*

..

Numerical Calculation of Multidimensional

Miscible Displacement
D. W. PEACEMAN
H. H. RACHFORD, JR.
MEMBERS AIME

ABSTRACT
A system of partial differential equations describing miscible displacement of iluids irr porous media
is derived
Tb-e system takes into account the
influence
of gravity, the spatial distribution
of
permeability,
dijfusiorr, and jluid viscosities
and
derrsities. A numerical prccedure {or approximating
solutions to the differential systems has been tested
for a horizontal two.dimensional geometry,
In end-to-end displacements
of oil with lessviscous solvetis, the numerical salutions exhibited
fingering qualitatively similar to that observed in
Laboratory models. Small random spatial variations
irr permeability about the mean value are sufficient
to initiate fingering.
Quantitative comparisons O!
computed results with laboratory data show good
agreement,

INTRODUCTION
Miscible flooding .r>f oil by solvent is receiving
increasing
consideration
for field use, ~+ Unfortunate Iy, such floods potentially
present severe
problems in loss of recovery through the by-passing
of oil by expensive
solvent. Consequently,
their
economic evaluation requires sound techniques for
predicting
recovery.
The purposes of this work are to present a finitedifference method for calculating
the multidimensional displacement of oil by solvent and to investigate the validi~ of the method by comparing results
of calculations
with data from displacements
in
laboratory models.s The formulation of the method
COsimulate the model experiments treats a case of
limited scope in the description of solvent fIooding
in the reservoir, The model experiments were carried
out with flaids dtat were assumed to form an incompressible,
ideal, two-component systgm with constant diffusivity.
Establishing
the validity of the method even in
ita present form provides a major step toward che
goal of quantitatively
evaluating individual soIvent
flooding projects.
First, it demonstrates
the fea
.,

&Jgin81 manuscript received In Societ y of Petroleum MIgineeje

office Jely 21, 1960. Revised
manuscript approved JutY 20,
1962. (Paper formerly 1S 24-G) pm aented at35th Annwf
Fall
Meeting of SPR held Oct. 2-5, 1960, In Denver, Cab.
l~efe~ences
Siven at eaid of per..
BECEMBER,

...

. ... .

. .

1962

... .

..._

. .

. .. .

HUMBLE OIL 4
HOUSTON, TEX.

REFININGCO.

sibility of calculating the course of displacements

which are dominated by an inherent macroscopic
instability,
i.e., viscous fingering. In addition, the
method provides almost the only practical means of
examining the effect of the size and extent of reservoir inhomogeneities on the development and propaga-.
riorr of the fingers, taking into account the important
influences of diffusion and gravitational segregation.
It might be inferred that such studies cannot
yield results of practical value because in displacements dominated by macroscopic. instability
the
pattern of finger development and the resulting
performance
should depend critically
on small
variations in the geometric distribution of re servo ir
inhomogeneities.
The present method offers the
capability inherent in Computational techniques of
predicting
performance
reproducible y with any
arbitrary distribution
of reservoir properties
and,
as such, provides a means of evaluating the sensitivity of beha~ior to uncertainties
in reservoir
definition and, thus, assesaing
the reliability of
prediction of performance.
THE PHYSICAL

PROBLEM

DATA USED FOR QUANTITATIVE

TESTS OF CALCULATIONS
In this work, a calculation for treating the rniscibledisplacement
process is tested by comparing calculated results with experimental data. The experiments chosen for comparison have been described
in detail,5 and tb e quantitative
features are summari zi:d in a later section. Briefly, oil was flooded
by solvent of equal density from a thin rectangular
channel in Lucite packed with uniform Ottawa
sand.
Under these conditions,
two-~tmensional
geometry is considered adequate to represent the
process.
Inasmuch as the present work is concerned with
tearing of the method by comparison with specific
two-dimensional
data, the system of equations
presented in the succeeding section will be oriented
to defining the physical system specifically.
-THE -DXFFEREN-TIAL. EQ.UAHWS

. . .. . . .. . . . --

Suppose x, y to be a Cartesian co-ordinate system

and define )Xx, y) to be the height of a point above
a horizontal reference plane. It will be assttmed
an

that at any point the volumetric flow per unit area

across the direction of flow can be represented by
a vector

C=:=

l-;

(4)

where p ~ and pa are the densities of pure solvent

and pure oil, respectively.
From Eqs. 1, 3 ad 41
-=-~
u

(vp+pgvh),

. . . .

(1)

where k is the local

F the viscosity and
The mass velocity
by both dispersion

V*: (Vp

permeability, p the fluid density,

g is the acceleration of gravity.
~of each compnent is governed
and transport.

+ pgvb)

= o

. .

(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6)

-1

90=-

9s=-

Kvwo
Kvwa

Wou ,

4
w~u,

(2)

. . .

where K is the effective dispersion coefficient,

is the weight concentration,
and the subscripts
and .s refer to oil and solvent? respectively.
By continuity,

dwo

-V.;o=KVzWo-VeWo;=4~,

aw.

4
-V*;8=KV2W@VU#4=+;

(3)

where $ is porosity, t is time and K is assumed

isotropic.
<
B1ackwellG and ochers7-g have presented data
on the mixing that occurs during flow through porous
media. At reservoir rates, the dispersion coefficient
K can be given by D/r, where D is the molecuIar
For higher
diffusivity
and 7 is the cortuosity.
rates of flow, such as those encountered in laboratory
models, higher dispersion coefficients which vary
approximately
linearly with velocity have been
measured; furth eimore, the dispersion
coefficient
has been found to be much greater in the direction
parallel to the flow than in the transverse direction.
Consequently,
in applying Eqs. 3 to modeIs, it is
necessary
to modify the dispersion
terms. For
simplicity,
we assume that the flow vectors are
essentially
parallel to the x-axis and, therefore,
that the dispersion terms Ki w can be replaced by
the sum
dgw

KX

axz

KY

132W

BOUNDARY

CONDITIONS

The boundary conditions are equations defining

the pressures
or flows at the extremities of the
model, and corre spend to the physical situations
existing at the ends and sides. In the experinients
to be treated, the rectangular channel is flooded in
the direction of its greater dimension, which is
chosen to be the x-direction; fluid enters along the
full width, y = O to y = W, at one end and leaves
along the full width at the other. No fluid enters
or leaves elsewhere.
The mathematical statement of these conditions
is as follows. At the sides of the model, y = O and
, -y = W, there ia no flow normal to the face. This
requires that
C3p
+pg$=o.

. . . ...(7)

ay

At the input and output ends, x = O and x = L,

fluids are injected or removed by means of headers,
which may be assumed sufficiently large that there
is no appreciable pressure drop due to flow. Then,

P(Q

y)

=p(o,o)

Y d)j
-gp*

Jo

a%

= P(O,O) -gpJh(O,y)

(O,z)fk

- lJ(O,O)] , . . . (8)

and

dy2

where KX is the di apersion coeffi+ent

measured
in the direction parallel to flow and KY is that
measured in the transverse direction. In this work,
KX and KY were assumed constant at values corresponding to the average velocity.
-- For the oi[-solvent- sy.+tems-under- consideration~
it is reasonable to assume conservation of volume.
Tlien it is possible to define a solvent volume
concentration.

. ... ... ... . .

SOCIETY

.. .

. . ... . .

. ... . . . .

P(Ltz)g(L,z)dz

(9)

Since the fluids are assumed incompressible,

only
clifferences in pressure are of importance; hence,
-- P(L, 0) is arbitrary-and may-be-taken as -zero. -Then,if P is the pressure difference maintained between
the points (0,0) and (L, O), we have #r(O,O)= P.
Model experiments are usually conducted in one

328

..

Jo

m-,y)=po.,o)-g

. . ..

OF PSTROLElfht

..

.. . . .

..

ENGINEERS

. . .. . .

J~uRNhL

. . .. . . . .

of two ways: either the pressure difference P is

kept constant, or the total flow rate ia kept constant.
In the latter case, P must be such a function of
time aa to maintain the constant total flow rate.
Boundary conditions on concentration will appear
in the discussion of the input-output terms of the
difference equations.

Ax(fnAxgn)i,j

~ Ui+z,j,

n(gi+l,jin

n _gi.l,j,n)]/Ax2

- fi.~,jpn~gi,j,

AYVnAYgn)i,j

- gi,j, ti)

gi:j,n)

s Vi, j+~,nki,j+l,n,:

SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM

DIFFERENCE

- fi,~~,n(gi,j,

EQUATION FOR PRESSURE

Numerical solutions to Eqs. 5 and 6 are obtained

by solving a system of analogous difference equations, The x, y, t space is divided into discrete
intervals,
and values of the dependent variables
C and p are obtained st the points (~, yf,tn), where
n-1

xi = iAx, yi = jAy and tfl = ~

n-gi,j.l,n)l/Ay2

= AJ/nAzgn)i,j

A(fnAgn)i,j

Then Eq.
equation,

5 is

+ AY(fnA.ygn)i,j.

approximated

by the

difference

Atm.

m=O

In a previous paper lo a numerical solution was

given for treating a similar problem involving the
solution of a system of two partial differential
equations
having two dependent variables.
That
problem, the multidimensional
displacement
of oil
by water, is closely analogous to the present one.
in the reference two methods were proposed., One
required the simultaneous
solution of difference
analogues of the simultaneous differenaal equations
that,
at each time step. The other recognized
of the incompressibility
of the fluids,
because
combination of the equations could take place to
yield two sets of simultaneous equations for each
time step which could be solved separately with
significantly Iess work, This solution at each time
step of c~one-and-~en-th e-other} sets of equations
was referted to as a leap-frog
solution. Unin the ,imrniscible case the eaaier
fortunately,
Ieap-frog procedure would not treat all the boundary
condiaons
of interest.
Si.miIarly, both choices occur here. IrI this case
the leap-frog approach appears even more suitable
than for the corresponding immiscible case because
no manipulation of Eqa. 5 and 6 is required. Furthermore, it should treat all the boundary conditions of
interest. The leap-frog method implies the solution
of Eq. > for the instantaneous
pressure and, thus,
the flow distribution
at time tn, and then using
this distribution
in Eq. 6 to calculate the simultaneous
transport
and diffusion of rhe solvenr
leading to a new concentration distribution at time
% + I*
Specifically,
the method used is aa follows.
Given a concentration distribution at time tn, Ci, ~,~,
to go from time t ~ to t~ + I,a difference anrdogue
of Eq. 5 is used to calculate pi, 1,* using values of
p and p evaluated from the Cf,~, ~. With these values
andpi, ~,~, a difference analogue of
j,wPi,
j,nt
of Pi,
Eq. 6 is used to calculate the new distribuci~n
-.

.q,n+.p
.-. . ---.-.,

In aemrtg up the difference- ~alogue of Eq.- 5,

it Js conve~ieit
to use the difference notation of
the previous work> We define
.
DECEMBER,

. . ... . .... ...

On the left-hand
form

side of Eq.

10, terms of the

appear. These are taken to mean

i,j

ki+l,j+
Pii-l,j, n +

On the right-hand

appear.

These

Pi+l,j,

Pi,j,

side of Eq. 10, terins of the form

are talien. to mean

n + Pi, j,n

J+l,j

Pi+l,j,

i,j

. ...

n + Fi, ),n

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ON PRESSURE

The boundary conditions associated
with difference Eq. 10 are obtained by writing difference
analogues for Eqs. 7 through 9. At the no-flow
boundaries j = O and j = N = W/Ay, a reflection
condition is used. That ia,

Pi,--l, n

= Pi,l, n

pi,N+l,n

= pi,

--------------

with hi,-~

= hi,l

N-l,n with b~,N+l ~ hi,N_l

--------

. . .. .. .. . ,.--.-(ll)

At the input and output edges i = O and i = M ~-L/

Ax, the following difference artalogues -of Eqs.

;-.

1962

.. .. . .. .. .. . . .........

..

. .. . . .. . . . ----

...

. . . ...

.
.-

.
i = () and i = M (by setting

8 and9 are u seal.

~O,j, n= Pn-gP.(hf),j

-hO,O).

. . . (12)

PM,j = - g~

PM, k+~, n(~M, k+l-~M,

+g

ki+l,j + ki,j
n+

Pi, j+l, n +[ Pi, j,n

,

+g

)
for~<iSM-~
fori=M,

~y2

(bi,j_hi,j+l)

Ay2

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)

QoM,j,n

2Yx~-~,j, n

2qM,j, n
AxAy -

each interval

has associated
with it a VX
from the new values of
fiat Eq. 10 iS equivalent rO

or a VY term, calculated

pn. We observe
xi-~,

j,n - xi+~,j,

-VY. a,j+~,n
.1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
The factors of 2 arise from the reflection condition.
The total volume rate of injection of solvent at
at the input face is then
N-1
qinn ~(qo,o,n

+ qO,N,n) + E
O,j, n
j=~

and that this relationship

~;
~.

i~M-l,

OAj

N-1

(15)

holds for the points

1s

<N.

Eq. 15 can be extended to all the points by

including an input term Q/ and an output term QO:
Vx i-~, j, n - xi+~,j,

n +VY. 6,j-~z ,n

...~.v.ytij+~,n+ Q%ijin-*-?o-i,j,

= !0-- .._,_(Ki)
n ---:

We note that, at i = O and i = M, VY = O as a consequence of the boundary condicion. on pressure.

