Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192
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
3. Experimental section
2. Reservoir uids, viscosity standards and methods
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%.
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
100
od (cP)
10
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).
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).
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
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.
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
J.L. Mendoza de la Cruz et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 110 (2013) 184192
where
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
i1
i1
Acknowledgments
Appendix
191
1 n
n i 1 exp i
A4
A5
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
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.