See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248808849

Comparison of methods to calculate relative

permeability from capillary pressure in
consolidated water-wet porous media

Article in Water Resources Research · June 2006

DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004482

CITATIONS READS

41 247

2 authors:

Kewen Li Roland N. Horne

Stanford University/China University of Geos… Stanford University
139 PUBLICATIONS 875 CITATIONS 351 PUBLICATIONS 3,014 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Kewen Li
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 19 August 2016
 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 42, W06405, doi:10.1029/2005WR004482, 2006

Comparison of methods to calculate relative permeability from

capillary pressure in consolidated water-wet porous media
Kewen Li1 and Roland N. Horne1
Received 3 August 2005; revised 13 December 2005; accepted 1 February 2006; published 14 June 2006.

[1] The Brooks and Corey relative permeability model has been accepted widely as a way
to calculate relative permeability using capillary pressure data. However, the Purcell
model was found to be the best fit to the experimental data of the wetting-phase relative
permeability in the cases studied here, as long as the measured capillary pressure curve
had the same residual saturation as the relative permeability curve. The differences
between the experimental data of relative permeability and the data calculated using the
Purcell relative permeability model for the wetting phase were almost negligible. A
physical model was developed to explain the insignificance of the effect of tortuosity on
the calculation of the wetting-phase relative permeability. For the nonwetting-phase, the
relative permeabilities calculated using the models were very close to the experimental
values in drainage except for the Purcell model. However, in the case of imbibition, the
relative permeabilities calculated using the models were different from the experimental
data. This study showed that relative permeability could be calculated satisfactorily by
choosing a suitable model, especially in drainage processes. In the reverse procedure,
capillary pressure could also be computed once relative permeability data are available.
Citation: Li, K., and R. N. Horne (2006), Comparison of methods to calculate relative permeability from capillary pressure in
consolidated water-wet porous media, Water Resour. Res., 42, W06405, doi:10.1029/2005WR004482.

1. Introduction and mass transfer between the two phases. Vapor-water

[2] Relative permeability is of central importance to soil
science, petroleum engineering, and many other industries
but may be difficult to measure in some cases. Such cases
include extremely low permeability rocks and special fluid
systems in which there are phase transformation and mass
transfer between the two phases as pressure changes.
Several mathematical models have been proposed to infer
relative permeability because of the difficulty in making
direct experimental measurements. Demond and Roberts
[1993] conducted a comparison of experimental measure-
ments with estimates generated with five common methods
and their results showed that these methods are limited in
their predictive capabilities. Another approach to estimating
relative permeability is pore-scale network modeling. For
example, Rajaram et al. [1997] used pore-scale network
models to investigate the influence of correlations on the
capillary pressure-saturation-relative permeability relation-
ships for unconsolidated soils. The predicted relative per-
meabilities were compared to the measured values and
predictions using the traditional van Genuchten [1980]
relationships. Rajaram et al. [1997] showed that the pore-
scale model could fit the capillary-pressure saturation
curves and predict the saturation-relative permeability
curves with a degree of accuracy comparable to the van
Genuchten [1980] relationships.
[3] Vapor-water flow in soil or rock is an example of a
special fluid system in which there are phase transformation
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, USA.
Copyright 2006 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043-1397/06/2005WR004482$09.00
W06405
relative permeability plays an important role in controlling
fluid flow performance. Li and Horne [2004a] found
significant differences between vapor (steam)-water and
air-water capillary pressures, and Horne et al. [2000] found
differences between vapor (steam)-water and air-water rel-
ative permeabilities. According to these studies, vapor-
water flow properties may not be replaced simply by
air-water or nitrogen-water flow properties. It would be
helpful for engineers and scientists to be able to calculate
steam-water relative permeability once steam-water capil-
lary pressure data are available.
[4] Capillary pressure and relative permeability are cou-
pled. This feature is useful in many cases. For example,
Parker et al. [1987] developed a parametric model to
describe relative permeability relationships in two- or
three-phase fluid flow from the scaled saturation-capillary
pressure function. Wu and Pan [2003] derived a class of
analytical solutions for the transient flow into unsaturated
rock matrix using specially correlated, physically meaning-
ful relative permeability and capillary functions.
[5] There are many papers related to techniques for the
calculation of relative permeabilities from capillary pressure
data. Purcell [1949] developed a method to calculate the
permeability using pore size distribution derived from
mercury-injection capillary pressure curves. This method
has been used to calculate multiphase relative permeabil-
ities, as reported by Gates and Leitz [1950]. Later, Burdine
[1953] introduced a tortuosity factor in the model. Corey
[1954] and Brooks and Corey [1966] summarized the
previous work and modified the method by representing
capillary pressure curve as a power law function of the
wetting-phase saturation. Later the modified model was
known as the Brooks and Corey relative permeability
1 of 9
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY W06405

