Taylor's Dispersion in Stratified Porous Media
Larry W. Lake, SPE, U. of Texas
George J. Hirasaki, SPE, Shell Development Co.
Abstract
During 1953-54, Taylor showed that if a certain
criterion is met the combined effects of the transverse
profile of longitudinal velocity and transverse dif-
fusion on a solvent slowly flowing through a tube
will manifest themselves as a longitudinal diffusion
phenomenon. A similar phenomenon exists in
stratified porous media where the transverse profile
of longitudinal velocity and transverse dispersion can
produce an effective longitudinal dispersion, called
Taylor's dispersion in this paper. Since this effective
longitudinal dispersion is larger than the
corresponding homogeneous longitudinal dispersion,
the quantitative description of this phenomenon
would be important to dispersion-sensitive EOR
processes, such as surfactant or miscible flooding.
Taylor's dispersion will occur in two-layer porous
media if a suitably defined dimensionless number is
much greater than unity. When this condition holds,
the effluent history of a constant-mobility equal-
density miscible displacement is that of the same
displacement in a homogeneous medium with in-
creased dispersion. The resulting effective
longitudinal dispersion may be derived analytically
and verified numerically as a function of several
media properties. The most important of these are
system thickness and permeability contrast.
In multilayer media, when two adjacent layers
have a large transverse dispersion number they
behave as a single layer with suitably averaged
properties. This observation suggests an algorithm
whereby Taylor's dispersion may be extended to
multilayer systems. The algorithm, or grouping
procedure, gives effluent histories that are in
agreement with numerical solutions to the continuity
equation and allow properties of the resulting ef-
fective dispersion to be investigated. From the results
of this work, Taylor's dispersion can offer an ex-
0197-7520/81/0008-8436$00.25
Copyright 1981 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
AUGUST 1981
planation for the large field-scale dispersion observed
in tracer test studies. Moreover, it appears that the
grouping procedure could indicate a method for
obtaining layered reservoir models from core 9ata.
Introduction
In laboratory displacements, longitudinal (parallel to
the bulk fluid velocity) dispersion is well charac-
terized as consisting of additive contributions of
diffusion and convection:
Kp=Do+O'f V , ..... (1)
Fe/>
where K f is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient,
D is the molecular diffusion coefficient, F is the
fo~mation electrical resistivity factor, v is the in-
terstitial longitudinal velocity, and O'f is the
longitudinal dispersity. At a velocity above about 0.1
ftiD (0.35 /Lm/s) the convection term dominates Eq.
1, so for practical displacements - about 1 ft/D (3.5
/Lm/s) - K f depends only on the term O'fv. O'f, in turn,
is a function of average particle size and local
heterogeneity, and averages 0.05 to 0.2 in. (0.l3 to
0.51 cm) for homogeneous laboratory displacements.
Similarly, transverse (perpendicular to the bulk
fluid velocity) dispersion is
Kt = Do + O't V, ............ (2)
Fe/>
where K t is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
and O't is the transverse dispersivity. Measurements
of O't are much less common than O'f but they in-
dicate 2 that O't = O' f /30.
In the scaled differential material-balance
equations, both K f and K t become part of Peclet
numbers, vL/Kf and (vH/Kt)H/L, which appear as
inverses in the equations. In laboratory
displacements, O'f and O't are of the order of fractions
of centimeters and L is the order of centimeters. In
459
 ( LONGITUDINAL)
L to include multilayered reservoirs.
E HIGH VELOCITY k,
l~
~ LOW VELOCITY k2
jl
FLOW
Fig. 1 - Definition of quantities.
field displacements, L is of the order of several tens
of meters; hence, many engineers, assuming that
dispersivities are roughly equal in the laboratory and
field, have concluded that dispersion is of little
importance in field displacements.
Field measurements of C<:f' on the other hand, tend
to give values somewhat greater than the laboratory
values. These measurements are few, being com-
plicated by nonlinear flow, reservoir heterogeneities,
and operational problems; however, recent work has
yielded field-measured values from 0.002 to 0.11 ft
(6.1 X 10- 4 to 13.4 X W- 2 m) in single-well tests3,4
to 8 ..1 ft (2.5 m) in two-well tests. 5 Such large values
are of concern to those designing mixing-sensitive
displacements such as surfactant flooding, miscible
flooding, or the displacement of condensate fluids by
nitrogen-enriched natural gas. 6
Large C<:f values in field displacements are at-
tributable to the larger-scale heterogeneities present
in field-scale porous media. By assuming the porous
medium to be made up of heterogeneities randomly
distributed statistically, other workers 7 have shown
that field and laboratory-scale dispersion coefficients
can differ by factors of 10. Given the stratified
nature of some reservoirs, however, conclusions
based on heterogeneities randomly distributed are
less satisfactory than those that account for reservoir
layering. It is one of the purposes of this paper to use
stratification to explain large field-measured values
of c<:/'.
Approach
Our approach is to explore the very close analogy
between transverse dispersion in a two-layer medium
and molecular diffusion in a capillary tube. The
latter problem was presented in a classical set of
papers by Taylor 8 ,9 dealing with the effect that
molecular diffusion transverse to the bulk fluid
velocity has on the average concentration of solvent
slowly flowing through a tube. Basically, Taylor
showed that if a certain criterion is met, transverse
diffusion and longitudinal bulk flow will manifest
themselves as a longitudinal diffusion phenomenon,
called Taylor's diffusion. It would seem that a
similar effect also might exist in two-layer porous
media. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to
present the criterion under which Taylor's dispersion
will apply and to describe the resulting effective
460
dispersion. The results of the work then are expanded
Basic Assumptions and Definitions
The derivations and results of this report conform to
the following assumptions.
1. The displacing and in-situ fluids are miscible,
incompressible, and have equal mobilities and
densities.
2. Near wellbore transverse pressure gradients,
such as those that might be caused by partial
penetration or a limited perforation interval, are
negligible; this assumption is necessary for the theory
presented below since Taylor's dispersion is an
asymptotic phenomenon for large well spacings.
Assumptions 1 and 2 eliminate all cross flow except
that caused by transverse dispersion. In particular,
the absence of transverse pressure gradients means
that vertical permeability will not appear in the
theory and that the transverse fluid velocity will be
zero. The latter factor means that off-diagonal terms
in the dispersion tensor will be zero, regardless of the
orientation of its major axes, since these are all
proportional to transverse velocity. 10
3. The injected fluid's concentration is zero
initially and the system is subjected to a unit step
function at t = O.
4. Throughout this paper we take the intralayer
C<:t = c<: f I30. The dispersivities are assumed
homogeneous (independent of position) and
anisotropic (since c<:e;C. C<:t).
5. Longitudinal and transverse dispersion coef-
ficients are proportional to the first power of the
interstitial velocity as given by Eqs. 1 and 2.
6. Longitudinal transport of injected fluid by
dispersion is much slower than longitudinal transport
by bulk flow.
7. When dealing with two layers only, we assume
that the porous medium consists of two
homogeneous layers of contrasting permeability (k),
porosity (cI, and thickness (h). From Fig. 1 the
relevant quantities are II
Fk = kllk2' permeability contrast,
F </> cI> II cl>2' porosity contrast,
Fh hl/(h l +h 2), layer-thickness fraction,
F </>h cl>1 hi 1cl>2h2' porosity-thickness contrast,
and
Fkh k I'h l Ik2h2' permeability-thickness con-
trast,
where the Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to high and low
velocity layers, respectively, and Fk/F</> is always
greater than one. Note that because the fluids have
equal densities it does not matter which layer is on
top. Only three of these quantities are independent.
We realize that very few actual displacements
satisfy these assumptions, particularly Assumption 1.
This paper's objective, however, is to describe a
phenomenon that will be present to some extent in all
displacements; hence, we invoke these simplifying
assumptions so that we may isolate this effect from
those caused by unequal densities, mobilities, etc.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
Application to Two-Layer Systems PRQFIUES
10
EFFLUENT HISTORIES

Qualitative Aspects. Taylor's dispersion in a

horizontal two-layer porous medium may be depicted FLOW

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

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

effluent history manifests the expected heteroge-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

462 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

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

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

where

(N pe ) -I effective inverse Peelet number,

06

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

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

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

P'O=lE VOLUMES INJECTED

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

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

K t2t
D.

where Ke is the thickness-weighted average

longitudinal dispersion coefficient. '" De

Fig. 3 shows the agreement between the simulated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dispersion is directly proportional to the square of Do" 0

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

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

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

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

~~~~~
~

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

rI
08

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

(N~)~~T=00027

1180 263
04
0.636 7.95 D318 597

610 0517 692 0236 -

02
4.24 0170

FIRST GROUPING SECOND GROUPING

07 08 09 10 II I2 13
PORE VOLUMES INJECTED

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

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

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

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

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

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

step) ordering, the change does not occur until

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

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

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

the dispersive mixing zone still decreases in

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

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

ferent ordering.

Layered Models. In addition to glVlng suitable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but as L increases, Ci e increases discontinuously Fig. 10 - Effect of system length on maximum relative
because of the grouping procedure described above. mixing zone length for Well BFU-249 core data.
Fig. 10 shows a M/ L profile for Benton Field Unit
(BFU) Well 249 core data at four values of L. The
thickness-weighted average M/ L is given below each
profile. It is evident that the average t:..f/ L decreases
slowly for L < 500 ft (153 m), and then remains
relatively constant at about 0.17. This is about the
level of mixing that would be evidenced in a 7Yz-ft
(2.3-m) Berea core using Cie = 0.2 in. (0.06 cm). Of
course, if L were increased beyond the point where
all layers were grouped into one, t:..f/ L would again
AUGUST 1981 465
decrease with L - '12. Calculations such as those
shown in Fig. 10 give some indication of the level of
mixing that should be anticipated in field-scale
processes.
The grouping procedure does appear to yield a
viable reservoir model from core data, at least for the
data shown. As a procedure for calculating a per-
meability profile for simulation, it suffers from two
defects: (1) it does not by itself identify continuous
sand units which may be revealed in a geologic study
and (2) it is quite sensitive to the values of <Xf and <Xt'
which are hard to measure in the field. Nevertheless,
the grouping procedure is the first attempt that we
are aware of where the layers are derived, in part,
from the flow characteristics.
Conclusions
1. For transverse dispersion in a two-layer
medium, the displacement behavior is bounded by
that of a two-layer medium with dispersion only
occurring longitudinally within each layer, and that
of a single-layer medium having an augmented
longitudinal dispersion coefficient. In the latter case,
the behavior is directly analogous to Taylor's
dispersion in a capillary tube. 8,9
2. A transverse dispersion number, N TD' indicates
where (between the above limits) a displacement in a
two-layer medium will lie. When N TD is less than
0.2, the medium behaves with heterogeneous
character; when N TD is greater than five, the
medium behaves as if it were single-layered.
3. The transverse dispersion results readily extend
to multilayer systems through a grouping procedure
that yields layered reservoir models from core data
and estimates of field-scale dispersion.
Nomenclature
C =concentration
Da molecular diffusion coefficient,
L2/t
Fp formation resistivity factor
Fk permeability contrast
Fkh permeability-thickness contrast
F porosity contrast
layer-thickness fraction
Fh
Fh porosity-thickness contrast
h layer thickness, L
H= system transverse dimension, L
lTD transverse dispersion index
k permeability, L 2
Klj longitudinal disyersion coefficient
in Layer j, L It
transverse dispersion coefficient in
Layer j, L2 It
effective longitudinal dispersion
coefficient, L 2It
L system length, L
~f = mixing zone length, L
transverse and longitudinal fluxes,
Lit
N = number of layers in multilayer
systems
(Nh) - 1 = effective longitudinal inverse Peclet
466
number, Ke1u(L)
N TD transverse dispersion number
QD dimensionless cumulative injection
t time, t
tf,tj defined by Eq. 5
vi interstitial velocity in Layer j,L/t
v average interstitial velocity, Lit
W = system width, L
x,y longitudinal and transverse
coordinates, L
x D,YD dimensionless longitudinal and
transverse coordinates
xD moving dimensionless longitudinal
coordinate
<Xe effective longitudinal dispersivity,
L
longitudinal and transverse
dispersivities, L
convective flux
porosity
Superscripts
thickness-weighted average (except
in Eq. 25)
Subscripts
1,2 high- and low-velocity layers,
respectively
nondispersing
j refers to general layer
TOT total
N = indicates numerical dispersion
Acknowledgment
We thank the management of Shell Development Co.
for permission to publish this paper.
References
I. Perkins, T.K. and Johnson, O.C.: "A Review of Diffusion
and Dispersion in Porous Media," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March
1963) 70-84.
2. Grane, F.E. and Gardner, G.H.: "Measurements of Trans-
verse Dispersion in Granular Media," J. of Chern. and Eng.
Data (April 1961) 6, 283-287.
3. Sheely, C.Q.: "Description of Field Tests to Determine
Residual Oil Saturation by Single Well Tracer Method,"
paper SPE 5840 presented at 1976 Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, March 22-24, 1976.
4. Bragg, J.R. et al.: "A Comparison of Several Techniques for
Measuring Residual Oil Saturation," paper SPE 7074
presented at the SPE Fifth Symposium on Improved Methods
for Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 16-19, 1978.
5. "EI Dorado Micellar-Polymer Demonstration Project Third
Annual Report," BERC/TPR-77/12 (June 1976-Aug. 1977).
6. Moses, P.L. and Wilson, K.: "Phase Equilibrium Con-
siderations in Utilizing Nitrogen for Improved Recovery from
Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs," paper SPE 7493
presented at the SPE 53rd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-3, 1978.
7. Warren, J.E. and Skiba, F.F.: "Macroscopic Dispersion,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1964) 215-230.
8. Taylor, G.: "Dispersion of Soluble Matter in Solvent Flowing
Slowly Through a Tube," Proc., Roy. Soc. London (1953)
219, 186-203.
9. Taylor, G.: "Conditions Under Which Dispersion of a Solute
in a Stream of Solvent Can Be Used to Measure Molecular
Diffusion," Proc., Roy. Soc. London (1954) 225, 473-477.
10. Peaceman, D.W.: "Improved Treatment of Dispersion in
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 Numerical Calculation of Multidimensional Miscible and
Displacement," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1966) 213.
11. Goddin, C.S., Craig, F.F. Jr., Wilkes, J.O., and Tek, M.R.:
"A Numerical Study of Waterflood Performance in a
Stratified System with Crossflow," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1966) ( Kt2 )!!=(~)2(V2 -1)YD (~)
a
765-771. v-L dYD L - V xD
A ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

( 2)[
. -=-

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

AUGUST 1981 467

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

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

where the second term on the right follows from the

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

468 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL