IPTC 11195

Matrix Subgridding and Its Effect in Dual Porosity Simulators

Reza Naimi-Tajdar,* SPE, Mojdeh Delshad, SPE, and Kamy Sepehrnoori, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin

*Now with BP America Inc.

Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 46 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Naturally fractured reservoirs are found throughout the world
and contain significant amounts of oil reserves. The so-called
dual porosity model is one of the most widely used conceptual
models for simulating such reservoirs. In the dual porosity
model, two types of porosity are in a rock volume: fracture
and matrix where matrix blocks are surrounded by fractures
and the system is visualized as a set of stacked cubes,
representing matrix blocks separated by fractures. There is no
communication between matrix blocks in this model, and the
fracture network is continuous. Matrix blocks do communicate
with the fractures that surround them. A transfer function
characterizes fluid flow between matrix blocks and fractures.
The performance of dual porosity simulators is determined by
the accuracy of the transfer function employed.
A new parallel simulator for naturally fractured reservoirs,
capable of modeling fluid flow in both rock matrix and
fractures, has been developed. The simulator is a parallel, 3D,
fully implicit with equation-of-state compositional model that
uses a generalized dual porosity model, the multipleinteracting-continua (MINC). The matrix blocks are
discretized into subgrids in both horizontal and vertical
directions to offer a more accurate transient flow description
in matrix blocks. Some notable features of this simulator are
modeling of improved oil recovery (IOR) processes including
both gas and water injection with the ability of twodimensional matrix subgridding for naturally fractured
reservoirs. To the best of our knowledge, such features are not
available in commercial reservoir simulators. For coupling of
the fracture and matrix continua, numerical methods are used
to treat the transient flow of fluid between matrix and
fractures.
In this study, we investigated the effect of vertical and
horizontal matrix subgridding on oil recovery, oil production,
and water cut using the above mentioned simulator. The
effects of matrix permeability and capillary pressure on the

number of vertical and horizontal matrix subgrids were also

investigated. The results showed that in some circumstances,
there is more than 15% error in oil recovery for simulations
with insufficient matrix subgrids.
Introduction
Naturally fractured reservoirs consist of a network of
interconnected fractures surrounding porous matrix blocks.
Most of the porosity of naturally fractured reservoirs is
contained in the matrix blocks. The fractures normally have
little pore volume but are orders-of-magnitude more
permeable than the matrix blocks. Recovery of oil from
naturally fractured reservoirs is envisioned to take place in two
steps: expulsion of oil from the matrix blocks followed by
flow through the highly permeable fracture network to the
well. Water and/or gas injection are processes used to recover
oil from naturally fractured reservoirs. Several mechanisms
such as capillary imbibition, gravity drainage, and miscible
displacement operate during water/gas injection that force oil
from matrix blocks into the fractures. Numerical simulation of
water/gas injection into naturally fractured reservoirs requires
a description of the geometry and properties of the reservoir
and a formulation of fluid flow that can adequately model the
above recovery mechanisms. Most models developed for
simulating fractured reservoir performance use the dual
porosity continuum approach. This approach assumes that a
sufficient amount of randomly oriented and interconnected
open fractures exist in the reservoir to define statistically
meaningful, spatially averaged rock and fluid properties. The
fracture system is considered to behave as a type of porous
medium that communicates with the other type of porous
medium (the matrix) at the same spatial point in the reservoir.
Because of the dual medium nature of this approach, these
models are commonly called dual porosity models.
An important element in simulating a fractured reservoir
using a dual porosity model is the proper calculation of the
fluids exchange between the matrix blocks and the fractures.
In the conventional approach, the transfer term for a particular
phase is directly related to the shape factor, fluid mobility, and
potential difference between the matrix and fracture. Shape
factors have been developed based on first-order finitedifference approximations1 and by matching fine-grid
multiphase simulations of matrix-fracture transfer flow2. In
most dual porosity models, the matrix block heights are
assumed to be at the same depth as the corresponding fracture
blocks, and therefore, gravity has no explicit effect on the
fluid exchange between the matrix and the fracture. Pseudo
capillary pressures have been used to account for the effect of

