Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect

Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

2021 6th International Conference on Clean Energy and Power Generation Technology
(CEPGT 2021), September 10–12, 2021, Shanghai, China

An accurate correlation for calculating natural gas compressibility

factors under a wide range of pressure conditions
Yichen Wang ∗, Jigen Ye, Shuhong Wu
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina, Beijing 100083, China
Received 19 October 2021; accepted 2 November 2021
Available online 26 November 2021

Abstract
The natural gas compressibility factor is a vital parameter in petroleum engineering calculation. Currently, the calculation
models for calculating natural gas compressibility factors in engineering are not accurate and efficient enough. To solve this
problem, multivariate nonlinear regression is used to fit the 6988 data of the Standing–Katz chart, a novel empirical formula
of natural gas compressibility factors is obtained, which is suitable for the pseudo-reduced pressure range of 0.2 to 30. The
mean absolute error, mean relative error and root mean square error between the fitted values and the Standing–Katz chart
values are 0.01140, 0.01282 and 0.01663 respectively, hence the fitted values accord well with the chart values. The proposed
correlation is verified by 270 measured data of natural gas compressibility factors under low and medium pressure conditions
and 219 measured data under high pressure conditions and compared with the other five representative calculation models. The
verification result shows that the mean absolute error, mean relative error and root mean square error between the calculated
values and the measured values are 0.01962, 0.01626 and 0.02511 respectively, and the proposed correlation is superior to the
other five methods because of its higher calculation accuracy. The new correlation is practical and accurate for predicting the
natural gas compressibility factor under an extensive range of pressure conditions.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Conference on Clean Energy and Power Generation Technology,
CEPGT, 2021.

Keywords: Natural gas; Empirical correlation; Compressibility factor; Standing–Katz chart; Multivariate nonlinear regression

1. Introduction
The determination of the natural gas compressibility factor (Z-factor) is a crucial work in the oil and gas
industry. Computing compressibility factors accurately is necessary for gas reserve evaluation, development scheme
design and wellbore multiphase flow calculation. Nowadays, the experimental measurement method, chart method
and formula computation method are the common methods to predict its compressibility factor. Although the
experimental measurement method is direct and reliable, it has the disadvantages of high cost and laboriousness.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wyc_riped@petrochina.com.cn (Y. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.029
2352-4847/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Conference on Clean Energy and Power Generation
Technology, CEPGT, 2021.
Y. Wang, J. Ye and S. Wu Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

Nomenclature
Z Natural gas compressibility factor
ppr Pseudo-reduced pressure
T pr Pseudo-reduced temperature
A1 ∼ A20 Fitting coefficients
Er Relative error
MAE Mean absolute error
MRE Mean relative error
RMSE Root mean square error
Z cal Calculated Z-factor
Z mea Measured Z-factor

