1988
DOI: 10.2118/14364-pa
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dispersion and Reservoir Heterogeneity

Abstract: Macroscopic dispersion is the mixing, on the scale of several hundreds of grain diameters, at a point in a permeable medium that is free of boundary effects. Megascopic dispersion is the one-dimensional (lD) dispersion derived by averaging across an entire cross section. This work investigates how both dispersions vary with heterogeneity, aspect ratio, diffusion coefficient, and autocorrelation. The theoretical results are compared to existing field and laboratory data and to existing theories for limiting cas… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
120
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 216 publications
(130 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
10
120
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Edwards et al (1991) and many other authors (Didierjean 1997;Eidsath et al 1983;Souto and Moyne 1997) use this equation for periodic media and present 2D computational results also for higher Peclet numbers. The comparison with experimental values uses a standard plot of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient divided by the molecular diffusion coefficient versus the Peclet number (Arya et al 1988). A dissimilar definition of the dispersion tensor by the engineering and mathematics community, differing by a factor equal to the porosity, precluded until now a correct comparison between experimental and theoretical values obtained with homogenization (Tardif d'Hamonville et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Edwards et al (1991) and many other authors (Didierjean 1997;Eidsath et al 1983;Souto and Moyne 1997) use this equation for periodic media and present 2D computational results also for higher Peclet numbers. The comparison with experimental values uses a standard plot of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient divided by the molecular diffusion coefficient versus the Peclet number (Arya et al 1988). A dissimilar definition of the dispersion tensor by the engineering and mathematics community, differing by a factor equal to the porosity, precluded until now a correct comparison between experimental and theoretical values obtained with homogenization (Tardif d'Hamonville et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The result that Var(x) is proportional to <x> 2 , as established in dispersive transport in semiconductors [13,14], leads immediately to a dispersivity that is proportional to <x>, as is also known from groundwater studies [72]. While it has been reported [73,74] that the dispersion coefficient is typically a small power (sublinear) of time and that the dispersivity is roughly a linear function of x, the necessary consequence (as shown in Figure 7), is that the time for particles to reach a given distance x is a superlinear function of x, has been reported only once [75] (to our knowledge) for solute transport in porous media, but is well-known in dispersive transport [45][46][47][48][49][50]. In particular, we have then Var(x) <x> 2 and Var(x) t 1+δ , with δ 1 giving immediately t x 2/(1+δ) .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…1.5). If the permeable media were layered, there should be a significant difference in the values of echo and field dispersivities from Arya et al (1998). The results in Fig.…”
Section: Results and Discussion Task 1: Reduce Mmp With Gas Enrichmentmentioning
confidence: 88%