Transp Porous Med (2009) 80:561579

DOI 10.1007/s11242-009-9380-7
Non-Fickian Description of Tracer Transport Through
Heterogeneous Porous Media
Mostafa Fourar Giovanni Radilla
Received: 8 February 2008 / Accepted: 12 February 2009 / Published online: 1 April 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract The porosity and the in situ concentration of tracer testing through different
heterogeneous carbonate cores were performed using X-ray computed tomography. The
results were interpreted using three approaches: the convectiondiffusion equation, the arrival
time moments and the stratied model. The results showed that (i) the Fickian approach led
to a dispersion coefcient varying along each sample (ii) the statistical approach led to a
power law of the variance of the arrival time as a function of the distance and (iii) the strat-
ied model allowed quantication of the heterogeneity factor, which also appeared to be a
power function of the distance. These data suggest that the temporal moments approach and
the stratied model, but not the classical Fickian approach, are suitable for describing tracer
transport through heterogeneous media at the core scale.
Keywords Miscible displacement Non-Fickian transport Heterogeneous porous media
Dispersion Heterogeneity
1 Introduction
Modelling tracer transport through porous media is important for understanding and quan-
tifying the migration of contaminants in groundwater systems (Dagan and Neuman 1997).
Tracer tests are also used to characterize petroleum and geothermal reservoirs and aquifers
(Moctezuma-B and Fleury 1999; Olivier et al. 2004). In these two cases, tracer transport is
generally modelled using the traditional convectiondiffusion equation (Bear 1972), where
the dispersion coefcient plays a key role. This approach allows determination of tracer
concentration at distance x and time t provided that the ow rate, porosity and dispersion
M. Fourar (B) G. Radilla
Ecole Nationale Suprieure des Mines de Nancy, LEMTA, Parc de Saurupt, 54042 Nancy Cedex, France
e-mail: Mostafa.Fourar@mines.inpl-nancy.fr
G. Radilla
e-mail: Giovanni.Radilla@mines.inpl-nancy.fr
123
562 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
coefcients of the mediumare known. Several studies have demonstrated that the experimen-
tally determined dispersion coefcient for any given macroscopic uniformowconditions in
a homogeneous porous mediumis constant (Han et al. 1985; Srivastava et al. 1992; Sternberg
2004). However, it is well known that this coefcient has spatial dependency, and therefore
is not constant for heterogeneous media (Domenico and Robbins 1984; Gelhar et al. 1992;
Rajaram and Gelhar 1993), even at laboratory scale (Siddiqui et al. 2000; Hidajat et al. 2004;
Fourar et al. 2005; Bauget and Fourar 2008). In these cases, breakthrough curves are char-
acterized by early breakthrough times and long time-tails. This phenomenon is commonly
referred to as non-Fickian or anomalous behaviour. Although physical mechanisms of the
dispersion process in heterogeneous porous media are well known, there is no theoretical
model capable of predicting anomalous breakthrough curves.
The continuous time random walk (CTRW) formulation seems to be a general and effec-
tive method for quantifying non-Fickian transport (Cortis et al. 2004; Berkowitz et al. 2006).
However, this approach assumes statistical homogeneity of the medium and therefore cannot
predict transport in several cases of heterogeneous porous media (Bauget and Fourar 2008).
The dual-porosity concept was proposed to describe tracer behaviour in heterogeneous
porous media or media composed of fractures and pores (Barenblatt et al. 1960; Coasts and
Smith 1964; Gerke and van Genuchten 1993; Carlier 2007; Aggelopoulos and Tsakiroglou
2007). In this concept, it is assumed that parts of the porosity of the medium are intercon-
nected, which means that it is occupied by mobile uid. The remaining porosity is occupied
by immobile uid. Exchange of tracer between the two domains is attributed to diffusion.
However, this approach cannot be applied to heterogeneous porous media in cases where the
diffusion is negligible as compared to that of the convection process.
It is possible to characterize non-Fickian displacements in heterogeneous porous media
by calculating the rst and second temporal moments. Alternatively, the medium can be
represented by an equivalently stratied medium with the same mean and variance of the
permeability. This approach also assumes statistical homogeneity of the medium (i.e. the
permeability of the medium is a probability distribution function) but introduces the hetero-
