SPE 56417 Effect of A Wetting Immobile Phase On Diffusion and Macroscopic Dispersion in Unconsolidated Porous Media
SPE 56417 Effect of A Wetting Immobile Phase On Diffusion and Macroscopic Dispersion in Unconsolidated Porous Media
SPE 56417 Effect of A Wetting Immobile Phase On Diffusion and Macroscopic Dispersion in Unconsolidated Porous Media
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to determine the effect of a
wetting immobile phase (e.g. connate water) on the diffusion
and macroscopic dispersion in homogeneous unconsolidated
packs. We measured the effective dispersion coefficients of
gases as a function of water saturation, pressure, and velocity
in a laboratory set-up. The dispersion coefficients were 2 to 3
times higher than in the dry porous medium. This effect is also
studied using a pore network model where the immobile phase
blocks a fraction of the pores for fluid flow. A random walk
through the network and counting cluster sizes both gave
approximately the same results, which were in good
agreement with the experimental data.
Introduction
Macroscopic dispersion is a core level mechanism that is
important in miscible displacement processes. It is especially
needed for the proper upscaling of heterogeneous porous
media1, and it controls the mixing in cyclic processes (e.g.
underground gas storage, gas cycling), where dispersion by
large-scale permeability heterogeneity is reversible. Generally
the convectiondiffusion equation is used to model
macroscopic dispersion. The effective diffusion coefficient
(called dispersion coefficient) is experimentally determined,
and can be represented by the empirical relation of Perkins and
Johnston2. These dispersion values are usually measured in
dry sand packs or dry cores, which does not represent the in
situ situation where usually also a second phase is present.
Only a hand full investigated the effect of an immobile
phase, but there is no agreement between the results of their
investigations. Some authors3,4 state that dispersion increases
Dl =
Dm
+ U ,.......................................................(1)
SPE 56417 EFFECT OF A WETTING IMMOBILE PHASE ON DIFFUSION AND MACROSCOPIC DISPERSION IN UNCONSOLIDATED POROUS
MEDIA
3
immobile fluid fills the pores and not only the smallest ones.
To get a relation between the water saturation and the fraction
of blocked pores we used a Bethe Lattice network to model
the permeability reduction of a certain pore size distribution
by a random fraction of blocked pores.
Pore size distributions
The pore size distributions were also obtained from thin
sections of the porous media by quantitative image analysis.
The used method is the erosion-dilation technique described
by Yuan9 , and resulted in pore size distributions as shown in
Figure 8. The pore size distribution is narrower for the glass
bead pack which can be expected with these perfectly round
particles. The less spherical sand particles show a wider pore
size distribution. The very small pores (<100 m) are fully
absent in this distribution, because they are nor recognised as
individual pores during the image analysis process.
Network model
Our experimental results have indicated that in the presence of
an inert and immobile phase (longitudinal) dispersion may
increase significantly compared to the single phase results (see
Fig. 3 to 5). The water phase, which we used as the immobile
phase, wets the porous medium. In this section we attempt to
interpret these observations based on percolation concepts. We
assume the porous medium to consist of a network of pore
bodies interconnected by pore throats. We will limit the
discussion to laminar flow and assume all viscous dissipation
to take place in the pore throats. Although most natural porous
media form highly irregular networks with co-ordination
numbers varying from 3 to 15, we chose to use regular
networks based on a constant co-ordination number. This
choice of convenience is justified by the results of Jerauld et
al.10,11 who showed that effective transport properties of
irregular networks are virtually identical to those of regular
networks as long as the average co-ordination numbers are
equal. For a comprehensive review of percolation and other
network models see Sahimi.12,13 It is generally accepted that
the wetting phase will occupy the smaller throats, thereby
blocking them for flow of the other phase (see Fig.7). The
change in (effective) pore morphology as experienced by the
mobile phase may affect all transport properties.
Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to measure the fraction
of blocked pores directly. The only data we have are the
relative permeability values at the various (immobile) water
saturations and pore size distribution. In a previous paper14 we
showed how to estimate the fraction of blocked pores from
these data. Some details are given in appendix A. The fraction
of closed pores for the different porous media and water
saturations are given in Table 4.
Results Network Model
Many papers2,3 attempt to capture convective dispersion in
terms of the relationship given in equation (1), where a socalled dispersivity, , is introduced. In a homogenous porous
medium the dispersivity is related to the effective particle
SPE 56417 EFFECT OF A WETTING IMMOBILE PHASE ON DIFFUSION AND MACROSCOPIC DISPERSION IN UNCONSOLIDATED POROUS
MEDIA
5
3.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a grant from de Nederlandse
Aardolie Maatschappij. We also wish to thank the technicians
of the Dietz laboratory for the technical support during the
experiments.
Nomenclature
C =concentration injected component, mole/L3
d =diameter, L
Dl =longitudinal dispersion coefficient, L/t2
Dm =molecular diffusion coefficient, L/t2
fsize =cluster size function
g =conductivity
keff =effective permeability, L2
L =length, L
n =cluster size
pzero =fraction of blocked pores
Pe = Peclt number
t =time, t
U =average interstitial velocity, L/t
Z =co-ordination number
=dispersivity, L
=velocity dependence of Dl
=Correlation length, L
u2 =Variance of the velocity distribution, L2/t2
t2 =Variance of the arrival time distribution, t2
=porosity
=tortuosity
Subscripts
D =dimensionless
References
1. Lake, L.W. and Hirasaki, G.J.: Taylors Dispersion in Stratified
Porous Media, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (August 1981) 459-468.
2. Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.C.:A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1963)
70-84.
3. Legatski, M.W. and Katz, D.L.: Dispersion Coefficients for
Gases Flowing in Consolidated Porous Media, Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(March 1967) 43-53.
4. Salter, S.J. and Mohanty, K.K.: Multiphase Flow in Porous
Media: I. Macroscopic Observations, paper SPE 11017
presented at the 57th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in New Orleans (1982)
5. Batycky, J.P., Maini, B.B. and Fisher, D.B.: Simulation of
Miscible Displacement in Full-Diameter Carbonate Cores, Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. (October 1982) 647-657.
6. Orlob, G.T. and Radhakrishna, G.N.: The Effects of Entrapped
Gases on the Hydraulic Characteristics of Porous Media, Trans
AGU, Vol.39 (August 1958), 648-659.
SPE 56417 EFFECT OF A WETTING IMMOBILE PHASE ON DIFFUSION AND MACROSCOPIC DISPERSION IN UNCONSOLIDATED POROUS
MEDIA
7
1.84 m
1.84 m
1.84 m
2.75 cm
2.75 cm
2.75 cm
415.9 cm3
408.6 cm3
418.2 cm3
0.383
0.377
0.386
Perm
Grain size
334 D
105 D
108 D
560 800 m
300 850 m
300 850 m
Diffusion
coefficient
2.14 e-6 m2/s
4.28 e-7 m2/s
2.38 e-7 m2/s
Sand Pack 2
9.8%
9.8%
15.5%
15.5%
11.2%
11.2%
13.7%
13.7%
0.22
0.18
0.35
0.28
0.22
0.19
0.30
0.25
4.42
2.95
--4.42
3.23
-6.54
1.64
1.43
--1.64
1.48
-1.87
n
2.10
1.72
--2.10
1.80
-2.56
14.4%
0.785
0.2
4.74
1.2
/dry
(-)
1.70
1.70
3.03
3.03
1.58
1.58
2.21
2.21
0%
0.0987
0.012
1
90 bar
11.2%
0.156
0.026
1.58
0.53
13.7%
0.218
0.028
2.21
0.28
Pzero random
0
0.18
0.28
**
**
**
0
0.19
0.25
SPE 56417
1.2
0.8
0.6
Measurement
Least square fit
0.4
0.2
0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Figure 2 Fit between convection dispersion model and experimental effluent profile.
SPE 56417 EFFECT OF A WETTING IMMOBILE PHASE ON DIFFUSION AND MACROSCOPIC DISPERSION IN UNCONSOLIDATED POROUS
MEDIA
9
0.0001
0.00001
0% water
9.8% water
15.5% water
0.000001
0.0000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Figure 3 Longitudinal Dispersion coefficient versus interstitial velocity at 10 bar, for 3 different water saturations in a glass bead pack
0.0001
0% water
11.4% water
14.4% water
0.00001
0.000001
0.0000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Figure 4 Longitudinal Dispersion coefficient versus interstitial velocity at 50 bar, for 3 different water saturations in a sand pack
10
SPE 56417
0.0001
0% water
11.2% water
13.7% water
0.00001
0.000001
0.0000001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Figure 5 Longitudinal Dispersion coefficient versus interstitial velocity at 90 bar, for 3 different water saturations in a sand pack
0.005
0.0045
0.004
0% water
9.8% water
15.5% water
Dispersivity (m)
0.0035
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
Figure 6 Dispersivity values derived from the10 bar measurements. The dispersivities are not constant at lower velocities.
SPE 56417 EFFECT OF A WETTING IMMOBILE PHASE ON DIFFUSION AND MACROSCOPIC DISPERSION IN UNCONSOLIDATED POROUS
MEDIA
11
Figure 7 Thin section of a with epoxy resin filled sand pack. The grains are white,
the open pores black and the immobile phase is coloured grey.
0.25
0.2
0.15
Density
Sand pack
glass beads
0.1
0.05
00
10
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
50
12
SPE 56417
p=0.05
1.E-01
slope = -2
p=0.1
p=0.15
1.E-02
density
p=0.2
1.E-03
p=0.25
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1
10
100
1000
cluster size
<cluster size>
Figure 9 Cluster size distributions for different fraction of blocked pores (p).
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.1
0.2
fraction blocked pores
0.3
0.035
0.03
/L (-)
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Figure 11 Dimensionless dispersivity calculated with the network model with uniform pore sizes, versus the fraction of blocked pores.
SPE 56417 EFFECT OF A WETTING IMMOBILE PHASE ON DIFFUSION AND MACROSCOPIC DISPERSION IN UNCONSOLIDATED POROUS
MEDIA
13
10 barexperiments
90 barexperiments
50 barexperiments
Cluster model
Random walk model
/dry (-)
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Figure 12 Experimental results of dispersivities with 95% confidence limits versus water saturation. compared to the dispersivity values
obtained from the cluster and random walk model.