC) method. In order to have a fair
Keywords:
EOS
comparison, the binary interaction coefficients in the mixing rules are set to zero. The results of calcu-
Hydrocarbon lations for seventeen pure components (6449 data), thirty eight binary mixtures (2772 data), ten simple
Genetic algorithm and twenty complex mixtures (74 data) show the superiority of the proposed model compared to the
SRK other viscosity models.
Viscosity © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction
Viscosity is an important property which has a wide application
in oil industry such as reservoir simulation, petroleum production
and processing, pipeline and separation equipment design. Several
methods are available for the estimation of viscosities of hydro-
carbons which can be classified into three main groups: theoretical,
semi-theoretical, and empirical models. The base of the theoretical
models is statistical mechanics. The Erying [1] and the Chapman-
Enskog [2] models are considered to be in this category. These
models are used for gas hydrocarbons however; provide unsatis-
factory results for liquid hydrocarbons [3].
Semi-theoretical models are developed based on different the-
ories such as the principle of corresponding states, Eyring's reaction
rate theory [4,5] and friction theory (F-Theory) [6,7].
In the semi theoretical models there are some adjustable pa-
rameters that must be determined from experimental data. The last
category is empirical correlations which are derived from the
experimental data and relate the viscosities of liquids or gases to
pressure, temperature or (and) density of the fluid. Examples of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Bonyadi@yu.ac.ir, Bonyadi80@gmail.com (M. Bonyadi),
Minarostami.ro@gmail.com (M. Rostami).
empirical methods are the empirical residuals [8e11] and the
expanded fluid model [12]. The Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC) method
[8] and the viscosity model of Pedersen and Fredenslund [13] are
the most popular and commonly used methods in the oil and gas
industry [14].
In 1912, Phillips observed an analogy between P-v-T and T-m-P
behaviors [15]. Based on this analogy, Little and Kennedy [16] by
using van-der-Waals EOS derived the first EOS-based viscosity
model. In 1986, Lawal developed a viscosity model for hydrocar-
bons by using Lawal-Lake-Silberberg EOS [17]. However, poor re-
sults were obtained when it was applied to reservoir fluids.
In 1997, Guo et al. [18] proposed two EOS-based viscosity
models for hydrocarbons by using the Peng-Robinson (PR) and
Patel-Teja (PT) EOS. In 2001, Guo et al. modified the Peng-Robinson
viscosity model to increase the accuracy of prediction [19]. Also, Fan
and Wang [20] based on the Peng-Robinson EOS, suggested a vis-
cosity model (PRm model) for hydrocarbons. They showed that this
model had an accurate prediction in comparison to the LBC and Guo
et al. model. In 2007, Wang et al. [21] applied the PRm model for
some hydrocarbons such as heptane, octane, nonane, and their
mixtures. Results showed that this model can predict the viscosity
of specified system of hydrocarbons with reasonable errors. The
most prominent advantage of this type of viscosity models is that
the liquid or gas phase viscosity can be determined by a model [18].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2017.07.009
0378-3812/© 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.
 M. Bonyadi, M. Rostami / Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47 41

The main objective of this work is to develop a new viscosity h pffiffiffiffiffi i hpffiffiffiffiffi i2
model based on the Soave-Redlich-Kwong EOS and behavioral f ¼ exp Q2 Tr  1 þ Q3 Pr  1 (15)
similarity between P-v-T and T-m-P to properly predict the viscosity
of light hydrocarbons, CO2 and N2 over wide ranges of pressure and The optimal values of parameters Q1, Q2 and Q3 in Eqs. (14) and
temperature. (15) are determined for each pure component by minimizing the
average absolute relative deviation between the model predictions
and experimental data with the help of Genetic Algorithm (GA). In
2. The SRK based viscosity model
other words, the average absolute relative deviation is considered
as the objective function (o.b):
Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state (SRK EOS) is one of
popular and commonly used EOS in oil and gas industry. The  exp eriment 
1 XNP mi  mcalculated
i


general form of the SRK EOS [22] is shown below: o:b ¼ 
i¼1 
 (16)
NP mexp eriment 
i
RT a
P¼  (1)
nb nðn þ bÞ GA, is a metaheuristic search method that is widely used for
solving optimization and approximation problems which is based
Where a and b are the SRK EOS parameters which are defined by on the process of natural selection. In GA, a population of individual
the following expressions: with associated fitness values is maintained at each generation that
are represents a point in a search space and a possible solution. The
a ¼ a:ac (2) individuals with higher fitness score are assigned and undergo
genetic transformation by crossover and mutation. The crossover
R2 Tc2 operator represents of mating between two individuals (as parents)
ac ¼ 0:42748 (3) and the mutation operator introduces random modifications that
Pc
selects one individual from the parent population and changes its
sffiffiffiffiffi !!2 internal representation and considers it as the child population.
T Dead individuals (parents) in the population are replaced by the
a¼ 1þb 1 (4) child population. These steps are repeated until a stopping criterion
TC
has been achieved. Table 1 summarizes the GA operator and the
parameters used in this study.
b ¼ 0:48 þ 1:57u  0:176u2 (5) After the optimal values of Q1, Q2 and Q3 are determined for each
pure component, then by using the TABLE CURVE software version
RTc 2.11, these parameters have been generalized and correlated with
b ¼ 0:08664 (6)
Pc the acentric factor:

Where Tc, Pc and u are critical temperature, critical pressure and

Q1 ¼ 0:8519 þ 0:4082u  3:0409u2 (17)
acentric factor, respectively. More details of the SRK EOS can be
found in the original article [22]. Based on the behavioral analogy
between P-v-T and T-m-P, if the position of P and T in the SRK EOS Q2 ¼ 1:7583  8:6508u þ 38:6945u2 (18)
changed and v and R are substituted by m and r, a new equation for
the viscosity are achieved [18]: Q3 ¼ 0:3247  1:0350u þ 4:1489u2 (19)

rP a
T¼  (7)
m  b0 mðm þ bÞ
2.1. Extension to multi-components

rc2 Pc2
a ¼ 0:42748 (8) The following mixing rules [24] extend the use of viscosity
Tc model to mixtures:

rc Pc X
m X
m
b ¼ 0:08664 (9) a¼ xi xj aij (20)
Tc
i j

mc Tc pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
rc ¼ (10) aij ¼ ai aj 1  kij (21)
Pc Zc
In Eq. (10), mc is the critical viscosity which can be calculated by In Eq. (21), kij is the binary interaction coefficient.
the following empirical relation [23]:

mc ¼ 7:7Tc1=6 Mw0:5 Pc2=3 (11)

Table 1
Parameters used in the genetic algorithm.
r ¼ rc t (12)
Population size 100
Selection function Roulette wheel
0
b ¼ bf (13) Crossover fraction 0.45
Elite count 2
n h io2 Maximum generation 80
t ¼ 1 þ Q1 ðTr Pr Þ0:5  1 (14) Function tolerance 1e-6
42 M. Bonyadi, M. Rostami / Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47

Xm 400
b¼ i
x i bi (22)
350
Xm
r¼ xi ri (23) 300
i
250

Pressure (bar)
X
m
0
b ¼b xi f i (24) 200
i
150
Solving Eq. (7) in term of viscosity leads to a cubic equation. So,
three real roots may be achieved at the specified pressure and 100
temperature. The smallest positive real root should be taken as gas
viscosity and the largest should be taken as liquid viscosity [18]. 50

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
3. Results and discussions Viscosity (Pa.S) x 10
-5

3.1. Viscosity of pure components Fig. 1. Comparison between the calculated viscosities by the SRK based viscosity
model and experimental data for methane. Experimental data (Lee [27]): () 273.15 K;
(;)323.15 K; (:)348.15 K; (þ)377.15 K; (-)410.93 K; (C)444.26 K; (_) calculated by
The first step is to apply the SRK based viscosity model to fifteen SRK based viscosity model.
pure hydrocarbons, CO2 and N2 over wide ranges of pressure and
temperature. The proposed model has been compared with the PR
based model of Fan and Wang (PRm) [20], the PR based model of
Guo et al. [18,19] and the LBC model [8]. In the LBC model the
required density has been calculated by using the SRK EOS with
Peneloux volume correction [25]. The obtained average absolute
relative deviations are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, the least
average absolute relative deviation for each hydrocarbon compo-
nent belongs to the SRK based viscosity model. For CO2 the best
performance is obtained by the LBC model. However, in comparison
between EOS-based viscosity models, the SRK based model has less
error than the other two models. The average absolute relative
deviations for the viscosity of N2 were found to be 8.41%, 14.22%,
8.31% and 25.61%, using the SRK, PRm, Guo et al. and LBC models,
respectively. As can be seen the Guo et al. model is slightly more
accurate than the proposed model. The total average absolute
relative deviation of viscosity, predicted by the SRK viscosity model,
is 7.79%, whereas it is 10.29% for the PRm, 49.01% for the Guo et al.
and 36.46% for the LBC model, respectively. It is observed that the
Fig. 2. Comparison between the calculated viscosities by the SRK based viscosity
SRK viscosity model is superior to the other three models. Figs. 1e4
model and experimental data for ethane. Experimental data (Lee [27]): () 312.15 K;
represents a comparison between the calculated viscosities by the (;)323.15 K; (:)373.15 K; (A)423.15 K; (-)473.93 K; (C)523.26 K; (_) calculated by
SRK based viscosity model and experimental data for methane, the SRK based viscosity model.

Table 2
Predicted results on the viscosity of pure components based on the SRK, PRm, Guo et al. and LBC models (Data source: Stephan and Lucas [26]).

T (K) P (MPa) State Np AARD (%)a

SRK PRm Guo et al. LBC

Methane 280e520 0.1e70 G,L 542 4.77 8.97 36.45 4.89

Ethane 300e750 0.1e70 G,L 665 6.32 7.22 44.91 5.50
Propane 175e750 0.1e35 G,L 632 5.60 6.25 17.67 15.95
n-Butane 280e850 0.1e70 G,L 580 6.89 7.64 41.57 21.72
i-Butane 310e850 0.1e50 G,L 658 6.95 9.07 43.56 27.94
n-Pentane 320e900 4.0e50 G,L 185 6.87 8.97 47.57 21.72
i-Pentane 280e750 0.1e60 G,L 377 7.57 12.41 38.55 28.52
Hexane 380e580 2.5e50 G,L 207 8.57 11.54 38.57 25.32
Heptane 300e580 2.7e50 G,L 408 7.94 8.13 31.04 32.27
n-Octane 300-670 0.1e50 G,L 442 8.28 11.60 35.73 36.82
n-Nonane 300e470 0.1e50 G,L 281 6.95 7.21 82.20 67.54
n-Decane 280e520 4.0e35 L 224 9.23 9.64 69.45 82.14
n-Undecane 300e520 4.0e50 L 172 15.78 28.12 85.25 81.23
n-Dodecane 300e520 4.0e50 L 172 18.12 31.25 92.23 89.25
Benzene 290e520 0.1e40 G,L 258 8.96 10.15 32.45 22.71
Nitrogen 280e600 3.0e100 G 286 8.41 14.22 8.31 25.61
Carbon dioxide 310e900 0.1e90 G 360 11.10 13.78 34.21 7.52

Overall 6449 7.79 10.42 41.18 27.82

 
P mexperiment mcalculated


a
AARD% ¼ N1p N
i¼1 
i i
  100.
miexperiment

 M. Bonyadi, M. Rostami / Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47 43

700 3.2. Viscosity of mixtures

600 3.2.1. Viscosity of simple mixtures

To demonstrate the capability of the proposed model for pre-
500 dicting the viscosity of multi-component mixtures, the predicted
results of 38 binary, four ternary, four quaternary and two quinary
Pressure (bar)

400
-5
300 x 10
2.6

200 2.4

2.2
100
2

Viscosity (Pa.S)
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1.8
Viscosity (Pa.S) x 10
-5

1.6
Fig. 3. Comparison between the calculated viscosities by the SRK based viscosity
model and experimental data for n-butane. Experimental data (Lee [27]): () 423.59 K; 1.4
(;) 444.59 K; (:) 460.93 K; (C) 510.93 K; (_) calculated by the SRK based viscosity
model.
1.2

0.8
250 300 350 400 450 500
Temperature,K

Fig. 5. Comparison between experimental (C) (Abe et al. [28]) and predicted vis-
cosities based on the SRK (-), PRm (:) and Guo et al. (*) models for the ternary
mixture of Methane (1)-Ethane (2)-Propane (3) (x1 ¼ 52.03mole%, x2 ¼ 29.18 mole%)
at atmospheric pressure.

-5
x 10
2.6

2.4

2.2

2
Viscosity (Pa.S)

1.8
Fig. 4. Comparison between the calculated viscosities by the SRK based viscosity
model and experimental data for i-butane. Experimental data (Lee [27]): (-) 310.93 K; 1.6
(C) 344.26 K; (;) 377.59 K; (:) 410.93 K; (_) calculated by the SRK based viscosity
model. 1.4

1.2

1
ethane, n-butane and i-butane.
As can be observed, the proposed model is well able to predict 0.8
the change of viscosities with temperature and pressure. Also, 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figs. 1e4 generally show that the proposed model slightly over- Temperature,K
predicted the viscosities at high pressures while slightly under- Fig. 6. Comparison between experimental (C) (Abe et al. [28]) and predicted vis-
predicted the viscosities at low pressures, however, the predicted cosities based on the SRK (-), PRm (:) and Guo et al. (*) models for the ternary
viscosities match well with the experimental values. mixture of Methane (1)- Propane (2)-Butane (3) (x1 ¼ 49.28mole %, x2 ¼ 24.87 mole %)
at atmospheric pressure.

Table 3
Comparison of Eos-based viscosity models for binary mixtures (Data source: Lee [27] and Abe et al. [28]).

System X1 (mole)% Np T(K) P (MPa) AARD (%)

This work PRm Guo et al.

Methane (1)-propane (2) 10e90 1426 311e511 0.1e68.9 9.50 12.89 17.40
Methane (1)-n-butane (2) 10e90 756 311e511 2.7e68.9 9.70 11.54 17.90
Methane (1)-n-decane (2) 10e90 545 311e444 4.1e68.9 9.10 13.10 19.90
Ethane (1)- n-butane (2) 18e83 15 298e468 0.1 5.95 7.34 15.21
Propane (1)- n-utane (2) 22e79 19 298e468 0.1 5.51 6.12 16.54
n-pentane(1)-hexane(2) 10e89 11 298 0.1 2.26 5.51 14.24
Overall 2772 9.40 12.46 17.99
44 M. Bonyadi, M. Rostami / Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47

-5 Table 4
x 10
3 Comparison of viscosity models for six liquid mixtures of hydrocarbons (Data
source: Barrufet et al. [29]).

T(K) P (kpa) mexp (107 Pa s) ARDa%

2.5 This work PRm Guo et al.

Butane (1) þ hexane (2) þ decane (3): x1 ¼ 0.193, x2 ¼ 0.193

324.26 308 3810 1.23 1.44 27.60
Viscosity (Pa.S)

2 342.04 377 3360 3.12 4.46 29.41

359.82 446 2870 2.13 3.69 28.75
377.69 515 2460 1.32 2.32 29.52
395.37 635 2170 1.40 2.40 29.17
1.5 Butane (1) þ hexane (2) þ decane (3) þ carbon dioxide (4): x1 ¼ 0.177,
x2 ¼ 0.177, x3 ¼ 0.56
324.26 2514 3500 6.27 9.28 31.77
342.04 2514 3070 6.12 8.14 31.52
1
359.82 2514 2750 4.02 6.25 30.24
377.59 2514 2500 2.28 2.96 32.74
395.37 2514 2320 1.56 1.42 33.98
0.5 Butane (1) þ hexane (2) þ decane (3) þ carbon dioxide (4): x1 ¼ 0.15, x2 ¼ 0.15,
250 300 350 400 450 500 x3 ¼ 0.476
Temperature,K 324.26 4828 3040 9.27 17.60 31.77
342.04 4828 2790 9.22 13.44 31.52
Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental (C) (Abe et al. [28]) and predicted viscos- 359.82 4828 2440 8.10 15.57 30.24
ities based on the SRK (-), PRm (:) and Guo et al. (*) models for the ternary mixture 377.59 4828 2160 8.98 16.90 32.74
of n-Butane (1)- Propane (2)-Ethane (3) (x1 ¼ 23.36 mole %, x2 ¼ 37.63 mole %) at 395.37 4828 1720 10.2 33.14 33.98
atmospheric pressure.
Pentane (1) þ hexane (2) þ heptane (3) þ decane (4): x1 ¼ 0.097, x2 ¼ 0.289,
x3 ¼ 0.103
359.82 273 2660 1.27 0.33 31.77
mixtures are compared with the experimental data, PRm and Guo
377.59 308 2410 3.12 4.48 31.52
et al. models as well. In order to have a fair comparison, the binary 383.15 343 2280 3.02 3.24 30.24
interaction coefficients in the mixing rules are set to zero. Table 3 395.37 412 2170 3.36 7.10 33.98
shows a comparison between the three EOS-based viscosity Pentane (1) þ hexane (2) þ heptane (3) þ decane (4) þ carbon dioxide (5):
models for predicting the viscosities of binary mixtures. As can be x1 ¼ 0.088, x2 ¼ 0.264, x3 ¼ 0.094, x4 ¼ 0.467
seen the total average absolute relative deviation of the proposed 359.82 2514 2780 2.10 3.49 25.78
model is less than the PRm and Guo et al. models. 377.59 2514 2520 1.02 0.83 29.12
383.15 2514 2310 2.95 5.80 30.15
Figs. 5e7 show a graphical comparison between the predicted
395.37 2514 2090 3.76 7.99 30.40
and experimental viscosities by the SRK, PRm and Guo et al. models
for three ternary mixtures at atmospheric pressure. Mixtures 1 to 3 Pentane (1) þ hexane (2) þ heptane (3) þ decane (4) þ carbon dioxide (5):
x1 ¼ 0.075, x2 ¼ 0.225, x3 ¼ 0.08, x4 ¼ 0.397
include the following compositions: mixture 1 (Fig. 5): Methane 359.82 4928 2430 8.12 14.81 26.35
(1)-Ethane (2)-Propane (3) (x1 ¼ 52.03mole%, x2 ¼ 29.18 mole%), 377.59 4928 2190 9.69 14.38 28.14
mixture 2 (Fig. 6): Methane (1)-Propane (2)-n-Butane (3) 383.15 4928 1970 9.97 22.84 27.14
(x1 ¼ 49.28 mole%, x2 ¼ 24.87 mole%) and mixture 3 (Fig. 7): n- 395.37 4928 2260 9.02 31.39 29.46
Butane (1)-Propane (2)-Ethane (3) (x1 ¼ 23.36 mole%, x2 ¼ 37.63 AARD%b 5.10 9.56 30.33
mole%).  
 experiment calculated 
m mi 
The figures show that the PRm and Guo et al. models fail to a
ARD% ¼  i   100.
 miexperiment

describe the experimental data and considerably over predicted the  
P  experiment calculated 
viscosities; however, the proposed model with average absolute b
AARD% ¼ N1p N
mi mi 
  100.
i¼1  miexperiment

relative deviation of 1.62%, 4.08% and 4.05% for mixture 1, mixture 2
and mixture 3, is the best model in comparison with the other ones.
Table 4, shows a comparison between the results of the pro- nine gas condensates and nine oil-reservoir fluids, respectively. For
posed model with the results of the PRm, and Guo et al. models for fair comparison, all the binary interaction coefficients in the mixing
six liquid mixtures of hydrocarbons. The average absolute relative rules are set to zero. It should be noted that the C7þ properties of all
deviations of 5.10%, 9.56% and 30.33% for the SRK, PRm, and Guo reservoir fluids are taken from Lawal's work [17].
et al. models show that the accuracy of the proposed model is much As can be seen in Table 5, for 58 experimental data of two nat-
more than the other two models. ural gases, the proposed model predicts viscosity more accurate
Also, in Fig. 8 for a quaternary mixture a comparison has been than the other three models. Also, Table 5 indicates that the results
conducted between the results of the SRK, PRm and Guo et al. obtained by the PRm and LBC models are closed together; however,
models. The average absolute relative deviation of 2.49% for the the PRm model is slightly more accurate than the LBC model. It
proposed model, 18.17% for the PRm model and 74.25% for the Guo should be noted that in the natural gas systems the main compo-
et al. model, shows the superiority of the proposed model. nent is methane and the amount of heavy components are near
zero.
In Table 6, for nine gas condensate fluids, the results predicted
3.2.2. Viscosity of reservoir fluids
by the four viscosity models are compared with experimental data.
In this section the validity of the proposed model for predicting
The average absolute relative deviations are 6.81%, 10.08%, 15.11%
the viscosities of twenty reservoir fluids has been examined and
and 96.42% for the SRK, PRm, Guo et al. and LBC models, respec-
compared with the PRm, Guo et al. and LBC models.
tively. It is clear from Table 6 that the proposed model is superior.
Tables 5 to 7 show a comparison between the accuracy of vis-
Table 7 reports a comparison among the accuracy of the four
cosity models for predicting the viscosities of two natural gases,
 M. Bonyadi, M. Rostami / Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47 45

x 10
-5 that the accuracy of EOS-based viscosity models for reservoir fluids
2.6 does not only depend on binary interaction coefficients, but also on
other things such as characterization of pseudocomponents (C7þ)
2.4 and number of pseudocomponents. In case of gas condensate and
oil systems, the LBC model shows very large deviations, because
2.2
this model is extremely sensitive to the density and the critical
volume of C7þ fraction.
2
Viscosity (Pa.S)

1.8
4. Conclusion
1.6
In this work a viscosity model based on the SRK EOS has been
1.4 proposed for predicting the viscosity of CO2, N2 and light hydro-
carbons. This model was derived from 1020 experimental data of
1.2 pure components. Genetic algorithm is used to obtain the optimal
values of model parameters. The validity of the proposed model for
1
seventeen pure components (6449 data), thirty eight binary mix-
tures (2772 data), ten simple and twenty complex mixtures (74
0.8
280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 data) has been examined and compared to the Guo et al., PRm and
Temperature,K LBC model.
Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental (C) (Abe et al. [28]) and predicted vis-
The comparisons indicate that the SRK based viscosity model
cosities based on the SRK (-), PRm (:) and Guo et al. (*) models for the quaternary yields the best prediction for viscosity of pure and mixtures of
mixture of Methane (1) - Ethane (2)-Propane (3)-n-Butane (4) (x1 ¼ 23.36 mole %, hydrocarbons compared with the Guo et al., PRm and LBC models.
x2 ¼ 37.63 mole %) at atmospheric pressure. Also, the results show that the proposed model properly predicts
the viscosity of light hydrocarbon mixtures such as natural gases
and gas condensates even without using any binary interaction
models considered in this study for nine oil-reservoir fluids. The
coefficients.
average absolute deviations are 28.49%, 48.73%, 94.26% and 88.86%
For oil-reservoir fluids studied in this work, the evaluation of
for the SRK, PRm, Guo et al. and LBC models, respectively. Large
these four models shows that the best and most reasonable results
errors are observed for the four viscosity models. Science the
are obtained with the proposed model. In addition to its accuracy,
amount of heavy components in the oil reservoir fluids is high and
the main advantages of the proposed model in comparison to the
the molecular size differences are large, so considering zeros for the
two other EOS-based viscosity model is simplicity and generality
binary interaction coefficients in the mixing rules can lead to large
since only the critical properties and the acentric factor is needed
errors in the calculation of viscosities. However, it should be noted
for predicting the viscosity.

Table 5
Comparison of viscosity models for two natural gases (Data source: Lee et al. [30]).

Mole fraction Np T(K) P (MPa) AARD (%)

This work PRm Guo et al. LBC

Carbon dioxide 0.0320 31 310.92e444.26 4.81e27.52 5.91 8.11 15.78 8.58

Nitrogen 0.0000
Methane 0.8630
Ethane 0.0680
Propane 0.0240
i-Butane 0.0043
n-Butane 0.0048
n-Pentane 0.0022
Hexane 0.0010
Heptaneþ 0.0004

Carbon dioxide 0.0170 27 310.92e444.26 2.75e55.04 5.64 7.91 15.14 8.87

Nitrogen 0.0055
Methane 0.9150
Ethane 0.0310
Propane 0.0140
i-Butane 0.0050
n-Butane 0.0067
n-Pentane 0.0028
Hexane 0.0026
Heptaneþ 0.0008

This work 5.78

PRm 8.02
Guo et al. 15.48
LBC 8.71
46 M. Bonyadi, M. Rostami / Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47

Table 6
Comparison of viscosity models for nine gas condensate fluids (Data source: Lawal, A. S. [17]).

Components Mole Fractions

Sample1 Sample2 Sample3 Sample4 Sample5 Sample6 Sample7 Sample8 Sample9

Carbon dioxide 0.1350 0.0058 0.0029 0.0058 0.0211 0.0048 0.0007 0.0278 0.0053
Nitrogen 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0208 0.0000 0.0088 0.0028 0.0030 0.0088
Methane 0.8740 0.9145 0.9285 0.8415 0.7758 0.7840 0.4267 0.9441 0.6796
Ethane 0.0391 0.0288 0.0318 0.0641 0.0762 0.0861 0.3251 0.0144 0.0621
Propane 0.0172 0.0134 0.0120 0.0287 0.0342 0.0448 0.1803 0.0034 0.0237
i-Butane 0.0045 0.0038 0.0024 0.0024 0.0112 0.0116 0.0080 0.0007 0.0058
n-Butane 0.0058 0.0043 0.0040 0.0113 0.0128 0.0166 0.0061 0.0010 0.0151
i-Pentane 0.0035 0.0024 0.0014 0.0021 0.0083 0.0077 0.0028 0.0004 0.0087
n-Pentane 0.0037 0.0020 0.0017 0.0047 0.0060 0.0069 0.0048 0.0004 0.0054
Hexane 0.0071 0.0048 0.0034 0.0049 0.0116 0.0103 0.0102 0.0004 0.0147
Heptaneþ 0.0316 0.0202 0.0119 0.0137 0.0428 0.0206 0.0387 0.0044 0.0788

Properties of C7þ
Specific Gravity (API) 47.00 50.70 47.40 54.50 49.50 60.40 40.40 41.30 45.40
Mw 155.00 142.00 158.00 134.00 157.00 126.00 177.00 160.00 135.00
Critical Temp.( K) 439.27 435.50 443.61 414.27 441.44 403.28 461.11 444.55 415.55
Critical Press.(MPa) 3.17 3.36 3.12 3.49 3.14 3.62 2.86 3.09 3.47
Acentric Factor 0.3814 0.3533 0.3879 0.3363 0.3858 0.3194 0.4295 0.3923 0.3364

Temperature ( K) 390.93 365.92 373.70 325.93 400.93 335.37 261.48 398.70 375.93
Pressure (MPa) 36.92 31.38 31.36 24.89 33.92 19.30 13.76 39.56 30.37
Experimental Viscosity (cp) 0.0350 0.0360 0.0300 0.0300 0.0460 0.0360 0.0490 0.0230 0.0700

Predicted viscosity (cp)

This work 0.0341 0.0371 0.0294 0.0334 0.0415 0.0366 0.0541 0.0251 0.0780
PRm 0.0361 0.0375 0.0307 0.0364 0.0410 0.0370 0.0580 0.0264 0.0791
Guo et al. 0.0365 0.0329 0.0308 0.0365 0.0405 0.0380 0.0645 0.0308 0.0810
LBC 0.0707 0.0661 0.0576 0.0602 0.0842 0.0658 0.0951 0.0459 0.1610

Average Absolute Relative Deviation (%)

This work 6.81
PRm 10.08
Guo et al. 15.11
LBC 96.42

Table 7
Comparison of viscosity models for nine oil-reservoir samples (Data source: Lawal, A. S. [17]).

Components Mole Fractions

Sample1 Sample2 Sample3 Sample4 Sample5 Sample6 Sample7 Sample8 Sample9

Carbon dioxide 0.0170 0.0150 0.0000 0.0000 0.0040 0.0060 0.0040 0.0160 0.0010
Nitrogen 0.0010 0.0050 0.0010 0.0170 0.0560 0.0060 0.0060 0.0160 0.0000
Methane 0.0290 0.0690 0.1780 0.0900 0.1350 0.1480 0.2400 0.3510 0.5070
Ethane 0.0060 0.0770 0.0410 0.0460 0.0670 0.0610 0.0140 0.0110 0.0550
Propane 0.0030 0.0620 0.0340 0.0710 0.0630 0.0920 0.0280 0.0080 0.0320
i-Butane 0.0020 0.0200 0.0090 0.0100 0.0150 0.0190 0.0080 0.0060 0.0100
n-Butane 0.0040 0.0630 0.0310 0.0470 0.0340 0.0650 0.0240 0.0140 0.0150
i-Pentane 0.0040 0.0210 0.0220 0.0140 0.0230 0.0320 0.0120 0.0130 0.0070
n-Pentane 0.0040 0.0260 0.0410 0.0210 0.0230 0.0320 0.0160 0.0170 0.0070
Hexane 0.0280 0.0830 0.0530 0.0350 0.0670 0.0650 0.0790 0.0560 0.0200
Heptaneþ 0.9020 0.5410 0.5910 0.6500 0.5130 0.4750 0.5700 0.4920 0.3470

Properties of C7þ
Specific Gravity (API) 25.00 29.50 47.00 26.70 27.90 31.70 33.00 40.10 35.10
Mw 228.60 209.40 170.00 396.00 231.00 216.00 231.00 219.00 252.00
Critical Temp.( K) 525.22 511.22 477.00 619.78 526.89 516.22 526.88 518.29 540.67
Critical Press.(MPa) 2.39 2.49 3.16 1.22 2.37 2.54 2.37 2.51 2.15
Acentric Factor 0.5205 0.4804 0.3980 0.8566 0.5255 0.4942 0.5255 0.5006 0.5892

Temperature ( K) 394.26 317.59 295.37 380.93 316.48 346.48 363.15 407.59 379.26
Pressure (MPa) 0.5504 2.30 2.40 4.26 6.19 5.81 7.50 14.99 25.21
Experimental Viscosity (cp) 1.49 1.13 0.67 3.40 1.53 0.75 1.37 0.44 0.45

Predicted viscosity (cp)

This work 1.9800 0.7645 0.8707 2.2145 1.1298 0.5321 0.8974 0.5354 0.3825
PRm 2.3889 1.6546 1.0124 5.6457 0.9787 1.0747 0.5457 0.6111 0.6134
Guo et al. 3.1900 1.9907 1.1725 7.1245 2.8341 1.7251 2.5478 0.8345 0.8223
LBC 0.0209 0.1164 0.0696 0.0716 0.2104 0.1257 0.1378 0.0677 0.0903

Average Absolute Relative Deviation (%)

This work 28.49
PRm 48.73
Guo et al. 94.26
LBC 88.86
 M. Bonyadi, M. Rostami / Fluid Phase Equilibria 451 (2017) 40e47 47

Nomenclature [8] J. Lohrenz, B.G. Bray, C.R. Clark, Calculating viscosities of reservoir fluids from
their compositions, J. Pet. Technol. 16 (1964) 1171e1176.
[9] J.A. Jossi, L.I. Stiel, G. Thodos, The viscosity of pure substances in the dense
a,b SRK EOS parameters gaseous and liquid phases, AIChE J. 8 (1982) 59e63.
0
b Parameter in SRK viscosity equation as defined in Eq. (12) [10] E.N. Andrade, C.A. da, Theory of the viscosity of liquids, Phil. Mag. 17 (1934)
AARD Average absolute relative deviation 497e511.
[11] C. Walther, The evaluation of viscosity data, Erdol Teer 7 (1931) 382e384.
ARD Absolute relative deviation [12] H.W. Yarranton, M.A. Satyro, Expanded fluid-basedviscosity correlation for
Mw Molecular weight hydrocarbons, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009) 3640e3648.
NP Number of data points [13] K.S. Pedersen, Aa Fredenslund, An improved corresponding states model for
the prediction of oil and gas viscosities and thermal conductivities, Chem. Eng.
Pr Reduced pressure Sci. 42 (1987) 182e186.
R Universal gas constant [14] Abhijit Y. Dandekar, Petroleum Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties, CRC Press
r Parameter in SRK viscosity model as defined in Eq. (14) Taylor & Francis, 2006.
[15] P. Phillips, The Viscosity of Carbon Dioxide, Proc. Royal Soc.Lond. 87A (1912)
rc Parameter of the SRK viscosity model as defined in Eq. 48e61.
(10) [16] J.E. Little, H.T. Kennedy, A Correlation of the Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Systems
Tr Reduced temperature with Pressure, Temperature and Composition, Society of Petroleum Engineers
(SPE) Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, 1966. Oct. 2e5.
Z Compressibility factor [17] A.S. Lawal, Prediction of Vapor and liquid Viscosities from the Law-
aleLakeesilberberg Equation of State. SPE/DOE Paper No. 14926, Presented at
Greek letters the Fifth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, 1986. Tulsa, April 20e23.
m Viscosity (Pa.S) [18] X.Q. Guo, L.S. Wang, S.X. Rong, T.M. Guo, Viscosity model based on equations
of state for hydrocarbon liquids and gases, Fluid Phase Equilib. 139 (1997)
405e421.
Subscripts [19] X.Q. Guo, C.Y. Sun, S.X. Rong, G.J. Chen, T.M. Guo, Equation of state analog
cal Calculated correlations for the viscosity and thermal conductivity of hydrocarbons and
reservoir fluids, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 30 (1) (2001) 15e27.
exp Experiment [20] T.B. Fan, L.S. Wang, A viscosity model based on peng-robinson equation of
i,j Component i,j state for light hydrocarbon liquids and gases, Fluid Phase Equilibria 247
(2006) 59e69.
[21] Z.F. Wang, L.S. Wang, T.B. Fan, Densities and viscosities of ternary mixtures of
Superscripts heptane, octane, nonane, and hexyl benzene from 293.15 K to 313.15 K, Chem.
G Gas Eng. Data 52 (5) (2007) 1866e1871.
L Liquid [22] G. Soave, Equilibrium constants from a modified redlich-kwong equation of
state, Chem. Eng. Sci. 27 (1972) 1197e1203.
[23] O.A. Uyehara, U.K.M. Watson, A universal viscosity correlation, Nat. Pet. News
References 36 (1944) 714e722.
[24] J.D. van der Waals, On the Continuity of the Liquid and Gaseous State, Ph.D.
[1] S. Glasstone, K.J. Laidler, H. Eyring, Theory of Rate Process, McGraw Hill, New Dissertation, 1873. Sigthoff, Leiden.
York, 1941. [25] A. Peneloux, E. Rauzy, R. Freze, A consistent correction for redlich-kwong-
[2] S. Chapman, T.G. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Nonuniform Gases, soave volumes, Fluid Phase Equilibria 8 (1982) 7e23.
University Press,Cambridge, 1970. [26] K. Stephan, K. Lucas, Viscosity of Dense Fluids, Plenum Press, New York and
[3] B.E. Poling, J.M. Prausnitz, J.P. O'Conell, The Properties of Gases and Liquids, London, 1979.
fifth ed., 2000. New York. [27] A.L. Lee, Viscosity of Light Hydrocarbons, Am. Petrol. Inst, New York, 1965.
[4] H. Eyring, Viscosity, plasticity and diffusion as examples of absolute reaction [28] Y. Abe, J. Kestin, H.E. Khalifa, W.A. Wakeham, The viscosity and diffusion
rates, J. Chem. Phys. 4 (1936) 283e291. coefficients of the mixtures of four light hydrocarbon gases, Phys. A Stat.
[5] R.H. Ewell, H. Eyring, Theory of the viscosity of liquids as a function of tem- Mech. its Appl. 93 (1e2) (1978) 155e170.
perature and pressure, J. Chem. Phys. 5 (1937) 726e736. [29] M.A. Barrufet, S.K.E. Salem, M. Tantawy, G.A.I. Silva, Liquid viscosities of car-
[6] S.E. Quin ~ ones-Cisneros, C.K. Zeberg -Mikkelsen, E.H. Stenby, The friction bon dioxide þ hydrocarbons from 310 K to 403K, Chem. Eng. Data 41 (1996)
theory (f-theory) for viscosity modeling, Fluid Phase Equilib. 169 (2000) 436e439.
249e276. [30] A. Lee, M. Gonzalez, B. Eakin, The viscosity of natural gases, J. Pet. Technol. 18
[7] S.E. Quin ~ ones-Cisneros, C.K. Zeberg -Mikkelsen, E.H. Stenby, One parameter (1966) 997e1000.
friction theory models for viscosity, Fluid Phase Equilib. 178 (2001) 1e16.