Advertisement

Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp 567–583 | Cite as

Bail-Down Test Simulation at Laboratory Scale

  • Cédric PalmierEmail author
  • Florian Cazals
  • Olivier Atteia
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison of hydraulic oil conductivity obtained from interpreting bail-down test data to values calculated from theory. The bail-down tests were performed at laboratory scale, on a radial portion of a circular domain filled with calibrated sand allowing hydraulic oil conductivity to be calculated using Parker’s theoretical model (Parker et al. in Water Resour Res 23(4):618–624, 1987). The bail-down tests were interpreted using the modified Bouwer and Rice (Huntley in Ground Water 38(1):46–52, 2000) and the modified Cooper methods (Beckett and Lyverse in API Interact LNAPL Guide 2:1–27, 2002). The results show that (1) both interpretation methods from bail-down test data give similar hydraulic oil conductivities, and (2) the hydraulic oil conductivities estimated from bail-down test data agree well with the hydraulic oil conductivity predicted when using the Parker theoretical model. Overall, this paper confirms that the modified Bouwer and Rice (Huntley 2000) and the modified Cooper methods (Beckett and Lyverse 2002) are valid to estimate hydraulic oil conductivity, giving realistic values despite test conditions not meeting all the assumptions and boundary conditions of each analytical solution.

Keywords

Bail-down test Hydraulic oil conductivity Modified Bouwer and Rice (Huntley 2000) Modified Cooper (Beckett and Lyverse 2002) 

List of symbols

\(b_z\)

Soil layer thickness (m)

g

Gravitational acceleration (\(\hbox {m}\,\hbox {s}^{-2}\))

\(h_d\)

Displacement pressure head (m)

\(h_c\)

Capillary pressure head (m)

k

Intrinsec permeability (\(\hbox {m}\,\hbox {s}^{-1}\))

\(K_o\)

Hydraulic oil conductivity (\(\hbox {m}\,\hbox {s}^{-1}\))

\(kr_o\)

Oil relative permeabilty

m

Van Genutchen parameter

n

Van Genutchen parameter

\(p_{c}\)

Capillary pressure (Pa)

\(R_e\)

Effective well radius (m)

\(r_c\)

Well radius (m)

\(r_w\)

Casing radius (m)

S

Aquifer storage coefficient

\(s_{1(0)}\)

Oil/air interface drawdown in the well at time \(t_0\) after the oil is removed (m)

\(s_{1(t)}\)

Oil/air interface drawdown in the well at time t after the oil is removed (m)

\(S_{e[w]}\)

Total water effective saturation

\(S_{o}\)

Total oil saturation

\(S_{or}\)

Residual oil saturation

\(S_w\)

Total water saturation

\(S_{wr}\)

Residual water saturation

t

Elapsed time (s)

\(T_o\)

Oil transmissivity (\(\hbox {m}^2\,\hbox {s}^{-1}\))

\(\alpha \)

Van Genutchen parameter (\(\hbox {m}^{-1}\))

\(\lambda \)

Brooks and Corey pore-size distribution parameter

\(\mu _o\)

Oil dynamic viscosity (cP)

\(\rho _{ro}\)

Oil relative density

\(\rho _w\)

Water density (\(\hbox {kg}\,\hbox {m}^{-3}\))

\(\sigma _{ij}\)

Interfacial tension between the phases i and j (\(\hbox {dynes}\,\hbox {cm}^{-1}\))

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Duane R. Hampton for his many helpful comments in the review of this manuscript. We also thank Ford Motor Company for permission to publish this paper.

References

  1. Batu, V.: An assessment of the baildown tests data analysis method. Groundwater 50(4), 500–503 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batu, V.: Author’s reply. Groundwater 51(5), 659–660 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckett, G.D., Huntley, D.: Lnapl transmissivity: a twisted parameter. Groundwater Monit. Remediat. 35(3), 20–24 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. Beckett, G., Lyverse, M.: A protocol for performing field tasks and follow-up analytical evaluation for lnapl transmissivity using well baildown procédures. API Interactive LNAPL Guide (Version 2.0, Release 2.04) 2, 1–27 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. Bouwer, H., Rice, R.C.: A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resour. Res. 12(3), 423–428 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, R.H., Corey, A.T.: Hydraulic properties of porous media and their relation to drainage design. Trans. ASAE 7(1), 26–0028 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, D.L., Narasimhan, T.N., Demir, Z.: An evaluation of the bouwer and rice method of slug test analysis. Water Resour. Res. 31(5), 1239–1246 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burdine, N., et al.: Relative permeability calculations from pore size distribution data. J. Petroleum Technol. 5(03), 71–78 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler Jr., J.J.: The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1997)Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, M.D., Starrett, M.S., Fowler,J.D., Klein, J.: Slug tests and hydraulic conductivity. In: Proceedings of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration-conference, NWWA, pp. 85–99 (1990)Google Scholar
  11. Charbeneau, R.: API lnapl transmissivity workbook: a tool for baildown test analysis. API Publication (2012)Google Scholar
  12. Charbeneau, RJ.: Models for design of free-product recovery systems for petroleum hydrocarbon liquids, API publication 4729 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Charbeneau, R.J.: Lnapl distribution and recovery model. distribution and recovery of petroleum hydrocarbon liquids in porous media, vol. 1. API publication 4760 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. Charbeneau, R., Kirkman, A., Adamski, M.: An assessment of the Huntley (2000) baildown test data analysis method. Groundw. 51(5), 657–659 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, H.H., Bredehoeft, J.D., Papadopulos, I.S.: Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resour. Res. 3(1), 263–269 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farr, A.M., Houghtalen, R.J., McWhorter, D.B.: Volume estimation of light nonaqueous phase liquids in porous media. Ground Water 28(1), 48–56 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guyer, J.E., Wheeler, D., Warren, J.A.: Fipy: partial differential equations with python. Comput. Sci. Eng. 11(3), 6–15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halford, K.J., Weight, W.D., Schreiber, R.P.: Interpretation of transmissivity estimates from single-well pumping aquifer tests. Ground Water 44(3), 467–471 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huntley, D.: Analytic determination of hydrocarbon transmissivity from baildown tests. Ground Water 38(1), 46–52 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huntley, D., Hawk, R.N., Corley H.P.: Non-aqueous phase hydrocarbon saturations and mobility in a fine-grained, poorly consolidated sandstone. In: Proceeding of the Petrol. Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water, NGWA, Houston, pp 223–232 (1992)Google Scholar
  21. Hyder, Z., Butler, J.J.: Slug tests in unconfined formations: an assessment of the bouwer and rice technique. Ground Water 33(1), 16–22 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacob, C.E., Lohman, S.W.: Nonsteady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 33(4), 559–569 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolhatkar, R., Kremesec, V., Rubin, S., Yakawa, C., Senn, R.: Application of field and analytical techniques to evaluate recoverability of subsurface free phase hydrocarbons (2000)Google Scholar
  24. Lenhard, R.J., Parker, J.C.: Estimation of free hydrocarbon volume from fluid levels in monitoring wells. Ground Water 28(1), 57–67 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leverett, M., et al.: Capillary behavior in porous solids. Trans. AIME 142(01), 152–169 (1941)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mualem, Y.: A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour. Res. 12(3), 513–522 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmier, C., Dodt, M., Atteia, O.: Comparison of oil transmissivity methods using extensive bail-down test data. Ground Water Monit. Remediat. 36(3), 73–83 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. Parker, J.C.: Multiphase flow and transport in porous media. Rev. Geophys. 27(3), 311–328 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker, J.C., Lenhard, R.J., Kuppusamy, T.: A parametric model for constitutive properties governing multiphase flow in porous media. Water Resour. Res. 23(4), 618–624 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sale, T.C., McWhorter, D.B.: Steady state mass transfer from single-component dense nonaqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields. Water Resour. Res. 37(2), 393–404 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Genuchten, M.T.: A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44(5), 892–898 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut National Polytechnique de Bordeaux, EA 4592PessacFrance

Personalised recommendations