A Critical Review of the Use of
Pseudorelative Permeabilities
for Upscaling
John W. Barker, SPE, and Sylvain Thibeau, Elf Aquitaine Production
Summary
The properties and limitations of different dynamic pseudorelative
permeability methods are summarized. Severe difficulties common
to all methods are discussed: choosing the number and locations of
the coarse-grid rock types, defining the simulations from which the
pseudos are generated, and the dependence of the pseudos on well
rates and positions. It is concluded that, in practice, pseudos cannot
be used reliably to scale up from a “fine-grid” geological model to a
“coarse-grid” fluid-flow model except for cases where capillary or
gravity equilibrium can be assumed at the coarse-gridblock scale.
Scaling up from the core scale to the geological model is more likely
to be possible because capillary forces are more important at smaller
scales. A practical approach to the dynamic upscaling problem is out-
lined, but one should not expect that the effects of the detail in the geo-
logical model will be captured more than qualitatively.
Introduction
Multiphase fluid-flow simulations of oil reservoirs are computation-
ally very intensive. With currently available computers, most oil com-
panies cannot afford to run routine fluid-flow simulations with more
than about 105 gridblocks. This implies an average gridblock size on
the order of 100 m areally and perhaps 1 to 10 m vertically. Each grid-
block thus represents a part of the reservoir that is heterogeneous. His-
torically, little information on the structure of the reservoir at this scale
was available, so there was little motivation to do anything but ignore
the heterogeneity not explicitly represented in the model.
Nowadays, modern reservoir imaging techniques and advances
in geological modeling are providing more detailed reservoir de-
scriptions. Geological reservoir models are being built with up to
107 gridblocks (the size of these models is also limited by computa-
tional constraints). These models may be used directly for fluid-in-
place and connectivity calculations with little computational diffi-
culty. Single-phase flows, such as well tests or depletion of dry gas
reservoirs with no aquifer influx, may possibly be simulated on
grids of this size. But for multiphase flows, which occur in the ma-
jority of hydrocarbon reservoirs, the detailed geological informa-
tion must be incorporated into a coarser, fluid-flow simulation mod-
el by means of some upscaling technique.
Is It Enough To Scale Up the Absolute Permeability? It is some-
times suggested that scaling up of absolute permeability alone is
enough to capture the effects of heterogeneity on two-phase fluid-
flow simulations. Previous publications1,2 and our own unpub-
lished work, however, both suggest that this is not true if the correla-
tion length of the heterogeneity not represented on the fluid-flow
simulation grid is significant compared with the well spacing. This
often happens when long, thin, high-permeability channels; thin,
high-permeability layers; or extensive, but thin, shale barriers are
present in the reservoir.
In these cases, a multiphase upscaling technique is generally re-
quired. The most obvious of these is the use of pseudorelative per-
meabilities (pseudos), which has been suggested by many authors.3
In this paper, we take a critical look at the suitability and reliability
of various pseudorelative permeability methods for use in scaling up
from a fine-grid geological model to a coarse-grid fluid-flow model.
Copyright 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 14 May 1996. Revised manuscript received 17
December 1996. Paper peer approved 4 March 1997. Paper (SPE 35491) first presented at
the 1996 European 3D Reservoir Modeling Conference, Stavanger, 16–19 April.
138
Pseudorelative Permeability Generation. The role of pseudorela-
tive permeabilities is to determine the flow rate of each phase out of
a gridblock. They relate the flow rate to the pressure gradient be-
tween the gridblock and its neighbor, given the average saturation
in the gridblock (assuming that single-point upstream weighting is
used). Both the flow rate and the pressure gradient depend on the de-
tails of the saturation distribution within the gridblock. Thus, to
compute a pseudorelative permeability curve, it is necessary to de-
termine the saturation distribution within the gridblock for any giv-
en average saturation.
When the flow is dominated by gravity or capillary forces or a
combination of the two, the saturation distribution may be deter-
mined by assuming capillary/gravity equilibrium. For the case
where the phases are locally segregated under gravity, “vertical-
equilibrium” pseudos may be calculated.4,5 For the capillary-domi-
nated case, pseudos may be calculated by scaling up the permeabil-
ity of each phase (kk r ) and dividing by the scaled-up value of the
absolute permeability (k).6 Each of these quantities can be scaled up
by solution of a Laplace equation with periodic lateral boundary
conditions7; however, the dependence of the results on the boundary
conditions and the tensorial nature of the scaled-up quantities8
should be recognized. In some cases, the imposition of local bound-
ary conditions may introduce unacceptable errors; but, if care is tak-
en, it should be possible to obtain reasonably reliable results with
this “capillary-equilibrium” method in most cases.
In many reservoirs, however, viscous forces cannot be neglected.
