A Review of Diffusion and Dispersion in Porous Media

To K, PERKINS
O. C. JOHNSTON
M fi)dn EDir AIM1=

ABSTRACT
Because oithe influence of dispersion on ntiscib[edisplacement
processks,
di~fusion and dispersion
phenomena
in parous racks are of current interest
in the oil industry
This paper reviews
and summarizes
a great deal of pertinent information from
the literata7e.
Porous
media (both unconsolidated
packs a;d
consolidated
rocks ) can be visualized
as a network
of flow chambers,
having random size and flow
conductivity,
connected
together
by openings
of
smaller size. In such a porous medium; the apparent diffusion coefficient D is less than the molecular
diifusion coefficient
Do, as measured in the absence
of a porous medium, For packs of unconsolidated
granular material the ratio D/D. is about 0.6 to 0.7.
For all porous rocks, both cemented and unconsolidated
the ratio of di{fusion coefficients
can also
be represented

as D/D.

= ~,
where F is the forFr#
resistivity
factor and + is the

mation electrical
porosity.
If fluids are flowing through the pororis medium,
dispersion
may be greater than that due to diffusion
alone, At moderate flow rates the porous medium
will create a slightly asymmetrical
mix zone (trailstretched
out ]8 with the longitudinal
dis.
persion
coefficient
approximately
proportional
to
the first power of average fluid velocity
(if composition is nearly equalized in pore spaces by diffusion). [f the velocity
in interstices
is large enough,
there
will be insufficient
time for diffusion
to
equalize
concentration within pore spaces.
[n this
region,
longitudinal
dispersion
increases
more
rapidt y than f ltii.d velocity
At low velocities
in interstices,
transverse
dispersion
is characterized
by a region in which
transverse
diffusion do~inates.
[f the fluid t?eloci:y
gets high enough, there tufll be a transition
into a
region where there is streti$z sptitting
with mass
. transjer
but with insufficient
residence
time to
completely
damp-out concent~ation variations within
pore spaces.

ingedge

There

are several

variables

that

must

be cori-

Original manuscript received in %clety of Petroleum Englneers office Sept. 10, 1962. Revised manuscript received Jan.
1S, t963.
-.
-~~o

:-

..-

THE ATLANTIC
I

REFINING

CO,

DALLAS, TEX,

trolled to get consistent

longitudinal and transverse
dispersion
results,
viz., (1) edge effect in packed
tubes,
(2) particle
size distribution,
(3) particle
shape, (4) packing or permeability
heterogeneities,
(5) viscosity
ratios, (6) gravity forces,
(7) amount
of turbulence,
and (8) effect of an immobile phase.

Diffusion
and dispersion
in porous rocks are of
current interest
to the oil industry.
This interest
arises
because
of the influence
of dispersion
on
miscible-disp
acemertt processes.
In a recovery process utilizing a zone of miscible
fluid, there ie the possibility
of losing miscibility
by dissipating
the miscible
fluid or by channeling
or fingerin~
through the miscible zone. Diffusion
an,d dispersion
are two of the mechanisms
that may
lead to mixing and dissipation
of the slug. On the
other hand, dispersion
may tend to damp-out viscous
fingers
which
may be channeling
tbrougb the
miscible
slug.58 Hence, dispersion
may be detrimental or beneficial (if it prevents fingering through
the miscible zone). Therefore, it is doubly important
that we understand
these processes.
m xbis pa-per we review, summarize and interpret
a great deal of information from the literature. ,16
particular,
we wiII briefIy discuss
moIecuIar diffusion in miscible fluids. Then we will discuss
what
differences
to expect for diffusion in a porous rock.
If there id mo~ement of the fluid through the rock,
then there may be an additional
mixing or dispersion.
Furthermore,
the dispersion
longitudinally
(in the direction
of gtoss
fluid movement)
and
transverse
to the direction
of fluid movement will
not be equal. ,We will discuss
both types of dispersion
ss well as several
variables
which can
affect
dispersion
(viscosity
difference,
, density
differences,
+ turbu~ence,
heterogeneity
of media,
etc.). This group of variabIes
has sometimes
led to
difficulty
when comparing literature
data.
DIFFUSION

OF MISCIBLE

FLUIDS

If two miscible
fIuids are in contact,
with an
i&itialIy
sharp interfac&,
they will slowly diffuse
into one another. Ae time passes,
the sharp interface between the two fluids will become, a diffuse
,
SSReferenc=~ given at end of P@*r~
------ sect E+Y OF-PETROLEUM:E~ GINEERS JOIJRNAZ

.,
;

,.

probability
co-ordinate
paper as shown on Fig. 1,
Taylor 52 has shown that the diffusion
coefficient
can be calculated
from a plot of experimental
data,
such as Fig. 1, by Eq. 3.

mixed zone grading from one pure fluid to the other.

This diffusion arises because of random motion of
the molecules.
If there is no change in volume upon
mixing the two fluids, then the net transport of one
of the constituents
acress an ~ a:bitraty plane can
be represented
by the Fick 1 dtffysion
equation,
shown as Eq. 1.

I
T
from the initial
interface
where Xgo = distance
where the composition is 90 per cent
of the fluid under consideration,
and

di
where

G = quantity
plane,

of material

t . time, second,
Do = molecular diffusion

diffusing

across

coefficient,

X ~0 = distance
fr~m the initial
interface
where the composition is 10 per cent
of the fluid under consideration.
NOW let us see what differences
to expect if the
diffi sion is taking pIace in a porous medium. As a
first approach, let us represent
the porous medium
as a bundle of straight capillary tubes.
For steady-state
diffusion, Eq. 1 may be rewritten
ae

sq cmi

see,

A=
c=
x=

cross sectional
cm,
concentration,
distance,

area

for diffusion,

volume fraction,

sq

and

cm.

Typically,
diffusion
coefficients
as defined irr
Eq, 1 are a function of concentration.
To be completely accurate, we relationship
between diffusion
coefficient
and concentration
must be included in
Eq. 1 before integration.
The mathematics
describing behavior with a variable
diffusion
coefficient
are quite complicated.
(The interested
reader can
see Crank16 for further dis mtssion. ) However, it is
often
possible
to represent
diffusive
behavior
approximately
by selecting
an ef~ective average
diffusion
coefficient.
The remainder of this paper
in
deals
with systems that can be approximated
this manner. I-fence, we will use the term [diffusion
coefficient
for a fluid system and mean a cliff us ion
coefficient
constant
and independent
of con. !~tration. If the diffusion coefficient
varies slighi
;;with
concentration,
then Do for a 50 percent: 50 per cent
mixture can be used.
By using Eq. 1 and the proper houndaty conditions,
an equation can be derived giving fluid composition
as a function of distance and time for two stationary
miscible
fluids (with an initially
sharp interface)
mixing by diffusion.
Such an equation
has been
derived by several investigators
and is shown as
Eq. 2.

where

C = concentration
of fluid under
tion, volume fraction,

.. . .. . ..... .. .. .. . ... ..... ....

*-.> -..

-fl(areo

open

for

~Ac

diffusion)

where D = apparent
diffusion
coefficient,
see, and
l.= total length of tube.

., (4)

sq cm i

In the oil industry, the apparent diffusion coefficient in a poroim medium, D, ie usually based on
the average cross-sectional
area open for diffusion
and the over-all
length (as shown in Eq. 4). For
the bundle of capillary
tubes, the diffusion rate is
proportional
to the true molecular
diffusion coefficient Do times the area open for diffusion.
Substituting these vahres into Eq. ,4 showe that, for the
straight capi nary model,
,
D
:
Oo

I..,;,.;........(5)

The straight, capillary

model is not a very good
representation,
of a poroue rock. Carman,i4
for
instance,
has shown that in a porous rock, fluide
must move on the average tit about 45 to the net

position

erf = error function.

Note that the sign to be used within the bracket
depends on the initial conditions.
If the concentration initially
steps down (i.e., at t = O, C = 1 for
.~-< O and C = O for X > O), then the minus sign is
appropriate,
If the concentraticmt,initialIy
steps up
..-2
(att=O,
C= Ofor X< Oand C= Jfor X> O), then
the pIus eign is appropriate.
Eq. 2 will plot SS a straight line on arithmetic.. -.
-miAticsr, i96i - -.
-

.. . . ~. ..- :..
--

G
.
f

con sidera-

X = distance measured from origi;al

.of interface,
cm, and

, -.

....-.
,...

..

r , #t

09 t

0,

9.*I.

mu

A
1
r

1 I
8,19
cfNT

of

I
1
10

1 1 I I 1
w
70

mIrifiL

I
,
so 1$

*S 3 *S.*

*V.-

TRACER c0Nc04TRA710N

FIG. 1CONCENTRATION PROFILE (ON ARITHMETICPROBABILITY PAPER) RESULTING FROM DIFFUSION

OF A TRACER IJfTO WATER (Da = 1 x 10-5 SQ CM/SltC).

>

,-

- ,

..-

71.

8:

..
i..-

-.

. ..

- -

t---L-

0.s

,,.
--1.
RATIO

PREDIcTED

BY A

FLOW

MODEL

EQUATION

(SEE

;--7 4;:.

SIMPLE

V---T-*-

i
.x

0.6

45
6)
\

*:.

...-.

--,
.=
~

0,4

FIG. 2 SKETCH SHOWING THAT, IN A POROUS

MEDIUM, FLUID IS GENERALLY FLOWING AT ABOUT
45 WITH RESPECT TO THE AVERAGE DtRECTION
OF FLOW.
direction
of flow. See Fig. 2. Hence, when the fluid
has traveled
a net distance
L, it has traveled an
actual average distance of about fl L. Subs titution
of this value into Eq. 4 shows for this model of a
POIOUS
rock,

0707

-......(6)

Fig. 3 shows the data of several investigators

and indicates
that this simple approach is a fair
approximation
to the diffusion
coefficient
in IMconsolidated
media.
A more sophisticated
and comprehensive
approach
has been suggested
by Brigham, et al? Grane and
Gardner,26 van der Poe158 and others. These investigators recognized chac there is an analogy between
diffusion
,md electrical
conductivity
in porous
medja. The law governing
electrical
conductivity
is completely analogous to Eq. 4. It is easily shown
that diffusion in a porous medium is related to the
formation
electrical
resistivity
factor by Eq. 7.*
This equation can be used for cemented rocks as
well as unconsolidated
packs.
D
l~=q......
)
where

F = formation
and
q5 = fractional

Verification
investigators.

(7)
.
e lecttical

resistivity

porosity.

of Eq. 7 has been reported

23~30~ 50

DISPERSION

factor!

IN A POROUS

by several

MEDIUM

In the previous section we have discussed

diffusion in the absence
of gross fluid movement. If
fluids are flowing through the porous medium, then
there may be some additional
mixing taking place.
This increased
mixing caused by uneven fluid flow
or caused by concentration
gradients re~ulring from
fluid flow will be designated
dispersion.
There are
two type# of dispersion
to be considered.
One is

0.2

*Note that if the pparent diffusion coefficient had been

defined in terms of the total cross-=ectional, area in Eq. 4 rather
then Eq. 7 would hsve been

D/Da

= i/F,

PENhtAPJ

HOOGSCHAGEN

I -

A iUNKER
0 VAN

I
Or?

(37)

(2S]

(60)

SAVEL

I
0.4
FRACTION

FIG.

(55)

I
0. s
PO ROSt

0.8

I
1.0

Ti

3 RELATIVE DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT

PACKS OF GRANULAR MATERIAL.

IN

dispersion
in the longitudinal
direction or direction
of gross fluid movement. The second is dispersion
transverse
to the direction of gross fluid movement.
The dispersions
will not be equal in these two
directions;
hence, we must consider each separately.
LONGITUDINAL

DISPERSION

In order to understand the increase in longitudinal

mixing resuIting
from fluid flow, we will first consider dispersion
in a single straight capillary tube.
Several
investigators
have attacked
this problem
in some detail. Then we wiH consider a network of
short capillaries
(a little better representation
of a
porous rock). FinalIy, we will discuss
longitudinal
diapersion
actually
observed in packs of granular
material.
Dispersion
in a Capillary Twbe
Again as a first approach, let & consider longitudinal diapersion
in a capillary
tube. Suppose the
tube is filled with one fluid and a second fluid is
injected
at one end of the tube. If the two fluids
are of the same viscosity,
if diffusion
effects are
of no significance
and if flow is laminak, then the
concebtrtition
of displacing
fIuid in the effluent
stream is easily determined by integrating
the flow
There will be no
equation
for btninar
conditions.
injected
fluid appearing in the effluent stream until
one-half of the tube volume has been injected.
For
continued
injection,
the effluent
concen ttation is
given by Eq. 8. (Note that this equation gives the
instantaneous
average concentration
of the effluent,
not the average
concentration
acress
any crosssection of the tube.)

.
where

than the area open for diffusion,

1-

x = volume fraction of injected fluid in the.

effluent,
Vp = total volume of the tube, and
V = v~lume injected.

.-. . ,SdCIETY OF PETROLEUE- ENGI~EER9 -JOURNA1..

f

.,

A derivation
of this eauation has been shawn bv
Fowler and Brown,24 Ri~ai,44 and others.

In the actual case, molecular diffusion will cause

mixing along the interface.
The net resitlt will be
a mixed zone growing at a more rapid rate than
would obtain from diffusion
a~one, but less than
the rate predicted
by Eq. 8. Tay10r52 and Arisl
have studied the case where the time necessary
for
.
appreciable
concentration
changes to appear, owing
to convection, transport,
was long compared with the
time of decay during which radial variations
of
concentration
were reduced to a fraction of their
initial value through the action of molecular
diffusion. Theoretical
equations derived by these investigators
showed that, if one fluid were displaced
by another
fluid under these
~onditiorts
where
diffusion couId nearIy damp-our tadiaI concentration
variation?,
then a symmetrical
longitudinal
mixed
zone would be established.
The mixed zone would
travel with the mean speed of rhe injected fluid and
would be dispersed
as if there were a constant
dispersion
coefficient
given by Eq. 9.

A k&o+g. . ......

areanegligible,
~
U.

Eq. 8 is applicable,

if

> 250.
L

An intermediate
region where neither Eq. 8 nor
Eq. 9 is valid has also been studied by Bosworths
and Van Deemter, et al,sb but their studies did not
result in a quantitative
representation
of behavior
over the full intermediate
range. Recently,
Bailey
and Gogarty4 have studied dispersion
over the full
range by solving the diffusion and flow equations
numerically.
Dispersion
Again
capillary

in a Network

of Capillary

Tubes

we should note that a bundle of straight

tubes is not a very good representation
of

a porous rock. de long

and Saffman4S-47
have
s rudied
a random network
of capillaries.
Their
mathematical
model is a more accurate description
of a porous rock than is a bundle of smaight capillaries,
but the results
are still not quantitatively
correct for rock. The analysis
is valuable, however,
from a conceptual
point of view. Saffmans results
can be sketched as shown on Fig, 4.
Dispersiorz

. . (9)

where Kl = longitudinal
dispersion
coefficient,
sq
cm/see,
velocity,
cm/see,
and
U = average
a = radius of the capillary,
cm.
The effluent concentration,
for the capillary tube,
is given by the diffusion equation, Eq. 10.

and therefore

in Packs of Granular .Material

Let us now proceed to a discussion

of longitudinal
dispersion
in packs
of granular
material.
Most
investigators,
studying this problem have filled. a
packed
column with one fluid, displaced
it with
another
fluid, and measured
fIuid composition
at
the exit end of the tube as a function of displacement. Brigham, et al, g have shown a convenient
method for determining
the dispersion
coefficient
from data of rhis rv~e. In a slieht modification
of
their

method,

the function

is plotted

/v/v*

vs

b%)(%)1
(10)
Under what conditions
will Eqs. L?or 9 be valid?
Taylor has shown that the ratio of time necessary
for damping of radial corrcentration
variations
to
the time to get a significant
change in concentrati~n
i a proportion
Furthermore,

al to the
he has

dimensionless
shown

that

group

diffusion.

the per cent of displacing

flui~ (on arithmeticprobability
paper) as shown on Fig. 5. The dispersion coefficient
can then be calculated
with the aid
of Eq. 11.
/

( A~o-Al(j

K. z UL

)2 .

f-la

.
Do L
effects

.. .
,

003

0,02

100
, LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION IN THE CAPILLARV

A90

0.01,--

Dos !IPFUSION

COEFFICIENT,

u I AVERAGE #LUIO VELOOITY

THE NETWORK , OM/SEC.

g~to .!?
.
I

LEN5TH

OF EACH

CM?/SEC.

THROUQH

CAPILLARY,

CM.

. . . . . . (11)

4<-0.01

7 >l>& 0
>1

-0.02

./

_ ~lo----

-0,04

FIG. 4LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS

,FOR A RANDOM NETWORK OF CAPILLARIES (FROM
SAFFMAIU, REF. 45).
,

./

I
[ I I 1 I
I
10 2030406050mao
PER CENT OISPLACINO FLUID

I I
1 2

;
i

I 1 I
I
0.01 ,0S 0.S05

./

./?

./

-0.03

./

--

1
5

I
I
ao

95

9ai

FIG. 5TYPICAL EFFLUENT-COMPC)SITION CURVE

FOR MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT OF A SAND-PACKED
COLUMFf (OV ARITHMETIC-PROBABILITY
PAPER)
FROM BRIG:lAM, ET AL (-~EF. 9).

I
,

<

uniform size connected

in s cries.
The chambers
are filled with one fluid and a second
fluid is
injected
at one end at a constant rate.. The compos ition within each chamber is maintained
uniform
at all times
by complete
mixing (in the case of
granular
packs and for some flow conditions,.
the
concentration
in each pore space is maintained
essentially
uniform by diffusion).
Eq. 14 gives the
concentration
of displaced
fluid in each cell of a
very long series of cells.

per~.
sing #luid.
Nearly ail literature
data show that the longitudinal
dispersion
coefficients
for unconsolidated
sand or bead packs can be represented
as shown by
Eq. 12.

