Abstract
A methodology commonly used to obtain analytical and semi-analytical solutions to describe spike and finite-step tracer injection tests is discussed. In these cases, solutions to the diffusion–convection equation are derived from the solution of a different problem, namely the continuous injection of a tracer. Within this procedure, spike injection results from the time derivative of this solution, and finite-step injection from the superposition of two solutions shifted in time. In this paper we show that although this methodology is mathematically correct, attention should be paid to the properties of the solutions. Their boundary conditions may not represent physically acceptable situations, since these conditions are inherited from a different problem. The application of the methodology to a simple one-dimensional case of a tracer pulse diffusing in a homogeneous, semi-infinite reservoir shows serious problems regarding boundary conditions and mass conservation. These problems has not probably been found before since tracer breakthrough curves are not very sensitive to them. However, the problems clearly show up when the tracer distribution in space is analyzed. We conclude that the traditional methodology should not be employed. Equations should be solved imposing the specific boundary and initial conditions corresponding to the original system under consideration.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbaszadeh, M.: 1995, Appendix in the book, in: B. Zemel, (ed.), Tracers in the Oil Field, Elsevier, New York, pp. 429–440.
Arfken, G.: 1970, Mathematical Methods for Physicists, Academic Press, New York, pp. 413–419.
Bear, J.: 1972, Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Dover Publications, New York, pp. 627–634.
Brigham, W. E.: 1974, Mixing equations in short laboratory columns, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 14, 91–99.
Coats, K. H.: 1963, Dead-end pore volume and dispersion in porous media, in: Annual SPE Fall Meeting, New Orleans, USA, October 6–9, 1963, SPE Paper 647.
Crank, J.: 1956, The Mathematics of Diffusion, Oxford University Press, London, pp. 9–25.
Käss, W.: 1998, Tracing Technique in Geohydrology, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 341–356.
Kreft, A. and Zuber, A.: 1978, On the physical meaning of the dispersion equation and its solutions for different initial and boundary conditions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 33, 1471–1480.
Kreft, A. and Zuber, A.: 1986, Comment on “Flux-Averaged and Volume-Averaged Concentrations in Continuum Approaches to Solute Transport”, by J. C. Parker and M. Th. van Genuchten, Water Resour. Res. 22, 1157–1158.
Parker, J. C. and van Genuchten, M. Th.: 1984, Flux-averaged and volume-averaged concentrations in continuum approaches to solute transport, Water Resour. Res. 20, 866–872.
Parker, J. C. and van Genuchten, M. Th.: 1986, Reply, Water Resour. Res. 22, 1159–1160.
Ramírez, J., Rivera, J., Samaniego, F. and Rodríguez, F.: 1990, A semi analytical solution for tracer flow in naturally fractured reservoirs, Fifteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, January 23–25, 1990.
Ramírez, J., Samaniego, F. Rodríguez, F., and Rivera, J.: 1995, Tracer test interpretation in naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE Paper 28691, SPE Formation Evaluation J., 19–25.
Tang, D. H., Frind, E. O. and Sudicky, E. A.: 1981, Contaminant transport in fractured porous media: analytical solution for a single fracture, Water Resour. Res. 17, 555–564.
Walkup Jr., G.W. and Horne, R. N.: 1985, Characterization of tracer retention process and their effect on tracer transport in fractured geothermal reservoirs, SPE 1985 California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, March 27–29, 1985, SPE Paper 13610.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coronado, M., Ramírez, J. & Samaniego, F. New Considerations on Analytical Solutions Employed in Tracer Flow Modeling. Transport in Porous Media 54, 221–237 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026335905169
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026335905169