Está en la página 1de 9

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Measurements and correlation of Mexican heavy


dead crude oil viscosities
Jos L. Mendoza de la Cruz a,n, Sergio Alvarez-Badillo b, Edgar Ramrez-Jaramillo a,
Marco A. Aquino-Olivos a, Pedro Orea c
a
Coordinacin de Investigacin y Desarrollo Tecnolgico de Aseguramiento de la Produccin de Hidrocarburos, Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo,
Eje Central Lzaro Crdenas Norte 152, Col. San Bartolo Atepehuacan, 07730 Mexico, DF, Mexico
b
Direccin de Investigacin y Posgrado, Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo, Eje Central Lzaro Crdenas Norte 152, Col. San Bartolo Atepehuacan,
07730 Mexico, DF, Mexico
c
Programa de Ingeniera Molecular, Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo, Eje Central Lzaro Crdenas Norte 152, Col. San Bartolo Atepehuacan,
07730 Mexico, DF, Mexico

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 30 June 2011
Accepted 3 September 2013
Available online 27 September 2013

This work presents reliable measurements for dynamic viscosity of representative heavy oil samples
from Mexican reservoirs. Most of the experimental data of dynamic viscosity were measured using a
constant force electromagnetic viscometer. The viscometer was calibrated using several viscosity
standards based on a maximum standard deviation of 0.5% in all measurements for the three pistons
used. Dynamic viscosities of heavy dead crude oils were obtained at a temperature range from 397.1 to
300.8 K, viscosities in the range of 10.97476.7 cP, oil API gravity from 11.5 to 19.4, and at a constant
pressure of 0.1 MPa. The estimated uncertainty on viscosity was less than 7 1.0% over the temperature
range of measurements. A new correlation approach was developed to estimate dynamic viscosities of
Mexican heavy crude oils based on oil API gravity, and temperature.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
heavy dead crude oil
dynamic viscosity
correlation
viscometer

1. Introduction
The knowledge of the dynamic viscosity of heavy and extraheavy oils is very important in the petroleum industry; particularly, dynamic viscosity of dead crude oil can be used as input
information to simulators for designing of tubing or pipelines,
pumping, optimizing production strategies, and transportation
systems as well as for heavy crude oil recovery processes
(Barrufet and Setiadarma, 2003; Barrufet and Dexheimer, 2004;
Naseri et al., 2005; Malallah et al., 2006; Ikiensikimama and
Ogboja, 2009). Nowadays, the enormous increase in oil demand
and the progressive depletion of low-viscosity oil reservoirs have
led to the fast development of very large world resources of heavy
and extra-heavy crude oils. However, production, distribution,
transport, blending, and the conditioning process (dehydration
and desalted) of such crude oils are technological challenges due
to their very high viscosities (Barrufet and Setiadarma, 2003).
Generally, the very common practice for estimating dynamic
viscosity of crude oils is by means of viscosity correlations.
Nevertheless, it is well-known that most of these correlations
n

Corresponding author. Tel.: 52 559 175 6503.


E-mail addresses: jlmendoz@imp.mx (J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz),
salvarez@imp.mx (S. Alvarez-Badillo), eramirez@imp.mx (E. Ramrez-Jaramillo),
maquino@imp.mx (M.A. Aquino-Olivos), porea@imp.mx (P. Orea).
0920-4105/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.09.003

are inadequate to predict oil viscosities at a wide range of


operating conditions such as temperature and pressure. Even
though numerous viscosity correlations and prediction methods
are reported in the literature almost all of them are empirical
(Beal, 1946; Beggs and Robinson, 1975; Vazquez and Beggs, 1980;
Glas, 1980; Ng and Egbogah, 1990; Sutton and Farshad, 1990;
Labedi, 1992; Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt, 1994; de Ghetto et al.,
1995; Petrosky and Farshad, 1995; Elsharkawy and Alikhan, 1999;
Dindoruk and Christman, 2004; Naseri et al., 2005; Hossain et al.,
2005; Sattarin et al., 2007) or semi-empirical (Lohrenz et al., 1964;
Little and Kennedy, 1968; Teja and Rice, 1982; Ahrabi et al., 1987;
Johnson and Mehrotra, 1987; Mehrotra and Svrcek, 1988;
Mehrotra, 1991; Miadonye, 1992; Orbey and Sandler, 1993;
Barrufet and Setiadarma, 2003). The published correlations are
mostly based on regional data thereby a universal correlation
capable of being applied to crude oils produced in a different
geographic region is not available. This deviation is attributed to
the complexity of crude oil itself for different regions (Sattarin
et al., 2007). Our study was focused on developing a heavy dead oil
correlation for on-shore and off-shore Mexican crude oils with
respect to their nature.
On the other hand, there are difculties in obtaining reliable
viscosity measurements (Bennison, 1998; Sattarin et al., 2007); the
viscosity of crude oils is commonly measured by either the rolling
ball viscometer or the capillary tube viscometer. In the rolling ball

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

viscometer, the time required by the steel ball to travel through


the uid is correlated to its density and viscosity. In addition, this
method is limited and subject to errors, because density at the
same temperatures and pressures is needed as a multiplier to
calculate the dynamic viscosity value; it is common that this
density is measured in a pVT cell connected to the viscometer and
it is very difcult to achieve the same pressures and temperatures
used in the density measurements (Barrufet et al., 1993; EstradaBaltazar et al., 1998; Iglesias-Silva et al., 1999). The apparatus
described here is based on a simple and reliable electromagnetic
concept. Two coils move a mobile element back and forth
magnetically at a constant force; the main advantages of this
viscometer are the small amount of sample needed and the short
time required for a measurement; we measured the dynamic
viscosity of heavy dead crude oils at temperatures ranging from
397.1 to 300.8 K, and viscosities in the range of 10.9147476.729 cP
at a pressure of 0.1 MPa. The oil samples were collected from
representative monophasic-bottom-hole uids of Mexican reservoirs, after they were ashed at atmospheric conditions. Moreover,
we used experimental measurements of viscosity from elds
located in the area in order to test the viability of using this
correlation. Statistical comparisons indicated that the new correlation developed in the present work reduces the error involved in
predicting the dynamic viscosity of Mexican heavy crude oils
when existing correlations in literature are employed. The proposed correlation, based on a database of 104 viscosity data, shows
signicant improvement (from 11% to 90%) over previous correlations published in the literature; therefore, the aim of this rst
paper is to develop a dynamic viscosity correlation for Mexican
heavy dead crude oils, which can reliably be used by reservoir
engineers for evaluating crude oil and/or mixture viscosity as well
as by chemical engineers for designing of oileld and renery
processes.

185

Table 1
SARA analysis of the most of heavy dead crude oils used in this work.
Group

Saturates
Aromatics
Resins
Asphaltenes

Crude oil
2

26.23
31.03
29.92
13.82

15.50
28.61
33.75
22.14

12.89
40.05
31.86
15.13

16.49
10.33
60.18
12.96

17.32
44.51
30.78
7.34

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the constant force electromagnetic viscometer.

3. Experimental section
2. Reservoir uids, viscosity standards and methods

3.1. Description of the viscometer

A reliable set of 98 dynamic viscosity data from Mexican off


and on-shore heavy dead crude oil samples was measured in our
laboratory over the last ten years; six viscosity data sets were
collected from another laboratory. All the viscosity standards used
in this investigation were supplied by Cannon Instrument Company; they were used without further purication or analysis. The
ASTM-D5002 procedure was used to measure density and relative
density of dead crude oil samples.
In order to measure the performance of the proposed correlation here, we adopted two forms of analysis: (i) quantitative
analysis by means of statistical error analysis and (ii) qualitative
analysis using cross plots. The existing oil viscosity correlations
were assessed for their performances using statistical parameters
(see Appendix) and performance plots. From the general evaluation, we utilized the percent mean absolute relative error as the
screening criterion (Hossain et al., 2005; Ikiensikimama and
Ogboja, 2009).

The viscometer (model SPL 440) used in this work was


designed and manufactured by Cambridge Applied Systems (CAS,
USA) to make viscosity measurements of liquids for a viscosity
range of 0.210,000 cP (mPa s) at pressures up to 137.9 MPa
(20,000 psi) and for temperatures up to 463.2 K (190 1C). The
internal volume of the viscometer is less than 2 mL (Jakeways
and Goodwin, 2005). The six pistons (0.22, 0.510, 120, 10200,
1002000, and 50010,000 cP) were calibrated by the manufacturer with an uncertainty of 7 1% of full scale. In this study, based
on the viscosity of the uids analyzed, we used only three pistons
in the viscosity range from 10 to 10,000 cP.

2.1. Crude oil characterization


The majority of dead crude oils used here have a high content
of asphaltenes. Asphaltene fraction was extracted from crude oils
by addition of an excess of n-heptane (ASTM D 3279-97). The
maltenes fraction was separated in saturates, aromatics, and resins
using a procedure by an HPLC technique as has been described
elsewhere (Buenrostro-Gonzalez et al., 2001). Table 1 shows the
different fractions for ve dead crude oils. Unfortunately, we do
not have information of the SARA analysis for crude oils 1 and 7.

3.2. Operation
The operation principle of this apparatus is based on a simple
and reliable electromagnetic concept which uses solely one movable constituent through a uid in a small measurement chamber
(MC). A schematic diagram of the viscometer is shown in Fig. 1. A
ferromagnetic piston (P) is immersed into the MC which is ooded
continuously with the uid sample to be analyzed. The viscometer
contains two magnetic coils (C) inside a stainless steel body
(B) which are placed surrounding the MC; the P inside the MC is
magnetically forced back and forth at a constant force. When the
MC is lled up with the uid sample, the inner B coil is activated
and the magnetic force exerted on the P pulls it down toward the
base of the MC; thus, it forces the uid sample to ow around the
piston toward the sensor opening where it interchanges with the
normal ow of the uid sample. Simultaneously, the upper A coil
is used to magnetically monitor the piston motion downstream. On

