10 1016@j Camwa 2019 11 013

Computers and Mathematics with Applications xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers and Mathematics with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/camwa
An oil–water two-phase reservoir numerical simulation

coupled with dynamic capillary force based on the
full-implicit method
∗
Shuoliang Wang a , , Chunlei Yu b , Guoqiang Sang c , Rongze Yu d , Feng Cheng d
a
School of Energy, Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, PR China
b
Shengli Oilfield Exploration and Development Research Institute, Dongying, Shandong 257000, PR China
c
State Key Laboratory of Enhanced Oil Recovery, Beijing 100083, PR China
d
PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Beijing 100083, PR China
article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: Capillary pressure is a key parameter in reservoir numerical simulation. It is generally
Received 25 October 2018 considered that the capillary force is an only function of water saturation in the current
Received in revised form 3 November 2019 traditional reservoir numerical simulation methods. However, large amount of indoor
Accepted 21 November 2019
experiments have shown that capillary force is not only dependent on the water
Available online xxxx
saturation, but also the velocity of fluid flow. In this work, we introduce the dynamic
Keywords: capillary pressure to the oil–water two-phase flow equations. Then, we discrete the
Dynamic capillary force modified oil and water phase basic governing equation with difference methods. The
Reservoir numerical simulation full implicit method is selected to solve the pressure equation. Finally, a numerical
Finite difference simulation method coupled with the dynamic capillary force based on the full-implicit
Sweep coefficient
method is established. We discussed the effect of dynamic capillary pressure on the
Water cut
oil–water two-phase flow in two-dimensional homogeneous and heterogeneous porous
media. Comparing to static capillary pressure model, the dynamic capillary pressure
model predicts higher water-saturation near the injection and production wells. In
addition, a ‘‘funnel’’ like pressure profile appears in the water saturation profile. At low
water cut stage, the rate of water cut increase is relatively high, while opposite is true
at high water cut stage. We also calibrated our newly proposed model by comparing to
the analytical method and the actual oil field production data. Our work should provide
important insights into the effect of dynamic capillary force on the oil–water two-phase
flow and better estimation of flow behavior in oil and gas reservoir.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Capillary pressure (Pc) is an important parameter in petro-physics of oil and gas development [1]. The capillary pressure
curve of reservoir reveals the pore size and the pore throat volume during the immiscible flow. Thus, it can be used to
analyze the microscopic heterogeneity of reservoir [2]. In addition, the depth of the fluid interface (oil–water interface
and oil–gas interface) and the shape of water flooding front which play an important role in the development plan in oil
field can be determined by the capillary force curve [3]. Capillary pressure is also an important parameter in reservoir
numerical simulation. It can be used to analyze remaining oil distribution in the reservoir and predict the recovery factor
∗ Correspondence to: Petroleum Engineering China University of Geosciences, PR China.

E-mail address: wangshuoliang@cugb.edu.cn (S. Wang).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2019.11.013
0898-1221/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: S. Wang, C. Yu, G. Sang et al., An oil–water two-phase reservoir numerical simulation coupled with dynamic capillary force based
on the full-implicit method, Computers and Mathematics with Applications (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2019.11.013.
2 S. Wang, C. Yu, G. Sang et al. / Computers and Mathematics with Applications xxx (xxxx) xxx
of oil field. Therefore, accurate representation of capillary pressure curve plays a key role in reservoir description and oil
field development.
In the conventional reservoir simulation method, the common belief is that such capillary pressure is the pressure
difference between the wetting phase and non-wetting phase, considered as static capillary pressure (SCP). The pressure
difference between the wetting phase and non-wetting phase is equal to capillary pressure under equilibrium conditions.
SCP is constant when the oil–water interface reaches equilibrium. Within reservoir numerical simulation and classic petro-
physics, it is usually considered that the capillary pressure is only dependent on water saturation [4,5]. The capillary
pressure measured by mercury intrusion method, centrifugal method and semipermeable membrane method is actually
SCP. Flow velocity is not considered in the aforementioned capillary pressure measurement methods. There have been
a number of experimental studies on the SCP. Bear and Verruijt [6] indicated that SCP is only related to the relative
saturation of the wetting phase. The most popular methods to calculate SCP are Brooks and Corey method [7] and van
Genuchten method [8]. The capillary force used in reservoir numerical simulation method has been commonly considered
to be a function of the wetting-phase saturation only [9–13], without considering fluid flow velocity [14,15].
However, dynamic motion behavior was detected during the fluid flow [16]. In actual reservoir, the oil and water
seepage is always in motion. In such unsteady state, the oil–water interface equilibrium is disturbed. Under the non-
equilibrium conditions, the pressure difference between the wetting phase and non-wetting phase is the dynamic capillary
pressure (DCP) that is completely different from the conventional static capillary pressure [17].
There have been a number of studies on DCP between gas and water two-phase models in hydrodynamics
[18–20]. Experimentally, Kalaydjian [21] conducted a two-phase (oil and water) flow experiment and found that the DCP
in water–oil phase flow in porous medium is very different from the SCP (when water saturation = 28%, SDP = 2 KPa,
CDP = 10 KPa). Theoretically, Hassanizadeh and Gray [22] proposed a new dynamic empirical coefficient to describe the
difference between SCP and DCP. Later on, Hassanizadeh [23] summarized the range of dynamic empirical coefficient
(5×104 ∼6×104 Pa · s) through numerous experiments, indicating large deviations of DCP from SCP. Camps-Roach [24]
showed that the DCP is larger than the SCP at a given saturation. To account for such DCP, many researchers [25,26]
developed numerical approaches based on the material balance. They found that DCP is not only dependent on static
factors, such as porosity, permeability and fluid properties, but also dynamic properties (flow fluid velocity. etc.).
There have been a number of works incorporating DCP into numerical simulation [27–29]. Sandoval-Torres [30]
used finite element method to study wood vacuum drying process considering DCP, showing excellent agreement with
experimental results. Although there has been a number of studies of dynamic capillary pressure model in hydrodynamics,
its effect on the reservoir numerical simulation in petroleum is rarely studied. Shu [31] used the same method in the oil–
water two-phase flow in one-dimensional numerical simulation and studied the effect of the DCP on the oil and water
migration law. Tian [32] incorporated dynamic capillary force into the one-dimensional numerical simulation by using
IMPES (The implicit pressure–explicit saturation method) method considering DCP with one injection and one production
well. They found that DCP could greatly affect the water breakthrough time, i.e., 279 day under SCP condition comparing
to 417 day under DCP condition.
In summary, the capillary force involved in the process of fluid mechanics in porous medium and reservoir numerical
simulation should be a DCP associated with the fluid flow velocity. However, there are many production wells and
injection wells in actual oil and gas reservoirs. The velocity near the production wells and injection wells is much larger
than that in inter-well region. The numerical simulation model in hydrodynamics cannot be used to simulate actual oil and
gas reservoir. The reservoir numerical simulation model introduced earlier does not take into account the effect of sudden
increase of flow velocity near production and injection wells on reservoir saturation and pressure, and the solution method
is not full implicit. For this reason, the calculation results are only compared with the results of laboratory experiments,
have not been calibrated by comparing to actual productions.
In this study, we couple the dynamic capillary pressure to three-dimensional reservoir scale numerical simulation to
study oil–water two-phase flow. DCP is characterized by the method developed by Hassanizadeh and Gray [22], which
demonstrates that the capillary pressure constantly changes during the unsteady state motion, which is not only a function
of wet-phase fluid saturation, but also influenced by flow rate. Initially, the dynamic capillary pressure is firstly introduced
into the fundamental governing equation in a reservoir scale and fully implicit method is used to calculate saturation and
pressure. Then, we also compare the numerical simulations with static and dynamic capillary pressure in two-dimensional
homogeneous and heterogeneous model. In the last section, the calculation results are compared not only with the
analytical method but also with the production data from an offshore field in China. Our newly proposed model shows
excellent reliability and accuracy.
2. Mathematical model
In this section, we present the mathematical model describing the two-phase flow in a three-dimensional porous
medium. Based on the oil–water two-phase flow model, SCP is replaced by DCP in the governing equation. The
preconditions of the oil–water two-phase flow model are listed as:
(1) There are exactly two phases (water, oil) in the reservoir.
(2) There is no mass exchange between oil and water phases.
S. Wang, C. Yu, G. Sang et al. / Computers and Mathematics with Applications xxx (xxxx) xxx 3
(3) Fluid flow is regarded as Darcy flow.

