[2330.2.1] The basic idea of the analysis below
is to approximate the travelling wave profile
for long times
with piecewise constant functions (step functions).
[2330.2.2] For large
[page 2331, §0]
(i.e. in the Buckley-Leverett limit) one may
view this approximate profile as a superposition of two
Buckley-Leverett shock fronts.
[2331.0.1] This is possible by virtue of the fact, that the Heaviside step
function
![]() |
(35) |
can also be regarded as a function of the similarity
variable of the Buckley-Leverett problem.
[2331.1.1] In the crudest approximation
one can split the total profile
for sufficiently large into the sum
![]() |
(36a) |
of an imbibition front
![]() |
(36b) |
located at
and a drainage front profile located at
![]() |
(36c) |
both moving with the same speed ,
where
resp.
are the upper
(inlet) resp.
lower (outlet) saturations and
is the maximum (overshoot) saturation.
[2331.1.2] The quantity
is the distance by which the imbibition
front precedes the drainage front, i.e. the width of the tip
(=overshoot) region.
[2331.2.1] The two equations (28) become coupled,
if eq. (20) holds true, because
then there is only a single wave speed
for both fronts.
[2331.2.2] At the imbibition discontinuity
the Rankine-Hugoniot condition demands
![]() |
(37a) |
and the second equality (with colon)
defines the function .
[2331.2.3] Similarly
![]() |
(37b) |
defines the drainage front velocity as a function
of the overshoot
.
Examples of the velocities
used in the compuations are
shown in Figure 1a.
[2331.2.4] For a travelling wave both fronts move with the same velocity so that
the mathematical problem is to find a solution
of the equation
![]() |
(38) |
obtained from equating eqs. (37b) and (37a)
(See Fig. 1a).
[2331.2.5] The wave velocity is then obtained as
or equivalently as
.
[page 2332, §1]
[2332.1.1] Equation (38) provides a necessary condition for
the existence of a travelling wave solution of the form of
eq. (36) with velocity and overshoot
.
[2332.1.2] More generally, if the saturation plateau
is larger or
smaller than
, one expects to find non-monotone profiles
that are, however, not travelling waves.
[2332.1.3] Instead the drainage
and imbibition fronts are expected to
have different velocities.
[2332.1.4] The fractional flow functions with relative permeabilities
from eqs. (31)
and the parameters from Table 1 give
for
the result
![]() |
(39) |
while for one has
![]() |
(40) |
[2332.1.5] In this case, for plateau saturations , the
leading (imbibition) front has a smaller velocity than
the trailing (drainage) front.
[2332.1.6] Thus the trailing front catches up and
the profile approaches a single front at long times.
[2332.1.7] For plateau saturations
on the other hand the trailing
drainage front moves slower than the leading imbibition front.
[2332.1.8] In this case a non-monotone profile persists indefinitely, albeit
with a plateau (tip) width that increases linearly with
time.
Parameter | Symbol | Value | Units |
---|---|---|---|
system size | ![]() |
1.0 | m |
porosity | ![]() |
0.38 | – |
permeability | ![]() |
![]() |
m![]() |
density ![]() |
![]() |
1000 | kg/m![]() |
density ![]() |
![]() |
800 | kg/m![]() |
viscosity ![]() |
![]() |
0.001 | Pa![]() |
viscosity ![]() |
![]() |
0.0003 | Pa![]() |
imbibition exp. | ![]() |
0.85 | – |
drainage exp. | ![]() |
0.98 | – |
end pnt. rel.p. | ![]() |
0.35 | – |
end pnt. rel.p. | ![]() |
1 | – |
end pnt. rel.p. | ![]() |
0.35 | – |
end pnt. rel.p. | ![]() |
0.75 | – |
imb. cap. press. | ![]() |
55.55 | Pa |
dr. cap. press. | ![]() |
100 | Pa |
end pnt. sat. | ![]() |
0 | – |
end pnt. sat. | ![]() |
0.07 | – |
end pnt. sat. | ![]() |
0.045 | – |
end pnt. sat. | ![]() |
0.045 | – |
boundary sat. | ![]() |
0.01 | – |
boundary sat. | ![]() |
0.60 | – |
total flux | ![]() |
1.196 10![]() |
m/s |