Viscosity–Temperature–Pressure Relationship of Extra-Heavy Oil (Bitumen): Empirical Modelling versus Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The viscosity data of two heavy oil samples X and Y, with asphaltene contents 24.8% w/w and 18.5% w/w, respectively, were correlated with temperature and pressure using empirical models and the artificial neural network (ANN) approach. The viscosities of the samples were measured over a range of temperatures between 70 °C and 150 °C; and from atmospheric pressure to 7 MPa. It was found that the viscosity of sample X, at 85 °C and atmospheric pressure (0.1 MPa), was 1894 cP and that it increased to 2787 cP at 7 MPa. At 150 °C, the viscosity increased from 28 cP (at 0.1 MPa) to 33 cP at 7 MPa. For sample Y, the viscosity at 70 °C and 0.1 MPa increased from 2260 cP to 3022 cP at 7 MPa. At 120 °C, the viscosity increased from 65 cP (0.1 MPa) to 71 cP at 7 MPa. Notably, using the three-parameter empirical models (Mehrotra and Svrcek, 1986 and 1987), the correlation constants obtained in this study are very close to those that were previously obtained for the Canadian heavy oil samples. Moreover, compared to other empirical models, statistical analysis shows that the ANN model has a better predictive accuracy (R2 ≈ 1) for the viscosity data of the heavy oil samples used in this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".