A New Computerized Approach To Z-Factor Determination, Kingdom K. Dune, 2012

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/261707648
A NEW COMPUTERIZED APPROACH TO Z-FACTOR DETERMINATION
Article · August 2012
CITATIONS READS
0 467
2 authors, including:
Kingdom Kponanyie Dune

Rivers State University of Science and Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Ezeilo, Fabian.E. and Dune, K. .K. (2017a): “Performance Evaluation of a Water Hyacinth-based Sewage Treatment System,” New Era Research Journal of Education, Human
and Sustainable Development, Vol. 10, no. 2, pp26-34. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kingdom Kponanyie Dune on 19 April 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Transnational Journal of Science and Technology August 2012 edition vol. 2, No.7
A NEW COMPUTERIZED APPROACH TO Z-FACTOR

DETERMINATION
Kingdom K. Dune, Engr.
Oriji, Bright N, Engr.
Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University of Science & Tech., Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Abstract
The compressibility factor of natural gases is a parameter that is used for various engineering
purposes in the petroleum industry. The Standing and Katz correlation, among other methods, is a
widely accepted method of determining z-factor manually from charts for natural gas of either
known or unknown composition. A major setback is that, for computer-based applications, it is not
convenient to obtain z by this means. This paper highlights the limitations of the other direct z-factor
determination methods and then presents a new approach of computing z-factor based on the
Standing and Katz correlation, which eliminates the limitations observed with the other methods. A
set of z-factor equations were developed by regressing data (in different ranges of pseudo-reduced
temperatures and pressures) obtained from the Standing-Katz and Brown et al correlations using a
Visual Basic program. Results obtained from this approach were checked against those from the
other correlations and were found to be more accurate than the other methods, with average absolute
error in z less than 0.1%. A subroutine for calculating z-factor could easily be incorporated into any
window-application program written in MS Excel, MATLAB or visual Basic, using equations
developed in this approach when determining the properties of natural gas, estimating gas reserves,
sizing oil and gas separators, designing gas transmission pipelines, and pressure traverses in pipes
for multiphase flow conditions. A standard z-factor table may also be computed using the set of
equations for all ranges of pseudo-reduced temperatures and pressures.
Key Words: Compressibility, z-factor, correlation, pseudo-pressure, and pseudo-temperature
64
1. Introduction
The z-factor comes into play for various engineering purposes, which include estimation of
gas reserves, design of oil and gas separators, design of pipelines for the transmission of produced
gas, among others.
A number of these tasks or procedures have been developed in such a way that makes it
necessary to employ the services of a computer in order to accomplish them in reasonable time.
Carrying out such tasks by hand would make it lengthy, tedious and as such time consuming. An
example of such tasks or procedures is the determination of pressure traverses in pipes for
multiphase flow conditions.
The Beggs and Brill method of calculating pressure traverses, for instance, is one that
requires the gas compressibility factor. This method, involving about 21 steps, is an iterative one
wherein a pressure drop is obtained at the end of each iteration using, among other data, an initial
assumed pressure drop. If the difference between the initial and calculated pressure drops is
substantial, the iteration is repeated with the calculated pressure drop in each iteration serving as the
assumed pressure drop for the next iteration. This process is continued until the difference between
the assumed and calculated pressure drops is small. Arriving at a value for the final pressure drop
typically requires a number of iterations.
What this means is that the working or operating pressure changes with each successive
iteration making it a necessity to obtain, for each iteration, all data that are pressure dependent one of
which is the gas z-factor. It is quite evident from the foregoing that manually obtaining z from the
chart and entering the value into the computer, for each iteration, is rather inconvenient as it would
undoubtedly slow down the computation process.
Programming such tasks as the Beggs and Brill method (Brown and Beggs, 1977) for
calculating pressure traverses in pipes for multiphase flow conditions cut down on the amount of
time required for the calculation. Such reduction in computation time could be increased if a means
was devised to incorporate the determination of gas compressibility factor into the program thus
eliminating the need to manually obtain it from the chart for successive iterations. How can this be
accomplished?
This paper reviews existing literature and presents a new approach for determining z-factor
for computer-based applications. Three other correlationsthat can be programmed for
useconsidered in this paper are those of Hall and Yarborough, Beggs and Brill, and Drankchuk
65
and Abou-Kassem. The limitations that make them unfit for use for engineering purposes requiring
precision are highlighted.
2. Background
There are various correlations available for the calculation of gas compressibility factors.
Using these correlations or equations of state (EOS), one can program the computer to solve directly
for z. The correlations or equations of state considered for such purpose are Standing & Katz (1959),
Hall and Yarborough, Beggs and Brill, and Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem.
Standing and Katz Correlation

