Taylor's Dispersion in Stratified Porous Media

Larry W. Lake, SPE, U. of Texas

George J. Hirasaki, SPE, Shell Development Co.

Abstract
During 1953-54, Taylor showed that if a certain planation for the large field-scale dispersion observed
criterion is met the combined effects of the transverse in tracer test studies. Moreover, it appears that the
profile of longitudinal velocity and transverse dif- grouping procedure could indicate a method for
fusion on a solvent slowly flowing through a tube obtaining layered reservoir models from core 9ata.
will manifest themselves as a longitudinal diffusion
phenomenon. A similar phenomenon exists in Introduction
stratified porous media where the transverse profile In laboratory displacements, longitudinal (parallel to
of longitudinal velocity and transverse dispersion can the bulk fluid velocity) dispersion is well charac-
produce an effective longitudinal dispersion, called terized as consisting of additive contributions of
Taylor's dispersion in this paper. Since this effective diffusion and convection:
longitudinal dispersion is larger than the
corresponding homogeneous longitudinal dispersion, Kp=Do+O'f V , ..... (1)
the quantitative description of this phenomenon Fe/>
would be important to dispersion-sensitive EOR where K f is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient,
processes, such as surfactant or miscible flooding. D is the molecular diffusion coefficient, F is the
Taylor's dispersion will occur in two-layer porous fo~mation electrical resistivity factor, v is the in-
media if a suitably defined dimensionless number is terstitial longitudinal velocity, and O'f is the
much greater than unity. When this condition holds, longitudinal dispersity. At a velocity above about 0.1
the effluent history of a constant-mobility equal- ftiD (0.35 /Lm/s) the convection term dominates Eq.
density miscible displacement is that of the same 1, so for practical displacements - about 1 ft/D (3.5
displacement in a homogeneous medium with in- /Lm/s) - K f depends only on the term O'fv. O'f, in turn,
creased dispersion. The resulting effective is a function of average particle size and local
longitudinal dispersion may be derived analytically heterogeneity, and averages 0.05 to 0.2 in. (0.l3 to
and verified numerically as a function of several 0.51 cm) for homogeneous laboratory displacements.
media properties. The most important of these are Similarly, transverse (perpendicular to the bulk
system thickness and permeability contrast. fluid velocity) dispersion is
In multilayer media, when two adjacent layers
have a large transverse dispersion number they Kt = Do + O't V, ............ (2)
behave as a single layer with suitably averaged Fe/>
properties. This observation suggests an algorithm where K t is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
whereby Taylor's dispersion may be extended to and O't is the transverse dispersivity. Measurements
multilayer systems. The algorithm, or grouping of O't are much less common than O'f but they in-
procedure, gives effluent histories that are in dicate 2 that O't = O' f /30.
agreement with numerical solutions to the continuity In the scaled differential material-balance
equation and allow properties of the resulting ef- equations, both K f and K t become part of Peclet
fective dispersion to be investigated. From the results numbers, vL/Kf and (vH/Kt)H/L, which appear as
of this work, Taylor's dispersion can offer an ex- inverses in the equations. In laboratory
0197-7520/81/0008-8436$00.25
displacements, O'f and O't are of the order of fractions
Copyright 1981 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME of centimeters and L is the order of centimeters. In
AUGUST 1981 459
 ( LONGITUDINAL) dispersion. The results of the work then are expanded
L to include multilayered reservoirs.