The method of reading values from the deviation factor chart developed by Standing and Katz (1942) [1,2] is
difficult to ensure accuracy because of artificial error. The formula computation method has been widely used for
its simplicity and practicality. The formula computation method can be divided into the implicit correlation method
and the explicit correlation method.
Implicit correlations refer to the implicit empirical formulas presented by using equations of state to fit the data
of natural gas deviation factors. For example, the HY correlation [3] proposed by Hall and Yarborough (1973) using
the Starling–Carnahan equation, Dranchuk et al. (1973) [4] developed the DPR correlation by the BWR equation,
Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem (1975) [5] obtained the DAK correlation by the BWRS equation of state. Although
these three classical correlations have high calculation accuracy in the range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 15, their errors are
larger under the high-pressure condition of 15 < ppr ⩽ 30. To solve this problem, Hu et al. (2013) [6] and Zhang
et al. (2018) [7] improved the DAK correlation by re-fitting parameters and introducing correction coefficients
respectively. Although the calculation accuracy is improved under high pressure by these two approaches, it is
reduced in the range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 15 in practical application. Furthermore, implicit correlations are more complex
in form and more inconvenient which need to be solved iteratively by computer programming.
Explicit correlations, such as those proposed by Papay (1968) [8], Beggs & Brill (1973) [9], and Mahmoud
(2014) [10], are the explicit empirical formulas developed from the fitting of the Standing–Katz chart or field
measured data of compressibility factors directly. Owing to the complexity of the curve shapes in the compressibility
factor chart, it is difficult to fit the chart integrally, some scholars only selected the compressibility factor data in
a region with strong regularity in the Standing–Katz chart for fitting. Because of the different data points selected,
the applicable pressure range of these correlations is small and the calculation accuracy is insufficient. For example,
Heidaryan et al. (2010) [11] only used 1220 data points in the range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 15 and 1.2 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0 for
fitting, so their empirical formula has poor adaptability under the conditions of 15 < ppr ⩽ 30 or 1.05 ⩽ Tpr < 1.2.
Also, the correlation proposed by Azizi et al. (2010) [12] based on 3038 data from the Standing–Katz chart is only
applicable to 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 11 and 1.1 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 2.0. Others, such as Hankinson et al. (1969) [13], Li et al. (2001,
2010) [14,15] and Guan et al. (2011) [16], divided the Standing–Katz chart into several areas, fitted them separately,
and used different formulas to calculate the compressibility factor in different areas. Although this fitting method
can improve the fitting accuracy in various temperature and pressure ranges, it artificially cuts off the integrity of
natural gas compressibility factor data and requires too many parameters and formulas to get compressibility factors
under different temperature and pressure conditions, which will complicate the calculation process and lower the
calculation efficiency.
For the sake of improving the calculation accuracy and efficiency of natural gas compressibility factors in the
range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 30, in this paper, a new empirical correlation of natural gas compressibility factors is proposed
by multivariate nonlinear regression. The study provides a rapid and accurate method for predicting natural gas
compressibility factors in practice.
131
Y. Wang, J. Ye and S. Wu Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

2. The novel proposed correlation

According to the corresponding state theory, Standing and Katz (1942) [1,2] developed a widely accepted chart
of natural gas compressibility factors based on experimental data (as shown in Fig. 1). This chart has since become
the standard chart to predict compressibility factors in the petroleum industry.
Poettmann and Carpenter (1952) [17] digitalized the Standing–Katz chart in the range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 15 and
1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0 (Fig. 1(a)) and got 5940 data points. Similarly, in this study, the Standing–Katz chart in the range
of 15 < ppr ⩽ 30 and 1.4 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 2.8 (Fig. 1(b)) is digitalized and 1048 data points are obtained. These 6988 data
points in the range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 30 and 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0 are considered for developing the novel correlation.

Fig. 1. The Standing–Katz chart of natural gas compressibility factors. (a) 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 15 & 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0; (b) 15 < ppr ⩽ 30 & 1.4
⩽ Tpr ⩽ 2.8.

Based on multiple nonlinear regression, with ppr and Tpr as independent variables and Z as the dependent variable,
the empirical correlation of natural gas compressibility factors in the range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 30 and 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽
3.0 is finally fitted as follows:
A1 + A2 (1 + A3 Tpr + A4 Tpr2 + A5 Tpr3 + A6 Tpr4 ) ppr + A7 ppr
2 3
+ A8 ppr 4
+ A9 ppr
Z=
A10 + A11 (1 + A12 Tpr + A13 Tpr2 + A14 Tpr3 + A15 Tpr4 + A16 Tpr5 ) ppr + A17 ppr
2 + A p3 + A p4 + A p5
18 pr 19 pr 20 pr

(1)
According to the results of nonlinear least square fitting, the values of coefficients A1 ∼ A20 in Eq. (1) are listed
in Table 1:
Table 1. Coefficients in Eq. (1).
Coefficient Value Coefficient Value
A1 256.41675 A11 16.26940
A2 7.18202 A12 −121.51728
A3 −178.57250 A13 167.71477
A4 182.98704 A14 −81.73093
A5 −40.74427 A15 20.36191
A6 2.24427 A16 −2.11770
A7 47.44825 A17 124.64444
A8 5.28520 A18 −6.74331
A9 −0.14914 A19 0.20897
A10 271.50446 A20 −0.00314

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 2(a) & (b) depicts the relative error contour of compressibility factors for this study, which respectively
reflect the fitting effect of Fig. 1(a) & (b). The calculation formula of relative error (Er ) is shown in Eq. (2). As is
vividly shown in Fig. 2(a), the relative errors are generally small in 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 15 & 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0. They are
all below 0.10 except for a few points at low temperature 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 1.10. Although the relative errors in 0.45
132
Y. Wang, J. Ye and S. Wu Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

⩽ ppr ⩽ 4.5 & 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 1.45 and 0.3 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 1.4 & 2.4 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0 are slightly larger, those of most areas
in Fig. 2(a) are less than 0.05. As can be seen in Fig. 2(b), the relative errors are less than 0.025 in the range of
15 < ppr ⩽ 30 & 1.4 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 2.8, and the relative errors are less than 0.015 except for those in the range of 29.5
⩽ ppr ⩽ 30.0 & 1.4 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 1.6.
⏐ ⏐
⏐ Z cal − Z mea ⏐
Er = ⏐⏐ ⏐ (2)
Z mea ⏐

Fig. 2. Relative error contour of compressibility factors. (a) 0.2 ⩽ ppr ⩽ 15 & 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0; (b) 15 < ppr ⩽ 30 & 1.4 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 2.8.

The mean absolute error (MAE), mean relative error (MRE) and root mean square error (RMSE) are utilized to
evaluate the fitting effect quantitatively, and their calculation formulas are shown in Eqs. (3) ∼(5). The fitting effect
of 20 isotherms on the Standing–Katz chart is shown in Table 2.
n
1∑
M AE = |Z cal − Z mea |i (3)
n i=1
n ⏐ ⏐
1 ∑ ⏐⏐ Z cal − Z mea ⏐⏐
M RE = (4)
n i=1 ⏐ Z mea ⏐
i

 n
1 ∑
RMSE = √ (Z cal − Z mea )i2 (5)
n i=1

According to the statistical parameters in Table 2, the MAE values of the 20 isotherms are all small, ranging from
0.0039 to 0.021. The MRE values of 19 isotherms from T pr = 1.10 to 3.00 are all below 0.02. When T pr = 1.05
the MRE value is slightly larger, but still within the allowable error range (below 0.05). The RMSE values are all
small, ranging from 0.0063 to 0.031. Hence, this study can achieve a good result of fitting the Standing–Katz chart.

4. Case study
To validate the accuracy of the proposed correlation in practice application, 270 measured compressibility factor
data under low and medium pressure conditions provided by Satter & Campbell [18] and Buxton & Campbell [19]
and 219 measured data provided by Guo et al. [20,21] under high pressure conditions are used for the case study.
Table 3 summarizes the composition range of these natural gas samples above. Given non-hydrocarbon
components (CO2 , N2 , H2 S) in these natural gas samples, the Wichert–Aziz correction [22] is used to correct the
pseudo-critical properties.
Fig. 3 demonstrates the calculated compressibility factor values versus measured values for five representative
implicit or explicit correlations and the proposed formula. As can be seen in Fig. 3, both the DAK models modified
by Hu et al. (2013) and Zhang et al. (2018) respectively have high calculation accuracy under high pressure
133
Y. Wang, J. Ye and S. Wu Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

Table 2. Statistical parameters of this work versus data from the Standing–Katz chart.
Isotherm (Tpr ) MAE MRE RMSE
1.05 0.02106 0.04376 0.03125
1.10 0.00790 0.01282 0.01188
1.15 0.00595 0.00927 0.01229
1.20 0.00896 0.01351 0.01441
1.25 0.01159 0.01585 0.01706
1.30 0.01430 0.01881 0.02039
1.35 0.01376 0.01723 0.01927
1.40 0.01382 0.01310 0.02242
1.45 0.01183 0.01360 0.01605
1.50 0.00942 0.01065 0.01342
1.60 0.00703 0.00622 0.01180
1.70 0.00388 0.00418 0.00629
1.80 0.00579 0.00458 0.00852
1.90 0.00530 0.00513 0.00681
2.00 0.00739 0.00630 0.01139
2.20 0.01131 0.00991 0.01759
2.40 0.01361 0.01215 0.02153
2.60 0.01534 0.01366 0.02367
2.80 0.01882 0.01612 0.02643
3.00 0.02044 0.01879 0.02491
Total 0.01140 0.01282 0.01663

Table 3. Composition ranges of the natural gas mixtures.

