Analytical dual mesh method for two-phase ow through highly

heterogeneous porous media

D. Khoozan
a
, B. Firoozabadi
a,
, D. Rashtchian
b
, M.A. Ashjari
a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 February 2010
Received in revised form 11 January 2011
Accepted 24 January 2011
Available online 3 February 2011
This manuscript was handled by P. Baveye,
Editor-in-Chief
Keywords:
Dual mesh
Analytical
Vorticity
Two-phase ow
Multi-scale methods
s u m m a r y
Detailed geological models of a reservoir may contain many more cells that can be handled by reservoir
simulators due to computer hardware limitations. Upscaling is introduced as an effective way to over-
come this problem. However, recovery predictions performed on a coarser upscaled mesh are inevitably
less accurate than those performed on the initial ne mesh. Dual mesh method is an approach that uses
both coarse and ne grid information during simulation. In the reconstruction step of this method, the
equations should be solved numerically within each coarse block, which is a time consuming process.
Recently, a new coarse-grid generation technique based on the vorticity preservation concept has been
applied successfully in the upscaling eld. Relaying on this technique for coarse-grid generation, a novel
method is introduced in this paper, which replaces the time-consuming reconstruction step in the dual
mesh method with a fast analytical solution. This method is tested on challenging test cases regarding
upscaling, in order to examine its accuracy and speed. The results show that the simulation time is
decreased noticeably with respect to the conventional simulation methods. It is also 24 times faster than
the original dual mesh method with almost the same accuracy.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Advances in reservoir characterization technologies, such as
modern seismic facilities, and well logs, can provide very detailed
geostatistical models of a reservoir. These models would contain
10
11
10
18
cells if they resolved the reservoir at the core or log scale
(Renard and de Marsily, 1997). By contrast, typical reservoir simu-
lators can handle up to only 10
5
10
6
simulation cells depending on
the type of simulation and the available computer hardware. Even
considering the advances in computer technologies, there exists a
wide gap between ne geological models and the size supported
by traditional simulators. In addition, a typical reservoir engineer-
ing study may contain numerous simulations for history matching,
investigation of different well congurations, and the assessment
of uncertainties using multiple geostatistical realizations. There-
fore, the ne grid geological model is required to be upscaled to
a coarse simulation model.
Upscaling techniques are introduced to coarsen these geological
models to manageable levels for using in reservoir simulators. Dur-
ing the process of upscaling, small-scale properties such as perme-
ability and porosity are averaged over coarse blocks and replaced
by overall upscaled or homogenized properties.
Generally, there are two important issues regarding the upscal-
ing process. The rst one is the method of the coarse-grid genera-
tion and the second one is the method of averaging the properties
over coarse-grid blocks. These two issues have a great effect on the
upscaling errors, i.e. homogenization and numerical errors. Replac-
ing the ne scale properties with equivalent averaged ones results
in homogenization error while numerical errors are due to an in-
crease in the size of grid blocks. Upscaling methods aim at decreas-
ing these two errors by introducing proper grid generation
techniques and accurate averaging methods.
Single-phase upscaling is the simplest, most widely used and
best understood form of upscaling in which the focus is placed
on the calculation of equivalent absolute permeability. A review
of these techniques can be found in Wen and Gmez-Hernndez
(1996), Renard and de Marsily (1997) and Durlofsky (2003). For
moderate degrees of coarsening, single-phase upscaling techniques
often provide acceptable results. At higher degrees of coarsening,
some type of relative permeability and capillary pressure upscaling
is also generally required, which is known as two-phase upscaling
(Chang and Mohanty, 1997; Hui and Durlofsky, 2005). In this pa-
per, only single-phase upscaling will be used.
Gridding methods could be categorized into three main
groups. Permeability-based gridding was rst introduced by
Garcia et al. (1992). In their method, by introducing elastic
grids, a coarse grid is generated such that the permeability
0022-1694/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.01.042

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 66165684; fax: +98 21 66000021.