Since z is a function of the gas pseudo-reduced temperature (Tpr) and pressure (Ppr), it is
necessary to first determine the pseudo-critical temperature (Tpc) and pressure (Ppc) of the gas and
subsequently use these to obtain the pseudo-reduced temperature (Tpr) and pressure (Ppr).
For natural gas of known composition, the pseudo-critical pressure and temperature can be
determined from Kay's mixing rule (Bradley, 1987) which gives these properties as:
Ppc =  yi Pci (1)
Tpc =  yi Tci (2)
Where Ppc = pseudo-critical pressure of gas mixture, Tpc = pseudo-critical temperature of gas
mixture, Pci = critical pressure of component i in the gas mixture, Tci = critical temperature of
component i in the gas mixture, and yi = mole fraction of component i in the gas mixture
For a gas whose complete analysis is not known, a correlation developed by Brown et al can be used.
This correlation, presented in graphical form, relates the pseudo critical temperatures and pressures
of naturally occurring systems with their specific gravities (Katz et al, 1959). Having determined the
Tpr and Ppr, z may be obtained from either the Standing-Katz (Fig. 2) or the Brown et al chart (Fig. 3)
Hall-Yarborough Equation
The equation given by Hall and Yarborough (Ikoku, 1984) is given below:
0.06125Pprte 1.21t 
2
z (3)
y
66
where t = Tc / T, and y = the reduced density which is obtained as the solution of the equation:
y  y 2  y3  y 4
y  0.06125Pprte 1.2 1 t 2
 
 14.76t  9.76t 2  4.58t 3 y 2 
1  y 3

 90.7t  242.2t 2  42.4t 3 y 2.18 2.82t   0 
This method is designed specifically to fit the Standing-Katz charts. Since the equation contains both
z and M (which is a function of z) the solution is thus arrived at by iteration using the Newton-
Raphson method.
The Beggs and Brill Correlation

The correlation by Beggs and Brill (Golan and Whitson, 1986) for the calculation of z is given
below:
z  A  1  Ae B  CPpr
D
(4)
Where:

A  1.39 Tpr  0.92 0.5
 0.36Tpr  0.101
 0.066    
 
B  0.62  0.23T pr Ppr     0.037 Ppr 2   0.32  Ppr 6
 T pr  0.86   10 T pr  1 
9
 

C  0.132  0.32 log Tpr , and D  10
0.3106  0.49T pr  0.1824T pr 2
The Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem Equation of State

Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem (Lee and Wattenbarger, 1996) developed their equation of state
primarily to estimate the z factor with computer routines. The form of the Dranchuk and Abou-
Kassem EOS is:
     
z  1  c1 Tpr  pr  c2 Tpr  pr  c3 Tpr  pr  c4  pr Tpr
2 5
  (5)
Where pr = 0.27Ppr/(zTpr);   1 3

c1 Tpr  A1  A2Tpr  A3Tpr  A4T4  A5Tpr ;
4 5
 
c2 Tpr  A6  A7Tpr  A8Tpr ;
2
  
c3 Tpr  A9 A7Tpr  A8Tpr
1 2
; and c  4 T
pr pr   A 1  A  
10 11 pr
2
pr
2
Tpr
2

The constants A1 through A11 are as follows: A1 = 0.3265; A2 = -1.07; A3 = -0.5339;
67
A4 = 0.01569; A5 = -0.05165; A6 = 0.5475; A7 = -0.7361; A8 = 0.1844; A9 = 0.1056;
A10 = 0.6134; A11 = 0.721
The Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem EOS must be solved iteratively since the z factor appears
on both sides of the equation. The solution of this equation can be obtained by employing a root
solving technique such as the Newton's method or the secant method.
Oriji (2003) while programming these methods made the following observations:
 The Beggs and Brill method, while being quite accurate for certain ranges, is not applicable
when Tpr < 0.92. In determining the value of the temperature dependent term A, it is necessary to
evaluate the square root of (Tpr – 0.92) which would mean an imaginary root when Tpr < 0.92.
Also, for some values of Tpr and Ppr, the temperature and pressure dependent term B, gets so
large that evaluating eB results in an overflow of values. Negative values for z were sometimes
obtained from the method for some values of Tpr and Ppr
 The Dranchuk and Abou-Kasem method, for the most part, gave good results for z, but the EOS
involves the use of an iterative method such as the Newton's method, necessitating an
assumption before convergence would occur. Once convergence is obtained the final value is
given as the calculated z factor. It was, however, observed that in some instances different initial
or assumed values of z resulted in convergence to different values at the end of the iteration thus
resulting in different final values for z for the same set of Tpr and Ppr values. There were even
cases where using certain initial values for z resulted in a negative value for compressibility
factor. So despite its accuracy, this method for obtaining z factor may not be incorporated into a
design program since it is not possible to predict or determine when such erroneous values may
result.
Therefore, another method was sought that would give values for the gas compressibility factor
without the limitations highlighted above.
3. Theoretical Development
This approach is based on the Standing and Katz method which is generally accepted as the
industry standard and were developed from data collected on methane and natural gases (Bradley,
1987). In addition to the Standing-Katz charts, the charts by Brown et al for low-pressure systems
were also used.
68
The compressibility factor charts are essentially curves with the gas compressibility factor, z,
being a function of the pseudo-reduced pressure Ppr. These curves appear on the charts for various
values of Tpr the pseudo-reduced temperature.
In this method, pseudo-reduced pressure values were selected and regressed with
corresponding z values obtained from the charts to give equations that expressed z as a function of
Ppr. This regression process had to be carried out for each pseudo-reduced temperature value on the
chart.
In a bid to ensure that the regression process gave rise to equations that were as accurate and
reliable as possible, two regression exercises were carried out for each set of values. These two
different exercises were carried out in such a way that they yielded two different equations – one
linear and the other quadratic. Both equations expressed z in terms of Ppr. The equations were of the
form:
z = A(Ppr) + B (6)
z = A(Ppr)2 + B(Ppr) + C (7)
Where A, B, C are constants
These two equations were subsequently tested over a range of Ppr values and the equation
that gave z values that were more in agreement with values obtained from the charts was adopted. In
some cases the linear equation proved more accurate while in others the quadratic was more
accurate. Table 1 shows a sample data and the resultant regression equation.
In many cases, however, it was not possible to obtain an equation that gave accurate results
for the entire range of Ppr values. Thus to ensure that the computer generates accurate values for z, it
was necessary in such cases to divide the range of Ppr values into several sub-ranges and then obtain
equations for these sub-ranges. In these instances also, two equations – one linear and the other
quadratic – were obtained and tested for each of these sub-ranges. The more accurate and reliable
equations were adopted (See Table 2).
There were instances where it was not possible to obtain satisfactory equations that give
accurate z-factor for certain ranges of Ppr values. In these cases, a number of values of Ppr along with
the corresponding z-factor values were selected for interpolation. Using these predetermined values
69
one can obtain accurate z values for this range of Ppr via interpolation. A summary of the equations
derived from the regression processes and by means of which z values may be obtained is found in
Table 3
As was the case for the z-factor, various values of specific gravity were regressed with the
corresponding values of pseudo-critical temperature and pressure respectively setting the specific
gravity as the independent variable. This process yielded two (2) equations of the form:
Xpc = A (g) 2 + B (g) + C (8)
Where Xpc = pseudo-critical constant (temperature or pressure), g = specific gravity of natural gas
and A, B, C are constants
Dune and Oriji (2007) regressed data obtained from the Standing and Katz method and
obtained the following equations:
Tpc = 158.01 + 342.12(g) – 16.04(g)2 (9)
Ppc = 688.634 – 21.983(g) – 13.886(g)2

(10)
4. The Computer Program

Using the equations in Table 3 in conjunction with equations (9) and (10), a Visual Basic
program (Siler and Spotts, 1998), to compute compressibility factor (z), was developed. For a gas of
unknown composition, the program accepts the gas specific gravity as an input parameter and with
this computes the gas pseudo-critical temperature and pressure from equations (9) and (10). If,
however the gas composition is known, equations (1) and (2) are utilised to compute Tpc and Ppc
after the gas composition has been entered as required. With the Tpr and Ppr values, z can be got
using the appropriate equation from Table 3. For those range of Ppr values for which an adequate
equation could not be found, a routine that interpolates between predetermined values of Ppr and z, to
give the required z value, was incorporated into the program.
The interpolation routine was extended to cover the entire process of determining z so that
even if the pseudo-reduced temperature value is not explicitly incorporated into the program, it is
still able to give a value for z. For example, if the input data results in a Tpr value of 1.45 and a Ppr
70
value of 1.2, the program obtains a value for z by determining values for z at Tpr = 1.4 and Tpr = 1.5
when Ppr =1.2 and then interpolating between these values to give the appropriate value for z.
5. Results and Discussion
Results obtained from the computer program were analyzed to ascertain their level of
accuracy. In order to determine the accuracy of the compressibility factor values obtained from this
method, z values obtained from it were compared in Table 4 with those obtained from the
correlations by Hall and Yarborough, Beggs and Brill, Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem and manual
reading of the appropriate compressibility factor charts (Standing and Katz) for several pseudo-
reduced temperature and pressure values.
Table 4: Compressibility Factor, Z, for Various Methods.
Tpr Ppr This Hall- Beggs & Dranchuk & Standing &
Approach Yarborough Brill Abou-Kassem Katzs
0.75 0.048 0.9512 1.0069 N/A 0.9546 0.951*
1.30 0.020 0.9950 0.8840 0.9977 0.9969 0.9967*
1.62 0.065 0.9970 1.0005 0.9959 0.9950 0.9956*
1.20 1.500 0.6740 0.1605 0.6759 0.6532 0.6730*
1.80 0.900 0.9562 1.0036 0.9599 0.9550 0.9700
2.00 1.200 0.9718 1.0041 0.9690 0.9621 0.9700
2.60 13.000 1.2693 1.3987 0.8222 1.2732 1.0500
2.88 6.000 1.0615 1.1436 -0.4410 1.0607 1.0620
1.76 3.500 0.8776 0.9739 0.8727 0.8818 0.8768
1.25 10.200 1.1824 1.0038 N/A 1.1818 1.1825
*Values were obtained from z-factor charts developed by Brown et al (Bradley, 1987; Fig 3)
The extent to which results from this approach and the other methods deviated from those
obtained from the Standing-Katz method for a given Tpr of 1.20 can be seen from Table 5. A plot of
absolute error versus pseudo reduced pressure for the different methods were made (Fig. 1). A look
at Table 5 as well as the plot (Fig. 1) reveals that the results from this approach are actually more
accurate and in harmony with those obtained from the Standing-Katz and Brown et al methods than
those from the other correlations considered.
A measure of the degree of accuracy of the various methods is seen when one considers the
error in computing z-factor from the various methods. These errors are computed with the results
obtained from the Standing-Katz and Brown et al charts serving as the reference. Whereas errors
greater than 1% were obtainable (in some cases) with the 3 correlations considered, the error
71
associated with this approach do not exceed 0.2%. Indeed, the average error associated with this
approach, for the Tpr and Ppr values indicated, is less than 0.1%. This is much better than the
averages of the other correlations which are in excess of 0.5%. Thus utilizing z values from this
approach yields results that are accurate, reliable and acceptable.
Table 5: Absolute Error in z, % Deviation from Standing & Katz for Tpr = 1.20
z-factor Absolute Error in z, %
Ppr Hall- Beg Dranchuk This Standi Hall- Beggs Dranchu This
gs & & ng & k-
Yarboro Appro Yarboro Appro
ugh Brill Abou- ach & ugh Brill Abou- ach
Kasem Katz Kasem
0.0 0.9934 0.99 0.9904` 0.9897 0.9899 0.3536 0.2424 0.0505 0.0202
48 23 *
0.5 0.8934 0.90 0.8951 0.9000 0.900* 0.7333 0.2889 0.5444 0.000
26
0.9 0.7999 0.81 0.8027 0.8160 0.815* 1.8528 0.2822 1.5092 0.1227
27
1.5 0.6576 0.67 0.6532 0.6740 0.673* 2.2883 0.4309 2.9421 0.1486
59
2.5 0.5218 0.49 0.5181 0.5199 0.520 0.3462 4.2692 0.3654 0.0192
78
3.5 0.5618 0.56 0.5632 0.5661 0.567 0.9171 1.1464 0.6702 0.1587
05
6.0 0.7906 0.80 0.7937 0.7897 0.790 0.0759 1.9367 0.4684 0.0380
53
8.0 0.9848 0.99 0.9870 0.9902 0.989 0.4247 0.9707 0.2022 0.1213
86
72
10. 1.1963 1.20 1.1959 1.1952 1.195 0.1088 1.1967 0.0753 0.0167
2 93
13. 1.4602 N/A 1.4550 1.4565 1.458 0.1509 N/A 0.2058 0.1029
0
15. 1.6452 N/A 1.6358 1.6432 1.643 0.1339 N/A 0.4382 0.0122
0
Graph of Error in z-Factor Vs Ppr
4.5
3.75
3
Absolute Error (%)
Hall-Yarborough
Beggs & Brill
2.25
Dranchuk & Abou-Kassem
This Approach
1.5
0.75
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ppr
Average Absolute Error, % 0.6714 1.196 0.6792 0.0691
*Values were obtained from z-factor charts developed by Brown et al4 (Fig 3)
Figure 1: Absolute Error in z, % Deviation from Standing & Katz for Tpr = 1.20
73
6. Conclusion
A comparison of results from this approach with those obtained from other methods shows
that the results from this approach are more reliable and accurate. The method is therefore fit for use
for all computer-based applications that require the gas compressibility factor.
A look at the summary of equations obtained and utilized by this method reveals that the
equationsfor the various ranges of Tpr and Ppr  are numerous. Programming these equations for
use is therefore recommended as the most practical way of using this method.
References:
Bradley, H. B.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE, Richardson, TX, chap. 12, chap 20, 1987.
Brown, K. E. and Beggs, H. D.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods Vol. 1, PennWell Books,
Tulsa, OK, 1977, p 85.
Dune, K. K. & Oriji, B. N.: “Alternative correlation for the computation of critical temperature &
pressure.” Global Journal of Engineering Research, Calabar, vol. 5, no. 1, 2007, pp 69-74,
Golan, M. and Whitson, C. H.: Well Performance, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland,
1986, pp. 17 – 21.
Ikoku, C. U.: Natural Gas Production Engineering, John Wesley and Sons, N.Y., 1984.
Katz, D. L. et al: Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill Books Co., N.Y., 1959.
Lee, J. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: Gas Reservoir Engineering, SPE, Richardson, TX, 1996, pp. 6 – 7.
Oriji, B. N.: Separator Design: A Computerized Approach, B.Tech Thesis, Rivers State University
of Science and Technology, 2003 pp 14 – 20.
Siler, B. and Spotts, J.: Special Edition Using Visual Basic 6, Que, 1998.
Nomenclature
e -Euler's constant  2.7182
74
 -gas specific gravity
M -Molar mass of gas
P -pressure, psia
Pc -critical pressure, psia
Pci -critical pressure of ith component in gas mixture, psia
Ppc -pseudo-critical pressure, psia
Ppr -pseudo-reduced pressure
g -density of gas, lbm/ft3
pr -pseudo-reduced density
T -temperature, oR
Tc -critical temperature, oR
Tci -critical temperature of ith component in gas mixture, oR
Tpc -pseud0-critical temperature, oR
Tpr -pseudo-reduced temperature
yI -mole fraction of ith component in the gas mixture
z -gas compressibility factor
Table 1: Regression Data Obtained From Brown et al z Factor Chart
Tpr = 0.9 0  Ppr  0.07
Selected Ppr Corresponding z

0.010 0.9947
0.020 0.9893
0.035 0.9814
0.050 0.9732
0.060 0.9678
Resultant Equation: z = - 0.537647 (Ppr) + 1.000098
75
Table 2: Regression Data Obtained From Standing-Katz z Factor Chart for Tpr = 2.2
10  Ppr  15 4  Ppr  10
Ppr z Ppr Z
10.5 1.17 5 0.988
12.0 1.238 7 1.045
13.0 1.280 8 1.077
14.0 1.322 9 1.113
15.0 1.361 10 1.156
Resultant equation: Resultant equation:
z = 0.04109 Ppr + 0.745537 z  0.001988Ppr2  0.003488Ppr  0.921786
76
Figure 2: Compressibility Factor Chart of Natural Gases After Standing and Katz 2
Fig 3: Gas Compressibility at Low Reduced Pressures After Brown et al 4
Table 3: Summary of Equations used to evaluate compressibility factor, z
Tpr Range of Ppr Equation for z

0.60 0 ≤ Ppr ≤ 0.016 z  3.527273Ppr  1.000075
0.65 0 ≤ Ppr ≤ 0.036 z  1.9Ppr  1
0.70 0 ≤ Ppr ≤ 0.07 1.3610345Ppr  0.9998172
0.75 0  Ppr  0.07 z  1.017619Ppr  1.000017
0.8 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.815Ppr  0.99994
0.8 0.07 < Ppr  0.27 z  0.641854Ppr  0.611208Ppr  0.929185
2
0.85 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.65923Ppr  0.99995

0.90 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.537647 Ppr  1.000098
0.90 0.07 < Ppr  0.54 Interpolate Using Predetermined
0.95 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.459742Ppr  1.000105
Values
77

1.0 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.3818375Ppr  1.000112
Values
Values
Values
1.0 1.0 < Ppr  1.2 z  2.817158Ppr  6.451697 Ppr  3.892978
2
Values
1.0 1.2 < Ppr  1.6 z  0.131016Ppr  0.215878Ppr  0.27348
2
1.05 0  Ppr  0.8 z  0.083333Ppr  0.291905Ppr  0.997714

2

1.05 1.6 < Ppr  2.0 z  0.15Ppr  0.465Ppr  0.61
2
Values
1.05 2.0 < Ppr < 4.0 z  0.001027 Ppr  0.121228Ppr  0.033131
2
1.05 4.0  Ppr < 7.0 z  0.002286Ppr  0.149143Ppr  0.026571

2
1.05 7  Ppr  15 z  0.000515Ppr  0.116867 Ppr  0.115012

2
1.10 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.275172Ppr  1.000131

1.10 1.6 < Ppr < 2.3 z  0.230864Ppr  0.884788Ppr  1.21503
2
Values
1.10 2.3  Ppr  3.5 z  0.026257 Ppr  0.050591Ppr  0.355425
2
1.10 3.5 < Ppr < 7.0 z  0.0007 Ppr  0.120452 pr  0.086866
2
1.10 7  Ppr  15 z  0.102012Ppr  0.189738

1.2 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.216207 Ppr  1.000147
1.2 1.6 < Ppr < 3.4 Interpolate Using Predetermined
Values
1.2 3.4  Ppr < 5.5 z  0.002686Ppr  0.062909Ppr  0.313023
2
Values
1.2 5.5  Ppr  8.0 z  0.000464Ppr  0.093761Ppr  0.210439
2
1.2 8  Ppr  15 z  0.09333Ppr  0.243254

1.3 0  Ppr  1.6 Interpolate Using Predetermined
1.3 1.6 < Ppr < 3.8 Interpolate Using Predetermined
Values
1.3 3.8  Ppr < 6.0 z  0.010114Ppr  0.026463Ppr  0.59884
2
Values
1.3 6  Ppr  15 z  0.086983Ppr  0.28228
1.40 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.12459Ppr  1.000008
1.40 0.07 < Ppr  1.6 0.009738Ppr  0.121092Ppr  1.000687
2
z  0.03299Ppr  0.221064Ppr  1.0735735

2
1.40 1.6 < Ppr < 4.0
1.40 4.0  Ppr < 6.0 z  0.011371Ppr  0.056954Ppr  0.76088
2
1.40 6  Ppr  15 z  0.077786Ppr  0.361643

1.50 0.0  Ppr  1.6 0.013426Ppr  0.10381Ppr  1.004459
2
1.50 1.6 < Ppr  3.0 z  0.015808Ppr  0.127019Ppr  1.013774

2
78
1.50 3.0 < Ppr < 5.0 z  0.018409Ppr  0.128492Ppr  0.994725

2
1.50 5.0  Ppr < 8.0 z  0.003429Ppr  0.015229Ppr  0.647786

2
1.50 8.0  Ppr  11.5 z  0.071736Ppr  0.404538

1.50 11.5 < Ppr  15 z  0.0711Ppr  0.4254
1.60 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.067933Ppr  1.000132
1.60 0.07 < Ppr  1.6 z  0.008579Ppr  0.074544Ppr  0.999739
2
1.60 1.6 < Ppr  3.6 z  0.012337 Ppr  0.0975Ppr  1.006528

2
1.60 3.6 < Ppr <4.9 z  0.011365Ppr  0.075853Ppr  0.939908

2
1.60 4.9  Ppr <8.0 z  0.002429Ppr  0.020486Ppr  0.682321

2
1.60 8.0  Ppr  15 z  0.000345Ppr  0.059171Ppr  0.505621

2
1.70 0  Ppr  1.6 z  0013197 Ppr  0.06913Ppr  1.006746

2
1.70 1.6 < Ppr < 4.5 z  0.011669Ppr  0.087546Ppr  1.02058

2
1.70 4.5  Ppr < 7.0 z  0.004964Ppr  0.016089Ppr  0.835179

2
1.70 7.0  Ppr  10 z  0.001427 Ppr  0.030492Ppr  0.682271

2
1.70 10 < Ppr  15 z  0.000282Ppr  0.069231Ppr  0.46612

2
1.80 0  Ppr  1.6 z  0.006354Ppr  0.053396Ppr  0.999106

2
1.80 1.60 < Ppr < 4.0 z  0.008273Ppr  0.062679Ppr  1.009321

2
1.80 4.0  Ppr < 7.0 z  0.005333Ppr  0.026152Ppr  0.910257

2
1.80 7  Ppr  11.2 z  0.00205Ppr  0.014764Ppr  0.783503

2
1.80 11.2 < Ppr  15 z  0.000571Ppr  0.073114Ppr  0.454186

2
1.90 0.0  Ppr < 3.0 z  0.005859Ppr  0.045613Ppr  1.0009

2
1.90 3.0  Ppr < 6.0 z  0.008275Ppr  0.057658Ppr  1.015644

2
1.90 6.0  Ppr  10 z  0.001357 Ppr  0.02163Ppr  0.787448

2
1.90 10 < Ppr  15 z  0.0536Ppr  0.6024

2.0 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.031Ppr  1.000065
2.0 0.07 < Ppr  1.6 z  0.00524Ppr  0.030058Ppr  1.000274
2
2.0 1.6 < Ppr < 3.5 z  0.006051Ppr  0.03969Ppr  1.002002

2
2.0 3.5  Ppr < 5.5 z  0.0086Ppr  0.06098Ppr  1.04517

2
2.0 5.5  Ppr < 10.5 z  0.001968Ppr  0.008278Ppr  0.864989

2
2.0 10.5  Ppr  15 z  0.0004999Ppr  0.061723Ppr  0.575096

2
2.2 0.0  Ppr  1.5 z  0.003754Ppr  0.023475Ppr  0.999756

2
2.2 1.5 < Ppr  4.0 z  0.005729Ppr  0.033753Ppr  1.011104

2
2.2 4.0 < Ppr  10.0 z  0.001988Ppr  0.003488Ppr  0.921786

2
2.2 10.0 < Ppr  15 z  0.04109Ppr  0.745537

2.4 0.0  Ppr  1.5 z  0.000906Ppr  0.007386Ppr  0.998156
2
z  0.005246Ppr  0.026683Ppr  1.013352

2
2.4 1.5 < Ppr < 4.0
79
2.4 4.0  Ppr < 9.5 z  0.0013045Ppr  0.009525Ppr  0.931105

2
2.4 9.5  Ppr  15 z  0.000458Ppr  0.048873Ppr  0.7169

2
2.6 0.0  Ppr < 4.0 z  0.002286Ppr  0.007958Ppr  1.001055

2
2.6 4.0  Ppr < 10.0 z  0.001098Ppr  0.010063Ppr  0.949436

2
3.0 0.0  Ppr  3.0 z  0.000699Ppr  0.006209Ppr  0.99927

2
3.0 3.0 < Ppr < 10.0 z  0.001576Ppr  0.0000815Ppr  1.01047

2
3.0 10.0  Ppr  15 z  0.000071Ppr  0.031414Ppr  0.845286

2
80
View publication stats

A New Computerized Approach To Z-Factor Determination, Kingdom K. Dune, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A New Computerized Approach To Z-Factor Determination, Kingdom K. Dune, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A NEW COMPUTERIZED APPROACH TO Z-FACTOR DETERMINATION

Article · August 2012

Kingdom Kponanyie Dune

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A NEW COMPUTERIZED APPROACH TO Z-FACTOR

Kingdom K. Dune, Engr.

Oriji, Bright N, Engr.

Key Words: Compressibility, z-factor, correlation, pseudo-pressure, and pseudo-temperature

Standing and Katz Correlation

Ppc =  yi Pci (1)

Tpc =  yi Tci (2)

The Beggs and Brill Correlation

The Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem Equation of State

Where pr = 0.27Ppr/(zTpr);   1 3

A4 = 0.01569; A5 = -0.05165; A6 = 0.5475; A7 = -0.7361; A8 = 0.1844; A9 = 0.1056;

A10 = 0.6134; A11 = 0.721

z = A(Ppr)2 + B(Ppr) + C (7)

Where A, B, C are constants

Xpc = A (g) 2 + B (g) + C (8)

Tpc = 158.01 + 342.12(g) – 16.04(g)2 (9)

Ppc = 688.634 – 21.983(g) – 13.886(g)2

4. The Computer Program

5. Results and Discussion

Table 4: Compressibility Factor, Z, for Various Methods.

Graph of Error in z-Factor Vs Ppr

Average Absolute Error, % 0.6714 1.196 0.6792 0.0691

e -Euler's constant  2.7182

 -gas specific gravity

M -Molar mass of gas

Pc -critical pressure, psia

Pci -critical pressure of ith component in gas mixture, psia

Ppc -pseudo-critical pressure, psia

Ppr -pseudo-reduced pressure

g -density of gas, lbm/ft3

pr -pseudo-reduced density

Tci -critical temperature of ith component in gas mixture, oR

Tpc -pseud0-critical temperature, oR

Tpr -pseudo-reduced temperature

yI -mole fraction of ith component in the gas mixture

z -gas compressibility factor

Table 1: Regression Data Obtained From Brown et al z Factor Chart

Tpr = 0.9 0  Ppr  0.07

Selected Ppr Corresponding z

10.5 1.17 5 0.988

12.0 1.238 7 1.045

13.0 1.280 8 1.077

14.0 1.322 9 1.113

15.0 1.361 10 1.156

Resultant equation: Resultant equation:

z = 0.04109 Ppr + 0.745537 z  0.001988Ppr2  0.003488Ppr  0.921786

Fig 3: Gas Compressibility at Low Reduced Pressures After Brown et al 4

Table 3: Summary of Equations used to evaluate compressibility factor, z

Tpr Range of Ppr Equation for z

0.85 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.65923Ppr  0.99995

0.95 0.07 < Ppr  0.72 Interpolate Using Predetermined

1.05 0  Ppr  0.8 z  0.083333Ppr  0.291905Ppr  0.997714

1.05 0.8 < Ppr  1.6 Interpolate Using Predetermined

1.05 4.0  Ppr < 7.0 z  0.002286Ppr  0.149143Ppr  0.026571

1.05 7  Ppr  15 z  0.000515Ppr  0.116867 Ppr  0.115012

1.10 0  Ppr  0.07 z  0.275172Ppr  1.000131

1.10 7  Ppr  15 z  0.102012Ppr  0.189738

1.2 8  Ppr  15 z  0.09333Ppr  0.243254