model. This model has been used in many fields. These where krnw is the relative permeability of the nonwetting
include vadose zone studies, subsurface remediation of phase. It can be seen from equations (1) and (2) that the sum
nonaqueous phase liquids [Parker et al., 1987], and oil- of the wetting and nonwetting-phase relative permeabilities
water flow in reservoir rocks [Honarpour et al., 1986]. at a specific saturation is equal to one. This is not true in
[6] Honarpour et al. [1986] reviewed the literature in this most porous media. In the next section, the relative
field. The published literature and experimental data for permeabilities calculated using this method are compared
relative permeability and capillary pressure were not suffi- to the experimental data. The comparison shows that
cient to conclude which method should be used in a specific equation (1) is close to experimental values of the
case. wetting-phase relative permeability but equation (2) for
[7] Historically, the Brooks and Corey [1966] capillary the nonwetting phase is far from the experimental results.
pressure technique was developed for drainage situations
and has been useful to obtain gas-liquid relative permeabil- 2.2. Burdine Approach
ity when fluid flow tests were not practical. [12] Burdine [1953] developed equations similar to Pur-
[8] In this study, we calculated the gas-liquid and oil- cell’s method by introducing a tortuosity factor as a function
water relative permeabilities using experimental data of of wetting-phase saturation. The relative permeability of the
capillary pressure by different methods. The calculated wetting phase can be computed as follows:
results were compared to the relative permeability data Z Sw
measured in the same core sample. The purpose of this dSw =ðPc Þ2
study was to verify which capillary pressure model would 2
krw ¼ ðlrw Þ Z 0
ð3Þ
1
achieve the best fit to the experimental data of relative dSw =ðPc Þ 2
permeability. We clarify that this study was limited to 0
consolidated water-wet porous media, and did not consider
unconsolidated oil-wet or mixed-wet porous media. where lrw is the tortuosity ratio of the wetting phase.
According to Burdine [1953], lrw could be calculated as
follows:
2. Mathematical Background
[9] There are three main approaches to calculate relative tw ð1:0Þ Sw  Sm
lrw ¼ ¼ ð4Þ
permeability from capillary pressure data. One is the Purcell tw ðSw Þ 1  Sm
[1949] approach in which a tortuosity factor is not consid-
ered, and another is the Burdine [1953] approach in which a where Sm is the minimum wetting-phase saturation from the
tortuosity factor is included. The third approach is the capillary pressure curve; tw (1.0) and tw (Sw) are the
Mualem model [Mualem, 1976]. In this study, only the first tortuosities of the wetting phase when the wetting-phase
two models were used. Different relative permeability saturation is equal to 100% and Sw respectively.
models such as the Corey model and the Brooks and Corey [13] In the same way, relative permeabilities of the non-
model can be derived if different capillary pressure func- wetting phase can be calculated by introducing a nonwet-
tions are chosen. The mathematical expressions of the ting-phase tortuosity ratio. The equation can be expressed as
models used in this article are described briefly in this follows:
section.
Z 1
2.1. Purcell Approach dSw =ðPc Þ2
2 S
[10] Purcell [1949] developed an equation to compute krnw ¼ ðlrnw Þ Z w1 ð5Þ
rock permeability by using capillary pressure data. This dSw =ðPc Þ2