E-mail address: roozabadi@sharif.edu (B. Firoozabadi).
Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Hydrology
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j hydrol
variance within each coarse block is minimized. Many other
variations of this method have been investigated by several
researchers (Farmer, 2002). The disadvantage of these tech-
niques is that they are based on static information rather than
dynamic information. As a result, they cannot capture the con-
nectivity in the ne scale.
Flow-based gridding procedures have been developed by a vari-
ety of investigators. Within a structured Cartesian framework,
Durlofsky et al. (1996, 1997) presented a non-uniform coarse-grid
generation technique that selectively removes ne-scale grid lines
in a manner that retains important high ow regions. Castellini
(2001) extended this method to curvilinear framework in three-
dimensional systems. Using ow as a base for gridding allows
the coarse grid to capture many important features of the ne-grid
model.
In ow-based grids, the variation of permeability in coarse-grid
blocks is not investigated. This led to a third group of grid genera-
tion technique that uses both permeability variation and velocity
elds. In techniques of He (2004), He and Durlofsky (2006) and
Wen and Gmez-Hernndez (1997, 1998), the ow and permeabil-
ity variations are taken into account in two separate steps. Vortic-
ity-based gridding of Mahani (2005), Mahani and Muggeridge
(2005), Mahani et al. (2009) and Ashjari et al. (2007, 2008) incorpo-
rates both ow and permeability effects using a single quantity, i.e.
vorticity. Mostaghimi and Mahani (2010) compared the vorticity-
based gridding technique to permeability-based and ow-based
gridding techniques in a number of 2D heterogeneous models via
simulation of two-phase ow on the constructed grids. They con-
cluded that although performance of ow-based and vorticity-
based gridding is comparable in many cases, vorticity-based
gridding has the benet of producing coarse-grid blocks with a
more uniform permeability and uid-properties distribution. In
this paper, we will use Ashjari et al. (2007, 2008) method for
coarse-grid generation.
As mentioned, implementing proper gridding techniques and
accurate averaging methods can result into a low homogenization
error. However, the numerical error will still be a problem. This
problem can effectively be managed using multi-scale simulation
techniques.
The rst multi-scale simulation technique was developed by
Ram and Killough (1991). In their method, the pressure equation
is solved by a nite element method on the coarse grid and then by
using the spline interpolation, the ne grid information was calcu-
lated from the coarse grid. Then the conservation equations for
uid motion were solved on the ne grid.
In the dual mesh method of Gurillot and Verdire (1995) and
Verdire and Gurillot (1996), the pressure eld is rst computed
on the coarse grid and the velocity eld is then estimated within
each coarse block by solving for the pressure with approximate
boundary conditions. Then the saturation is calculated on the ne
grid. They reported a speed-up factor ranging from ve to seven.
Audigane and Blunt (2004) extended the dual mesh method of
Verdire and Gurillot (1996) to three dimensions and included
gravity and wells. In their method, the pressure equation is solved
on the coarse grid using the IMPES method with a nite difference
scheme. The pressure eld is then reconstructed on the ne grid
using ux boundary conditions from the coarse grid simulation.
Then, the saturation eld is updated on the ne grid using standard
single-point upstream weighting. They reported a speed-up factor
of about four for their most complex 3D case. In the present work,
the dual mesh method of Audigane and Blunt (2004) will be used
as a base.
Firoozabadi et al. (2009) proposed an upscaling technique that
aimed at reducing both homogenization and numerical errors by
combining the dual mesh method with vorticity-based gridding.
In their method, the dual mesh method is applied to reduce
numerical errors while vorticity-based gridding is used to deal
with homogenization error.
Although Firoozabadi et al. (2009) applied the dual mesh simu-
lation in vorticity-based grids; they did not use the main advanta-
ges of vorticity-based generated grids. These advantages (which
will be discussed later) convince incorporation of an analytical
solution in the dual mesh method. Hence, a novel technique is
achieved in this research that decreases the simulation time
noticeably while keeping the accuracy at the same time. The out-
line of the paper is as follows: First, we briey describe the vortic-
ity-based gridding technique and then the dual mesh method.
Subsequently, the properties of the vorticity-based grids will be
discussed and the analytical dual mesh method will be introduced.
Finally, the performance of the proposed method will be evaluated
through three test cases.
2. Vorticity-based gridding
Vorticity, ~ x, is a vector describing the rate and direction of rota-
tion of a uid particle at any point and mathematically is dened
as the curl of velocity eld V
!
. Vorticity is a measure of how fast
a particle changes its velocity direction while it travels in the ow
eld (Mahani, 2005). For instance, in two-dimensional ows in xy
plane, the vorticity vector can be expressed only by one component
in the z-direction:
~
x rV
!

@v
y
@x

@v
x
@y
_ _
~
k 1
where v
x
and v
y
are the velocity components in x and y directions
respectively and
~
k is the unit vector in the z-direction. In single-
phase ow in isotropic homogeneous porous media, using Darcys
Law, vorticity can be expressed as (Ashjari et al., 2008):
~ x V
!
rlnK 2
This equation shows that the vorticity vector is a function of total
velocity and the gradient of logarithm of permeability. Here, the
ne-scale permeability is assumed a diagonal and isotropic tensor
that can be considered a scalar.
According to Eq. (1), vorticity will be at its maximum in regions
with high ow rates perpendicular to high permeability gradients.
As an example, vorticity is negligible for ow in homogeneous
media or for ow perpendicular to bedding and is signicant
around boundaries of layers for ow parallel to layering in strati-
ed formations or for ow in channelized systems.
It is worth mentioning that in channelized systems, vorticity is
large along the channel boundaries where there is a high perme-
ability variation perpendicular to the velocity in the channel; how-
ever, inside the channel, vorticity can be very small because of a
low permeability variation. Hence, it can be concluded that vortic-
ity is capable of capturing connectivity and identifying the bound-
aries of connected regions.
In addition to the above, we clearly see that vorticity intensity is
a good measure of (key) heterogeneities due to its dependence on
the gradient of logarithm of permeability. By inspecting the vortic-
ity map, we can distinguish between the most important perme-
ability layer contrasts and less important ones. We can also
recognize areas with low permeability variation (which can be
coarsened) as well as very heterogeneous areas (where we keep
the grids rened). This is quite important for successful coarse-grid
generation and upscaling. According to Ashjari et al. (2007, 2008),
the algorithm of vorticity-based gridding is as follows:
1. A ne-scale single-phase ow simulation is performed using
the geological model. From this solution, the velocity eld is
extracted for use in the next step.
196 D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205
2. The vorticity map is generated from the obtained velocity eld.
For this purpose, Eq. (1) has to be discretized using a nite dif-
ference scheme. In addition, a simple linear velocity interpola-
tion for estimation of tangential velocities at each grid block
boundary is required. The calculated vorticities by this method
will have different values depending upon the permeability
contrast between layers, allowing the algorithm to distinguish
between the most important layer permeability contrasts and
less important ones.
3. From vorticity distribution, coarse-grid structure is optimized
whereby boundaries of grids are adapted based on recognizing
areas of high and low vorticity variation. In this step, vorticity
cutoffs (one cutoff for each owdirection) are selected to control
the upscaling level and to decide where ne-grid cells should be
merged or retained. Grid blocks whose vorticity variation is
smaller than the cutoff are merged together to make coarser grid
blocks, and if their value is larger than the cutoff, they are kept
rened. Denitely, the generated coarse grid in this manner is
strongly dependent on the distribution of ne grid vorticity,
which in turn, depends on the calculated velocity eld.
4. The permeability eld is upscaled for the generated coarse grid.
In this work, permeability is upscaled using geometric averag-
ing whereby a diagonal isotropic upscaled permeability is
obtained.
The resulting coarse-grid model has a non-uniform distribution
with coarser grid blocks in areas of low vorticity variation and ner
grid blocks in areas of high vorticity variation. However, the algo-
rithm does not give unique coarse-grid distribution for a given
ne-grid model. Usually, there is an optimum coarse grid, which
can best preserve vorticity. This can be identied by incorporating
vorticity map preservation error (Evmp). This is the error between
two vorticity maps, one obtained from the ne-grid model and the
other from the coarse-grid model. That is:
Evmp%

