SPE 26612 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Influence of the Permeability Anisotropy Ratio on Large-Scale

Properties of Heterogeneous Reservoirs
J-P.L. Duquerroix, * Pierre Lemouzy, * and Benoit Noetinger, * Inst. FranQais du Petrole,
and R.K. Romeu, Petrobras/lnst. FranQais du Petrole
'SPE Members

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are sUbject to correction by the author{s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3838, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

Abstract

When performing fluid-flow simulations, up-scaling can be found in the literature 1,2,4,7,8,10,11 and among
techniques must be used because of the required coarse them in the case of isotropic scalar permeabilites, those
grids. For this purpose, algebraic formula, combining based on the bounds of effective permeability 2. But so
arithmetic and harmonic averagings, extension of far, to our knowledge, the influence of anisotropy was not
Cardwell and Parsons's results, derived from considered in this context. This anisotropy comes from
perturbation techniques are proposed taking into either sedimentation process or from reservoir
account the anistotropy, either natural or due to the geometry. Generally the vertical extent of reservoirs is at
reservoir geometry. These formula are valid for 2D or 3D least one order of magnitude less than the horizontal
problems and are very little computational time one.
consuming compared to direct numerical methods. We have derived from a perturbation technique an
Moreover they integrate rigorous mimima and maxima extension of the estimator proposed by Le Loc'h and
, thus showing the global uncertainty on equivalent Guerillot 5,11 :
permeability determination. They proved to work well
for large permeability contrasts and anisotropy ratios
either for simple log-normal or geostatiscally generated
media. Keq = -J K+ K- (1)
In the first application case numerical calculations were
carried out for the upscaling of isolated cells. In the Le Loc'h and Guerillot's estimator is only suitable for
other case well test simulations were performed either 2D and isotropic conditions. For this particular estimator
with the original fine grid or further coarser grids. K-, K+ are the abolute permeability minima and
maxima defined by Cardwell and Parsons 2 and
Introduction explicited later in the text.
In a 2D case our derivation takes into account
Progresses in the power of computers and in reservoir anisotropy with the following formula:
characterization allow the simulation of very high
resolution images of complex reservoirs. But for the
subsequent flow simulations, coarser grids are inevitable
Keq = (K+)9y(K-) 1-9y (2)
in most cases and one has to upscale the fluid flow
parameters (for example permeability or porosity fields). with the ponderation coefficient 9y
The objective of the present work is to present a new
algebraic formula for upscaling absolute permeability arctan -fAY .......... (3)
diagonal tensors. As opposed to more sophisticated ey 1t/2
numerical procedures, algebraic formulas are not
intented to provide exact results in the general case, but where AYis the global anisotropy coefficient:
just acceptable estimations for most of the practical
applications. Their purpose is a good compromise
kyy L'ix 2
between cost of calcul and precision. Several of them Ay=-(-) (4)
kxx L'iy

References and illustrations at end of paper where ky (resp. kx) is the Y(resp.X) direction
29
 INFLUENCE OF lHE PERMEABILITY ANISOTROPY RAno ON LARGE-SCALE
2 PROPERTIES OF HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS SPE 26612

permeability and ~x and ~y cells dimension.

-~
Aky- kxx
With a same approach, the 3D case has been
considered and we have derived the following formula:
kzz
Akz= kxx
Keq=(K+3D) eyroz+9zcoY(K~D)l-coyroz(KJ)(1-9y)0ll.
x (K4 ) ( l-&z)coy (5) Anisotropy influence

with:
Considering these assumptions it is clear that the
(1-9z)ey equivalent permeability ( for X-direction) depends not
coy (6) only on the local permeabilities kxx(x,y,z) but also on
1-9y&z
AkyandAkz.
(1-ey)9z
roz (7) Examples are displayed on figures I and 2 for 2D and
1-9y9z 3D conditions. Keq ANISO and Keq ISO are the
calculated equivalent permeability respectively for the
and: anisotropic and isotropic cases. They correspond to the
arctan ....["A;; solution of the finite difference sytem, obtained for 10xl0
9z (8) <figure I ) and 6x6x6 grids (figure 2), with a log-normal
1t/2
distributed permeability for different values of cr2 ( In k
where: variance ). The anisotropy effects may lead to 100%
under or overestimation of the corresponding equivalent
permeability.
kzz ~ 2
Az=kxx (~) (9) Another way to show the importance of anisotropy is to
come back to the equation corresponding to an
incompressible monophasic flow and to consider the
with 9yand Ay defined as before. K3 and K4 like K+3D grid block size influence over the flow (figure 3).For sake
and K-3D, result from proper combinations of of simplification we consider the case where the grid size
arithmetic and harmonic means, as will be later in the Y direction is two times bigger than that of the X-
explicited. direction The general equation is:
If anisotropy is uniform, exponents have to be
computed only once, and this approach means V.(K V(P» = 0 (11)
negligible additive computational cost.
The above expressions stand for the X-direction. In case of a 2D problem we have:
Similar relationships for the other directions are easily
obtained with a simple rotation of the indexes. ap ap
a (Kx ~) a (Kyay)
Theory ax + dy 0 (12)