(4) The process is isothermal.
(5) Instantaneous phase equilibrium is observed during the two-phase flow.
2.1. Darcy’s equation
Oil phase:
kro
vo = − k (∇ Po − γo ∇ D) (2.1)
µo
Water phase:
kr w
vw = − k (∇ Pw − γw ∇ D) (2.2)
µw
where vo is volumetric velocity of oil phase, kro is the oil phase relative permeability, k is the absolute permeability tensor,
µo , Po , and γo is the viscosity, pressure, and specific gravity of oil phase, respectively, vw is volumetric velocity of water
phase, kr w is the water phase relative permeability, µw , Pw , and γw is the viscosity, pressure, and specific gravity of water
phase, D is the depth.
2.2. Mass conservation equation
Oil phase:
∂ (φρo So )
−∇ ρo −
( →)
vo + qo = (2.3)
∂t
Water phase:
∂ (φρw Sw )
−∇ ρw −
( →)
vw + qw = (2.4)
∂t
where ρo , So , qo is the density, saturation, and the flow rate of oil phase, respectively, φ is the porosity.
2.3. Governing equation
Oil phase:
kkro ρo ∂
[ ]
∇· (∇ po − γo ∇ D) − qo = (ρo φ So ) (2.5)
µo ∂t
Water phase:
kkr w ρw ∂
[ ]
∇· (∇ pw − γw ∇ D) − qw = (ρw φ Sw ) (2.6)
µw ∂t
where, γo = ρo g, γw = ρw g
2.4. Auxiliary equation

{
So + Sw = 1
(2.7)
Po − Pw = Pcowd
kro = kro (Sw )
{
(2.8)
kr w = kr w (Sw )
ρo = ρo (Po )
{
(2.9)
ρw = ρw (Pw )
µo = µo (Po )
{
(2.10)
µw = µw (Pw )
where Pcowd is the dynamic capillary pressure.
In the traditional numerical simulation method, the capillary force Pc is given by a function of saturation of wetting
phase, and we call it SCP (Pcow ). In this section, we replace the SCP with DCP (Pcowd ).
∂ Sw
Pcowd = Po − Pw = Pcow − τ ( ) (2.11)
∂t
In 1978, Stauffer [33] proposed the empirical expression of dynamic parameter:

α s µ w φ Pe 2
τ= ( ) (2.12)
Kλ ρw g
Where αs is empirical constant, which is equal to 0.1; µw is flow velocity of the wetting phase, (m/s); φ is the porosity, (%);
K is the absolute permeability, (10−3 µm2 ); λ is factors of capillary pressure–saturation relationships in the Brook–Corey
model; Pe is the capillary pressure of pressure–saturation relationship in the Brook–Corey model, (MPa); ρw is density of
the wetting phase, (kg/m3 ); g is gravity acceleration, (m/s2 ).
3. Numerical model
In this section, the governing equations are initially discretized, while full-implicit iteration is used to calculate pressure
and saturation.
3.1. Discretization of the governing equation
In this work, DCP is introduced into the discretization of governing equation. The specific discrete procedures are listed
in Appendix A. The relationship between DCP and SCP can be written as,
∂ Sw n+1
Sw − Swn
Pon+1 − Pwn+1 = Pcow − τ( w −τ
n n
) = Pco (3.1)
∂t ∆t
The numerical simulation model developed in this paper is an oil–water two-phase model. The absolute permeability
used in this paper is anisotropy (the absolute permeability of XYZ directions is different). The governing equation of this
simulator is anisotropy. Therefore, the velocity, water saturation, pressure calculated by this simulator of XYZ directions
are also different. Although the dynamic capillary pressure equation is one-dimensional formula, the dynamic capillary
pressure of XYZ directions is different. The dynamic capillary pressure is a function of absolute permeability, water
saturation, pressure and velocity. The basic parameters in dynamic capillary pressure equation are three-dimensional.
Therefore, the dynamic capillary pressure calculation results are three-dimensional.
The oil phase governing equation is discretized as a sample in this section, which is shown as follows,
Vijk
∆Ton+1 ∆P n+1 − ∆Ton+1 γog ∆D + qno+1 Vijk = [(φρo So )n+1 − (φρo So )n ] (3.2)
∆t n+1
The governing equation of the water phase is expressed with the same format.
S n +1 − S n
w −τ ) − ∆Twn+1 γw ∆Dn+1
w
∆Twn+1 ∆P n+1 − ∆Twn+1 ∆(Pco n+1
∆t
w
V (3.3)
+ qnw+1 Vijk = ∆t n+1 [(φρw Sw )n+1 − (φρw Sw )n ]
ijk
Φ is used to present the capillary pressure during the calculation.

