TECHNICAL NOTE

New correlation for estimating the viscosity

of undersaturated crude oils
GHASSAN H. ABDUL-MAJEED
Computer Centre, University of Baghdad
Baghdad, Iraq
RIADH R. KATTAN and NAEEMA H. SALMAN
Petroleum Department, College of Engineering
University of Baghdad
Baghdad, Iraq

ABSTRACT ]LOa -. /LOb = 1514.3 /!Obl.6 + 1.8188 /!Ob 0 ·56 .... (1)
A new general correlation for estimating the viscosity of under- 1.4504 X I0-7 X (P- Pb)

saturated crude oils has been developed using 253 experiment-
ally obtained oil viscosities on 41 different oil samples collected
from two different unpublished sources.
The developed correlation is derived from plotting (P-Pb)
vs (f.I-Oa - f.I-Ob) on log-log paper. The plot reveals a series of
straight lines of a constant slope equal to 1.11. It is found that
the intercepts of the resulting lines can be accurately represented
as a function of API gravity and solution gas-oil ratio at bubble
point pressure.
The present correlation shows excellent results and clearly
outperforms the existing correlations, when tested against the
present data bank (253 points) and against available data from
the literature (137 points).
Introduction
Viscosity in general can be defined as the internal resistance of
fluid to flow. Like other physical propertie's of liquids, the
viscosity is sensitive to changes in pressure and temperature.
Increasing temperature always causes a decrease in viscosity.
Increasing pressure always increases viscosity above the bubble
point. However, below the bubble point, an increase in pressure
causes an increase in solution gas which in turn decreases
viscosity. Crude oil viscosity is essential for both petroleum
reservoir engineering and production design operations. -
The present work deals with the correlations of viscosity of
undersaturated crude oils (above bubble point pressure). The
common empirical correlations available for predicting this
property are those of Beal<n and Vasquez<2).
In 1946, BealO) presented a graphical method derived as the
rate of change of the undersaturated oil viscosity per unit pres-
sure increase above the bubble point pressure and the bubble
point crude oil viscosity. The disadvantages of Beal's correla-
tion are: (1) it is based on only 26 data points covering limited
ranges of flow conditions, and (2) no analytical expression is
given for the correlation.
Using only 11 data points, obtained from Figure 11 of Beal's
work, Standing<3) found that Beal's correlation can be approxi-
mated by the following equation, which fit the 11 points with
average error = 1Ofo and standard deviation = 4.64%.
where
J.LOa = viscosity of undersaturated oil, Pa.s
J.LOb = viscosity of bubble point oil, Pa.s
P = pressure above bubble point, kPa
Pb = bubble point pressure, kPa
ln 1976, Vasquez<2) used non-linear regression analysis to
correlate a large number ·of laboratory measured data. The
following equation was obtained: ·
p m
]LOa = /LOb *( ) ................................................... (2)
Pb
where m is the slope of the log(P /Pb )-log (f.l-oa/ f.J-Ob) plot.
Vazquez found that m can be approximated by the following
equation:
-6
ffi = 0.26282 X p1.187 X JO(- 5.65647 X 10 X P - 5) .................... (3)
Several comments about the Vazquez work are in order.
First, Figure 21 of his study (pressure above bubble point vs
observed slopes of the viscosity curves, m), indicated that the
slope m is highly related to solution gas-oil ratio at bubble point
and API gravity. Vazquez ignored the effect of these two param-
eters in his suggested_ equation [equation (3)] . Second, it is
desirable, for comparison purposes, to include the statistical
results of Beal's correlation in Table 8 (Ref. 2). Such a compar-
ison shows that Vazquez's correlation tends to underpredict the
measured data, and gives relatively high values of average per-
centage error ( -7.541% ). Third, to show the actual perfor-
mance of Vazquez's correlation, the measured data at bubble
point must be eliminated from Tables and Figures presented
(Table C-6 and Figs. 23 to 25 of Ref. 2).
Considering the disadvantages and limitations of the exist-
ing correlations, it is therefore desirable to develop a more
general correlation for estimating f.I-Oa.
Data Acquisition and Preparation
The analysis of 41 bottom-hole oil samples are made available
for this investigation. The data base prepared, consisting of a
total of 253 PVT tests, is obtained from North Africa and

Paper reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology .

. 80 The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

Middle-East oil reservoirs. The experimentally obtained values
of viscosity above bubble point were defined by the flash 10

liberation test (the procedure of calculations is described in

detail, in Ref. 2, p. 53).
A complete list of the data used is presented in Table 1. Table
2 presents a brief description of the data base. It is clear, from
this table, that wide ranges of the flow conditions are covered
by the data base.

Ul
Development of the Correlation ~
0..

Starting from the fact that, for a given saturated crude oil, the . -
viscosity change (p,oa - p,ob) should increase in power law g .I
proportion to pressure change (P- Pb), the values of (P- Pb)
are plotted vs values of (p,oa - p,ob) on log-log paper (Fig. 1).
The plot reveals a series if straight lines. The data plotted in
""'
I
0

~
Figure 1 can be represented by the following equation:
API=lS, Rs:35. 2
Log(p.oa - p.ob) = A + B * Log(P- Pb) ............................ (4) .01
API=l8, Rs:44. 5
API=2l.l, Rs:78. 7
API=23. 6, Rs:l03. 7
API:27, Rs:lO. 7
The slope, B, was calculated to be 1.11. Multiple regression API=3l, Rs,lll.3
analysis was used to obtain a mathematical model that best API=34, Rs =153. 9
API=38, Rs=l85.8
reproduces the intercept values obtained from Figure 1. The API=44. 2, Rs=237. 6
API=49, Rs =211. 9
independent variables selected are solution GOR at Pb, API API= 51, Rs=l64. 9

gravity, bubble point pressure and pressure above bubble point. .001
Several arrangement of the independent variables were tested 10 100 1000

in the regression analysis, The correlation matrix evaluated on CP-PBl, kPa

the data showed that:

FIGURE 1. (P-Pb) vs (p.oa- p.ob) for undersaturated crude oils.
Intercept. (A) = f (Rs , API) .............................................. (5)

TABLE 1. Complete list of data used (253 points)

Sample Pb Rs API T p.Ob p p.oa
No. (kPa) (m3Jm3) (oC) (Pa.s) (kPa) (Pa.s)

1 780 55.81 23.7 76.7 .00233 34323.3 .003467

2 29420.0 .003218
3 24516.6 .002999
4 19613.3 .002785
5 14710.0 .002584
6 9806.65 .002390
7 16671.3 46.85 17.9 82.2 .00337 34323.3 .004418
8 31871.6 .004150
9 29420.0 .003993
10 26968.3 .003872
11 24516.6 .003750
12 19613.3 .003490
13 22133.61 110.71 25.6 77.2 .001521 37490.8 .001729
14 32989.6 .001672
15 29488.6 .001620
16 24987.3 .001553
17 23094.7 103.67 23.6 82.2 .000908 34323.3 .001065
18 31871.6 .001031
19 29420.0 .000993
20 26968.3 .000960
21 24516.6 .000925
22 11179.6 52.26 18.2 76.7 .00258 34323.3 .003625
23 29420.0 .003380
24 24516.6 .003123
25 19613.3 .002897
26 14710.0 .002710
27 25840.5 68.2 21.7 76.7 .00167 39226.6 .002087
28 36775.0 .001969
29 34323.3 .001906
30 31871.6 ;001837
31 29420.0 .001770
32 26968.3 .001695
33 14219.6 78.73 21.1 87.8 .002032 34323.3 .002502
34 29420.0 .002377
35 24516.6 .002256
36 22065.0 .002198
37 21623.7 93.91 21.8 81 .00128 34323.3 .001496
38 29420.0 .001405
39 26968.3 .001366
40 24516.6 .001322
41 18632.6 76.59 22.6 93 .001875 34323.3 .002220
42 31871.6 .002195

May~June 1990, Volume 29, No. 3 81

TABLE 1 (cont'd)
Sample Pb Rs API T J.tOb p J.tOS
No. (kPa) (m3fm3) (OC) (Pa.s) (kPa) (Pa.s)

43 29420.0 .002125
44 26968.3 .002060
45 24516.6 .002000
46 22065.0 .001940
47 19613.3 90.13 22.8 93 .00108 44130.0 .001555
48 39226.6 .001455
49 34323.3 .001345
50 31871.6 .001317
51 29420.0 .001260
52 24516.6 .001165
53 17652 92.36 22.9 93 .00141 34323.3 .001695
54 31871.6 .001640
55 29420.0 .001600
56 26968.3 .001560
57 24516.6 .001520
58 22065.0 .001480
59 19613.3 .001437
60 18632.6 .001423
61 4903.3 35.23 15 90 .004699 34323.3 .007139
62 29420.0 .006664
63 24516.6 .006243
64 19613.3 .005827
65 14710.0 .005435
66 9806.65 .005032
67 17240.1 125.22 29.7 91.1 .000693 34470.4 .000884
68 31028.2 .000836
69 27576.3 .000804
70 24134.2 .000766
71 20682.2 .000725
72 9806.65 74.3 22 82.8 .001697 34323.3 .002330
73 29420.0 .002189
74 24516.6 .002060
75 19613.3 .001935
76 14710.0 .001816
77 29302.3 204.7 41 91.1 .000317 34470.4 .000332
78 32754.2 .000327
79 31028.2 .000322
80 28017.6 237.55 44.2 91.1 .000311 37922.3 .000330
81 34470.4 .000323
82 31028.2 .000317
83 28282.4 .000312
84 17652 89.06 22 89.9 .001895 34323.3 .002310
85 31871.6 .002250
86 29420.0 .002220
87 26968.3 .002115
88 24516.6 .002085
89 22065.0 .001985
90 19613.3 .001940
91 18632.6 .001920
92 22555.3 153,97 34 104.4 .000548 S4323.3 .000627
93 32362.0 .000613
94 31871.6 .000608
95 30400.6 .000603
96 29420.0 .000593
97 28439.3 .000586
98 26968.3 .000575
99 26478.0 .000573
100 24516.6 .000560
101 22310.13 211.97 49 95 .000093 41364.5 .000119
102 36540.0 .000113
103 31646.1 .000107
104 28262.8 .000102
105 25644.4 .000099
106 23359.4 .000096
107 19613.3 219.27 51 97 .000114 34323.3 .000129
108 29420.0 .000124
109 24516.6 .000120
110 ', 22065.0 .000117
111 33538.7 185.78 38 112.8 .000234 49033.3 .000305
112 4~581.6 .000290
113 44130.0 .000275
114 41678.3 .000266
115 39226.6 .000257
116 36775.0 .000246
117 9022.1 40.97 42 54.4 .000900 34323.3 .001400

82 The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 1 (cont'd)
Sample Pb Rs API T ~tOb p ~tOS
No. (kPa) (m3Jm3) (oC) (Pa.s) (kPa) (Pa.s)

118 29420.0 .001300

119 24516.6 .001200
120 19613.3 .001100
121 17161.6 .001050
122 14710.0 .001000
123 9806.65 .000920
124 29714.15 105.1 32.1 60 .00092 44130.0 .001100
125 39226.6 .001040
126 36775.0 .001000
127 34323.3 .000970
128 31871.6 .000950
129 28439.3 111.33 31 74 .00075 44130.0 .000944
130 41678.3 .000910
131 39226.6 .000880
132 36775.0 .000850
133 34323.3 .000820
134 31871.6 .000786
135 12944.8 41.5 23 95 .0023 39226.6 .003950
136 37265.3 .003850
137 34323.3 .003680
138 31871.6 .003410
139 29420.0 ' .003270
140 26968.3 .003060
141 24516.6 .002890
142 22065.0 .002700
143 19613.3 .002590
144 17161~6 .002460
145 •. 14710.0 .002370
146 3432.3 10.7 27 36 .0115 39226.6 .028500
147 36775.0 .027500
148 34323.3 .026300
149 31871.6 .025300
150 29420.0 .023800
151 26968.3 .022000
152 24516.6 .021000
153 19613.3 .019100
154 17161.6 .017200
155 14710.0 .016100
156 12258.3 .015050
157 9806.65 .013850
158 4903.30 .012000
159 7355 35.63 20 82.2 .0052 36775.0 .007700
160 34323.3 .007500
161 31871.6 .007300
162 29420.0 .007000
163 26968.3 .006890
164 24516.6 .006600
165 22065.0 .006300
166 19613.3 .006100
167 17652.0 .006000
168 14710.0 .005700
169 11768.0 .005450
170 9806.65 .005300
171 16671.. 3 89.06 25 87.8 .00135 39226.6 .001800
172 36775.0 .001750
173 34323.3 .001650
174 31381.3 .001600
175 29420.0 .001550
176 26968.3 .001500
177 24516.6 .001440
178 22065.0 .001420
179 19613.3 .001380
180 16892 44.53 18 37.8 .0205 44130.0 .025400
181 39226.6 .024150
182 36775.0 .023920.
183 34323.3 .023140
184 31871.6 .022850
185 29420.0 .022110
186 26968.3 .021750
187 24516.6 .021100
188 22065.0 .020910
189 19613.3 .020800
190 18142.3 .020620
191 8924.05 38.83 44 48.9 .00087- 24810.8 .001140
192 22751.4 .001100

May-June 1990, Volume 29, No. 3 83

TABLE 1 (cont'd)
Sample Pb Rs API T J.tOb p J.tOS
No. (kPa) (m3fm3) (oC) (Pa.s) (kPa) (Pa.s)

193 20594.0 .001050

194 18632.6 .001020
195 17161.6 .001000
196 13729.3 .000950
197 11768.0 .000900
198 29616.08 126.83 30 82.2 .00066 39226.6 .000770
199 37265.3 .000740
200 35794.3 .000700
201 34421.3 .000685 .
202 32362.0 .000678
203 30989.0 .000669
204 4805.26 14.25 27 71.1 .0202 15200.3 .024000
205 12454.4 .022900
206 10297.0 .022000
207 7551.10 .021100
208 6178.20 .020600
209 41384.06 204 33 93.3 .0003 48248.7 .000348
210 46875.8 .000332
211 44816.4 .000320
212 43443.5 .000310
213 42365.0 .000304
214 23732.1 104.56 34 65.6 .00082 34323.3 .000950
215 32362.0 .000920
216 29616.1 .000885
217 27458.6 .000860
218 25497.3 .000840
219 17946.2 61.45 29 49 .00198 34323.3 .002400
220 30989.0 .002300
221 27458.6 .002250
222 24810.8 .002110
223 20594.0 .002000
224 25497.3 93.516 30 93.3 .0011 34323.3 .001230
225 32362.0 .001200
226 30989.0 .001185
227 28929.6 .001150
228 26968.3 .001120
229 30400.6 126.50 33 71.1 .00061 40011.1 .000700
230 37755.6 .000680
231 35892.3 .000660
232 33146.5 .000628
233 30989.0 .000615
234 30989 122.9 32 60 .00085 45600.9 .001000
235 41187.9 .000960
236 39226.6 .000930
237 35794,3 .000900
238 33832.9 .000870
239 34323.3 117.56 27.5 79.4 .00109 41187.9 .001170
240 40011.1 .001150
241· 37951.7 .001130
242 35303.9 .001100
243 17259.7 75.70 30 60 .001~ 34323.3 .001900
244 30989.0 .001800
245 27458.6 .001700
246 24124.5 .001600
247 20594.0 .001530
248 31675.5 149.6 38 71.1 .00039 41187.9 .000441
249 40011.1 .000430
250 37951.7 .000420
251 35794.3 .000410
252 34323.3 .000400
253 33048.4 .000397

Equation (5) indicates that, although the values of Rs and where

API become constants in the undersaturated region, these two
parameters still have some effect on the viscosity of undersatu-
rated oils. Figure 21 of the Vazquez<2) study clearly showed this
observation.
The best mathematical model found that combined these
two parameters is:
A= 1.9311- .89941xLn(Rm)- .001194xAPI2
+9.2545xl0-3xAPixLn(Rm) ................... ~ .......................... (6)
Rm = 5.614 x Rs.
Equation (4) can be written as:
J.'Oa = J.tOb + lO[A-5.2106+1.11 x Log(P-Pb)J •• , ........................ (?)
Figure 2 is a plot of the observed 11-oa values vs the estimat-
ed 11-oa values using the newly developed correlation. This figure
shows excellent agreement between the observed and estimat-
ed values. Table 3 gives a summary of the statistical results of

84 The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 2. Description of data used
Variable Minimum Maximum

Pressure, kPa (psi) 69725.3(711) 697339(7112)

Viscosity, Pa.s (cp) 9.6E-5(.096) 0.0285(28.5) 25
Bubble point viscosity,
Pa.s (cp) 9.3E-5 (.093) 0.0205(20.5)
Bubble point pressure, 0..
kPa (psi) 3432.33(498) 33538. 7(4864) 0

- 29
API gravity 15 51
>.
Solution GOR, m3fm3 +'
(scf/stb) 10.7(60) 238(1334) ·-
~
0
0
~
IS
>
TABLE 3. Summary of the statistical results (based -c
al
on the present data bank) (253 points) +'
"'
E
+' !B
Absolute ~

Average Average Standard w

Correlation Per cent Error Per cent Error Deviation

Beal 4.5111 6.956 8.163

Vazquez 4.4590 5.744 6.772
This Study -0.0193 1.188 1.978

!B 15 2B 25 . 3B
TABLE 4. Summary of the statistical results (based Observed Viscosity , cp
on data from Vazquez study) (137 points)
Absolute FIGURE 2. Observed vs estimated viscosity of undersaturated
Average Average Standard oils (this study).
Correlation Per cent Error Per cent Error Deviation

Beal 2.218' 2.354 2.251 measured data points covering wide ranges of flow conditions.
Vazquez -0.603 1.645 2.304 3. The new correlation is shown to be more accurate than the
This Study -0.026 1.497 2.087 BealC 1>and VazquezC2>correlations, when tested against the 253
data points used in this study and against 137 data points taken
the developed correlation compared with BealO> and from Vazquez study.
VazquezC2>, when tested against the present data base. Based
on the lowest values of the statistical results, the new correla- NOMENCLATURE
tion clearly outperforms the existing correlations. p,oa = viscosity of undersaturated oils, Pa.s
To verify its accuracy, the new correlation was tested against p,ob = viscosity of bubble po1nt oil, Pa.s
137 experimentally measured data points, taken from the P = pressure above bubble point, kPa
Vazquez study (Table C-6C2>). A summary of the statistical Pb = bubble point pressure, kPa
results of the new and the existing correlations is listed in Table Rs = solution GOR, m3Jm3
4. It is clear that our findings definitely outperform the other API = API gravity
considered.
REFERENCES
1. BEAL, C., The Visco~ity of Air, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and Its
Conclusions Associated Gases at Oil Field Temperature and Pressure; Trans.
A/ME, pp. 94-112, 1946.
1. A new correlation for predicting viscosity of undersaturat- 2. VAZQUEZ, A.M.E., Correlations for Fluid Physical Property
ed oils is proposed as a function of pressure, bubble point Prediction; M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Tulsa, 1976.
pressure, bubble point viscosity, solution GOR at Pb and API 3: STANDING, M.B., Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field
gravity. Hydrocarbon Systems; Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
2. The developed correlation is based on 253 experimentally Dallas, p. 85, 1977.

May-June 1990, Volume 29, No. 3 85