Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113 122 www.elsevier.

com/locate/petrol

Apparent viscosity prediction of non-Newtonian water-in-crude oil emulsions

Dou Dan , Gong Jing
The Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), 18 Fuxue Road, Changping, Beijing, 102249, PR China Received 12 July 2005; received in revised form 8 April 2006; accepted 24 April 2006

Abstract A new viscosity model for predicting non-Newtonian emulsions is proposed. Empirical and theoretical relationships are developed to describe the apparent viscosity vs. water cut behavior of the water-in-crude oil emulsions. Based on Pal and Rhodes model [Pal, R., Rhodes, E., 1989. Viscosity/concentration relationships for emulsions. J. Rheol. 33 (7), 10211045] and experimental data, an improved Pal and Rhodes model including the effective water cut theory and the relationship between nonNewtonian behavior and water cut is developed. In the new model, the effective water cut factor Ke has been divided into two factors, Ke() and Ke(), to express the influence of the shear rate and the water cut on viscosity, respectively; and the factor Ke() is found to be power function of water cut. The proposed model can predict relative (apparent) viscosity of water-in-crude oil emulsions over the range of the maximum and minimum water cut. Validated with experimental data, 7 (1 heavy oil and 6 waxy oils) sets of water-in-crude oil emulsions in different water cut and shear rate, the result shows that the average deviation of improved model (8.9%) is smaller than the original model (27.1%). 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Crude oil; Emulsion; Non-Newtonian; Apparent viscosity; Experiment

1. Introduction Transportation of unprocessed or partly processed mixtures of oil and water is becoming more and more common in oil field developments, particularly in new offshore oil fields. Prediction of the viscosity of oil/ water emulsions is an important task for oil field development and petroleum transportation (Johnsen and Rnningsen, 2003). A vast amount of research has been done on the rheological characterization of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 8973 3510; fax: +86 10 8973 3804. E-mail address: doudan@sohu.com (D. Dan). 0920-4105/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2006.04.003

emulsions. However, most of them are based on light oil and tap water, and these kinds of emulsions are always Newtonian fluid and will exhibit some nonNewtonian behavior only if the volume fraction of dispersed phase is very high and nearby the inversion point. So, most of the emulsion viscosity prediction models and correlations are related with volume fraction of dispersed phase only. Yet recently, it is understood that crude oil/water emulsions, particularly heavy oil/water and wax oil/water emulsions, can exhibit non-Newtonian behavior at low or moderate volume fraction of dispersed phase, therefore some researchers (Rnningsen, 1995; Guerrero et al., 1998; Pal and Rhodes, 1989; Masalova et al., 2003) provide

114

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122

new emulsion viscosity prediction model including not only volume fraction of dispersed phase but also shear rate. In this paper, 7 sets of crude oil/mineralized water emulsions with different water cut were prepared, and the apparent viscosity of emulsions were measured at different shear rate. Based on P&R (Pal and Rhodes, 1989) model and experimental data, an improved P&R model including relationship between non-Newtonian behavior of emulsions and the water cut is developed to predict apparent (relative) viscosity of crude oil/water emulsions; compared with the experimental data, the improved P&R model agrees with the experimental data better. 2. Existing emulsion viscosity prediction models The viscosity of emulsions (e) is expected to be affected by the following factors: (Johnsen and Rnningsen, 2003; Pal, 1998): volume fraction of dispersed phase (), viscosity of continuous phase (c), shear rate (), temperature (T), average droplet size (d) and size distribution, viscosity of dispersed phase (d), density of continuous phase (c), density of dispersed phase (d), nature and concentration of emulsifying agents and presence of solids in addition to dispersed phase. The affecting factors are numerous and they can influence each other. For instance, a reduction of temperature causes a remarkable increase in the viscosity of continuous phase; different shear rates provide different drop size and size distribution; furthermore people cannot explain the exact mechanism of emulsion viscosity. So, it is impossible to include all factors in one single mechanism model. A large number of viscosity equations and correlations have been proposed in the literatures. First, Einstein (1906) provided a viscosity prediction correlation of the dilute suspension system: ge gc 1 2: 5/ 1

Based on Einstein equation similarly, Brinkman (1952) argued that the viscosity of emulsion with spherical surface droplets was given by: ge gc 1 /2:5 3