geneity factor as a parameter that evolves along the paths experienced by the tracer.
The aimof this study was to assess approaches for interpreting dispersion in heterogeneous
media. Porosity, tracer transport and ux proles were determined for various carbonate core
samples using computed tomography (CT). We used three different approaches to interpret
the data: the advectiondiffusion equation, the temporal moments approach and the equiv-
alent stratied porous medium model. Our data show that the classical approach cannot
adequately describe the tracer displacement in the heterogeneous samples; however, the tem-
poral moments approach and the stratied model can reliably account for the heterogeneity
of the media.
2 Laboratory Experiments
2.1 Core Selection
Four different 38-mm diameter and 80-mm long carbonate samples were selected. Photo-
graphs of these carbonate cores are presented in Fig. 1. The samples were characterized by the
presence of oriented shells and fossilized seaweed, which alter the local porosity and the local
permeability. Therefore, the selected carbonate samples present heterogeneous structures at
scales much larger than the pore scale, which could affect ow and tracer characterization of
core samples. Table 1 gives the porosity and the permeability of the samples at the core scale.
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 563
Fig. 1 Photographs of the carbonate cores used for tracer tests
Table 1 Properties of the
carbonate cores (core scale)
Sample Mean porosity Core permeability (mD)
1 0.32 56
2 0.31 315
3 0.33 155
4 0.27 855
2.2 Porosity Measurements
The porosity of each sample was determined by X-ray CT (Hispeed FX/i medical CT scan-
ner; General Electric). The sample was scanned under two different states: fully saturated
with air (uid 1) and fully saturated with water (uid 2). In each case, the measured CT is
the sum of the CT of the porous matrix (CT
pm
) and the CT of the uid (CT
uid
), weighted
by the porosity:
CT
1
= (1 )CT
pm
+CT
uid1
and (1)
CT
2
= (1 )CT
pm
+CT
uid2
. (2)
Eliminating the porous matrix CT
pm
between these equations leads to
=
CT
1
CT
2
CT
uid1
CT
uid2
. (3)
For each sample, 1-mm-wide slices were recorded every one millimetre. Each image has a
resolution of 512 512 pixels, providing a voxel of 0.12 0.12 1 mm
3
. Figure 2 contains
four CT cross-sectional images that display the porosity of Sample 1 at 16-mm intervals.
Zones of high porosity appear in dark red while zones of low porosity appear in dark blue.
The images show the non-uniform porosity distribution for each section. The stack of CT
scans allows reconstruction of a three-dimensional (3D) porosity image, as shown in Fig. 3.
The porosity distribution of Sample 1 is also shown in Fig. 3. The sample porosity appears
to be heterogeneous at the core-scale. On the other hand, the heterogeneity of the examined
samples is illustrated by the porosity proles along each core in Fig. 4, which represents
cross-sectional mean porosity value as a function of the dimensionless distance from the
inlet. Because porosity is measured statically, its error estimates can be very low (previous
calibration tests were performed on reference samples to ensure there were no deviation/dis-
persion effects). In our experiments, the maximum absolute error estimate for the porosity is
123
564 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
Fig. 2 CT images of porosity along Sample 1, obtained at 16-mm intervals
Fig. 3 3D CT porosity image of Sample 1 and the corresponding porosity distribution determined from CT
scan measurements
equal to 0.01. This value was used to dene error bars for all porosity data points on Fig. 4.
The corresponding relative errors are ranging from 2.8 to 3.8%.
2.3 Tracer Tests
Tracer test experiments were performed using a standard experimental setup (Fig. 5). The
system includes a Hassler core-holder, two piston pumps and a conductimeter. The core was
rst saturated with a sodium chloride (NaCl) brine of known concentration (C
o
) using the
rst pump. Tracer testing was then performed by displacing the resident brine with a solution
of a different concentration (C
1
) using the second pump. The in situ tracer concentration var-
iation at several positions along the core was measured by X-ray CT. Each slice was 1-mm
wide and the voxel was 0.120.121 mm
3
in volume. The efuent tracer concentration was
measured using the conductimeter placed at the outlet of the core-holder. The conductimeter
was calibrated over the range of tracer concentrations used. Experiments were stopped when
the conductimeter indicated the same concentration as the injected brine. All the experiments
were conducted at a constant room temperature of 21

