Pvts Im Method

Method Documentation
PVTsim 20
Contents
Introduction
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
Pure Component Database
Pure Component Database......................................................................................................... 8

Component Classes ..................................................................................................... 8
Component Properties ............................................................................................... 10
User Defined Components ........................................................................................ 12
Missing Properties..................................................................................................... 12
Composition Handling
14
Composition Handling............................................................................................................. 14
Types of fluid analyses .............................................................................................. 14
Handling of pure components heavier than C6 .......................................................... 15
Fluid handling operations .......................................................................................... 16
Mixing ....................................................................................................................... 16
Weaving .................................................................................................................... 16
Recombination........................................................................................................... 16
Characterization to the same pseudo-components..................................................... 16
QC of Fluid
18
QC of Fluid .............................................................................................................................. 18
Bottomhole samples .................................................................................................. 18
STO Oil Density (bottomhole) .................................................................................. 19
GOR (bottomhole)..................................................................................................... 20
Critical Point/Fluid Type (bottomhole) ..................................................................... 20
C7+ Molar Distribution (bottomhole) ......................................................................... 20
Plus Component Amount (bottomhole)..................................................................... 20
Plus Molecular Weight (bottomhole) ........................................................................ 20
Plus Component Density (bottomhole) ..................................................................... 21
Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure (bottomhole).............................................. 21
Bottomhole Flowing Pressure (bottomhole).............................................................. 21
Sample Cylinder Shutting/Opening Pressures (bottomhole) ..................................... 21
Test Separator GOR (bottomhole)............................................................................. 21
Test Separator Oil Density (bottomhole)................................................................... 22
OBM Contamination (bottomhole) ........................................................................... 22
Separator Samples ..................................................................................................... 22
STO Oil Density (separator)...................................................................................... 23
Separator GOR (separator) ........................................................................................ 23
Separator Conditions (separator) ............................................................................... 23
Saturation Temperature Separator Gas (separator).................................................... 24
Saturation Pressure Separator Oil (separator)............................................................ 24
K-Factor Plot (separator)........................................................................................... 24
Mass Balance Closure Plot (separator)...................................................................... 24
Hoffmann Plot (separator) ......................................................................................... 25
C7+ Molar Distribution (separator) ............................................................................ 25
Plus Component Amount (separator) ........................................................................ 25
PVTsim Method Documentation
Contents 2
Plus Molecular Weight (separator)............................................................................ 26

Plus Fluid Density (separator) ................................................................................... 26
Critical Point/Fluid Type (separator)......................................................................... 26
References ................................................................................................................. 27
Flash Algorithms
27
Flash Algorithms ..................................................................................................................... 27

Flash Options............................................................................................................. 28
Flash Algorithms ....................................................................................................... 28
K-factor Flash............................................................................................................ 31
Other Flash Specifications......................................................................................... 32
Phase Identification ................................................................................................... 33
Components Handled by Flash Options .................................................................... 33
References ................................................................................................................. 34
Phase Envelope and Saturation Point Calculation
36
Phase Envelope and Saturation Point Calculation ................................................................... 36

No aqueous components............................................................................................ 36
Mixtures with Aqueous Components ........................................................................ 37
Components handled by Phase Envelope Algorithm ................................................ 37
References ................................................................................................................. 38
Equations of State
39
Equations of State .................................................................................................................... 39

SRK Equation............................................................................................................ 39
SRK with Volume Correction ................................................................................... 41
PR/PR78 Equation..................................................................................................... 42
PR/PR78 with Volume Correction ............................................................................ 43
Classical Mixing Rules.............................................................................................. 43
Temperature Dependent Binary Interaction Parameters............................................ 44
The Huron and Vidal Mixing Rule............................................................................ 44
Phase Equilibrium Relations ..................................................................................... 45
References ................................................................................................................. 46
Characterization of Heavy Hydrocarbons
48
Characterization of Heavy Hydrocarbons................................................................................ 48

Classes of Components.............................................................................................. 48
Properties of C7+-Fractions ........................................................................................ 49
Extrapolation of the Plus Fraction ............................................................................. 50
Estimation of PNA Distribution ................................................................................ 50
Grouping (Lumping) of Pseudo-components ............................................................ 51
Delumping ................................................................................................................. 53
Characterization of Multiple Compositions to the Same Pseudo-Components ......... 54
References ................................................................................................................. 55
Thermal and Volumetric Properties
56
Thermal and Volumetric Properties......................................................................................... 56

Density ...................................................................................................................... 56
Enthalpy .................................................................................................................... 56
Internal Energy .......................................................................................................... 58
Entropy ...................................................................................................................... 58
Heat Capacity ............................................................................................................ 59
Joule-Thomson Coefficient ....................................................................................... 59
Velocity of sound ...................................................................................................... 59
References ................................................................................................................. 59
ContentsIntroduction 3
Transport Properties
60
Transport Properties................................................................................................................. 60
Viscosity.................................................................................................................... 60
Thermal Conductivity................................................................................................ 68
Gas/oil Interfacial Tension ........................................................................................ 73
References ................................................................................................................. 73
PVT Experiments
75
PVT Experiments..................................................................................................................... 75
Constant Mass Expansion.......................................................................................... 75
Differential Depletion................................................................................................ 76
Constant Volume Depletion ...................................................................................... 76
Separator Experiments............................................................................................... 76
Viscosity Experiment ................................................................................................ 77
Swelling Experiment ................................................................................................. 77
Multiple Contact Experiment .................................................................................... 77
Slim Tube Experiment............................................................................................... 78
References ................................................................................................................. 81
Compositional Variation due to Gravity
82
Compositional Variation due to Gravity.................................................................................. 82

Isothermal Reservoir................................................................................................................ 82
Reservoirs with a Temperature Gradient ................................................................................. 83
Prediction of Gas/Oil Contacts .................................................................................. 85
References ................................................................................................................. 85
Regression to Experimental Data
86
Regression to Experimental Data............................................................................................. 86

Experimental data...................................................................................................... 86
Object Functions and Weight Factors........................................................................ 87
Regression for Plus Compositions............................................................................. 87
Regression for already characterized compositions................................................... 89
Regression on fluids characterized to the same pseudo-components ........................ 90
Regression Algorithm................................................................................................ 90
References ................................................................................................................. 90
Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculations
91
Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculations............................................................................ 91

References ................................................................................................................. 92
Unit Operations
93
Unit Operations........................................................................................................................ 93
Compressor................................................................................................................ 93
Expander.................................................................................................................... 96
Cooler ........................................................................................................................ 96
Heater ........................................................................................................................ 96
Pump.......................................................................................................................... 96
Valve ......................................................................................................................... 96
Separator.................................................................................................................... 97
References ................................................................................................................. 97
Modeling of Hydrate Formation
98
Hydrate Formation................................................................................................................... 98
Types of Hydrates ..................................................................................................... 98
Hydrate Model........................................................................................................... 99
Contents 4
Hydrate P/T Flash Calculations............................................................................... 101

Calculation of Component Fugacities.................................................................................... 102
Fluid Phases............................................................................................................. 102
Hydrate Phases ........................................................................................................ 102
Ice ............................................................................................................................ 103
References ............................................................................................................... 103
Modeling of Wax Formation
105
Modeling of Wax Formation ................................................................................................. 105

Vapor-Liquid-Wax Phase Equilibria ....................................................................... 105
Extended C7+ Characterization ................................................................................ 106
Viscosity of Oil-Wax Suspensions .......................................................................... 108
Wax Inhibitors ......................................................................................................... 108
References ............................................................................................................... 108
Asphaltenes
109
Asphaltenes............................................................................................................................ 109
Cubic Equation of State........................................................................................... 109
PC-SAFT model ...................................................................................................... 110
PC-SAFT C7+ characterization procedure.............................................................. 112
Properties of P, N and A C7 components................................................................. 113
References ............................................................................................................... 114
H2S Simulations
115
H2S Simulations..................................................................................................................... 115

References ............................................................................................................... 116
Water Phase Properties
117
Water Phase Properties .......................................................................................................... 117

Properties of Pure Water ......................................................................................... 117
Properties of Aqueous Mixture................................................................................ 125
H2O.......................................................................................................................... 127
Methanol.................................................................................................................. 127
Ethanol .................................................................................................................... 127
MEG ........................................................................................................................ 127
DEG......................................................................................................................... 128
TEG ......................................................................................................................... 128
Salt Solubility in Pure Water ................................................................................... 129
Salt Solubility Salt-Inhibitor-Water Systems .......................................................... 132
Viscosity of water-oil Emulsions ............................................................................ 133
References ............................................................................................................... 134
Modeling of Scale Formation
135
Modeling of Scale Formation ................................................................................................ 135

Thermodynamic equilibria ...................................................................................... 136
Amounts of CO2 and H2S in water .......................................................................... 139
Activity coefficients of the ions............................................................................... 139
Calculation procedure.............................................................................................. 145
References ............................................................................................................... 146
Wax Deposition Module
147
Modeling of wax deposition .................................................................................................. 147

Discretization of the Pipeline into Sections............................................................. 147
Energy balance ........................................................................................................ 147
Overall heat transfer coefficient .............................................................................. 148
Inside film heat transfer coefficient......................................................................... 149
ContentsIntroduction 5
Outside Film Heat Transfer Coefficient .................................................................. 150

Pressure drop models............................................................................................... 150
Single-phase flow .................................................................................................... 151
Two-phase flow....................................................................................................... 151
Mukherjee and Brill pressure drop model ............................................................... 151
Handling of an aqueous phase in the model ............................................................ 153
Wax deposition........................................................................................................ 154
Boost pressure ......................................................................................................... 155
Porosity.................................................................................................................... 155
Boundary conditions................................................................................................ 155
Mass Sources........................................................................................................... 155
References ............................................................................................................... 155
Clean for Mud
157
Clean for Mud........................................................................................................................ 157

Cleaning Procedure ................................................................................................. 157
Cleaning with Regression to PVT Data................................................................... 158
References ............................................................................................................... 158
Black Oil Correlations
159
Black Oil Correlations ........................................................................................................... 159

Bubble-point Pressure ............................................................................................. 159
Saturated Gas/Oil Ratio ........................................................................................... 161
Oil Formation Volume Factor ................................................................................. 162
Dead-Oil Viscosity .................................................................................................. 165
Saturated Oil Viscosity............................................................................................ 166
Gas Formation Volume Factor ................................................................................ 168
Gas Viscosity........................................................................................................... 169
Nomenclature .......................................................................................................... 171
References ............................................................................................................... 172
Allocation
173
Allocation .............................................................................................................................. 173

References ............................................................................................................... 175
Introduction
Introduction
When installing PVTsim the Method Documentation describing the calculation procedures used in PVTsim. is
copied to the installation directory as a PDF document (PVTdoc.pdf). The Methid Documentation may further be
accessed from the <Help> menu in PVTsim. The <Help> menu also gives access to a Users Manual, which during
installation is copied to the PVTsim installation directory as the PDF document PVThelp.pdf.
Introduction 7

The Pure Component Database contains approximately 100 different pure components and pseudo-components
divided into 6 different component classes
Component Classes
PVTsim distinguishes between the component classes
Water
Hydrate inhibitors
Salts
Other inorganic
Organic defined
Pseudo-components
The program is delivered with a pure component database consisting of the following components:
Short Name
Systematic Name
Formula Name
Water
H2O
Methanol
Ethanol
Propylene-glycol
Di-propylene-glycol-methylether
Mono-ethylene-glycol
Propylene-glycol-methylether
Di-propylene-glycol
Di-ethylene-glycol
Tri-ethylene-glycol
CH4O
C2H6O
C6H8O2
C7H16O3
C2H6O2
C7H10O2
C6H14O3
C4H10O3
C6H14O4
Water
H2O
Hydrate inhibitors
MeOH
EtOH
PG
DPGME
MEG
PGME
DPG
DEG
TEG
Pure Component Database 8
Glycerol
Glycerol
C3H8O3
Sodium chloride
Potassium chloride
Sodium bromide
Calcium chloride (anhydrous)
Sodium formate (anhydrous)
Potassium formate (anhydrous)
Potassium bromide
Caesium formate (anhydrous)
Calcium bromide (anhydrous)
Zinc bromide
NaCl
KCl
NaBr
CaCl2
HCOONa
HCOOK
KBr
HCOOCs
CaBr2
ZnBr2
Helium-4
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Argon
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Hydrogen sulfide
He(4)
H2
N2
Ar
O2
CO2
H2S
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Cyclo-propane
Iso-butane
Normal-butane
2,2-Dimethyl-propane
Cyclo-propane
2-methyl-butane
Normal-pentane
Cyclo-pentane
2,2-Dimethyl-butane
2,3-Dimethyl-butane
2-Methyl-pentane
3-Methyl-pentane
Normal-hexane
Hexane
Methyl-cyclo-pentane
Benzene
Naphthalene
Cyclo-hexane
2,2,3-Trimethyl-butane
3,3-Dimethyl-butane
2-Methyl-hexane
Cis-1,3-Dimethyl-cyclo-pentane
Trans-1,3-Dimethyl-cyclo-pentane
3-Methyl-hexane
Trans-1,2-Dimethyl-cyclo-pentane
Normal-heptane
Methyl-cyclo-hexane
Ethyl-cyclo-pentane
1,1,3-Trimethyl-cyclo-pentane
Toluene
2-Methyl-heptane
Cyclo-heptane
3-Methyl-heptane
CH4
C2H6
C3H8
C3H6
C4H10
C4H10
C5H12
C4H8
C5H12
C5H12
C5H8
C6H14
C6H14
C6H14
C6H14
C6H14
-------C6H12
C6H6
C10H8
C6H12
C7H16
C7H16
C7H16
C7H14
C7H14
C7H16
C7H14
C7H16
C7H14
C7H14
C8H16
C7H8
C8H18
C7H14
C8H18
Salts
NaCl
KCl
NaBr
CaCl2
HCOONa
HCOOK
KBr
HCOOCs
CaBr2
ZnBr2
Other inorganic
He
H2
N2
Ar
O2
CO2
H2S
Organic defined
C1
C2
C3
c-C3
iC4
nC4
2,2-dim-C3
c-C4
iC5
nC5
c-C5
2,2-dim-C4
2,3-dim-C4
2-m-C5
3-m-C5
nC6
C6
m-c-C5
Benzene
Napht
c-C6
223-tm-C4
3,3-dim-C5
2-m-C6
c13-dm-cC5
t13-dm-cC5
3-m-C6
t12-dm-cC5
nC7
m-c-C6
et-c-C5
113-tr-cC5
Toluene
2-m-C7
c-C7
3-m-C7
11-dm-cC6
c13-dm-cC6
t12-dm-cC6
nC8
c12-dm-cC6
Et-cC6
et-Benzene
p-Xylene
m-Xylene
2-m-C8
o-Xylene
1m-3e-cC6
1m-4e-cC6
c-C8
4-m-C8
nC9
Mesitylene
Ps-Cumene
nC10
Hemellitol
nC11
nC12
nC13
1-m-Napht
nC14
nC15
nC16
nC17
nC18
nC19
nC20
nC21
nCn
nC40
1,1-Dimethyl-cyclo-hexane
Cis-1,3-Dimethyl-cyclo-hexane
Trans-1,2-Dimethyl-cyclo-hexane
Normal-octane
Cis-1,2-Dimethyl-cyclo-hexane
Ethyl-cyclo-hexane
Ethyl-Benzene
Para-xylene
Meta-xylene
2-Methyl-octane
Ortho-xylene
1-Methyl-3-Ethyl-cyclo-hexane
1-Methyl-4-Ethyl-cyclo-hexane
Cyclo-octane
4-Methyl-octane
Normal-nonane
1,3,5-Tri-methyl-Benzene
Normal-decane
Normal-undecane
Normal-dodecane
Normal-tridecane
1-methyl-Naphthalene
Normal-tetradecane
Normal-pentadecane
Normal-hexadecane
Normal-heptadecane
Normal-octadecane
Normal-nonadecane
Normal-eicosane
Normal-C21
Normal-Cn
Normal-C40
C8H16
C8H16
C8H16
C8H18
C8H16
C8H16
C8H10
C8H10
C8H10
C9H20
C8H10
C9H18
C9H18
C8H16
C9H20
C9H20
C9H12
C9H12
C10H22
C9H12
C11H24
C12H26
C13H28
C11H10
C14H30
C15H32
C16H34
C17H36
C18H38
C19H40
C20H42
C21H44
CnH2n+2
C40H82
The database furthermore contains carbon number fractions from a C7 to C100. Each fraction Cn consists of all
components with a boiling point in the interval from that of nCn-1 + 0.5C/0.9F to that of nCn + 0.5C/0.9F.
Finally the database contains the components CHCmp_1 to CHCmp_6, which are dummy pseudo-components and
only accessible when working with characterized fluids. The only properties given in the database are the molecular
weight, a and b. The molecular weight will usually have to be modified by the user. All other component
properties must be entered manually.
Component Properties
For each component the database holds the component properties
Name (short, systematic, and formula)

Molecular weight
Liquid density at atmospheric conditions (not needed for gaseous components)
Critical temperature (Tc)

Critical pressure (Pc)
Acentric factor (
Normal boiling point (Tb)

Weight average molecular weight (equal to molecular weight unless for pseudo-components)
Critical volume (Vc)
Vapor pressure model (classical or Mathias-Copeman)
Mathias-Copeman coefficients (only available for some components)
Temperature independent and temperature dependent term of the volume shift (or Peneloux) parameter for the
SRK or PR equations
Ideal gas absolute enthalpy at 273.15 K/0C/32F (Href)
Coefficients in ideal gas heat capacity (Cp) polynomial
Melting point temperature (Tf)
Melting point depression (Tf)
Enthalpy of melting (Hf)
PNA distribution (only for pseudo-components)
Wax fraction (only for n-paraffins and pseudo-components)
Asphaltene fraction (only for pseudo-components)
Parachor
Hydrate formation indicator (None, I, II, H and combinations)
Hydrate Langmuir constants
Number of ions in aqueous solution (only for salts)
Number of crystal water molecules per salt molecule (only for salts)
Pc of wax forming fractions (only for n-paraffins and pseudo-components)
a and b in the SRK and PR equations
The component properties needed to calculate various physical properties and transport properties will usually be
established as a part of the fluid characterization. It is however also possible to input new components without
entering all component properties and it is possible to input compositions in characterized form.
Tc, Pc, , a, b and molecular weight are required input for all components to perform simulations. What other
component properties are needed depend on the simulation to be performed and may be seen from the below table.
Physical or transport property
Volume
Density
Z factor
Component properties needed

Peneloux parameter*1)
Enthalpy (H)
Ideal gas CP coefficients, Peneloux parameter*1)
Entropy (S)
Heat capacity (CP)
Heat capacity (CV)
Kappa (CP/ CV)
Joule-Thomson coefficient
Velocity of sound
Viscosity

Ideal gas CP coefficients
Weight average molecular weight*2), Vc*3)
Thermal conductivity
Surface tension
Parachor, Peneloux parameter*1)
*1)
Only if an equation of state with Peneloux volume correction is used.
*2)
Only if corresponding states viscosity model selected.
*3)
Only if LBC viscosity model selected.
User Defined Components

User defined components may be added to the database. It is recommended to enter as many component properties
for new components as possible. The following properties must always be entered
Component type
Name
Critical temperature (Tc)
Critical pressure (Pc)
Acentric factor ()
a and b
Molecular weight (M)
For pseudo-components it is highly recommended also to enter the liquid density.
Missing Properties
PVTsim has a <Complete> option for estimating missing component properties for a fluid composition entered in
characterized form. The number of missing properties estimated depends on the properties entered manually. It is
assumed that Tc, Pc, , a, b, and molecular weight have all been entered. Below is shown what other properties
are needed to estimate a given missing property and a reference is given to the section in the Method Documentation
where the property correlation is described.
Property
Component properties
needed for estimation
Section where described
Liquid density
SRK with Volume Correction. PR

with Volume Correction.
Extrapolation of Plus Fraction.
-
Critical volume
T independent term of Peneloux

parameter
None
Assumed equal to number average
molecular weight
None
Vapor pressure model

Mathias-Copeman coefficients
T-independent term of SRK or PR
Peneloux parameter
T-dependent term of SRK or PR
Peneloux parameter
Not estimated
Not estimated
for defined components. Liquid
density for pseudo-components
Not estimated for defined
components. Liquid density for
Normal boiling point

Weight average molecular weight
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC) part of

Viscosity section.
SRK with Volume Correction or PR
with Volume Correction
SRK with Volume Correction or PR
with Volume Correction
Melting point depression

(Tf)
Ideal gas absolute enthalpy at 273.15
K/0C/32F (Href)
Ideal gas Cp coefficients
Melting temperature (Tf)

Enthalpy of melting (Hf)
PNA distribution
Wax fraction
Asphaltene fraction
Parachor
Hydrate former or not

Hydrate Langmuir constants
Number of ions in aqueous solution
(only for salts)
Number of crystal water molecules
per salt molecule (only for salts)
Pc of wax forming fraction
pseudo-components
Only for pseudo-components.
Viscosity data for an
uninhibited/inhibited fluid.
Molecular weight
pseudo-components
Irrelevant for defined components.
None for pseudo-components
None for pseudo-components
Liquid density for pseudocomponents
None for pseudo-components.
pseudo-components
Not estimated
Not estimated
Not estimated
Compositional variation due to

gravity
Enthalpy
Extended C7+ Characterization

Estimation of PNA Distribution

Asphaltenes
Gas/Oil interfacial tension.
Not estimated

PVTsim distinguishes between the fluid types
Compositions with Plus fraction

Compositions with No-Plus fraction
Characterized compositions
Compositions with Plus fraction are compositions as reported by PVT laboratories where the last component is a
plus fraction residue. A C20+ fraction for example contains the carbon number fractions from C20 and heavier. For
this type of composition the required input is mole%s of all components and molecular weights and densities of the
C7+ components (carbon number fractions). It is possible to enter the mole%s to a higher carbon number than
molecular weights and densities. If the mole%s are given to C20 and the molecular weights and densities to C10, the
program will interpret the molecular weight and density entered for C10 as properties of the whole C10+ fraction.
Compositions with No-Plus fraction require the same input as compositions with a plus fraction. In this case the
heaviest component is not a residue but an actual component or a boiling point cut. Gas mixtures with only a
marginal content of C7+ components are to be usually classified as No-Plus fraction compositions.
Simulations can only be made on characterized compositions. These are usually generated from a Plus fraction or
No-Plus fraction type of composition. They may alternatively be entered manually.
Types of fluid analyses

A reservoir fluid may either be sampled as a bottom hole sample or as a separator sample. Bottom hole samples are
taken in the bottom of the well and are usually single-phase at sampling conditions and therefore representative for
the reservoir fluid. A separator sample consists of two samples, a separator gas and a separator oil from a well head
separator.
In the laboratoy the samples are flashed to standard conditions before making any analyses. Flashing the oil results
in a gas and a liquid sample that are analyzed separately. The gas will always be analyzed by a gas chromatographic
(GC) analysis. Two alternative types of fluid analyses are used for the liquid. These are a gas chromatographic (GC)
Composition Handling 14
analysis and a true boiling point (TBP) analysis. None of these analyses will identify all the chemical species
contained in the fluid but will separate the C7+ fraction into boiling point cuts.
GC analysis
Also oil compositions are often analyzed by GC. It is relatively cheap, very fast, and requires only small sample
volumes. A GC analysis suffers from the problem that heavy ends may be lost in the analysis, especially heavy
aromatics (asphaltenes). The main problem with a GC analysis is however that no information is retained on
molecular weight (M) and density of the cuts above C9. Instead standard molecular weights and densities are
assigned to the heavier fractions. This may results in large uncertainties on the molecular weight and density of the
plus fractions. Because the component quantities measured in a GC analysis are on weight basis, this uncertainty
also transfers to an uncertainty on the mole% of the plus fraction.
A GC composition may for example consist of mole%s given to C30+ while molecular weight and density are only
given to C7+. In this case one may enter the mole%'s to C30 together with the M and density of the total C7+ fraction,
leaving the M and density fields blank for C8-C30. With this input the program will estimate the molecular weights
and densities of the fractions C7-C30 while honoring the reported composition and matching the input C7+ molecular
weight and density. One may as an alternative input the composition (the mole%s) lumped back to C7+, which will
often provide equally accurate simulation results as with the detailed GC composition.
TBP Distillation
A TBP distillation requires a larger sample volume, typically 50 200 cc and is more time consuming than a GC
analysis. The method separates the components heavier than C6 into fractions bracketed by the boiling points of the
normal alkanes. For instance, the C7 fraction refers to all species with a boiling point between that of nC6 +
0.5C/0.9F and that of nC7 + 0.5C/0.9F, regardless of how many carbon atoms these components contain. Each
of the fractions distilled off is weighed and the molecular weight and density are determined experimentally. The
density and molecular weight in combination provide valuable information to the characterization procedure. The
residue from the distillation is also analyzed for amount, M and density.
Whenever possible, it is recommended that input for PVTsim is generated based on a TBP analysis. The accuracy of
the characterization procedure relies on good values for densities and molecular weights of the C7+ fractions.
Parameters such as the Peneloux volume shift for the heavier pseudo-components are estimated based on the input
densities, and consequently the quality of the input directly affects the density predictions of the equation of state
(EOS) model.
Handling of pure components heavier than C6

When the compositional input is based on a GC analysis, there will often be defined components (pure chemical
species) reported, which in the TBP-terminology would belong to a boiling point cut. Such components may be
entered alongside with the boiling point fraction, which then represents the remaining unresolved species within that
boiling point interval. Before the entered composition is taken through the characterization procedure, the pure
species are lumped into their respective boiling point fraction and the properties of that fraction adjusted
accordingly. After the characterization, the pure species and the remaining fraction (pseudo-component) are split
again and the properties adjusted accordingly.
Fluid handling operations

Quite often there is a need to mix two or more fluids and continue simulations with the mixed composition. PVTsim
supports a Mixing, a Weaving and a Recombination option for combining two or more fluid compositions.
Mixing
PVTsim may be used to mix 2 to 50 fluid compositions. A mixing will not necessarily retain the pseudo-components
of the individual compositions. Averaging the properties of the pseudo-components in the individual compositions
generates new pseudo-components. Mixing may be performed on all types of compositions. For fluids characterized
in PVTsim, mixing is done at the level where the fluid has been characterized but not yet lumped. The mixed not yet
lumped fluid is afterwards lumped to the specified number of components.
Weaving
Weaving will maintain the pseudo-components of the individual compositions and can only be performed for already
characterized compositions. In a weaved fluid all pseudo-components from all the original fluids are maintained in
the resulting weaved fluid. This may lead to several components having the same name, and it is therefore advisable
to tag the component names before weaving in order to avoid confusion later on. The weaving option is useful to
track specific components in a process simulation or for allocation studies.
Recombination
Recombination is a mixing on volumetric basis performed for a given P and T (usually separator conditions).
Recombination can only be performed for two compositions, an oil and a gas composition. The recombination option
is often used to combine a separator gas phase and a separator oil phase to get the feed to the separator. When the
two fluids are recombined, the GOR and liquid density at separator conditions must be input. Alternatively the
saturation point of the recombined fluid can be entered along with the liquid density. When the GOR is specified, the
program determines the number of moles corresponding to the input volumes and mixes the two fluids based on this
molar ratio. When the saturation pressure is specified, the amount of gas tobe added to the oil to yield this saturation
pressure is determined in an iterative manner.
Characterization to the same pseudo-components

The goal of characterizing fluids to the same pseudo-components is to obtain a number of fluids, which are all
represented by the same component set. Numerically this is done in a similar fashion as the mixing operation with
the only difference that the same pseudos logic keeps track of the molar amount of each pseudo-component
contained in each individual fluid.
The characterization to the same pseudo-components option is useful for a number of tasks. In compositional
pipeline simulations where different streams are mixed during the calculations or in compositional reservoir
simulations where zones with different PVT behavior are considered, mixing is straightforward when all fluids have
the same pseudo-components. It is furthermore possible to do regression in combination with the characterization to
the same pseudos, in which case one may put special emphasis on fluids for which PVT data sets are available.
Characterization to same pseudo-components is described in more detail in the section on Characterization of Heavy
Hydrocarbons.
QC of Fluid
QC of Fluid
High quality PVT simulation results on petroleum reservoir fluids are heavily dependent on representative and
accurate fluid compositions. The characterization procedure in PVTsim (Pedersen et al. (1992) and Krejbjerg and
Pedersen (2006)) generally provides PVT simulations results within experimental accuracy based on reliable fluid
compositions measured to C10+ or C20+. When a bad correspondence is seen with experimental PVT data, the reason
could be an inaccurate reservoir fluid composition.
The PVTsim QC module is designed to analyze reservoir fluid compositions for any inconsistencies between
compositional analyses, sampling data and basic PVT data.
Reservoir fluid samples can either be
Bottomhole samples.
Separator samples.
The approach to QC evaluation is dependent on the sample type. All conducted QC evaluations must pass for the
sample to pass the overall QC evaluation.
Bottomhole samples
The following input is mandatory to conduct a QC on a bottomhole sample. The information should be readily
available in a PVT report
Molar composition of bottomhole sample. The composition must be a Plus composition
Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Temperature
STO Oil Density (Single Stage Flash)
GOR (Single Stage Flash)
Reservoir Fluid Type (Oil must be chosen if the STO API Gravity is above 25 API and Heavy Oil must be chosen if
the STO API Gravity is below 25 API)
The following additional, optional information can be entered when available from the PVT report
QC of Fluid 18
Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure
Bottomhole Flowing Pressure
Sample Cylinder Shutting Pressure
Sample Cylinder Opening Pressure
Test Separator Information

o
Separator Pressure
Separator Temperature
Oil Density
GOR
The total QC evaluation scheme for a bottomhole sample is
No.
QC Evaluation
Mandatory
Optional
STO Oil Density (Single Stage Flash)
GOR (Single Stage Flash)
Critical Point/Fluid Type
Logarithmic Mole Fraction vs. Carbon Number
Plus Component Amount
Plus Component Molecular Weight
Plus Component Density
Reservoir Pressure vs. Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure
Bottomhole Flowing Pressure vs. Bottomhole Sample Saturation

Pressure
10
Sample Cylinder Shutting Pressure vs. Sample Cylinder Opening

Pressure
11
Oil Density (Test Separator)
12
GOR (Test Separator)
13
Possible OBM Contamination
In the following the QC evaluations are described in terms of
Simulation method
Accepted deviation between measured and simulated results
Possible key sources in case of failure are listed in the QC report with suggestions on how to correct the sample to
pass the QC.
STO Oil Density (bottomhole)
The bottomhole composition is flashed to at standard conditions (typically 1.01 bara/15C or 14.7 psia/59F), and
the density of the flashed liquid compared with the input STO Oil density.
The fluid fails the QC test if the deviation exceeds 3%.
The QC evaluation will also fail if a single-phase gas is detected at standard conditions.
QC of Fluid 19
GOR (bottomhole)
The GOR from a single stage flash of the bottomhole composition at standard conditions is compared with the input
GOR.
The fluid fails the QC test if the deviation exceeds 10%. The same applies if a single phase is detected at standard
conditions.
Critical Point/Fluid Type (bottomhole)
The following should apply
Critical temperature less than reservoir temperature -> Fluid Type: Gas or gas condensate.
Critical temperature higher than reservoir temperature -> Fluid Type: Oil or heavy oil.
A mismatch between the reported and simulated fluid type should only be observed for near critical fluids (typically
heavy gas condensates or volatile oils), i.e. fluids for which the reservoir temperature and the critical temperature are
very close. In this case only a small change in the fluid description (e.g. a different lumping) may cause the fluid
type to shift.
The test is only performed on fluids with one and only one simulated critical point.
C7+ Molar Distribution (bottomhole)
For most reservoir fluids the logarithm of the mole fraction of C7+ fractions (except the plus component) versus
carbon number will follow an almost straight line (Pedersen et al., 1992). With a fluid composition to for example
C20+ an almost straight line is to be expected for logarithm of the mole%s of C7-C19 versus carbon number.
A best fit should have a coefficient R2 above 0.80 for the fluid pass the test. Before the test is performed, defined C7+
components as for example benzene and toluene are added to the appropriate carbon number fraction.
For heavy oils, the carbon number, at which the logarithmic decay starts, is dependent on the STO API Gravity of
the heavy oil. Based on the findings by Krejbjerg and Pedersen (2006), the following equation can be derived
CN B 0.5492 API 22.918

where CNB is the carbon number where the logarithmic decay begins for heavy oils, and API is the API gravity
measured for the heavy oil. The fluid analysis must be to at least CNB + 4.
Plus Component Amount (bottomhole)
By extrapolation of the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution analysis, an estimate can be provided of
the molar amount contained in the plus fraction (C20+ molar amount if compositional analysis ends at C20+).
The extrapolation is continued to C80 (C200 for heavy oil). The simulated plus fluid molar amount found by this
extrapolation should agree with the reported plus molar amount within 100% for the fluid to pass the test.
Plus Molecular Weight (bottomhole)
An extrapolation of the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution analysis enables the reported plus
molecular weight to be checked. The plus molecular weight can be calculated from
C max
zi Mi
i C
C max
zi
iC
QC of Fluid 20
where C+ is plus fraction carbon number. Cmax is C80 (C200 if the fluid is a heavy oil). The molecular weights of the
carbon number fractions contained in the plus fraction are found from
M = 14 CN 4
where CN is carbon number.
A deviation of more than 25% from the reported plus molecular weight will make the QC test fail.
Plus Component Density (bottomhole)
An extrapolation of the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution analysis enables the reported plus
density weight to be checked. The plus density is calculated from
C max
zi Mi
iC
max
i C
zi Mi
i
where C+ is plus fraction carbon number and CMax is either C80 (C200 for heavy oils). The densities of the carbon
number fractions contained in the plus fraction are found from
C D ln CN N
where CN is carbon number and the constants C and D are found from a best-fit line for through density versus
ln(carbon number) for the carbon number fractions except the plus fraction. A best fit should have a coefficient R2
above 0.85 for the fluid pass the test.
The fluid fails the plus component density check if the simulated plus density deviates by more than 5% from the
plus density input for the fluid.
The test is not performed unless C7+ densities are given to at least C20+.
Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure (bottomhole)
If the fluid sample is representative for the fluid in the reservoir, the Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure must be
lower than the Reservoir Pressure. If this is not the case, the sample has most likely been obtained at conditions with
two phases present. It is therefore most likely not representative and the test will fail.
The test is not performed if the Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure is not given as input.
Bottomhole Flowing Pressure (bottomhole)
The Bottomhole Flowing Pressure must be higher than the Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure. If this is not the
case, then there will be free gas flowing in the vicinity of the wellbore, and it is highly likely that the sample
collected has lost lighter hydrocarbon components and therefore is not representative. Even though the reservoir
pressure may be above the saturation pressure, a high drawdown pressure may cause the flowing bottomhole
pressure to drop below the saturation pressure.
The test is performed if both Bottomhole Flowing Pressure and Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure are input.
Sample Cylinder Shutting/Opening Pressures (bottomhole)
The Sample Cylinder Shutting Pressure must be higher than the Sample Cylinder Opening Pressure. The opposite
would suggest that the sample in the laboratory is heated to a temperature above reservoir temperature before the
sample cylinder is opened. That is obviously not the case. Something else has gone wrong and the test will fail.
The test is performed if both Sample Cylinder Shutting Pressure and Sample Cylinder Opening Pressure are input
Test Separator GOR (bottomhole)
QC of Fluid 21
If data at test separator conditions is available, the QC of a bottomhole sample can be extended with a test of
separator GOR. The simulated GOR is found as GOR at standard conditions divided by the Bo of the oil at separator
conditions.
A deviation of more than 10% from the input separator GOR will make the test fail.
The evaluation will fail if a single-phase gas is detected at separator conditions.
Test Separator Oil Density (bottomhole)
If data at test separator conditions is available, the QC of a bottomhole sample may be combined with a separator
test QC.
If the separator oil density has been input, the sampled fluid composition is flashed to separator conditions and the
simulated separator oil density compared with that input. The test will fail if the deviation exceeds 4%.
The evaluation will fail if a single-phase gas is detected at separator conditions.
OBM Contamination (bottomhole)
For most (clean) reservoir fluids the logarithm of the mole fraction of C7+ fractions (except plus component) versus
carbon number will follow an almost straight line (Pedersen et al. (1992)). With a fluid composition to for example
C20+ an almost straight line is to be expected for logarithm of the mole%s of C7-C19 versus carbon number.
The evaluation is conducted by a calculation of the best-fit straight line through the logarithm of the mole fraction of
C7+ fractions (except plus component) versus carbon number. Before the test is performed, the defined components
heavier than C6 are added to the appropriate carbon number fraction.
An analysis to at least C20+ is required for gas condensates and oils, whereas a composition to C30+ is required for
heavy oils.
If the analysis shows signs of OBM, it is recommended to obtain a composition of the mud and perform a Clean For
Mud calculation in PVTsim.
Separator Samples
A separator sample is taken from a separator operating at elevated P and T. The separator oil is in the PVT
laboratory flashed to standard (typically 1.01 bara/15C or 14.7 psia/59F) in a single stage.
The following input is mandatory if a QC evaluation is to be conducted for a separator sample. The information
should be readily available in a PVT report.
Molar composition of separator gas and oil. The oil must be a Plus composition and the gas either a plus or
a No Plus composition
Molar composition of recombined fluid PVT report.
Separator Pressure
Separator Temperature
STO Oil Density
Separator GOR
Reservoir Fluid Type (Oil must be chosen if the STO API Gravity is above 25 API and Heavy Oil must be chosen if
the STO API Gravity is below 25 API)
The following additional information can optionally be entered
QC of Fluid 22
Reservoir Temperature
The total QC evaluation scheme for a separator sample is
No.
QC Evaluation
Mandatory
STO Oil Density
Separator GOR
Separator Conditions
Separator Gas Saturation Temperature
Separator Oil Saturation Pressure
K-Factor Plot
Mass Balance Closure Plot
Hoffmann Plot
(X)
Logarithmic Mole Fraction vs. Carbon Number
10
Plus Component Amount
11
Plus Component Molecular Weight
12
Plus Component Density
13
Critical Point/Fluid Type
Optional
In the following the QC evaluations are described in terms of
Simulation method
Accepted deviation between measured and simulated results
Possible key sources in case of failure are listed in the QC report with suggestions on how to correct the sample to
pass the QC.
STO Oil Density (separator)
The recombined separator sample is flashed to at standard conditions (typically 1.01 bara/15C or 14.7 psia/59F),
and the density of the flashed liquid compared with the input STO Oil density.
The fluid fails the QC test if the deviation exceeds 3%.
Separator GOR (separator)
The separator oil is flashed to standard conditions (typically 1.01 bara/15C or 14.7 psia/59F). The volume of the
gas from this flash is added to the volume of the gas from flashing the separator gas to standard conditions and the
total gas volume divided by the volume of the oil at standard conditions.
The fluid will fail the test if the simulated separator GOR deviates by more than 10% from the reported separator
GOR.
Separator Conditions (separator)
Phase envelopes for the separator gas and the separator oil should ideally meet at the separator P and T. In the QC
module the deviation between the simulated separator P and T and the reported separator conditions are defined as
QC of Fluid 23
Deviation %
PSimulated PReported TSimulated TReported

100
PReported
TReported
The criterion for passing the test depends on whether the simulated separator T is higher or lower than the reported
separator T
TSimulated > TReported

Accept criterion is 5% (deviation most likely caused by liquid carryover)
TSimulated < TReported

Accept criterion is 20% (deviation most likely caused heavy components in gas not analyzed for, which will
have little influence on the properties of the recombined fluid)
The test will fail if the phase envelopes do not intersect.

Saturation Temperature Separator Gas (separator)
Ideally the dew point temperature of the separator gas at the separator pressure should be equal to the separator
temperature. The fluid will fail the QC if the simulated saturation temperature for the separator gas at the separator
pressure deviates by more than 10% from the separator temperature.
Saturation Pressure Separator Oil (separator)
Ideally the bubble point pressure of the separator oil at the separator temperature should be equal to the separator
pressure. The fluid will fail the QC if the simulated saturation pressure for the separator oil at the separator
temperature deviates by more than 10% from the separator pressure.
K-Factor Plot (separator)
The K-factor is determined through
Ki
yi
xi
where Ki is the K-factor of component i, yi is the mole fraction of the ith component in the separator gas, and xi is
the mole fraction of the ith component in the separator oil.
To check whether the sampled separator compositions were at equilibrium at separator conditions the K-factors of
the sampled compositions may be compared with the K-factors of the compositions from a flash of the recombined
fluid to separator conditions.
The test should yield a straight line (y=x) when plotting the simulated K-factors against the reported K-factors. Only
defined components are included in the test since heavier components are not always contained in both separator gas
and separator liquid analysis. N2 is not included in this evaluation, the reason being that sample cylinders may be
contaminated by N2.
The line coefficient R2 must be above 0.98 to pass the K-Factor Plot test.
Mass Balance Closure Plot (separator)
A recombination of the separator gas and oil according to the separator GOR should give the composition of the
recombined reservoir fluid composition in the PVT report. The mass balance over a separator is given by
z i y i 1 x i
QC of Fluid 24
where zi is the mole fraction of component i in the feed to the separator, yi is the mole fraction of the ith component
in the separator gas, xi is the mole fraction of the ith component in the separator oil, and is the molar fraction of
the feed that ends up in the separator gas.
Watanasiri et al. (1982) rewrites this equation to
y i 1 x i 1
zi
zi
which shows that plotting yi/zi against xi/zi should yield a straight line. The line should be downward sloping as 0
1. Only defined components are included in the test since heavier components are not always contained in both
separator gas and separator liquid analysis.
The line coefficient R2 must be above 0.85 for the fluid in order to pass the Mass Balance Closure Plot evaluation.
Hoffmann Plot (separator)
The Hoffmann Plot (Hoffmann et al. (1953)) is an alternative/supplement to the K-factor plot for determining
whether the given separator gas and oil compositions are in equilibrium at separator conditions.
The correlation is given by
PSeparator
Log K i
PS tan dard
1
b
Tb,i TSeparator
where Ki is the K-factor for component i, PSeparator is the separator pressure, PStandard is the standard pressure (typically
1.01 bara/14.7 psia), is the slope of the straight line, b is a parameter given by
Pc,i
Log
PS tan dard
b
1
1
Tb,i Tc ,i
where Pc,i is the critical pressure of component i, Tb,i is the normal boiling point of component i, Tc,i is the critical
temperature of component i, TSeparator is the separator temperature, and is the intercept of the straight line.
The Hoffmann Plot is included in the QC module because it is an accepted QC standard in the oil industry, Whitson
and Brul (2000) have shown that the Hoffmann correlation can be derived from the Wilson Equation for
approximate K-factors (Wilson, 1966) when the Edmister correlation (Edmister, 1958) is used to determine the
acentric factor in the Wilson equation. Being an approximate correlation it is less refined than the K-factor plot and
not assigned any importance in the overall QC evaluation.
C7+ Molar Distribution (separator)
For most reservoir fluids the logarithm of the mole fraction of C7+ fractions (except plus component) versus carbon
number will follow an almost straight line (Pedersen et al., 1992). With a fluid composition to for example C20+ an
almost straight line is to be expected for logarithm of the mole%s of C7-C19 versus carbon number.
A best fit should have a coefficient R2 above 0.80 for the fluid pass the test. Before the test is performed, defined C7+
components as for example benzene and toluene are added to the appropriate carbon number fraction.
For heavy oils, the carbon number, at which the logarithmic decay starts, is dependent on the STO API Gravity of
the heavy oil. Based on the findings by Krejbjerg and Pedersen (2006), the following equation can be derived
CN B 0.5492 API 22.918

where CNB is the carbon number where the logarithmic decay begins for heavy oils, and API is the API gravity
measured for the heavy oil. The fluid analysis must be to at least CNB + 4.
Plus Component Amount (separator)
By extrapolation the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution analysis, an estimate can be provided of the
molar amount contained in the plus fraction (C20+ molar amount if compositional analysis ends at C20+).
QC of Fluid 25
The extrapolation is continued to C80 (C200 for heavy oil). The simulated plus fluid molar amount found by this
extrapolation should agree with the reported plus molar amount within 100% for the fluid to pass the test.
Plus Molecular Weight (separator)
An extrapolation the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution analysis enables the reported plus
molecular weight to be checked. The plus molecular weight can be calculated from
C max
zi Mi
i C
C max
zi
iC
where C+ is plus fraction carbon number. Cmax is C80 (C200 if the fluid is a heavy oil). The molecular weights of the
carbon number fractions contained in the plus fraction are found from
M = 14 CN 4
where CN is carbon number.
A deviation of more than 25% from the reported plus molecular weight will make the QC test fail.
Plus Fluid Density (separator)
An extrapolation the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution analysis enables the reported plus density
weight to be checked. The plus density is calculated from
C max
zi Mi
iC
max
i C
zi Mi
i
where C+ is plus fraction carbon number and CMax is either C80 (C200 for heavy oils). The densities of the carbon
number fractions contained in the plus fraction are found from
C D ln CN N
where CN is carbon number and the constants C and D are found from a best-fit line for through density versus
ln(carbon number) for the carbon number fractions except the plus fraction.
The fluid fails the plus fraction density check if the simulated plus density deviates by more than 5% from the plus
density input for the fluid.
The test is not performed unless C7+ densities are given to at least C20+.
Critical Point/Fluid Type (separator)
The following should apply
Critical temperature less than reservoir temperature -> Fluid Type: Gas or gas condensate.
Critical temperature higher than reservoir temperature -> Fluid Type: Oil or heavy oil.
The test is only performed if the reservoir temperature is input.

A mismatch between the reported and simulated fluid type should only be observed for near critical fluids (typically
heavy gas condensates or volatile oils), i.e. fluids for which the reservoir temperature and the critical temperature are
very close. In this case only a small change in the fluid description (e.g. a different lumping) may cause the fluid
type to shift.
QC of Fluid 26
If no or more than one critical point is simulated for the recombined fluid composition, the test is not performed.
References
Edmister, W.C., Applied Hydrocarbon Thermodynamics, Part 4: Compressibility Factors and Equations of State,
Pet. Ref., April, 37, 1958, p.173.
Hoffmann, A. E., Crump, J. S. and Hocott, C. R., Equilibrium Constants for a Gas condensate System, Petroleum
Transactions, AIME 198, 1953, pp. 1-10.
Katz, D.L. and Firoozabadi, A., Predicting Phase Behavior of Condensate/Crude-Oil Systems Using Methane
Interaction Coefficients, J. Pet. Technol. 20, 1978, pp. 1649-1655.
Krejbjerg, K., Pedersen, K.S., Controlling VLLE Equilibrium With a Cubic EoS in Heavy Oil Modeling,
Presented at the 7th Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 13-15, 2006.
Pedersen, K.S., Blilie, A.L., Meisingset, K.K., PVT Calculations on Petroleum Reservoir Fluids Using Measured
and Estimated Compositional Data for the Plus Fraction, I&EC Research, 31, 1992, pp. 1378-1384.
Watanasiri, S., Brul, M.R., Starling, K.E., Correlation of Phase-Separation Data for Coal-Conversion Systems,
AIChE Journal, 28, 1982, pp. 626-637.
Whitson, C., Brul, M.R., Phase Behavior, SPE Monograph, Volume 20, SPE, 2000, pp. 41-42.
Wilson, G. M., "A Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State, Application to General Physical Data Calculation",
Paper No. 15C presented at the 1969 AIChE 65th National Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, March 4-7, 1969.
Flash Algorithms
Flash Algorithms
The flash algorithms of PVTsim are the backbone of all equilibrium calculations performed in the various simulation
options. The different flash options are described in the following. A more detailed description can be found in
Michelsen and Mollerup (2004).
The input to a PT flash calculation consists of
Molar composition of feed (z)

Flash specifications (e.g. Pressure (P) and temperature (T))
Flash Algorithms 27
The flash result consists of
Number of phases
Amounts and molar compositions of each phase
Physical properties and transport properties of each phase.
Flash Options
PVTsim supports the flash options
PT non aqueous (gas and oil)

PT aqueous (gas, oil, and aqueous)
PT multi phase (gas, max. two oils, and aqueous)
PH where H is enthalpy (gas, oil, and aqueous)
PS where S is entropy (gas, oil, and aqueous)
VT where V is molar volume (gas, oil, and aqueous)
UV where U is internal energy (gas, oil, and aqueous)
HS (gas, oil, and aqueous)
P where is hydrocarbon vapor mole fraction of total hydrocarbon phase(s) (gas, oil, and aqueous)
T (gas, oil, and aqueous)
K - factor (gas and oil)
Split - factor (gas and oil)
Specific PT flash options considering the appropriate solid phases are used in the hydrate, wax, and asphaltene
options.
Flash Algorithms
PVTsim uses the PT flash algorithms of Michelsen (1982a, 1982b). They are based on the principle of Gibbs energy
minimization. In a flash process a mixture will settle in the state at which its Gibbs free energy
Flash Algorithms 28
G n i i
i 1
is at a minimum. ni is the number of moles present of component i and i is the chemical potential of component i.
The chemical potential can be regarded as the escaping tendency of component i, and the way to escape is to form
an additional phase. Only one phase is formed if the total Gibbs energy increases for all possible trial compositions
of an additional phase. Two or more phases will form, if it is possible to separate the mixture into two phases having
a total Gibbs energy, lower than that of the single phase. With two phases (I and II) present in thermodynamic
equilibrium, each component will have equal chemical potentials in each phase
iI iII
The final number of phases and the phase compositions are determined as those with the lowest total Gibbs energy.
The calculation that determines whether a given mixture at a specified (P,T) separates into two or more phases is
called a stability analysis. The starting point is the Gibbs energy, G0, of the mixture as a single phase
G0 = G(n1, n2, n3,,nN)
ni stands for the number of moles of type i present in the mixture, and N is the number of different components.
The situation is considered where the mixture separates into two phases (I and II) of the compositions (n1 -1 , n2 --,
n3 - -3 ., nN-N) and (1 , 2 , 3,,N) where i is small. The Gibbs energy of phase I may be approximated by a
Taylor series expansion truncated after the first order term
N
G
G 1 G 0 i i
i 1
n i
The Gibbs energy of the second phase is found to be

GII = G ((1 , 2 , 3,,N)
The change in Gibbs energy due to the phase split is hence
G G I G II G 0 i ( i II ( i ) 0 ) y i (( i ) II ( i ) 0 )
N
i 1
i 1
where i and yi is the mol fraction of component i in phase II. The sub-indices 0 and II refer to the single
i 1
phase and to phase II, respectively. Only one phase is formed if G is greater than zero for all possible trial
compositions of phase II. The chemical potential, i, may be expressed in terms of the fugacity, fi, as follows
Flash Algorithms 29
i i0 RT 1n f i 0i RT(1n z i ln i 1n P )
where 0 is a standard state chemical potential, a fugacity coefficient, z a mole fraction, P the pressure, and the
sub-index i stands for component i. The standard state is in this case the pure component i at the temperature and
pressure of the system. The equation for G may then be rewritten to
G N
y i (1n y i 1n( i ) II ln z i 1n( i ) 0 )
RT i 1
where zi is the mole fraction of component i in the total mixture. The stability criterion can now be expressed in
terms of mole fractions and fugacity coefficients. Only one phase exists if
N
y i (ln y i ln( i ) II ln z i ln( i ) 0 ) 0
i 1
for all trial compositions of phase II. A minimum in G will at the same time be a stationary point. A stationary point
must satisfy the equation
ln y i ln( i ) II lnz i ln( i ) 0 k

where k is independent of component index. Introducing new variables, Yi, given by
ln Yi = ln yi k
the following equation may be derived
1n Yi = 1n zi + 1n(i)0 1n(i)II
PVTsim uses the following initial estimate (Wilson, 1969) for the ratio Ki between the mole fraction of component i
in the vapor phase and in the liquid phase
Ki
Pci
T
exp 5.373 (1 ci )
P
T
where
Ki= yi/xi
and Tci is the critical temperature and Pci the critical pressure of component i. As initial estimates for Yi are used Kizi,
if phase 0 is a liquid and zi/Ki, if phase 0 is a vapor. The fugacity coefficients, (i)II, corresponding to the initial
estimates for Yi are determined based on these fugacity coefficients, new Yi-value are determined, and so on. For a
single-phase mixture this direct substitution calculation will either converge to the trivial solution (i.e. to two
identical phases) or to Yi-values fulfilling the criterion
N
Yi 1
i 1
which corresponds to a non-negative value of the constant k. A negative value of k would be an indication of the
presence of two or more phases. In the two-phase case the molar composition obtained for phase II is a good starting
point for the calculation of the phase compositions. For two phases in equilibrium, three sets of equations must be
satisfied. These are
1) Materiel balance equations
y i 1 x i z i ,
i 1,2,3,..., N
2) Equilibrium equations
y i iV x i iL ,
i 1,2,3,..., N
Flash Algorithms 30
3) Summation of mole fractions

N
(y i x i ) 0
i 1
In these equations xi, yi and zi are mole fractions in the liquid phase, the vapor phase and the total mixture,
respectively. is the molar fraction of the vapor phase. iV and iL are the fugacity coefficients of component i in the
vapor and liquid phases calculated from the equation of state. There are (2N + 1) equations to solve with (2N + 3)
variables, namely (x1, x2, x3,, xN), (y1, y2, y3,.,yN), , T and P. With T and P specified, the number of variables
equals the number of equations. The equations can be simplified by introducing the equilibrium ratio or K-factor, Ki
= yi/xi. The following expressions may then be derived for xi and yi
xi
zi
,
1 K i 1
yi K i x i ,
i 1,2,3,..., N
i 1,2,3,..., N
and for Ki
Ki
iL
,
iV
i 1,2,3,..., N
The above (2N+1) equations may then be reduced to the following (N+1) equations
ln K i
ln iL
,
ln iV
i 1,2,3,..., N
(y i x i ) z i (K i 1)/(1 (K i 1)) 0
i 1
For a given total composition, a given (T, P) and Ki estimated from the stability analysis, an estimate of may be
derived. This will allow new estimates of xi and yi to be derived and the K-factors to be recalculated. A new value of
is calculated and so on. This direct substitution calculation may be repeated until convergence. For more details on
the procedure it is recommended to consult the articles of Michelsen (1982a, 1982b).
For a system consisting of J phases the mass balance equation is
z i (K im 1)
0
i 1
Hi
N
where
j1
H i 1 m (K im 1)
m 1
m is the molar fraction of phase m. K im equals the ratio of mole fractions of component i in phase m and phase J.
The phase compositions may subsequently be found from
y im
z i K im
,
Hi
y iJ
zi
,
Hi
i 1,2,3,..., N; m 1,2,3,..., J
i 1,2,3,..., N
where y im and y iJ are the mole fractions of component i in phase m and phase J, respectively.
K-factor Flash
Flash Algorithms 31
The Flash option and some of the interface options in PVTsim support K-factor and Split-factor flashes. The Kfactor of component i is the mole fraction of component i in the vapor phase (yi) divided by the mole fraction (xi) of
component i in the liquid phase (i.e. Ki=yi/xi). The Split-factor of component i equals the molar amount of
component i in the vapor phase divided by the molar amount of component i in the feed composition. Split-factor are
converted to K-factors and the below N+1 equations solved.
1) Materiel balance equations
y i 1 x i z i ,
i 1,2,3,..., N
2) Summation of mole fractions

N
i 1
i 1
(y i x i )
z i (K i 1)
0
1 (K i 1)
In the multiphase meter interface in PVTsim full flash calculations are carried out for the individual separator stages.
The total separation is then converted to overall K-factors and these are used to calculate the black oil properties
written out by this interface option.
Other Flash Specifications

P and T are not always the most convenient flash specifications to use. Some of the processes taking place during oil
and gas production are not at a constant P and T. Passage of a valve may for example be approximated as a constant
enthalpy (H) process and a compression as a constant entropy (S) process. The temperature after a valve may
therefore be simulated by initially performing a PT flash at the conditions at the inlet to the valve. If the enthalpy is
assumed to be the same at the outlet, the temperature at the outlet can be found from a PH flash with P equal to the
outlet pressure and H equal to the enthalpy at the inlet. A PT flash followed by a PS flash may similarly be used to
determine an approximate temperature after a compressor.
To perform a PH or a PS flash, PVTsim starts with a temperature of 300 K/26.85C/80.33F. Two object functions
are defined. These are for a two-phase PH flash
g 1 z i (K i 1) i
i 1
g 2 H H spec
where
i 1 K i 1
H is total molar enthalpy for the estimated phase compositions, and Hspec is the specified molar enthalpy. At
convergence both g1 and g2 are zero.
Other flash specifications are VT, UV and HS. V is the molar volume and T the absolute temperature. A VT
specification is useful to for example determine the pressure in an offshore pipeline during shutdown. U is the
Flash Algorithms 32
internal energy. A dynamic flow problem may sometimes more conveniently be expressed in U and V than in P and
T.
Michelsen (1999) has given a detailed description on how to perform flash calculations with other specification
variables than P and T.
Phase Identification
If a PT flash calculation for an oil or gas mixture shows existence of two phases, the phase of the lower density will
in general be assumed to be gas or vapor and the phase of the higher density liquid or oil. In the case of a singlephase solution it is less obvious whether to consider the single phase to be a gas or a liquid. There exists no generally
accepted definition to distinguish a gas from a liquid. Since the terms gas and oil are very much used in the oil
industry, a criterion is needed for distinguishing between the two types of phases.
The identification criterion used in PVTsim is
Liquid if
The pressure is lower than the critical pressure and the temperature lower than the bubble point temperature.
The pressure is above the critical pressure and the temperature lower than the critical temperature.
Gas if
The pressure is lower than the critical pressure and the temperature higher than the dew point temperature.
The pressure is above the critical pressure and the temperature higher than the critical temperature.
In the flash options handling water, a phase containing more than 80 mole% total of the components water, hydrate
inhibitors and salts is identified as an aqueous phase.
Components Handled by Flash Options

The non-aqueous PT-flash option handles the following component classes
Other inorganic
Organic defined
Pseudo-components
The PT aqueous and multiflash options handle
Water
Hydrate inhibitors
Other inorganic
Organic defined
Flash Algorithms 33
Pseudo-components
Salts
The PH, PS, and HS flash options handle
Water
Hydrate inhibitors
Other inorganic
Organic defined
Pseudo-components
Salts
The VT and UV flash options handle
Water
Hydrate inhibitors
Other inorganic
Organic defined
Pseudo-components
The T and P flash options handle
Water
Hydrate inhibitors
Other inorganic
Organic defined
Pseudo-components
Salts
References
Michelsen, M.L., The Isothermal Flash Problem. Part I: Stability, Fluid Phase Equilibria 9, 1982a, 1.
Michelsen, M.L., The Isothermal Flash Problem. Part II: Phase-Split Calculation, Fluid Phase Equilibria 9, 1982b,
21.
Michelsen, M.L., State Based Flash Specification, Fluid Phase Equilibria 158-161, 1999, pp. 617-626.
Michelsen, M. L. and Mollerup, J., Thermodynamic Models: Fundamental and Computational Aspects, Tie-Line
Publication, Holte, Denmark, 2004.
Flash Algorithms 34
Wilson, G. M., A Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State, Application to General Physical Data Calculation,
Paper No. 15C presented at the 1969 AIChE 65th National Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, March 4-7, 1969.
Flash Algorithms 35
Phase Envelope and Saturation

Point Calculation
Phase Envelope and Saturation Point Calculation

No aqueous components
A phase envelope consists of corresponding values of T and P for which a phase fraction of a given mixture equals
a specified value. The phase fraction can either be a mole fraction or a volume fraction. The phase envelope option
in PVTsim (Michelsen, 1980) may be used to construct dew and bubble point lines, i.e. corresponding values of T
and P for which equals 1 or 0, respectively. Also inner lines (0 < < 1) may be constructed.
The construction of the outer phase envelope ( = 1 and = 0) and inner molar lines follows the procedure outlined
below. The first (T, P) value of a phase envelope is calculated by choosing a fairly low pressure (P). The default in
PVTsim is 5 bara/4.93 atm/72.52 psia. An initial estimate of the equilibrium factors (Ki = yi/xi) is obtained from the
following equation
Ki
Pci
T
exp 5.42(1 ci )
P
T
This relation and the mass balance equation
i 1
i 1
(y i x i ) z i (K i 1)/(1 (K i 1)) 0
are solved for T and equal to the specified vapor mole fraction. The correct value of T is subsequently calculated
by solving this equation in conjunction with
lnK i
ln iL
ln iV
where the liquid (L) and vapor (V) phase fugacity coefficients, , are found using the equation of state.
Phase Envelope and Saturation Point Calculation 36
An initial estimate of the second point on the phase envelope is calculated using the derivatives of T and Ki with
respect to P calculated in the first point. The correct solution is again found by solving the above equations.
From the third point and on the extrapolation is based on the two latest calculated points and the corresponding
derivatives. This stepwise calculation is continued until the temperature is below the specified lower temperature
limit.
In simulations of PVT experiments, knowledge of the complete phase envelope is not needed but only the saturation
pressure at the temperature of the experiment. A saturation point is also located through a phase envelope
calculation. A critical point may be considered a special type of saturation point, and the critical point is easily
identified as a point where the lnKi changes sign. Some fluids have more than one critical point. The critical point is
furthermore verified by a more direct method as described by Michelsen and Heidemann (1981).
The basic phase envelope option only considers two phases (one gas and one liquid). For many reservoir fluid
mixtures a PT-region exists with 3 phases (1 gas and 2 liquids). This is for example often the case for gas condensate
mixtures at low temperatures. The phase envelope option in PVTsim allows a check to be performed of the possible
existence of a 3-phase region.
For fluids with no aqueous components (i.e. water, hydrate inhibitors or salts) it is possible to obtain other phase
envelope diagrams than the traditional PT-phase envelope diagram. PVTsim allows combinations of the following
properties on the axes of the phase envelope diagram
Pressure (P)
Temperature (T)
Enthalpy (H)
Entropy (S)
Volume (V)
Internal Energy (U)
Mixtures with Aqueous Components

Only the outer lines (=1 and 0) will be located for mixtures containing aqueous components. The phases
considered are (hydrocarbon) gas, (hydrocarbon) liquid and aqueous. The mutual solubility between all phases is
taken into account. The algorithm is described by Lindeloff and Michelsen (2003).
Components handled by Phase Envelope Algorithm

The algorithm handles components belonging to the classes
Other inorganic
Organic defined
Pseudo-components.
Water (no inner lines)

Hydrate inhibitors (no inner lines)
The saturation point algorithm used in the saturation point option and the PVT simulations is also based on the phase
envelope algorithm, but does not handle water and hydrate inhibitors.
References
Lindeloff, N. and Michelsen, M.L., Phase Envelope Calculations for Hydrocarbon-Water Mixtures, SPE 85971,
SPE Journal, September 2003, pp. 298-303.
Michelsen, M.L., Calculation of Phase Envelopes and Critical Points for Multicomponent Mixtures, Fluid Phase
Equilibria 4, 1980, pp. 1-10.
Michelsen, M.L. and Heidemann, R.A., Calculation of Critical Points from Cubic Two-Constant Equations of
State, AIChE J. 27, 1981, pp. 521-523.
Equations of State
Equations of State
The phase equilibrium calculations in PVTsim are based on one of the following equations
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) (Soave, 1972)
Peng-Robinson (PR) (Peng and Robinson, 1976)
Modified Peng-Robinson (PR78) (Peng and Robinson, 1978)
All equations may be used with or without Peneloux volume correction (Peneloux et al., 1982). A constant or a
temperature dependent Peneloux correction may be used. The temperature dependent volume correction is
determined to comply with the ASTM 1250-80 correlation for volume correction factors for stable oils (Pedersen et
al., 2002).
SRK Equation
The SRK equation takes the form
RT
a(T)
V b V(V b)
where P is the pressure, T the temperature, V the molar volume, R the gas constant and a and b are equation of state
parameters, which for a pure component are determined by imposing the critical conditions
((
P
2P
) T ( 2 ) T 0) crit. point
V
V
The following relation is then obtained for parameter a of component i at the critical point
Equations of State 39
a ci a
R 2 Tci2
Pci
and for parameter b of component i
bi b
R Tci
Pci
where
a = 0.42748
b = 0.08664
Tci is the critical temperature of component i and Pci the critical pressure. Values for Tc, Pc and may be seen from
the PVTsim pure component database. All the values except those for salts are taken from Reid et al. (1977). The
values for the salts are chosen to ensure that these components remain in the aqueous phase (Srensen et al. (2002)
and Pedersen and Milter (2004)).
The temperature dependence of the a-parameter is expressed in the form of a term ai(T), which multiplied with aci
gives the final expression for the a-parameter of the SRK-equation
ai(T) = acii(T)
The parameter is by default obtained from the following expression
T
i (T) 1 m1
Tc
0.5
where
m i 0.480 1.574 i 0.176 i2

It is seen that i(T) equals 1 at the critical temperature at which temperature ai(T) therefore becomes equal to aci. is
the acentric factor that is defined as follows (Pitzer, 1955)
i log 10 PriVap
Tr 0.7
where PriVap is the reduced vapor pressure of component i (vapor pressure divided by critical pressure).
An alternative temperature dependence as suggested by Mathias and Copeman (1983) may be applied
(T) (1 C1 1 Tr C2 1 Tr
C 1 T ) ,
2
Tr 1
(T) (1 C1 (1 Tr )) 2 , Tr 1
It is seen that the proposed temperature dependence reduces to the default (classical) one for C1 = m and C2 = C3 = 0.
In general the Mathias-Copeman (M&C) expression offers a more flexible temperature dependence than the classical
expression. It can therefore be used to represent more complicated pure component vapor pressure curves than is
possible with the classical expression. M&C is not used default in PVTsim, but is it possible for the user to change
temperature dependence from classical to M&C and to enter M&C coefficients (C1, C2 and C3) when these are not
given in the PVTsim database. The M&C coefficients used in PVTsim are from Dahl (1991).
SRK with Volume Correction

With Peneloux volume correction the SRK equation takes the form
RT
a
V b V c V b 2c
~
The SRK molar volume, V , and the Peneloux molar volume, V, are related as follows
V V c
~
The b parameter in the Peneloux equation b is similarly related to the SRK b-parameter as follows
~
b b c
The parameter c can be regarded as a volume translation parameter and is given by the following equation
c = c + c (T 288.15)
where T is the temperature in K. The parameter c is the temperature independent volume correction and c the
temperature dependent volume correction. Per default the temperature dependent volume correction c is set to zero
unless for C+ pseudo-components. In general the temperature independent Peneloux volume correction for defined
organics and other organics is found from the following expression
c' 0.40768
RTc
0.29441 Z RA
Pc
where ZRA is the Racket compressibility factor
ZRA = 0.29056 0.08775

For some components, e.g. H2O, MEG, DEG, TEG, and CO2, the values have been found from pure component
density data. For heavy oil fractions c is determined in two steps. The liquid density is known at 15C/59F from the
composition input. By converting this density () to a molar volume V = M/, the c parameter can be found as the
difference between this molar volume and the SRK molar volume for the same temperature. Similarly c is found as
the difference between the molar volume at 80C/176F given by the ASTM 1250-80 density correlation and the
Peneloux molar volume for the same temperature, where the Peneloux volume is found assuming c=c.
PR/PR78 Equation
The PR/PR78 equations both take the form
a(T)
RT
V b V V b bV b
where
a(T) = ac (T)
a c a
R 2 Tc2
Pc
T
(T) 1 m1
Tc
b b
0.5
R Tc
Pc
and
a = 0.45724
b = 0.07780
The parameter m is for the PR equation found from

m 0.37464 1.54226 - 0.269922 2
With the PR78 equation m is found from the same correlation if 0.49. Otherwise the below correlation is used
m = 0.379642 + (1.48503 0.164423 + 0.016662)
The Mathias-Copeman temperature dependence presented in the SRK section may also be applied with both the
Peng-Robinson equation and the Peng-Robinson 78 equation.
PR/PR78 with Volume Correction

With Peneloux volume correction the PR and PR78 equations become
RT
a(T)
V b V c V 2c b b c V b
where c is a temperature dependent constant as presented in the SRK section. In general the temperature independent
Peneloux volume correction for defined organics and other organics is found from
c' 0.50033
RTc
(0.25969 Z RA )
Pc
where ZRA is defined as for the Peneloux modification of the SRK equation. For other components c is found as
explained in the SRK section, which also explains how to determine the temperature dependent term c.
For some components, e.g. H2O, MEG, DEG, TEG, and CO2, the values have been found from pure component
density data. For heavy oil fractions c is determined in two steps. The liquid density is known at 15C/59F from the
composition input. By converting this density () to a molar volume V = M/, the c parameter can be found as the
difference between this molar volume and the PR molar volume for the same temperature. Similarly c is found as
the difference between the molar volume at 80C/176F given by the ASTM 1250-80 density correlation and the
Peneloux molar volume for the same temperature, where the Peneloux volume is found assuming c=c.
Classical Mixing Rules

The classical mixing rules for a, b and c are
N N
a z i z j a ij
i 1 j1
N
b zi bi
i 1
N
c zici
i 1
where zi and zj are mole fractions, i and j component indices, and
a ij a i a j 1 k ij
The parameter kij is a binary interaction.

The greater part of the interaction coefficients in the PVTsim database has been found in Knapp et al. (1982).
The option exists to calculate interaction parameters from critical volumes using the following equation (Chueh and
Prausnitz, 1967)
1
1
2 V3 V3
ci
cj
k ij 1
1
1
Vci3 Vcj3
In PVTsim the exponent n is user-specified with a default value of 1.
Temperature Dependent Binary Interaction Parameters

PVTsim supports temperature dependent kijs. The following temperature dependence is used
kij =kij_A+CNj (kij_B+kij_C (T-T0))

where kij_A, kij_B and kij_C are user input, T0 is a reference temperature of 288.15 K and CNj the carbon number of
component j.
The Huron and Vidal Mixing Rule

For binary pairs of components of which at least one is polar, the classical mixing rule is often insufficient for the aparameter. In PVTsim the mixing rule suggested by Huron and Vidal (H&V) (1979) is default used for most
interactions with water, fluid inhibitors and salts. The H&V a-parameter mixing rule takes the form
N a GE
a b z i i
i 1
bi
where is specific for the selected equation of state. For SRK and PR the values for are
SRK : ln2
PR :
2 1
ln
2 2 2 1
1
G E is the excess Gibbs energy at infinite pressure. G E is found using a modified NRTL mixing rule
ji b j z j exp ji ji
N
G
j1
zi N
RT i l
b k z k exp ki ki
k 1
where ji is a non-randomness parameter, i.e. a parameter taking into account that the mole fraction of molecules of
type i around a molecule of type j may deviate from the overall mole fraction of molecules of type i in the mixture.
When ji is zero, the mixture is completely random. The parameter is defined by the following expression
ji
g ji g ii
RT
where gij is an energy parameter characteristic of the j-i interaction. In PVTsim the g-parameters are temperature
dependent and given by the expression (Pedersen et al., 2001)
gji gii = (gji gii) + T (gji gii)
The parameter b entering into the expression for G E is the b-parameter of the equation of state. The classical mixing
rule is used for the b-parameter.
The local composition of a binary pair that can be described using the classical mixing rule, will not deviate from the
overall composition, i.e. ji should be chosen equal to zero. By further selecting the following expressions for the
interaction energy parameters
g ii
ai
bi
g ji 2
bi b j
bi b j
ii
g jj
1 k
0.5
ij
the H&V mixing rule reduces to the classical one. When the H&V mixing rule is used, the latter expressions are
therefore used for gij and gii of binary pairs not requiring the advanced mixing rule. This gives a continuous
description of both hydrocarbons and aqueous components.
Phase Equilibrium Relations

In case of two phases, each component will have equal fugacities, fi, in both phases
f iV f iL
The following general thermodynamic relation exists for determination of the fugacity coefficient
lni 1/RT P/n i T, V, n RT/V dV lnZ

V
where ni is the number of moles of type i. The following relation exists for the fugacity coefficient derived from the
SRK equation with classical mixing rules
ln i ln(Z B) (Z 1)
N
bi A 1
2 ai z
b B a
j1
B
b
a j (1 k ij ) i ln(1 )
Z
b
For the PR equation the expression for the fugacity coefficient takes the form
ln i ln(Z B) (Z 1)
N
bi
A 1
1.5 2 a i z
j1
b 2 B a
b Z (20.5 1)b
a j (1 k ij ) i ln
0.5
b Z (2 1)b
A and B in these expressions are given by

A
a T P
R 2 T2
bP
RT
With two phases present, the phase compositions are related to the total composition as follows
xi
zi
1 K i 1
yi
Kizi
1 K i 1
where zi is the mole fraction of component i in the total mixture and is the molar vapor phase fraction.
For details on how to determine the number of phases and on how to determine the amounts of each phase, the P/T
flash section should be consulted.
References
Chueh, P.L., and Prausnitz, J.M., Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium at High Pressures: Calculation of Partial Molar
Volumes in Non-Polar Liquid Mixtures, AIChE Journal 13, 1967, pp. 1099-1107.
Dahl, S., Phase Equilibria for Mixtures Containing Gases and Electrolytes, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 1991.
Huron, M.J. and Vidal, J., New Mixing Rules in Simple Equations of State for Representing Vapor-liquid
Equilibria of Strongly Non-Ideal Mixtures, Fluid Phase Equilibria 3, 1979, p. 255.
Knapp H.R., Doring, R., Oellrich, L., Plocker, U., and Prausnitz, J.M., Vapor-Liquid Equilibria for Mixtures of
Low Boiling Substances, Chem. Data. Ser., Vol. VI, 1982, DECHEMA.
Mathias, P.M. and Copeman, T.W., Extension of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State to Complex Mixtures:
Evaluation of the various Forms of the Local Composition Concept, Fluid Phase Equilibria 13, 1983, pp. 91-108.
Pedersen, K.S., Milter, J., and Rasmussen, C.P., Mutual Solubility of Water and Reservoir Fluids at High
Temperatures and Pressures, Experimental and Simulated Phase Equilibrium Data, Fluid Phase Equilibria 189,
2001, pp. 85-97.
Pedersen, K. S. and Milter, J., Phase Equilibrium Between Gas Condensate and Brine at HT/HP Conditions, SPE
90309, presented at the SPE ATCE, Houston, TX, September 26-29, 2004.
Pedersen, K.S., Milter, J. and Srensen, H., Cubic Equations of State Applied to HT/HP and Highly Aromatic
Fluids, SPE 88364, SPE Journal, June 2004, pp. 186-192.
Peneloux, A., Rauzy, E. and Frze, R., A Consistent Correlation for Redlich-Kwong-Soave Volumes, Fluid Phase
Equilibria 8, 1982, pp. 7-23.
Peng, D.-Y. and Robinson, D.B., A New Two-Constant Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 15, 1976, pp.
59-64.
Peng, D.-Y., and Robinson, D.B., The Characterization of the Heptanes and Heavier Fractions for the GPA PengRobinson Programs, GPA Research Report RR-28, 1978.
Pitzer, K. S., Volumetric and Thermodynamic Properties of Fluids. I., Theoretical Basis and Virial Coefficients, J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 77, 1955, 3427.
Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M. and Sherwood, J. K., The Properties of Gases and Liquids McGraw-Hill, New-York
1977.
Soave, G., Equilibrium Constants From a Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State, Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 1972,
pp. 1197-1203.
Srensen, H., Pedersen, K.S. and Christensen, P.L., "Modeling of Gas Solubility in
Brine", Organic Geochemistry 33, 2002, pp. 635-642.
Characterization of Heavy
Hydrocarbons
Characterization of Heavy Hydrocarbons

To use a cubic equation of state as for example the SRK or the PR equations on oil and gas condensate mixtures the
critical temperature, Tc, the critical pressure, Pc, and the acentric factor, , must be known for each component of the
mixture. Naturally occurring oil or gas condensate mixtures may contain thousands of different components. This
number exceeds what is practical in a usual phase equilibrium calculation. Some of the components must be lumped
together and represented as pseudo-components. C7+-characterization consists in representing the hydrocarbons with
seven and more carbon atoms as a reasonable number of pseudo-components and to find the needed equation of state
parameters, Tc, Pc and for these pseudo-components.
Classes of Components
Naturally occurring oil and gas condensate mixtures consist of three classes of components
Defined Components
These are per default N2, CO2, H2S, C1, C2, C3, iC4, nC4, iC5 and C6 in PVTsim. C6 is in PVTsim considered to be
pure nC6.
C7+ Fractions
Each C7+ fraction contains hydrocarbons with boiling points within a given temperature interval. Carbon number
fraction n consists of the components with a boiling point between that of nCn-1 + 0.5C/0.9F and that of nCn +
0.5C/0.9F. The C7 fraction for example consists of the components with a boiling point between those of nC6 +
0.5C/0.9F and nC7 + 0.5C/0.9F . For the C7+-fractions the density at standard conditions (1 atm/14.969 psia and
15C/59F) and the molecular weight must be input.
The Plus Fraction

The plus fraction consists of the components, which are too heavy to be split into individual C7+-fractions. The
average molecular weight and the density must be known.
Characterization of Heavy Hydrocarbons 48
Properties of C7+-Fractions
PVTsim supports two different characterization procedures
Standard oil characterization to C80

Heavy oil characterization to C200
Tc, Pc and are found from empirical correlations in density, , and molecular weight, M
Tc = c1 + c2 1n M + c3 M + c4/M
lnPc = d1 + d2d5 + d3/M + d4/M2
m = e1 + e2 M + e3 + e4 M2
(standard characterization)
m e1 e 2 ln(M) e 3 e 4 M
(heavy oil characterization)
where m is defined in the Equation of State section and the coefficients are given in the tables below.
Sub-index/
Coefficient
c
d
e
Sub-index/
Coefficient
c
d
e
Sub-index/
Coefficient
c
d
e
Sub-index/
Coefficient
c
d
e
Standard characterization - SRK (Pedersen et al., 1989b and 1992)

1
2
3
4
1.6312 x 102
-1.3408 x 10-1
7.4310 x 10-1
8.6052 x 10
2.5019
4.8122 x 10-3
4.3475 x 10-1
2.0846 x 102
9.6707 x 10-3
-1.8774 x 103
-3.9872 x 103
-3.7184 x 10-6
Standard characterization PR/PR78 (Pedersen et al., 2002)

1
2
3
4
7.3404 x 10
7.2846 x 10-2
3.7377 x 101
9.7356 x 10
2.1881
5.4927 x 10-3
6.1874 x 10-1
1.6391 x 102
1.1793 x 10-2
-2.0593 x 103
-4.0434 x 103
-4.9305 x 10-6
Heavy oil characterization SRK (Krejbjerg and Pedersen, 2006)

1
2
3
4
8.30631 102
8.0298810-1
-4.7268010-2
1.75228 10
1.78396
6.0293110-2
4.55911 10-2
1.56740102
1.21051
-1.13484 104
-6.96559 103
-5.7667610-3
Heavy oil characterization PR/PR78 (Krejbjerg and Pedersen, 2006)

1
2
3
4
9.13222102
1.28155
-2.3838010-1
1.0113410
1.26838
6.1014710-2
4.5419410-2
1.67106102
1.32349
-1.35867104
-8.10164103
-6.5206710-3
5
1.0
-
5
1/4
-
5
0.25
5
0.25
M is in g/mole, is in g/cm3, Tc is in K and Pc in atm. The correlations are the same with and without volume
correction.
Extrapolation of the Plus Fraction

Characterization of the plus fraction consists in
Estimation of the molar distribution, i.e. mole fraction versus carbon number.
Estimation of the density distribution, i.e. the density versus carbon number.
Estimation of the molecular weight distribution, i.e. molecular weight versus carbon number.
Calculation of Tc, Pc and of the resulting pseudo-components.
The molar composition of the plus fraction is estimated by assuming a logarithmic relationship between the molar
concentration zN, of a given fraction and the corresponding carbon number, CN, for CN >7
CN = A1 + B1 ln zN
A1 and B1 are determined from the measured mole fraction and the measured molecular weight of the plus fraction.
The densities of the carbon number fractions contained in the plus fraction are estimated by assuming a logarithmic
dependence of against carbon number.
Boiling points are required to estimate ideal gas heat capacity coefficients for the C7+ fractions (see section on
Thermal and Volumetric Properties). The boiling points recommended by Katz and Firoozabadi (1978) are used up
to C45. The following relation is used for heavier components
TB = 97.58 M0.3323 0.04609
where TB is in K and in g/cm3.
Estimation of PNA Distribution

The following procedure is used to estimate the PNA-distribution of the C7+ fractions. The refractive index, n, of
each C7+-fraction is calculated from the density, the normal boiling point and the molecular weight using the
correlations of Riazi and Daubert (1980)
1 2I
1 I
I is a characterization factor, which is found from the following correlation
I 0.3773 TB0.02269 0.9182
TB is the boiling point in K and the liquid density at atmospheric conditions in g/cm3. Based on the refractive
index, the density and the molecular weight the PNA distribution (in mole%) can be estimated as described by Nes
and Westerns (1951)
v = 2.51 (n 1.4750) - + 0.8510
w = - 0.8510 1.11 (n 1.4750)
%A = 430 v + 3660/M
for v > 0
%A = 670 v + 3660/M
for v < 0
R = 820 w + 10000/M
for w > 0
R = 1440 w + 10600/M
for w < 0
%N = R- %A
%P = 100 R
Grouping (Lumping) of Pseudo-components

The extrapolated mixture may consist of more than 200 components and pseudo-components. In the simulation
options PVTsim can handle a maximum of 120 components. The number of components is reduced through a
grouping or lumping. The default number of C7+ components in PVTsim is 12. The Carbon number fractions C7, C8
and C9 will not be lumped when more than five pseudo-components are specified.
Weight Based Lumping
PVTsim default uses a weight based lumping where each lumped pseudo-component contains approximately the
same weight amount and where Tc, Pc and of the individual carbon number fractions and found as weight mean
average values of Tc, Pc and of the individual carbon number fractions. If the kth pseudo-component contains the
carbon number fractions M to L, its Tc, Pc and will be found from the relations
Tck
z i M i Tci
iM
L
zi Mi
i M
z i M i Pci
Pck i ML
zi Mi
iM
z i M i i
ck i ML
zi Mi
i M
where zi is the mole fraction and Mi the molecular weight of carbon number fraction i. The weight-based procedure
ensures that all hydrocarbon segments of the C7+ fraction are given equal importance.
ab Grouping
This represents a lumping scheme, which minimizes the variation in the equation of state parameters a and b within a
pseudo-component (Lomeland and Harstad, 1994). The terms used in the following are further explained in the
Equation of State section. The a-parameter may for a pure component i be written
T
a i a ci 1 m i m i
Tci
or
a i a 1i 1 a 2i T
where
a 1i a ci 1 m i
mi
a 2i
1 m i
Tci
The expression for the parameter a of an N component mixture may similarly be rewritten to
a 1i a 1j a 1i a 1j a 2i a 2j
a N N
z i z j
a 1i a 1j a 2i a 2j 1 k ij
T i 1 j1
T
T
For pseudo-component k comprising the carbon number fractions from Ln to Un the average a1 and a2 parameters are
calculated by
Un
2
a 1k
Un
z i z j a 1i a 1j 1 k ij
i L n j L n
Un
zi
iL n
Un
2
2a 2k a 1k
Un
z i z j a 1i a 2i a 2j a 1j 1 k ij
i L n j L n
U
zi
iL
Similarly the average parameter b is found from
Un
bk
zi bi
iLn
Un
zi
i L n
The sub-components of pseudo-component n is found by minimizing the function
a a lk
S 1i
n Ls i L n
a 1i
N pc
Un
a 2i a 2k

a 2i
bi bk

bi
by varying Ln and Un. Ls is lowest carbon number considered for grouping and Npc is the final number of pseudocomponents. The parameters n, Tcn and Pcn are found by back-calculation using the following formulas
b a 1k a 2k
a
bk
mk
mk
Tck
1 mk a
2k
Pck
b R Tck
bk
where m is a second order polynomial in as defined in the Equation of State section. In case non-zero binary
interaction coefficients are used for the hydrocarbon-hydrocarbon interactions, the binary interaction coefficient
between pseudo-component n and m is determined from the formula
Un
k nm
Um
z i z j M i M j k ij
i L n j L m
Un
Um
i Ln
j L m
Mn Mm zi z j
where the pseudo-component m comprises the carbon number fractions for Lm to Um and M n and M m are the
average molecular weights of pseudo-components m and n, respectively. For interactions with methane the following
correction term is to be added to the binary interaction parameters calculated from the above formula
Mm
0.003864
where C
N pc
Mn Mm
n
Npc is the number of pseudo-components.

ab-grouping cannot be used with temperature dependent kijs.
Delumping
In compositional reservoir simulations it is desirable to use as few components as possible in order to minimize the
computation time. This is accomplished by a component lumping. Not only C7+ components but also some of the
defined components may have to be lumped. In subsequent process simulations it is often desirable to work with all
the defined components and possibly also an increased number of C7+ pseudo-components. Expansion of a lumped
composition may in PVTsim be accomplished by use of the Delumping Option. A lumped component consisting of
defined components is split into its constituents. The relative molar amounts of the individual components are
assumed to be the same as in the original composition before lumping. The C7+ pseudo-components of the lumped
fluid are possibly split to cover smaller carbon number ranges. To start with the C7+ pseudo-component containing
the largest weight fraction is split into two new pseudo-components of approximately equal weight amounts. Next
the pseudo-component, which now contains the largest weight amount is split into two and so on until the number of
C7+ pseudo-components equals that specified.
It is possible to adjust the gas/oil ratio of the delumped composition to match that of the lumped composition.
Characterization of Multiple Compositions to the Same PseudoComponents

In process simulations and compositional reservoir simulations it is often advantageous to characterize a number of
different reservoir fluids to a unique set of pseudo-components. This is practical for example when numerous
process streams are let to the same separation plant in which case there is a need for simulating each stream
separately as well as the mixed stream as a whole. If each composition is represented using the same pseudocomponents, the streams can readily be mixed without having to increase the number of components.
Initially the plus fractions of the compositions to be characterized to the same pseudo-components are split into
carbon number fractions. For each C7+ carbon number fraction Tc, Pc and are estimated in the usual manner. Tcs,
Pcs and s representative for all the compositions are calculated from
j j
Wgt jz i Tci
NFL
unique
ci
j1
j
Wgt jz i
NFL
j1
j j
Wgt jz i Pci
NFL
Pciunique
j1
j
Wgt jz i
NFL
j1
j
j
Amount jz i
NFL
imix
j1
j
Amount jz i
NFL
j1
NFL is the number of compositions to be characterized to the same pseudo-components, z ij is the mole fraction of
component i in composition number j, and Amount(j) is the weight (molar or weight based) to be assigned to
composition number j.
To decide what carbon number fractions to include in each pseudo-component, a molar composition is calculated,
which is assumed to be reasonably representative for all compositions. In this imaginary composition, component i
enters with a mole fraction of
j
Amount jz i
NFL
unique
i
j1
Amount j
NFL
j1
and a molecular weight of

j
j
Amount jz i M i
NFL
M iunique
j1
Amount jz i
NFl
j1
This composition is now treated like an ordinary composition to be lumped into pseudo-components. The lumping
determines the carbon number ranges to be contained in each pseudo-component, and Tc, Pc and of each pseudocomponent. The properties of the lumped composition are assumed to apply for all the individual compositions. If
the kth pseudo-component contain the carbon number fractions M to L, the mole fraction of this pseudo-component
in the jth composition will be
z kj z ij
iM
References
Katz, D.L. and Firoozabadi, A., Predicting Phase Behavior of Condensate/Crude-Oil Systems Using Methane
Interaction Coefficients, J. Pet. Technol. 20, 1978, pp. 1649-1655.
Krejbjerg, K. and Pedersen, K. S., Controlling VLLE Equilibrium with a Cubic EoS in Heavy Oil Modeling,
presented at 57th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society (Canadian International Petroleum
Conference), Calgary, Canada, June 13-15, 2006
Lomeland F. and Harstad, O., Simplifying the Task of Grouping Components in Compositional Reservoir
Simulation, SPE paper 27581, presented at the European Petroleum Computer Conference in Aberdeen, U.K., 1517 March, 1997.
Nes, K. and Westerns, H.A., van, Aspects of the Constitution of Mineral Oils, Elsevier, New York, 1951.
Pedersen, K.S., Thomassen, P. and Fredenslund, Aa., Thermodynamics of Petroleum Mixtures Containing Heavy
Hydrocarbons. 3. Efficient Flash Calculation Procedures Using the SRK Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Des. Dev. 24, 1985, pp. 948-954.
Pedersen, K.S. , Fredenslund, Aa. and Thomassen, P., Properties of Oils and Natural Gases, Gulf Publishing Inc.,
Houston, 1989a.
Pedersen, K.S., Thomassen, P. and Fredenslund, Aa., Advances in Thermodynamics 1, 1989b, 137.
Pedersen, K.S., Blilie, A. and Meisingset, K.K., "PVT Calculations of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids Using Measured
and Estimated Compositional Data for the Plus Fraction", Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 31, 1992, pp. 924-932.
Pedersen, K.S., Milter, J. and Srensen, H., Cubic Equations of State Applied to HT/HP and Highly Aromatic
Fluids, SPE 88362, SPE Journal, June 2004, pp. 186-192.
Riazi, M.R. and Daubert, T.E., Prediction of the Composition of Petroleum Fractions, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process
Des. Dev. 19, 1980, pp. 289-294.
Thermal and Volumetric

Properties
Thermal and Volumetric Properties

Density
The phase densities are calculated using the selected equation of state, i.e. either
SRK
SRK-Peneloux
SRK-Peneloux(T)
PR
PR-Peneloux
PR-Peneloux(T)
PR78
PR78-Peneloux
PR78-Peneloux(T)
where (T) means that the Peneloux volume translation parameter is temperature dependent.
Enthalpy
The enthalpy, H, is calculated as the sum of two contributions, the ideal gas enthalpy and residual enthalpy, Hres
H z i H idi H res
i l
Thermal and Volumetric Properties 56
where N is the number of components, zi is the mole fraction of component i in the phase considered and H idi is the
molar ideal gas enthalpy of component i.
H idi TT Cidpi dT
ref
Tref is a reference temperature (273.15 K (= 0C/32F) in PVTsim). C idpi is the molar ideal gas enthalpy of component
i, which is calculated from a third degree polynomial in temperature
C idpi C1,i C 2,i T C 3,i T 2 C 4,i T 3
The default values used in PVTsim for the coefficients C1-C4 of the lighter petroleum mixture constituents are those
recommended by Reid et al. (1977).
For C7+ hydrocarbon fractions C1-C4 are for heat capacities in Btu/lb calculated from the following correlations
(Kesler and Lee, 1976)
C1 = -0.33886 + 0.02827 K 0.26105 CF + 0.59332 CF
C2 = -(0.9291 1.1543 K + 0.0368 K2) 10-4 + CF(4.56 - 9.48)10-4
C3 = -1.6658 10-7 + CF(0.536 0.6828)10-7
C4 = 0
where
CF = ((12.8 K)(10-K)/(10))2
and K is the Watson characterization factor defined as
K TB1/3 /SG
TB is the normal boiling point in R and SG the specific gravity, which is approximately equal to the liquid density in
g/cm3.
The acentric factors, are calculated from (Kesler and Lee, 1976)
6.09649
1.28862lnTBr - 0.169347TBr6
TBr
15.6875
15.2518 13.4721lnTBr 0.43577TBr6
TBr
ln PBR 5.92714
7.904 0.1352K 0.007465K 2 8.359 TBr
(for TBr 0.8)
1.408 0.01063K
TBr
(for TBr 0.8)
PBr is atmospheric pressure divided by Pc and TBr is TB/Tc.

For hydrocarbons with a molecular weight above 300, is replaced by 1.0 if < 1. Acentric factors below 0.1 are
replaced by = 0.1.
The residual term of H is derived from the equation of state using the following general thermodynamic relation
ln
T
H res RT 2
where is the fugacity coefficient of the mixture and the derivative is for a constant composition.
Internal Energy
The internal energy, U, is calculated as U = H PV. Where H is the enthalpy, P the pressure and V the molar
volume.
Entropy
The entropy is calculated as the sum of two contributions, the ideal gas entropy and residual entropy
S z i S idi S res
i 1
The ideal gas term at the temperature T is calculated from
C idpi
Tref
S idi
dT T ln
P
R ln z i
Pref
Pref is a reference pressure (1 atm/14.696 psia in PVTsim). C idpi is the molar ideal gas enthalpy of component i, which
is calculated as outlined in the Enthalpy section.
The residual term is calculated from
S res
H res
R ln
T
Heat Capacity
The heat capacity at constant pressure is calculated from
H
CP
T P
and the heat capacity at constant volume from
V P
CV CP T

T P T V
where the derivatives are evaluated using the equation of state. H is the enthalpy, T the temperature, P the pressure
and V the molar volume.
Joule-Thomson Coefficient
The Joule-Thomson coefficient is defined as the pressure derivative of the temperature for constant enthalpy. It is
derived as follows
1
T
jT

Cp
P H
P T
Velocity of sound
The velocity of sound is derived as
u sonic
V
MW
V
P
S
MW
CP
CV
P T
T V V P
where M is the molecular weight and the derivatives are evaluated using the equation of state.
References
Kesler, M.G. and Lee, B.I., Improve Prediction of Enthalpy of Fractions, Hydrocarbon Processing 55, 1976, pp.
153-158.
Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J. M. and Sherwood, J.K., The Properties of Gases and Liquids. McGraw-Hill, New-York
1977.
Viscosity
Corresponding States Method
The viscosity calculations in PVTsim are default based on the corresponding states principle in the form suggested
by Pedersen et al. (1984, 1987) and Lindeloff et al. (2004).
The idea behind the corresponding states principle is that the relation between the reduced viscosity
Tc-1/6 Pc2/3 M1/2
and the reduced pressure (P/Pc) and temperature (T/Tc) is the same for a group of substances that is
r f Pr , Tr
If the function f is known for one component (a reference component) within the group it is possible to calculate the
viscosity at any (P,T) for any other component within the group. The viscosity of component x at (P,T) is for
example found as follows
T
x Pr , Tr cx
Tco
1/6
Pcx
Pco
2/3
Mx
Mo
1/2
PP TT
o co , co
Pcx Tcx
where o refers to the reference component.
In PVTsim methane is used as reference component unless at conditions where methane is in solid form at the
reference conditions. The methane viscosity model of McCarty (1974) is used. The deviations from the simple
corresponding states principle is expressed in terms of a parameter, , giving the following expression for the
viscosity of a mixture (Pedersen et al., 1984)
Transport Properties 60
mix P, T Tc,mix /Tco
1/6
c, mix
/Pco
2/3
M mix /M o 1/2 ( mix / o ) o Po , To
where
Po
TTco o
Tc,mix mix
To
;
TTco o
Tc,mix mix
The critical temperature and the critical molar volume for unlike pairs of molecules (i and j) are found using the
below formulas
Tcij Tci Tcj
Vcij
1 1/3
Vci Vcj1/3
8
The critical molar volume of component i may be related to the critical temperature and the critical pressure as
follows
Vci
RZ ci Tci
Pci
where Zci is the compressibility factor of component i at the critical point. Assuming that Zc is a constant
independent of component, the expression for Vcij may be rewritten to
T
1
Vcij constant ci
Pci
8
1/3
Tcj

Pcj

1/3
The critical temperature of a mixture is found from
N N
Tc,mix
z i z j Tcij Vcij
i 1 j1
N N
z i z j Vcij
i 1 j1
where zi and zj are mole fractions of components i and j, respectively and N the number of components. This
expression may be rewritten to

T
z i z j ci
i 1 j1
Pci
N N
Tc,mix
1/3
Tcj

Pcj

T
z i z j ci
i 1 j1
Pci
N N
1/3
1/3
Tci Tcj
Tcj

Pcj

1/3
1/2
For the critical pressure of a mixture, Pc,mix, the following relation is used
Pc,mix = constant Tc,mix / Vc,mix
where Vc,mix is found as follows
N N
Vc,mix z i z j Vcij
i 1 i 1
The following expression may now be derived for Pc,mix
T
8 z i z j ci
Pci
i 1 j1
N N
Pc,mix
1/3
T
N N
ci
z i z j
i 1 j1
P
ci
Tcj

Pcj

1/3
1/3
Tcj

Pcj

ci
1/3
Tcj
1/2
The applied mixing rules are those recommended by Murad and Gubbins (1977).
The mixture molecular weight is found as follows

2.303 (2nd
M mix 1.304 10 4 (1st CSP) M w
CSP)
2.303 (2nd CSP)
Mn
M
n
where and M w and M n are the weight average and number average molecular weights, respectively
Mw
zi Mi
i 1
N
zi Mi
j1
M n zi Mi
i 1
z i M n,i M w,i
M w i 1
N
z i M n,i
j1
M N z M
n i n, i
i 1
The expressions in parentheses are those used for fluid mixtures containing lumped components. Mn,i is the number
average molecular weight and Mw,i the weight average molecular weight of the lumped component.
In the expression for the mixture molecular weight (1st CSP) and (2nd CSP) are tuning parameters, which are 1.0 by
default.
The parameter of the mixture is found from the expression
mix 1.000 7.378 10 3 1.847

M 0.5173
r
mix
The reduced density r is defined as
TTco PPco
o
,
T
c, mix Pc, mix
r
co
The reference viscosity correlation is based on the methane viscosity model of Hanley et al. (1975)
' , T o T 1 T ' , T
where 0 , 1 and ' are functions defined in the above reference. The methane density is found using the BWRequation in the form suggested by McCarty (1974). In the dense liquid region this expression is mainly governed by
the term (,T)
j3
j
j
0.5
' , T exp j1 j4 / T exp 0.1 j2 3/2
j5 6 72 1.0
T T
T
In the work of Hanley (1975) the coefficients j1 j7 have the following values (viscosities in P)
j1 = -10.3506
j2 = 17.5716
j3 = -3019.39
j4 = 188.730
j5 = 0.0429036
j6 = 145.290
j7 = 6127.68
is given by
c
c
The presented viscosity calculation method presents problems when methane is in a solid form at its reference state.
This is the case when the methane reference temperature is below 91 K. For methane reference temperatures above
75 K the term (,T) is replaced by (Pedersen and Fredenslund, 1987)

k3
k
k
0.5
' ' , T exp k1 k 4 /T exp 0.1 k 2 3/2
k 5 6 72 1.0
T T
T
with
k1 = -9.74602
k2 = 18.0834
k3= -4126.66
k4 = 44.6055
k5 = 0.9676544
k6 = 81.8134
k7= 15649.9
Continuity between viscosities above and below the freezing point of methane is secured by introducing as a
fourth term in the viscosity expression
, T 0 T 1 T F1 ' , T F2 ' ' , T
F1
HTAN 1
2
F2
1 HTAN
2
HTAN
exp T exp T
exp T exp T
with
T TF
5
where TF is the freezing point of methane.
When the methane reference temperature is below 75 K there is the need for a different reference model. Lindeloff
and Pedersen (2003) have proposed to use a correlation proposed by Rnningsen (1993) for use on stable oils
log 10 0.07995 0.01101 M
371.8 6.215 M
T
T
T is the temperature in K and M is the average molecular weight. For T > 564.49 K, the sign in front of 0.01101 is
changed from to +. As the correlation in a PVTsim context is not always used on stable oils, it is necessary to have
a procedure for evaluating a representative average molecular weight, M, also applicable to live oils.
1.5
M M n
Visfac3 (3rd CSP)
Visfac4 (4th CSP)
Mw
M M n
Visfac3 (3rd CSP) M n
Visfac4 (4th CSP)
M
for w
Mn
1.5
M
for w
Mn
1.5
where (3rd CSP) and (4th CSP) are tuning parameters, which are 1.0 by default.
molecular weight,
M n is the number average
M w the weight average molecular weight, and
T
Visfac3 0.2252
Mn
0.9738
Visfac4 0.5354 Visfac3 - 0.1170

where T is in K.
M
Stable oils will usually have w 1.5 for which type of oils M using default viscosity correction factors will be
Mn
equal to M n . The correlation of Rnningsen applies to systems at atmospheric pressure. In order to capture pressure
effects on the reference fluid, the following pressure dependence is used
e
0
0.00384
P 0.8226 1
0.8226
for viscosities in cP. 0 is the viscosity at the actual temperature and atmospheric pressure and P is the actual
pressure in atm.
For methane reference temperatures > 75 K the classical corresponding states (CSP) model is used. For reference
temperatures < 50 K the heavy oil model is used. The 50 K < T < 75 K the viscosity is calculated as
F1 CSP F2 Heavy
where F1and F2 are defined above, and T in this case is
T 70
5
for the temperature T in K.
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC) Method
The viscosity may in PVTsim alternatively be calculated using the Lohrenz-Bray-Clark correlation (1964). Gas and
oil viscosities are related to a fourth-degree polynomial in the reduced density, r = /c.
10
4 1/4
a 1 a 2 r a 3 2r a 4 3r a 5 4r
where
a1 = 0.10230
a2 = 0.023364
a3 = 0.058533
a4 = -0.040758
a5 = 0.0093324
* is the low-pressure gas mixture viscosity. is the viscosity-reducing parameter, which for a mixture is given by
the following expression:
N
z i Tci
i 1
1/6
N z M
i
i
i
1
1/2
N z P
i ci
i
1
2/3
where N is the number of components in the mixture and zi the mole fraction of component i.
The critical density, c, is calculated from the critical volume
N
1
c Vc z i Vci
i 1
For C7+ fractions the critical volume in ft3/lb mole is found from
Vc = 21.573 + 0.015122 M 27.656 + 0.070615 M
In this expression, M is the molecular weight and the liquid density in g/cm3. For defined components literature
values are used for the critical volumes.
If the composition has been entered in characterized form and densities are not available, the critical volume is
calculated from a correlation of Riedel (1954)
Vc
RTc
3.72 0.26( c 7.0) 1
Pc
Tb
lnPc
c 0.90761.0 c
Tb
Tc
If the normal boiling point is not available, the critical volume is calculated from the following correlation (Reid et
al., 1977)
Vc
(0.2918 0.0928 )RTc

Pc
The dilute gas mixture viscosity * is determined from (Herning and Zippener, 1936)
z i i MWi
*
1/2
i 1
z i MWi
1/2
i 1
The following expressions (Stiel and Thodos, 1961) are used for the dilute gas viscosity of the individual
components, *i
*i 34 10 5
1 0.94
Tri , Tri 1.5
i
*i 17.78 10 5
1
4.58 Tri 1.67 5/8 , Tri 1.5
where i is given by
Tci1/6
2/3
M 1/2
i Pci
When performing tuning on the LBC viscosity model either the critical volumes, the coefficients a1-a5 or both may
be selected as tuning parameters. The ability to tune the coefficients makes the LBC model extremely flexible, but if
no data are available the CSP model generally provides better predictions.
For fluids containing solid wax particles, a non-Newtonian viscosity model may be applied as is described in the
Wax section.
Emulsion viscosities are dealt with in the section on Water Phase Properties.
Thermal Conductivity
Corresponding States Method
The thermal conductivity is defined as the proportionality constant, , in the following relation (Fouriers law)
dT
q
dx
where q is the heat flow per unit area and (dT/dx) is the temperature gradient in the direction of the heat flow.
The thermal conductivity is in PVTsim calculated using a corresponding states principle (Christensen and
Fredenslund (1980) and Pedersen and Fredenslund (1987)).
According to the corresponding states theory, the thermal conductivity can be found from the expression
r f Pr , Tr
where f is the same function for a group of substances obeying the corresponding states principle. For the reduced
thermal conductivity, r, the following equation is used
r P, T
P, T
Tc1/6 Pc2/3 M 1/2
Using simple corresponding states theory, the thermal conductivity of component x at the temperature T and the
pressure P may be found from the following equation
x P, T Tcx / Tco
1/6
Pcx / Pco 2/3 M x /M o 1/2 o Po , To
where Po = PPco/Pcx and To = TTco/Tcx and o is the thermal conductivity of the reference substance at the
temperature To and pressure Po. As is the case for viscosity, methane is used as reference substance. However some
corrections must be introduced as compared with the simple corresponding states principle. The thermal conductivity
of polyatomic substances (Hanley (1976)) can be separated into two contributions, one due to transport of
translational energy and one due to transport of internal energy
= tr + int
PVTsim uses the modification of Christensen and Fredenslund (1980), which only applies the corresponding states
theory to the translational term. A term int,mix is used to correct for the deviations from the simple corresponding
states model. The final expression for calculation of the thermal conductivity of a mixture at the temperature, T, and
the pressure, P, is the following
mix P, T Tc, mix / Tco
1/6
c, mix
/ Pco
2/3
M mix / M o 1/2
mix / o o To , Po int, o To int, mix (T)
where
T
P
To T/ c,mix mix and Po P/ c,mix mix
Tco co
Pco o
The mixture molecular weight Mmix is found from Chapman-Enskog theory as described by Murad and Gubbins
(1976)
N N
z i z j 1 1 1/2 Tci / Tcj

Mi M j
1 i 1 j1
M mix
2
1/3
16
1/3

cj
ci

P P
cj
ci
1/4
1/3 4/3
Tc,mix Pc,mix
where z are mole fractions and i and j component indices. The internal energy contributions to the thermal
conductivity, int,o (reference substance) and int,mix (mixture) are both given by
int 1.18653 i C idp 2.5R f r /M

f r 1 0.053432 r 0.030182 2r 0.029725 3r
is the gas viscosity at the actual temperature and a pressure of 1 atm, CidP the ideal gas heat capacity at the
temperature T. R is the gas constant. The -parameter is found from the following expression (Pedersen and
Fredenslund (1987))
i 1 0.0006004 2.043
M1.086
ri
i
where
T Tco P Pco
o
,
T
Pci
ri ci
co
mix is found using the mixing rule

N N
mix z i z j i j
i 1 j1
0.5
which ensures that components having small -values, i.e. small molecules, are attributed more importance than
those having larger -values. Smaller molecules are more mobile than larger ones and contribute relatively more to
the transfer of energy than do the larger ones.
The calculation of the thermal conductivity of the reference substance, methane, is based on a model of Hanley et al.
(1975), which has the form
, T o T 1 T ' , T c , T
In the dense liquid region the major contribution to this expression comes from '(,T), which has the same
functional form as the expression for '(,T) in the viscosity section. The coefficients ji j7 have the following
values (for thermal conductivities in mW/(mK)
j1 = 7.0403639907
j2 = 12.319512908
j3= -8.8525979933 102
j4= 72.835897919
j5= 0.74421462902
j6= -2.9706914540
j7= 2.2209758501 103
As for viscosities a low temperature term (Pedersen and Fredenslund (1987) is used. The final expression for the
thermal conductivity of methane is then the following
, T 0 T F1' , T F2 ' ' , T c , T

F1 and F2 are defined in the viscosity section. The following expression is used for "(,T),
l3
l
l
0.5
' ' , T expl1 l 4 /T exp 0.1 l 2 3/2
l5 6 7 1.0
T T2
T
where
l1= -8.55109
l2= 12.5539
l3= -1020.85
l4= 238.394
l5= 1.31563
l6= -72.5759
l7= 1411.60
LBC method
The thermal conductivity may in PVTsim alternatively be calculated using the LBC method, which is a modified
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark type expression. The thermal conductivity is derived from two contributions
The translatoric thermal conductivity
The internal thermal conductivity
The total thermal conductivity may therefore be expressed as follows
Total Translatoric Internal

In the LBC method, the gas and oil translatoric conductivities are related to a fourth-degree polynomial in the
reduced density, r = /c
The translatoric thermal conductivity is expressed as a function of temperature, pressure and reduced density.
Translatoric C1T C P C a 1 a 2 a 3 2r a 4 3r a 5 4
2
5r
where
C1 = 2.30528
C2 = -0.59394
C3 = 0.06928
a1 = 270.28341
a2 = -148.95858
a3 = 408.63577
a4 = -127.74598
a5 = 13.52979
The critical density, c, is calculated from the critical volume
N
1
c Vc z i Vci
i 1
For C7+ fractions the critical volume in ft3/lb mole is found from
Vc = 21.573 + 0.015122 M 27.656 + 0.070615 M
In this expression, M is the molecular weight and the liquid density in g/cm3. For defined components literature
values are used for the critical volumes.
If the composition has been entered in characterized form and densities are not available, the critical volume is
calculated from a correlation of Riedel (1954)
Vc
RTc
3.72 0.26( c 7.0) 1
Pc
Tb
lnPc
Tc
c 0.90761.0
Tb
Tc
If the normal boiling point is not available, the critical volume is calculated from the following correlation (Reid et
al., 1977)
Vc
(0.2918 0.0928 )RTc

Pc
The internal thermal conductivity is determined by the following equation
Internal 1.1865 C v
'r
Mw
where
'r 1 0.053432 r 0.30182 2r 0.029725 3r

and
N
1/2
z i i MWi
i 1 N
1/2
z i MWi
i 1
The following expressions are used for i of the individual components
i 34 10 5
1 0.94
Tri ,
i
i 17.78 10 5
Tri 1.5
1
4.58 Tri 1.67 5/8 ,
i
Tri 1.5
where i is given by
i
Tci1/6
2/3
M 1/2
i Pci
The data material used in the determination of the parameters consisted of 8660 data sets, with the temperature and
pressure ranging from 223.15 K to 473.15 K, and 1 atm. to 1000 atm. For the entire data material the average
deviation was 16%, and the maximum deviation for a single point was 98% but for pressures equal or above 25 atm.
and temperatures equal or below 448.15 K the maximum single point deviation was 54%. For low pressure the
accuracy of the translatoric thermal conductivity is not important, because the thermal conductivity is determined by
the ideal gas thermal conductivity, which is kept unchanged.
Gas/oil Interfacial Tension

The interfacial tension between an oil and a gas phase is in PVTsim calculated using the procedure of Weinaug and
Katz (1943). The interfacial tension (in dyn/cm = 1 mN/m) is expressed in terms of the Parachors [P] of the
individual components
1/4 L P i x i v P i y i
N
i 1
L and V are the molar densities in mole/cm3 (the density divided by the molecular weight) of the oil and gas
phases, respectively and xi and yi are the mole fractions of component i in the oil and gas phases. The Parachors of
the defined components have fixed values. The Parachor of a C7+ component is calculated from the following
expression
P i 59.3 2.34 M i
where Mi is the molecular weight of the component. The phase densities are calculated using the equation of state.
References
Christensen, P.L. and Fredenslund Aa., A Corresponding States Model for the Thermal Conductivity of Gases and
Liquids, Chem. Eng. Sci. 35, 1980, pp. 871-875.
Hanley, H.J.M., McCarty, R.D. and Haynes, W.M., Equation for the Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity
Coefficients of Methane, Cryogenics 15, 1975, pp. 413-417.
Hanley, H.J.M., Prediction of the Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Coefficients of Mixtures, Cryogenics 16,
1976, pp. 643-651.
Herning, F. and Zippener, L., Calculation of the Viscosity of Technical Gas Mixtures from the Viscosity of the
Individual Gases, Gas u. Wasserfach 79, 1936, pp. 69-73.
Lindeloff, N., Pedersen, K.S., Rnningsen, H.P. and Milter, J., The corresponding States Viscosity Model Applied
to Heavy Oil Systems, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 43, 2004, pp. 47-53.
Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G. and Clark, C.R., Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids from Their Compositions, J.
Pet. Technol., Oct. 1964, pp. 1171-1176.
McCarty, R.D., A Modified Benedict-Webb-Rubin Equation of State for Methane Using Recent Experimental
Data, Cryogenics 14, 1974, pp. 276-280.
Murad, S. and Gubbins, K.E., Corresponding States Correlation for Thermal Conductivities of Dense Fluids, Chem.
Eng. Sci. 32, 1977, pp. 499-505.
Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund, Aa., Christensen, P.L. and Thomassen, P., Viscosity of Crude Oils, Chem. Eng. Sci.
39, 1984, pp. 1011-1016.
Pedersen, K.S. and Fredenslund, Aa., An Improved Corresponding States Model for the Prediction of Oil and Gas
Viscosities and Thermal Conductivities, Chem. Eng. Sci. 42, 1987, pp. 182-186.
Reid, R. C. and Sherwood, T. K., "The Properties of Gases and Liquids", 2nd ed. Chap 2, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1966.
Rnningsen, H.P., "Prediction of Viscosity and Surface Tension of North Sea Petroleum Fluids by Using the
Average Molecular Weight", Energy & Fuels 7, 1993, pp. 565-573.
Reidel L., A New Universal Vapor Pressure Equation. I. The Extension of the Theories of the Corresponding
States, Chem. Ing. Tech., 26, 1954, pp. 83-89
Stiel, L. I. and Thodos, G., The Viscosity of Non-Polar Gases at Normal Pressures, AIChE J. 7, 1961, pp. 611-615.
Weinaug, C.F. and Katz, D.L., Surface Tensions of Methane-Propane Mixtures, Ind. Eng. Chem. 35, 1943, pp.
239-246.
PVT Experiments
PVT Experiments
PVTsim may be used to simulate the most commonly performed PVT-experiments. A description of these
experiments has been given by Pedersen et al. (1984, 1989) ans by Pedersen and Christensen (2006).
PVT experiments are carried out with reference to standard conditions that may be specified in PVTsim. Default
values are default 1 atm/14.696 psia and 15C/59F. The results tabulated in a simulation of a PVT experiment are
explained in the following.
Constant Mass Expansion

The reservoir fluid is kept in a cell at reservoir conditions. The pressure is reduced in steps at constant temperature
and the change in volume is measured. The saturation point volume, Vsat, is used as a reference value and the
volumetric results presented are relative volumes, i.e., the volumes divided by Vsat.
Oil Mixtures
For oil systems the primary output for each pressure stage comprises
Relative volume
V/Vb where V is the actual volume and Vb is bubble point or saturation point volume.
Compressibility (only for pressures above the saturation point)
co
1 V
V P T
Y factor (only for pressures above the saturation point)
Psat P
V
P t 1
Vsat
Vt is the total volume of gas and liquid.

Gas Condensate Mixtures
PVT Experiments 75
For gas condensate systems the primary output for each pressure stage comprises
Rel Vol
Liq Vol
Z Factor
V/Vd (Vd is dew point or saturation point volume)

Liquid vol% of Vd.
(only above saturation point)
Differential Depletion
This experiment is only carried out for oil mixtures. The reservoir fluid is kept in a cell at the reservoir temperature.
The experiment is usually started at the saturation pressure. The pressure is reduced stepwise and all the liberated gas
is displaced and flashed to standard conditions. This procedure is repeated 6-10 times. The end point is measured at
standard conditions.
The primary output for each pressure stage comprises:
Oil FVF
Rsd
Gas FVF
Gas Gravity
Oil formation volume factor (Bo) defined as the oil volume at the actual
pressure divided by the residual oil volume at standard conditions
Solution gas/oil ratio, which is the total standard volume of gas liberated
from the oil in the stages to follow, divided by the residual oil volume. The
volume of the liquid condensing when flashing the gas to standard
conditions is converted to an equivalent gas volume.
Gas formation volume factor defined as the volume of the gas at the actual
conditions divided by the volume of the same gas at standard conditions. The
volume of the liquid condensing when flashing the gas to standard
conditions is converted to an equivalent gas volume.
Molecular weight of the gas divided by the molecular weight of atmospheric
air (=28.964).
Constant Volume Depletion

This experiment is performed for gas condensates and volatile oils.
The reservoir fluid is kept in a cell at reservoir temperature and saturation point pressure. The pressure is reduced in
steps, and at each level as much gas is removed that the volume of the remaining gas and oil mixture equals the
saturation point volume.
For each pressure stage the primary output consists of
Liq vol
%Prod
Z factor gas
Viscosity
Liquid volume% of dew point volume

Cumulative mole% of initial mixture removed
Viscosity of the gas in the cell
Separator Experiments
Separators in Series
A separator experiment is customarily started at the saturation pressure at the reservoir temperature. The volume and
the density are recorded. Subsequently a series of PT flash separations is performed. The gas phase from each
separator stage is flashed to standard conditions. The liquid phase is let to a new separator in which a new PT flash
separation takes place, and so on. The last separator is at atmospheric conditions.
The primary output consists of
PVT Experiments 76
GOR
Gas Gravity
FVF
Volume of gas from the actual stage at standard conditions divided by the volume of
the oil from the last stage (atmospheric conditions)
Molecular weight of the gas divided by the molecular weight of air (28.964)
Oil formation volume factor, which is the oil volume at the actual stage divided by the
oil volume from the last stage.
Sometimes the separator GOR is seen reported as the standard volume of gas divided by the separator oil volume (oil
volume at actual stage). The latter GOR can be converted into that reported by PVTsim by dividing it by FVF.
Separator Test with Recirculation
PVTsim has an option for simulating a special two-stage separator set-up. The gas stream from the first separator is
separated in a second separator. The liquid stream from the second separator is mixed into the feed to the first
separator. The product streams are the liquid stream from the first separator and the gas stream from the second
separator.
Viscosity Experiment
A viscosity experiment is performed at the reservoir temperature. The pressure is reduced in steps as in a differential
depletion experiment. At each step the gas and oil viscosities are recorded.
Swelling Experiment
When gas is injected into a reservoir containing undersaturated oil, the gas may dissolve in the oil. The volume of
the oil increases, which is called swelling. A swelling test experiment may simulate this process. The cell initially
contains reservoir oil. A known molar amount of a gas is added at a constant temperature. The saturation pressure of
the swollen mixture and the volume at the saturation point divided by the volume of the original reservoir oil are
recorded. More gas is added. The new saturation pressure and saturation point volume are recorded and so on. The
primary output consists of:
Mole%
GOR
Sat P
Swollen volume
Density
Cumulative mole% of gas added

Std. volume of gas added per volume of original reservoir fluid
Saturation pressure after gas injection
Volume of the mixture per volume original reservoir fluid
Density of swollen mixture at saturation point
It is further indicated in the output whether the saturation point is a bubble point (Pb) or a dew point (Pd).
Multiple Contact Experiment

When gas is injected into a reservoir containing undersaturated oil, the gas may either dissolve in the oil or split the
reservoir fluid into two equilibrium phases a gas and an oil. A Multiple Contact experiment may simulate this
process. The cell initially contains a known amount of reservoir oil. A user-specified amount of a gas is added at a
constant pressure and temperature. The amount of gas is specified as a ratio between gas and oil, which ratio can
either be
Volumetric
Molar
PVT Experiments 77
Mass
The Drive Type may be either
Forward
The gas phase is moved to the subsequent stage and mixed with a known amount of fresh reservoir oil.
Reverse (backward)
The oil phase is moved to the subsequent stage and mixed with a known amount of fresh injection gas
For a forward contact the gas/oil input ratio is per amount oil at the actual stage. For a backward contact it is per
amount of initial oil.
This process is continued for a number of stages.
The primary output consists of

Mix Ratio (gas/oil)
Amount of gas added per amount of oil present. For a forward contact the
amount of oil is at the actual stage. For a backward contact the amount of oil is
the initail one.
GOR
Standard volume of gas at equilibrium per standard volume of oil at

equilibrium. The standard volume of gas is determined by a flash to standard
conditions of the equilibrium gas at cell conditions assuming no liquid dropout.
The standard volume of oil is determined as the oil volume from a flash to
standard conditions of the equilibrium oil at cell conditions.
FVF
Oil formation volume factor, which is the oil volume at the actual stage divided
by the oil volume at std. conditions.
Sat P
Saturation pressure of total mixture after gas injection
Gas Grav
Molecular weight of the gas divided by the molecular weight of atmospheric

air (=28.964).
Swollen volume
Volume of the oil phase at the actual stage per volume of the original oil at
stage 1.
Furthermore the total composition and the gas and oil phase compositions at each stage are shown in the output.
Slim Tube Experiment

As a result of the production from a petroleum field, the reservoir pressure will begin to decrease. In order to
maintain the reservoir pressure at a level, where the recovery of reservoir oil is at an optimum, gas is often injected
into the reservoir.
The optimum pressure level is known as the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP). The MMP may either be
calculated through a MMP calculation (See Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculation), or it may be estimated
through a series of simulated slim tube experiments conducted at different pressures.
PVT Experiments 78
The most important output from a slim tube experiment series is the MMP, which is defined as the pressure where a
distinct break is seen on a curve of oil recovery versus pressure. This is exemplified by the figure below.
The slim tube experiment is simulated in PVTsim as shown in the figure below (Metcalfe et al., 1972).
The pressure and temperature in each cell are, in PVTsim, assumed constant throughout a run. The sum of all cell
volumes is assumed equal to the total pore volume of the tube.
The input to the slim tube experiment consists of
A reservoir oil composition and an injection gas composition characterized to the same pseudo-components.
Temperature (constant) and a maximum of 8 pressure stages.
Number of cells.
Number of time steps (or gas injections).
Transport mechanism.
- Moving excess: The cell volume remains constant throughout the simulation, and the excess volume is
transferred to the next cell. If the oil volume exceeds that of the original cell, all gas and the excess volume
of oil are transferred to the next cell. If the oil volume is lower than that of the original cell, only the excess
gas volume is transferred to the next cell.
PVT Experiments 79
- Phase mobility: The cell volume remains constant throughout the simulation, and the excess volume is
transferred to the next cell. If two phases are present, gas and liquid are moved according to their relative
phase mobilities, M. These are calculated from relative permeability data (k) and from the phase viscosities
k
( For a given phase the mobility is defined as M . That is, each time one unit of gas with a mobility
of 2 is removed from the cell, half a unit of oil is removed from the cell. The relative permeabilities of the
gas and oil phases will be determined by interpolating in user input for relative permeability versus oil
saturation.
Corresponding values of oil saturation (volume % oil) and relative gas and oil permeability (only for phase
mobility option).
Each of the two transport mechanisms is illustrated in the figure below (Pedersen et al. 1989).
Moving excess
Phase mobility
The simulation scheme used to simulate the slim tube experiment, in PVTsim, is outlined below.
1.
The cells are loaded with reservoir oil (1 mole per cell to initialize).
2.
The oil volume at standard conditions, which defines a recovery of 100%, is calculated.
3.
Calculation of number of moles injection gas.
4.
Injection of gas into cell 1. The amount to be injected into cell 1 in each time step. It equals number of moles
of gas from 3. divided by the number of time steps. The gas and the oil are assumed to mix perfectly and to
reach phase equilibrium instantaneously.
5.
A flash calculation is carried out for cell 1 at the specified pressure and temperature in order to determine the
phase split and the phase compositions.
6.
Excess hydrocarbon fluid is transferred to cell 2 according to the selected transport mechanism.
7.
A flash calculation is carried out for cell 2, and the excess volume transferred to cell 3, etc.
8.
The excess hydrocarbon fluid from the last cell is flashed to standard conditions. The oil volume at standard
conditions is added to the oil volume produced in previous 'time steps'. Recovery after a given time equals
cumulative oil volume at standard conditions divided by oil volume calculated in 2.
9.
If there is more gas to inject, continue from 4. Otherwise continue with next pressure stage. Stop when all
pressure stages are covered.
PVT Experiments 80
The output consists of
Recovery table and plot (% recovered oil as a function of pressure stages).
For each cell

-
Volume % oil.
Viscosity of gas and oil.
Density of gas and oil.
K-factors for each component, if both gas and oil are present.
Total, gas, and oil composition.
Composition, density and viscosity of cumulative produced oil.
References
Metcalfe, R.S., Fussel, D.D., Shelton, J.L., (1972), "A Multicell Equilibrium Separation Model for the Study of
Multiple Contact Miscibility in Rich-Gas Drives", Paper presented at the SPE-AIME 47th Annual Meeting in San
Antonio, Tx, Oct. 8 11.
Pedersen, K.S., Thomassen, P. and Fredenslund, Aa., Thermodynamics of Petroleum Mixtures Containing Heavy
Hydrocarbons. 3. Efficient Flash Calculation Procedures Using the SRK Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Des. Dev. 24, 1985, pp. 948-954.
Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund Aa. and Thomassen, P., Properties of Oils and Natural Gases, Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, 1989.
Pedersen, K.S. and Christensen, P.L., Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, CRC Taylor & Francis, Boca
Raton, 2006.
PVT Experiments 81
Compositional Variation due to

Gravity
Compositional Variation due to Gravity

Hydrocarbon reservoirs show variations in the composition in the direction from the top to the bottom of the
reservoir. The mole fractions of the lighter components decrease, whereas the mole fractions of the heavier
components increase. This is at least partly explained by the fact that gravity forces introduce a compositional
gradient.
The Depth Gradient option of PVTsim considers
Isothermal reservoirs
Reservoirs with a vertical temperature gradient.
With isothermal reservoirs the compositional variation with depth is assumed only to originate from gravitational
forces. For non-isothermal reservoirs both gravitational forces and vertical heat flux are accounted for.
Isothermal Reservoir
For an isothermal system the chemical potentials, , of component i located in height h and in height h0 are related as
follows
i h i h 0 M i g h h 0
M stands for molecular weight and g is the gravitational acceleration. The chemical potential is related to the
fugacity through the following relation
i RT ln f i
Compositional Variation due to Gravity 82
where T is the temperature.

The fugacities of component i in height h and in height h0 are therefore related through
ln f ih ln f ih
o
Mig h h 0
RT
The fugacity of component i is related to the fugacity coefficient of component i as
f i i z i P
which gives the following relation between the fugacity coefficients of component i in height h and in height h0
ln ih z ih P h ln ih z ih P h
0
h h
M gRT
0
This equation is valid for any component i. For a system with N components there are N such equations. The mole
fractions of the components must sum to 1.0 giving one additional equation
z i 1
i 1
If the pressure P h and the composition (z ih , i 1,2,..., N) are known in the reference height h0, there are N + 1
0
variables for a given height h, namely (z ih , i 1,2,..., N) and Ph. A set of N + 1 equations with N + 1 variables may
be solved to give the molar composition and the pressure as a function of height. The equations are solved as
outlined by Schulte (1980).
0
In general the SRK and PR equations give the same phase equilibrium results with and without the Peneloux volume
correction. This is not true in depth gradient calculations. The fugacity coefficients of component i calculated with
the SRK and SRK-Peneloux equations are interrelated as follows
ln i,SRK ln i, PEN
ciP
RT
where c is the volume translations term. In a usual phase equilibrium calculation the temperature and pressure are the
same throughout the system and the term on the right hand side of the equation cancels. This is not the case in a
calculation of the compositional variations with depth. The pressure changes with depth and this change is related to
the fluid density for which different results are obtained with the SRK and PR Peneloux equations. The SRK and PR
Peneloux equations are both presented in the Equation of State section.
Reservoirs with a Temperature Gradient
A petroleum reservoir can only be at thermodynamic equilibrium if the temperature is constant with depth. In
petroleum reservoirs the temperature typically increases by of the order of 0.02C/m - 0.011F/ft from the top to the
bottom of the reservoir. A temperature gradient introduces a flow of heat between locations at different temperature
and it can no longer be assumed that the reservoir is in thermodynamic equilibrium. For relatively thin reservoirs it is
often reasonable to neglect the temperature variation.
The heat flux results in an entropy production in the system. To set up the equations needed to solve for the molar
compositions in a reservoir with a thermal gradient it is necessary to make use of the terminology of irreversible
thermodynamics. To simplify the problem one may assume that the system is at a stationary state, that is, all
component fluxes are zero and the gradient assumed constant in time. Relative to the equilibrium situation addressed
by Schulte (1980), this constitutes a dynamically stabilized system balanced by the gravity and heat flow effects.
An observed compositional gradient in a petroleum reservoir may furthermore be affected by capillary forces, by
convection and by secondary migration of hydrocarbons into the reservoir. None of these effects are considered here.
PVTsim uses a model of Pedersen and Lindeloff (2003) for describing the non-isothermal case. It is essentially the
same as that proposed by Haase (1971). The approach can be summarized as follows
~ ~
H
H
RTln( ih z ih P h ) RTln( ih0 z ih0 P h0 ) M i g(h h 0 ) M i i
M M
i
i 1, N
Relative to the isothermal expression by Schulte, an additional term including the effect of the temperature gradient
T has been added. The term furthermore contains average molecular weight, M, component molecular weight Mi
~
~
and mixture and component partial molar enthalpies, H and H i .
A proper determination of partial molar enthalpies is the key to obtaining reasonable predictions with the model. In
typical process simulations it is appropriate to work with enthalpy differences since the overall composition is
normally constant, and the reference state therefore the same in all cases. This assumption cannot be applied to the
present problem. Instead, absolute enthalpies with a unique reference state must be used.
In PVTsim enthalpies are normally calculated relative to the enthalpy of an ideal gas at 273.15 K/0C/32F and the
same composition. Absolute enthalpies, being the sum of an ideal gas contribution and a residual term are obtained
as follows
H abs H PVTsim H ig273.15K H res (H ig H ig273.15K ) H ig273.15K
PVTsim by default uses the following expressions for the ideal gas enthalpy of component i at 273.15 K (Pedersen
and Hjermstad, 2006)
H igi,273.15
R
where
1,342 86.67 M i
H igi,273.15
is in Kelvin.
R
The ideal gas enthalpy of component i at 273.15 K make up the tuning parameters when tuning to match
experimental data for the compositional variation with depth. The values may vary freely depending on the number
of data points available.
Prediction of Gas/Oil Contacts

Assume an oil of a given composition at a reference depth. Moving upwards in the reservoir the concentration of
lighter components increases, causing the bubble point of the oil to increase and the reservoir pressure to decrease.
At a certain depth the reservoir pressure and the bubble point pressure of the oil may coincide. This is the depth of
the gas/oil contact in the reservoir. This depth is determined and written out in PVTsim.
References
Haase, R., Borgmann, H.-W., Dcker, K. H. and Lee, W. P., "Thermodiffusion im kritischen Verdampfungsgebiet
Binrer Systeme", Z. Naturforch. 26 a, 1971, pp. 1224-1227.
Schulte, A.M., Compositional Variations within a Hydrocarbon Column due to Gravity, paper SPE 9235 presented
at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Dallas, Sept. 21-24, 1980.
Pedersen, K.S. and Lindeloff, N., Simulations of Compositional Gradients in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs Under the
Influence of a Temperature Gradient, SPE Paper 84364, presented at the SPE ATCE in Denver, 5-8 October, 2003.
Pedersen, K. S. and Hjermstad, H. P., Modeling of Large Hydrocarbon Compositional Gradient presented at 2006
SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, November 5-8, 2006 in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Regression to Experimental
Data
Regression to Experimental Data

PVTsim is basically a predictive tool. No experimental PVT-data are needed to perform the C7+-characterization and
once the C7+-characterization is completed, all the simulations can be readily performed. When a particularly good
match of the experimental PVT-data is needed or heavy lumping is a requirement, the simulation results can be
improved using the regression module.
Experimental data
The two tables below show the type of PVT-data to which regression may be performed.
Oil mixtures.
Sat. Point
*)
x
Saturation
Point
MMP
Bo
GOR (Rs)
Rel. volume
Compressibility
Y-Factor
Oil density
Z factor Gas
Two phase Z factor
Liquid volume %
Gas Gravity
Bg
Mole % removed
Oil viscosity
Gas viscosity
*)
May also be the critical point.
CME
x
Dif. Dep.
x
Separator
x
Viscosity
x
Swelling
x
CVD
x
MMP
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Regression to Experimental Data 86
Gas condensate mixtures

Sat. points
*)
Saturation
x
Point
MMP
Z factor gas
Two phase
Z factor
Rel volume
Liq vol%
Bo
GOR
Gas density
Oil density
Gas gravity
Mole% removed
Oil viscosity
Gas viscosity
*)
May also be critical point.
CME
x
CVD
x
x
x
Separator
x
Viscosity
x
MMP
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Object Functions and Weight Factors

The object function to be minimized during a regression calculation is defined as
rj
OBJ
j1 w j
NOBS
where NOBS is the number of experimental observations used in the regression, wi is the weight factor for the jth
observation, and rj is the jth residual
rj
OBS j CALC j
OBS j
where OBS stands for the observed and CALC for calculated. For liquid dropout curves from a constant mass
expansion and constant volume depletion experiment, a constant is added to all OBS and CALC-values. This
constant equals the maximum liquid dropout divided by 3 and is added to reduce the weight assigned to data points
with small liquid dropout relative to data points with larger liquid dropouts. The weight factor, wj, and the user
specified weight, WOBS to be assigned to the jth observation are interrelated as follows
WOBS
1
w 2j
Regression for Plus Compositions

PVT Data
If the user has allowed the plus molecular weight to be adjusted, an initial regression calculation is performed where
the plus molecular weights are adjusted to give the best possible match of the measured saturation points. The
molecular weight of the plus fraction is used as regression parameter because there is usually an experimental
uncertainty of 5-10% on the experimental determination of this quantity. Furthermore even small changes in the
molecular weight of the plus fraction may have a major influence on the calculated saturation point. When
modifying the molecular weight of the plus fraction, the weight composition is kept constant while the molar
composition is recalculated. The weight composition is the one actually measured and is accordingly kept constant.
Secondly a regression is performed where the coefficients in the Tc, Pc and m correlations presented in the
Characterization of Heavy Hydrocarbons section are treated as regression parameters. The default number of
regression parameters is
NPAR = 1 + ln (NDAT)
Where NDAT is the number of experimental data points not considering viscosity data. The maximum number of
regression parameters is 10. The NPAR regression parameters are selected in the following order (Christensen,
1999):
Coefficient c2 in Tc correlation.
Coefficient d2 in Pc correlation.
Peneloux volume shift parameter.
Coefficient e2 in m correlation.
In each iteration the parameters c1, d1 and e1 are recalculated to give the same Tc, Pc and m of a component with a
molecular weight of 94 and a density of 0.745 g/cm3 as is obtained with the standard coefficients. This is done to
ensure that Tc, Pc and m of the lower C7+ fractions are assigned properties, which are physically meaningful. The
user therefore has no control of the parameters c1, d1 and e1 in the regression input menu.
The user may modify the default selection of regression parameters, but the number of regression parameters must
not exceed the number of experimental data points.
Regression to Viscosity Data
The regression parameters depend on applied viscosity correlation. The below parameters are defined in the
Transport Property section. With the corresponding states model the assumed mixture molecular weight is found
from the following equation when methane is used as reference component
VISC2Corfac2
VISC2Corfac2
M w,mix Corfac1 VISC1 M W
MW
M W,n
,w
,n
VISC1 = 1.304 x 10-4 and VISC2 = 2.303. Corfac1 and Corfac2 are by default 1.0 but can be modified by regression
to viscosity data (1st and 2nd CSP viscosity correction factors).
When the stable oil viscosity correlation is used as reference the average molecular weight is found from
Mw
M M n
VISC3 Corfac3 M n
VISC4Corfac4
Corfac3 and Corfac4 are 1.0 by default, but may be regressed on (3rd and 4th CSP viscosity correction factors).
With the LBC viscosity correlation three regression options exist. The default one is to let the regression determine a
unique correction factor to be multiplied with the critical volumes of the pseudo-components. It is further possible to
determine optimum values of the five coefficients a1 a5 in the LBC correlation. A third option is to combine the Vc
and a1 a5 regression.
The optimum viscosity correction factors and/or the optimum values of a1 a5 may be viewed in the Char Options
menu accessed from the composition input menu.
Regression for already characterized compositions

The following component properties may be specified as regression parameters:
Tc
Pc
VPEN (volume shift parameter)

Vc
a
b
kij (binary interaction parameter)
kij A, kij B, kij C (parameters in expression for T-dependent binary interaction parameters)
The mentioned properties are all defined in the Equation of State section. A maximum of 15 regression parameters
may be specified. The number of experimental data points must be at least as high as the number of regression
parameters. One regression parameter may consist of for example Tc of one specific component or it may consist of
the Tcs of a number of consecutive components in the component list. In the latter case the Tcs of all these
components will be adjusted equally.
The critical volume only affects the viscosities and only if the LBC correlation has been specified (see Transport
Property section)
With the LBC viscosity model it is further possible to regress on the coefficients a1 a5.
For the binary interaction parameters it is possible to specify single pairs of components for which the binary
interaction parameters are to be adjusted. Alternatively one may specify a component triangle. The binary interaction
parameters for each component pair contained in this triangle will in that case be adjusted equally.
The user may specify a maximum allowed adjustment for each parameter.
Regression on fluids characterized to the same pseudo-components

It is possible to perform regression on fluids, which have been characterized to the same set of pseudo-components.
Experimental PVT data is not required for all fluids. Consider a regression to the same pseudos in a case where data
is available say for 2 fluids out of 5 fluids to be characterized to the same pseudo-components. In this case the
regression procedure will modify the properties of all 5 fluids while honoring the best possible match of the available
data sets for the two fluids.
Regression Algorithm
The minimization algorithm used in the parameter regression is a Marquardt algorithm (Marquardt, 1963).
References
Christensen, P.L., Regression to Experimental PVT Data, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 38. 1999,
pp. 1-9.
Marquardt, D.W., SIAM J 11 1963, 431-441.
Minimum Miscibility Pressure

Calculations
Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculations

Injection of gas into oil fields is commonly used to obtain an enhanced recovery. The injected gas influences the
reservoir oil in several ways. It reduces the pressure drop associated with the production, it influences the phase
properties (density, viscosity, etc.) and it influences the gas/oil phase equilibrium. The gas may take up components
from the oil phase (vaporizing mechanism), the oil may take up components from the gas phase (condensing
mechanism) or the oil and the gas may exhibit first contact miscibility. This means that only one phase is formed, no
matter in what proportion the oil and the gas are mixed. If the gas and the oil are not miscible by first contact,
miscibility may take place as a result of multiple contacts between the oil and the gas. A miscible drive is
advantageous, because valuable heavy components will be contained in a phase of a fairly high mobility. The
mobility is inversely proportional to the viscosity and the viscosity decreases when the oil takes up gaseous
components.
The MMP option in PVTsim (Jessen et al., 1996) considers the situation where miscibility may develop somewhere
between the injection well and the gas/oil front (combined drive). Imagine a 1-dimensional reservoir (tube). Gas is
being injected at one end and a series of gas and oil compositions develop along the tube ending with original oil in
some distance from the injection point. The approach used to calculate a combined vaporizing and condensing MMP
is based on the assumption (Wang and Orr, 1998) that all neighboring key tie lines are coplanar and hence have a
point of intersection. That the tie lie in section (1) has a point of intersection (zi, i=1,2,,N) with the tie line in
section (2) can be expressed as follows
z i 1 y i(1) (1 1 ) x (i1) 2 y i( 2) (1 2 ) x i( 2)
; i 1,2,..., N
Starting at the far end with fresh oil the first, tie line is defined as
z ioil oil y ij1 (1 oil ) x ij1
; i 1,2,..., N
This tie line is coplanar (has a point of intersection) with the 2nd tie-line (at gas/oil front)
2 y ij 2 (1 2 ) x ij 2 oil y ij1 (1 oil ) x ij1
; i 1,2,..., N
This 2nd tie line is coplanar with the 3rd tie line
3 y ij3 (1 3 ) x ij3 2 y ij 2 (1 2 ) x ij 2
; i 1,2,..., N
Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculations 91
and so on. There are a total of N-1 intersecting tie lines (called key tie lines). The last one defines the point of
intersection between the injection gas and the oil at the injection point
inj y ij N 1 (1 inj ) x ij N 1 N 2 y ij N 2 (1 N 2 ) x ij N 2
; i 1,2,..., N
Each equation is subject to the equilibrium constraints
y ij iV x ij iL
; i 1,2,..., N;
j 1, N 1
and the summation of mole fraction condition

N
j
j
y i x i 0;
i 1
j 1,..., N -1
The above 2(N2-1) equations may be solved starting with a moderate pressure and gradually increasing the pressure
until one of the tie lines becomes critical. This is when the x-and the y-compositions become identical corresponding
to a tie line of zero length.
The % vaporizing drive is contained in the output. It follows the definition of Johns et al. (2002) for how to quantity
the displacement mechanisms. For each tie line the point is located for which the vapor mole fraction is equal to
0.5. The term d1 is used for the distance from the point on the oil tie line where =0.5 to the point on 2nd tie line
where =0.5. The term d2 is used for the distance from the latter point on the 2nd tie line to the point on the 3rd tie
line where =0.5. For a 4-component mixture the 3rd tie line is the one passing through the injection gas and for
which number of components the fraction of a combined vaporizing/condensing drive that is vaporizing is given by
Vm
d2
d1 d 2
For a multi-component system the vaporizing fraction is defined as the ratio of the total vaporizing path length to the
entire composition path
N 2
Vm
d k,v
k 1
N 2
dk
k 1
where dk,v is non-zero for tie lines for which the displacement mechanism between that tie line and the next one is
vaporizing. This is the case if the tie lines are longer in the direction towards the gas tie line than in the direction
towards the oil tie line.
References
Jessen, K., Michelsen, M.L. and Stenby, E.H.: Effective Algorithm for Calculation of Minimum Miscibility
Pressure, SPE Paper 50632, 1998.
Johns, R.T., Yuan, H. and Dindoruk, B., "Quantification of Displacement Mechanisms in Multicomponent
Gasfloods", SPE 77696 presented at the SPE ATCE in San Antonio, Tx September 29-October 2, 2002.
Wang, Y., and Orr, F.M., Calculation of Minimum Miscibility Pressure, SPE paper 39683, 1998.
Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculations 92
Unit Operations
Unit Operations
Compressor
PVTsim supports two compressor options:
Compressor with classical isentropic efficiency.

Compression following constant efficiency path (PACE), which is a polytropic compression generalized to
multiple phases.
The two options differ in the way the compression path is corrected for isentropic efficiency.
The isentropic efficiency, , is defined as
dP
dH
where V is the molar volume, P the pressure and H the enthalpy. From the general thermodynamics relation
dH = VdP+TdS
where S is the entropy it can be seen that =1 for S=0 and that
dH
V
dP S
meaning that the definition of the efficiency can be rewritten to
Unit Operations 93
dH
dP S (dH)S
dH
dH
dP
Neglecting variations in efficiency along the compression path, one arrives at the classical definition of the
efficiency
(H)S
H
where (H)S is the enthalpy change of a compression following an isentropic path (=reversible adiabatic
compression) and H is the enthalpy change of the real compression (adiabatic but partly irreversible).
The difference between the two compressor options is illustrated in the below figure.
Isentropic
Pout
P..
Real
P..
P2
P1
His
Pin
PACE
S
The dashed line illustrates a compression path following the classical definition of isentropic efficiency. Initially an
isentropic path is followed from inlet pressure Pin to outlet pressure Pout. The corresponding enthalpy change is
(H)S. The outlet enthalpy is determined by dividing the isentropic enthalpy change by the efficiency. The Pout
pressure line is followed to the outlet enthalpy meaning that the efficiency is determined by the slope of the Pout
curve.
Schematic HS-diagram.
Unit Operations 94
The dotted line shows a compression path of an almost constant efficiency (polytropic compression). The
compression path is divided into small P-segments each of the size P as illustrated by the dotted line in the figure.
Each segment is simulated as an isentropic compression with the pressure increase P. The corresponding enthalpy
change (H)S is derived. The actual enthalpy change, H=(H)S/, and P determine the conditions in the next
point on the compression path including the volume.
The sequence of calculations is the following

1) Divide the compression into n pressure steps where each step is P =(Pout-Pin)/n.
2) Perform a PT-flash for Tin, Pin. Flash determines Sin and Hin.
3) Perform a PS-flash for P2=Pin +P, Sin. Flash determines isentropic outlet temperature (T2)S and (H2)S from
segment.
4) Determine H 2
(H 2 )S H in
H in
5) Determine T2 and S2 by PH-flash for P2,H2.

6) Perform a PS-flash for P3=P2+P, S2. Flash determines isentropic temperature (T3)S and (H3)S
7) Determine H 3
(H 3 )S H 2
H2
8) Determine T3 and S3 by PH flash for P3,H3.

9) Continue from 6. with P4, and so on until Pn-1 (Pn=outlet pressure Pout).
The outlined procedure is applicable to gases as well as mixtures of gases and liquids.
The output for the Path of Constant Efficiency (PACE) option includes maximum and minimum values of the
compressibility functions, X and Y as defined by Schultz (1962)
T V
1
V T P
P V
V P T
Also given in the output is the HEAD defined as:
HEAD
WORK
g mf
where WORK is the total work done by the compressor on the fluid, g the gravitational acceleration and mf the flow
rate of the fluid through the compressor.
As can be seen from the above equation, the unit of HEAD is m or ft depending on selected unit. HEAD therefore
expresses the vertical lift height corresponding to the total work done by the compressor on the fluid.
Unit Operations 95
Expander
The input is inlet pressure and temperature and outlet pressure. An efficiency can be specified. It is 1.0 by default.
For an efficiency of 1 the expansion process is assumed to be isentropic (constant entropy (S)). In general the
efficiency is defined as
H
H s
where (H)S is the enthalpy change by an isentropic expansion and H the actual enthalpy change.
Cooler
Input consists of inlet and outlet temperature and pressure. The outlet pressure is entered as a pressure drop, which is
zero by default. The cooling capacity is calculated. It is defined as the enthalpy to be removed from the flowing
stream per time unit.
Heater
Input consists of inlet and outlet temperature and pressure. The outlet pressure is entered as a pressure drop, which is
zero by default. The heating capacity is calculated. It is defined as the enthalpy to be transferred to the flowing
stream per time unit.
Pump
Input consists of inlet temperature and pressure and outlet pressure. A thermal efficiency can be specified, which is
defined through the relation
(Vout Vin ) P
H
where Vout is the outlet volume, Vin the inlet volume and
the enthalpy change as a result of the pumping.
Valve
The outlet temperature is found by assuming that there is no enthalpy change by the passage of the valve.
Unit Operations 96
Separator
Input consists of inlet temperature and pressure for which a PT-flash calculation is performed.
References
Schultz, J. M., "The Polytropic Analysis of Centrifugal Compressors", Journal of Engineering for Power, January
1962, pp. 69-82.
Unit Operations 97
Modeling of Hydrate Formation
Hydrate Formation
Hydrates consist of geometric lattices of water molecules containing cavities occupied by lighter hydrocarbons or
other light gaseous components (for example nitrogen or carbon dioxide). Hydrates may be formed where the
mentioned components are in contact with water at temperatures below approximately 35C/95F. Using the hydrate
module in PVTsim it is possible to calculate the conditions at which hydrates may form and in what quantities.
Calculations concerning the effect of the most commonly applied liquid hydrate inhibitors may be performed, and
the inhibiting effect of dissolved salts in the water phase is also accounted for. The hydrate phase equilibrium
calculations considers the phases
Gas
Oil
Aqueous
Ice
Hydrates of structures I, II and H
Solid salts.
The loss of hydrate inhibitors to the hydrocarbon phases is also determined.
Types of Hydrates
PVTsim considers three different types of hydrate lattices, structures I, II and H. Each type of lattice contains a
number of smaller and a number of larger cavities. In a stable hydrate, components (guest molecules) occupy some
of these cavities.
Structures I and II hydrates can only accommodate molecules of a rather modest size and appropriate geometry. The
table below indicates which of the components in the PVTsim component database may enter into the cavities of
hydrate structures I and II. The cavities may contain just one type of molecules or they may contain molecules of
different chemical species.
Component
sI - Small
sI - Large
sII - Small
sII - Large
Modeling of Hydrate Formation 98
N2
CO2
H2S
O2
Ar
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
2,2-dim-C3
c-C5
c-C6
Benzene
Cavities
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
cavities
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
cavities
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
cavities
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
The last four components in the above table are designated structure II heavy hydrate formers (HHF).
The number of cavities available for guest molecules are given as follows:
Number Per Unit Cell
H2O molecules
Small cavities
Large cavities
sI
46
2
6
sII
136
16
8
Structure H consists of three different cavity sizes. These are in PVTsim modeled as just two cavity sizes, a
small/medium one and a huge one. The huge cavity can accommodate molecules containing from 5 to 8 carbon
atoms. The small/medium sized cavities will usually be accommodated with N2 or C1. The below table gives an
overview of structure H formers considered in PVTsim.
Component
Methane
Nitrogen
Isopentane
Neohexane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2,2,3-Trimethylbutane
3,3-Dimethylpentane
Methylcyclopentane
1,2-Dimethylcyclohexane
Cis-1,2-Dimethylcyclohexane
Ethylcyclopentane
Cyclooctane
Small/Medium Cavities
+
+
-
Huge Cavities
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Hydrate Model
Hydrates are formed when the hydrate state is energetically favorable as compared to a pure water state (fluid water
or ice). The transformation from a pure water state to a hydrate state can be regarded as consisting of two steps:
pure water () empty hydrate lattice ()
empty hydrate lattice () filled hydrate lattice (H)
where , and H are used to identify each of the three states considered. The - state is purely hypothetical and only
considered to facilitate the hydrate calculations. The energetically favorable state is that of the lowest chemical
potential. The difference between the chemical potential of water in the hydrate state (H) and in a pure water state
() can be expressed as
H H
The first term on the right hand side H can be regarded as the stabilizing effect on the hydrate lattice caused
by the adsorption of gas molecules. This latter effect depends on the tendency of the molecules to enter into the
cavities of the hydrate lattice. This tendency is in PVTsim expressed using a simple adsorption model. The
difference between the chemical potential of water in the empty and in the filled hydrate lattice is calculated as
follows
NCAV
N
R T v i ln 1 YKi
il
K 1
where i is the number of cavities of type i and YKi denotes the possibility that a cavity i is occupied by a gas
molecule of type K. NCAV is the number of cavities per unit cell in the hydrate lattice and N is the number of
components present, which may enter into a cavity in the hydrate lattice. The probability YKi is calculated using the
Langmuir adsorption theory
YKi
C Ki f K
N
1 C ji f j
j l
where fK is the fugacity of component K. CKi is the temperature dependent adsorption constant specific for the cavity
of type i and for component K. The adsorption constant accounts for the water-hydrate forming component
interactions in the hydrate lattice. The adsorption constant C is calculated from the following expression (Munck et
al., 1988)
C Ki A Ki /T exp B Ki /T
For each component K capable of entering into a cavity of type i, AKi and BKi must be determined from experimental
data. The A and B values used in PVTsim may be seen from the Pure Component database. Most of the structure I
and II hydrate parameters are from Munck et al. (1988) and Rasmussen and Pedersen (2002), and the parameters for
structure H are from Madsen et al. (2000). The hydrate parameters are specific for the selected equation of state
(SRK or PR).
The term is equal to the difference between the chemical potentials of water in the empty hydrate lattice
(the -state) and water in the form of liquid or ice (the -state). An expression for this difference in chemical
potentials can be derived using the following thermodynamic relation
H
V

d
dT
dP
2
RT
RT
RT
where R is the gas constant and H and V are the changes in molar enthalpy and molar volume associated with the
transition. The following expression may be obtained for the difference between the chemical potentials of water in
the - and -states at the temperature, T, and the pressure, P
T, P T0 , P0 T H
P V
T0
dT P0
dP
RT
RT
RT0
RT
RT 2
where T0, P0 indicates a reference state at which is known. In this equation it has been assumed that H is
independent of pressure. The temperature dependence of the second term has been approximated by the average
temperature
T T0
2
If the reference pressure, P0, is chosen to be equal to be zero, the above equation can be rewritten to
T, P T0 , P0 T H
P V
T0
dT P0
dP
RT
RT
RT0
RT
RT 2
H is calculated from the difference, CP, in the molar heat capacities of the - and the -states
T
HT T0
C p dT
The constants needed in the calculation of for the transition at a given temperature and pressure are taken
from Erickson (1983) (structure I and II) and from Mehta and Sloan (1994) (structure H) and shown below.
Property
0 (liq)
Unit
J/mole
Structure I
1264
Structure II
883
Structure H
1187.33
H 0 (liq)
J/mole
-4858
-5201
-5162.43
H 0 (ice)
J/mole
1151
808
846.57
V0 (liq)
cm3/mole
4.6
5.0
5.45
V0 (ice)
cm /mole
3.0
3.4
3.85
C p (liq)
J/mole/K
-39.16
-39.16
-39.16
Using the procedure outlined above, the difference in chemical potentials H between water in a hydrate state
(H) and in a pure water state () may now be calculated.
A hydrate phase equilibrium curve represents the T, P values for which
H 0
At those conditions the hydrate state and the liquid or solid water states are equally favorable. To the left of the
hydrate curve
H 0
and some of the water will at equilibrium be in a hydrate form. Whether this is a structure I or a structure II hydrate
depends on which of the two structures has the lower chemical potential in the presence of the actual gas
components as potential guest molecules. To the right of the hydrate curve
H 0
i.e. at equilibrium at those conditions no hydrate can exist and the water will be in the form of either liquid or ice.
Hydrate P/T Flash Calculations

Flash calculations are in PVTsim performed using an inverse calculation procedure as outlined below.
1) Initial estimates are established of the fugacity coefficients of all the components in all phases except in the
hydrate phases and in any pure solid phases. This is done by assuming an ideal gas and ideal liquid solution,
neglecting water in the hydrocarbon liquid phase and by assuming that any water phase will be pure water.
2) Based on these fugacity coefficients and the total overall composition (zK, K = 1,2,..N) a multi phase P/T
flash is performed (Michelsen, 1988). The results of this calculation will be the compositions and amounts
of all phases (except any hydrate and pure solid phases) based on the guessed fugacity coefficients, i.e.: xKj
and j, K = 1,2,N, j hyd and pure solid. The subscript K is a component index, j a phase index, stands
for phase fraction and N for number of components.
3) Using the selected equation of state and the calculated compositions (xKj), the fugacities of all components
in all the phases except the hydrate and pure solid phases are calculated, i.e. (fKj, K = 1,2,N, j hyd and
pure solid).
4) Based on these fugacities (fKj, K = 1,2..,N, j hyd and pure solid), mixture fugacities f Kmix , K 1,2,..., N) are
calculated. For the non-water components, a mixture fugacity is calculated as the molar average of the
fugacities of the given component in the present hydrocarbon phases. For water the mixture fugacity is set
equal to the fugacity of water in the water phase.
5) The fugacities of the components present in the hydrate phase are calculated using ln f KH ln f Kmix
where is a correction term identical for all components. is found from
NCAV
N
ln f wmix i ln1 YKi lnf w , where w stands for water and refers to the empty hydrate lattice.
i 1
K 1
NCAV
x
C Ki f KH
6) The hydrate compositions are calculated using the expression K i
, which enables
NHYD
i 1
xw
1 C f H
j1
ji j
calculation of the fugacity coefficients as described below. Non-hydrate formers are assigned large fugacity
coefficients (ln = 50) to prevent them from entering into the hydrate phases.
7) Based on the actual values of the fugacity coefficients for all the components in all the phases (Kj) and the
total overall composition zK an ideal solution (composition independent fugacity coefficients) a multi phase
flash is performed (Michelsen, 1988). The result of this calculation will be compositions and amounts of all
phases (i.e.: xKj and j, K = 1,2,,N, j = 1,, number of phases).
8) If not converged repeat from 3).
Calculation of Component Fugacities

Fluid Phases
To use the flash calculation procedure outlined above, expressions must be available for the fugacity of component i
in each phase to be considered. The fugacity of component i in a solution is given by the following expression
f i i x i P
where is the fugacity coefficient, xi the mole fraction and P the pressure.
For the fluid phases, is calculated from the selected equation of state. See Equation of State section for details.
Fugacities calculated with PR will be slightly different from those calculated with SRK, which is why hydrate
parameters specific for the selected equation of state is used.
Hydrate Phases
The fugacities of the various components in the hydrate phases are calculated as described by Michelsen (1991)
Water
N 1
N 0
ln f wH ln f w v i ln 0
v 2 ln
v1
v2
Other Hydrate Formers
f KH
NK
N 0 C K 2 K 1
In these equations
f w = fugacity of water in empty hydrate lattice

vi = number of cavities of type i
N0 = number of empty lattice sites
= ratio of free large lattice sites to total free lattice sites
NK = content of component K per mole of water
CKi = Langmuir constant
K = CK1/CK2
The determination of and N0 follows the procedure described by Michelsen. As the fluid phase fugacities vary
with the equation of state choice, the hydrate model parameters are equation of state specific in order to ensure
comparable model performance for both SRK and PR.
Ice
The fugacity (in atm) of ice is calculated from the following expression
273.15
273.15 0.0390 P
f ice 2.064 1
4.710 ln
T T 273.15
where P is the pressure in atm and T the temperature in K.
References
Erickson, D.D., Development of a Natural Gas Hydrate Prediction Computer Program, M. Sc. thesis, Colorado
School of Mines, 1983.
Madsen, J., Pedersen, K.S. and Michelsen, M.L., Modeling of Structure H Hydrates using a Langmuir Adsorption
Model, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 39, 2000, pp. 1111-1114.
Mehta, P.A. and Sloan, E.D., Improved Thermodynamic Parameters for Prediction of Structure H Hydrate
Equilibria, AIChE J. 42, 1996, pp. 2036-2046.
Michelsen, M.L., Calculation of Multiphase Equilibrium in Ideal Solutions, SEP 8802, The Department of
Chemical Engineering, The Technical University of Denmark, 1988.
Michelsen, M.L., Calculation of Hydrate fugacities , Chem. Eng. Sci. 46, 1991, pp. 1192-1193.
Munck, J., Skjold-Jrgensen S. and Rasmussen, P., Computations of the Formation of Gas Hydrates, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 43, 1988, pp. 2661-2672.
Rasmussen, C.P. and Pedersen, K.S., Challenges in Modeling of Gas Hydrate Phase Equilibria, 4th International
Conference on Gas Hydrates Yokohama Japan, May 19 - 23, 2002.

The wax module of PVTsim may be used to determine the wax appearance temperature (cloud point) at a given
pressure, the wax appearance pressure at a given temperature and to perform PT flash calculations taking into
consideration the possible formation of a wax phase in addition to gas and oil phases. The wax model used is that of
Pedersen (1995) extended as proposed by Rnningsen et al. (1997).
Vapor-Liquid-Wax Phase Equilibria

At thermodynamic equilibrium between a liquid (oil) and a solid (wax) phase, the fugacity, f iL , of component i in the
liquid phase equals the fugacity, f iL , of component i in the solid phase
f iL f iS
When a cubic equation of state is used for the liquid phase it is practical to express the liquid phase fugacities in
terms of fugacity coefficients
f iL x iL iL P
In this expression x iL is the liquid phase mole fraction of component i, iL the liquid phase fugacity coefficient of
component i and P the pressure. For an ideal solid phase mixture, the solid phase fugacity of component i can be
expressed as
f iS x Si f ioS
where x Si is the solid phase mole fraction of component i, and f ioS the solid standard state fugacity of component i.
The solid standard state fugacity is related to the liquid standard state fugacity as
f oS P
G if RT ln ioL ref
f i Pref
where G if is the molar change in Gibbs free energy associated with the transition of pure component i from solid
to liquid form at the temperature of the system. To calculate G if the following general thermodynamic relation is
used
G H T S
Modeling of Wax Formation 105
where H stands for change in enthalpy and H for change in entropy. Neglecting any differences between the
liquid and solid phase heat capacities, G if may be expressed as
G if H fi TS fi
where H if is the enthalpy and Sif the entropy of fusion of component i at the normal melting point. Again
neglecting any differences between the liquid and solid-state heat capacities, the entropy of fusion may be expressed
as follows in terms of the enthalpy of fusion
S if
H fi
Tif
where Tif is the melting temperature of component i. The following expression may now be derived for the solid
standard state fugacity of component i
H if
f ioS f ioL Pref exp
RT
T
1 f
T
i
Vi P Pref
RT
where V is the difference between the solid and liquid phase molar volumes. Based on experimental observations
of Templin (1956), the difference Vi between the solid and liquid phase molar volumes of component i is assumed
to be 10% of the liquid molar volume, i.e. the solidification process is assumed to be associated with a 10% volume
decrease.
The liquid standard state fugacity of component i may be expressed as follows
f ioL ioL P
where ioL is the liquid phase fugacity coefficient of pure i at the system temperature and pressure. This leads to
H if
f ioS ioL P P exp
RT
T
1 f
T
i
Vi P Pref
RT
The following expression may now be derived for the solid phase fugacity of component i in a mixture
H fi
f iS x Si ioL P P exp
RT
T
1 f
Ti
Vi P Pref
RT
ioL is found using an equation of state on pure i at the temperature of the system and the reference pressure.

To be able to perform wax calculations it is necessary to use an extended C7+ characterization procedure. A
procedure must exist for splitting each C7+ pseudo-component into a potentially wax forming fraction and a fraction,
which cannot enter into a wax phase. In addition correlations are needed for estimating H if , Tif and Vif of each
component and pseudo-component.
The wax model is based on the assumption that a wax phase primarily consists of n-paraffins. The user may input the
n-paraffin content contained in each C7+ fraction. Otherwise the following expression is used to estimate the mole
fraction, z Si , of the potentially wax forming part of pseudo-component i, having a total mole fraction of z itot ,
z z
s
i
tot
i
1 A B M i i
i
P
In this expression Mi is the molecular weight in g/mole and i the density in g/cm3 at standard conditions
(atmospheric pressure and 15 oC) of pseudo-component i. A, B and C are constants of the following values
A = 1.074
B = 6.584 x 10-4
C = 0.1915
iP is the densities (g/cm3) at standard conditions of a normal paraffin with the same molecular weight as pseudocomponent i. The following expression is used for the paraffinic density.
iP 0.3915 0.0675 ln M i
For a (hypothetical) pseudo-component for which iP , z Si will be equal to z itot meaning that all the components
contained in that particular pseudo-component are able to enter into a wax phase. In general z Si will be lower than
z itot and the non-wax forming part of the pseudo-component will have a mole fraction of z itot z Si .
The wax forming and the non-wax forming fractions of the C20+ pseudo-components are assigned different critical
pressures. The critical pressure of the wax-forming fraction of each pseudo-component is found from
P
Pcis Pci i
i
3.46
Pci equals the critical pressure of pseudo-component i determined using the characterization procedure described in
the Characterization section. iP is the density of the wax forming fraction of pseudo-component i and i is the
average density of pseudo-component. The critical pressure Pcino-S of the non-wax forming fraction of pseudocomponent i is found from the equation
1
Fracino S
Pci
Pcino S
Frac
2
S 2
i
S
ci
2 Fracino S FracSi
Pcino S
PciS
where S and no-S are indices used respectively for the wax forming and the non-wax forming fractions (Frac) of
pseudo-component i. By using this relation the contribution to the equation of state a-parameter of pseudocomponent i divided into two will be the same as that of the pseudo-component as a whole.
For the wax forming C7+ components, the following expressions proposed by Won (1986) are used to find the
melting temperature and enthalpy of melting
Tif 374.5 0.02617 M i
20172
Mi
H fi 0.1426 M i Tif
The division of each C7+-component into a potentially wax forming component and a component, which cannot form
wax, implies that it is necessary to work with twice the number of C7+-components as in other PVTsim modules. The
equation of state parameters of the wax forming and the non-wax forming parts of a pseudo-component are equal,
but the wax model parameters differ. Presence of non-wax forming components in the wax phase is avoided by
assigning these components a fugacity coefficient of exp(50) in the wax phase independent of temperature and
pressure.
When tuning to an experimentally determined wax content or to an experimental wax appearance. The wax forming
fraction of each pseudo-component is adjusted to match the experimental data.
Viscosity of Oil-Wax Suspensions

Oil containing solid wax particles may exhibit a non-Newtonian flow behavior. This means that the viscosity
depends on the shear rate (dvx/dy). The apparent viscosity of oil with suspended wax particles is in PVTsim
calculated from (Pedersen and Rnningsen (2000) and modified 2006 using proprietary data from Statoil)
4
E wax F wax
liq exp D wax
dv x
dv x
dy
dy
where liq is the viscosity of the oil not considering solid wax and wax the volume fraction of precipitated wax in the
oil-wax suspension. The parameters D, E and F take the following values (viscosities in mPa s and shear rates in s-1)
D = 18.12
E = 405.1
F = 7.876106
Correction factor to be multiplied with D, E and F may be determined by regression to experimental viscosity data
for oils with suspended wax. To fully benefit from the model the data material should cover viscosity data for
different shear rates.
Wax Inhibitors
Wax inhibitors are often added to oils being transported in sub-sea pipelines with the purposes of decreasing the
apparent viscosity of the oil. In PVTsim the wax inhibitor effect is modeled as a depression of the melting
temperature of wax components within a given range of molecular weights (Pedersen and Rnningsen, 2003). The
range of affected molecular weights and the depression of the melting temperature may be estimated by entering
viscosity data for the oil with and without wax inhibitor and running a viscosity tuning to this data material.
References
Pedersen, K.S., Prediction of Cloud Point Temperatures and Amount of Wax Precipitation, SPE Production &
Facilities, February 1995, pp. 46-49.
Pedersen, K.S. and Rnningsen, H.P., Effect of Precipitated Wax on Viscosity A Model for Predicting NonNewtonian Viscosity of Crude Oils, Energy & Fuels, 14, 2000, pp. 43-51.
Pedersen, K.S. and Rnningsen, H.P., Influence of Wax Inhibitors on Wax Appearance Temperature, Pour Point,
and Viscosity of Waxy Crude Oils, Energy & Fuels 17, 2003, pp. 321-328.
Rnningsen, H. P., Smme, B. and Pedersen, K.S., An Improved Thermodynamic Model for Wax Precipitation;
Experimental Foundation and Application, presented at 8th international conference on Multiphase 97, Cannes,
France, 18-20 June, 1997.
Templin, R.D., Coefficient of Volume Expansion for Petroleum Waxes and Pure n-Paraffins, Ind. Eng. Chem., 48,
1956, pp. 154-161.
Won, K.W., Thermodynamics for Solid-Liquid-Vapor Equilibria: Wax Phase Formation from Heavy Hydrocarbon
Mixtures, Fluid Phase Equilibria 30, 1986, pp. 265-279.
Asphaltenes
Asphaltenes
Asphaltene precipitation is in PVTsim modeled using an equation of state is used for all phases including the
asphaltene phase. The equation of state can either be the currently selected cubic equation or it can be the PC-SAFT
equation. The latter was introduced in PVTsims asphaltene module as the result of an Asphaltene JIP carried out
with industry sponsors.
By default the aromatic fraction of the C50+ component is considered to be asphaltenes (Rydahl et al. (1997) and
Pedersen and Christensen (2006) Chapter 12). The user may enter an experimental weight content of asphaltenes in
the oil from a flash to standard conditions. If the entered asphaltene content is higher than that initially estimated in
PVTsim, aromatics lighter than C50 are also classified as asphaltenes. The new cut point between non-asphaltenic
and asphaltene aromatics is placed to match the input amount of asphaltenes. If on the other hand the experimental
amount of asphaltenes is lower than initially found in PVTsim, the cut point from which on aromatics are considered
to be asphaltenes is moved upwards from C50. In asphaltene simulations pseudo-components containing asphaltenes
are split into an asphaltene and non-asphaltene component. Having completed an asphaltene simulation, selecting
Split Pseudos will maintain the split fluid.
In contrast to most other calculation options in PVTsim, the asphaltene module should not be considered a priori
predictive. Being a liquid-liquid equilibrium the oil-asphaltene phase split is extremely sensitive to changes in model
parameters. Consequently the asphaltene module should be considered a correlation tool rather than a predictive
model. It is strongly recommended that an experimental asphaltene onset P,T point is used to tune the model before
further calculations are made. Having tuned the model to a single data point, the model will in general correlate the
remaining part of the asphaltene precipitation envelope quite well.
Cubic Equation of State

The asphaltenes are by default assigned the following properties:
TcA = 1398.5 K/1125.35C/2057.63F
PcA = 14.95 bara/14.75 atm/216.83 psia
A
= 1.274
The critical temperature Tcino-A of the non-asphaltene fraction (Fracino-A) of pseudo-component i is found from the
relation
Tci FracinoA TcinoA FraciA TciA
Asphaltenes 109
where Tci is the critical temperature of pseudo-component i before being split. The critical pressure Pcino-A of the nonasphaltene forming fraction of pseudo-component i is found from the equation
1
FracinoA
Pci
PcinoA
Frac
2
A 2
i
A
ci
2 FracinoA FraciA
PcinoA
PciA
while the acentric factor of the non-asphaltene forming fraction of pseudo-component i is found from
i Frac ino A ino A Frac iA iA

The binary interaction parameters between asphaltene components and C1-C9 hydrocarbons are by default assumed
to be 0.017 where binary interaction parameters of zero are default used for all other hydrocarbon-hydrocarbon
interactions. Tuning the model to an experimental point may either be accomplished by tuning the asphaltene Tc and
Pc or by tuning the asphaltene content in the oil.
PC-SAFT model
The PC-SAFT equation of state was introduced in PVTsims asphaltene module as the result of an Asphaltene JIP
carried out with industry sponsors. PC-SAFT stands for Perturbed Chain Statistical Association Fluid Theory
(Chapman et al. (1988 and 1990) and (Gross and Sadowski (2001)).
The PC-SAFT model expresses the compressibility factor as a deviation from the ideal gas compressibility factor of
1.0
Z 1 Z hc Z disp
Zhc is the hard-chain contribution to the compressibility factor accounting for repulsive molecular interactions and
Zdisp is an attractive (dispersive) term.
Each molecule is represented through 3 parameters
Number of segments: m
Segment diameter:
Segment energy:
The number of segments is 1 for methane. For heavier hydrocarbons it is a little lower than the number of
hydrocarbon segments.
PC-SAFT sees a pure fluid as consisting of equal-sized hard-spheres or segments. These hard-spheres are then
combined to hard-chain molecules. The hard-chain molecules interact with each other.
The hard chain term to the PC-SAFT compressibility factor is expressed as
Z hc mZ hs
x i (m i 1)
i 1
lng iihs
g iihs
where N is the number of components, xi the mole fraction of component i and
x m
i
i 1
Zhs is the hard sphere contribution to Zhc, which term is expressed as
Asphaltenes 110
hs
3
3 1 2
3 23 3 3 23
1 3 0 (1 3 ) 2
0 (1 3 ) 3
where
N
n
x i m i d i (T)
6 i 1
The parameter n may take the values 0, 1, 2, and 3. The term packing fraction is used for 3. The temperature
dependent diameter, d, is expressed through
3
d i (T) i 1 0.12exp i
kT
The term is the total number density of molecules
6 3
N
x i m i d 3i
i 1
hs
while g ii in is the molar radial pair distribution function for two segments of component i in the hard sphere system.
The radial pair distribution function takes the general for segments of component i and j
2
d d 2 22
dd
1
3 2
g
i j
i j
1 3 d i d j (1 3 ) d i d j (1 3 )3
hs
ij
The radial pair distribution function is a measure of the probability of finding a particle in a given distance from a
fixed particle in the fluid. The density derivative of the radial distribution function may be found from
g hs
did j
3
ij
2
1 3 d i d j
3 2
6 2 3 d i d j
2
3
(1 3 ) (1 3 ) d i d j
4 22
6 22 3
3
4
(1 3 ) (1 3 )
PC-SAFT uses the following expression for the dispersion contribution to the compressibility factor, Zdisp
Z disp 2
3 I 2
3 I1 2 3
m m C1
C 2 3I 2 m 2 2 3
3
3
where
C1 1 m
8 3 2 32
1 3 4
(1 m)
20 3 27 32 12 33 2 34
1 3 (2 3 )2
4 32 20 3 8
2 33 12 32 48 3 40
C 2 C12 m
(1
m
)
1 3 (2 3 )3
1 3 5
N N

m 2 3 x i x j m i m j ij 3ij
i 1 j1
kT
2
N N
ij 3
2 2 3
m x i x j m i m j ij
i 1 j1
kT
Asphaltenes 111
I1
a m
j
j
3
j0
I2
b m
j
j
3
j0
The cross energy term ij equals
ij i j (1 k ij )
and
ij
1
( i j )
2
where kij is a binary interaction parameter. Finally the terms
a j (m) and b j (m) equal
m 1
m 1 m 2
a 1j
a 2j
m
m
m
m 1
m 1 m 2
b j (m) b 0j
b1j
b 2j
m
m
m
a j (m) a 0j
The universal constants for a0j, a1j, a2j, b0j, b1j and b2j are given in the below table.
j a0i
a1j
a2j
b0i
0 0.9105631445
-0.3084016918
-0.0906148351
0.7240946941
1 0.6361281449
0.1860531159
0.4527842806
2.2382791861
2 2.6861347891
-2.5030047259
0.5962700728
-4.0025849485
3 -26.547362491
21.419793629
-1.7241829131
-21.003576815
4 97.759208784
-65.255885330
-4.1302112531
26.855641363
5 -159.59154087
83.318680481
13.776631870
206.55133841
6 91.297774084
-33.746922930
-8.6728470368
-355.60235612
b1j
-0.5755498075
0.6995095521
3.8925673390
-17.215471648
192.67226447
-161.82646165
-165.20769346
b2j
0.0976883116
-0.2557574982
-9.1558561530
20.642075974
-38.804430052
93.626774077
-29.666905585
PC-SAFT C7+ characterization procedure

The C50+ aromatics are considered to be asphaltenes. The PC-SAFT parameters of the non-asphaltene C7+ fractions
(C7-C49) are found from
M C
m i C 7m 2.82076 10 2 i 7M
i C 7
1
i mi
C 7 m 7.97066 M i i0.25 C 7M C 0.25
7
k
where k is Boltzmann's constant, Mi is the molecular weight and i the density of carbon number fraction i, and
C 7m P - fraction(i) m PC7 N - fraction(i) m NC7 A - fraction(i) m AC7

C 7M P - fraction(i) M PC7 N - fraction(i) M NC7 A - fraction(i) M AC7
C 7
C 7M
P - fraction(i)
M PC7
M
M
N - fraction(i) NC7 A - fraction(i) AC7
PC7
NC7
AC7
Asphaltenes 112
C 7 m P - fraction(i) m PC7 PC7 N - fraction(i) NC7 m PC7 A - fraction(i) m AC7 PC7

P-fraction(i), N-fraction(i) and A-fraction(i) stand for respectively paraffinic, naphthenic and aromatic fraction of
carbon number fraction i. These fractions (PNA distribution) are found using the procedure of Nes and Westerns
(1951). The sub-index PC7 stands for property of C7 normal paraffin (n-heptane), NC7 for property of C7 naphthene
(methyl-cyclohexane) and AC7 for property of C7 aromatic (benzene). These properties may be seen from the below
table.
mPC7
mNC7
mAC7
MPC7
MNC7
MAC7
PC7 (g/cm3)
NC7 (g/cm3)
AC7 (g/cm3)
PC7
NC7
AC7
3.4831
2.5303
2.4653
100.203
84.137
78.114
0.690
0.783
0.886
238.40
278.11
287.35
Properties of P, N and A C7 components.

The relations applied for the C7 properties ensure that n-heptane, methyl-cyclo-hexane and benzene will have the
PC-SAFT parameters tabulated in literature and shown in the above table.
The parameter is found to comply with the density of the fraction at atmospheric conditions.
The PC-SAFT parameters of asphaltene component i (aromatic C50+ fraction) are found from
m i, Asp 1.60495 1.44901 10 2 M i

i, Asp 94.4396 93.8196 ln M i
The parameter i,Asp is found to comply with the density of the asphaltene, which density in g/cm3 is assumed to be
i, Asp 0.4323 0.1039 ln M i

Carbon number fractions containing asphaltenes are split into a non-asphaltene (no-Asp) fraction and an asphaltene
(Asp) fraction. The parameters and m of the non-asphaltenic fraction are found from
iNo-Asp
z z Asp Asp
i i NoiAsp i
zi
m iNo-Asp
z i m i z iAsp m iAsp
z iNo Asp
and the density from
Asphaltenes 113
No -Asp
i
z i i z iAsp iAsp
z iNo Asp
where zi is the total mole fraction of carbon number fraction i, z iAsp the mole fraction of asphaltenes in carbon
- Asp
number fraction i and z No
the mole fraction of the non-asphaltenic part of carbon fraction i. The parameter
i
iNo- Asp is found to comply with the density of the non-asphaltenic fraction.
The non-zero binary interaction coefficients for use with the PC-SAFT equation of state are shown in the below
table. A binary interaction parameters of 0.017 is used for interaction between C1-C9 hydrocarbons and asphaltene
components.
Component
Pair
N2
CO2
H 2S
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7+
N2
CO2
H2S
0.0000
-0.0315
0.1696
0.0278
0.0407
0.0763
0.0944
0.0700
0.0867
0.0878
0.0800
0.0800
-0.0315
0.0000
0.0989
0.1200
0.1200
0.1200
0.1200
0.1200
0.1200
0.1200
0.1200
0.1000
0.1696
0.0989
0.0000
0.0800
0.0852
0.0885
0.0511
0.0600
0.0600
0.0689
0.0500
0.0000
References
Chapman, W. G., Jackson, G. and Gubbins, K. E., Phase Equilibria of Associating Fluids. Chain Molecules with
Multiple Bonding Sites, Mol. Phys 65, 1988, pp. 1057-1079.
Chapman, W. G., Gubbins, K. E., Jackson, G. and Radosz, M., New Reference Equation of State for Associating
Liquids, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 29, 1990, pp. 1709-1721.
Gross, J. and Sadowski, G., Perturbed-Chain SAFT: An Equation of State Based on Pertubation Theory for Chain
Molecules, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 2001, pp. 1244-1260.
Nes, K. and Westerns, H. A., Aspects of the Constitution of Mineral Oils, Elsevier, New York, 1951.
Rydahl, A., Pedersen, K.S. and Hjermstad, H.P., Modeling of Live Oil Asphaltene Precipitation, AIChE Spring
National Meeting March 9-13, 1997, Houston, TX, USA.
Raton, 2006.
Asphaltenes 114
H2S Simulations
H2S Simulations
The H2S module of PVTsim is based on the same PT-flash as is used in many of the other modules. What makes this
module different is the way H2S is treated in the aqueous phase. The dissociation of H2S is considered.
H2S HS- + H+
The degree of dissociation is determined by the pH
pH log10 H
and pK
pK1 log10
HS H
H 2S
pK1 is calculated using considerations based on chemical reaction equilibria. This gives approximately the following
temperature dependence
1 1 C oP
Ln T - Ln T0
Ln K Ln K 0
R T T0
R
J
pK1 log10 K
where J is calculated as
J H
C P T0
Ln K0 is calculated as
Ln K 0
RT0
T is the temperature in K, H is the standard enthalpy change of reaction, and G is the standard Gibbs energy
change of reaction. CPo is the heat capacity change of reaction. H, G, CPo , and R take the following values
H = -5300 cal/mol
G = 9540 cal/mol
H2S Simulations 115
CPo/R=29.33
R = 1.986 cal/mol/K
T0=298.15 K
The expression is optimized to experimental data in the temperature range 0-250 C from Morse et al. (1987)
From the knowledge of the amount of dissolved H2S on molecular form, pH and pK1 it is straightforward to calculate
[HS-].
In principle the following equilibrium should also be considered
HS- S-- + H+
Its pK value defined by the following expression
pK 2 log10
H S
HS
is however of the order 13-14, meaning that the second order dissociation for all practical purposes can be neglected.
It is therefore not considered in the H2S module.
References
Morse, J.W. et al., The Chemistry of the Hydrogen Sulfide and Iron Sulfide Systems in Natural Waters, EarthScience Reviews, 24, 1-42 , (1987)
H2S Simulations 116

As a rough guideline PVTsim performs full 3-phase flash calculations on mixtures containing aqueous components.
However, the following interface modules treats a possible water phase as pure water, possibly containing salt. This
applies for the interface modules to
Eclipse Black Oil
MORE Black Oil
Prosper/Mbal
Multiphase meter interface (if license does not give access to multiflash module).
The options treating water as pure water calculates the physical properties and transport properties of water using a
separate thermodynamics instead of an EOS. In the OLGA interface the water property routines are used to calculate
the temperature and pressure derivatives of aqueous phases. Use of the water property package (water
thermodynamics) is also an option in the Property Generator. The thermal conductivity of an aqueous phase is
always calculated using the water property package. Independent of composition the thermal conductivity of an
aqueous phase will therefore be output as that of pure water.
Properties of Pure Water

Thermodynamic Properties
The thermodynamic properties of pure water are calculated using an equation for Helmholtz free energy developed
by Keyes et al. (1968)
0 T RT ln Q, T
where
=
=
=
R=
Helmholtz free energy (J/g)

Density (g/cm3)
1000/T where T is the temperature in K
0.46151 J/(g K)
and
0 T C 1 C 2 T C 3 T 2 C 4 C 5 T ln T
Water Phase Properties 117
Q, T A ij a
8
il
i l
e E A 9,1 A 10,1
j 2 8
ol
c a A ij b e Ep A 9j A 10j
2
i
where
a = 0.634 g/cm3
b = 1.0 g/cm3
a = 2.5 K-1
c = 1.544912 K-1
E = 4.8 cm3/g
The coefficients C1 C5 and Aij are given in tables below.
i
1
2
3
4
5
CI
1855.3865
3.278642
-.00037903
46.174
-1.02117
Aij-coefficients of the Q-function.

i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
29.492937
-132.13917
274.64632
-360.93828
342.18431
-244.50042
155.18535
5.9728487
-410.30848
-416.05860
2
-5.1985860
7.779182
-33.301902
-16.254622
-177.31074
127.48742
137.46153
155.97836
337.31180
209.88866
3
6.8335354
-26.149751
65.326396
-26.181978
0
0
0
0
-137.46618
733.96848
j
4
-01564104
-0.72546108
-9.2734289
4.3125840
0
0
0
0
6.7874983
10.401717
5
-6.3972405
26.409282
47.740374
56.323130
0
0
0
0
136.87317
645.81880
6
-3.9661401
15.453061
-29.142470
29.568796
0
0
0
0
79.847970
399.17570
7
-0.69048554
2.7407416
-5.1028070
3.9636085
0
0
0
0
13.0411253
71.531353
The pressure is given by the following relation

2
P 2
T

1000
2
R
1 Q

The pure water density, , is obtained from this equation by iteration. The enthalpy, H, the entropy, S, and the heat
capacity at constant pressure, Cp, are obtained from the following relations
P

H
1000 R
d 0
Q
Q
0 T

1 Q
dT


S
R
T
Q d 0

ln Q
dT

H H
Cp

T T
P

T
P

T
Viscosity
Four different expressions (Meyer et al. (1967) and Schmidt (1969)) are used to calculate the pure water viscosity.
Which expression to use depends on the actual pressure and temperature. In two of the four expressions an
expression enters for the viscosity, i, at atmospheric pressure (=0.1 MN/m2) valid for 373.15 K/100C/212F < T <
973.15 K/700C/1292F
T
1 b 1
b 2 b 3 10 6
Tc
Region 1
Psat < P < 80 MN/m2 and 273.15 K/0C/32F < T < 573.15 K/300C/572F
Psat
a 4
10 6 a 1 1
c Pc
a2
T a 5 10 T/T a
c
3
c
where Tc and Pc are the critical temperature and pressure, respectively and c the density at the critical point.
Region 2
0.1 MN/m2 < P < Psat and 373.15 K/100C/212F < T < 573.15 K/300C/572F
1 10 6 10 c 1 c 2
c
T

6
T c 3 10
c

Region 3
0.1 MN/m2 < P < 80 MN/m2 and 648.15 K/375C/707F < T < 1073.15 K/800C/1472F

1 10 6 d 3
d2
10 6
d 1
Region 4
Otherwise
10 Y
0.0192
where
Y = C5kX4 + C4kX3 + C3kX2 + C2kX + C1k

X log 10
c
The parameter k is equal to 1 when /c 4/3.14 and equal to 2 when /c > 4/3.14. The following coefficients are
used in the viscosity equations
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
b1
b2
b3
c1
c2
c3
d1
d2
d3
241.4
0.3828209486
0.2162830218
0.1498693949
0.4711880117
263.4511
0.4219836243
80.4
586.1198738
1204.753943
0.4219836243
111.3564669
67.32080129
3.205147019
For k = 1
C1k
C2k
C3k
C4k
C5k
-6.4556581
1.3949436
0.30259083
0.10960682
0.015230031
For k = 2
C1k
C2k
C3k
C4k
C5k
-6.4608381
1.6163321
0.07097705
-13.938
30.119832
The vapor pressure, Psat, is calculated from the following correlation

j
log 10 Psat 1 D 1 D j T 273.15

7
j 3
D2
T 273.15
where Psat is in MN/m2 and T in K. The coefficient, Di, are given in the table below.
Coefficients of vapor pressure correlation.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Di
2.9304370
-2309.5789
.34522497 x 10-1
-.13621289 x 10-3
.25878044 x 10-6
-.24709162 x 10-9
.95937646 x 10-13
Thermal conductivity
Six different expressions (Meyer et al. (1967), Schmidt (1969) and Sengers and Keyes (1971)) are used to calculate
the pure water thermal conductivity (in W/cm/K). Which expression to use depends on the actual pressure and
temperature. The following expression for the thermal conductivity, 1, at atmospheric pressure (=0.1 MN/m2) and
373.15 K/100C/212F < T < 973.15 K/700C/1292F enters into two of the six expressions
1 = (17.6 + 0.0587 t + 1.04 x 10-4 t2 4.51 x 10-8 t3) x 10-5
where
t = T 273.15
Region 1
Psat < P < 55 MN/m2 and 273.15 K/0C/32F < T < 623.15K/350C/662F
P Psat
S1
Pc
P Psat
S 2
P
c

S 3 10 2
where
i
4
T
S1 a i
i 0
Tc
T
S 2 b i
i 0
Tc
3
T
S 3 c i
i0
Tc
Region 5
When P,T is not in region 1 and P (in MN/m2) and T (in K) are in one of the following ranges
P > 55 and 523.15 K/250C/482F < T < 873.15 K/600C/1112F
Psat < P < Pc and T <= Tc
16.5 < P 17.5 and T < 653.15 K/380C/716F
1 10 Y
where
Y = C5kX4 + C4kX3 + C3kX2 + C2kX + C1k
and

X log 10
c
k = 1 for 2.5
c
k = 2 for > 2.5

c
The constants used in these equations are as follows

for k = 1
C1k
C2k
C3k
C4k
C5k
-0.5786154
1.4574646404
0.17006978
0.1334805
0.032783991
for k = 2
C1k
C2k
C3k
C4k
C5k
-0.70859254
0.94131399
0.064264434
1.85363188
1.98065901
Region 3
When P,T is not in regions 1 or 5 but in one of the following ranges (P in MN/m2 and T in K)
45 < P and 723.15 K/450C/842F < T < 823.15 K/550C/1022F
45 < P < Pbound and T < 823.15 K/550C/1022F
35 < P and 723.15 K/450C/842F< T < 773.15 K/500C/932F
27.5 < P < Pbound and T < 723.15 K/450C/842F
22.5 < P < Pbound and T < 698.15 K/425C/797F
17.5 < P < Pbound and T < 673.15 K/400C/752F
where
Pbound
T
Pc e i
i0
Tc
2
the thermal conductivity is found from the following expression
T
A
Tc
1.445
T
1 Bd 31
Tc
P
A a 31
Pc
P
d 32
Pc
exp 9d 33
T 1
c

d 35 d 36
12
1 d 34
Pc
4
P
c
T

exp d 33
T 1
a 32
P
b31
Pc
P
1 b32
Pc
1.63
3.26
P
c 31
Pc
1.5
c 32
c 33
B
Region 4
When P,T is not in region 1, 3 or 5 but in one of the following ranges (P in MN/m2 and T in K)
45 < P and Pbound P and T 723.15 K/450C/842F
35 < P and Pbound P and T 723.15 K/450C/842F
27.5 < P and Pbound P and T < 723.15 K/450C/842F
the thermal conductivity is found from the following expression
T
c
8
P
8
a 4i k i c 40 b 4i k i
i 0
P
i0
where
k = 100
The solution for
is iterative.
Region 6
When P,T is not in region 1, 3, 4 or 5 and in one of the following ranges
15 MN/m2 < P and T > 633.15 K/360C/680F
14 MN/m2 < P and T > 618.15 K/345C/653F
0.01 0.2
v 1
c
where
v1 = 1.76 x 10-2 + 5.87 x 10-5 t + 1.04 x 10-7 t2 4.51 x 10-11 x t3
Region 2
Otherwise
2.1482 x 1014 2
1 103.51 0.4198 t 2.77110 5 t 2
x 10 5
4.2
t
The following coefficients are used in the equations for thermal conductivity
a0
-0.92247
a1
a2
a3
a4
a31
a32
a40
a41
a42
a43
a44
a45
a46
a47
a48
b0
b1
b2
b3
b31
b32
b40
b41
b42
b43
b44
b45
b46
b47
b48
c0
c1
c2
c3
c31
c32
c33
c40
d31
d32
d33
d34
d35
d36
e0
e1
e2
6.728934102
-10.11230521
6.996953832
-2.31606251
0.01012472978
0.05141900883
1.365350409
-4.802941449
23.60292291
-51.44066584
38.86072609
33.47617334
-101.0369288
101.2258396
-45.69066893
-0.20954276
1.320227345
-2.485904388
1.517081933
6.637426916 x 105
1.388806409
1.514476538
-19.58487269
113.6782784
-327.0035653
397.3645617
96.82365169
-703.0682926
542.9942625
- 85.66878481
0.08104183147
-0.4513858027
0.8057261332
-0.4668315566
3.388557894 x 105
576.8
0.206
1.017179024
2.100200454 x 10-6
23.94
3.458
13.6323539
0.0136
7.8526 x 10-3
50.60225796
-105.6677634
55.96905687
Surface Tension of Water

The surface tension of liquid water (in mN/m) is calculated from the following formula
T
235.81
T
c
1.256
1 0.625 1 T
T
where T is the temperature and Tc the critical temperature of water.
Properties of Aqueous Mixture

Interfacial Tension Between a Water and a Hydrocarbon Phase
The interfacial tension, , between a water phase and a hydrocarbon phase (gas or oil) is calculated from the
following expression (Firoozabadi and Ramey, 1988)
1/4
a 1 (1 - b1)
Tr0.3125
where:
w HC
In this equation w is the density of the water phase and HC the density of the hydrocarbon phase. The values of the
constants a1 and b1 are given in the below table as a function of .
Values of the constants a1 and b1 with in dyn/cm (=1 mN/m)
(g/cm3)
a1
b1
< 0.2
0.2 - 0.5
0.5
2.2062
2.915
3.3858
-0.94716
-0.76852
-0.62590
Tr is a pseudo-reduced temperature for the hydrocarbon phase. It equals the temperature divided by a molar average
of the critical temperatures of the individual hydrocarbon phase components.
Salt Water Density
The density of a water phase with dissolved salts is calculated using a correlation suggested by Numbere et al.
(1977)
s
- 1 =CS [7.65 10-3 1.09 10-7 P + CS (2.16 10-5 + 1.74 10-9 P)
w
-(1.07 10-5 3.24 10-10 P)T + (3.76 10-8 10-12 P)T2]

where s is the salt-water density, w the density of salt free water at the same T and P, Cs is the salt concentration in
weight%, T the temperature in oF and P the pressure in psia.
Salt Water Viscosity
The viscosity of a water phase with dissolved salts is calculated using a correlation suggested by Numbere et al.
(1977)
s
1 1.87 10 3 C s0.5 2.18 10 4 C s2.5 T 0.5 1.35 10 2 T 2.76 10 3 C s 3.44 10 4 C1.5
s
w
where s is the salt water viscosity, w the viscosity of pure water at the same T and P, Cs the salt concentration in
weight% and T the temperature in F.
Viscosity of Water-Inhibitor Mixtures
The viscosities of mixtures of water and inhibitors (alcohols and glycols) are calculated from the viscosities of the
pure fluids using appropriate mixing rules.
Methanol
The viscosity of saturated liquid methanol can be calculated from the following equation (Alder, 1966)
ln = A + B/T + CT + DT2
where is the viscosity in cP, T the temperature in K and
A = -3.94 x 10
B = 4.83 x 103
C = 1.09 x 10-1
D = -1.13 x 10-4
Ethanol
The viscosity of saturated liquid methanol can be calculated from the following equation (Alder, 1966)
ln = A + B/T + CT + DT2
where is the viscosity in cP, T the temperature in K and
A = -6.21
B = 1.614 x 103
C = 6.18 x 10-3
D = -1.132 x 10-5
Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG)
The viscosity of saturated liquid mono ethylene glycol can be calculated from the following equation by Sun and
Teja (2003)
ln = A1 + A2/(t+A3)
where is the viscosity in cP, t the temperature in C and
A1 = -3.61359
A2 = 986.519
A3 = 127.861
Di Ethylene Glycol (DEG)
The viscosity of saturated liquid di-ethylene glycol can be calculated from the following equation by Sun and Teja
(2003)
ln = A1 + A2/(t+A3)
A1 = -3.25001
A2 = 901.095
A3 = 110.695
Tri Ethylene Glycol (TEG)
The viscosity of saturated liquid tri-ethylene glycol can be calculated from the following equation by Sun and Teja
(2003)
ln = A1 + A2/(t+A3)
A1 = -3.11771
A2 = 914.766
A3 = 110.068
Saturation Pressures
To be able to determine the pressures corresponding to the above inhibitor viscosities the pure component vapor
pressures are needed. The vapor pressures are determined from the following variations over the Antoine equation.
H 2O
Ln (Psat)= A B/(T + C)
A = 11.6703
B = 3816.44
C = -46.1300
Psat is saturation pressure in bara. T is temperature in K.
Methanol
Log10 (Psat)= A B/(T + C)
A = 5.20409
B = 1581.341
C = -33.50
Ethanol
A = 5.24677
B = 1598.673
C = -46.424
MEG
Ln (Psat) = A B/(T + C) + D (In (T)) + ETN
A = 84.09
B = 10411
C = 0.0
D = -8.1976
E = 1.6536 x 10-18
N=6
Psat is saturation pressure in Pa. T is temperature in K.
DEG
A = 7.7007954
B = 2019.2548
C = 173.66153
Psat is saturation pressure in mmHg. T is temperature in C.
TEG
A = 6.75680
B = 3715.222
C = -1.299
Effect of Pressure on the Viscosity

The effect of pressure on the pure component liquid viscosity is calculated using the following formula (Lucas,
1981)
1 D Pr /2.118
SL
1 C Pr
where
= viscosity of liquid at actual temperature and pressure

SL = viscosity of saturated liquid at current T
Pr = (P Psat)/Pc
= acentric factor
A 0.9991
D
4.674 10 -4
1.0523 Tr-0.03877 1.0513
0.3257
1.0039 - T
2.573
r
0.208616
0.2906
0.208616
C = - 0.07921 + 2.1616 Tr 13.4040 Tr2 + 44.1706 Tr3 - 84.8291 Tr4 + 96.1209 Tr5 - 59.8127 Tr6 + 15.6719 Tr7
Pc is the critical pressure and Tr the reduced temperature, T/Tc, where Tc is the critical temperature.
Viscosity Mixing Rules

Mixture viscosities are calculated using the following relation (Grunberg and Nissan, 1949)
where wi and wj are the weight fractions of component i and j, respectively and Gij is a binary interaction parameter,
which is a function of the components i and j as well as the temperature. The following temperature dependence is
assumed
where Gij is a fitted parameter to available mixture viscosity data.

Gij is assumed to be equal to zero for interactions with methanol and glycol. Gij for interactions with water is as
follows
Water MeOH:
Water EtOH :
Water MEG :
Water DEG :
Water TEG :
Gij = 2.5324
Gij = 3.3838
Gij = -1.3209
Gij = -0.7988
Gij = -0.2239
Other glycols
Other glycols are assigned the properties of that of the above glycols that is closest in molecular weight.
Salt Solubility in Pure Water

The solubility in mole salts per mole water is found from the following expressions (with T in K). The remaining
salts in the database are assigned the solubility of CaCl2, if they consist of 3 ions. Otherwise the solubility is assumed
to be equal to that of NaCl.
Sodium Chloride, NaCl
mol NaCl
mol H 2 O
mol NaCl
T < 268.55 K:
-1.338e-01 + 9.004e-04 T
mol H 2 O
mol NaCl
T < 382.98 K:
7.986e-02 + 1.048e-04 T
mol H 2 O
mol NaCl
T 382.98 K:
1.506e-02 + 2.740e-04
mol H 2 O
Solubility of NaCl
mol NaCl
M( NaCl )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of NaCl in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
Data from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics , Pinho S. P(2005), Pinho S. P(1996) and Farelo F.(2004).
Sodium Bromide, NaBr
mol NaBr
mol H 2 O
mol NaBr
T < 327.60 K:
-1.849e-01 + 1.175e-03 T
mol H 2 O
Solubility of NaBr
T 327.60 K:
mol NaBr
8.362e-02 + 3.553e-04 T
mol H 2 O
mol NaBr
M( NaBr )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of NaBr in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
Data from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and Sunler A.A.(1976).
Potassium Bromide, KBr

Solubility of KBr
mol KBr
mol
H
O
2
mol KBr
-1.375e-01 + 8.008e-04 T
mol H 2 O
mol KBr
M( KBr )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of KBr in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
Data from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
Potassium Chloride, KCl

Solubility of KCl
mol KCl
mol H 2 O
mol KCl
-1.094e-01 + 6.561e-04 T
mol H 2 O
mol KCl
M( KCl)
mol
H
O
2
Solubility of KCl in weight% = 100

M( H 2 O )
Data from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and Shearman R. W.
Calcium Chloride, CaCl2

Solubility of CaCl2
mol CaCl 2
mol H 2 O
T < 284.07 K:
mol CaCl 2
-6.335e-02 + 5.770e-04 T
mol H 2 O
T < 322.66 K:
mol CaCl 2
-6.724e-01+2.721e-03 T
mol H 2 O
T 322.66:
mol CaCl 2
-2.486e-02 + 7.140e-04 T
mol H 2 O
mol CaCl2
M( CaCl 2 )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of CaCl2 in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
Calcium Bromide, CaBr2

Solubility of CaBr2
mol CaBr2
mol H 2 O
T < 300.81 K:
mol CaBr2
-8.233e-02 + 7.741e-04 T
mol H 2 O
T 300.81 K:
mol CaBr2
-7.516e-01 + 2.999e-03 T
mol H 2 O
mol CaBr2
M( CaBr2 )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of CaBr2 in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
Data from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
Sodium Formate, NaCOOH
mol NaCOOH
mol H 2 O
Solubility of NaCOOH
mol NaCOOH
-6.899e-01 + 3.064e-3 T
mol H 2 O
mol NaCOOH
M( NaCOOH )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of NaCOOH in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
Data from Paolo G. C. Et al (1980), Groschuff, E (1903) and Sidgwick (1922).
Potassium Formate, KCOOH
mol KCOOH
mol H 2 O
Solubility of KCOOH
mol KCOOH
= -1.1266 + 6.6623e-03 T
mol H 2 O
mol KCOOH
M( KCOOH )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of KCOOH in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
Data from Groschuff, E (1903) and Sidgwick, N.V (1922)
Cesium Formate, CsCOOH
mol CsCOOH
mol
H
O
2
Solubility of CsCOOH
T < 267.15 K :
mol CsCOOH
-0.1426 + 0.00143 T
mol H 2 O
267.15 T < 323.15 K :
323.15 K T :
mol CsCOOH
-1.3669 + 0.006 T
mol H 2 O
mol CsCOOH
0.572
mol H 2 O
mol CsCOOH
M( CsCOOH )
mol H 2 O
Solubility of CsCOOH in weight% = 100
M( H 2 O )
Salt Solubility Salt-Inhibitor-Water Systems

The maximum solubility of NaCl, KCl, or CaCl2 salt in aqueous inhibitor solutions can be estimated for the
following systems. C is the weight percent of MEG on salt free basis.
NaCl-MEG-Water
Solubility of NaCl in weight% of NaCl + H2O = Weight % NaCl in pure H2O - 0.2824 C
C is weight % MEG of H2O + MEG.
Dara from Masoudi (2004).
KCl-MEG-Water
Solubility of KCl in weight% of KCl + H2O = Weight% KCl in pure H2O - 0.2589 C
Data fromFilho, O. C. (1993) and Masoudi (2005).
CaCl2-MEG-Water
Solubility of CaCl2 in weight% of CaCl2 + H2O = Weight% CaCl2 in pure H2O - 0.07561 C
NaCl-MeOH-Water
C < 74.04 weight% MeOH:
Solubility of NaCl in weight% of NaCl + H2O = Weight% NaCl in pure H2O - 0.2977 C
C=74.04 weight% MeOH:
Solubility of NaCl in weight% of NaCl + H2O = W74.04_NaCl = Weight% NaCl in pure H2O - 0.2977 * 74.04=
Weight% NaCl in pure H2O - 22.0417
C 74.04 weight/% MeOH:
Solubility of NaCl in weight% of NaCl+ H2O = W74.04_NaCl 0.1070 (C-74.04)
C is weight % MeOH of H2O + MeOH.
Data from Pinho, S. P (1996).
KCl-MeOH-Water
The same functions as the NaCl-MeOH-Water system.
Data from Pinho, S. P (1996).
Viscosity of water-oil Emulsions

The viscosity of a water-oil emulsion as a function of the water content and temperature, and may exceed the
viscosities of the pure phases by several order of magnitudes.
The maximum viscosity of the emulsion exists at the mixing ratio where the emulsion changes from a water-in-oil to
an oil-in-water emulsion. The following equation (Rnningsen, 1995) is used to predict the viscosity of the water-inoil emulsion to the water concentration and the temperature
ln r = -0.06671 0.000775 t + 0.03484 + 0.0000500 t
where
r = relative viscosity (emulsion/oil)
= volume% of water
t = temperature in oC
Above the inversion point, the viscosity of the oil-in-water emulsion will be calculated as the water phase viscosity,
when the Rnningsen method is applied.
If an experimental point of (,r) is entered, the correlation of Pal and Rhodes (1989) is used.
100
r,h 1
w
1.19
100
r,w 1
h
1.19
r 100
r 100
2.5
, if w Inv
2.5
, if w Inv
where r,h means the ratio of the water in oil emulsion viscosity and the oil viscosity. r,w is the ratio of the oil in
water emulsion viscosity and the water viscosity. The specified set of and r is used to calculate 100 from the
r
following equation
100
r
0.4
1.19 1 r
This value acts as a constant in subsequent calculations, where r is calculated as a function of . is evaluated at
specified temperature and pressure.
References
Alder, B.J., Prediction of Transport Properties of Dense Gases and Liquids, UCRL 14891-T, University of
California, Berkeley, California, May 1966.
Farelo F.; Ana M. C.; Ferra M. I. Solubility Equilibria of Sodium Sulfate at Temperatures of 150 to 350 C. J. Chem.
Eng. Data. 2004, 49 1782-1788.
Filho, O. C., Rasmussen, P.; J. Chem. Eng. Data., 38, no. 3, (1993)
Firoozabadi, A. and Ramey, H.J., Surface Tension of Water-Hydrocarbon Systems at Reservoir Conditions,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 27, 1988, pp. 41-48.
Grunberg, L. and Nissan, A.H., A Mixture Law for Viscosity, Nature 164, 1949, pp. 799-800.
Groschuff, E., Ber Dtsch. Chem. Ges., 36, 1783, 4351 (1903).
"Physical Constants of Organic Compounds", in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Internet Version 2007,
(87th Edition), David R. Lide, ed., Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL. Table: SOLUBILITY OF COMMON
SALTS AT AMBIENT TEMPERATURES.
"Physical Constants of Organic Compounds", in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Internet Version 2007,
(87th Edition), David R. Lide, ed., Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL. Table: AQUEOUS SOLUBILITY OF
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES.
Keyes, F.G., Keenan, J.H., Hill, P.G. and Moore, J.G., A Fundamental Equation for Liquid and Vapor Water,
presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Properties of Steam, Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 1968.
Lucas, K., Die Druckabhngikeit der Viskositt vin Flssigkeiten (in German), Chem. Ing. Tech. 53, 1981, pp.
959-960.
Masoudi et. al.; Chem. Eng. Sci., 60, 4213-4224, (2005)
Masoudi et. al.; Fluid Phase Equilibria., 219, 157-163 (2004)
Meyer, C.A., McClintock, R.B., Silverstri, G.J. and Spencer, R.C., Jr., Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of
Steam, 1967 ASME Steam Tables, Second Ed., ASME, 1967.
Numbere, D., Bringham, W.E. and Standing, M.B., Correlations for Physical Properties of Petroleum Reservoir
Brines, Work Carried out under US Contract E (04-3) 1265, Energy Research & Development Administration,
1977.
Pal, R. and Rhodes, E., "Viscosity/Concentration Relationships for Emulsions", J. Rheology, 33, 1989, pp. 10211045.
Paolo G. C. Et al., Solubility of Sodium Formate in Aqueous Hydroxide Solutions.
Chem. Ing. Data. 1980, 25, 170-171.
Pinho S. P.; Macedo E. A. Solubility of NaCl, NaBr, and KCl in Water, Methanol, Ethanol, and Their Mixed
Solvents. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2005, 50, 29-32.
Pinho, S. P., Macedo, E. A., Fluid Phase Equilibria, 116, 209-216, (1996)
Pinho S. P.; Macedo E. A. Representation of salt solubility in mixed solvents: A comparison of thermodynamic
models. Fluid Phase Equilibria. 1996, 116, 209-216.
Engineering Data. 1976, 21, 3, 335.
Rnningsen, H.P., Conditions for Predicting Viscosity of W/O Emulsions based on North Sea Crude Oils, SPE
Paper 28968, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, Texas, US,
February 14-17, 1995.
Schmidt, E., Properties of Water and Steam in SI-Units, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 1969.
Sengers, J.V. and Keyes, P.H., Scaling of the Thermal Conductivity Near the Gas-Liquid Critical Point, Tech.
Rep. 71-061, University of Maryland, 1971.
Shearman R. W.; Menzies W. C. The Solubilities of Potassium Chloride in Deuterium Water and Ordinary Water
from 0 to 180 C
Sidgwick, N.V.; Gentle, J.A.H.R., J. Chem. Soc. 121, 1837 (1922)
Sunler A.A.; Baumbach J. The Solubility of Potassium Chloride in Ordinary and Heavy Water. Journal of Chemical
Thomson, G.H. Brabst, K.R. and Hankinson, R.W., AIChE J. 28, 1982, 671.
van Velzen, D., Cordozo, R.L. and Langekamp, H., Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 11, 1972, 20.

The scale module considers precipitation of the minerals BaSO4, SrSO4, CaSO4, CaCO3, FeCO3 and FeS. The input
to the scale module is:
Modeling of Scale Formation 135
A water analysis, including the concentrations (mg/l) of the inorganic ions Na+, K+, Ca++, Mg++, Ba++, Sr++, Fe++,
Cl-, SO4-, of organic acid and the alkalinity.
Contents CO2 and H2S
Pressure and temperature.
Since the major part of the organic acid pool is acetic acid and since the remaining part behaves similar to acetic
acid, the organic acid pool is taken to be acetic acid.
The alkalinity is defined in terms of the charge balance. If the charge balance is rearranged with all pH-dependent
contributions on one side of the equality sign and all pH-independent species on the other, the alkalinity appears, i.e.
the alkalinity is the sum of contributions to the charge balance from the pH-independent species. Therefore the
alkalinity has the advantage of remaining constant during pH changes.
The calculation of the scale precipitation is based on solubility products and equilibrium constants. In the
calculation, the non-ideal nature of the water phase is taken into account.
Thermodynamic equilibria
The thermodynamic equilibria considered are
Acid-equilibria
H2O(l) H+ + OHH2O(l) + CO2(aq) H+ + HCO3HCO3- H+ + CO3-HA(aq) H+ + AH2S(aq) = H+ + HSSulfate mineral precipitation reactions
Ca++ + SO4-- CaSO4(s)
Ba++ + SO4-- BaSO4(s)
Sr++ + SO4-- SrSO4(s)
Ferrous iron mineral precipitation reactions
Fe++ + CO3-- FeCO3 (s)
Fe++ + HS- H+ + FeS(s)
Calcium carbonate precipitation reaction
Ca++ + CO3-- CaCO3(s)
The thermodynamic equilibrium constants for these reactions are
K H O m H m OH
2
H OH
a H O(l)
2
K CO 1
2
K CO
2 ,2
m H m HCO
m CO
m H m CO
CO
m HCO
H HCO
(aq)
H CO
a H O(l)
2
HCO
mH mA H A
K HA
HA(aq)
m HA(aq)
KH S
2
m H m HS H HS
H S(aq)
m H S(aq)
2
K CaSO m Ca m SO Ca SO
K BaSO m Ba m SO
K SrSO m Sr m SO
Ba SO
Sr SO
K FeS
m Fe m HS Fe HS
mH
K FeCO m Fe m CO Fe CO
3
K CaCO m Ca m CO Ca CO
The temperature dependence of the thermodynamic equilibrium constants is fitted to a mathematical expression of
the type
ln K T A
B
E
C lnT DT 2
T
T
A, B, C, D and E for each reaction are listed in the table below.

A
-820.4327
B
50275.5
C
126.8339
1000D
-140.2727
E
-3879660.2
-248.419
11862.4
38.92561
-74.8996
-1297999
K HA
-10.937
KH
-16.1121
11.6592
-2234.4
-48.2309
815.978
-26309.0
-138.361
167.863
18.6143
208.839
-13084.5
-32.4716
-9.58318
2.58594
89.6687
-4033.9
-16.0305
-1.34671
31402.1
KFeCO
21.804
56.448
-16.8397
0.02298
K FeS
-8.3102
-395.448
6461.5
71.558
-180.28
24847
K CO
KCO
2,1
2,2
2S
K CaSO
K CaSO
K BaSO
K SrSO
2H 2 O
K CaCO
Ref.:
Haarberg
(1989)
Haarberg
(1989)
Kaasa and
stvold
(1998)
Haarberg
(1989)
Haarberg
(1989)
Haarberg
(1989)
Haarberg
(1989)
Kaasa and
stvold
(1998)
Kaasa and
stvold
(1998)
Haarberg
(1989)
Coefficients in expression for T-dependence of equilibrium constants. T is in Kelvin.
The temperature dependence of the self-ionization of water is described by Olofsson and Hepler (1982)
log 10 K H O T
142613.6
4229.195 log 10 T 9.7384 T 0.0129638 T 2
T
1.15068 10 5 T 3 4.602 10 9 T 4 8908.483
2
The pressure dependence is given by

lnK i ZP V
P
RT
Where Z is the partial molar compressibility change of the reaction, V is the partial molar volume change of the
reaction and R is the universal gas constant. Z for the sulfate precipitation reactions is expressed by a third degree
polynomial
10-3 Z = a + bt + ct2 + dt3
Where t is the temperature in oC. The coefficients a, b, c and d for each of the sulfate precipitation reactions are listed
in the below table
Coefficients in compressibility change expression for sulfate mineral precipitation reactions. Units: t in oC and Z in
cm3 /mole/bar.
BaSO4
SrSO4
CaSO4
CaSO4-2H2O
a
17.54
17.83
16.13
17.83
100b
-1.159
-1.159
-0.944
-1.543
1000c
-17.77
-17.77
-16.52
-16.01
106d
17.06
17.06
16.71
16.84
Reference: Atkinson and Mecik (1997)

The compressibility changes associated with both of the CO2 acid equilibria are (Haarberg, 1989)
10 3 Z CO 10 3 K CO 39.3 0.233 T 0.000371 T 2

2,1
2,2
For the calcium carbonate and ferrous carbonate precipitation reactions the compressibility changes are 0.015
cm3/mole and are considered as independent of temperature (Haarberg et al., 1990).
The partial molar volume changes of the sulfate precipitation reactions are described by the expression
V = A + BT + CT2 + DI + EI2
where I is the ionic strength. The constants A through E for the sulfate mineral precipitation reactions are listed in
the below table
Coefficient in volume change expression for sulfate mineral precipitation reactions. Units, T in Kelvin, I in moles/kg
solvent and V in cm3/mole.
BaSO4
SrSO4
CaSO4
CaSO4-2H2O
A
-343.6
-306.9
-282.3
-263.8
B
1.746
1.574
1.438
1.358
1000C
-2.567
-2.394
-2.222
-2.077
D
11.9
20
21.7
21.7
E
-4
-8.2
-9.8
-9.8
Reference: Haarberg (1989).
For the calcium carbonate and ferrous carbonate precipitation reactions, the partial molar volume change are
described by (Haarberg, 1989)
VCaCO VFeCO 328.7 1.738 T 0.002794T 2

3
The partial molar volume changes of both of the acid equilibria of CO2 are (Haarberg, 1989)
VCO
2 ,1
VCO
2 ,2
141.4 0.735 T 0.0019 T 2
For all other reactions than those explicitly mentioned above, the pressure effects on the equilibrium constants are
not considered.
Amounts of CO2 and H2S in water

The potential scale forming aqueous phase will in principle always be accompanied by a hydrocarbon fluid phase.
The hydrocarbon fluid phase is the source of CO2 and H2S. The calculation of the amounts of CO2 and H2S dissolved
in the water phase is determined by PT flash calculations. The aqueous phase and the hydrocarbon fluid are mixed in
the ratio 1:1 on molar basis. An amount of CO2 and H2S is added to the mixture, and a flash calculation is performed.
When the content of CO2 and H2S in the resulting hydrocarbon phase (oil and gas) equals that of the initially
specified hydrocarbon fluid, the water phase CO2 and H2S concentrations will equal the amounts of CO2 and H2S
dissolved in the water phase.
The amounts of CO2 and H2S consumed by scale formation is assumed to be negligible compared to the amounts of
CO2 and H2S in the system. The concentration of CO2 and H2S in the aqueous phase are therefore assumed to be
constant.
Activity coefficients of the ions

The activity coefficients used in the scale module come from the Pitzer model (Pitzer, 1973, 1975, 1979, 1986, 1995
and Pitzer et al., 1984). According to the Pitzer model the activity coefficients of the ionic species in a water solution
are
ln M z 2M F m a 2B Ma ZC Ma m c 2 Mc m a Mca
a
c
a
ma ma' Maa' z M mc ma Cca

a' a a'
for the cat ions, and
ln X z 2X F m c 2B cX ZC cX m a 2 Xa m c cXa
c
a
c
mc mc' cc'X' z X mc ma Cca

c' c c'
for the anions. c denotes a cat ion species, whereas a denotes an anion species. m is the molality (moles/kg solvent)
and I is the ionic strength (moles/kg solvent)
1
mi z i
2 i
z is the charge of the ion considered in the unit of elementary units. ijk is a model parameter that is assigned to each
cat ion-cat ion-anion triplet and to each cat ion-anion-anion triplet. The remaining quantities in the activity
coefficient equations are
I 1/2
2
F A
ln 1 bI 1/2 m c m a B' ca
1/2
b
1 bI
c a
m c m c' cc' m a m a' aa'

c' c c'
a' a a'
where b is a constant with the value 1.2 kg 1/2/mole1/2 and

A
1
2 0 d w 1/2
3
e2
4 DkT
0
3/2
N0 is the Avogadro number, dw is the water density, e is the elementary charge, D is the dielectric constant of water
and k is the Boltzman constant.
(1)
1/2
1/2
B MX (0)
(2)
MX MX g 1 I
MX g 2 I
where
21 1 x exp x
g x
x2
(0)
(1)
ij , ij and ij
(2)
are model parameters. One of each parameter is assigned to each cat ion-anion pair. 1 and
are constants, with 1 = 2 kg1/2 mole-1/2 and 2 =12 kg1/2mole-1/2. However, for pairs of ions with charge +2 and
2, respectively, the value for 1 is 1.2 kg1/2mole-1/2.
Further
Z mi z i
i
C MX
C MX
2 zMz X
1/2
ij s ij E ij I I E ij I
ij s ij E ij I
Cij is yet another model parameter assigned to each cat ion-anion pair.
S
ij is a model parameter assigned to each cat ion-cat ion pair and to each anion-anion pair and
ij is an electrostatic term
ij
ziz j
1
1
J x ij Jx ii J x jj
4I
2
2
where
x ij 6zi z jA I1/2
J x x 4 4.581 x 0.7231 exp 0.0120x 0.528
Also the Pitzer model describes the activity of the water in terms of the osmotic coefficient
1 m i
i
2A I 3/2
1 bI 1/2
m c m a B ca ZC ca
c
m c m c' cc' m a cc'a m a m a' aa' m c ca'a

c' c c'
a
a'
a
a'
c
where
(1)
1/2
1/2
B MX (0)
(2)
MX MX exp 1 I
MX exp 2 I
and the relation between the osmotic coefficient and the activity of the water is
ln a H O M H O mi
2
Model parameters at 25C are listed below.

(0) parameters at 25C
H+
OH
0.00000
Cl0.17750
SO4-0.02980
HCO30.00000
CO3-0.00000
HS-
Na+
0.08640
0.07650
0.01810
0.02800
0.03620

H+
OH
0.00000
Cl0.29450
SO4-0.00000
HCO30.00000
CO3-0.00000
HS-
Na+
0.25300
0.26640
1.05590
0.04400
1.51000

H+
OH
0.00000
Cl0.00000
SO40.00000
HCO30.00000
CO3-0.00000
HS0.00000
C parameters at 25C
H+
OH
0.00000
Cl0.00080
SO40.04380
HCO30.00000
CO3-0.00000
HS parameters at 25C
H+
H
0.00000
Na+
0.03600
K+
0.00500
Mg++
0.10000
Ca++
0.06120
Sr++
0.06500
Na+
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Na+
0.00410
0.00127
0.00571
0.00000
0.00520
K+
0.12980
0.04810
0.00000
-0.01070
0.12880
K+
0.32000
0.21870
1.10230
0.04780
1.43300
K+
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Mg++
0.00000
0.35090
0.21500
0.32900
0.00000
Mg++
0.00000
1.65100
3.36360
0.60720
0.00000
Mg++
0.00000
0.00000
-32.74000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
-0.17470
0.30530
0.20000
-1.49800
-0.40000
Ca++
-0.23030
1.70800
3.19730
7.89900
-5.30000
Sr++
0.00000
0.28370
0.20000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
1.62600
3.19730
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
0.00000
-54.24000
0.00000
879.20000
0.00000
Ba++
0.17175
0.26280
0.20000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
1.20000
1.49630
3.19730
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
0.00000
-54.24000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
K+
0.00410
-0.00079
0.01880
0.00000
0.00050
Mg++
0.00000
0.00651
0.02797
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
0.00215
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
-0.00089
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Na+
K+
Mg++
Ca++
Sr++
0.00000
-0.01200
0.07000
0.07000
0.05100
0.00000
0.00000
0.03200
0.00000
0.00000
0.00700
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.44790
-4.70500
0.00000
1.91900
Fe++
0.00000
2.04300
17.00000
14.76000
-5.13400
Ba++
0.00000
0.00000
-54.24000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
-0.01938
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
Ba++
-
OH
ClSO4HCO3CO3--
0.00000
OH0.00000
-0.05000
-0.01300
0.00000
0.10000
0.06700
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Cl-
SO4--
HCO3-
CO3--
0.00000
0.02000
0.03590
-0.05300
0.00000
0.01000
0.02000
0.00000
0.08900
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
parameters at 25C
Anion 1 fixed as ClH+
H
0.00000
Na+
-0.00400
K+
-0.01100
Mg++
-0.01100
Ca++
-0.01500
Sr++
0.00300
Ba++
0.01370
Anion 1 fixed as SO4--:
H+
H
0.00000
Na+
0.00000
K+
0.19700
Mg++
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
Anion 1 fixed as HCO3H+
H
0.00000
Na+
0.00000
K+
0.00000
Mg++
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
Anion 1 fixed as CO3-H+
H
0.00000
Na+
0.00000
K+
0.00000
Mg++
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
Cat ion 1 fixed as Na+
OHOH
0.00000
Cl-0.00600
SO4--0.00900
HCO30.00000
CO3-0.01700
Na+
K+
Mg++
Ca++
Sr++
Ba++
0.00000
-0.00180
-0.01200
-0.00700
-0.00210
-0.01200
0.00000
-0.02200
-0.02500
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.01200
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Na+
K+
Mg++
Ca++
Sr++
Ba++
0.00000
-0.01000
-0.01500
-0.05500
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
-0.04800
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.02400
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Na+
K+
Mg++
Ca++
Sr++
Ba++
0.00000
-0.00300
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Na+
K+
Mg++
Ca++
Sr++
Ba++
0.00000
-0.00300
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Cl-
SO4-
HCO3-
CO3--
0.00000
0.00140
-0.01430
0.00000
0.00000
-0.00500
-0.00500
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Cat ion 1 fixed as K+

OHOH
0.00000
Cl-0.00800
SO4--0.05000
HCO30.00000
CO3--0.01000
Cat ion 1 fixed as Mg++
OHOH
0.00000
Cl0.00000
SO40.00000
HCO30.00000
CO3-0.00000
Cat ion 1 fixed as Ca++
OHOH
0.00000
Cl-0.02500
SO40.00000
HCO30.00000
CO3-0.00000
Cl-
SO4-
HCO3-
CO3--
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.02400
0.00000
0.00000
-0.00900
0.00000
-0.03600
0.00000
Cl-
SO4--
HCO3-
CO3--
0.00000
-0.00400
-0.09600
0.00000
0.00000
-0.16100
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Cl-
SO4--
HCO3-
CO3--
0.00000
-0.01800
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
All parameters not listed here are equal to zero.

The Pitzer parameters ijk and Sij are temperature independent parameters, whereas ij(0) , ij(1) and ij(2) and Cij are
temperature dependent parameters (=X). Their temperature dependence is described by (Haarberg, 1989) for
temperatures in K
XT X298.15
2
X
T 298.15 1 X2 T 298.152
T
2 T
Due to the appearance of Na and Cl in many systems, Pitzer et al. (1984) have developed a more sophisticated
description of the temperature dependence of the parameters for these species. Also a pressure dependence is
included in the description. The functional form is for temperatures in K
Q1
Q 2 Q 3 P Q 4 ln T Q 5 Q 6 P T
T
Q Q 10 P Q 11 Q 12 P
Q 7 Q 8 P T 2 9
T 227
680 T
X T
The temperature coefficients
X
2X
and
and the coefficient Q1, Q2..,Q12 are listed below.
T
T 2
First order temperature derivative of (0) 100.

-
OH
ClSO4-HCO3CO3-HS-
H+
0.00000
-0.18133
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Na+
-0.01879
0.007159
0.16313
0.10000
0.17900
K+
0.00000
0.03579
0.09475
0.10000
0.11000
Mg++
0.000000
-0.05311
0.00730
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
0.02124
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
0.02493
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
0.06410
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Second order temperature derivative of (0) 100.

H+
Na+
K+
OH
0.00000
0.00003
0.00000
Cl0.00376
-0.00150
-0.00025
SO4-0.00000
-0.00115
0.00008
HCO30.00000
-0.00192
0.00000
CO3-0.00000
-0.00263
0.00102
HS-
Mg++
0.00000
0.00038
0.00094
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
-0.00057
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
-0.00621
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
First order temperature derivative of (1) 100.

H+
Na+
K+
OH
0.00000
0.27642
0.00000
Cl0.01307
0.07000
0.11557
SO4-0.00000
-0.07881
0.46140
HCO30.00000
0.11000
0.11000
CO3-0.00000
0.20500
0.43600
HS-
Mg++
0.00000
0.43440
0.64130
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
0.36820
5.46000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
0.20490
5.46000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
0.32000
5.46000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Second order temperature derivative of (1) 100.

H+
Na+
K+
OH
0.00000
-0.00124
0.00000
Cl-0.00005
0.00021
-0.00004
SO4-0.00000
0.00908
-0.00011
HCO30.00000
0.00263
0.00000
CO3-0.00000
-0.04170
0.00414
HS-
Mg++
0.00000
0.00074
0.00901
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
0.00232
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
0.05000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
First order temperature derivative of (2)

H+
Na+
OH
0.00000
0.00000
Cl0.00000
0.00000
SO4-0.00000
0.00000
HCO30.00000
0.00000
CO3-0.00000
0.00000
HS-
K+
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Mg++
0.00000
0.00000
-0.06100
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
0.00000
-0.51600
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
0.00000
-0.51600
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
0.00000
-0.51600
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Second order temperature derivative of (2)

H+
Na+
K+
OH
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Cl0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
SO4-0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
HCO30.00000
0.00000
0.00000
CO3-0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
HS-
Mg++
0.00000
0.00000
-0.01300
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
First order temperature derivative of C 100.

H+
Na+
K+
OH
0.00000
-0.00790
0.00000
Cl0.00590
-0.01050
-0.00400
SO4-0.00000
-0.36300
-0.00625
HCO30.00000
0.00000
0.00000
CO3-0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
HS-
Mg++
0.00000
-0.01990
-0.02950
0.00000
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
-0.01300
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
-0.01540
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Mg++
0.00000
Ca++
0.00000
Sr++
0.00000
Ba++
0.00000
Fe++
0.00000
Second order temperature derivative of C 100..

H+
Na+
K+
OH
0.00000
0.00007
0.00000
ClSO4-HCO3CO3-HS-
-0.00002
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00015
0.00027
0.00000
0.00000
0.00003
-0.00023
0.00000
0.00000
0.00018
-0.00010
0.00000
0.00000
0.00005
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Temperature coefficients in expression for temperature dependence of the Pitzer parameters for NaCl
NaCl(0)
NaCl(1)
C
NaCl
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
-6.5684518102
2.486912950101
5.38127526710-5
-4.4640952
1.11099138310-2
-2.65733990610-7
-530901288910-6
8.63402332510-10
-1.579365943
0.002202282079010-3
9.706578079
-2.68603962210-2
1.1931966102
-4.830932710-1
0
0
1.406809510-3
0
0
0
-4.2345814
0
0
0
-6.1084589
4.021779310-1
2.290283710-5
-7.535464910-4
153176729510-4
-9.055090110-8
-1.5386008210-8
8.6926610-11
3.5310413610-1
-4.331425210-4
-9.18714552910-2
5.19047710-4
The coefficients correspond to units of pressure and temperature in bars and Kelvin, respectively.
Reference: Pitzer (1984)
Calculation procedure
The amount of minerals that precipitates from a specified aqueous solution is evaluated by calculating the amount of
ions that stays in solution when equilibrium has established. This amount is given as the solution to the system of
thermodynamic equilibrium constant equations. Only the solubility products of the salts precipitating, need be
fulfilled. Solving the system of equations is an iterative process
The thermodynamic equilibrium constants are calculated for the specified solution at the specified set of conditions,
pressure and temperature.
The activity coefficients of all components are set equal to one.
The stoichiometric equilibrium constants are calculated from the thermodynamic ones and from the activity
coefficients.
The ratio of CO2(aq) to H2S(aq) is calculated. This determines if any of the ferrous iron minerals FeCO3 and FeS will
precipitate. Only one can precipitate, since both H2S and CO2 are fixed in concentration, and then the Fe++
concentration cannot fulfill both solubility products at the same time.
The equilibrium in the acid/base reactions is determined without considering the precipitation reactions. The
convergence criterion is that the charge balance must be fulfilled.
The amount of sulfate precipitation (independent of the acid/base reactions) is calculated, with none of the other
precipitation reactions taken into account.
The ion product of the iron mineral identified at a previous step is checked against the solubility product. If the
solubility product is exceeded, the amount of precipitate of the iron mineral is determined. The convergence
criterion in this iteration is the charge balance. Precipitation of calcium carbonate is not included in the
calculation.
The ion product of calcium carbonate is checked against its solubility product. If the solubility product is exceeded,
simultaneous precipitation of calcium carbonate and the iron mineral is calculated. A double loop iteration is
applied. The inner loop: With a given amount of ferrous iron mineral precipitation (which comes from the outer
loop), the amount of calcium carbonate precipitate is determined. During the calcium carbonate precipitation,
the sulfate precipitate is influenced since some Ca++ is removed from the solution. The state in the sulfate system
is therefore corrected in each of these inner loop iterations. In the inner loop, the charge balance is used to check
for convergence. The outer loop: The iteration variable is the amount of ferrous iron mineral precipitate.
Convergence is achieved when the ion product of the ferrous mineral matches the thermodynamic solubility
product.
The resulting amount of each precipitate is compared to that of the previous iteration. If the weighted sum of relative
changes in the amounts of precipitates exceeds 10-6, then all activity coefficients are recalculated from Pitzers
activity coefficient model for electrolytes. The procedure is then repeated from the 3rd step.
References
Atkinson, A. and Mecik, M., The Chemistry of Scale Prediction, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
17, 1997, pp. 113-121.
Haarberg, T. Mineral Deposition During Oil Recovery, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Inorganic Chemistry,
Trondheim, Norway (1989).
Haarberg, T., Jakobsen, J.E., and stvold, T., The effect of Ferrous Iron on Mineral Scaling During Oil Recovery,
Acta Chemica Scandinavia 44, 1990, pp. 907-915.
Kaasa, B. and stvold, T., Prediction of pH and Mineral Scaling in Waters with Varying Ionic Strength Containing
CO2 and H2S for 0<T(oC)<200 and 1<p(bar)<500 Presented at the conference Advances in Solving Oilfield
Scaling held January 28 and 29, 1998 in Aberdeen, Scotland.
Pitzer, K.S., Thermodynamics of Electrolytes I. Theoretical basis and general equations, Journal of Physical
Chemistry 77, 1973, pp. 268-277.
Pitzer, K.S., Thermodynamics of Electrolytes V. Effects of Higher-Order Electrostatic Terms, Journal of Solution
Chemistry 4, 1975, pp. 249-265.
Pitzer, K.S., Theory: Ion Interaction Approach. Activity Coefficients in Electrolyte Solutions, Book by Pytkowicz,
R.M., pp. 157-208, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida (1979).
Pitzer, K.S., Peiper, J.C. and Busey, R.H., Thermodynamic Properties of Aqueous Sodium Chloride Solutions.
Journal of Physical Chemistry 13, 1984, pp. 1-102.
Pitzer, K.S., Theoretical Considerations of Solubility with Emphasis on Mixed Aqueous Electrolytes, Pure and
Applied Chemistry 58, 1986, pp. 1599-1610.
Pitzer, K.S., Thermodynamics 3. edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1995)
Wax Deposition Module
Modeling of wax deposition

The wax deposition module, DepoWax, is fundamentally a steady state compositional pipeline simulator, in which
wax deposition on the pipe wall is overlaid on the steady state results. The steady state approach is chosen because
wax deposition is a very slow process relative to typical residence times. In the following, the methods of Lindeloff
and Krejbjerg (2001 and 2002) used for numerical discretization, heat transfer, energy balances, thermodynamic
equilibrium, and wax deposition will be described.
Discretization of the Pipeline into Sections

The simulator is based on an approach where the pipeline is divided into a number of cells. In the following, these
will be referred to as segments and sections. Segments are larger entities, which are user specified in terms of inlet
and outlet position in the x-y coordinate space, where x is the horizontal coordinate and y the vertical.
Each segment consists of a number of sections, the locations of which are generated automatically by the program.
The user may affect the selection of the sections by altering the maximum section length and maximum temperature
drop over a section, which by default are set to 500 m/1640 ft and 5C/9F, respectively. The max temperature drop
is calculated in an approximate manner assuming that the bulk fluid temperature will exhibit an exponential decline
as the fluid passes through the pipeline. Assuming single phase flow and steady state in the simulation, a temperature
profile may be estimated analytically from the following expression
DU tot
Tx Tamb Tin Tamb exp
x
Cp m
The equation states that under the above assumptions, the temperature Tx at a given position x can be calculated
, the heat capacities Cp, the pipeline diameter D, and the overall heat transfer
based on the mass flow rate, m
coefficient Utot. Tamb is the ambient temperature, while Tin is the fluid temperature at the pipeline inlet. This
expression may be exploited to optimize the discretization of the pipeline by assigning section lengths in such a way
that the temperature only declines a predefined amount in each section. This results in short section lengths near the
inlet, while sections are longer further down the pipeline where the temperature changes less.
Energy balance
The energy balance calculations are sketched in the figure below. The mass flowrate, temperature, pressure and
composition at inlet are known. Also insulation and temperature of the surroundings are known. This allows the
program to calculate heat loss from the pipeline, enthalpy of the exiting fluid, and pipe wall temperatures.
A steady state flow model calculates pressure drop, flow regime, and liquid hold-up, based on information about the
amounts and properties of the phases.
Wax Deposition Module 147
Knowing pressure, enthalpy, and feed composition at the outlet of the section, an integrated wax-PH flash is used to
calculate the temperature and phase compositions. These values are then used as inlet conditions for the next section.
This proceeds until the calculation has been completed for the entire pipeline in the current time step. Subsequent
time steps are calculated similarly, the only change from one time step to the next being that the pipeline diameter
and insulation have changed due to a layer of deposited wax on the pipe wall.
Tamb
Ti, Pi
To , P o
mi
Hi
Ho
Q=UAT
The structure of the algorithm, as described above, can be summarized by the following four points that are further
illustrated in the above figure
Heat balance, HO = Hi (Q + W)
Pressure drop and flow regime, OLGAS 2000 PO
Wax flash at wall and deposition
PH-wax flash, (PO, HO) TO
The enthalpy (H) of the fluid exiting the section depends on the amount of heat transferred through the pipeline walls
(Q) and the work done (W) due to changes in elevation. The work term, which becomes significant for instance in a
riser, is calculated from
W bulk g h
In this equation bulk is the average bulk fluid density, g is the gravitational acceleration and h the elevation change.
The heat loss is calculated as
Q U tot A Tbulk Tamb
where A is the pipe wall area, Tamb is the ambient temperature, and Tbulk is the mean bulk temperature in the section.
Utot is the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Overall heat transfer coefficient

The overall heat transfer coefficient is calculated from the equation
ln i
NLAY
ri 1
1
1
U in r 1

i 1
rin h in
rout h out
k i 1,i
in
In this equation, the heat transfer coefficient is referred to the inner radius of the pipeline rin. ki-1,i is the thermal
conductivity of the layer between the radii ri-1 and ri. Deposited wax is included as an additional layer at radius rwax =
rin xwax, where xwax is the deposit layer thickness. hin and hout are the inside film heat transfer coefficient and outside
film heat transfer coefficient, respectively. For a more detailed description of this, please refer to example 9.6-1 of
the textbook by Bird et al. (1960).
Inside film heat transfer coefficient

The inside film heat transfer coefficient hin is estimated from the flow regime, based on the definition of the Nusselt
number
N Nu
h in D
k
where k is the thermal conductivity of the fluid and D is the inside diameter of the pipeline. The Nusselt number has
been related to the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers through different correlations depending on flow regime. Four sets
of correlations are available.
Sieder-Tate (default selection)
N Re 10
N Nu 0.027N N
0.8
Re
2300 N Re 10 : N Nu
4
1/3
Pr
0.25
6 10 5
0.027N N 1
N 1.8
Re
0.8
Re
1/3
Pr
N Nu max 0.184N Gr N Pr , 3.66
N Re 2300 :
1/3
0.25
0.25
Dittus-Blter
0.3 b
N Nu 0.023N 0.8
Re N Pr
w
N Re 10 4
0.25
6 10 5
0.3
2300 N Re 10 4 : N Nu 0.023N 0.8

N
Re
Pr 1
N 1.8
Re
N Nu max 0.184N Gr N Pr , 3.66
N Re 2300 :
1/3
Petukov-Gnielinski
2300 N Re :
N Nu
N Re 1000N Pr
8
2/3
1 12.7
N Pr 1
8
where
N Re 2300 :
N Nu
D 2/3 b
1
L w
0.25
1.82 log N Re 1.642
0.0677 N re N Pr
3.657
1 0.1N Pr N Re
4/3
0.3
0.25
Petukov/ESDU
N Re 4000 :
b
f/2 N Re N Pr
N Nu
1/2
2/3
1.07 12.7f/2 N Pr 1 w
N Re 2300 :
N Nu
0.25
41.82log N Re 1.64
3
1/3
3.66 3 0.7 3 1.77N Gz 0.7
1/3
0.25
2300 N Re 4000 Nu Nu lam 1 Nu tur

1.33
N Re
6000
Depending on the insulation of the pipeline, the film heat transfer coefficient may strongly affect the wax deposition
calculation through the temperature gradient over the laminar film layer inside the pipeline. For that reason, the
choice of correlation is important.
Outside Film Heat Transfer Coefficient

The outside film heat transfer coefficient is specified as a constant value for each segment along with the insulation
properties of that segment. The value may be entered by the user or may be selected from the default values given
for free and forced convection in air and water. The actual outside film heat transfer coefficient will of course vary
with the environment outside the pipeline, but the default values will at least have the right order of magnitude. In
the case where the pipeline is covered by soil, the soil is added as a layer of insulation of thickness reflecting the
depth of burial. A film heat transfer coefficient for air or water is then specified reflecting whether the pipeline is
located offshore or onshore.
Pressure drop models

P
The total pressure drop
over a given pipeline section in DepoWax is calculated as the sum of three
L Total
contributions
P
P
P
P
Total
Hydrostatic
Frictional L Accelerational
where
L Hydrostatic
is the contribution to the pressure drop from elevation changes in the pipeline.
L Frictional
represents the irreversible losses due to shear of fluids at the pipe wall and internally in the fluid.
L Accelerational
is the pressure drop contribution from acceleration.
The three contributions to the total pressure drop are given as
P
gsin
L Hydrostatic
f , Re gv 2
P
2d
L Frictional
P
P
gvu
L Accelerational
L
where is the density, g is the gravitational acceleration, is the inclination of the pipeline, f(Re) is the friction
factor, which is a function of the sections wall roughness () and the Reynolds number (Re), v is the linear velocity,
u is the superficial velocity, and P is the pressure.
Single-phase flow
When a single fluid phase is present in a pipeline section, the properties of the phase are assumed to be constant
throughout the entire section. The pressure drop from acceleration in single-phase flow is negligible, and the total
pressure drop over a pipeline section with single-phase flow is
f Re v 2
P
g sin
2d
L Total
In the above equation, the Reynolds number is given by
Re
dv
and the friction factor (Bendiksen et al., 1991) by

1

10 6 3
4

f(Re) 5.5 10 1 2 10
d Re

where d is the section diameter and is the viscosity.
Two-phase flow
The pressure drop in two-phase flow in DepoWax may either be determined using the OLGAS two-phase steadystate pressure drop model (Bendiksen et al., 1991) or using the two-phase steady-state pressure drop model proposed
by Mukherjee and Brill (1985).
Mukherjee and Brill pressure drop model

When two fluid phases are present in a pipeline section, the properties of the total fluid are dependent on the flow
regime in that particular section.
Based on an evaluation of appropriate dimensionless variables, Mukherjee and Brill (1985) set up the flow sheet
below, which determines whether the two-phase flow is stratified smooth, annular, slug, or bubble.
Stratified
No
NLV > NLVST

Yes
No
Bubble
NLV > NLVST

No
No
|| >
Yes
NGV > NGVBS
Yes
No
No
NGV > NGVBS
>0
Bubble
Yes
Slug
Yes
Yes
No
Annular
Yes
NGV > NGVSM
NLV > NLVBS
Yes
No
Slug
Determination of flow regime (Mukherjee and Brill, 1985).

The dimensionless numbers NGV, NGVSM, NGVBS, NLV, NLVBS, and NLVST are determined as follows
N GV
N LV
Liquid
uGas
g Gas Liquid
Liquid
u Liquid
g Gas Liquid
N GVBS 10
N GVSM 10
N LVBS 10
N LVST 10
where Gas-Liquid is the interfacial tension between the gas and liquid phases.
The parameters , , , and are given as
2
N LV 1.132Sin
0.431 - 3.003N L - 1.138Log10 N LV Sin - 0.429Sin Log 10
1.401 - 2.694N L + 0.521N LV
0.329
0.94 Log10 N GV 0.074Sin - 0.855Sin 2 + 3.695 * N L

2
N GV - 3.925Sin 2
0.321 - 0.017N GV - 4.267Sin - 2.972N L - 0.033Log10
where NL is a dimensionless number given as
g
N L Liquid
Liquid 3
Gas Liquid
Mukherjee and Brill (1985) have proposed the following correlation for determining the liquid hold-up
P P2 P3 P4 P5
H Liquid exp 1
P6
where P1 to P6 are
P1 C1
P2 C2 Sin
P3 C3 Sin 2
P4 C4 N L2
C5
P5 N GV
C6
P6 N LV
Constants C1 to C6 are flow regime dependent and given in the table below.
Flow
Stratified smooth and wavy flow
downhill
C1
-0.380113
-1.330282
C2
0.129875
4.808139
C3
-0.119788
4.171584
C4
2.343227
56.262268
C5
0.475686
0.079951
C6
0.288657
0.504887
Constants C1-C6 dependent on flow regime.
Uphill & horizontal
Other flow regimes downhill

-0.516644
0.789805
0.551627
15.519214
0.371771
0.393952
Handling of an aqueous phase in the model

An aqueous phase is assumed to be completely immiscible with gas and oil. Average properties of oil and an
aqueous phase are calculated and these are assumed to be representative for the liquid phase as a whole. Only the
wax deposition model distinguishes between hydrocarbon phases and an aqueous phase. The wax deposition can
only take place from the hydrocarbon-wetted part of the inner pipe wall.
Wax deposition
Wax deposition from the oil phase is always considered. Furthermore it is optional whether or not wax deposition
from the gas phase should be considered. The wax deposition mechanisms considered for the gas and oil phases are
molecular diffusion and shear dispersion.
The volume rate of wax deposited by molecular diffusion for a given wax-forming component i is calculated from
the relation
NWAX
Vol diff
wax
i 1
D i c ib c iw S wet MWi
i
where c ib is the molar concentration of wax component i in the bulk phase and c iw is the molar concentration of
wax component i in the phase at the wall. Swet is the fraction of the perimeter wetted by the current phase. NWAX is
the number of wax components, Mi the molecular weight and i the density of wax component i. L is the length of
the pipeline section and r the current inner pipeline radius considering wax deposition.
The thickness of the laminar film layer inside the pipeline is calculated from the expression
(Bendiksen et al., 1991)
11.6 2
D 1
Re f
where is a user defined thickness correction factor. The allowed values of are between 0 and 100. The
introduction of provides the user with the possibility of tuning a predicted thickness of a wax layer to experimental
data, since a very narrow film layer will result in an increase in wax deposition and vice versa.
The diffusion coefficient, Di of the wax-forming component is calculated from a correlation by Hayduk and Minhas
(1982).
D i 13.3 10
12
1.47
10.2
M w, wax, i

wax, i
0.791
M w, wax,i

wax,i
0.71
where is a user defined diffusion coefficient factor. The allowed values of are between 0 and 100. The
introduction of provides the user with yet another possibility of tuning a predicted wax layer thickness to
experimental data, since a large diffusion coefficient for a given wax component will result in an increased
deposition of that particular component and vice versa.
For systems with a large oil fraction, it is generally expected that deposition is dominated by oil phase deposition to
an extent where contributions from the gas phase are negligible. For rich gases and lean condensate systems, it may
however be of interest to include contributions from the gas as well. The model considers wax deposition from the
gas phase as results of both molecular diffusion and shear dispersion. The same assumptions are used as for the oil
phase. Whether wax deposition from the gas phase should be considered or not is selected on the Simulation
Options menu.
Shear dispersion accounts for deposition of wax already precipitated in the bulk phase. The volume rate of wax
deposited from shear dispersion is estimated from the following correlation of Burger et al. (1981)
Vol shear
wax
k * c wall A
wax
where k* is a shear deposition rate constant, Cwall is the volume fraction of deposited wax in the oil in the bulk, is
the shear rate at the wall, A is the surface area available for deposition and wax is the average density of the wax
precipitated in the bulk phase. The shear dispersion mechanism is often assumed to be negligible as compared with
molecular diffusion (Brown et al. (1993) and Hamouda (1995)). Therefore the allowed values of k* is set to
[0;0.0001 g/cm2] or [0;0.025 lb/ft2] or [0;0.001 kg/m2].
Boost pressure
It is possible to specify a pressure increase or boost pressure at the entrance of each user specified segment. The
boost pressure may originate from a pump or a compressor, which is located between two sections. In plots the boost
pressure will show up at the end of the subsequent section.
Porosity
The porosity of the deposited wax is understood as the space between the wax crystals occupied by captured oil. This
porosity is reported to be quite significant in many cases (70%) and to depend on the shear rate. The program has
the possibility of treating the porosity as a constant or to depend linearly on shear rate. The expression used is:
A B
In this expression, is the porosity and the shear rate. The constants A and B are determined from two input data
points of shear rate and corresponding porosity. If a constant porosity is to be used, A = 0 and B is the constant
porosity value.
Boundary conditions
By boundary conditions is understood the fluid inlet specifications to the pipeline. This includes pressure,
temperature, flow rate and fluid composition. One or more boundary conditions may be changed during the
simulation at specified time steps. In case the inlet composition is to be changed.
Mass Sources
A mass source in this context is understood as a side stream to the pipeline. Mass sources may be defined to enter in
a specified segment inlet in a given time step. Mass sources cannot be specified to enter into the first segment. A
change of boundary conditions may be specified instead. Temperature and flow rate of the source are specified. The
pressure in the source is assumed to be equal to that of the fluid at the current position in the pipeline. The fluid
composition for the source is specified by referring to a fluid in the current fluid database. It is possible to change
conditions for the source in a later time step, or to change the composition of that source. The source composition is
mixed into the main pipeline stream, and a PH-flash determines the phase distribution and temperature of the mixed
stream. This is done by first determining the enthalpy of the source through a PT-flash and then determine the
mixture enthalpy based on the molar flow rates. Fluids entered as sources must be characterized to the same pseudocomponents as the original fluid in the simulation.
References
Bendiksen, K.H., Maines, D., Moe, R., Nuland, S., SPE 19451, The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory
and Application, SPE Production Engineering, May 1991, pp. 171-180.
Bird, R.B., Steward, W.E., Lightfoot, E.N., Transport Phenomena, Wiley, NY. 1960, pp. 286-28.
Brown, T.S., Niesen, V.G. and Erickson, D.P., Measurement and Prediction of Kinetics of Paraffin Deposition,
SPE 26548, 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE Houston, Tx, 3-6 October, 1993.
Burger, E.D., Perkins, T.K. and Striegler, I.H., Studies of Wax Deposition in the Trans Alaska Pipeline, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, June 1981, 1075-1086.
ESDU 93018 and 92003: Forced convection heat transfer in straight tubes, ESDU 1993.
Hamouda, A., An Approach for Simulation of Paraffin Deposition in Pipelines as a Function of Flow
Characteristics with a Reference to Teeside Oil Pipeline, SPE 28966, presented at SPE Int. Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry, San Antonio, 14-17 February, 1995.
Hayduk, W. and Minhas, B.S., Correlations for Predictions of Molecular Diffusivities in Liquids, The Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering 60, 1982, pp. 295-299.
Lindeloff, N. and Krejbjerg, K., Compositional Simulation of Wax Deposition in Pipelines: Examples of
Application, Presented at Multiphase 01, Cannes, France, June 13-15, 2001.
Lindeloff, N. and Krejbjerg, K., A Compositional Model Simulating Wax Deposition in Pipeline Systems, Energy
& Fuels, 16, pp. 887-891, 2002.
Szilas, A.P.: Production and Transport of Oil and Gas, part B, 2. Ed. Developments in Petroleum Science, 18B,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986.
Clean for Mud
Clean for Mud

Reservoir samples are often contaminated by base oil from drilling mud. The Mud module of PVTsim (Pedersen and
Christensen (2006) Chapter 2) has been implemented for the purpose of estimating the composition of a reservoir
fluid from the composition of the fluid with a certain content of base oil contaminate.
It is possible to make regression to experimental PVT data for a contaminated fluid and afterwards make use of the
regressed component parameters for the non-contaminated fluid.
Cleaning Procedure
In order to use the Mud module, the following compositional data are needed:
Composition of contaminated reservoir fluid. It is customary to analyze to either C7+, C10+, C20+, or C36+.
Composition of base oil contaminate. It will usually consist of components in the carbon number range C11 C30
(defined components not accepted)
Weight% contaminate in stock tank oil (optional for extended compositions)
The cleaning procedure will differ depending on the extent of the compositional analysis
Reservoir fluids to C7+ or C10+
With a composition to C7+ or C10+ all base oil contaminate will be contained in the plus fraction of the contaminated
reservoir fluid. The base oil affects molar amount, density and molecular weights of the plus fraction. The weight%
contaminate in the oil from a flash of the contaminated reservoir fluid to standard conditions is required input.
1) Characterization of contaminated reservoir fluid as for a usual plus composition.
2) PT-flash to standard conditions
3) Weight% contaminate of total reservoir fluid initially estimated as weight% contaminate of the STO oil
(input) multiplied by the weight fraction of oil from flash.
4) Contaminated reservoir fluid cleaned.
5) Usual characterization of cleaned fluid.
6) Weaving of cleaned fluid with mud contaminate.
7) PT flash to standard conditions. Check whether calculated amount of contaminate in STO oil agrees with
input. Otherwise make new estimate of weight% contaminate in reservoir fluid and return to 4.
Reservoir fluids to C20+
Most base oil contaminates will contain components lighter than C20 as well as components heavier than C20. Some
contaminate is therefore contained in the plus fraction and some in the lighter fractions. It is practical to have all the
contaminate contained in the plus fraction before performing the cleaning calculation. The carbon number fractions
with contaminate are therefore combined into a plus fraction ending at the carbon number of the lightest base oil
component. Say the base oil composition starts at C15, the C15 C20+ fractions of the contaminated reservoir fluid are
combined into a C15+ fraction.
Clean for Mud 157
After the contraction of the contaminated reservoir fluid composition the cleaning procedure is the same as for a C7+
or a C10+ composition.
Reservoir fluids to C36+
With a composition to C36+ the carbon number fraction C7-C10 will usually be free of contamination and the same
will be the case for the fractions C30-C36. This allows the percent contamination to be estimated.
For a clean reservoir fluid PVTsim assumes the following relation between the mole fraction (z) of C7+ fractions and
carbon number i.
lnz i A B CN i
A and B are estimated by a fit to mole%s for C7+ mole fractions against carbon number.
The above relation will not apply for fractions contaminated by base oil, but it will still be true for uncontaminated
C7+ fractions. A and B may be determined by a linear fit to zi versus CNi, where i stands for uncontaminated C7+
fractions. Using A and B, the mole fractions of the remaining C7+ fractions in the uncontaminated fluid may be
estimated. The remaining molar amount of each carbon number fraction is assumed to originate from the base oil,
which enables the composition of the contaminate to be estimated. The estimated base oil composition will not
necessarily be identical to the input composition.
Cleaning with Regression to PVT Data

Any PVT data will be for the contaminated sample. It is obviously of more interest to know the PVT properties of
the uncontaminated fluid. It is therefore desirable to have the option to carry out a regression for the contaminated
composition and afterwards be able to apply the regressed component parameters for the uncontaminated fluid.
The contaminated composition is initially cleaned as above. A regression is performed as for a usual plus fraction
composition, where the cleaned reservoir fluid composition in each iterative step is weaved with the base oil
contaminate in the pertinent weight ratio. Weaving is a mixing where each component of the individual fluids is
retained. The base oil contaminate is lumped into pseudo-components (default is 4 pseudo-components). Only the
components originating from the cleaned reservoir fluid are regressed on, i.e. the base oil components are left out of
the regression. The weaving procedure is selected because it enables regression to be performed directly on the
component properties of the reservoir fluid.
Regression on the characterized contaminated fluid is also an option, in which case the same regression parameters
are used as with ordinary regression for characterized fluids. To allow the program identify the mud components in
the contaminated fluids, the characterized mud must be saved in the database prior to the regression and selected as
mud contaminate in the Clean for Mud menu. The result of the regression is a cleaned, tuned and characterized
reservoir fluid composition.
References
Raton, 2006.
Clean for Mud 158

Black Oil type correlations may be used in PVTsim to generate PVT tables for the Eclipse Black Oil reservoir
simulator. Only a minimum set of information is needed, i.e. reservoir temperature, API gravity of the fluid, gas
gravity and pressure stages.
The following black oil type correlations are available in PVTsim (references in Whitson and Brule, 2000)
Bubble-point Pressure
Standing
Required input: Rs (scf/STB), T (oF), g, API
Output Units: psia
Expression:
Pb 18.2 A 1.4
R
A s
g
0.83
10 0.00091T 0.0125
API
Lasater
Required input: Rs (scf/STB), T (oR), g, API, o
Output Units: psia
Expression:
y g 0.6 : p b
T
0.679exp 2.786y g 0.323
g
y g 0.6 : p b
T
3.56
8.26y g 1.95
g
yg
R s /379.3
R s /379.3 350 o /M o
The stock-tank oil molecular weight Mo can be calculated from
API 40 : M o 630 10 API
API 40 : M o 73,110 API
1.562
Black Oil Correlations 159
The oil gravity o can be calculated from
141.5
131.5 API
Glas
Output Units: psia
Expression:
log Pb 1.7669 1.7447logA 0.30218logA

R
A s
g
0.816
T 0.172
0.989
API
Beggs-Vazquez
Output Units: psia
Expression:
R
API 30 : Pb 27.64 s
g

10
11.172 API
T 460
0.9143
R
API 30 : Pb 56.06 s
g

10
10.393 API
T 460
0.8425
Dindoruk-Christman
Output Units: psia
Expression:
R a
Pb a 8 sa 10 A a 11
g
a
a
a T a 3 API
A 1
2
a
2R s
a 5
a
g
10
Coefficient
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
a10
Value
1.42828E-10
2.844591797
-6.74896E-04
1.225226436
0.033383304
-0.272945957
-0.084226069
1.869979257
1.221486524
1.370508349
a11
0.011688308
Saturated Gas/Oil Ratio

Standing
Required input: P (psia), T (oF), g, API
Output Units: scf/STB
Expression:
0.055p 1.410 0.0125

R s g
10 0.00091T
API
1.205
Lasater
Required input: P (psia), T (oR), g, API, o
Expression:
Rs
p g
T
p g
T
132755 o y g
M o 1 yg
3.29 :
1.473p g
y g 0.359ln
0.476
T
3.29 :
0.121p g
y g
0.236
T
0.281
where
API 40 : M o 630 10 API
API 40 : M o 73,110 API
1.562
Vazquez-Beggs
Expression:
R s C 1 g p C exp 3 API
T 460
2
C1
C2
C3
API 30
0.0362
1.0937
25.724
API > 30
0.0178
1.1870
23.931
Glas:
Expression:
1.7447 3.0441.208721.7669 logP

0.60436
10
Rs g
0.989
T 0.172 / API
1/0.816
Dindoruk-Christman
Expression:
a
R s a 9 g 10 A
a 8
a 11
10
a 1 API
a2
a 3T a
a 5 2 API
a
Coefficient
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
a10
a11
Value
4.86996E-06
5.730982539
9.92510E-03
1.776179364
44.25002680
2.702889206
0.744335673
3.359754970
28.10133245
1.579050160
0.928131344
Oil Formation Volume Factor

Standing
Output Units: bbl/STB
Expression:
Bubblepoint Bo
B ob 0.9759 12 10 5 A 1.2
A R s g / o
0.5
1.25T
The oil gravity o can be calculated from:
141.5
131.5 API
Saturated Bo
Same expression as the one used at the bubble point but in this case the Rs is a function of the pressure p.
The Rs values are determined as in the saturated GOR (Rs) section.
Glas
Expression:
Bubblepoint Bo
logB ob 1 6.585 2.9133logA 0.2768logA
A R s g / o
0.526
0.968T
141.5
131.5 API
Saturated Bo
Al-Marhoun
Expression:
Bubblepoint Bo
Bob 1.0 0.177342 10 3 R s 0.220163 103 R s g / o 4.292580 10 6 R s T 60 1 o

0.528707 10
T 60
141.5
131.5 API
Saturated Bo
Vazquez-Beggs
Expression:
Bubblepoint Bo
B ob 1 C 1 R s C 2 T 60 API / gc C 3 R s T 60 API / gc
API 30
4.677 x 10-4
1.751 x 10-5
-1.811 x 10-8
C1
C2
C3
API > 30
4.670 x 10-4
1.100 x 10-5
-1.337 x 10-9
Saturated Bo
Dindoruk-Christman
Expression:
Bubblepoint Bo
B ob a 11 a 12 A a 13 A 2 a 14 T 60
API
g
Rsa ga
a
(T
60)
a
R
a
4
6
s
a7
a 8 2R S
a (T 60)
10
The oil gravity o can be calculated from
141.5
131.5 API
Coefficient
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
Value
2.510755
-4.852538
1.183500E+01
1.365428E+05
2.252880
1.007190E+01
4.450849E-01
5.352624
-6.309052E-01
a10
a11
a12
a13
a14
9.000749E-01
9.871766E-01
7.865146E-04
2.689173E-06
1.100001E-05
Saturated Bo
Dead-Oil Viscosity
Beal-Standing
Required input: T (oF), API
Output Units: cP
Expression:
1.8 10 7
oD 0.32
4.53
API
0.43 8.33 / API
360 A
T 200
A 10
Beggs-Robinson
Output Units: cP
Expression:
oD 1 10 T
1.163
, for T 70 o F
exp 6.9824 0.04658 API
For T < 70 F it should be substituted (according to Bergman) by:
ln oD 1 A 0 A 1 ln T 310
A 0 22.33 0.194 API 0.00033 API

A 1 3.20 0.0185 API
Glas
Output Units: cP
Expression:
oD 3.141 1010 T 3.444 log API
10.313logT 36.447
Al-Khafaji
Output Units: cP
Expression:
oD
10 4.9563 0.00488T
API T/30 14.292.709
Dindoruk-Christman
Required input: T (oF), API, Pb (psia), Rsb (scf/STB)
Output Units: cP
Expression:
oD
a 3 T a (log API ) A
4
a 5 Pb a 7 R sb
A a 1 logT a 2
a6
a8
Coefficient
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
Value
14.505357625
-44.868655416
9.36579E+09
-4.194017808
-3.1461171E-9
1.517652716
0.010433654
-0.000776880
Saturated Oil Viscosity

Standing
Required input: Rs (scf/STB), oD (cp)
Output Units: cP
Expression:
o A 1 oD
A2
A 1 10 7.410 R 2.210 R
4
A2
0.68
2
s
0.25
0.062
10 8.6210 R 10 1.110 R 10 3.7410 R

5

Beggs-Robinson
Output Units: cP
Expression:
o A 1 oD
A2
A 1 10.715R s 100
0.515
A 2 5.44R s 150
0.338

Bergman
Output Units: cP
Expression:
o A 1 oD 2
lnA 1 4.768 0.8359lnR s 300
A
A 2 0.555
133.5
R s 300

Aziz et al.
Output Units: cP
Expression:
o A 1 oD
A2
0.43 0.57 10
A 1 0.20 0.80 10 0.00081R s

A2
0.00072R s

Al-Khafaji
Output Units: cP
Expression:
o A 1 oD
A2
A 1 0.247 0.2824A 0 0.5657A 0 0.4065A 0 0.0631A 0

2
A 2 0.894 0.0546A 0 0.07667A 0 0.0736A 0 0.01008A 0

A 0 log(R S )
2

Dindoruk-Christman
Output Units: cP
Expression:
o A 1 oD
A2
a4
A1
a 3R s
a1
exp(a 2 R s ) exp(a 5 R s )
A2
a6
a8Rs
exp(a 7 R s ) exp(a 10 R s )
a9
Coefficient
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
a10
Value
1
4.740729E-04
-1.023451E-02
6.600358E-01
1.075080E-03
1
-2.191172E-05
-1.660981E-02
4.233179E-01
-2.273945E-04
Gas Formation Volume Factor

Calculation of Bg
Required input: T (oR), P (psia), Tsc (oR), Psc (psia), Z
Output Units: ft3/scf
Expression:
Bg
Psc T
Z
Tsc P
Calculation of Z
Required input: T (oR), Tpc (oR), P (psia), Ppc (psia)
Output Units: Dimensionless
Expression:
0.06125p pr texp 1.21 t
where
t 1/Tpr Tpc /T
p pr P/Ppc
y (the reduced density) is obtained by solving
0.06125p pr texp 1.21 t
90.7t 242.2t
y y2 y3 y4
1 y 3
14.76t 9.76t 2 4.58t 3 y 2
42.4t 3 y 2.18 2.82t 0
Through a Newton-Raphson scheme

df old
y new y old f old /
dy
Where f is the function above and df/dy is
df 1 4y 4y 2 4y 3 y 4
29.52t 19.52t 2 9.16t 3 y

dy
1 y 4
2.18 2.82t 90.7t 242.2t 2 42.4t 3 y 1.18 2.82t
Use as an initial estimate y = 0.001 and as a convergence criteria f(y) 1x10 8
Calculation of Tpc and Ppc
Sutton
Required input: g
Output Units: Tpc (oR) and Ppc (psia)
Expression:
Tpc 169.2 349.5 g 74.0 g2

Ppc 756.8 131 g 3.6 g2
Gas Viscosity
Dempsey
Required input: P (psia), T (oF), g
Output Units: cP
Expression:
g g , T
Tpr
ln Tpr f Tpr , Ppr
ln Tpr f Tpr , Ppr a 0 a 1 Ppr a 2 Ppr2 a 3 Ppr3 Tpr a 4 a 5 Ppr a 6 Ppr2 a 7 Ppr3
T a 8 a 9 Ppr a 10 P a 11 P
2
pr
2
pr
3
pr
T a
3
pr
12
a 13 Ppr a 14 P a 15 P
2
pr
3
pr
g g , T b 0 b 1 T b 2 T b 3 M g b 4 TM g b 5 T M g b 6 M g b 7 TM g b 8 T 2 M g
2
The molecular weight and reduced properties can be obtained from
M g 28.97 g
Tpr
T 460
175.59 307.97 g
Ppr
P
700.55 47.44 g
Coefficient
Value
a0
a1
a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
a9
a10
a11
a12
a13
a14
a15
-2.46211820
2.97054714
-2.86264054e-1
8.05420533e-3
2.80860949
-3.49803305
3.60373020e-1
-1.04432413e-2
-7.93385684e-1
1.39643306
-1.49144925e-1
4.41015512e-3
8.39387178e-2
-1.86408848e-1
2.03367881e-2
-6.09579263e-4
Coefficient
b0
b1
b2
b3
b4
b5
b6
b7
b8
Value
1.11231913e-2
1.67726604e-5
2.11360496e-9
-1.09485050e-4
-6.40316395e-8
-8.99374533e-11
4.57735189e-7
2.12903390e-10
3.97732249e-13
Note: the correlation is valid only in the range 1.2
Tpr 3 and 1 Ppr 20
Lee-Gonzalez
Required input:
g (g/cm3), T (oR), Mg
Output Units: cP
Expression:
g A 1 10 4 exp A 2 Ag
where
A1
9.379 0.01607M T
1.5
209.2 19.26M g T
A 2 3.448 986.6/T 0.01009M g
A 3 2.447 0.2224A 2
The gas molecular weight Mg can be calculated from
M g 28.97 g
Additionally, the gas density g can be calculated from
MgP
ZRT
Where P is in psia, T is in oR, R = 10.732 (psia * ft3 / lb mole * oR) and
g is in lbm/ft3
Lucas
Required input: T (oR), Tpc (oR), P (psia), Ppc (psia), Mg
Output Units: cP
Expression:
g
gsc
A 1 p 1.3088
pr
A 2 p Apr 1 A 3 p Apr
5
1.245 10 exp5.1726T
3
A1
0.3286
pr
Tpr
A 2 A 1 1.6553Tpr 1.2723
A3
A4
37.7332
pr
0.4489exp 3.0578T
Tpr
1.7368exp 2.2310Tpr7.6351
Tpr
A 5 0.9425exp 0.1853Tpr0.4489
gsc 0.807Tpr0.618 0.357exp 0.449Tpr 0.340exp 4.058Tpr 0.018

Tpc
9490
M 3p 4
g pc
1/6
The gas molecular weight Mg can be calculated from
M g 28.97 g
The Tpc and Ppc can be calculated from the Sutton correlations for pseudo-critical properties.
Note: the correlation is valid only in the range 1
Tpr 40 and 0 Ppr 100
Nomenclature
Bg
Gas formation volume factor
Bo
Oil formation volume factor
B ob
Oil formation volume factor at the bubble point
Mo
Stock-tank oil molecular weight
Mg
Gas molecular weight
Solution gas oil ratio
Temperature
Tpc
Pseudo critical temperature
Tpr
Pseudo reduced temperature
Pressure
Pb
Bubblepoint pressure
Ppc
Pseudo critical pressure
p pr
Pseudo reduced pressure
Z factor
API
Oil API gravity
Gas specific gravity
Oil gravity
Gas density
Gas viscosity
Oil Viscosity
oD
Dead oil viscosity
References
Dempsey, J.R.: Computer Routine Treats Gas Viscosity as a Variable, Oil & Gas Journbal, August 1965, pp. 141143.
Dindoruk, B. and Christman, P.G.: PVT Properties and Viscosity Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Oils, SPE paper
71633 presented at the SPE ATCE, New Orleans, September 30 October 3, 2001.
Society of Petroleum Engineers: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Richardson, Texas.
Whitson, C.H. and Brule, M.: Phase Behavior, SPE Monograph Volume 20, Richardson, Texas, 2000.
Allocation
Allocation
The PVTsim Allocation Module allocates the gas, oil and water production from a process plant to the different
producers feeding the plant. The module in other words determines the volumetric contributions from each feed to
the product streams.
The required input is
Molar composition of each feed stream.

Total volumetric flow rate (gas+oil+water) of each feed stream at given P&T (often flow meter conditions).
Process plant (separator) configuration.
The below figure shows schematically how the process plant is simulated. The number of separator stages may vary
from 1 (single stage flash) to 6.
Reference Condtions
Gas Production
Feed
Oil
Oil
Oil Production
Water
Water Production
Allocation 173
The allocation principle (Pedersen, 2005) is shown below for two hydrocarbon feed streams with no water.
Component i is followed from feed to product streams.
y ik
y ivap
z ifeed
z ik
1
x iliq
x ik
Yellow color is used for component i in the upper (and largest) feed stream, in which component i is present in low
concentration. In the two remaining streams component i is the most abundant component and its concentration
illustrated using red and green colors. Component i could be methane and the upper feed stream could be a stabilized
oil and the two lower feed streams could be a volatile oil and a gas condensate.
The feed compositions are first characterized to the same pseudo-components using the same principles as in the
same pseudo-components option. Each fluid composition influences the pseudo-component properties with a weight
proportional to its mass flow rate.
In the Allocation Module the volumetric flow rates are converted to molar flow rates, and the molar feed
composition, z iFeed , to the process plant determined through
M
Feed
i
n k z i
k 1
i 1,2,..., N
n Feed
where n k is the molar flow rate of the kth feed stream and n Feed n k the total molar flow rate fed to the plant. N
k 1
k
i
is the number of components, and z is the mole fraction of component i in the kth feed stream.
The Allocation module assumes complete mixing in the process plant, meaning that
z ik
z iFeed
y ik
y iGas
x ik
x iOil
w ik
w iAqueous
where y iGas , x Oil

and w iAqueous are the mole fractions of component i in the export gas, oil and water streams. y ik , x ik
i
and w ik are the mole fractions of component i originating from the kth feed stream in the export gas, oil and water
streams.
If the terms g, o, and w are used for the gas, oil and water mole fractions of the total product, the total molar gas
production of component i originating from stream k may be determined to
n iGas, k y ik n k g
Allocation 174
and the total volumetric gas production from feed stream k becomes
~ Gas
N
Gas, n y k Vi
V
k
k g
i
i 1
V Gas
~
where ViGas is the partial molar volume of component i in the product gas phase and Vgas the molar volume of the
produced gas. Similarly the volumetric oil and water production originating from feed stream k become
~ Oil
N
Oil n x k Vi
V
k
k o
i
i 1
V Oil
~ Aqueous
N
Aqueous
k Vi
Vk
n k w w i Aqueous
i1
V
~
~
where ViOil and ViAqueous are the partial molar volume of component i in the produced oil and water phases and Voil
and VAqueous the molar volume of the produced oil and water.
References
Pedersen, K.S., PVT Software Applied With Multiphase Meters for Oil & Gas Allocation, Presented at the Flow
2005: Modelling, Metering and Allocation conference, Aberdeen, March 1415, 2005.
Allocation 175

Pvts Im Method

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pvts Im Method

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Method Documentation

Pure Component Database

Pure Component Database......................................................................................................... 8

PVTsim Method Documentation

Plus Molecular Weight (separator)............................................................................ 26

Flash Algorithms ..................................................................................................................... 27

Phase Envelope and Saturation Point Calculation

Phase Envelope and Saturation Point Calculation ................................................................... 36

Equations of State .................................................................................................................... 39

Characterization of Heavy Hydrocarbons

Characterization of Heavy Hydrocarbons................................................................................ 48

Thermal and Volumetric Properties

Thermal and Volumetric Properties......................................................................................... 56

PVTsim Method Documentation

Compositional Variation due to Gravity

Compositional Variation due to Gravity.................................................................................. 82

Regression to Experimental Data

Regression to Experimental Data............................................................................................. 86

Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculations

Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculations............................................................................ 91

Modeling of Hydrate Formation

PVTsim Method Documentation

Hydrate P/T Flash Calculations............................................................................... 101

Modeling of Wax Formation

Modeling of Wax Formation ................................................................................................. 105

H2S Simulations..................................................................................................................... 115

Water Phase Properties

Water Phase Properties .......................................................................................................... 117

Modeling of Scale Formation

Modeling of Scale Formation ................................................................................................ 135

Wax Deposition Module

Modeling of wax deposition .................................................................................................. 147

PVTsim Method Documentation

Outside Film Heat Transfer Coefficient .................................................................. 150

Clean for Mud

Clean for Mud........................................................................................................................ 157

Black Oil Correlations

Black Oil Correlations ........................................................................................................... 159

Allocation .............................................................................................................................. 173

PVTsim Method Documentation

PVTsim Method Documentation

Pure Component Database

Pure Component Database

PVTsim Method Documentation

Pure Component Database 8

PVTsim Method Documentation

Pure Component Database 9

Name (short, systematic, and formula)

PVTsim Method Documentation

Pure Component Database 10

Critical temperature (Tc)

Normal boiling point (Tb)

Component properties needed

Ideal gas CP coefficients, Peneloux parameter*1)

Ideal gas CP coefficients, Peneloux parameter*1)

PVTsim Method Documentation

Pure Component Database 11

Parachor, Peneloux parameter*1)

Only if an equation of state with Peneloux volume correction is used.

Only if corresponding states viscosity model selected.

Only if LBC viscosity model selected.

User Defined Components

For pseudo-components it is highly recommended also to enter the liquid density.