Φo = pno − γo D
{ n
n −S n−1
Sw (3.4)
Φwn = pnw − γw D = pno − (pncow − τ ∆t
w
) − γw D
To summarize, the governing equation discretization of the oil phase is expressed as follows,
Vijk
∆Ton+1 ∆Φon+1 + qno+1 Vijk = [(φρo So )n+1 − (φρo So )n ] (3.5)
∆t n+1
Similarly, the governing equation discretization of the water phase can be written as:
Vijk
∆Twn+1 ∆Φwn+1 + qnw+1 Vijk = [(φρw Sw )n+1 − (φρw Sw )n ] (3.6)
∆t n+1
3.2. Approximation of pressure and saturation
In this study, X is set as an arbitrary variable during multiple iterations. In random iteration from Step l to Step l + 1, the
X value can be assigned as X l and X l+1 . When liml→n X l+1 − X l < δ , X l+1 → X n+1 is the solution of Step n. The increment
between two iteration steps is δ X = X l+1 − X l , while the step length is δ X = X l+1 − X n = X l + δ X − X n . Substituting these
equations into Eqs. (3.5) and (3.6), the full-implicit iteration equations of oil phase (3.7) and water phase (3.8) are given
as follows,
VM
∆Tol+1 ∆Φol+1 + qno+1 VM = δ (ϕρo So ) + (ϕρo So )l − (ϕρo So )n
[ ]
(3.7)
∆t n+1
VM
∆Twl+1 ∆Φwl+1 + qnw+1 VM = δ (ϕρw Sw ) + (ϕρw Sw )l − (ϕρw Sw )n
[ ]
(3.8)
∆t n+1
The relationship between pressure and saturation is expressed by conductivity To as follows,
∂ To ∂ To
δ To = δ Po + δ Sw (3.9)
∂ Po ∂ Sw
γo is calculated by explicit difference schemes, while γol+1 = γol .δ Φo can be written as follow,
δ Φo = Φol+1 − Φol = (Po − γo D)l+1 − (Po − γo D)l = Pol+1 − Pol = δ Po (3.10)
The unknowns in the right side of Eq. (3.7) can be expressed as follows,
δϕ = ϕ0 CR δ Po (3.11)
∂ρo So
δρo = δ Po (3.12)
∂ Po
δ So = −δ Sw (3.13)
The full-implicit iteration Eq. (3.7) of oil phase can be written as,
∂ To ∂ To
∆Tol ∆Φol + ∆Tol ∆δ Po + ∆ δ Po ∆Φol + ∆ δ Sw ∆Φol + qno+1 VM
∂ Po ∂ Sw
VM ∂ρol VM
= (ρol Sol ϕ0 CR + ϕ l Sol )δ Po − ϕ l ρol δ Sw (3.14)
∆t n+1 ∂ Pol ∆t n+1
VM [
+ n+1 (ϕρo So )l − (ϕρo So )n
]
∆t
The discretization Eq. (3.14) of oil phase using full-implicit iteration method is listed in Appendix B. Three-dimension grid
(i, j, k) is replaced with m., while upstream scheme is used to induce all the auxiliary points (i + 21 , j + 12 , k + j + 21 ) to
the corresponding node. Eq. (3.14) can be written as,
∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l

δ Pom−1 (Tom−1 − Φom + Φom−1 ) + δ Swm−1 (− Φom + Φ )
∂ Pom−1 ∂ Pom−1 ∂ Swm−1 ∂ Swm−1 om−1
∂ Tom l ∂ Tom l ∂ρol
[ ]
VM
+ δ Pom −Tom − Tom−1 + Φom+1 − Φom − (ρol Som
l
ϕ0 CR + ϕ l Som
l
)
∂ Pom ∂ Pom ∆t n+ 1 ∂ Pom
l
(3.15)
∂ Tom l ∂ Tom l VM
+ δ Sw m ( Φ − Φ + ϕ l ρom
l
) + δ Pom+1 (Tom ) + δ Swm+1 (0)
∂ Swm om+1 ∂ Swm om ∆t n+1
VM [
(ϕρom Som )l − (ϕρom Som )n − ∆Tol ∆Φol − qno +1 VM
]
=
∆t n+1
In this study, we assume that,
∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l
⎧
⎪ b1om = Tom−1 − Φom + Φ
∂ Pom−1 ∂ Pom−1 om−1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l
⎪
⎪
b2om = − Φom + Φ
⎪
⎪
⎪
∂ Swm−1 ∂ Swm−1 om−1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∂ Tom l ∂ Tom l
⎪
⎪
1
Φom+1 − Φ
⎪
⎪ coim = −Tom − Tom−1 +
∂ ∂ Pom om
⎪
P
⎪
om
⎪
⎪
∂ρol
⎪
VM
⎨
− n+1 (ρol Som l
ϕ0 CR + ϕ l Som
l
) (3.16)
⎪
⎪ ∆t ∂ Pom
l
∂ Tom l ∂ Tom l
⎪
VM
⎪
⎪ coim = ∂ S Φom+1 − ∂ S Φom + ∆t n+1 ϕ ρom
⎪
⎪ 2 l l
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ wm wm
⎪ d1 = T
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ om om
2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ d om = 0
⎩ gom = VM (ϕρom Som )l − (ϕρom Som )n − ∆T l ∆Φ l − qn+1 VM
⎪
⎪ [ ]
⎪
∆t n +1 o o o
So, the solution matrix of the oil phase equation can be simplified as:
b1om δ Pom−1 + b2om δ Swm−1 + com

1
δ Pom + coim
2
δ Swm + d1om δ Pom+1 + d2om δ Swm+1 = gom (3.17)
According to the discretization process of the oil phase equation, the water phase equation considering dynamic capillary
pressure can be written as follows:
∂ Tw ∂ Pcowe
∆Twl ∆Φwl + ∆Twl ∆δ Po + ∆ δ Po ∆Φwl − ∆Twl ∆ δ Sw
∂ Po ∂ Sw
τ ∂ Tw
− ∆T l ∆δ Sw + ∆ δ Sw ∆Φwl + qnw+1 VM
∆t w ∂ Sw (3.18)
l ∂ρw
l
VM
= (ρw Sw ϕ0 CR + ϕ l Sw
l l
)δ Pw
∆t n +1 ∂ Pw
l
VM l l VM [
ϕ ρw δ S w + (ϕρw Sw )l − (ϕρw Sw )n
]
−
∆t ∆t
In this study, we assume that,
∂ Twm−1 l ∂ Twm−1 l
⎧
b1wm = Twm−1 − Φwm + Φ
∂ Pom−1 wm−1
⎪
∂
⎪
⎪
⎪ P om−1
∂ ∂ ∂ Pcowe α l
⎪
⎪ T w m−1 l T wm−1 l
b2wm = − Φwm + Φwm−1 − Twl m−1
⎪
⎪ − T
∂ Swm−1 ∂ Swm−1 ∂ Swm−1 ∆t wm−1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
∂ Twm l ∂ Tw m l
⎪
⎪
⎪
cw1
m = −Tw m − Tw m−1 + Φwm+1 − Φ
⎪
∂ Pom wm
⎪
∂ Pom
⎪
⎪
⎪
∂ρ l
⎪
VM
⎪
⎨ − n+1 (ρwl Swl m ϕ0 CR + ϕ l Swl m l w )
⎪
⎪
⎪
∆t ∂ Pw m
∂ Tom l ∂ Tom l VM (3.19)
2
⎪ cwm =
⎪ Φwm+1 − Φwm + ϕ l ρwl m
∂ ∂ ∆
⎪
S S t n+1
w m w m
⎪
⎪
∂ Pcowe ∂ Pcowe α l α l
⎪
⎪
⎪
+ Twl m + Twl m−1 + T + T
⎪
∆t wm ∆t wm−1
⎪
∂ Swm ∂ Sw m
⎪
⎪
⎪
1
⎪
dw m = Tw m
⎪
⎪
⎪ d2 = −T l ∂ Pcowe − α T l
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
wm wm
[∂ Swm+1 ∆t w m
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
gwm = ∆t n+1 (ϕρwm Swm )l − (ϕρwm Swm )n − ∆Twl ∆Φw
VM
] l
− qnw+1 VM
⎩
So, the solution matrix of the water phase equation can be simplified as:
b1wm δ Pom−1 + b2wm δ Swm−1 + cw