N
1
x
f
z
x
r
z

N
1
x
f
z

100 3
where x
f
z
and x
r
z
are the vorticity distribution of the ne and the re-
ned (a model which has the same resolution as the ne grid while
its permeability distribution is replaced from the coarse grid) grids,
respectively and N is the number of ne-grid blocks.
This denition of Evmp is slightly different fromthe denitiongi-
ven by Ashjari et al. (2007, 2008). It uses the advantages of both rel-
ative and absolute error denitions while removing the pitfalls of
each. For example, in the near zero vorticity regions (which may
not be an important zone), the relative error will be large which is
not desired. In addition, the main disadvantage of absolute error is
its inability to present the importance of the error with respect to
the base model. However, the proposed denition does not suffer
from these two important problems. It is a relative absolute error.
Evmp indicates the extent by which the reference vorticity map is
preserved by the coarse-grid model. Basedonthe vorticity map pres-
ervation concept (Ashjari et al., 2007, 2008), low Evmp means low
information loss through coarsening and hence better upscaling.
Since x
r
z
is computed on the rened grid, it represents mainly
the homogenization error of the upscaled model caused by replac-
ing the ne-scale permeability with the equivalent coarse-scale
permeability. Hence, the obtained Evmp is called rened-based
vorticity map preservation error (Firoozabadi et al., 2009).
3. Dual mesh method
After obtaining the coarse-grid model with a minimum homog-
enization error, we need to solve the ow equations. To reduce the
numerical dispersion errors, multi-scale methods are introduced.
In this work, the dual mesh method of Audigane and Blunt
(2004) will be used. This method has the following steps:
1. The average saturation for each coarse grid is calculated.
2. For the current time step, the coarse-scale pressure equation is
solved numerically using the nite difference scheme which
yields coarse-grid uxes (Q) normal to the coarse-grid
boundaries.
3. Fine-grid uxes (q) on the boundaries of each coarse-grid block
are obtained approximately using the calculated coarse uxes.
This is achieved by a kind of downscaling step, assuming trans-
missibility weighting along the coarse boundary.
4. A local two-phase ne-scale pressure equation is solved numer-
ically over each coarse-grid block at each time step with the
approximate ne-grid uxes as Neumann boundary conditions
and the coarse block pressure as a Dirichlet boundary condition
for obtaining a unique solution. Incorporating Darcys Law, this
reconstructs the ne-scale uxes throughout the model. The
ne-grid uxes reconstructed in this manner conserve mass
balance over the local (ne-grid cells within a coarse block)
and global (entire reservoir) domains.
5. Finally, the saturation eld is updated from the reconstructed
ne-scale velocity eld.
The above algorithm, as shown by Audigane and Blunt (2004),
signicantly reduces numerical errors of the coarse-scale simula-
tion. However, it is unable to remove the homogenization error
resulting from assigning improper upscaled permeabilities to
coarse-grid blocks.
Firoozabadi et al. (2009) solved this problemby introducing vor-
ticity-based generated grids into the dual mesh method to reduce
homogenization and numerical dispersion errors simultaneously.
However, they did not use the advantages of the vorticity-based
gridding techniques to improve the dual mesh method. In the next
section, these advantages will be investigated and used to enhance
the simulation speed of the dual mesh method.
4. Analytical dual mesh method
In the step 4 of the dual mesh method (as described earlier), the
pressure equation is solved numerically over each coarse-grid
block. This step is the most time consuming element of the meth-
od. The basic idea of this paper is to replace the time consuming
numerical solution with a fast analytical one. However, no analyt-
ical solution is available for a general case due to heterogeneity.
Here, we will introduce some reasonable assumptions, which will
lead to an analytical solution.
4.1. Assumptions
In the dual mesh method of Audigane and Blunt (2004), both
ne and coarse grid information are used. Hence, this method
not only reduces the numerical errors, but also reduces the homog-
enization error. However, what should be done if it is desired to
just reduce the numerical errors and treat the homogenization er-
ror by upscaling methods?
The basic answer to this question would be using the rened
grid instead of the coarse grid. As mentioned before, the rened
grid has the same resolution as the ne grid while its permeability
distribution is replaced from the coarse grid. Since the grid size of
the rened grid is the same as the ne grid, the numerical errors
will be minimum. However, the problem here would be the simu-
lation speed. The simulation time over the rened and ne grids
would be approximately in the same order of magnitude.
D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205 197
To enhance the simulation speed, one may apply the dual mesh
method over the rened grid. While increasing the simulation
speed, the numerical errors are also reduced in this approach.
Our method is also a dual mesh method that is based on the rened
grid.
To develop our method, rst we will investigate the basic fea-
tures of the rened grid. In this grid, the permeability eld of each
coarse-grid block (over which the pressure equation is solved in
step 4 of the dual mesh method) is homogeneous since they all
have the value of the block permeability at the coarse scale.
We also use vorticity-based gridding for coarse-grid generation.
Because of its high accuracy (Ashjari et al., 2008), we leave the
homogenization error to be treated by this method. As mentioned,
vorticity depends on both permeability and velocity elds. Hence,
we can assume that the velocity eld over each coarse-grid block is
approximately homogeneous. Since saturation is calculated di-
rectly from the velocity eld, we can assume that the saturation
eld over each coarse-grid block is also homogeneous. This would
be our only approximation, which its accuracy will be shown to be
high by examining the method over simple and complicated test
cases.
In this paper, geometric averaging is used for calculating the up-
scaled permeability eld. Since geometric averaging results in
equal permeability magnitude in x and y directions, the resulted
permeability eld will be isotropic.
We also restrict ourselves to horizontal two-dimensional test
cases and hence gravity effects are neglected. The capillary pres-
sure effect is also neglected. Fluids and rock are also assumed
incompressible which is a reasonable approximation for most
cases. Therefore, we can state the basis of our method as follows:
Simulation is performed over the rened grid.
Saturation eld is assumed homogeneous over each coarse-grid
block.
Upscaled permeability eld is isotropic.
The effects of gravity (horizontal two-dimensional cases) and
capillary pressure are neglected.
Rock and uids are assumed incompressible.
Using these assumptions, we will derive the governing equa-
tions of two-phase ow in coarse-grid blocks in the next section.
4.2. Governing equations
Fig. 1 shows a coarse-grid block (with index I, J in the coarse
grid) with its boundary conditions in which the pressure equation
should be solved in the reconstruction step (step 4) of the dual
mesh method. The length of the block in x and y directions are as-
sumed a and b, respectively.
The governing equations for two-phase ow in porous media
are:
r:
Kk
ri
l
i
rP
i
q
i
grD
_ _

@/S
i

@t
i n; w 4
S
n
S
w
1 5
Neglecting the capillary pressure and gravity effects, Eq. (4) yields:
r:
Kk
ri
l
i
rP
_ _

@/S
i

@t
; i n; w 6
Here, we deal with the rened grid, so permeability is homoge-
neous over the block. It is assumed that the permeability eld at
the coarse scale is isotropic, hence:
K cte K
I;J
7
where K
I,J
is the absolute permeability of the block at the coarse
scale and cte means constant. It is also assumed that the saturation
eld is homogeneous over the coarse blocks. Since relative perme-
ability, k
r
, is a direct function of the phase saturation, one may
obtain:
k
rn
k
rn
S
c
nI;J
_ _
cte k
rw
k
rw
S
c
wI;J
_ _
cte 8
where S
c
nI;J
and S
c
wI;J
are the non-wetting phase and wetting phase
saturations of the block at the coarse scale, respectively. The incom-
pressibility of rock and uids yields:
l cte q cte / cte 9
Introducing Eqs. (7)(9) into Eq. (6) results in:
Kk
ri
l
i
r
2
P /
@S
i
@t
i n; w 10
As described before, in the reconstruction step of the dual mesh
method, the pressure equation is solved over the coarse blocks.
Therefore, we should derive the pressure equation too. To do so,
we sum Eq. (10) over the wetting and non-wetting phases. That is,
Kk
rn
l
n

Kk
rw
l
w
_ _
r
2
P /
@S
n
S
w

@t
11
However, since we have S
n
+ S
w
= 1, one may obtain:
@S
n
S
w

@t
0 12
Introducing Eq. (12) into Eq. (11), the nal form of the pressure
equation will be obtained as:
r
2
P 0 13
which is the well-known Laplace equation. The analytical solution
to this equation is available for different boundary conditions. In
the next step, the boundary conditions will be derived.
4.3. Boundary conditions
Let us consider the block shown in Fig. 1. It is assumed that the
block has a thickness of h. Taking Q as the total ow rate, we can
write (using Darcys law):
Q
i
Q
in
Q
iw

k
rn
l
n

k
rw
l
w
_ _
Kbh
@P
@x

i
; i 1; 2
Q
i
Q
in
Q
iw

k
rn
l
n

k
rw
l
w
_ _
Kah
@P
@y

i
; i 3; 4
14
where subscripts 1, 2, 3 and 4 refers to the left, right, top and bot-
tom boundaries, respectively. Rearranging Eq. (14), one may obtain:
f
i

@P
@x

i

Q
i
krn
l
n

krw
l
w
_ _
Kbh
; i 1; 2
f
i

@P
@y

i

Q
i
krn
l
n

krw
l
w
_ _
Kah
; i 3; 4
15
where f
1
f
4
are the pressure gradients across the block boundaries.
Since the problem should have a unique solution, the pressure at Fig. 1. A typical coarse-grid block.
198 D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205
one point in the domain should be specied. Therefore, we should
apply the last boundary condition. That is, the pressure at the center
of the block should be equal to the pressure of the coarse block re-
sulted from the coarse grid solution. That is,
P
a
2
;
b
2
_ _
P
c
I;J
16
where P
c
I;J
is the pressure of the block at the coarse scale solution. By
dening the boundary conditions, the problem is closed and we can
derive the solution.
4.4. Analytical solution
Consider the Laplace equation in two dimensions. The solution
domain and the Neumann boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 2.
The necessary and sufcient condition for solvability of the prob-
lem has the form (Polyanin, 2002):
_
b
0
f
1
ydy
_
b
0
f
2
ydy
_
a
0
f
3
xdx
_
a
0
f
4
xdx 0 17
To solve our problem, rst we should check the solvability con-
dition, i.e. Eq. (17). Introducing the parameters f
1
f
4
derived in the
previous section into Eq. (17), one may obtain:
1
krn
l
n

krw
l
w
_ _
Kh
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
Q
4
0 18
Hence:
Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
Q
4
0 19
As it is clear, the above equation is the mass conservation equation
over the coarse-grid block. The uxes derived from the coarse scale
solution will denitely satisfy this equation since the material bal-
ance is satised when the pressure equation is solved over the
coarse grid.
Next, we should derive the solution. The general solution of this
problem is presented in Eq. (20) (Polyanin, 2002). The denition of
A
n
D
n
can be found in Polyanin (2002).
Px; y
A
0
4a
x a
2

B
0
4a
x
2

C
0
4b
y b
2

D
0
4b
y
2
K b

1
n1
A
n
k
n
cosh
np
b
a x
_ _
cos
np
b
y
_ _
b

1
n1
B
n
k
n
cosh
np
b
x
_ _
cos
np
b
y
_ _
a

1
n1
C
n
k
n
cos
np
a
x
_ _
cosh
np
a
b y
_ _
a

1
n1
D
n
k
n
cos
np
a
x
_ _
cosh
np
a
y
_ _
20
After calculation and simplication of the coefcients, the solution
can be obtained as:
Px; y
f
1
2a
x a
2

f
2
2a
x
2

f
3
2b
y b
2

f
4
2b
y
2
const 21
The solution is surprisingly simple! The only remained coefcient is
const. To calculate this coefcient, we recall the Dirichlet boundary
condition, Eq. (16). Introducing this condition to Eq. (21), one may
obtain:
const P
c
I;J

a
8
f
1
f
2

b
8
f
3
f
4
22
which completes the solution. Now we will implement this solution
to the dual mesh method to obtain the analytical dual mesh
method.
4.5. Analytical dual mesh method algorithm
The algorithm is similar to the dual mesh method algorithm de-
scribed earlier. The method has the following steps:
1. The optimal coarse grid is generated using the vorticity-based
gridding of Ashjari et al. (2007, 2008) and the coarse-scale per-
meability eld is obtained using geometric averaging or any
other upscaling method that results into an isotropic perme-
ability eld.
2. At each time step, the saturation, permeability, and porosity
data are given on the ne grid.
3. The average saturation for each coarse grid is calculated.
4. For the current time step, the coarse-scale pressure equation is
solved numerically using the nite difference scheme that
yields the coarse-grid uxes normal to the coarse-grid
boundaries.
5. The local two-phase ne-scale pressure equation is solved ana-
lytically over each coarse-grid block at each time step using Eqs.
(21), (22). Incorporating Darcys Law, this reconstructs the ne-
scale uxes throughout the model.
6. Finally, the saturation eld is updated from the reconstructed
ne-scale velocity eld.
In the next section, rst we will evaluate our assumptions over
the staircase model. Next, the proposed method will be tested in
two challenging test cases. To investigate the effect of mobility ra-
tio on our method, two mobility ratios are used in each test case.
5. Results and discussions
To evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of our method, we
will test it on three test cases. In all the test cases, two mobility ra-
tios i.e. M = 1 and M = 5 will be used where mobility ratio, M, is de-
ned as mobility of the displacing phase (here the wetting phase)
divided by mobility of the displaced phase (here the non-wetting
phase) i.e. M = (k
rw,max
/l
w
)/(k
rn,max
/l
n
). Coreys type relative per-
meability is used to represent the wetting and non-wetting phase
relative permeabilities, i.e.:
k
ri
k
ri;max
S
i
S
ir
S
i;max
S
ir
_ _
n
i
i w; n 23
Here, we take k
rw,max
= 0.6, k
rn,max
= 1.0, S
wr
= S
nr
= 0.2, S
w,max
=
S
n,max
= 0.8, n
w
= 1.5 and n
n
= 2. To achieve the aforementioned
mobility ratios, the wetting phase viscosity is assumed 6 10
4
Pas
and the non-wetting phase viscosity is assumed 1 10
3
Pas and
5 10
3
Pas in the M = 1 and M = 5 cases, respectively. First, the
introduced method will be tested on the staircase method to
evaluate the accuracy of our assumptions.
In all models, total simulation time is taken to be one pore vol-
ume injected, i.e. t
sim
= VP/Q
inj
= 1PVI, where t
sim
is the total simula-
tion time, VP is the pore volume and Q
inj
is the injection ow rate.
In other words, 1PVI is the time needed for injection of one pore Fig. 2. The domain of the problem.
D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205 199
volume of the displacing uid. Simulations are performed on an In-
tel E4500 CPU with 2 GB of RAM.
5.1. Model 1: the staircase model
This model is a synthetic model that its permeability eld in log
scale is shown in Fig. 3. As can be seen from the permeability eld,
the model has a base permeability of 1 mD (1
mD = 10
3
D = 9.86923 10
16
m
2
) and cells with permeability of
10 and 100 mD form a staircase in the model. The dimensions of
the model are 762 m long by 152.4 m wide by 7.62 m thick. The
ne-scale grid is 100 20 with uniform size for each of the grid
blocks (dx = 7.62 m, dy = 7.62 m). Initially, the model is saturated
with the non-wetting phase with 20% of residual wetting phase.
Wetting phase is injected from an injection well located at the left
boundary of the model and the non-wetting phase is produced
from a well on the right boundary.
To investigate the accuracy of the proposed assumptions, a
5 5 coarse grid will be used. It is obvious that the best 5 5
coarse grid would be a uniform one with DX = 152.4 m and
DY = 30.48 m. Therefore, there is no need to perform the vortici-
ty-based gridding technique. As it is clear from Fig. 3, using this
coarse grid, the problem of equivalent permeability calculation will
be removed since all the cells in each coarse block have the same
permeability. In other words, the permeability eld of the rened
grid is the same as the permeability eld of the ne grid. This prop-
erty makes this model perfect for evaluating the assumptions
made in our method since one of them i.e. performing the simula-
tion on the rened grid is satised spontaneously. Hence, we can
evaluate the accuracy of one of the most important assumptions
of our method, i.e. homogeneity of the saturation eld over each
coarse-grid block. To do so, we perform the simulation of the mod-
el with the following methods:
1. Conventional simulation of the ne grid.
2. Dual mesh method simulation on the rened grid.
3. The proposed method (analytical dual mesh) simulation.
The production curve for different simulation methods are
shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for M = 1 and M = 5 cases, respectively. In
these curves, PVI is the pore volume injected of the wetting phase
dened as PVI = (Q
inj
t)/VP where Q
inj
is the injection ow rate of the
wetting phase, t is the simulation time and VP is the pore volume of
the model. F
o
is the fractional ow of the non-wetting phase at the
production well dened as F
o
= Q
n
/(Q
w
+ Q
n
) where Q
w
and Q
n
are
the ow rates of the wetting and non-wetting phases at the pro-
duction well, respectively. As it is clear from the plots, the results
of the dual mesh method and our method are approximately sim-
ilar both in terms of breakthrough time and production history.
The results of the proposed method and the ne grid simulation
are also in great agreement for both cases. So it can be concluded
that the assumption of homogeneous saturation eld is a reason-
able one and not far from reality.
To investigate the accuracy of the saturation homogeneity
assumption and hence the proposed method further, the saturation
eld data will be compared. The wetting phase saturation elds of
the different simulation methods at 0.4 PVI are shown in Figs. 6 and
7 for M = 1 and M = 5 test cases. The results are similar to the pro-
duction curve results. The saturation eld of the proposed method
is approximately similar to the dual mesh method. The difference
between the ne grid saturation eld and the proposed method
is relatively small. As the saturation eld results show, the accu-
racy of our method compared to the dual mesh method and the re-
ned grid simulations is relatively high. It can also be concluded
that the saturation homogeneity is a reasonable assumption.
After investigating the accuracy of the proposed method, the
simulation time will be compared. The simulation time of the dif-
ferent methods are tabulated in Table 1. The results are exactly as
we expected. In both M = 1 and M = 5 cases, the simulation time of
the proposed method is three times less than the fastest simulation
method i.e. dual mesh method. It is also seven times less than the
ne grid simulation time. So far, the results are in favor of our pro-
posed method. Now the method will be examined on a realistic
test case. Fig. 3. Log scale permeability eld of the staircase model in mD.
Fig. 4. Production curves for model 1, M = 1 case.
Fig. 5. Production curves for model 1, M = 5 case.
200 D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205
5.2. Model 2: SPE10 2D model
This model is a modication of 10th SPE Comparative Project 2D
model (Christie and Blunt, 2001). The model is a two-phase model
that has a simple 2D vertical cross-sectional geometry with no dip-
ping or faults. The dimensions of the model are 762 m long by
15.24 m wide by 7.62 m thick. The ne-scale grid is 100 20 with
uniform size for each of the grid blocks (dx = 7.62 m, dy = 0.762 m).
Initially the model is saturated with the non-wetting phase with
20% of residual wetting phase.
The permeability distribution is a correlated geostatistically
generated eld, shown in Fig. 8. The wetting phase is injected from
an injection well located at the left boundary of the model and the
non-wetting phase is produced from a well on the right boundary.
Both wells are completed vertically throughout the model.
To examine our method, rst we have to generate a coarse grid
based on vorticity-based gridding technique. Here, an upscaling le-
vel of 25 is considered, i.e. the number of blocks in the coarse grid
is 25 times less than the number of cells in the ne grid. Imple-
menting the vorticity-based technique described earlier, the
16 5 coarse grid shown in Fig. 9 (the dashed lines) is found to
be the optimum coarse grid. In this gure, the normalized vorticity
eld of the model is also shown. As can bee seen from the gure,
the selected grid preserves the high vorticity regions and its grid
boundaries are in the sharp vorticity change regions.
After selection of the coarse grid, we will investigate the speed
and accuracy of our proposed method. To do so, we perform the
simulation of the model with the following methods:
1. Conventional simulation of the ne grid.
2. Conventional simulation of the rened grid.
Fig. 6. Wetting phase saturation eld of model 1 at 0.4 PVI, M = 1 case: (a) ne grid,
(b) dual mesh method, (c) analytical dual mesh method.
Fig. 7. Wetting phase saturation eld of model 1 at 0.4 PVI, M = 5 case: (a) ne grid,
(b) dual mesh method, (c) analytical dual mesh method.
Table 1
Simulation time of model 1 for different methods.
Simulation method Run time (s) M = 1 Run time (s) M = 5
Fine grid simulation 468 461
Dual mesh method 201 200
Analytical dual mesh method 64 69
Fig. 8. Log scale permeability eld of the SPE 10 2D model in mD.
Fig. 9. The optimum coarse grid for model 2 overlaying on the vorticity map.
D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205 201
3. Dual mesh method simulation on the rened grid.
4. Analytical dual mesh simulation.
It should be mentioned that since the goal of our method is
increasing the simulation speed while reducing the numerical er-
ror, the results should be compared to the rened grid. The differ-
ence between results of the ne and rened grids are solely due to
homogenization error and is a measure of the accuracy of the vor-
ticity-based gridding technique.
The production curve for the aforementioned simulation meth-
ods are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. As it is clear, like the staircase
model the results of the dual mesh method and our method are
approximately equal for both cases. The results of the proposed
method and the rened grid simulation are also in great agree-
ment. The little difference between the ne-grid model and other
methods is solely due to the homogenization error and is reported
to show the accuracy of the vorticity-based gridding.
The wetting phase saturation elds of the different simulation
methods at 0.2 PVI are shown in Figs. 12 and 13. The results are
similar to the production curve results. The saturation eld of the
proposed method is approximately similar to the dual mesh meth-
od. The difference between the saturation eld of the rened grid
and the proposed method is relatively small. The difference be-
tween the ne grid results and other methods are again mainly
due to homogenization error. The simulation time of the methods
are tabulated in Table 2. The results are once again interesting. The
simulation time of the proposed method is two times less than the
dual mesh method. It is also 20 times less than the rened and ne
grid simulation times.
From the obtained results, it can be concluded that the pro-
posed method is accurate compared to dual mesh method and re-
ned grid simulations. As a result, the assumptions of the
analytical dual mesh method seem to be reasonable. It is also gives
a simulation speed boost with respect to the other methods. It can
also be observed that for both M = 1 and M = 5 cases, the conclu-
sions are similar. Therefore, the method acts independently from
the mobility ratio.
It is worth mentioning that since the speed difference between
the analytical and numerical solutions directly depends on the
coarse-grid block sizes and hence upscaling levels, it is expected
that the speed-up factor with respect to the dual mesh method be-
come higher for larger models and bigger upscaling levels. This will
be tested in the next challenging model.
Fig. 10. Production curves for model 2, M = 1 case.
Fig. 11. Production curves for model 2, M = 5 case.
Fig. 12. Wetting phase saturation eld of model 2 at 0.2 PVI, M = 1 case: (a) ne grid, (b) rened grid, (c) dual mesh method, (d) analytical dual mesh method.
202 D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205
Fig. 13. Wetting phase saturation eld of model 2 at 0.2 PVI, M = 5 case: (a) ne grid, (b) rened grid, (c) dual mesh method, (d) analytical dual mesh method.
Table 2
Simulation time of model 2 for different methods.
Simulation method Run time (s) M = 1 Run time (s) M = 5
Fine grid simulation 1583 3306
Rened grid simulation 1593 3320
Dual mesh method 181 368
Analytical dual mesh method 84 176
Fig. 14. Log scale permeability eld of the model 3 in mD.
Fig. 15. The optimum coarse grid for model 3 overlaying on the vorticity map.
Fig. 16. Production curves for model 3, M = 1 case.
Fig. 17. Production curves for model 3, M = 5 case.
D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205 203
5.3. Model 3: SPE10 3D model-layer 59
The last system considered is layer 59 from the three-dimen-
sional model of Christie and Blunt (2001). This layer belongs to
the highly channelized region (lower portion i.e. layers 3685) of
the model. The permeability value in this model varies by above
six orders of magnitude, from a minimum of 0.0025 to a maximum
of 20,000 mD. The Log scale permeability eld of the model is
shown in Fig. 14. The average porosity of the layer is used through-
out the model (i.e. u
avg
= 0.1717). The ne-scale grid is a uniform
220 60 grid with dx = 3.048 m and dy = 6.096 m. The initial con-
dition and wells geometry are similar to the previous model.
Fig. 18. Wetting phase saturation eld of model 3 at 0.45 PVI, M = 1 case: (a) ne grid, (b) rened grid, (c) dual mesh method, (d) analytical dual mesh method.
Fig. 19. Wetting phase saturation eld of model 3 at 0.45 PVI, M = 5 case: (a) ne grid, (b) rened grid, (c) dual mesh method, (d) analytical dual mesh method.
204 D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205
First, we should nd the optimum coarse grid. In this model, an
upscaling level of 100 is considered. The generated optimum
coarse grid based on the vorticity-based gridding technique is
shown in Fig. 15 overlaying on the ne grid vorticity map. As can
bee seen from the gure, the channels are captured by the vorticity
map and hopefully the obtained coarse grid will show the behavior
of these channels.
The utilized simulation methods are again similar to the previ-
ous model. The production curve for these methods is shown in
Figs. 16 and 17 for M = 1 and M = 5 cases, respectively. As can be
seen from the gures, especially for the M = 1 case, the obtained
coarse grid captured both channels at such a high upscaling level
(i.e. 100). Again, like the previous models, the results of the dual
mesh method and the proposed method are approximately equal
for both cases. The results of the proposed method and the rened
grid simulation are also in good agreement but in less agreement
with respect to the previous models. This behavior can be ex-
plained by the effect of the implemented high upscaling level. At
higher upscaling levels, the errors will be inevitably larger. As
can be seen from the plots, the conventional dual mesh method
is also suffering from this problem.
Figs. 18 and 19 show the saturation eld of the wetting phase
for different methods at 0.45 PVI. Here, the channels in ne and
coarse grids can be observed easily. As can be seen from these g-
ures, the proposed method captured these channels and the results
are similar to the dual mesh method and rened grid simulation.
The discontinuities on the saturation eld of the analytical dual
mesh method are due to its nature, since saturation eld was as-
sumed homogeneous over each coarse block. However, the results
are satisfying overally. The difference between the ne grid results
and other methods are again mainly due to homogenization error.
The simulation time of the methods are tabulated in Table 3.
The results are more interesting here. The simulation speed of
the proposed method is four times faster than the conventional
dual mesh method with almost the same accuracy, even in this
complicated model. It is also 20 times faster than the rened grid
simulation and 50 times faster than the ne grid simulation.
From the obtained results, once again it can be seen that the
analytical dual mesh method has the same accuracy as the dual
mesh method and the rened grid simulation. It can also be con-
cluded that the speed boost of the proposed method will become
more in larger models with higher upscaling levels.
6. Conclusions
A novel simulation technique was presented that introduces
analytical solution into dual mesh method using realistic assump-
tions. In this method, the coarse grid is generated using vorticity-
based gridding technique because of its high accuracy. It is also
used to make the applied assumptions more realistic.
The technique was applied to a synthetic model to evaluate the
implemented assumptions and they were found to be realistic. The
method was also tested on two realistic models to investigate its
accuracy and speed. Since the aim of the method is mainly reduc-
ing the numerical errors while increasing the simulation speed, the
results of the rened grid simulation were taken as the reference
solution. The results showed that the proposed method and the
dual mesh method yielded approximately similar results. The
accuracy of the proposed method with respect to rened grid sim-
ulation was also quite high.
In terms of simulation time, the proposed method was 24
times faster than the dual mesh method (with the same simulation
results) and 720 times faster than the rened grid simulation
time (with a high accuracy). It was also concluded that for larger
models with higher upscaling levels, the speed-up factor with re-
spect to the dual mesh method would become higher.
References
Ashjari, M.A., Firoozabadi, B., Mahani, H., Khoozan, D., 2007. Vorticity-based coarse
grid generation for upscaling two-phase displacements in porous media. J. Pet.
Sci. Eng. 59, 271288.
Ashjari, M.A., Firoozabadi, B., Mahani, H., 2008. Using vorticity as an indicator for
the generation of optimal coarse grid distribution. Transp. Porous Media 75,
167201.
Audigane, P., Blunt, M.J., 2004. Dual mesh method for upscaling in waterood
simulation. Transp. Porous Media 55, 7189.
Castellini, A., 2001. Flow Base Grids for Reservoir Simulation. MS Dissertation, The
University of California, Stanford.
Chang, Y.C., Mohanty, K.K., 1997. Scale-up of two-phase ow in heterogeneous
porous media. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 18 (12), 2134.
Christie, M.A., Blunt, M.J., 2001. Tenth SPE comparative solution project:
comparison of upscaling techniques. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 4, 308317.
Durlofsky, L.J., 2003. Upscaling of geocellular models for reservoir ow simulation:
a review of recent progress. In: 7th International Forum on Reservoir
Simulation, Bhl/Baden-Baden.
Durlofsky, L.J., Behrens, R.A., Jones, R.C., Bernath, A., 1996. Scale up of heterogeneous
three dimensional reservoir descriptions. SPE J. 1, 313326.
Durlofsky, L.J., Jones, R.C., Milliken, W.J., 1997. A nonuniform coarsening approach
for the scale up of displacement processes in heterogeneous media. Adv. Water
Resour. 20, 335347.
Farmer, C.L., 2002. Upscaling: a review. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 40, 6378.
Firoozabadi, B., Mahani, H., Ashjari, M.A., Audigane, P., 2009. Improved upscaling of
reservoir ow using combination of dual mesh method and vorticity-based
gridding. Comput. GeoSci. 13 (1), 5778.
Garcia, M.H., Journal, A.G., Aziz, K., 1992. Automatic grid generation for modeling
reservoir heterogeneities. SPE Reserv. Eng. 7, 278284.
Gurillot, D., Verdire, S., 1995. Different pressure grids for reservoir simulation in
heterogeneous reservoirs. In: SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San-
Antonio.
He, C., 2004. Structured ow-based gridding and upscaling for reservoir simulation.
PhD thesis, University of California, Stanford.
He, C., Durlofsky, L.J., 2006. Structured ow-based gridding and upscaling for
modeling subsurface ow. Adv. Water Resour. 29, 18761892.
Hui, M., Durlofsky, L.J., 2005. Accurate coarse modeling of well-driven, high-
mobility ratio displacements in heterogeneous reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 49 (1
2), 3756.
Mahani, H., 2005. Upscaling and Optimal Coarse Grid Generation for the Numerical
Simulation of Two-phase Flow in Porous Media. PhD Thesis, Imperial College
London, London.
Mahani, H., Muggeridge, A.H., 2005. Improved coarse grid generation using
vorticity. In: 14th Annual SPE/EAGE Conference, Madrid.
Mahani, H., Muggeridge, A.H., Ashjari, M.A., 2009. Vorticity as a measure of
heterogeneity for improving coarse grid generation. Pet. GeoSci. 15 (1), 91102.
Mostaghimi, P., Mahani, H., 2010. A quantitative and qualitative comparison of
coarse-grid-generation techniques for modeling uid displacement in
heterogeneous porous media. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 13 (1), 2436.
Polyanin, A.D., 2002. Handbook of Linear Partial Differential Equations for Engineers
and Scientists. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Ram, M., Killough, J.E., 1991. A new approach to the simulation of ows in highly
heterogeneous porous media. In: SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Anaheim, California.
Renard, Ph., de Marsily, G., 1997. Calculating equivalent permeability: a review.
Adv. Water Resour. 20 (56), 253278.
Verdire, S., Gurillot, D., 1996. Dual mesh method for multiphase ows in
heterogeneous media. In: 5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil
Recovery, Leoben, Austria.
Wen, X.H., Gmez-Hernndez, J.J., 1996. Upscaling hydraulic conductivities in
heterogeneous media: an overview. J. Hydrol. 183, ixxxxii.
Wen, X.H., Gmez-Hernndez, J.J., 1997. Selective upscaling of hydraulic
conductivities. In: Baa, E.Y., Schoeld, N.A. (Eds.), Geostatistics
Wollongong96, vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 11121123.
Wen, X.H., Gmez-Hernndez, J.J., 1998. Upscaling hydraulic conductivities in
crossbedded formations. Math. Geol. 30 (2), 181212.
Table 3
Simulation time of model 3 for different methods.
Simulation method Run time (s) M = 1 Run time (s) M = 5
Fine grid simulation 95,033 91,392
Rened grid simulation 34,323 33,714
Dual mesh method 7465 7527
Analytical dual mesh method 1707 1756
D. Khoozan et al. / Journal of Hydrology 400 (2011) 195205 205