Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Charleston, West Virginia, 2022 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Accurate prediction of thermophysical properties of gas-
condensate systems is very important for optimum design and
operation of most equipment involved in production,
transportation, and processing of gas-condensate systems. The
need for accurate prediction methods for these properties is
inevitable because it is almost impossible to obtain
thermophysical property data for every fluid that would be
encountered. In addition, obtaining all of these properties via
experimental procedures is not only time-consuming but also
extremely expensive. Viscosity and thermal conductivity are
such properties. In this study, a new technique using Enskog
dense-gas theory coupled with an equation of state is
developed to predict viscosity and thermal conductivity of
gas-condensate systems. Ten different equations of state are
used and extensive comparisons with experimental data are
made over wide temperature and pressure ranges both for pure
components and mixtures. The comparison with experimental
data is good for both viscosity and thermal conductivity.
Introduction
Accurate prediction of transport properties, such as viscosity
and thermal conductivity are required in engineering design
for production, fluid transportation, and processing. Indeed, it
has been shown that relatively small improvements in the
accuracy of such data can lead to improved design that result
in substantial savings in the cost of manufacturing and
operating chemical plant equipment
1
.
Erdogmus and Adewumi
2
has shown that Enskog theory
coupled with an Equation of State (EOS) can be used to
predict viscosity of natural gas sytems. In their study, which
appeared to be the first in using this approach, was limited to
predicting viscosity of natural gas systems. Gong et. al
3
, later
showed that the method can also be used to predict thermal
conductivity of dense gas mixtures. In this study we use the
proposed method to predict both viscosity and thermal
conductivity of not only natural gas systems but also for liquid
hydrocarbon mixtures. The systems studied are presented in
Table 1.
Enskog Theory Coupled with an Equations-of-State
According to Enskog
4
theory, the viscosity coefficient, and
thermal conductivity for rigid spheres can be represented by
the following expressions:
( )
1
]
1

+ +

b
b
b 7614 . 0 800 . 0
1
0
(1)
( )
1
]
1

+ +

b
b
b 7574 . 0 200 . 1
1
0
(2)
where
o
and
o
are the dilute-gas viscosity and thermal
conductivity coefficient respectively, is the molar density,
and b is referred to as the "co-volume" of the molecules and is
equal to four times the volume of the rigid spherical
molecules
5
. The parameter is the value of the equilibrium
radial distribution function and a number of coefficients in its
virial expansion are known. The shortcoming of rigid-gas-
molecules assumption can be overcome by using a pressure
explicit EOS to evaluate b term using the definition of
"thermal pressure":
1
) ( 1

,
_

v
T
vP
R
b (3)
Another necessary term is b can be evaluated using the
following expression:
)) ( ( T TB
T
b

(4)
The detailed derivations of how to evaluate these terms using
an Equation of State (EOS) can be found in Erdogmus and
SPE 57462
Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Prediction for Hydrocarbon Systems
M. Erdogmus, SPE, and M. A. Adewumi, SPE, The Pennsylvania State University
2 M. Erdogmus, SPE, and M. A. Adewumi, SPE, The Pennsylvania State University SPE 57462
Adewumi
2
. Ten equations of state were evaluated as part of
this study. They are written in the generalized form. Table 2.
contains the definition of each term for the different equations
of state.
Discussion of Results
The predictive capability of the prosed method is evaluated
by comparing the prediction results with experimental data
and also with the results obtained by Lee-Gonzalez
6
(LG)
correlation for natural gas viscosity, and with Lohrenz-Bray-
Clark
7
(LBC) correlation for liquid viscosity.
Several sets of experimental data consisting of 427 points
made up of 140 data points for natural gas viscosity, 51
points for liquid phase viscosity, 95 points for vapor phase
thermal conductivity and 141 points for liquid phase thermal
conductivity was used to assess the reliability of this
technique. The average absolute deviation (%AAD) of the
calculated results from experimental values shows the
effectiveness of each EOS. Tables 3-6 summarizes the results.
Using the proposed technique, viscosity of 13 natural gases
are predicted at temperature range of 68 220 F and pressure
range of atmospheric to 10,000 psi. Fig. 1 shows sample
graph of good prediction for systems 4 and 13. For these
systems, Kubic EOS predicts very well; similarly LG and PR
also provides close results.
Viscosity of liquid hydrocarbons is also predicted using
the same technique, and for this purpose, we have investigated
ten mixtures between 124 252 F at pressures up to 1015 psi.
Fig. 2 shows the results for systems 5 and 9. For both
systems, the proposed method predicts better results than LBC
correlation, while Kubic being the best at low temperature and
PR at high temperatures.
Thermal conductivity of vapor and liquid mixtures are
also investigated and sample results are shown in Fig. 7 and
Fig. 8. Both PR and Kubic provides good match with
experimental data for these systems.
The overall prediction capability of each EOS are reported
in Tables 3 6. For vapor phase viscosity, Kubic EOS predicts
the best followed by PR EOS and LG correlation. For liquid
phase viscosity, SRK predicts the best followed by Kubic and
PT. It can be observed that this method yields 60%
improvement over LBC correlation.
Results for vapor phase thermal conductivity indicates that
Kubic, PT and PR EOS provide the best results. As for liquid
phase thermal conductivity, both Kubic and PT EOS give
good results while the results from PR EOS are not so good.
Fig. 5 8 show absolute average deviation (percentage)
from experimental data for all the systems investigated. It can
be concluded from these figures that Kubic EOS predicts
consistently better for all properties and phases.
Conclusions
Equations of state using the so called approach have
become the method of choice in predicting phase behavior of
petroleum fluids over the past two decades. This is particularly
true for process simulations pertaining to hyrocarbon reservoir
studies, production and transportation system design.
However, the design of this process also requires transport
properties and invariably empirical correlations are often used
to do this. The method presented in this paper provides a
unified approach for using any of the popular equations of
state for these properties as well. The work demonstrates that
these equations of state possess good predictive capability for
transport properties. It also provides the framework for
additional evaluation with more data.
References
1. Assel, M. J., Nieto de Castro, C. A., and Wakeham, W. A.,: The
Estimation of PhysicalProperties of Fluids, Part II, the
Economic Advantage of Accurate Transport Property Data,
ChemPor78, 16.1 16.9.
2. Erdogmus, M., Adewumi, M. A., and Ibraheem, S. O.:
Viscosity Prediction of Natural Gases, paper SPE 39219
presented at the 1997 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Lexington, Kentucky, 22-24 October 1997.
3. Gong, M. Q., Luo E. C., and Zhou, Y.: Transport Properties
Calculation of Multicomponent Cryogenic Mixture with an
Equation of State, Proceedings of ICCR98, 401-404.
4. Enskong, D.: Kgl. Svenska Vetenskapsakad. Handl. (1922) 63.
No. 4. [English trans. In S. G. Brush, Kinetic Theory, 3,
Pergamon Press, New York, (1972)].
5. Hirschfelder, J. O., Curtiss, C. F. and Bird, R. B.: Molecular
Theory of Gases and Liquids, John Wiley, New York, (1964).
6. Lee, A. L., Gonzales, M. H., and Eakin, B. E.: J. Chem. Eng.
Data (1966) 11, 281.
7. McCain, W. D. J.: The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, PennWell
Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahama (1990).
8. Lee, A. L. :Viscosity of Light Hydrocarbons, American Pet. Ens.,
New York, (1965).
9. Golubev, I. F.: Viscosity of Gases and Gas Mixtures, Israel
Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem, (1970).
10. Barrufet M. A., et al.: Liquid Viscosities of Carbon Dioxide +
Hydrocarbons from 310 K to 403 K, J. Chem. Eng. Data,
(1996) 41, 436-439.
11. Rosenbaum, B. M., Thodos, G. : Thermal Conductivity of
Mixtures in the Dense Gaseous State: The Methane-Carbon
Dioxide System, J. of Chem. Physics, 51 No. 4. (August
1969), 1361-1368.
12. Gilmore, T. F. and Comings, E. W.: Thermal Conductivity of
Binary Mixtures of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Ethane at
High Pressures: Comparison with Correlation and Theory,
A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 12 No. 6, (November 1966), 1172-1177.
13. Christensen, P. L. and Fredenslund, A.: Thermal Conductivity
of Gaseous Mixtures of Methane with Nitrogen and Carbon
Dioxide, J. of Chem. Eng. Data 24, no. 4 (1979) 281-283.
14. Carmichael, L. T., Jacobs, J., and Sage, B. H.: Thermal
Conductivity of Fluids, a Mixture of Methane and n-Butane
J. of Chem. Eng. Data 13, no. 4 (October 1968) 489-495.
15. Carmichael, L.T., Berry, V., Sage, B. H. : Thermal
Conductivity of Fluids. Ethane, J. of Chem. Eng. Data 8, no.
3 (July 1963) 281-285.
16. Carmichael, L. T., Jacobs, J., and Sage, B. H.: Thermal
Conductivity of Fluids, n-Pentane J. of Chem. Eng. Data 14,
no. 1 (January 1969) 31-37.
SPE 57462 Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Prediction for Gas-Condensate Systems 3
Table 1 Systems Investigated
System Components T range (F) P range (psi) NDP Ref.
1 C2 100 14.7-10000 17 8
2 C2 160 14.7-10000 17 8
3 C1,C2,C3, iC4, nC4, C5, C6, C7, CO2 100 700-2500 5 6
4 C1,C2,C3, iC4, nC4,C5, C6, C7, CO2, N2, He 100 3000-8000 5 6
5 C1,C2,C3, iC4, nC4,C5, C6, C7, CO2, N2, He 160 1500-6000 6 6
Vapor 6 C1,C2,C3, N2 85 119-8465 9 6
Viscosity 7 C1,C2,C3, N2 220 14.7-6498 10 6
8 C1,C2,C3, N2 78 14.7-2515 8 6
9 C1,C2,C3, N2 150 14.7-6025 12 6
10 C1,C2,C3,iC4,nC4,N2,He 78 14.7-2527 10 6
11 C1,C2,C3,iC4,nC4,N2,He 78 123-8745 9 6
12 C1,C2,C3,nC4,C5,N2 68 14.7-6615 16 9
13 C1,C2,C3,nC4,C5,N2 124 14.7-6615 16 9
Total Number of Data Points 140
1 nC4, C6, C10 124-252 45-95 5 10
2 nC4, C6, C10, CO2 124-252 365 5 10
3 nC4, C6, C10, CO2 124-252 715 5 10
4 nC5, C6, C7, C10 188-252 40-60 4 10
Liquid 5 nC5, C6, C7, C10, CO2 188-252 365 4 10
Viscosity 6 nC5, C6, C7, C10, CO2 155-252 715 4 10
7 nC5, C10 178-263 35-75 5 10
8 nC5, C10, CO2 178-263 365 5 10
9 nC5, C10, CO2 178-263 715 5 10
10 C10, CO2 100-266 1015 4 10
Total Number of Data Points 51
1 C1 144 1525-6170 7 11
2 C1 267 1530-6005 7 11
3 C1 208 1015-4005 6 11
4 C1 324 1020-4025 6 11
5 C1+CO2 144 1030-4990 7 11
Vapor 6 C1+CO2 208 2030-7195 7 11
Thermal 7 C1+CO2 144 1040-3060 5 11
Conductivity 8 C1+CO2 208 1535-5075 6 11
9 C1+CO2 144 1015-2530 4 11
10 C1+CO2 208 990-3020 5 11
11 C1+N2 220-248 45-900 12 12
12 C2+CO2 167 1176-4410 5 13
13 C2+CO2 167 1176-4410 5 13
14 N2+C2 167 735-2940 5 13
15 N2+C2 167 735-4410 8 13
Total Number of Data Points 95
1 C1-nC4 40 1500-5000 10 14
2 C1-nC4 100 1500-5000 10 14
3 C1-nC4 160 1500-5000 10 14
4 C1-nC4 220 1500-5000 10 14
Liquid 5 C2 40 200-5000 13 15
Thermal 6 C2 100 200-5000 13 15
Conductivity 7 C2 160 200-5000 13 15
8 nC5 40 200-5000 14 16
9 nC5 160 200-5000 14 16
10 C1+CO2 144 6080-10254 5 11
11 C1+CO2 208 8130-10120 3 11
12 C1+CO2 144 4070-9130 6 11
13 C1+CO2 208 6035-10080 5 11
14 C1+CO2 144 3030-10245 8 11
15 C1+CO2 208 4070-10025 7 11
Total Number of Data Points 141
4 M. Erdogmus, SPE, and M. A. Adewumi, SPE, The Pennsylvania State University SPE 57462
Table 2 Generalized Form of EOS
( ) ( ) W v U v
a
b v
T R
P
+ +

EOS U W
Redlich-Kwong (RK) b -
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) b -
Peng-Robinson (PR) 2b -b
2
PR-Stryjek-Vera-A (PRSVA) 2b -b
2
PR-Stryjek-Vera-A (PRSVA) 2b -b
2
Heyen (b+c) -bc
Kubic 2c c
2
Patel-Teja (PT) (b+c) -bc
Schmidt-Wenzel (SW) (1 + 3)b - 3 b
Yu-Lu (3b+c) bc
(a) T = 100F
System #4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
P (Psi)

(
m
i
c
r
o
P
o
i
s
e
)
Exp
LG
PR
RK
Kubic

(d) T = 124F
System #13
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
P (psi)
m

(
m
i
c
r
o
P
o
i
s
e
)
Exp
LG
PR
RK
Kubic
Fig. 1 Vapor Phase Viscosity
SPE 57462 Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Prediction for Gas-Condensate Systems 5
(a) P = 365 (psi)
System #5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
150 200 250 300
T (F)

(
m
i
c
r
o
P
o
i
s
e
)
EXP
LBC
PR
SRK
PT
Kubic

(b) P = 715 (Psia)
System #9
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
160 190 220 250 280 310
T (F)

(
m
i
c
r
o
P
o
i
s
e
)
Exp
LBC
PR
SRK
PT
Kubic
Fig. 2 Liquid Phase Viscosity
(a) T = 160 (F)
System #9
0
10
20
30
40
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
P (psi)

(
b
t
u
/
h
r
.
f
t
.
F
)
Exp
PR
PT
Kubic

(b) T = 100 (F)
System #8
0
5
10
15
20
25
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
P (psi)

(
b
t
u
/
h
r
.
f
t
.
F
)
Exp
PRSVA
PT
Kubic
Fig. 3 Vapor Phase Thermal Conductivity
(a) T = 208 F
System #3
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
P (psi)

(
b
t
u
/
h
r
.
f
t
.
F
)
Exp
PR
SRK
PT
Kubic

(b) T = 208 F
System #8
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
P (psi)

(
b
t
u
/
h
r
.
f
t
.
F
)
Exp
PR
SRK
PT
Kubic
Fig. 4 Liquid Phase Thermal Conductivity
6 M. Erdogmus, SPE, and M. A. Adewumi, SPE, The Pennsylvania State University SPE 57462
Table 3 Error in Vapor Phase Viscosity Prediction

Sys. # LG PR PRSVA PRSVB SRK RK PT SW Kubic
1 8.6 8.8 11.9 13.7 15.1 11.9 13.0 14.9 5.8
2 5.6 7.9 14.3 16.1 17.1 14.3 15.3 15.7 4.7
3 1.5 1.9 9.8 9.6 10.0 9.7 9.4 8.2 3.9
5 8.7 4.1 9.9 15.7 16.8 9.6 12.9 14.5 4.3
4 3.3 2.9 13.6 16.6 17.2 13.4 15.1 15.0 4.0
6 2.7 4.0 7.9 12.2 13.0 7.5 10.7 7.5 4.7
8 2.6 4.1 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.2 6.1 4.1 4.3
9 2.7 4.0 7.9 12.2 13.0 7.5 10.7 7.5 4.7
10 2.6 4.1 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.2 6.1 4.1 4.3
11 2.0 4.8 11.4 12.2 12.7 11.3 11.7 11.1 1.6
12 3.3 2.3 12.3 13.6 14.1 12.1 12.9 11.3 3.1
13 7.0 3.6 9.4 9.0 9.3 9.3 8.9 7.9 1.0
14 9.0 1.7 14.3 16.5 16.9 14.0 15.4 13.0 1.3
15 2.6 3.5 11.5 13.4 13.9 11.2 12.5 10.4 2.0
16 2.2 3.2 11.5 12.5 12.8 11.3 11.9 9.5 1.8
%AAD 4.3 4.1 10.6 12.4 13.0 10.4 11.5 10.3 3.4
Table 4 Error in Liquid Phase Viscosity Prediction

Sys. # LBC PR SRK PRSVA PRSVB Heyen PT SW Kubic
1 35.4 19.7 14.8 25.5 23.9 20.0 10.6 23.0 8.1
2 33.8 10.8 5.4 14.1 12.6 11.5 8.9 7.2 9.5
3 26.8 9.3 6.3 8.1 6.8 11.4 20.7 11.8 22.4
4 31.7 28.1 22.9 33.6 31.1 29.9 13.7 29.8 12.2
5 33.0 13.7 7.3 15.5 13.6 14.8 6.2 8.8 7.1
6 26.7 10.6 6.0 6.8 5.8 8.8 18.2 8.5 20.9
7 37.3 31.7 26.0 37.6 35.7 33.3 19.2 39.9 18.7
8 37.7 16.4 10.1 19.2 17.6 18.1 5.3 17.6 4.1
9 33.3 7.5 6.5 7.7 7.1 11.4 18.3 8.3 20.5
10 43.3 11.4 15.1 15.4 14.2 24.0 17.3 17.4 13.7
% AAD 33.9 15.9 12.0 18.4 16.9 18.3 13.8 17.2 13.7
Table 5 Error in Vapor Phase Thermal Conductivity Prediction
Sys. # PR SRK RK PRSVA PT Kubic SW
1 8.9 11.3 3.4 9.9 10.1 9.4 4.6
2 6.4 6.6 17.1 5.9 6.8 6.1 13.4
3 4.8 5.5 10.6 5.1 5.2 4.6 9.2
4 12.4 12.9 20.8 11.8 13.1 12.2 17.5
5 14.0 13.0 26.4 16.3 14.3 13.1 26.0
6 13.7 12.7 28.6 17.0 13.4 13.3 25.6
7 7.9 8.3 24.5 11.5 9.4 5.3 23.1
8 8.2 9.0 24.5 10.6 8.3 6.1 21.9
9 5.5 6.3 21.6 5.3 3.9 5.0 17.4
10 12.6 13.0 5.7 11.4 12.4 16.0 2.6
11 7.1 7.1 2.8 6.2 6.9 8.5 2.3
12 11.9 14.0 16.2 9.8 11.8 18.2 14.3
13 10.8 12.4 25.6 9.3 6.7 6.1 17.3
14 10.0 11.4 14.4 9.5 8.0 7.3 17.4
% AAD 9.6 10.2 17.3 10.0 9.3 9.4 15.2
SPE 57462 Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Prediction for Gas-Condensate Systems 7
Table 6 Error in Liquid Phase Thermal Conductivity Prediction
Sys. # PR SRK RK PRSVA PRSVB PT SW YuLu Kubic
1 5.4 5.3 35.2 6.8 6.1 25.3 22.8 28.4 15.4
2 16.2 13.8 17.6 20.5 21.8 5.2 11.8 7.3 11.1
3 22.4 24.6 17.1 12.3 29.3 15.0 15.1 20.8 5.1
4 28.4 31.3 14.4 19.9 5.1 5.5 8.8 10.6 5.1
5 11.6 14.2 19.3 2.6 11.9 9.7 7.9 16.4 5.1
6 11.8 15.1 10.9 15.4 11.5 4.4 12.5 10.2 0.5
7 4.8 1.6 25.3 9.7 4.8 3.3 6.9 30.0 16.8
% AAD 14.4 15.1 20.0 12.5 12.9 9.8 12.3 17.7 8.4

0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
System#
%

A
A
D
LG
PR
PRSVA
PRSVB
SRK
RK
PT
SW
Kubic
Fig. 5Percentage Absolute Average Deviation for Vapor Phase Viscosity

0
10
20
30
40
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
System #
%

A
A
D
LBC
PR
SRK
PRSVA
PRSVB
Heyen
PT
SW
Kubic
Fig. 6Percentage Absolute Average Deviation for Liquid Phase Viscosity
8 M. Erdogmus, SPE, and M. A. Adewumi, SPE, The Pennsylvania State University SPE 57462
0
10
20
30
40
0 4 8 12 16
System #
%

A
A
D
PR
SRK
RK
PRSVA
PT
Kubic
SW
Fig. 7 Percentage Absolute Average Deviation for Vapor Phase Thermal Conductivity
0
10
20
30
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
System #
A
A
D

%
PR
SRK
RK
PRSVA
PRSVB
PT
SW
YuLu
Kubic
Fig. 8 Percentage Absolute Average Deviation for Liquid Phase Thermal Conductivity