The fundamental aspects of this work derives from an If we change the variables:
analytical development of the equivalent permeability
valid at the second order, in the domain of short x'= x
variances. andy' =2y
The case when the local permeabilities are diagonal
terms will be solely considered. The anisotropy global this equation yields:
ratios are supposed to be constant in the whole space.
Then the permeabilities to be homogeneized of the ap ~ap
grids can be written: a (Kx ax-) a(4 at)
ax' + dy' =0 (13)

which corresponds to:

o o
~ k,,(x, y, z)
1
k(x, y, z) ( o Aky o ap ~ ~ap
a (Kxax-> a (Ky~ay;)
o o Akz
ax' + ay' 0 (14)

where:
In the case of anisotropic permeability this equation

30
SPE26612 I-PATRICK DUQUERROIX P. LEMOUZY B. N<ETINGER R.K. ROMEU

will be: hydrodynamical permeabilities are equivalent to

electrical conductivities) (figure 4) it is quite simple to
determine the limiting behaviour for the equivalent
permeability, when the vertical or horizontal
0 (15) transmissivities go to infinity or according to the
preceding remark when the grid block size in one
and thus by identification: direction goes to zero or infinity.
If the Y-transmissivity goes to infinity, the pressure
Kx' =Kx equilibrates firstly in the Y direction. At this first step,
the equivalent permeability for each column is the
and: arithmetic mean of permeabilities. Then for the flow in
X-direction the equivalent permeability is the harmonic
~2 mean of permeabilities. And we have with
Ky '=aK x '=K YtJ.y2 (16) straightforward notations:

where a is the anisotropy coefficient:

h stands for harmonic and a for arithmetic averagings.
which implies:
On the reverse, if the V-transmissivity goes to zero, we
~~2 have independent 10 flows. At this first step the
a= Kx tJ.Y2· .. ······· .. ·· .. ·················· .. ···(17)
equivalent permeability for each row is the harmonic
mean of permeabilities. Then for the flow in the
Thus the geometric anisotropy can be considered as direction the equivalent permeability is the arithmetic
equivalent to a permeability anisotropy.As an example a mean of permeabilities. And finally:
20 medium with squared grid-blocks and Aky =100 is
equivalent to an isotropic medium for permeability with
tJ.y = 0.1 tJ.x.
Then it is worthwhile to define the following global Then we have:
anisotropy coefficients :
Keq = K- when Ay=O
1",,, tJ.x 2 and:
Ay=~(-)
kxx tJ.y Keq = K+ when Ay goes to infinity.
These results can be more rigorously derived by a
and: variational approach 6
kzz tJ.x 2
Az=-(-)
kxx tJ.z Second order approximation

We remark that tJ.x,tJ.y and tJ.z which apparently do not For a 20 grid (supposed geometrically isotropic) with k
recall any physical meaning are indeed generally taken log-normal and no correlated, without any grid refining
proportional to the overall reservoir geometrical and with the direct calculation for transmissivities,
proportions or to the correlation lengths of the reservoir Ncetinger and Romeu derived 9 :
in the three directions. In this sense, the formula
proposed by Ababou et al. 1, where the equivalent _ 02 1 _
Keq - Kg e Cj 52)· (18)
permeability is evaluated as a function of the ratios
among lx,ly,lz can be seen as an estimator for media
having anisotropy in permeability. where:

Definition of K+ and K- for a 2D problem.

Cardwell and Parsons have defined the two limits K+
and K-.
K+ and K- are combinations of arithmetic and
harmonic means in X and Y directions.
With the help of an electrical analogy (where
This equation is only valid up to the second order series
expansion in the parameter 0 2 ,Kg are the geometric
mean and 0 2 .the variance of In k xx.
52 converges very quickly for increasing values of N.

31
 INFLUENCE OF THE PERMEABILITY ANISOlROPY RATIO ON LARGE-SCALE
4 PROPERTIES OF HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS SPE26612

So we can approximate 52 as: K-3D = az(ay(hx»

K+3D = ax(ay(az»

K3 = ayChx(az»

which gives: K4 =az(hx(ay»

1-12
arctan ..fAY (21)
A small variance series-expansion of the equivalent
1C/2 permeability by Nretinger and Romeu corresponds to:

From: 1
Keq=Kgeo2(2-53) (28)

with
and by analogy with the log-normal case where

K- = Kh = Kge-a2 (22)

K+ = K a = Kgecf2 ' (23)

we have: and:

lt2
8 . 2
13= lim S3 =- sm a dadlXiy
and thus we propose the following ponderation: n__ 1C 2[
0
[
0 1.
[
sin2 a+Ay sin 2 J3+Az sinZy

In this case we have not found any analytical

with: integration of this formula. We have found that:
(l-roy-roz) corresponds to a fair approximation of 13.

By
arctan ..fAY By means of geometrical analogy with 2D results, we
have found the following algebraic formula:
1C/2

This is an extension of Le Loc'h and Guerillot's formula (l-Bz)By

giving the respective minima and maxima for Ay = 0 or roy=--
1-9y9z
Ay = and degenerating to the former formula (1) for
00

Ay = 1. (l-By)9z
CIlZ
l-ayaz
3D Anisotropy and:

By analogy with 2D conditions we can write: arctan ..fAY

By 1C/2'
Keq = (Sy)roy(Sz)CIlZ(Sx)l-roy-<oz (24)
arctan ...[A;:
Bz
with: 1C/2

Sx=K-3D (25) In case of isotropy we obtain:

Sy = (K+ 3D) BZ(K3) l-az (26)

Sz = (K+3D) ByK4) I-By (27)

roy and CIlZ are function of Ay and Az. Applications and results.

Three types of results will be presented in this section:

with the following relationships for the operators:
numerical results in 2D and 3D conditions