In these cases, the saturation distribution is not uniquely determined
by the average saturation but also depends on the production history
[i.e., the positions of the wells and their rates (mathematically, on the
boundary conditions)]. One way to determine the details of the satu-
ration distribution for a specific production history is by running a
simulation with either a fine grid or a dual-scale grid.9 Several meth-
ods for calculating pseudorelative permeabilities from the results of
such a simulation have been proposed; some of these are discussed
in the next section. Pseudorelative permeabilities calculated from
the results of a simulation are generically known as dynamic
pseudorelative permeabilities.
Dynamic Pseudorelative Permeability Methods
In this section, we consider the ability of various dynamic pseudore-
lative permeability methods to reproduce the results of a given fine-
grid simulation on a coarse grid. Implicit in our discussion is the as-
sumption that a different set of pseudos will be generated for each
coarse gridblock and each flow direction, using the results of the
given fine-grid simulation. Of course, this is not what would happen
in practice, but it is useful for understanding the properties of the
various methods. The relevant references give details of the various
methods discussed. Ref. 10 gives a full analysis of the properties of
the various methods, which are merely summarized here.
Kyte and Berry11 and Similar Methods. The Kyte and Berry
method is very well-known and widely used, but is also widely be-
lieved to be unreliable, although there is little published evidence
for this. A similar method is the “pore-volume-weighted” method,12
which differs from Kyte and Berry only in the use of a different for-
mula to determine average pressures.
In both these methods, average pressures for each coarse grid-
block and total flow rates of each phase between each pair of adja-
cent coarse gridblocks are calculated from the fine-grid simulation
results. These values are substituted in the coarse-grid Darcy equa-
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
tions to infer the coarse-grid (pseudo) relative permeability values
that would be required to reproduce the fine-grid flows.
From the way the pseudos are constructed, it is clear that both
these methods should, in principle, allow the fine-grid solution to be
reproduced exactly on a coarse grid.13 Thus, these are in fact “ideal”
methods that give the “correct” pseudos for any particular case.
However, in practice, many things can go wrong: it is possible for
the net flow of a phase to be in the opposite direction to the average
pressure gradient, leading to a negative pseudorelative permeabil-
ity; there can be a nonzero net flow when the average pressure gradi-
ent is zero, leading to an infinite pseudorelative permeability; and
the same average saturation may occur more than once in a given
coarse gridblock, leading to a multivalued pseudorelative perme-
ability function (if this occurs, it is a difficulty for any method).
Thus, the pseudos generated by these methods may be unusable.
A further problem with the Kyte and Berry method is that the defi-
nition of average pressure differs according to whether one is consid-
ering x-, y-, or z-direction flow. Thus, in multidimensional problems,
one may have two or three different pseudocapillary pressures (even
if there is no capillary pressure in the fine-grid problem). The pore-
volume-weighted method has only one pseudocapillary pressure, and
this is zero when there is no fine-grid capillary pressure. Thus, this
method is preferable to the original Kyte and Berry method.
Stone’s14 Method. Stone was the first to use total mobility as a way
of avoiding the problems associated with estimating the average
pressures in the Kyte and Berry method. He suggested computing
an average total mobility and a net fractional flow. The pseudorela-
tive permeabilities can be calculated easily from these two quanti-
ties if gravity and capillary pressure are neglected, as they were by
Stone, but neglect of gravity imposes a severe limitation on the use
of the method. Also, Stone’s formula for average total mobility is
inadequate when there are significant variations in total mobility.15
Thus, in cases with significant gravity (or capillary pressure) effects
or with significant variations in total mobility, the method can give
poor results.
Other Total Mobility Methods. Methods similar to Stone’s but that
use better methods to find the average total mobility have been pro-
posed by several authors.15-17 The best approach is probably by
solution of a Laplace equation.15 Coarse-grid gravity effects can be
allowed for if the total flow rate is also obtained from the fine-grid
results17 (solution of a quadratic equation for the pseudorelative
permeabilities is necessary).
The resulting method, which we call the total-mobility method,
is more robust than the Kyte and Berry or pore-volume-weighted
method in the sense that infinite values can be avoided and negative
values occur less frequently (but can still occur if the net flows of
the two phases are in opposing directions). However, in solving the
Laplace equation, the gravity term is neglected and local boundary
conditions are necessarily imposed. These two approximations,
while generally not severe, mean that the fine-grid solution will not
be exactly reproduced on the coarse grid. There is no point in trying
to “improve” the method by eliminating these two assumptions be-
cause this would lead back to the pore-volume-weighted pseudos,
which, while guaranteeing reproduction of the fine-grid results in
principle, are often unusable in practice.
The attraction of the total-mobility method is that it may be useful
in some cases where the pore-volume-weighted pseudos are unus-
able. While it guarantees neither reproduction of the fine-grid re-
sults nor usable pseudos, it makes a minimum of approximation and
is thus a compromise between rigorous, but unreliable, and robust,
but approximate, methods.
Quasisteady-State Method. This method, in which the permeabil-
ity (kk r ) of each phase is scaled up (by solution of a Laplace equa-
tion, for example), has appeared in several guises.18-20 The pseudo-
relative permeabilities are obtained by dividing the scaled-up value
of kk r by the scaled-up value of absolute permeability (k); i.e., the
method is the same as the capillary-equilibrium method described
in the Introduction except that the saturation distribution is taken
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
from the fine-grid simulation rather than being calculated assuming
capillary equilibrium.
It can be shown that scaling up (averaging) of phase permeability
is valid only in the quasisteady-state case.10 Implicit in the method
is the neglect of the time derivative of saturation, ēS/ēt. In the ab-
sence of capillary pressure, this time derivative is infinite at a satura-
tion front and cannot be neglected. The method can thus fail very
badly in viscous-dominated cases, which generally involve dis-
placements of a frontal nature. Only when the saturation fronts are
smoothed out by capillary forces is the method reliable. An attrac-
tion of the method is that the pseudos are generally smooth curves
with values between zero and one, so there are no problems with
their actual use in the coarse-grid simulation. This, however, does
not justify the method’s use outside its range of validity.
Weighted-Relative-Permeability Method. This is a widely used
method, for two reasons. First, it is one of the methods available in
PSEUDO,12 the upscaling program sold with GeoQuest’s popular
ECLIPSE reservoir simulation software. Second, it generally gives
smooth pseudos with values between zero and one. The pseudorela-
tive permeability of a phase is obtained simply as an average of the
relative permeability values for that phase in certain blocks in the
fine grid. Despite its popularity, the method has little justification
because it is consistent with the coarse-grid Darcy equations only
under very restrictive conditions and it neglects the coarse-grid
gravity term. Thus, there is no guarantee that it will reproduce the
fine-grid solution on the coarse grid.
Other Methods. Several other dynamic pseudorelative permeabil-
ity methods have been proposed,21-23 but, in our opinion, these do
not offer anything better than the methods we have just discussed
(see Ref. 10).
Obtaining pseudos by history matching24,25 (i.e., by adjusting
them until the coarse-grid results match the fine-grid results) is diffi-
cult to do when many sets of pseudos are used on the coarse grid.
With such pseudos, the fine-grid solution is reproduced at the wells
but not necessarily for each block (unless interblock flows and aver-
age block pressures are also history matched, which makes the
matching even more difficult). The pseudos are thus less likely to be
valid if the well rates or positions are changed than are pseudos ob-
tained by one of the constructive methods described previously.
Nonetheless, such a step may have to be performed as a final tuning
of pseudos generated by the quasisteady-state or weighted-relative-
permeability methods.
Authors from Heriot-Watt U.8 have advocated relating the scal-
ing-up step more closely to the geological structures present in the
reservoir and also the use of tensorial pseudorelative permeabili-
ties.8 However, the techniques they use for calculating the pseudos
are essentially the same as the methods already described.
Finally, in renormalization-based methods,17 the key idea is to
perform scaling up in a series of steps rather than in a single step.
Thus, a model is scaled up from a fine grid to a slightly coarser grid,
then again to an even coarser grid, and so on until the desired coarse
grid is reached. At each scaling-up step, the methods used to calcu-
late the pseudos needed for the next coarser grid are again the same
as those described previously. Note that the repeated scaling up of
relative permeabilities compounds the difficulties described later,
which may limit the applicability of the renormalization method in
this context.
Summary. In summary, all the methods have their drawbacks: the
ideal method (pore-volume-weighted) in theory allows a fine-grid re-
sult to be reproduced on a coarse grid, but in practice often produces
pseudos that are unusable. Other methods (quasisteady-state,
weighted-relative-permeability) usually produce pseudos that vary
smoothly between zero and one but that do not reproduce the fine-grid
result. The total-mobility method is a compromise that should
approximate the fine-grid result more accurately than the quasistea-
dy-state or weighted-relative-permeability method and that is more
likely to produce usable pseudos than the pore-volume-weighted
method, but which guarantees neither. The main message of this pa-
per, however, is that whichever method is used (even if there were a
139
perfect method with no drawbacks), there are serious practical diffi-
culties that prevent the use of dynamic pseudos for scaling up reliably
from a fine-grid geological model to a coarse-grid fluid-flow model.
Practical Difficulties
We have discussed the ability of dynamic pseudos to reproduce the
results of a particular fine-grid simulation on a coarse grid when the
pseudos are generated from the fine-grid results and a different set
of pseudos is used for every coarse gridblock and flow direction. Im-
plicit in this is that, if the well rates or positions are changed, the
pseudos would have to be regenerated from the results of a new fine-
grid simulation (with the new well rates and positions). In practice,
this means that the following difficulties arise.
1. We cannot have a different set of pseudos for every coarse grid-
block, but must group the coarse gridblocks into a limited number
of “rock types,” each of which has just one set of pseudos (or one
set for each flow direction).
2.ĂWe cannot afford to run the full fine-grid simulation (if we could,
there would be no need to use pseudos at all), so we must choose oth-
er, smaller fine-grid simulations to run to generate the pseudos.
