Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtice

A soft computing approach for the determination of crude oil viscosity:

Light and intermediate crude oil systems
Abdolhossein Hemmati-Sarapardeh a,∗, Babak Aminshahidy a, Amin Pajouhandeh b,
Seyed Hamidreza Yousefi a, Seyed Arman Hosseini-Kaldozakh a
a
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Crude oil viscosity is a key property needed for petroleum engineering analysis such as evaluation of fluid
Received 8 May 2015 flow in porous media, reservoir performance, reservoir simulation, etc. This property is traditionally mea-
Revised 8 July 2015
sured through expensive and time consuming laboratory measurements. In this communication, about 1500
Accepted 10 July 2015
dead oil viscosity data points of light and intermediate crude oil systems from various geological locations
Available online 28 August 2015
have been collected. Afterward, a soft computing approach, namely least square support vector machine
Keywords: (LSSVM), has been utilized to develop two distinct viscosity models for temperatures below and above
Crude oil 313.15 K. The parameters of these models have been optimized using coupled simulated annealing (CSA)
Viscosity optimization tool. The results of this study indicated that the developed models can predict dead oil viscos-
Least square support vector machine ity at all temperatures and oil API gravities with enough accuracy. In addition, statistical and graphical error
Temperature, Oil API gravity analyses illustrated that the proposed CSA-LSSCM models outperform all of pre-existing models. Besides, the
relevancy factor showed that oil API gravity has the greatest effect on dead oil viscosity. Finally, the Leverage
approach demonstrated that the proposed models are statistically valid and acceptable, and only 2% of the
data points may be regarded as the probable outliers.
© 2015 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Moreover, viscosity data at other temperatures for production equip-

Crude oil consumption is projected to increase year after year.
Problems of crude oil consumption in the next decades will revolve
around two main factors consisting of population and the increas-
ing use in developing countries. For this reason, accurate and reliable
oil properties are required. One of these properties is viscosity which
is defined as the internal friction of the fluid to flow [1–4]. Reser-
voir oil viscosity is a key property needed for petroleum engineering
analysis such as evaluation of fluid flow in porous media, reservoir
performance, reservoir simulation, well testing, and design of pro-
duction facilities and transport equipment [5–14]. Crude oil viscosity
is a function of several thermodynamic and physical properties such
as type and the nature of its chemical composition, pressure, bub-
ble point pressure, temperature, oil specific gravity, gas gravity, and
gas solubility [1,2,15,16]. Traditionally, this property is measured ex-
perimentally on subsurface or surface (recombined) samples at the
reservoir temperature and pressure. Laboratory measurements of this
property are always money and time consuming [2,10,11,15,17–20].
∗ sition. Above the bubble point pressure, increasing pressure causes
Corresponding author. Tel.: +989132437785.
E-mail address: aut.hemmati@gmail.com, hossein.hemmati1368@yahoo.com,
aut.hemmati@aut.ac.ir (A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh).
ment and pipelines design, and for planning thermal enhanced oil re-
covery methods is required. Due to these problems, developing pre-
dictive models for estimation of crude oil viscosity have been much
attended.
Several correlations have been proposed to predict crude oil vis-
cosity. These correlations are generally categorized into two classes,
depending on the input variables. The first type refers to black oil type
correlations which use oilfield data, such as oil API gravity, reservoir
temperature, solution gas–oil ratio, saturation pressure, and pressure
to predict oil viscosity. The second type is empirical and/or semi-
empirical correlations which use reservoir fluid composition, nor-
mal boiling point, pour point temperature, critical temperature, mo-
lar mass, and acentric factor of components [1,13,14,19,21,22].
In the past decades, several empirical and semi-empirical correla-
tions have been derived mostly from corresponding state equations
to predict crude oil viscosity. Most of presented correlations were de-
veloped for a given region. Application of these correlations to crude
oils of different sources leads to large errors. This difference is at-
tributed to the difference in the nature of crude oil chemical compo-
an increase in crude oil viscosity. However, below the bubble point,
increasing pressure causes a decrease in oil viscosity. Crude oil has its

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2015.07.017
1876-1070/© 2015 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10

Table 1
The origin and PVT data ranges used in dead oil viscosity models.

Author Source of data T, K API μod , cP

Beggs and Robinson (1975) [27] – 294.2–419.2 16–58 –

Glasø (1980) [28] North Sea 283.1–422.0 20–48 0.60–39
Labedi (1982) [31] Nigeria and Angola 313.1–378.1 25–45.5 0.72–21.15
Kaye (1985) [29] Offshore California 334.8–412.0 7–41 –
Al-Khafaji et al. (1987) [30] – 288.7–422.0 15–51 –
Egbogah and Ng (1990) [9] – 288.1–353.1 5–58 –
Labedi (1992) [32] Libya 310.9–425.4 32–48 0.66–4.79
Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) [33] Worldwide 299.8–433.1 14–59 0.50–586
Petrosky (1995) [34] Gulf of Mexico 318.7–415.3 25–46 0.72–10.25
Bennison (1998) [35] North Sea 277.0–422.0 11–20 6.40–8396
Elsharkawy and Alikhan (1999) [36] Middle East 310.9–422.0 20–48 0.60–33.7
Hossain et al. (2005) [38] Worldwide 273.1–374.8 7–22 12–451
Naseri et al. (2005) [13] Iran 313.7–420.9 17–44 0.75–54
Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. (2013) [5] Iran 283.1–416.5 17–44 0.39–70
This study Worldwide 273.1–533.1 20–50 0.34–1393

highest viscosity value at atmospheric pressure. Thus, based on pres-
sure, these correlations can be classified into three categories: dead
oil (stock tank), saturated (below and at bubble point) and under-
saturated (above bubble point) [1,21,23].
The evaluation of dead oil viscosity is an important step in the de-
sign of various operations. Previous studies have demonstrated that
correlations developed for dead oil viscosity cannot predict dead oil
viscosity with enough accuracy. Moreover, dead oil viscosity is the
input parameter for saturated oil viscosity correlations; therefore, in-
accurate estimation of dead oil viscosity leads to inaccurate predic-
tion of saturated oil viscosity as well as under-saturated oil viscos-
ity. Hence, seeking for a more accurate dead oil viscosity model is
important.
Literature search and review have shown that most of dead oil
viscosity correlations use oil API gravity and temperature for viscos-
ity prediction, while some of authors correlated viscosity to molar
mass, normal boiling point, critical temperature, and acentric fac-
tor [24,25]. The most popular empirical models which are used in
petroleum engineering calculations for predicting dead oil viscos-
ity are those ones developed by Beal [26], Beggs and Robinson [27],
Glasø [28], Kaye [29], Al-Khafaji et al. [30], Egbogah and Ng [9], Labedi
[31,32], Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt [33], Petrosky [34], Bennison [35],
Elsharkawy and Alikhan [36], Bergman [37], Hossain et al. [38], Naseri
et al. [13] and Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. [5]. The ranges and ori-
gin of data used by these authors to develop their correlations are
listed in Table 1. These models can be categorized into two sections:
1—models developed for heavy and extra heavy crude oil systems
(API < 20) 2—models developed for intermediate and light crude oil
systems (API ≥ 20). Bennison [35] and Hossain et al. [38] correla-
tions are identified for the first group. In 1998, Bennison used viscos-
ity data to derive a new dead oil viscosity correlation [35]. In 2005,
Hossain proposed an empirical correlation for dead oil, which is ap-
plicable for the heavy oils with API gravity ranging from 10 to 22.3
[38]. Beggs and Robinson [27], Glasø [28], Labedi [31,32], Petrosky
[34], Elsharkawy and Alikhan [36], Naseri et al. [13], and Hemmati-
Sarapardeh et al. [5] correlations have been proposed to predict the
viscosity of intermediate and light crude oils. In 1975, Beggs and
Robinson published a correlation for prediction of dead oil viscosity.
The correlation developed based on analyzing 460 dead oil viscosity
measurements [27]. In 1980, Glasø presented another correlation for
predicting dead oil viscosity. Glasø used the data from six North Sea
oil samples [28]. In 1982, Labedi derived a correlation for the viscos-
ity of Nigeria and Angola [31]. In 1992, Labedi published a new cor-
relation for dead oil viscosity of Libya [32]. In 1999, Elsharkawy and
Alikhan developed empirical correlations for estimating dead oil vis-
cosity of Middle East crude oils [36]. In 2005, Naseri et al. proposed
a correlation for prediction of Iranian dead oil viscosity. Naseri’s
correlation is considered to be a function of oil API gravity and
reservoir temperature [13]. Very recently, Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al.
presented a simple correlation for dead oil viscosity using 120 dead
oil viscosity data points [5]. Afterward, Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al.
used the same data bank and developed an intelligent model for pre-
diction of crude oil viscosity [7]. Some of the models including Kaye
[29], Al-Khafaji et al. [30], Egbogah and Ng [9], Kartoatmodjo and
Schmidt [33] can be used to estimate all API range of crude oil (heavy
to light crude oils). In 1985, Kaye derived a correlation for the viscos-
ity of California dead oil [29]. In 1987, Al-Khafaji et al. presented a vis-
cosity correlation for dead oil by modifying Beal correlation [30]. In
1988, Egbogah and Ng developed two different correlations to com-
pute dead oil viscosity. In 1994, Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt modified
Glasø correlation [33].
Most of previously published models have been developed based
on a specific region and cannot be used globally for prediction of dead
oil viscosity, because characteristics of fluids are different in each re-
gion. In addition, most of these correlations have been derived based
on limited data points and limited range of parameters. The main pur-
pose of this study is to propose a universal model for accurate pre-
diction of dead oil viscosity of light and intermediate crude oil sys-
tems (API ≥ 20) as a function of temperature and oil API gravity. It
should be pointed out that heavy and extra-heavy crude oil systems
(API < 20) cannot be modeled using only temperature and API, as
these crude oils contain a large amount of heavy components such as
asphaltenes and resins, which control their rheological behaviors. In
this study, a novel soft computing modeling approach, namely least
square support vector machine (LSSVM), is employed to model dead
oil viscosity of light and intermediate crude oil systems. The param-
eters of the model are optimized using a global optimizer, namely
coupled simulated annealing (CSA). In summary, the following are
the main goals of this study:
1. Providing a large data bank of dead oil viscosity from various geo-
logical locations, covering a wide range of temperature and oil API
gravity.
2. Developing a robust and accurate model for prediction of dead oil
viscosity as a function of temperature and API, using CSA-LSSVM
modeling procedure.
3. Comparing the results obtained by the proposed CSA-LSSVM
model with those obtained by pre-existing correlations through
statistical and graphical error analyses.
4. Checking the validity of the proposed model to see whether the
model can capture the physically expected trends with variation
of input parameters.
5. Investigating the relative effect of each input parameter on dead
oil viscosity by means of relevancy factor.
6. Identifying the probable suspected data and applicability domain
of the applied CSA-LSSVM model.
 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10 3

2. Database set of equations [55,56]. The cost function of the least square support
vector machine (LSSVM) is determined as:
Dead oil viscosity is assumed to be a function of two variables:
1 T 1 
N
reservoir oil gravity (API) and reservoir temperature (T). Cost function = w w+ γ e2k (7)
2 2
μod = f (API, T ) (1) k=1

Subjected to the following constraint:

In this study, almost all experimental dead oil viscosity data,
which are available in open literature sources, have been used yk = wT ϕ( xk ) + b + ek (8)
[5,6,13,14,21,23,28,38–45]. As can be seen, these data are from vari- where γ and ek are tuning parameter in LSSVM method and the vari-
ous geological locations and cover a wide range of temperature and able error, respectively. The Lagrangian for this problem is as follows:
API. These data points include oil API gravity, reservoir temperature,
and dead oil viscosity. The PVT data ranges used in this study are sum-
1  2 
N N
marized in Table 1. 1
L(w, b, e, a) = wT w + γ ek − ak (wT ϕ(xk ) + b + ek − yk )
2 2
k=1 k=1
3. Model development
(9)
Support vector machine (SVM) methodology is a tool for both clas- where ak is Lagrangian multipliers. In order to solve the problem, the
sification and regression analysis [46,47] and recently has been ap- derivatives of Eq. (9) should be equated to zero. Thus, the following
plied in several fields [48–53]. According to SVM primary formula- equations are obtained:
tions, any function f(x) can be written as follows [54]: ⎧
⎪ ∂L N
f (x) = w T
ϕ(x) + b ⎪
⎪ = 0 ⇒ w = a ϕ( x )
(2) ⎪
⎪ ∂w
⎪
⎪
k k
where w and ϕ(x) show the transposed output layer vector and the
T ⎪
⎪ 
k=1
⎪ ∂ L
⎨ =0⇒
N
kernel function, respectively, and b is the bias. x is the input of the ak = 0
model which has a dimension of N × n, where N and n represent the
∂b (10)
⎪
⎪ ∂L
k=1
number of data points and number of input variables, respectively. ⎪
⎪ = 0 ⇒ a = γ ek , k = 1, 2, . . . , N
⎪
⎪ ∂ ek
Vapnik used minimization of the following cost function to calculate ⎪
⎪
k
w and b [54]: ⎪
⎪ ∂L
⎩ = 0 ⇒ wT ϕ(xk ) + b + ek − yk = 0 k = 1, 2, . . . , N
 N ∂ ak
1 T
Cost function = w +c ( ξk − ξk∗ ) (3) where γ is a tuning parameter of LSSVM. As can be found in
2
k=1 Eq. (10), there are 2N + 2 equations and 2N + 2 unknown parameters
Subjected to the below constraints: ( ak , ek , w and b). Therefore, the parameters of LSSVM are achieved
⎧ by solving the system of equations depicted in Eq. (10). In this work,
⎨yk − w ϕ( xk ) − b ≤ ε + ξk , k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N
T
the radial basis function (RBF) Kernel was employed, which is pre-
∗
w ϕ( xk ) + b − yk ≤ ε + ξk ,
T
k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N (4) sented as below:
⎩ ∗
ξk , ξk ≥ 0, k = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N K ( x, xk ) = exp (−|| xk − x || / σ 2 )
2
(11)
where xk , yk and ε are the kth data input, kth data output, and fixed where σ 2 is the other tuning parameter. Hence, in LSSVM with RBF
precision of the function approximation, respectively. ξk and ξk∗ stand kernel function two tuning parameters exist, which can be obtained
for slack variables, which should be used to determine the allowed by minimizing deviation of the experimental data from the predicted
margin of error. c is considered as the tuning parameter of the SVM. values. Normally, minimization of mean square error is considered as
In order to minimize the cost function, the Lagrangian of this problem the objective function to find the tuning parameters of LSSVM model.
should be used as follows [54]: This error is defined as follows:
n
1 
N
( Orep./ pred.i − Oexp .i )2
L ( a, a ) = − ( ak − a∗k )( al − a∗l )K ( xk − xl )
∗ i=1
MSE = (12)
2 n
k,l=1
where O is the output, subscripts rep./pred. and exp. denote the rep-

N 
N
resented/predicted and experimental values, respectively, and n ex-
− ε ( ak − a∗k )+ (
yk ak − a∗k ) (5)
presses the number of data points. In this study, coupled simulated
k=1 k=1
annealing has been used to optimize the parameters of the devel-

N oped LSSVM model. More details about this optimization technique
( ak − a∗k ) = 0, ak , a∗k ∈ [0, c] (5a) can be found elsewhere [57]. A schematic flowchart of the applied
k=1 CSA-LSSVM strategy is demonstrated in Fig. 1.

K ( x k − xl ) = ϕ ( x k ) ϕ ( xl ) , k = 1, 2, . . . , N
T
(5b) 4. Performance evaluation
where αk and αk∗
are Lagrangian multipliers. Consequently, the final
form of the SVM is obtained as follows: Statistical and graphical error analyses can be used to evaluate the
performance of the proposed models.

N
f (x) = ( ak − a∗k )K ( x − xk ) + b (6)
4.1. Statistical error analysis
k,l=1

SVM are usually solved by finding solutions to quadratic program-
ming issues with linear inequality constraints. For this reason, in
1999, Suykens and Vandewalle [55,56] proposed a least square mod-
ification to the original SVM (LSSVM) in order to improve the SVM
method. In LSSVM method, solution is obtained by solving a linear
These statistical parameters are normally used to quantitatively
evaluate the performance of a model: mean percentage error (MPE),
mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean square error
(RMSE), and standard deviation (SD). Formulation of these parame-
ters is given below.
4 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10

Input
data

Random division of data

into training and testing

Implement Coupled Simulated Training Testing

Annealing (CSA) data data

Select model features Employ feature subset

(σ2,γ) (σ 2,γ)

Construct dead oil

No viscosity model

Meet stopping Model evaluation using both

criterion? training and testing data

Yes
Optimum model features Retrain the LSSVM model
(σ 2,γ) obtained using the optimum features

Final LSSVM
model

Fig. 1. A typical flowchart for the applied CSA-LSSVM algorithm in this study.

1. Mean percentage error (MPE). 4.2. Graphical analysis

1
n
Graphical tools can be used to check the accuracy and validity of
Er = Ei (13)
n a model. In this study, error distribution curve and cumulative fre-
i=1
quency plot are used.
where n and Ei are the total number of experimental data and
the relative deviation of an estimated value from the correspond- 1. Error distribution curve: it is a tool to quantify error distribution
ing experimental value (Ei is expressed as percent relative error), around the zero error line to designate if the model has an error
respectively: trend or not.
 2. Cumulative frequency plot: in this technique, the proportion of
(μ)exp . − (μ)est. the data points having absolute percent relative errors below dif-
Ei = × 100 ⇒ i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n (14)
(μ)exp . ferent ascending values is plotted versus the absolute percent rel-
ative error in a cumulative manner for each model on the same
2. Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). figure to facilitate the visual comparison.

1
n
Ea = |Ei | (15) 5. Results and discussion
n
i=1
In this study, viscosity of dead oil is predicted by a robust soft com-
3. Root mean square error (RMSE): puting approach. Selecting appropriate input parameters for model

development is a key factor. Similar to most of previously published
1  2
n
μiexp . − μiest. correlations, temperature and oil API gravity were selected as the
RMSE = (16)
n input parameters of the proposed model. Many attempts were un-
i=1
dertaken to develop a single model for the prediction of all viscos-
4. Standard deviation (SD). ity data; however, the proposed models were not able to satisfac-

2
torily predict dead oil viscosity of all data set. Afterward, the data
1 
n
μiexp . − μiest. bank were divided into two subsections; viscosity data at tempera-
SD = (17) tures below 313.15 K (40 °C) and viscosity data at temperatures above
n−1 μiexp .
i=1 313.15 K (40 °C). Therefore, two distinct models were developed for
 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10 5

Table 2 110
Statistical parameters of the proposed models for the determination of viscosity.

Mean Absolute Percentage Error, %

Statistical parameter 90

Below 313.15 K Above 313.15 K All data

70
Training set
MAPE% 17.92 16.56
50
MPE% –3.57 1.83
RMSE, cP 29.26 8.80
SD 0.24 0.21 30
Number of data 746 451
Test set
10
MAPE% 16.61 16.56
MPE% –1.27 –2.08
RMSE, cP 35.17 8.22
SD 0.23 0.22
Number of data 187 113
Total
MAPE% 17.66 16.38 17.17
MPE% –3.11 –1.30 –2.43
RMSE, cP 30.54 8.35 24.65 Fig. 2. Mean absolute percentage error of the models.
SD 0.24 0.22 0.23
Number of data 933 564 1497
70

temperatures below 313.15 K (Model 1) and above 313.15 K (Model

2). To achieve the most efficient and accurate models, the data points 50

RMSE, cP
in each region were randomly distributed into two subsets as train-
ing and testing sets. In each region, the training set was used to con-
struct the model, to achieve the optimal model structure, and to ed-
30
ucate existing physical rules in the system. The testing set was used
to evaluate the performance of the developed model in terms of ac-
curacy and reliability. 80% of the data points were used for model
development and the remaining 20% were used as testing set. In dis- 10
tribution of data points into training and testing sets, several distribu-
tions were done to escape from local accumulation of the data points
in the feasible region of the problem. It should be noted here that,
933 of the viscosity data points have a temperature below 313.15 K,
while 565 of the data points are for crude oil systems with temper-
atures above 313.15 K. The values of σ 2 and γ for Model 1 (tem-
perature below 313.15 K) were obtained 0.6807 and 4469.1858, re-
Fig. 3. Root mean square error of the models.
spectively. As pointed out earlier, coupled simulated annealing was
used to find the optimal model parameters. For Model 2 (temperature
above 313.15 K), the values of σ 2 and γ were obtained 22.8155 and Table 3
Statistical parameters of the proposed model and previously published correlations
950.1749, respectively. It should be noted that it is not necessary to for the determination of viscosity.
develop a distinct model for higher temperatures (for example, tem-
Author MPE (%) MAPE (%) RMSE, cP SD
peratures higher than 500 K) as viscosity is not strongly affected by
temperature at very high temperatures. Model 1 predicts dead oil vis- Beggs and Robinson –1643.47 1651.05 595573.92 444.13
cosity data with an MAPE of 17.66%, while Models 2 can predict vis- Glasø 99.97 99.97 69.29 1.00
cosity data of dead oils with an MAPE of 16.38 %, which shows that Labedi—Libya 16.08 36.86 61.52 0.61
Labedi—Nigeria and Angola –17.96 41.49 57.82 0.53
Model 2 is slightly more accurate than Model 1. On the other hand,
Egbogah and Ng 17.64 26.42 42.58 0.36
RMSE (cP) obtained by Model 1 (30.54 cP) is much higher than that Kaye 21.08 32.78 543.62 0.55
of Model 2 (8.35 cP). For a given crude oil system, viscosity data at Al-Khafaji 5.18 21.55 54.96 0.29
lower temperatures have very large values compared to those of high Petrosky 25.60 30.38 59.93 0.37
temperatures. As it is known, RMSE (Eq. 16) is strongly affected by Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt 15.12 22.81 48.69 0.29
Bennison 84.80 88.84 40.32 0.91
the values of experimental data and predicted values; therefore, as Elsharkawy –6.93 23.08 321.41 0.40
expected, the value of RMSE (cP) for Model 1 is higher than that of Hossain 85.65 87.68 39.73 0.90
Model 2. The other statistical quality measures of the proposed mod- Naseri 29.13 32.24 55.68 0.38
els are summarized in Table 2. Hemmati-Sarapardeh 31.09 32.95 56.68 0.38
This study –2.43 17.17 24.65 0.23

5.1. Validation of the developed models compared

to pre-existing models
To pursue the objective of this study, performance of the devel-
oped models were compared to pre-existing correlations by means
of statistical and graphical error analyses. Generally speaking, MAPE
and RMSE are the most relevant statistical quality measures. MAPE
of different models have been sketched in Fig. 2, demonstrating that
the proposed models outperform all of pre-existing models. Besides,
it is found that Glasø [28], Hossain [38], and Bennison [35] correla-
tions predict dead oil viscosity with an MAPE more than 80%. Also,
Beggs and Robinson [27] correlation predicts dead oil viscosity with
an MAPE of 1651%, which was not shown in this figure. Fig. 3 illus-
trates RMSE (cP) of different models in predicting viscosity of dead
oils. As can be seen, the CSA-LSSVM models predict dead oil viscosity
with the smallest RMSE (cP), showing their excellent performance.
6 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10

300 300

200 200

Relative Error, %

Relative Error, %
100 100

0 0

-100 -100

-200 Al-Khafaji -200 Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt

-300 -300
20 30 API 40 50 20 30 API 40 50

300 300

200 200
Relative Error, %

Relative Error, %
100 100

0 0

-100 -100

-200 Elsharkawy -200 This study

-300 -300
20 30 API 40 50 20 30 API 40 50

Fig. 4. Error distribution curves of the models.

0.9

0.8

0.7
Cumulative Frequency

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Hemmati-Sarapardeh
Naseri
0.2 Elsharkawy
Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt
0.1 Al-Khafaji
This study
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Absolute Relative Error, %

Fig. 5. Cumulative frequency of data points versus absolute relative error for different models.

The other result obtained in this figure is that Glasø [28], Labedi—
Libya [32], Labedi—Nigeria and Angola [31], Kaye [29], Al-Khafaji [30],
Petrosky [34], Elsharkawy [36], Naseri [13], Hemmati-Sarapardeh [5]
correlations cannot satisfactorily predict dead oil viscosity and pro-
vides RMSEs (cP) more than 50. Also, Beggs and Robinson [27] corre-
lation estimates dead oil viscosity data with an RMSE (cP) more than
595,000, which was not shown in this figure. From Figs. 2 and 3, it is
evident that the proposed models in this study are more robust, re-
liable, and accurate than pre-existing correlations, in terms of MAPE
(%) and RMSE (cP). The other statistical parameters obtained by the
proposed models in this study and pre-existing correlations are re-
ported in Table 3. As illustrated, the proposed models provide the
smallest MPE, MAPE, RMSE, and SD, indicating the better efficiency
of the proposed models over the existing correlations. Care should be
taken that the proposed models in this study are only for interme-
diate and light crude oil systems (i.e., API ≥ 20). This study does not
aim to develop a model for heavy crude oils (API < 20) as viscosity
of heavy and extra heavy crude oils (API < 20) are strongly affected
by heavy components such as resins and asphaltenes, and cannot be
modeled by using only API and temperature. By comparison of MAPE
and MPE, it can be concluded that Beggs and Robinson [27], Labedi—
Nigeria and Angola [31] correlations overestimate dead oil viscosity,
while Glasø [28], Labedi—Libya [32], Egbogah and Ng [9], Kaye [29],
Petrosky [34], Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt [33], Bennison [35], Hos-
sain [38], Naseri [13], Hemmati-Sarapardeh [5] correlations underes-
timate this property.
To graphically compare the performance of CSA-LSSVM models
against the existing correlations, two graphical techniques were em-
ployed. The proposed models in this study were compared to three of
the most accurate correlations in terms of mean absolute percentage
 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10 7

1000
Experimental data at T=294.94 K

Predicted values at T=294.94 K

Experimental data at T=310.46 K

Predicted values at T=310.46 K

100
Viscosity, cP

10

1
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00
Oil API gravity

Fig. 6. Experimental viscosity data and the predicted values by the proposed model (Model 1) at two temperatures below 313.15 K.

100
Experimental data at T=333.15 K

Predicted values at T=333.15 K

Experimental data at T=422.03 K

Predicted values at T=422.03 K

10
Viscosity, cP

0.1
20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00
Oil API gravity

Fig. 7. Experimental viscosity data and the predicted values by the proposed model (Model 2) at two temperatures above 313.15 K.

error, namely Al-Khafaji [30] correlation, Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt
[33] correlation, and Elsharkawy [36] correlation. Error distribution
curves of these models have been plotted in Fig. 4. As can be observed,
the proposed CSA-LSSVM models provide the least scattering around
the zero error line, which reveals the better performance of the pro-
posed models against the existing correlations. Furthermore, five of
the most accurate correlations as well as CSA-LSSVM models were
selected to compare their cumulative frequency plots. Fig. 5 shows
that the proposed models in this study, as the most accurate models,
predict 70% of data points with absolute relative error less than 22%.
Elsharkawy [36] correlation predicts 60% of data points with abso-
lute relative error less than 22%. The proposed models in this study
predict only 6% of data points with absolute relative error more than
50%. Care should be taken that the high errors of the developed mod-
els in predicting viscosity of some crude oils are due to high depen-
dency of oil viscosity on oil nature and source; as already mentioned,
the data points in this study have been collected from variety of
geological and geographical locations. Therefore, it is not possible to
develop very accurate models for these data points as the nature of
crude oils are different.
5.2. Checking the physically expected trends of viscosity
for the developed models
To check the validity of the proposed models against the in-
put parameters of the developed models (temperature and API),
8 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10
Temperature API
-0.13
-0.19
Above 313.15 K
Below 313.15 K
-0.51
-0.64
Fig. 8. Relative effect of each input parameter on viscosity at temperatures below and
above 313.15 K.
experimental viscosity data and predicted values by the proposed
models were sketched in Figs. 6 and 7. Fig. 6 shows the experimental
data and predicted values by Model 1 at two temperatures of 294.94
and 310.46 K. It is clear that, crude oils with lower API (higher den-
sity) have higher viscosity. However, as oil API gravity increases, oil
viscosity decreases exponentially. Moreover, the higher the temper-
ature, the lower the viscosity. These physical rules exist in crude oil
systems and the proposed model can obey these trends. It is worth
noting that the vertical axes in Figs. 6 and 7 are in logarithmic scales;
therefore, in these figures the viscosity decreases linearly as a func-
tion of API. Fig. 7 illustrates the experimental data and predicted val-
ues by Model 2 at temperatures of 333.15 and 422.04 K. As can be
seen, the proposed model can capture the physically expected trends
with variation of temperature and oil API gravity. Besides, the pre-
dicted values by Model 2 are in good agreement with the experimen-
tal data.
5.3. Sensitivity analysis
To quantitatively assess the relative impact of temperature and oil
API gravity on dead oil viscosity by means of the developed models, a
sensitivity analysis was carried out. To this end, the relevancy factor
(r) was employed to evaluate the influence degree of temperature and
API on both of the proposed models (Model 1 and Model 2) [57,58].
9
6
Standardized Residuals
3
-3
-6
-9
0 0.002
Fig. 9. Recognition of the probable outlier data and applicability domain of the developed model for crude oil systems with temperatures below 313.15 K.
The relevancy factor was firstly used by Chen et al. [58] to understand
0.1
the relative effect of their model inputs on the minimum miscibility
0 pressure. Moreover, this factor was also used by other researchers to
-0.1
find the relative impact of the input parameters on their models’ out-
puts [59–62]. The higher the absolute value of r between any input
Relevancy Factor
-0.2 and output, the greater the effect of that input on the output. It is
-0.3 interesting to note that, r value with directionality provides clearer
understanding about the overall impact; therefore, it was used in this
-0.4
study. Using the following formula, the r values are obtained:
-0.5 n
(Inpk,i − Inpk )(μi − μ)
-0.6 r(Inpk , μ) =  i=1
(18)
n 2 n
-0.7 i=1 (Inpk,i − Inpk ) i=1 (μi − μ)2
where μi and μ are the ith value of the predicted dead oil viscos-
ity and the average value of the predicted dead oil viscosities, re-
spectively. Inpk , i and Inpk denote the ith value and the average value
of the kth input variable, respectively (k = temperature and API). In
this study, the relevancy factor was calculated for both of the models
(Model 1 and Model 2). The relative effect of each parameter (temper-
ature and API) on the dead oil viscosity is presented in Fig. 8. As can
be seen, the effect of both temperature and API are negative, mean-
ing that an increase in temperature/API leads to a decrease in dead
oil viscosity. Furthermore, it was found that, for both of the models,
API has larger effect on dead oil viscosity. In addition, API in Model
2 has a greater effect on the dead oil viscosity than that in Model 1.
Generally speaking, API plays a key role in viscosity behavior of crude
oil systems.
5.4. Applicability domain of the models and outlier detection
In the last part of this study, outlier detection, which is of a
vital importance in developing mathematical models/correlations,
has been conducted. Some methods have been proposed for
outlier detection and identifying the applicability domain of a
model/correlation of which Leverage is known as one of the most
popular ones [63–65]. In this method, residual is defined as the differ-
ence between the experimental data points and their corresponding
values predicted by the model. Afterward, to calculate Hat or Lever-
age indices, the following H matrix should be calculated [63,64]:
H = X (X t X )−1 X t (19)
where X is an N × k matrix in which N is the number of data points
(rows) and k stands for the number of model parameters (columns),
Valid Data
Suspected Data
Out of Leverage
Upper Suspected Limit
Upper Suspected Limit
Leverage Limit
0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
hat
 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10
6
4 Out of Leverage
Standardized Residuals
2 Leverage Limit
-2
-4
-6
0 0.005
Fig. 10. Recognition of the probable outlier data and applicability domain of the developed model for crude oil systems with temperatures above 313.15 K.
and t represents the transpose of matrix X. The diagonal elements of
the H matrix are called hat in the feasible region of the problem.
Williams plot is sketched for graphical presentation of the ap-
plicability domain of the used model and suspected data. In fact,
Williams plot illustrates the correlation of Hat indices and standard-
ized residuals (R). A warning Leverage (H∗ ) is fixed at a value equal
to 3(k + 1)/N, in which N (Model 1: N = 933; Model 2: N = 564) and
k (k = 2 for both models) are the number of data points and vari-
ables, respectively. Thus, H∗ of Model 1 and Model 2 are set to be
0.0096 and 0.0158, respectively. Existence of most of the data points
in the range of 0 ≤ H ≤ H∗ and –3 ≤ R ≤ 3 reveals that both the data
used for the model development and the data predicted by the ap-
plied model are in the applicability domain; and consequently, the
model is statistically valid. Williams plots for Model 1 and Model 2
have been sketched in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. For Model 1, only
11 data points have R > 3 or R < –3, and 4 data points have hat > H∗ .
These data points (1.6% of data points) may be regarded as the prob-
able outlier ones, and are located out of the applicability domain of
Model 1. For Model 2, only 9 data points have R > 3 or R < –3, and 8
data points have hat > H∗ . Therefore, 3% of data points are located out
of the applicability domain of Model 2, and may be regarded as the
probable outliers. In conclusion, both of the models are statistically
acceptable and valid. It is worthwhile to note that data points with
lower values of R and hat are recognized as more reliable ones.
6. Conclusions
In this study, a supervised learning algorithm, namely least square
support vector machine, has been used to develop reliable and accu-
rate models for estimation of dead oil viscosity of light and intermedi-
ate crude oil systems. About 1500 data points from various geological
locations were used to develop these models as a function of temper-
ature and oil API gravity. Two distinct models for crude oil systems
with temperatures lower than 313.15 K and higher than 313.15 K have
been developed. According to the results obtained in this study, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The proposed CSA-LSSVM models estimate crude oil viscosity of
light and intermediate systems with enough accuracy.
2. The statistical and graphical error analyses reveal that the devel-
oped CSA-LSSVM models are more accurate, reliable, and superior
to all of the existing correlations.
3. The CSA-LSSVM models can follow the physically expected trends
with variation of temperature and oil API gravity.
9
Valid Data
Suspected Data
Upper Suspected Limit
Lower Suspected Limit
0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
hat
4. The results demonstrate that both of API and temperature have
negative effects on dead oil viscosity, which means that an in-
crease in API/temperature causes a decrease in viscosity.
5. The relevancy factor indicates that API has the most important
effect on dead oil viscosity.
6. The Leverage approach shows that both of Model 1 and Model 2
are statistically valid and acceptable. In addition, less than 2% of
data points may be regarded as the probable outliers.
References
[1] El-hoshoudy A, Farag A, Ali O, EL-Batanoney M, Desouky S, Ramzi M. New cor-
relations for prediction of viscosity and density of Egyptian oil reservoirs. Fuel
2013;112:277–82.
[2] Ahmed T. Reservoir engineering handbook. Oxford: Gulf Professional Publishing;
2006.
[3] Donnez P. Essentials of reservoir engineering. TECHNIP Ophrys Editions; 2012.
[4] McCain WD. The properties of petroleum fluids. Oklahoma: PennWell Books;
1990.
[5] Hemmati-Sarapardeh A, Khishvand M, Naseri A, Mohammadi AH. Toward reser-
voir oil viscosity correlation. Chem Eng Sci 2013;90:53–68.
[6] Hemmati-Sarapardeh A, Mahmoudi B, Ramazani SA, Mohammadi AH. Experi-
mental measurement and modeling of saturated reservoir oil viscosity. Korean
J Chem Eng 2014;31:1253–64.
[7] Hemmati-Sarapardeh A, Shokrollahi A, Tatar A, Gharagheizi F, Mohammadi AH,
Naseri A. Reservoir oil viscosity determination using a rigorous approach. Fuel
2014;116:39–48.
[8] Zéberg-Mikkelsen CK. Viscosity studies of hydrocarbon fluids at reservoir condi-
tions: modeling and measurements. Ph.D. Thesis 2001.
[9] Egbogah EO, Ng JT. An improved temperature-viscosity correlation for crude oil
systems. J Petrol Sci Eng 1990;4:197–200.
[10] De Ghetto G, Villa M, editors. Reliability analysis on PVT correlations. European
Petroleum Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1994.
[11] Oloso MA, Khoukhi A, Abdulraheem A, Elshafei M, editors. Prediction of crude
oil viscosity and gas/oil ratio curves using recent advances to neural networks.
SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization & Simulation Conference; 2009.
[12] Al-Marhoun MA. Evaluation of empirically derived PVT properties for Middle East
crude oils. J Petrol Sci Eng 2004;42:209–21.
[13] Naseri A, Nikazar M, Mousavi Dehghani S. A correlation approach for prediction
of crude oil viscosities. J Petrol Sci Eng 2005;47:163–74.
[14] Naseri A, Yousefi S, Sanaei A, Gharesheikhlou A. A neural network model and an
updated correlation for estimation of dead crude oil viscosity. Brazil J Petrol Gas
2012;6.
[15] Makinde F, Ako C, Orodu O, Asuquo I. Prediction of crude oil viscosity using feed-
forward back-propagation neural network (FFBPNN). Petrol Coal 2012;54:120–31.
[16] Sattarin M, Modarresi H, Bayat M, Teymori M. New viscosity correlations for dead
crude oils. Petrol Coal 2007;49:33–9.
[17] Ghorbani B, Ziabasharhagh M, Amidpour M. A hybrid artificial neural network
and genetic algorithm for predicting viscosity of Iranian crude oils. J Nat Gas Sci
Eng 2014;18:312–23.
[18] Lashkenari MS, Taghizadeh M, Mehdizadeh B. Viscosity prediction in selected Ira-
nian light oil reservoirs: artificial neural network versus empirical correlations.
Petrol Sci 2013;10:126–33.
10 A. Hemmati-Sarapardeh et al. / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 59 (2016) 1–10
[19] Ahmadloo F, Asghari K, Araghi MM, editors. Heavy oil viscosity prediction us-
ing surface response methodology. Canadian International Petroleum Conference.
Petroleum Society of Canada; 2009.
[20] Isehunwa O, Olamigoke O, Makinde A, editors. A correlation to predict the vis-
cosity of light crude oils. Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
[21] Alomair O, Elsharkawy A, Alkandari H. A viscosity prediction model for
Kuwaiti heavy crude oils at elevated temperatures. J Petrol Sci Eng 2014;120:102–
10.
[22] Abedini R, Abedini A, Yakhfrouzan NE. A new correlation for prediction of under-
saturated crude oil viscosity. Petrol Coal 2010;52:50–5.
[23] Sánchez-Minero F, Sánchez-Reyna G, Ancheyta J, Marroquin G. Comparison of
correlations based on API gravity for predicting viscosity of crude oils. Fuel
2014;138:193–9.
[24] Svrcek W, Mehrotra A. One parameter correlation for bitumen viscosity. Chem
Eng Res Des 1988;66:323–7.
[25] Mehrotra AK. Generalized one-parameter viscosity equation for light and
medium liquid hydrocarbons. Ind Eng Chem Res 1991;30:1367–72.
[26] Beal C. The viscosity of air water natural gas crude oil and its associated gases at
oil field temperatures and pressures. Trans AIME. 1946;165:94–115.
[27] Beggs HD, Robinson J. Estimating the viscosity of crude oil systems. J Petrol Tech-
nol 1975;27(1):140–1 1.
[28] Glasø O. Generalized pressure-volume-temperature correlations. J Petrol Technol
1980;32(05):785–95.
[29] Kaye S. Offshore California viscosity correlations. Aug 1985 TS85000940.
[30] Al-Khafaji A, Abdul-Majeed G, Hassoon S. Viscosity correlation for dead, live and
undersaturated crude oils. J Pet Res 1987;6:1–16.
[31] Labedi RM. PVT correlations of the African crudes. Leadville, Colorado, USA: Col-
orado School of Mines; 1982.
[32] Labedi R. Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of light crudes. J
Petrol Sci Eng 1992;8:221–34.
[33] Kartoatmodjo T, Schmidt Z. Large data bank improves crude physical property
correlations. Oil and Gas J (United States) 1994;4:51–5.
[34] Petrosky G, Farshad F, editors. Viscosity correlations for Gulf of Mexico crude oils.
Production operation symposium; 1995.
[35] Bennison T, editor. Prediction of heavy oil viscosity. Presented at the IBC Heavy
Oil Field Development Conference; 1998.
[36] Elsharkawy A, Alikhan A. Models for predicting the viscosity of Middle East crude
oils. Fuel 1999;78:891–903.
[37] Whitson CH, Brulé MR. Phase behavior: Richardson, Tex.: Henry L. Doherty
Memorial Fund of AIME. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2000.
[38] Hossain MS, Sarica C, Zhang H-Q, Rhyne L, Greenhill K, editors. Assessment and
development of heavy oil viscosity correlations. SPE International Thermal Oper-
ations and Heavy Oil Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2005.
[39] Miadonye A., Singh B., Puttagunta V.R. One-parameter correlation in the estima-
tion of crude oil viscosity. 1992.
[40] Sadeghi MB, Ramazani SAA, Taghikhani V, Ghotbi C. Experimental investigation
of rheological and morphological properties of water in crude oil emulsions sta-
bilized by a lipophilic surfactant. J Dispers Sci Technol 2013;34:356–68.
[41] Degiorgis G, Maturano S, Garay M, Galliano G, Fornes A, editors. Oil mixture
viscosity behavior: use in pipeline design. SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2001.
[42] Everett J, Weinaug CF. Physical properties of eastern Kansas crude oils. Kansas
Geo Surv, Bull 1955:114.
[43] De Ghetto G, Paone F, Villa M, editors. Pressure-volume-temperature correlations
for heavy and extra heavy oils. International heavy oil symposium; 1995.
[44] Croft GD, Patzek TW, editors. The Future of California’s Oil Supply. SPE Western
Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2009.
[45] Al-Maamari RS, Houache O, Abdul-Wahab SA. New correlating parameter for the
viscosity of heavy crude oils. Energy Fuels 2006;20:2586–92.
[46] Kamari A, Gharagheizi F, Bahadori A, Mohammadi AH. Determination of the equi-
librated calcium carbonate (calcite) scaling in aqueous phase using a reliable ap-
proach. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2014;45:1307–13.
[47] Kamari A, Gharagheizi F, Bahadori A, Mohammadi AH, Zendehboudi S. Rigorous
modeling for prediction of barium sulfate (barite) deposition in oilfield brines.
Fluid Phase Equilib 2014;336:117–26.
[48] Q-f DI, Shuai H, DING W-p, Wei G, CHENG Y-c, Feng Y. Application of support
vector machine in drag reduction effect prediction of nano-particles adsorption
method on oil reservoir’s micro-channels. J Hydrodyn, Ser B 2015;27:99–104.
[49] Dong N, Ma M, Huang H, Ma Y, Zheng L, editors. Support Vector machine in crash
prediction at the level of traffic analysis zones: accessing the spatial proximity
effects. Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting; 2015.
[50] Yousefi SH, Azamifard A, Hosseini SA, Shamsoddini MJ, Alizadeh N. Toward a pre-
dictive model for predicting viscosity of natural and hydrocarbon gases. J Nat Gas
Sci Eng 2014;20:147–54.
[51] Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Anisi MH, Alam KA, Petković D. Support vec-
tor regression based prediction of global solar radiation on a horizontal surface.
Energy Convers Manage 2015;91:433–41.
[52] Yan K, Shen W, Mulumba T, Afshari A. ARX model based fault detection and diag-
nosis for chillers using support vector machines. Energy Build 2014;81:287–95.
[53] Zheng B, Myint SW, Thenkabail PS, Aggarwal RM. A support vector machine to
identify irrigated crop types using time-series Landsat NDVI data. Int J Appl Earth
Observ Geoinf 2015;34:103–12.
[54] Suykens JA, Van Gestel T, De Brabanter J, De Moor B, Vandewalle J, Suykens J, et al.
Least squares support vector machines. London: World Scientific; 2002.
[55] Suykens JA, Vandewalle J. Least squares support vector machine classifiers. Neural
Process Lett 1999;9:293–300.
[56] Pelckmans K, Suykens JA, Van Gestel T, De Brabanter J, Lukas L, Hamers B, et al. LS-
SVMlab: a matlab/c toolbox for least squares support vector machines. Belgium:
Tutorial KULeuven-ESAT Leuven; 2002.
[57] Hosseinzadeh M, Hemmati-Sarapardeh A. Toward a predictive model for es-
timating viscosity of ternary mixtures containing ionic liquids. J Mol Liquids
2014;200:340–8.
[58] Chen G, Fu K, Liang Z, Sema T, Li C, Tontiwachwuthikul P, et al. The genetic al-
gorithm based back propagation neural network for MMP prediction in CO2-EOR
process. Fuel 2014;126:202–12.
[59] Kamari A, Arabloo M, Shokrollahi A, Gharagheizi F, Mohammadi AH. Rapid
method to estimate the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) in live reservoir
oil systems during CO2 flooding. Fuel 2015;153:310–19.
[60] Fathinasab M, Ayatollahi S, Hemmati-Sarapardeh A. A rigorous approach to pre-
dict nitrogen-crude oil minimum miscibility pressure of pure and nitrogen mix-
tures. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2015;399:30–9.
[61] Esfahani S, Baselizadeh S, Hemmati-Sarapardeh A. On determination of natural
gas density: least square support vector machine modeling approach. J Nat Gas
Sci Eng 2015;22:348–58.
[62] Mohagheghian E, Zafarian-Rigaki H, Motamedi-Ghahfarrokhi Y, Hemmati-
Sarapardeh A. Using an artificial neural network to predict carbon dioxide com-
pressibility factor at high pressure and temperature. Korean J Chem Eng 2015.
doi:10.1007/s11814-015-0025-y.
[63] Rousseeuw P.J., Leroy A.M. Robust regression and outlier detection: Wiley.com;
2005.
[64] Goodall CR. 13 computation using the QR decomposition. Handbook Stat
1993;9:467–508.
[65] Shateri M, Ghorbani S, Hemmati-Sarapardeh A, Mohammadi AH. Application of
Wilcoxon generalized radial basis function network for prediction of natural gas
compressibility factor. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2015;50:131–41.