See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229165064

A residual viscosity correlation for predicting

the viscosity of petroleum reservoir fluids over
wide ranges of pressure and...

Article in Chemical Engineering Science December 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0009-2509(01)00334-7

CITATIONS READS

16 140

5 authors, including:

Bahman Tohidi A. C. Todd

Heriot-Watt University Heriot-Watt University
280 PUBLICATIONS 3,866 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 1,428 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Delaram Tehrani
Amirkabir University of Technology
63 PUBLICATIONS 612 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

methane recovery from gas hydrate reservoirs by injection of flue gas/N2 View project

Geophysical properties of hydrate-bearing sediments and wellbore stability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. C. Todd on 10 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006
www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

A residual viscosity correlation for predicting the viscosity of

petroleum reservoir %uids over wide ranges of pressure
and temperature
Z. Al-Syabi, A. Danesh , B. Tohidi, A. C. Todd, D. H. Tehrani
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

Abstract
The method of LohrenzBrayClark, which relates the residual viscosity to the reduced density, is the most widely used
engineering tool to predict the viscosity of reservoir %uids. Systematic investigation of the viscosity of pure compounds at various
pressure and temperature conditions indicated the requirement of including the structural and thermal e2ects for accurate viscosity
prediction of dense %uids. The method has been modi3ed to include the above-mentioned e2ects. Reliability of the modi3ed
method for calculating viscosity of mixtures and in particular of high-pressure high-temperature %uids has been demonstrated.
? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Petroleum; Simulation; Modelling; Viscosity; Fluids; Reservoir

1. Introduction The most widely used predictive method is a residual vis-

Reliable estimation of the %uid viscosity is essential in
predicting the petroleum reservoir and well performance
and the hydrocarbon recovery. In the so-called black oil
simulation sets of viscosity tables, for both liquid and
vapour phases, are provided as a function of pressure
(at constant temperature) which are usually su<cient
for a simulator to carry out %ow calculations. On the
other hand, when dealing with processes such as mis-
cible gas-injection and gas-condensate systems, where
vigorous compositional changes occur, it is required
to employ a single model that can accurately predict
the viscosity of both gas and liquid phases using phase
composition.
Several methods (Lohrenz, Bray, & Clark, 1964;
Dandekar, Danesh, Tehrani, & Todd, 1992; Peder-
sen, Fredensland, Christensen, & Thomassen, 1984;
Aasberg-Petersen, Knudsen, & Fredenslund, 1991; Wang
& Guo 1991) ranging from those based on kinetic
theories to completely empirical, have been proposed.
Corresponding author. Fax: +44-131-451-3127.
E-mail address: ali.danesh@pet.hw.ac.uk (A. Danesh).
cosity model, known as the LohrenzBrayClark (LBC)
method (Lohrenz, Bray, & Clark, 1964).
The aim of this study was to evaluate and improve the
above method by generating reliable experimental data
and investigating the pertinent parameters a2ecting the
viscosity of %uids for application in compositional reser-
voir simulators. As compositional simulation is generally
conducted for volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs,
the developed method was particularly evaluated for these
%uids.
2. The concept of residual viscosity
The residual viscosity method is based on the empirical
observation that the di2erence between the viscosity of
dense phase and that of the dilute gas is approximately
independent of temperature and primarily a function of
density.
Jossi, Stiel, and Thodos (1962) utilized the Abas-zade
relationship for thermal conductivity (Abas-zade, 1952)
to correlate viscosity data of various pure substances in
their gaseous and liquid states. The kinetic theory of gases

0009-2509/01/$ - see front matter ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 3 4 - 7
6998 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006
shows that the viscosity is inversely proportional to