equation can be extended readily to the calculation of 0

multiphase relative permeability. In two-phase flow, the
relative permeability of the wetting phase can be calculated where lrnw is the tortuosity ratio of the nonwetting phase,
as follows: which can be calculated as follows:
Z Sw
tnw ð1:0Þ 1  Sw  Se
dSw =ðPc Þ2 lrnw ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
0 tnw ðSw Þ 1  Sm  Se
krw ¼ Z 1
ð1Þ
dSw =ðPc Þ2
0 Here Se is the equilibrium saturation of the nonwetting
phase; tnw is the tortuosity of the nonwetting phase.
where krw and Sw are the relative permeability and saturation [14] Honarpour et al. [1986] pointed out that the expres-
of the wetting phase; Pc is the capillary pressure as a sion for the wetting-phase relative permeability (equation (3))
function of Sw. fits the experimental data much better than the expression for
[11] Similarly, the relative permeability of the nonwetting the nonwetting phase (equation (5)).
phase can be calculated as follows:
2.3. Corey Relative Permeability Model
Z 1
[15] According to the Purcell and Burdine models, an
dSw =ðPc Þ2
S analytical expression for the wetting and nonwetting-phase
krnw ¼ Z w1 ð2Þ relative permeabilities can be obtained if capillary pressure
dSw =ðPc Þ2 curves can be represented by a simple mathematical func-
0
tion. Corey [1954] found that oil-gas capillary pressure
2 of 9
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY W06405

curves could be expressed approximately using the follow-

ing linear relation:
1=Pc2 ¼ CSw* ð7Þ

where C is a constant and Sw* is the normalized wetting-

phase saturation, which could be expressed as follows for
the drainage case:

Sw  Swr
Sw* ¼ ð8Þ
1  Swr

where Swr is the residual saturation of the wetting phase. In

Corey’s case, Swr is the residual oil saturation.
[16] Although originally the Corey model was not devel-
oped for the imbibition case, in this study it was used to
calculate the imbibition relative permeabilities by defining
the normalized wetting-phase saturation as follows:
Figure 1. Experimental data of drainage steam-water
relative permeability from Mahiya [1999] and capillary
pressure from Li and Horne [2001].

Sw  Swr Equations (13) and (14) are referred to as the Brooks-Corey

Sw* ¼ ð9Þ
1  Swr  Snwr
where Snwr is the residual saturation of the nonwetting phase.
[17] Substituting equation (7) into equations (3) and (5)
with the assumption that Se = 0 and Sm = Swr, Corey [1954]
obtained the following equations to calculate the wetting
(liquid) and nonwetting (gas) phase relative permeabilities
for drainage cases:
krw ¼ ðSw*Þ4 ð10Þ
h i
krnw ¼ ð1  Sw*Þ2 1  ðSw*Þ2 ð11Þ
Equations (10) and (11) are referred to as the Corey relative
permeability model for simplicity even though they are
based on the Burdine approach (equations (3) and (5)) by
using the Corey capillary pressure model (equation (7)). A
constraint to the use of Corey’s model (equations (10) and
(11)) is that the capillary pressure curve should be
represented by equation (7).
2.4. Brooks-Corey Relative Permeability Model
[18] Because of the limitation of Corey’s model, Brooks
and Corey [1966] modified the representation of capillary
pressure function to a more general form as follows:
Pc ¼ pe ðSw*Þ1=l ð12Þ
where pe is the entry capillary pressure and l is the pore size
distribution index.
[19] Substituting equation (12) into equations (3) and (5)
with the assumption that Se = 0, Brooks and Corey [1966]
derived equations to calculate the wetting and nonwetting-
phase relative permeabilities as follows:
 2þ3l
krw ¼ Sw l ð13Þ
h i
2þl
krnw ¼ ð1  Sw*Þ2 1  ðSw*Þ l ð14Þ
relative permeability model. When l is equal to 2, the
Brooks-Corey model reduces to the Corey model.
2.5. Purcell Relative Permeability Model
[20] Substituting equation (12) into equations (1) and (2)
with the assumption that Se = 0, one can obtain:
2þl
krw ¼ ðSw*Þ l ð15Þ
h  2þl i
krnw ¼ 1  Sw l ð16Þ
Equations (15) and (16) are referred to as the Purcell
Relative Permeability Model.
3. Results
[21] The experimental data of capillary pressure from our
previous study [Li and Horne, 2001] and from the literature
were used to compare to the results calculated using three
models. These models include: (1) the Purcell relative
permeability model (equations (15) and (16)); (2) the Corey
relative permeability model (equations (10) and (11));
and (3) the Brooks-Corey relative permeability model
(equations (13) and (14)). The calculation and comparison
in steam-water, nitrogen-water, oil-water, and oil-gas flow
are presented and discussed in this section.
3.1. Vapor (Steam)-Water Flow
[22] The data of both drainage and imbibition steam-
water capillary pressure from Li and Horne [2001] were
used to calculate the corresponding steam-water relative
permeability. The calculated results were compared to the
experimental data of steam-water relative permeability mea-
sured by Mahiya [1999]. During the process of the fluid
flooding tests, the water saturation in the core sample was
first decreased from 100% to the residual water saturation,
about 28%, representing a drainage process. The water
saturation was then increased, representing an imbibition.
[23] Figure 1 shows the experimental data of the steam-
water relative permeability [Mahiya, 1999] and capillary
pressure [Li and Horne, 2001] in drainage. The symbols
represent the experimental data and the solid lines are drawn

