Robust Modeling For Efficient Estimation of Compressibility Factor in Retrograde Gas Condensate Systems

Subscriber access provided by UNIV WAIKATO
Article
Robust Modeling for Efficient Estimation of Compressibility
Factor in Retrograde Gas Condensate Systems
Mohammad M. Ghiasi, Arya Shahdi, Pezhman Barati, and Milad Arabloo
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/ie404269b • Publication Date (Web): 10 Jul 2014
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on July 11, 2014
Just Accepted
“Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the
dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts
appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been
fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all
readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered
to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published
in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just
Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor
changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers
and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors
or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research is published by the American Chemical

Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course
of their duties.
Page 1 of 57 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
1
2
3
4 1 Robust Modeling for Efficient Estimation of Compressibility Factor
5
6
7 2 in Retrograde Gas Condensate Systems
8
9
10
11 3 Mohammad M. Ghiasi1, Arya Shahdi2, Pezhman Barati3, Milad Arabloo4*
12
13 1
14 4 National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC), South Pars Gas Complex (SPGC), Asaluyeh, Iran
15 2
16 5 Department of Petroleum Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
17
3
18 6 Ahwaz Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology (PUT), Ahwaz, Iran
19
4
20 7 Young Researchers and Elites Club, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
21
22 8
23
24
25 9 Abstract
26
27
28
29 10 Knowledge of the phase behavior of condensate gas systems is important for predicting reservoir
30
31 11 performance and future processing needs. In this communication, new improved models are
32
33
34
12 developed to calculate the gas phase and two-phase compressibility factors based on constant
35
36 13 volume depletion (CVD) analysis of the well stream effluent at any depleted state in retrograde
37
38 14 gas condensate systems. These methods are based on compositional analysis of more than 1800
39
40
41 15 compositions of gas condensates collected worldwide. The average absolute relative deviation
42
43 16 and correlation coefficient of the developed models from experimental gas phase and two-phase
44
45 17 compressibility factor values were about 0.73% and 0.998 and 1.30% and 0.992, respectively.
46
47
48 18 This study also presents an evaluation of one hundred and twenty possible methods of
49
50 19 calculating the gas compressibility factor for gas condensates. The accuracy of the new models
51
52
53
54
55
56
*
57 Corresponding author
58 E-mail: milad.arabloo@gmail.com Tel. +98-917-1405706.
59
60 1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 2 of 57
1
2
3
1 has been compared to all one hundred and twenty methods. The comparison indicates that the
4
5
6 2 proposed models are consistent, reliable and superior to all the methods.
7
8
9 3 1 Introduction
10
11
12
13 4 Condensate gas is considered to be a very complex reservoir fluid because of its high gas/oil
14
1, 2
15 5 ratio . Development and optimization of gas condensate reservoirs to acquire more recovery
16
17 6 demands specific engineering methods and operations that are generally different from that for
18
19
20 7 either gas or oil reservoirs. The fluid PVT properties have direct influence on the performance
21
22 8 and consequently the developmental program to optimize the recovery. Thus, to optimize
23
24
25
9 management of gas condensate reservoirs a thorough knowledge of reservoir fluid properties and
26
27 10 economic is mandatory. Knowledge of the phase behavior of condensate gas systems is
28
29 2-4
11 important for predicting reservoir performance and future processing needs . One of the most
30
31
32 12 important factors to be evaluated by engineers in calculation of gas flow rate through reservoir
33
34 13 rock, material balance calculations, evaluation of gas reserves, design of production equipment,
35
36 14 and planning the development of a condensate gas reservoir is the fluid compressibility factor 4-7.
37
38
39 15 The common sources of Z-factor values are experimental measurements, equations of state (EoS)
40
41 16 and empirical correlations. Empirical correlations, which are used to predict natural gas Z-factor,
42
43 17 are much easier and faster than equations of state. Sometimes these correlations have comparable
44
45 8, 9
46 18 accuracy to equations of state . Although previous researchers on the modeling of PVT
47
48 9-15
19 properties of dry gas reservoirs are extensive , an investigation on the PVT properties of gas
49
50
51
20 condensate samples has not received enough attention. The recent development and success of
52
53 21 applying machine learning approaches to resolve various engineering complications has drawn
54
55 2, 3, 7, 10, 16-20
22 the attention to their potential applications in the petroleum industry . Nowadays,
56
57 10, 17, 18, 21-25
58 23 support vector machine (SVM) is gaining more popularity among researchers . The
59
60 2
1
2
3
1 SVM is a new and supervised machine learning technique which works based on the statistical
4
5 26
6 2 learning theory . The least square version of the SVM (LS-SVM) which widely used in
7
8 3 complex system studies for regression or parameter prediction, was described in Suykens and
9
10 27
11
4 Vandewalle . Although there are some works on the subject of prediction of gas
12
10, 11
13 5 compressibility factor in dry gas systems based on LS-SVM approach, to the best of
14
15 6 authors’ knowledge, no work has been published on the subject of modeling of retrograde gas
16
17
18 7 condensate for prediction of compressibility factor with this approach. Gas-condensate reservoirs
19
20 8 differ from dry-gas reservoirs. In dry gas systems no phase change is occurred during the
21
22 9 pressure depletion stages and also gas stream composition remains constant during the entire life
23
24
25 10 of the reservoir. However, Gas condensate reservoirs exhibit complex behavior when producing
26
27 11 under dew-point pressure at constant temperature 2. Therefore, due liquid drop out from the gas
28
29
12 phase causes this dry-gas based technique couldn’t give satisfactory results. This was the primary
30
31
32 13 motivation behind the writing of this article. Thus, this study presents compositional models for
33
34 14 estimation of gas phase and two-phase compressibility factors of various gas condensate samples
35
36
37 15 based on LS-SVM modeling approach. These models are based on analysis of more than 230
38
39 16 samples of laboratory studies of constant volume depletion (CVD) for gas condensate systems.
40
41 17 The database represents a wide range of gas condensate systems obtained worldwide. The
42
43
44 18 performance of the developed models has been compared to simulation results of one hundred
45
46 19 twenty possible methods of calculating the gas compressibility factor for gas condensates. To
47
48 20 achieve the research purpose, the rest of this article is organized as follows. In Section 2, a brief
49
50
51 21 review on the existing techniques for calculation of gas compressibility factor is presented. After
52
53 22 that, the background of the proposed algorithm is discussed in Section 3. The efficiency of the
54
55
56
23 developed models is illustrated and compared to all other predictive techniques in subsequent
57
58
59
60 3
1
2
3
1 sections. In this section also the degree of dependence of each input variable on the target value
4
5
6 2 is evaluated. Finally, Section 5 concludes the key findings of this paper.
7
8
9 3 2 Compressibility factor (Z-factor) calculation
10
11
12
13 4 The ratio of the real volume to the ideal volume, which is a measure of departure from ideal gas
14
15 5 low, is called the compressibility factor 28. Equations of state models are implicit in terms of the
16
17 6 compressibility factor, which means that the compressibility is calculated as a root of the
18
19
20 7 equation of state. Generally, Equations of state models are not very easy to use. Because most
21
22 8 mixing rules are empirical, interactions between unlike molecules are unknown, and also
23
24
25
9 calculations are numerous 9, 29. On the other hands, the equations of state are known to give poor
26
27 10 results for phase behavior modeling of complex hydrocarbons gas condensates especially in the
28
29 11 retrograde region. This issue is indicated in Sarkar et al. 30. It has encouraged many researchers
30
31
32 12 to look for other approaches 11, 13, 31. Empirical correlations 13, 14, 31-33 are one of these approaches.
33
34 13 When gas composition is available, the gas compressibility factor is estimated by predictive
35
36 14 correlations. Beggs and Brill 32, Kumar 14, Azizi, Behbahani and Isazadeh 33, Sanjari and Lay 31,
37
38 13
39 15 Bahadori et al. are of five well-known methods for determination of Z-factor. All of these
40
41 16 methods use pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature (Ppr,Tpr) to estimate the Z-factor. The
42
43 17 pseudo-reduced properties of gas (Ppr,Tpr) are calculated via one of the mixing rules. Four
44
45
46 18 mixing rules are used to calculate pseudo-critical properties of natural gases. These mixing rules
47
48 34 35 36
19 are Key , Stewart-Burkhardt-Voo (SBV) , Sutton-Stewart-Burkhardt-Voo (SSBV) , and
49
50
51
20 Elsharkawy et al. 37.
52
53
54 21 In order to calculate the pseudo-critical properties of natural gas, one needs critical properties of
55
56 22 all components of the gas stream. The critical properties of pure components are well-known.
57
58
59
60 4
1
2
3
1 However, the critical properties of the plus fraction (i.e., C7+) must be calculated from
4
5
6 2 correlations. Several correlations are presented to calculate the pseudo-critical properties of the
7
8 38 39
3 C7+ fraction. In this study, six well-known methods including Kesler-Lee , Pedersen , Riazi-
9
10 40, 41
11
4 Daubert , Sim–Daubert 42, Sancet 43, and Jamialahmadi et al. 44 are used to calculate critical
12
13 5 properties of the C7+ fraction.
14
15
16 6 Thus, there are on hundred and twenty methods for predicting Z-factor. Therefore, the first
17
18
19
7 objective of this work is to evaluate the existing methods for estimating the Z-factors of gas
20
21 8 condensate sample. The second objective of this work is to introduce new models for improved
22
23 9 prediction of gas phase as well as two-phase compressibility factor of gas condensate systems
24
25
26 10 during pressure depletion stages.
27
28
29 11 3 Methodology
30
31
32
33
12 3.1 Least square support vector machine (LS-SVM) modeling
34
35
36 13 The SVM is a supervised learning model which was proposed by Vapnik45 in 1995. SVMs use
37
38 45, 46
14 the spirit of the structural risk minimization principle . SVM is a form of non-probabilistic
39
40
41 15 binary linear classifier 47. Due to the specific formulation of the SVM algorithm, it gives a sparse
42
23
43 16 solution and both linear and nonlinear regressions can be performed . However the major
44
45 17 drawback of the SVM is its higher computational burden because of required constrained
46
47
48 18 optimization programing 47. In 1999, Suykens and Vandewalle 27 presented a modification to the
49
50 19 traditional SVM called least-squares SVM (LS-SVM) so as to facilitate the solution of the
51
52 20 original SVM framework. LS-SVM appears to offer advantages similar to those of SVM, but its
53
54
55 21 great advantage is that LS-SVM applies a set of linear equations (linear programming), instead
56
57 22 of quadratic programming problems in order to reduce the complexity of optimization process 27.
58
59
60 5
1
2
Considering the problem of approximating a given dataset {( x1 , y1 ), ( x2 , y2 ),...(x N , y N )} with a
3
4 1
5
6 2 nonlinear function:
7
8
9
10
f ( x) = 〈 w, Φ ( x)〉 + b (1)
11
12 3 where 〈.,.〉 represent dot product; Φ (x) represents the nonlinear function that performs linear
13
14
15 4 regression; b and w are bias terms and weight vector, respectively. In LS-SVM for function
16
17 5 estimation, the optimization problem is formulated as 47:
18
19
1 2 1 N 2
20 min J(w,e) = w + γ ∑ ek (2)
21 w ,b ,e 2 2 k =1
22
23
24 s.t. yk = 〈 w, Φ( xk )〉 + b + ek k = 1,..., N (3)
25
26
27 6 where ek ∈ R are error variables; γ ≥ 0 is a regularization constant. The Lagrangian of the
28
29 7 problem is defined by 47:
30
31
32
1 2 1 N 2 N
33 LLS −SVM = w + γ ∑ ek − ∑α k {〈 w, Φ( xk )〉 + b + ek − y k } (4)
34 2 2 k =1 k =1
35
36
37 8 with Lagrange multipliers α k ∈ R . The situation for optimally are determined by 47:
38
39
40
 ∂LLS − SVM N
41
 ∂w = 0 → w = ∑α k Φ( xk )
42
 k =1
 ∂LLS − SVM
43 N
44 = 0 → ∑α k = 0
45
 ∂b k =1
 ∂L (5)
46
 LS − SVM = 0 → α k = γ ek
47  ∂ek
48  ∂LLS − SVM
49  = 0 → 〈 w, Φ ( xk )〉 + b + ek − y k = 0
50  ∂α k
51
52
53 9 By specifying Y = [ y1 ;...; y N ] , 1v = [1;...;1] , α = [α1 ;...;α N ] and eliminating ek and w , following
54
55
56
10 equations are obtained 47:
57
58
59
60 6
1
2
3
4  0 1TN b  0
   =   (6)
1N Ω + γ I N  α  Y 
5 −1
6
7
8 1 where I N is an N × N identity matrix, and Ω ∈ R N × N is the kernel matrix presented by
9
10
11
12 Ω kl = Φ ( x k ) Φ ( x l ) = K ( x k , x l ), k,l = 1,...N (7)
13
14 27, 47
2 For LS-SVM, there are several kernel functions . However, RBF is one of the most widely
15
16
17
3 used kernel functions which is defined as:17, 18, 21.
18
19
20 K ( x k , xl ) = exp(− x k − xl
2
/σ 2 ) (8)
21
22
23 4 where, σ 2 is the squared variance of the Gaussian function.
24
25
26 5 3.2 Designing LS-SVM models for representation of Z-factors of gas condensate
27
28
29 6 samples
30
31
32 7 To develop LS-SVM models for accurate prediction of gas phase and two phase gas condensate
33
34
35 8 deviation factor, temperature (T), hydrocarbon (C1-C7+) and non-hydrocarbon fluid compositions
36
37 9 (CO2, H2S, N2), and characteristics of the heptanes-plus fraction (SGC7+, MWC7+) were assumed
38
39 10 as correlating parameters:
40
41
42
43 Z gas phase = f 1 (T , C1 − C 7 + , CO 2 , H 2 S , N 2 , SG C 7 + , MWC 7 + ) (9)
44
45
Z two - phase = f 2 (T , C1 − C 7 + , CO2 , H 2 S , N 2 , SGC 7 + , MWC 7 + ) (10)
46
47
48 11 3.3 Gas condensate PVT data
49
50
51
52 12 Compositions, gas phase and two phase compressibility factor of more than 230 gas condensate
53
54 13 samples were applied for this study. For each of samples a series of CVD tests have been
55
56 14 reported. All the data have been collected from open literature. The data bank represents a wide
57
58
59
60 7
1
2
3
1 range of gas condensate systems obtained worldwide. For each gas condensate composition, the
4
5
6 2 data include experimentally measured gas gravity, two-phase and gas phase Z-factor at a stage
7
8 3 pressure, and temperature reservoir for the produced gas. It also measures the amount of the
9
10
11
4 produced gas, compositional analysis of the produced gas from methane to heptane plus, and
12
13 5 molecular weight and specific gravity of the heptane plus fraction. The data cover a wide range
14
15 6 of reservoir conditions, temperature ranges from 75 to 418 °F and pressure ranges from 260 to
16
17
18 7 12,814 psia. A complete description of the data bank is given in Table 1. The data cover a wide
19
20 8 range of gas condensates from very lean gases to very rich gases. A part of the data employed for
21
22 9 modeling purpose is provided in the Supporting Information as Tables S-1.
23
24
25
26 10 3.4 Data processing and computation
27
28
29 11 Machine learning, a subdivision of artificial intelligence, concerns the development and study of
30
31 12 systems that can train from data. The main core of machine learning deals with representation
32
33
34 13 and generalization. Representation of data instances and predictions made by the model
35
36 14 evaluated on these instances are part of all machine learning systems. Generalization is the
37
38
15 property that the model will perform accurate forecasts on unseen data instances; the conditions
39
40
41 16 under which this can be guaranteed are a key subject for practical use. With the aim of
42
43 17 developing effective LS-SVM based models, the available database is randomly divided into
44
45
46 18 three sub-data sets consisting of the “training” set, “validating” set and the “test” set. The first
47
48 19 part known (i.e., training set) is used for construction and training of the model. The second part
49
50 20 (validation set) is used for selecting optimal parameters of the LS-SVM model and also to avoid
51
52
53 21 the over-fitting problems. The task of remaining data, i.e. test set, is to evaluate the capability of
54
55 22 proposed model for prediction of unseen data during the model development process. It should
56
57 23 be noted that the division of database into three mentioned sections is performed randomly.
58
59
60 8
1
2
3
1 However, in distribution of the data into these subdata sets, several divisions are implemented to
4
5
6 2 for determination of optimal division of data sets for use in LS-SVM model. To this end, the
7
8 3 effect of altering the ratio of training/validation/test data sets on the performance of the model.
9
10
11
4 Four split ratios of 50/20/20 (train/validation/test percent), 60/20/20, 70/15/15, and 80/10/10 on
12
13 5 the model performance were investigated. Results showed that the split ratio of 70/15/15 was
14
15 6 more appropriate than other forms and this ratio was selected as optimum form.
16
17
18
19
7 The mean square error (MSE) between the developed model results and corresponding
20
21 8 experimental values reported in the literature, as defined by Equation (11), was considered as
22
23 9 objective function during model computation:
24
25
26
1
27
28
MSE = ∑ (t i − oi ) 2
n i
(11)
29
30 10 in which, t and o are target value and estimated value, respectively.
31
32
33
34 11 In this study, we have used the LS-SVM algorithm developed by Pelckmans et al. 48 and Suykens
35
36 12 and Vandewalle 27.
37
38
39 13 4 Results and discussion
40
41
42
43 14 4.1 Evaluation of the available approaches
44
45
46 15 The capability of one hundred and twenty feasible methods in predicting both gas phase and two-
47
48
49 16 phase compressibility factors has been evaluated as follows: first, both critical temperature and
50
51 17 critical pressure of the heptane plus content of each system have been computed by employing
52
53 18 one of the aforesaid correlations for heptane plus characterization. Second, by using a mixing
54
55
56 19 rule, the pseudo-critical temperature and pseudo-critical pressure for each system have been
57
58
59
60 9
1
2
3
1 calculated. Then, the pseudo-reduced properties of the system have been computed. Finally, the
4
5
6 2 gas compressibility factors have been calculated via the aforementioned correlations for
7
8 3 compressibility factor. Some statistical parameters including average absolute relative deviation
9
10
11
4 (AARD), average relative deviation (ARD), root mean square error (RMSE), and correlation
12
13 5 coefficient (R-value) have been used to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the existing
14
15 6 methods for predicting the gas compressibility factors.
16
17
18
19
7 The summary of obtained results for one hundred and twenty feasible approaches that could be
20
21 8 used for predicting the compressibility factor of gas phase have been given in Tables 2 to 5.
22
23 9 Similarly, the comparison results for estimating the two-phase compressibility factors have been
24
25
26 10 tabulated in Tables 6 to 9. With accordance to the error analysis results tabulated in Tables 2-5, it
27
37 38
28 11 could be concluded that utilizing the Elsharkawy mixing rule coupled with Kesler-Lee
29
30 12 correlation for characterizing the heptane plus fraction and Azizi et al. 33 correlation for Z-factor
31
32
33 13 prediction will contributes to obtain better results in the case of estimating the gas phase
34
35 14 compressibility factor with AARD=2.031, RMSE=0.031, and R=0.9522. The selection was
36
37 15 based on AARD value. On the basis of the results summarized in Tables 6-9, the best way to
38
39 33
40 16 calculate the two-phase compressibility factor is employing Azizi et al. correlation (by
41
42 36 43
17 employing SSBV mixing rule, and Sancet correlation for characterizing the C7+ fraction)
43
44
45
18 with AARD=7.967, RMSE=0.100, and R=0.7038. Figures 1-2 demonstrate the graphical
46 33 37
47 19 evaluation of the performance of using Azizi et al. correlation by employing Elsharkawy
48
49 38
20 mixing rule coupled with Kesler-Lee correlation for characterizing the heptane plus fraction,
50
51
52 21 as best approach to calculate the gas phase compressibility factor. Indeed, Figure 1 shows the
53
54 22 outputs of the previously mentioned method vs. corresponding experimental values. As can be
55
56 23 seen from Figure 1, R-value is equal to 0.9522. Figure 2 shows the relative error deviations from
57
58
59
60 10
1
2
3
1 the experimental values. However, owing to the high relative errors followed from employing
4
5
6 2 this approach, still an accurate and reliable approach is in demand for the application of interest.
7
8
9 3 In the case of two-phase compressibility factor, the graphical evaluation of accuracy of using
10
11 4 SSBV 36
mixing rule, Sancet 43
correlation, and Azizi et al. 33
correlation for calculating the
12
13
14 5 pseudo-critical pressure and pseudo-critical temperature, characterizing the heptane plus fraction,
15
16 6 and Z-factor, respectively, is depicted in Figures 3-4. These figures clearly illustrate that the
17
18
19
7 abovementioned algorithm, which is more accurate than all other investigated methods for
20
21 8 predicting two-phase compressibility factor, could not be utilized successfully to obtain
22
23 9 satisfactory results. Moreover, selected approach has a tendency of having a large error in the
24
25
26 10 two-phase Z-factors at low pressures. Especially for Z-factors below 1.0, selected approach
27
28 11 significantly overestimates the two-phase deviation factor. Based on the presented figures and
29
30 12 plots it is concluded at this point that the existing methods for calculation of Z-factors for
31
32
33 13 retrograde gas condensate systems have huge error. This necessitates the development of new
34
35 14 models for improved prediction of these important parameters.
36
37
38 15 4.2 Developed LS-SVM models
39
40
41
42 16 Optimized values of the presented LS-SVM model for predicting the gas phase compressibility
43
44 17 factor including γ and σ 2 are found to be 90.75049 and 4.14847, respectively. The γ and σ 2
45
46
47 18 values of the proposed LS-SVM model for estimation of the two-phase compressibility factor are
48
49 19 equal to 262.9459 and 5.4021, respectively. The tuning parameters of the developed models have
50
51 49
52
20 been obtained by employing coupled simulated annealing (CSA) optimization technique. The
53 48
54 21 LS-SVM toolbox has been equipped with this optimizer. CSA automatically starts to find the
55
56
57
58
59
60 11
1
2
3
1 model’s parameters once the modeling process starts. In contrast to other optimization
4
5
6 2 techniques, CSA is not slow and can escape from local minima 49.
7
8
9 3 Comparisons between the results of the proposed model and the corresponding experimental gas
10
11 4 phase deviation factor values are convincingly illustrated in Figures 5-7. Furthermore, the
12
13
14 5 statistical parameters of the proposed model including correlation coefficients (R-value), average
15
16 6 relative deviation (ARD), average absolute relative deviations (AARD), and root mean square
17
18
19
7 errors (RMSE) are reported in Table 10. All the data applied in this study were used “as
20
21 8 received” basis from the literature. However, the effect of experimental data uncertainty on the
22
23 9 prediction accuracy cannot be ignored. Ignoring the experimental uncertainty/error, developed
24
25
26 10 LS-SVM model for prediction of gas phase compressibility factor is more accurate than the
27
28 11 existing methods. In order to illustrate the prediction accuracy of the developed model, three of
29
30 12 the best performing approaches have been selected. The prediction error of these methods have
31
32
33 13 been calculated and reported in Table 11. On the basis of the results summarized in this table, it
34
35 14 is clear that the best method is LS-SVM model with AARD= 0.726%, RMSE=0.012, and R-
36
37
15 value=0.9979.
38
39
40
41 16 Table 12 reports some important statistical quality measures of the developed model for
42
43 17 prediction of two-phase compressibility factor. Results of error analysis reported in Tables 6-9
44
45 18 and Table 12 reveal that the new model based on LS-SVM framework is the best method with
46
47
48 19 AARD= 1.302%, RMSE=0.052, and R-value=0.9921. Moreover, comparisons between the
49
50 20 results of the developed model and the corresponding experimental two-phase compressibility
51
52
21 factor values are illustrated in Figures 8-10. A tight cloud of points about 45o line for all of the
53
54
55 22 data indicate the robustness of the developed model. Similar to the previous section, the
56
57 23 prediction accuracy of three of the best performing approaches has been investigated (see Table
58
59
60 12
1
2
3
1 11). Based on the results reported in Table 11, it is obvious that the developed LS-SVM model is
4
5
6 2 the best model with AARD= 1.302%, RMSE=0.052, and R-value=0.9921.
7
8
9 3 In addition, to make a make a comparison between Figures 4 and 9, it is evident that that
10
11 4 proposed LS-SVM model has the smaller error range and least scatter around zero error line.
12
13
14 5 These results illustrate that the developed LS-SVM modeling approach has better and reliable
15
16 6 performance compared to existing techniques for improved representation of behavior of
17
18
19
7 retrograde gas condensate during depletion states.
20
21
22 8 Unlike the SVM, the LS-SVM model requires only two adjustable parameters which makes it an
23
24 9 ideal engineering tool in practical modeling works with limited data available 24. Considering the
25
26
10 above, the LS-SVM model predictions normally do not fail for the aforementioned systems.
27
28
29
30 11 4.3 Case study
31
32
33 12 The ability of the new method for calculating the gas condensate compressibility factor as a
34
35
13 function of changing pressure has been investigated for two retrograde gas sample provided from
36
37
38 14 Elsharkawy and Foda 6. The composition and other properties of these two samples during the
39
40 15 depletion stages are reported in Table 13. It should be notated that the studied gas sample no. 1 is
41
42
43
16 a highly sour retrograde gas sample which contains significant amount of hydrogen sulfide
44
45 17 (H2S=28.16%) while the gas sample no. 2 is a sweet gas condensate sample. It is interesting to
46
47 18 see the performance of the developed LS-SVM model for prediction of compressibility factors of
48
49
50 19 very sour as well as sweet samples. After carefully examining all 120 methods, it was found that
51
36 43
52 20 SSBV mixing rule coupled with Sancet correlation for characterizing the heptane plus
53
54 21 fraction and Bahadori et al. 13
correlation for Z-factor calculation was the best approach for
55
56
57 22 calculation of Z-factor of case studied gas condensate samples. Figures 11(a) and 11(b) show the
58
59
60 13
1
2
3
1 comparison between the experimental and predicted compressibility factors by applying
4
5
6 2 Bahadori et al. 13 and proposed LS-SVM model for both of the gas samples. As shown in Fig. 11,
7
8 13
3 the developed LS-SVM model presented in this study is more accurate than Bahadori et al.
9
10
11
4 correlation. Moreover, Table 14 compares some key statistical quality measures of developed
12
13 5 LS-SVM model versus selected method. It is concluded at this point that that developed LS-
14
15 6 SVM model is much more accurate than selected approach for determination of retrograde gas
16
17
18 7 condensate compressibility factor for both sweet and sour samples.
19
20
21 8 It is interesting to evaluate the data base applied in the case study, since any uncertainty affects
22
23 50
9 the prediction capability of the model. To this end, leverage value statistical approach was
24
25
26 10 implemented in this study. The recognition of the suspended data is undertaken through
27
28 11 sketching the Williams plot. The calculation procedure of this technique includes determination
29
30 12 of the residual values between LS-SVM predicted Z-factor and experimental value for all data
31
32 51
33 13 sets and a matrix referred to as Hat matrix . The following equation is generally used to
34
35 14 calculate the Hat matrix (H): 51-54:
36
37
38
39
H = X ( X T X ) −1 X T (12)
40
41 15 where, X represents a two-dimensional matrix having m rows (demonstrating total number of
42
43
16 hired data) and n columns (demonstrating number of model parameters) and T symbolizes the
44
45 53, 54
46 17 operator of transpose . Elements on the main diagonal of Hat matrix signify the feasible
47
48 18 region of the problem. Recognition of the doubtful data or outliers is graphically carried out
49
50 53, 54
51
19 through sketching the Williams plot based on the determined H values from Eq. (12) . This
52
53
53 20 plot shows the relation existing between H values and standardized residuals . A warning
54
55 21 leverage (H*) is typically fixed at 3(n+1)/m. Morover, leverage value of 3 is generally considered
56
57
58 22 as the cut-off value to accept the measurements within the range of ± 3 53-55
. Those data which
59
60 14
1
2
3
1 violate the acceptable range (points are located in Residual>3 or Residual<-3 regions) are
4
5 51, 56
6 2 considered as outliers . More detailed information can be found in works published by
7
8 51, 53, 57
3 Mohammadi and his co-workers. . Here, in order to achieve our objective and evaluate
9
10
11
4 model applicability domain, William plot has been sketched in Figure 12. Existence of all the
12
13 5 data points within the ranges 0 < H < 0.37 and -3<Residual<+3 indicates that the datasets used
14
15 6 in the case study is statistically accurate and valid.
16
17
18
19 7 4.4 Variable Impact Analysis
20
21
22 8 A sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the degree of dependence of model
23
24 9 predictions (i.e., gas phase and two-phase Z-factor) to each of independent variables. As a result
25
26
27 10 of the analysis, a relative impact value is allocated to each input variable. Herein, sensitivity
28
58
29 11 analysis was carried out by means of Spearman rank correlation technique. Figures 13 and 14
30
31
32
12 show the degree of correlation between input variables on the gas phase and two-phase
33
34 13 compressibility factors, respectively. The calculated correlation coefficients values can take
35
36 14 values from 0 to +1. A value of +1 demonstrates that there is a strong relationship between the
37
38
39 15 input variable and target variable, while a correlation coefficient of 0 shows no relationship input
40
12
41 16 and output . According to the results presented in these figures, pressure temperature and
42
43 17 heptane plus concentration as well as characteristics of heptane plus fraction (i.e., SGC7+ and
44
45
46 18 MWC7+) are the most significant factors influencing the gas phase and two-phase gas condensate
47
48 19 Z-factors.
49
50
51
52
20 5 Conclusions
53
54
55 21 Gas condensate compressibility factor is a key parameter for development of retrograde gas field
56
57 22 development strategies. In this communication, computer based models were developed for
58
59
60 15
1
2
3
1 reliable calculation of gas condensate compressibility factors during a natural production of the
4
5
6 2 reservoir. These models are based on analysis of more than 230 samples of laboratory studies of
7
8 3 CVD (more than 1800 CVD datasets) for gas condensate systems obtained from open literature.
9
10
11
4 Moreover, a comprehensive study was carried out to compare the performance and accuracy of
12
13 5 the new proposed models versus 120 combination of published techniques (six methods to
14
15 6 characterize the plus fraction, four widely used mixing rules, and five methods to calculate the
16
17
18 7 gas compressibility factor) in prediction of gas phase and two-phase Z-factor of condensate
19
20 8 samples. For this purpose, various effectiveness statistical criteria were introduced to figure out
21
22 9 the performance and integrity of various models. Among all the 120 combination of published
23
24 33
25 10 techniques, the best way to calculate the two-phase compressibility factor is Azizi et al.
26
36 43
27 11 correlation (by employing SSBV mixing rule, Sancet correlation characterizing the C7+
28
29
12 fraction) with AARD=7.967%. Meanwhile, the best way for calculation of gas phase Z-factor is
30
31
32 13 Azizi et al. 33 correlation (by utilizing the Elsharkawy 37 mixing rule coupled with Kesler-Lee 38
33
34 14 correlation for characterizing the C7+ fraction) with AARD=2.031. Whereas, the developed LS-
35
36
37 15 SVM models have AARD of 1.302% and 0.726% for prediction of two-phase and gas phase Z-
38
39 16 factors, respectively.
40
41
42 17 The results indicated that the proposed models are more robust, reliable and efficient than
43
44
45
18 existing techniques for prediction of PVT properties. Results from present research show that
46
47 19 implementation of CSA-LSSVM in retrograde gas condensate PVT calculations can lead to more
48
49 20 accurate and reliable modeling of reservoir condensate gas PVT properties.
50
51
52
21
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 16
1
2
3
4 1 Acknowledgments
5
6
7 2 Authors are thankful to Prof. A. H. Mohammadi (MINES ParisTech) and Dr. S. Zendehboudi
8
9
3 (MIT) for their helpful discussions and advise. Authors are also deeply indebted to anonymous
10
11
12 4 referees whose critical comments and invaluable suggestions helped to improve the clarity of
13
14 5 some of the results.
15
16
17 6
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 17
1
2
3
4 1 Appendix Instruction for using the model
5
6
7 2 A computer program is organized to use the developed model. At first, the LS-SVM toolbox for MATLAB should be installed, and
8
9 3 then, the directory of the toolbox should be inserted as the main directory in the MATLAB environment. After that, the model.mat file
10
11 4 is dragged and dropped in the MATLAB workspace.
12
13 5 Example: Calculation of the two-phase Z-factor of a gas condensate sample with the following data (Table A1)
14
15
16 6 Table A. 1: The sample set for calculation of Z-factor.
17
18 H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+ MWC7+ SGC7+ T P
19 0.2816 0.0608 0.0383 0.4033 0.0448 0.0248 0.006 0.0132 0.0079 0.0081 0.0121 0.0991 165 0.818 250 4204.7
20
21 7
22
23
24 8 Then, Z-factor is calculated simply using the below command line in the command window:
25
26
9 Data=[0.2816 0.0608 0.0383 0.4033 0.0448 0.0248 0.006 0.0132 0.0079 0.0081 0.0121 0.0991 165 0.818 250
27
28 10 4204.7];
29
30 11 Kernel_type='RBF_kernel';
31
32 12 Zfactor_pred=simlssvm({trnX,trnY,type,gam_trad,sig2_trad, Kernel_type,'preprocess'},{alpha,b},Data);
33
34
13 The output result of the program (based on the developed model) will be 0.8379 while the corresponding experimental value is
35
36
37 14 0.8380.
38
39
40 15
41
42
43
44 18
45
46 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
47
48
1
2
3
4 1 Nomenclature
5 Acronyms
6
7 AARD Average absolute relative deviation
8
ARD Average relative deviation
9
10 CVD Constant volume depletion
11
12 H Hat
13
14 SBV Stewart-Burkhardt-Voo
15
16
SSBV Sutton-Stewart-Burkhardt-Voo
17 LS-SVM Least square support vector machine
18
19 RBF Radial basis function
20
21 RMSE root mean square error
22
23 R correlation coefficient
24
CSA coupled simulated annealing
25
26 Variables
27
28 AT Transpose of matrix A
29
30 B Bias term
31
32 Exp Experimental value
33
34
H Hat matrix
35 IN N× N identity matrix
36
37
38
K ( xi , x j ) Kernel function
39
40 L Lagrangian
41 Molecular weight of heptane-plus fraction
MWc 7 +
42
43
o Output
44
45 P Pressure
46
47 Pc Critical pressure
48
49 Ppc Pseudo critical pressure
50
51
Ppr pseudo-reduced pressure
52 Pred Predicted
53
54 SGC7+ Specific gravity of heptane-plus fraction
55
56 T Temperature
57
58
59
60 19
1
2
3
Tc Critical temperature
4
5 Tpc Pseudo critical temperature
6
7 Tpr pseudo-reduced temperature
8
9 w Weight vector
10
11
t Target
12 Z Compressibility factor
13
14 Greek letters
15
16 Φ Map from input space into feature space
17
18 ek Error variables
19
20 γ Relative weight of the summation of the regression errors
21
22 σ2 Squared bandwidth
23
24 αk Lagrange multipliers
25
26 Ω Kernel matrix
27
28 1
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 20
1
2
3
4 1 References
5
6
7 2 1. Shokir, E. M. E.-M., Dewpoint pressure model for gas condensate reservoirs based on
8 3 genetic programming. Energy & Fuels 2008, 22, (5), 3194-3200.
9
4 2. Arabloo, M.; Shokrollahi, A.; Gharagheizi, F.; Mohammadi, A. H., Toward a predictive
10
11 5 model for estimating dew point pressure in gas condensate systems. Fuel Processing Technology
12 6 2013, 116, (0), 317-324.
13 7 3. Majidi, S. M. J.; Shokrollahi, A.; Arabloo, M.; Mahdikhani-Soleymanloo, R.; Masihi, M.,
14 8 Evolving an accurate model based on machine learning approach for prediction of dew-point
15 9 pressure in gas condensate reservoirs. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 2014, 92, (5),
16
17
10 891-902.
18 11 4. Sun, C.-Y.; Liu, H.; Yan, K.-L.; Ma, Q.-L.; Liu, B.; Chen, G.-J.; Xiao, X.-J.; Wang, H.-
19 12 Y.; Zheng, X.-T.; Li, S., Experiments and Modeling of Volumetric Properties and Phase
20 13 Behavior for Condensate Gas under Ultra-High-Pressure Conditions. Industrial and Engineering
21 14 Chemistry Rsearch 2012, 51, 6916−6925.
22
15 5. Firoozabadi, A.; Hekim, Y.; Katz, D. L., Reservoir depletion calculation for gas
23
24 16 condensate using extended analysis in the Peng Robinson Equation of State. Can. J. Chem. Eng.
25 17 1978, 56, 610-615.
26 18 6. Elsharkawy, A. M.; Foda, S. G., EOS simulation and GRNN modeling of the constant
27 19 volume depletion behavior of gas condensate reservoirs. Energy & Fuels 1988, 12, 353-364.
28 20 7. Zendehboudi, S.; Ahmadi, M. A.; James, L.; Chatzis, I., Prediction of Condensate-to-Gas
29
30
21 Ratio for Retrograde Gas Condensate Reservoirs Using Artificial Neural Network with Particle
31 22 Swarm Optimization. Energy & Fuels 2012, 26, (6), 3432-3447.
32 23 8. Elsharkawy, A. M., Efficient methods for calculations of compressibility, density and
33 24 viscosity of natural gases. . Fluid Phase Equilibria 2004, 218, (1), 1-13.
34 25 9. Fayazi, A.; Arabloo, M.; Mohammadi, A. H., Efficient estimation of natural gas
35
26 compressibility factor using a rigorous method. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
36
37 27 2014, 16, 7-16.
38 28 10. Chamkalani, A.; Zendehboudi, S.; Chamkalani, R.; Lohi, A.; Elkamel, A.; Chatzis, I.,
39 29 Utilization of support vector machine to calculate gas compressibility factor. Fluid Phase
40 30 Equilibria 2013, 358, (0), 189-202.
41 31 11. Kamari, A.; Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A.; Mirabbasi, S.-M.; Nikookar, M.; Mohammadi, A.
42
43
32 H., Prediction of sour gas compressibility factor using an intelligent approach. Fuel Processing
44 33 Technology 2013, 116, (0), 209-216.
45 34 12. Fayazi, A.; Arabloo, M.; Shokrollahi, A.; Zargari, M. H.; Ghazanfari, M. H., State-of-the-
46 35 Art Least Square Support Vector Machine Application for Accurate Determination of Natural
47 36 Gas Viscosity. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2013, 53, (2), 945-958.
48
37 13. Bahadori, A.; Mokhatab, S.; Towler, B. F., Rapidly Estimating Natural Gas
49
50 38 Compressibility Factor. Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 2007, 16, (4), 349-353.
51 39 14. Kumar, N. Compressibility factor for natural and sour reservoir gases by correlations and
52 40 cubic equations of state. MS thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Tex, USA, 2004.
53 41 15. Elsharkawy, A. M., Efficient methods for calculations of compressibility, density and
54 42 viscosity of natural gases. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2004, 218, (1), 1-13.
55
56
57
58
59
60 21
1
2
3
1 16. Farasat, A.; Shokrollahi, A.; Arabloo, M.; Gharagheizi, F.; Mohammadi, A. H., Toward
4
5 2 an intelligent approach for determination of saturation pressure of crude oil. Fuel Processing
6 3 Technology 2013, 115, (0), 201-214.
7 4 17. Rafiee-Taghanaki, S.; Arabloo, M.; Chamkalani, A.; Amani, M.; Zargari, M. H.;
8 5 Adelzadeh, M. R., Implementation of SVM framework to estimate PVT properties of reservoir
9 6 oil. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2013, 346, (0), 25-32.
10
11
7 18. Shokrollahi, A.; Arabloo, M.; Gharagheizi, F.; Mohammadi, A. H., Intelligent model for
12 8 prediction of CO2 – Reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure. Fuel 2013, 112, 375–384.
13 9 19. Zendehboudi, S.; Ahmadi, M. A.; Bahadori, A.; Shafiei, A.; Babadagli, T., A developed
14 10 smart technique to predict minimum miscible pressure—eor implications. The Canadian Journal
15 11 of Chemical Engineering 2013, 91, (7), 1325-1337.
16
12 20. Tatar, A.; Shokrollahi, A.; Mesbah, M.; Rashid, S.; Arabloo, M.; Bahadori, A.,
17
18 13 Implementing Radial Basis Function Networks for modeling CO2-reservoir oil minimum
19 14 miscibility pressure. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2013, 15, 82-92.
20 15 21. Fayazi, A.; Arabloo, M.; Shokrollahi, A.; Zargari, M. H.; Ghazanfari, M. H., State of the
21 16 Art of Least Square Support Vector Machine for Accurate Determination of Natural Gas
22 17 Viscosity. Journal of Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2013, In press.
23
24
18 22. Nejatian, I.; Kanani, M.; Arabloo, M.; Bahadori, A.; Zendehboudi, S., Prediction of
25 19 natural gas flow through chokes using support vector machine algorithm. Journal of Natural Gas
26 20 Science and Engineering 2014, 18, (0), 155-163.
27 21 23. Eslamimanesh, A.; Gharagheizi, F.; Illbeigi, M.; Mohammadi, A. H.; Fazlali, A.; Richon,
28 22 D., Phase equilibrium modeling of clathrate hydrates of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and
29
23 hydrogen+water soluble organic promoters using Support Vector Machine algorithm. Fluid
30
31 24 Phase Equilibria 2012, 316, (0), 34-45.
32 25 24. Chamkalani, A.; Mohammadi, A. H.; Eslamimanesh, A.; Gharagheizi, F.; Richon, D.,
33 26 Diagnosis of asphaltene stability in crude oil through “two parameters” SVM model. Chemical
34 27 Engineering Science 2012, 81, (0), 202-208.
35 28 25. Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A.; Alipour-Yeganeh-Marand, R.; Naseri, A.; Safiabadi, A.;
36
37 29 Gharagheizi, F.; Ilani-Kashkouli, P.; Mohammadi, A. H., Asphaltene precipitation due to natural
38 30 depletion of reservoir: Determination using a SARA fraction based intelligent model. Fluid
39 31 Phase Equilibria 2013, 354, (0), 177-184.
40 32 26. Vapnik, V., The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer: 2000.
41 33 27. Suykens, J. A. K.; Vandewalle, J., Least Squares Support Vector Machine Classifiers.
42
34 Neural Processing Letters 1999, 9, (3), 293-300.
43
44 35 28. van der Waals, J. D. Continuity of the Gaseous and Liquid State of Matter. University of
45 36 Leiden, 1873.
46 37 29. Valderrama, J. O., The State of the Cubic Equations of State. Industrial & Engineering
47 38 Chemistry Research 2003, 42, (8), 1603-1618.
48 39 30. Sarkar, R.; Danesh, A. S.; Todd, A. C. In Phase behavior modeling of gas-condensate
49
50 40 fluids using an equation of state, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
51 41 Texas, 1991; Dallas, Texas, 1991.
52 42 31. Sanjari, E.; Lay, E. N., An accurate empirical correlation for predicting natural gas
53 43 compressibility factors. Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 2012, 21, (2), 184-188.
54 44 32. Beggs, D. H.; Brill, J. P., A study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. Journal of
55
56
45 Petroleum Technology 1973, 25, (5), 607-617.
57
58
59
60 22
1
2
3
1 33. Azizi, N.; Behbahani, R.; Isazadeh, M. A., An efficient correlation for calculating
4
5 2 compressibility factor of natural gases. Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 2010, 19, (6), 642-645.
6 3 34. Kay, W. B., Density of Hydrocarbon Gases and Vapor at High Temperature and Pressure.
7 4 Ind. Eng. Chem. 1936, 1014-1019.
8 5 35. Stewart, W. F.; Burkhardt, S. F.; Voo, D., Prediction of Pseudo Critical Parameters for
9 6 Mixtures. In presented at the AIChE Meeting, Kansas City, 1959.
10
11
7 36. Sutton, R. P. In Compressibility factors for high-molecular-weight reservoir gases, SPE
12 8 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, 1985; Las Vegas, 1985.
13 9 37. Elsharkawy, A. M.; Hashem, Y. S. K. S.; Alikhan, A. A., Compressibility factor for gas
14 10 condensates. Energy & Fuels 2001, 15, (4), 807-816.
15 11 38. Kesler, M. G.; Lee, B. I., Improve Prediction of Enthalpy of Fraction. Hydrocarbon
16
12 Proccessing 1976, March, 153-158.
17
18 13 39. Pedersen, K. S. F., A.; Thomassen, P., Characterization of Gas Condensate Mixtures.
19 14 Advances in Thermodynamics 1989, 1, 137-152.
20 15 40. Riazi, M. R.; Daubert, T. E., Simplify Property Prediction. Hydrocarbon Process. 1980,
21 16 March, 115-116.
22 17 41. Riazi, M. R.; Daubert, T. E., Characterization parameters for petroleum fractions.
23
24
18 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1987, 26, (4), 755-759.
25 19 42. Sim, W. J.; Daubert, T. E., Prediction of Vapor-Liquid Equilibria of Undefined Mixtures.
26 20 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 1980, 19, (3), 386-393.
27 21 43. F., S. G., Heavy Fraction C7+ Characterization for PR-EOS. In SPE Annual Technical
28 22 Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 2007.
29
23 44. Jamialahmadi, M.; Zangeneh, H.; Hosseini, S., A generalized set of correlations for plus
30
31 24 fraction characterization. Petroleum Science 2012, 9, (3), 370-378.
32 25 45. Vapnik, V., The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer-Verlag, New York: 1995.
33 26 46. Cortes, C.; Vapnik, V., Support vector networks. Mach. Learning 1995, 20, 273-297.
34 27 47. Suykens, J. A. K.; Van Gestel, T.; De Brabanter, J.; De Moor, B.; Vandewalle, J., Least
35 28 Squares Support Vector Machines. World Scientific Pub. Co.: Singapor, 2002.
36
37 29 48. Pelckmans, K.; Suykens, J. A.; Van Gestel, T.; De Brabanter, J.; Lukas, L.; Hamers, B.;
38 30 De Moor, B.; Vandewalle, J., LS-SVMlab: a matlab/c toolbox for least squares support vector
39 31 machines. Tutorial. KULeuven-ESAT. Leuven, Belgium 2002.
40 32 49. Xavier-de-Souza, S.; Suykens, J. A.; Vandewalle, J.; Bollé, D., Coupled simulated
41 33 annealing. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on 2010, 40,
42
34 (2), 320-335.
43
44 35 50. Gramatica, P., Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR &
45 36 Combinatorial Science 2007, 26, (5), 694-701.
46 37 51. Mohammadi, A. H.; Eslamimanesh, A.; Gharagheizi, F.; Ilani-Kashkouli, P., Are the
47 38 reservoir fluid compositional grading data reliable? Fluid Phase Equilibria 2014, 363, (0), 27-31.
48 39 52. Stevens, J. P., Outliers and influential data points in regression analysis. Psychological
49
50 40 Bulletin 1984, 95, (2), 334.
51 41 53. Mohammadi, A. H.; Gharagheizi, F.; Eslamimanesh, A.; Richon, D., Evaluation of
52 42 experimental data for wax and diamondoids solubility in gaseous systems. Chemical Engineering
53 43 Science 2012, 81, (0), 1-7.
54 44 54. Fayazi, A.; Arabloo, M.; Shokrollahi, A.; Zargari, M. H.; Ghazanfari, M. H., State-of-the-
55
56
45 Art Least Square Support Vector Machine Application for Accurate Determination of Natural
57 46 Gas Viscosity. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2014, 53, 945−958.
58
59
60 23
1
2
3
1 55. Eslamimanesh, A.; Babaee, S.; Gharagheizi, F.; Javanmardi, J.; Mohammadi, A. H.;
4
5 2 Richon, D., Assessment of clathrate hydrate phase equilibrium data for CO2 + CH4/N2 + water
6 3 system. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2013, 349, (0), 71-82.
7 4 56. Safari, H.; Shokrollahi, A.; Jamialahmadi, M.; Ghazanfari, M. H.; Bahadori, A.;
8 5 Zendehboudi, S., Prediction of the Aqueous Solubility of BaSO4 Using Pitzer Ion Interaction
9 6 Model and LSSVM Algorithm. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2014, in press.
10
11
7 57. Mohammadi, A. H.; Eslamimanesh, A.; Gharagheizi, F.; Richon, D., A novel method for
12 8 evaluation of asphaltene precipitation titration data. Chemical Engineering Science 2012, 78,
13 9 181-185.
14 10 58. Chok, N. S. Pearson's Versus Spearman's and Kendall's Correlation Coefficients for
15 11 Continuous Data. Master of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 2010.
16
17 12
18
19 13
20
21
22
23 14
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 24
1
2
3
1 Table 1: Properties of retrograde gas condensate data used in this study.
4
5
6 Property Min. Max. Avg.
7
8 H2S, mole % 0 48.47 1.22
9
10 N2, mole % 0 15.68 1.61
11
12 CO2, mole % 0 70.92 3.01
13
14 C1, mole % 9.28 94.73 73.84
15
16 C2, mole % 1.94 20.51 8.08
17
C3, mole % 0.61 13.78 4.07
18
19 i-C4, mole % 0 9.11 0.91
20
21 n-C4, mole % 0.25 7.01 1.51
22
23 i-C5, mole % 0 2.58 0.61
24
25 n-C5, mole % 0.08 8.2 0.63
26
27 C6, mole % 0.103 4.78 0.81
28
29
C7+, mole % 0.1 14.94 3.72
30 MWc 7 + 98.0 295.0 133.77
31
32 SG c 7 + 0.0812 1.104 0.78
33
34 Temperature, oF 75.0 418.0 245.87
35
36 Pressure, psia 12,814 260.7 3388.3
37
38 Gas phase Z-factor 0.528 2.099 0.99
39
40 Two phase Z-factor 0.415 1.620 0.91
41 2
42
43
44 3
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 25
1
2
3
1 Table 2: Statistical parameters of the various available methods for predicting the gas phase
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing Key34 mixing rule
6 Method of estimating Z-factor
7 C7+ characterization Statistical Sanjari and
8 Brill- Shell oil Azizi et Bahadori
method parameter Nemati
9 Beggs 32 Co. 14 al. 33 31 et al. 13
Lay
10
11 AARD a 4.022 3.413 2.760 2.746 3.504
b
12 ARD 2.882 2.386 2.152 0.833 2.092
Kesler-Lee 38
13 RMSE c 0.125 0.091 0.035 0.050 0.047
14 R-value 0.8056 0.8914 0.9641 0.9603 0.9702
15
AARD 3.987 3.370 2.686 2.746 3.470
16
ARD 2.846 2.317 2.070 0.850 2.051
17 Pedersen 39
18 RMSE 0.125 0.095 0.035 0.050 0.047
19 R-value 0.8026 0.880 0.9642 0.9617 0.9697
20 AARD 4.004 3.395 2.757 2.729 3.489
21 ARD 2.862 2.376 2.152 0.799 2.070
22 Riazi-Daubert 41
23 RMSE 0.125 0.090 0.035 0.050 0.046
24 R-value 0.8063 0.8942 0.9642 0.9595 0.9704
25 AARD 3.886 3.265 2.612 2.685 3.388
26 ARD 2.735 2.205 1.984 0.726 1.903
27 Sancet 43
RMSE 0.124 0.094 0.034 0.049 0.046
28
29
R-value 0.8056 0.8843 0.9651 0.9615 0.9703
30 AARD 3.898 3.282 2.660 2.665 3.395
31 ARD 2.750 2.247 2.044 0.698 1.935
32
Sim-Daubert 42
RMSE 0.124 0.091 0.034 0.049 0.045
33 R-value 0.8078 0.8933 0.9652 0.9606 0.9710
34
35
AARD 4.007 3.398 2.738 2.747 3.500
36 Jamialahmadi et ARD 2.865 2.361 2.125 0.829 2.062
44
37 al. RMSE 0.125 0.093 0.035 0.050 0.047
38 R-value 0.8049 0.8881 0.9640 0.9602 0.9698
39
100 N  Z i − Z i
exp pred

40
41
a
Average absolute relative error AARD% =
N
∑ i =1 
Z exp


42  i 
43 100 N  Z i − Z i 
exp pred
44
b
Average relative deviation ARD % =
N
∑i =1  Z exp 
45  i 
46 1
(
 N Z exp − Z pred ) 2
2
∑
47 c
Root mean square error i i 
48
(RMSE) RMSE =  i =1 
49  N 
50  
51 3
52
53
54
55
4
56
57
58
59
60 26
1
2
3
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing SBV 35 mixing rule
6 C7+ Statistical Method of estimating Z-factor
7 characterization parameter Brill- Shell oil Azizi et Sanjari and Bahadori et
8 method Beggs 32 Co. 14 al. 33 Nemati Lay31 al. 13
9
AARD 4.147 3.524 3.414 3.222 4.018
10
11 38 ARD 2.780 2.776 2.888 0.389 2.462
Kesler-Lee
12 RMSE 0.127 0.046 0.038 0.066 0.048
13 R-value 0.8385 0.9818 0.9687 0.9482 0.9754
14 AARD 3.892 3.271 3.156 3.256 3.791
15 ARD 2.619 2.545 2.602 -0.011 2.204
39
16 Pedersen
17 RMSE 0.127 0.047 0.036 0.075 0.045
18 R-value 0.8301 0.9786 0.9686 0.9260 0.9771
19 AARD 4.092 3.454 3.350 3.322 4.035
20 Riazi-Daubert ARD 2.588 2.624 2.800 0.167 2.307
21 41
RMSE 0.129 0.045 0.037 0.072 0.049
22
23
R-value 0.8413 0.9819 0.9671 0.9425 0.9745
24 AARD 3.860 3.189 2.997 3.579 3.858
25 ARD 1.957 1.932 2.290 -0.686 1.701
26
Sancet 43
RMSE 0.130 0.044 0.034 0.091 0.049
27 R-value 0.8450 0.9823 0.9667 0.9068 0.9735
28
29
AARD 4.031 3.362 3.097 3.435 3.995
ARD 1.862 1.936 2.413 -0.446 1.717
30 Sim-Daubert 42
31 RMSE 0.134 0.049 0.035 0.086 0.051
32 R-value 0.8491 0.9796 0.966 0.9257 0.9721
33 AARD 4.092 3.467 3.371 3.150 3.994
34
35
Jamialahmadi ARD 2.726 2.710 2.815 0.398 2.393
36 et al.44 RMSE 0.127 0.045 0.037 0.063 0.047
37 R-value 0.8369 0.9825 0.9684 0.9511 0.9752
38 3
39
40
41
4
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 27
1
2
3
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing SSBV 36 mixing rule
8
10 AARD 3.163 2.479 2.283 2.444 3.007
11 ARD 1.439 1.022 1.260 -0.685 0.703
12 Kesler-Lee 38
13 RMSE 0.123 0.068 0.028 0.055 0.039
14 R-value 0.8340 0.9414 0.9665 0.9480 0.9758
15
AARD 3.223 2.571 2.312 2.393 2.984
16
17 ARD 1.254 0.783 1.016 -0.786 0.461
18 Pedersen 39
RMSE 0.124 0.074 0.029 0.052 0.039
19
20
R-value 0.8275 0.9306 0.9637 0.9502 0.9743
21 AARD 3.189 2.521 2.315 2.576 3.075
22 ARD 1.305 0.915 1.189 -0.872 0.580
23
Riazi-Daubert
41
24 RMSE 0.124 0.065 0.028 0.060 0.040
25 R-value 0.8356 0.9474 0.9655 0.9430 0.9753
26
AARD 3.237 2.663 2.387 2.728 3.153
27
28 ARD 0.797 0.357 0.802 -1.301 0.040
29
Sancet 43
RMSE 0.125 0.070 0.029 0.062 0.043
30
31
R-value 0.8374 0.9432 0.9587 0.9416 0.9731
32 AARD 3.283 2.678 2.412 2.900 3.215
33 ARD 0.793 0.427 0.897 -1.437 0.074
34 Sim-Daubert 42
35 RMSE 0.126 0.063 0.029 0.071 0.044
36 R-value 0.8403 0.9539 0.9601 0.9338 0.9735
37 AARD 3.175 2.492 2.285 2.443 3.013
38
39 Jamialahmadi ARD 1.380 0.954 1.198 -0.718 0.633
40 44
et al. RMSE 0.123 0.069 0.028 0.054 0.039
41
42 R-value 0.8327 0.9403 0.9658 0.9473 0.9751
43 3
44
45
46 4
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 28
1
2
3
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing Elsharkawy 37 mixing rule
8
10 AARD 2.760 2.641 2.031 3.281 3.530
11 ARD -1.129 -1.976 -1.071 -2.780 -2.110
12 Kesler-Lee 38
13 RMSE 0.126 0.089 0.031 0.060 0.045
14 R-value 0.8458 0.9213 0.9522 0.9295 0.9611
15
AARD 2.708 2.755 2.312 3.606 3.686
16
17 ARD -1.342 -2.246 -1.500 -3.242 -2.658
18 Pedersen 39
RMSE 0.124 0.090 0.033 0.063 0.049
19
20
R-value 0.8362 0.9112 0.9482 0.9360 0.9643
21 AARD 2.995 2.941 2.180 3.504 3.661
22 ARD -1.500 -2.345 -1.290 -3.078 -2.410
23
Riazi-Daubert
41
24 RMSE 0.130 0.093 0.033 0.064 0.048
25 R-value 0.8487 0.9244 0.9484 0.9230 0.9596
26
AARD 3.508 3.735 2.723 4.096 4.157
27
28 ARD -2.425 -3.372 -1.989 -3.811 -3.316
29
Sancet 43
RMSE 0.137 0.107 0.039 0.070 0.057
30
31
R-value 0.8520 0.9178 0.9316 0.9187 0.9545
32 AARD 3.801 3.941 2.651 4.151 4.224
33 ARD -2.623 -3.523 -1.832 -3.862 -3.299
34 Sim-Daubert 42
35 RMSE 0.146 0.114 0.038 0.074 0.059
36 R-value 0.8553 0.9223 0.9314 0.9108 0.9513
37 AARD 2.760 2.680 2.095 3.353 3.577
38
39 Jamialahmadi ARD -1.211 -2.075 -1.191 -2.882 -2.238
40 44
et al. RMSE 0.0126 0.090 0.032 0.061 0.046
41
42 R-value 0.8441 0.9197 0.9502 0.9279 0.9604
43 3
44
45
46 4
47
48
49
5
50
51
52
53 6
54
55
56 7
57
58
59
60 29
1
2
3
1 Table 6: Statistical parameters of the various available methods for predicting the two-phase
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing Key34 mixing rule
8
10 AARD 9.209 8.714 8.568 8.907 9.577
11 ARD -3.776 -4.478 -4.836 -5.883 -4.982
12 Kesler-Lee 38
13 RMSE 0.110 0.107 0.103 0.108 0.111
14 R-value 0.7661 0.7855 0.6965 0.8030 0.7585
15
AARD 9.171 8.667 8.515 8.890 9.548
16
17 ARD -3.821 -4.536 -4.882 -5.924 -5.014
18 Pedersen 39
RMSE 0.109 0.106 0.103 0.108 0.111
19
20
R-value 0.7673 0.7871 0.7027 0.8053 0.7597
21 AARD 9.199 8.704 8.548 8.891 9.555
22 ARD -3.769 -4.465 -4.816 -5.875 -4.968
23
Riazi-Daubert
41
24 RMSE 0.109 0.106 0.103 0.108 0.111
25 R-value 0.7665 0.7858 0.6968 0.8030 0.7593
26
AARD 9.148 8.649 8.494 8.888 9.539
27
28 ARD -3.880 -4.600 -4.944 -5.984 -5.107
29
Sancet 43
RMSE 0.109 0.106 0.103 0.108 0.111
30
31
R-value 0.7687 0.7883 0.7011 0.8061 0.7608
32 AARD 9.155 8.658 8.508 8.870 9.524
33 ARD -3.842 -4.548 -4.891 -5.948 -5.056
34 Sim-Daubert 42
35 RMSE 0.109 0.106 0.103 0.108 0.111
36 R-value 0.7684 0.7879 0.6998 0.8051 0.7612
37 AARD 9.207 8.711 8.551 8.909 9.579
38
44
40 et al. RMSE 0.110 0.107 0.103 0.108 0.111
41
42
R-value 0.7662 0.7856 0.6970 0.8032 0.7584
43 3
44
45
46 4
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 30
1
2
3
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing SBV 35 mixing rule
8
10 AARD 9.158 8.693 8.649 8.492 9.171
11 ARD -2.965 -3.388 -3.715 -5.096 -3.703
12 Kesler-Lee 38
13 RMSE 0.106 0.103 0.101 0.105 0.105
14 R-value 0.7710 0.7889 0.6852 0.7888 0.7751
15
AARD 8.991 8.513 8.468 8.295 8.977
16
17 ARD -3.099 -3.539 -3.884 -5.167 -3.840
18 Pedersen 39
RMSE 0.106 0.102 0.101 0.103 0.104
19
20
R-value 0.7765 0.7946 0.6930 0.8021 0.7826
21 AARD 9.094 8.637 8.599 8.467 9.130
22 ARD -3.017 -3.430 -3.738 -5.162 -3.744
23
Riazi-Daubert
41
24 RMSE 0.106 0.103 0.101 0.106 0.105
25 R-value 0.7728 0.7980 0.6857 0.7836 0.7746
26
AARD 8.836 8.376 8.329 8.274 8.932
27
28 ARD -3.353 -3.799 -4.054 -5.446 -4.116
29
Sancet 43
RMSE 0.105 0.102 0.100 0.105 0.104
30
31
R-value 0.7811 0.7993 0.6884 0.7866 0.7773
32 AARD 8.910 8.463 8.422 8.389 9.017
33 ARD -3.359 -3.786 -4.020 -5.495 -4.102
34 Sim-Daubert 42
35 RMSE 0.105 0.102 0.100 0.107 0.104
36 R-value 0.7787 0.7971 0.6811 0.7704 0.7724
37 AARD 9.134 8.666 8.621 8.452 9.143
38
40 44
et al. RMSE 0.106 0.103 0.101 0.105 0.105
41
42 R-value 0.7721 0.7900 0.6870 0.7918 0.7763
43 3
44
45
46 4
47
48
49
5
50
51
52
53 6
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 31
1
2
3
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing SSBV 36 mixing rule
8
10 AARD 8.612 8.103 8.077 8.351 8.932
11 ARD -4.183 -4.839 -5.089 -6.272 -5.306
12 Kesler-Lee 38
13 RMSE 0.105 0.102 0.100 0.105 0.106
14 R-value 0.7888 0.8086 0.7068 0.8056 0.7806
15
AARD 8.527 8.011 7.991 8.268 8.818
16
17 ARD -4.310 -4.984 -5.243 -6.370 -5.429
18 Pedersen 39
RMSE 0.104 0.102 0.100 0.105 0.106
19
20
R-value 0.7925 0.8124 0.7102 0.8134 0.7857
21 AARD 8.545 8.079 8.048 8.335 8.906
22 ARD -4.221 -4.869 -5.108 -6.316 -5.333
23
Riazi-Daubert
41
24 RMSE 0.105 0.102 0.100 0.105 0.106
25 R-value 0.7900 0.8096 0.7080 0.8039 0.7824
26
AARD 8.467 7.985 7.967 8.290 8.826
27
28 ARD -4.499 -5.176 -5.366 -6.568 -5.634
29
Sancet 43
RMSE 0.104 0.101 0.100 0.105 0.106
30
31
R-value 0.7956 0.8154 0.7038 0.8053 0.7829
32 AARD 8.514 8.043 8.023 8.342 8.876
33 ARD -4.482 -5.140 -5.332 -6.579 -5.610
34 Sim-Daubert 42
35 RMSE 0.104 0.102 0.100 0.106 0.106
36 R-value 0.7942 0.8139 0.6997 0.7974 0.7816
37 AARD 8.597 8.085 8.052 8.331 8.912
38
44
40 et al. RMSE 0.105 0.102 0.100 0.105 0.106
41
42
R-value 0.7896 0.8093 0.7083 0.8071 0.7815
43 3
44
45
46 4
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 32
1
2
3
4
5 2 compressibility factor employing Elsharkawy 37 mixing rule
8
10 AARD 9.012 9.164 9.399 9.807 10.842
11 ARD -6.665 -7.799 -7.990 -8.668 -8.712
12 Kesler-Lee 38
13 RMSE 0.110 0.111 0.111 0.114 0.123
14 R-value 0.7952 0.8155 0.6949 0.7969 0.7319
15
AARD 8.916 9.167 9.442 9.885 10.790
16
17 ARD -6.882 -8.049 -8.271 -8.915 -8.966
18 Pedersen 39
RMSE 0.109 0.110 0.111 0.114 0.123
19
20
R-value 0.8047 0.8251 0.7018 0.8098 0.7512
21 AARD 9.027 9.218 9.402 9.846 10.857
22 ARD -6.829 -7.964 -8.104 -8.810 -8.876
23
Riazi-Daubert
41
24 RMSE 0.110 0.111 0.111 0.114 0.123
25 R-value 0.7967 0.8169 0.6970 0.7968 0.7369
26
AARD 9.101 9.478 9.672 10.096 10.970
27
28 ARD -7.370 -8.569 -8.649 -9.304 -9.399
29
Sancet 43
RMSE 0.111 0.113 0.112 0.115 0.124
30
31
R-value 0.8040 0.8243 0.6932 0.8004 0.7403
32 AARD 9.214 9.541 9.654 10.097 11.043
33 ARD -7.402 -8.573 -8.574 -9.295 -9.413
34 Sim-Daubert 42
35 RMSE 0.113 0.115 0.112 0.116 0.124
36 R-value 0.7983 0.8184 0.6843 0.7882 0.7316
37 AARD 8.992 9.163 9.396 9.813 10.839
38
44
40 et al. RMSE 0.110 0.111 0.111 0.114 0.123
41
42
R-value 0.7975 0.8176 0.6981 0.7987 0.7358
43 3
44
45
46 4
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 33
1
2
3
1 Table 10: The statistical parameters of the developed model for prediction of gas phase
4
5 2 compressibility factor.
6 Parameter
7
Training set
8
9 R-value 0.9985
10 Average relative deviation, % -0.030
11
12 Average absolute relative deviation , % 0.610
13 Root mean square error, 0.011
14
15 Number of data sets 1260
16 Validation set
17
18 R-value 0.9952
19 Average relative deviation, % 0.016
21
Root mean square error 0.018
22
24 Test set
25
26
R-value 0.9976
29 Root mean square error 0.013
30
32 Total
33 R-value 0.9979
34
38
40
41 3
42
43
44 4
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 34
1
2
3
1 Table 11: Comparison of some selected approaches for prediction of gas phase and two-phase Z-factor of gas condensate samples.
4
5
6 Property Approach ARD AARD RMSE R-value
7 Elsharkawy + Riazi-Daubert 41+ Azizi et al. 33
37
-1.290 2.180 0.033 0.9484
8
9 Elsharkawy 37 + Jamialahmadi et al. 44 + Azizi et al. 33 -1.191 2.095 0.032 0.9502
Gas phase Z-factor
10 Elsharkawy 37 + Kesler-Lee 38 + Azizi et al. 33 -1.071 2.031 0.031 0.9522
11 LS-SVM model (this study) -0.012 0.726 0.012 0.9979
12
13 SSBV 36 +Sim-Daubert 42 +Azizi et al. 33 -5.332 7.967 0.100 0.7038
14 SSBV 36 + Pedersen 39 +Azizi et al. 33 -5.243 7.991 0.100 0.7102
15 Two-phase Z-factor
16
SSBV 36 + Sancet 43 + Azizi et al. 33 -5.366 7.967 0.100 0.7038
17 LS-SVM model (this study) -0.029 1.302 0.052 0.9921
18 2
19
20
21 3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 35
45
47
48
1
2
3
1 Table 12: The statistical parameters of the developed model for prediction of two-phase
4
5
6 2 compressibility factor.
7
8
Parameter
9
10 Training set
11 R-value 0.9979
12
15
18
19
Validation set
20 R-value 0.9842
22
23
Average absolute relative deviation , % 2.491
26 Test set
27
28 R-value 0.9700
30
Average absolute relative deviation , % 2.672
31
34 Total
35
36 R-value 0.9921
39
42 3
43
44
45
46
4
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 36
1
2
3
Table 13: Constant volume depletion data of the case studied gas condensate samples 6.
4
5
6 T H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 i-C4 n-C4 i-C5 n-C5 C6 C7+ MWc 7 + γ c7+ P Z
7
8 Gas no. 1
9 250 28.16 6.08 3.83 40.33 4.48 2.48 0.6 1.32 0.79 0.81 1.21 9.91 165 0.818 4204.7 (Pdew) 0.838
10 250 27.67 6.44 4.55 43.82 4.71 2.43 0.55 1.2 0.68 0.69 0.96 6.3 121 0.778 3614.7 0.788
11 250 27.22 6.69 4.76 46.41 4.81 2.39 0.51 1.11 0.6 0.6 0.78 4.12 116 0.773 3014.7 0.75
12
250 26.95 6.85 4.73 48.07 4.87 2.37 0.49 1.06 0.55 0.54 0.66 2.86 112 0.768 2414.7 0.718
13
14 250 27.32 6.94 4.61 48.44 4.93 2.39 0.49 1.06 0.53 0.52 0.6 2.17 109 0.764 1814.7 0.686
15 250 28.92 6.99 4.34 46.88 4.96 2.52 0.55 1.14 0.58 0.57 0.63 1.92 107 0.762 1214.7 0.639
16 250 31.82 6.79 3.94 43.31 4.94 2.77 0.67 1.4 0.74 0.71 0.77 2.14 107 0.762 714.7 0.553
17 Gas no. 2
18 209 0 0.33 0.32 94.2 2.31 0.82 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.14 1.2 143 0.787 4800.7 (Pdew) 1.019
19
20
209 0 0.33 0.33 94.38 2.3 0.82 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.13 1.03 133 0.777 4014.7 0.971
21 209 0 0.34 0.33 94.51 2.3 0.82 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.89 126 0.769 3314.7 0.942
22 209 0 0.35 0.33 94.61 2.31 0.82 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.77 120 0.763 2614.7 0.928
23 209 0 0.35 0.33 94.68 2.32 0.82 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.69 116 0.76 1914.7 0.93
24 209 0 0.36 0.33 94.73 2.33 0.82 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.63 114 0.758 1314.7 0.942
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 37
45
47
48
1
2
3
Table 14: Comparison of statistical quality measures of developed model and selected model for
4
5
6 the case sample.
7
8 Statistical quality measure Bahadori et al. 33 LS-SVM model
9
10 ARD -6.37 0.04
11 AARD 8.86 0.26
12 RMSE 0.093 0.003
13
14 R-value 0.7995 0.9996
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 1.3
10
11
12 1.2
13
14
15
16 1.1
17
18
19 1 R−value = 0.9522
Predicted Z−factor
20
21
22
23 0.9
24
25
26 0.8
27
28
29
30 0.7
31
32
33 0.6
34
35
36
37 0.5
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
38
Experimental Z−factor
39
40
41
42
43
Figure 1: Gas phase Z-factor calculated by Azizi et al. 33 correlation (Kesler-Lee 38 correlation
44
45
46 for characterizing the heptane plus fraction, and Elsharkawy 37 for mixing rule)
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 39
1
2
3
4
5 20
6
7
8
9 10
10
11
12
0
13
14
15
16 −10
Relative Error,%
17
18
19
−20
20
21
22
23 −30
24
25
26
−40
27
28
29
30 −50
31
32
33
34 −60
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
35 Experimental Z−factor
36
37
38
39
40 Figure 2: Relative errors for calculated gas phase Z-factor by applying Azizi et al. 33 correlation
41
42 38
43
(Kesler-Lee correlation for characterizing the heptane plus fraction, and applying Elsharkawy
44
37
45 for mixing rule)
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 40
1
2
3
4
5 1.4
6
7
8 1.3
9
10
11 1.2
12
13
14 1.1
15 R−value = 0.7038
16
17 1
18
19
0.9
20
21
22 0.8
23
24
25 0.7
26
27
28 0.6
29
30
31 0.5
32
33
34 0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
36
37
38
39
40 Figure 3: Two-phase Z-factor calculated by Azizi et al. 33 correlation (Sancet 43 correlation for
41
42
43 characterizing the heptane plus fraction, and SSBV 36 for mixing rule)
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 41
1
2
3
4
5 20
6
7
8
9
0
10
11
12
13
−20
14
15
16
Relative Error, %
17
−40
18
19
20
21
−60
22
23
24
25
−80
26
27
28
29
−100
30
31
32
33
34 −120
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
35 Experimental Value
36
37
38
39
40 Figure 4: Relative errors for calculated two-phase Z-factor by applying Azizi et al. 33 correlation
41
42
43
(Sancet 43 correlation for characterizing the heptane plus fraction, and applying SSBV 36
44
45 correlation for mixing rule)
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 42
1
2
3
4
5 2.2
6
7
8
9 2
10
11
12 1.8
13
14
15 1.6
16
17
18 1.4
19 R−value = 0.9979
20
21
1.2
22
23
24
25 1
26
27
28 0.8
29 Train
30 Validation
31 0.6 Test
32
33
34 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
36
37
38 Figure 5: Comparison between the predicted results of the developed LS-SVM model and
39
40
41 the applied data of gas phase Z-factor
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 43
1
2
3
4
5 10
6
7
8
9 5
10
11
12
0
13
14
15
16 −5
Relative Error, %
17
18
19
−10
20
21
22
23 −15
24
25
26
−20
27
28
29 Train
30 −25 Validation
31 Test
32
33
34 −30
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
35 Experimental Value
36
37
38 Figure 6: Relative deviations of the predicted LS-SVM model from experimental gas phase Z-
39
40
41
factor
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 44
1
2
3
2.4
4 Experimental
Predicted
5
2.2
6
7 2
8
9 1.8
10
11 1.6
Gas phase Z−factor
12
13 1.4
14
15 1.2
16
17 1
18
0.8
19
20
0.6
21
22
0.4
23 0 200 400 600
Data index
800 1000 1200
24
25
26
27 7-(a)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 45
1
2
3
4 2.2
Experimental
5 Predicted
6 2
7
8 1.8
9
10
1.6
11
12
13 1.4
14
15 1.2
16
17
1
18
19
20 0.8
21
22
0 50 100 150 200 250
23 Data index
24
25
26 7-(b)
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 46
1
2
3
4 2
Experimental
5 Predicted
6 1.8
7
8
9 1.6
10
11
12 1.4
13
14 1.2
15
16
17 1
18
19
20 0.8
21
22
23 0 50 100
Data index
150 200 250
24
25
26 7-(c)
27
28 Figure 7: Target and predicted values for gas phase Z-factor versus the number of data points:
29
30 (a) Train data, (b) Validation data (c) Test data
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.6
8
9
10
11
12 1.4
13
14
15
16 1.2
17
18 R−value = 0.9921
19
20 1
21
22
23
24 0.8
25
26
27
28 0.6
29
Train
30
31 Validation
32 Test
0.4
33
34 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
36
37
38 Figure 8: Comparison between the predicted results of the developed LS-SVM model and
39
40
41 the applied data of two-phase Z-factor
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 48
1
2
3
4
5 25
6
7
8 20
9
10
11 15
12
13
14 10
15
16
Relative Erorr, %
17 5
18
19
0
20
21
22 −5
23
24
25 −10
26
27
28 −15
29
30 Train
31 −20 Validation
32 Test
33
−25
34 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
36
37
38
39
40 Figure 9: Relative deviations of the predicted LS-SVM model from experimental two-phase Z-
41
42
factor
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 49
1
2
3
4 Experimental
5 1.6
Predicted
6
7
8 1.4
9
10
11 1.2
Two−phase Z−factor
12
13
1
14
15
16 0.8
17
18
19 0.6
20
21
22 0.4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
23 Data index
24
25
26
27 10-(a)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 50
1
2
3
4 Experimental
Predicted
5
6 1.6
7
8
9 1.4
10
11
12 1.2
13
14
15 1
16
17
18 0.8
19
20
21 0.6
22
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
23 Data index
24
25
26 10-(b)
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 51
1
2
3
4 1.6
Experimental
5 Predicted
1.5
6
7 1.4
8
9 1.3
10
1.2
11
12 1.1
13
14 1
15
16 0.9
17
0.8
18
19 0.7
20
21 0.6
22
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
23 Data index
24
25
26 10-(c)
27
28 Figure 10: Target and predicted values for two-phase Z-factor versus the number of data points:
29
30 (a) Train data, (b) Validation data (c) Test data
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 52
1
2
3
4
5 0.9
6
7
8
0.85
9
10
11
12 0.8
13
14
15 0.75
16
17
18
19 0.7
20
21
22 0.65
23
24
25 0.6
26
27
28
29 0.55 Experimental
30 Bahadori et al.
31 LS−SVM (This study)
32 0.5
33 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Pressure (psia)
34
35
36
37
11-(a)
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 53
1
2
3
4
5 1.05
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 0.95
24
25
26
27
28
29 Experimental
30 Azizi et al.
31 LS−SVM (This study)
32 0.9
33 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Pressure (psia)
34
35
36
37
11-(b)
38
39
40 Figure 11: Experimental and predicted compressibility factor: (a) sample 1; (b) sample 2.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 54
1
2
3
4
5 4
6
7
8
9 3
10
11
12 2
13
14
15
1
Standardized residuals
16
17
18
19 0
20
21
22
23 −1
24
25
26 −2
27
28
29
30 −3 Valid data
Leverage limit
31 Upper suspected data limit
32 Lower suspected data limit
33 −4
34 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
35 Hat diagonal
36
37
38 Figure 12: Detection of probable outliers in the dataset used
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 55
1
2
3
4
5
6 0.8
7
8
9 0.7
10
11
12 0.6
13
14
Relative importance
15 0.5
16
17
18 0.4
19
20
21 0.3
22
23
24
0.2
25
26
27
28 0.1
29
30
31 0
32
33
34
35
36
37
Figure 13: Sensitivity analysis of the gas phase Z-factor predictive model and its dependence on
38
39 each independent variable
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 56
1
2
3
4 0.7
5
6
7
0.6
8
9
10
11 0.5
12
13
Relative importance
14
15 0.4
16
17
18
19 0.3
20
21
22
23 0.2
24
25
26 0.1
27
28
29
30 0
31
32
33
34 Figure 14: Sensitivity analysis of the two-phase Z-factor predictive model and its dependence on
35
36 each independent variable
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 57

Robust Modeling For Efficient Estimation of Compressibility Factor in Retrograde Gas Condensate Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robust Modeling For Efficient Estimation of Compressibility Factor in Retrograde Gas Condensate Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subscriber access provided by UNIV WAIKATO

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research is published by the American Chemical

You might also like