32
SPE26612 J-PATRICK DUQUERROIX P. LEMOUZY B. NCETINGER R.K. ROMEU
corresponding to the validation of the upscaling formula
that we propose. And finally a reservoir interpretation
with realistic data.
Individual heterogeneous blocks.
2D conditions
A reference case obtained with finite differences, with
periodic boundary conditions and a direct calculation of
transmissivities is used as reference. The kxx values are
randomly generated with a no correlated lognormal law.
Figure 5 shows the excellent agreement for a small
variance between the reference case and the anisotropic
response. In fact , we are in the conditions when this
estimator can be fruitfully used. And the results are thus
very precise.
Even for significant values of variance, again the
anisotropic estimator yields satisfactory results. In
figure 6 is plotted the ratio of the estimation of the
equivalent permeability over the reference permeability
versus the global anisotropy factor. Results from five
different realizations of the medium are shown.
For the extreme values of the global anisotropy factor,
the error is nul. When Ay = 1, the anisotropic estimator
degenerates into the isotropic estimator and thus the
errors are of the same order. For intermediate values
there is a systematic error: underestimations (resp.
overestimations) if Ay < 1 (resp. > 1).
3D conditions
In figure 7, we make a comparison between isotropic
and anisotropic responses. The grid is 6 x 6 x6 with again
2 different(figure 10). On this figure OP or oP' (pressure
an uncorrelated lognormal law and 0" = 4. The results
are very demonstrative. Ratios between the estimation
of equivalent permeability and the calculation are
varying between 0.3 and 10. when the estimator is
isotropic.
With the anisotropic estimator the results are fairly
well in the global range of Ay and Az.
A more complete reservoir simulation.
Presentation of the reservoir simulations
Firstly a geostatistical simulation generated from real
geological data 3 has been performed on a fine grid ( 21
x 21 x 30 cells ), then we have performed a well-test
simulation with 3 different grids:
- with a coarse cartesian grid (5 x 5 x 5 cells) (grid B),
- with a fine grid, taking as effective permeabilities for
the small grids, those of corresponding coarser grids
(grid A),
- with a fine grid, taking as effective permeabilities for
the small grids, those of correponding coarser grids,
except for the grid containing the central well. This is a
33
locally refined grid around the central well (grid q.
The different grids are represented in figure 8. For the
fine grid, all the cells have the same dimensions:
Ax=Ay=20m, Az = 1m,
For the coarse grid we have:
(Ax (i), i =1 to 5) = 60,100,100,100,60 m
(Ay (i), i =1 to 5) = 60,100,100,100,60 m
and:
Az = 6 m for all blocks.
3D reservoir simulations
Homogeneous and heterogeneous runs were
performed. For heterogeneous conditions the different
upscaling formulas were tested.
Homogeneous validation
Firstly two runs were performed in homogeneous
conditions to check the influence of grid size. The
permeability chosen was 100mD. On figure 9 we have
plotted the evolution of bottom hole pressure versus
time. There is only an influence of grid refining near the
producing well due to the numerical productivity index.
For longer times the two responses are eqUivalent.
But if we consider the well test interpretation the two
equivalent permeabilities are significantly
derivative responses) are plotted versus time. For the
fine grid we find again 100mD while in the other case we
find out only 80mD. This is due to the use of a too much
coarse grid, which enhanced boubary effects. We had
not enough information in this peculiar case to perform
simulations ·with a greater number of grids, so we have
developed pseudo fine grid simulations.
Heterogeneous runs
For this series of heterogeneous runs we have firstly
compared bottom hole pressure responses versus time
(figure 11) between refined grid (A) and coarse grid (B)
using for each coarse grid three upscaling formulas:
,. the square root upscaling ..J K+ K- ,
6~----
,. the sixth root upscaling:;,j K+2K3K4K-~
This isotropic 3D formula has been proposed by
Lemouzy .
 INFLUENCE OF THE PERMEABILITY ANISOlROPY RATIO ON LARGE-SCALE
6 PROPERTIES OF HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS
• the new approach upscaling ( present work).
Our formula gives the nearest response as can be
clearly seen but still with a difference of about 0.7 bar at
1 day. Moreover the two slopes are not equivalent which
means different equivalent permeabilities as the
equivalent permeability calculation is directly linked to
the slope of the bottom hole pressure curve versus the
logarithm of time.
Then we have compared two fine grid simulations (new
approach upscaling before) but in the second case the
effective permeabilities of the fine grids are those of the
corresponding coarse grids (new approach upscaling
after) (figure 12).
The influence on bottom well pressure response is
scarcely sensitive both for the new approach upscaling
or the square root upscaling (figure 13).
For the equivalent permeabilities we find out
respectively:
93 mD for the reference fine grid
simulation,
92.6 mD for the pseudo fine grid simulation
(new approach upscaling)
65 mD for the pseudo fine grid simulation
(square root upscaling).
His clear that anisotropic upscaling yields satisfactory
results.
In a last attempt, again we compare two fine grid
simulations but in the second case the effective
permeabilities of the grids are those of the
corresponding coarse grids except for the cells
corresponding to the central coarse grid for which we
keep the smaller grids information ( new approach
upscaling after modified) (figure 14).
In this case the equivalent permeability obtained is:
92.8 mD for the pseudo fine grid simulation
(new approach).
The improvement due to this last approach is not very
significative.
Conclusions and discussion
The originality of the present work is to combine both
stochastic approach and algebraic formula to upscale
equivalent permeabilities . These formula work with the
following assumptions:
- the permeability tensors are diagonal and principal
axis are constant over the upscaling domain,
- the global anisotropy coefficients must be constant in
the whole considered domain.
These formula are not valid in the extreme conditions
of percolation, but in this situation, to our knowledge, no
work gives satisfactory results.
. The interest of our results is to take into account the
different sources of anisotropy. The proposed formula
work for large permeability contrasts and anisotropy
34
SPE26612
ratios in 2D or 3D conditions.
· A complete reservoir simulation has been performed
enlighting the advantages of our new approach.
Although it has been realized with a limited number of
cells for the upscaling the expected trend is observed.
· The form of the formula displays extreme rigorous
bounds and so the global uncertainty is known.
· The required additive computational time is
negligible compared to direct numerical methods.
Nomenclature
a arithmetic operator
h harmonic operator
kxx,kyy,kzz permeability in X,Y or Z directions
Ay,Az global anisotropy coefficients
Aky,Akz permeability anisotropy coefficient s
K- permeability minimum (2D)
K+ permeability minimum (2D)
K-3D permeability minimum (3D)
K+3D permeability minimum (3D)
K3,K4 combinations of harmonic and arithmetic
means
Ka permeabillity arithmetic mean
Keq equivalent permeability
Kg permeability geometric mean
a anisotropy coefficient
By, 8z, roy ,roz ponderation coefficients
ciL permeabiltty variance
t1x,t1y,8z grid size dimensions in X, Y or Z
directions.
References
1. Ababou R., L.W. Gelhar and D.C. Mac Laughn , "
Three-dimensional flow in random porous media ",
Tech. Rep. 318, Parsons Lab., Mass. Inst. of Techno!. ,
Cambridge, Mass., 1988.
2. Cardwell W.T. Jr., Parsons R. L. Jr, "Average
permeabilities of heterogeneous oil sands", Trans. Am.
Inst. Min. Metall. Pet.Eng., 160, 34-42, 1945.
3. Galli A et al. " Combining geology, geostatistics
and multiphase flow for 3D reservoir studies " , Second
European Conference of the Mathematics of Oil
Recovery, Ed. Technip, pp 11-19, Paris 1990.
4. Jacquin c. et a!. "Heterogeneity and effective
permeability of porous rocks. Experimental and
numerical investigation", Second Reservoir
Characterization Technical Conference, Dallas 1990.
5. Leloc'h G., "An efficient strategy for combining the
permeabilities.Practical application on a simulated
reservoir", 3rd International Geostastics Congress,
SPE26612 I-PATRICK DUQUERROIX P. LEMOUZY B. NCETINGER R.K. ROMEU

Avignon, Kluwer acad.pres. 1989. 4.0

,, ~
6. Le Loc'h G. H Etude de la composition des ,,
",
permeabilites par des methodes variationelles". Projet ,
,,
de these , Ecole des Mines de Paris, Fontainebleau
(France), 1987.
2.0 ,
,,
, ,. ,. ~
-
,,
7 Matheron G., "Composition des permeabilites en
milieu poreux heterogEme : critique de la regIe de ,',.
, '.............. ,....Ii
;---< ~---ED

ponderation geometrique" Rev. Inst. Fr. Petrole, XXIII(2), ''''-

201-218,1968. ,.. _.:'"~" 7'
8 Ncetinger B. , "The effective permeability of a
heterogeneous porous medium", transport in porous
o
~0.7 --- ",'
,

media, to be published.
CT
Q)
:::.:::
10---- W""" ,., : ... .J
" -6- u' = 0.5
,_A ~"
9 Ncetinger B. ,Romeu R.," About the influence of 0.4 -' -e- u' = 1
-
the transmissivity evaluation rule upon the results of -h- u' = 2
numerical simulations of fluid-flows in heterogeneous -~- u' = 4
porous media" submitted to Water Resources
Research 0.2 I I
10 Warren J.E. and H.S. Price, "Flow in heterogeneous 10'3 10· 10' 10' 10 3
media", Soc. Petrol. Eng. J., 1, 153-169, Sept. 1961.
11 Guerillot et aI., "An integrated model for computed A y

aided reservoir description, from outcrop study to fluid Fig.l Anisotropy influence on Keq (20 conditions)
(I Ox 10 k log·nonnal no correlated)
flow simulations", 5th European Symposium for
Improver Oil Recovery, Budapest, 1989.

Fig.2 Anisotropy influence on Keq (3D conditions).

35
INFLUENCE OF THE PERMEABILITY ANISOlROPY RATIO ON LARGE-SCALE
PROPERTIES OF HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS SPE26612
Influence of gridding anisotropy over fluid-flow

K K
liY 1,2 ,
22

'lliY
K K 2 ,1
liY ,
11

'lli Y

First configuration Sccood ConfilDUlllion

• Equation: • Equation:
V.( K V(P) )=0 V.( K V(P) ) = 0

• Geometry of the medium: • Geometry of tbe medium:

K( 0 ~ x < 1 • 0 ~ y < 1 ) = Kl.l K( 0 ~ x < 1 • 0 ~ y < 2 ) = Kl.l
K( 1 ~ x < 2 • 0 ~ y< 1 ) = K2.1 K( 1 ~ x < 2 • 0 ~ y < 2 ) = K2.1
K( 0 ~ x < 1 • 1 ~ y < 2 ) = Kl,2 K( 0 ~ x < 1 .2 S Y< 4 ) = Kl,2
K( 1 Sx<2.1 ~y<2)=K2,2 K(lSx<2.2Sy<4)=K2,2

• boundary conditions • boundary conditions

Fig. 3 Influence of gridding over fluid-flow.

... ... ... ... ..,

.....
....... ....... .... ....... ....
..... . . ... .. . ... ... ... ... ...
.... ....... ....... ....... ......
'
I ..,
...

.... .... ... ....

........ ....... ........ ....... ...
... ....... ... ... ...
........ .... .... .... ...
... ....... ...... ....... .....,
Fig.4 Electrical analogy between the hydrodynamical
penneabilities and electrical conductivities.
36
 1.05

A, Ay
10" 10-' 10'
1.025 10' la'
10.0
" 10.0 u
-J
-J
CT C5
Q)
Y:
1.0 J ~
cr
~ 1.0

0.975 u'=0.1 N=60

numerical calculation
"".... 1.0
~
'"
~
f-
12
0"-

~
anisotropic estimator
I Isotropic estimator I I
0.95+=--+-i I I I ~
10- 3 10-' 10-' 10° 10' 10' 10 3 anisotropic estimator
A
Fig. 5 Comparative resulJ'between isotropic and anisotropic A. y 'v' la'
N=6
= .4
estimators ( 0 2 = 0.1, 6Ox60. k log-normal no correlated)

4.0 Ay
~
Iit_.
-..:;;:.::: .... .. , ,
................ 10" 10-' 10' la'
u
j ......:::~ ,, , ,
2.0
... '
" 10.0
10.0
(J

- J-
CT -J
Q) ''''
,~'!!- , «
r!f
Y: ,~"
,
, anisotropic
~ ~
" 1.0 ...;,......
..... estimator
f-
~
CT
0.7
t----
-.... pt~,
.~,. .... .... ""
~
.... '"Jlf-

, -- ~
~~

~
Q) ........
y: 0.4~- 0'2 = 4 ,
N = 10
.. isotropic
estimator
~
I ,isotropic estimator
0.2 .
10- 3 10-' 10- 1 10° 10' 10' 10 3 a' = 4
A. y N=6
A y
Fig. 6 Comparative results between isotropic and.anisotropic
estimalors (,,2 =4, 10.10, k log-nonnal no correlated)
Fig. 7 Comparative results between isotropic and anisotropic
estimators ( 0'2 =4, 6x6x6, k log-normal no correlated)
 100

99

A
98

97

I 96
f*
~
I
i
95 • ANEGRID
o COARSE GRID

i 94
I;JI;JI;JI;JI;JI;JI;JI;JI;JI;JOOOO 0 0 0 0 0

93
B
92

91

• 90 I I
o.oOE+OO 2.00E-ol
I
4.00E-Ol 6.00E-ol
TIme (clays)
I I
8.00E-ol
I
1.00E+OO

Fig. 9 Influence of grid refining in homogeneous conditions.

C
Fig. 8 Grid refinement presentation for the reservoir
simulation.
 100

Fine grid
98

. ._grid
I
L. .
r ··I······~
.1CJI8f81'OO1~
L 1001 i . / [' I .. ,
1
'

'0000000000000 0 0 0
... IbdhI'OOlI4)lCllling

~
o .... 1IIPft*h up8CIIng
1

: ..-·1 I .> ---11-.-------;

....
92
1_ _ _
,:.....
' ...r-.... I I !
...

10- I
2
,.
.'
I
I
I
I
I i
I
I 8B I I
.,2
I
0," 0,6
I I
0,8
I

4 3 2 1 B 1 "-(_I
U,-5 18- 18- It, dew UJ- 111I- UI 10

Fig. I I Influence of upscaling on bottom well pressure.

Coarse grid
100

~
I I
I . 1i
98
..' 6P 1

i/ I .
~ lla"
1·-'" .,
"
~
..
OP' I
•
I ..
1
.
••
- a•••••••
.
** .. I:~==I
:l;
10
-1
i .2

:1 , , , ...,
••2 0,4 0.6
111M I...,.)

Fig.lO Pressure derivative responses for homogeneous Fig. 12 Influence of upscaling on bottom well pressure
conditions. (after redistribution)
SPE26612 I-PATRICK DUQUERROIX P. LEMOUZY B. NCETINGER R.K. ROMEU

100

98

96
~
e :!? • refined grid

~
~
2i. 94
•••• ...... ••••• - square root upscaling
before
•
E
••• • square root upscaling after

~
92

••• ....... ••• •

• • II !
90

88 +----t-----i-----t---+---i

o 0.2 0,4 0.6 0.8

TIme I...,.'
Fig. 13 Influence of upscaling on bottom well pressure
(after redistribution)
100

98

96

j
~ - new approach upscaling
tl2i. 94 after modified

1 - refined grid
E
2
S
92

90

88 +---+---+---+---+-----1
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
TIme I...,.'
Fig. 14 Influence of upscaling on bottom well pressure
(after new redistribution)
40