E
DQ

udP

.1.75---;

UdP
( 2<-z

<50

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
where

E = longitudinal
convective
efficient,
sq cm/see,
dp = particle diameter, cm.

dispersion
and

coof the displaced

fluid in
Cn = concentration
the nth cell.
g = injection rate,
t = time, and
v = volume of each celI.
Fig. 7 shows the concentration
of displaced
fluid
calculated
from Eq. 14 when a pore volume of 100
C+lS has been injected (i.e., qt/v = 100).

where

F&thermore,
in the region where both diffusion
and convective
dispersion
are important,
the total
dispersion
coefficient
is the sum of these two
coefficients.
Hence, the total longitudinal
dispersion
coefficient
in an unconsolidated
sand pack can be
represented
as shown by Eq. 13, and is sketched
on Fig. 6.

This figure shows that a mixed zone is established

which moyes with the mean speed of the injected
fluid; that is, the 50 per cent point is essentially
at the hundredth cell (if the displacement
had been
piston-like,
there would have been an abrupt change
in c opposition
after the hundredth cell). Furthermore,
the growth of the mix zone, relative
to the 50 per
cent composition
point, can be represented
by a
constant
dispersion
coefficient
(i.e., plots as an
essentially
straight line on probability
paper). Fig.
7 is equivalent
to Fig. 1. The apparent dispersion
coefficient
can be calculated
with Eq: 3. By noting
that the time to inject 100 cell volumes is equal to.
the length of 100 cells divided by the average fluid
veIocity,
it follows
that the uppa~ent dispersion
coefficient
va+ies as the first powen 6/ the mean
velocity
(the same behavior as ezhibited
by pnrous
packs, see Eq. 12).
A pack of granular material,
of course,
can be
thought of as a series of chambers or pore spaces
connected
by small,er openings.
This ii indicated
graphically
on Fig. 8, which shows the shapes of
void spaces for various types of symmetrical packing of spheres as reported by Graton and Fraaer, 27
Study of dispersion
data from packed columns
reveals
that the concentration
profile in the mixed
zone is not typically
a perfect S-shaped probability

K;=D+E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
Can the dispersive
behavior of granular packs be
represented
fairly accurately
by an equivalent
bundIe of capillary tubes? A comparison
of Eqs. 9
and 12 shows that in packed columns the longitudinal
dispersion
coefficient
is proportional
to the first
power of average velocity (if longitudinal
di spersio.n
is large compared to longitudinal
molecular diffusion), whereas
for capillary
tubes the dispersion
coefficient
is proportiorial
to the: second power of
average velocity. How can we e,xplain this significant difference
in behavior?
A clue is furnished in work reported by Aris and
Amundson~
These investigators
have studied the
dispersion
to be expected
in mixing chambers
of
100

K* . LOHOI?UDINAL 015P%WIOM

DO. M0LCCUL4R
V . AVERNE
*P.

IIITCR9T 11 I AL

AV=RA6E

SIAMCTCR

COEFFICIENT, dt,,,,

COEFFIC
INIT,m.%ut.

OIWUSIW
OF

VEL0C17t,
THE

,,
;,~,,l,

EM /s,6.

P&R1 ICL6S,

sm.

,/

-., ,

tl!o

119

0.01

0.1

Im

10

100

s O

1-

00

70

Ud

0.01

: ..

--

--

0,1

0.s 1. a

10

Cn; COHGFMtRATlON

FIG. 6-LONGITUDtiAL
DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS
FOR UNCONSOLIDATED, RANDOM PACKS OF UNfFORM SIZE SAND OR BEADS (DATA FROM REF% 11,
:
42, 53 AND 59).
74

50

?0

so w

$1

*9.$

Y9.5

99.5*.

OF OISPLACED FLUID IN OiLL n

FIG, 7 DISTRIBUTION OF COMPOSITION ALONG A

SERIES OF MIKliWGCELLSV CAIXXJLATED FROM EQ.
= 100.
.
. 14.
. (qt/v)
.
...

..

SOCIETY

OF TETROLEUM ENGINEERS

JOURNAL

..-.

63 Q

WE2

C4SE
1

WE

,.

Mlxlno

I m%,
P-Y+

FIG. 8 SHAPES OF PORE SPACES IN SYMM~TRICAL PACKS OF SPHERES (FROM GRATON AND
FRA8ER, REF. 27).
curve as predicted
by theory (i. e., Eq. 10). Rather,
the mixed zone is often slightly asymmetrical
with
the trailing edge being stretched
out (as shown by
the data points on Fig. 5). This behavior has also
been reported by other investigators
such as Von
Rosenburg.sg
Scheidegger
and Larsonq8
studied
this phenomenon to see if it resulted from asymmetry
of boundary conditions,
but they found this could
not be the explanation.
For many purposes
it is permissible
to neglect
the slight
asymmetry
of the mixed zone. If the
dispersion
process
needs
to be described
with
great precision,
then the asymmetry of the trailing
edge must be included
quantitatively.
Several investigators
have proposed
a simplified
stagnant
theory to describe
the asymmetry.
So far
pocket
these theories do not &eemadequate to fully explain
the observed phenomena.
For further discussions
of
the stagnant-pocket
theories,
the reader is referred
to Aris,2
Turner~$ Koump 32 and Goodknight,
et
---al.~~
In aummaty, we can say that a granular pack may
be thought of as a nerwork of flow chambers (having
random
~ihe
and flbw conductivity)
connected
together by openings of smaller size. Such geometry
will result in a slightly asymmetrical
mixed zone,
with the longitudinal
dispersion
coefficient approximately proportional
to the first power of interstitial
vetocity (if composition
is equaIized in pore spaces
by diffusion).
low
If we flow fluid through a pack at a very
rate, then there may well be time for diffusion to
equalize
concentration
within each pore space.
However, if we increase
the velocity in the interstices high enough,
we will eventually
reach a
time for
velbcity
at which there is insufficient
diffusion to .equaIize concentration
within each pore
space. For approximately
radially symmetrical
pore
spaces,
the ratio of time needed to damp-out conc entration
variations
to the time avaiIable
is .tmo Ud
gr,oup
portional
to ~ p . Hence, the dimensionless
U /D,. shoul~ be a measure
of how effectively
di t fusion
C+ equalize
concentration
~within pore
spaces,
Dispersion
studies have shown that Q/D.
is about proportional
to U+ /D. if 4< U~/Do < 50;
theory
is .apparentIy
and,, hence, We mi~ng-cell
validi At values of U+ /D. greater than about 50,
.-

,.

..

MAtiCH,

196?

- -

.-

.. .

.,

,.,

INSUFFICIENT
TIME FOR DIFFUSION To
EQUALIZE
COMPOSITION
[M PORE
/
SPACE8

1-,

I
~

Id
1
10
10*
10
[04
FIG. 9 RANGE OF VALIDITY OF MECHANISMS OF
DIFFUSION AND DISPERSION IN UNCONSOLIDA
RANDOM PACKS OF UNIFORM SIZE BEADS (LAMINAR
FLOW).
the dispersion
is greater than would be explained
by the mixing-cel~
theory and presuniably shows
that diffusion is not entirely equalizing
the concentration
within each pore space.
Most data indicate
Kz/Do is about proportional
to (Ut+/Do )12 in this
region.
Fig. 9 shows our present concept of the
mechanisms
of diffusion
and dispersion
in unconsoIidated$ random packs of uniform-size
beads (for
larninar flow).
So far, the discussion
has ckrit~red
around
random
packs of beads. We have also assumed
that the pore- size distribution
and the degree of
inhomogeneit y are the same within each random
et al,42
have shown that the
pack.
Raimondi,
convective
dispersion
coefficient
can be written
as shown in Eq. 15.

E=cuudp

.,,

,.;

;,

t.....

, . (15]

where c = a constant,
and
a = a measure of the inhomogeneity
of the
pack.
Fur&ermore,
Aris and Amt&ds on,3 Carberry 12 and
Prausnitzzo
have shown that the mixing-cell
theory
leads to a value of c = 0.5. This would then give a
value of about u = 3.5 for the typical rafidom pack.
Literature
data suggest that packing of large beads
is usually better than for small beads. Hence, we
should expect thevalue of u to be a bit smaller for
~randoni packs of large beads as shown by Fig.
18 (but u should never be less than unity). Also, u
may be larger for poorly packed beads. The final
equation describing longitudinal
dispersion
is shown
as Eq. 16.
,

. . . . . . . .....
.
.
.
.
.
.
. { ~u)
A convenient
graphical
presentation
of this
equation as well a~, the relauonship
if Uuc$ /D. >
50 is shown on Fig. 10,
TRANSVERSE

DISPERSION

If a sand-packed ,column iS tirranged as shown on

Fi~.
11, a mixed zone will grow in a direction
transverse
to the direction of gross fIuid movement.
The mechanism
leading to this type of dispersion

has been described

by several investigators
aa a
stream-splitting
mechanism
(with diffusion cauaing maas transfer between streams).
If a profiIe of
fluid composition ia made along a line perpendicular
to the direction of gross fluid movement, the typical
S-shaped
concentration
profile will be observed.
The transverse
dispersion
coefficient
can be determined by plotting (per cent composition)
vs (distance
from
50 per cent
composition)
on arithmeticprobability
paper,
as is shown by the typical
experimental
data on Fig.
11. The dispersion
coefficient
can then be calculated
with Eq. 17.

dispersion
coefficient,
sq
Kt = transverse
cm/see,
u. average longitudinal interstitial
velocity, cm/aec,
L= diata~ce from inlet, cm, and
x. transverse
distance
from 50 per cent
composition
point, cm.
The total transverse
dispersion
coefficient
is
the sum of the diffusion
coefficient
in the porous
medium (which is, of course,
the same as in the
longitudinal
direction
unless ~he porous medium is
anisotropic)
and the transverse
convective
dispersion coefficient.
The final expression
for laminar
flow conditions
in typical unconsolidated,
random

where

packs

on Fig.

12.

/ft=&
+O 055 % . . . . . .. (18)
r
U.
UQ
t+
The mixing - cell theory haa been developed
to
cover transverse
dispersion
in a network of mixing
chambers.518 43 Furthermore,
the theoretical
equation has proved to be approximately
correct when
turbulence equalizes
concentration
variations within
each pore space. However, the rranaverse
mixingcell theory should not be applicable
in the laminar
region. Fig. 12 shows that transverse
dispersion
ia
la~ge compared to transverse
diffusion if (UC+ /D. )
is greater than about 100. However, Fig. 9 shows
that if (Udp /DP ) > 100, then there is insufficient
time for equalization
of concentra~ton
within pore
by diffusion.
Hence,
aa the interstitial
spaces
velocity
increasea,
we pasa from a region where
transverse
diffusion dominates
into a region where
there
is stream splitting
with mass rransfer but
with
insufficient
residence
time to completely
concentration
variations
within
pore
damp - out
spaces.
- BIackwells
workr suggests
that pore size distribution and inhomogeneities
will have roughly the
same effect on transverse
dispersion
as on longitudinal dispersion.
Hence, we I-.rite Eq. 19 and draw
the final correlation
for transverse
diaperaiori
as
shown on Fig. 13. The inhomogenei~
factor a for
DW6RS!OM
St Tn~*$vER$s

.LW~,UOINhL
OISPMSION eqtfmmn,
$.!,,,,,

ml
D, molfnls!on

is given by Eq. 18 and plotted

Do. MOLECUL&R

Cm!/uc.

DIFFUSION

COEFFICIENT. CM.IF CC.

COEFFICIENT,
CW~SEC,

U , AVERAQS INTERSTITIAL
WLOCITT,
CM, @EC.
de. &VSRA@E D, AwzTER OF THE PART1CLR5, CM

Sl:ln:
2/
COEFFIC my,

V . AVERAGE lNTCRS?lT IAL VELOCITY, cm,l,m

PAR
TICLC
OIAMCTER,

*P. AVERAQE

m,.

P . FORMATION CLSCTRICSL RESISIIVITV

:=
,.-s

,61

10

:r::::m

FACTOR

OIF.WSIOM
CONTROLS

i+

+1

i+
1 I 11 [111!

1 ! 1 Ill Ill

0.1

0.1

1 I !1!111

I I IIrrd

10

10

10

1 1 {1 1!
,
10*

(*)

FIG. 12 -TRANSVERSE

10

10

10

10

q
%

10 LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION
CIENTS FOR POROUS MEDIA.

FIG.

cOHTROLS

COEFFI-

DISPERSION COEFFICIENTS

FOR
UNCONSOLIDATED,
RANDOM
UNIFORM-SIZE
SAND OR BEADS (DATA
26 AND 7).
,0 ?.,. T.QAMWERSC OISPESSION cOrFP,c,sN1, ..!,,,,.
D..

0! FFU91DS

U . kVtRAG6.
de. AvERAOE

GOCFF OG,cm.

IN1ER5T8T1AL
PAR TICLC

EXIRAVOLATION

cm?, ,,6.

w,. OCITY,
OIAMC X8.

PACKS
OF
FROM REF$.

an.,,
w.

10 ~
-.

lNflOKOGEME ITT

F . FOFWTtOU
+ .

FACTOR

CL fCTRUM

RCSISTIVITV

FACTOR

WR63,17

,0 .

:F
,0 .

0.1,
0.1

PER CENT OF

-.

..-,

.. .

,0

1 I !111181 1 11111111 1 11111111 ! f II IIIU

~,
,.!
,..
,.,

r I ll!~

TRAcER FLUID

FIG. 11 TRANSVERSE CONCENTRATION PROFILE

ON ARITHMETIC-PROBABILITY PAPER.

--76

1 1 11!111! I I 1 Il!ln

..

.. . f. . ....-. .- . .../

FIG, 13 TRANSVERSE
DISPERSION COEFFICIEN13
,.
FOR POROUS MEDIA.
4..: ..:.

.,

?JOGIETY OF PETROkELiM-ENGi-NEER9:jCSIIRNAF>,

random packa
about 3.5.

of small

will agaia

average

J-

u=+
~

Uu op
;
D*

0,0157
~

,.4

ADDITIONAL

F+

Do

0.0157

where /3t = factor

Fig. 14). ,

. . . . . . . . . (19)

PARTICLE

VARIABLES

Irr the previous discussion

we hsve considered
s
simplified
physical
system,
that is, very Iarge
columns packed with unconsolidated,
Uniform-sizej
spherical
particles,
and fluids
of equal
nearly
viscosity
and density in Iaminar flow. Now let us
consider
the following
additional
variables:
(1)
(2)
ratio of particle
~iamete.r to column diameter,
particle
size distribution,
(3) particle
Shape, (4)
packing or permeability heterogeneities
(as in natural
rocks), (5) fluids with different viscosities,
(6? fluids
with different densities,
(7) fluids in turbulent flow,
and (8) effect of an immobile phase.
RATIO OF PARTICLE DIAMETER
TO COLUMN DIAMETER
If spherical
particles
are packed into a cylinder,
there will be packing irregularities
near the container
walls.
Schwartz
and Smith4g present data
showing
zonea of high porosity
extending
two to
three particle
diameters
from the container
walls.
Grston and Fraser 27 indicate
the following,
how:
ever. [%-tterference (to regular packing of spheres)
caused by the copfainer wall is not limited to the
adjacent
region
but is propagated
immediately
throughout the entire area. Packing irregularities
of this type will no doubt have an effect on both
longitudinal
and transverse dispersion.
Several investigators
have studied the wall effect
on transverse
dispersion
for turbulent flow. Fig. 14.
shows
a correlation
obtained
from the data of
Latinen,33
Fahien and Smith ?2 and an approximate
relationship
proposed
by Sing,er and Wilhelm.51
These experimental
data suggest that. the increase
in transverse
dispersion
in the laminar region will
be, roughly, the &rrre order of magnitude ZS in the
turbulent region. Hence, we can write Eq. 20.

,0

-=

Kt
~=Ft$

particles

to account

SIZE

. . ,(&u)

Do
for wall

effect

(see

DISTRIBUTION

The particle size distribution

in naturally occurring, unconsolidated
sands often fo Hews a lognormal distribution.
That is, the particle
size vs
cumulative
per cent plots as a nearly straight line
on logarithmic-probability
paper. What effect will a
wide particle
size distribution
such a a this have
on flow behavior?
In a solid pack of various size
patticles,
the small particles
can reside
in the
interstices
between
large particles.
The size of
the average pore space can therefore be characterized
by a dimension
smaller
than the median
particle
size.
Fig.
15 shows the particle
size
distribution
for three rnixrures
of glass
beads
of
reported
by Raimon di, et al. 42 Fermeabilities
the three mixtures were about the same. Hence, the
e~fective
particle
size
(so far as calculating
permeability
is concerned)
for these log - normal
distributions
is the particle
size corresponding
to
the 10 per cent cumulative
fraction. If we assume
that
the effective
particle
size characterizing
dispersion
can also be taken as the particle
size
corresponding
to the 10 per cent cumulative fraction,
then the data can be correlated as shown on Fig. 16.
The distribution
of particle sizes can be quantitatively
4escribed
by the slope of thi log-normal
line; see Eq. 21,
P] 84

s = log

tfJ84-

log

dpJ 16=

log

4J16

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

.E

*40
~

dp - PARTICLE

z
~
~

,
3.0

d~=

TUBE

DIAMETER

DIAMETER

w
:

SINGER

WILHELM

(51)

s
:

,,

2.0 -

a
%

/ ?M%[:3i

0.01

(33}

ATINEN

1.0

~o.3

I II

M,lRCtt. f96S

---

so%
AMOUNT

SMALLER

SIZE,

THAN

FIG, 15PARTICLESIZE
DISTRIBUTION
FOR THREE MIXTURES OF GLASS BEADS
ALL HAVING ABOUT THE SAME PERMEABILITY (FROM RAIMONDI, ET AL, REF,
42).,

8,

FIG, 14 EFF13CT OF t&/dT ON TRANSVERSE DISPERSION (TURBULENT FLOW. ,

G
.

STATED

*d.

251020%

CUMULATIVE

,..1

IO-*

. .. .. .

:!-

..

77

. .

. -:---

-.

S = slope of the log-normal particle size

distribution,
and
$184 = psrticle
diameter of the 84 per cent
cumulative fraction.
Raimondi, et al,42 and Orlob and Radhakrishrsa 36
indicate
that wide particle
size distributions
will
lead to increased
dispersion.
Fig. 16 shows the
order of magnitude
of increased
dispersion
that
should be expected
as a function of the slope of
the particle size distribution.

where

PARTICLE

s#= porticle

spheri

city

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22).
17 is a correlation
developed from literature
data which shows the order of mamitude of increased
dispersion
to expect
in packs
of nonspherical
particles.
We believe
this correlation
is roughly
correct for both longitudinal
and transverse
dispers ion in the Iaminar region.
,Fig.

161
Lo

o +

r ~
.3
m
:

;.

!4

1
QATA

12

OF

ORLOS

NO
7

I
I

I
/.

6
I
/*
4

FOR

GLiSS

8EA0

PACKS

[FROM OATA OF RAIIAONOI

.t. 01~4611

o
S,

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

SLOPE

OF

PARTICLE

SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

0.7

9
I

0.8

0.9

Lo

* #sPsrkRIGITv
FIG,

17 APPROXIMATE EFFECT OF PARTICLE

SHAPE ON DISPERSION.

PACKING OR PERMEABILITY

HETEROGENEITIES

Lrs this section

we will discuss
the effects
of
two types of packing or permeability
heterogeneities:
(1) those arising in random packs
of spheres;
and (2) those typically
found in cemented,
outcrop
or reservoir
rocks.
The effect of packing heterogeneities
in random
packs has been described by several investigators.
BlackweH 7 says the following.
The incraase
in the dispersion coefficient
with
decreasing
sand sizes for sands smaller than 20-30
mesh was noted by Van Deemter, et al, 57 for longitudirrsl dispersion.
Van Deemter, et al, attribute this
increase
to bridging by the particles
and other
microscopic
packing imegularities
which occur more
frequently as the sand size decreases
or the particle
shape becomi=s more irregular. Ebach 19 has found
that for 30-rnesh-or-larger
particle slzea the longitudinal, dispersion
coefficients
are independent
of
aizet Based oh the above observation
of Ebach, it
would
be expected
that the lateral dispersion
coefficient
for psrttcle
aizea larger than those in
20-30 mesh ssnds would be approximately the same
aa that meaeured for the 20-30 mesh ssnd in the
present investigation.

Brigham,

et al,g reported

the following.

If two porous media were geometrically

similar but
with different particle sizes (such as two identically
packed bead packs different only ~ a diameter of
beada), they would have identical vsluea Of (~). . . .
However, in prsctice,
(~).. . haa experimentally
been
found to incresse for finer particles.
Klinkenberg and
Sj enitser3x report values of (0) increasing from . . .
(eightfold increaee) aa particle diameter dropa from
1 to 0.005 mm. This undoubtedly reflects either the
of obtaining
uniform packing with fine
difficulty
particles
or the greater relative variation in particle
found with fine psrtidea.
size ususlty

RAOHAKRISHNA{S611

so

Similarly,

APPROXIMATE RF.LATIONI
SNIP FOR SAND PACKS,
[SUGGESTEO BY THE

10

FIG.

surface
area
of a sph:::i~~tving
s,ame volume
os
surfttce_area.
of particle

SHAPE

The effect of particle

shape on dispersion
has
been studied by Bernard and Wilhelm, 6 Carberry, 11.
Ebsch and White,20 ancl others. These investigators
have studied spheres, cubes, rings, saddles, crushed
granular
material,
etc. It is generally
found that
packs
of nonspherical
particles
lead to greater
dispersion
than do packs of spherical
particles
of
about the same size.
The concept of csphericity
of a particlel
is
often used to correlate pressure-drop
data and other
flow behavior in packed beds. The sphericity
of a
particle
is defined by Eq. 22.

16 -, EFFECT
OF PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ON DISPERSION.

Fig.
18 shows the irshornogeneity
factor u for
random packs of various size beads: This correlation
was developed
from literature
data. These
values of u may be used in Eqs. 15; 16, 19 and 20,
or on Figs. 10, 13, 16 and 17.
Another type of inhomogeneity
that is of great
interest
is that irr cemented
outcrop or reservoir
rocks.
Part of the inhomogeneity
is of a small
geometric
scale (from pote to pore). However, we
also know that there are larger-ecale
inhomogeneities
irt natural sandstones.
That is, the average permeability of the rock yaries over distances
of a few
.(
~ inches or feet.
in outcrop rocks has been s~died
by
Dispersion

1,

TYPICAL
VALUES FOR
OROINARY LABORATORY

r---

gs
10
~
:6
G
z
g

PACKS

1{

g4
o
!2
~

o
0.01

,&

0,1

FIG,

10

PARTIGLk

OIAMETER

, MM.

18 INHOMOGENEITY
FACTOR
PACKS OF SPHERES.

FOR RANDOM

several investigators.
They all find that dispersion
is l~rger than one might have suspected
from particle
size
alone
(thus
reflecting
the increased
heterogeneity).
It is convenient
to report the value
data for cemented
of (+ u) that will bring dispersion
rocks into agreement with out equations
and charts.
Table
1 shows values of (dp a) ~r nat~al
sand. scones.
it appears that ari average value of about udp =
0.36 cm can be used to approximate the behavior of
all sandstones
studied. This should give the correct
amount of dispersion
within blocks having dimensions of a few feet.
F.LUIDS WITH DIFFERENT

VISCOSITIES

The additional
variables
previously
considered
have dealt with properties
of the po:obs medium.
Let us now consider
some of the additional
fluid
variables.
First, let us suppose the displaced
and displacing fluids have different viscosities.
If the displacing fluid is less viscouk than the displaced
fluid
(a; unfavorable
viscosity
ratio),
viscous
fingers
will be formed. This topic is outaide the scope of
this paper and will not be considered
further here.
However,
if the displacing
fluid is more viscous
(a ftivorable viscosity
ratio), the usual dispersion
mechanisms
will continue to operate.
A favorable
viscosity
ratio will tend to suppress
the effects of
packing or permeability
heterogeneities.
If we consider a simple analogy of two parallel
flow paths
with different
permeabilitiesj
it is easy to show
that a favorable
viscosity
ratio will reduce the
distance
between moving interfaces.
For a network
of flow chacnels,
this effect would no doubt lead
to a shorter mixed zone and a smaller dispersion
TABLE

1 VALUES

OF

(uc$)

FOR

OUTCROP

coefficient.
As the viscosity
ratio gets very favorable, the beneficial effect would approach a limiting
value.
If the fluid composition
within pore spaces
is
not, equalized
by diffusion
(i.e.,
if u dpDo is
greater than about 50, see Fig. 9), then a favorable
viscosity
ratio may lead to an additional suppression
of dispersion
within pore spuces.
The favorable
viscosity
ratio will tend to straighten
interfaces
within pore spaces and thereby reduce convective
dispersion.
1 In actual
porous
media,
suppression
of the
dispersion
coefficient
should therefore
depend on
the degree of inhomogeneity
in the pack, perhaps
the length of the mixed zone (i.e.,
the mobility
ratio across the inhomogeneity
or pore space), and
the relative
amount of diffusion
within the pore
Fig. 19 gives the order of magnitude
of
spices.
suppression
for one case reported.
FLUIDS

WITH DIFFERENT

I.O

ig .7

FT. LONO; ~

Dispersion

Rock

Gardner26
Brisham; et af9

0.6

0.4

Raimandi,ef 0142
Hmrdyrrs

Boise
Average

0,36

FIG.

Berea

Longittrdinal

Berea

Longitudinal

Torpedo
Sswea

Longitudinal
Longitudinal

(cm)

0.33
0.39
0.17
0.46
0.55

Transverse

10 TO 1001

0.8

SANDSTONES

Grane and

ABOUT

>1

0+
,Source

DENSITIES

If fluids
of unequal
density
are used during
miscible
displacements,.
then gravity
forces may
influence
dispersion.,
For vertical
displacements,
if the denser fluid is placed above the less-dense
fluid, then gravity will usually cause redistribution
or perhaps
gravity fingers.
This topic is outside
the scope of this paper and Will not be considered
further here. However, if the denser fluid is on the
bottom (favorable
gravity
forces), then a stable
displacement
wiI1 usually occur.
Favorable grrtvity forces will suppress dispersion
in two wavs.
First. . any. unevenness.
of the front
.
caused by packing or permeability
heterogeneitiess
will tend to be reduced by a factor which might be
as large as a (since c is .a measoie of the increased
dispersion
due to heterogeneities).
:
However, if there is not complete equalization
of
compoairion
within each pore space by Jiffusion,
then gravity can cause further reduction of dispersion
within pore spaces.
That is, large gravity force a
will tend to straighten
interfaces
within pore a to a
more piston-like
displacement.
An effect of gravity forces on transverse
disp%
sion has been reported
by Grsne and Gardner,
and Pozzi and Blackwell.3g

0.2 I

FROIA DATE
RANDOM

//
OF

WAD

/
/.

/
/
/

BRIGMAM W. 91!s)
PACK
I

%1

M . MOBILITY

RATIO

(o y.,)

SIL17
= &s,L,Ty

19 SUPPRESt310N

OF DISPLACING
QC DISPLACED

OF DISPERSION

FLUIO
FLu ID

RESULTING

FROM FAVORABLE MOBILITY RATIOS.

FLUIDS

IN TURBULENT

FLOW

coefficients
will again be different as in the case
of Iaminar flow.
In the turbulent region, most investigators
have
reported
dispersion
coefficient ts in terms of the
*Peclet
number.
This dimenaiorde ss group is
defined by Eq. 23.

Turbulent
flow conditions
are not likely to be
encountered
in a petro Ieum reservoir.
However, a
brief discussion
of dispersion
during turbulent
flow
will be valuable
for two reasons.
First, turbulent
flow conditions
may be encountered
in laboratory
experiments,
and it is therefore desirable
to understand turbulent
effects (and avoid them, usually).
Second, it will be reassuring if dispersion phenomena
are consistent
with the previously
discussed
concepts as the laminar region is approached
from the
turbulent side.
First, let us define the turbulent region for flow
in porous media. We csn do this by considering
pressure-drop
data. Fig. 20 shows a pressure-drop
correlation
for spheres similar to one presented
by
Ergun.21 In the laminar region, the Kozeny-Carman
equation
is valid (as is Darcys
law). In fully
developed turbulence,
the Burke and Plummer equation is valid.
Fig. 20 shows that, for spheres,
laminar flow will obtain at Reynolds numbers less
than about 10, whereas fully deveIoped turbulence
will obtain at Reynolds numbers in excess of about
1,000.
In Dorous media. there are no shar~ transitions
from Iaminar to turbulent flow (as there are in open
pipes,
for instance).
Rather,
there is a gradual
developed
transition
from Iaminar flow to fully
turbulence.
Carman13 has su~.eested
that turbulent
.eddies
develop
at selected
spots throughout
the
medium.
As the Reynolds
number increases,
the
amount of turbulence
increases,
finally reaching a
state
of {fully de+eloped
turbulence.
Actually,
the amount of turbulence at a given Reynolds number
is influenced by particle shape and packing. Hence,
Fig. 20 should be considered
as only a typical plot.
The. theory of dispersion
during turbulent flow is
fairly well advanced.
Again, a pack of granular
material
haa been likened to a series of mixing
chambers.
In this case,
fluid areams
entering
a
chamber are thoroughly mixed by turbulent e before
leaving
the chamber (rather than being mixed by
as was sometimes
the case for Iaminar
. diffusion
fIow).
Long itudinal
and ttansverae
dispersion

%= . .

+u
A

. . . . . . . . . . .

. (23)

where K = dispersion
coefficient.
From theoretical
st~dies
(mixing - cell theory)
Prausnitz,40
Carberry,
and Aris and Amundson3
have shown that longitudinal
Peclet numbers should
approach
a value of about 2.0 for fully developed
turbulence
(i.e.,
complete
mixing in each pore
apace).
Similarly,
Ranzq3 and Barons have shown
that transverse!
Peclet
numbers
should approach
about 11 for full turbulence.
Figs. 21 and 22 show
literature
dsta of several investigators
tending to
verify
these
limiting
theoretical
values
for full
turbulence.
The limiting
values
apparently
vary somewhat
depending on particle shape and packing. In turbulent
increased
dispersion
due to packing
flow, however,
irregularities
probably will not be as severe as in
Iaminar flow. We can show this by a simple analogy.
Let us consider two parallel flow paths filled with
particles
of different diameter
such that the ratio
of permesbilities
is 10:1. If the pressure drop across

iiz IOL

Ra * &
LEGEND:

FIG.

* REyNOLDS

NUMBER

O-CARBERRY[

9- MCHENRY5

X- ESACH(9

PECLET NUMBERS FOR LONGITUDINAL

DISPERSION IN TURBULENT FLOW.

21

1000

TURBULENT
F

%<,
100 =

&

+::{~

~., .,%

+?
#~=

10

p%
<

A%ii
CGUATION

- KOZENY- Ctdh
EURKE 8 PLkMER

EOUATION~

10

NUMSEi,

:.
..=;..

20

PRESSURZDROP

.*

*a*

.I+
~

QATA FROfd
G4SCOUS SYSTEM

~
(n

%______

aO

%%ykJi%

TURBULENCE
.

1+

z
<
I

&l

111[1Ill

I I [11111

,Oe

10
.Re~.

.,
t I I 111,1
I

103

,.5

10*

REYNOLL)S

I Ill;&

NUMBER

10*
X - L~TINEN33

ftERNAiO

WI LHELM[e

(~j

DATA SHOWI@

,.. ..., .-

111~

FLOW

REGIMES IN POROUS MEDIA.

8.9

I
, THE:;;:&p:QVA;fiB;::NyELLY

W ~o

10 z
w
Gz
K

OF?G,

I
I

SYSTEM

:L

LEGEND
REYNOLDS

DATA FOR LIQUIO

.@,--

10

102

b
Ld
A

v
w

1.
I

L. LENWIN
~P.P4RTICLE DlfiMETER
~. FRACTION POROSITY
p . FLU!,
DENSITY
U . AVERAGE INTER STITIAL
VELOCITY
~- FLUIO VISCOSITY
%*+wKwJ.k

I .

:\

0100

APS PRE3SURE OIFF,

a
:

FLOW

. . . ..

FNoEN

SMITH()

kIG. 22 PECLET-NUMBERS FOR TRANSVERSE DISPERSION IN TURBULENT FLOW.

,,-

SOCIETY

OF--PETROLEUM
.,

JIHGINEEIIS

JOURNAL,

>
:

~~ -

REYNOLOS

FIG.

of Ebach, 19 Csrberry 11 and Liles.34

The Peclet
number can now be estimated
over
the whole range of Reynolds
numbers.
Fig. 24
shows a typicalplot for a Iiq uid system (water).
Fig. 25 shows a typical plot for a gaseous system
(air). It is interesting
to see the differences
between
gaseous
and water systems.
Most of these differences
have
been experimentally
verified.
The
estimate
of transverse
Peclet
numbers
for the
system
in the transition
region (from
gaseous
laminer
to turbulent
flow) are in good agreement
with the data of Bernard and Wilhe lm,6 Fahien and
smith,22 and PIautz and Johnstone.s8
For the liquid
system the transverse
Peclet numbers are less than
the values
reported
by Latinen.33
However,
a
smaller value of u (i.e., leas heterogeneity
or packing irregularity)
could partially
explain Latinens
&w. The predicted
longitudinal
Peeler npmber for
the liquid system agrees with most literature
data.
The predicted
longitudinal
Peclet numbers for the
gaseous system are Iess than the vahaes reported by
McHenry.sS
Again, this might be explained
by a
less heterogeneous
pack than is typical. For instance,
Fig. 26 shcws that there is good agreement
between McHenrys measured results and calculated
results
if the inhomogeneity
factor a is assumed to
be unity.
,,

NuMBER, ~

23 TURBULENCE

WEIGHTING FACTOR.

both flow channels is the same, then we can estimate the ratio of flow velocities.
In lsminar flow,
Darcy% law will apply and the ratio of flow velocities
will be about equal to the ratio of permeabi.lities,
or about 10:1. However, for fully developed turbulence, the Burke and Plumrner equation will apply
and, if permeability
is about proportional
to (dP)z,
then the ratio of flow velocities
will be about
proportional
to (ratio of permeabilities)
1/4, or for
this exsmple (10) V4.
b
the transition
region,
the Peclet
numbers
should be between the values for lsminar flow and
values for fully developed
turbulence
(since there
are probably both types of flow in different por~
spaces).
Eq. 24 defines
art empirical
turbulence
weighting factor,
F&jfl@

=(l-V)

(Pe)larninor.

V (%)trb~lent.

EFFECT

+
., .

(24)

= average Peclet number at, Reynolds

,,
number f?e,
This fatter should approach zero as tire Iaminar ,
region is approached and should approach unity as
fully
developed
turbulence
is approached.
The
factor v sketched
on Fig. 23 has been estimated
from the dispersion
data (in the transition
region) ,

where

Pe]Re

100

OF

AN IMMOBILE

PHASE

The effect of an immobile gas phase on dispersion

has been s~died
by Orlob and Radhakrishna.36
These investigator
found two important effects of
immobile gas.
First,
they found an unexpected
reduction
in
flowable liquid. They concluded that entrapment of
a small
amount of gas in the pore spaces apparently
traps some of the Iiquid in such a way that it is
isolated
from the maim stream of flow, and, henm,
not displaced
during the pasaage of a tracer liquid.
The volume of liquid so isolated varied considerably
with each ind&idual
set-up, ranging up to about 5

ASSUMPTIONS

P
0.

I OM./CC.

1 CP,
I XIO-s

STREAM
SPLITTING
WITn MASS
TRANSFER
eY DIFFUSION

CS1.z/SEC,
Turbulence

3.s

TRA?AS1710M FROM
TO TURSULENT

.1

0.1

0.01

LONQITUOINiL

PECLET

]0-5

.10-4

10-3

10-2

10-

Cip up

I..
I -

LAMlfAAR
FLOW

REYNOLDS

10

lo~ 103

104

Icf

NUMBER

+/
.
FOR AN. AQUE,OUS SYSTEM.
FIG, 24 PECL-ET N~BERS
. .
. .
-,-
~~RcM, ~g63.
:. . .
...
... .t .,..:. .:...:.--:
;7.:-.Z
... -.:

..

,.-.

-..

..

J....s1.+
.

,...

-1

00

ASSUMPTIONS

dps0.!2cm.

t---?

p. 1.?.am-sam.)ce.

a!!

10

+ . 1s2x

10-4 POISE

on * 0.15. cm.z4w.

OIFIWSION
CONTNOLS

1~~

O(j,

(10 =SH)

,~.4

10-~

10-3

10-g

10-

.!$!!2 . ~EyNOLDS
FIG.

2S PECLET

NUMBERS

105

10
NUMBER

FOR A GASEOUS

SYSTEM (AIR).

,\
The effect of an immobile wetting
studied by Raimondi41 and is being
and co-workers.61

per cent and averaging about 2 l/2 percent

of the
total pore volume.
Second, they found tbat dispersion
in the liquid
was influenced
by gas entrapment.
The
phase
amount of influence was dependent on the location
of the gas bubbles.
If the gas bubbles
were
pores,
located
in the larger, more-easily-drained

CONCLUSIONS

then the pore spaces effective inliquid transmission

were more uniform. This led to less dispersion
(apparently
decreased o). On the other hand, a
small amount of trapped gas (say, less than 5 per
pore volume) had little effect on
cent of the total
dispersion.
These authors cdnclude that the extent to which
is influenced
by gas entrapment
is
dispersion
dependeri:
on the location
of gas bubbles and on
the structure
of the porous medium. In systems
where gas enters only certain of the pore spaces
(thus making the medium more %: fornil, it is to be,
expected
that dispersion
will ddcrease
as gas is
accumulate&
In general> they think that the more
nearly
uniform the medium, the, Iesa will be the
influence
of trapped gaa.

69.0.2
m.

E
p

**

..1.82.16

POISE

00, ?. [5

\
I I 1111111
0.1
I . ..
10

I I 1111111

Illlu.
.

log -

REYNOLOS

=...

lo~

1-1111111

*-,

Porous
media (both unconsolidated
packs and
consolidated
rocks) can be thought of as networks
of flow chambers,
having ~ndom
size and floyv
conductivity,
connected
together
by openings
of
smaller
size. The diffusion
coeffi~ient
in such a
porous medium can be calculated
by Eq. 7.
If fluids are flowing through the porous medium,
dispersion
may begreater than bat due to diffusion
alone. At moderate flow rates, &e porous medium
wilI create
a slightly
asymmetrical
mixed zone
(trailing
edge stretched
out) with the convective
dispersioncoefficient
approximately
proportional
to the first power of average
fluid velocity
(if
composition
is equalized
in pore spaces by diffusion). The longitudinal
dispersion
coefficient
can
be calculated
by Eq: X6 or from Fig. 10. The ttansverse dispersion
coefficient
can be calculated
by
Eq. 19 or from Fig. 13. For sandstones,
the linear
dimension characterizing
dispersion,
(dPa), averages
about 0.36 cm.
~ere
are also other variables
that must be
properly controlled
to get consistent
results,
viz.,
(1) edge effect in packed- tubes, (2) particle
size
distribution,
(3) particle
shape,
(4) packing
or
permeability
heterogeneities,
($) visco~ity ratiost
(6) gravity forces, (7) amount of turbulence,
and
(8) effect of an immobile phase.

104

A=

tor+l cross sectional

area,

.,-

.sq cm

NUMBER . ~

.. .

.
:

NOMENCLATURE

Illu

10

AND EXFIG. 26 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED

.PERIMEN~~L
DATA (LONGITUDINAL
DISPERSION:
GASEOUS ,SYSTEMY.
.
-.- ..-. ,..
.
-. .-,
.
... ,.7. . .
.
. .... .. .. . . .
S.z

phase has been

studied by F att

,.

.,.

A = cross-sections
Sqicrn

1 area open for flow or diffusion,

!-

,0

t
,, ,
.,
radius

a=

of a capillary,

Tulsa,

cm

c=

concentration

D=

apparent
diffusion
coefficient
in a porous ~
medium basedon
the average area open foz
diffusion and the over-all length

dp = particle

diffusion

coefficient,

diameter,

F=

formation

G=

quantity of material
(see Eq. 1)

= total

electrical

dispersion
,.

L,.
.

transverse

resistivity
diffusing

dispersion

s=

number (see

Peclec

t=

P =

average

interstitial

volume
total

injected,

x .

6,

factor

10, Brown,

a plane
.

Sons,

sq

cm

13

size distri butiorr

velocity,

of injected

pore volume

>

for wall effect

F1OW

Yale U.

and Void-cell
Beds$,

MixAICEIE

of a particle

Oxford at

(see

Fig.

20.

17)

,,

3. Aris, R. and ,Amrrndson, N. R.: Some Remasks ori

Lon@tudinal
Mixing or Diffusion
in Fixed Bstta,
AfCbE jour. (1957) \rKIf. 3, 280.
:
.

:,

Mixing of Liquids Flowing ihrouah

.
19, Ebach, E. A.: ct~e
Heals of Porous Solids,
PhD Dissertation,
U. of
Michigan (1957).
.
.

.,
REFERENCES
. .

Media,

Deana, H, A.- and Lapid&,

Leon: A Computation@
Model for Predicting
and Correlating the Behavior of
Fixed Bed Reactors: 1. Derivation of Model for Nonreactive Systems~ \ A ICbE Jour. (Dec., 1960) 656.

Ebsch,
E. A. and W~~te, R. l?.: Mixing of Fluids
Through Bads of Packed Solids,
AICbE Jour. (1958)
Vol. 6, 161.

21: Ergun,.S. K,: Fluid F1OWThrnugh Packed

Cbem.. En& Pvog. (1952) VOL ?8, 89.

Longihy-linal Djffueion ~efficieht

in
: 2s Aris, ~.: tie
Flow Througfi i+Tube with Stagnant Pockets,
(%fo. .
Er2g. Sci. (1959) Vol. 11, 194.

22,
,23

24,

.,

,
in

17, de Jongj G. d: Josselin:

Longitudinal
and T=mawerae Diffusion .in Granular Deposits 1, Tratzs,, AGU
(1958) Vol. 39, 57.
.

(stie Fig, 14)

turbulence
weighting factor (se? Fig. 23)
fluid d~niky
of, the porous
a measure of the inhomo~ece;ty
pack
,

4. Bailey,
cients
,,
Se&ed
.<,.

John Wiley &

16,. Crank, J,: The hfathematics

of Di//usion;.
the Clarendon Press, N. Y. (1957).

L Aris, R.: % the dispersion

of a solute in dflu~d
flowing through s tube, Ptoc., Royal Sot. of London
(1956) Series A, Vol. 235, 67.

{,

G. G., et al: Unit Operations,

Inc., N, Y. (1950).
.

fluid in the effluent

v=

,.

Eng. Jour. (March,

1S, Collins,
R. E.: Flow oj Fltiids tbroagh Porous
Refnhold Publishing
Co., N. Y. (1961) 201.

p=<

porosity
sphericity

Pet.

Car, flan, P. C.: [rFluid Flow Through Grsnulsr Beds Z

Trans., !rrsti. of Chem. Eng., London (1937) Vol. 15,
1 so.

18,

4=

t70c.

4$

cm/sec

cc

fluid vis~osity

4=

Mixing

Medh+r,

of Saturated Sands,
14, Carman, P. C.: fcpemeability
Soi!.s, and Clays, joxr, Agri. Sci. (1939) Vol. 29, 262.

.,

on

12,Carberry, J. J.: t~Axial Dispersion

sq cm

(/. ) - 1

Vol, 39, 847,

W. and Dew, John N,:

Dwing Miscible
Displace-

of MSSS
11. Carberry, J. J.: l~A~ial Dispersion
Through Fixed Beds, D. Eng. Dissertation,

A=

,,P=

Mag, (1948)

1961) L

coefficient,

block,

,.

to accoimt

R: C. L,: PMi.

ing Efficiency
in Fiuid I$lirw in Fixed
jO#k
(1958) VOL 4, No. 1, 13M.

particle

cm

volume fraction
(see Eq. 8)

R, J.: $i Laborstoty Studies OfhfiCrOSCOPic

Phenomena,
Sot, Pet. f?ng. .lour, (March,

tl ExP@r~ents

factor

coefficient,

volume of tube or total

x =: distance,

coefficient,

across

DiffuSolids ~ Cbern. Eng.

9. B~igham, W. E., Reed, philiq

23)

Eq.

slope of a Iog-normal
(see Eq. 21)
time, seconds

u=
v=

Dispersion
1962) 1,

ment in Porous

/see
permeability
Iength of a tube or a porous

k=

7. Blac~~eli,

sq cm/sec

8, Bosworth,

of gravity
g = acceleration
KZ = total longitudinal
dispersion
cm/see,
,.

1962).

sion in Fixed Beds of Pscked

Prog, (1950) VO1, 46,233.

cm

dT = tube diameter,
cm
E= Iongittrdinal convective
sq cm/sec

Pe

12-13,

6, Bernard, R. A, and Wilhelm, R. H.: Turbulent

Da = molecular

Kt

Okla, (April

5. Baron, Thomas: Cbenz. f?rrg. Prog. (1952) Vol. 4S, 118,

1{. R. and C$ogmty, W. B.: Diffu*ion Coeffif! Orn Cspfflary Flow?$; Paper SPE-302,, preat SPE Production Research
Symeoah.im, ..
:-,.,.
..

, 25.

Fehien,
Packed

R. W, and Smith, J, M.: Mass

Beds, AJ ..k Jour. (1955) Vol.

Fatt,. I.: t~pore StiUetUr~ of Sintered

Diffusion aradResistance
Measurements,
dhent. (1959) Vol,, 63, 751.
$
1!

Colurnns~ ~,

Tranafer
1, 28,

iii

Glaaa ~rom
Jour. ~hys,
,

Fowler, F. C. and B~own, G, G,: .Contamination by

Trams., AIChE
Successive
Flow in Pipe Lines,
. .
(1943) vol. 39, 491.
:
Grrodknight, R, C.; Klikoff,
,
..-,
.-

<<

W. A. and F att, 1,: Non...--........

..

.. .

,.,

a,v

,*
Steady-State

Flutd Flow and Diffusion

,
26,

Media\ Preprtnt 43 presented at AIChE-SPE Joint

Symposium, San Frsnciaco,
CSL (Dec. 6-9, 1959).

in Porous Media

Containing Dead-End Pore Volume,

,ch~
(i960) vol. 64, 1162.

]orw. f%s.

!,,

snd Tranafer
43. Ranz, w. E.: fFriction
for Single Particles
and Packed Bade:
Prog. (1952) Vol. 4S, 247.

Gr$&, F. E, and. G&.dner. G. H. F.: cMeasurements

of Tratmverse Dispersion in Granular Mediag ~ Jour.
Cbem. Eng, Data (1961) Vol. 6, 283.

M. N. E.: An Investigation
of Disparaion
44. Rlfai,
Phenomena in Laminar Flow Through Porous Media\

Packfng
27. Grato~ L. C. and Fraser, H. J.: Systematic
of Slaheree With Particular Relation to Porosity end
.$ PetmeatdIity,
jour. Geol. (Nov. -Dsc., 1935) 785.

PhD Diseertatlon, U. of California, Berkeley (1956).

P,, G.: Diapereion
in F1OW llrrou~h a Net45. Saffmai
work of C!apillariesr, Cbem. Brig. Sci, (1959) Vol. 11,
125.

);
of Diffusion
Effects
28. Hsndy, L. L.: ~tAn Evaluation
in Miscible Diaplacemant% Trans., AmE (1959) VOL
216, 382.

46, Ssffman,
29.

C0effidient5
Cbem. En@

P,

G.: c$~eow

of Di4peraion

in

pOrOUe

Media, Jour. Fluid Mecb, (1959) Vol. 6, 321,

Hoogechagen,
Jan: <Diffusion
in Poroue Catalysts
and Adaorbenta} t lad. Eng. Cbem. (1955) VOL 47,906.

p, G.: (~DiePemi,on Pu,e, to Molecular Diffusion Through a Network of Capillaries!, ]our. Fluid

47, Stifmm,

30. Kl~kenberg,

L. J.: CIAnslog Between

Diffusion $nd
Electrical
Conductiiiity
in Poroue Rocks,
B:lL,
GSA (1951) Vol. 62, 559.

A. E, and Larson, V. C,: Asymmetry

4& Scheideggar,
of the Concentration
Front During Miscible Displacement in Porous Mediar~, Can; Jour. Phys, (1958) Vol.
36, 1476,

A. snd Sjenitzer,
F.: rHolding - time
31. Klinkenberg,
of the Gsussian
Type, Chem. Eng. Sci.
Distributions
5, 2S8.
(1956) vol.

49.
32

Koump, V.: Study of the Mechanism of Axial Dispersion in Packed Beds at Low Flow Ratesf ~, D. Errg.
Diasertatton,
Ysle U. (1959),

E, and Wilhelm, R. ~.: Heat Transfer in

51, Singer,
Packed Beds; Analytical Solution and Design Method;
Fluid Flow, Solids Flow and Chemical Reaction,
Chem Eng. Prog. (1950) Vol. 46, 343.

A. W, and Geankoplis,
C. J.: JAxial Diffusion
34. Liles,
of Liquids in Packed Beds and End Effects,
AfCiJE
~Otfr.
(1960) Vol. $, 591.

37.

Penman, H L. :Gas and Vapor Movement

Jour. Agri. Sci: (1940) Vol. 30, 438.

R. J.: Design of Labor39. Po~zi, A. L. and Blackwell,

atory Models for Stud y of Miscible
Displacement.
Sot. Pet. I%g. Jew. (March, 1963).
J. hf.: Longitudinal
40. Prausnits,
Dispersion
in a
Packed Bed:g, AIChE Jour. (1958) Vol. 4; No. 1, 14M.
41. Retmondi, P., Torcaao, M. A. and Henjierson, J. H.:
Water on the Mixing of
~c~e
Effect of Interstitial

Hydrocmbona

barring a Miecible
Diaplscement
Processtf, Mi% Irie%Exp, Sta:ionCitc. 61, TtiePenpaylvania
,
State U,

42. Raimdndi,
(Effect

P., G&tner, G. H. F. snd Petrick, C. B.:

of Pore Structure
snd Molecular Diffusion on
.

the h?ising of

Miscible Liquide Flowtng in Poroue

..

a4

R.. J. and Rayne, J. R.:

53. Terry, W, M., Blackwell,
JCFactorS ~fluencing
We Efficiency of Miscible Displacement,
Trans., #IME (1959) Vol. 216, L ~

56. Van Deamter, J. J,, Breeder, J. J, and Lauwerier, H.

Appt.
A; GsFluid D&placement in Capillanea;
Scientific
Res. (1956) Vol. 5A, 374.

-.. .----

57. Van Deemter, J. J., Braider

Displacement
in +pillsries,
VO!.
5, 271.

and Lawrence:
Fluid
Chem. E~g. .%. (1956)

on
5s. van der Peel, C.: ~{Effect of L$teral Diffusivity
Miscible
Diaplacerperrt
in Horizontal
Reservoirs,
Sot. Pet. Erzg, Jorm. (Dec., 1962) 317.
Of Steady State
59. Von Rosenberg,
D. U.: c~Mechafics
Single-phase
AIchE jO#f.

Fluid Displacement
(1956) Vol. 2, $5.

60. Zunket, F,: Blsncks

Berlin (1930) 202
61. ACS-PRF,

Handbuck

. ...
OF

from Porous Media,

.,
der Bod&riehre,

W.,
***

450-A Project,

.
:..

Bada,

55. van Baval, C. H. M.: Gaseous Diffusion and Porosity

in Porous Media; Soil Sci, (1,952) VOL 74, 91,

sOCIETY

,.
,*

of Soluble Matter in Solvent

a Tube,
Ptoc., Roy. Sot.

54. Turner, G. A.: The Flow-Structure

in Packed
Cherrr, Etrg. Sci, (1957) Vol. 7, 156,

in Soil,

D. A. end Jotmstone,
H. F.: Heat and, Mass
38. Plautz,
Tiansfer in Packed Beds )D, AIChE Jo~r, (1955) VOL
1, 193,

.:

52. Taylor, G. L: Dispersion

FIowing Slowly Through
(1953) Vol. 219, 186.

of Binary GMcHenry, K,eith W:,,Jr.: ~~Atial Mitig

Mir.turesFlowing ins Random Bed of 8pherea, PhD
~issertation,
Prificetrin U. (195S).

G. N.: The Effects

36. Orlob, G. T. end Radhakrishna,
of Entrapped Gaee$ on tie Hydraulic CharaoteristLes
of Porous Media\ Trans., AGU (19S8) Vol. 39, 64S.

Schwartz, C. E. and Smith, J. M,: FIow DMribution

in Packed Beds,
lrzd. Eng, Prog, (1953) VOL 45,
1209.

D, S. and Dullien,
F. A. L,.: Diffusion
of
50. Scott,
Idrisl Gasea in Capillaries
and Porous Solids, AIChE
.fOW.
(1962) vol.
S, 113,

G. A.: C(Mechanipm of Fluid Phase ~~g

33. Latinen,
of Fixed
+d, Fluidized
Beds of. Uniformly Sized
Princeton U.
Sphericst Particlea DJ
, phD Dissertation,
(1951).

35,

..

Mech. (1960) Vol. 7, 194.

,.
.....

..

PETROLEUM

ilNCiNEERS

10 I;RNA I;.