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11195

gravity2. The gravity-segregation concept has also been used

to compute the fluid levels in the matrix and fractures to
account for the gravity contribution3. Dual porosity models
also must account for the saturation distribution in a matrix
block. Because the saturation is evaluated at the center of a
gridblock, it represents an average value for that gridblock.
The pseudo-capillary-pressure concept has been used to
account for both gravity effects and nonuniform saturations
within a matrix block2,4. The method of subgridding
discretization has also been applied to this problem5-9. In this
approach, the matrix is divided into a number of subgrids
where pressures and saturations are calculated for each
subgrid. The subgridding approach can also take into account
transient effects.
Pruess and Narasimhan6 introduced the so called multiple
interacting continua (MINC) method. All the fractures are
grouped into one continuum and all the matrix blocks into
another, resulting in two interacting continua coupled through
a mass-transfer function determined by the size and shape of
the blocks, as well as by the local difference in potentials
between the two continua. Gilman10 presented two possible
divisions of matrix blocks into multiple subgrids, one called
stacked blocks and the other nested blocks (Fig. 1). Stacked
blocks represent a system where horizontal fractures are the
primary flow paths and transient flow in the lateral direction is
not important. Nested blocks are similar to the MINC
assumption, representing a more randomly fractured medium.
In this formulation, the solution of the matrix equations will be
a major portion of the total computational effort. However,
phase segregation inside matrix blocks is possible, improving
the calculation when gravity is important.
Beckner et al.7 presented a dual porosity model in which
matrix blocks are discretized in such way that basically
combines Gilmans10 stacked and nested subgrids. In the
lateral direction, the subgrid is the same as in the MINC
method, reducing a two-dimensional problem to one
dimension. Subgrids in the vertical direction would model
fluid segregation due to gravity with much better resolution.
Beckner et al.7 studied the sensitivity of matrix-block
discretization on production forecasts and found differences as
large as 35% in cumulative oil recovery between discretized
and non-discretized matrix-block models. This difference
increases with decreasing matrix permeability. Aldejain8
investigated the effect of subgridding for a single-phase tracerinjection case using the dual porosity option of UTCHEM11.
He concluded that using a higher number of subgrids yields a
more accurate result and showed that, in a very low matrix
permeability where the transient flow is dominant, the effect
of subgridding could be significant.
Recently, Naimi-Tajdar9 and Naimi-Tajdar et al.12
developed a fully implicit parallel compositional simulator for
large-scale naturally fractured reservoirs, capable of modeling
fluid flow in both rock matrix and fractures, based on an
existing single-porosity simulator, called GPAS. The primary
objective of this study is to investigate the effect of matrix
subgridding on oil recovery. We first briefly describe the
model. More details of the description of the model and
solution approach can be found in Naimi-Tajdar9 and NaimiTajdar et al.12.

Description of the Model

The developed simulator is a parallel, 3D, fully implicit,
equation-of-state compositional model that uses numerical
tools for solving very large, sparse linear systems arising from
discretization of the governing partial differential equations. A
generalized dual porosity model, the multiple-interactingcontinua (MINC), has been implemented in this simulator.
The matrix blocks are discretized into subgrids in both
horizontal and vertical directions (Fig. 2) to offer a more
accurate transient-flow description in matrix blocks. For
coupling of the fracture and matrix continua, no analytical
approximations are made. Instead, numerical methods are used
to treat the transient flow of fluid between matrix and
fractures. To overcome the computationally intensive
problems raised by subgridding the matrix blocks in modeling
large-scale naturally fractured reservoirs with an order of a
million gridblocks, the dual porosity simulator was developed
with the capability to run in a parallel processing platform
using a cluster of computers.
Two overlapping continua, one corresponding to the
fracture medium and one corresponding to the matrix medium,
are considered. Thus two values for most variables and
parameters are attributed to each spatial location. The
equations of flow and component mole conservation are
written independently for each medium and should hold at
every point of the fracture and matrix medium and at all times.
Transfer of fluids between the two media is taken into
consideration by a source/sink (transfer) function. Isothermal
multicomponent and multiphase flow in a porous medium can
be described using three different types of equations.
Neglecting dispersion and mutual solubility between water
and hydrocarbon phases, for a system consisting of nc
hydrocarbon components and np fluid phases (excluding the
aqueous phase), the three types of equations are
mathematically expressed for a control volume in the
following sections12.
Component Mole Conservation Equations. Using
multiphase and multicomponent Darcy's law, in terms of
moles per unit time, the hydrocarbon component conservation
equations, for fracture and matrix systems are the following:
Fracture system (subscript f):

Vb ( f N fi ) Vb fj fj x fij Pfj fj D f
t
j =1

qi + mfi = 0
(1)
Matrix system (subscript m):

(m N mi ) Vb mj mj xmij Pmj mj Dm
t
j =1

Vb

=0
(2)
For i = 1,2,..., nc

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11195

These equations also hold for water by inserting the

properties of the aqueous phase.
Volume Constraint Equations. The volume constraint states
that the pore volume in each cell must be filled completely by
the fluid volumes. The volume constraint equations for both
fracture and matrix media are the same and are as follows:
nc +1

np

i =1

j =1

nc +1

np

i =1

j =1

N fi L j j = 1
N mi L j j = 1

(fracture system)

(3)

(matrix system)

(4)

Phase Equilibrium Equations. With the assumption of local

thermodynamic equilibrium for the hydrocarbon phases, the
criterion of phase equilibrium applies:

( )

( )

(fracture system)

(5)

( )

( )

(matrix system)

(6)

ln f fig ln f fio = 0
ln f mig ln f mio = 0

Independent Variables. Equations 1 through 6 describe the

fluid flow through porous media in naturally fractured
reservoirs. There are 2(2nc+2) equations. Independent
unknowns are chosen as lnKi, Ni, Pw, Nw (N = moles per unit
pore volume) in each medium, fracture and matrix, which
gives 2(2nc+2) primary variables. All the fluid-related
properties and variables in Eqs. 1 through 6 can be expressed
as a function of the selected independent variables.
Transfer Function and Boundary Conditions. The transfer
function for each component (hydrocarbon components and
water), mfi are evaluated at the boundary between the matrix

and fracture media and have the following forms:

Nb

mfi = NM Vb
l =1

( m N mi )l
t

(7)

Where NM is the number of matrix blocks within a

fracture gridblock (may be a fractional number), and Nb is the
number of matrix subgrids. No-flow boundary conditions for
component mole consevation equations in the fracture system
are considered. The boundary condition for matrix blocks is
continuity of all phase pressures.
Case Studies
In this section, we present several cases to investigate the
effect of subgridding using this developed dual porosity
model. In the first series of runs, we present a 1D waterflood
case in which the matrix block heights are smaller than
fracture gridblock heights (explicit gravity effect) and show
the effect of vertical and horizontal subgridding on the oil
recovery, oil production, and water cut. The second series of
runs present a 2D waterflood case in which the matrix block
heights are the same as the corresponding fracture gridblock

heights (no explicit gravity effect). The effect of matrix block

permeability is investigated in the next series of runs and
finally, the effect of the matrix capillary pressure is presented
in the last series of runs. The subsequent cases are run and
compared with the 2x2, 2x4, 4x2, 4x4, 2x6, and 6x2 subgrids
in which the first number refers to the number of subgrids in
horizontal direction and the second number refers to the
number of subgrids in vertical direction.
Case 1: 1D Waterflood With Explicit Gravity Effect. A 1D
waterflood in dual porosity media is used to investigate the
effect of subgridding. The fracture network consists of eight
gridblocks of 80x80x30 ft with matrix blocks of 10x10x10 ft
inside every fracture gridblock. In this case, water is injected
into the first fracture gridblock at a constant rate of 498.4
STB/D (2000 ft3/day) and liquids are produced from the last
fracture gridblock at a constant pressure of 3900 psia. The
initial pressure is 4000 psia. Zero capillary pressure for both
fracture and matrix, straight-line relative permeabilities for
fracture, and Corey model relative permeabilities for the
matrix are used. The input parameters are presented in Table
1. The matrix block heights are 10 ft while the fracture
gridblock heights are 30 ft. Hence, gravity has an explicit
effect on the fluid exchange between the matrix and the
fracture. Figures 3 through 5 show the oil recovery, oil
production rate and water cut vs. time for these cases. A very
interesting fact can be seen by studying these figures. If we
start with the 2x2 subgrids and increase only the number of
horizontal subgrids to four and six (cases with 4x2 and 6x2
subgrids), not much improvement is achieved compared to the
results of base case of 4x4 subgrids. The case with 6x2
subgrids shows about 15% lower oil recovery, since the effect
of gravity drainage is much smaller relative to the fluid flow in
horizontal direction. However, by increasing the number of
vertical subgrids, the results of these cases converge to the
results of the base case with 4x4 subgrids. Since there are
more subgrids in the vertical direction in the cases with 2x4
and 2x6 subgrids, these cases show a higher oil recovery and
lower water cut. Therefore for applications where the gravity
drainage is dominant, the number of vertical subgrids plays an
important role and simulators that do not discretize in the
vertical direction could produce erroneous results.
Case 2: 2D Waterflood With No Explicit Gravity Effect. A
quarter of a five-spot waterflood problem1 is used to
investigate the effect of subgridding. In this case, water is
injected into a quarter-five-spot model at a rate of 200 STB/D
and water and oil are produced at a constant bottomhole
pressure of 3900 psia. The reservoir is 600 ft long, 600 ft
wide, and 30 ft thick. The fracture media is discretized into
8x8 uniform gridblocks in the x and y directions, respectively,
and has one 30-ft-thick gridblock in the z direction. Zero
capillary pressure is used for both fracture and matrix media,
and the relative permeability curves in the fracture and matrix
media are shown in Fig. 6. The input parameters are presented
in Table 2. Note that in this case, the matrix block heights are
the same as the fracture gridblock heights of 30 ft. Hence,
gravity has no explicit effect on the fluid exchange between
the matrix and the fracture. Figures 7 through 9 compare the
oil recovery, oil production rate, and water cut for different

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11195

subgridding cases. As expected, the 2x4 and 2x6 runs show a

higher oil recovery compared to the base case results of 4x4
run, while the 6x2 run shows a lower oil recovery. In this case,
where gravity has no explicit effect on the fluid exchange
between the matrix and the fracture, increasing the number of
vertical subgrids keeping horizontal subgrids the same will
overestimate the oil recovery whereas increasing the number
of horizontal subgrids keeping vertical subgrids the same will
underestimate the oil recovery. Another interesting
observation is that increasing the number of vertical subgrids
from 4 to 6 had no significant impact on oil recovery and oil
and water production rates which can be attributed to the
absence of explicit gravity effect.
Case 3: Effect of Matrix Permeability. In the previous case,
the matrix permeability was 1 md. To investigate the effect of
the matrix permeability on the number of vertical and
horizontal subgrids, we increased the matrix permeability to
10 md. Figures 10 through 12 show oil recovery, oil
production rate, and water cut. Note that as in the previous
case, the matrix block heights are the same as the fracture
gridblock heights and gravity has no explicit effect on the
fluid exchange between the matrix and the fracture. As
reported by Aldejain8, the effect of the number of subgrids is
minimal. Oil recoveries of simulations with 2x4 and 2x6
subgrids are slightly overestimated compared to the base case
of 4x4, whereas 4x2 and 6x2 subgrids results are almost
identical to those of 4x4 case. The results suggest that the
dominant flow regime is pseudosteady state and there is no
need to increase the number of subgrids. The fact that there is
no change in the results by increasing the vertical subgrids
from 4 to 6 is indicative of the absence of explicit gravity
effect. Four subgrids in the lateral direction seem adequate for
this problem due to overlap of results of the 4 and 6 horizontal
subgrids.
Case 4: Effect of Capillary Pressure. To investigate the
effect of capillary pressure on the number of subgrids, the
quarter of a five-spot waterflood problem is used by adding
capillary pressure in the matrix. Figure 13 shows the capillary
pressure curve. Figures 14 through 16 show the oil recovery,
oil production rate, and water cut. The results show almost no
effect for the number of subgridding. Recall that the matrix
block heights are the same as those of the fracture gridblocks.
Hence, these results attest to the fact that capillary pressure
has the dominant effect on the fluid exchange between the
matrix and the fracture for these cases.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from this study:
1. In some circumstances, there is more than 15% error in
oil recovery for simulations using insufficient subgrids.
2. When the gravity-drainage mechanism is dominant, the
importance of the number of vertical subgrids is greater
than the number of horizontal subgrids.
3. The necessity for the larger number of vertical and
horizontal subgrids will decrease dramatically in matrix
blocks with higher permeability. Hence, matrix blocks
with lower permeability need a larger number of

subgrids in the vertical and horizontal directions to

obtain accurate results.
4. Based on the simulation studies carried out in this work,
when capillary imbibition recovery mechanism is
dominant in naturally fractured reservoirs, using a small
number of subgrids seems to be sufficient for typical
cases.
Acknowledgement
The financial support of the Reservoir Simulation Joint
Industry Project in the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems
Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin is gratefully
acknowledged.
Nomenclature
D = depth measured positive downward, L
f = fugacity
Ki = equilibrium ratio, dimensionless
Lj = mole fraction of phase j
NM = number of matrix blocks within a fracture gridblock
Nb = number of matrix subgrids
Ni = Moles of component i per unit pore volume, mol/L3
nc = number of hydrocarbon components
np = number of phases
P = Pressure, m/Lt2
q = flow rate, L3/t
t = time, t
V = volume, L3

v j = molar volume of phase j

xij =
=
=
=
=
j =

mole fraction of component i in phase j

porosity, fraction
fluid specific gravity, dimensionless
matrix-fracture transfer function, L3/t
effective mobility, L3/mt3
molar density of phase j, mol/L3

Subscripts
b = bulk
f = fracture
g = gas
i = component index
j = phase index
m = matrix
o = oil
References
1. Kazemi, H., L.S. Merrill, K.L. Porterfield, P.R. Zeman:
Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 5719 presented at the SPEAIME Fourth Symposium on Numerical Simulation of
Reservoir Performance, Los Angeles, CA (Feb. 19-20, 1976).
2. Thomas, L.K., T.N. Dixon, and R.G. Pierson: Fractured
Reservoir Simulation, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1983) 42-54.
3. Sonier, F., F. Bouillard, and F.T. Blaskovich: Numerical
Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPERE (Nov.
1988) 1114-22.
4. Rossen, R.H. and E.I. Shen: Simulation of Gas/Oil Drainage
and Water/Oil Imbibition in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
paper SPE 16982 presented at the 1987 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
TX, Sept. 27-30.

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11195

5. Saidi, A.M.: Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoir,

paper SPE 12270 presented at the 1983 SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, CA, Nov. 16-18.
6. Pruess, K. and T.N. Narasimhan: A Practical Method for
Modeling Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured Porous Media,
paper SPE 10509 presented at the Sixth SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, New Orlean, LA, Februrary 1982, Soc.
Pet. Eng. J., Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb. 1985) 14-26.
7. Beckner, B.L., H.M. Chan, A.E. McDonald, S.O. Wooten, and
T.A. Jones: Simulating Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using a
Subdomain Method, paper SPE 21241 presented at the 1991
Society of Petroleum Engineers Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, Anaheim, CA, Feb. 17-20.
8. Aldejain, Abdulaziz A.: Implementation of a Dual Porosity in a
Chemical Flooding Simulator, Ph.D. dissertation, The U. of
Texas, Austin (1999).
9. Naimi-Tajdar, Reza: Development and Implementation of a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir Model into a Fully Implicit,
Equation-of-State Compositional, Parallel Simulator, Ph.D.
dissertation, The U. of Texas, Austin (2005).
10. Gilman, J.R.: An Efficient Finite-Difference Method for
Simulating Phase Segregation in Matrix Blocks in Double
Porosity Reservoirs, Soc. Pet. Eng. Res. Eng. (July 1986).
11. Delshad, M., G.A. Pope, and K. Sepehrnoori: A Compositional
Simulator for Modeling Surfactant Enhanced Aquifer
Remediation, 1 Formulation, J. Contamin. Hydrol. (1996) 303.
12. Naimi-Tajdar, R., C. Han, K. Sepehrnoori, T.J. Arbogast, and
M.A. Miller: A Fully Implicit, Compositional, Parallel
Simulator for IOR Processes in Fractured Reservoirs, paper
SPE 100079 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 22-26 April 2006.

Table 2. Input parameters used for 2D waterflood.

Description

Fracture

Matrix

Number of gridblocks

8x8x1

4x4 and 16x16

Size of gridblocks

75x75x30 ft

10x10x30 ft

Porosity

0.01

0.19

Permeability

500 md

1.0 md

Initial water saturation

0.0001

0.25

Water viscosity

0.5 cp

0.5 cp

Oil viscosity

2.0 cp

2.0 cp

Residual oil saturation

0.0

0.3

Oil endpoint relative permeability

1.0

0.92

Corey exponent for oil

2.15

1.8

Residual water saturation

0.0

0.25

Water endpoint relative perm

1.0

0.2

Corey exponent for water

1.46

1.18

Initial reservoir pressure

4000 psia

4000 psia

Water injection rate

200 STB/D (constant)

Production well pressure

3900 psia (constant)

Table 1. Input parameters used for 1D waterflood.

Description

Fracture

Matrix

Number of gridblocks

8x1x1

4x4 and 16x16

Size of gridblocks

80 x 80 x 30 ft

10x10x10 ft

Porosity

0.01

0.19

Permeability

500 md

10 md

Initial water saturation

0.25

0.25

Water viscosity

1.0 cp

1.0 cp

Oil viscosity

2.6 cp

2.6 cp

Residual oil saturation

0.0

0.3

Oil endpoint relative permeability

1.0

0.92

Corey exponent for oil

1.0

1.8

Residual water saturation

0.0

0.25

Water endpoint relative perm

1.0

0.2

Corey exponent for water

1.0

1.18

MATRIX

MATRIX

Stacked grids (vertical)

Nested grids (horizontal)

Fig. 1. Subgrids of a single matrix block10.

Matrix
Fracture

Initial reservoir pressure

4000 psia

Water injection rate

498.7 STB/D (constant)

Production well pressure

3900 psia (constant)

Reservoir
gridblock

Reservoir

4000 psia

Horizontal
subgrids

Matrix block
subgridding

Single
matrix

Idealized
gridblock

Fig. 2. Dual porosity model with subgridding9.

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11195

25

50

20

40

2x6 Subgrids

15

Oil Recovery (%)

Oil Recovery (%)

4x4 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids
4x2 Subgrids
2x4

10

30

20

2x2 Subgrids
5

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

200

400

Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

2x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 3. Effect of subgridding on oil recovery vs. time for case 1

(with explicit gravity effect).

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

800
2x6 Subgrids

1000
6x2 Subgrids

1200
4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 7. Effect of subgridding on oil recovery vs. time for case 2

(no explicit gravity effect).

300

225
4x4 Subgrids

200

2x6 Subgrids

250

2x4 Subgrids
6x2 Subgrids

175
Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

600
Time (days)

2x6 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

200

2x2 Subgrids

150

100

150
125
100
75
50

50

25
0

0
0

10

2x2 Subgrids

20

30

2x4 Subgrids

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6x2 Subgrids

400

600

800

1000

1200

4x4 Subgrids

2x2 Subgrids

Fig. 4. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for

case 1.

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 8. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for

case 2.

0.8

0.8

Water Cut (fraction)

Water Cut (fraction)

200

Time (days)

Time (days)
4x2 Subgrids
2x6 Subgrids

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.2

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

200

400

Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

600

800

1000

1200

Time (days)

2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 5. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 1.

2x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 9. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 2.

50

0.9
0.8

40

Kro
Oil Recovery (%)

Relative Permeability

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

30

20

Krw
10

0.2
0.1

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Water Saturation
Matrix media

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fracture media

Fig. 6. Fracture and matrix relative permeabilities used in case 2.

Fig. 10. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
case 3 (K = 10 md).

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11195

225

100

200
80

150
Oil Recovery (%)

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

175

125
100

60

40

75
50

20

25
0

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

200

400

2x2 Subgrids

2x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

600

800

1000

1200

Time (days)

Time (days)
2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 11. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
case 3.

Fig. 14. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
case 4 (with capillary pressure).
225

200
175
Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

Water Cut (fraction)

0.8

0.6

0.4

150
125
100
75
50

0.2

25
0

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

200

400

2x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

600

800

1000

1200

Time (days)

Time (days)
2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

2x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 12. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 3.

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 15. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
case 4.

4
1

3.5
0.8

2.5

Water Cut (fraction)

Capillary pressure (psi)

1.5

0.6

0.4

1
0.2

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

200

Water saturation

Fig. 13. Capillary pressure curve used for case 4.

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids

2x4 Subgrids

4x2 Subgrids

2x6 Subgrids

6x2 Subgrids

4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 16. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 4.

www.petroman.ir