Composition Mole fraction
Maximum Minimum Average
CO2 0.20160 0.00238 0.06598
N2 0.03228 0.00339 0.01260
H2 S 0.19700 0.04700 0.10000
CH4 0.92995 0.58410 0.82000
C2 H6 0.28670 0.03323 0.08039
C3 H8 0.13160 0.01150 0.03962
i-C4 H10 0.01077 0.00257 0.00599
n-C4 H10 0.00778 0.00260 0.00502
i-C5 H12 0.00281 0.00089 0.00171
n-C5 H12 0.00163 0.00057 0.00102
n-C6 H14 0.00145 0.00032 0.00074
n-C7 H16 0.00133 0.00000 0.00051
n-C8 H18 0.00069 0.00000 0.00022

conditions, while their calculation accuracy is insufficient under low and medium pressure conditions. As for the
Papay correlation (1968), it fails to function properly under any range of pressure conditions. Besides, the Beggs
& Brill correlation (1973) and the Mahmoud correlation (2014) yield large errors in calculating compressibility
factors under high pressure conditions. Furthermore, as is vividly shown in Fig. 3, the compressibility factor values
calculated by the proposed correlation generate the closest agreement with measured values among the selected
methods.
The computation errors of this study and other methods versus measured values are compared in Table 4. Under
low and medium pressure conditions, the MAE, MRE and RMSE of the presented correlation are all smaller than
those of the other five methods. Under high pressure conditions, the MAE, MRE and RMSE of the presented
correlation are close to those of the correlations developed by Hu et al. and Zhang et al. separately, while lower than
those of the correlations proposed by Papay, Beggs & Brill and Mahmoud separately. In general, the total MAE,
134
Y. Wang, J. Ye and S. Wu Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

Fig. 3. Calculated values of compressibility factors versus measured values for six correlations. (a) Hu et al. (2013); (b) Zhang et al. (2018);
(c) Papay (1968); (d) Beggs & Brill (1973); (e) Mahmoud (2014); (f) this study.

MRE and RMSE of the new correlation are 0.01962, 0.01626 and 0.02511 respectively, lower than those of the other
five methods. Therefore, it is obvious that the presented correlation in this study has high calculation accuracy and
stability under a wide range of pressure conditions.
135
Y. Wang, J. Ye and S. Wu Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

Table 4. Statistical parameters of this work compared with other correlations.

Method Low and medium High pressure conditions Total pressure conditions
pressure conditions
MAE MRE RMSE MAE MRE RMSE MAE MRE RMSE
Hu et al. (2013) 0.14541 0.17210 0.21104 0.02746 0.01723 0.03082 0.09258 0.10274 0.15816
Zhang et al. (2018) 0.05056 0.05694 0.05874 0.02739 0.01730 0.03064 0.04018 0.03919 0.04822
Papay (1968) 0.54156 0.58950 0.57858 0.42507 0.26248 0.54327 0.48939 0.44304 0.56304
Beggs & Brill (1973) 0.02059 0.02189 0.02443 0.05891 0.03594 0.07078 0.03775 0.02819 0.05072
Mahmoud (2014) 0.04751 0.04868 0.07518 0.96064 0.58195 1.14019 0.45646 0.28751 0.76508
This study 0.01299 0.01500 0.01676 0.02779 0.01781 0.03258 0.01962 0.01626 0.02511

5. Conclusions
Based on the 6988 data points of the Standing–Katz chart, a new explicit formula is developed by multivariate
nonlinear regression, which is suitable for calculating natural gas compressibility factors in the range of 0.2 ⩽ ppr
⩽ 30 and 1.05 ⩽ Tpr ⩽ 3.0. The mean absolute error, mean relative error and root mean square error between the
fitted values and the Standing–Katz chart values are only 0.01140, 0.01282 and 0.01663 respectively. Therefore,
the fitting of the Standing–Katz chart in this study is relatively successful.
Compared with five representative calculation models, the proposed correlation has better accuracy against 489
experimental data in a wide range of pressure. The mean absolute error, mean relative error and root mean square
error between the calculated values and the measured values are only 0.01962, 0.01626 and 0.02511 respectively.
Hence, the method presented in this work has higher accuracy and wider applicability in practice.
The novel correlation of natural gas compressibility factors proposed in this study is simple in form, wide in
application range, high in calculation accuracy, and no need for an iterative solution. By this correlation, natural
gas compressibility factors can be predicted quickly and accurately in petroleum engineering calculations.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51974357) and the
Major Science and Technology Project of PetroChina (Grant No. 2020D-0816).

References
[1] Standing MB, Katz DL. Density of natural gases. Trans AIME 1942;146(1):140–9.
[2] Katz DL, Cornell D, Kobayashi R, et al. Handbook of natural gas engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1959, p. 106–7, 710-717.
[3] Hall KR, Yarborough L. A new equation of state for Z-factor calculations. Oil Gas J 1973;71(25):82–92.
[4] Dranchuk PM, Purvis RA, Robinson DB. Computer calculation of natural gas compressibility factors using the standing and katz
correlation. In: Annual technical meeting. Edmonton: Petroleum Society of Canada; 1973.
[5] Dranchuk PM, Abou-Kassem H. Calculation of z factors for natural gases using equations of state. J Can Pet Technol 1975;14(3):34–6.
[6] Hu JG, Guo FQ, Xu JJ. Modification of the DAK method for natural gas Z-factor calculation. Oil Gas Geol 2013;34(1):120–3.
[7] Zhang LX, Guo CQ. A calculation method for Z-factor of natural gas based on BWRS equation. Oil Drill Prod Technol
2018;40(6):775–81.
[8] Papay J. A termelestechnologiai parameterek valtozasa a gastelepek muvelese soran. In Ogil musz, tud, kuzl, Budapest, 1968, p. 267-73.
[9] Beggs DH, Brill JP. A study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. J Pet Technol 1973;25(5):607–17.
[10] Mahmoud M. Development of a new correlation of gas compressibility factor (z-factor) for high pressure gas reservoirs. J Energy
Resour Technol 2014;136(1):012903.
[11] Heidaryan E, Salarabadi A, Moghadasi J. A novel correlation approach for prediction of natural gas compressibility factor. J Nat Gas
Chem 2010;19(2):189–92.
136
Y. Wang, J. Ye and S. Wu Energy Reports 8 (2022) 130–137

[12] Azizi N, Behbahani R, Isazadeh MA. An efficient correlation for calculating compressibility factor of natural gases. J Nat Gas Chem
2010;19(6):642–5.
[13] Hankinson RW, Thomas LK, Phillips KA. Predict natural gas properties. Hydrocarbon Process 1969;48(4):106–8.
[14] Li XF, Gang T, Zhuang XQ, et al. An analytic model with high precision for calculating compressibility factor of high-pressure gas.
J Univ Pet (Ed Nat Sci) 2001;25(6):45–6.
[15] Li XF, Ren MP, Xu ZZ, et al. A high-precision and whole pressure temperature range analytical calculation model of natural gas
Z-factor. Oil Drill Prod Technol 2010;32(6):57–62.
[16] Guan HX, Duan G, Qi T, et al. A new computing method of gas compressibility factor. Spec Oil Gas Reserv 2011;18(2):85–8.
[17] Poettman FH, Carpenter PG. The multiphase flow of gas, oil, and water through vertical flow strings with application to the design
of gas-lift installations. In: Drilling and production practice. New York: American Petroleum Institute; 1952, p. 257–317.
[18] Satter A, Campbell JM. Non-ideal behavior of gases and their mixtures. Soc Pet Eng J 1963;3(4):333–47.
[19] Buxton TS, Campbell JM. Compressibility factors for lean natural gas-carbon dioxide mixtures at high pressure. Soc Pet Eng J
1967;7(1):80–6.
[20] Guo XQ, Wang F, Chen GJ. Measurement of the compressibility factor of natural gases at super high pressure. J Chem Eng Chin
Univ 1999;13(5):393–7.
[21] Guo XQ, Wang F, Chen GJ. Measurement of the compressibility factor of natural gases at super high pressure. Pet Explor Dev
1999;26(6):84–5.
[22] Wichert E, Aziz K. Calculate z’s for sour gases. Hydrocarbon Process 1972;51(5):119–22.

137