3. We cannot afford to regenerate the pseudos for every different
simulation (with different well positions, rates and other such pa-
rameters) we want to run but must be able to run several sensitivity
cases using the same pseudos.
Choice of Coarse-Grid Rock Types. Each coarse gridblock re-
quires its own set of pseudos because the pseudos depend both on
the heterogeneity within the gridblock and on the position of the
gridblock within the reservoir. Two identical coarse gridblocks (in
terms of their absolute permeability distribution) may require differ-
ent pseudos because of their different positions with respect to the
wells or initial fluid contacts or because of the influence of differing
permeability distributions in neighboring blocks (i.e., because they
are subjected to different boundary conditions).
In practice, we cannot afford to have a different set of pseudos for
each coarse gridblock, both because of the work required to generate
so many sets and because of the amount of memory required to store
them during the coarse-grid simulation. Thus, we must assign each
coarse gridblock to one of a limited number of rock types in such a
way that all blocks within the same rock type have “similar” pseudos.
However, because the shape of the pseudos depends on so many vari-
ables, there are at present no guidelines for making this assignment
a priori (i.e., as a function of the heterogeneity of the gridblock and
its position in the reservoir). Even after the pseudos have been gener-
ated for all the coarse gridblocks, there are no established rules for de-
termining when two sets of pseudos are sufficiently similar to be
treated as the same (some rules have been suggested recently20,26 but
their usefulness has not yet been extensively tested).
In the past, engineers have used their own judgment to define the
rock types, but this has usually been done on the basis of simple geo-
logical criteria for models involving relatively simple geological
structure (usually layering). Position with respect to wells and/or the
water/oil or gas/oil contact may also have been considered. The va-
lidity of the resulting grouping has rarely been tested. As more and
more complex geological models are developed, it seems likely that
greater numbers of coarse-grid rock types will be necessary. Assign-
ment of gridblocks to the different rock types will become corre-
spondingly more difficult, and less likely to be achievable in an a
priori manner with a few simple guidelines.
Choice of Fine-Grid Simulation. Historically, pseudorelative per-
meabilities for three-dimensional (3D) full-field reservoir models
have been generated from finely gridded two-dimensional (2D) verti-
cal cross-section models or possibly from 3D sector or pattern-ele-
ment models. The number of such models used in any one case has
usually been very limited. Given the complex dependence of pseudos
on reservoir geology and geometry and on well rates and positions,
it is likely that this approach has often been inadequate. In practice,
its applicability has never really been tested because it has not been
possible to run a full fine-grid simulation to check the results.
140
Fig. 1—Example of dual-scale grid.
The invention of the dual-scale-simulation (DSS) method9 has
gone some way toward solving this difficulty. In this approach, the
pseudos are generated from a dual-scale model of the whole (or a
large part) of the reservoir. This model uses a fine grid in and around
the coarse gridblock for which the pseudos are to be generated and
a coarse grid elsewhere. A 2D example is illustrated in Fig. 1. In
such a model, the details of the flow in and around the gridblock of
interest are generally very similar to those that would be obtained
with the full model, but the cost of the simulations is much reduced.
Once the coarse-grid rock types have been defined, DSS models
could be set up, one for each rock type. The only difficulties would
be in choosing the exact extent of the model (how large a part of the
field should be modeled) and the extent of the refined region, bear-
ing in mind that the total number of gridblocks must be small enough
so that the model does not take too long to run, especially if there are
many coarse-grid rock types. Software to set up and run such models
in a relatively user-transparent manner would be necessary for a
practical application.
Dependence on Well Positions and Rates. In principle, pseudos
depend on well positions and rates. They should therefore be gener-
ated from a fine-grid or DSS simulation in which the same well rates
and positions are used as will be used in the coarse-grid model. They
should be regenerated for each coarse-grid simulation in which well
positions or rates are changed. There is some evidence that one can
obtain acceptable results for a range of similar production scenarios
without having to regenerate the pseudos.9 However, there are at
present no guidelines for deciding whether two production scenar-
ios are sufficiently similar for regeneration of the pseudos to be un-
necessary. As for the choice of coarse-grid rock types, it seems un-
likely that a few simple guidelines will be sufficient for all cases.
Implications
We have argued that to be sure of reliable results when using dynam-
ic pseudorelative permeabilities, the following procedure must be
followed.
1. Divide the coarse gridblocks into a sufficient number of rock
types according to their internal heterogeneity and position in the
reservoir.
2. Set up and run a number of DSS models (or fine-grid cross-sec-
tion, sector, or pattern-element models) that are sufficiently repre-
sentative of the different geological structures and fluid-flow pat-
terns encountered in the reservoir.
3. Generate a set of pseudos for each rock type from the results
of these simulations. Any method may be used if it is verified that
the pseudos allow the DSS/fine-grid results to be reproduced on the
corresponding coarse grid (if they do not, the pseudos must be ad-
justed until they do allow this).
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
 4. Regenerate the pseudos every time the well rates or positions
are changed significantly.
We have also argued that criteria for performing Step 1, for choos-
ing the models (other than DSS models) in Step 2, and for determin-
ing what changes are “significant” in Step 4, are not available. Further
research may produce some guidelines that may be valuable; howev-
er, it is unlikely that general criteria of this kind can ever be adequately
validated, given the wide range of possible geological models. Fur-
ther, even if such criteria were available, the procedure would be too
time consuming to be feasible in practice. At a minimum, the whole
process would have to be automated, although automation of the
verification procedure in Step 3 would be difficult. Even with au-
tomation, the approach might not be practical because the number
of rock types needed to obtain an accurate result may simply be too
large and/or because the amount of computer time required to run
the fine-grid/DSS simulations may be prohibitive. Thus, we con-
clude that dynamic pseudos cannot currently be used to scale up reli-
ably from a geological to a fluid-flow model, nor is it likely that this
will be possible in the foreseeable future.
Discussion
Alternative Approaches. An alternative to generating pseudos
from simulation results is to attempt to scale up the relative permea-
bilities analytically. One such approach is the large-scale averaging
method.27-29 As with most analytic methods, however, quite severe
assumptions are necessary. To date, results have only been obtained
for systems where the heterogeneity has a very short correlation
length and for quasisteady-state (capillary-dominated) cases. Other
authors30 have used extended forms of the well-known Dietz theory,
but this approach assumes vertical equilibrium and results have
been obtained only for stratified systems.
The alternative to using pseudorelative permeabilities to incorpo-
rate the effect of heterogeneity on fluid-flow simulations is to avoid
scaling up altogether and to make some kind of fluid-flow simula-
tion directly on the geological model grid. It may be possible to re-
duce the cost of these simulations through one of the following.
1. Modeling only a part of the reservoir (i.e., a sector or pattern-
element model).
2. Using adaptive gridding techniques and local grid refinement
to minimize the number of gridblocks used while still obtaining ac-
ceptable results. This approach has much to recommend it,1,31 but
existing criteria for defining the grid neglect gravity effects, and, in
some cases, it may simply be a fact that the number of gridblocks
required to give an accurate result is prohibitively large.
3. Using a coarse grid to solve the pressure equation while retain-
ing a fine grid for solving the saturation equation.32
4. Using steamtube-based techniques.33
However, all these methods (except the first) require further R&D
before they can be considered for use on an industrial basis.
Scaling Up From Core to Geological Model. Note that there is a
second scaling-up problem, that of moving from relative permeabi-
lities measured on the core scale (typically 10 cm) or smaller (e.g.,
laminated rocks with millimeter- to centimeter-scale laminations) to
those that should be assigned to gridblocks in the geological model.
This problem is likely to be less difficult because capillary forces be-
come more important at smaller length scales. If the geological
model gridblocks are small enough that the saturation distribution
within them can be approximated by assuming capillary equilibri-
um, the capillary-equilibrium method described in the Introduction
can be used. This avoids most of the problems with dynamic pseu-
dos that we have described.
In this case, the dependence of the pseudos on the boundary
conditions is reduced, because the saturation distributions are con-
trolled locally by capillary forces rather than by “external” factors
(i.e., well rates and positions or the permeability distribution in the
surrounding gridblocks). The rock types can thus be chosen purely
on the basis of the internal heterogeneity of each gridblock. Addi-
tionally, details of the flow in a particular grid cell have less signifi-
cance for the overall field or well performance, so retaining all the
details of each set of pseudos is less crucial. Finally, there is less
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
need to worry about compensating for numerical dispersion at this
level because the numerical dispersion associated with the geologi-
cal model will be negligible if the grid is fine enough.
Thus, the prospects for scaling up from the core scale to the geolog-
ical model scale are much brighter than for scaling up from the geo-
logical model to a coarsely gridded reservoir simulation model. Note
that today, however, most geological models are probably not yet fine
enough for capillary equilibrium to be assumed. Eventually, of
course, computers will become so powerful that it will be possible to
run fluid-flow simulations on grids whose blocks are small enough
that capillary equilibrium can be assumed within each block. Then the
capillary-equilibrium method can be used to scale up from any finer
geological model, no matter how many gridblocks it has.
A Practical Approach for Today. In the meantime, when presented
with a geological model that is too large to be used directly for multi-
phase flow simulations, a first step is to establish the type of hetero-
geneity present in the model. The key features to look for are prob-
ably long, thin, high-permeability channels; thin, high-permeability
layers; and extended flow barriers, such as shales.
If such features are not present (i.e., if the correlation length of the
heterogeneity is much shorter than the interwell spacing), then the
heterogeneity may have little effect on the flow and it may be suffi-
cient to scale up the absolute permeability alone. Pseudos may still
be required to compensate for numerical dispersion or if there are
small-scale flow phenomena, such as viscous fingering or thin grav-
ity tongues, that the grid is too coarse to resolve.
If some of these geological features are present, the first thing to
do is to try and represent them explicitly by a careful choice of grid-
ding or the use of local grid refinement. If there are too many such
features for this to be possible with an acceptable number of grid-
blocks, pseudorelative permeabilities will be necessary. A check
should be made to see whether the flow is gravity dominated (in
which case vertical-equilibrium pseudos can be used) or capillary
dominated (in which case capillary-equilibrium pseudos can be
used). These checks may not be straightforward because of the diffi-
culty of evaluating representative dimensionless numbers for a
complex, heterogeneous reservoir (see Appendix A).
At this stage, it may be worth considering whether a full-field
model is really necessary or whether a sector or pattern-element
model, in which the fine grid of the geological model could be re-
tained, could be used instead. This will depend on the objectives of
the simulation study, of course.
If all these possibilities are ruled out, dynamic pseudos will have
to be generated. In this case, the procedure outlined in the Implica-
tions section should be followed as closely as possible, paying par-
ticular attention to the extended flow channels and barriers. Pseudo-
capillary pressure can probably be neglected in most cases (see
Appendix B). It should be recognized that the results will probably
not be very reliable, and it should not be expected that the detailed
information in the geological model will be captured in the fluid-
flow simulation. If care is taken, however, the effects of the princi-
pal heterogeneities (i.e., the channels, thief zones, and barriers)
should be captured in a qualitative manner.
Uses for Fine-Grid Geological Models. It should not be concluded
from the arguments advanced in this paper that the construction of
highly detailed geological models is not useful. As noted in the
introduction, they may be used directly for fluid-in-place and con-
nectivity calculations. They may give valuable insight into the het-
erogeneity that will significantly affect fluid flow in the reservoir
and, hence, may guide the choice of grid for the fluid-flow simula-
tions. The effect of the heterogeneity on the fluid flow may be quan-
tified through use of sector or pattern-element models even if this
is only qualitatively possible in a full-field model. A detailed model
whose permeability has been scaled up to a coarser grid may provide
a useful starting point for a history match that could not easily be ob-
tained in any other manner.
It should also be noted that the accuracy of fluid-flow simulations
has improved greatly over the years largely as a result of the inclu-
sion of more and more geological detail in the models. This is turn
has been made possible by the increases in computing power, which
141
have allowed more and more gridblocks to be used. What we are
saying in this paper is that dynamic pseudos do not provide a reliable
alternative to the explicit representation of heterogeneity in the
fluid-flow simulation grid.
Other Views of Pseudos. We have discussed the difficulty of using
pseudos to reproduce the results of a fine-grid simulation on a coarser
grid. However, given the uncertainty usually associated with fine-
scale reservoir descriptions, it might be more desirable to find
pseudos that reproduce in some average sense the results of many
fine-grid simulations, each of which is a different realization of the
geological model (although this would not help in estimating the un-
certainty resulting from the existence of multiple possible realiza-
tions). Alternatively, it may be enough to reproduce the differences
in production associated with different operating strategies even if
there is a bias in the actual production predictions. A third possibility
might be to find the pseudos that minimize the difference between
coarse- and fine-grid results for a range of operating scenarios. Which
(if any) pseudos might be useful in any of these circumstances is a
question that has received little attention to date; again it is a question
that would be difficult to answer with any generality.
Conclusions
1. Pseudorelative permeabilities cannot be used to scale up reli-
ably from a fine-grid geological model to a coarse-grid fluid-flow
model except in cases where capillary or gravity equilibrium can be
assumed at the coarse-gridblock scale.
2. Except in the cases where capillary or gravity equilibrium can
be assumed at the coarse-gridblock scale, the effects on fluid flow
of the correlated heterogeneities in the geological model can only
be captured qualitatively unless they are explicitly resolved on the
fluid-flow simulation grid.
3. Scaling up from the core scale to the geological model is more
likely to be possible because capillary forces are more important at
smaller scales.
Nomenclature
g+ gravitational acceleration
k+ absolute permeability
kr + relative permeability
Pc + capillary pressure
S+ saturation
t+ time
v+ Darcy velocity
Dh+ depth variation
Dl+ gridblock size
D ò+ density difference
m+ viscosity
Acknowledgments
This paper would not have been possible without the benefit of simula-
tion studies run by Ian Culverwell and Philippe Dupouy of the Elf Geo-
science Research Centre in London. Discussions with Dominique
Monfrin, Lisette Quettier, and Philippe Tessier of Elf Aquitaine Pro-
duction in Pau have also been helpful. We thank Elf Aquitaine Produc-
tion and Elf Enterprise Caledonia for permission to publish this paper.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of Elf Aquitaine or any of its subsidiaries.
References
1. Durlofsky, L.J., Jones, R.C., and Milliken, W.J.: “A New Method for the
Scale Up of Displacement Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” pa-
per presented at the 1994 European Conference on the Mathematics of
Oil Recovery, Roros, Norway, 7–10 June.
2. Muggeridge, A.H.: “Generation of Effective Relative Permeabilities
from Detailed Simulation of Flow in Heterogeneous Porous Media,”
Reservoir Characterization II, L.W. Lake, H.B. Carroll, and T.C. Wes-
son (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, California (1991) 197–225.
142
3. Lake, L.W., Kasap, E., and Shook, M.: Pseudofunctions—The Key to
Practical Use of Reservoir Description,” North Sea Oil and Gas Reser-
voirs—II, Graham and Trotman (1990).
4. Coats, K.H., Dempsey, J.R., and Henderson, J.H.: “The Use of Vertical
Equilibrium in Two-Dimensional Simulation of Three-Dimensional
Reservoir Performance,” SPEJ (March 1971) 63.
5. Rosenzweig, J.J., Abdelmalck, N.A., and Gochnour, J.R.: “The Devel-
opment of Pseudo Functions for Three-Phase Black-Oil Simulators,”
Reservoir Characterization, L.W. Lake and H.B. Carroll (eds.), Aca-
demic Press, San Diego, California (1985).
6. Lemouzy, P., Kruel Romeu, R., and Morelon, I.: “A New Scaling-Up
Method To Compute Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure for
Simulation of Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” paper SPE 26660 presented
at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
3–6 October.
7. Durlofsky, L.J.: “Numerical Calculations of Equivalent Gridblock
Permeability Tensors for Heterogeneous Porous Media,” Water Re-
sources Research (1991) 27, No. 5, 699.
8. Pickup, G.E. and Sorbie, K.S.: “The Scale-up of Two Phase Flow Using
Permeability Tensors,” paper presented at the 1994 European Confer-
ence on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Roros, Norway, 7–10 June.
9. Thibeau, S., Barker, J.W., and Souillard, Ph.: “Dynamical Upscaling
Techniques Applied to Compositional Flows,” paper SPE 29128 pre-
sented at the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Anto-
nio, Texas, 12–15 February.
10. Barker, J.W. and Dupouy, P.: “An Analysis of Dynamic Pseudo Relative
Permeability Methods,” paper presented at the 1996 European Conference
on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Austria, 3–6 September.
11. Kyte, J.R. and Berry, D.W.: “New Pseudofunctions To Control Numeri-
cal Dispersion,” SPEJ (August 1975) 269.
12. PSEUDO Reference Manual, Intera Information Technologies Ltd.
13. Ekrann, S. and Dale, M.: “Averaging of Relative Permeability in Hetero-
geneous Reservoirs,” The Mathematics of Oil Recovery, P.R. King, Ox-
ford U. Press, Oxford, U.K. (1992).
14. Stone, H.L.: “Rigorous Black-Oil Pseudofunctions,” paper SPE 21207
presented at the 1991 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Ana-
heim, California, 17–20 February.
15. Barker, J.W. and Fayers, F.J.: “Transport Coefficients for Compositional
Simulation With Coarse Grids in Heterogeneous Media,” SPE Ad-
vanced Technology Series (April 1994) 103.
16. Hewett, T.A. and Behrens, R.A.: “Scaling Laws in Reservoir Simulation
and Their Use in a Hybrid Finite Difference/Streamtube Approach to
Simulating the Effects of Permeability Heterogeneity,” Reservoir Char-
acterization II, L.W. Lake, H.B. Carroll, and T.C. Wesson (eds.), Aca-
demic Press, San Diego, California (1991) 402–441.
17. Christie, M.A. et al.: “A Renormalization-Based Upscaling Technique
for WAG Floods in Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” paper SPE 29127 pre-
sented at the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Anto-
nio, Texas, 12–15 February.
18. Alabert, F.G. and Corre, B.: “Heterogeneity in a Complex Turbiditic
Reservoir: Impact on Field Development,” paper SPE 22902 presented
at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
6–9 October.
19. Smith, E.H.: “The Influence of Small-Scale Heterogeneity on Average
Relative Permeability,” Reservoir Characterization II, L.W. Lake, H.B.
Carroll, and T.C. Wesson (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, California
(1991) 52–76.
20. Saad, N., Cullick, A.S., and Honarpour, M.M.: “Effective Relative
Permeability in Scale-Up and Simulation,” paper presented at the 1995
SPE 29592 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 20–22 March.
21. Jacks, H.H., Smith, O.J.E., and Mattax, C.C.: “The Modeling of a Three-
Dimensional Reservoir With a Two-Dimensional Reservoir Simula-
tor—The Use of Dynamic Pseudofunctions,” SPEJ (June 1973) 175.
22. Guzman, R.E. et al.: “Evaluation of Dynamic Pseudo Functions for Res-
ervoir Simulation,” paper SPE 35157 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6–9 October.
23. Bedrikovetsky, P. and Bruining, J.: “A Percolation Based Upscaling Tech-
nique for Viscous Force Dominated Waterflooding in Uncorrelated Heter-
ogeneous Reservoirs,” paper presented at the 1995 EAPG European Sym-
posium on Improved Oil Recovery, Vienna, Austria, 15–17 May.
24. Killough, J.E. and Foster, H.P.: “Reservoir Simulation of the Empire
Abo Field: The Use of Pseudos in a Multilayered System,” SPEJ (Octo-
ber 1979) 279.
25. Tan, T.B.: “Estimating Two and Three Dimensional Pseudorelative Per-
meabilities With Nonlinear Regression,” paper SPE 29129 presented at
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
 the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Tex-
as, 12–15 February.
26. Christie, M.A.: “Upscaling for Reservoir Simulation,” JPT (November
1996) 1004.
27. Ahmadi, A., Labastie, A., and Quintard, M.: “Large-Scale Properties for
Flow Through a Stratified Medium: Various Approaches,” SPERE (Au-
gust 1993) 214.
28. Amaziane, B. and Bourgeat, A.: “Effective Behaviour of Two-Phase
Flow in heterogeneous Reservoirs,” Numerical Simulation in Oil Re-
covery, IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, M.F. Wheel-
er (ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York City (1988) 1.
29. Quintard, M. and Whitaker, S.: “Two-Phase Flow in Heterogeneous Po-
rous Media, the Method of Large-Scale Averaging,” Transport in Po-
rous Media (1988) 3, 357.
30. Ingøy, P., Gauchet, R., and Lake, L.W.: “Pseudofunctions and Extended
Dietz Theory for Gravity-Segregated Displacement in Stratified Reser-
voirs,” SPERE (February 1994) 67.
31. Durlofsky, L.J. et al.: “Scale Up of Heterogeneous Three Dimensional
Reservoir Descriptions,” paper SPE 30709 presented at the 1995 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
32. Guérillot, D.R. and Verdiere, S.: “Different Pressure Grids for Reservoir
Simulation in Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” paper SPE 29148 presented
at the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio,
Texas, 12–15 February.
33. Thiele, M.R., Blunt, M.J., and Orr, F.M.: “A New Technique for Predict-
ing Flow in Heterogeneous Systems Using Streamtubes,” paper SPE
27834 presented at the 1994 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17–20 April.
Appendix AĊCriteria for Capillary
or Gravity Domination
The ratio of capillary to viscous forces is given by the dimensionless
capillary number.
kP c
Nc + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
mnDl
where Pc , k, m and v are representative values of capillary pressure,
permeability, viscosity, and Darcy flow velocity respectively, and
Dl is the gridblock size. Similarly, the ratio of gravity to viscous
forces is given by the dimensionless gravity number.
k vgDòDl
Ng + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
mnDh
where D ò and Dh are representative values of density difference
and depth variation, respectively, and g is the gravitational accelera-
tion. Alternative forms of these dimensionless numbers have been
proposed elsewhere.4,5
In principle, evaluation of these dimensionless numbers allows
one to determine whether a flow is capillary or gravity dominated
at the gridblock scale (i.e., whether capillary or gravity equilibrium
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
can be assumed in determining the saturation distributions within
gridblocks). In practice, it is not easy to determine the required “rep-
resentative” values for complex heterogeneous reservoir models
nor the threshold values below which capillary or gravity equilibri-
um applies. For example, Rosenzweig et al.5 found that the thresh-
old value of thier “equilibrium numbers” varied according to wheth-
er the system had one or three layers (the only cases studied).
Appendix BĊPseudocapillary Pressure
We have not made much mention of the use of pseudocapillary pres-
sure in conjunction with dynamic pseudorelative permeabilities.
Except in the Kyte and Berry9 method, none of the methods discussed
uses a pseudocapillary pressure if there is no capillary pressure in the
fine-grid model. In all cases, the pseudocapillary pressure will not be
greater than the fine-grid capillary pressure. The importance of capil-
lary pressure decreases as the length scale increases. In cases where
dynamic pseudorelative permeabilities are required, viscous forces
are at least comparable with capillary forces even at the gridblock
scale. All these factors indicate that, unless the rock capillary pressure
is unusually large, it is unlikely that the pseudocapillary pressure
would have any significant effect on the coarse-grid simulations
when dynamic pseudorelative permeabilities are required.
SI Metric Conversion Factor
in. 2.54* E)00 +cm
*Conversion factor is exact. SPERE
John W. Barker is a reservoir engineer at Elf Aquitaine Production
in Pau, France. Previously, he worked on upscaling and comĆ
positional reservoir simulation at the Elf Geoscience Research
Centre in London; before that, he was at BP Research. He holds
a BA degree in mathematics from Cambridge U. and a PhD deĆ
gree in applied mathematics from the California Inst. of
Technology. Barker is a member of the Editorial Review CommitĆ
tee and was 1993ć94 chairman and a 1990ć93 member of an
Annual Meeting Technical Committee. Sylvain Thibeau is a reĆ
search engineer working on upscaling methods at Elf Aquitaine
Production in Pau, France. He holds a degree from Ecole NorĆ
male Supérieure in Paris and a PhD degree in numerical fluid
mechanics from the U. of Orsay.
Barker Thibeau
143