~ society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 51086

CORRELATION OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES FOR RESERVOIR OILS--A

COMPARATIVE STUDY
W. D. McCain Jr., R. B. Soto, P.P. Valko, and T. A. Blasingame

Copyrkght1998, Society of Petre!eurrr*EnglneeraInc.

The resuIts, using a variety of techniques (and models),
This paper was prepared for pressmtatfonat the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and establish a clear bound on the accuracy of bubblepoint pressure
Exhibition held in Pittsburgh, PA, 8-11 November 198S.
coyelations. Thus, we have a validation of error bounds on
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Pregram Comminee followicg review of bubblepoint pressure correlations.
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contente of the paper, as
presentad, have not bean reviewad by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, ae presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officere, or members. Papers presentad at SPE Introduction
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Enginaers. Electronic reproduction, distrikwtion, or storage of any part of this paper for Correlations of the bubblepoint pressures of reservoir oil
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 commonly use reservoir temperature, stock tank oil gravity,
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must centain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper was presentad. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Sox S33S38, separator gas specific gravity, and solution gas/oil ratio at the
Richardson, TX 75083-3S36, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. bubblepoint as independent variables. These are the only data
commonly available from field observations.
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analyses of the correlation
None of the currently proposed correlations for bubblepoint
of bubble-point pressures for reservoir oils using:
pressure am particularly accurate.
Knowledge of bubblepoint pressure is one of the important 1-3
1. Standing-type models fitted using non-linear
factors in the primary and subsequent developments of an oil
field. Bubblepoint pressure is required for material balance regression.
4,5
calculations, analysis of well performance, reservoir simulation, 2. Non-parametric regression. This approach yields a
and production engineering calculations. “non-parametric” (point-to-point) regression of the
In addition, bubblepoint pressure is an ingredient, either data, but can also be adapted to provide functional
directly or indirectly, in every oil properly correlation. Thus an approximations for the transforms of the individual
error in bubblepoint pressure will cause errors in estimates of all variables.
oil properties. These will propagate additional errors throughout 3. Neural network modeling.
all reservoir and production engineering calculations. A data set consisting of data from 728 laborato~ reservoir
Bubblepoint pressure correlations use data which are fluid studies (PVT studies) was used to create these three
typically available in the field initial ploducing gas-oil ratio, models for prediction of reservoir bubblepoint pressure. The
separator gas specific gravity, stock-tank oil gravity, and ranges of data in this data set maybe found in Table 1.
reservoir temperature. The lack of accuracy of current
bubblepoint pressure correlations seems to be due to an Standing-Type Models:
inadequate description of the process – in short, one or more
A Standing-type model was used to correlate this database. In
relevant variables are missing in these correlations.
We considered three independent means for developing particular,’ we present the work of Velarde,3 where the
bubblepoint pressure correlations. These are (1) non-linear modification of Standing’s model given by Petrosky2 was used.
regression of a model (traditional approach), (2) neural network This modified Standing-type relation is given by
models, and (3) non-parametric regression (a statistical
approach which constructs the functional relationship between
dependent and independent variabies, without bias towards a
Pb ‘al k ;; y~ 10x – ab
r
5

...................................... (1)
particular model). where,

X=(%
T”7)-L3
‘4PI”’)
........................................... (2)

267
 2 W. D. MCCAIN JR., R. B. SOTO, P. P. VALKO, AND T. A. BLASINGAME
This model was fitted to the data set with non-linear
regression, the following result was obtained:
&161488 ~@ . ().74()152
Pb = 1091.47 [R$O*1465
.........................................................................................(3)
where,
.X= (0.013098 T02!23.72)– $.2 x 10-6 AFY2”176124).(4)
The Velarde relation (Eqs. 3 and 4) reproduced the
bubblepoint pressures from the data set used in its creation to an
average error of 0.6% and an average absolute error of 11.50A.
Fig. 1 is a comparison of bubbiepoint pressures predicted by the
Velarde relation with the experimental data.
Non-Parametric Regression: (GRACE algorithm4’5)
Parametric regression--that is, regression where a prescribed
model is fitted to data, is a robust and effective mechanism for
representing a data function. However, it provides little insight
into the interrelation of the independent variables, nor does it
provide a “global” minimum expected error of the dependent
and independent variables.
The non-parametric regression approach proposed by
Breiman and Friedman,4 and refined by Xue, et al,5 provides
exactly such a “non-biased” mechanism for the purpose of
establishing the minimum error relationship between the
dependent - and independent variables. -The method of
Alternating Conditional Expectations (ACE)4 is based on the
concept of developing an optimal transformation of each
variable--both the dependent variable, as well as the
independent variable(s).
The ACE approach finds individual transformations of the
independent variables (xIJ2,.. .,xn) which are of the form:
-zI =fl (q] z?- = fz (X2), . .Zn = fn (an) ......................
In addition, the ACE approach also finds a transformation
for the dependent variable, y, of the form
20 =fo (y) .....................................................................(6)
The development of these data transforms uses an intuitively
straightforward requirement--maximize the correlation of the
transformed dependent variabie zo with the transformed
independent variables 21,22,...,zn. The most important aspect of
the ACE4 (or GRACE5) algorithm is that the data
transformations are constructed pointwise, rather than
functional--therefore there is no need to associate a specific
algebraic form with the individual data transformations.
The application of the trivial restrictions of zero mean and
unit variance for the individual transformations results in
essentially unique solutions. A final requirement is a
SPE 51086
“smoothness” for the individual transformations. Although this
operation is somewhat hidden in the algorithms (where a “data
5.354891
smoother” code is used), we believe that the ACE algorithm (as
. well as the slightly different GRACE algorithm) does in fact
i
provide a unique and robust minimization of the expected error-
-in a non-parametric sense.
The procedure for this approach is given by
1. Calculate the data transforms:
Z1 = fl(xl), 22 = fz(x~, .... Zn = fn(x~ and zo = fo(y).
2. Calculate the transform sum z~ = z] + Z2 + . . . + Zn.
3. Calculate the inverse transform: y = f~l (zo).
While the ACE and GRACE algorithms do provide a non-
parametric optimization of the dependent and independent
variables, this approach does not provide a computation (i.e.,
predictive) model. Figs. 2 through 5 show the optimal
transformations of the individual data for the four independent
variables. The optimal transform of the data for the dependent
variable, bubblepoint pressure, is given in Fig. 6. This “non-
parametric” regression results in a reasonable match of
calculated and measured bubblepoint pressures. Fig, 7 shows
this comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint
pressures for the non-parametric optimization.
The ACE and GRACE algorithms do not provide a
predictive model, i.e., they do not result in equations. However
simple quadratic polynomials can be fitted to the optimal data
tmnsforms, resulting in:
Z~ =1.2206 – 1.8029 X 10-2 (MY)-3.8682 X 10q (API)2 ......
......................................................................................... (7)
22 =3.8649- 6.5080 (yg )+ 1.9670x (yg~ .................. (8)
Z3 = -7.7161 + 2.3604 ~n (T,,,)]- 1.6678x 10-1 [h (T,e,)~ ..
......................................................................................... (9)
24 = –1.0056x l(!l + 1.6664 [in (R.b )]
.......................(10)
-1.7682 X 10-2 [In (R~b)]2
The inverse transform is defined as:
ZO=ZI+Z2+Z3 +Z4 ...................................................(n)
And the inverse transform, in terms of In@b), is given by
in (pb )= 7.8421 + 4.9506 x 10-1 [h (20 )]
..................(12)
-2.5726 x 10-3 ~n (z. )~
The application of these quadratic polynomials to the
optimal transforms determined by non-parametric regression
does not seriously degrade the quality of the fit to the
bubblepoint pressures. Eqs. 7 through 12 reproduce the
bubblepoint pressures in the data set to an average error of 3.1
percent and an average absolute error of 11.8 percerit. Fig. 8
gives a comparison of bubblepoint pressures calculated with
268
SPE 51086 CORRELATION OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES FOR RESERVOIR OILS--A COMPARATIVE STUDY
equations 7 through 12 with the measured bubblepoint
pressures.
Note that it is not necessary to fit the optimal data transforms
with quadratic polynomials -- equations of any fictional form
may be used. However, in this case these simple functions are
adequate.
Neural Network Modeling:
MatlabTMwas used to build an “intelligent” software packageh
for data characterization. The software has three integrated
modules: a) a preprocessing module for multivariate statistical
analysis; b) a neural network module; in this case the
backpropagation algorithm with the Levenberg-Marquardt
procedure as an optimization method for convergence, and c) a
post-training analysis module for evaluation of the performance
of the trained network by calculation of the errors for the
training, validation, and testing data sets.
The 728-sample data set was divided into three subsets for
training, validation and testing. Half the data was used for the
training subset and one-quarter each for the validation and
testing subsets. The training and validation data subsets are
used iteratively to develop the neural network model. The
model is “trained” with the training data and the validation data
are used to determine when the “training” is optimal. The
quality of model is then tested with the testing data subset.
The final neural network model has four input nodes and the
two hidden layers with 5 and 5 nodes respectively. A complete
description of the trained neural network model is given in
Table 2.
The neural network model showed very good performance
for prediction of bubblepoint pressure. The bubblepoint
pressures predicted by the trained model agreed with the 728
sample data set to within 0.3 percent average error and 6.0
percent average absolute error. The comparison of calculated
and measured bubblepoint pressures is in Fig. 9.
After the neural network was “trained,” the weight and bias
vectors were incorporated into Fortran-90 and Visual Basic
interfaces so that the results could be used in a practical manner.
Table 3 shows a comparison of the quality of fit of the three
models with the bubblepoint pressures used in their
development.
Validation of the Predictive Models
An independent data set consisting of data from 547 PVT
studies was used to test the three models. None of these data
were included in the 728 sample data set used in developing the
models. Table 4 gives the ranges of data in the independent data
set. Notice that the maxima and minima in the several variables
are very similar in the two data sets (Table 1, Table 4).
The predictive abilities of the three models were tested using
the independent variables from the independent data set and
comparing the calculated values of bubblepoint pressure with
the measured values. Table 5 gives the results. The non-linear
regression and non-parametric models worked reasonably well
on the independent data set--retaintig their accuracy of
269
3
approximately 13 percent average absolute error. The average
absolute error of the neural network model increased from 6
percent (for the “original” data) to 25 percent for the
independent data set. Figs. 10 through 12 show the calculated-
measured comparison. Especially noteworthy is the comparison
between Figs. 9 and 12 which illustrates that a trained neural
network will not necessarily provide accurate predictions for
data not involved in the “training.”
Several other bubblepoint pressure correlations from the
literature were tested with the independent data base. Table ~
and Figs. 13 through 15 show how predictions of the Standing,
Vasquez and Beggs,7 and Kartoatmodjo and Schmidts equations
(all non-linear regression type models) compare with the
measured bubblepoint pressures from the independent data base.
Other proposed bubblepoint pressure correlations2’9’1 0’1*were
also tested with the independent data set. In each case the
average absolute error was larger than those given in Table 6.
Unfortunately, the best results for any correlation, whether
prepared by non-linear regression, non-parametric regression, or
neural network, can only predict bubblepoint pressure (given the
four commonly available independent variables) to an average
absolute error of about 13 percent. This means that errors of 25
percent or greater are possible for a given situation.
Bubblepoint pressure is used, either directly or indirectly, in
all oil property correlations. 12’3Thus the errors in estimates of
bubblepoint pressure will propagate throughout all estimates of
other fluid properties such as oil formation volume factor, oil
viscosity, oil density, etc.
Correlations for these other oil fluid properties are
reasonably accurate given accurate values of bubblepoint
pressure. It appears that an accurate bubblepoint pressure
correlation is not possible (given the usually available input
data). Thus, two options are available: regular measurement of
average reservoir pressure (pressure buildup tests, etc.) or
obtaining a representative sample of the original reservok fluid
and measuring bubblepoint pressure and other properties in the
laborato~.
Conclusions
1. The best possible correlations of bubblepoint pressure;
given the usual input data; solution gas-oil ratio at
bubblepoint, stock-tank oil gravity, separator gas specific
gravity, and reservoir temperature; are accucate to an
average absolute error of about 13 percent. This means that
predicted values of bubblepoint pressure could be in error
by 25 percent or more in some instances.
2, Errors this large will cause unacceptably high errors in the
prediction by correlation of the other oil fluid properties of
interest: oil formation volume factor, oil density, oil
viscosity, and oil compressibility.
3. The only options currently available for obtaining accurate
values of bubblepoint pressure are either regular field
measurement of average reservoir pressures or laboratory
measurement with a sample representative of the original
reservoir oil.
 4 W. D. MCCAIN JR., R. B. SOTO, P. P. VALKO, AND T. A. BLASINGAME SPE 51086

Nomenclature presented at the 48th ATM of The Petroleum Society,

Calgary, 8-11 June 1997.
API = stock-tank gravity, ‘API 4. Breiman, L. and Friedman, J.H.: “Estimating Optimal
&b = solution gas-oil-ratio at the bubble-point, Transformations for multiple Regression and Correlation,”
scf/STB Journal of the American Statistical Association, (September
T= reservoir temperature, ‘F 1985), 580-619.
5. Xue, G., Datta-Gupta, A., Valko, P., and Biasingame, T.A.:
x= temporary variable used in Petrosky2 “Optimal Transformations for Multiple Regression:
correlation Application to Permeability Estimation from Well Logs,”
Xn = independent variables, various units SPEFE (June 1997), 85-93.
dependent variable 6. Demuth, H. and Beale, M.” “Neural Network Toolbox for
Y=
.Zn= transforms of the independent are Use With Matlab,” version 3, Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA
(1998).,
dependent variables 7. Vasquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D.: “Correlations for Fluid
Y23 = gas specific gravity, air = 1 Physical Property Prediction,” JPT (June 1980), 968-70.
8. Kartoatmodjo, T. and Schmidt, Z.: “Large Data Bank
References Improves Crude Physical Property Correlations,” Oil and
Gas Jour. (July 1994), 51-55.
1. Standing, M.B.: “A Pressure-Volume-T&mperature
9. Lasater, J.A.: “Bubble-Point Pressure”Correlation,” Trans.,
Correlation for Mixtures of California Oil and Gases;’
AIME (1958) 213,379-81.
Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1947) 275-87.
104 Glaso, O.: “Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature
2. Petrosky, G.E. and Farshad, F.F.: “Pressure-Volume-
Correlations,” JPT(May 1980), 785-95.
Temperature Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils,”
11. A1-Marhoun, M.A.: “PVT Correlations for Middle East
paper SPE 26644 presented at the 1993 SPE ATCE,
Crude Oils,” JPT (May 1988), 650-666.
Houston, 3-6 October.
12< McCain, W.D., Jr.: The Properties of Reservoir Fluids, 2nd
3. Velarde, J.J., Blasingame, T.A., and McCain, W.D., Jr.:
Ed., PennWell, Tulsa, OK (199)).
“Correlation of Black Oil Properties at Pressures Below
Bubble Point Pressure - A New Approach,” paper 97-93

Table 1- Ranges of Data in Data Set Used to 11

De{elop p~ Correlations
(728 data sets)

70 < Pb < 6700 psia

74 < T < 327 ‘F
10 < Rsb < 1870 scf/STB
12 < API < 55 “API

0.556 < y~ < 1.367 (air= 1)

270
SPE 51086 CORRELATION OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES FOR RESERVOIR OILS--A COMPARATIVE STUDY 5

TABLE 2- Description of the Trained Neural Network

The neural networkmodel has the followingform:

p@n~~,li,,d= {w3 *.tanh*[w2*tanh_’
(w1* zI,.Om,lti,N+
bl) + b2] + b3)
And the equationthat used for normalizedthe inputand outputvariablesduringthe trainingprocesswas: .

z@~~li@= 2 * zr- zi,~)/zi Mm- zil~)

Where23representseach of the inputvariables:
Z(1) = reservoirtemperature, Z(2)= API, Z(3)= gas gravity, and Z(4)= GOR.

The maximumand minimumvaluesused were:

Maximum Minimum

Reservoirtemperature 327 74
API 55 11.6
Gas gravity 1.367 0.556
GOR 1870 10
Pob 6700 70

The valuesfor the bias ( b 1, b2 and b3) and for the weights(w1, w2, and w3)are:

ZJl={-3.283148798632070.8024301701303761.08076979327138-2.83265706363712 1.68691436705254}

b2={l.92765824477335 0.37973612690’9036-0.0897286359210449-1.7822122415044 -1.61216953831698}

b3=-0.39379012457655

w1={-O.795250144548125 -1.09209856833608 -0.97316703561262 2.25817004067108

0.0113831825310405 -0.0220112913878158 -0.0755903427477344 0.820670010457579
-0.0443089522480293 0.465761383477398 0.897960024862847 0.107674068592107
-0.132352081142938 0.0374516997795222 2.82233244250817 -1.05099952370368
1.61344233199094 -1.56179989187548 -0.595446499153064 0.0780285404462807)

w2={-I.09646815273972 -0.854864648278981 -1.11247171493734 -0.1380206485916960.759786020717426

0.077022164481693 -0.671113407900328 0.519448286341125 1.22400502388773= -1.37221570727192
1.47930665237534 1.13868511497154 1.41822922194687 0.197907870996054 0.790664068001338
-0.62378427951244-1.24915231641691 .95526556348521 -0.4o0971121833293 -0.0963149005694486 _.
-1.12898030283311 -0.795224736513933 -1.09624496663587 o.@3155099188247990.203771.22773846 }

md

~3={-O.25763606379853-0.1027177075256732.50555221016993
-0.334182893301272-2.688487244623}

TabIe3 -Comparison ofResuIts of the Three Prediction Models WithMeasured

BubblepointPressure fortheDataBase Usedin theDevelopments oftheModels
&he 728 Sample data set
Average Absolute
Average Errorin pb
percent
Non-linear regression-Standing-type 11.4
equation
Non-parametric regression 3.1 11.8
Neuralnetwork -0.3 6.0

271
 6 W. D. MCCAIN JR., 1?.B. SOTO, F’. P. VALKO, AND T. A. BLASINGAME SPE 51086

Table 4- Ranges of Data in the Independent Data Set

Used to Vaiidate the pb Correlations
~

121 < Pb < 5990 psia

88 < T c 320 ‘F
12 < R,~ < 1905 scf/STB
14.4 < API < 56.2 ‘API

0.555 < ‘v.. c 1.245 (air = 1) II

Table 5- Comparison of Results of the Three Prediction Models with Measured

~mple data set)
Average Absolute
Average Error Error hl pb
percent
Non-linear regression-Standing-type equation 12.8
Non-parametric regression 13.0
Neural network 25.3

Table 6- Comparison of the Results of Various Bubble-

Point Pressure Correlations With Data From

~
Standin -6.1 13.2
Vasquez and Beggs7 2.8 13.1

1
6000
~f9#; ~b:~::mgw+’e!mw Cormw.n (728 pmt.)

-1.5~
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Smo 6000
Measured Bubbie-Point Preesure, ph paia Stock Tank Oil Gravity, “API
Fig. 2.- Grace optimal transformation of oil gravity ~APl).
Fig. l.- Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint
pressures for Velarde p~ correlation. Correlation data set.

272
 CORRELATION OF BUBBLEPOiNT PRESSURES FOR RESERVOIR OILS--A COMPARATIVE STUDY 7
SPE 51086

Optlmrd Transform of kr(p~

Optimal Transform of ln(T,A
I,, ,lt, ,1, tml, t.!, mmlt .Vl,tttt,,f,., 9.0
1.0 bud Opb’d TmmfmrI cdtnlm (728 MIS)
uw o,dtmal T,mskmn d l,[Tmd (728 WINS)
8.5 mm era- Prcwwn)
(frcm QmM Prcwm)
0.8
S.o
i=
7.5

37.0
z
~ ~,~
$
~ 6.0

5.5

5.0 ~
●

4,5
~ .“”
40~
-6-7-6-5-4-3-2-10 123
-’”~ Optimal Transform: In@d, Ifl(pda)
4.o 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0
In(T#, lncF)
Fig. 6.- Grace optimal transformation of bubblepoint pressure, Pb.

Fig. 3.- Grace optimal transformation of reservoir temperature, T.

Optimal Transform of Gas Gravity

20

~ 1.5- t

i
~ l.o - .
~=
z
~ 0.5

a
$? 0.0
~
~
~ .0.5

~ .1,0 ~ \
%*
~

z
0
●*
-1.5- %
-“ “’
. I.&acdOWMTrmdcm040ss
Gravity (728 pints)
(hum mm+ Plcqrm)
-2.0 l,,,,l,,,~l,,~,ib,,,l-1 ““1~
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1,2 1.3 1.4 0 1000 2000 30”04 ‘f&a 5000 m

Gas GMvItY (alr=l .0) Measured Bubble-Point Pressure, pb P&a

Fig. 4. - Grace optimal transformation of gas specific gravity Fig. 7.- Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint
(air=l .0). pressures for Grace p~ correlation-no model. Correlation data set.

-7~
i loio Z& 30”20 MO 5000 @
ln(Ff.b), ln(scUSTB) ❑ubble-Point Pressure, pb psla
M@aaured

Fig. 8. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint

pressures for Grace p~ correlation-quadratic equation model.
Correlation data set.
Fig. 5.- Grace optimal transformation of gas-oil-ratio (Rsb).

273
8 W, D. MCCAIN JR., R. B. SOTO, P. P. VALKO, AND T. A. BLASINGAME SPE 51086

6000 I t,. t I T 1,, s f

di L&. Mud Network Curml.llo. (728 minld 1

.’i:i
Z?.QOO

o-p -i +
Qmoo2m 30004000 sooo Oooo aloio2&o&4L”w 5ok EJiLl
MWIswed Bubb!%-Point Pressure, pb psia Measured Bubble-Point Pressure, ph PSla
Fig. 12. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint
. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint pressures fOrneural network Pb COITddiOt’k Independent data Set.
~r%!lwes for neural network f)b correlation. Correlation data sat.

010&2&l L?&340& S&Oowo

Measured Bubble-Point Pressure, ph psh
rilhJ2&3&Q’tOk& &
Measured Bubbka-Point Pressure, p~ psia
Fig. 13. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint
Fig. 10. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint
pressure for Standing p&correlation. Independent data set.
pressure for Velarde f)b correlation. Independent data set.

rile& 2&03&40& &&

A!-aasumd ❑ubble.Point Pressure, ph Psia

w I
, 1 1 I I

ol&2ck13&14000 5000~ Fig. 14. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint

Measurwd Bubble-Point Pressure, ph Psla pressure for Vasquez and Beggs p~ correlation. Independent data
set.
Fig. 11. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint
pressure for non-parametric Pb correlation. Independent data set.

274
 CORRELATION OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES FOR RESERVOIROILS--ACOMPARATIVESTUDY 9
SPE 51086

6000
U&am KaliorAlwa’lMchtiu Ctm!nlkm
ControlD.m*M6a (54 paints)

s 5ooo -
&
$
L

g 4ooo -
~
n ‘%

r
., . . . . .
0 looozooo3Wo~- ~
Measured Bubble-Point Pressure, ph Psia

Fig. 15. - Comparison of calculated and measured bubblepoint

pressure for Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt p~ correlation.
Independent data St?t.

275