C.
The injection ow rates were set high enough to make molecular diffusion negligible
as compared to tracer convection. To determine the inuence of the ow rate and brine
concentration, four experiments were performed with Sample 1; owrates and brine concen-
trations used in these experiments are presented in Table 2. For the other samples, tracer tests
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 565
Fig. 4 Porosity proles along each examined core
Fig. 5 Setup of tracer experiments
Table 2 Flow rates and brine
concentrations used in the four
experiments performed with
Sample 1
Experiment Flow rate
Q (cm
3
/h)
Displaced brine
concentration
(g/l)
Displacing brine
concentration (g/l)
1 100 10 150
2 100 150 10
3 200 10 150
4 200 150 10
consisted of injecting 150 g/l NaCl brine in the core to displace the resident brine of 10 g/l
concentration at a constant ow rate of 100 cm
3
/h.
X-ray CT images of the tracer displacement through Sample 1 are shown in Fig. 6. They
correspond to four cross sections located at different positions from the core inlet (4, 20, 36
and 52 mm) and at different intervals fromthe beginning of the tracer injection (180, 280 and
380 s). A 3D image of the tracer displacement through Sample 1 is shown in Fig. 7. These
images clearly show the dispersion of the tracer front. Because of the porosity heterogeneity,
the tracer was also dispersed within each cross section. X-ray CT image comparison shows
123
566 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
Fig. 6 X-ray images of the tracer displacement through Sample 1 for different intervals after tracer injection.
The cross sections are located 4, 20, 36 and 52 mm from the core inlet
that there is a link between the porosity distribution and tracer dispersion. Also, Fig. 6 shows
clearly that for Sample 1, the upper left part of the cross section at 36 and 52 mm from the
core inlet has a higher permeability. However, comparision between Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 shows
that for the tracer to reach the zones of high porosity, it is necessary for these zones to be con-
nected to the inlet of the sample, indicating that the local permeability plays a fundamental
role in the dispersion processes.
3 Concentration and Flux Proles
3.1 Tracer Concentration Proles
Figure 8 shows typical curves of the average cross-section dimensionless concentration at
different distances as a function of the dimensionless time. The heterogeneity of the cor-
responding sample (Sample 3) can be inferred from the fact that the concentration curves
showa highly dispersive behaviour. For instance, near the core outlet (x = 0.95) tracer breaks
through relatively early (before dimensionless time equal to 0.4), and then it takes several pore
volumes for the concentration curve to reach the maximum value (C = 1). Figure 9 shows a
comparison between curves obtained during experiments 1, 2, 3 and 4 at three distances from
the sample inlet. The four experiments produced almost the same curves. Therefore, we can
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 567
Fig. 7 3D image of the tracer
displacement through Sample 1
assert that the inuences of the ow rate and the brine concentration in the ranges examined
are negligible. Consequently, molecular diffusion can be assumed negligible as compared to
mechanical dispersion. There was good overlap of the curves of tracer ux measured at the
core outlet (Fig. 10). These results suggest that a dead-end pore model, which has been pro-
posed for analysing tracer tests conducted on heterogeneous samples (Hidajat et al. 2004), is
not appropriate for interpreting our experimental data. Because this approach is based on the
partitioning of the porous medium into owing and non-owing fractions and on a coupling
termbetweenthese twofractions (diffusion-like exchange coefcient), the results shouldhave
been sensitive to the ow rate (time to perform the experiment), which was not observed.
To verify the accuracy of the in situ X-ray CT tracer concentration measurements, we
determined the total mass balance of tracer at the core-scale. Figure 11 shows the difference
between the injected mass tracer controlled by the pump and the accumulated mass tracer
in the core determined by X-ray CT measurements as a function of the efuent mass tracer
measured by the conductimeter. As can be seen, the total mass balance is well veried for
the four experiments.
3.2 Tracer Flux Proles
The in situ tracer concentration measurements performed at close time intervals allow us to
calculate tracer ux at different cross sections using the mass balance equation:
C
t
+
1
A
f
x
= 0, (4)
where A is the cross-sectional area.
123
568 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
Fig. 8 Average dimensionless tracer concentration as a function of time and distance
Fig. 9 Repeatability of experiments performed on Sample 1
Integrating Eq. 4 from the inlet to a distance x leads to
f (x, t ) = f
0
A
x
_
0
(x)
C(x, t )
t
dx, (5)
where f
0
and f (x, t ) are the tracer uxes at the inlet and at distance x, respectively.
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 569
Fig. 10 Dimensionless tracer ux at the outlet for Sample 1
Fig. 11 Mass balance of tracer at the whole core scale using the injected mass of tracer (controlled by the
pump), the efuent mass (conductimeter) and the local concentration (X-ray)
As previously stated, tracer concentration is known from X-ray CT measurements at
regular time intervals, t
i
. Therefore, we performed the following approximation:
C (x, t )
t

C (x, t
i +1
) C (x, t
i
)
t
; (6)
this allows us to rewrite Eq. 5 as
123
570 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
Fig. 12 Dimensionless tracer ux as function of time at different cross sections along Sample 1
f (x, t ) = f
0

A
t
x
_
0
(x)
_
C (x, t
i +1
) C (x, t
i
)
_
dx. (7)
The tracer ux at the inlet is given by
f
0
= C
0
Q, (8)
where C
0
is the concentration of the injected brine and Q is the ow rate.
To accurately calculate the integral in Eq. 7, we performed piecewise cubic spline inter-
polations on porosity and concentration proles. Accuracy of Eq. 7 combined with the inter-
polation of porosity and concentration experimental data was tested on experiments 1, 2, 3
and 4, performed with Sample 1. Flux proles were found to be repeatable. Figure 12 shows
typical curves of the calculated tracer ux as a function of time at different distances from
the inlet. Flux proles of Fig. 12 show no overlapping and fairly good smoothness which
conrms that the accuracy of concentration measurements and cubic spline interpolations is
very good.
4 Interpretation
4.1 Dispersion Coefcient
The conventional approach to modelling tracer transport through saturated porous media is
to assume that the tracer ux f results from the transport of tracer concentration C at ow
rate Q, and the dispersion of that concentration by a process similar to molecular diffusion.
In other words, it is assumed that for unidirectional ow:
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 571
f = QC AD
C
x
, (9)
where A is the cross-sectional area of the mediumperpendicular to the owdirection, is the
porosity and D is the dispersion coefcient. These parameters are constant for homogeneous
samples. If the ow rate is also constant, empirical Eq. 9 associated with the mass balance
Eq. 4 leads to the traditional convectiondiffusion equation (Bear 1972), written here in terms
of concentration:
C
t
+
Q
A
C
x
= D

2
C
x
2
. (10)
A similar equation can be obtained for the tracer ux.
Equation 10 can be solved to determine the tracer concentration at distance x and time t
if porosity and the dispersion coefcient are constant. In accordance with previous studies,
we show that these parameters are spatially dependent. The CT porosity images clearly show
that the porosity distribution is not uniform at the core scale. On the other hand, knowing the
concentration and ux at different positions as functions of time, the local value of the dis-
persion coefcient can be calculated from Eq. 9. This method for determining the dispersion
coefcient directly from the differential relationship between the ux and the concentration
avoids the problem of averaging when the integrated solution is used. In addition, the stan-
dard boundary conditions of concentration equal to unity at inlet and semi-innite medium
are questionable (Dauba et al. 1999). Figure 13 shows the local dispersion coefcient as a
function of the distance from the inlet for the four samples used in this study. It is shown that
the local dispersion coefcient D varies along the core samples. The spatial dependence of
the dispersion coefcient is the signature of the heterogeneity of the samples. This conrms
that the classical approach is not suitable for modelling tracer displacement in heterogeneous
porous media even at the laboratory scale. Figure 13 also suggests that Sample 1 is the less
heterogeneous while Sample 4 appears to be the most heterogeneous. This may appear to
be in contradiction to Fig. 4 because porosity (i.e. the volume of uid involved in the dis-
persion process) of Sample 1 is higher than that of Sample 4. However, this observation can
be explained by the local permeability changes (connectivity between pores) which might
be higher in Sample 4 than in Sample 1 and which may dominate the dispersion process.
Estimates of errors on the local dispersion coefcient have been calculated using error theory
and taking into account the estimates of errors of the concentration measurements which are
<10%. For each position x, the tracer ux, the concentration and the concentration gradient
are known at different time intervals. Therefore, D has to satisfy Eq. 9 during the whole
experiment at the corresponding position. Results show that errors on the local dispersion
coefcient are <20%. This value was used to calculate error bars on Fig. 13. Therefore, the
significant scattering of the local dispersion coefcient observed for Samples 3 and 4 is not
due to a lack of accuracy but rather to the heterogeneity of those samples at the core-scale.
4.2 Temporal Moments
Theoretical models based on the moment method have been used by several authors (Marle
et al. 1967; Gven et al. 1984; Dagan 1989; Naff 1990). For continuous tracer injection, the
dimensionless rst temporal moment, which represents the mean arrival time of the tracer,
is dened by (Lenormand 1996)
< t >=

_
0
t
f
t
dt . (11)
123
572 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
Fig. 13 Dimensionless local dispersion coefcient along each sample
Fig. 14 Tracer-front mean arrival time as function of the dimensionless distance from the core inlet
The plot of < t > as a function of the dimensionless position x is presented in Fig. 14. For
small distances, values of the mean arrival time are slightly dispersed. This is probably due
to the lack of accuracy in calculating
f (x,t )
t
because of limited experimental data, since the
tracer ux quickly reaches its maximum value for small distances. Nevertheless, it is clear
that the mean arrival time of the tracer front is almost equal to the distance from the inlet of
the core for all samples. This result is similar to those obtained with homogeneous porous
media. Consequently, the rst temporal moment does not seem to be affected by the medium
heterogeneity.
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 573
Fig. 15 Variance of the tracer-front arrival time as function of the dimensionless distance from the core inlet
The second temporal moment, dened by
< t
2
>=

_
0
t
2
f
t
dt , (12)
leads to the variance of the arrival time of the tracer front:

2
t
= < t
2
> < t >
2
. (13)
The plot of
2
t
as a function of x is presented in Fig. 15. The variance at the same distance
from the inlet of the core depends on the sample and therefore on the heterogeneity. Several
attempts were made to establish the relationship between the variance of the arrival time of
the tracer and the distance from the inlet of the cores. As shown in Fig. 15, the power law
seems to be appropriate:

2
t
= ax
b
. (14)
A similar result for power law variances has been proposed for probabilistic approaches to
tracer dispersion in porous media (Berkowitz and Scher 2001). For standard dispersion, an
exponent of 1 is observed and for a perfectly layered medium, the variance is proportional to
the square of the distance. Values of a and b for the various samples are presented in Table 3.
It should be noted that in our experiments, exponent b varied between 1.43 and 1.7, which
conrmed that the samples were heterogeneous.
4.3 Heterogeneity Factor
The stratied formation constitutes a simple example of a heterogeneous porous medium
and has been intensively investigated (Mercado 1967; Marle et al. 1967; Gelhar et al. 1979;
Matheron and de Marsily 1980; Communar 1998). The leading idea of the stratied model
is to represent the real medium by using an equivalent stratied medium with the same mean
123
574 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
Table 3 Values of the
coefcients of Eqs. 14 and 17 for
all samples
Sample Eq. 14
2
t
= ax
b
Eq. 17 H = ax
b
a b a b
1 1.15 1.70 0.37 0.24
2 1.23 1.70 0.48 0.39
3 1.13 1.45 0.48 0.64
4 1.56 1.43 0.63 0.64
and variance of permeability (Fourar 2006). Here, the porosity of the medium is assumed
uniform, and the permeability of each layer is constant but can differ from one layer to
another. The effects of porescale dispersion and molecular diffusion are assumed negligible
compared to the effects of permeability heterogeneity. It is also assumed that the owthrough
the medium is steady state and parallel to the layers. The tracer convection is then governed
by (see Appendix)
C(x, t ) =
1
2
C
0
er f c

ln
_
x
Vt

1 + H
2
_
_
2 ln
_
1 + H
2
_

, (15)
where erfc is the complementary error function, C
0
the injected tracer concentration, V =
Q
A
the mean velocity and H the heterogeneity factor dened as the ratio of the standard deviation

K
to the mean permeability < K >:
H =

K
< K >
=
_
1 +exp
_

2
ln K
_
. (16)

2
ln K
is the variance of ln K.
Equation 15 was used to t the concentration curves of Fig. 8 by optimizing the value of
H for each curve. The results presented in Fig. 16 show that this approach is suitable for
modelling our experimental data. Figure 17 shows experimental values of the heterogeneity
factor as a function of the dimensionless length of the samples. It appears that the heteroge-
neity factor is a decreasing function of the distance from the medium inlet. The decrease in
H is probably related to the fact that the tracer is transported at the inlet as if the medium is
stratied (1D ow). As the tracer advances through the medium, the ow becomes 3D and
the stratication effect of the medium decreases. Therefore, the decrease is stronger at the
inlet than at the outlet of the medium. It should be noted that the heterogeneity factor tends to
be nearly constant at the outlet of the samples, indicating the existence of a distance beyond
which the stratication effect on the tracer dispersion is not important.
Curves presented in Figure 17 suggest that the heterogeneity factor can be approximated
by a power function of the dimensionless distance from the medium inlet.
H = ax
b
. (17)
Values of coefcients a and b for each sample are presented in Table 3. By comparing the
values fora, which correspond to the heterogeneity factor values at the outlet, the samples
can be classied according to their degree of heterogeneity. Sample 1 appears to be the least
heterogeneous, whereas Sample 4 appears to be the most heterogeneous.
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 575
Fig. 16 Typical concentration curves tted to Eq. 15 by optimizing the value of the heterogeneity factor for
each curve
Fig. 17 Heterogeneity factor as function of the dimensionless distance from the core inlet
5 Conclusions
Experiments investigating miscible displacement through different heterogeneous porous
samples were conducted in order to improve interpretation of non-Fickian transport at the
core scale. Several different carbonate cores were used. We found that the porosity of each
sample, according to X-ray CT, is not uniform at the cross-sectional level or at the core
scale. Tracer tests were conducted on the cores, using X-ray CT to measure in situ con-
centration. In these experiments, ow rates were high enough to make molecular diffusion
123
576 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
negligible as compared to tracer convection. Data were interpreted using three approaches:
the convectiondiffusion equation, the arrival time moments and the stratied model.
We found that the dispersion coefcient was space dependent; therefore, the classical
approach (Fickian) was not suitable for describing the tracer transport in this study. On the
other hand, the mean arrival time of the tracer front was proportional to the distance from
the inlet of the cores and the variance of the arrival time was a power law of the distance. As
well, when the stratied model was used to t the concentration curves, the heterogeneity
factor, which is a key parameter of the stratied model, was a decreasing power law of the
distance.
Therefore, the arrival time moments approach and the heterogeneity factor both account
for the heterogeneity of the media. These results provide an alternative to the traditional
approach for interpreting tracer tests at the core scale. Future studies will determine how the
heterogeneity factor is related to the macroscopic properties of the medium.
Acknowledgements The experiments presented in this study were conducted at the Institut Franais du
Ptrole. We thank R. Lenormand, P. Egermann and E. Rosenberg for their helpful discussions and technical
support.
6 Appendix
The analytical stratied model is presented. We consider a porous mediumof a cross-sectional
area A and a permeability probability distribution function (PDF), G(K). The elementary
section d A of layers of permeability comprised between K and K +dK is then given by
d A = A G(K)dK. (A1)
According to Darcys law, the elementary ow rate through the layers of section d A is:
dq = d A
K

P
L
, (A2)
where is the dynamic viscosity, L is the length and P is the pressure drop between the
inlet and outlet of the medium. The total ow rate Q is obtained by integrating Eq. A2 from
the minimum to the maximum permeability:
Q =
K
max
_
K
min
dq. (A3)
Taking Eqs. A1 and A2 into account leads to
Q =
A

P
L
K
max
_
K
min
K G(K)dK. (A4)
By introducing the classic definition of mean permeability, we obtain
< K >=
K
max
_
K
min
K G(K)dK, (A5)
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 577
Darcys law of the ow at sample scale is then written:
Q = A
< K >

P
L
. (A6)
Combining Eqs. A1, A2 and A6 leads to
dq = Q
K
< K >
G(K)dK. (A7)
If K

denotes the permeability of the layer where the tracer front reaches position x at
time t , the velocity of the tracer front in this layer is dened by
v =
x
t
. (A8)
This velocity can also be expressed using Darcys law:
v =
1

dq
d A
=
1

P
L
=
K

< K >
Q
A
. (A9)
By introducing the mean front velocity,
V =
Q
A
, (A10)
and using Eq. A8, K

is then given by
K

=< K >
x
Vt
. (A11)
The tracer mass in the layers of permeability comprised between K and K +dK is given
by
dm = C
0
dA dx, (A12)
where dx is an elementary length in the x direction and C
0
is the injected tracer concentration.
Knowing that at time t the tracer has not yet reached the layers of permeability lower than
K

, the total mass m of tracer in the pore volume Adx is then obtained by integrating the
previous equation between K

and K
max
:
m =
K
max
_
K

C
0
dA dx. (A13)
Inserting Eq. A1 into Eq. A13 and dividing by the pore volume Adx, the equation of
the mean concentration for the cross section at position x and time t is
C(x, t ) = C
0
K
max
_
K

G(K)dK. (A14)
We assume that the permeability PDF is lognormal:
G(K) =
1

ln K

2K
exp
_

(ln K < ln K >)

2
2
2
ln K
_
, (A18)
123
578 M. Fourar, G. Radilla
where < ln K >and
2
ln K
are the mean and variance of ln K, respectively. These parameters
are related to the mean and variance of K as follows:
< K > = exp
_
< ln K > +

2
ln K
2
_
and (A19)

2
K
= exp
_
2 < ln K > +
2
ln K
_ _
1 +exp
_

2
ln K
__
. (A20)
The heterogeneity factor is dened as the standard deviation to the mean permeability
ratio:
H =

K
< K >
. (A21)
Therefore, considering Eqs. A19 and A21, the heterogeneity factor can be rewritten as
H =
_
1 +exp
_

2
ln K
_
. (A22)
Inserting Eq. A18 into Eq. A14 with K
max
tending towards innity yields
C(x, t ) =
C
0

ln K

_
K

exp
_

(ln K < ln K >)

2
2
2
ln K
_
dK
K
. (A23)
Substituting in u =
ln K < ln K >

2
ln K
leads to
C(x, t ) =
C
0

_
u

exp
_
u
2
_
du =
C
0
2
er f c(u

), (A24)
where er f c is the complementary error function and u

=
ln K

< ln K >

2
ln K
.
Combining Eqs. A11, A19, A22 and A23 yields the tracer concentration:
C(x, t ) =
1
2
C
0
er f c

ln
_
x
Vt

1 + H
2
_
_
2 ln
_
1 + H
2
_

(A25)
References
Aggelopoulos, C.A., Tsakiroglou, C.D.: The longitudinal dispersion coefcient of soils as related to
the variability of local permeability. Water Air Soil Pollut. 185, 223237 (2007). doi:10.1007/
s11270-007-9445-6
Barenblatt, G.E., Zheltov, I.P., Kochina, I.N.: Basic concept of the theory of seepage of homogeneous
liquids in ssured rocks. J. Appl. Math. Mech. Eng. Transl. 24, 12861303 (1960). doi:10.1016/
0021-8928(60)90107-6
Bauget, F., Fourar, M.: Non-Fickian dispersion in a single fracture. J. Contam. Hydrol. 100, 137148 (2008).
doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2008.06.005
Bear, J.: Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Elsevier, New York (1972)
Berkowitz, B., Scher, H.: The role of probalilistic approaches to transport theory in heterogeneous media.
Transp. Porous Media 42, 241263 (2001). doi:10.1023/A:1006785018970
Berkowitz, B., Cortis, A., Dentz, M., Scher, H.: Modeling non-Fickian transport in geological formations as
a continuous time random walk. Rev. Geophys. 44, RG2003 (2006). doi:10.1029/2005RG000178
Carlier, E.: Solute transport in dual porosity mediumand scale effect of dispersivity: proposal of a probabilistic
equation. J. Environ. Hydrol. 15(4), 18 (2007)
123
Non-Fickian Tracer Transport Through Heterogeneous Porous Media 579
Coasts, K.H., Smith, B.D.: Dead-end pore volume and dispersion in porous media. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. Trans.
AIME 231(4), 7384 (1964)
Communar, G.M.: A solute Transport in Stratied Media. Transp. Porous Media 31, 133134 (1998). doi:10.
1023/A:1006557032656
Cortis, A., Gallo, C., Scher, H., Berkowitz, B.: Numerical simulation of non-Fickian transport in geological
formations with multiple-scale heterogeneities. Water Resour. Res. 40, W04209 (2004). doi:10.1029/
2003WR002750
Dauba, C., Hamon, G., Quintard, M., Cherblanc, F.: Identication of parallel heterogeneities with miscible
displacement, SCA paper 9933, Golden, USA (1999)
Dagan, G.: Flow and Transport in Porous Formations. Springer-Verlag, New York (1989)
Dagan, G., Neuman, P.: Subsurface Flow and Transport: A Stochastic Approach. Cambridge University Press,
New York (1997)
Domenico, P.A., Robbins, G.A.: A dispersion scale effect in model calibration and eld tracer experiments.
J. Hydrol. (Amst.) 70, 123132 (1984). doi:10.1016/0022-1694(84)90117-3
Fourar, M., Konan, G., Fichen, C., Rosenberg, E., Egermann, P., Lenormand, R.: Tracer tests for various
carbonate cores using X-ray CT, society of core analysis. Annual international symposium, Toronto,
Canada, 2125 Aug 2005
Fourar, M.: Characterization of heterogeneities at the core-scale using the equivalent stratied porous medium
approach. In: International symposium of the society of core analysts, Trondheim, Norway, 1216 Sept
2006
Gerke, H.H., van Genuchten, M.T.: A dual-porosity model for simulating the preferential movement of
water and solutes in structured porous media. Water Resour. Res. 29(2), 305320 (1993). doi:10.1029/
92WR02339
Gelhar, L.W., Gutjahr, A.L., Naff, R.L.: Stochastic analysis of macrodispersion in a stratied aquifer. Water
Resour. Res. 15, 13871397 (1979). doi:10.1029/WR015i006p01387
Gelhar, L.W., Welty, C., Rehfeldt, K.R.: A critical review of data on eld-scale dispersion in aquifers. Water
Resour. Res. 28, 19551974 (1992). doi:10.1029/92WR00607
Gven, O., Molz, F.J., Melville, J.G.: An analysis of dispersion in a stratied aquifer. Water Resour. Res. 20,
13371354 (1984). doi:10.1029/WR020i010p01337
Han, N., Bhakta, J., Carbonell, R.G.: Longitudinal and lateral dispersion in packed beds: Effect of column
length and particle size distribution. AIChE J. 31, 277288 (1985). doi:10.1002/aic.690310215
Hidajat, I., Mohanty, K.K., Flaum, M., Hirasaki, G.: Study of vuggy carbonates using NMR and X-Ray CT
scanning. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, October (2004)
Lenormand, R.: Determining ow equations from stochastic properties of a permeability eld: The MHD
model. SPE J. 1, 179190 (1996)
Marle, C.M., Simandoux, P., Pacsirszky, J., Gaulier, C.: Etude du dplacement de uids miscibles en milieu
poreux strati. Rev. Inst. Fr. Pet. 22, 272294 (1967)
Matheron, G., de Marsily, G.: Is transport in porous media always diffusive? Acounterexample. Water Resour.
Res. 16, 901917 (1980). doi:10.1029/WR016i005p00901
Mercado, A., de Marsily, G.: The spreading pattern of injected waters in a permeability stratied aquifer. IAHS
AISH Publ. 72, 2336 (1967)
Moctezuma-B, A., Fleury, M.: Permeability mapping on vuggy core sample using tracer experiments and
streamline simulations. SCA paper 9919 Golden, USA (1999)
Naff, R.L.: On the nature of the dispersive ux in saturated heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour. Res.
5, 10131026 (1990)
Olivier, P., Cantegrel, L., Laveissire, J., Guillonneau, N.: Multiphase ow behaviour in vugular carbonates
using X-Ray CT, SCA paper 2004-13, Abu Dhabi, UAE (2004)
Rajaram, H., Gelhar, L.W.: Plume scale-dependent dispersion in heterogeneous aquifers, 2, Eulerian analysis
and three dimensional aquifers. Water Resour. Res. 29, 32613276 (1993). doi:10.1029/93WR01068
Siddiqui, S., Funk, J., Khamees, A.: Static and dynamic measurements of resevoir heterogeneities in carbonate
reservoirs, SCA paper 2000-06, Abu Dhabi, UAE (2000)
Srivastava, R.K., Chatzis, I., Dullien, A.L.: A computerized technique for measuring in-situ concentrations
during miscible displacements in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 7, 127145 (1992). doi:10.1007/
BF00647393
Sternberg, S.P.K.: Dispersion measurements in highly heterogeneous laboratory scale porous media. Transp.
Porous Media 54, 107124 (2004). doi:10.1023/A:1025708313812
123