Eilers (1943) used bitumen emulsions and produced an empirical correlation for Newtonian behavior. gr 1 1:25/=1 aE /2 4

where 1.28 < aE < 1.30. In later research, people extended Einstein equation to polynomial and introduced other modifies such as the viscosity of disperse phase into the model to fit high concentration emulsions. Taylor (1932) model:    gd 0: 4gc ge gc 1 2: 5/ gd gc 5

In the study of water-in-oil emulsions, many researchers give expressions for the relative emulsion viscosity (r), the ratio of the emulsion viscosity and the viscosity of the pure continuous phase (oil): gr ge =gc 6

Considering the non-Newtonian behavior of high concentration emulsions, Pal and Rhodes (1989) developed an empirical and theoretical model based on Brinkman (1952) to predict the viscosity of Newtonian and non-Newtonian emulsions. gr 1 K0 Kf g/2:5 7

The Einstein equation is valid only at dilute system and the prediction results is incorrect when volume fraction of dispersed phase is over 2%, and then some expanded versions of Eq. (1) are also suggested by Becher (1965) and Schramm (1992) to involve interactions between the droplets and the concentration range of the dispersed phase. ge gc 1 c 1 / c 2 / c 3 /
2 3

The model accounts for the flocculation of dispersed droplets and hydration effect. Where K0 the hydration factor and may vary from one emulsion system to another system depending upon the nature of emulsifier; and Kf() represents the flocculation and used for nonNewtonian emulsions only. All of the above equations show power relationship between relative viscosity and volume fraction of dispersed phase. Richardson (1933) first observed an exponential increase in relative viscosity as a function of volume fraction of dispersed phase, and then proposed the following equation: gr e k / 8

2 and 3 represent the interactions between the droplets, and c1, c2 and c3 are coefficients.

where k is a constant. A number of modifications of Richardson's original model have been suggested for various applications. For instance, Broughton and

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122

115

Squires (1938) provide a modification form with a system-dependent parameter A: lngr A k / 9

After measuring eight different oils, covering a broad spectrum of oil types including a relatively heavy, biodegraded (21 API) oil, waxy oils and light waxy oils (3035 API), Rnningsen (1995) believes that both A and k in Eq. (9) could be expressed as linear functions of temperature and then proposed a set of correlations for estimation of relative viscosity of stable water-in-crude oil emulsions: lngr k1 k2 T k3 / k4 T / 10

related each other, some researchers try to correlate some dimensionless numbers for viscosity prediction. Be related to each other, some researcher (Pal, 1998) tried to take into account the effects of shear rate, average droplet size, droplet size distribution, viscosity of continuous phase, and viscosity of dispersed phase on the viscosity of emulsions, and proposed the correlations with particle Reynolds number (NRe,p), volume fraction of dispersed phase, maximum packing concentration of dispersed phase (m) and intrinsic viscosity ([]). For concentrated emulsions:
1=2 1=g/m /m 1 g A0 A1 log10 NRe;p r A2 log10 NRe;p 2

where k1k4 are the shear rate-dependent coefficients. It should be noted that for there is not any systemdependent coefficient in Eq. (10), therefore Rnningsen model will give the same results for any oil/water emulsion and will fail significantly for fluids which are very different from the experimental oils. Starting from the Taylor equation (Eq. (5)) and using the concept of effective medium, Phan-Thien and Pham (1997) developed another viscosity equation for concentrated emulsions:  3=5 2=5 2gr 5K gr 1 /1 11 2 5K where K is the ratio of dispersed phase viscosity to continuous phase viscosity. K gd gc 12

14

For lower concentrations:

1=2 1=g /m 1 g A0 A1 log10 NRe;p r

15

where intrinsic viscosity:   K 0: 4 g 2:5 K1

16

3. Development of new viscosity prediction model Water-in-crude oil emulsions can exhibit non-Newtonian behavior in lower water cut (if water is the dispersed phase, water cut means the volume fraction of water). But most of the existing viscosity prediction models for emulsions are restricted to Newtonian emulsions; only Pal and Rhodes (1989) model and Rnningsen (1995) model take account for effects of shear rate. However Rnningsen (1995) model is an experiential model and it is hard to suit different emulsion systems. Thus, the objective of this section is to develop theoretically viscosity equation based on Pal and Rhodes (1989) for non-Newtonian emulsions. First, let us review the concept of effective dispersed phase volume briefly: the true volume of dispersed phase droplets plus some volume of continuous phase adhesion to dispersed phase droplets. There are two kinds of effects that can make continuous phase adhesion to dispersed phase droplets. One of them is hydration effect: there are much of emulsifiers existing in a water-in-crude oil emulsion system and due to the attractive forces on the continuous phase molecules by emulsifiers' molecules (adsorbed on the droplet surface), a significant amount of the continuous phase associates itself with the dispersed phase droplet. The other is floc effect: the cause of flocculation lies in the

Pal (2000) finds that the theoretical equation of Phan-Thien and Pham (1997) under predicts the relative viscosity of concentrated emulsions by a large amount, and discovers that the original models fail to account for the presence of surfactant in the system. Combing the Phan-Thien model and the effective volume hypothesis, Pal (2000) suggests a new equation for predicting the relative viscosity of concentrated emulsions:  gr 2gr 5K 2 5K 3=2 1 K0 /5=2 13

where K0 is a factor that takes into account the presence of adsorbed surfactant on the surface of the droplets, and it is a constant for a given system but may vary from one emulsion system to another. Recently, with the knowledge that the affecting factors of emulsion viscosity are numerous and can be

116

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122

van der Waals' attractive forces present between the particles, and when a floc of particles is formed, it immobilizes a significant amount of the continuous phase within itself. The hydration effect and floc effect can make the effective volume of dispersed phase of a non-Newtonian emulsion higher than its true volume. Consequently, the viscosity of non-Newtonian emulsions is higher than those of the Newtonian emulsions at the same true concentration (Schramm, 1983; Pal and Rhodes, 1989). We assume that the effective volume of dispersed phase Ve is related to the true volume of dispersed droplets V0 as: Ve Ke V0 17

The change in the effective volume fraction of dispersed phase (e) is: D/e Ve DVe /e Vt DVd 21

where e is the effective volume fraction of dispersed phase at stage (i) and can be written as: /e Ve Vt 22

Substituting Eq. (22) to Eq. (21) and assuming Ve Vd, we can get: D/e DVe 1 /e Vt DVd 23

where Ke is a system-dependent factor that takes into account the effect of hydration and floc. Ke is a function of shear rate and true volume fraction of disperse phase. Ke f g;/ 18

Substituting Eq. (23) to Eq. (20), we obtain: Dg D/e 2:5 g 1 /e From Eq. (19) and Eq. (24), Dg Ke D/ 2:5 g 1 Ke / 25 24

In terms of the volume fraction of disperse phase, Eq. (18) can be written as: /e Ke / 19

where e is the effective volume fraction and is the true volume fraction of dispersed phase. Let us now consider a concentrated emulsion with the true volume fraction of dispersed phase . This emulsion can be prepared by the following steps: successively adding minute amounts of the dispersed phase (Vd) into the pure continuous phase until the object volume fraction dispersed phase is reached. At stage (i) in the process of dispersed phase addition, let the total volume of emulsion is Vt; the effective volume of dispersed phase is Ve and the effective dispersed phase viscosity of emulsion is . Upon addition of Vd to the stage (i) emulsion, the stage (i + 1) is reached where the effective dispersed phase volume is Ve + Ve, the total volume of emulsion is Vt + Vd, and the emulsion viscosity is + . According to the effective medium theory, the emulsion in stage (i) surrounding the new droplets added at stage (i + 1) can be regarded as the continuous phase, therefore from stage (i) to stage (i + 1) can be regarded as a process of addition minute dispersed phase to continuous phase. Then we can apply the Einstein equation (Eq. (1)) to calculate the viscosity of the emulsion in stage (i + 1):  g Dg g 1 2:5 DVe Vt DVd  20

Integrating the above equation with the limits c when 0, and when , the following new viscosity equation for non-Newtonian emulsions is obtained: gr 1 Ke /25 : 26

The non-Newtonian factor Ke can be calculated by: Ke g;/ Ke gKe / 27

Among Eq. (27), factor Ke() represents the effect of hydration and floc, is a function of shear rate; and the relationship between Ke() and shear-rate () can be determined by the experimental relationship between relative viscosity (r) and shear rate () at the highest volume fraction of dispersed phase (). Another factor Ke() represents the effect of the volume fraction of dispersed phase: it means that the emulsions exhibit different non-Newtonian behavior at different volume fraction of dispersed phase, and the non-Newtonian behavior factor Ke() is a function of volume fraction of dispersed phase (). From Eqs. (26) and (27), we can obtain: 0:4 1 g g;/ r Ke g;/ / Ke / 28 0:4 Ke g 1 g g;/max r /max

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122 Table 1 Summary the viscosity of crude oil samples Crude oil samples 1# 2# 3# 4# 5# 6# 7#

117

Viscosity (mPa s) 534.0 137.6 52.9 46.3 101.4 112.7 59.6

relative viscosity (r) and shear rate () at the highest volume fraction of dispersed phase (max). Consequently we get the factor K and we can predict apparent (relative) viscosity value of water-in-crude oil emulsions in dispersed phase volume fraction between maximum and minimum value we have measured and under any shear rate with the improved P&R model (Eq. (26)). 4. Experimental To justify the validation of the improved P&R model, 7 sets of water-in-crude oil emulsion from different oil fields are presented. The samples directly come from oil wells and were processed by an electricity separator to get pure oil and mineralized water. The crude oil and water were mixed at different temperature (heavy oil at 60 C and waxy oil at 30 C) by the IKA RW20DZM.N stirrer lasted for 10 min in different volume fraction of dispersed phase, and the apparent viscosity was measured by HAKKE RV20 viscometer. All of the emulsions are water-in-crude oil type. The viscosities of crude oils are listed in Table 1. Sample 1# is heavy oil and the processing temperature is 60 C; samples 2#7# are waxy oil and the processing temperature is 30 C.

Therefore we can get two points in the function Ke (), when = max: Ke /max Ke g;/j//max Ke gj//max 1 29

when = min: Ke g;/j//min Ke gj//max

0:4 1 g g;/min r /min 0:4 1 g g;/max r /max

Ke /min

30

Then if one knows the form of the function Ke() and two experimental apparent viscosity values of water-incrude oil emulsion at two volume fraction of dispersed phase (maximum and minimum) in one shear rate, the actual Ke ( ) value can be determined; and the relationship between Ke() and shear-rate () can be determined by the experimental relationship between

Fig. 1. Experimental verification of the form of the function Ke() vs. .

118

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122

5. Results and discussion 5.1. Form of the function Ke() Based on Eq. (28), calculating the experimental Ke () data of different oil samples in every shear rate and dispersed phase volume fraction, compared the results with the power function curve fitting from the two points Ke(max) and Ke(min). Fig. 1 shows: in different shear rate, where the experimental data of Ke() and are factors and can be obtained by the power function relationship. Ke / a/b 31

needs a set of apparent viscosity when = min. It is to be noted that the emulsions are often Newtonian fluid when = min. Then the apparent (relative) viscosity of water-in-crude oil emulsions in any temperature, shear rate and dispersed phase volume fraction between the lowest and the highest value could be predicted when one knows the viscositytemperature relationship of pure oil, a set of apparent viscosityshear rate relationship in the highest dispersed phase volume fraction and the viscosity in the lowest dispersed phase volume fraction. 5.2. Comparison between experimental data and emulsion viscosity models In Table 2, the experimental relative viscosities of 1# (heavy oil) sample are presented along with corresponding values predicted by P&R model and improved P&R model. For heavy oil/water emulsion, the maximum and average deviations of P&R model are 24.28% and 8.20% but 15.35% and 3.75% for the improved P&R model. Compared with P&R model, the prediction results of the improved P&R model are in most agreement with experimental data especially for

where a and b are factors that they can be get by power function curve fitting from two points. P&R (1989) model takes account of the nonNewtonian behavior of emulsions only, but the improved P&R model includes the characterization that the non-Newtonian behavior of water-in-crude oil emulsions changes with the volume fraction of dispersed phase farther. During the measuring and calculating processes, the P&R model and the improved P&R model are basically the same except the latter

Table 2 Comparison of experimental data with prediction values by P&R model and improved P&R model of 1# (heavy oil) sample (60 C) Water cut Shear rate (s 1) 15 0.1 Experimental relative viscosity P&R model Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Improved P&R mode Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Experimental relative viscosity P&R model Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Improved P&R mode Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Experimental relative viscosity P&R model Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Improved P&R mode Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Experimental relative viscosity P&R model Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Improved P&R mode Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Experimental relative viscosity P&R model Relative viscosity Deviation (%) Improved P&R mode Relative viscosity Deviation (%) 1.23 1.35 9.76 1.23 0.14 1.70 1.89 11.04 1.64 3.75 2.38 2.79 17.01 2.55 6.87 3.21 3.48 8.46 3.29 2.65 4.49 4.43 1.34 4.43 1.34 25 1.23 1.34 9.18 1.22 0.50 1.70 1.86 9.69 1.62 4.63 2.34 2.73 16.86 2.50 6.98 3.09 3.39 9.73 3.21 4.00 4.24 4.28 1.07 4.28 1.06 40 1.23 1.33 8.31 1.21 1.03 1.70 1.83 7.71 1.60 5.93 2.18 2.65 21.27 2.43 11.39 3.05 3.25 6.56 3.09 1.22 4.06 4.07 0.25 4.07 0.25 60 1.23 1.31 7.16 1.21 1.73 1.70 1.79 5.15 1.57 7.63 2.11 2.54 20.45 2.34 11.11 2.94 3.09 4.95 2.94 0.03 3.82 3.81 0.07 3.81 0.07 90 1.23 1.29 5.48 1.19 2.77 1.70 1.72 1.46 1.53 10.09 1.92 2.39 24.28 2.22 15.35 2.86 2.86 0.10 2.73 4.45 3.49 3.47 0.58 3.47 0.58

0.2

0.3

0.35

0.4

Table 3 Comparison of experimental data with prediction values by P&R model and improved P&R model of 2#7# (waxy oil) samples Samples Water Shear rate 200 (s 1) number cut Exp. Improved relative P&R mode viscosity 2# 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.42 2.29 3.82 4.61 6.50 9.37 5.48 7.83 9.40 2.20 2.60 3.18 4.41 5.99 2.17 2.56 3.51 4.45 8.82 3.25 3.55 3.84 4.55 6.66 8.42 12.64 19.15 1.45 2.00 2.78 3.97 5.89 9.24 5.43 7.43 9.29 2.19 2.98 3.83 4.80 5.92 1.95 2.89 4.17 5.99 8.72 3.50 3.68 3.80 4.39 6.94 10.00 13.86 18.88 Shear rate 400 (s 1) Deviation P&R (%) mode 2.21 12.87 27.15 13.79 9.28 1.33 0.79 5.13 1.16 0.41 14.89 20.57 8.66 1.18 10.03 13.10 18.69 34.56 1.08 7.87 3.83 1.01 3.41 4.19 18.77 9.69 1.45 1.30 1.73 2.41 3.52 5.50 9.48 1.73 3.49 9.29 1.31 1.77 2.49 3.69 5.92 1.36 1.93 2.91 4.74 8.72 1.45 2.24 3.80 1.45 2.25 3.82 7.50 18.94 Deviation Exp. (%) relative viscosity 8.46 24.31 36.87 23.60 15.34 1.17 68.43 55.46 1.12 40.51 31.94 21.77 16.29 1.18 37.26 24.46 17.10 6.64 1.10 55.41 36.87 1.02 68.10 66.25 54.61 40.66 1.11 1.42 2.29 3.14 4.05 5.48 7.65 5.00 6.84 7.90 2.20 2.58 3.09 3.95 5.00 1.88 2.28 3.03 3.56 7.43 3.06 3.21 3.29 4.15 5.98 7.74 10.86 16.08 Improved P&R mode 1.42 1.92 2.62 3.64 5.23 7.83 4.94 6.59 8.07 2.08 2.76 3.46 4.24 5.11 1.89 2.74 3.85 5.39 7.59 3.12 3.26 3.35 4.17 6.44 9.08 12.32 16.38 Deviation P&R (%) mode 0.29 15.86 16.66 10.07 4.58 2.43 1.21 3.75 2.16 5.46 6.64 12.11 7.22 2.25 0.51 20.36 27.33 51.14 2.18 1.83 1.61 1.97 0.43 7.66 17.30 13.37 1.92 1.28 1.69 2.31 3.30 4.99 8.21 1.69 3.27 8.07 1.29 1.70 2.33 3.35 5.11 1.34 1.87 2.76 4.35 7.59 1.41 2.09 3.35 1.44 2.19 3.65 6.93 16.44 Deviation Exp. (%) relative viscosity 9.47 25.96 26.52 18.63 8.87 7.36 66.26 52.19 2.20 41.42 34.14 24.41 15.24 2.24 28.65 17.73 8.93 21.96 2.16 54.07 34.83 1.96 65.43 63.33 52.84 36.23 2.24 1.42 2.28 2.81 3.76 4.96 6.79 4.74 6.32 7.14 2.19 2.58 3.04 3.70 4.49 1.73 2.13 2.77 3.13 6.73 2.96 3.03 3.00 3.94 5.61 7.37 9.94 14.51 Shear rate 600 (s 1) D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122 Improved P&R mode 1.39 1.85 2.47 3.35 4.66 6.71 4.51 5.87 7.07 1.97 2.55 3.14 3.76 4.45 1.83 2.60 3.57 4.87 6.66 2.79 2.90 2.97 3.96 5.98 8.27 11.00 14.33 Deviation P&R (%) mode 1.58 18.79 11.91 10.81 5.99 1.23 4.95 7.16 1.01 10.20 0.96 3.41 1.63 1.06 5.89 22.19 28.75 55.50 0.95 5.68 4.07 0.92 0.66 6.62 12.28 10.63 1.24 1.27 1.65 2.22 3.09 4.55 7.17 1.65 3.07 7.07 1.27 1.64 2.19 3.05 4.45 1.32 1.82 2.61 3.99 6.66 1.37 1.96 2.97 1.42 2.14 3.49 6.41 14.37 Deviation (%) 10.46 27.64 21.04 17.69 8.28 5.56 65.26 51.40 0.97 42.34 36.34 27.72 17.72 1.06 23.49 14.59 5.82 27.59 0.97 53.81 35.35 0.92 63.91 61.89 52.64 35.49 0.96

3#

4#

5#

6#

7#

119

120

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122

the non-Newtonian emulsions in moderate and high volume fraction of dispersed phase. Deviation 100 prediction value experimental value = experimental value Average Deviations 100
n X i 1

jDeviationsj=n

In Table 3 and Fig. 2, the experimental relative viscosities of 2#7#(waxy oil) samples are presented

along with corresponding values predicted by P&R model and improved P&R model. In Table 3 and Fig. 2, the physical properties of water-in-crude oil emulsions are much different, the viscosities of pure oil (30) are from 46.3 mPa s to 137.6 mPa s; the apparent viscosities of emulsions are from 101.8 mPa s to 1288.8 mPa s and the relative viscosities of emulsions are from 1.42 to 19.15. Figs. 3 and 4 shows a comparison between experimental values and predicted values by P&R model and improved P&R model at different shear rate and water cut. The average relative deviation of P&R model is 27.81% but decrease to 8.9% when improved P&R model are applied.

Fig. 2. Experimental data for 2#7# samples compared to corresponding relative viscosities predicted by using P&R model and improved P&R model.

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122

121

It should be noted that water-in-crude oil emulsions are often Newtonian fluids at low water cut, but the exact value of at which non-Newtonian emulsions inverse to Newtonian emulsions cannot be predicted. Therefore one has to consider the whole range of water cut to be non-Newtonian fluids just as P&R model, although, the predicted results of the improved P&R model for non-Newtonian emulsions is very acceptable (the maximum deviation is less than 10%). So many factors may affect the formation of stable crude oilwater emulsions. Different oilwater system may reach different maximum water cut; even the same oilwater can reach different max water cut by different preparation conditions, these conditions includes system temperature, wet ability of vessel, the way of adding dispersion phase(mixed totally or adding water step by step), stirring speed and so on. Therefore, in petroleum engineering, the following methods are always accepted to determine the proper preparation conditions. For the first, the viscosity between the prepared emulsion and the field emulsion sample are compared; for the second, the size distributions of dispersion phase between the two systems are compared. Then the most resemble prepared condition is selected. As a result, the maximum water cut value of a kind of crude oil water system must be determined by certain preparation conditions, and the minimum water cut can be chosen by practical needs. Finally, it is recommended that the improved P&R model should not be applied for water cut very close to inverse point, because the rigid high dispersed phase fraction will cause some abnormal phenomena such as collision and distortion of the dispersed phase droplets, and that would make the rheological characterization of emulsions more complex. The viscosity prediction model for emulsions near the

Fig. 4. Comparison between the experimental data with the improved P&R model.

inverse point needs farther experimental and theoretical research. 6. Conclusions Water-in-light oil emulsions are often Newtonian fluids and they would show some non-Newtonian behaviors only close to inverse point. However, waterin-crude oil, especially water-in-heavy oil and water-inwaxy oil emulsions, show strong non-Newtonian behavior at lower water cut. P&R model takes account of the non-Newtonian behavior of emulsions, and the improved P&R model includes the characterization that the non-Newtonian behavior of water-in-crude oil emulsions changes with the volume fraction of dispersed phase farther. The non-Newtonian property of water-in-crude oil emulsion is related with water cut, and power function matches this relationship best. Comparison between experimental and predicted data argues that the improved P&R model can provide much more precision than P&R model. Acknowledgements Financial support from the National Nature Science fundamentals; the authors are grateful to Jilin oil company and Bohai oil company to provided the samples; and the experimental help from Zhao Yong and Guan Wei are also appreciated. References
Becher, P., 1965. Emulsions and Practice, 2nd ed. Reinhold Pub. Corp., New York. Brinkman, H., 1952. The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and solutions. J. Chem. Phys. 20 (4), 571584.

Fig. 3. Comparison between the experimental data with the P&R model.

122

D. Dan, G. Jing / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 113122 Pal, R., Rhodes, E., 1989. Viscosity/Concentration relationships for emulsions. J. Rheol. 33 (7), 10211045. Phan-Thien, N., Pham, D.C., 1997. Differential multiphase models for poly dispersed suspensions and particulate solids. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 72, 305318. Richardson, E.G., 1933. Uber die viskositat von emulsionen. KolloidZ. 65 (1), 3237. Rnningsen, H.P., 1995. Correlations for predicting viscosity of W/Oemulsions based on North Sea Crude oils. Proc. SPE Int. Symp. Oil Field Chem., Houston, TX, USA, p. 28968. Schramm, P., 1983. In: Becher, P. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Emulsion Technology. InMarel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp. 421422. Schramm, L.L., 1992. Emulsions fundamentals and applications in the petroleum industry. Advances in Applications in Petroleum Industry. In: Advances in Chemistry Series, vol. 231. American Chemical Society. Taylor, G., 1932. The viscosity of a fluid containing small drops of another fluid. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 138, 4248.

Broughton, G., Squires, L., 1938. The viscosity of oilwater emulsions. J. Phys. Chem. 42, 253263. Eilers, H., 1943. Die viskositatkonzentrationsabhangigkeit kolloider systeme in organischen losungsmitteln. Kolloid-Z. 102 (2), 154169. Einstein, A., 1906. Eine neue bestuimmung der molekulardimensionen. Ann. Phys. 9, 289306. Guerrero, A., Partal, P., Gallegos, C., 1998. Linear viscoelastic properties of sucrose ester stabilized oil-in-water emulsions. J. Rheol. 42, 13751388. Johnsen, E.E., Rnningsen, H.P., 2003. Viscosity of live water-incrude-oil emulsions: experimental work and validation of correlations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 38, 2336. Masalova, I., Malkin, A.Ya., Slatter, P., Wilson, K., 2003. The rheological characterization and pipeline flow of high concentration water-in-oil emulsions. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 112, 101114. Pal, R., 1998. A novel method to correlate emulsion viscosity data. Colloids Surf., A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 137, 275286. Pal, R., 2000. Viscosityconcentration equation for emulsions of nearly spherical drops. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 231, 168175.