STOMP

Gas Relative Permeability Card Options (GT)

Effective Saturations

Mobile saturations are scaled by the residual gas liquid saturation to determine effective saturations for use with common relative permeability models. 

The effective aqueous liquid saturation:
The effective aqueous nonaqueous liquid saturation:
The effective gas saturation:
The wetting phases are combined for a total effective liquid saturation:

 

Relative Permeability Models

Constant:
the relative permeability is constant regardless of saturation. 
Burdine:

The Burdine (1953) relative permeability function is described as

 

 

Gas phase relative permeability can be computed as a function of gas saturation from knowledge of the soil-moisture retention function and the pore distribution model of Burdine [1953]. If the van Genuchten and Brooks and Corey soil-moisture retention functions are used, closed-form expressions for fluid phase relative permeability can be derived. Using the van Genuchten soil-moisture retention function, the gas phase relative permeability appears as shown:

 

Using the Brooks and Corey soil-moisture retention function, the gas phase relative permeability appears as shown:

 

Mualem:

The Mualem(1976) relative permeability function is described as

 

where L = 0.5.

Gas phase relative permeability can be computed as a function of gas saturation from knowledge of the soil-moisture retention function and the pore distribution model of Mualem [1976]. If the van Genuchten and Brooks and Corey soil-moisture retention functions are used, closed-form expressions for fluid phase relative permeability can be derived. Using the van Genuchten soil-moisture retention function, the gas  relative permeability appears as shown:

 

 

Using the Brooks and Corey soil-moisture retention function, the gas phase relative permeability appears as shown:

 

Dual Porosity Relative Permeability Functions:

Dual porosity functions or equivalent continuum models [Klavetter and Peters 1986; Nitao 1988] relate bulk fluid phase relative permeabilities to the those for the fracture and matrix according to the equation below.

 

 

Dual porosity models require the assumption that fracture and matrix fluid pressures are in equilibrium, which inherently neglects transient fracture-matrix interactions. Fracture and matrix relative permeabilities are computed from either the Burdine or Mualem models using either the van Genuchten or Brooks and Corey soil moisture retention functions.

In these functions the effective gas and gas saturations are replaced with the corresponding values for the fracture and matrix components of the soil. For example the fracture and matrix gas relative permeabilities for the Burdine model with the Brooks and Corey soil-moisture retention function are shown below.

 

Fatt and Klikoff:

the Fatt and Klikoff (1959) model

 

Corey:

Gas-phase relative permeabilities can be computed from modified expressions for effective gas saturation according to the empirical model of Corey [1977]. The Corey's curves account for trapped air through a modification to the definition of the effective gas saturation according to:

 

 

The Corey function for gas phase relative permeability is computed according to:

 

Free Corey:

The free Corey model is a modified version of the empirical Corey [1977] model. The model accounts for trapped air through a modification to the definition of the effective aqueous and gas saturations:

 

 

The free Corey function for gas-phase relative permeability is computed according to:

 

Modified Corey:

A modified version of the empirical model of Corey [1977]. The model accounts for trapped air through a modification to the definition of the effective aqueous and gas saturations:

 

The modified Corey function for gas-phase relative permeability is computed according to:

 

Tabular:

Tabulated relative permeability.

Choose One

  The user may input data in any of the following formats.

  1. Gas relative permeability versus aqueous saturation
  2. Gas relative permeability versus ln(capillary head)
  3. Gas relative permeability versus capillary head Interpolation

Choose One

  The user must select an interpolation scheme for the data.

  1. Linear interpolation and table truncation beyond limits
  2. Cubic spline interpolation

 

References

Burdine, N.T., 1953. Relative permeability calculation from size distribution data. Trans. AIME 198, 71-78. 

Mualem, Y., 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resources Research 12, 513-522.

Corey, A.T., 1977. Mechanics of heterogeneous fluids in porous media. Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Fatt , I., Klikoff Jr., W.A., 1959. Effect of fractional wettability on multiphase flow through porous media. AIME Trans 215, 426-429. 

STOMP User Guide Home

Modules