Furthermore, by invoking a reflection condition st
330

. .(:8)

and the total volume rate of fIuid removal at the

output fa,ce is

.1
n +VY. kd-h,n

= O,.......

. .

l%us,

,Q1i,i,n = Qoi,j,n = 0

QIM,j,n

j)

~Pi,j,n-Pi,j+l,n~

~Pi,j+l, n+Pt,j, n

= 2q0,j,n
AxAy

Qoo,j,n=
o

j,n

AX2

k.C,j+l
. +ki,j

VY. .1
]+hn

2vxg, j,a

C@

Pi,/, n) (fii,j-hi+l,

(Pi+l,j,Ir

TERMS

Pi,j,n-pi+l,

Pi,j,

n = - vxM_~,j,n

Qb, j,n =

for i = &

In deriving the difference analogue for Eq. 6,

it is convenient to define the following velocity
terms.

Pi+l,j,

E qo,j, ~ is the volume rate of solvent injected per

point at the input end and qM,i,n is the VOIume rate
of fluid removal per point at the output end, both
rates averaged over ~e time step Afn, then

The alternating-direction
method used COiterate
to the solution of Eq. 10 subject to the boundary
conditions of Eqs. 11 through 13 has been given
as Eqs. B4 to B6 of the reference.lo
AND INPUT-OUTPUT

= - Vx$,j,

k)* (13)

k=O

vxi+f~,j,n =

h,j, n

xM+~,j,

j=l

VELOCITY

p-l, In = PI,j,n# b-I, j

= L+w$,
= PM-Lj,fi an~ht+i,,

= l,j~ ~M+l, j,n

we have

vx_i

9.u~n =

+(q~,(),n
+ M,/V,n)+~

9M,j,n . . (19)

j=l
cwo flow rates gin
and qOutm should be equal
wi~in the accuracy wi% which Eq. 10 is solved by
iteration.

The

DIFFERENCE EQUATION FOR CONCENTRAIION

In selecting .a difference analogue for Eq. 6, at
least thiee choices exist: the spatial derivatives
can be replaced by difference quotients evaluated
at Zn, by clifference quotients evaluated at tn+I z
or by-the average of diffei&ce quotients evaluated -at tn and tn+l. The last choice gives rise to a socalled - time-centered
difference equation, and
should produce. a smaller tm.ncation error.
WGIE;FY

OF PLTROI,EiIM

E!VCINEERS

JOURNAL

.
-.
The difference
is then
1
~

KXA:(C,

.
equation

.
h], n +

.for obtaining

Ci, f, n+ I

Ci,j, n+l )

~ a2C
~-u~-

ac

-+~9.....(21)

and Eq. 20 simplifies

to

+ KY A; (Ci,j,n + Ci,j, n+l)

KA~ (Ci,n + Ci,n+l)

~(c~,n+l-ci,n)

. . . . . . . . . . . (22)

(c;-

$,n

I-C*1
i-~, j,n+l) xi -~,j,n
6-~,j, n

+ (C* 1

~,j, n + c?+ ~,), n+l )

(cl+

*
+(c; j-$, n +C*i,~-~,n+l)

Vxi+$,j,n

i,j-~,n

- (cf,j+~,n + c!,j+~, n+l)vyi,i+~,n

+ QIi, j, ~ ~
@(c.

1
i,j,n

Qi,j,n

6,/,. n+l -

This equation holds for 1 <i ~ M - I. Special casea

are necessary for i = O and i = M, but these are
easily derived from Eq. 20 and will not be included
in this discussion.
Two choices of C* we shall consider are

n)

Ci,j,
.

+ Ci,j,n+l)
.

means (Ci -I, ,- 2C~,j + CA.1,~<

.&-;
A 2yCi, j means (C~,j-1 - Jcj,j
+ Ci,j+l)/~Y
.
The terms Q] and QO have the same meaning as
in Eqs. 17 and are used to account for the input
of solvent at the points of injection,
and the
rem ova 1 of fhrid having the average concentration
(Ci j n + Ci,j, n+l )/2 from the points of output. Eq.
20 ii valid at all points, including those for i = O
and i = M, prcvided a reflection condition on concentration is also used; that is) C-I, i + C I.,~ CM +I,j
= ci, 1 and Ci, N+l = Ci, N-1. Note
= cM_l,p
c~,_l
that the reflection
condition,
together with the
input-output terms, constitutes the boundary conditions on concentration.
There remainf to be di scu~sed the significance
of the terms C i+il , and C i,j+yl, Each interval
has associated .wi$ \t a value of C*, such that
Thq

term

A2xci,

Xi+$,j

c;+ ~,j

AX Ay

represents the rate of transport of solvent from the

point (i, j) to the point (i + L j), whiie
i,j+$

c?,j+~ Ax !ly

represents the rate of transport of solvent from the

point (i, j) to the point (z, j + 1).
A number of choices arise concerning rhe value
assigned to C*; again, this will affect the form of
the difference equation. Before discussing
these
choices,
it will be advantageous
to consi.-er a
simple r, one-dimensional
problem.
0NEDlMt31W10NAL
TRANSPORT
WITH DISPERSION
-... In a one-dirnerrsional -system with-constant ciosssectional area and with incompressible
fluids, the
velocity is independent of position. Then, Eq. 6
simplifies
to
DECEMBER,

.==..

1962

..-.

c*l=+(ci+l+ci)
i+~

. (20)

. .. .. . .

. . . . -. .

. . . . . . (23)

and
C!l=c
$+-L

i. .

.. . . . . . . . .

(24)

The first choice substituted

into Eq. 22 gives a
distance-centered
difference equation, wherein the
derivative (d 415x) i is approximated by the centered
first difference (Ci+l - Ci_l)/2A~
The second choice, Eq. 24, substituted into Eq.
difference
22 gives a backward - in - distance
equation, since the derivative (dC/dx)i is approximated by the off-centered first differen ce (C@ i-1)/
Ax, with the direction of the off-centering
being
oPPosite to the direction of flOw.
Typical solutions of these two difference equations are shown in Fig. 1. The values of the constants chosen were rJ/q5 = 40 ft/D = 0.01431 cm/see;
K = 10-3 sq crn/see; L = 72 in. = 182.9 cm; v .~t/
@5 = 0.007708 (pore volume injected per time step);
M = L/Ax = 48 intervals. Solutions at time such
that Vt/#L = 0.500 (pore volume injected) are
shown in the figure. For comparison, the exact
so Iution to an essentially
identical problem,

11
c=~-~erf

a
~

K vt
7r vz. ~

- . 25)

is aIso shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 shows the typical characteristic
of the
centered-in-distance
equation, the fact that the
solution oscillates about C = 1 in the region behind
the front,- -The -overshoot- isa result of- -distance --- .
-.
truncation error in the neighborhood of the sharp
change in the slope of the concentration
profile.
The overshoot is smaller the larger the dispersion

.
. .

-.

coefficient K, and the larger the number of intervals

M, However, for the values of K normally encountered
in miscible displacement,
the number of distance
increments required to eliminate overshoot would
be prohibitively
large.
Examination of the solution of the backward-indistance
equation in Fig. I shows its typical
characteristic
namely, the tendency to smear
the front. Thi.v equation has a distance truncation
error which is first-order in Ax so that, again, a
prohibitively
large number of distance increments
is neces sarj to obtain an accurate
aohttion.
On the other hand, these two difference equations
do posseas some virtues. The centered-in-distance
equation representa the shape of the front reasonabl y
well and does not smear itexcessively.
Its distance
truncation error is second-order in Ax, so that a
moderate increase in M produces a substantial
increase in accuracy in the region at and ahead of the
front. The backward-in-dist ante equation, on the
other hand, has the virtue of never pro&tcing overshoot. These characteristics
suggest the possibility
of using both of the equations, with the cenreredin-distance equation being used at and ahead of the
front, and the backward-in-distance
equation being
used in the region behind the front.
One way to accomplish this would be to use Eq.
22 everywhere, and at some intervals use Eq. 23
while at cth er intervals use Eq. 24. Initially, Eq.
23 is used everywhere.
We define overshooting
to occur at a point i
during time step Atn when Cf, ~+1 is greater than
Cj-l,n+l.
For the case i = O, overshoot .is aaid to
occur when Co, v+ 1> 1. When cvershoot occurs,
we mark the point i, and it stays marked fog
the rest of the calculation.
The time step Atn is
then repeated.
In the :cpeat calculation,
and in aH subsequent
time steps, when an interval has a point at either
end which haa been {marked}, then Eq. 24 is used

for those intervala.

Eq. 23 is used for all other
intervals.
In this way, the backward-in-distance
equation is used at alI points which have been
marked and which lie behind the front; the centeredin-distance
equation is used at all but one of t!!e
unmarked points which lie at and ahead of the front;
and at one point, namely, the first unmarked point
following the marked points, a mixed equation is
used.
Fig, 2 shows some solutions obtained by this
procedure, for the same value of the constants used
for the solutions shown in Fig. I. Solutions are
shown for each of three valuea of Ax, corresponding
to M = 12, 24 and 48, The figure shows that this
procedure, using 48 intervals, represents the front
welL However, it smears somewhat in the region
immediately behind the front.
A modification of the combination procedure was
then tried which improves the accuracy in the neighborhood immediately behind the front, and also
eliminates
the necessity
for recalculating
a time
step when overshoot occurs, This modification is
referred to as tranafer of overshoot.
The modified combination procedure is as follows.
Again, Eq. 22 k used everywhere and, initially,
Eq. 23 is used for every interval. Overshooting is
defined the same way, When overshooting occurs,
the point i is marked and the excess of Ci, n+l over
Thus, if Ci, n+ I
ci_l, n+l is transferred to Ci+l,x+l.
> ci-~,te+l * then Ci+i,,fi+i is increased by Ci, n+l %x, n+Is and Ci n+l is decreased
by the same
amount, The tes~ing ia then repeated to see if
overshooting
has occurred at any other point; i f
not, the next time step is taken. As before, in
all subseaumc
calculations
Ea. 74 is used fcr
.
all intervals having a marked p~int ar either end,
while Eq, 23 is used for all ocher intervals.
Fig. 3 shows solutions
obtained using this
combination procedure with transfer of overshoot.

i,2
Centeredin distance
r?-

1,0

Difference Eq.

s-

Lo

M.24

0.6

Exact solution,%(25

0.8
.
,5
~
~ 0.6
:
G
0.4 VId -40 ft/day
K~ 103cm2/sec

Exact Solution,Eq. (25)

.-6
6
~

L ..72 in,
0.4

L =72 in,

M,.L/Ax .48
vt/+L -0.50

0,2

0.2

v \ t/a

L = 0,007708

vt/6L

= 0,50

0,5

f%ctiarwl Distance,

--l%actianalDistance,-d-

--~

- --

SOLUTIONS OF ONEFIG. 1 NUMERICAL

D2MENSIONALTRANSPORT WITHDISPERSION.

...-

.. .....

.. . . ------ .. .. --.

-.

0.75
x/L

1.0

.FIG. 2 SOLUTIONS USING COMBINATION CENTERED- AND BACKWARD-IN-DISTANCEDIFFERENCE

EQUATIONS.
sOCIETy

SW?

...- . .. . .....- . -----

0,25

OF PETRo I.EIIM ENGINEERs

JO IIRN AI.

..

.
-.
if VYi,j+$

Solutions are shown for M = 12, 24 and 48. The

figure shows that this procedure gives the best
answers of any of the methods discussed.
EXTENSION OF COMBINATION METHOD
WITH TRANSFER OF OVERSHOOT
TO TWO DIMENSIONS
With the motivation
provided
by the o n edimension al study, the following procedure was
used for calculating C f,j, ~+1 from c~,~,n each time
step.
When
At time t = O, all points are unmarked.
overshoot (clefin ed later) occurs at a point, that
point is marked and remains marked for the rest
of the calculation.
Eq. 20 is used to calculate
Cf, j,n+l at each time step, with the C* defined
as follows: if neither point (i, ~) or (i+l,j) is marked,
then

> 0 *

cz,j+~

= Ci,j

Eq. 20, with these definitions for C*, is solved

by an extrapolated Liebman type of iteration, which
is described in Appendix B.
When the iteration is completed, each point is
tested for overshoot. It is convenient to use the
following nomenclature.
Each of the four points
around the point (i, j) is said to be a source point
point of the point (i, j) according
or a destination
to the sign of the velocity term (VXor VY) of the
cotre spending interval. In addirion, the magnitude
of the velocity term is said to be either an input
flow or an output flow of the point (i, j). Thus,
if VX.1

a-LJ

> 0, then (i-l,j)

is a source point
and VXi-%,j is an input flow;

if VXi-~, j < 0, then

(i-l,j)
is a destination
point and -VXi-~,j is an output

if

either point

(i, j) or (i+l,j),

or both, is marked,

then

flow;

if VX. I

~+~,j

if VXi+~z,j >0,

C* , . = Ci,j
i+~,]

if VXi+~,j <0,

c?

Similarly,
then

if neither

1 . = Ci+l,j

t+hsJ

> 0, then

(i+l,j)
is a destination
point and VXi+~,j is an output
flow;

if. VX. I
< 0, then (i+l,j) is a source point
L+h,i
and -VXi+%,j is an input flow.

point (i,j) or (i, /+1) is ~marked,

A similar procedure is foilowed for the U terms

and the points (i, j-l) and (i, j+l).
Overshoot is defined to occur at the point (i, j)
i, A n+i exceeds the concentration Cm+ 1 at
when
all of the source points of the point (i, j). When
overshoot occurs, the point (i./) is marked. The
amount by which Ci,i,z+l exceeds the maximum of
the concentrations
at the source points is called
the amount of overshoot.
The transfer of overshoot is accomplished by decreasing the value of
Ci, j,n+l by the amount of overshoot, and by increasing the va@e of Cn+l at each of the destination
points by. the amount of overshoot multiplied by
the mtio of the corresponding output flow to the
svm of all the output fIows.
After all of the points have been tested for
overshoot
and the overshoot (if any) has been
transferred, then the entire test and transfer procedure is repeated until no point s-atiafies the de finiaon
for over~hoot.
-

if either

point

(r,j) or (i, j+l),

or both, is mar~ed,

then

1.2
1,0

m--m-a

M. 12>
M=24
M. 48

0.8
=.
.2
3
~ 0.6
#
&
0.4

V/c5

.40

- K .10-3

ft/day

CONVERGENCE

cm2/sec

L =72 in.
-

0,2

t/dL

.0.007708

w/6L .0,50

0
0

-.

V \

I
I
0.75
0.25
0.5
M- - .Fractirmd_Distm@,

1,0
.. ----

FIG, 3 SOLUTIONS USING COMBINATION CENTERED- AND BACKWARD-IN-DISTANCEDIFFERENCE

EQUATIONS WITH TRANSFER OF OVERSHOOT.

It is pertinent to examine the convergence

of
the solution of the difference system to the soIution
of the clifferential system. The customary convergence
ana Iysis of the simultaneous
difference system
(Eas. 10 and 20) can be carried out for a choice

o-rby- Eq. - 24; thelatter if the- tiff-centering

is
op@site to the direction of flow. However, analysis
of the combined p~ocedure with transfer of overshoot

.,
3s9

DECEMBER,1962

.
.;

.. . ... . . ..

. . . ...

, .. . . . .. . ..

.. .

.. . . . .. .......

.. .. . . . . . .

.....

.. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .,..
, -,.-.

has not been carried out. On the other hand, the

one-dimensional study and the results to be described
together with the stability analysis of the simpler
systems form the basis for confidence in the convergence o f the procedure used.
MATERIAL

n+k -O

+ x

qsoutmAtm

m=(j

mc F

(29)

2
9s~n Atm
m
m=()

BALANCE

Each member of the system of difference Eqs.

10 and 20 ia consistent with the conservation
of
matter, as is slao the technique of tranafer of overshoot. Thus, in the solution as a whole, the total
amount of both oil and solvent shotdd be conserved.
It is desirable to keep a running check of this to
detect machine or other errors, should they occur.
This is done simply by computing the total of
what goes in, what comes out and how much change
occurred in the region. Considering the total fluid
volume balance,
we have already observed chat
by Eqs. 18 and 19,
qinn and q ~utn, calculated
should be equal. In fact, during the iteration on
pressure these quantities are compared, and must
be within 0.5 per cent of each other before the
pressure iteration is allowed to terminate.
There
remains
the solvent
voIume balance.
Output
Solvent input, of course, is q.sipn = q&.
is calculated
by an equation similar to Eq. 19,
but it takes into account the average concentration
of the fluid being removed.

which should also be unity.

It will be recalled that control of the pressure
drop P across the model had to be made by adjusting the value of P so as to yield the correct injection rate. This is done on the basis of the observed
value of qinn. Suppose Qn+l ia the injection rate
to be maintained during the interval :Jt
~+v In
calculating the ad) usted Pn+l, we aasume that the
effective resistance
co flow through the rectangle
is

n + Pa

4),(J-

bM,O)

9inn
pav
is the density at the average concentrain the rectangle,
Further, assume that this
resistance
varies linearly with time. Let Rn =
pa n(lro,o - hM, o). Then,

where

tion

1
qsoucn ~qM,O,n(cJr,O,

n + CM.O,n+l)

+~
g M, fV,n(cti,N,n + cM,N,n+l)
~~1

qM,j,n(cM,j,n

+ cM,j,n+l)

(26)

i=

The
by

sn

solvent

contained

@!.p

in the rectangle

(Ct,i,n

The solvent balance

tially by calculating

. . . . . . (27)

check is made both differenthe ratio

Atn

(sn+l - Sn) + qsout

md

+ Ci+l,j, n

j=o

+C. t,]+l,
. n + Ci+l,j+l, n)

is given

. . . ..-.. .. . .._ . . . . ZSiniA_tn.

, (28)

$***

which should be unity, and on a cumulative

by calculating
the ratio

Ipn+n

.
8@~n_ 1

n-l+

.-.11

Eq. 30 is soIved for Pz+l.

basis

THE

EXPERIMENTAL

. . .. ... . .. . . . .... . . . .-, .._, .. . . . . . . . .. .. ...._..--.

.

DATA

The
quantitative
comparison
between
data
and results
of computation was based on twodimensional experiments in which the oil recovered
was measured as a hmction of the volume of solvent
injected.
The data, repotred by Blackwell, Rayne
and Terry,5 were obtained from floods of a clear
refined oil from the pores of carefully graded Cktawa
sand packed into a Lucite channel 2ft x6ft x 3/8in.
The floods were carried out by filling the model
uniformly widt yi 1 and, with rhe 3/8-in. dimension
vertical, displacmgthe
oil at approximately constant
rate with a solvent such as hexane whose density
had been raised by the addition of carbon tetrachloride to approximate that of the oil. The displacem nts were carried out parsllel to the 6-ft
dimension -by- introducing the solvent into a header
which allows it to enter the sand along the full
2-ft width of the model. Fluid produced from the
outflow end similarly enters a header which aHows
SOCIETY

.-.

-
%+1

COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH

EXPERIMENTAL DATA

51~1
i=O

<1

OF PSTROI,Ell M EXCIXEEIIS

JO IIR!VAI.

~ .

fluid to leave the sand along the full 2-ft width of

the model. This header am~gement
leads to the
boundary conditions described by Eqs. 8 and 9.
As solvent waa injected, the total fluids produced
were measured and analyzed for solvent concentration by a refractive-index procedure. Th is provided
a
quantitative
relationship
between volume of
solvent injected and volume of oil produced. The
data were characterized
by a period during which
only oil was produced followed by solvent breakthrough. The quantity of oil produced prior to breakthrough
depended primariiy on the oil-solvent
viscosity ratio, After breakthrough, the fraction of
aolven c in the produced stream ateatfily increaaed.
In addition, visual observations of the movement
of the dyed solvent were recorded at several times
during the displacement by tracing on transparent
plastic
sheets the instantaneous
position of the
solvent-oil contact. These tracings reveal the early
form ation of numerous fingers,
some of which
a.ppared
more prominent than others. After the
fingers had propagated 1 to 2 ft, the more prominent
appeared to inhibit the growth of the Orhers so that
only a few of the numerous fingers originally formed
pr~pagated beyond a distance of about 2 ft.
DIFFERENCE

observed
which

%j

distributiorl

Z=2.