186

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

the upward piston stroke, fresh uid sample is pulled around the P
to the bottom of the MC. The ow detector continuously diverts the
uid sample from the uid stream into the outer region of the MC.
The motion of the P into and out of the MC drags a fresh uid
sample into the rear region of the MC continuously refreshing the
MC; this motion of the P is detected magnetically by means of the
two magnetic coils.
When the piston reaches the bottom of the MC, the upper A
coil is activated and the lower coil B is used then to monitor the
displacement of the P's upward stream. During this reverse cycle,
sample uid is pulled in behind the P. When P reaches the
deector fence, the inner B coil is again activated and the
process is repeated. As the piston is driven back and forth, both
the retaining fence and the piston motion continuously refresh the
uid sample inside the MC. Since measurement of the motion of
the P is made in two directions, variations in travel time due to
vibration, orientation, and ow are assumed to be negligible.
Throughout the cycle, the temperature of the uid sample is
measured using a temperature sensor (RTD) mounted at the base
of the MC. The time required for the piston to move a xed
distance is then accurately related to the dynamic viscosity of the
uid. Thus, the higher the viscosity of the uid inside the MC, the
slower the piston motion .
3.3. Calibration and validation of the viscometer
In order to determine accurate values of the viscosity it is very
important to carry out a careful calibration of the apparatus, as
well as the temperature sensor and the pressure transducer used
in experiments. Viscosity standards supplied by Cannon Instruments Company were used by the manufacturer to calibrate all the
pistons covering the viscosity range of 0.210,000 cP; kinematic
viscosity measurements at temperatures of 2040 1C were made
using Cannon and Cannon-Ubbelohde Master viscometers according to ASTM D2162. Measurements at lower and higher temperatures were determined by Cannon-Ubbelohde Laboratory Standard
viscometers; the expanded uncertainty of the measurements at
95% condence over the temperature range of  40 1C to 150 1C
was as follow: (i) up to 1000 mm2/s (70.44%), (ii) between 1000
and 10,000 mm2/s (70.55%), and (iii) greater than 10,000 mm2/s
(70.74%). The assigned accuracy of the primary viscosity standard
[water at 20 1C (ITS-90) with a viscosity of 1.0016 cP or kinematic
viscosity of 1.0034 mm2/s as listed in ISO 3666] was 7 0.17%.
In our laboratory, the viscometer pistons were recalibrated in
the measuring range of 1010,000 cP (three pistons: 10200 cP,
1002000 cP, and 50010,000 cP) with several calibration uids
with a maximum standard deviation of 0.5% (for calibration uids).
To validate the calibration process, viscosity measurements with
some viscosity standards were carried out at various temperatures
in order to verify the accuracy of each piston used; the differences
between our results and those reported by the supplier were less
than 75% over the temperature range of interest; the repeatability was about 71%.

resistance thermometer (T100-450) with an overall uncertainty of


70.1 1C in the working temperature range.
3.5. Pressure measurement and generation of the viscometer
A high pressure positive displacement pump (maximum working
pressure of 103.4 MPa, total volume of 500 mL) was used to transfer
the uid as well as to reach the desired pressure in the whole system.
Pressures were measured by means of a transducer (Heise, model
901A, pressure range from 0 to 68.9 MPa) connected to the measurement circuit. The pressure transducer was calibrated against a dead
weight balance (Pressurements, model M 2 200/4, accuracy of 0.015%
in full scale). The estimated uncertainty of the pressure measurements
was 70.02% in the working pressure range.
3.6. Procedure
Fig. 2 shows the schematic diagram of the experimental setup
used in this investigation to measure liquid viscosities. Firstly, an
aliquot (approximately 1015 mL) of crude oil to be studied is
placed in a high pressure cylinder (CYL, volume capacity 250 mL
and maximum pressure 68.9 MPa); the pressure is provided by
means of a positive displacement pump (P, pressure maximum
68.9 MPa, volume displacement capacity 500 mL). Once the sample is loaded inside the cylinder, the next step is to connect it
through valves V4 and V5; then, a vacuum pump (VP) is connected
through V7 to evacuate the entire system until a suitable vacuum
is attained (usually after 2030 min). In viscosity measurements of
the reservoir uid, the viscometer is lled with each uid at least
to the temperature of 371.0 K and cooled to the lowest temperature (303.0 K) while continuously oscillating the piston before

3.4. Temperature measurement and regulation of the viscometer


The viscometer was thermostated by circulating white mineral
from a stirred uid bath (Polystat, Cole Parmer, model 12105-10)
through an insulating jacket that surrounded the stainless steel body,
with a stability of 70.01 1C. Heating tapes were used for heating all
the external tubing lines from the viscometer. The temperature of the
viscometer was measured with a platinum resistance thermometer
with a nominal resistance of 100 (RTD) which is mounted and
welded at the base of MC and is connected to a digital indicator. The
RTD and the digital panel meter were calibrated with a platinum

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram for measuring of the dynamic viscosity at different


pressure and temperature conditions. CTC: circulating bath; RCT: resistance
temperature detector; VP: vacuum pump; DPI: digital pressure indicator; HF:
hydraulic uid; M: manometer; DP: positive displacement pump; V: viscometer;
and RV: relief valve.

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

2.9

Table 2
List of obtained values using ln vs. ln ln model.

Oil 1

2.8

Oil 2

187

Crude oil

Experimental data

Lineal behavior

ln ln[(
od+1)API3]

Oil 3

2.7
Oil 4
Oil 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2.6

Oil 6

2.5

Oil 7

2.4

-2.02

-2.00

-1.98

-1.96

-1.94

-1.92

-1.90

14
20
13
17
15
19
6

r2

4.9447
4.1240
3.6080
4.2946
4.9137
3.8717
3.3419

12.2268
10.6471
9.6009
10.9158
12.1411
10.0899
9.0849

0.999
0.992
0.995
0.996
0.999
0.988
0.998

2.3
-1.88

ln (1/T 1/3)

1000

Fig. 3. Behavior of viscosity as a function of temperature.

100

od (cP)

starting measurements. After thermal equilibrium is achieved, the


system pressure is increased up to 0.1 MPa, and viscosity measurements are obtained (Heredia-Castro, 2007).

10

4. Results and discussion


In this work, dynamic viscosity data of seven heavy dead crude
oils from Mexican reservoir have been used. A reliable set of 104
Mexican off and on-shore dead crude oil viscosities was collected
over the last 10 years in the Laboratorio de Productividad de Pozos
(LPP) from the Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo; 98 dynamic viscosity data sets were measured at LPP while the rest of them were
collected from another laboratory. Most of the oil samples were
measured at a temperature range of 397.1300.8 K; for oil API
gravity, data were considered in the range from 11.5 to 19.4.

4.1. Statistical parameters


The basic statistical parameters used for correlation performance evaluation were average percentage relative error (APRE),
average absolute percentage relative error (AAPRE), standard
deviation, and correlation coefcient (r2). See Appendix for more
details.

4.2. Development of the viscosity correlation


The correlation for heavy dead crude oil viscosity was developed by plotting ln(1/T1/3) vs. ln ln[(od 1)API3] on Cartesian
coordinates. The plots revealed a series of straight lines of constant
slope (Fig. 3). It was found that each of these lines corresponded to
a different crude oil API gravity; then, these lines were tted with
an empirical equation to obtain

od

ea
API3

1

where
a 39; 053:9772T  1:3683
and T [ ] in K.
Table 2 shows the obtained parameters for each set of dynamic
viscosity corresponding to different heavy crude oils used. It is
evident that all viscosity data for each crude oil follow a lineal
behavior, as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2.

1
310

Beal
Glas
Kartoatmodjo-Schmidt
Bennison
Proposed correlation

Experimental
Beggs-Robinson
Ng-Egbogah
Petrosky-Farshad
Elsharkawy-Alikhan

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

Temperature (K)
Fig. 4. Predicted dead crude oil viscosity vs. temperature compared with experimental data for Oil 3 (oil API gravity of 19.4).

4.3. Evaluation and analysis of dead crude oil correlations


published in literature
Several published correlations for dead oil viscosity data were
compared with the data set measured and collected at the LPP. A
list of these correlations can be found elsewhere (Orbey and
Sandler, 1993; Petrosky and Farshad, 1995). The majority of the
oil viscosity correlations were assessed and analyzed by comparing the predicted and measured viscosities in our lab, their trends;
their values of AAPRE, APRE, standard deviation, and correlation
coefcient, which are the main criteria for evaluating the correlations presented here.
As the rst step, calculated dynamic viscosities were compared
with measured viscosities at different temperatures for each
correlation by plotting them as a function of temperature. Fig. 4
shows a sample graph of a heavy crude oil (Oil 3) from Mexican
reservoirs in ln(od) vs. temperature coordinates. It can be
observed that all the correlations underestimate the viscosity.
Table 3 gives the results of proposed correlation and also of others
for estimating dead oil viscosity; this table shows that the
suggested correlation to predict the dynamic viscosity for Oil
3 has the lowest average absolute percentage relative error (AAPRE
%) and standard deviation in comparison with currently available
correlations. Sattarin et al. (2007) correlation has the biggest
AAPRE % and standard deviation. This correlation is not shown
in the plot. Fig. 4 shows the predicted vs. experimental dynamic
viscosities in the temperature range from 319 to 379 K and for
viscosities in the range of 27317 cP.
For higher viscosities, we analyzed Oil 4 for those correlations
that predict the viscosities with a good approximation as well as
for those correlations for predicting such transport property with
high errors, including in both analyses of our proposed correlation.
From Fig. 5 we can observe that Bennison's correlation predicted the viscosity behavior with good accuracy in the temperature

188

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

Table 3
Statistical parameters for dead oil viscosity correlations compared with Oil 3.
Correlation

Table 4
Statistical parameters for dead oil viscosity correlations compared with Oil 4.

Statistical parameters

Beal
BeggsRobinson
Glas
Egbogah
NgEgbogah
KartoatmodjoSchmidt
Labedi
PetroskyFarshad
Bennison
ElsharkawyAlikhan
Naseri et al.
Sattarin et al.
This work

Correlation

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

DMax (%)

s (%)

59
75
56
59
62
43
55
58
63
52
71
78
13

 59
 75
 59
 59
62
 43
4
 58
 63
 52
 71
 78
4

74
80
80
84
135
75
125
86
75
76
88
85
21

62
78
61
64
79
50
67
64
66
57
75
81
14

Statistical parameters

Beal
BeggsRobinson
Glas
Egbogah
NgEgbogah
KartoatmodjoSchmidt
Labedi
PetroskyFarshad
Bennison
ElsharkawyAlikhan
Naseri et al.
Sattarin et al.
This work

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

DMax (%)

s (%)

38
86
43
65
38
159
134
55
51
52
61
57
26

 38
 86
 15
 65
 24
155
 77
 32
 51
 52
 60
 57
 25

52
89
80
90
63
437
490
90
52
74
94
92
59

41
89
51
7080
44
215
19,724
64
52
58
70
65
32

10000

0
300

Experimental

320

340

360

380

400

Beal

-50

Bennison

1000

d
od /dT

od (cP)

Proposed correlation

100

-100
Experimental
Beal

-150

Bennison
Proposed correlation

-200
10
300

320

340

360

380

400

Temperature (K)

-250

Fig. 5. Best correlations for predicting dead crude oil viscosity vs. temperature
compared with experimental data for Oil 4 (oil API gravity of 12.0).

Temperature (K)
Fig. 7. Viscosity derivatives vs. temperature compared with the best correlations
for Oil 4.

10000
10000

1000

100

10

1
300

Experimental

Beggs-Robinson

Glas

Ng-Egbogah

Kartoatmodjo-Schmidt

Petrosky-Farshad

Elsharkawy-Alikhan

Proposed correlation

320

340

360

od (cP)

od (cP)

1000

Experimental

100

Beal
Ng-Egbogah
Bennison
Proposed correlation

380

400

Temperature (K)
Fig. 6. Predicted dead crude oil viscosity vs. temperature compared with experimental data for Oil 4 (oil API gravity of 12.0).

range from 313 to 343 K (relative error less than 10%), which
corresponds to viscosities of 1700200 cP while at higher temperatures the relative error was signicant. Beal's correlation
overestimates the viscosities up to 353 K (maximum relative error
of 50%) and at higher temperatures the viscosity is underestimated
with a maximum error of 39%. The proposed correlation in this
study overestimated the viscosity in all ranges of temperature
with a maximum deviation of 21%. Fig. 6 shows the rest of the
correlations analyzed here. We can observe that most of the
correlations, except for the Ng and Egbogah model, underestimate
the viscosity values. Table 4 summaries the comparisons among

10
300

320

340

360

380

Temperature (K)
Fig. 8. Best correlations for predicting dead crude oil viscosity vs. temperature
compared with experimental data for Oil 1 (oil API gravity of 11.5).

the predictions of different dead crude oil viscosity correlations


and the measured Oil 4 viscosities. KartoatmodjoSchmidt and
Labedi correlations have bigger values of AAPRE %, DMax %, and
standard deviation for this type of heavy dead oil.
Viscosity trend as a function of temperature is another important criterion in order to select the best correlation for development or modication (Dindoruk and Christman, 2004). The
derivatives of the viscosities with respect to temperature were
applied for Oil 4 as it can be seen in Fig. 7. From this behavior, we

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

can observe that Bennison's correlation is the closest in comparison with Beal's and our proposed correlations at high temperatures. However, at temperatures lower than 320 K our model is the
closest.
Finally, we analyzed our proposed correlation with those
correlations available in literature for Oil 1, which were measured
in a temperature range from 308 to 375 K corresponding to
viscosities of 7477 and 78 cP, respectively. Fig. 8 shows the best
correlations for dynamic viscosity data for Oil 1. It can be observed
Table 5
Statistical data for dead oil viscosity correlations compared with Oil 1.
Correlation

Statistical parameters

Beal
BeggsRobinson
Glas
Egbogah
NgEgbogah
KartoatmodjoSchmidt
Labedi
PetroskyFarshad
Bennison
ElsharkawyAlikhan
Naseri et al.
Sattarin et al.
This work

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

DMax (%)

s (%)

38
86
43
65
38
159
134
55
51
52
61
57
26

 38
 86
 15
 65
 24
155
 77
 32
 51
 52
 60
 57
 25

52
89
80
90
63
437
490
90
52
74
94
92
59

41
89
51
7080
44
215
19,724
64
52
58
70
65
32

10000

od (cP)

1000

100

Experimental
Beggs-Robinson
Glas
Kartoatmodjo-Schmidt
Petrosky-Farshad
Elsharkawy-Alikhan
Proposed correlation

10
300

320

340

360

380

Temperature (K)
Fig. 9. Predicted dead crude oil viscosity vs. temperature compared with experimental data for Oil 1 (oil API gravity of 11.5).

189

that most of these correlations underestimate the viscosity value,


except for the Ng and Egbogah correlations at temperatures higher
than 196 K. Table 5 summarizes the comparison between predictions and experimental data for Oil 1. In Fig. 8 and Table 5, it can be
observed that our proposed correlation was better than others to
predict the experimental viscosity data, up to a temperature of
323 K corresponding to the viscosities of 2000 cP. At lower
temperatures of 323 K, Beal's correlation predicts the viscosity
value with a good approximation. The viscosity behavior predicted
by Bennison correlation is similar to that estimated by Beal
correlation. Fig. 9 shows the comparisons among predictions and
experimental data using other correlations for Oil 1. In Fig. 9 and
Table 5, we can see that BeggRobinson, Egboga, Kartoatmodjo
Schmidt, and Labedi correlations are inappropriate for predicting
viscosities of heavy crude oils. Tables 6 and 7 show summaries of
the statistical parameters obtained for dead crude oil correlations
available in the literature, including our proposed correlation.
Following the viscosity trend as a function of temperature,
Fig. 10 shows the derivatives of the viscosity data with respect to
temperature for Oil 1. It can be seen that Beals's correlations is the
closest in comparison with NgEgbogah, Bennison, and our
proposed correlation. The derivative dod/dT, calculated from all
these correlations, undergoes a deviation as temperature of crude
oil is decreased.
The performance of the various dead oil viscosity correlations
was evaluated and analyzed for all heavy oil data used. For all
correlations, both quantitative and qualitative statistical calculations were done. Figs. 11 and 12 show the cross plots for viscosities
of the seven samples of heavy oil (Oil 17) compared with the best
correlations and those correlations inappropriate to predict the
dynamic viscosity of heavy oil; we included our proposed correlation in both of these gures. Table 8 shows some statistical
parameters for the most common published dead oil correlations
including the one proposed for the Mexican heavy dead crude oils.
The statistical parameters used for these comparisons are in the
Appendix.
In Figs. 11 and 12, and Table 8, we can observe that Beal and
Bennison correlations are the closest in order to predict dead
crude oil viscosities for this type of heavy oil from Mexican
reservoirs. The rest of the viscosity correlations are inadequate to
be applied. The results obtained of AAPRE, and APRE, for our
proposed correlation, are lower than those obtained with currently available correlations. From statistical parameters analyzed,
the proposed correlation shows signicant improvement (from
11% to 90%) over all correlations evaluated and analyzed. It is
important to point out that the proposed correlation is only

Table 6
AAPRE and APRE for dead oil viscosity correlations for the rest of the heavy crude oils.
Correlation

Beal
BeggsRobinson
Glas
Egbogah
NgEgbogah
KartoatmodjoSchmidt
Labedi
PetroskyFarshad
Bennison
ElsharkawyAlikhan
Naserti et al.
Sattarin et al.
This work

Oil 2

Oil 4

Oil 5

Oil 6

Oil 7

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

AAPRE (%)

APRE (%)

69
83
57
64
46
45
104
57
68
59
71
87
39

 69
 83
 57
 64
7
 26
35
 57
 68
 59
 71
 87
 39

28
72
69
40
61
343
318
76
14
26
48
56
42

5
 72
57
 26
60
343
294
36
 11
4
 18
 31
42

21
79
45
59
35
148
134
58
34
43
60
41
19

 21
 79
 11
 59
1
145
70
 32
 34
 41
 58
 41
1

41
61
38
46
126
43
118
47
44
36
57
69
51

 41
 61
 35
 41
126
8
63
 39
 44
 29
 57
 69
51

64
68
60
58
79
53
86
60
67
52
73
81
33

 64
 68
 60
 58
79
 51
7
 60
 67
 51
 73
 81
12

190

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

Table 7
Standard deviation and DMax for dead oil viscosity correlations for the rest of the heavy crude oils.
Correlation

Oil 2

Beal
BeggsRobinson
Glas
Egbogah
NgEgbogah
KartoatmodjoSchmidt
Labedi
PetroskyFarshad
Bennison
ElsharkawyAlikhan
Naserti et al.
Sattarin et al.
This work

Oil 4

Oil 5

Oil 7

sa (%)

DMax (%)

sa (%)

DMax

sa (%)

DMax (%)

sa (%)

DMax (%)

sa (%)

DMax (%)

71
86
64
71
55
53
135
67
71
65
76
89
41

88
89
92
94
97
87
290
96
88
87
97
96
58

32
74
88
47
82
397
467
98
18
31
56
65
45

50
76
162
73
159
633
1056
207
33
53
83
96
58

22
82
54
67
44
208
199
66
36
49
69
52
23

28
84
98
85
100
441
512
96
38
63
92
86
37

46
63
49
55
150
50
155
58
49
44
64
71
58

74
72
81
85
255
76
342
90
71
68
91
85
92

71
76
70
72
115
65
117
74
73
63
82
88
41

80
78
84
87
219
83
218
91
72
76
91
87
58

8000

320

340

360

380

Predicted (cP)

0
300
-100
-200

Experimental

d
od /dT

Oil 6

-300

Beal
Ng-Egbogah

-400

Bennison

6000

Beggs-Robinson

Glas

Kartoatmodjo-Schmidt

Petrosky-Farshad

Elsharkawy-Alikhan

Proposed correlation

4000

2000

Proposed correlation

-500
0

-600

4000

6000

8000

Measured (cP)

-700

Temperature (K)
Fig. 10. Viscosity derivatives vs. temperature compared with the best correlations
for Oil 1.

Beal
Ng-Egbogah
Bennison
Proposed correlation

6000

Correlation

4000

2000

0
0

2000

Fig. 12. Comparison of the proposed heavy dead oil viscosity correlation with the
other correlations available in the literature.

Table 8
Statistical data for dead oil viscosity correlations compared with the proposed
correlation.

8000

Predicted (cP)

2000

4000

6000

8000

Measured (cP)

Beal
BeggsRobinson
Glas
NgEgbogah
KartoatmodjoSchmidt
PetroskyFarshad
Bennison
ElsharkawyAlikhan
This work

Statistical parameter
APRE (%)

AAPRE (%)

r2 (%)

 39
 73
 22
43
83
 32
 47
 40
6

45
73
52
64
123
59
47
45
33

0.87
0.45
0.60
0.80
0.84
0.19
0.81
0.60
0.84

Fig. 11. Comparison of the proposed heavy dead oil viscosity correlation with the
best correlations.

applicable to Mexican heavy crude oils, a type of oil in the API


gravity range of 11.5 to 19.4, and its applicability to other regions
should be checked.

5. Conclusions
Dynamic viscosities of heavy dead crude oil from Mexican
reservoirs were measured using a constant force electromagnetic
viscometer. Dynamic viscosity reliable measurements of heavy
dead oil samples were obtained at a temperature range from 397.1

to 300.8 K, and viscosities in the range of 10.97476.7 cP, oil API


gravity from 11.5 to 19.4, and at a constant pressure of 0.1 MPa
with an estimated uncertainty on viscosity less than 71.0% over
the temperature range of measurements.
The new correlation developed, based on a database of 104
viscosity data for heavy dead oils, shows signicant improvement
(from 11% to 90%) over previous correlations published in the
literature. An average percentage relative error of 33% was
achieved. Several empirical models for estimating the viscosity
of dead oils were evaluated using dynamic viscosity data of crude
oils from Mexican reservoirs. It was found that most of the
published models for predicting the dynamic viscosity of heavy

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

dead oils are unreliable in a wide temperature range. From


statistical analysis, it was demonstrated that the correlation
proposed is one of the best in comparison with those published
in the literature, which could be used to predict better outcomes in
future works.

A4. The correlation coefcient


It represents the degree of success in reducing the standard
deviation by regression analysis, dened by
s
r

where

This work was conducted at the Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo


and nancially supported by the Laboratorio de Productividad de
Pozos (rea de Termodinmica de Altas Presiones).

To compare the performances of the empirical correlations,


statistical error analysis was performed. The following statistical
parameters were used for comparison:
A1. Average percentage relative error (APRE)
This parameter is a measure of the relative deviation of the
predicted values from the experimental values in percentage, and
is expressed as
APRE

1 n
100pre  exp =exp 
ni1

A1

where exp and pre are the experimental and predicted viscosities,
respectively. The smaller the APRE is the more evenly distributed
the positive and negative differences between predicted and
measured values are.
A2. Average absolute percentage relative error (AAPRE)
This statistical parameter measures the average value of the
absolute relative deviation of the measured valued from experimental data; this parameter is dened as
AAPRE


1 n
100jpre  exp =exp 
ni1

A2

The smaller APPRE implies a better correlation. For similar


values of AAPRE, the lowest standard deviation value denes the
best correlation. If the exp is close to zero the value of APRE and
AAPRE can be signicantly high.
A3. Standard deviation
The standard deviation of the average absolute percentage
relative error (AAPRE) is dened in Eq. (A2), and it is a measure
of the percent relative absolute spread or dispersion of the data
distribution:
v

#
"
u
   2
u n
 pre
exp 
%SDA sa t 100
A3
 =n  1
 exp 
i1
A lower value of standard deviation means a smaller degree of
dispersion. The accuracy of the correlation is determined by the
value of the standard deviation, where a smaller value indicates
higher accuracy. The value of the standard deviation is usually
expressed as a percentage.

i1

i1

1  exp  pre 2i = exp  2i

Acknowledgments

Appendix

191

1 n

n i 1 exp i

A4

A5

The value of the correlation coefcient varies from 0 to 1. A


coefcient of zero indicates no relationship between the experimental and the predicted values while a 1 coefcient indicates a
perfect positive relationship.
The performance plot (cross plot) is a graph of the predicted vs.
measured properties with a reference 451 line to readily ascertain
the correlations tness and accuracy. A perfect correlation would
plot as a straight line with a slope of 451 (see Figs. 11 and 12). In
addition to the statistical parameters, this is necessary for selecting the best of the very good correlations.
A5. The deviation maximum

!
  
 pre
exp 
DMax Max 100

 exp 

A6

References
Ahrabi, F., Ashcroft, S.J., Shearn, R.B., 1987. High pressure volumetric phase
composition and viscosity data for a North Sea crude oil and NGL mixtures.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 67, 329334.
Barrufet, M.A., Dexheimer, D., 2004. Use of an automatic data quality control
algorithm for crude oil viscosity data. Fluid Phase Equilib. 219, 113121.
Barrufet, M.A., Tantawy, M., Iglesias-Silva, G.A., Salem, K., 1993. Liquid viscosities of
carbon dioxide hydrocarbons from 310 K to 403 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 41, 436.
Barrufet, M.A., Setiadarma, A., 2003. Reliable heavy oilsolvent viscosity mixing
rules for viscosities up to 450 K and high pressure using a mercury capillary
viscometer. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 40, 1726.
Beal, C., 1946. The viscosity of air, water, natural gas, crude oil and its associated
gases at oil eld temperatures and pressures. Trans. AIME 165, 94115.
Beggs, H.D., Robinson, J.R., 1975. Estimating the viscosity of crude oil systems. J. Pet.
Technol. 9, 11401141.
Bennison, T.G., 1998. Prediction of heavy oil viscosity. In: Presented at the IBC Heavy
Oil Field Development Conference, 24 December. AEA Technology, London.
Buenrostro-Gonzalez, Espinosa-Pea, M., Andersen, S.I., Lira-Galeana, C., 2001. Pet.
Sci. Technol. 19 (3 & 4), 299316.
de Ghetto, G., Paone, F., Villa, M., 1995. Pressurevolumetemperature correlations
for heavy and extra heavy oils. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers 30316, International Heavy Oil Symposium.
Dindoruk, B., Christman, P.G., 2004. PVT properties and viscosity correlations for
Gulf of Mexico oilsSPE Reserv. Eng.427437
Elsharkawy, A.M., Alikhan, A.A., 1999. Models for predicting the viscosity of Middle
East crude oils. Fuel 78, 891903.
Estrada-Baltazar, A., Iglesias-Silva, G.A., Barrufet, M.A., 1998. Experimental liquid
viscosities of pentane and pentane decane from 298.15 K to 373.15 K and up
to 25 MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 43, 601604.
Glas, O., 1980. Generalized pressurevolumetemperature correlation for crude oil
system. J. Pet. Technol. 2, 785795.
Heredia-Castro, M. del R., 2007. Determinacin de la viscosidad dinmica de uidos
de yacimientos mexicanos desde la regin de subenfriado hasta la presin de
saturacin, usando un viscosmetro electromagntico a fuerza constante. Tesis
de Licenciatura, Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana, Unidad Azcapotzalco.
Hossain, M.S., Sarica, C., Zhang, H.Q., Rhyne, L., Greenhill, K.L., 2005. Assessment
and development of heavy-oil viscosity correlations. In: SPE/PS-CIM-CHOA
97907 PS2005-407 Presented at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Nov. 13. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Iglesias-Silva, G.A., Estrada-Baltazar, A., Hall, K.R., Barrufet, M.A., 1999. Experimental liquid viscosity of pentane octane decane mixtures from 298.15 to
373.15 K up to 25 MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 44, 13041309.
Ikiensikimama, S.S., Ogboja, O., 2009. Evaluation of empirically derived oil viscosity
correlations for the Niger Delta crude. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 69, 214218.
Jakeways, C.V., Goodwin, A.R.H., 2005. The viscosity and density of 1-propene,1,1,2,3,3,3-hexauorooxidized, polymd and polydimethylsiloxane at

192

J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192

temperatures from (313 to 373) K and a pressure of 0.1 MPa. J. Chem.


Thermodyn. 37, 10931097.
Johnson, S.E., Mehrotra, A.K., 1987. Viscosity of Athabasca bitumen using the extended
principle of corresponding states. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 26, 22902298.
Kartoatmodjo, F., Schmidt, Z., 1994. Large data bank improves crude physical
property correlation. Oil Gas J. 4, 5155.
Labedi, R., 1992. Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of light crudes.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 8, 221234.
Little, J.E., Kennedy, H.T., 1968. Calculating the viscosity of hydrocarbon systems
with pressure, temperature, and composition. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 6, 157162.
Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.C., Clark, C.R., 1964. Calculating viscosities of reservoir uid from
their composition. J. Pet. Technol. 10, 11701176.
Malallah, A., Garbhi, R., Algharaib, M., 2006. Accurate estimation of the word crude
oil PVT properties using graphical alternating conditional expectation. Energy
Fuels 20, 688698.
Mehrotra, A.K., 1991. Generalized one parameter viscosity equation for light and
medium hydrocarbon. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 30, 13671372.
Mehrotra, A.K., Svrcek, Y., 1988. One parameter correlation for bitumen viscosity.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 66, 323327.
Miadonye, A., 1992. One parameter correlation in the estimation of crude oil
viscosity. In: SPE 26206, December. Department of Chemical Engineering,
Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Canada.

Naseri, A., Nikazar, M., Mousavi-Dehghani, S.A., 2005. A correlation approach for
prediction of crude oil viscosities. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 47, 163174.
Ng, T.J., Egbogah, E.O., 1990. An improved temperature-viscosity correlation for
crude oil systems. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 5, 197200.
Orbey, H., Sandler, S.I., 1993. The prediction of the viscosity of liquid hydrocarbons and
their mixtures as a function of temperature and pressure. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 71, 437.
Petrosky, J., Farshad, F., 1995. Viscosity correlation for the Gulf of Mexico oils. In:
SPE 29468 Presented at the 1996 SPE Production Operations Symposium Held,
April 24. Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A.
Sattarin, M., Modarresi, H., Bayat, M., Teymori, M., 2007. New viscosity correlations
for dead crude oils. Pet. Coal 49 (2), 3339.
Sutton, R.P., Farshad, F., 1990. Evaluation of empirically derived PVT properties for Gulf of
Mexico crude oils. In: SPE 13172 SPE Reservoir Engineering, Feb. pp. 7986.
Teja, A.S., Rice, P., 1982. Generalized corresponding state method for the viscosity of
liquid mixturesx. Can. J. Chem. Fundam. 20, 7779.
Vazquez, M., Beggs, H.D., 1980. Correlations for uid physical prediction. J. Pet.
Technol., 968970.