Viscosity and Densety Correlations

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]
On: 19 April 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 932223628]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Petroleum Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597288
Viscosity and Density Correlations for Hydrocarbon Gases and Pure and
Impure Gas Mixtures
A. A. AlQuraishia; E. M. Shokirb
a
Oil and Gas Centre, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia b
Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
To cite this Article AlQuraishi, A. A. and Shokir, E. M.(2009) 'Viscosity and Density Correlations for Hydrocarbon Gases
and Pure and Impure Gas Mixtures', Petroleum Science and Technology, 27: 15, 1674 — 1689
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10916460802456002
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916460802456002
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Petroleum Science and Technology, 27:1674–1689, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-6466 print/1532-2459 online
DOI: 10.1080/10916460802456002
Viscosity and Density Correlations for

Hydrocarbon Gases and Pure and
Impure Gas Mixtures
A. A. AlQuraishi1 and E. M. Shokir 2

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 20:38 19 April 2011
1 Oil and Gas Centre, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department, King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Abstract: In this work, newly developed correlations for hydrocarbon gas viscosity
and density are presented. The models were built and tested using a large database of
experimental measurements collected through extensive literature search. The database
covers gas composition, viscosity, density, temperature, pressure, pseudoreduced pres-
sure and temperature and compressibility factor for different gases, and pure and
impure gas mixtures containing high amount of pentane plus and small concentra-
tion of nonhydrocarbon components. Gas viscosity and gas density models were
built with 800 randomly selected data points extracted from the large database.
The models were developed using the Alternating Conditional Expectations (ACE)
algorithm. The models’ accuracy was validated using the rest of the database, and
their efficiency was tested against some commonly used correlations. The devel-
oped models seemed very efficient and they accurately predicted the experimen-
tal viscosity and density measurements, overcoming several constraints limiting the
other correlations’ accuracy with average absolute errors of 3.95% and 4.93% for
the gas viscosity and gas density models, respectively. Sensitivity analysis of the
proposed gas viscosity model indicated the positive impact of density and pseu-
doreduced temperature and the trivial impact of pseudoreduced pressure. The gas
density model was found to be sensitive to all input parameters of pseudoreduced
temperature, apparent molecular weight, and pseudoreduced pressure listed on the
order of their impact. Negative impact was predicted for reduced temperature, whereas
positive ones werenoticed for the pseudoreduced pressure and gas apparent molecular
weight.
Keywords: alternating conditional expectations algorithms, density, natural gas, vis-

cosity
Address correspondence to Abdulrahman A. AlQuraishi, Oil and Gas Centre,

King Abdulaziz City for Science and Tech., P. O. Box 6086. Riyadh 11442, Saudi
Arabia. E-mail: aqurishi@kacst.edu.sa
1674
Viscosity and Density for Hydrocarbon Gases 1675
INTRODUCTION
Gas in general is a fluid characterized by low viscosity and density that has
no specific shape or volume but expands to fill the vessel in which it is
contained. Due to the loose molecular bond, gas properties are considerably
different than those of liquids, and any changes in the state of temperature
and/or pressure will result in a major effect on gas properties. Natural gas
is a subcategory of petroleum that occurs naturally, and it is composed of
a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and a minor amount of inorganic com-
pounds. Natural gasses’ physical properties and, in particular, their variations
with pressure, temperature, and molecular weight are of great importance in
gas engineering calculations, including the estimation of gas reserves and

the pressure gradient of gas wells, changes in reservoir pressure, and gas
compression and gas metering in transporting pipelines. Gas properties are
usually measured experimentally, but when unavailable, they are estimated
using equation of states (EOS) or empirical correlations.
This article covers gas physical properties of viscosity and density and
presents some of the commonly used models. In addition, the mathematical
background of the Alternating Conditional Expectation algorithm used to
build the models proposed is discussed and the newly developed models for
gas viscosity and density are introduced.
GAS VISCOSITY
Viscosity is an essential property for the study of the dynamics of fluids

flow in pipelines, porous media, or wherever transport of momentum occurs
in fluids motion. Viscosity is the measure of the internal resistance of a
fluid to flow. Gas viscosity is difficult to measure accurately, especially at
high temperature and pressure. Therefore, it is estimated through correlations
developed with limited careful experimental work rather than through ex-
perimental measurements alone. Typically, the correlations are a function
of temperature, pressure, gas composition, and gas gravity, and they are
corrected for nonhydrocarbon components. Bicher and Katz (1943) developed
the first gas viscosity correlation indicating that viscosity is a function of
pressure, temperature, and molecular weight, reporting an average deviation
of 5.8%. Since then, different mathematical correlations for gas viscosity have
been proposed throughout the years.
The Carr, Kobayashi, and Burrows (1954) correlation, referred to as
CKB, is a three-step process developed to predict the hydrocarbon gas vis-
cosity over temperature ranges of 32 to 400ıF, pressures up to 12000 psi, and
gas gravities in the range of 0.55 to 1.55. The correlation can handle non-
hydrocarbon impurities with concentrations up to 15% each. The correlation
was developed based on 30 data points, and a 0.38% average absolute error
was reported for viscosity at atmospheric pressure. The disadvantage of this
1676 A. A. AlQuraishi and E. M. Shokir
method is the usage of multiple charts that are hard to program. Several curve
fits of these graphs were proposed, but many of them are only good over a
limited range. Dempsey (1965) developed a functional form to approximate
the ratio of gas viscosity at a particular pressure of interest to gas viscosity at
atmospheric conditions (g =1atm) but could not predict Carr et al.’s (1954)
data over the entire range successfully.
A commonly used empirical correlation for the estimation of gas mix-
tures’ viscosity is that of Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC; 1964). This model is
based on the original work of Jossi, Stiel, and Thodos (1962) using the same
equation and coefficients derived by Jossi et al. for pure fluids. The model is a
16th-degree polynomial in reduced density; therefore, viscosity estimation is
highly dependent on the accuracy of the experimental density measurements.

Lee, Gonzalez, and Eakin’s (1966) correlation, referred to as (LGE), was
developed to predict hydrocarbon gas viscosity as a function of temperature,
gas density, and gas molecular weight. A large database was used to develop
this semiempirical correlation, and its accuracy is acceptable for pressure
ranges of 100 to 8000 psi and temperature ranges of 100 to 340ıF. They
reported a 2% average absolute error at low pressures and a 4% average
absolute error for high pressures for hydrocarbon gases with specific gravities
below 1.0. For gases with a specific gravity above 1.0, this relation is less
accurate. No corrections were implemented to tune the viscosity equation for
nonhydrocarbon components, and the only one it was able to handle was CO2
with concentrations up to 3.2 mole%.
Londono, Aicher, and Blasingame (2002) suggested a modification to the
previously mentioned Lee et al. (1966) and Jossi et al. (1962) correlations.
In addition, they developed a new implicit correlation for gas viscosity as a
function of gas density and temperature. The correlation is developed based
on 4909 data points of pure components as well as gas mixtures reporting an
average absolute error of 3.05%.
GAS DENSITY
Density is defined as the mass contained in a specific unit volume. Due to

compressibility, most gas viscosity models are density dependent or, more
specifically, gas compressibility factor (z-factor) dependent. Gas density is
pressure and temperature dependent, and it is usually estimated using equa-
tions of state (EOS) modeling the behavior of the z-factor of hydrocarbon
gases (Benedict, Webb, and Rubin, 1940; Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem, 1975;
Nishiumi and Saito, 1975). Equations of state models are implicit in terms
of the z-factor, which implies that the z-factor is determined as a root of the
EOS.
In an attempt to provide an explicit relation to predict the z-factor, Beggs
and Brill (1973) presented a closed-form expression for the z-factor prediction
using 94 data points reporting an average absolute error of 0.19%. The model
can only be used in the range of 1.2 Tr 2.4 and 0.0 pr 10. The
accuracy of the relation is relatively low, except at moderate pressures and
temperatures.
Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem (1975) developed a gas density correlation
using 1500 data points, including pure gases and gas mixtures from differ-
ent sources. They developed their EOS based on a Han-Starling form of
the Benedict-Webb-Rubin (1940) EOS, reporting an average absolute error
of 0.486% when specifically used within the pseudoreduced pressure and
temperature ranges of 0.2 to 30 and 1.0 to 3.0, respectively. Nishiumi and
Saito (1975) developed their EOS to estimate thermodynamic properties. The
model provides better performance than Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem (1975)
in the vicinity of the critical isotherm.

The Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem (1975) and Nishiumi and Saito (1975)
models have been optimized by Londono et al. (2002) using two sets of data.
The first consisted of 5960 data points taken from the Poettmann-Carpenter
(1952) database reporting 0.412% and 0.426% for the two models, respec-
tively. The second set of data consisted of pure hydrocarbon components from
methane to pentane in addition to the Poettmann-Carpenter (1952) database
totaling 8256 data points. They reported an average absolute error of 0.821%
and 0.733% for the two models, respectively.
ALTERNATING CONDITIONAL
EXPECTATION ALGORITHM
The general form of a linear regression model is given by

p
X
Y D ˇ0 C ˇi Xi C "; (1)
i D1
where ˇ0 , ˇ1 , : : : , ˇp are the regression coefficients to be estimated and " is

the error term (Breiman and Freidman, 1985; Wang and Murphy, 2004).
Conventional multiple regressions require a linear functional form to be
presumed a priori for the regression surface, thus reducing the problem to that
of estimating a set of parameters. When the relationship between the response
and predictor variables is unknown or inexact, linear parametric regression
can yield erroneous results. This is the primary reason for the use of nonpara-
metric regression techniques. These nonparametric regression methods can be
broadly classified into those that do not transform the response variable, such
as generalized additive models, and those that do, such as the ACE.
The ACE nonparametric regression model has the following general form
(Breiman and Freidman, 1985; Wang and Murphy, 2004):
n
X
.Y / D ˛ C i .Xi / C "; (2)
i D1
where is a function of the response variable, Y, and i are functions of

the predictors X1 , X2 , : : : , Xn . Thus, the ACE model replaces the problem
of estimating a linear function of a n-dimensional variable by estimating n
separate one-dimensional functions i and using an iterative method. These
transformations are achieved by minimizing the unexplained variance of a
linear relationship between the transformed response variable and the sum of
transformed predictor variables. For a given data set consisting of a response
variable Y and predictor variables X1 , X2 , : : : , Xn , the ACE algorithm
starts out by defining arbitrary measurable mean-zero transformations .Y /;
1 .X1 /; : : : , n .Xn /. The error variance ."2 / that is not explained by a
regression of the transformed dependent variable on the sum of transformed
independent variables, under the constraint EŒ 2 .Y / D 1, is determined as

follows:
(" n
#) 2
X
2
" .; 1 ; : : : ; n / D E .Y / i .Xi / : (3)
i D1
The minimization of ."2 / with respect to 1 .X1 /; : : : , n .Xn / and .Y / is

carried out through a series of single-function minimizations, resulting in the
following equations:
2 3
n
X
i .Xi / D E 4.Y / j .Xj /jXi 5 (4)
j ¤i
" n
# ,ˇˇ " n # ˇˇ
X ˇˇ X ˇˇ
.Y / D E i .Xi /jY ˇˇ E i .Xi /jY ˇˇ (5)
ˇˇ ˇˇ
ˇˇ ˇˇ
i D1 i D1
The final i .Xi /; and .Y / after the minimization are estimates of the optimal
transformation i .Xi / and .Y /. In the transformed space, the response and
predictor variables are related to each other as follows:
n
X
.Y / D i .Xi / C e ; (6)
i D1
where e is the error not captured by the use of the ACE transformations and
is assumed to have a normal distribution with a zero mean. The minimum
regression error (e ) and maximum multiple correlation coefficients ( ) are
related by the following relationship:
e 2 D 1 : (7)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The large database of measured gas properties collected by Londono et al.

(2002) was used to build and test the proposed models. The data are for
hydrocarbon gases and gas mixtures containing nonhydrocarbon impurities
such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, and helium gathered
from different sources (Poettmann and Carpenter, 1952; Lee, 1965; Diehl
et al., 1970; Gonzalez, Eakin, and Lee, 1970; Stezmann and Wagner, 1991).
The database includes gas composition, temperature, pressure, pseudoreduced
properties of pressure and temperature, compressibility factors, and experi-
mentally measured viscosity and density. The quality of the data were judged
and compared and only those showing a similar trend for a given variable
were considered. In addition, liquids like gas, gas mixtures containing C6C ,
and gas properties measured below 32ıF and 14.7 psi were discarded. As a
result, a total of 4445 data points were considered for this work, composed
of 1853 for pure gases and 2592 for gas mixtures.
GAS VISCOSITY MODEL
Eight hundred data points were randomly selected out of the large database
gathered and used to build the ACE viscosity model. The rest of the data
were used to test the efficiency of the developed model in predicting the
experimentally measured viscosity. The model correlates gas viscosity () to
the independent variables of gas density () and pseudoreduced properties
of pressure (Ppr ) and temperature (Tpr ). The model is efficient over wide
ranges of pressure, temperature, and density, and Table 1 lists the ranges of
the independent and dependent variables used in model building and testing
stages constituting the limits of the model.
The graphical user interface program GRACE (Xue, Datta-Gupta, Valko,
and Blasingame, 1997) was used to derive the general viscosity model pro-
posed in this work. Figure 1 is a plot of the resulting natural logarithm of the
inverse of the optimal transformation of the dependent variable () versus
Table 1. Dependent and independent variables ranges of the data used to build and
test the gas viscosity model
Building Testing
Variables Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
0.00072 0.74 0.00038 0.738

Ppr 0.021 26.6 0.021 26.56
Tpr 0.582 3.35 0.581 3.35
0.011 0.991 0.0103 0.953
Figure 1. Optimal transformation of the dependent variable versus the sum of the
optimal transformation of independent variables.
the sum of the optimal transformations of the independent variables (, Ppr ,
and Tpr ). A good fit was found with r2 of 0.999.
Figure 2 presents the natural logarithm of experimental measurements
of the dependent variable () versus the resulting natural logarithm of the
inverse of the optimal transformation of the general dependent variable. This
yields the following final viscosity model:
ln./ D 0:0067857z 4 C 0:023545z 3 0:0012250z 2
C 0:90903z 2:9392; (8)
Figure 2. Experimentally measured gas viscosity versus the resulted inverse optimal
transformation of viscosity dependent variable.
Table 2. Resulting coefficients for gas viscosity model input parameters
x A4 A3 A2 A1 A0
1 1 1 1
r 3.0182 10 3.8300 10 2.0939 10 1.9945 10 1.4369 100
Tpr 3.8910 10 7 2.0181 10 5 3.1054 10 4 1.6436 10 3 2.3367 10 3
2 1 1
Ppr 1.2522 10 1.3118 10 5.0317 10 1.0563 100 7.7197 10 1
where
nD3
X
zD Zn (9)
i D1
and
Zn D A4n Xn C A3n Xn C A2n Xn C A1n Xn C A0n : (10)
Table 2 lists the values of the coefficients A0 to A4 used to determine Zn .

Figure 3 is a plot of the predicted model versus the experimentally
measured gas viscosity. A good match is observed with an average absolute
error of 4.05%. The model’s ability to predict the experimentally measured
viscosity of 3645 data points not used in building the ACE model was then
tested. Using the same 3645 data points, the proposed model’s efficiency
was compared to existing correlations such as Lohrenz et al. (1964), Lee
et al. (1966), and Londono et al. (2002). Figure 4 is a plot of the predicted
versus experimentally measured viscosities using the proposed new ACE
viscosity model and the three previously mentioned correlations. It indicates
that the new proposed viscosity model (Figure 4a) outperforms the other
Figure 3. Predicted versus experimentally measured gas viscosity based on ACE

algorithm for randomly selected 800 points used for viscosity model building.
Figure 4. Predicted versus experimentally measured gas viscosity based on (a)

developed model, (b) Lohrenz et al.’s correlation, (c) Lee et al.’s correlation, and
(d) Londono et al.’s correlation.
tested correlations in predicting the experimentally measured viscosity with

an average absolute error of 3.95%.
Poor correlation is observed when using the Lohrenz et al. (1964) model
as indicated by the significant departure from the 45ı line (Figure 4b). This
deviation might be due to the nature of the correlation, which is restricted
to pure gases with a density below 2.0 gm/cc, whereas the database used
covers gas mixtures with a reduced density up to 3.4 gm/cc. The correlation
is greatly dependent on gas viscosity at low pressure, which is not available in
our database and is calculated using the Londono et al. (2002) correlation for
viscosity at atmospheric pressure. Similarly, Lee et al.’s (1966) correlation
was assessed (Figure 4c) and shows a significant departure from the 45ı
line, underestimating gas viscosity at a higher end of the viscosity scale and
reporting an average absolute error of 12.75% when applied with the currently
collected database. The higher deviation noticed compared to what the authors
reported originally is believed to be due to the limited data used in building
the original correlation in addition to the limited ranges of pressure and
temperature in which the model is applicable compared to the database used
in this work. Londono et al.’s (2002) correlation (Figure 4d) also indicates
poor correlation, but it is better than that seen with the other two tested
correlations with some overestimated and underestimated points. It is worth
noting that Londono et al. (2002) underscaled their figures to 0.35 cp, which
might have outscaled some of the points calculated using their model.
GAS DENSITY MODEL
Again, 800 data points were selected randomly to build the ACE density
model. The model correlates gas density to the independent variables of gas
apparent molecular weight (AMW) and pseudoreduced properties of pressure
(Ppr ) and temperature (Tpr ). Table 3 lists the ranges of the independent and
dependent variables used in the building and testing stages constituting the
limits of the model.
Figure 5 is a plot of the resulted inverse of the optimal transformation
of the dependent variable (density) versus the sum of the natural logarithm
of optimal transformations of the independent variables (AMW, Pr and Tr ).
The data were fitted and a good match was found with r2 of 0.993. Figure 6
presents the experimental measurements of the dependent variable (density)
versus the resulted inverse of the optimal transformation of the general de-
pendent variable yielding the following density model:
D 0:88485E 3z 6 0:47324E 2z 5 C 0:29710E 2z 4
C 0:20923E 1z 3 0:50211E 1z 2 C 0:15268z C 0:4506; (11)
where
nD3
X
zD Zn (12)
i D1
and
Zn D A6n Xn C A5n Xn C A4n Xn C A3n Xn C A2n Xn C A1n Xn C A0n : (13)
Table 3. Dependent and independent variables ranges of the data used to build and
test the gas density model
Building Testing
Variables Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
MW 16.0 117 16.0 117

Ppr 0.302 24.2 0.142 26.6
Tpr 0.582 3.27 0.582 3.35
0.0084 0.73 0.0049 0.74
Figure 5. Optimal transformation of the general dependent variable versus the sum
of the optimal transformation of the independent variables.
Table 4 lists the values of the coefficients A0 to A6 used to determine Zn .

Figure 7 is a plot of the model’s predicted density versus the experimen-
tally measured density. A good match is observed with an average absolute
error of 4.93%. The model’s ability to predict the experimentally measured
density of the 3645 measurement not used in building the ACE model was
then validated. The proposed model’s capability was compared to some of
the currently existing correlations such as Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem [8],
Beggs and Brill [10], and Londono et al. modified Nishiumi and Saito’s [6]
Figure 6. Experimentally measured gas density versus the resulted inverse optimal
transformation of the density dependent variable.
Table 4. Resulting coefficients for the gas density model input parameters
x A6 A5 A4 A3
MW 3.1795 10 2 6.5424 10 1 5.5948 100 2.5529 101

Tpr 4.5271 10 3 3.1741 10 2 7.6181 10 2 4.1825 10 2
Ppr 3.6619 10 1 1.4792 100 3.5476 10 1 1.5948 100
x A2 A1 A0
MW 6.5553 101 8.9938 101 5.2099 101

Tpr 1.5700 10 1 1.4421 10 1 6.8357 10 1
Ppr 6.7552 10 1 2.6058 100 1.9148 10 1

correlations using the same data. Figure 8 is a plot of the predicted versus
the experimentally measured densities using the proposed new model and the
three previously mentioned correlations. Figure 8a is the proposed ACE model
indicating a good agreement between the predicted and measured densities
with an average absolute error of 4.75%, indicating good performance of the
model.
Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem’s correlation (Figure 8b) outperforms all the
other correlations investigated, including the developed one with an average
absolute error of 3.53%. Deviation is clear when estimating high-density val-
ues. Beggs and Brill and Londono modified Mishiumi and Saito’s correlations
(Figures 8c and 8d), which does not seem to work fine with our database,
especially at higher density values where data are either overestimated or
underestimated.
Figure 7. Predicted versus experimentally measured gas density based on ACE

algorithm for randomly selected 800 points used for density model building.
Figure 8. Predicted versus experimentally measured gas density based on (a) de-
veloped model, (b) Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem correlation, (c) Beggs and Brill
correlation, and (d) Londono et al.’s modified Nishiumi and Saito correlation.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis is the study of how the model output varies with changes
in model inputs. @risk software was used to assess the sensitivity analysis of
the two developed viscosity and density models. This is conducted by trying
all valid combinations of values for input variables to simulate all possible
outcomes. The higher the correlation between any independent variable and
dependent output, the higher the influence of that dependent variable on
determining the output value.
The analysis conducted was based on the rank correlation coefficient
calculated between the output variable (density or viscosity) and the samples
for each of the input distributions. Figure 9 is a tornado plot indicating
the dependence of gas viscosity on independent variables of pseudoreduced
temperature, pseudoreduced pressure, and gas density. The figure indicates
the significant impact of gas density and the trivial impact of pseudoreduced
pressure. Gas density and pseudoreduced temperature have a positive impact,
indicating that viscosity increases with the increase of any of the independent
variables.
Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis of the proposed gas viscosity model.
Similarly, Figure 10 is a tornado plot determining the impact of pseudore-

duced pressure, pseudoreduced temperature, and apparent molecular weight
on gas density. The figure indicates the positive impact of reduced pressure
and apparent molecular weight and the significant negative impact of reduced
temperature. This agrees with the known behavior of these independent
variables on gas density, where density increases with increasing molecular
weight and reduced pressure and decreases with increasing temperature.
Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis of the proposed gas density model.

CONCLUSIONS
Hydrocarbon gas viscosity and density models have been developed using a
large database of experimental measurements covering wide ranges of pres-
sure and temperature. An alternating conditional expectation algorithm was
used to derive the models, and their efficiency was tested and a comparison
was carried out with existing correlations. Based on the results obtained, the
following points are concluded:
The new viscosity model provides an accurate prediction of the experimen-

tal measurements and outperforms the other tested models with the lowest
average absolute error of 3.95%.

The proposed gas viscosity model is independent of gas viscosity at atmo-
spheric pressure as required by most of the existing correlations.
The proposed density model comes in second place after Dranchuk and
Abou-Kassem’s (1975) correlation with an average absolute error of 4.93%.
The power of the model is its capability to predict gas density without a
gas compressibility factor.
The gas viscosity model is positively sensitive to changes of density and
pseudoreduced temperature with negligent sensitivity to changes in pseu-
doreduced pressure. On the other hand, the gas density model is sensitive
to all input parameters of pseudoreduced temperature, apparent molecular
weight, and pseudoreduced pressure mentioned on the order of their im-
pact. A negative impact was predicted for reduced temperature, whereas
positive ones were noticed for the pseudoreduced pressure and gas apparent
molecular weight.
REFERENCES
Beggs, H. D., and Brill, J. P. (1973). Study of two-phase flow in inclined

pipes. J. of Pet. Tech. May:607–617.
Bendict, M., Webb, G. B., and Rubin L. C. (1940). An empirical equation for
hydrocarbon thermodynamic properties of light hydrocarbons and their
mixtures: Methane, ethane, propane, and n-butane. J. of Chem. Phys.
8:334–345.
Bicher, L., and Katz, D. (1943). Viscosity of the methane-propane system.
Indust. Eng. Chem. 35:754.
Breiman, L., and Freidman, J. (1985). Estimating optimal transformations for
multiple regression and correlation. J. of Am. Stat. Assoc. 80:580–587.
Carr, N. L., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D. B. (1954). Viscosity of hydro-
carbon gases under pressure. Trans., AIME, 201:264–272.
Dempsey, J. R. (1965). Computer routine treats gas viscosity as a variable.
Oil and Gas J. Aug.:141–143.
Diehl, J., Gondouin, M., Houpeurt, A., Neoschil, J., Thelliez, M., Verrien,
J. P., and Zurawsky, R. (1970). Viscosity and Density of Light Paraffins,
Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Paris: Editions Technip, CREPSI Geopet-
role.
Dranchuk, P. M., and Abou-Kassem, J. H. (1975). Calculation of z-factors for
natural gases using equations of state. J. of Canad. Pet. Tech. 14:34–36.
Gonzalez, M. H., Eakin, B. E., and Lee, A. L. (1970). Viscosity of natu-
ral gases. American Petroleum Institute, Monograph on API Research
Project, 65, NY.
Jossi, J. A., Stiel, L. I., and Thodos, G. (1962). The viscosity of pure
substances in the dense gaseous and liquid phases. AIChE Journal. 8:59–
62.
Lee, A. L. (1965). Viscosity of light hydrocarbons. American Petroleum
Institute, Monograph on API Research Project, 65.
Lee, A. L., Gonzalez, M. H., and Eakin, B. E. (1966). The viscosity of natural
gases. J. of Pet. Tech. Aug.:997–1000.
Lohrenz, J., Bray, B. and Clark, C. (1964). Calculating viscosities of reservoir
fluids from their composition. SPE Paper 915, 2002 Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, TX, October 11–14.
Londono, F. E., Aicher, R. A., and Blasingame, T. A. (2002). Simplified
correlations for hydrocarbon gas viscosity and gas density validation and
correlation behavior using a large scale database. SPE Paper 75721, 2002
SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada, April 30–May 2.
Nishiumi, H., and Saito, S. (1975). An improved generalized BWR equation
of state applicable to low reduced temperatures. J. of Chem. Eng. of
Japan. 8:356–360.
Poettmann, H. F., and Carpenter, P. G. (1952). The Multiphase Flow of Gas,
Oil, and Water through Vertical Flow String with Application to the
Design of Gas-lift Installations. Drilling and Production Practice. 257–
317.
Setzmann, U., and Wagner, W. (1991). A new equation of state and tables
of thermodynamic properties for methane covering the range from the
melting line to 625 K at pressures up to 1000 MPa. J. of Phys. Chem.,
20:1061–1155.
Wang, D., and Murphy, M. (2004). Estimating optimal transformations for
multiple regressions using ACE algorithm. J. of Data Sci. 2:329–346.
Xue, G., Datta-Gupta, A., Valko, P., and Blasingame, T. A. (1997). Opti-
mal transformations for multiple regression: Application to permeability
estimation from well logs. SPE Formation Evaluation Journal. 12:85–93.

Viscosity and Densety Correlations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Viscosity and Densety Correlations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]

On: 19 April 2011

Petroleum Science and Technology

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Viscosity and Density Correlations for

A. A. AlQuraishi1 and E. M. Shokir 2

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Keywords: alternating conditional expectations algorithms, density, natural gas, vis-

Address correspondence to Abdulrahman A. AlQuraishi, Oil and Gas Centre,

gas engineering calculations, including the estimation of gas reserves and

Viscosity is an essential property for the study of the dynamics of fluids

highly dependent on the accuracy of the experimental density measurements.

Density is defined as the mass contained in a specific unit volume. Due to

in the vicinity of the critical isotherm.

The general form of a linear regression model is given by

where ˇ0 , ˇ1 , : : : , ˇp are the regression coefficients to be estimated and " is

where  is a function of the response variable, Y, and i are functions of

independent variables, under the constraint EŒ 2 .Y / D 1, is determined as

The minimization of ."2 / with respect to 1 .X1 /; : : : , n .Xn / and .Y / is

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The large database of measured gas properties collected by Londono et al.

GAS VISCOSITY MODEL

Variables Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

 0.00072 0.74 0.00038 0.738

ln./ D 0:0067857z 4 C 0:023545z 3 0:0012250z 2

C 0:90903z 2:9392; (8)

Table 2. Resulting coefficients for gas viscosity model input parameters

Table 2 lists the values of the coefficients A0 to A4 used to determine Zn .

Figure 3. Predicted versus experimentally measured gas viscosity based on ACE

Figure 4. Predicted versus experimentally measured gas viscosity based on (a)

tested correlations in predicting the experimentally measured viscosity with

GAS DENSITY MODEL

 D 0:88485E 3z 6 0:47324E 2z 5 C 0:29710E 2z 4

C 0:20923E 1z 3 0:50211E 1z 2 C 0:15268z C 0:4506; (11)

Zn D A6n Xn C A5n Xn C A4n Xn C A3n Xn C A2n Xn C A1n Xn C A0n : (13)

Variables Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

MW 16.0 117 16.0 117

Table 4 lists the values of the coefficients A0 to A6 used to determine Zn .

MW 3.1795 10 2 6.5424 10 1 5.5948 100 2.5529 101

Ppr 3.6619 10 1 1.4792 100 3.5476 10 1 1.5948 100

MW 6.5553 101 8.9938 101 5.2099 101

Ppr 6.7552 10 1 2.6058 100 1.9148 10 1

Figure 7. Predicted versus experimentally measured gas density based on ACE

Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis of the proposed gas viscosity model.

Similarly, Figure 10 is a tornado plot determining the impact of pseudore-

Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis of the proposed gas density model.

 The new viscosity model provides an accurate prediction of the experimen-

average absolute error of 3.95%.

Beggs, H. D., and Brill, J. P. (1973). Study of two-phase flow in inclined

You might also like

where is a function of the response variable, Y, and i are functions of

independent variables, under the constraint EŒ 2 .Y / D 1, is determined as

The minimization of ."2 / with respect to 1 .X1 /; : : : , n .Xn / and .Y / is

0.00072 0.74 0.00038 0.738

ln./ D 0:0067857z 4 C 0:023545z 3 0:0012250z 2

D 0:88485E 3z 6 0:47324E 2z 5 C 0:29710E 2z 4

The new viscosity model provides an accurate prediction of the experimen-