The results wili be discussed in three sections:

(1) the development and propagation of viscous
fingers, (2) the effect of small variations in permeability distribution
and (3) the effect of mobility
ratio.
Finger

at time tn,

Drwelopment

Calculations were made under conditions summarized in Appendix A, for a mobility ratio of 86,
with k.s = O.O5 and with 40 x-increments and 20
Time steps corresponding
to the
y-increments.
injection of 0.0025 pore volume were used throughout, To display the results which are qualitatively
similar to visual observations of the floods, 5 Figs.
4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) are included. These were prepared at successive
times corresponding
to the
three injected volumes of 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5, respectively, They indicate the concentration distribution
aa a map prepared using the line printer. To represent the 6-fk wdirection, 216 lines (six to the inch)
were used;
119 characters (10 to the inch) were
used to represent the 2-fr y-direction. The concentrafrom
tion distribution waa hi-linearly interpolated
the calculated
vaIues at (xf, yj) to yield a value
ccmresuonding to each character position in the
map;. &en I if I I characters was printed, depending onwhe~er the coiicentratioh was-in the intervar
100 to 95 per cent, 95 to 85 per cent, . . ., below
5 per cent. The sequence of characters chosen was
,,

,.

.. . . .. . . . . . .

RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS

t)llw. %tRER,1962
.. . .... .. . . . . .

k talc

measurements
were available
of
No individual
the permeability
variations
with position ..in the
model, i.e., the data to provide values of k;, ~
The visual observations
of the finger formation
implied a permeability distribution
that waa not
strictly uniform. This suggested that setting ki, c =
a constant might not be adequate since the Distribution might not trigger finger formation. On the
other hand, it was thought possible thai round-off
error might provide sufficient variation of velocity
wi~ y to start fingers, To test this, a calculation
with 27-bit floating-point arithmetic was made using
the procedure outlined in the previous paragraph
with M = 20, N ~ 10. No fingering developed. Thus,
it was concluded that a nonuniform permeability
- distribution would be ~equired. -Many-choices of a:
nonuniform distribution could be made which would
Yield an average permeability kav equal to that

. . . . . . . (31)

qino~o
L

Pernreabilit y Distribution

. .. ...

= kav(l + kJ$,jW

k talc =
Iv PO

SYSTEM FOR THE MODEL

produces the concentration

i.e.,
Ci, j, ~.

were made of one iri

where k.~ is a specified standard deviation in the

permeability,
and fii, j is a- quantity selected
by a random number generator from a normally
distributed
population
having a mean of zero
and a standard deviation
of 1.0. Because
the
permeability
of a two-dimensional
array of elements
differs
somewhat
from the
arithmetic
average of the permeabilities
of the elements,
and because the arithmetic average of @i,i did not
exactly equal zero, the elements were corrected by
multiplying by the correction factor Z. The facror
was obtained by solving Eqa. 10 through 13 with
aet of k i, . and with the initial
the uncorrected
~i,j,o = O, and solving
concen aation distribution,
for the effective permeability from the calculated
flow ratk. Thus,

For the experiments which were simulated, the

initial conditions are represented by setting Ci, ,0 =
O. The values of Pi, j,o are obtained by so {
v:ng
the pressure difference Eq. 10 with the boundary
conditions
described by Eqs. 11, 12 ad 13. ~
the experiments the model was level; this condition
is imposed by setting hi, j _ 0.
Values Of <i, j, ~ are then computed by the SOIUtion of the simultaneous
Eq. 20 for every point,
i.e., fori=O, 1, . . .,M andj=o,
1, . . ., N. Values
of Pi, ,1 are then obtained once more by soIving
Eqs. ~0, 11,12 and 13. An n-foId repetition of the
alternate
solution of Eqs. 20 and 10 through 13

.
-.
.-

for the model. Tests

. ...

...

.. .. . . ..

. ----

.. .

:J33

- -:-

-.
M, 8, B, D, X, S, E, C, comma, hyphen and blarik,
respectively.
The result is a picture similar in
appearance
to the visual iihpression
from the
displacement
experiment using dyed solvent. The
early forma tion of a number of small fingers followed
J by the subsequent
inhibition of their gr~wth is
visible from these figures.
Results of these calculations are shown quantitatively in Fig. 5 and compared there with experimental
data. In this figure the oil recovered, plott d in
pore volume of the model, is shown vs the volume
of solvent injected in the same units, Solvent
breakthrough is indicated for the experiment and
the calculations.
The data are shown as the points;
the results of calcu Iation are shown as the curve.
The breakthrough time and subsequent production
performance are considered to be within the range
o f experimental
duplicabi lity of tie datet. The
material-balance
ratio rnc was 1.0 ~ 0.6505 for
~ every time step.
Another comparison for k~ = 0.025 was run with
the 40 x 20 grid using the same values of ~i,j. The
quantitative results are substantially
identical with
those obtained for k x = 0.05. However, the breakthrough time is somewhat later, suggesting that the
effect of decreasing the permeability dispersion is to
delay
the fingering process.
This observation
suggests plotting the results in a different form.
Fig. 6 shows the penetration of the leading finger
plotted against the pore volume of solvent injected.
The two curves at the right are plots for the ~.05

and 0.025 values for k,5. The curve at the left is a

typical experimental observation on the same basis,
The qualitative
differences
at the start suggest
that the initial calculated
finger growth may be
delayed by the coarseness of the grid used compared
to the scale on which finizerin~ is initiated ~hvsically; A mechanism which-lea& to the more ;a~id
development of the fingers early., such as an extreme
variation with j of k%#f for the first few time steps,
might provide a bet&r approximation to observe
behavior.
Acceleration

~f Finger Formation, To enhance

early growth of the finger system, the distribution
given by Eq. 31 was altered fot the first few time
seeps. A set of k *}i,j was substituted for the values
k~,,j given by Eq. 31 until the penetration
x/L
exceeded 0.1. The values of k *Yj.
... ,I are found from
Eq. 32:

I
0,6

Experimental

Calculated

Breakthrough

k~

0.025

k~

0,05

Colculoted

Observed Breokfhrouqh

o
o

0,4

0.2

0,6

Pore Volume Solvent Iniected

FIG. 5 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND EX.

PERIMENTAL RECOVERY.
(a)

1.0

0.1 Pore Volume lnledd

Experimental

0.8

Calculated
[b} 0.25

PoreVolume +@ed

0.2

o
(c) 0.5 PoreWalvmeInloctwl

.,--4

CONCENTRATION MAPk FOR

MISCIBLE DISPLACEhlENT, MOBILITY
RATIO z 86,
SW
,,
FIG. 4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0,4

0.s

- l?r&Volume Solvent Imjected

FIG, 6 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND EXPERIMENTAL PENETRATION OF LEADING FINGER.

s[t UlkW1Ot

PSPti OLk IM ES GI%SHRS

JO IIR!Vri L

,..
k~,i -0,
-

+&j < kav

k~,j - k~,i ,

. . , ..(32)

> kav
-

Mobility Ratio = 5

Use of k * with a k~ of 0.05 and the same set of

Pi, j as before produced the penetra~ofl perform~ce

identified
in Fig. 6 as Accelerated
Fingers.
While this change improved the initial agreement
with the data, there is still evidence that the grid
size is too coarse to describe the initial finger
formation
adequately,
and suggests
that local
grid refinement near the inflow face would be
necessary
to examine initial
behavior in more
detail. However, the early attainment of a slope
equal to that observed indicates
that the error
introduced
by the lack of initial detail shouId
produce a relatively
small error in the predicted
recovery.
The calculation using the modified k 14,~ at the
start was continued to produce the recovery curve
irr Fig. 7 labeled lst k..distn., Mob. Ratio =86:1.
For comparison, the dsta points for three displacement experiments with similar solvent-oil vi scosi~
ratios are plotted. The agreement appears well
within duplicability
of experimental results.
Effect

o/ Permeabitiiy

tions gave quantitative results wirhin the range of

experimental duplicability of recovery performance.

Dis tribrition

The difficulty jn achieving dupIicability in the

expe rim en td so Ivent floods with highly adverse
viscosity ratios Ied to studying the role played: by
srns 11 differences that might exist between similar
packs of unconsolidated sands. Ahother calculation
was made, again with a 40 x 20 mesh and a ks of
0.05, but with a different set of pi, j. This calculation
yielded the recovery curve in Fig. 7 labeled 2nd
k-distn., Mob. Ratio = 86: 1! The second calculation
differed qualitatively
from the first in that three
fingers had moved through the length of the column
shortly after breakthrough, as compared with the
two observed in the previous calculation.
Fig. 8
shows a comparison of the finger pattern at 0.25
pore volume injected for the two calculations,
On
the other hand, the different permeability distribu-

To complete the current tests for evaluating the

method, a final calculation was made with a mobility
ratio of 5:1, The recovery results using the first
k-distriburi on are plotted in Fig. 7. For cornpari son,
three sets of experimental data points are plotted.
Again,
the agreement
between
calculated
and
observed performance appears well within experimental dup[icabi[ity.
Qualitatively,
in this case
nearly all the fingers originally formed persi steal
throughout the length of the column. This resulted
in a much greater area for diffusion than was the
case for the mobility ratio of 86 and the tendency
to develop a rather long transition zone behind the
fingers with relatively flat solvent concentration
gradients.
Concentration
maps for 0,1- and 0.6pore volume solvent injected are shown in Fig. 9.
The existence of the transition zone appeared to
suppress the influence of channels developed by
the fingers and, thus, plays a significant role in
the high recovery obtained.
CONCLUSIONS

-,

the twoA numerical method for calculating

dimensional
displacement
of oi 1 by solvent from
the pores of rock has been substantiated
by comparison of computed results with data from experiments.
The method permits including for an
ideal
two-component
(solvent-oil)
system
the
effect of rock geometry, gravity, fluid viscosities
and densities,
and the diffusional
mixing of oil
and solvent.
The technique should provide a
valuable tool for obtaining insight into the mechanics of viscous fingering and for assessing the
influence of reservoir inhomogeneities
on performance of miscible displacements.
The influences of
fluid compressibilities,
multi-component
diffusion

Enperimenta I Dato
Mob, Ratio

S4:1

5:1

93,1

A5,1

D 93:1

110

AA

Cnlcula!ed
with lsI k.distn.
Mobility R.tI.
5:1

0,8 -

(al

First k.distribution,

0,25 Pore Volume Iniecled

A=
0

Calculated Breakthrwgh (5:1)

\

0,6
0,4

m 5:1

:/

\
-F

~Colculated
with 1s? k.dism,
Mob. RQI$O = 86:1

Observed
Breekthcc.u~
(S4.9334

0.2

Calg, with 2nd

k.d, stn., Mob, Ratio =86:l

Observed Breakthroughs (51)

aicu!q~ed-~r~k~~~ough
2nd k-distn,
1s!
k-d, atn.

(86: IJ

,~
o

0.2

0.4

0.6

Poye Volimss

FIG. 7--

0.8
$olvent

1.0
Iniected

1.2
-

1.4

(b)

So.emdk.di!wlbutlon, 0.25 Pare volume In&cted

.-

---

-COMPARISONOF CALCULATED AND EX.

PERIMENTAL RECOVERY.

. .-

DISPLACEMENT, MOBILITY RATIO = 86.

.... .. .... .. . . . ..

..

.. .

,.

. . . .

-.

_,

. .

..-

._,

..

State U, (Aug. 24-26, 1959),

8, Brigham, W. E,, Reed, P. W. and Dew, J. N,: fExperiments on Mixtng During Mist ible D lsplacement in
Porous Media, Sot, Pet, Etig, ,/our, (March, 1961)
1.

9,

Raimondi,
P,, Gardner, G, H. F. and Petrick,
C, B,:
a Effect
of Pore St~cture
and Molecular
Diffw ion

Mixing of Miscible Liquids Flowbrg in Porous

Paper prmented at Joint SPE-AIChE
Symposium in Sat .rancisco (Dec. 6-9, 1959),
10, Douglas, J., Jr., Peaceman, D, W, and Rtrchford, H,
H., Jr.: ~~AMethod for Calculating Multidimensional
Immiscible Displacement, Trans., AIME (1959) VOL
216, 297.
lL Kennedy, R, C,: ~~BA N203, Uniform and Normal
Random Number Generstor~,
Boeing
Airplsne Co.,
Distributed by SHARE, No. 429 (Apjil 4,- 1958).
on the

hkdia,

(a] 0,1 Pare Volume Inlected

APPENDIX
lb)

DATA USED FOR COMPUTLNG

MODEL, PERFORMANCE

0.6 Pare Volume Inlected

FIG. 9 CONCENTRATION MAP FOR MISCIS.3LE

DISPLACEMENT, MOBILITY RATIO = 5,

CONSTANTS
Valuee of the constants
used in computing
model performance are shown in Table A-1.

and three-dimensional
geometry are not included
in the present formulation, although these should
be tractable by extension of the method.
Comparison with data of the results of calculations
made to simulate horizontal two-dimensional
dissimilarities.
striking
placerrE nts
demonstrated
Viscous fingers were calculated to form spontaneously in the presence of small, random variations
of permeability with position. Although early finger
development
was more complex than could be
practically
computed with a uniform grid, the rate
of propagation of the fingers was in close agreement with rhat observed in experiments.
Furthermore, comparison of the calculated
and experimentally observed dependence of oil recovery on
the quantity of solvent injected showed agreement
within
the reproducibility
of the experimental
results,

FUNCTIONAL

the

DATA

Viscosity was expressed

of concentration.

as the following

function

In p = X In ;l~ + (1-X)ln f.to

where

c
,
c +41-C)

x .

with a an empirical constant. The function, and

experimental
data for oil-solvent
pairs haying
approximately the same viscosity ratios that obtained
in the displacements
are shown in Fig, 10.

