Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry 19(2010)189192

A novel correlation approach for prediction of natural gas compressibility factor

Ehsan Heidaryan1 , Amir Salarabadi2 , Jamshid Moghadasi3
1. Faculty of Energy, Kermanshah University of Technology, Kermanshah 6717863766, Iran; 2. Ilam Gas Treating Company, Ilam, Iran; 3. Petroleum Engineering Department, Petroleum University of Technology, Ahwaz, Iran [ Manuscript received August 19, 2009; revised October 20, 2009 ]

Abstract Gas compressibility factor (z-Factor) is one of the most important parameters in upstream and downstream calculations of petroleum industries. The importance of z-Factor cannot be overemphasized in oil and gas engineering calculations. The experimental measurements, Equations of State (EoS) and empirical correlations are the most common sources of z-Factor calculations. There are more than twenty correlations available with two variables for calculating the z-Factor from fitting in an EoS or just through fitting techniques. However, these correlations are too complex, which require initial value and more complicated and longer computations or have magnitude error. The purpose of this study is to develop a new accurate correlation to rapidly estimate z-Factor. Result of this correlation is compared with large scale of database and experimental data also. Proposed correlation has 1.660 of Absolute Percent Relative Error (EABS ) versus Standing and Katz chart and has also 3.221 of EABS versus experimental data. The output of this correlation can be directly assumed or be used as an initial value of other implicit correlations. This correlation is valid for gas coefficient of isothermal compressibility (cg ) calculations also. Key words natural gas; compressibility factor; Standing and Katz chart; correlation

1. Introduction Reservoir engineers need to predict pV T properties of petroleum fluids at given conditions of temperature and pressure. This can be determined through pV T analysis of fluid sample tests or can be calculated by using Equations of State (EoS) based on computer codes if the fluid composition is known. This information is often unavailable particularly at the early stage of field development or needs to be verified, supported and supplemented during the course of field development. It is the task of empirical correlations then to estimate the petroleum fluid properties as a function of the reservoirs readily available characteristics [1]. In the oil and gas industries, gas compressibility factor (z-Factor) is one of the most important parameters in upstream and downstream operations and the importance of z-Factor cannot be overemphasized in material balance, gas reserve evaluation, gas reservoir simulation, gas well testing and gas processing calculations. The experimental measurements, EoS and empirical correlations are the most common sources of z-Factor calculations. The purpose of this study is

to develop the new accurate correlation for rapid estimating z-Factor. 2. Gas compressibility factor The EoS most often used by petroleum engineers is: pV = znRT (1)

Where p is the absolute pressure, V is the volume, T is the absolute temperature, z is the compressibility factor, n is the number of moles of the gas, and R is the universal gas constant. The ratio of the actual volume to the ideal volume of real gas which is a measure of the amount the gas deviates from perfect behavior is called the compressibility factor. It is also called the gas deviation factor and is denoted by the symbol z. z = VActual /VIdeal (2)

Standing and Katz [2] have developed an accepted chart (SKC) according to the theory of corresponding states for the

Corresponding author. Tel: +98 918 336 0389; E-mail: heidaryan@engineer.com This work was supported by Research Institute of Petroleum Industry-Kermanshah Campus

Copyright2010, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1003-9953(09)60050-5

190

Ehsan Heidaryan et al./ Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry Vol. 19 No. 2 2010

z-Factor which is reliable for natural gas and gas condensate mixture too [3]. Tpr = T /Tpc ppr = p/ppc (3) (4)

accurate data in sensitive region of SKC are available by proposed numerical method.
Table 1. Tuned coefficients used in Equation (6) Coefficient A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 Tuned coefficient 1.11532372699824 0.07903952088760 0.01588138045027 0.00886134496010 2.16190792611599 1.15753118672070 0.05367780720737 0.01465569989618 1.80997374923296 0.95486038773032 Standard error 0.01389215467321 0.02776069767017 0.00863397052309 0.00140607402379 0.10799269035442 0.09699716549023 0.02966142302700 0.00822470014126 0.09846310164330 0.09007982338233

For unknown composition of different gas systems there are accurate correlations to predict pseudocritical temperature and pressure form gas specific gravity like Standing [4], Elsharkawy et al. [5] and Sutton [6]. There are more than twenty correlations available with two variables for calculating the z-Factor from fitting SKC values in an EoS like: Hall and Yarborogh [7], Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem [8] or just through fitting techniques like Papay [9] and Porshakov et al. [10]. However, these correlations are more complex which require initial value and more complicated and longer computations or have magnitude error. 3. The new developed z-Factor correlation The SKC has been digitalized by Poettmann and Carpenter [11] in the range of 0.2 Ppr 14 and 1.05 Tpr 3 (Figure 1). 1220 data points of this data bank in the range of 0.2 Ppr 15 and 1.2 Tpr 3 have been considered for developing the new correlation. Multiple regression analysis attempts to explain the relationships between the independent variables and a dependent variable. When there are two independent variables, the multiple rational regression equation was correlated with Ppr and reciprocal of Tpr [12]. 1 z = f ppr , (5) Tpr z= A1 + A2 ln ppr + A3 ln ppr
2

4. Results and discussion Figure 2 shows the accuracy of this study in comparison with 4395 data points of Poettman and Carpenter data bank [11] in range of 0.2 Ppr 15 and 1.2 Tpr 3. Figure 3 shows the Absolute Percent Relative Error contour of z in percent for this study. Statistical parameters of this study versus Poettman and Carpenter [11] data bank are shown in Table 2. Equation (6) is not recommended for predicting of z-Factor when Tpr <1.2, but its value could be used for other implicit methods which are accurate in the vicinity of critical isotherm. As it appears in Figure 3, at low pressure Ppr <1 and high temperature Tpr >2, Equation (6) is not valid for gas coefficient of isothermal compressibility (cg ) calculations. cg = 1 V V p z p (7)
T

+ A4 ln ppr
2

A5 A6 + Tpr + T 2 A10 2 Tpr

pr

1 + A7 ln ppr + A8 ln ppr

A9 Tpr

(6) cg =

1 1 p z

(8)
T

Figure 1. z-Factor, plotted as a function of the pseudoreduced pressure [11]

A1 through A10 (Table 1) are tuned coefficients and were determined by minimizing the sum of Equation (6) squares of the residuals. These tuned coefficients are changed if more

Figure 2. Accuracy of this study versus 4158 point of data bank (Ref. [11]) in the range of 0.2 Ppr 15 and 1.2 Tpr 3

Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry Vol. 19 No. 2 2010

191

its accuracy is close to Hall and Yarborogh [7], EoS based correlation.
Table 3. The range of experimental data Composition CH4 C2 H6 CO2 H2 S N2 Max 0.8977 0.2867 0.2016 0.197 0.0057 Min 0.5841 0.041 0.0506 0.047 0.0052 Average 0.7925 0.0967 0.120675 0.1 0.0054

Table 4. Statistical parameters of this study and other methods versus experimental data This study Hall-Yarborogh [7] Dranchuk-Abou-Kassem [8] Papy [9] Porshakov-Kosachenko-Nikishin [10] Figure 3. Absolute Percent Relative Error contour of z in percent for this study versus 4158 point of data bank (Ref. [11]) in range of 0.2 Ppr 15 and 1.2 Tpr 3 Table 2. Statistical parameters of this study versus data base [11] Isotherm (Tpr ) 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Total EAVE 1.153 0.590 0.166 0.315 0.503 0.527 0.247 0.212 0.097 0.012 0.048 0.084 0.150 0.184 0.009 EABS 3.223 1.610 2.003 2.223 2.272 2.164 1.858 1.616 1.393 1.003 0.861 0.886 1.016 1.116 1.660 ERMS 3.975 2.137 2.559 2.766 2.674 2.509 2.143 1.831 1.576 1.232 1.205 1.333 1.526 1.671 2.081 EAVE 1.034 1.010 1.664 4.594 35.606 EABS 3.221 2.683 4.616 6.110 35.871 ERMS 0.912 2.241 9.309 9.844 46.95

Figure 4. Accuracy of this study and other methods versus experimental data

5. Case study To compare accuracy of proposed correlation versus experimental data, 237 compressibility factor data points of nine different mixtures have been provided from Satter and Campbell [13] and Buxton and Campbell [14]. Table 3 summarizes the range of experimental data used for case study. Figure 4 shows the accuracy of this study for, Hall and Yarborogh [7], Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem, [8], Papy [9] and Porshakov et al. [10] methods versus experimental data. For nonHydrocarbon impurities, the Wichert and Aziz [15] correction correlation was used. Figure 5 shows the Percent Relative Error (ER ) as function of pseudoreduced pressure in case study. It can be inferred that by increasing the pseudoreduced pressure errors will be reduced. Table 4 compares the statistical parameter of this study and other methods versus experimental data. According to this Table, Equation (6) is more accurate than three common explicit and implicit correlations and

Figure 5. Case studys Percent Relative Error as a function of pseudoreduced pressure

6. Conclusions The simple correlation based on the general gas compressibility factor chart (SKC) was obtained for a quick estimation of natural gas compressibility factor as a function

192

Ehsan Heidaryan et al./ Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry Vol. 19 No. 2 2010

of reduced pressure and reduced temperature. The advantage of the proposed correlation is that it is explicit in z and thus does not require an iterative solution as is required by other methods which were developed from an EoS. The output of this correlation can be directly assumed or be used for initial value of other iterative correlations. Results of this correlation were compared against large scale of database and experimental data base too. The proposed correlation in this study has better statistical parameter than three common z-Factor correlations against experimental data and its accuracy is close to EoS based correlations. Proposed correlation has 1.660 of EABS against Standing and Katz chart and has also 3.221 of EABS against experimental data. This correlation is also valid for gas coefficient of isothermal compressibility (cg ) calculations.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge support from Research Institute of Petroleum Industry-Kermanshah Campus. We would like to thank Dr. Thomas A. Blasingame, for his insight, comments, and suggestions regarding this work. Useful comments from two anonymous reviewers that improved the original version of the paper are acknowledged.

Root Mean Square Error:

Nd

ERMS =

i=1

2 Ei

Nd

Nomenclature A tuning coefficient gas coefficient of isothermal compressibility, psi1 cg n number of moles of the gas, mol Nd number of data points p Pressure, psia pseduocritical pressure, psia pc pseudo reduced pressure ppr R universal gas constant T absolute temperature, o R pseduocritical temperature, o R Tpc Tpr pseudo reduced temperature V volume, cubic ft z compressibility factor

Statistical formulas Percent Relative Error: ER =

Calculated z Observed zi i Observed zi i = 1, 2, 3, ...., Nd

References
[1] Ahmed T. Hydrocarbon Phase Behavior. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1989 [2] Standing M B, Katz D L. Trans AIME, 1942, 142: 140 [3] Rayes D G, Piper L D, McCain Jr W D, Poston S W. SPE Form Eval, 1992, 7(1): 87 [4] Standing M B. Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems. Texas: SPE, 1981 [5] Elsharkawy A M, Hashem Y S Kh S, Alikhan A A. Energy Fuels, 2001, 15(4): 807 [6] Sutton R P. SPEFE, 2007, 10(3): 270 [7] Hall K R, Yarborough L. Oil and Gas J, 1973, 71(25): 82 [8] Dranchuk P M, Abou-Kassem J H. J Can Petrol Technol, 1975, 14(3): 34 [9] Papay J. OGIL MUSZ, Tud, Kuzl., Budapest, 1968, 267 [10] Porshakov Yu P, Kosachenko A N, Nikishin VI. Oil and Gas, 2001. (in Russian) [11] Poettman F H, Carpenter P G. In: American Petroleum Institute ed. Drilling and production practice. Division of Production Description New York: American Petroleum Institute, 1952. 52 [12] SAS software, Version SAS/STAT 9.1. North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc, 2004 [13] Satter A, Campbell J M. Soc Pet Eng J, 1963, 3(4): 333 [14] Buxton T S, Campbell J M. Soc Pet Eng J, 1967, 7(1): 80 [15] Wichert E, Aziz K. Hydrocarb Process, 1972, 51(5): 119

100

Absolute Percent Relative Error : AE % =

Calculated z Observed zi i Observed zi i = 1, 2, 3, ...., Nd

100

Average Percent Relative Error:

Nd

EAVE =

i=1

Calculated z Observed zi i Observed zi Nd

100

Average Absolute Percent Relative Error:

Nd

EABS =

i=1

Calculated z Observed zi i Observed zi Nd

100