Efficient Methods for Calculations
of Compressibility, Density, and
Viscosity of Natural Gases
A.M. ELSHARKAWY
Kuwait University
Abstract
This study presents two new methods for calculating the prop-
erties of natural gases. The first is an efficient empirical model to
calculate compressibility and density of natural gases containing
high amounts of heptane plus and non-hydrocarbon components.
The model is derived from 2,400 measurements of compress-
ibility and density of various gases presented in this study. Ac-
curacy of the model is compared to various equations of state
(EOS), corresponding state, and empirical methods. The study
shows that the new model is simpler and more efficient than
EOS. It eliminates the numerous computations involved in EOS
calculations. The new method also eliminates the characteriza-
tion of the heptane plus fraction and estimation of binary inter-
action parameters needed for EOS calculations. Experimentally
measured densities of several gases have been used to study the
validity of the proposed method. These measurements indicate
that the new method successfully captures the physical trend of
changing gas density as a function of pressure, temperature, and
composition.
The second method is a modification of the Lee-Gonzalez-
Eakin gas viscosity correlation. The new method accounts for
the presence of heptane plus, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon di-
oxide in natural gases. The proposed method is compared to
other EOS-based viscosity models, corresponding state methods,
and correlations. The comparison indicates the superiority of the
new method over other methods used to calculate the viscosity
of natural gases.
Introduction
The compressibility, density, and viscosity of natural gas are
necessary in most petroleum and natural gas engineering calcu-
lations. Some of these calculations are used for gas metering, gas
compression, design of processing units, and design of pipeline
and surface facilities. Properties of natural gas are also important
in the calculation of gas flow rate through reservoir rock, mate-
rial balance calculations, evaluation of gas reserves, and reservoir
simulations. Usually, the gas properties are measured in the labo-
ratory. Occasionally, experimental data is unavailable and estima-
tions from EOS or empirical correlations becomes a necessity.
In the past three decades, a number of sour natural gas and gas
condensates fields have been discovered around the world. Some
of these fields have been classified as heavy natural gas. For these
gases, the methods available in the literature for the calculation of
the properties of heavy gases such as condensates and sour gases
produce unsatisfactory results. These methods can be classified
into three groups(1). The first group uses gas composition or gas
gravity to calculate pseudo-critical properties of gases and predicts
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (“REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS” CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
June 2006, Volume 45, No. 6
gas properties from empirical correlations. In this group, gas den-
sity is often used to predict viscosity. Hence, the prediction of vis-
cosity is dependent on the choice of the method that is used to
estimate the gas density. The second group uses gas composition to
estimate gas properties via the method of corresponding states. The
third group, and the most recent one, is based on an equations of
state (EOS) approach. The last group has the advantage of using a
single equation to calculate k-values, compressibility, density, and
viscosity(2-4). It also secures stable convergence in the vicinity of
the critical point. In EOS-based viscosity models, the density cal-
culation is not required for viscosity.
Several attempts have been made to improve the accuracy of the
Peng-Robinson equation of state (PR-EOS) to predict phase equi-
libria of sour gases(5-8). Most of these methods have limited use, es-
pecially when dealing with sour heavy natural gases.
In this paper, we present efficient empirical models to calcu-
late the compressibility, density, and viscosity of sweet gases, sour
gases, and gas condensates. The new models are designed to be
simpler and more efficient than EOS. They eliminate the numerous
computations involved in equations of state calculations. These
models also eliminate the characterization of the heptane plus frac-
tion and estimation of BIN needed for EOS calculations. The new
methods account for the presence of heptanes plus, hydrogen sul-
fide, and carbon dioxide in natural gases.
Calculations of Volumetric Properties
In this section, the most widely used methods to calculate com-
pressibility factor and density of natural gas are presented.
Correlations
The standard method of calculating the compressibility factor
for natural gases is based on finding pseudo-critical properties of
the gases via mixing rules such as the Stewart-Burkhardt-Voo(9)
(SBV) mixing rule.
⎡ ⎤
2
( ) ( ) ( )
J = 1 / 3 ⎡⎣∑ yi Tc / Pc ⎤⎦ + 2 / 3 ⎢∑ yi Tc / Pc ( )
0.5
i ⎣ i ⎥⎦ ................................. (1)
⎡
( 0.5 ⎤
)
K = Σ⎣ yi Tc / Pc i ⎦ ............................................................................. (2)
Sutton(10) found that the SBV method results in a large deviation
in estimating the Z-factor for gases with a high content of C7+. He
proposed the following corrections to minimize this deviation:
⎡ ⎤
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
0.5
Fj = 1 / 3 ⎡⎣ y Tc / Pc ⎤⎦ + 2 / 3 ⎢ y Tc / Pc ⎥⎦ c7+2
c 7+ ⎣
................................. (3)
55
E j = 0.6081 Fj + 1.1325 Fj 2 − 14.004 Fj yc 7+ + 64.434 Fj yc 7+ 2 ............. (4) Ωb R Tc
b=
Pc
.......................................................................................... (17)

(
Ek Tc / Pc ) (0.3129 y
0.5
c 7+ c 7+
2
− 4.8156 yc 7+ + 27.3751 yc 7+ 3
) .................... (5) where Ωa and Ωb are constants having different values for dif-
ferent EOS. In this study, three of the most widely used EOSs are
considered. These are: Soave-Redlich-Kwong(16) (SRK-EOS);
J ′ = J − E j .............................................................................................. (6) Peng-Robinson(17) (PR-EOS); and, Patel-Teja(18) (PT-EOS). In the
current study, a volume shift is considered to improve the accuracy
of SRK-EOS and PR-EOS in predicting fluid density. The two-pa-
K ′ = K − Ek ............................................................................................ (7) rameter EOS predicts the same critical compressibility factor, Zc,
for all pure components, whereas Zc varies within a range of 0.2 to
0.3 for all hydrocarbon components. PT-EOS has the advantage of
The corrected pseudo-critical temperature and pressure are cal- predicting a variable Zc for all components. In a previous study(19),
culated from Equations (8) and (9) as follows: we investigated the effect of various schemes of BIN on the accu-
Tpc = K ′2 / J ′ .......................................................................................... (8) racy of equations of state in predicting properties of natural gases.
SRK-EOS, PR-EOS, and PT-EOS were used to calculate the com-
pressibility factor (Z-factor), gas density, and viscosity under var-
ious schemes of BIN. These schemes are:
Ppc = Tpc / J ′ ........................................................................................... (9)
1. Neglecting the BIN for all the components comprising the
natural gases;
If the natural gases are sweet, containing neither hydrogen sul- 2. Considering the BIN as a constant only for non-hydrocarbons
fide nor carbon dioxide, then the pseudo-critical temperature and with hydrocarbons, Elliot and Daubert(20);
pressure are used to calculate pseudo-reduced properties from 3. Considering the BIN as a function of temperature, pressure,
Equations (8) and (9). However, natural gases frequently contain and composition for hydrocarbons with non-hydrocarbons,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and/or nitrogen that affect the Varotsis et. al.(21); and,
accuracy of the value of the Z-factor calculated using Standing- 4. Considering a standard set of BIN for all components of
Katz charts. Wichert and Aziz(11) presented a method to correct the natural gas, Sakar et al.(22), Whitson and Torp(23), Nagy and
pseudo-critical properties of natural gases to the presence of these Shirkovski(24), Knapp and Doring(25), William and Teja(26),
non-hydrocarbon components. The correction factor is: and Pedersen et al.(27).
Our previous study(19) indicates that the BIN has little effect on
( )
∈= 120. A0.9 − A1.6 + 1.5 B0.5 − B 4 ( ) ..................................................... (10) an EOS’s prediction of all the volumetric and transport properties
of natural gases. It also indicates that the proper characterization
where the coefficient A is the sum of the mole fraction of H2S and of the heptane plus fraction is much more important than the se-
CO2 and B is the mole fraction of H2S in the gas mixture. The cor- lection of the BIN. Details of EOS calculations, mixing rules used,
rected pseudo-critical properties Ppc ′ and Tpc′ are: and various BIN schemes are explained elsewhere(19).

Tpc′ = Tpc − ∈ ..........................................................................................(11) Calculations of Natural Gases Viscosities

Although numerous viscosity correlations and semi-empirical
correlations are available in the literature, there have been many
Ppc′ = PpcTpc′ / ⎡⎣Tpc + B 1 − B ∈⎤⎦ ( )
.......................................................... (12) drawbacks in their application. Among these drawbacks are:
1. Limited range of application;
The pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature are expressed by 2. A smooth transition near critical point cannot be achieved;
the following relationship: and,
3. Calculations of viscosity involves density, hence the accu-
Ppr = P / Ppc .......................................................................................... (13) racy of viscosity calculations are dependent on the accuracy
of density estimation.
Guo et al.(3) presented two viscosity models based on PR-EOS
Tpr = T / Tpc .......................................................................................... (14)
and PT-EOS. They found that their EOS-based viscosity model is
capable of satisfactorily describing pure component hydrocarbon
viscosity but poorly predicts viscosity of hydrocarbon mixtures.
EOS Calculations of Volumetric Properties Later, Guo et al.(4) modified the PR-EOS-based viscosity model
to predict the viscosity behaviour of hydrocarbon mixtures. They
Several forms of EOS have been presented to the petroleum tested their model for predicting viscosity of sweet and light gases.
industry to calculate hydrocarbon reservoir fluid properties(12-15). Therefore, it is important to study the capability of the EOS-based
These EOS can be written in general form as: viscosity models to predict viscosity of sour gases, rich conden-
RT a sates, and near-critical gas condensates. In both studies, Guo et al.
P= −
v − b v 2 + uv − w2 ........................................................................ (15) ignored the effect of the BIN on the prediction of viscosity. When
calculating properties of reservoir fluids, the heptane plus fraction
In the above equation, P is the pressure, R is the gas constant, is usually divided into the number of pseudo-components to im-
T is the absolute temperature, v is the molar volume, and u and w prove the accuracy of the calculations. Guo et al.(4) reported that
are constants. The parameters a and b are constants characterizing the calculated viscosity from their model is not sensitive to the
the molecular properties of the individual component. Parameter a split of C7+ into sub-fractions, and treated the heptane plus (C7+) as
is a measure of the intermolecular attraction and b represents the a single pseudo-component. In the current study, the heptane plus
molecular size. In two-parameter EOS, u and w are related to b, fraction is not split into sub-fractions such that the proposed model
whereas in a three-parameter EOS, u and w are related to a third can be compared with other empirical correlations. In this study,
parameter c. The two-parameter EOS is the most popular one, the following methods are considered for viscosity calculations:
where a and b are expressed as a function of critical properties as: 1. Guo et al.(3, 4);
Ω a R 2Tc 2 2. Carr-Kobayashi-Burrows(28) as modified by Dempsey(29)
a= (CKB-D);
Pc
......................................................................................... (16) 3. Lee-Gonzalez-Eakin(30) (LGE);
56 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 4. Dean-Stiel(31) (DS); where β0 = -0.7765003, β1 =1.0695317, β2 = 0.9850308, β3 =
5. Lucas(32); 0.8617653, β4 =1.0127054, and β5 = 0.4014645.
6. Lohrenz et al.(33); and, In these mixing parameters (Jinf and Kinf), the gas is divided into
7. Pedersen et al.(34). three parts. The first part contains non-hydrocarbons: hydrogen sul-
fide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. The second part comprises the
pure hydrocarbons from methane to hexane whose critical proper-
Work Plan ties are well known. The last part contains the heptane plus fraction
The main objective of this study is to present simple and effi- whose molecular weight is experimentally measured. Thus, the
cient methods to calculate compressibility factor, density, and vis- new method eliminates the need for estimating the critical proper-
cosity of natural gases containing high amounts of heptane plus, ties of the heptane plus fraction from the other correlations.
hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide. Results of the new proposed
methods are compared to EOSs, different correlations, and corre-
sponding state. Calculations of EOS constants a, b, and c require Procedure
critical properties of all components. Critical pressure (Pc), critical Knowing the gas composition and properties of the heptane plus
temperature (Tc), critical compressibility factor (Zc), and acentric fraction, the parameters Jinf and Kinf are calculated according to
factor (ω) for pure components are well known. The critical prop- Equations (18) and (19). The pseudo-critical temperature (Tpc) and
erties and acentric factor for the heptane plus fraction are estimated pseudo-critical pressure (Ppc) are calculated from Equations (20)
from correlations. In this study, the Whitson(42) correlation is used and (21).
to estimate the boiling point and the Kesler-Lee(35) correlation is
used to estimate critical pressure and temperature knowing the mo- Tpc = K inf 2 / J ....................................................................................... (20)
lecular weight and the specific gravity of the heptane plus frac-
tion. The acentric factor of the heptane plus fraction is calculated
from the Edminster(36) correlation. Critical compressibility factor
(Zc) of the heptane plus fraction is calculated from the Pitzer(37) Ppc = Tpc / J inf ....................................................................................... (21)
correlation.
The pseudo-reduced temperature (Tpr) and pseudo-reduced pres-
sure (Ppr) are calculated from Equations (22) and (23).
PVT Data
In order to perform the work plan explained in this study, a large Ppr = P / Ppc .......................................................................................... (22)
number of data for a variety of natural gases have been used. These
data contain properties of 2,400 gases. Some of these properties
are experimentally measured and others have been collected from Tpr = T / Tpc .......................................................................................... (23)
various resources(38-59). The entire data cover measurements of gas
compressibility factor (Z-factor), gas density, and gas viscosity
over a pressure range from 0.689 to 82.7 mPa (100 to 12,000 psia) The gas compressibility factors are calculated from D-A equa-
and a temperature range of 4 to 164° C (40 to 327° F). The gases tions, that fit the Standing-Katz compressibility chart according to
have molecular weights ranging from 16.4 to 55 (gas gravity from Equation (24).
0.566 to 1.895).
⎡ C C C C ⎤ ⎡ C C ⎤
Z = ⎢C1 + 2 + 33 + 44 + 55 ⎥ ρ r + ⎢C6 + 7 + 28 ⎥ ρ r2 −
New Methods for Compressibility Factor ⎢⎣ Tpr Tpr Tpr Tpr ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Tpr Tpr ⎥⎦
and Density Calculations ⎡C C ⎤ ρ 2

The objective of this work is to find a simple method to calcu- ⎢⎣ Tpr Tpr ⎥⎦
( Tpr
)
C9 ⎢ 7 + 28 ⎥ ρ r5 + C10 1 + C11ρ r2 3r EXP ⎡⎣-C11ρ r2 ⎤⎦ +1
...................... (24)
late the gas compressibility factor with an accuracy comparable
with EOS and without the need of characterizing the heptane plus
fraction or estimation of the BIN necessary for EOS calculations. where C 1 = 0.3265, C 2 = -1.0700, C 3 = -0.5339, C 4 = 0.01569, C 5
Our previous studies(53, 54) have shown that the accuracy of calcu- = -0.05165, C6 = 0.5475, C7 = -0.7361, C8 = 0.1844, C 9 = 0.1056,
lating the compressibility factor depends on the method of char- C 10 = 0.6134, and C11 = 0.7210.
acterizing the heptane plus fraction. These studies also indicated The reduced gas density (ρr) is calculated from:
that the Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem(58) (D-A) representation of
the Standing-Katz(59) compressibility factor chart produces accu- (
ρ r = 0.27 Ppr / Z Tpr ) ........................................................................... (25)
rate compressibility data. Therefore, the experimental and litera-
ture data available to this study were used with D-A equations to
find the pseudo-critical temperatures and pseudo-critical pressures
which will reproduce the experimentally measured compress-
ibility factors. These pseudo-critical values are used to develop a
New Model for Viscosity Calculations
simple mixing rule by multiple regression analysis. The outcomes Gas viscosities are rarely measured because most laboratories
are six constant mixing parameters (Jinf and Kinf) that involve only do not have the required equipment for the measurements; thus,
the molar fraction of gas (yi), critical temperature (Tc), and critical the prediction of gas viscosity is particularly important. Our pre-
pressure (Pc) of pure components. vious studies(54, 55), as well as a study by McCain(43), indicated that
gas viscosity correlations have errors in estimated viscosity in the
( ) (
J inf = α0 + ⎡⎣α1 yiTc / Pc ⎤⎦ + ⎡⎣α 2 yiTc / Pc ⎤⎦ + ⎡⎣α3 yiTc / Pc ⎤⎦ +
H2 S CO2 N2
) ( ) order of 20% or more for heavy gases. Using viscosity measure-
α ⎡⎣Σy (T / P )⎤⎦ α5 ( yi Mw) ments discussed in this study, the viscosity correlations presented
4 i c c C 1−C 6+ C 7+ ... (18) by Lee-Gonzalez-Eakin (LGE)(30) were modified to account for the
where α0 = 0.036983, α1 =1.043902, α2 = 0.894942, α3 = 0.792231, presence of the heptane plus fraction and non-hydrocarbons. The
α4 = 0.882295, and α5 = 0.018637. LGE correlation was chosen for modification because of its sim-
And plicity and because most PVT laboratories are using it to report gas
viscosities. The original LEG gas viscosity correlation has the fol-
( )
K inf = β0 + ⎡⎣β1 yiTc / Pc 0.5 ⎤⎦ + ⎡⎣β2 yiTc / Pc 0.5 ⎤⎦ +
H2 S CO2
( ) lowing equations:
(
⎡β y T / P
⎣ 3 i c c
0.5
)⎤⎦ N2
(
+ ⎡⎣β4 Σyi Tc / Pc 0.5
)⎤⎦ C 1−C 6
(
+ ⎡⎣β5 yi Mw ⎤⎦ )
C 7+ ................ (19)
(
μ g = D1 × 10−4 exp D2 ρ g D 3 ) .................................................................. (26)
June 2006, Volume 45, No. 6 57
where The quality of the experimental data available to this study
was checked for reliability. Only one measurement of the 2,400
(
D1 = 9.379 + 0.01607 M g T ) 1.5
(
/ 209.2 + 19.26 M g + T ) ....................... (27) measurements reported in this study has experimental error. For
this particular measurement, all the correlations and EOSs es-
( )
D2 = 3.448 + 986.4 / T + 0.01009 M g
.................................................. (28)
timated its density with errors exceeding 20%. Therefore, this
measurement was deleted from the data bank. Figure 1 shows
the accuracy of the new method in predicting the density of the
D3 = 2.447 − 0.224 A2 2,400 measurements as compared to other methods discussed in
........................................................................... (29)
this study. The new method has successfully predicted 85% of the
and where Mg is the gas molecular weight, ρg is the gas density 2,400 measurements with an AAE of less than 2% and 95% of
(g/cc), and T is the temperature in οR. The proposed modifications the data with an AAE of less than 3%. Only 1% of the 2,400 den-
[Equations (30) through (32)] result in correcting the original cor- sity measurements were predicted with an AAE in the order of 5
relation to account for the presence of high content of the heptane to 10% by the new method. VPT-EOS, the secondmost accurate
plus fraction, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide in natural gases. method, predicted 70% of the density measurements with an AAE
These corrections are calculated by the following equations: of less than 2%, and 85% of the measurements with an AAE of less
than 85%. Thus, the new method shows its superiority over all the
(
Δμ g = y H S −3.2268 × 10−3 log γ g + 2.1479 × 10−3
2
) ................................ (30) methods considered in this study.

(
Δμ g = yCO 6.4366 × 10−3 log γ g + 6.7255 × 10−3
2
) .................................. (31) Validity of the New Method for Calculating
(
Δμ g = yC 7+ −3.2875 × 10−1 log γ g + 1.2885 × 10−1 ) ................................. (32)
where y is the mole fraction of the component and γg is the gas
gravity.
Results and Discussion
First, the accuracy of the proposed methods compared to EOS
and various correlations is studied. Second, the validity of the
new methods in capturing the physical trend of changing exper-
imentally measured compressibility and density as a function of
pressure, temperature, and composition is examined. Finally, the
accuracy and performance of the proposed modifications to LEG’s
correlation is compared to the EOS-based viscosity model, cor-
responding state model, and other correlations. The new method
for calculating pseudo-critical properties of natural gases [Equa-
tions (18) and (19)] is simpler than previously published ones. It
eliminates the need for estimating the critical pressure and temper-
ature of the heptane plus fraction. The new method also eliminates
corrections needed for the presence of heptane plus [Equations (3)
through (9)] and corrections needed for the presence of non-hydro-
carbon components [Equations (10) through (12)].
Accuracy of the New Method for Calculating
Gas Compressibility Factor and Density
Table 1 reports a comparison between the accuracy of the var-
ious methods considered in this study. It is clear from Table 1 that
the new method presented in this study for calculating gas com-
pressibility and density has the smallest average relative errors
(ARE), the smallest average absolute errors (AAE), the smallest
standard deviations (SD), and the highest coefficient of correla-
tions (COC) for all types of natural gases considered. Table 1 also
indicates that the new method shows superiority over all the corre-
Gas Compressibility and Density
The ability of the new method to capture the physical trend of
changing the compressibility factor as a function of changing pres-
sure, temperature, and composition has been investigated for four
gases. These gases were chosen as they are unusual in their com-
positions. These include a very rich gas condensate, a highly sour
gas, a CO2-rich gas, and a very light gas. Figures 2 through 5 show
a comparison between the measured and predicted Z-factor by
all methods considered in this study for the four gases. The four
cases indicate that the new method captures the physical trend of
changing the measured Z-factor as a function of changing pressure,
temperature, and composition.
Accuracy of the Proposed Method for
Calculating Viscosity of Natural Gases
Table 2 reports the accuracy of the new method compared to the
different methods considered in this study. The new method has
the best accuracy among all considered methods. In addition to its
accuracy, the new viscosity model is much simpler than the EOS-
based viscosity model proposed by Guo et al(3, 4).
Figure 6 shows a comparison between the original and pro-
posed modifications of the LEG correlations (new method). The
new method accounts for the presence of a heptane plus fraction,
hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide that result in reducing the
error in estimated viscosity by the new method. Figure 7 shows a
comparison of the accuracy of the proposed viscosity method to the
others for estimating the viscosities available in the data bank. This
figure indicates that in terms of highest accuracy, they are ranked
in the following order: the current study, Guo et al., Lohrenz, LEG,
Dean-Stiel, and CK-D.
1.0
0.9
Cumulative Frequency (%)