REFERENCES

RANDOM PER MEABILITIES

Field Applications, COIIectlOn of

six articles, ]our, Pet: Tech, (May, 1958) VOL X,
No. 5, 13.
2. Harbert, L. L,, Reed, P. W,, Bray, t?. K. and Dew,
J, N,: ~#progress Report of LPG Injection in the
Meadow Creek Unit, Lakota E Reservoir~, ]ow.
Pet. Tech; (July, 1959) Vol. X1, No. 7, 26.
3. Bsugh, E. G.: ~~perform~ce of Seeligson Zone
20-B Enriched Gas-I%Ive ProJect, loan Pet, Tech,

The random number generator used to produce

the random permeabilities was the program written
for the IBM 704 computer by Kennedyl I of Boeing
AirpIane Co. and distributed
through SHARE in
April, 1958.
The generatot produces a sequence of pseudorandom numbers /3 ~, s = 1 #2 I3 1.,,9 which are approx-

(March, 1960) VOL XXI,No. 3, 29,

4. Juaten, J. .J., Hoenmena, P, J, and

imately normally distributed

with a mean of zero
and a standard deviation of 1.0, This sequence of

1. ~~MI~cibI@Drive

Groeneveld,

FL:

tlThe
pembha
Miscible Displacement pilot and
Analysis of Its Performance, Trsrns,, AIhlE( 1960)

vol. 219, 38.

s. B1ackweH, R. J., Rayne, J, R, qnd Terry, W, M,:
~<FactoS.S Influen~ng the Efficiency of hfiscible
Displacement,
Trams,, AIME (19S9) Vol. 216, 1.
Blackwell,
R.
J.:
~~L~boratory Studies Of. Microscopic
6.
Dispersion
Phenomena$,
Sot.
Pet. l?ng, ,fo~r.
(Ma~ch,. 1963).1.
.. :.:
---..7. Crane, F. E. and Gardner, G, H. F,: Transverse
Dispersion in Granular Media, Paper presented at
21st Annual Tech. Conf. .on Pet, Prod,, Pennsylvania

TABLE
Length

=72

Width
Thickness

F 24 in,
= 3/8

Flow Rate
.-.

Porosity ----Permeability

(avg.)

.. . .

... . . . .... . . .. . .. .
. .

. ., ..

... ....

In.

=
=

60.96 cm
0.953 cm

16.72 cc/rein

---

=- ---= 187.5x

= 190 darcies

10+

sq cm

= l@
sq cm/sOe
= 4 X l~s sq cm/sec
SO CIRIY

= 182.E8 cm

in,

=40 ft/D
-=0,34---

----

KX
KY

33s
. .. . . . . - . . .. .. .
.

A-l

. . . .

OF

ii
,,,
/,;.
. ..

PET ROI. E(:SI

-.

.-

..-

. -------

Es(;

INKx Rs

JO IrRS,tl.

. .

. .

.TABLE

A-2
Calculation

1
Mobility Ratio
Vlscoslty

86

of oil

(pDise)

Experlmsntol

86

86

86

No.

0,35

O*35

0.35

0.35

0.019

0.00408

0.00406

0.00408

0.00408

0.0037

o.d4

0,44

0.44

0,71

Emplricol Vls.
C05 ity Constant,
0,44
a

1r.t

1St

k- f3istributkm

0.05

ks

far

Po~P~ =76

.polp~ = 5,1

VI Scoslt

y of
SOlvOnt(peis*)

Data

Solvent-Oil Poirs

Accelerate
Fingers?

1St

0,025

2nd

0.05

0,05

No

No

Yes

Yes

0.0025

0.0025

0.0025

0.0025

0,52

0,43

1St

0,0s

Eq, Al with a = 0.44

Yes

Pe:t:;l.ep
\lm.

s?.,

0.005

Final Pare Vol.

Inlected

(;:;

J*)

(~:9J

1.27

*The pore volume injected per step was increased to 0.005

at rhls time. All calculations
reported here were made with
Ax= ,L/40 = 1.8 In. and .4Y = W/20 = 1,2 in.

pseudo-random numbers was used to generate

amaY /3i,j through the relationship

,,
,Eq,

Al with a=O.71

the
0

0.2

0.4

0,6

0.8

1..0

Concentration af Salvsmt, C

f,j

= ~Lj(M+l)+l

The sequence of random numbers depends on

the initial value of one of the numbers stored in
the program (i.e., at location BARN + 13). This
number may be changed to generate a different
of random numbers: For calculations
sequence
with the first k-distribution,
the value of this
number supplied with the program was used. In
octal notation its value was 002312421637. For
the second k-distribution this number was changed
to 003547305565.

FIG. 10 VKSCOSITY-CONCENTRATIONDATA FOR

SOLVENT-OIL SYSTEMS.

The coefficients

are calculated by rules correspondchoice of C*.

procedure used is as follows.

ing to the appropriate

The ite~tion

sUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS
The calculations

are summarized

in TabIe A-2.

APPENDIX B
SOLUHON OF EQ. 20 BY ITERATION
Eq. 20 is of the generic

form

()
2q5

ai,jci-l,j,

n+l -i-b.
At

Ci,jci+l,j,

n+l
bi c..Z,I,
,

n+l+ i,jct,j-l,

n+l

where

is the iteration

number, Ci$)n+l

of Ci, j, ~.l ~ and ~ is an iteration

which is kept constant.
in the runs reported, [ = 1.25 was
iteration was terminated when

iterate

+ i,~ci,~i-l,

n+-l + ~i,j = 0

where

.(_,__)
_ ___

is the M
parameter,
used.

The

2+

i,l = ai,jci-l,j,n
+ ~

,...-,___ ,___
+ ci,jei+l,j,

fNXkMlfER,

19(5LI

- bt 9j ct,j,n,.
.- .
.

n + i,jci,j-l,

with

--. ....
f chosen

iterations

at

sufficed.

IFS.

General]y

three

to

five

***
3s9