1
m δ Pom + cw m δ Sw m + dw m δ Pom+1 + dw m δ Sw m+1 = gw m
2 1 2
(3.20)
The order of nodes in the equation is arranged according to the order of nodes in the numerical simulation model. The
order of unknown quantities at nodes is arranged according to the order of (δ Pom , δ Sw ). A group of differential equations
on any node can be obtained after rearranging the differential equation. All nodes and unknown quantities are sorted
naturally.
]T
u = δ Pom1 , δ Sw1 , δ Pom2 , δ Sw2 , δ Pom3 , δ Sw3 , . . . . . . . . . . . . , δ PomN , δ SwN
[
(3.21)
The difference equations on all grids in the entire solution area are as follows:
−
→ −
→
Au = G. (3.22)
−
→
The coefficient matrix A is a diagonal form, G is a constant column vector.
1 2
d1o1 d2o1
⎡ ⎤ ⎡
co1 co1 δ Po1
⎤
go1
⎡ ⎤
1 2
⎢ cw1 cw1 d1o1 d2o1 ⎥ ⎢
δ Sw1 gw 1
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ b1 b2o2 1 2
d1o2 d2o2
co2 co2 δ Po2
⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ o2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ go2 ⎥
δ Sw2
⎢ b1 bw 22 1
cw2 2
cw2 1
dw 2 2
dw2
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
gw2
⎥ ⎢
⎢ w2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
δ Po3
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
b1o3 b2o3 1
co3 2
co3 d1o3 d2o3 go3
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎥·⎢ ⎥=⎢ (3.23)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
δ Sw3 gw3
⎥
b1w3 b2w3 1 2 1
d2w3
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
cw3 cw3 dw3 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
..
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
.. .. .. .. ..
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
.
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
. . . . .
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
goN
⎥ ⎣
δ PoN
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦
1 1
coN coN d1oN d1oN
⎣ ⎦ ⎦
gw N
1
cw 1
cw d1wN d1wN δ Sw N
N N
Fig. 1. Dependence of relative permeability on the water saturation.
Fig. 2. Dependence of dynamic and static capillary force on the oil saturation.
Table 1
Simulation model parameters.
Grid node 40*40*1 Dx (m) 2
Dy (m) 2 Dz (m) 1
Top deep (m) 1000 Initial water saturation (f) 0.365
Porosity (f) 0.2 Permeability (10−3 µm2 ) 500
Water viscosity (mPa · s) 0.5 Oil viscosity (mPa · s) 10
Exploit scheme Water flooding Well pattern One injection well and one production well
4. Numerical experiments
4.1. Numerical simulation parameters
This section mainly discusses the difference between SCP simulation method and DCP numerical simulation method.
The basic parameters of the numerical simulation model are as shown in Table 1, and the relative permeability curve
used in the numerical simulation model is shown in Fig. 1.
The measured experimental capillary pressure conducted by Fuík R [34] is used to analyze the results by considering
DCP. Fig. 2 shows DCP and SCP obtained in the experiments.
Fig. 3a. Contour plot of water saturation before water break through from SCP.
In this subsection, we compare the results from the numerical simulator which uses SCP and that uses DCP in the
homogeneous model. The saturation field are obtained in three different time steps: (1) before water break through; (2)
water break through to the bottom of production well; (3) 95% water cut.
4.2. Planar homogeneous model numerical simulation results
4.2.1. Water saturation comparison before the water break through

In Figs. 3, we present the water saturation field before the water break through from SCP and DCP. Before water
breakthrough (Figs. 3, 4), the difference after taking DCP into consideration is mainly reflected near water well. The
characteristic of radial fluid flow is that the pressure dropping speed is fast around the injection well and the production
well, and the large pressure gradient will lead to a faster fluid velocity, which will change the capillary pressure. The area
near the water well, the water saturation value calculated by DCP method is higher; The interwell area, due to the slower
fluid flow rate between the oil well and water well, there are not too many differences between two methods; The area
near the oil well, as the injection water does not breakthrough, there is no change in the water saturation. For clarity, we
also present the water saturation field along the diagonal direction between the injection and production well as shown
in Fig. 4.
4.2.2. Water saturation comparison when water break through to the bottom of production well
After water breakthrough (Figs. 5, 6) near the water well, the water saturation and saturation gradient of DCP method
are both high nearby the water well; In the interwell area, the water saturation is almost as same as the value before
water breakthrough; In the area near the oil well, the water saturation value calculated by DCP method is higher. It is
indicated from the water saturation field that the trade of water saturation value near the oil well is slightly upturn.
4.2.3. Water saturation comparison when water cut of production well is 95%
When the water cut arrives 95% in oil well (Figs. 7, 8), there is a relatively large difference in water saturation between
DCP and SCP because the water saturation profile curve upwards near the oil well. The water saturation and saturation
gradient are both high around the water well and oil well. The water saturation value along the connection of water well
and oil well is lower than that near water well and oil well. A ‘‘funnel’’ similar to the pressure profile appears in the water
saturation profile.
Fig. 3b. The same as Fig. 3a, but from DCP.
Fig. 4. Water saturation profile along the diagonal direction between the injection and production wells before water break through from SCP and
DCP.
4.2.4. Water cut curve comparison

We will compare the water cut curve of SCP method and DCP numerical simulation method in this part. The water
breakthrough time calculated by the SCP method is the same as that calculated by the DCP method. The main difference of
the two water cut curves lies in the fast-rising water cut period. The water cut calculated by the DCP numerical simulation
method is slightly higher than that obtained by SCP method. In high water cut stage, the water cut calculated by DCP
numerical simulation method is rising slowly, which is closer to the water cut calculated by the SCP method, but it is
always higher than that of the SCP method. (Fig. 9).
Fig. 5a. Contour plot of water saturation field at water break through from SCP.
Fig. 6. Water saturation profile when water break through from SCP and DCP.
Fig. 7a. Contour plot of water saturation at 95% water cut from SCP.
4.3. Planar heterogeneous model numerical simulation results
In order to analyze the effect of DCP on the simulation results under plane heterogeneous conditions, a high
permeability channel is set up between the water well and the production well. The permeability of the channel is
500×10−3 µm2 . The permeability horizontal distribution is as shown in Fig. 10.
The simulator is set up in two patterns to analyze the influence of DCP on numerical simulation results. One uses
the DCP simulator and the other uses SCP simulator. The saturation field is obtained in three different time steps. The
three different time steps are: before water break through, the water break through point and 95% water cut point.
Fig. 8. Water saturation profile at 95% water cut from SCP and DCP.
Water saturation profile value is extracted along the connection direction of the injection well and the production well
in different recovery time as follows.
4.3.1. Water saturation comparison before the water break through

Before water breakthrough (Figs. 11, 12), in the area near the water well, the water saturation value calculated by the
DCP simulation method is higher than that calculated by the SCP simulation method near the water well. In the interwell
area and the area near oil well, there are not too many differences.
Fig. 9. Water cut calculated from SCP and DCP.
Fig. 10. Permeability (the unit is 10−3 µm2 ) horizontal distribution in the heterogeneous model.
4.3.2. Water saturation comparison when water break through to the bottom of production well
After water breakthrough (Figs. 13, 14), in the area near water well, the water saturation and water saturation gradient
of DCP simulation method are both higher than that calculated by SCP simulation method; In the area near oil well, the
water saturation profile curve is slightly upturn.
4.3.3. Water saturation comparison when water cut of production well is 95%
When the water cut arrives 95%, (Figs. 15, 16), there is a relatively large difference in water saturation because the
water saturation profile curve upwards in the vicinity of the oil well. Both of the water saturation and saturation gradient
of DCP numerical simulation method are higher near water well and oil well than SCP numerical simulation method. The
saturation value in the interwell area is lower than that near injection well and production well. A ‘‘funnel’’ similar to the
pressure profile appears in the water saturation profile.
4.3.4. Water cut curve comparison

As Fig. 17 shown, the water breakthrough time calculated by the SCP numerical simulation method is the same as that
calculated by the DCP method. The main difference performs at the stage of rapid rising in water cut rate. Compared with
Fig. 11a. Contour plot of water saturation in heterogeneous model before water breakthrough from SCP.
homogeneous reservoir, the water cut difference is quite small in heterogeneous reservoir. The reason is that the injection
water flows mainly along the high permeability channel in heterogeneous reservoir. The saturation changes dramatically
Fig. 12. Water saturation profile before water break through from SCP and DCP.
Fig. 13a. Contour plot of water saturation in heterogeneous model at water breakthrough from SCP.
in the high permeability region. The influence of saturation on the capillary force in high permeability region is greater
than that in other region.
5. Validation of simulation results
In order to calibrate our simulation results, analytical method (fractional flow model) is used to study the influence of
dynamic capillary on the water cut in this research. The calculation formula of water cut is shown as follows:
λw ∂ pc ∂ Sw
{ [ ]/ }
fw = 1 + λo A − (ρo − ρw )g sin α qt (5.1)
λw + λo ∂ Sw ∂ x
Fig. 14. Water saturation profile when water break through from SCP and DCP.
where fw is the water cut rate, λw is the water mobility, k · kr w /µw, md/mPa · s, λo is the oil mobility, k · kro /µo ,
md/mPa · s, A is core cross sectional area, m2 , Pc is capillary pressure, MPa, Sw is water saturation, %, qt is the total
volume flow of water and oil, m3 /s, ρo is oil density, g/cm3 , ρw is water density, g/cm3 .
From Eq. (5.1), it can be seen that the water cut is related to the slope of the capillary force curve. As Fig. 18 shown,
there flooding velocities are discussed in this study.
The slope of DCP curves shows different characteristics at various saturation conditions. When So > 50%, the higher
the displacement velocity is, the greater the slope of the DCP curve and the quicker water cut rise. When So < 50%, it is
opposite. The slope of dynamic capillary is always larger than the static capillary when the velocity is less than 0.08ml/min.
When So > 57%, the slope of the dynamic capillary (velocity = 0.25 ml/min) is lower than the static one. Elsewhere, the
slope of the DCP curve is much greater than the slope of the SDP curve. From the analytical method (fractional flow
Fig. 15a. Contour plot of water saturation in heterogeneous model at 95% water cut from SCP.
Fig. 16. Water saturation profile at 95% water cut from SCP and DCP.
Fig. 17. Heterogeneous model water cut curve calculated from SCP and DCP.
Fig. 18. Capillary force slope calculated by analytical method (fractional flow model).
Fig. 19. Permeability distribution in A6H well.
Fig. 20. Water cut rate in the single well of China offshore oil field.
Table 2
Specific reservoir parameters of production well A6H.
Parameter Value Parameter Value
Thick of reservoir 15 m Average permeability 850md
Average porosity 0.28 Permeability variation coefficient 0.68
Viscosity of water 0.65 mPa · s Average water saturation 0.54
Viscosity of oil 1.2mPa · s Lithology Unconsolidated sand
model), it is indicated that water cut of the DCP method is higher than that of the SDP method, which is consistent with
the simulation result.
We also compare our model with an actual production well in China offshore oil field. The specific reservoir parameters
of well A6H are shown in Table 2.
The reservoir has high water aquifer energy. In the stage of medium and high water cut, large extraction liquid pump
is used to enhance the liquid of production well. After the single well enhanced liquid treatment, the flow velocity in the
bottom of the well increased rapidly, and the capillary force has changed accordingly. Therefore, production well A6H in
China offshore oil field is selected to validate the accuracy of DCP numerical simulation method. Based on the geological
background of A6H well, three-dimensional geological model is established as Fig. 19 shown.
Two different methods are used to simulate in A6H well. The water cut rate in the single well is shown in Fig. 20.
It can be seen from Fig. 20 that the water cut is equal to 0 at multiple time points. The water cut is equal to 0 indicating
shutting down well. Three enhanced liquid treatments were carried out in November 2011, December 2012 and December
2014. The liquid rate was enhanced from 942 m3 /day to 1254 m3 /day for the first time, from 1200 m3 /day to 1568m3 /day
for the second time, from 1511 m3 /day to 1785 m3 /day. The first two measures were very effective, and the water cut
curve showed a marked decline. The results of the third enhanced liquid treatment was not good, and the water cut
curve increased significantly. The SCP considers many enhanced liquid mechanisms, such as starting pressure. From the
comparison of the actual and simulation water cut curve in A6H well, the water cut curve calculated by SCP numerical
simulation method reaches plateau and not affected by the enhanced liquid treatment. The water cut curve calculated by
the DCP numerical simulation method is closer to the actual production curve than SCP numerical simulation method. It
shows that the DCP numerical simulation method has better accuracy and reliability comparing to field data.
6. Conclusion
In this study, the dynamic capillary force is coupled with the numerical simulation. New governing equation is
established, and finite-difference algorithm is used to solve water phase and oil phase governing equation. Full implicit
method is utilized in solving saturation and pressure.
We studied the difference between reservoir numerical simulation with static and dynamic capillary pressure in two-
dimensional homogeneous and heterogeneous model. Comparing to static capillary pressure model, the dynamic capillary
pressure model predicts higher water-saturation near the injection and production wells. A ‘‘funnel’’ like pressure profile
appears in the water saturation profile due to dynamic capillary pressure.
In order to validate the accuracy of simulation results, the effect of capillary on water cut is analyzed in fractional
flow model. It shows that numerical simulation results considering the dynamic capillary force are consistent with the
fractional flow theory. Moreover, our model shows better agreement with the water cut from an actual production well
than traditional numerical simulation method. Our works have shown that it is necessary to consider dynamic capillary
pressure effect in numerical simulation and provided important insights into accurate estimation of well performance.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project (Grant Nos. 2017ZX05009001
and 2017ZX05035-004-005). And this work was Funded Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(2-9-2018-217).
Appendix A. Discretization of the governing equation
The oil phase governing equation is expanded initially into a rectangular coordinate component as follows,
∂ ∂ po ∂D ∂ ∂ po ∂D
[λo ( − γo )] + [λo ( − γo )]
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂y
(A.1)
∂ ∂ po ∂D ∂ (φρo So )
+ [λo ( − γo )] + qo =
∂z ∂z ∂z ∂t
ρl kkrl
where, λl = µl
λl is the flow coefficient. The point (i, j, k, n + 1) could be abbreviated as the form of i + 1
2
= i + 21 , j, k.
1 pni++11 − pni +1 Di+1 − Di pni−+11 − pni +1 Di−1 − Di
[λoi+ 1 ( − γoi+ 1 ) + λoi− 1 ( − γoi− 1 )]
∆xi 2 ∆xi+ 1 2 ∆xi+ 1 2 ∆xi− 1 2 ∆xi− 1
2 2 2 2
1 pnj++11 − pnj +1 Dj+1 − Dj pnj−+11 − pnj +1 Dj−1 − Dj
+ [λoj+ 1 ( − γoj+ 1 ) + λoj− 1 ( − γoj− 1 )]
∆yj 2 ∆yj+ 1 2 ∆yj+ 1 2 ∆xj− 1 2 ∆ xj− 1 (A.2)
2 2 2 2
1 pnk+
+1 n+1
1 − pk Dk+1 − Dk pnk−
+1 n+1
1 − pk Dk−1 − Dk
+ [λok+ 1 ( − γok+ 1 ) + λok− 1 ( − γok− 1 )]
∆zk 2 ∆yk+ 1 2 ∆yk+ 1 2 ∆xk− 1 2 ∆xk− 1
2 2 2 2
1
+ qno+1 = [(φρo So )n+1 − (φρo So )n ]
∆t
Multiply both sides by Vijk = ∆xi ∆yj ∆zk and the following coefficient of conduction is defined as follows,
Vijk λoi+ 12 ∆yj ∆zk Vijk λoi− 21 ∆yj ∆zk

⎧
TXoi+ 1 = = λoi+ 1 , TXoi− 1 = = λ 1
⎪
⎪
∆xi ∆xi+ 1 ∆xi+ 1 ∆xi ∆xi− 1 ∆xi− 1 oi− 2
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
⎪
Vijk λoj+ 12 Vijk λoj− 21
⎪
∆xi ∆zk ∆xi ∆zk
⎪
⎨
TXoj+ 1 = = λoj+ 1 , TXoj− 1 = = λ 1 (A.3)
⎪ 2 ∆yj ∆yj+ 1 ∆yj+ 1 2 2 ∆yj ∆yj− 1 ∆yj− 1 oj− 2
2 2 2 2
⎪
V λok+ 12 Vijk λok− 21
⎪
∆xi ∆yj ∆xi ∆yj
⎪
⎪
⎪ TXok+ 1 = ijk λok+ 1 , TXok− 1 = λ 1
⎪
⎪ = =
∆zk ∆zk+ 1 ∆zk+ 1 ∆zk ∆zk− 1 ∆zk− 1 ok− 2
⎩ 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
The two-order difference operator is defined as follows,
⎨ ∆x TXo ∆x P = TXoi+ 21 (pi+1 − pi ) + TXoi− 12 (pi−1 − pi )

⎧
⎪
∆y TXo ∆y P = TXoj+ 1 (pj+1 − pj ) + TXoj− 1 (pj−1 − pj ) (A.4)
2 2
⎩ ∆z TXo ∆z P = TX 1 (pk+1 − pk ) + TX 1 (pk−1 − pk )
⎪
ok+ 2
ok− 2
Eq. (A.4) can be simplified to Eq. (A.5),
∆x TXo ∆x P n+1 + ∆y TYo ∆y P n+1 + ∆z TZo ∆z P n+1 − ∆x TXo γog ∆x D

Vijk (A.5)
− ∆y TYo γog ∆y D − ∆z TZo γog ∆z D + qno+1 Vijk = [(φρo So )n+1 − (φρo So )n ]
∆t
Eq. (A.5) can be written as Eq. (A.6),
Vijk
∆To ∆P n+1 − ∆To γog ∆D + qno+1 Vijk = [(φρo So )n+1 − (φρo So )n ] (A.6)
∆t
Appendix B. Full-implicit discretization Eq. (3.14) of oil phase
The point (i, j, k, n+1) is selected as the discretization item, Eq. (3.18) is expanded as follows,
[ ]
∆Tol ∆Φol = TXoi+ 1 (Φoil +1 − Φoil ) − TXoi− 1 (Φoil − Φoil −1 )
2 2
[ ]
+ TYoj+ 1 (Φoj+1 − Φoj ) − TYoj− 1 (Φoj − Φojl −1 )
l l l
(B.1)
2 2
[ ]
+ TZok+ 1 (Φok+1 − Φok ) − TZok− 1 (Φok
l l l
− Φok l
−1 )
2 2
[ ]
∆Tol ∆δ Po = TXoi+ 1 (δ Poi+1 − δ Poi ) − TXoi− 1 (δ Poi − δ Poi−1 )
[ 2 2 ]
+ TYoj+ 1 (δ Poj+1 − δ Poj ) − TYoj− 1 (δ Poj − δ Poj−1 )
2 2
[ ]
+ TZok+ 1 (δ Pok+1 − δ Pok ) − TZok− 1 (δ Pok − δ Pok−1 )
2 2
{ ]} (B.2)
= TXoi+ 1 (Poi+1 − Poi+1 ) − (Poi − Poil ) − TXoi− 1 (Poil+1 − Poil ) − (Poil+−11 − Poil −1 )
[ l+1 l l+1
] [
2 2
{ ]}
+ TYoj+ 1 (Poj+1 − Poj+1 ) − (Poj − Poj ) − TYoj− 1 (Pojl+1 − Pojl ) − (Pojl+−11 − Pojl −1 )
[ l+1 l l+1 l
] [
2 2
{ [ l+1 ]}
l+1
l l
] [ l+1 l l+1 l
+ TZok+ 1 (Pok+1 − Pok+1 ) − (Pok − Pok ) − TZok− 1 (Pok − Pok ) − (Pok−1 − Pok−1 )
2 2
∂ Toi+ 1 ∂ Toi− 1
[ ]
∂ To
∆ δ Po ∆Φo =l 2
δ P 1 (Φ l
− Φoi ) −
l 2
δ P 1 (Φ − Φoi−1 )
l l
∂ Po ∂ Poi+ 1 oi+ 2 oi+1 ∂ Poi− 1 oi− 2 oi
2 2
∂ Toj+ 1 ∂ Toj− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ P 1 (Φ l
− Φoj ) −
l 2
δ P 1 (Φ − Φoj−1 )
l l
(B.3)
∂ Poj+ 1 oj+ 2 oj+1 ∂ Poj− 1 oj− 2 oj
2 2
∂ Tok+ 1 ∂ Tok− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ P 1 (Φ l
− Φok ) −
l 2
δ P 1 (Φ − Φok−1 )
l l
∂ Pok+ 1 ok+ 2 ok+1 ∂ Pok− 1 ok− 2 ok
2 2
∂ Toi+ 1 ∂ Toi− 1
[ ]
∂ To
∆ δ Sw ∆Φo = l 2
δ S 1 (Φ l
− Φoi ) −
l 2
δ S 1 (Φ − Φoi−1 )
l l
∂ Sw ∂ Swi+ 1 wi+ 2 oi+1 ∂ Swi− 1 wi− 2 oi
2 2
∂ T w j+ 1 ∂ T w j− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ S 1 (Φ l
− Φwj ) −
l 2
δ S 1 (Φ − Φoj−1 )
l l
(B.4)
∂ Swj+ 1 wj+ 2 wj+1 ∂ Swj− 1 wj− 2 oj
2 2
∂ Tok+ 1 ∂ Tok− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δS 1 (Φ
l
− Φok ) −
l 2
δS 1 (Φ
l
− Φok−1 )
l
∂ Swk+ 1 wk+ 2 ok+1 ∂ Swk− 1 wk− 2 ok
2 2
Combine the aforementioned equations, the following equation is given,

[ ]
∆Tol ∆Φol + TXoi+ 1 (δ Poi+1 − δ Poi ) − TXoi− 1 (δ Poi − δ Poi−1 )
[ 2 2 ]
+ TYoj+ 1 (δ Poj+1 − δ Poj ) − TYoj− 1 (δ Poj − δ Poj−1 )
2 2
[ ]
+ TZok+ 1 (δ Pok+1 − δ Pok ) − TZok− 1 (δ Pok − δ Pok−1 )
2 2
∂ Toi+ 1 ∂ Toi− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ P 1 (Φ l
− Φoi ) −
l 2
δ P 1 (Φ − Φoi−1 )
l l
∂ Poi+ 1 oi+ 2 oi+1 ∂ Poi− 1 oi− 2 oi
2 2
∂ Toj+ 1 ∂ Toj− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ P 1 (Φ l
− Φoj ) −
l 2
δ P 1 (Φ − Φoj−1 )
l l
∂ Poj+ 1 oj+ 2 oj+1 ∂ Poj− 1 oj− 2 oj
2 2
∂ Tok+ 1 ∂ Tok− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ P 1 (Φ l
− Φok ) −
l 2
δ P 1 (Φ − Φok−1 )
l l
∂ Pok+ 1 ok+ 2 ok+1 ∂ Pok− 1 ok− 2 ok
2 2 (B.5)
∂ Toi+ 1 ∂ Toi− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ S 1 (Φ l
− Φoi ) −
l 2
δ S 1 (Φ − Φoi−1 )
l l
∂ Swi+ 1 wi+ 2 oi+1 ∂ Swi− 1 wi− 2 oi
2 2
∂ Twj+ 1 ∂ Twj− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δ S 1 (Φ l
− Φwj ) −
l 2
δ S 1 (Φ − Φoj−1 )
l l
∂ Swj+ 1 wj+ 2 wj+1 ∂ Swj− 1 wj− 2 oj
2 2
∂ Tok+ 1 ∂ Tok− 1
[ ]
+ 2
δS 1 (Φ
l
− Φok ) −l 2
δS 1 (Φ
l
− Φok−1 ) + qno+1 VM
l
∂ Swk+ 1 wk+ 2 ok+1 ∂ Swk− 1 wk− 2 ok
2 2
VM ∂ρol VM
= (ρ l l
ϕ
o So 0 CR +ϕ l l
So ) δ Po − ϕ l ρol δ Sw
∆t n+1 ∂ Pol ∆t n+1
VM
(ϕρo So )l − (ϕρo So ) n
[ ]
+
∆t n+1
References
[1] L.K. Abidoye, D.B. Das, Scale dependent dynamic capillary pressure effect for two-phase flow in porous media, Adv. Water Resour. 74 (2014)
212–230.
[2] W. Rose, W.A. Bruce, Evaluation of capillary character in petroleum reservoir rock, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 1 (05) (1949) 127–142.
[3] E.O. Udegbunam, D.T. Numbere, Model for locating fluids’ contracts in petroleum reservoirs, in: SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West
Virginia, USA, 8–10 November, 1994.
[4] R. Ehrlich, E.L. Etris, D. Brumfield, L.P. Yuan, S.J. CRABTREE, Petrography and reservoir physics III: physical models for permeability and formation
factor (1), AAPG Bull. 75 (10) (1991) 1579–1592.
[5] R.A. Dawe, Reservoir Physics at the Pore Scale, Commemoration volume of 75, 1990.
[6] J. Bear, A. Verruijt, Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media, 1987, France.
[7] R.H. Brooks, A.T. Corey, Hydraulic properties of porous media, Hydro Paper 3 (27) (1964).
[8] M.T. Van Genuchten, A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils 1, Soil Sci. Am. J. 44 (5) (1980)
892–898.
[9] R. Helmig, Multiphase Flow and Transport Processes in the Subsurface: A Contribution to the Modeling of Hydro Systems, Springer Verlag,
1997.
[10] J. Bear, A. Verruijt, Modeling Groundwater Flow and Pollution, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, p. 2.
[11] J. Mikyska, M. Benes, T.H. Illangasekare, Numerical investigation of nonaqueous phase liquid behavior at heterogeneous sand layers using VODA
multiphase flow code, J. Porous Media 12 (7) (2009) 685–694.
[12] R. Fučík, M. Beneš, J. Mikyška, T.H. Illangasekare, Generalization of the benchmark solution for the two-phase porous-media flow, in: Int. Conf.
on Finite-Element Models, MODFLOW, and More: Solving Groundwater Problems, Carlsbad, Czech Republic, 2004.
[13] R. Fučík, M. Beneš, J. Mikyška, T.H. Illangasekare, An improved semi-analytical solution for verification of numerical models of two-phase flow
in porous media, Vadose Zone J. 6 (2007) 93–104.
[14] Y. Muneta, M.I. Mubarak, H.H. Alhasani, K. Arisaka, Formulation of ‘‘capillary force barriers’’ in moderately-oil wet systems and its application
to reservoir simulation, SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 8 (5) (2005) 388–396.
[15] M. Sheffield, Three-phase fluid flow including gravitational, viscous and capillary forces, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 9 (2) (1969) 255–269.
[16] D.A. Weitz, J.P. Stokes, R.C. Ball, et al., Dynamic capillary pressure in porous media: Origin of the viscous-fingering length scale, Phys. Rev. Lett.
59 (26) (1987) 2967–2970.
[17] S. Bottero, S.M. Hassanizadeh, P.J. Kleingeld, et al., Nonequilibrium capillarity effects in two — phase flow through porous media at different
scales, Water Resour. Res. 47 (10) (2011) 599–609.
[18] R.G. Bentsen, Effect of hydrodynamic forces on capillary pressure and relative permeability, Transp. Porous Media 17 (2) (1994) 121–132.
[19] B. Agostini, B. Watel, A. Bontemps, B. Thonon, Liquid flow friction factor and heat transfer coefficient in small channels: an experimental
investigation, Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 28 (2) (2004) 97–103.
[20] S.M. Hassanizadeh, M.A. Celia, H.K. Dahle, Dynamic effect in the capillary pressure-saturation relationship and its impacts on unsaturated flow,
Vadose Zone J. 1 (1) (2002) 38–57.
[21] F.J.M. Kalaydjian, Dynamic capillary pressure curve for water/oil displacement in porous media: theory vs. experiment, in: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C. USA, 4–7 October, 1992.
[22] S.M. Hassanizadeh, W.G. Gray, Thermodynamic basis of capillary pressure in porous media, Water Resour. Res. 29 (10) (1993) 3389–3405.
[23] S.M. Hassanizadeh, O. Oung, S. Manthey, Laboratory experiments and simulations on the significance of non-equilibrium effect in the capillary
pressure-saturation relationship, in: Unsaturated Soils: Experimental Studies, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 3–14.
[24] G. Camps-Roach, D.M. O’Carroll, T.A. Newson, T. Sakaki, T.H. Illangasekare, Experimental investigation of dynamic effects in capillary pressure:
Grain size dependency and upscaling, Water Resour. Res. 46 (8) (2010) 1–13.
[25] B. Johannesson, Modeling of a Viscous Fluid Percolating a Porous Material Due to Capillary Forces, Report TVBM. 3095, 2000.
[26] R. Fučík, J. Mikyška, Numerical investigation of dynamic capillary pressure in two-phase flow in porous medium, Math. Bohem. 136 (4) (2011)
395–403.
[27] V. Joekar-Niasar, S.M. Hassanizadeh, Effect of fluids properties on non-equilibrium capillarity effects: Dynamic pore-network modeling, Int. J.
Multiph. Flow. 37 (2) (2011) 198–214.
[28] C.J.V. Duijn, M.J.D. Neef, Similarity solution for capillary redistribution of two phases in a porous medium with a single discontinuity, Adv.
Water Resour. 21 (6) (1998) 451–461.
[29] L. Hou, B.E. Sleep, T.C.G. Kibbey, The influence of unavoidable saturation averaging on the experimental measurement of dynamic capillary
effects: A numerical simulation study, Adv. Water Resour. 66 (2) (2014) 43–51.
[30] S. Sandoval-Torres, J. Rodríguez-Ramírez, L.L. Méndez-Lagunas, Modeling plain vacuum drying by considering a dynamic capillary pressure,
Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 25 (3) (2011) 327–334.
[31] W.B. Shu, X.U. He-Hua, J.Y. Wan, L.I. Yan-Zhen, Numerical research on dynamic effect of capillary pressure in low permeability reservoirs, Chin.
J. Hydrodyn. 29 (2) (2014) 189–196.
[32] S. Tian, G. Lei, S. He, L. Yang, Dynamic effect of capillary pressure in low permeability reservoirs, Petrol. Explor. Dev. 39 (3) (2012) 405–411.
[33] F. Stauffer, Time dependence of the relations between capillary pressure, water content and conductivity during drainage of porous media, in:
IAHR Symposium on Scale Effects in Porous Media, vol. 29, 1978, pp. 335–353.
[34] R. Fučík, J. Mikyška, T. Sakaki, Significance of dynamic effect in capillarity during drainage experiments in layered porous media, Vadose Zone
J. 9 (3) (2010) 697–708.

10 1016@j Camwa 2019 11 013

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10 1016@j Camwa 2019 11 013

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Computers and Mathematics with Applications xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Mathematics with Applications

An oil–water two-phase reservoir numerical simulation

∗ Correspondence to: Petroleum Engineering China University of Geosciences, PR China.

(3) Fluid flow is regarded as Darcy flow.

2.1. Darcy’s equation

2.2. Mass conservation equation

2.3. Governing equation

2.4. Auxiliary equation

In 1978, Stauffer [33] proposed the empirical expression of dynamic parameter:

3.1. Discretization of the governing equation

Φ is used to present the capillary pressure during the calculation.

The relationship between pressure and saturation is expressed by conductivity To as follows,

δ Φo = Φol+1 − Φol = (Po − γo D)l+1 − (Po − γo D)l = Pol+1 − Pol = δ Po (3.10)

∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l ∂ Tom−1 l

b1om δ Pom−1 + b2om δ Swm−1 + com

b1wm δ Pom−1 + b2wm δ Swm−1 + cw

Fig. 1. Dependence of relative permeability on the water saturation.

4.1. Numerical simulation parameters

4.2. Planar homogeneous model numerical simulation results

4.2.1. Water saturation comparison before the water break through

Fig. 3b. The same as Fig. 3a, but from DCP.

4.2.4. Water cut curve comparison

Fig. 5b. The same as Fig. 5a, but from DCP.

4.3. Planar heterogeneous model numerical simulation results

Fig. 7b. The same as Fig. 7a, but from DCP.

4.3.1. Water saturation comparison before the water break through

Fig. 9. Water cut calculated from SCP and DCP.

4.3.4. Water cut curve comparison

Fig. 11b. The same as Fig. 11a, but from DCP.

5. Validation of simulation results

Fig. 13b. The same as Fig. 13a, but from DCP.

Fig. 15b. The same as Fig. 15a, but from DCP.

Fig. 19. Permeability distribution in A6H well.

Appendix A. Discretization of the governing equation

Vijk λoi+ 12 ∆yj ∆zk Vijk λoi− 21 ∆yj ∆zk

The two-order difference operator is defined as follows,

⎨ ∆x TXo ∆x P = TXoi+ 21 (pi+1 − pi ) + TXoi− 12 (pi−1 − pi )

Eq. (A.4) can be simplified to Eq. (A.5),

∆x TXo ∆x P n+1 + ∆y TYo ∆y P n+1 + ∆z TZo ∆z P n+1 − ∆x TXo γog ∆x D

Eq. (A.5) can be written as Eq. (A.6),

Appendix B. Full-implicit discretization Eq. (3.14) of oil phase

Combine the aforementioned equations, the following equation is given,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen