Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Viscosity modeling of reservoir fluids using the Friction Theory with T

PC-SAFT crude oil characterization
⁎
Mohammed I.L. Abutaqiya, Jieyi Zhang, Francisco M. Vargas
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Friction Theory (FT) for viscosity modeling is applied to a characterization method based on the Saturates-
PC-SAFT Aromatics-Resins-Asphaltenes content (SARA) which makes use of the Perturbed-Chain version of the Statistical
Peng-Robinson Associating Fluid Theory equation of state (PC-SAFT EoS). The viscosity modeling results are compared to Chi-
Friction Theory Square (CS) characterization method that uses Peng-Robinson (PR) EoS. In the Friction Theory, viscosity is
Live oil viscosity
calculated using repulsive and attractive pressures from an EoS. In this work, the FT parameters for pseudo-
Crude oil characterization
components are obtained by tuning to a single value of viscosity at saturation condition. A new fitting approach
for PC-SAFT FT model is proposed where the number of fitting parameters for each pseudo-component is re-
duced from two to one. The simulation results for 10 light crude oils from the Middle East region show that using
PC-SAFT EoS to represent the phase behavior of the crude oil provides viscosity predictions that are at least as
good as the CS method that uses PR EoS, even though a lower number of tuning parameters and pseudo-fractions
are used. However, the use of PC-SAFT to calculate repulsive and attractive pressures in the FT model does not
significantly improve the accuracy in viscosity modeling as compared to the use of PR EoS.

1. Introduction theoretical description of the liquid phase viscosity is arduous. Because

The determination of the viscosity of hydrocarbon fluids is needed
to simulate the flow dynamics inside pipes and reservoirs, which is of
utmost importance for the development of strategies for hydrocarbon
production, transportation, and processing. Throughout these processes
the reservoir fluids experience temperature and pressure changes that
can even induce phase separation and alter composition. The viscosity
of reservoir fluids can change multiple orders of magnitude due to
temperature, pressure, and composition variations.
Several models for viscosity have been developed on empirical,
semi-empirical, or theoretical bases. Generally, prediction of viscosity
for crude oils is highly challenging due to the complex structure of
reservoir fluids. Many authors have reviewed the viscosity models in
the literature [1–5]. Mehortra et al. [2] and Vesovic et al. [3] have
discussed in depth models that are applicable to hydrocarbon systems.
Most viscosity models are applicable to either gas or liquid phases
within a specific range of temperature and pressure. Models for gases
are more developed mainly because the momentum transfer in a dilute
gas is dominated by random collisions between molecules, which can
be described by the kinetic theory and Chapman-Enskog theory accu-
rately [2,6]. On the other hand, since the momentum transfer me-
chanisms involved in liquids are far more complex than for gases, a
of these challenges, viscosity of liquid is modeled with either empirical
or semi-empirical models. Empirical models [7–9] for modeling visc-
osity of hydrocarbons have not found much popularity in the industry
because of the limited applicability in terms of temperature and pres-
sure range. Semi-empirical models [10–13] generally perform better
but still require a proper crude oil characterization method that accu-
rately captures the phase behavior and chemical structure.
The Friction Theory (FT) for viscosity modeling [14,15] is a rela-
tively recent semi-empirical model that has gained a wide popularity in
the oil industry. The viscosity of a fluid is modeled as a sum of kine-
matic and mechanical contributions. The theory relates the friction
viscosity to repulsive and attractive pressures, which can be calculated
from an equation of state. The Friction Theory has been widely used for
accurate modeling of pure component viscosities [14,16,17]. Further-
more, it has proven successful in modeling different hydrocarbon
mixtures such as natural gases [18,19], natural gas liquid [20], light
crude oils [13,20,21] heavy oils [22–24] and CO2 + hydrocarbons
[25]. While the viscosity modeling of pure components and their mix-
tures can be purely predictive, the crude oil modeling generally re-
quires the tuning of Friction Theory parameters to available experi-
mental data.
As a compositional model, the implementation of the Friction

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abutaqiya@rice.edu (M.I.L. Abutaqiya), jieyi.zhang@rice.edu (J. Zhang), fvargas@rice.edu (F.M. Vargas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.06.062
Received 28 March 2018; Received in revised form 9 June 2018; Accepted 15 June 2018
0016-2361/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al.
Nomenclature
Acronyms
A+R Aromatics + Resins
A + R+A Aromatics + Resins + Asphaltenes
AAPD Average Absolute Percent Deviation
CS (p) Chi Square distribution with p degrees of freedom
EoS Equation of State
MW Molecular Weight
PC-SAFT Perturbed-Chain Statistical Associating Fluid Theory
PNA Polynuclear Aromatics
PR Peng Robinson
PVT Pressure Volume Temperature
SARA Saturates, Aromatics, Resins, Asphaltenes
SLF Single Liquid Fraction
Symbols
c Peneloux correction
fc Scaling parameter for critical pressure
KcPR Scaling parameter for critical viscosity in PR FT
KcPC-SAFT Scaling parameter for critical viscosity in PC-SAFT FT
Theory for simulating crude oil viscosity requires the use of a char-
acterization procedure. Several crude oil characterization methods are
available in the literature such as: Whitson method [26], Pedersen
method [27], Chi-Square method [20], and SARA-based method
[28–30]. The Whitson, Pedersen, and Chi-square methods use cubic
equations of state to represent the pressure-volume-temperature rela-
tion of crude oils. The SARA-based method, originally developed by
Ting et al. [28], uses the Perturbed-Chain form of the Statistical Asso-
ciating Fluid Theory (PC-SAFT) equation of state. It has been shown
that the SARA-based characterization method can accurately model
asphaltene precipitation and PVT properties of crude oils [28–32].
Furthermore, Abutaqiya et al. [33] proposed a simplification to the
SARA-based method called the Single Liquid Fraction (SLF) that does
not require SARA analysis as an input. The authors showed that the SLF
model yields good results for modeling a wide range of PVT experi-
ments for oils from the Middle East region and concluded that the SLF
method can be used in case SARA analysis is not readily available.
Previous work using Friction Theory mainly investigated viscosity
modeling of crude oil using Chi-Square characterization method with
PR EoS [13,20–24]. The main purpose of this work is to formulate a
procedure for the application of the Friction Theory to the SARA-based
method (which uses PC-SAFT EoS) for the modeling of high-tempera-
ture and high-pressure viscosity of live oil and compare the results to
the Chi-Square method. In case SARA analysis is not available for the
crude of interest, the SLF method is used. Furthermore, this work in-
vestigates the use of PC-SAFT and PR EoS to calculate the repulsive and
attractive pressures in the Friction Theory model. The work aims to
compare three scenarios in modeling the viscosity of crude oils at high-
pressure and high-temperature:
1- SARA-based characterization method with PC-SAFT Friction Theory
2- SARA-based characterization method with PR Friction Theory
3- Chi-Square characterization method with PR Friction Theory
The experimental data used for the comparison include liquid
viscosity of 10 light crude oils from the Middle East region. The study
aims to investigate which scenario would best reproduce the experi-
mental data after fitting the Friction Theory simulation parameters to a
single value of viscosity at saturation. This investigation helps in de-
ciding which scenario is most suitable for quality-control of high
114
Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129
Kz Compressibility correction factor in PR FT
m number of segments per molecule
Pa Attractive pressure
Pr Repulsive pressure
Rm Molar refractivity
TB Normal boiling point
TBr Reduced normal boiling point
zi Mole fraction of component i
Greek symbols
ε/k Segment-segment interaction energy
I Gamma distribution function
γ Aromaticity factor
ηa Attractive viscosity term in PC-SAFT FT
ηc Critical viscosity parameters in PR FT
ηf Friction viscosity contribution
ηo Dilute gas viscosity contribution
ηr Repulsive viscosity term in PC-SAFT FT
ρ20 Density at 20 °C
σ Segment diameter
ζ Volume shift implemented into repulsive and attractive
pressures
pressure and high temperature viscosity data of crude oils from the
Middle East region. In addition, viscosity of oil is an important factor in
the modeling of flow dynamics and asphaltene deposition in pipelines.
The SARA-based method using PC-SAFT EoS has proven reliable for
modeling asphaltene precipitation. Therefore, a methodology for cou-
pling the SARA-based method with a viscosity model is of great im-
portance for flow assurance applications. Such a model can be used to
capture the effect of pressure, temperature, and composition on oil
viscosity in asphaltene deposition simulators [34–36] that implement
the SARA-based method. These deposition models currently assume
constant oil viscosity in solving the flow equations.
2. Background on the implemented modeling methods
This section provides a review for all the models and equations used
in this work. First, a description of the characterization methods is
provided for the SARA-based, SLF, and Chi-Square methods along with
a description of the most common technique to assign EOS parameters
for the pseudo-components in each characterization method. Then, a
brief description of the Friction Theory using PR and PC-SAFT EoS is
presented. Finally, important equations used for estimating the critical
properties for the cubic EoS are discussed.
2.1. Crude oil characterization and EOS parameter estimation methods
2.1.1. SARA-based characterization method using PC-SAFT EoS
In the SARA-based method [28–32] the stock tank oil is character-
ized based on the content of saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphal-
tenes. The model uses the perturbed chain version of the Statistical
Associating Fluid Theory EoS (PC-SAFT) [37]. PC-SAFT is a variation of
the original SAFT EoS developed by Chapman et al. [38,39] and has
proven to accurately model complex systems such as polymers and
asphaltenes [28–32,40,41].
In the SARA-based characterization method, the gas and liquid
phases are characterized separately and then combined based on the
zero-flash gas-to-oil ratio (GOR) to form the live oil composition. The
gas phase is represented by as seven components, namely: Nitrogen
(N2), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Methane (C1),
Ethane (C2), Propane (C3), and a “Heavy Gas” pseudo-component (C4+
fractions in the flashed gas). The liquid phase is characterized by three
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al.
pseudo-components: Saturates, Aromatics + Resins (A + R), and
Asphaltenes.
In order to use the PC-SAFT EoS, three parameters are needed for
each non-associating component, namely: the number of segments per
molecule (m), the segment diameter (σ), and the segment-segment in-
teraction energy (ε/k). The three simulation parameters for pure com-
ponents are adapted from the work of Gross and Sadowski [37]. For the
pseudo-components, the correlations from Gonzalez et al. [42] form the
basis for the parameter estimation technique. Gonzalez et al. [42]
correlated the PC-SAFT parameters to molecular weight for different
homologous series of hydrocarbons such as alkanes, benzene deriva-
tives, and polynuclear aromatics (PNA). Punnapala and Vargas [30]
defined an aromaticity factor γ that ranges from 0 to 1, where γ = 0
represents n-alkanes and γ = 1 represents polynuclear aromatics (PNA).
The final expressions for the PC-SAFT parameters for the pseudo-com-
ponents are [30]:
m = (1−γA + R )(0.0257MW + 0.8444) + γA + R (0.101MW + 1.7296) (1)
ln(MW ) ⎞ 93.98
σ (Å) = (1−γA + R ) ⎛4.047−4.8013 + γA + R ⎛4.6169− ⎞
⎝ MW ⎠ ⎝ MW ⎠ (2)
9.523 ⎞ 234100
ε / k (K ) = (1−γA + R ) ⎛exp ⎛5.5769− ⎞ + γA + R ⎛508− ⎞ i=1
⎝ ⎝ MW ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ MW 1.5 ⎠ (3)
The aromaticity of “Heavy Gas” and “Saturates” pseudo-fractions is
assumed to be that of n-alkanes (γ = 0) . The aromaticity of the “A + R”
pseudo-fraction (γA + R ) is regressed to match the bubble pressure and
the live oil density at saturation. The molecular weight for the “A + R”
and “Saturates” fractions are chosen such that the average molecular
weight of the STO is satisfied. For the “Asphaltene” pseudo-fraction, the
aromaticity and the molecular weight (MWasphal ) are fit to match ex-
perimental data for asphaltene onset of precipitation.
2.1.2. Single Liquid Fraction (SLF) characterization method using PC-SAFT
Abutaqiya et al. [33] proposed the SLF method to eliminate the
need of SARA analysis as an input to the model since SARA may be
prone to experimental uncertainty and is not readily available. The SLF
differs from the SARA-analysis only in the liquid phase lumping pro-
cedure. The liquid phase in the SLF method is characterized as a single
pseudo-component called the Single Liquid Fraction “SLF” instead of
three pseudo-components; “Saturates”, “A + R”, and “Asphaltene”. The
gas phase lumping procedure and the parameter estimation method
described in the previous section are the same. The aromaticity para-
meter for the “SLF” pseudo-fraction (γSLF ) is tuned to match experi-
mental bubble pressure and density of reservoir fluid at saturation.
Despite its simplicity, the model has shown good match to experimental
data from a wide range of PVT experiments for light crude oils from the
Middle-East [33].
2.1.3. Chi-Square characterization method using cubic EoS
Quiñones-Cisneros and coworkers proposed using the Chi-Square
(CS) characterization of crude oil to describe the molar mass distribu-
tion of the heavy fractions (C7+) [20,22,23,43]. In essence, the CS
characterization procedure first finds the best CS distribution with p
degrees of freedom (CS( p )) that describes the C7+ molar mass dis-
tribution, then generate any desired number of pseudo fractions from
the CS( p ) function for modeling work. The ability to conveniently
generate any number of pseudo fractions with equal mass fraction is an
important advantage of this procedure, since weight-based procedure
gives all hydrocarbon fractions in the C7+ equal importance [44].
In general, a Chi-Square probability distribution function fdis with p
degrees of freedom has the form of Eq. (4).
p
2− 2 p
e− 2 s ( 2 )
s
fdis =
−1
Γ ()
p
2 (4)
115
Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129
where Γ represents the gamma function [26,45] and s can be inter-
preted as a molecular-weight-scaled variable that can have values equal
or greater than zero. The mass fraction corresponded to s range from
zero to s0 is regarded as the light-component mass fraction up to the C6
fraction (M6 ), which should satisfy Eq. (5).
s0
∫ fdis ds = M6
0 (5)
For each component i in the heavy fraction, the mass fraction ( fmi )
is represented by the area under CS ( p ) function between si and si − 1 that
satisfies Eq. (6).
si
fmi = ∫ fdis ds
si − 1 (6)
and the molecular weight (MWi ) is calculated using Eq. (7).
MWi = MW si ̂ (7)
where the molecular weight scaling parameter MW is calculated using
Eq. (8) and the center of mass si ̂ is calculated using Eq. (9).
m
MW + fmi
MW =
(1−M6)
∑ si ̂
(8)
si
1
si ̂ =
fmi
∫ sfdis ds
si − 1 (9)
where MW +
is the molecular weight of the C7+ fraction, m is the total
number of components reported for the liquid fraction.
To find the best CS ( p ) function that describes the heavy fraction
mass distribution, the degree of freedom p is optimized to match the
molecular weight of the first few fractions as they are typically mea-
sured with higher accuracy. The average molecular weight of the heavy
fraction reported from experiment can be matched by adjusting the
molecular weight of the last fraction. Any number of pseudo fractions
necessary for the modeling calculations can be generated from the
optimized CS ( p ) function through Eqs. (7)–(9), where equal mass
fraction fmi can be set for each pseudo-fraction and molecular weights
can then be calculated.
2.2. The Friction Theory for viscosity modeling
The Friction Theory was proposed by Quiñones-Cisneros and cow-
orkers who approached viscosity as a mechanical property instead of a
transport property [14,15]. The friction theory approach separates
viscosity η into two parts as expressed in Eq. (10).
η = η0 + ηf (10)
where η0 represents the dilute gas viscosity contribution as a results of
collisions of molecules in dilute gas state; the friction viscosity con-
tribution ηf represents the energy dissipation associated to motion due
to external stress (analogous to the Amontons-Coulomb friction law).
The dilute viscosity term η0 can be calculated from the model by Chung
et al. [46] which is based on Chapman-Enskog theory. The friction
viscosity term ηf is correlated to the repulsive and attractive pressure
terms [14,15]. Therefore, different Friction Theory models may be
constructed depending on the EoS that is used to calculate the repulsive
and attractive pressure terms. Two Friction Theory models are dis-
cussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2: Peng-Robinson Friction Theory (PR
FT), and PC-SAFT Friction Theory (PC-SAFT FT).
2.2.1. Peng-Robinson Friction Theory model
For FT models that are based on cubic EoSs, ηf has the general form
of Eq. (11) [15]:
ηf
= ηf ̂ = kr Pr + ka Pa + krr Pr2
ηc (11)
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

where ηc is the characteristic critical viscosity, ηf ̂ is the dimensionless temperature and critical pressure based on the One-Third Rule pro-
friction viscosity contribution, Pr is the repulsive pressure, Pa is the at- posed by Vargas et al. [51]. The One-Third Rule was derived based on
tractive pressure, k is the viscous friction coefficient whose subscript r the observation that the ratio of molar refractivity Rm (cm3/mol) to the
means repulsive, subscript a means attractive, and rr means second MW of a given component is approximately equal to one-third for a
order repulsive. In the case of PR FT, the repulsive and attractive wide range of hydrocarbons at different temperatures and pressures.
pressure can be readily obtained from the pressure expression of PR EoS This correlation is described by Eq. (16).
[47]. The viscous friction coefficients kr , ka , krr are functions of tem- 2
perature, critical properties, and 16 universal constants that are de- ⎛ n −1 ⎞ 1 = Rm ≈ 1
⎜ ⎟
2
pendent on the cubic EoS used. For PR FT, the universal constants can ⎝n + 2⎠ ρ MW 3 (16)
be found in ref [15]. where n is the sodium D-line refractive index and ρ is the mass density
The characteristic critical viscosity ηc for CO2, N2, and n-alkanes up (g/cm3). Panuganti et al. [50] extended one-third rule to predict critical
to n-octadecane are reported in Ref. [15]. Quiñones-Cisneros et al. [13] temperature Tc and critical pressure Pc from easily measurable proper-
suggested estimating the characteristic critical viscosity ηc for pseudo- ties such as the normal boiling temperature TB , density ρ , and molecular
components from a modified correlation from Uyehara and Watson weight MW . Using fundamental thermodynamic property relations and
[48] as shown in Eq. (12). the one-third rule to relate the Van Der Waals attractive term a to TB ,
MW, and ρ20 , Panuganti et al. [50] derived the following equations for
MWi Pc2/3
,i
ηc, i = K c Tc and Pc :
Tc1/6
,i (12)
2
where the constant K c is 7.95 for n-alkanes. Quiñones-Cisneros et al. (
⎛ 0.613 MW +
Tc = TB ⎜
0.1674MW
ρ20 ) + 24.85 ⎞⎟
[13] fitted the K c value for all the pseudo-fractions generated by the
Chi-Square distribution to match experimental values of viscosity of ⎝
(
⎜ 0.577 MW + 0.1674MW
ρ20 ) + 11.12 ⎟⎠ (17)
live oil above bubble pressure.
2

2.2.2. PC-SAFT Friction Theory

(
⎛0.613 MW +
Pc = TB2 ⎝
0.1674MW
ρ20 ) + 24.85⎞⎠
4
Quiñones-Cisneros et al. proposed the PC-SAFT FT model that aimed
to improve compressibility prediction at high pressure [49]. The PC-
(
⎛0.577 MW +
⎝
0.1674MW
ρ20 ) + 11.12⎞⎠ (18)
SAFT FT is a quadratic model that has the form shown in Eq. (13). where temperature is in units of K, pressure in atm, and density in g/
2 2 cm3. ρ20 is the density measured at 20 °C.
∼ P ∼ P ∼ P ∼ P
ηf = ηa ⎛⎜ka ⎛ a ⎞ + kaa ⎛ a ⎞ ⎞⎟ + ηr ⎛⎜kr ⎛ r ⎞ + +krr ⎛ r ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎝ ⎠ Pc P
⎝ ⎠⎠
c ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ Pc ⎝ Pc ⎠ ⎠ (13) 2.3.2. Lee-Kesler correlations for ω
where ηa and ηr are the scaling parameters for the attractive and re- Kesler and Lee [52] proposed that the acentric factor can be esti-
∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ mated from critical temperature and critical pressure using Eq. (19):
pulsive term, respectively, and ka , kaa , kr , and krr are the reduced fric-
tion coefficients. The scaling parameters for pure components and the s
ln(PBr )−5.92714 +
6.09649 6
+ 1.28862ln(TBr )−0.169347TBr
TBr
38 universal constants for the model can be found in ref [49]. Quiñones- ω= 15.6875 6
Cisneros et al. [49] suggested an empirical correlation for estimating ηa 15.2518− T −13.4721ln(TBr ) + 0.43577TBr (19)
Br
and ηr for n-alkanes from Eqs. (14) and (15): s
where PBr is the ratio of atmospheric pressure to Pc , TBr is the ratio of TB
ηa = −124.491 + 5.88015/ m + 1023.46/ m2 (14) to Tc .

ηr = 160.376 + 44.6249/ m−852.173/ m2 (15) 2.3.3. Quiñones-Cisneros et al. [22] correlations Tc, Pc, and ω
Quiñones-Cisneros et al. [22] suggested the following correlations
2.3. Estimation of critical properties of crude oil components for the calculation of critical properties of pseudo-components in crude
oils:
Cubic EoS calculations require input of the critical properties (Tc , Pc , Tc = −423.587 + 210.152ln(MW ) (20)
ω ) of crude oil components. The critical properties of pure components
are available in literature, while the critical properties of the pseudo- Pc = fc exp (9.67283−4.05288MW 0.1) (21)
components can be estimated from correlations. In this section, three
15.1665
models are discussed for the estimation of critical properties. ω = exp ⎛8.50471− ⎞
⎝ MW 0.1 ⎠ (22)
2.3.1. The One-Third Rule correlations for Tc and PC where MW is in g/mol, Tc is in K, Pc is in bar. The perturbation factor fc
Panuganti et al. [50] presented a new method to estimate critical reflects the deviation of the critical pressure from that of an n-alkane

Table 1
Properties of crude oils investigated in this study.
Property Crude A Crude B Crude C Crude D Crude E Crude F Crude G Crude H Crude I Crude J

STO MW (g/mol) 201.5 212.4 201.9 204.0 193.5 208.0 177.5 181.2 193.0 189.7
STO API gravity 37.4 31.7 36.9 36.9 40.5 38.0 40.2 39.2 38.4 39.7
GOR (Sm3/m3) 83.5 38.1 147.8 192.4 189.7 163.7 135.4 63.4 171.4 159.1
ρsat (kg/m3) 692.0 764.0 654.7 636.2 624.2 647.6 643.0 692.0 632.4 635.5
Reservoir T (oC) 126.7 100.0 121.1 126.7 120.6 121.1 121.1 126.7 123.9 123.9
Psat (MPa) 8.79 5.76 16.39 19.79 15.79 17.35 15.41 7.63 15.88 14.81
Saturates, wt% 68.6 59.4 70.42 70.2 49.5 – 68.9 68.6 – –
Aromatics, wt% 22.3 22.57 22.64 22.9 40.2 – 21.8 22.3 – –
Resins, wt% 6.5 13.97 6.24 4.9 7.2 – 7.1 6.5 – –
Asphaltene wt% 0.5 1.73 0.18 0.1 3.1 – 0.5 0.5 – –

116
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

with the same molecular weight. The perturbation factor is considered a
fitting parameter which is fit to match experimental saturation pressure
for the crude oil of interest.
3. Methodology
In this study, 10 light crude oils from the Middle East region with
low asphaltene content are investigated. The properties of the crude oils
are shown in Table 1. Crudes B-F and I are taken from the work of
Abutaqiya et al. [33] with the same crude designation. The composition
of the crudes can be found in Appendix A. The asphaltene content in the
oils in Table 1 is measured using a gravimetric technique based on IP
143 standard. The determination of the amounts of Saturates, Aro-
matics and Resins for Crude A was originally performed using a clay-gel
adsorption column chromatography (ASTM D-2007 m). However, the
service laboratory reported a 30 wt% loss of volatiles from the oil
sample. Therefore, the SARA analysis from Crude H is used to represent
that of Crude A since both crudes are produced from the same field and
formation, and both have similar asphaltenes and resins content. A
sensitivity analysis will be performed at the end of this investigation to
study the effect of SARA analysis on the viscosity modeling results of
Crude A. For Crudes B, C, D, E, G, and H a chromatographic technique is
used that includes a column filled with activated alumina and various
solvents to elute each fraction separately. Note that the SARA analyses
in Table 1 do not necessarily add to 100% due to loss of some volatiles
and presence of inorganics. This small difference (0.5–2.3 wt%) is
added to the Aromatics + Resins + Asphaltenes pseudo-fraction as per
the characterization method used in this work (see Section 3.1).
In order to model the viscosity of a crude oil using the Friction
Theory, the crude oil must be characterized first to obtain the compo-
sition and molecular weight of the pseudo-fractions as well as the EoS
parameters that match the phase behavior (saturation pressure and
density). Then, the Friction Theory (FT) parameters are optimized de-
pending on available experimental data of viscosity. In this work, the
viscosity of live oil at saturation is used to tune the FT parameters.
As mentioned earlier, the Friction Theory requires the use of an EoS
(e.g. PR or PC-SAFT) to calculate repulsive and attractive pressures.
This implies that several combinations of crude oil characterization and
Friction Theory models may be formulated for modeling crude oil
viscosity. In this work, three combinations are investigated:
1- SARA-based characterization method with PC-SAFT Friction Theory
2- SARA-based characterization method with PR Friction Theory
3- Chi-Square characterization method with PR Friction Theory
A brief description of each scenario can be found in Table 2. A
detailed description is given in the following sections.
3.1. SARA-based + PC-SAFT FT
The characterization using the SARA-based method is performed as
described in Section 2.1.1, with the exception that the Asphaltene
pseudo-fraction is combined with the Aromatics + Resins fraction,
forming a pseudo-fraction here called A + R + A. The amount of as-
phaltenes in the modeled crudes is small and is not expected to have a
significant effect on the phase behavior or viscosity of crude oil, even if
neglected. The estimation of the PC-SAFT EoS parameters for the
pseudo-components is performed using Eqs. (1)–(3). For “Heavy Gas”
and “Saturates”, aromaticity (γ) in Eqs. (1)–(3) is set equal to zero
(which corresponds to n-alkanes). For the “Aro-
matics + Resins + Asphaltenes” fraction (A + R + A), the aromaticity
(γA+R+A) is fit to match the saturation pressure and density. In case the
SARA analysis is not reported for the crude of interest, the SLF method
is used (Section 2.1.2). The PC-SAFT EoS parameter estimation in the
SLF method is similar to the SARA-based method. The main difference
between the SLF and SARA-based methods is the number of pseudo-
components in the liquid phase, i.e. one pseudo-component in the SLF
method, and two pseudo components in the SARA-based method.
The PC-SAFT FT model requires two critical viscosity parameters for
each component (ηa and ηr) in addition to the three PC-SAFT EoS
parameters (m, σ, ε/k). For pure components (H2S, N2, CO2, C1, C2, and
C3), these two critical viscosity parameters are taken from the litera-
ture.[49] The “Heavy Gas” and “Saturates” pseudo-components are
assumed to consist of n-alkanes. Therefore, the correlations in Eqs. (14)
and (15) can be used to obtain ηa and ηr. For the “A + R + A” pseudo-
component, a correction factor (KcPC-SAFT) is introduced to Eqs. (14) and
(15) to take into account the deviation from n-alkanes behavior. The
correlations to obtain PC-SAFT FT parameters for “A + R + A” be-
comes:
5.88015 1023.46
ηa = K cPC − SAFT ⎛−124.491 + + ⎞
⎝ m m2 ⎠ (23)
44.6249 852.173
ηr = K cPC − SAFT ⎛160.376 + − ⎞
⎝ m m2 ⎠ (24)
where K cPC − SAFT is considered a fitting parameter. The superscript “PC-
SAFT” is used to distinguish the K c for the PC-SAFT FT from that used
by Quiñones-Cisneros et al. [13] for the PR FT. When the SLF method is
used, a similar approach is followed where the correlations in Eqs. (23)
and (24) are used for the SLF pseudo-component.
3.2. SARA-based + PR FT
The characterization results from the previous section are used in
this scenario, i.e. the crude oil components, mole fractions, molecular
weight, and PC-SAFT parameters. Here, the PR EoS is used for the
Friction Theory model. Therefore, the PR EoS parameters (Tc, Pc, ω) are

Table 2
Description of the investigated scenarios for viscosity modeling in this work.
SARA-based + PC-SAFT FTa SARA-based + PR FTa CS + PR FT

EoS used for PVT behavior of crude oil PC-SAFT PC-SAFT PR

PVT data used to fit EoS parameters - Saturation pressure - Saturation pressure - Saturation pressure
- Saturation density - Saturation density - Density above saturation
Number of fitted parameters to match PVT behavior of crude oil 1b 1b 2
(γA+R) (γA+R) (fc and Peneloux correction)
EoS used to calculate repulsive and attractive pressures in the Friction Theory PC-SAFT PR PR
Viscosity data used to fit FT parameters Viscosity at saturation
Number of fitted parameters for viscosity modeling 1 1 1
(KcPC-SAFT) (KcPR) (KcPR)
References for the crude oil characterization method [28–33] [28–33] [20,22,23,40]

a
In case SARA analysis is not available for the crude of interest, SLF method is used for the crude characterization.
b
The Asphaltene pseudo-fraction is lumped with the A + R pseudo-fraction. Therefore, there is no need to fit the two asphaltene parameters γasphal. and MWasphal.
(see Section 2.1.1).

117
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al.
required for each component. The PR EoS parameters are readily
available for pure components (H2S, N2, CO2, C1, C2, and C3). For
pseudo-components in the SARA-based method (“Heavy Gas”,
“Saturates”, and “A + R + A”) or in the SLF method (“Heavy gas” and
“SLF”), the critical pressure and critical temperature are calculated
from the One-Third rule using Eqs. (17) and (18) (Section 2.3.1). The
normal boiling point (Tb) and density at 20 °C (ρ20) for each pseudo-
component, which are required in Eqs. (17) and (18), are calculated
using PC-SAFT with EoS parameters that were already obtained from
the characterization step. Therefore, PC-SAFT is used as a source of
“experimental” values for Tb and ρ20 for the pseudo-components. The
acentric factor (ω) for each pseudo-component is calculated from the
Lee-Kesler correlations Eq. (19), with Tc and Pc calculated from the One-
Third rule.
The PR FT model requires knowledge of the critical viscosity (ηc) for
each component. For pure components, the critical viscosity values can
be found in the literature [15]. The “Heavy Gas” and “Saturates”
pseudo-fractions are assumed to consist of n-alkanes. Therefore, the
correlations for ηc in Eq. (12) can be used with Kc value of 7.95 which
corresponds to n-alkanes [13]. For “A + R + A” or “SLF” pseudo-frac-
tions, the Kc in Eq. (12) is treated as a fitting parameter. In this work,
the KcPR of “Saturates” or “SLF” pseudo-fractions is fitted to match the
viscosity at saturation. Here we introduce the superscript PR to dis-
tinguish between the Kc used for PR from that used in PC-SAFT.
Fig. 1. Description of the scenarios used for crude oil viscosity modeling in this work (FT: Friction Theory, CS: Chi-Square).
118
Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129
3.3. CS + PR FT
Quiñones-Cisneros et al. used the Chi-Square characterization of
crude oil with the PR EoS for both the PVT behavior and the FT to
model the viscosity of crude oil [20,22,23,43]. Here, the same proce-
dure is followed as suggested by the authors.
The heavy fraction in the crude oil is characterized as four pseudo-
components following a Chi-Square distribution (Section 2.1.3). The PR
EoS is used to describe the phase behavior of the crude oil. For pure
components (H2S, N2, CO2, C1, C2, C3, i-C4, n-C4, i-C5, and n-C5, and C6),
the PR EoS parameters (Tc, Pc, ω) are available from the literature. For
the four pseudo-fractions, the PR EoS parameters are obtained from the
correlations of Quiñones-Cisneros et al. [22] shown in Eqs. (20)–(22)
(Section 2.3.3). The perturbation parameter fc in Eq. (21) is treated as
an adjustable parameter to match the saturation pressure for the crude
oil of interest [22]. Furthermore, to match the density of the crude oil,
Quiñones-Cisneros et al. [22] suggested a Peneloux shift correction
from the actual volume v to a corrected volume v′,
v′ = v−c (25)
where the volume shift c is estimated with:
c = Kv ∑ x i MWi
HF (26)
with the summation performed over the heavy fractions, and Kv is the
adjustable parameter for the volume correction.
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

The PR FT requires the critical viscosity ηc for each component. For
pure components, the critical viscosity values can be found in the lit-
erature [15]. For the four pseudo-fractions, the correlations for ηc in Eq.
(12) can be used with KcPR treated as a single fitting parameter for all
pseudo-fractions [22]. In this work, KcPR is tuned to match the viscosity
at saturation.
Fig. 1 demonstrates a flowchart for the description of the three
scenarios studied in this work. Example calculations for two scenarios
(SARA-based + PR FT and SARA-based + PC-SAFT FT) can be found in
the supplementary information document attached to this manuscript,
as well as tabulated experimental data for viscosity and density of each
crude oil.
Table 4. The PR EoS parameters, along with the density at 20 °C (ρ20)
and normal boiling point (Tb) are shown in Table 5 for the pseudo-
components in the SARA-based method. As mentioned earlier, the
density at 20 °C (ρ20) and normal boiling point (Tb) are obtained from
the PC-SAFT EoS.
The characterized crudes and the optimized EoS parameters using
the Chi-Square characterization method are shown in Table 6. The
characterization results shown in Table 6 were obtained using the
commercial software VLXE|BLEND® from VLXE Aps. The optimized PR
FT parameters are shown in Table 7.
4.2. Viscosity modeling results

4. Results After fitting the Friction Theory parameters to viscosity at satura-

4.1. Characterization results and FT simulation parameters
The characterized crudes and the optimized EoS parameters using
the SARA-based method (or SLF for crudes F, I, and J) are shown in
Table 3. The simulation parameters for crudes B-F and I in Table 3 are
taken from Abutaqiya et al. [33] The binary interaction parameters
(BIPs) used for the SARA-based method are taken from Punnapala and
Vargas [30], while those for the SLF method are taken from Abutaqiya
et al. [33] The sets of BIPs used in this work can be found in Appendix
B. The optimized Friction Theory parameters for the PC-SAFT FT and
the PR FT using the SARA-based characterization method are shown in
tion, predictions are made for viscosity values on the entire pressure
range. The value of viscosity at saturation is chosen in order to in-
vestigate the capability of the Friction Theory to predict viscosity of live
oil at high-pressure and high-temperature from minimum available
experimental data. Fig. 2 shows the simulation results of the viscosity of
the live oil for the 10 crudes studied. Table 8 provides the average
absolute percent deviation (AAPD) of the viscosity predictions for the
three scenarios. The AAPD of the viscosity predictions is reported for
the under-saturated oil (above bubble point), saturated oil (below
bubble point), and for the entire pressure range. The error associated
with the viscosity point at ambient pressure is not included in the
AAPD. This data point is subject to the highest experimental

Table 3
Simulation parameters for crude oils using the SARA-based and SLF characterization methods.
Component MW (g/mol) γ zi (mol%) m σ (Å) ε/k (K) Component Component MW (g/mol) γ zi (mol%) m σ (Å) ε/k (K)

Crude A N2 28.01 – 0.22 1.21 3.31 90.96 N2 28.01 – 0.10 1.21 3.31 90.96 Crude B
CO2 44.01 – 2.38 2.07 2.79 169.21 CO2 44.01 – 0.90 2.07 2.79 169.21
C1 16.04 – 18.12 1.00 3.70 150.03 C1 16.04 – 12.51 1.00 3.70 150.03
C2 30.07 – 5.51 1.61 3.52 191.42 C2 30.07 – 4.60 1.61 3.52 191.42
C3 44.10 – 6.24 2.00 3.62 208.11 C3 44.10 – 5.11 2.00 3.62 208.11
Heavy gas 71.80 0.00 13.68 2.69 3.76 231.43 Heavy gas 65.42 0.00 5.11 2.53 3.74 228.45
Saturates 183.30 0.00 40.62 5.56 3.91 250.87 Saturates 177.90 0.00 52.96 5.42 3.91 250.48
A + R+A 257.40 0.60 13.23 5.58 4.13 372.65 A + R+A 310.40 0.69 18.62 6.09 4.20 400.43

Crude C N2 28.01 – 0.12 1.21 3.31 90.96 N2 28.01 – 0.12 1.21 3.31 90.96 Crude D
CO2 44.01 – 2.77 2.07 2.79 169.21 CO2 44.01 – 2.66 2.07 2.79 169.21
C1 16.04 – 32.03 1.00 3.70 150.03 C1 16.04 – 37.87 1.00 3.70 150.03
C2 30.07 – 6.43 1.61 3.52 191.42 C2 30.07 – 6.83 1.61 3.52 191.42
C3 44.10 – 6.05 2.00 3.62 208.11 C3 44.10 – 5.92 2.00 3.62 208.11
Heavy gas 72.84 0.00 12.66 2.72 3.76 231.87 Heavy gas 73.92 0.00 13.34 2.74 3.77 232.31
Saturates 187.62 0.00 30.19 5.67 3.91 251.17 Saturates 199.87 0.00 21.93 5.98 3.92 251.96
A + R+A 242.65 0.63 9.74 5.25 4.12 375.03 A + R+A 211.45 0.60 11.33 4.83 4.07 360.16

Crude E N2 28.01 – 0.16 1.21 3.31 90.96 N2 28.01 – 0.12 1.21 3.31 90.96 Crude F
CO2 44.01 – 1.66 2.07 2.79 169.21 CO2 44.01 – 2.59 2.07 2.79 169.21
C1 16.04 – 32.57 1.00 3.70 150.03 C1 16.04 – 34.15 1.00 3.70 150.03
C2 30.07 – 7.82 1.61 3.52 191.42 C2 30.07 – 6.72 1.61 3.52 191.42
C3 44.10 – 7.71 2.00 3.62 208.11 C3 44.10 – 6.32 2.00 3.62 208.11
Heavy gas 72.16 0.00 15.48 2.70 3.76 231.58 Heavy gas 72.33 0.00 13.41 2.70 3.76 231.65
Saturates 160.61 0.00 20.62 4.97 3.90 249.04 SLF 208.00 0.210 36.68 5.66 3.97 289.48
A + R+A 228.30 0.37 13.89 5.72 4.03 322.53

Crude G N2 28.01 – 0.15 1.21 3.31 90.96 N2 28.01 – 0.91 1.21 3.31 90.96 Crude H
CO2 44.01 – 1.91 2.07 2.79 169.21 CO2 44.01 – 2.34 2.07 2.79 169.21
C1 16.04 – 31.23 1.00 3.70 150.03 C1 16.04 – 16.84 1.00 3.70 150.03
C2 30.07 – 7.08 1.61 3.52 191.42 C2 30.07 – 4.99 1.61 3.52 191.42
C3 44.10 – 6.49 2.00 3.62 208.11 C3 44.10 – 5.14 2.00 3.62 208.11
Heavy gas 66.06 0.00 8.24 2.54 3.74 228.78 Heavy gas 71.77 0.00 6.60 2.69 3.76 231.42
Saturates 162.42 0.00 33.80 5.02 3.90 249.20 Saturates 151.95 0.00 51.57 4.75 3.89 248.20
A + R+A 220.00 0.52 11.09 4.89 4.09 368.48 A + R+A 307.53 0.60 11.46 6.40 4.17 381.23

Crude I N2 28.01 – 0.26 1.21 3.31 90.96 N2 28.01 – 0.18 1.21 3.31 90.96 Crude J
CO2 44.01 – 1.85 2.07 2.79 169.21 CO2 44.01 – 1.85 2.07 2.79 169.21
C1 16.04 – 31.10 1.00 3.70 150.03 C1 16.04 – 29.85 1.00 3.70 150.03
C2 30.07 – 7.11 1.61 3.52 191.42 C2 30.07 – 7.18 1.61 3.52 191.42
C3 44.10 – 6.84 2.00 3.62 208.11 C3 44.10 – 7.04 2.00 3.62 208.11
Heavy gas 74.35 0.00 15.52 2.76 3.77 232.48 Heavy gas 72.54 0.00 14.63 2.71 3.76 231.74
SLF 193.00 0.200 37.31 5.38 3.96 285.34 SLF 189.70 0.204 39.26 5.30 3.96 285.41

119
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Table 4
Optimized PR and PC-SAFT Friction Theory parameters using the SARA-based (or SLF) characterization method.
Component PR FT PC-SAFT FT Component PR FT PC-SAFT FT

Kc PR
ηc (μP) Kc PC-SAFT
ηa (μP) ηr (μP) KcPR ηc (μP) KcPC-SAFT ηa (μP) ηr (μP)

Crude A N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 Crude B

CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3 CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3
C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7 C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7
C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9 C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9
C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0 C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0
Heavy gas 7.95 269.5 – 19.2 59.2 Heavy gas 7.95 269.3 – 37.7 44.9
Saturates 7.95 243.2 – −90.3 140.8 Saturates 7.95 247.1 – −88.6 139.6
A + R + A (γ = 0.60) 7.02 269.0 0.428 −38.7 60.3 A + R + A (γ = 0.69) 5.50 146.1 1.14 −109.6 165.3

Crude C N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 Crude D

CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3 CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3
C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7 C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7
C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9 C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9
C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0 C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0
Heavy gas 7.95 269.5 – 16.0 61.6 Heavy gas 7.95 269.4 – 14.0 63.2
Saturates 7.95 242.0 – −91.6 141.7 Saturates 7.95 238.7 – −94.9 144.0
A + R + A (γ = 0.63) 11.46 447.8 0.556 −48.0 76.7 A + R + A (γ = 0.60) 13.74 540.4 0.516 −41.0 68.7

Crude E N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 Crude F

CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3 CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3
C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7 C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7
C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9 C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9
C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0 C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0
Heavy gas 7.95 269.5 – 18.1 60.0 Heavy gas 7.95 269.2 – 17.7 60.3
Saturates 7.95 249.4 – −81.9 134.9 SLF (γ = 0.210) 7.55 253.8 0.280 −25.6 39.7
A + R + A (γ = 0.37) 8.71 311.1 0.272 −25.1 38.7

Crude G N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 Crude H

CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3 CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3
C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7 C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7
C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9 C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9
C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0 C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0
Heavy gas 7.95 269.3 – 36.5 45.9 Heavy gas 7.95 269.4 – 19.2 59.1
Saturates 7.95 248.9 – −82.7 135.4 Saturates 7.95 251.8 – −77.9 132.0
A + R + A (γ = 0.52) 12.02 475.3 0.275 −22.1 36.8 A + R + A (γ = 0.60) 5.04 186.8 0.258 −25.5 37.8

Crude I N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 N2 – 174.2 – 2.3 57.8 Crude J

CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3 CO2 – 376.9 – −16.1 119.3
C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7 C1 – 152.9 – 8.2 48.7
C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9 C2 – 217.6 – 9.0 49.9
C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0 C3 – 249.7 – 1.3 65.0
Heavy gas 7.95 269.4 – 12.5 64.3 Heavy gas 7.95 269.5 – 17.2 60.7
SLF (γ = 0.200) 7.96 261.3 0.277 −24.4 38.5 SLF (γ = 0.204) 7.14 242.3 0.242 −21.0 33.5

Table 5
PR EoS parameters for the pseudo-components in the SARA-based (or SLF) method.
Component ρ20 (g/cm3) Tb (K) Pc (bar) Tc (K) ω Component ρ20 (g/cm3) Tb (K) Pc (bar) Tc (K) ω

Crude A Heavy gas 620 309.20 37.78 496.30 0.11 Heavy gas 0.60 293.57 40.18 482.45 0.07 Crude B
Saturates 757 505.15 17.31 674.26 0.61 Saturates 0.75 497.87 17.82 667.45 0.59
A + R + A (γ = 0.60) 996 737.60 20.49 946.85 1.04 A + R + A (γ = 0.69) 1.07 826.98 18.06 1041.2 1.15

Crude C Heavy gas 620 311.69 37.41 498.51 0.12 Heavy gas 0.63 314.24 37.03 500.76 0.13 Crude D
Saturates 760 510.86 16.92 679.62 0.62 Saturates 0.77 526.56 15.90 694.38 0.64
A + R + A (γ = 0.63) 1000 718.87 21.93 929.45 1.02 A + R + A (γ = 0.60) 0.97 660.87 24.15 869.32 0.92

Crude E Heavy gas 620 310.1 37.65 497.08 0.11 Heavy gas 0.62 310.48 37.59 497.44 0.12 Crude F
Saturates 740 473.4 19.63 644.68 0.55 SLF (γ = 0.210) 0.83 583.84 18.82 767.91 0.77
A + R + A (γ = 0.37) 890 650.5 19.59 845.71 0.89

Crude G Heavy gas 600 295.19 39.92 483.89 0.07 Heavy gas 0.62 309.15 37.84 496.35 0.11 Crude H
Saturates 740 476.07 19.43 647.14 0.55 Saturates 0.74 460.49 20.66 632.71 0.52
A + R + A (γ = 0.52) 990 680.35 23.77 890.49 0.95 A + R + A (γ = 0.60) 1.02 808.35 17.37 1018.12 1.12

Crude I Heavy gas 630 315.25 36.88 501.67 0.13 Heavy gas 0.62 310.98 37.51 497.88 0.12 Crude J
SLF (γ = 0.215) 820 563.66 20.06 748.41 0.73 SLF (γ = 0.204) 0.82 556.46 20.16 740.50 0.72

uncertainty and its inclusion in the overall AAPD may cause misleading predictions that are within 10% of the experimental data. The “SARA-
interpretations of the results. based + PC-SAFT FT” model shows the lowest deviation from experi-
mental data with an AAPD of 3.3%, while the CS + PR FT shows the
5. Discussion highest deviation with an AAPD of 6.4%. As observed from the results
in Table 8, the error in the predictions for the three scenarios below
In general, the three scenarios provide acceptable overall saturation pressure is higher than the error above saturation pressure.

120
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Table 6
Simulation parameters for crude oils using the PR Chi-Square characterization method.
Component MW (g/mol) zi (mol%) Tc (K) Pc (bar) ω c Component MW (g/mol) zi (mol%) Tc (K) Pc (bar) ω c

Crude A N2 28.01 0.22 126.20 33.98 0.04 −0.15 N2 28.01 0.12 126.20 33.98 0.037 −0.15 Crude B
CO2 44.01 2.37 304.12 73.74 0.23 −0.04 CO2 44.01 0.92 304.12 73.74 0.225 −0.04
H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09 H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.090 −0.09
C1 16.04 18.10 190.56 45.99 0.01 −0.32 C1 16.04 12.33 190.56 45.99 0.011 −0.32
C2 30.07 5.56 305.32 48.72 0.10 −0.19 C2 30.07 4.74 305.32 48.72 0.099 −0.19
C3 44.10 6.53 369.83 42.48 0.15 −0.14 C3 44.10 6.25 369.83 42.48 0.152 −0.14
i-C4 58.12 2.03 407.85 36.40 0.19 −0.12 i-C4 58.12 1.25 407.85 36.40 0.186 −0.12
n-C4 58.12 5.00 425.12 37.96 0.20 −0.11 n-C4 58.12 4.63 425.12 37.96 0.200 −0.11
i-C5 72.15 2.60 460.39 33.81 0.23 −0.09 i-C5 72.15 2.07 460.39 33.81 0.229 −0.09
n-C5 72.15 3.43 469.70 33.70 0.25 −0.07 n-C5 72.15 3.35 469.70 33.70 0.252 −0.07
C6 84.00 5.10 509.84 28.61 0.29 0.02 C6 84.00 4.86 509.84 28.61 0.295 0.02
Heavy 1 124.36 20.99 594.68 29.77 0.41 −0.09 Heavy 1 131.01 27.49 631.13 32.34 0.387 −0.14
Heavy 2 193.32 13.51 688.12 22.14 0.62 −0.09 Heavy 2 227.49 15.83 752.92 22.24 0.638 −0.14
Heavy 3 283.46 9.21 769.18 16.94 0.87 −0.09 Heavy 3 348.15 10.34 846.84 16.42 0.921 −0.14
Heavy 4 488.85 5.34 884.62 11.37 1.37 −0.09 Heavy 4 618.19 5.83 973.56 10.68 1.475 −0.14

Crude C N2 28.01 0.12 126.20 33.98 0.04 −0.15 N2 28.01 0.13 126.20 33.98 0.04 −0.15 Crude D
CO2 44.01 2.78 304.12 73.74 0.23 −0.04 CO2 44.01 2.64 304.12 73.74 0.23 −0.04
H2S 34.08 0.01 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09 H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09
C1 16.04 32.18 190.56 45.99 0.01 −0.32 C1 16.04 37.47 190.56 45.99 0.01 −0.32
C2 30.07 6.47 305.32 48.72 0.10 −0.19 C2 30.07 6.78 305.32 48.72 0.10 −0.19
C3 44.10 6.19 369.83 42.48 0.15 −0.14 C3 44.10 5.94 369.83 42.48 0.15 −0.14
i-C4 58.12 1.54 407.85 36.40 0.19 −0.12 i-C4 58.12 1.47 407.85 36.40 0.19 −0.12
n-C4 58.12 4.02 425.12 37.96 0.20 −0.11 n-C4 58.12 3.76 425.12 37.96 0.20 −0.11
i-C5 72.15 1.89 460.39 33.81 0.23 −0.09 i-C5 72.15 1.73 460.39 33.81 0.23 −0.09
n-C5 72.15 2.59 469.70 33.70 0.25 −0.07 n-C5 72.15 2.32 469.70 33.70 0.25 −0.07
C6 84.00 3.74 509.84 28.61 0.29 0.02 C6 84.00 3.35 509.84 28.61 0.29 0.02
Heavy 1 117.13 17.02 594.29 32.90 0.37 −0.14 Heavy 1 111.90 15.64 583.09 33.68 0.36 −0.12
Heavy 2 190.64 10.46 699.65 23.75 0.58 −0.14 Heavy 2 183.80 9.52 690.19 24.20 0.56 −0.12
Heavy 3 284.96 6.99 786.59 17.93 0.82 −0.14 Heavy 3 288.12 6.07 787.20 17.68 0.83 −0.12
Heavy 4 498.15 4.00 907.40 11.91 1.31 −0.14 Heavy 4 549.14 3.19 926.39 10.99 1.43 −0.12

Crude E N2 28.01 0.12 126.20 33.98 0.04 −0.15 N2 28.01 0.14 126.20 33.98 0.037 −0.15 Crude F
CO2 44.01 2.59 304.12 73.74 0.23 −0.04 CO2 44.01 2.59 304.12 73.74 0.225 −0.04
H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09 H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09
C1 16.04 34.16 190.56 45.99 0.01 −0.32 C1 16.04 34.01 190.56 45.99 0.011 −0.32
C2 30.07 6.72 305.32 48.72 0.10 −0.19 C2 30.07 6.69 305.32 48.72 0.099 −0.19
C3 44.10 6.36 369.83 42.48 0.15 −0.14 C3 44.10 6.34 369.83 42.48 0.152 −0.14
i-C4 58.12 1.54 407.85 36.40 0.19 −0.12 i-C4 58.12 1.53 407.85 36.40 0.186 −0.12
n-C4 58.12 4.05 425.12 37.96 0.20 −0.11 n-C4 58.12 4.03 425.12 37.96 0.2 −0.11
i-C5 72.15 1.99 460.39 33.81 0.23 −0.09 i-C5 72.15 1.98 460.39 33.81 0.229 −0.09
n-C5 72.15 2.66 469.70 33.70 0.25 −0.07 n-C5 72.15 2.65 469.70 33.70 0.252 −0.07
C6 84.00 3.56 509.84 28.61 0.29 0.02 C6 84.00 3.65 509.84 28.61 0.2945 0.02
Heavy 1 114.32 16.72 565.71 29.66 0.41 −0.10 Heavy 1 113.34 16.68 584.76 33.22 0.361 −0.13
Heavy 2 191.86 9.96 673.26 20.99 0.65 −0.10 Heavy 2 188.51 10.03 694.34 23.66 0.577 −0.13
Heavy 3 304.02 6.29 768.88 15.20 0.98 −0.10 Heavy 3 297.38 6.36 792.53 17.19 0.862 −0.13
Heavy 4 584.24 3.27 904.57 9.36 1.68 −0.10 Heavy 4 569.54 3.32 932.50 10.63 1.479 −0.13

Crude G N2 28.01 0.16 126.20 33.98 0.04 −0.15 N2 28.01 0.90 126.2 33.98 0.04 −0.15 Crude H
CO2 44.01 1.90 304.12 73.74 0.23 −0.04 CO2 44.01 2.33 304.1 73.74 0.23 −0.04
H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09 H2S 34.08 0.07 373.4 89.63 0.09 −0.09
C1 16.04 31.12 190.56 45.99 0.01 −0.32 C1 16.04 16.81 190.6 45.99 0.01 −0.32
C2 30.07 7.16 305.32 48.72 0.10 −0.19 C2 30.07 5.14 305.3 48.72 0.10 −0.19
C3 44.10 6.90 369.83 42.48 0.15 −0.14 C3 44.10 5.83 369.8 42.48 0.15 −0.14
i-C4 58.12 1.81 407.85 36.40 0.19 −0.12 i-C4 58.12 1.79 407.9 36.40 0.19 −0.12
n-C4 58.12 4.48 425.12 37.96 0.20 −0.11 n-C4 58.12 4.34 425.1 37.96 0.20 −0.11
i-C5 72.15 2.14 460.39 33.81 0.23 −0.09 i-C5 72.15 2.33 460.4 33.81 0.23 −0.09
n-C5 72.15 2.90 469.70 33.70 0.25 −0.07 n-C5 72.15 3.04 469.7 33.70 0.25 −0.07
C6 84.00 4.24 509.84 28.61 0.29 0.02 C6 84.00 4.76 509.8 28.61 0.29 0.02
Heavy 1 89.60 20.76 531.77 38.15 0.29 −0.11 Heavy 1 119.69 22.36 562.0 26.75 0.46 0.02
Heavy 2 203.54 9.14 707.74 22.16 0.63 −0.11 Heavy 2 185.43 14.43 650.9 19.97 0.68 0.02
Heavy 3 372.91 4.99 837.58 14.41 1.06 −0.11 Heavy 3 268.72 9.96 726.1 15.42 0.95 0.02
Heavy 4 809.56 2.30 1003.8 7.98 1.98 −0.11 Heavy 4 453.94 5.90 832.5 10.53 1.47 0.02

(continued on next page)

121
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Table 6 (continued)

Component MW (g/mol) zi (mol%) Tc (K) Pc (bar) ω c Component MW (g/mol) zi (mol%) Tc (K) Pc (bar) ω c

Crude I N2 28.01 0.27 126.20 33.98 0.04 −0.15 N2 28.01 0.17 126.20 33.98 0.04 −0.15 Crude J
CO2 44.01 1.86 304.12 73.74 0.23 −0.04 CO2 44.01 1.87 304.12 73.74 0.23 −0.04
H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09 H2S 34.08 0.00 373.40 89.63 0.09 −0.09
C1 16.04 31.24 190.56 45.99 0.01 −0.32 C1 16.04 29.93 190.56 45.99 0.01 −0.32
C2 30.07 7.16 305.32 48.72 0.10 −0.19 C2 30.07 7.24 305.32 48.72 0.10 −0.19
C3 44.10 6.95 369.83 42.48 0.15 −0.14 C3 44.10 7.23 369.83 42.48 0.15 −0.14
i-C4 58.12 1.84 407.85 36.40 0.19 −0.12 i-C4 58.12 1.95 407.85 36.40 0.19 −0.12
n-C4 58.12 4.56 425.12 37.96 0.20 −0.11 n-C4 58.12 4.81 425.12 37.96 0.20 −0.11
i-C5 72.15 2.31 460.39 33.81 0.23 −0.09 i-C5 72.15 2.38 460.39 33.81 0.23 −0.09
n-C5 72.15 3.09 469.70 33.70 0.25 −0.07 n-C5 72.15 3.16 469.70 33.70 0.25 −0.07
C6 86.20 4.26 509.84 28.61 0.29 0.02 C6 84.00 4.45 509.84 28.61 0.29 0.02
Heavy 1 114.95 15.57 589.63 33.21 0.36 −0.15 Heavy 1 116.45 15.62 587.92 32.22 0.38 −0.13
Heavy 2 177.04 10.11 682.94 24.91 0.54 −0.15 Heavy 2 177.84 10.22 678.72 24.30 0.56 −0.13
Heavy 3 260.76 6.86 766.61 19.04 0.76 −0.15 Heavy 3 260.85 6.97 760.86 18.63 0.78 −0.13
Heavy 4 456.12 3.92 887.43 12.68 1.22 −0.15 Heavy 4 454.85 4.00 880.09 12.43 1.25 −0.13

Table 7
Critical viscosities (ηc) and fitted KcPR values for the PR Friction Theory model after fitting to viscosity at saturation using the Chi-Square characterization method.
Crude ηc (μP)

A B C D E F G H I J

Component
N2 174.2 174.2 174.2 174.2 174.2 174.2 174.2 174.2 174.2 174.2
CO2 376.9 376.9 376.9 376.9 376.9 376.9 376.9 376.9 376.9 376.9
H2S 318.0 318.0 318.0 318.0 318.0 318.0 318.0 318.0 318.0 318.0
C1 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9 152.9
C2 224.1 224.1 224.1 224.1 224.1 224.1 224.1 224.1 224.1 224.1
C3 239.9 239.9 239.9 239.9 239.9 239.9 239.9 239.9 239.9 239.9
i-C4 244.4 244.4 244.4 244.4 244.4 244.4 244.4 244.4 244.4 244.4
n-C4 249.6 249.6 249.6 249.6 249.6 249.6 249.6 249.6 249.6 249.6
i-C5 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.0 254.0
n-C5 252.6 252.6 252.6 252.6 252.6 252.6 252.6 252.6 252.6 252.6
C6 242.4 242.4 242.4 242.4 242.4 242.4 242.4 242.4 242.4 242.4
Heavy 1 321.0 291.2 351.3 344.3 246.6 273.2 189.0 381.4 330.4 303.8
Heavy 2 320.7 290.3 351.0 344.2 246.4 273.1 189.1 381.1 330.4 303.7
Heavy 3 318.9 287.7 348.9 342.0 244.6 271.2 186.8 379.3 328.8 302.3
Heavy 4 313.5 281.2 342.8 334.6 238.9 265.1 180.1 373.6 323.7 297.6

KcPR 7.71 7.34 9.71 9.02 6.92 7.18 5.02 11.20 8.64 8.05

The experimental data above saturation pressure (single-phase fluid) is
expected to be more accurate than the data below saturation pressure
(in the two-phase region). This is mainly because other factors of ex-
perimental uncertainty arise when measuring viscosity in the two-phase
region such as sample equilibration time. The modeling results in
Table 8 show trends that are consistent with the expected experimental
uncertainty. The CS + PR FT scenario shows a larger deviation to ex-
perimental data below the bubble point than the other two scenarios.
However, given the high experimental uncertainty in the measurements
below bubble point, these high deviations are still acceptable.
The modeling results for crude G using CS + PR FT show deviation
from experimental data in the regions above and below bubble pres-
sure. Deviations are also observed for Crude B above the bubble point
using SARA-based + PR FT. Quiñones-Cisneros et al. recommended
using a correction factor (K z ) to correct for the compressibility effects
which are usually inadequately described by a regular cubic EOS for
dense fluids [22]. The correction factor is implemented by in-
corporating a volume shift (ζ ) to the volume used in the calculation of
the repulsive and attractive pressure. This volume shift is different than
the one used to match the experimental density (Eqs. (25) and (26)).
The following mixing rule for the volume shift was proposed by the
authors [22]:
1
ζ = Kz ∑ x i MWi3
i (27)
where the summation applies only to pseudo-components and K z is
tuned over viscosity data in the entire pressure range. However, since in
this work we are studying the predictive capability of the models after
tuning to only one data point at saturation, it is not possible to in-
corporate the K z correction factor into the modeling results.
The accuracy of viscosity predictions are expected to depend on how
accurately the model captures the density. In search for a relation be-
tween the viscosity and density predictions, modeling of oil density is
performed using the two characterization procedures: SARA-based and
CS. The AAPD for the density predictions are shown in Table 9. Similar
to viscosity, the modeling results for density show a consistent trend to
the expected experimental uncertainty. The AAPD for the predictions
below bubble point (two phase region) is higher than AAPD above
bubble point (single phase region). Also, the CS method shows a larger

122
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Fig. 2. Modeling results for viscosity of crude oils at reservoir temperature (FT: Friction Theory, PR: Peng Robinson, CS: Chi-Square).

deviation for density predictions below saturation pressure than the
SARA-based method. This can explain the larger deviation in the visc-
osity predictions below bubble point for the CS method. In order to
analyze the relation between density and viscosity predictions, the
AAPD of viscosity predictions in each region is plotted against AAPD of
density predictions as shown in Fig. 3. A positive relationship is
observed which indicates that good match to viscosity data is expected
if the density predictions of the EoS model are accurate. Therefore, the
improved predictions of viscosity from the SARA-based method can be
attributed to the more powerful characterization method and EoS used
for the phase behavior (PC-SAFT). The improved performance of the
SARA-based method can be justified by the more physical nature of the

123
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Table 8
Average absolute percent deviation for viscosity predictions after fitting to viscosity at saturation.
SARA-baseda + PC-SAFT FT SARA-baseda + PR-FT CS + PR FT

sat sat sat sat

Above P Below P Overall Above P Below P Overall Above Psat Below Psat Overall

Crude A 1.4% 3.1% 2.1% 0.1% 11.1% 4.6% 1.1% 21.3% 10.1%
Crude B 1.4% 7.1% 3.8% 2.6% 4.0% 3.1% 0.5% 2.9% 1.5%
Crude C 0.7% 5.4% 2.5% 1.7% 7.0% 3.8% 0.6% 19.0% 8.0%
Crude D 1.6% 5.5% 2.8% 1.1% 8.3% 3.2% 0.8% 22.5% 7.1%
Crude E 3.0% 9.4% 5.2% 2.1% 3.8% 2.6% 0.8% 9.7% 4.2%
Crude F 5.4% 9.6% 7.1% 1.7% 12.6% 6.2% 1.1% 13.3% 6.1%
Crude G 3.1% 2.4% 2.9% 3.8% 3.4% 3.7% 7.4% 19.6% 11.7%
Crude H 0.8% 4.9% 2.2% 1.0% 0.5% 0.9% 2.2% 4.3% 2.9%
Crude I 1.2% 0.7% 1.0% 0.5% 10.8% 4.4% 2.2% 17.9% 8.1%
Crude J 2.1% 3.9% 2.8% 2.6% 6.5% 4.1% 0.2% 12.1% 4.6%

Overall 2.1% 5.2% 3.2% 1.7% 6.8% 3.7% 1.7% 14.3% 6.4%

a
For crudes F, I, and J the SLF method is used for the crude characterization.

Table 9 The density predictions above saturation pressure using CS (AAPD

Average absolute percent deviation for density predictions using the SARA- 0.22%) show a slightly better match to experimental data than the
based characterization and the Chi-Square (CS) characterization. SARA-based method (AAPD 0.41%). This is because the Peneloux
SARA-baseda CS correction for PR EoS used for the CS method was fit to match the
entire set of density data above saturation pressure, unlike the SARA-
sat sat
Above P Below P Overall Above Psat Below Psat Overall based method which is tuned only to one density data point at sa-
turation. Although both characterization procedures show similar
Crude A 0.47% 0.39% 0.44% 0.16% 1.80% 0.69%
Crude B 0.14% 1.43% 0.57% 0.60% 0.45% 0.55% overall predictions for density, the SARA-based method should be
Crude C 0.10% 0.94% 0.38% 0.11% 1.83% 0.67% considered more superior to CS method for three reasons: 1) lower
Crude D 0.51% 1.01% 0.65% 0.10% 2.36% 0.67% number of data points required for the fitting (one density value),
Crude E 0.58% 0.40% 0.52% 0.09% 1.38% 0.46%
lower number of fitting parameters (one parameter), and lower
Crude F 0.52% 0.72% 0.59% 0.08% 2.05% 0.71%
Crude G 0.37% 1.54% 0.85% 0.24% 0.53% 0.33% number of pseudo-components used in the characterization. In fact,
Crude H 0.21% 1.55% 0.58% 0.55% 0.76% 0.61% even when the SLF method is used where the heavy fraction is char-
Crude I 0.61% 0.98% 0.73% 0.17% 1.55% 0.61% acterized as a single liquid pseudo-component (Crudes F, I, and J) the
Crude J 0.64% 0.81% 0.69% 0.08% 2.15% 0.70% viscosity predictions using PR-FT are at least as good as the predic-
Overall 0.41% 0.98% 0.60% 0.22% 1.49% 0.60% tions from the CS + PR-FT.
Comparing the SARA-based + PR FT and the SARA-based + PC-
a
For crudes F, I, and J the SLF method is used for the crude characterization. SAFT FT, it can be seen that using PC-SAFT FT yields slightly better
match to experimental data. Furthermore, the reduction of the FT
parameters for the pseudo-components proposed in this work from two
(ηa and ηr) to one (KcPC-SAFT) seems to provide acceptable results.
However, given the increased complexity in the PC-SAFT FT model, the
improvements in the viscosity are too slight to justify its use. The PR FT
model seems to provide sufficient description of the viscosity of the
crude oils at varying pressure and composition. The EoS used to capture
the phase behavior of the crude oil has a more pronounced effect on the
viscosity modeling results than the EoS used for the FT model.

6. Sensitivity to SARA analysis

The SARA-based method studied in this work requires SARA ana-

lysis as an input to characterize the heavy fraction. It is well-known,
however, that SARA analysis is subject to significant experimental un-
Fig. 3. The relation between error in viscosity predictions and error in density certainty. Different service laboratories follow different experimental
predictions for all crudes. The three points for each scenario correspond to procedures to estimate the SARA fractions and these techniques can
AAPD for data above Psat, overall, and below Psat (in increasing order). show significant differences [53,54]. Panuganti et al. briefly discussed
the sensitivity of SARA analysis on the predictive capability of the
SARA-based model to capture the effect of gas injection on asphaltene
characterization procedure. The SARA-based method splits the STO into precipitation [32]. The authors showed an example where two service
defined groups of pseudo-components (Saturates, Aro- laboratories provided significantly different results of SARA analysis for
matics + Resins + Asphaltenes) unlike the CS method which assumes the same crude, one of which was unreliable due to significant loss of
that the pseudo-components follow a specific mass distribution. volatiles. The authors showed that when the unreliable SARA analysis is

124
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Table 10 three scenarios: SARA-based method + PR FT, SARA-based

Results of the sensitivity analysis of Saturates fraction on the density and method + PC-SAFT FT, and CS + PR FT. By fitting the FT simulation
viscosity modeling of Crude A using SARA-based + PR FT method. parameters to a single value of viscosity at saturation point, the visc-
Case Saturates wt% γ* KcPR** AAPD (overall) osity is predicted for the entire pressure range. The modeling results for
10 light crude oils from the Middle East region show that the predic-
Density Viscosity tions from the SARA-based + PC-SAFT FT model show the best match
to experimental data with an AAPD of 3.2%, while the CS + PR FT
+20 wt% 88.6 1.57 25.79 0.51% 4.87%
+15 wt% 83.6 1.02 11.87 0.53% 4.87% show the least match with AAPD of 6.4%. The viscosity predictions
+10 wt% 78.6 0.90 8.84 0.50% 4.81% from the three scenarios show consistent trends to the expected ex-
+5 wt% 73.6 0.72 7.59 0.47% 4.69% perimental uncertainty, since the AAPD above saturation pressure
Base 68.6 0.60 7.02 0.44% 4.60%
(single-phase region) is lower than AAPD below saturation pressure
−5 wt% 63.6 0.53 6.57 0.59% 4.81%
−10 wt% 58.6 0.46 6.44 0.52% 4.97% (two-phase region). The difference in modeling accuracy between the
−15 wt% 53.6 0.41 6.31 0.52% 5.13% three scenarios mainly occurs over data below the bubble point, which
−20 wt% 48.6 0.36 6.22 0.52% 5.28% are subject to significant experimental uncertainty due to the presence
of two phases. Therefore, in effect, the three modeling scenarios argu-
* Aromaticity is optimized in each case to match bubble point and density.
ably provide the same accuracy.
** Kc factor is optimized in each case to match viscosity at saturation.
The capability of the characterization procedure to capture the
phase behavior of the crude oil seems to have a pronounced effect on
used as an input to the model, the predictive capability of asphaltene the viscosity predictions using the FT model. It is found that there exists
phase behavior is compromised. a positive relationship between the AAPD in the viscosity predictions
In this investigation, SARA analysis for Crude A was originally re- and the AAPD in the density predictions. The highest deviation in
ported with 30 wt% loss of volatiles. As a result, the SARA analysis for viscosity predictions corresponds to the CS + PR FT scenario below
Crude H is used to represent Crude A since both are being produced saturation pressure (14.3%), which also shows the highest deviation in
from the same field and formation and have similar resins and as- density predictions (1.49%) in the same region.
phaltenes content. No significant advantage, for viscosity modeling purposes, is ob-
Under the current modeling framework using the SARA-based served from using PC-SAFT FT model as compared to PR FT. The overall
method, the Aromatics, Resins, and Asphaltenes are lumped into a AAPD for the SARA-based + PC-SAFT FT (3.2%) is not significantly
single pseudo-fraction (A + R + A). Therefore, it is only possible to different from the SARA-based + PR FT (3.7%). The PR FT model is
investigate the effect of Saturates (or A + R + A) on the modeling re- sufficient for the modeling of crude oil viscosity when coupled with the
sults, and not each fraction of SARA separately. The sensitivity analysis SARA-based characterization (which uses PC-SAFT for modeling the
is performed by changing the Saturates wt% then re-optimizing the phase behavior of the crude). The EoS used to capture the phase be-
aromaticity of A + R + A fraction (to match bubble point and density) havior has a more pronounced effect on the viscosity modeling than the
and KcPR (to match viscosity at saturation). Results of the sensitivity EoS used for the FT model.
analysis on predictions of density and viscosity are shown in Table 10. Previous work has shown the accuracy of the SARA-based method in
The results in Table 10 indicate that the predictive capability for modeling a wide range of PVT properties and asphaltene precipitation
live oil density and viscosity are not significantly compromised by in crude oils. The successful implementation of the PR FT to the SARA-
changing SARA. The aromaticity and KcPR are re-tuned to match the based characterization method expands the range of applicability of the
phase behavior and viscosity of the live oil. Re-tuning aromaticity, in SARA-based method to the modeling of live oil viscosity. In fact, visc-
effect, maintains the unique total aromatic character of the crude oil. As osity modeling can be now implemented in asphaltene deposition si-
observed from Table 10, when the Saturates fraction increases, a higher mulators that utilize the SARA-based method for the thermodynamic
aromaticity of the A + R + A fraction is needed to match the phase modeling of asphaltene precipitation. This work has shown that even
behavior of the oil and maintain the total aromatic character. One can with a lower number of fitting parameters and lower number of pseudo-
think of the total aromatic character of the STO as the aromaticity that components, the SARA-based characterization method yields results
would be obtained had the crude been characterized using the SLF that are at least as good as (was better) the CS characterization method.
approach. Since Saturates are assumed to consist of n-alkanes (γ = 0), The superior performance is attributed in part to the more physical
increasing the amount of Saturates leads to a higher aromaticity of the nature of the SARA-based method as compared to the CS method, and
A + R + A fraction. In fact, for Saturates fraction higher than 83 wt%, to the more powerful EoS used to capture the density and phase be-
an aromaticity of A + R + A that is greater than 1 is needed to match havior (PC-SAFT). The proposed method has been verified for light
the phase behavior. Aromaticity is defined to be zero for n-alkanes and crude oils and extension to heavy oils is the topic of future investiga-
one for PNA, which is the definition proposed by Punnapala and Vargas tion. Light oils, nonetheless, tend to be more problematic with regard to
[30]. An aromaticity greater than 1 means that the pseudo-fraction is asphaltene deposition since asphaltenes are immiscible in light com-
more aromatic than PNA as defined above. Although this is not ne- ponents. Therefore, the SARA-based method proposed in this work
cessarily unphysical, it is highly unlikely and is not reported in the provides a comprehensive and promising tool for flow assurance ap-
literature as per the definition of Punnapala and Vargas. The base case plications in crude oil systems.
aromaticity and KcPR values for Crude A show reasonable values since
they are very similar to those of Crude H. This supports our assumption Acknowledgments
of using SARA analysis of Crude H to represent Crude A.
This work was undertaken with the generous support of Abu Dhabi
7. Conclusion National Oil Company (ADNOC) Oil Subcommittee. The authors are
grateful to Dalia S. Abdallah and Sameer Punnapala from ADCO for
This work investigates the modeling of crude oil viscosity using fruitful discussions.

125
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Appendix A. Compositional analysis of crude oils

See Tables Table A.1–A.3

Table A.1
Compositional analysis of flashed gas for the crudes modeled in this work.
Flashed gas composition (mol%)

MW Crude A Crude B Crude C Crude D Crude E Crude F Crude G Crude H Crude I Crude J

N2 28.01 0.47 0.34 0.20 0.18 0.25 0.19 0.37 2.47 0.42 0.29
CO2 44.01 5.15 3.29 4.61 3.96 2.54 4.09 3.44 6.33 2.95 3.05
H2S 34.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0
C1 16.04 39.27 44.04 53.32 56.45 49.79 53.94 56.23 45.65 49.62 49.15
C2 30.07 11.94 16.23 10.71 10.18 11.96 10.61 12.80 13.52 11.34 11.83
C3 44.10 13.52 18 10.07 8.83 11.79 9.99 11.71 13.93 10.91 11.59
iC4 58.12 3.93 2.84 2.42 2.14 2.79 2.36 2.77 3.52 2.81 3.01
nC4 58.12 9.12 8.23 6.08 5.32 6.97 6.05 6.17 7.23 6.75 7.11
iC5 72.15 3.87 2.14 2.50 2.30 2.94 2.67 2.01 2.3 3.06 3.08
nC5 72.15 4.64 2.69 3.16 2.90 3.72 3.36 2.27 2.38 3.85 3.79
C6 86.18 4.31 1.55 3.28 3.19 3.68 3.33 1.46 1.49 4.03 3.77
M-c-C5 84.16 0.00 0.13 0.40 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.00 0.00
Benzene 78.11 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.00
c-C6 84.16 0.00 0.05 0.50 0.53 0.52 0.42 0.00 0.00
C7 95.00 2.45 0.30 1.15 1.23 1.20 1.20 0.56 0.64
M-c-C6 98.19 0.00 0.03 0.24 0.28 0.23 0.24 0.00 0.00
Toluene 92.14 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.25 0.19 0.24 0.00 0.00
C8 108.8 0.93 0.06 0.55 0.64 0.54 0.48 0.17 0.22
C2-Benz. 106.17 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00
m&p-Xyl. 106.17 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.00
o-Xyl. 106.17 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
C9 120.80 0.28 0.01 0.19 0.24 0.18 0.07 0.04 0.07
C10 140.20 0.03 0.01 0.02
C11 147.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Plus fraction C10+ C12+ C10+ C10+ C10+ C10+ C12+ C12+ C7+ C7+
Plus fraction mol% 0.12 0.00 0.11 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.00 4.26 3.33
Plus fraction MW 142.46 – 143.1 136.8 136.9 134.0 – – 100.0 98.0

Table A.2
Compositional analysis of flashed liquid for the crudes modeled in this work.
Flashed liquid composition (mol%)

MW Crude A Crude B Crude C Crude D Crude E Crude F Crude G Crude H Crude I Crude J

N2 28.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CO2 44.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
H2S 34.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C1 16.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
C2 30.07 0.02 0.22 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.25 0.02 0.08
C3 44.10 0.27 1.65 0.28 0.24 0.35 0.10 0.86 1.10 0.21 0.45
iC4 58.12 0.27 0.62 0.21 0.15 0.27 0.13 0.63 0.77 0.20 0.33
nC4 58.12 1.08 3.20 0.90 0.69 1.08 0.63 2.39 2.63 0.85 1.24
iC5 72.15 1.22 2.05 0.98 0.65 1.17 0.81 2.32 2.34 1.03 1.3
nC5 72.15 2.04 3.62 1.71 1.22 2.06 1.45 3.74 3.40 1.80 2.2
C6 86.18 4.81 6.15 4.48 3.43 5.19 3.96 7.76 6.66 4.67 5.25
M-c-C5 84.16 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.98 0.93 0.89 0.00 0.00
Benzene 78.11 0.00 0.20 0.35 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.00 0.00
c-C6 84.16 0.00 0.46 0.59 0.53 0.66 0.53 0.00 0.00
C7 95.00 7.76 5.57 5.48 4.94 6.22 5.15 9.02 8.38
M-c-C6 98.19 0.00 0.75 1.27 1.29 1.36 1.19 0.00 0.00
Toluene 92.14 0.00 1.02 1.37 1.33 1.09 1.16 0.00 0.00
C8 108.80 9.34 5.93 6.52 7.02 7.43 6.54 9.4 9.00
C2-Benz. 106.17 0.00 0.59 0.77 1.53 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.00
m&p-Xyl. 106.17 0.00 0.53 1.64 1.12 1.64 1.57 0.00 0.00
o-Xyl. 106.17 0.00 0.31 0.76 0.66 0.79 0.74 0.00 0.00
C9 120.80 8.54 5.31 5.78 6.18 6.72 5.91 8.32 7.72
1,2,4TMB 120.19 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.95 0.67 1.05 0.00 0.00
C10 140.20 6.36 7.60 7.23
C11 147.00 5.40 6.00 5.83

Plus fraction C10+ C12+ C10+ C10+ C10+ C10+ C12+ C12+ C7+ C7+
Plus fraction mol% 64.65 49.19 65.05 66.70 61.32 67.15 41.83 44.7 91.22 89.14
Plus fraction MW 257.4 327.4 256.3 257.7 254.6 260.9 278.8 275.4 204 204.0

126
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Table A.3
Compositional analysis of combined sample for the crudes modeled in this work.
Combined sample composition (mol%)

MW Crude A Crude B Crude C Crude D Crude E Crude F Crude G Crude H Crude I Crude J

N2 28.01 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.20 0.90 0.27 0.17
CO2 44.01 2.36 0.93 2.78 2.64 1.67 2.59 1.88 2.33 1.86 1.87
H2S 34.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00
C1 16.04 18.02 12.39 32.18 37.47 32.63 34.01 30.78 16.81 31.24 29.93
C2 30.07 5.52 4.73 6.47 6.78 7.86 6.69 7.07 5.14 7.16 7.24
C3 44.10 6.49 6.25 6.19 5.94 7.85 6.34 6.80 5.83 6.95 7.23
iC4 58.12 2.02 1.24 1.54 1.47 1.92 1.53 1.80 1.79 1.84 1.95
nC4 58.12 4.97 4.62 4.02 3.76 4.92 4.03 4.46 4.34 4.56 4.81
iC5 72.15 2.57 2.08 1.89 1.73 2.33 1.98 2.15 2.33 2.31 2.38
nC5 72.15 3.41 3.36 2.59 2.32 3.15 2.65 2.93 3.04 3.09 3.16
C6 86.18 4.95 4.85 3.74 3.35 4.20 3.65 4.31 4.76 4.26 4.45
M-c-C5 84.16 0.00 0.66 0.58 0.6 0.532 0.480 0.00 0.00
Benzene 78.11 0.00 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.153 0.160 0.00 0.00
c-C6 84.16 0.00 0.34 0.53 0.53 0.533 0.400 0.00 0.00
C7 95.00 5.48 4.09 2.87 2.47 3.265 2.740 4.39 5.53
M-c-C6 98.19 0.00 0.55 0.65 0.62 0.677 0.590 0.00 0.00
Toluene 92.14 0.00 0.74 0.67 0.61 0.514 0.550 0.00 0.00
C8 108.80 5.40 4.27 2.91 2.77 3.702 3.180 4.35 5.77
C2-Benz. 106.17 0.00 0.42 0.33 0.54 0.331 0.320 0.00 0.00
m&p-Xyl. 106.17 0.00 0.38 0.68 0.42 0.709 0.670 0.00 0.00
o-Xyl. 106.17 0.00 0.22 0.32 0.24 0.341 0.310 0.00 0.00
C9 120.80 4.78 3.82 2.41 2.23 3.474 2.910 3.79 4.90
1,2,4TMB 120.19 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.32 0.309 0.460 0.00 0.00
C10 140.20 4.58 3.45 4.58
C11 147.00 3.88 2.71 3.96

Plus fraction C10+ C12+ C10+ C10+ C10+ C10+ C12+ C12+ C7+ C7+
Plus fraction mol% 33.82 35.35 25.9 22.37 21.19 24.72 18.94 28.24 36.43 36.78
Plus fraction MW 257.4 327.4 256.0 257.1 254.3 258.7 278.9 275.4 197.0 198.0

Appendix B. Binary interaction parameters

See Tables Table B.1–B.3

Table B.1
Binary interaction parameters for the SARA-based method (PC-SAFT EoS).
Component N2 CO2 H2S C1 C2 C3 Heavy gas Saturates A+R+A

N2 – 0 0.090 0.030 0.040 0.060 0.075 0.14 0.158

CO2 – 0.0678 0.05 0.097 0.1 0.12 0.13 0.1
H2S – 0.062 0.058 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.015
C1 – 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.029
C2 – 0 0.02 0.012 0.025
C3 – 0.015 0.01 0.01
Heavy gas – 0.005 0.012
Saturates – 0.007
A + R+A –

Table B.2
Binary interaction parameters for the SLF method (PC-SAFT EoS).
Component N2 CO2 H2S C1 C2 C3 Heavy gas SLF

N2 – 0 0.090 0.030 0.040 0.060 0.075 0.100

CO2 – 0.0678 0.057 0.097 0.107 0.090 0.100
H2S – 0.062 0.058 0.053 0.080 0.050
C1 – 0 0 0.080 0
C2 – 0 0.050 0
C3 – 0.030 0
Heavy gas – 0.067
SLF –

127
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al. Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129

Table B.3
Binary interaction parameters for the Chi-Square method (PR EoS).
Component N2 CO2 H2S C1 C2 C3 i-C4 n-C4 i-C5 n-C5 C6 Heavy 1 Heavy 2 Heavy 3 Heavy 4

N2 – −0.02 0.165 0.036 0.05 0.085 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
CO2 – 0.097 0.1 0.13 0.135 0.13 0.13 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
H2S – 0.085 0.075 0.075 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
C1 – 0.002 0.007 0.012 0.012 0.017 0.018 0.024 0 0 0 0
C2 – 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.007 0 0 0 0
C3 – 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0 0 0 0
i-C4 – 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0
n-C4 – 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0
i-C5 – 0 0 0 0 0 0
n-C5 – 0 0 0 0 0
C6 – 0 0 0 0
Heavy 1 – 0 0 0
Heavy 2 – 0 0
Heavy 3 – 0
Heavy 4 –

Appendix C. Supplementary data

A detailed step-by-step characterization is presented in the supplementary information document attached to this article. The example de-
monstrates how to obtain the EoS simulation parameters and the Friction Theory parameters. Also, the supplementary document contains tabulated
values of experimental data for viscosity and density at reservoir conditions for all crudes studied.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.06.062.

References
[1] Reid RC, Prausnitz JM, Poling BE. The properties of gases & liquids. fourth ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1987.
[2] Mehrotra AK, Monnery WD, Svrcek WY. A review of practical calculation methods
for the viscosity of liquid hydrocarbons and their mixtures. Fluid Phase Equilib
1996;117:344–55.
[3] Vesovic V, Trusler JPM, Assael MJ, Riesco N, Quiñones-Cisneros SE. Dense fluids:
viscosity. Assael MJ, Goodwin ARH, Vesovic V, Wakeham WA, editors.
Experimental thermodynamics volume IX : advances in transport properties of fluids
Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry; 2014.
[4] Viswanath DS. Viscosity of liquids: theory, estimation, experiment, and data.
Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.
[5] Monnery WD, Svrcek WY, Mehrotra AK. A critical review of practical predictive and
correlative methods. Canad J Chem Eng 1995;73(1):3–40.
[6] Hirschfelder JO, Curtiss CF, Bird RB. Molecular theory of gases and liquids. Wiley;
1954.
[7] Allan JM, Teja AS. Correlation and prediction of the viscosity of defined and un-
defined hydrocarbon liquids. Canad J Chem Eng 1991;69(4):986–91.
[8] Orbey H, Sandler SI. The prediction of the viscosity of liquid hydrocarbons and their
mixtures as a function of temperature and pressure. Canad J Chem Eng
1993;71(3):437–46.
[9] Twu CH. An internally consistent correlation for predicting the critical properties
and molecular weights of petroleum and coal-tar liquids. Fluid Phase Equilib
1984;16(2):137–50.
[10] Ely JF, Hanley HJM. Prediction of transport properties. 1. Viscosity of fluids and
mixtures. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 1981;20(4):323–32.
[11] Pedersen K, Fredenslund A, Christensen P, Thomassen P. Viscosity of crude oils.
Chem Eng Sci 1984;39(6):1011–6.
[12] Assael MJ, Dymond JH, Papadaki M, Patterson PM. Correlation and prediction of
dense fluid transport coefficients. I. n-Alkanes. Int J Thermophys
1992;13(2):269–81.
[13] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Stenby EH. The friction theory for
viscosity modeling: extension to crude oil systems. Chem Eng Sci 2001;56:7007–15.
[14] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Stenby EH. The friction theory (f-
theory) for viscosity modeling. Fluid Phase Equilib 2000;169(2):249–76.
[15] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Stenby EH. One parameter friction
theory models for viscosity. Fluid Phase Equilib 2001;178(1–2):1–16.
[16] N. US Department of Commerce, “nist23.” [Online]. Available: http://www.nist.
gov/srd/nist23.cfm [Accessed: 16-Feb-2016].
[17] Schmidt KA, Carroll JJ, Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Kvamme B. Hydrogen Sulphide
Viscosity Modelling. 86th Annual Convention of the Gas Processors Association, vol.
36. TX: San Antonio; 2007.
[18] er Zeberg-Mikkelsen CK, Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Stenby EH. Viscosity prediction of
natural gas using the friction theory. Int J Thermophys 2002;23(2):437–54.
[19] Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Stenby EH. Viscosity prediction of
hydrogen + natural gas mixtures (hythane). Ind Eng Chem Res
2001;40(13):2966–70.
[20] Schmidt KAG, Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Kvamme B. Density and viscosity behavior of
a north sea crude oil, natural gas liquid, and their mixtures †. Energy Fuels
2005;19(4):1303–13.
[21] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Stenby EH. Friction theory prediction
of crude oil viscosity at reservoir conditions based on dead oil properties. Fluid
Phase Equilib 2003;212(1–2):233–43.
[22] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Baylaucq A, Boned C. Viscosity
modeling and prediction of reservoir fluids: from natural gas to heavy oils. Int J
Thermophys 2004;25(5):1353–66.
[23] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Andersen SI, Creek J. Density and viscosity modeling and
characterization of heavy oils. Energy Fuels 2005;19(4):1314–8.
[24] Kumar A, Henni A, Shirif E. Heavy oil viscosity modeling with friction theory.
Energy Fuels 2011;25(2):493–8.
[25] Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Stenby EH. Viscosity prediction of
carbon dioxide + hydrocarbon mixtures using the friction theory. Pet Sci Technol
2002;20(1–2):27–42.
[26] Whitson CH. Characterizing hydrocarbon plus fractions. SPE 1983;23(04):683–94.
[27] Pedersen KS, Fredenslund A, Thomassen P. The properties of oils and natural gases.
Gulf Publishing Company; 1989.
[28] Ting PD, Hirasaki GJ, Chapman WG. Modeling of Asphaltene Phase Behavior with
the SAFT Equation of State. Pet Sci Technol 2003;21(3–4):647–61.
[29] Gonzalez DL, Hirasaki GJ, Creek J, Chapman WG. Modeling of asphaltene pre-
cipitation due to changes in composition using the perturbed chain statistical as-
sociating fluid theory equation of state. Energy Fuels May 2007;21(3):1231–42.
[30] Punnapala S, Vargas FM. Revisiting the PC-SAFT characterization procedure for an
improved asphaltene precipitation prediction. Fuel 2013;108:417–29.
[31] Vargas FM, Gonzalez DL, Hirasaki GJ, Chapman WG. Modeling asphaltene phase
behavior in crude oil systems using the perturbed chain form of the statistical as-
sociating fluid theory (PC-SAFT) equation of state. Energy Fuels 2009;23:1140–6.
[32] Panuganti SR, Vargas FM, Gonzalez DL, Kurup AS, Chapman WG. PC-SAFT char-
acterization of crude oils and modeling of asphaltene phase behavior. Fuel
2012;93:658–69.
[33] Abutaqiya MIL, Panuganti SR, Vargas FM. Efficient algorithm for the prediction of
pressure–volume–temperature properties of crude oils using the perturbed-chain
statistical associating fluid theory equation of state. Ind Eng Chem Res May
2017;56(20):6088–102.
[34] Vargas FM, Creek JL, Chapman WG. On the development of an asphaltene de-
position simulator. Energy Fuels 2010;24(4):2294–9.
[35] Kurup AS, et al. Development and application of an asphaltene deposition tool
(ADEPT) for well bores. Energy Fuels 2011;25(10):4506–16.
[36] Kurup AS, Wang J, Subramani HJ, Buckley J, Creek JL, Chapman WG. Revisiting
asphaltene deposition tool (ADEPT): field application. Energy Fuels
2012;26(9):5702–10.
[37] Gross J, Sadowski G. Perturbed-chain SAFT: an equation of state based on a per-
turbation theory for chain molecules. Ind Eng Chem Res 2001;40(4):1244–60.
[38] Chapman WG, Jackson G, Gubbins KE. Chain molecules with multiple bonding
sites. Mol Phys 1988;65(5):1057–79.
[39] Chapman WG, Gubbins KE, Jackson G, Radosz M. New reference equation of state
for associating liquids. Ind Eng Chem Res 1990;29(8):1709–21.
[40] Dominik A, Chapman WG. Thermodynamic model for branched polyolefins using
the PC-SAFT equation of state. Macromolecules 2005;38(26):10836–43.

128
M.I.L. Abutaqiya et al.
[41] Tumakaka F, Sadowski G. Application of the Perturbed-Chain SAFT equation of
state to polar systems. Fluid Phase Equilib 2004;217(2):233–9.
[42] Gonzalez DL. Modeling of asphaltene precipitation and deposition tendency using
the PC-SAFT equation of state. Texas: Rice University; 2008.
[43] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Dalberg A, Stenby EH. PVT characterization and viscosity
modeling and prediction of crude oils. Petrol Sci Technol 2004;22(9):1309–25.
[44] Pedersen KS, Christensen PL. Phase behavior of petroleum reservoir fluids. Boca
Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group; 2007.
[45] Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. second ed. Cengage Learning; 2002.
[46] Chung TH, Ajlan M, Lee LL, Starling KE. Generalized multiparameter correlation for
nonpolar and polar fluid transport properties. Ind Eng Chem Res 1988;27(4):671–9.
[47] Peng D-Y, Robinson DB. A new two-constant equation of state. Ind Eng Chem
Fundam 1976;15(1):59–64.
[48] Uyehara OA, Watson KM. A Universal Viscosity Correlation. National Petroleum
129
Fuel 235 (2019) 113–129
News, vol. 36. 1944. p. R-714-722.
[49] Quiñones-Cisneros SE, Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK, Fernández J, García J. General friction
theory viscosity model for the PC-SAFT equation of state. AIChE J
2006;52(4):1600–10.
[50] Panuganti SR, Vargas FM, Chapman WG. Property scaling relations for nonpolar
hydrocarbons. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013;52(23):8009–20.
[51] Vargas FM, Chapman WG. Application of the One-Third rule in hydrocarbon and
crude oil systems. Fluid Phase Equilib 2010;290(1–2):103–8.
[52] Kesler MG, Lee BI. Improve prediction of enthalpy of fractions. Hydrocarbon Proces
1976;55(3):153–8.
[53] Fan T, Buckley JS. Rapid and accurate SARA analysis of medium gravity crude oils.
Energy Fuels 2002;16(6):1571–5.
[54] Kharrat AM, Zacharia J, Cherian VJ, Anyatonwu A. Issues with comparing SARA
methodologies. Energy Fuels 2007;21(6):3618–21.