Tc1=6 M 1=2 Pc2=3 ; (1)
where Tc is the critical temperature, Pc is the critical
pressure and M is the molecular weight.
The authors multiplied the residual viscosity by
to
obtain a reduced residual viscosity and correlated it with
the reduced density, r = =c , for pure non-polar sub-
stances in the following form, hereafter referred to as JST
correlation:
[(
0 )
+ 104 ]1=4
= a1 + a2 r + a3 2r + a4 3r + a5 4r ;
where
is the %uid viscosity in mPa s (cP). and
0 is the with an error band over 2% were rejected. However, at
viscosity of the diluted (gas) state of %uid at the same
temperature, determined from Eqs. (A.1) (A.2) in the
appendix, in mPa s (cP). a15 are the correlation coef-
3cients with the values; 0:10230, 0:023364, 0:058533,
0:040758 and 0:0093324, respectively.
The units of Tc and Pc in Eq. (1) should be K and atm
(0:1013 MPa) in order to obtain the viscosity in mPa s
(cP). The coe<cients of Eq. (2) are consistent with these
units.
LohrenzBrayClark (1964) extended the JST correla-
tion, Eq. (2), to multi-component systems, and reservoir
%uids in particular, using the HerningZipperer mixing
rule (Herning & Zipperer, 1936) for
0 and the molar is shown in Fig. 1. It is clear that for reduced density val-
mixing rule for other properties [Eqs. (A.3) (A.5) in the
appendix].
Dandekar et al. (1992) evaluated Eq. (2) and concluded
that it is accurate to within 20% for all normal alkanes
with carbon numbers less than 8 and the reduced density
less than 2.5. For conditions other than stated above, the
authors proposed the following viscosity correlation:
(
0 )
= Exp(A + Br + C2r ); (3)
where
A = 9:8338 0:15568M + 1:8935E-4M 2 ;
B = 12:150 + 0:10345M 1:3971E-4M 2 ;
C = 2:3990 1:6355M + 2:5338E-5M 2 :
3. The modied residual viscosity correlation
3.1. Data evaluation
The development of a residual viscosity correlation for
pure components was considered the most essential step
in the evolution of a general correlation for predicting
the viscosity of complex hydrocarbon systems. Litera-
ture density and viscosity data (Grackie, Flynn, & Ross,
1969; Diller, 1983, 1980, 1982; Iwasaki & Takahashi,
1981; Diller & Ball, 1985; Diller & Poolen, 1985; Diller
& Saber, 1981; Lee, 1965; Giddings, Kao, & Kobayashi,
1966; van der Gulik, Mosert, & van den Berg, 1988;
Kiran & Sen, 1992; Brazier & Freeman, 1969; Oliveira &
Wakeham, 1992; Bridgman, 1926; Baylaucq et al., 1997;
Agaev & Golubev, 1963; Dymond, Robertson, & Isadale,
1980; Dymond, Young, & Isadale, 1981; Assael & Pa-
padaki, 1991; Tanaka et al., 1991; Hogenboom, Webb,
& Dixon, 1967) on nitrogen, carbon dioxide and various
hydrocarbon compounds (methane up to n-octadecane)
at various temperatures were amassed and evaluated for
internal consistency and accuracy. For compounds where
(2)
there exists large amount of data, measured viscosity
high-pressure conditions and for compounds where vis-
cosity data are scarce, the above limit was relaxed to
5%. Table 1 gives a summary of those %uids and their
temperature, density and viscosity ranges and the type of
viscometers employed in their measurements along with
authors claimed accuracy.
3.2. Development of the modi1ed correlation
A plot of the reduced residual viscosity versus re-
duced density for the above-mentioned pure compounds
ues greater than 2.5, the reduced residual viscosity cannot
be represented by the reduced density alone, as suggested
by Jossi, Stiel, and Thodos (1962). The observed scatter-
ing is believed to be due to molecular structural e2ects
as well as the thermal e2ect.
A plot of the reduced residual viscosity vs. the reduced
temperature at constant reduced density of 3.10 and 3.15
are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Note that both the thermal and
structural e2ects cannot be ignored for reliable viscosity
prediction. As mentioned above, Dandekar et al. (1992)
did account for the structural e2ects, by incorporating
the molecular weight (M ) in their correlation. However,
this alone is believed not to be adequate. We, therefore,
concluded that the thermal and structural e2ects should
be considered simultaneously. Hence, a model similar to
that of JST, with the coe<cients appearing in Eq. (2)
related to both the reduced temperature, Tr , and a suit-
able parameter describing the structural e2ect was sought.
A number of parameters such as the acentric factor and
molecular weight were considered, where the molecular
weight was found to be the most suitable correlating pa-
rameter to account for the structural e2ect, particularly
for alkanes, which are the most abundant compounds in
reservoir %uids.
A least-square function was used to regress a total
of 2789 viscosity data points to minimize an objective
function taken as the sum of squared deviations between
experimental and calculated values. The ranges of data
 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006 6999

Table 1
Summary of %uids and data range used for evaluating the JST correlation

Fluid Ref. No. of Data range Viscometer type and accuracy

data ponits Reduced Reduced Viscosity Typea Acc.