lations and EOSs considered in this study.

0.8

TABLE 1: Comparison between the accuracy of 0.7

different methods in predicting the density of various 0.6
types of natural gases. 0.5
0.4 This study
ARE AAE SD COC SRK-EOS
This study -0.28 1.16 1.68 99.25 0.3
VPT-EOS
Piper et al. -0.29 1.18 1.70 99.23 0.2 Sutton
SRK-EOS -1.01 1.68 2.28 98.50 0.1 PR-EOS
PR-EOS 2.54 2.90 3.76 96.18
0.0
VPT-EOS -0.60 1.60 2.12 98.73 0 1 2 3 4 5

ARE: Average relative error Average Absolute Deviation

AAE: Average absolute error
SD: Standard deviation FIGURE 1: Accuracy of various methods in calculating gases
COC: Coefficient of correlation density.

58 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 TABLE 2: The accuracy of various methods in
1.30 predicting viscosity of different types of natural gases.
Experimental
1.25
This study ARD AAD SD COC
1.20 Sutton This study -1.9 8.9 16.8 66.9
SRK-EOS Guo et al. -6.8 9.3 13.6 83.0
Z-factor
1.15
1.10 Lacus 9.1 11.5 14.7 83.0
LEG 7.5 13.9 19.2 65.1
1.05
Dean-Stiel 12.1 13.1 16.5 77.9
1.00 CKB-D 15.2 16.2 19.6 66.5
0.95
0.90 ARE: Average relative error
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 AAE: Average absolute error
Pressure (psi) SD: Standard deviation
COC: Coefficient of correlation

FIGURE 2: Measured and predicted compressibility factor for rich

60
gas condensate (sample #39). This study

Error % in Estimated Viscosity

Lee's correlation
50

40
0.95
0.93 Experimental
This study 30
0.91 PT-EOS
0.89 SRK-EOS
Z-factor

0.87 20
0.85
0.83 10
0.81
0.79 0
0.77 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
0.75
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
Gas Gravity
FIGURE 6: Comparison between Lee’s original correlation and the
Pressure (psi)
modification proposed in this study.

FIGURE 3: Measured and predicted compressibility factor for

highly sour gas condensate (sample #57). 1.00
Cumulative Frequency %

0.80

0.95
Experimental 0.60
This study
0.90 Sutton 1-This study
SRK-EOS
0.40 2-Guo et al.
Z-factor

3-Lohrenz
0.85
4-Lee
0.20 5-Dean-Stiel
0.80 6-CKB-D

0.00
0.75 0 10 20 30 40 50

Average Absolute Deviation

0.70
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 in Estimated Viscosity
Pressure (psi) FIGURE 7: Accuracy of various methods for estimating gas
viscosity.
FIGURE 4: Measured and predicted compressibility factor or CO2
rich gas (sample #124).
Conclusions
Two efficient models have been presented in the current study
1.06 for the calculation of compressibility factor and density, and vis-
Experimental
1.04 This study cosity of natural gases when experimental measurements are not
1.02
PT-EOS
SRK-EOS
available. These models were derived from 2,400 experimental
measurements of gas properties during differential depletion and
Z-factor

1.00
0.98
constant volume expansion tests. The accuracy of the proposed gas
0.96
compressibility and density model to predict the properties of var-
ious types of natural gases has been compared to various equations
0.94
of state, corresponding state, and other correlations. The compar-
0.92
ison indicates superiority of the proposed model over the other
0.90
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
methods. The model is simpler and more efficient than published
correlations and equations of state. When the model is compared to
Pressure (psi) other published correlations, it has the advantage of using a simple
mixing rule which eliminates the need for estimating the critical
FIGURE 5: Measured and predicted compressibility factor for very properties of the heptane plus fraction, eliminates the need to cor-
lean gas (sample #125).
rect for the presence of the heptane plus faction, and eliminates the
June 2006, Volume 45, No. 6 59
need to correct for the presence of non-hydrocarbon components. COC = coefficient of correlation
When the model is compared to equations of state, it has the ad- D-A = Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem
vantage of eliminating the numerous computational work involved DS = Dan-Stiel
in EOS calculations, eliminating the characterization of the plus EOS = equation of state
fraction, and estimation of the binary interaction parameter which LGE = Lee-Gonzalez-Eakin
are necessary for EOS calculations. The validity of the model, to PR = Peng-Robinson
capture the physical trend of changing gas density as a function of PT = Patel-Teja
pressure, temperature, and composition, has been verified by pre- SD = standard deviation
dicting the properties of several gases. SRK = Soave-Redlich-Kwong
This study also presents a modification to the Lee-Gonzalez-
Eakin correlation. This modification accounts for the errors in
calculating viscosity of gases containing non-hydrocarbon com- REFERENCES
ponents and the heptane plus fraction. The proposed modification 1. ERDOGMUS, M., ADEWUMI, M.A., IBRAHEEM, S.O., Viscosity
results in an improvement in accuracy compared to the original Prediction of Natural Gases; paper 39219, presented at the SPE
correlation. Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KY, October 22 – 24, 1997.
2. LAWAL, A.S., Prediction of Vapour and Liquid Viscosities From the
Lawal-Lake-Silberberg Equation of State; paper 14926, presented at
Nomenclature the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 20 –
∈ = Wichert and Aziz pseudo-critical temperature adjust- 23, 1986.
ment parameter 3. GUO, X.Q., WANG, L.S., RONG, S.X., and GUO, T.M., Viscosity
Model Based on Equation of State for Hydrocarbon Liquids and
a = EOS constant Gases; Fluid Phase Equilibria, Vol. 139, No. 1-2, pp. 405-421, De-
b = EOS constant cember 1997.
D = constant for modified LGE equation 4. GUO, X.Q., SUN, C.Y., RONG, S.X., CHEN, G.J., and GUO, T.M.,
α, β, C = constants for D-A equations Equation of State Analog Correlations for the Viscosity and Thermal
A = mole fraction (CO2 + H2S) Conductivity of Hydrocarbons and Reservoir Fluids; Journal of Pe-
B = mole fraction H2S troleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 15-27, June
Ej = Sutton SBV parameter, oR/psia 2001.
Ek = Sutton SBV parameter, oR/psia0.5 5. LI, Q. and GUO, T.M., A Study on the Supercompressibility and
Compressibility Factors of Natural Gas Mixtures; Journal of Petro-
Fj = Sutton adjustment parameter leum Science and Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 235-247, 1991.
J = SBV parameter, oR/psia 6. MOHSEN-NIA, M., MODDARESS, H., and MANSOORI, G.A.,
J′ = Sutton parameter, oR/psia Sour Natural Gas and Liquid Equation of State; paper 26906, pre-
Jinf = inferred value of J parameter, oR/psia sented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburg, PA, November
K = SBV parameter, oR/psia0.5 2 – 4, 1993.
K′ = Sutton parameter, oR/psia0.5 7. HURON, M.J., DUFOUR, G.N., and VIDAL, J., Vapour-Liquid
Kinf = inferred value of K parameter, oR/psia0.5 Equilibrium and Critical Locus Curve Calculations With the Soave
Equation for Hydrocarbon Systems With Carbon Dioxide and Hy-
Mg = molecular weight of gas
drogen Sulfide; Fluid Phase Equilibria, Vol. 1, pp. 247-265, 1978.
MwC7+ = molar weight of heptane plus fraction 8. EVELEIN, K.A. and MOORE, G.R., Prediction of Phase Equilibria
P = pressure in Sour Natural Gas Systems Using the Soave-Redlich-Kwong Equa-
Pc = critical pressure tion of State; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design
Ppc = pseudo-critical pressure, psia and Development, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 618-624, 1979.
Ppc′ = corrected pseudo-critical pressure, psia 9. STEWART, W.F., BURKHARDT, S.F., and VOO, D., Prediction
Ppr = pseudo-reduced pressure of Pseudocritical Parameters for Mixtures; paper presented at the
Pr = reduced pressure AIChE Meeting, Kansas City, MO, May 18, 1959.
10. SUTTON, R.P., Compressibility Factors for High-Molecular-Weight
R = universal gas constant
Reservoir Gases; paper 14265, presented at the SPE Annual Tech-
T = absolute temperature nical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, September 22 – 26,
Tc = critical temperature 1985.
Tpc = pseudo-critical temperature 11. WICHERT, E. and AZIZ, K., Calculate Z’s for Sour Gases; Hydro-
Tpc′ = corrected pseudo-critical temperature carbon Processing, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 119-122, 1972.
Tpr = pseudo-reduced temperature 12. AHMED, T.H., Comparative Study of Eight Equations of State for
Tr = reduced temperature Predicting Hydrocarbon Volumetric Phase Behaviour; SPE Reservoir
u = EOS constant Engineering, pp. 337-348, February 1988.
v = molar volume 13. AHMED, T., A Practical Equation of State; SPE Reservoir Engi-
neering, pp. 137-146, February 1991.
w = EOS constant 14. DANESH, A., PVT and Phase Behaviour of Petroleum Reservoir
yC7+ = mole fraction of heptane plus fraction Fluids; Elsevier, London, UK, p. 400, 1998.
yi = mole fraction of component, “i” 15. WHITSON, C.H., and BRULE, M.R., Phase Behaviour; SPE Mono-
Z = gas compressibility factor (Z-factor) graph Series, Volume 20, Richardson, TX, 2000.
Zc = critical compressibility factor (Z-factor) 16. SOAVE, G., Equilibrium Constants From a Modified Redlich-Kwong
Equation of State; Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 27, pp. 1197-
Greek 1203, 1972.
17. PENG, D.Y. and ROBINSON, D.B., A New Two Constants Equation
Δμg = viscosity correction factor of State; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, Vol.
μg = gas viscosity 15, No. 1, pp. 59-64, 1976.
γg = gas specific gravity, (air =1) 18. PATEL, N.C. and TEJA, A.S., A New Equation of State for Fluids and
ρr = reduced gas density Fluid Mixtures; Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp.
ρr = gas density 463-473, 1982.
19. ELSHARKAWY, A.M., Predicting Volumetric and Transport Proper-
Ωa = EOS constant ties of Sour Gases and Gas Condensates Using EOSs, Corresponding
Ωb = EOS constant State Models, and Empirical Correlations; Petroleum Science and
Technology, Vol. 21, No. 11-12, pp. 1759-1787, 2003.
Abbreviations 20. ELLIOT, J. and DAUBERT, T., Revised Procedure for Phase Equi-
librium Calculations With Soave Equation of State; Industrial and
AAE = average absolute error Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development, Vol. 23,
ARE = average relative error pp. 743-748, 1985.
BIN = binary interaction number 21. VAROTSIS, N., STEWART, G., TODD, A.C., and CLANCY, M.,
CKB = Carr-Kobayashi-Burrows Phase Behaviour of Systems Comprising North Sea Reservoir Fluids
60 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 and Injection Gases; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 1221-
1233, November 1986.
22. SAKAR, R., DANESH, A.S., and TODD, A.C., Phase Behaviour
Modelling of Gas-Condensate Fluids Using an Equation of State;
paper 22714, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas TX, October 6 – 9, 1991.
23. WHITSON, C.H. and TORP, S.B., Evaluating Constant-Volume De-
pletion Data; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 610-620, March
1983.
24. NAGY, Z. and SHIRKOVSKIY, A., Mathematical Simulation of Nat-
ural Gas Condensation Processes Using the Peng-Robinson Equation
of State; paper 10982, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, September 26 – 29, 1982.
25. KNAPP, H., DORING, R., OELIRICH, L., PLOCKER, U., and
PRAUSNITZ, J.M., Vapour-Liquid Equilibria for Mixtures of Low
Boiling Substances, Vol. VI; DECHEMA, Chemistry Data Series,
Germany, 1982.
26. WILLMAN, B.T. and TEJA, A.S., Continuous Thermodynamics of
Phase Equilibria Using Multi-Variate Function and an Equation of
State; American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, Vol. 32, No.
12, pp. 2067-2078, 1986.
27. PEDERSEN, K.S., THOMASSEN, P., and FREDENSLUND, A.,
Characterization of Gas Condensate Mixtures; C7+ Fraction Char-
acterization, L.G. Chorn and G.A. Mansoori (ed.), Advances in
Thermodynamics, 1; Taylor & Francis, New York, 1989.
28. CARR, N.L., KOBAYASHI, R., and BURROWS, D.B., Viscosity of
Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure; American Institute of Mechan-
ical Engineers, Trans., Vol. 201, pp. 264-272, 1954.
29. DEMPSEY, J.R., Computer Routine Treats Gas Viscosity as a Vari-
able; Oil and Gas Journal, p. 141, August 16, 1965.
30. LEE, A.L., GONZALEZ, M.H., and EAKIN, B.E., The Viscosity of
Natural Gases; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 997-1000, Au-
gust 1966.
31. DEAN, D.E. and STIEL, L.I., The Viscosity of Nonpolar Gas Mix-
tures At Moderate and High Pressures; American Institute of Chemical
Engineers Journal, Vol. 11, p. 526, 1965.
32. LUCAS, K., Gas Viscosity Correlation; Chemie Ingenieur Technik,
Vol. 53, pp. 959, 1981.
33. LOHRENZ, J., BRAY, B.G., and CLARK, C.R., Calculating Vis-
cosities of Reservoir Fluids From Their Compositions; Journal of
Petroleum Technology, pp. 1171-1176, October 1964.
34. PEDERSEN, K.S., FREDENSLUND, A., and THOMASSEN, P.,
Properties of Oils and Natural Gases; Volume 5 in Contributions in
Petroleum Geology and Engineering, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, TX, 1989.
35. KESLER, M.G. and LEE, B.I., Improved Prediction of Enthalpy of
Fractions; Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 55, pp. 153-158, March
1976.
36. EDMINSTER, W.C., Applied Hydrocarbon Thermodynamics, Part 4:
Compressibility Factors and Equations of State; Petroleum Refiner,
Vol. 37, pp, 173-179, April 1958.
37. PITZER, K.S., The Volumetric and Thermodynamic Properties of
Fluids. I. Theoretical Basis and Virial Coefficients; Journal of the
American Chemical Society, Vol. 77, No. 13, pp. 3427-3432, July
1955.
38. COATS, K.H. and SMART, G.T., Application of a Regression-Based
EOS PVT Program to Laboratory Data; SPE Reservoir Engineering,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 277-299, May 1986.
39. DROHM, J.K., GOLDTHORPE, W.H., and TRENGROVE, R., En-
hancing the Evaluation of PVT Data; paper 17685, presented at the
Offshore South East Asia Show, Singapore, February 2 – 5, 1988.
40. DROHM, J.K., TRENGROVE, R.D., and GOLDTHORPE, W.H.,
On the Quality of Data From Standard Gas-Condensate PVT Ex-
periments; paper 17768, presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Dallas, TX, June 13 – 15, 1988.
41. FIROOZABADI, A., HEKIM, Y., and KATZ, D.L., Reservoir De-
pletion Calculations for Gas Condensate Using Extended Analysis in
the Peng-Robinson Equation of State; Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 56, pp. 610-615, 1978.
42. WHITSON, C.H., Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus Fractions; SPE
Journal, pp. 683-694, August 1983.
43. MCCAIN, JR., W.D., The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, 2nd Edi-
tion; PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK, 1990.
44. KENYON, D. and BEHIE, G.A., Third SPE Comparative Solution
Project: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs; Journal
of Petroleum Technology, pp. 981-997, August 1987.
45. AL-MAHROOS, F.M. and TJOA, G.H., Analysis and Phase Behav-
iour of Khuff Gas System in Bahrain Field; paper 15766, presented
at the Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, March 7 – 10, 1987.
46. ELSHARKAWY, A.M. and FODA, S.G., EOS Simulation and
GRNN Modelling of the Constant Volume Depletion Behaviour of
Gas Condensate Reservoirs; Energy & Fuels, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 353-
364, 1998.
June 2006, Volume 45, No. 6
47. LAWAL, A.S., VAN DERLAAN, E.T., and THAMBYNAYAGAM,
R.K.M., Four-Parameter Modification of the Lawal-Lake-Silberberg
Equation of State for Calculating Gas-Condensate Phase Equilibria;
paper 14269, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, September 22 – 26, 1985.
48. SIMON, R., and BRIGGS, J.E., Application of Benedict-Webb-
Rubin Equation of State to Hydrogen Sulfide Mixtures; American
Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 548-550,
July 1964.
49. ROBINSON, JR., R.L. and JACOBY, R.H., Better Compressibility
Factors; Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 141-145, April
1965.
50. BUXTON, T.S. and CAMPBELL, J.M., Compressibility Factors for
Lean Natural Gas-Carbon Dioxide Mixtures at High Pressures; SPE
Journal, pp. 80-86, March 1967.
51. MCLEOD, W.R., Application of Molecular Refraction to the Prin-
ciple of Corresponding States; Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oklahoma,
OK, 1968.
52. WICHERT, E., Compressibility of Sour Natural Gases; M.Sc. Thesis,
University of Calgary, AB, 1970.
53. PIPER, L.D., MCCAIN, JR., W.D., and CORREDOR, J.H, Com-
pressibility Factors for Naturally Occurring Petroleum Gases; paper
26668, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Houston, TX, October 3 – 6, 1993.
54. ELSHARKAWY, A.M., HASHEM, Y.S.K.S., and ALIKHAN, A.A.,
Compressibility Factors for Gas Condensates; Energy and Fuels, Vol.
15, No. 4, pp. 807-816, 2001.
55. ELSHARKAWY, A.M. and ELKAMEL, A., The Accuracy of Pre-
dicting Compressibility Factor for Sour Natural Gases; Petroleum
Science and Technology, Vol. 19, No. 5-6, pp. 711-731, 2001.
56. ELSHARKAWY, A.M., Predicting the Dew Point Pressure for Gas
Condensate Reservoirs: Empirical Models and Equations of State;
Fluid Phase Equilibria, Vol. 193, No. 1, pp. 147-165, January 2002.
57. ELSHARKAWY, A.M., An Empirical Model for Estimating the Sat-
uration Pressures of Crude Oils; Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 57-77, May 2003.
58. DRANCHUK, P.M. and ABOU-KASSEM, J.H., Calculation of
Z Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State; Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 34-36, July –
September 1975.
59. STANDING, M.B. and KATZ, D.L., Density of Natural Gases; Trans.
American Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 146, pp. 140-149,
1942.
Provenance—Original Petroleum Society manuscript, Efficient Methods
for Calculations of Compressiblity, Density, and Viscosity of Natural
Gases (2004-298), first presented at the 5th Canadian International Petro-
leum Conference (the 55th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society), June 8 - 10, 2004, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for re-
view January 13, 2004; editorial comments sent to the author(s) January 24,
2006; revised manuscript received February 13, 2006; paper approved for
pre-press February 13, 2006; final approval May 18, 2006.
Author’s Biography
Adel Elsharkawy is a professor of petro-
leum engineering at Kuwait University.
He is the co-founder of the petroleum en-
gineering program and chairman of the de-
partment (2002 – 2004). Dr. Elsharkawy is
a visiting professor in the Chemical and Pe-
troleum Engineering Department at the Uni-
versity of Calgary (2005). He has 28 years
of petroleum engineering experience in var-
ious positions. Professor Elsharkawy is an
author or co-author of many published pa-
pers in international journals and technical papers in various sub-
jects including EOR, fluid phase behaviour, reservoir simulation,
wax, and asphaltene. He holds B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the
Suez Canal University, Egypt, and a Ph.D. degree from the Colo-
rado School of Mines, USA, all in petroleum engineering. He is a
member of the JCPT Editorial Review Board and EOR issue coor-
dinator, a member of the SPE Formation Evaluation Award Com-
mittee (2005 – 2007), and a member of the jury and/or organizing
committee for several international conferences including KIPCE
(2002 and 2005), INGEPET (2002 and 2005), and IPTC (2005).
He is a registered professional engineer in Alberta (APEGGA), and
is a member of the Petroleum Society, SPE, and AIChE.
61