Advertisement

Computational Geosciences

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 1101–1124 | Cite as

Numerical modeling of two-phase binary fluid mixing using mixed finite elements

  • Shuyu Sun
  • Abbas Firoozabadi
  • Jisheng Kou
Original Paper

Abstract

Diffusion coefficients of dense gases in liquids can be measured by considering two-phase binary nonequilibrium fluid mixing in a closed cell with a fixed volume. This process is based on convection and diffusion in each phase. Numerical simulation of the mixing often requires accurate algorithms. In this paper, we design two efficient numerical methods for simulating the mixing of two-phase binary fluids in one-dimensional, highly permeable media. Mathematical model for isothermal compositional two-phase flow in porous media is established based on Darcy’s law, material balance, local thermodynamic equilibrium for the phases, and diffusion across the phases. The time-lag and operator-splitting techniques are used to decompose each convection–diffusion equation into two steps: diffusion step and convection step. The Mixed finite element (MFE) method is used for diffusion equation because it can achieve a high-order and stable approximation of both the scalar variable and the diffusive fluxes across grid–cell interfaces. We employ the characteristic finite element method with moving mesh to track the liquid–gas interface. Based on the above schemes, we propose two methods: single-domain and two-domain methods. The main difference between two methods is that the two-domain method utilizes the assumption of sharp interface between two fluid phases, while the single-domain method allows fractional saturation level. Two-domain method treats the gas domain and the liquid domain separately. Because liquid–gas interface moves with time, the two-domain method needs work with a moving mesh. On the other hand, the single-domain method allows the use of a fixed mesh. We derive the formulas to compute the diffusive flux for MFE in both methods. The single-domain method is extended to multiple dimensions. Numerical results indicate that both methods can accurately describe the evolution of the pressure and liquid level.

Keywords

Two-phase flow Binary mixing Multicomponent transport Mixed finite element methods Conservation law 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abreu, E., Douglas, J., Furtado, F., Pereira, F.: Operator splitting for three-phase flow in heterogeneous porous media. Commun. Comput. Phys. 6, 72–84 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akrivis, G., Crouzeix, M., Makridakis, C.: Implicit-explicit multistep methods for quasilinear parabolic equations. Numer. Math. 82(4), 521–541 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ascher, U.M., Ruuth, S.J., Spiteri, R.J.: Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods for time-dependent partial differential equations. Appl. Numer. Math. 25(2–3), 151–167 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, Z., Huan, G., Li, B.: An improved IMPES method for two-phase flow in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 54(3), 361–376 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, Z., Huan, G., Ma, Y.: Computational Methods for Multiphase Flows in Porous Media. Society for Industrial Mathematics (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coats, K.H.: IMPES stability: selection of stable timesteps. SPE J. 8(2), 181–187 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawson, C., Sun, S., Wheeler, M.F.: Compatible algorithms for coupled flow and transport. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 193(23–26), 2565–2580 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dawson, C.N., Klíe, H., Wheeler, M.F., Woodward, C.S.: A parallel, implicit, cell-centered method for two-phase flow with a preconditioned Newton–Krylov solver. Comput. Geosci. 1(3), 215–249 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farago, I.: A modified iterated operator splitting method. Appl. Math. Model. 32(8), 1542–1551 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Firoozabadi, A.: Thermodynamics of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs. McGraw-Hill Professional (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geiser, J.: Iterative operator-splitting methods with higher-order time integration methods and applications for parabolic partial differential equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 217(1), 227–242 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gjesdal, T.: Implicit-explicit methods based on strong stability preserving multistep time discretizations. Appl. Numer. Math. 57(8), 911–919 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haugen, K.B., Firoozabadi, A.: Composition at the interface between multicomponent nonequilibrium fluid phases. J. Chem. Phys. 130, 064707 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haugen, K.B., Firoozabadi, A.: Mixing of two binary nonequilibrium phases in one dimension. AIChE J. 55(8), 1930–1936 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hill, E.S., Lacey, W.N.: Rate of solution of propane in quiescent liquid hydrocarbons. Ind. Eng. Chem. 26(12), 1327–1331 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoteit, H., Firoozabadi, A.: Numerical modeling of two-phase flow in heterogeneous permeable media with different capillarity pressures. Adv. Water Resour. 31(1), 56–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hundsdorfer, W., Ruuth, S.J.: IMEX extensions of linear multistep methods with general monotonicity and boundedness properties. J. Comput. Phys. 225(2), 2016–2042 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamialahmadi, M., Emadi, M., Müller-Steinhagen, H.: Diffusion coefficients of methane in liquid hydrocarbons at high pressure and temperature. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 53(1–2), 47–60 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jhaveri, B., Youngren, G.: Three-parameter modification of the Peng-Robinson equation of state to improve volumetric predictions. SPE Reserv. Eng. 3(3), 1033–1040 (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanney, J.F., Miller, C.T., Kelley, C.T.: Convergence of iterative split-operator approaches for approximating nonlinear reactive transport problems. Adv. Water Resour. 26(3), 247–261 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koto, T.: Stability of IMEX Runge-Kutta methods for delay differential equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 211(2), 201–212 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kou, J., Sun, S.: A new treatment of capillarity to improve the stability of IMPES two-phase flow formulation. Comput. Fluids 39(10), 1293–1931 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kou, J., Sun, S.: On iterative IMPES formulation for two phase flow with capillarity in heterogeneous porous media. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model. Series B 1(1), 20–40 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lanser, D., Verwer, J.G.: Analysis of operator splitting for advection-diffusion-reaction problems from air pollution modelling. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 111(1–2), 201–216 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lohrenz, J., Bray, B., Clark, C.: Calculating viscosities of reservoir fluids from their compositions. J. Pet. Technol. 16(10), 1171–1176 (1964)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mikyska, J., Firoozabadi, A.: Implementation of higher-order methods for robust and efficient compositional simulation. J. Comput. Phys. 229(8), 2898–2913 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peng, D.-Y., Robinson, D.B.: A new two-constant equation of state. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 15(1), 59–64 (1976)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pomeroy, R.D., Lacey, W.N., Scudder, N.F., Stapp, F.P.: Rate of solution of methane in quiescent liquid hydrocarbons. Ind. Eng. Chem. 25(9), 1014–1019 (1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reamer, H.H., Opfell, J.B., Sage, B.H.: Diffusion coefficients in hydrocarbon systems methane-decane-methane in liquid phase-methane-decane-methane in liquid phase. Ind. Eng. Chem. 48(2), 275–282 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riazi, M.R.: A new method for experimental measurement of diffusion coefficients in reservoir fluids. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 14(3–4), 235–250 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rongy, L., Haugen, K.B., Firoozabadi, A.: Mixing from fickian diffusion and natural convection in binary non-equilibrium fluid phases. AIChE J. 58(5), 1336–1345 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sun, S., Geiser, J.: Multiscale discontinuous Galerkin and operator-splitting methods for modeling subsurface flow and transport. Int. J. Multiscale Com. 6(1), 87–101 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sun, S., Wheeler, M.F.: A posteriori error estimation and dynamic adaptivity for symmetric discontinuous Galerkin approximations of reactive transport problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 195(7–8), 632–652 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sun, S., Wheeler, M.F.: Anisotropic and dynamic mesh adaptation for discontinuous Galerkin methods applied to reactive transport. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 195(25–28), 3382–3405 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tharanivasan, A.K., Yang, C., Gu, Y.: Measurements of molecular diffusion coefficients of carbon dioxide, methane, and propane in heavy oil under reservoir conditions. Energy Fuels 20(6), 2509–2517 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Upreti, S.R., Mehrotra, A.K.: Experimental measurement of gas diffusivity in bitumen: results for carbon dioxide. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39(4), 1080–1087 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Watts, J.W.: A compositional formulation of the pressure and saturation equations. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1(3), 243–252 (1986)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Young, L., Stephenson, R.: A generalized compositional approach for reservoir simulation. Old Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 23(5), 727–742 (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational Transport Phenomena Laboratory, Division of Physical Science and EngineeringKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyThuwalKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Reservoir Engineering Research InstitutePalo AltoUSA
  3. 3.Chemical and Environmental Engineering Department, Mason LaboratoryYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.School of Mathematics and StatisticsHubei Engineering UniversityXiaoganChina

Personalised recommendations