temp. density (cP) (%)

N2 Diller (1983), 136 0.712.36 0.0 2.50 0.02 0.18 CT,OD,VC 0.5 2.0
Grackie et al. (1969)
CO2 Diller and Ball (1985) 240 0.721.06 0.0 2.54 0.01 0.27 CT,OD,VC 0.12.0
Iwasaki and Takahashi (1981)
CH4 Diller (1980), 236 0.522.33 0.0 3.50 0.01 0.40 CT,VC, VW 0.5 2.0
Giddings et al. (1966),
van der Gulik et al. (1988),
Lee (1965)
C2 H 6 Diller and Ball (1985), 233 0.331.45 0.033.18 0.011.13 CT,VC, VW 2.0 2.5
Iwasaki and Takahashi (1981),
Lee (1965)
C3 H 8 Diller (1982), 207 0.24 1.11 0.0 3.34 0.0110.7 CT,VC 1.5 2.0
Giddings et al. (1966),
Lee (1965)
n-C4 H10 Diller and Saber (1981), 236 0.331.05 0.05 3.27 0.012.56 CT, FC, VC, RC 0.5 3.0
Kiran and Sen (1992),
Lee (1965)
n-C5 H12 Brazier and Freeman (1969), 219 0.64 0.95 1.823.91 0.06 15.4 CT, FC, W, RB,VW 0.5 4.0
Bridgman (1926),
Kiran and Sen (1992),
Lee (1965),
Oliveira and Wakeham (1992)
n-C6 H14 Agaev and Golubev (1963), 180 0.54 0.88 2.33.77 0.10 9.67 CT, FW, RB, VW 0.5 4.0
Baylaucq et al. (1997),
Brazier and Freeman (1969),
Bridgman (1926),
Dymond et al. (1980,1981),
Kiran and Sen (1992),
Oliveira and Wakeham (1992)
n-C7 H16 Assael and Papadaki (1991), 147 0.55 0.69 2.613.37 0.20 1.80 FC ,VW 0.5 2.0
Baylaucq et al. (1997),
Oliveira and Wakeham (1992)
n-C8 H18 Brazier and Freeman (1969), 258 0.48 0.79 2.473.57 0.20 5.67 VT, FC, FW, RB, VW 0.5 4.0
Bridgman (1926),
Dymond et al. (1981),
Kiran and Sen (1992),
Oliveira and Wakeham (1992),
Tanaka et al. (1991)
n-C9 H20 Assael and Papadaki (1991) 30 0.51 0.54 2.94 3.20 0.50 1.13 VW 0.5
n-C10 H22 Lee (1965), 374 0.44 0.69 2.46 3.49 0.215.32 CT, OC, VW 0.5 4.0
Oliveira and Wakeham (1992)
n-C11 H24 Assael et al. (1995=1996) 25 0.47 0.51 3.033.25 0.74 1.84 VW 0.5
n-C12 H26 Dymond et al. (1981), 119 0.45 0.62 2.90 3.64 0.34 10.4 FT, OC, RB 2.0 5.0
Hogenboom et al. (1967),
Tanaka et al. (1991)
n-C15 H32 Hogenboom et al. (1967) 48 0.44 0.58 2.90 3.54 0.54 10.4 RB 2.0 5.0
n-C16 H34 Dymond et al. (1980), 61 0.41 0.52 3.0 3.66 1.20 11.1 FC, VC 2.0
Tanaka et al. (1991)
n-C18 H38 Hogenboom et al. (1967) 40 0.45 0.50 2.95 3.57 0.75 11.5 RB 2.0 2.50
a CT capillary tube, FC falling cylinder, FW falling weigh, OD oscillating disc, OC oscillating cylinder, RB rolling ball,

RC rotating cylinder, VC vibrating crystal and VW vibrating wire.

used for the regression analysis were 0.0 0.55 for the optimum correlation was derived as
reduced residual viscosity (corresponding to a viscos-
[(

0 )
+ 104 ]1=4
ity range of 0.0115 mPa s), 0.004 4.0 for the reduced
density and 0.2432.33 for the reduced temperature. The = 0:094754 + 0:062016r
7000 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006
Fig. 1. Reduced residual viscosity (
0 )
vs. reduced density (=c ) reduced temperature of 3.15.
for various compounds.
Fig. 2. Reduced residual viscosity vs. reduced density at constant
reduced temperature of 3.10.
0:0010273Tr2:0183 M 0:44620 2r
+ 0:00040403Tr2:4706 M 0:19188 3r
+ 0:000086159Tr1:1577 M 0:58683 4r : (4)
The deviations of predicted viscosities from experi-
mental values, using the JST and this modi3cation, are
plotted in Figs. 4 and 5. A comparison of these 3gures
shows that for reduced density values less than 2.5, the
deviations of both correlations are comparable. However,
for higher reduced densities, the JST correlation deviates
up to 100%, while the deviation of the modi3ed corre-
0 )
+ 104 ]1=4
lation is within 20% demonstrating the signi3cance of
including both thermal and structural e2ects. However, a
deviation higher than 20% can be observed for methane,
Fig. 3. Reduced residual viscosity vs. reduced density at constant
Fig. 4. Deviation of predicted viscosity by JST correlation from
measured data of pure compounds.
using the proposed correlation. A similar trend was also
observed by Assael, Gallis, and Vesovic (1995=1996)
at the same reduced density range. van der Gulik et al.
(1988) also observed that the viscosity of methane at high
densities did not follow the expected trend, which they
attributed to hindered rotation of molecules.
Since real reservoir %uids contain high concentrations
of methane, it is imperative to predict the viscosity of
this compound reliably by using a separate correlation.
To maintain the consistency of the method a correlation
similar to Eq. (4) was developed for methane.
[(
= 0:10202 + 0:055258r 0:0114302r
+ 0:00478943r + Tr3:2508 4r : (5)
 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006
r = x1 S
r1 + (1 x1 )S
r2 ; (6)
r is the mixture reduced residual viscosity,
r; 1 is the methane reduced residual viscosity, ob-
r; 2 is the reduced residual vis-
Fig. 5. Deviation of predicted viscosity by the modi3ed correlation
(HW2) from measured data of pure compounds.
Fig. 6. Deviation of predicted viscosity by JST correlation and Eq.
(5) from measured data on methane.
The deviation of the developed correlation for methane
is compared to that of JST in Fig. 6, which clearly demon-
strates the improvement in viscosity prediction, especially
at higher values of reduced density.
3.3. Viscosity calculation procedure
The procedure employed in calculating mixture viscos-
ity using Eqs. (4) and (5) is similar to that employed in
the LBC method.
Mixtures containing methane, is split into methane and
the rest is lumped together as a pseudo-component. The
mixture viscosity is then calculated from the above two
equations as follows:
The methanes reduced residual viscosity is evaluated
from Eq. (5) using the overall mixture reduced density
and reduced temperature.
7001
The reduced residual viscosity of the second compo-
nent is evaluated from Eq. (4), using the overall mix-
ture reduced density, reduced temperature and molec-
ular weight.
The mixture reduced residual viscosity is calculated,
by the molar average mixing rule, as given below
S
where S
S
tained from Eq. (5), S
cosity of the pseudo-component, obtained from Eq. (4)
and x1 is the molar concentration of methane in the
mixture.
The above mixture reduced residual viscosity is di-
vided by the overall mixture viscosity parameter,
,
and the resultant is added to the overall mixture dilute
gas viscosity to obtain the mixture viscosity.
4. Predicting the viscosity of uid mixtures
The procedure described above was used to predict
the viscosity of a number of binary and multi-component
mixtures (synthetic and real reservoir %uids) over wide
ranges of temperature and density, Table 2. For predicting
the viscosity of real reservoir %uids, with the heavy end
described as C7+, a correlation for the critical volume of
the plus fraction, was developed by matching predicted
and literature viscosity data (Lawal, 1986; Pedersen, Fre-
denslund, & Thomassen, 1989)
(vc )C7+ = 6:6458 + 0:1492MC7+
+ 8:5467SC7+ 0:09921MC7+ SC7+ ; (7)
where M and S are the molecular weight and speci3c
gravity, respectively, and the estimated critical volume is
in m3 =kg mol.
The range of molecular weight and speci3c gravity
of the plus fraction used to optimize the coe<cients of
Eq. (7) were 145 396 and 0.7927 0.9165, respectively.
The reliability of the second developed model (HW2)
to predict the viscosity of above %uids were compared to
those of the Lohrenz et al. (1964) (LBC), and the modi-
3cation by Dandekar et al. (1992) (HW1). Table 3 gives
a summary of statistical measures of the deviations from
measured data. The results clearly indicate the preference
of the developed correlation in comparison with those of
original LBC and its modi3cations (HW1). It should be
noted that the viscosity predicted by the residual viscosity
methods strongly depends on the value of %uid density
[see Eqs. (4) and (5)]. Hence, the reliability of predicted
viscosity deteriorates sharply by the increase in density
errors (Ali, 1991), estimated commonly by an equation
of state in compositional models. To avoid ambiguities
in evaluation of the proposed correlation, all the density
data used in this work are measured values.
7002 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006

Table 2
Summary of %uids and data range used for evaluating the prediction methods

Fluid Ref. No. of data Temperature ( C) Pressure (MPa) Reduced density

C1=C3 Giddings et al. (1966) 313 38138 1.4 55.5 0.0 2.5
C1=n-C4 Lee (1965) 63 38105 1.4 55.2 0.12.2
C1=n-C10 Lee (1965) 50 38100 10.3103.4 0.13.1
CO2 =n-C10 Cullick (1984) 70 38130 6.89 34.5 1.6 3.1
Binary liquids Cooper and Asfour (1991) 163 20 50 0.172.1 2.83.3
6-comp. %uids Kovarik and Taylor (1987) 106 3888 9.0 13.8 0.6 3.2
Mult. comp. syn. %uids Al-Siyabi (2000), 12 175 and 200 51.7139.3 1.72.8
El-Gayed (1997)
Mult. comp. syn. Al-Siyabi (2000) 12 175 and 200 51.7139.3 1.73.0
%uids with water
Real res. %uids Al-Siyabi (2000), 80 38150 13.8138.3 1.23.2
El-Gayed (1997)

Table 3
Summary of statistical measures for the evaluated prediction methodsa

Fluid=Method LBC HW1 HW2 (this work)

AD AAD SD AD AAD SD AD AAD SD

C1=C3 3 4 5 0 1 2
C1-nC4 3 4 4 3 4 4 1 3 4
C1-nC10 11 12 9 12 10 5 5 5 3
CO2 -nC10 4 7 6 3 6 8 9 10 6
Binary liquids 19 19 18 16 16 5 2 6 8
HPHT MC Syn. %uids 1 20 28 1 20 28 5 13 14
HPHT MC real %uids 10 20 15 8 15 10 7 5 8
HPHT MC Syn. %uids + water 14 26 41 14 26 39 11 12 16
a AD average deviation, AAD absolute deviation and SD standard deviation.

A comparison of the method with some other models,

mainly those based on the corresponding states principle,
also indicated the superiority of the method (Al-Siyabi,
2000). Further description on comparison of the results
for typical cases is given below.

4.1. Binary mixtures

Literature viscosity and density data (Lee, 1965; Gid-

dings et al., 1966; Cullick, 1984; Cooper & Asfour,
1991) for a number of binary gaseous and liquid mixtures
were used to test the modi3ed correlation. The devia-
tions resulting from the use of the proposed procedure
for binary mixtures were well within 5% in most cases.
Fig. 7. Deviation of predicted viscosity by the LBC and HW2 cor-
Fig. 7 demonstrates the typical behaviour of the two relations from measured Data on methane=propane mixtures.
(LBC and HW2) models, that is, the deviations were
similar at low values of reduced density, but LBC method
resulted in large deviations at values of reduced density
larger than 1.5. Fig. 8 shows the unreliability of LBC 4.2. Multi-component 7uids
for even higher values of reduced density. The proposed
method also shows a marked deviation at a reduced den- To further assess the reliability of the modi3ed corre-
sity of about 3.2, but still acceptable in comparison with lation a variety of multi-component %uids were prepared
LBC results. (El-Gayed, 1997; Al-Siyabi, 2000). These %uids range
 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006 7003

Fig. 10. Measured and predicted viscosity of a synthetic 6-component

Fig. 8. Deviation of predicted viscosity by the LBC and HW2 cor- volatile oil mixture at 200 C, by the LBC and HW2 correlations.
relations from measured data on binary liquid mixtures.

Fig. 9. Measured and predicted viscosity of a synthetic 6-component Fig. 11. Measured and predicted viscosity of a synthetic 6-component

gas condensate mixture at 175 C, by LBC and HW2 Correlations.
volatile oil mixture with 5.40% mole of water at 200 C, by LBC
and HW2 correlations.

from synthetic 6-component mixtures with and without

water to recombined real reservoir %uids. Additional to
the viscosity measurements, density and composition of
all the %uids were also measured in this laboratory at
the test conditions using direct methods (Danesh, Todd,
Somerville, & Dandekar, 1990).
The comparison of predicted viscosities, by the cor-
relations, and the measured values for three synthetic
mixtures at high-pressure high-temperature conditions are
shown in Figs. 9 11. Note that the predictions are al-
most the same, for di2erent correlations, at lower pressure
ranges, but at higher pressures the modi3ed correlation,
HW2, is superior to the LBC method. Most importantly
is the presence of water in hydrocarbon %uids, which has
not a2ected the predictive capability of the developed
correlation.
Fig. 12 shows that all the models predicted the vis-
cosity of a North Sea gas condensate above the dew Fig. 12. Measured and predicted viscosity of gas and equilibrated
point with a reasonable accuracy. However, the predicted
condensate at 37:8 PC, by LBC, HW1 and HW2 correlations.
7004 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006

molecular weight to account for the thermal and struc-

tural e2ects, in addition to the reduced density. The
modi3ed correlation has been shown to improve vis-
cosity prediction, especially at high values of reduced
density.
2. A comparison of the predicted viscosity for a variety
of multi-component %uids, particularly for light reser-
voir %uids at high pressurehigh temperature condi-
tions, by the proposed modi3cation and similar meth-
ods demonstrated its superiority.

Notation

Fig. 13. Measured and predicted viscosity of volatile oil at 37:8 C, M molecular weight
by LBC, HW1 and HW2 correlations. Pc critical pressure
S speci3c gravity
Tc critical temperature
vc critical volume
x molar concentration

Greek letters

S
r reduced residual viscosity

%uid viscosity

0 viscosity of the diluted (gas) state of %uid
 molar density
r reduced density

Acknowledgements
Fig. 14. Measured and predicted viscosity of near critical %uid at

37:8 C, by LBC, HW1 and HW2 correlations. This study was part of a project sponsored by the
UK Department of Trade and Industry, BP-Amoco Ex-
ploration Company Ltd, Edinburgh Petroleum Services
viscosity by LBC for the condensed phase below the (EPS) Ltd, Elf (UK) Ltd, Marathon International (GB)
dew point deviates largely from the experimental values. Ltd, Mobil (North Sea) Ltd, Oil Phase Sampling Ltd,
Fig. 13 demonstrates a comparable accuracy for all the Phillips Petroleum Co. (UK) Ltd and Statoil AS, which
models in predicting the viscosity of a volatile oil above is gratefully acknowledged.
and below the bubble point. The above-proposed correla-
tion, HW2, was also tested against measured viscosities
of a near-critical %uid, NCF, and compared to those pre-
Appendix
dicted by other models, Fig. 14. The predicted viscosities
by HW2 are seen to overlay those measured outside the
The low pressure viscosity is determined from the fol-
critical viscosity enhancement region. The near critical
lowing correlations (Jossi, Stiel, & Thodos, 1962),
viscosity enhancement can be estimated by including an
additional term in the residual viscosity correlation, as
0 = 34 105 Tr0:94 =
; Tr 6 1:5; (A.1)
described in an earlier paper (Al-Siyabi, Danesh, Tohidi,
& Todd, 1999).

0 = 17:78 105 (4:58Tr 1:67)5=8 =
; Tr 1:5:
5. Conclusions (A.2)
The units of Tc and Pc in Eq. (1) should be K and atm
1. The JST residual viscosity correlation has been (0:1013 MPa) in order to obtain the viscosity in mPa s
modi3ed by including the reduced temperature and (cp).
 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006 7005

The mixture properties are calculated from the follow- Baylaucq, A., Boned, C., Dauge, P., & Lagourette, B. (1997).
ing mixing rules (Lohrenz, Bray, & Clark, 1964): Measurements of the viscosity and density of three hydrocarbons
and the three associated binary mixtures versus pressure and

N 
N  temperature. International Journal of Thermophysics, 18(1),
 1=2
 1=2

0 = xi
i0 Mi xi Mi ; (A.3)
i=1 i=1
 N 1=6  N  hydrocarbons and other organic liquids. Canadian Journal of
 

= xi Tci xi M i ;
i=1 i=1
 N 1

c = (vc )1
= xi vci ; (A.5)
i=1
where c is the molar density and vc is the molar critical
volume (r = vc =v).
Lohrenz, Bray, and Clark, (1964) used the viscosity
data of a number of reservoir %uids to back calculate and
correlate the critical molar volume of C7+ as
(vc )C7+ = 1:3468 + 9:4404 104 MC7+
1:72651SC7+ + 4:4083 103 MC7+ SC7+ ;
where M and S are the molecular weight and speci3c
gravity, respectively and the estimated critical volume is
in m3 =kg mol.
References
Aasberg-Petersen, K., Knudsen, K., & Fredenslund, Aa. (1991).
Prediction of viscosities of hydrocarbon mixtures. Fluid Phase
Equilibrium, 70, 293308.
Abas-zade, A. K. (1952). The law of heat conduction of liquids and
vapours. zhurnal Eksperimentalsnoi Teoreticheskai Fiziki, 23,
6064.
Agaev, N. A., & Golubev, I. F. (1963). The viscosity of n-hexane
in the liquid and gaseous state at high pressures and di2erent
temperatures. Doklady Akademia Nauk USSR, 151(3), 635640.
Ali, J. K. (1991). Evaluation of correlation for estimating the
viscosity of hydrocarbon %uids. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 5, 351369.
Al-Siyabi, Z. K. (2000). The contact angle, interfacial tension and
viscosity of reservoir 7uids: Experimental data and modelling.
Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
Al-Siyabi, Z. K, Danesh, A., Tohidi, B., & Todd, A. C. (1999).
Abnormal viscosity behaviour of near critical %uids: Experimental
data and modelling. Paper presented at the 10th Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium held in Brighton, UK, August 1821.
Assael, M. J., & Papadaki, M. (1991). Measurements of the viscosity
of n-heptane, n-nonane, and n-undecane at pressures up to 70
MPa. International Journal of Thermophysics, 12(5), 801810.
Assael, M. J., Gallis, Z. A., & Vesovic, V. (1995/1996).
Excess viscosity of supercritical %uids. High TemperatureHigh
Pressure, 27=28, 583594.
323.
Brazier, D. W., & Freeman, G. R. (1969). The e2ects of pressure
on the density, dielectric constant, and viscosity of several
Chemistry, 47, 893899.
(A.4) Bridgman, P. W. (1926). The e2ect of pressure on the viscosity of
forty-three pure liquids. Proceedings of the American Academy
of Arts and Science, 61, 5794.
Cooper, E. F., & Asfour, A. A. (1991). Densities and kinematic
viscosities of some C6 -C16 n-alkane binary liquid systems at 293.15
K. Journal of Chemical Engineering and Data, 36, 26288.
Cullick, A. S. (1984). Densities and viscosities of mixtures of carbon
dioxide and n-decane from 310 to 403 K and 7 to 30 MPa. Journal
of Chemical Engineering and Data, 29, 393396.
Dandekar, A., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H., & Todd, A. C. (1992).
A modi3ed residual viscosity method for improved prediction of
dense phase viscosities. Presented at the 7th European Improved
Oil Recovery (IOR) Symposium held in Moscow, Russia, October
2729.
Danesh, A., Todd, A. C., Somerville, J., & Dandekar, A. (1990).
Direct measurement of interfacial tension, density, volume, and
compositions of gascondensate system. Transactions of the
Institute of Chemical Engineers, 68A, 325330.
Diller, D. E. (1980). Measurements of the viscosity of compressed
gaseous and liquid methane. Physica, 104A, 417426.
(A.6) Diller, D. E. (1982). Measurements of the viscosity of saturated and
compressed liquid propane. Journal of Chemical Engineering and
Data, 27, 240243.
Diller, D. E. (1983). Measurements of the viscosity of compressed
gaseous and liquid nitrogen. Physica, 119A, 92100.
Diller, D. E., & Ball, M. J. (1985). Shear viscosity coe<cients of
compressed gaseous and liquid carbon dioxide at temperatures
between 220 and 320 K and at pressures to 30 MPa. International
Journal of Thermophysics, 6(6), 619629.
Diller, D. E., & Poolen, L. J. V. (1985). Measurements of the viscosity
of saturated and compressed liquid normal butane and isobutane.
International Journal of Thermophysics, 6(1), 4362.
Diller, D. E., & Saber, J. M. (1981). Measurements of the viscosity of
compressed gaseous and liquid ethane. Physica, 108A, 143152.
Dymond, J. H., Robertson, J., & Isadale, J. D. (1980).
Transport properties of nonelectrolyte liquid mixtures-II. Viscosity
coe<cients for n-hexane+n-hexadecane systems at temperature
from 25 to 100 C at pressures up to the freezing pressure or 500
MPa. International Journal of Thermophysics, 1(4), 345373.
Dymond, J. H., Young, K. J., & Isadale, J. D. (1981).
Transport properties of nonelectrolyte liquid mixtures-III. Viscosity
coe<cients for n-octane, n-dodecane, and equimolar mixtures
of n-octane +n-dodecane and n-hexane+n-dodecane from 25 to
100 C at pressures up to the freezing pressure or 500 MPa.
International Journal of Thermophysics, 2(2), 133154.
El-Gayed, K. (1997). Viscosity of petroleum reservoir 7uids:
Measurement and tuning predictive models. MPhil. thesis,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
Giddings, J. G., Kao, J. T. F., & Kobayashi, R. (1966). Development
of a high pressure capillary tube viscometer and its application to
methane, propane, and their mixtures in the gaseous and liquid
regions. Journal of Chemistry and Physics, 45(2), 578586.
Grackie, J. A., Flynn, G. P., & Ross, J. (1969). Viscosity of nitrogen,
helium, hydrogen and argon from 100 to 25 C up to 150 250
atm. Journal of Chemistry and Physics, 51(9), 38563863.
Herning, F., & Zipperer, L. (1936). Beitrag zur berechnung der
zahigkeit technischer gasgemische aus den zahigkeitswerten der
einzelbestandteile. Das Gas und Wasserfach, 5, 6973.
7006 Z. Al-Syabi et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 69977006
Hogenboom, D. L., Webb, W., & Dixon, J. A. (1967). Viscosity of
several liquid hydrocarbons as a function of temperature, pressure
and free volume. Journal of Chemistry and Physics, 46(7), 2586
2598.
Iwasaki, H., & Takahashi, M. (1981). Viscosity of carbon dioxide
and ethane. Journal of Chemistry and Physics, 74(3), 19301943.
Jossi, J. A., Stiel, L. I., & Thodos, G. (1962). The viscosity of
pure substances in the dense gaseous and liquid phases. A.I.Ch.E.
Journal, 8(1), 5963.
Kiran, E., & Sen, Y. L. (1992). High-pressure viscosity and density
of n-alkanes. International Journal of Thermophysics, 13(3),
411442.
Kovarik, F. S., & Taylor, M. A. (1987). Viscosity measurements
of high-pressure CO2 =hydrocarbon mixtures. Paper presented at
the A.I.Ch.E. Annual Meeting held in New York, November
15 20.
Lawal, A.S. (1986). Prediction of vapour and liquid viscosities from
the Lawal-Lake-Silberberg Equation of State, SPE= DOE 14926
paper, presented at the SPE=DOE Fifth Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, OK, April, 20 23.
Lee, A. L. (1965). Viscosity of Light Hydrocarbons, Monograph
on API Research Project 65. New York: American Petroleum
Institute.
View publication stats
Lohrenz, J., Bray, B. G., & Clark, C. R. (1964). Calculating
viscosities of reservoir %uids from their compositions. JPT,
October, 11711176.
Oliveira, C. M. B. P., & Wakeham, W. A. (1992). The viscosity of
3ve liquid Hydrocarbon at pressures up to 250 MPa. International
Journal of Thermophysics, 13(5), 774790.
Pedersen, K. S., Fredensland, Aa., Christensen, P. L., & Thomassen,
P. (1984). Viscosity of crude oils. Chemical Engineering and
Science, 39, 10111016.
Pedersen, K. S., Fredensland, Aa., & Thomassen, P. (1989).
Properties of Oils and Natural Gases. Texas, USA: Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston.
Tanaka, Y., Hosokawa, H., Kubota, H., & Makita, T. (1991).
Viscosity and density of binary mixtures of cyclohexane with
n-octane, n-dodecane, and n-hexadecane under high pressures.
International Journal of Thermophysics, 12(2), 245264.
van der Gulik, Mostert, R., & van Den Berg, H. R. (1988). The
viscosity of methane at 25 C up to 10 kbar. Physica, 151A,
153166.
Wang, L. S., & Guo, T. M. (1991). A uni3ed viscosity model
for hydrocarbon gases and liquids based on transposed Patel
Teja equation of state. Huagong Xuebao = Journal of Chemical
Industry and Engineering (China), English ed., 6(1), 3849.