Calculating the effective permeability of sandstone with multiscale lattice Boltzmann/finite element simulations

Joshua A. White; Ronaldo I. Borja; Joanne T. Fredrich

doi:10.1007/s11440-006-0018-4

Acta Geotechnica

December 2006, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 195–209 | Cite as

Calculating the effective permeability of sandstone with multiscale lattice Boltzmann/finite element simulations

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Joshua A. White
Ronaldo I. BorjaEmail author
Joanne T. Fredrich

Research Paper

First Online: 18 November 2006

Received: 01 September 2006

Accepted: 10 October 2006

491 Downloads
37 Citations

Abstract

The lattice Boltzmann (LB) method is an efficient technique for simulating fluid flow through individual pores of complex porous media. The ease with which the LB method handles complex boundary conditions, combined with the algorithm’s inherent parallelism, makes it an elegant approach to solving flow problems at the sub-continuum scale. However, the realities of current computational resources can limit the size and resolution of these simulations. A major research focus is developing methodologies for upscaling microscale techniques for use in macroscale problems of engineering interest. In this paper, we propose a hybrid, multiscale framework for simulating diffusion through porous media. We use the finite element (FE) method to solve the continuum boundary-value problem at the macroscale. Each finite element is treated as a sub-cell and assigned permeabilities calculated from subcontinuum simulations using the LB method. This framework allows us to efficiently find a macroscale solution while still maintaining information about microscale heterogeneities. As input to these simulations, we use synchrotron-computed 3D microtomographic images of a sandstone, with sample resolution of 3.34 μm. We discuss the predictive ability of these simulations, as well as implementation issues. We also quantify the lower limit of the continuum (Darcy) scale, as well as identify the optimal representative elementary volume for the hybrid LB–FE simulations.

Keywords

Finite elements Lattice Boltzmann Multiscale simulation Porous media Synchrotron microtomography Upscaling

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of a Stanford Graduate Fellowship, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, and two summer Graduate Research Internships at Sandia National Laboratories. The second author acknowledges the support of the U.S. Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-03ER15454, and the U.S. National Science Foundation, Grant CMS-0324674. The first and third author acknowledge support from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Chemical Sciences and Geosciences Program. Portions of this work were performed at Sandia National Laboratories funded by the US DOE under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. We are grateful to David Noble of Sandia National Laboratories for helpful discussions concerning boundary conditions, and to Professor Atilla Aydin of Stanford University for allowing the reproduction of Fig. 4. We are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Much of the computation was performed on Sandia’s 256-node ICC Liberty cluster.

Appendix: Pressure boundary condition

In the LB method, pressure and density are related through the equation of state

$$p = c^2 \rho,$$

(4)

where c is the speed of sound (for a perfect gas) on the given lattice. To impose a pressure boundary condition, we therefore seek to impose a specified density. Recall that the density ρ and macroscopic flow velocity u are defined in terms of the discrete particle distributions f _i and their associated velocities e _i,

$$\rho = \sum_{i=0}^{18} f_i ;\quad \rho {\varvec{u}} = \sum_{i=1}^{18} f_i {\varvec{e}}_i.$$

(5)

In our 3D simulations, we have used a D3Q19 lattice consisting of 18 neighbor links and one rest state. Figure 11 illustrates the basic lattice unit and the numbering scheme we have employed.

Fig. 11
a Typical unit cell for a D3Q19 lattice. Rest node is *gray*, and 18 neighbor nodes are *black*. Link vectors are omitted for clarity. b Two orthogonal views of the D3Q19 lattice, illustrating the present numbering scheme. Out-of-plane links are noted with parentheses

Consider a typical lattice node located on the inlet boundary. At this node we assign a density ρ_in, and further specify u _y = u _z = 0. Consider now the density distribution after the streaming step in a typical LB iteration. Any particle population coming from an interior node becomes a known quantity. On the other hand, f ₁, f ₇, f ₈, f ₁₁, and f ₁₂ remain undetermined since these populations stream from points outside the domain. We therefore seek to determine these five unknowns such that they satisfy the specified density and velocity conditions.

To shorten notation let us group the particle populations into three sets according to whether e _x = 1, 0, or −1.

$$X^+ = \{ 1,7,8,11,12 \}.$$

(6)

$$X^o = \{ 0,3,4,5,6,15,16,17,18 \}.$$

(7)

$$X^- = \{ 2,9,10,13,14 \} .$$

(8)

In this notation, any f _i ∈ X ⁺ is an unknown. Our first task is to determine the inlet velocity u _x in terms of the known populations. From the density and momentum equations

$$\rho_{\rm in} = \sum_{X^-} f_i + \sum_{X^o} f_i + \sum_{X^+} f_i ,$$

(9)

$$\rho_{\rm in} u_x = \sum_{X^+} f_i - \sum_{X^-} f_i ,$$

(10)

which implies

$$u_x = 1 - {\frac{1}{\rho_{\rm in}}} \left[ \sum_{X^o} f_i + 2 \sum_{X^-} f_i \right] .$$

(11)

Now that the complete vector u is determined, our goal is to find a particle distribution that satisfies Eqs. 5. These relations, however, are insufficient to determine the unknown f _i uniquely. In light of this fact, we have adopted an approach like that of Zou and He [32]. We note that the equilibrium particle distribution also satisfies the momentum equations,

$$\sum_{i=1}^{18} f^{\rm eq}_i {\varvec{e}}_i = \rho {\varvec{u}}.$$

(12)

This implies that the unknown f _i must satisfy the following in order to maintain the appropriate x-momentum:

$$\sum_{X^+} f_i - \sum_{X^-} f_i = \sum_{X^+} f_i^{\rm eq} - \sum_{X^-} f_i^{\rm eq} .$$

(13)

Let us denote by ${\bar{f}_i}$ the particle population traveling in the opposite direction to f _i; that is, e _i and ${\bar{\varvec{e}}_i}$ point in opposite directions. Zou and He noted that by choosing the unknown f _i such that

$$f_i - f_i^{\rm eq} = \bar{f}_i - \bar{f}_i^{\rm eq} , $$

(14)

Eq. 13 is automatically satisfied. They described this approach as a “bounceback rule" for the non-equilibrium distribution, in analogy to the commonly used bounceback rule for dealing with solid interfaces. In the D3Q19 model, the equilibrium distributions are given by

$$f_i^{\rm eq} = \rho \omega_i \left[ 1 + 3 {\varvec{u}} \cdot {\varvec{e}}_i + {\frac{9}{2}} ( {\varvec{u}} \cdot {\varvec{e}}_i )^2 - {\frac{3} {2}} {\varvec{u}} \cdot {\varvec{u}} \right] , $$

(15)

with weights ω_i = 1/3, 1/18, and 1/36 for the rest particle, nearest neighbor links, and diagonal links, respectively.

With this simple heuristic in hand, a scheme emerges for determining the unknown particle populations. First, we fix the unknown component normal to the inlet plane,

$$f_1 = f_2 + \left( f_1^{\rm eq} - f_2^{\rm eq} \right) = f_2 + {\frac{1}{3}} \rho_{\rm in} u_x . $$

(16)

For the four remaining unknowns, we apply a similar bounceback rule to ensure that the x-momentum equation is satisfied. We also note, however, that we can adjust the y and z-momenta without altering the x-momentum by using the populations tangential to the inlet plane, f _i ∈ X ^o. In particular, we choose

$$f_7 = f_{10} + {\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_4+f_{17}+f_{18}\right)-{\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_3+f_{15}+f_{16}\right) + {\frac{1}{6}} \rho_{\rm in} u_x ,$$

(17)

$$f_8 = f_{9} - {\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_4+f_{17}+f_{18}\right)+{\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_3+f_{15}+f_{16}\right) + {\frac{1} {6}} \rho_{\rm in} u_x ,$$

(18)

$$f_{11} = f_{14} + {\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_6+f_{16}+f_{18}\right)-{\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_5+f_{15}+f_{17}\right) + {\frac{1} {6}} \rho_{\rm in} u_x ,$$

(19)

$$f_{12} = f_{13} - {\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_6+f_{16}+f_{18}\right)+{\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_5+f_{15}+f_{17}\right) + {\frac{1}{6}} \rho_{\rm in} u_x.$$

(20)

These algebraic expressions determine the unknown f _i such that ρ = ρ_in and u _y = u _z = 0. An identical approach is applied to outlet nodes, except the unknowns become f _i ∈ X ⁻.

$$u_x = {\frac{1}{\rho_{\rm out}}} \left[ \sum_{X^o} f_i + 2 \sum_{X^-} f_i \right] -1 .$$

(21)

$$f_2 = f_1 - {\frac{1}{3}} \rho_{\rm out} u_x .$$

(22)

$$f_9 = f_{8} + {\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_4+f_{17}+f_{18}\right)-{\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_3+f_{15}+f_{16}\right) - {\frac{1} {6}} \rho_{\rm out} u_x .$$

(23)

$$f_{10} = f_{7} - {\frac{1}{2}}\left(f_4+f_{17}+f_{18}\right)+{\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_3+f_{15}+f_{16}\right) - {\frac{1}{6}} \rho_{\rm out} u_x .$$

(24)

$$f_{13} = f_{12} +{\frac{1}{2}}\left(f_6+f_{16}+f_{18}\right)-{\frac{1} {2}}\left(f_5+f_{15}+f_{17}\right) - {\frac{1}{6}} \rho_{\rm out} u_x .$$

(25)

$$f_{14} = f_{11} - {\frac{1}{2}}\left(f_6+f_{16}+f_{18}\right)+{\frac{1}{2}}\left(f_5+f_{15 }+f_{17}\right) - {\frac{1}{6}} \rho_{\rm out} u_x .$$

(26)

References

1.
Andrade JE, Borja RI (2006) Quantifying sensitivity of local site response models to statistical variation in soil properties. Acta Geotechnica 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.
Arns CH, Knackstedt MA, Val Pinczewski W, Martys NS (2004) Virtual permeametry on microtomographic images. J Pet Sci Eng 45:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.
Aydin A, Borja RI, Eichhubl P (2006) Geological and mathematical framework for failure modes in granular rock. J Struct Geol 16:941–959Google Scholar
4.
Baxevanis T, Papamichos E, Flornes O, Larsen I (2006) Compaction bands and induced permeability reduction in Tuffeau de Maastricht calcarenite. Acta Geotechnica 1:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. American Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
6.
Bhatnagar P, Gross E, Krook M (1954) A model for collision processes in gases. I. Small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems. Phys Rev E 94:511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
Borja RI (2006) Conditions for instabilities in collapsible solids including volume implosion and compaction banding. Acta Geotechnica 1:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.
Borja RI (2006) HEAT, a 3D finite element heat conduction program. Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
9.
Borja RI, Aydin A (2004) Computational modeling of deformation bands in granular media. I. Geological and mathematical framework. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:2667–2698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.
Chen S, Doolen GD (1998) Lattice Boltzmann method for fluid flows. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 30:329–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.
DiGiovanni AA, Fredrich JT (2006) Micromechanics of compaction in an analogue reservoir sandstone. In: Couples G, Meredith P, Main I (eds) Fracture, damage and related deformation features. Special Publication Geological Society (in press)Google Scholar
12.
DiGiovanni AA, Fredrich JT, Holcomb DJ, Olsson WA (2000) Micromechanics of compaction in an analogue reservoir sandstone. In: Proceedings of the 4th U.S. Rock Mech. Symposium, pp 1153–1160Google Scholar
13.
Ferreol B, Rothman DH (1995) Lattice-Boltzmann simulations of flow through Fontainebleau sandstone. Transp Porous Media 20:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.
Fredrich JT, DiGiovanni AA, Noble DR (2006) Predicting macroscopic transport properties using microscopic image data. J Geophys Res 111:B03201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.
Fredrich JT, Menendez B, Wong TF (1995) Imaging the pore structure of geomaterials. Science 28:276–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
Keehm Y, Mukerji T, Nur A (2004) Permeability prediction from thin sections: 3D reconstruction and lattice-Boltzmann flow simulation. Geophys Res Lett 31:L04606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.
Maier RS, Bernard RS, Grunau DW (1996) Boundary conditions for the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys Fluids 8:1788–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.
Manwart C, Aaltosalmi U, Koponen A, Hilfer R, Timonen J (2002) lattice-Boltzmann and finite-difference simulations of the permeability for three-dimensional porous media. Phys Rev E 66:016702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
Martys N, Chen H (1996) Simulation of multicomponent fluids in complex three-dimensional geometries by the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys Rev E 53:743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.
Noble DR, Chen S, Georgiadis JG, Buckius RO (1995) A consistent hydrodynamic boundary condition for the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys Fluids 7:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.
O’Connor RM, Fredrich JT (1999) Microscale flow modeling in geologic materials. Phys Chem Earth (A) 24:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.
Pilotti M, Succi S, Menduni G (2002) Energy dissipation and permeability in porous media. Europhys Lett 60:72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.
Qian Y, d’Humieres D, Lallemand P (1992) Lattice BGK models for the Navier–Stokes equation. Europhys Lett 17:479Google Scholar
24.
Sham TK, Rivers ML (2002) A brief overview of synchrotron radiation. In: Fenter PA (ed) Applications of synchrotron radiation in low-temperature geochemistry and environmental science. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, vol 49, Mineralogical Society of America, Washington DC, pp 117–147Google Scholar
25.
Spanne P, Thovert JF, Jacquin CJ, Lindquist WB, Jones KW, Adler PM (1994) Synchrotron computed microtomography of porous media: Topology and transports. Phys Rev Lett 73:2001–2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.
Sternlof KR, Chapin JR, Pollard DD, Durlofsky LJ (2004) Permeability effects of deformation band arrays in sandstone. AAPG Bull 88:1315–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.
Sternlof KR, Karimi-Fard M, Pollard DD, Durlofsky LJ (2006) Flow and transport effects of compaction bands in sandstones at scales relevant to aquifer and reservoir management. Water Resour Res 42:W07425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.
Succi S (2001) The lattice Boltzmann equation for fluid dynamics and beyond. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
29.
Ulm F-J, Abousleiman Y (2006) The nanogranular nature of shale. Acta Geotechnica 1:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.
Verberg R, Ladd AJC (1999) Simulation of low-Reynolds-number flow via a time-independent lattice-Boltzmann method. Phys Rev E 60:3336–3373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.
Zhu W, Wong T-F (1997) The transition from brittle faulting to cataclastic flow: permeability evolution. J Geophys Res 102:3027–3041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.
Zou Q, He X (1997) On pressure and velocity boundary conditions for the lattice Boltzmann BGK model. Phys Fluids 9:1591–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Joshua A. White
- 1
Ronaldo I. Borja
- 1
Email author
Joanne T. Fredrich
- 2
- 3

1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
2.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA
3.Exploration and Production Technology GroupBP America, Inc.HoustonUSA

Calculating the effective permeability of sandstone with multiscale lattice Boltzmann/finite element simulations

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article