E HIGH VELOCITY k,
l~
Basic Assumptions and Definitions
The derivations and results of this report conform to
the following assumptions.
~ LOW VELOCITY k2
jl 1. The displacing and in-situ fluids are miscible,
incompressible, and have equal mobilities and
densities.
2. Near wellbore transverse pressure gradients,
FLOW
such as those that might be caused by partial
Fig. 1 - Definition of quantities.
penetration or a limited perforation interval, are
negligible; this assumption is necessary for the theory
presented below since Taylor's dispersion is an
asymptotic phenomenon for large well spacings.
field displacements, L is of the order of several tens Assumptions 1 and 2 eliminate all cross flow except
of meters; hence, many engineers, assuming that that caused by transverse dispersion. In particular,
dispersivities are roughly equal in the laboratory and the absence of transverse pressure gradients means
field, have concluded that dispersion is of little that vertical permeability will not appear in the
importance in field displacements. theory and that the transverse fluid velocity will be
Field measurements of C<:f' on the other hand, tend zero. The latter factor means that off-diagonal terms
to give values somewhat greater than the laboratory in the dispersion tensor will be zero, regardless of the
values. These measurements are few, being com- orientation of its major axes, since these are all
plicated by nonlinear flow, reservoir heterogeneities, proportional to transverse velocity. 10
and operational problems; however, recent work has 3. The injected fluid's concentration is zero
yielded field-measured values from 0.002 to 0.11 ft initially and the system is subjected to a unit step
(6.1 X 10- 4 to 13.4 X W- 2 m) in single-well tests3,4 function at t = O.
to 8 ..1 ft (2.5 m) in two-well tests. 5 Such large values 4. Throughout this paper we take the intralayer
C<:t = c<: f I30. The dispersivities are assumed
are of concern to those designing mixing-sensitive
displacements such as surfactant flooding, miscible homogeneous (independent of position) and
flooding, or the displacement of condensate fluids by anisotropic (since c<:e;C. C<:t).
nitrogen-enriched natural gas. 6 5. Longitudinal and transverse dispersion coef-
Large C<:f values in field displacements are at- ficients are proportional to the first power of the
tributable to the larger-scale heterogeneities present interstitial velocity as given by Eqs. 1 and 2.
in field-scale porous media. By assuming the porous 6. Longitudinal transport of injected fluid by
medium to be made up of heterogeneities randomly dispersion is much slower than longitudinal transport
distributed statistically, other workers 7 have shown by bulk flow.
that field and laboratory-scale dispersion coefficients 7. When dealing with two layers only, we assume
can differ by factors of 10. Given the stratified that the porous medium consists of two
nature of some reservoirs, however, conclusions homogeneous layers of contrasting permeability (k),
based on heterogeneities randomly distributed are porosity (cI, and thickness (h). From Fig. 1 the
less satisfactory than those that account for reservoir relevant quantities are II
layering. It is one of the purposes of this paper to use
stratification to explain large field-measured values Fk = kllk2' permeability contrast,
of c<:/'. F </> cI> II cl>2' porosity contrast,
Fh hl/(h l +h 2), layer-thickness fraction,
Approach F </>h cl>1 hi 1cl>2h2' porosity-thickness contrast,
Our approach is to explore the very close analogy and
between transverse dispersion in a two-layer medium Fkh k I'h l Ik2h2' permeability-thickness con-
and molecular diffusion in a capillary tube. The trast,
latter problem was presented in a classical set of
papers by Taylor 8 ,9 dealing with the effect that where the Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to high and low
molecular diffusion transverse to the bulk fluid velocity layers, respectively, and Fk/F</> is always
velocity has on the average concentration of solvent greater than one. Note that because the fluids have
slowly flowing through a tube. Basically, Taylor equal densities it does not matter which layer is on
showed that if a certain criterion is met, transverse top. Only three of these quantities are independent.
diffusion and longitudinal bulk flow will manifest We realize that very few actual displacements
themselves as a longitudinal diffusion phenomenon, satisfy these assumptions, particularly Assumption 1.
called Taylor's diffusion. It would seem that a This paper's objective, however, is to describe a
similar effect also might exist in two-layer porous phenomenon that will be present to some extent in all
media. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to displacements; hence, we invoke these simplifying
present the criterion under which Taylor's dispersion assumptions so that we may isolate this effect from
will apply and to describe the resulting effective those caused by unequal densities, mobilities, etc.

460 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

Application to Two-Layer Systems PRQFIUES
10
EFFLUENT HISTORIES

Qualitative Aspects. Taylor's dispersion in a

horizontal two-layer porous medium may be depicted FLOW

as in Fig. 2. For no transverse dispersion, isocon-

1.0
centration lines in each layer are vertical and the PORE VOLUMES INJECTED

effluent history manifests the expected heteroge-

ISOCONCENTRATI~ LINES 10
neous character with longitudinal dispersion
superimposed on each layer's breakthrough (Fig.
2A). When transverse dispersion is moderate, some
of the injected fluid crosses the layer boundary,
-I "~"Ju
- /Z . LOW VEL
I
causing a distortion of the isoconcentration lines and (b) NTO MODERATE
PORE 'vOLUMES INJECTED

the effluent history (Fig. 2B). The heterogeneous JSOc;ct.;C.ENTRATION LINES 10

character of the medium is still apparent in both,
however. For large transverse dispersion, the
isoconcentration lines are again vertical (now across
the entire thickness of the medium) and the effluent I
PORE VOLUMES INJECTED
history no longer manifests heterogeneous character (el NTo LARGE

(Fig.2C).
Fig. 2 - Schematic illustration of Taylor's dispersion in
Limits. Fig. 2 shows the limits toward which two layer porous media.
transverse dispersion will drive a miscible
displacement in two-layer media. When transverse
dispersion is small, the medium behaves as a layered dimension driven by dispersion, and n t and nf are
heterogeneous medium; when it is large, the medium fluxes in the longitudinal and transverse directions,
behaves as a single-layer medium with increased respectively:
dispersion.
These observations suggest the following as a n fj = Vj C - K fj ( ~~) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
transverse dispersion index.
and
- (QD) C=O.5 - (QDi)C=O.5
I TD = , ......... (3)
1.0- (QDi)C=O.5 ntj = -Ktj(~~)' ...................... (7)
where (QDi) C=O.5 is the cumulative injection of a
nondispersing displacement when the effluent From Eqs. 1 and 2, K f and K t are functions of v
concentration is 0.5, and (QD) C=O.5 is the which is, in turn, dependent on the system's
cumulative injection of a dispersing displacement at heterogeneity:
the same effluent concentration. (QDi) C=O.5 is ki cf>_
VJ. = --"-
rPj . k v ........................ . (8)
given by -0.

(QDi)C=0.5=
Fkh
----'-=---
+1 . F<f>
. (4a) since the displacement is at unit mobility ratio. By
(F<f>h + 1) Fk Assumption 6, the second term in Eq. 6 is negligible
For Fkh > 1, and by and these equations may be written in normalized
form
F kh + 1
(QDi) C=O.5 = F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4b) nfj = VjC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
<f>h+ I
for Fkh < 1. The quantities given in Eqs. 4a and 4b and
are the cumulative injection at breakthrough of the
high- and low-velocity layers, respectively. ntj =- K;; (~~), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
The quantity (QD) C=O.5 is intended to be a
measure of the breakthrough cumulative injection of whereYD =y/H.
a displacement in which transverse dispersion is Putting these into Eq. 5 gives
present. When the system behaves as a single 1ayer,
[(QD)C=O.5]=I and ITD=1. When transverse N TD =( ~)( - ~~)(aC~YD) . ....... (11)
dispersion is small, ITD=O since (QD)C=O.5=
(QDik=o.5 The magnitude of the last factor in Eq. 11 is unclear;
but when the terms multiplying this factor are large,
Transverse Dispersion Number. Fig. 2 anticipated
N TD also generally will be large. In the scaled form
that transverse dispersion may be characterized by a
of Eq. 11, the derivative ac/aYD is of order C;
suitably defined number, N TD' Following Taylor 8
therefore, we omit the last term from the definition
tf L nt of N TD and compensate for the omission by selecting
N TD = - = - - , .................. (5)
tt H nf the remaining terms to give a minimum value of
N TD :
where t f is the time required for fluid to cross the L min (K tj ) _ L Kt2
medium longitudinally driven by bulk flow, t t is the N TD = H2 max ( Vj )
- H2 -VI . . . . . . . . (12)
time required for fluid to cross the transverse
AUGUST 1981 461
 The reasoning for this is that if K(2 IVI will give a
large N TD , any other combination (K IV2' for
h
example) will give an even larger N TD . This
definition is analogous to that derived by Taylor
except for a numerical factor that is included below.
The transverse dispersion number, therefore, using
Eq. 2, is

N TD = (HL )2 [Do
LVIFcf>2 + L
Ci( v2 ]
~ ....... (13)
~ LOLOLOLOLO LOLO LOLO LOLO
Frequently, it is a good approximation to ignore
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.,000000000000000
,,-000000000000000
molecular diffusion; using Eq. 8 to eliminate the
<: C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! C! velocity ratio in Eq. 13 yields
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NTD=( ~ )(~) ;: ................ (14)

.en ~I'- co
LO
V Except for the heterogeneity correction F <p I F k , this
z ~ ~ ~ I'- 0';;0 t?; 0 ..- a~ ~ is the same factor used by Koonce and Blackwell. '12
;:)
0:
,~g t; ~ ~ 2;; g ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~C3 ~
<: C!C!C!~C!C!C!C!C?~C!C\! xC!C!
Z ~oooooooooooo~oo
o Verification of Transverse Dispersion Number. The
in continuity equation corresponding to the assump-
0:
W
c.. tions is
en
is ac ac a2 c a ( ac)
w
en
0:
at ax ax2 ay cf>K( -ay =0.
- +V- -Kf --l/cf>-
W
> '"
6 ................................ (15)
en "OlOC\lOOl'<l" COI'-C\ICOCOLOCOCO
z UOlOlCOOlOlOl l'-'<I"OI'-Ol..-OlOl
<t ~OlOlCOCOOlOlOOlI'-COOlOlCOOlOl
The verification of N TD was accomplished by solving
0: aoooooo"":OOOOOOOO
I-
0:
o this equation by explicit finite differences. Table 1
ou. gives the results of these runs. Fig. 3 gives the
en
I-
breakthrough curve calculated in this manner for an
....I
;:)
NTD = 15.4 run. Clearly, at this value of N TD ,
en '"
61'-1'-1'-1'-01'-("')01'-1'-1'-
(QD)C=O.5 -1.0, and lTD is nearly unity. The
w "COCOCOCOOCO(",)LOCOCOCO
UCOCOCOCO'<l"COCOLOCOCOCO
0:
~ 0000"":000000 breakthrough curve, furthermore, has no hint of a
U. is
o o heterogeneous character (compare the no-dispersion
>
0: curve on Fig. 3).
<t We found the correlation of lTD with N TD defined
::!
::! by Eq. 12 to be good; however, the curve was offset
;:)
en to the left by a factor of nearly 14. To make this
I relationship satisfy the criterion that lTD = 0.5 when
N TD = 1.0, we redefined N TD as
L K(2
N TD = 14( H )(HVI)' ................ (16)
C\IC\1C\1 C\IC\1C\1
_ 000 000
~ 1-..1 C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C! This new definition restores the numerical factor
I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 present in Taylor's original criterion (compare the 14
in Eq. 16 with Taylor's 14.44). Fig. 4 shows the
u..""I u..""1C!C!C!C!C!C!.qC!C!C!C!
("')("')("')("')("')("')..-~("')("')("')
correlation of lTD with this new definition of N TD'
As can be seen, lTD correlates well with N TD . When
NTD <0.2, the system behaves as a two-layer system
with no transverse dispersion. When NTD >5, the
system behaves as if it were a single layer.
Effective Longitudinal Dispersion. A very im-
portant characteristic of a large N TD displacement is
.q .q .q C\! ~ .q .q .q .q .q that the ensuing single-layer effluent history exhibits
u..""I.q
00000000000 ~
+
I a degree of dispersive mixing that is derivable apart
from the simulation. We derive this effective
1"-C\I("')'<I"LOCOI'-COOlO..-C\I("')'<I"LO
a: ~"""'T""""""T"""T""" longitudinal dispersion coefficient in the Appendix.
The development presented there follows closely that
of the original work, even though the same result will
follow from later and more sophisticated, treat-
ments. 13 - 15 For a two-layer system with large NTD
the system's breakthrough curve will be given by

462 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 c "" ~ [1 - erf( -~r=
/=="XD===-~Q~D==O=I )l, 10
ANALYTIC,
...... (17) NUMERICAL

2 2'1 QD (N pe ) - J 08
DISPERSION
(N",~=O.OOO475
----

where

(N pe ) -I effective inverse Peelet number,

06

Ke 1vL,
04
porosity-thickness weighted average,
and EXPliCIT FINITE DIFFERENCE
SOlUTI()\j

_ 1 [ (VH)2 l 02 NT()154 (RUN2,TABLE I)

Ke+ 3 1 +F</>h J 00Y~-L0~7~~~--0~9~~10~--~II--~1~2--~13--~'4~~

P'O=lE VOLUMES INJECTED

Fig. 3 - Effluent histories from two layer porous media.

+ (1 - F h) 2 ], .... (18) '0

K t2t
D.

where Ke is the thickness-weighted average

longitudinal dispersion coefficient. '" De

Fig. 3 shows the agreement between the simulated

effluent history curves and that predicted by Eqs. 17 0'

and 18. In all cases, when NTD in Table 1 is greater SIMULATION RESULTS
!TABLE I)
02
than five the agreement is good. Moreover, the ef-
fective dispersion is usually much larger than the
homogeneous longitudinal dispersion coefficient. 16
2
16 1 '0' '0' 0'

For most runs in Table 1, Ke was zero and the

longitudinal dispersion coefficient in Eq. 18 was Fig. 4 - Verification of transverse dispersion number.
taken to be the truncation error of the finite dif-
ference solution. 16
It follows from Eq. 18 that Ke is larger than the 0
H
05 10 15 20
corresponding homogeneous (intralayer) dispersion
4 6
coefficient K c. The physical basis for this is that the 70 ft
stratification tends to increase the effective 20
dispersion for the two layers because the difference in
the velocity of the two layers causes a solute to travel 60

with a different velocity in each layer. However, F kiF" 3 ]

Fh~ 05
~
WHEN NOT
large transverse dispersion tends to impose a uniform H ~ 2 ft CHANGED
15 50 (06Im)
concentration across the two layers. A uniform
concentration front will travel with a velocity equal
to the average velocity of the fluids. Consequently, it 40
-'

the effective dispersion for the two layers is inversely
proportional to the transverse dispersion in the 10
layers. Also, we see from Eq. 18 that the effective 30 L" 1500ft (458m)

dispersion is directly proportional to the square of Do" 0

'7" 5ft (0153m)
the reservoir thickness. a,~ 00167ft (0005Im)
20
Eq. 18 also suggests the definition of an effective
5
longitudinal dispersivity:
10
Ole =Ke1v. . ......................... (19)

3 II 13 15
Fig. 5 shows the sensitivity of Ole to three of its F IF
constituent parameters: F h, FkIF</>, and H. Clearly, o 02 04 06 08
k "

F kiF</> and H cause the greatest changes in Ole'

Fig. 5 - Sensitivity of effective dispersivity to three
Extension to Multilayered Media parameters.
The previous section and Fig. 4 showed that if
NTD > 5, a two-layer system will behave (at least with
respect to its effluent history) as a single-layer system
for which we can calculate an effective longitudinal
dispersion coefficient by means of Eq. 18. These
AUGUST 1981 463
 ,
It/day
10

~~~~~
~

~ ~ ~!:!~
LAYER k 3,5,1,4,1,2,5,2,1,4
(HOMOGENEOJS POROSITY)

rI
08

ANALYTIC,
EFFECTIVE DISPERSION--
EXPLICIT FINITE DIFFERENCE
(RUN 14,TABlE I)
10 LAYERS, I FT THICK
(7~~) 1750 1483 18.54 0141 188 1750 1483 1&54 0741 8.9 06 + NUMERICAL DISPERSION
( 3m)

(N~)~~T=00027

1180 263
04
0.636 7.95 D318 597

610 0517 692 0236 -

02
4.24 0170

FIRST GROUPING SECOND GROUPING

07 08 09 10 II I2 13
PORE VOLUMES INJECTED

Fig. 6 - Schematic of grouping procedure. Fig. 7 - Effluent history from 10layer porous media.

observations suggest a grouping procedure whereby Kfj . =Ke , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)

Taylor's dispersion may be extended to multilayered
media. from Eq. 18 (note Fk/F</> is always> 1). The new
Grouping Procedures. Consider a porous medium transverse dispersion coefficient is the harmonic
consisting of N layers. If the transverse dispersion average given by
number for any two adjacent layers, j and j + 1, is
greater than five, these two layers behave as one !iJ...
- -!!J...
- + ~ . . ................. (25)
(with respect to dispersive behavior) and, therefore, K tj K tj K t j+
!
can be combined. This combined layer has the The resulting properties for the system of Fig. 6 are
average properties of its constituent layers with a new shown in the middle panel.
dispersion coefficient given by Eq. 18. 4. The properties for the layers below j + 1 are
As an example of the grouping procedure, consider reindexed:
Fig. 6, a three-layer system used by Todd and
Chase 17 in their simulation of tracer response prior k m =km+!' etc., for m=j+ 1, ... N, ....... (26)
to the Bell Creek Unit A micellar-polymer flood.
These authors notice that simulations of their three- and the procedure recommences at Step 1 on the
layer model exhibited single-layer effluent histories. grouped system. For the system of Fig. 6, there are
The original porous medium is on the left of Fig. 6 two groupings combining Layers 2 and 3, and then
where L = 1,000 ft (305 m), v= 1 ft/D (0.305 mid), Layers 1 and 2.
0'1'= 12.5 ft (3.8 m), O't =0.05 ft (0.015 m), and The grouping procedure has increased the field-
Do = O. The grouping procedure is as follows. effective O'f from 12.5 to 26.3 ft (3.8 to 8.0 m) - more
l. For each adjacent layer pair calculate N TD' and than a factor of two. Todd and Chase stated that
for each layer calculate v (given the overall interstitial when O't =0.005 ft (0.0015 m) they observed
velocity v), KI" and K t using Eqs. 1, 2, and 8. If no heterogeneous character in their tracer simulations.
N TD is greater than five, the system cannot be This observation is consistent with the left panel of
grouped further. Fig. 6. As for this O't' the maximum N TD would be
2. Locate the layer pair with the maximum N TD . 6.0 and only the first grouping would take place.
This is the second and third layer of the original Verification of Grouping Procedure. Fig. 7
porous medium in Fig. 6. Note that the N TD shown compares the effluent concentration history
on Fig. 6 refers to the layer on which it is listed and calculated with the explicit finite difference program
the layer immediately below it. with the analytic solution Eq. 17, where Ke is ob-
3. Combine the layer pair having the maximum tained from the results of the grouping procedures.
N TD' The total and average properties of the In the plot, the system length L is large enough so
combined layer are that all layers are grouped into one. The agreement
between the numerical and analytic solution is good,
hj hj +h j +!, ....................... (20) with the analytic solution slightly overestimating the
actual dispersion. In other simulations where the
j (jhj+j+!hj+!)lhj , ............ (21) maximum NTD <5 (effluent histories not shown),
the heterogeneous character of the effluent history is
kj (kjhj+kj+!hj+!)lhj, ............ (22) still apparent.
and Effect of System Length. From Eqs. 18 and 19, O'e
Vj = (vjhjj+vj+!h j +! j+!)lhjj' ..... (23) does not depend on L in two-layered porous media.
The grouping procedure reintroduces this depen-
The average longitudinal dispersion coefficient for dence through the grouping criterion. That is, as L
the combined layer is increases, O'e is constant for each layer until N TD = 5
464 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
for a pair of layers, at which point the two layers are
grouped and Ci e jumps discontinuously to a new
value given by Eqs. 18 and 19. Fig. 8 illustrates this isl OROERING-44 I I I EACH LAYER
with two systems having the same permeabilities, but k
1
2f\d ORDERIN<i-4,1,4,1
' , , Itt THICK
(0305m)

with a different permeability ordering. At L = 342 ft 40

Q/,05ft(OI5m)
0, 0
(104 m) the second (alternating) ordering Ci e changes 10 a, , 0016711 (00051 m) _ lsi ORDERING

from 0.5 to 11.7 ft (0.15 to 3.6 m). For the first (one '0 EQUAL POROSITY

step) ordering, the change does not occur until

L= 1,368 ft (417 m), but the resulting increase in Ci e 20
2 nd ORDERING

is from 0.5 to 47 ft (0.15 to 14.3 m). Since larger Ci'S

indicate more mixing, a concern that very large well 10
r-L---
I
I
spacing would cause large reservoir mixing appears I
I
to be partly justified. When Ci e is constant, however, 100
LENGTH, FT (326m)
1000

the dispersive mixing zone still decreases in

proportion to L relative to the system length. Fig. 8 - Effect of system length and ordering on effective
dispersivity.
Effect System Ordering. The convoluted nature of
the grouping procedure precludes any attempt to
correlate Ci e with a single parameter that by itself
2
characterizes the permeability order. The importance PERMEABILITY, MD (xI6j1-m2.) PERMEABILITY, MO (X IdfL m2 ) PERMEAB)UTY,MD (X 16fLm ]
10 100 1000 I 10 100 1000 10 100 KXJO
of order also is shown in Fig. 8, which shows a four- I I I I I I I I

fold difference in the final Cie's because of the dif-

ferent ordering.

Layered Models. In addition to glVlng suitable

dispersion coefficients, the grouping procedure could
indicate a method for obtaining layered reservoir
1-
44ft
(134 m)

models from core data. This is indicated by Fig. 9,

which shows the results of the procedure applied to I
core data from Benton Stage 1. The raw core data are
on the left, the results of the grouping procedure are
in the center, and a model based on these data used in
l
an earlier study 18 is on the right. The grouping 0 5 Kl 15
EFFECTIVE ALPHA, FT( 328m)
procedure, using L=500 ft (153 m), Cie=0.5 ft (0.15 (CORE DATA) (DISPERSION GROUPING) (MODEL I)

m), and Cit = 0.0167 ft (0.005 m), predicts a layered

structure that is close to Modell. The resulting Cie's Fig. 9- Results of grouping procedure applied to Well
BFU249 core data.
are large in the upper part of the interval but small in
the lower part. The large Cie'S are the result of the
large overall permeability variations in the upper MAXIMUM RELATIVE MIXING ZONE LENGTH (61IL)
interval (see left plot). This would corroborate the

r
01 10 01 10 OOr~.:n..".~,..;.; 10
'
often-speculated dependence of Ci on reservoir
heterogeneities.
Field-Scale Mixing. Using the grouping procedure,
it is possible to deduce the effect of system length on
44ft
reservoir mixing. A measure of reservoir mixing is (134m)

L
the maximum relative mixing zone length, M/ L,
defined as the fraction of total system length between
C=O.1 and C=0.9 at 1 PV cumulative injection:
L'IOOfT(305m) L,SOOtl(152Sm) l'IOOOft (305m)
MIL = 3.625--./ Ci e / L. . ................. (27) (AVElll/L'026) (AVE tJ/L,OI7)
(HOMCGENEOUS lJ/l=026) (HOM:X>ENEOOS M/L=O II)
lAVE llt!L=OI9)
(HOMOGENEOUS M/L:OOB) (HOMCX3ENEOUS Mtt.:004)
o- MIXING ZONE LENGTH IN EXCESS OF I-OAOGEt'OOS SYSTEM

If Ci e were constant, M/ L would decrease with L - y, ,

but as L increases, Ci e increases discontinuously Fig. 10 - Effect of system length on maximum relative
because of the grouping procedure described above. mixing zone length for Well BFU-249 core data.
Fig. 10 shows a M/ L profile for Benton Field Unit
(BFU) Well 249 core data at four values of L. The
thickness-weighted average M/ L is given below each
profile. It is evident that the average t:..f/ L decreases
slowly for L < 500 ft (153 m), and then remains
relatively constant at about 0.17. This is about the
level of mixing that would be evidenced in a 7Yz-ft
(2.3-m) Berea core using Cie = 0.2 in. (0.06 cm). Of
course, if L were increased beyond the point where
all layers were grouped into one, t:..f/ L would again
AUGUST 1981 465
decrease with L - '12. Calculations such as those number, Ke1u(L)
shown in Fig. 10 give some indication of the level of N TD transverse dispersion number
mixing that should be anticipated in field-scale QD dimensionless cumulative injection
processes. t time, t
The grouping procedure does appear to yield a tf,tj defined by Eq. 5
viable reservoir model from core data, at least for the vi interstitial velocity in Layer j,L/t
data shown. As a procedure for calculating a per- v average interstitial velocity, Lit
meability profile for simulation, it suffers from two W = system width, L
defects: (1) it does not by itself identify continuous x,y longitudinal and transverse
sand units which may be revealed in a geologic study coordinates, L
and (2) it is quite sensitive to the values of <Xf and <Xt' x D,YD dimensionless longitudinal and
which are hard to measure in the field. Nevertheless, transverse coordinates
the grouping procedure is the first attempt that we xD moving dimensionless longitudinal
are aware of where the layers are derived, in part, coordinate
from the flow characteristics. <Xe effective longitudinal dispersivity,
L
Conclusions longitudinal and transverse
1. For transverse dispersion in a two-layer dispersivities, L
medium, the displacement behavior is bounded by convective flux
that of a two-layer medium with dispersion only porosity
occurring longitudinally within each layer, and that
of a single-layer medium having an augmented Superscripts
longitudinal dispersion coefficient. In the latter case, thickness-weighted average (except
the behavior is directly analogous to Taylor's in Eq. 25)
dispersion in a capillary tube. 8,9
2. A transverse dispersion number, N TD' indicates Subscripts
where (between the above limits) a displacement in a 1,2 high- and low-velocity layers,
two-layer medium will lie. When N TD is less than respectively
0.2, the medium behaves with heterogeneous nondispersing
character; when N TD is greater than five, the j refers to general layer
medium behaves as if it were single-layered. TOT total
3. The transverse dispersion results readily extend N = indicates numerical dispersion
to multilayer systems through a grouping procedure
that yields layered reservoir models from core data Acknowledgment
and estimates of field-scale dispersion.
We thank the management of Shell Development Co.
for permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
C =concentration
References
Da molecular diffusion coefficient,
L2/t I. Perkins, T.K. and Johnson, O.C.: "A Review of Diffusion
and Dispersion in Porous Media," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March
Fp formation resistivity factor 1963) 70-84.
Fk permeability contrast 2. Grane, F.E. and Gardner, G.H.: "Measurements of Trans-
Fkh permeability-thickness contrast verse Dispersion in Granular Media," J. of Chern. and Eng.
F porosity contrast Data (April 1961) 6, 283-287.
layer-thickness fraction 3. Sheely, C.Q.: "Description of Field Tests to Determine
Fh Residual Oil Saturation by Single Well Tracer Method,"
Fh porosity-thickness contrast paper SPE 5840 presented at 1976 Improved Oil Recovery
h layer thickness, L Symposium, Tulsa, March 22-24, 1976.
H= system transverse dimension, L 4. Bragg, J.R. et al.: "A Comparison of Several Techniques for
Measuring Residual Oil Saturation," paper SPE 7074
lTD transverse dispersion index presented at the SPE Fifth Symposium on Improved Methods
k permeability, L 2 for Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-19, 1978.
Klj longitudinal disyersion coefficient 5. "EI Dorado Micellar-Polymer Demonstration Project Third
in Layer j, L It Annual Report," BERC/TPR-77/12 (June 1976-Aug. 1977).
transverse dispersion coefficient in 6. Moses, P.L. and Wilson, K.: "Phase Equilibrium Con-
siderations in Utilizing Nitrogen for Improved Recovery from
Layer j, L2 It Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs," paper SPE 7493
effective longitudinal dispersion presented at the SPE 53rd Annual Technical Conference and
coefficient, L 2It Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978.
L system length, L 7. Warren, J.E. and Skiba, F.F.: "Macroscopic Dispersion,"
~f = mixing zone length, L
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1964) 215-230.
8. Taylor, G.: "Dispersion of Soluble Matter in Solvent Flowing
transverse and longitudinal fluxes, Slowly Through a Tube," Proc., Roy. Soc. London (1953)
Lit 219, 186-203.
N = number of layers in multilayer 9. Taylor, G.: "Conditions Under Which Dispersion of a Solute
systems in a Stream of Solvent Can Be Used to Measure Molecular
Diffusion," Proc., Roy. Soc. London (1954) 225, 473-477.
(Nh) - 1 = effective longitudinal inverse Peclet 10. Peaceman, D.W.: "Improved Treatment of Dispersion in

466 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 Numerical Calculation of Multidimensional Miscible and
Displacement," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1966) 213.
11. Goddin, C.S., Craig, F.F. Jr., Wilkes, J.O., and Tek, M.R.:
"A Numerical Study of Waterflood Performance in a
Stratified System with Crossflow," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1966) ( Kt2 )!!=(~)2(V2 -1)YD (~)
a
765-771. v-L dYD L - V xD
A ,

12. Koonce, T.K. and Blackwell, R.J.: "Idealized Behavior of

Solvent Banks in Stratified Reservoirs," Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(Dec. 1965) 318-328. 05,YD < 1- F h . . .......... (A-3)
13. Aris, R.: "On the Dispersion of a Solute in a Fluid Flowing
Through a Tube," Proc., Roy. Soc. London (1956) 235, 67- The first part of Eq. A-3 also satisfies the no-flow
77. boundary condition at Y D = 1. A second integration
14. Horn, F.J.M.: "Calculation of Dispersion Coefficients by yields
Means of Moments," Am. Inst. Chern. Eng. J. (May 1971)
17,613-620.
15. Gill, W.N. and Sankarasubramanian, R.: "Dispersion of a C=C!YD-I_F + ~ (VL )( ~)2
Non-Uniform Slug in Time-Dependent Flow," Proc., Roy. - h 2 Ktl L
Soc. London (1971) 322,101-117.

2](a~~)'
16. Lantz, R.B.: "Qualitative Evaluation of Numerical Diffusion
(Truncation Error)," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1971) 315-320. .( v; -I)[YD2 -2YD + I-Fh
17. Todd, M.R. and Chase, C.A.: "A Numerical Simulator for
Predicting Chemical Flood Performance," paper SPE 7687 I-Fh 5,YD5,I
presented at the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Denver, Jan. 31-Feb. 2,1979.
18. Lake, L.W., Johnston, J.R., and Stegemeier, G.L.: and
"Simulation and Performance Prediction of a Large-Scale
Surfactant/Polymer Project," paper SPE 7471 presented at
the SPE 53rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, c=C[ + ~ [ vL ](~)2 (V~ -I)YD2
Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978. YD=O 2 K L v
t2
APPENDIX
.( a:: ), 05,YD < I-Fh . ............. (A-4)
Derivation of Effective Longitudinal aXD
Dispersion Coefficient Now C must be continuous at Y D = 1 - F h' Using this
Our approach is first to derive a transverse con- condition, the first part of Eq. A-4 becomes
centration profile that we then use to compute the
total longitudinal convective flux. This flux, when
substituted in the one-dimensional material balance, c=C[ _ + ~(~)(~)2(V~ -1)
results in a diffusion equation whose coefficient YD-O 2 K L v
t2
determines the effective dispersion.
Eq. 15, with longitudinal dispersion neglected and '(1-Fh )2( a:: )+ ~2 ( KtlvL )( ~
aXD L
)2
with x transformed to the moving dimensionless
x
coordinate D' where
A x vf .( v; -I)~D2 -2YD + I-Fh 2)
XD=L-L=XD-QD ............... (A-I)

is .( a::), I-Fh 5,YD5,l. ............. (A-5)

aXD
ac (V )( ac) (L)2 1 a
aQD + -;] -1 aXD - H --;;; aYD The convective flux across any plane = constant x
(this plane moves with the average velocity v) is
. - aa [~tcI>aac] = o. . ............. (A-2)
YD vL 'YD
In .this coordinate system, it is reasonable to expect
(ac/aQD) to be small if NTD is large; it is
correspondingly neglected. Further, large N TD also
implies that (ac/axD) is also small. This term cannot
be neglected, however, or there would be nothing in
the equation to provide longitudinal fluid movement. .............................. (A-6)
This term is treated as independent of Y D in the
following. One integration of Eq. A-2, using no-flow Substituting the appropriate Eq. A-4 and A-5 into
boundary conditions at Y D = 0 and the continuous Eq. A-6 and then integrating gives
flux boundary condition at Y D = 1 - F h' yields

ac )f( v2
_ WHvi!> ( H
1Jc- - 6 - L )2 ( aXD -;] -1
)2 (I-Fh )3

( 2)[
. -=-

- VL] +3 (V2
Kt2
--=- -1 )(Vl
v
--=--1 )
v

AUGUST 1981 467

 - at aYJ c
WHv aQD + aXD =0, ............. (A-II)
where t=~verage over a cross section. If NTD is
large, ez e and the substitution of Eq. A-lO into
.Fh3(!)(
vL )l ................. (A-7) Eq. A-ll yields
Ktl J ae _ Nt -I a2 e
Now Eq. 8 may be rewritten as aQD - (Pe) aXD2' ............ (A-I2)
where (N pe )-I is the effective longitudinal inverse
v~ =( F</>h+l), v! =( F</>h+l )( F k ). Peclet number:
v Fkh+l v fkh+l F</>
............................... (A-8) 2
(Nh) - 1= H v (Fkh -F</>h )2
Similarly, 3L(F</>h + 1) Fkh + 1
2 ( 1 )( 1 ) I Fh2 (l-Fh )2]
= I-Fh F</>h+ l ' .[ +
. . ..... (A-13)
F</>hKtl Kt2 .
The approximate solution to Eq. A~I2 is Eq. 17. Eq.
= ( 1~~h )( F</>h + 1)
l
............. (A-9) 18 follows from Eq. A-13 by applying the definition

These substituted into Eq. A-7 give Ke=v(L)(Nh)-1 +1([, ............. (A-I4)

where the second term on the right follows from the

YJ c =- WHV( ~ )2(Fkh-F</>h)2(_I_) work of Aris,13 who noted that the total effective
3 L F kh + 1 F </>h + 1 dispersion is the sum of the effective dispersion and
J( the already-present intralayer dispersion.
l
. -vL
( l - Fh ) 2 + -F h 2 - vL
Kt2 F</>h Ktl
ae )
-A-
aXD SPEJ
................................ (A-10)
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July
18, 1979. Paper accepted for publication May 27, 1981. Revised manuscript
A material balance over an infinitesimal element, received July 9,1981. Paper (SPE 8436) first presented at the SPE 54th Annual
WHdxD' is Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Las Vegas, Sept. 2326,1979.

468 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL