Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 119, Issue 3, pp 707–738 | Cite as

A Novel Relative Permeability Model Based on Mixture Theory Approach Accounting for Solid–Fluid and Fluid–Fluid Interactions

  • Dag Chun Standnes
  • Steinar Evje
  • Pål Østebø Andersen


A novel model is presented for estimating steady-state co- and counter-current relative permeabilities analytically derived from macroscopic momentum equations originating from mixture theory accounting for fluid–fluid (momentum transfer) and solid–fluid interactions (friction). The full model is developed in two stages: first as a general model based on a two-fluid Stokes formulation and second with further specification of solid–fluid and fluid–fluid interaction terms referred to as \(R_{{i}}\) (i =  water, oil) and R, respectively, for developing analytical expressions for generalized relative permeability functions. The analytical expressions give a direct link between experimental observable quantities (end point and shape of the relative permeability curves) versus water saturation and model input variables (fluid viscosities, solid–fluid/fluid–fluid interactions strength and water and oil saturation exponents). The general two-phase model is obeying Onsager’s reciprocal law stating that the cross-mobility terms \(\lambda _\mathrm{wo}\) and \(\lambda _\mathrm{ow}\) are equal (requires the fluid–fluid interaction term R to be symmetrical with respect to momentum transfer). The fully developed model is further tested by comparing its predictions with experimental data for co- and counter-current relative permeabilities. Experimental data indicate that counter-current relative permeabilities are significantly lower than corresponding co-current curves which is captured well by the proposed model. Fluid–fluid interaction will impact the shape of the relative permeabilities. In particular, the model shows that an inflection point can occur on the relative permeability curve when the fluid–fluid interaction coefficient \(I>0\) which is not captured by standard Corey formulation. Further, the model predicts that fluid–fluid interaction can affect the relative permeability end points. The model is also accounting for the observed experimental behavior that the water-to-oil relative permeability ratio \(\hat{{k}}_{\mathrm{rw}} /\hat{{\mathrm{k}}}_{\mathrm{ro}} \) is decreasing for increasing oil-to-water viscosity ratio. Hence, the fully developed model looks like a promising tool for analyzing, understanding and interpretation of relative permeability data in terms of the physical processes involved through the solid–fluid interaction terms \(R_{{i}}\) and the fluid–fluid interaction term R.


Relative permeability Generalized mobility Interfacial interactions Steady state Coupled multiphase flow 



Cross-sectional area


Drag force the water phase exerts on the oil phase


Solid–oil or water interaction friction coefficient


Fluid–fluid interaction drag coefficient


Identity tensor


Absolute or intrinsic permeability


Effective permeability (= \(k\cdot k_{\mathrm{r}})\)


Relative permeability

\(\hat{{k}}_{\mathrm{rw}} \)

Generalized relative permeability of water (= \(k_{\mathrm{rww}} + k_{\mathrm{rwo}})\)

\(\hat{{k}}_{\mathrm{ro}} \)

Generalized relative permeability of oil (= \(k_{\mathrm{row}}\) + \(k_{\mathrm{roo}})\)

\(\hat{{k}}_{\mathrm{rw}\_\mathrm{Coc}} \)

Generalized relative permeability of water related to co-current flow

\(\hat{{k}}_{\mathrm{rw}\_\mathrm{Cou}} \)

Generalized relative permeability of water related to counter-current flow


Drag between fluid i and matrix/solid


Interaction force


Corey exponent to oil


Corey exponent to water




Capillary pressure

\((p_{w})_{x}=\partial p_{\mathrm{w}}/\partial x\)

Water pressure gradient in x-direction

\((p_{\mathrm{o}})_{{x}}=\partial p_{\mathrm{o}}/\partial x\)

Oil pressure gradient in x-direction


Fluid–fluid interaction term (drag)


Fluid–solid interaction term for fluid phase i (friction)



(\(s_{\mathrm{w}})_{{t}}=\partial s_{\mathrm{w}}/\partial t\)

Derivative of water saturation with respect to time


Normalized water saturation (to the range where the fluids are mobile)


Interstitial velocity (average)

\(\hat{{u}}_i (x,y,z)\)

Interstitial velocity


Darcy flux


Coordinate in x-direction parallel to flow direction


Coordinate in y-direction perpendicular to flow direction


\(\alpha \)

Water–solid interaction saturation exponent

\(\beta \)

Oil–solid interaction saturation exponent

\(\sigma \)

Cauchy stress tensor

\(\lambda \)

Fluid mobility

\(\hat{{\lambda }}_\mathrm{w} \)

Generalized mobility of water phase (\(= \lambda _{\mathrm{ww}}+\lambda _{\mathrm{wo}})\)

\(\hat{{\lambda }}_\mathrm{o} \)

Generalized mobility of oil phase (\(= \lambda _{\mathrm{ow}}+\lambda _{\mathrm{oo}})\)

\(\hat{{\lambda }}_{T} \)

Generalized total mobility (= \(\hat{{\lambda }}_\mathrm{w} +\hat{{\lambda }}_\mathrm{o} )\)

\(\mu \)

Fluid viscosity

\(\tau _{{i}}\)

Viscous stress tensor

\(\phi \)



i, j

Water or oil phase


Matrix or solid




Relative or residual


Derivative with respect to time




Derivative with respect to x-coordinate





Dag Chun Standnes thanks Statoil ASA for supporting the adjunct prof. position at the University of Stavanger. Steinar Evje and PålØstebø Andersen thank the Research Council of Norway and the industry partners; ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS, BP Norge AS, Det Norske Oljeselskap AS, Eni Norge AS, Maersk Oil Norway AS, DONG Energy A/S, Denmark, Statoil Petroleum AS, ENGIE E&P NORGE AS, Lundin Norway AS, Halliburton AS, Schlumberger Norge AS, Wintershall Norge AS of the National IOR Centre of Norway for support.


  1. Ambrosi, D., Preziosi, L.: On the closure of mass balance models for tumor growth. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 12, 737–754 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, W.G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 1: Rock/oil/Brine Interactions and the Effects of Core Handling on Wettability. J. Pet. Technol 38, 1125–1144 (1986)Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, W.G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 4: The Effects of Wettability on Capillary Pressure. J. Pet. Technol. 38, 1283–1300 (1987a)Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, W.G.: Wettability Literature Survey - Part 5: The Effects of Wettability on Relative Permeability. J. Pet. Technol 39, 1453–1468 (1987b)Google Scholar
  5. Auriault, J.-L.: Nonsaturated deformable porous media: quasistatics. Transp. Porous Media 2, 45–64 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avraam, D.G., Payatakes, A.C.: Generalized relative permeability coefficients during steady-state two-phase flow in porous media, and correlation with the flow mechanisms. Transp. Porous Media 20, 135–168 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayodele, O.R.: Theoretical analysis of viscous coupling in two-phase flow through porous media. Transp. Porous Media 64, 171–184 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayodele, O.R., Bentsen, R.G., Cunha, L.B.: Experimental and numerical quantification and verification of interfacial coupling in two-phase porous media flow. In: Petroleum Society’s 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference Paper 2004-015 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. Babchin, A., Yuan, J., Nasr, T.: Generalized phase mobilities in gravity drainage processes. In: Paper 98-09 Presented at the 49\(^{th}\) Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8–10 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. Bentsen, R.G.: An investigation into whether the nondiagonal mobility coefficients which arise in coupled two phase flow are equal. Transp. Porous Media 14, 23–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bentsen, R.G.: Influence of hydrodynamic forces and interfacial momentum transfer on the flow of two immiscible phases. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 19, 177–190 (1998a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bentsen, R.G.: Effect of momentum transfer between fluid phases on effective mobility. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 21, 27–42 (1998b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bentsen, R.G.: The physical origin of interfacial coupling in two-phase flow through porous media. Transp. Porous Media 44, 109–122 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bentsen, R.G., Manai, A.A.: Measurement of concurrent and countercurrent relative permeability curves using the steady-state method. AOSTRA J. Res. 7, 160–181 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. Bentsen, R.G., Manai, A.A.: On the use of conventional cocurrent and countercurrent effective permeabilities to estimate the four generalized permeability coefficients which arise in coupled, two-phase flow. Transp. Porous Media 11, 243–262 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berg, S., Cense, A.W., Hofman, J.P., Smits, R.M.M.: Two-phase flow in porous media with slip boundary condition. Transp. Porous Media 74, 275–292 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blunt, M.J.: Multiphase Flow in Permeable Media A Pore-Scale Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bourbiaux, B.J., Kalaydjian, F.J.: Experimental study of cocurrent and countercurrent flows in natural porous media. SPE Reserv. Eng. 5, 361–368 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bowen, R.M.: Theory of mixtures. In: Eringen, A.C. (ed.) Continuum Physics. Academic, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  20. Bowen, R.M.: Incompressible porous media model by use of the theory of mixtures. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 18, 1129–1148 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bradford, S.A., Leij, F.J.: Estimating interfacial areas for multi-fluid soil systems. J. Contam. Hydrol. 27, 83–105 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brooks, R.H., Corey, A.T.: Hydraulic properties of porous media. In: Hydrology Papers, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, No. 3 (1964)Google Scholar
  23. Bryant, S.L., Johnson, A.S.: Theoretical Evaluation of the Interfacial Area between Two Fluids in a Model Soil. In: Lipnick, R.L., Mason, R.P., Phillips, M.L., Pittman Jr., C.U. (eds.) Chemicals in the Environment Fate, Impacts, and Remediation, vol. 806. American Chemical Society, Washington (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Byrne, H.M., Owen, M.R.: A new interpretation of the Keller-Segel model based on multiphase modeling. J. Math. Biol. 49, 604–626 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Byrne, H.M., Preziosi, L.: Modelling solid tumour growth using the theory of mixtures. Math. Med. Biol. 20, 341–366 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. de la Cruz, V., Spanos, T.J.T.: Mobilization of oil ganglia. AIChE J. 29(5), 854–858 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Culligan, K.A., Wildenschild, D., Christensen, B.S.B., Gray, W.G., Rivers, M.L., Tompson, A.F.B.: Interfacial area measurements for unsaturated flow through a porous medium. Water Resour. Res. 40, W12413 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Darcy, H.: Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon. Dalmont, Paris (1856)Google Scholar
  29. de Gennes, P.G.: Theory of slow biphasic flows in porous media. PCH Physicochem. Hydrodyn. 4(2), 175–185 (1983)Google Scholar
  30. Dullien, F.A.L., Dong, M.: Experimental determination of the flow transport coefficients in the coupled equations of two-phase flow in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 25, 97–120 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dullien, F.A.L.: Physical interpretation of hydrodynamic coupling in a steady two-phase flow. In: Proceedings of American Geophysical Union, 13th Annual Hydrology Days, pp. 363-377 (1993)Google Scholar
  32. Eastwood, J.E., Spanos, T.J.T.: Steady-state countercurrent flow in one dimension. Transp. Porous Media 6, 173–182 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ehrlich, R.: Viscous coupling in two-phase flow in porous media and its effect on relative permeabilities. Transp. Porous Media 11, 201–218 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Flekkøy, E.G., Pride, S.R.: Reciprocity and cross coupling of two-phase flow in porous media from Onsager theory. Phys. Rev. E 60(4), 4130–4137 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goode, P.A., Ramakrishnan, T.S.: Momentum Transfer Across Fluid-Fluid Interfaces in Porous Media: a Network Model. AIChE J. 39(7), 1124–1134 (1993)Google Scholar
  36. Guzmán, R.E., Fayers, F.J.: Mathematical properties of three-phase flow equations. SPE J. 2, 291–300 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hassanizadeh, S.M., Gray, W.G.: Toward an improved description of the physics of two-phase flow. Adv. Water Resour. 16, 53–67 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Helland, J.O., Skjæveland, S.M.: Relationship between capillary pressure, saturation, and interfacial area from a model of mixed-wet triangular tubes. Water Resour. Res. 43, W12S10 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Honarpour, M.M., Huang, D.D., Al-Hussainy, R.: Simultaneous measurements of relative permeability, capillary pressure, and electric resistivity with microwave system for saturation monitoring. SPE J 1, 283–293 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L., Harvey, A.H.: Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs. C.R.C. Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL (1986)Google Scholar
  41. Javaheri, M., Jessen, K.: CO2 mobility and transition between co-current and counter-current flows. SPE 163596 (2013)Google Scholar
  42. Jerauld, G.R.: General three-phase relative permeability model for Prudhoe Bay. SPE Reserv. Eng 12, 255–263 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jerauld, G.R., Salter, S.J.: The effect of pore-structure on hysteresis in relative permeability and capillary pressure: pore-level modeling. Transp. Porous Media 5, 103–151 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kalaydjian, F.: A macroscopic description of multiphase flow in porous media involving spacetime evolution of fluid/fluid interface. Transp. Porous Media 2, 537–552 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalaydjian, F.: Origin and quantification of coupling between relative permeabilities for two-phase flows in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 5, 215–229 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Langaas, K.: Viscous coupling and two-phase flow in porous media. In: Paper Presented at the 6th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Peebles, Scotland, Sept. 8–11 (1998)Google Scholar
  47. Langaas, K., Papatzacos, P.: Numerical investigations of the steady state relative permeability of a simplified porous medium. Transp. Porous Media 45, 241–266 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levine, J.S.: Displacement experiments in a consolidated porous system. Pet. Trans. AIME 201, 57–66 (1954)Google Scholar
  49. Li, H., Pan, C., Miller, C.T.: Viscous coupling effects for two-phase flow in porous media. Dev Water Sci. 55(Part 1), 247–256 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li, H., Pan, C., Miller, C.T.: Pore-scale investigation of viscous coupling effects for two-phase flow in porous media. Phys. Rev. E 72, 026705 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liang, Q., Lohrenz, J.: Dynamic method of measuring coupling coefficients of transport equations of two-phase flow in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 15, 71–79 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mason, G., Morrow, N.R.: Developments in spontaneous imbibition and possibilities for future work. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 110, 268–293 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mason, G., Fischer, H., Morrow, N.R., Ruth, D.W.: Correlation for the effect of fluid viscosities in counter-current spontaneous imbibition. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 72, 195–205 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McDougall, S.R., Sorbie, K.S.: The impact of wettability on waterflooding: pore-scale simulation. SPE Reserv. Eng. 10, 208–213 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morrow, N.R., Mason, G.: Recovery of oil by spontaneous imbibition. Curr. Opin Colloid Interface Sci. 6, 321–337 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Muccino, J.C., Gray, W.G., Ferrand, L.A.: Toward an improved understanding of multiphase flow in porous media. Rev. Geophys. 36(3), 401–422 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mungan, N.: Relative permeability measurements using reservoir fluids. SPE J 12, 398–402 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Muskat, M., Wyckoff, R.D., Botset, H.G., Meres, M.M.: Flow of gas-liquid mixtures through sands. SPE Trans. AIME 123(1), 69–96 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nasr, T.N., Law, D.H.-S., Golbeck, H., Korpany, G.: Counter-current aspects of the SAGD process. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 39(1), 41–47 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nejad, K.S., Berg, E.A., Ringen, J.K.: Effect of oil viscosity on water/oil relative permeability. In: Paper SCA2011-12 (2011)Google Scholar
  61. Niessner, J., Berg, S., Hassanizadeh, S.M.: Comparison of two-phase darcy’s law with a thermodynamic consistent approach. Transp. Porous Media 88, 133–148 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Odeh, A.S.: Effect of viscosity ratio on relative permeability. J. Pet. Technol. 216, 346–353 (1959)Google Scholar
  63. Olson, J.F., Rothman, D.H.: Two-fluid flow in sedimentary rock: simulation, transport and complexity. J. Fluid Mech. 341, 343–370 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Onsager, L.: Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. I. Phys. Rev. 37, 405–426 (1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Osoba, J.S., Richardson, J.G., Kerver, J.K., Hafford, J.A., Balir, P.M.: Laboratory measurements of relative permeability. Pet. Trans. AIME 192, 47–56 (1951)Google Scholar
  66. Preziosi, L., Farina, A.: On Darcy’s law for growing porous media. Int. J. Non-linear Mech. 37, 485–491 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Prosperetti, A., Tryggvason, G.: Computational Methods for Multiphase Flow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raats, P.A.C., Klute, A.: Transport in soils: the balance of momentum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32, 452–456 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ragajopal, K.R., Tao, L.: Mechanics of Mixtures. Series on Advances in Mathematics for Applied Sciences, vol. 35. World Science, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  70. Rakotomalala, N., Salin, D., Yortsos, Y.C.: Viscous coupling in a model porous medium geometry: effect of fluid contact area. Appl. Sci. Res. 55, 155–169 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ramakrishnan, T.S., Goode, P.A.: Measurement of off-diagonal transport coefficients in two-phase flow in porous media. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 449, 392–398 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reeves, P.C., Celia, M.A.: A functional relationship between capillary pressure, saturation, and interfacial area as revealed by pore-scale network model. Water Resour. Res. 32(8), 2345–2358 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Richardson, J.G., Kerver, J.K.: Laboratory determination of relative permeability. Trans. AIME 195, 187–196 (1952)Google Scholar
  74. Rose, W.: Transport through interstitial paths of porous solids. METU J. Pure Appl. Sci. 2, 117–132 (1969)Google Scholar
  75. Rose, W.: Some problems connected with the use of classical description of fluid/fluid displacement processes. In: IAHR, (ed.) Fundamentals of Transport Phenomena in Porous Media. Elsevier, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  76. Rose, W.: Measuring transport coefficients necessary for the description of coupled two-phase flow in immiscible fluids in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 3, 163–171 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Spanos, T.J.T., de la Cruz, V., Hube, J.: An analysis of the theoretical foundations of relative permeability curves. AOSTRA J. Res. 4(3), 181–192 (1988)Google Scholar
  78. Spanos, T.J.T., de la Cruz, V., Hube, J., Sharma, R.C.: An analysis of Buckley-Leverett theory. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 25(1), 70–76 (1986)Google Scholar
  79. Wang, J., Dong, M., Asghari, K.: Effect of oil viscosity on heavy-oil/water relative permeability curves. In: SPE 99763 Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery Held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A. (2006)Google Scholar
  80. Wasan, D.T., Mohan, V.: Interfacial rheological properties of fluid interfaces containing surfactants. In: Shah, D.O., Schechter, R.S. (eds.) Improved Oil Recovery by Surfactant and Polymer Flooding, pp. 161–204. Academic Press, New York (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Whitaker, S.: Flow in porous media II: the governing equations for immiscible, two-phase flow. Transp. Porous Media 1, 105–125 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yuan, J.-Y., Coombe, D., Law, D.H.-S., Babchin, A.: Determination of the relative permeability matrix coefficients. In: Petroleum Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference Paper 2001-002 (2001)Google Scholar
  83. Yuster, S.T.: Theoretical considerations of multiphase flow in idealized capillary systems. In: Paper WPC-4129 Presented at the 3rd World Petroleum Congress, 28 May-6 June, The Hague, the Netherlands (1951)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dag Chun Standnes
    • 1
  • Steinar Evje
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pål Østebø Andersen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Petroleum TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway
  2. 2.The National IOR Center of NorwayUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations