1992
DOI: 10.2118/22184-pa
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparisons of Empirical Viscous-Fingering Models and Their Calibration for Heterogeneous Problems

Abstract: This paper reviews the formulation and parameters for three principal empirical viscous-fingering models: the Koval, Todd and Longstaff, and Fayers methods. All three methods give similar levels of accuracy when compared with linear homogeneous experiments, but they differ in performance in 2D applications. This arises from differences in the formulation of the total mobility terms. The superiority of the Todd and Longstaff and Fayers methods is demonstrated for 2D and gravity-influenced flows by comparison wi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
27
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
3
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The solid and dashed lines are the results of the 1-D analytical model and the 2-D numerical simulations, respectively. There is qualitative agreement between the two models as to the outer part of the solution, which is all that can be expected for a gravity unstable process [19]. The inner solution is shown in Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The solid and dashed lines are the results of the 1-D analytical model and the 2-D numerical simulations, respectively. There is qualitative agreement between the two models as to the outer part of the solution, which is all that can be expected for a gravity unstable process [19]. The inner solution is shown in Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…Fayers and Newley [18] and [17] introduced a three-parameter model to obtain a better description of viscous fingering with gravity effects. However, [19] pointed to the poor performance for gravity flow indicated, not only for Koval model itself but also for extensions like the [17,44] models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15-16. An analogous formulation for the wateroil-solvent system was used by Blunt and Christie [6] and more recently by Juanes and Blunt [14] to derive an analytical solution for WAG injection, although in WAG injection the fingering takes place at the front between the solvent (gas) and the displaced oil. They found exact solutions by simultaneously solving the conservation Eqs.…”
Section: Analytical Solution With Fingeringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has driven the development of empirical fingering models which capture the average behavior of a fingered front. These were originally derived for application in miscible gas injection ( [14,16,25]) but Bondor et al [7] proposed that the Todd and Longstaff model [25] could also be used to describe the fingering of water into the rear of a polymer slug. One drawback of these fingering models, however, is that the fitting parameters in their formulation may need to be calibrated by comparison with detailed simulation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microscopic displacement efficiency depends on pressure, 3,4 composition of the solvent and oil 5,6 and small (core) scale heterogeneity. 7,8 Sweep efficiency of a miscible flood depends on mobility ratio, [9][10][11][12] viscous-to-gravity ratio, [13][14][15] transverse Peclet number, 16 well configuration, and reservoir heterogeneity, [17][18] in general. The effect of reservoir heterogeneity is difficult to study at the laboratory-scale and is addressed mostly by simulation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%