Skip to main content
. 2025 Feb 18;10(8):8042–8051. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.4c09107

Table 6. Analysis of the Crude Oil Density Prediction Results of Different Models.

  average relative error analysis of error causes
Standing 14.39% the calculated density values are mostly higher than the experimentally measured values the crude oil in this experiment is unsaturated, differing from Standing model’s optimal conditions, and water content effects on density are not considered
Quail 32.91% the calculated density values are significantly higher than the experimentally measured values the oil used in this experiment is light crude, which is inconsistent with Quail model’s applicable oil type, and the effects of water content and pressure on density are not considered
Wu Guanghuan 61.74% the calculated density values are significantly higher or lower than the experimental values the experimental temperature range of 20–95 °C is below Wu Guanghuan model’s optimal range, the crude oil properties do not match, and the effect of water content on oil density is not considered