Novel Density and Viscosity
Correlations for Gases and Gas
Mixtures Containing Hydrocarbon
and Non-Hydrocarbon Components
E. M. El-M. Shokir
King Saud University
Abstract
Hydrocarbon gas often contains some amounts of heavier hy-
drocarbon and non-hydrocarbon components that contribute to
its properties (i.e. viscosity and density). Prediction of the density
and viscosity values for hydrocarbon gases is necessary in several
hydrocarbon gas engineering calculations such as the calculation
of gas reserves, gas metering, gas compression, estimating the
pressure gradient in gas wells and for the design of pipeline and
surface facilities. Literature correlations for the density and vis-
cosity of pure hydrocarbon gas such as methane, ethane, propane,
butane and isobutene are available. However, wide-ranging and
accurate correlations for predicting the gas viscosity and density
are not available for gas mixtures associated with heavier hydro-
carbon components and impurities components such as carbon
dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen sulphide.
This paper presents two new models for estimating the den-
sity and viscosity of pure hydrocarbon gases and hydrocarbon
gas mixtures containing high amounts of pentane, plus small
concentrations of non-hydrocarbon components (i.e. carbon di-
oxide, nitrogen and helium), over a wide range of temperatures
and pressures on the basis of fuzzy logic approach. The density
model was developed using apparent molecular weight, pseudo-
reduced temperature and pseudo-reduced pressure. However, the
viscosity model was developed using density, apparent molec-
ular weight and pseudo-reduced temperature. The fuzzy models
were derived from 5,350 measurements of density and viscosity
of various pure gases and gas mixtures. The partitioning of the
input space into the fuzzy regions, represented by the individual
rules, was obtained through fuzzy clustering. Accuracy of the
new fuzzy models was compared to various literature correla-
tions by blind tests using 1,460 measurements of density and
viscosity. The results show that the new fuzzy models are more
accurate than the compared correlations.
Introduction
Accurate determination of the density, viscosity and phase be-
haviour of pure hydrocarbon gases and hydrocarbon gas mixtures
is essential for reliable reservoir characterization and simulation
and, hence, for optimum usage and exploitation. The variety of
possible natural gas mixtures at different conditions of interest pre-
clude obtaining the relevant data by experimental means alone,
thus, requiring the development of prediction methods. Natural
gas is a mixture of many components. Wide ranging correlations
for the viscosity of the lower alkanes, such as methane, ethane,
propane, butane and iso-butane, have already been developed and
are available in the literature(1-3). However, wide-ranging cor-
relations are often not readily available for many of the higher
Peer Reviewed Paper (“Review and Publication Process” can be found on our Website)
October 2008, Volume 47, No. 10 45
alkanes and impurities such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sul-
fide. These impurities may be present in small quantities in natural
gas and are important when modelling the mixture properties(4). In
this paper, the fuzzy logic technique was applied for developing
new efficient empirical models to estimate density and viscosity
of pure hydrocarbon gases (from methane to pentane) and hy-
drocarbon gas mixtures (different gas mixtures of methane with
ethane and/or propane,…., n-Decane) containing small concen-
trations of non-hydrocarbon components (i.e. carbon dioxide, ni-
trogen and helium) over a wide range of temperatures (0-238°C)
and pressures (1-890 bar). The new models are designed to be sim-
pler and more efficient than the existing equations of state (EOS).
They eliminate the numerous computations involved in any EOS
calculations.
Hydrocarbon Gas Density
The calculation of natural gas volume, density or viscosity at el-
evated pressures and temperatures requires values of Z-factor. Sev-
eral authors(5-7) have developed numerous equations of state (EOS)
for that purpose. The real gas Z-factor is presented as an explicit
function of the pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature based on
the theory or law of “corresponding states”(8). All the EOS models
are implicit in terms of the Z-factor, which means that the Z-factor
is solved as a root of the EOS. In general, EOS are not easy to use,
not only because of the numerous calculations involved, but basi-
cally due to the lack of knowledge to calculate critical properties,
acentric factors of plus-fraction’s components, and the binary in-
teraction parameters. However, if reliable models or correlations to
predict the above properties are at hand, EOS can be used to pre-
dict density or physical properties of pure hydrocarbons or hydro-
carbon mixtures. Obeida et al.(9) presented a method to accurately
calculate the compressibility factor of pure hydrocarbon, non-hy-
drocarbon gases and gas mixtures. These calculations are based
on correction functions developed from correlations of Z-factor
data generated by the Peng-Robinson equation of state(10). How-
ever, they mentioned that to calculate the Z-factor of a gas mix-
ture, the Z-factors of both hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon gases
should be known. They recommend to use measured data. If mea-
sured data are not available for one or both of them, the Z-factor
of both gases can be calculated using about 16 polynomial equa-
tions with a total of 48 coefficients. In addition, the proposed func-
tions were developed for certain ranges of temperatures, pressures
and composition of different gases. Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem(6)
developed a gas density equation of state (DAK-EOS) based on
a Han-Starling form of the Benedict-Webb-Rubin(5) equation of
state. They reported an average absolute error of 0.486%. How-
ever, they also noted that this correlation is specifically limited to
the following ranges: 1 < TPr < 3 and 0.2 < PPr < 30. In addition,
this correlation is also recommended for the region PPr < 1 and 0.7
< TPr < 1. The DAK-EOS is considered the current standard corre-
lation for the prediction of gas density. Only 1,500 data points, in-
cluding pure components and gas mixtures from several different
sources, were used in building the DAK-EOS. Nishiumi(7) devel-
oped an equation of state (NS-EOS) to estimate thermodynamic
properties of pure substances. This equation is of the form of a
Benedict-Webb-Rubin(5) equation of state type (BWR-EOS) and
has 17 coefficients. The authors recommend not using the NS-EOS
in the following ranges: 1 ≤ TPr ≤ 1.3 and 1 ≤ PPr ≤ 3. In addition,
the application of this equation is very complex.
Brill and Beggs(11) presented an explicit relation to estimate/pre-
dict the Z-factor. They reported that 94 data points were used to es-
tablish this correlation, which yields an average absolute error of
0.19%. However, their correlation can only be used in the ranges
of 1.2 ≤ TPr ≤ 2.4 and 0 ≤ PPr ≤ 10.
As mentioned above, the real gas Z-factor is usually predicted
from correlations or equations of state as an explicit function of
the pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature based on the law
of corresponding states(8) where the pseudo-reduced pressure and
temperature are defined relative to pseudo-critical pressure and
temperature (PPr = P/PPc and TPr = T/TPc). The principle of cor-
responding states, as proposed by Van der Waals, applies to single
component gases, but subsequent work by Kay(12) extended it to
gas mixtures. For gas mixtures, pseudo-critical pressure and tem-
perature are used in place of critical pressure and temperature. The
pseudo-critical values have no physical significance, but merely
provide a means of correlating mixtures. Kay(12) proposed that
pseudo-critical pressure and temperature could be calculated using
simple mole average relationships as:
PPc = ∑ moli Pci
TPc = ∑ moliTci
...................................................................................... (1)
There are two well known problems associated with using either
Kay’s rules or the Stewart-Burkhardt-Voo(13) (SBV) rules: 1) the
pseudo-critical properties of the heptanes plus fraction must be es-
timated; and, 2) the principle of corresponding states breaks down
when non-hydrocarbon gases or impurities are included in the mix-
ture. The gravity and molar mass of the heptanes plus fraction and
the Kesler-Lee(14) equations, could be used to estimate the pseudo-
critical properties of the heptanes plus fraction. The Wichert and
Aziz(15) correlation could be used to adjust the pseudo-critical con-
stants for hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide content. Sutton(16)
related the pseudo-critical pressure and temperature of gas mix-
tures as a function of gas specific gravity, as shown in the fol-
lowing equations:
PPc = 756.8 − 131.0 γ g − 3.6 γ g 2
TPc = 169.2 − 349.5γ g − 74.0 γ g 2
.............................................................. (2)
Corredor et al.(17) presents a further modification of the SBV
equations which takes into account the effects of the heptane plus
fraction, acid gases and nitrogen. Elsharkawy and Elkamel(18) pre-
sented a new correlation to estimate pseudo-critical properties from
gas gravity. This correlation accounts for the presence of non-hy-
drocarbons without knowing the compositional details.
Recently, Londono et al.(19) modified the DAK- and NS-EOS by
using optimized quadratic relations for the pseudo-critical pressure
and temperature as functions of gas specific gravity. The fuzzy-set
theory is an efficient tool for modelling the kind of uncertainty as-
sociated with vagueness, imprecision and/or a lack of information
regarding a particular element of the problem at hand. Therefore,
one of the objectives of this paper is to apply the fuzzy modelling
approach for developing a new gas density model as a function of
the pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature, and the molecular
weight of the pure and mixture hydrocarbon gases with an accu-
racy comparable with that obtained using EOS and no need of Z-
factor calculation. The pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature
was calculated using Kay’s(12) method. In addition, the predicted
46 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
gas density from the new gas density model/correlation was com-
pared with the calculated gas density from different EOS based on
the method of calculating the pseudo-critical properties.
Hydrocarbon-Gas Viscosity
Usually the gas properties are measured in the laboratory. Oc-
casionally, experimental data become unavailable and estima-
tions from EOS or empirical correlations becomes a necessity. The
most widely used EOS are Soave-Redlich-Kwong(20) (SRK-EOS),
Peng-Robinson(10) (PR-EOS) and Patel-Teja(21) (PT-EOS). Several
attempts have been made to improve the accuracy of PR-EOS to
predict phase equilibria of sour gases(22-25). Li and Guo(22) modi-
fied the original PR-EOS to predict properties of sour gases by in-
troducing 33 constants. However, the modification increases the
numerical computations and makes the equation inconvenient for
reservoir simulation usage. Guo et al.(26) presented two viscosity
models based on PR-EOS and PT-EOS. They found that their
EOS-based viscosity model is capable of satisfactorily describing
pure component hydrocarbon viscosity, but poorly predicts the vis-
cosity of hydrocarbon mixtures.
On the other hand, McCain(27) indicated that gas viscosity cor-
relations have errors in estimated viscosity in the order of 20%
or more for heavy gases. Reichenberg(28) employed a multiparam-
eter correlation technique for calculating the viscosities of dense
gases. The dense gas viscosity is correlated as a function of TPr
and PPr. Larger deviations in the calculated viscosities obtained
from this method occur at high pressures. Lucas(29) employed a
method which is similar to that proposed by Reichenberg in some
aspects. This method also employed temperature and pressure as
state variables. The Lucas method requires the critical temperature,
critical pressure, critical compressibility factor and the dipole mo-
ment. The error in the calculated viscosities is more than 8% for
dense gases. Chung et al.(30) extended their multiparameter cor-
relation to low pressure gas viscosities to account for high pres-
sure gas viscosities by employing an empirical correction factor.
The deviations in the calculated viscosities were less than 5%(31).
At high pressures, larger deviations in the calculated viscosities
occur. For example at a pressure of 140 bar and at a temperature
of 407°C, the deviation in the calculated viscosity of n-butane is
more than 10%. Brule and Starling(32) developed a method similar
in form to that of Chung et al.(30). The correlation was modified to
make its characterization parameters compatible with those of the
Benedict-Webb-Rubin EOS(5). Larger deviations in the calculated
viscosities for pure gases occur at high pressure. For example, at
a pressure of 200 bars, the highest deviation in the calculated re-
sults of methane is 16%. However, this technique was developed
to be more suitable for heavy hydrocarbons rather than for simple
molecules. Carr et al.(33) developed a two-step procedure to esti-
mate hydrocarbon gas viscosity. The first step is to determine the
gas viscosity at atmospheric conditions (i.e. a reference condition).
Once estimated, the viscosity at atmospheric pressure is then ad-
justed to conditions at the desired temperature and pressure using
a second correlation. He reported 0.38% average absolute error for
the gas viscosity data at 1 atmosphere. However, he used only 30
data points to develop these equations. Also, he recommended ap-
plication of these equations for cases where the specific gravity
varies between 0.55 and 1.55 and the temperature between 38 and
149°C. Therefore, the validity of these equations could possibly be
questioned. Jossi et al.(34) developed a relationship for the viscosity
of pure gases and gas mixtures which includes pure components
such as argon, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
methane, ethane, propane, butane and pentane. He reported ap-
proximately 4% average absolute error and also stated that this
correlation should only be applied for values of reduced density
below 2.0. Lee et al.(35) developed a correlation to estimate hydro-
carbon gas viscosity using temperature, gas density at a specific
temperature and pressure, and the molecular weight of the gas. He
reported 2% average absolute error at low pressures and 4% av-
erage absolute error for high pressures for hydrocarbon gases of
specific gravities below 1.0. For gases of specific gravity above
1.0, this relation is less accurate. The range of pressures used in the
development of this correlation is between 6.8 and 551 bar. The
temperature range is between 38 and 171°C.
Recently, Londono et al.(19), developed a new correlation for hy-
drocarbon gas viscosity as a function of the gas viscosity at 1 atmo-
sphere, gas density and temperature. He reported a 4.91% average
absolute error for natural gas mixtures. However, this correlation
depends on the measured or calculated gas viscosity at atmosphere
pressure. He developed a new correlation for gas viscosity at atmo-
sphere pressure based on his database. Therefore, the second ob-
jective of this paper is to apply the fuzzy modelling approach for
developing a new gas viscosity model as a function of the gas den-
sity, pseudo-reduced temperature and the molecular weight of the
pure and mixture hydrocarbon gases.
Fuzzy Logic Approach
The basic concept of fuzzy logic, or fuzzy set theory, was first in-
troduced by Zadeh(36). Unlike crisp logic (CL), which a value may
or may not belong to one class, fuzzy sets allow partial member-
ship. The membership or non-membership of an element x in crisp
set A is described by a characteristic function of μA(x), where:
1 if x ∈ A
µ A ( x) = 
0 if x ∉ A
................................................................................ (3)
Fuzzy set theory extends this concept by defining partial mem-
bership which can take values ranging from 0 to 1:
µ A : U → 0,1
......................................................................................... (4)
where Ri(i = 1, 2,…, c) denotes the ith rule, xj(j = 1, 2,…, m) are the
input variables, yi represents the local output variables, Ai1,…, Aim
are the antecedent linguistic variables, and aio, ai1,…, aim are the
model consequent parameters. The final global output of the TSK
fuzzy model ŷ for a crisp input vector x = (xi,……, xm)T is calcu-
lated by the fuzzy mean-weight formula as:
c
∑βi ( x )i y^ i
y^ = i=1
c
∑ βi ( x )
i=1 . ................................................................................... (7)
where βi(x) represents the degree of firing (DOF) of the ith fuzzy
rule, defined by:
βi ( x ) = min {µ Ai1 ( x1 ), ,µ Aim ( xm )} , 1≤ i ≤ c
.............................. (8)
where min represents the minimum operator and μAij: R→[0,1] is
the membership function of the antecedent fuzzy set Aij. The con-
struction of the TSK fuzzy model from numerical data proceeds in
three steps: 1) fuzzy clustering; 2) setting the membership func-
tions; and, 3) parameter estimation(39).
Fuzzy Clustering
Partitioning of the input/output space is performed in the first
step using the selected clustering method. Each obtained cluster
represents a certain operating region of the system in which input/
output data values are highly concentrated. The learning or training
data, divided into these information clusters, are then interpreted as
rules. Methods of fuzzy clustering, such as fuzzy c-means (FCM)
(40) and Gustafson-Kessel (GK)(41), are convenient tools for the pro-

where U refers to the universal set defined in specific problem and
A is a fuzzy set(37). If U is a finite set U = {x1, x2,…, xn}, then a
fuzzy set A in this universe U can be represented by listing each el-
ement and its degree of membership in the set A as:
A = {µ A ( x1 ) / x1 ,µ A ( x2 ) / x2 , ,µ A ( xn ) / xn }
...................................... (5)
The notation μA(x1)/x1 is used only to separate the membership
degree μA(xi) of an element xi from itself and does not refer to a
cess of partitioning the input space or input/output space. Any clus-
tering method can be used. For a comprehensive treatment of the
different fuzzy clustering techniques, see Bezdek and Pal(42). In
this paper, FCM was used. The process is iterative as follows: for
data set Z, choose the number of clusters 1 < c < N, the fuzzifica-
tion exponent s > 1 and the termination tolerant ε > 0.
Initialize the partition matrix U(0) randomly.
Step 1: Compute the cluster means:
N

normal division. ∑µ(ikl−1) Zks

The rule-based fuzzy models are models in which the relation- Vi( l ) = k =1
i = 1, 2,…… , c
N s
ships between the different variables are represented by means of ∑µ(ikl−1) 
fuzzy implications or fuzzy if/then rules of the form: If (hypoth- k =1 .................................................. (9)
esis) then (conclusion). The form in the expression above typically
expresses an inference mechanism such that if a fact (hypothesis) is Step 2: Compute the cluster covariance matrices:
known, then another fact (conclusion) can be inferred. Fuzzy infer-
ence is the process of formulating from a given input to an output N s
Z − V ( l )  T
using fuzzy logic. There are three types of fuzzy inference systems ∑µ(ikl−1)   k i 
including the linguistic (Mamdani-type), the relational equation Fi = k =1
i = 1, 2, , c
N
and the Takagi, Sugeno and Kang (TSK)(38). In linguistic models, s

both the antecedent and the consequence are fuzzy sets, while in
∑µ(ikl−1) 
k =1 .................................... (10)
the TSK model the antecedent consists of fuzzy sets, but the con-
sequence is made up of linear equations. Fuzzy relational equation
Step 3: Compute the distances:
models aim at building the fuzzy relation matrices according to the
input/output process data determined. Among these methods, the T
TSK fuzzy model(38) is the least general with respect to modelling Dik2 = Z k − Vi( l )  det( Fi )1/( N +1) Fi−1  Z k − Vi( l ) ,
arbitrary nonlinear systems because every rule describes a fuzzy
k = 1, 2, , N i = 1, 2, , c
region in the input domain, where the outputs depend on the input ...............................(11)
in a linear manner. On the other hand, the TSK model is easier to
identify because it needs fewer rules and its parameters can be es- Step 4: Update the partition matrix. If Dik > 0 for:
timated from numerical data using optimization methods such as
least-square algorithms. So, the TSK model will be used. In gen- 1 ≤ i ≤ c, 1 ≤ k ≤ N ,
eral, the TSK fuzzy model consists of a set of fuzzy rules, each rule µ (ikl ) =
1
describing a local linear input/output relationship as: k
∑ ( Dik / D jk )2/( s−1)
j =1
R1 : if xi is Ai1 and  and xm is Aim ..................................................................... (12)
then yi = ai1x1 +  + aim xm + ai0
..................................................... (6) Otherwise,
October 2008, Volume 47, No. 10 47
 bership function such as a triangular membership function that is
µ (ikl ) = 0 if Dik > 0, and µ (ikl ) ∈ 0,1
presented(36) as:
k
with ∑µ(ikl) = 1 until U (1) − U ( l −1) < ε   x − v 
 k ij 
i=1 .............................................. (13) µ Aij ( xk ) = max 0,1 −
 bij 
 
........................................................... (14)
at the end of the iterative procedure, the membership values μik and
cluster centres vi are obtained. with the centre coordinates vij and the parameters bij controlling,
respectively, the mean and the spread (variance) of the member-
ship function.
Setting the Membership Function
The fuzzy clusters detected in the input/output product space Parameter Estimation
give information on how the data points are structured in the input The consequent parameters of a TSK model are obtained as a
space. This information, which is captured in the cluster centres least-square approximation in the following way. Let X denote the
and eigenvalues of the fuzzy covariant matrices, is projected into matrix having an ith row with the input vector xi, and let Y denote
the input axes to induce the antecedent fuzzy sets. If vi1, vi2,..., vim the vector column having yi as its ith component. Let Wi denote the
are the input space coordinates of the ith cluster centre, then the N × N real matrix having the normalized degree of firing βij as its
antecedent fuzzy sets of the TSK model are defined by any mem- jth diagonal element(39, 43), where:

Table 1: Summarizes the minimum and maximum values of the all components in the collected gases.

Fluids Groups 1 2 3 4 5
No. of Data 459 370 655 598 568
Statistical
Parameters Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
C1, mole % 100 100 - - - - - - - -
C2, mole % - - 100 100 - - - - - -
C3, mole % - - - - 100 100 - - - -
iC4, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
nC4, mole % - - - - - - 100 100 - -
iC5, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
nC5, mole % - - - - - - - - 100 100
C6, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
C7+*, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
C8, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
C9, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
C10, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
N2, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
CO2, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
H2S, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
He, mole % - - - - - - - - - -
Viscosity, cP 0.01013 0.0406 0.0096 0.1038 0.0075 0.174 0.00675 0.308 0.00709 0.406
Density, gm/cc 0.00038 0.2975 0.00072 0.4851 0.00105 0.585 0.00139 0.646 0.0017 0.685
T, °R 491.67 919.67 559.67 919.67 491.67 919.67 491.67 919.67 491.67 919.67
P, psi 14.7 10000 14.7 10000 14.7 10000 14.7 10000 14.7 8000
Mw 16.04 16.04 30.07 30.07 44.097 44.097 58.123 58.123 72.15 72.15
continued . .
Fluids Groups 6 7 8 9
No. of Data 1,350 965 395 1,450
Statistical
Parameters Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
C1, mole % 10 90 10 90 30 70 71.7 92.9
C2, mole % - - - - - - 0.94 14
C3, mole % 10 90 - - - - 0.42 8.3
iC4, mole % - - - - - - 0.18 1.9
nC4, mole % - - 10 90 - - - 0.87
iC5, mole % - - - - - - - -
nC5, mole % - - - - - - 0.06 0.6
C6, mole % - - - - - - 0.06 0.39
C7+*, mole % - - - - - - 0.01 0.94
C8, mole % - - - - - - - -
C9, mole % - - - - - - - -
C10, mole % - - - - 30 70 - -
N2, mole % - - - - - - - 5.2
CO2, mole % - - - - - - - 3.2
H2S, mole % - - - - - - - 0.05
He, mole % - - - - - - - 0.05
Viscosity, cP 0.0091 0.1573 0.01 0.228 0.0555 0.991 0.0113 0.0527
Density, gm/cc 0.0061 0.5595 0.0091 0.6177 0.2836 0.7404 0.0056 0.366
T, °R 559.67 919.67 559.67 919.67 559.67 799.67 559.67 799.67
P, psi 200 10000 200 10000 800 10000 200 8000
Mw 18.85 41.3 20.251 53.915 28.6647 117.0166 16.60136164 22.302464

* Kesler-Lee(14) equations were used to estimate the pseudo-critical properties of the heptanes plus fraction.

48 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 β i ( xi ) where Zk is the kth data point, Vi is the centre of the ith cluster,
βij = and Z is the average of the data. So, the optimum number of clus-
c
∑ βZ ( x j ) ters is determined as a minimum of the functional S(c) as c in-
Z =1 ..................................................................................... (15) creases. The FCM was applied to the training data set for c = 2,
3,...,12, assuming that the nonlinearity in the data could be suffi-
and let Θi = [ai1,…, aim, ai0] denote the vector of consequent pa- ciently approximated by twelve local linear submodels. Figure 1
rameters of the ith rule. To estimate the offset term ai0, a unitary shows the result obtained with the validity criterion S(c). In this
column I is appended to the matrix X to produce the extended ma- case, the optimum number of clusters was found to be 4, with a
trix Xe = [X,I]. Then, the parameter vector Θi is calculated as the fuzzification exponent s of 2. The antecedent membership func-
least-square solution: tions were constructed from the centres and parameters of the
detected fuzzy cluster by using the trapezoidal membership. For
−1
Θi =  X eT .Wi . X e  X eT .Wi .Y example, Figure 2 shows the resulting membership functions that
................................................................. (16) correspond to one input variable (pseudo-reduced temperature).
The consequent parameters were obtained from the training data
of the set of approximate linear equations Y ≈ X.Θi.Y. set by the least-squared method, as described before. The resulted
gas density model is:
The New Gas Density Model
-300
In this study, a Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy inference system was ap-
plied to estimate gas density from pseudo-reduced pressure and -350
temperature and molecular weight data using Matlab software. For

S(c) Validity Function

-400
this purpose, an extensive database (about 6,810 points) for gas
-450
viscosity and gas density data was collected from a variety of lit-
erature sources(8, 33-35, 44-49). Table 1 summarizes the minimum and -500
maximum values of all components in the collected gases. This da- -550
tabase represents 2,839 points for pure gas components and 3,971
-600
points for gas mixtures. About 5,350 data points are randomly se-
lected for building the new viscosity and density models, and the -650
rest of the data points (1,460) are put aside for testing the resulting -700
gas density and viscosity models. Table 2 shows the minimum and
-750
maximum values for the used data in building the new gas density 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
model. The maximum and minimum values of the different param- Number of Clusters (c)
eters constitute the limits of the fuzzy-model domains; extrapo-
lation beyond these values could lead to unrealistic results. The FIGURE 1: Behaviour of cluster validity function [S(c)] for the gas
training data points (TPr, PPr, Mw, ρg), k = 1, 2,...., 5,350, are orga- density model.
nized in a 5,350 × 4 matrix, as shown in Equation (17), and clus-
tered using the FCM algorithm, as mentioned before.
(a)
0.8
T PPr 1 M w1 ρ g1 
 Pr 1  0.7
T Cluster center
ρg 2 
Gas Density (gm/cc)

PPr 2 M w2
Z =  Pr 2  0.6
     
T PPr k M wk ρ gk 
0.5
 Pr k
.............................................................. (17) 0.4

0.3
To determine the number of fuzzy rules, the following fuzzy va-
lidity measure was used(50). 0.2

0.1
N k  2 2
S ( c) = ∑ ∑ (µ jk )m  Zk − Vi − Vi − Z  0
  0 1 2 3 4
j =1 i=1
........................................ (18) Pseudo-Reduced Temperature

(b)
1.2
Table 2: Summarizes the statistical parameters
Membership Degree

for the data used in building the new gas density 1

correlation.
0.8
Parameter Maximum Minimum
0.6
PPr 26.6 0.021
TPr 3.4 0.6 0.4
Mw 119 16.04
Density 0.741 0.00038 0.2

Table 3: Summarizes the statistical parameters for 0

0 1 2 3 4
the data used in testing the new and other existing gas Pseudo-Reduced Temperature
density correlations.
FIGURE 2: (a) The four local linear submodels (cluster centres
Parameter Maximum Minimum are denoted by the black rectangular marks); (b) the trapezoidal
PPr 20.6 0.3 membership functions obtained after projecting the centres and
TPr 3.35 0.6 standard deviations of the fuzzy clusters onto the input pseudo-
Mw 117.2 16.04 reduced temperature variable, at building the new gas density
Density 0.7185 0.0089 model/correlation.

October 2008, Volume 47, No. 10 49

Table 4: Summarizes the statistical error for the calculated gas density from the new and other existing gas
density correlations.

AAER, % AAER, %
@ Calculation of PPc and TPc from @ Calculation of PPc and TPc from
Correlation Mole Average Relationship Gas Specific Gravity
This study 2.37 ---
DAK-EOS(6) 2.77 4.23'
Londono et al.(19) Optimized DAK-EOS 2.81 3.1"
Londono et al.(19) Optimized NS-EOS 21.8 24.2"
Beggs and Brill(11) 4.58 6.2'

R1 : if 0.4 ≤ TPr ≤ 1.154 and 0 < PPr ≤ 25 and 16 ≤ M w ≤ 119 then
Gas Density = −4.9879557788 E − 01TPr + 1.47383883796 E − 02 PPr
+9.0073085492 E − 04 M w + 7.813443259854 E − 01
.....(19a)
Table 4 shows that the new gas density model yields the accu-
rate prediction of the experimental gas density for all the tested
gases with the lowest percentage of AAER among all the tested
correlations.

R2 : if 1.154 < TPr ≤ 1.512 and 4.675 < PPr ≤ 22.5 and 16 ≤ M w ≤ 119
then Gas Density = −3.7536301831E − 01TPr + 2.25887183348 E
−02 PPr + 1.3264966273E − 03 M w + 5.916942278815 E − 01
..... (19b)
R3 : if 1.512 < TPr ≤ 2.506 and 4.675 < PPr ≤ 23 and 16 ≤ M w ≤ 119
and 2.506 ≤ TPr ≤ 3.4 and 10.4 ≤ PPr ≤ 15.5 then
Gas Density = −8.316619168 E − 02TPr + 2.118041458 E − 02 PPr
+5.249806233E − 03 M w + 8.086108681E − 02
......(19c)
R4 : if 1.512 < TPr ≤ 2.506 and 0 < PPr ≤ 4.675 and 16 ≤ M w ≤ 119
and 2.506 ≤ TPr ≤ 3.4 and 4.675 ≤ PPr ≤ 10.4 then
Gas Density = −7.553883745 E − 02TPr + 3.636967857 E − 02 PPr
+5.360699055 E − 03 M w + 1.883403033E − 02
..... (19d)
Validations of the New Gas Density Model
To validate and test the new gas density model, the other 1,460
points that randomly cut out from the original database were used
for that propose. The minimum and maximum values for these test
data parameters are shown in Table 3. These data points were also
used for comparing the results of the new model with the results
of the other density predicting model. The calculated gas density
from DAK-EOS(6), Londono et al.(19) optimized DAK-EOS and
Londono et al. optimized NS-EOS were carried out two times. Ini-
tially, Kay’s(12) concept for calculating the pseudo-reduced pres-
sure and temperature was used. Then Sutton’s(16) concept for
calculating the pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature was used
for DAK-EOS(6). Finally, for the other two correlations, Londono
et al.’s optimized quadratic relations for the pseudo-critical pres-
sure and temperature as a function of gas specific gravity were
used. The results are shown in Table 4. This table shows that the
accuracy of the calculated gas density by using the Kay concept is
the best. Therefore, the predicted gas density from the new model
was compared with the other gas density correlations by using the
concept of Kay. Figure 3(a-e) shows the predicted gas density from
the new model compared to the results of the other gas density cor-
relations versus the measured gas density. It should be noticed that
all the points right on the x-axis represent overestimated points
(out of the scale), and some of them are out of the working range
of the corresponding gas density correlation.
As shown in Figure 3(a-e) the new gas density model yields a
good agreement between the predicted and the measured gas den-
sity with absolute average error (AAER, %) equal to 2.37%. In the
order of accuracy, DAK-EOS and Londono et al. optimized DAK-
EOS come in the second and third order, respectively. However,
DAK-EOS and Londono et al. optimized DAK-EOS correlations
have 192 and 182 overestimated points, respectively. In addition,
50 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
The New Gas Viscosity Model
As mentioned before, gas viscosity is a function of temperature,
molecular weight, pressure and compressibility factor, which, in
turn, is function of the pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature.
Therefore, gas density, pseudo-reduced temperature and molecular
weight were used as independent variables to develop the new gas
viscosity correlation/model. The same 5,350 data set points that
were used for building the density model are also used for building
the gas viscosity model. The same procedures mentioned above
for building the new gas density model by fuzzy logic approach
were applied. Table 5 shows the maximum and minimum values
of the different parameters that constitute the limits of the fuzzy
gas viscosity model domains; extrapolation beyond these values
could lead to unrealistic results. The training data points (ρg, TPr,
Mw, GV), k = 1,2,..., 5,350, are organized in a 5,350 × 4 matrix, as
shown in Equation (20), and clustered using the FCM algorithm,
as mentioned before, and the number of fuzzy rules are determined
by the same fuzzy validity measurement in Equation (18). The re-
sulted optimum cluster numbers are equal to 4, as shown in Figure
4. The antecedent membership functions were also constructed
from the centres and parameters of the detected fuzzy cluster by
using the trapezoidal membership. For example, Figure 5 shows
the resulting membership functions that correspond to the input
gas density variable.
ρ TPr 1 M w1 GV1 
 g1 
ρ TPr 2 M w2 GV2 
Z =  g2 
     
ρ TPr k M wk GVk 
 gk
....................................................... (20)
The resulting gas viscosity model is:
R1 : if 0 < ρ g ≤ 0.26 and 0.7 ≤ TPr ≤ 3.4 and 16 ≤ M w ≤ 72.2 then
Gas Vis cos ity = 5.6563271E − 02ρ g + 4.9374602 E − 03TPr +
4.1949307 E − 05 M w + 2.93978342 E − 03
....(21a)
R2 : if 0.26 < ρ g ≤ 0.46 and 0.88 ≤ TPr ≤ 3.4 and 16 ≤ M w ≤ 72.2
then Gas Vis cos ity = 1.3707401E − 01ρ g − 2.72296913E − 03TPr
+7.64990184 E − 06 M w + 4.050623771E − 03
..... (21b)
R3 : if 0.46 < ρ g ≤ 0.595 and 0.645 ≤ TPr ≤ 1.5 and 21.6 ≤ M w ≤ 119
then Gas Vis cos ity = 4.8834347 E − 01ρ g + 4.437225271E − 02TPr +
6.57567117 E − 04 M w − 2.002744453E − 01
......(21c)
 (a) (b)

0.8 0.8

Calculated Gas Density (gm/cc)

Calculated Gas Density (gm/cc)

0.7 0.7 DAK-EOS(6)
This Study

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Measured Gas Density (gm/cc) Measured Gas Density (gm/cc)

(c) (d)
0.8 0.8
Calculated Gas Density (gm/cc)

Calculated gas Density (gm/cc)

Beggs & Brill (11)
0.7 Londono et al. - 0.7
Optimized -DAK-
0.6 EOS(19) 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Measured Gas Density (gm/cc) Measured Gas Density (gm/cc)

(e)
0.8
Measured Gas Density (gm/cc)

0.7 Londono et al.-

optimized-NS-EOS(19)
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Calculated Gas Density (gm/cc)

FIGURE 3: Predicted gas density from the new gas density model, DAK-EOS(6), Londono et al.(19) optimized DAK-EOS, Beggs and Brill(11)
and Londono et al.(19) optimized NS-EOS vs. the measured gas density in (a) to (e), respectively.

Table 5: Summarizes the statistical parameters and Londono et al. may result from the error in the calculated gas
for the data used in building the new gas viscosity viscosity at atmosphere pressure, whereas the Londono et al. cor-
correlation. relation was developed by using only 261 points.

Parameter Maximum Minimum

Density 0.741 0.00038
TPr 3.4 0.6 Validations of the New Gas Viscosity
Mw 119 16.04 Model
Viscosity 0.991 0.00675
Also, to validate and test the new gas viscosity model, 1,460
R4 : if 0.595 < ρ g ≤ 0.76 and 0.5 ≤ TPr ≤ 1.4 and 35 ≤ M w ≤ 119 points randomly picked from the original database were used. The
minimum and maximum values for these test data parameters are
then Gas Vis cos ity = 1.500143567ρ g + 9.84848797 E − 02TPr +
shown in Table 6. These data points were also used for comparing
1.407003797 E − 03 M w − 8.257944449 E − 01 the results of the new model with the results of the other viscosity
........ (21d)
predicting correlations. Figure 6 (a-d) shows the predicted gas vis-
at atmosphere pressure was calculated by the Londono et al.(19) cosity from the new model compared to the results of the earlier
correlation at 1 atmosphere. It can be concluded that the higher gas viscosity correlations versus the measured gas viscosity. All
percentage of error in the calculated gas viscosity by Jossi et al.(34) the points to the right on the x-axis represent overestimated points
October 2008, Volume 47, No. 10 51
 Table 6: Summarizes the statistical parameters for
-500
the data used in testing the new and other existing gas
-550 viscosity correlations.
S(c) Validity Function
-600
Parameter Maximum Minimum
-650

-700
Density 0.7185 0.0089
TPr 3.35 0.6
-750 Mw 117.2 16.04
-800 Viscosity 0.55 0.0088
-850
-900
Table 7: Summarizes the statistical error for the
calculated gas viscosity from the new and other
-950
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 existing gas viscosity correlations.
Number of Clusters (c)
Correlation AAER, %
FIGURE 4: Behaviour of cluster validity function [S(c)] for the gas This 2.44
viscosity model. Lee et al.(35) 3.68
Londono et al.(19) 35
Jossi et al.(34) 48
(a)
1.2 viscosity at atmospheric pressure using the Londono et al. correla-
tion, which was developed using only 261 points.
1 Cluster center
Gas Viscosity (cP)

0.8
Conclusions and Recommendations
0.6
1. The presented fuzzy-modelling approach in this paper shows
0.4 a good potential to model complex, nonlinear and multivari-
able natural gas properties.
0.2 2. The fuzzy-modelling approach is capable of estimating the
density and viscosity of pure gases and gas mixtures with
0 high accuracy compared to the experimental values.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
3. The new gas density model/correlation yields accurate pre-
Gas Density (gm/cc) dictions with the lowest average absolute error (2.37%)
(b)
among all tested gas density correlations.
1.2 4. The new gas viscosity model/correlation yields accurate
predictions with the lowest average absolute error (2.44%)
Membership Degree

1
among all tested gas viscosity correlations.
0.8 5. The new gas density model can be used as an effective tool to
estimate the density of the natural gas mixtures with no need
0.6
to calculate the gas compressibility factor.
0.4 6. The new developed gas viscosity model can be used to esti-
mate the viscosity of the natural gas mixtures with no need
0.2 to measure or calculate the gas viscosity at atmospheric
pressure as required by most of the early gas viscosity
0
correlations.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
7. This work could be extended to develop a universal viscosity
Gas Density (gm/cc) and density correlation considering gas condensate and sour
natural gas mixtures. In addition, investigations of the ex-
FIGURE 5: (a) The four local linear submodels (cluster centres
are denoted by the black rectangular marks); (b) the trapezoidal plicit effects of non-hydrocarbon components, such as water,
membership functions obtained after projecting the centres and nitrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide, on both vis-
standard deviations of the fuzzy clusters onto the input gas density cosity and density of gas mixtures are recommended.
variable, at building the new gas viscosity model/correlation.

(out of the scale), and some of them are out of the working range Acknowledgements
of the corresponding gas viscosity correlation. Table 7 summarizes
The author thanks the Research Centre of the College of Engi-
the percentage of the AAER for all the test gas viscosity corre-
neering at King Saud University for providing the financial sup-
lations. As shown in Figure 6(a-d), the new gas viscosity model port for this study under research grant No. 44/429.
yields a good agreement between the predicted and the measured
gas viscosity with AAER equal to 2.44%. The Lee et al.(35) corre- Nomenclature
lation comes in the order of accuracy with AAER equal to 3.68%
and having zero points out of its range. However, Londono et al.(19) A = a crisp set
and Jossi et al.(34) yield an AAER of more than 35% and having bij = parameter controlling spread (variance) of membership
function
300 and 273 overestimated points, respectively. Both Londono et
c = number of clusters
al. and Jossi et al. gas viscosity correlations are highly dependent
Di = distance between any point (Zk) in the training matrix Z
on the gas viscosity at 1 atmosphere. Due to the lack of the atmo- and the cluster mean vi
spheric gas viscosity at each tested temperature, then the gas vis- Fi = cluster covariance matrices
cosity at atmospheric pressure was calculated by the Londono et GV = gas viscosity
al. correlation at 1 atmosphere. It can be concluded that the high k = sample number
percentage of error in the calculated gas viscosity using Jossi et al. moli = mole fraction of component i
and Londono et al. may be a result of the error in the calculated gas m = input variables
52 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 0.50
0.50

Calculated Gas Viscosity (cP)

Calculated Gas Viscosity (cP)

This Study Lee et.(35)
0.40 0.40

0.30 0.30

0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Measured Gas Viscosity (cP) Measured Gas Viscosity (cP)

0.50 0.50
Calculated Gas Viscosity (cP)

Calculated Gas Viscosity (cP)

Londono et al.(19) Jossi et al.(34)
0.40 0.40

0.30 0.30

0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Measured Gas Viscosity (cP) Measured Gas Viscosity (cP)

FIGURE 6: Predicted gas viscosity from the new gas model, Lee et al.(35), Londono et al.(19) and Jossi et al.(34) vs. the measured gas viscosity in
(a) to (d), respectively.

Mw = molecular weight
N = total number of samples
PPc = pseudo-critical pressure
Pci = critical pressure of i gas component
PPr = pseudo-reduced pressure
Ri = fuzzy rules
s = fuzzification exponent
S(c) = fuzzy validity measuring function
TPc = pseudo-critical temperature
Tci = critical temperature of i gas component
TPr = pseudo-reduced temperature
Vi = cluster means matrix
Wi = N × N real matrix having the normalized DOF of the ith
fuzzy rule as its jth diagonal element
X = any matrix having ith row with the input vector xi
Xe = extended matrix produced by adding a unitary column I
to the matrix X
Y = any vector column having yi as its ith components
ŷ = final global output of the TSK fuzzy model
Z_ = Matrix of training data points
Z = average value of the input variable data
βi(x) = degree of firing (DOF) of the ith fuzzy rule
U = universal set
Θi = vector of the resulting coefficients of the ith fuzzy rule
vi1 = input space coordinates of the ith cluster centre
ε = termination tolerant
μA = characteristic function representing the membership of
any element in the crisp set A
ρg = gas density
γg = gas specific gravity, (air = 1)
References
1. Friend, D.G, Ingham, H. and ELY, J.F., Thermophysical Prop-
erties of Ethane; Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data,
Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 275-347, 1991.
October 2008, Volume 47, No. 10 53
2. Friend, D.G., ELY, J.F. and Ingham, H., Thermophysical Proper-
ties of Methane; Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 583-638, 1989.
3. Vogel, E., Kuchenmeister, C., Bich, E. and Laesecke,
A., Reference Correlation of the Viscosity of Propane; Journal of
Physical and Chemical Reference Data, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 947-970,
1998.
4. HUBER, M.L., Laesecke, A. and Xiang, H.W., Viscosity Cor-
relations for Minor Constituent Fluids in Natural Gas: n-octane,
n-nonane and n-decane; Fluid Phase Equilibria, Vol. 224, No. 2, pp.
263-270, 2004.
5. Benedict, M., Webb, G.B. and Rubin, L.C., An Empirical
Equation for Thermodynamic Properties of Light Hydrocarbons and
Their Mixtures: I. Methane, Ethane, Propane, and n-Butane; Journal
of Chemical Physics, Vol. 8, No.4, pp. 334-345, 1940.
6. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H., Calculation of Z
Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State; Journal of Cana-
dian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 34-36, Ju1y-September
1975.
7. Nishiumi, H., An Improved Generalized BWR Equation of State
with Three Polar Parameters Applicable to Polar Substances; Journal
of Chemical Engineering of Japan, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 178-183,1980.
8. STANDING, M.B. and KATZ, D.L., Density of Natural Gases;
Transactions AIME, Vol. 146, pp. 140-149, 1942.
9. Obeida, T.A., Heinemann, Z.E. and Kriebernegg, M., Ac-
curate Calculations of Compressibility Factor for Pure Gases and Gas
Mixtures; paper SPE 37440 presented at the SPE Production Opera-
tions Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 9-11 March 1997.
10. PENG, D.-Y. and ROBINSON, D.B., A New Two Constant Equation
of State; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, Vol.
15, No. 1, pp. 59-64, 1976.
11. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D., Two-Phase Flow in Pipes; Intercomp
Course, The Hague, Netherlands, 1974.
12. Kay, W.B., Density of Hydrocarbon Gases and Vapors at High Tem-
perature and Pressure; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 28,
pp. 1014-1019, September 1936.
13. STEWART, W.F., BURKHARDT, S.F. and VOO, D., Prediction of
Pseudocritical Parameters for Mixtures; paper presented at the Na-
tional Meeting of the AIChE, Kansas City, MO, 18 May 1959.
 14. KESLER, M.G. and LEE, B.I., Improved Prediction of Enthalpy
of Fractions; Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 153-158,
March 1976.
15. Wichert, E., and Aziz, K., Calculation of Z’s for Sour Gases;
Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 119-122, May 1972.
16. SUTTON, R.P., Compressibility Factors for High-Molecular-Weight
Reservoir Gases; paper SPE 14265 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, 22-26 Sep-
tember 1985.
17. Corredor, J.H., Piper, L.D. and McCain, W.D., Compress-
ibility Factors for Naturally Occurring Petroleum Gases; paper SPE
24864 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, Washington, DC, 4-7 October 1992.
18. ELSHARKAWY, A.M. and ELKAMEL, A., Compressibility Factor
for Sour Gas Reservoirs; paper SPE 64284 presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia,
16-18 October 2000.
19. Londono, F.E., ARcher, R.A. and Blasingame, T.A., Corre-
lations Hydrocarbon-Gas Viscosity and Gas Density – Validation and
Correlation of Behavior Using a Large-Scale Database; SPE Reser-
voir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol. 8. No. 6, pp. 561-572, December
2005.
20. SOAVE, G., Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-Kwong
Equation of State; Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 27, pp. 1197-
1203, 1972.
21. PATEL, N.C. and TEJA, A.S., A New Cubic Equation of State for
Fluids and Fluid Mixtures; Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 37,
No. 3, pp. 463-473, 1982.
22. LI, Q. and GUO, T.M., A Study on the Supercompressibility and
Compressibility Factors of Natural Gas Mixtures; Journal of Petro-
leum Science and Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 235-247, 1991.
23. MOHSEN-NIA, M., MODDARESS, H. and MANSOORI, G.A.,
Sour Natural Gas and Liquid Equation of State; paper SPE 26906
presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburg, PA, 2-4
November 1993.
24. HURON, M.J., DUFOUR, G.N. and VIDAL, J., Vapour-Liquid
Equilibrium and Critical Locus Curve Calculations with the Soave
Equation for Hydrocarbon Systems with Carbon Dioxide and Hy-
drogen Sulfide; Fluid Phase Equilibria, Vol. 1, pp. 247-265, 1978.
25. EVELEIN, K.A. and MOORE, R.G., Prediction of Phase Equilibria
in Sour Natural Gas Systems Using the Soave-Redlich-Kwong Equa-
tion of State; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design
and Development, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 618-624, 1979.
26. GUO, X.-Q., WANG, L.-S., RONG, S.-X. and GUO, T.-M., Vis-
cosity Model Based on Equations of State for Hydrocarbon Liquids
and Gases; Fluid Phase Equilibria, Vol. 139, Nos. 1-2, pp. 405-421,
December 1997.
27. MCCAIN, JR., W.D., The Properties of Petroleum Fluids; Second
Edition, PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK, 1990.
28. Reichenberg, D., Fluids and Fluids Mixtures; Symposium on
Transport Properties of Fluids and Fluid Mixtures, National Engi-
neering Laboratory, East Kilbride, Glasgow, Scotland, May 1979.
29. LUCAS, K., Die Berechnung der Eigenschaften von Gasen und Flüs-
sigkeiten nach der Molekularen Theorie  -  Stand des Wissens und
Anwendungen in der Verfahrenstechnik; Chemie Ingenieur Technik,
Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 117-125, February 1977.
30. Chung, T.-H., LEE, L.L. and Starling, K.E., Application of Ki-
netic Gas Theories and Multiparameter Correlation for Prediction of
Dilute Gas Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity; Industrial and Engi-
neering Chemistry Fundamentals, Vol. 23, No. 13, pp. 8-13, 1984.
31. Reid, R.C., PrausNiTz, J.M. and Poling, B.E., The Properties
of Gases and Liquids; Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, NY, 1987.
32. Brule, M.R. and Starling, K.E., Thermophysical Properties of
Complex Systems: Applications of Multiproperty Analysis; Indus-
trial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development,
Vol. 23, pp. 833-845, 1984.
33. Carr, N.L. Kobayashi, R. and Burrows, D.B., Viscosity of
Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure; Transactions AIME, Vol. 201,
pp. 264-272, 1954.
34. Jossi, J.A., Stiel, L.I. and Thodos, G., The Viscosity of Pure
Substances in the Dense Gaseous and Liquid Phases; AIChE Journal,
Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 59-63, March 1962.
35. LEE, A.L., GONZALEZ, M.H. and EAKIN, B.E., The Viscosity of
Natural Gases; Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp.
997-1000, August 1966.
36. Zadeh, L.A., Fuzzy Sets; Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp. 338-353, 1965.
37. Yager, R.R. and Zadeh, L.A., An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic
Applications in Intelligent Systems; Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Norwell, MA, 1992.
54 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
38. Takagi, T. and Sugeno, M., Fuzzy Identification of Systems and
Its Applications to Modelling and Control; IEEE Transaction on Sys-
tems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 116-132, 1985.
39. Shokir, E.M. EL-M., A Novel Model for Permeability Prediction
in Uncored Wells; SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 266-273, June 2006.
40. Yen, J., Wang, L. and Gillespie, C.W., Improving the Interpret-
ability of TSK Fuzzy Models by Combining Global Learning and
Local Learning; IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 6, No. 4,
pp. 531-537, November 1998.
41. Gustafson, D.E. and Kessel, W.C., Fuzzy Clustering With a
Fuzzy Covariance Matrix; IEEE-CDC, Vol. 2, pp. 761-766, 1979.
42. Bezdek, J.C. and Pal, S.K., Fuzzy Models for Pattern Recogni-
tion: Methods That Search for Structures in Data; IEEE Press, New
York, NY, 1992.
43. Wang, L.-X. and Mendel, J.M., Generating Fuzzy Rules by
Learning From Examples; IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1414-1427, 1992.
44. Gonzalez, M.H., Eakin, B.E. and Lee, A.L., Viscosity of
Natural Gases; American Petroleum Institute, Monograph on API Re-
search Project 65, New York, NY, 1970.
45. Diehl, J., Gondouin, M., Houpeurt, A., Neoschil, J.,
Thelliez, M., Verrien, J.P. and Zurawsky, R., Viscosity and
Density of Light Parafins, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide; Editions
Technip, CREPS/Geopetrole, Paris, France, 1970.
46. Golubev, I.F., Viscosity of Gases and Gas Mixtures, a Handbook;
this paper is a translation from Russian by the NTIS (National Tech-
nical Information Service), Springfield, VA, 1959.
47. Stephan, K. and Lucas, K., Viscosity of Dense Fluids; The
Purdue Research Foundation, Plenum, New York, NY, 1979.
48. Setzmann, U. and Wagner, W., A New Equation of State and
Tables of Thermodynamic Properties for Methane Covering the
Range from the Melting Line to 625 K at Pressures up to 1000 MPa;
Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.
1061-1155, 1991.
49. PoetTmann, H.F. and Carppenter, P.G., The Multiphase Flow
of Gas, Oil and Water Through Vertical Flow String with Application
to the Design of Gas-lift Installations; API Drilling and Production
Practice, Vol. 17, pp. 257-263, 1952.
50. Fukuyama, Y. and Sugeno, M., A New Method of Choosing
the Number of Clusters for Fuzzy C Means Method; in the Proceed-
ings of the 5th Fuzzy System Symposium, pp. 247-250, Tokyo, Japan,
1989.
Provenance—Original Petroleum Society manuscript, Novel Density and
Viscosity Correlations for Gases and Gas Mixtures Containing Hydro-
carbon and Non-Hydrocarbon Components (2007-161), first presented
at the 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 58th Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society), June 12-14, 2007, in Cal-
gary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review December 15, 2006; editorial
comments sent to the author(s) June 25, 2008; revised manuscript received
July 14, 2008; paper approved for pre-press July 14, 2008; final approval
September 18, 2008.
Author’s Biography
Eissa Mohamed El-Moghawry Bayoumi
Shokir is an Associate Professor of Petro-
leum Engineering at King Saud University.
Dr. Shokir is an author or co-author of many
published papers in international journals
and technical papers in various subjects in-
cluding artificial intelligence, formation
evaluation, fluid phase behaviour, forma-
tion damage and drilling. He holds B.Sc.
and M.Sc. degrees from the Cairo Uni-
versity, Egypt, and a Ph.D. degree from
the Technical University of Clausthal, Germany, all in petroleum
engineering.