3 of 9
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY W06405

Table 1. Properties of Rock and Fluids [25] We can see from Figure 2 that the water relative
permeabilities calculated using the Purcell relative perme-
IFT, ability model (equations (15) and (16)) are the best fit to the
Core f, % k, md d, cm L, cm T, C Fluidsa mN/m Rock
experimental data. This implies that it may not be necessary
1 24.8 1400 5.04 43.2 120 S-W 55.0 Berea to adjust the calculation of the wetting-phase relative per-
2 23.4 1280 5.08 43.2 20 N-W 72.6 Berea meabilities by introducing the concept of the tortuosity
3 24.4 1200 2.559 5.029 20 N-W 72.6 Berea
4 22.5 290 9.87 122.8 20 O(kerosene)-W Berea
factor in such a case. The water phase relative permeabil-
5 17.7 107 6.85 30.7 20 O(kerosene)-H Berea ities calculated by all the other models are less than the
6 37.4 1370 20 O(kerosene)-A Pyrex experimental values. It can be seen from Figure 2 that the
a steam phase (nonwetting phase) relative permeabilities
S, steam; W, water; N, nitrogen; O, oil; H, helium; A, air.
calculated by the Corey model and the Brooks-Corey model
(except the Purcell model) are almost the same and consis-
tent with the experimental data for the drainage case. The
only for visualization purpose (the same for all the figures steam phase relative permeabilities calculated by the Purcell
of capillary pressure and relative permeability). All these model are not shown in Figure 2 and all the following
data were measured using a steady-state method at a figures because the curve is concave downwards, which is
temperature of about 120C in the same Berea core sample. unexpected and far from the experimental values.
The permeability and porosity of this core were 1400 md [26] The experimental data of the imbibition steam-water
and 24.8%; the length and diameter were 43.2 cm and relative permeability from Mahiya [1999] and the imbibi-
5.04 cm, respectively (core number 1 in Table 1). Because the tion capillary pressure from Li and Horne [2001] are shown
relative permeability and the capillary pressure were mea- in Figure 3. These data were also measured simultaneously
sured simultaneously, the two curves had the same residual in the same Berea core sample at a temperature of about
water saturations. This feature is important and will be 120C. The steam relative permeability data shown in
discussed later in more detail. Note that the steam relative Figure 3 have also been calibrated under the consideration
permeability data shown in Figure 1 have been calibrated of gas slip effect in two-phase flow [Li and Horne, 2004b].
under the consideration of gas slip effect [Klinkenberg, 1941] [27] The imbibition steam-water relative permeabilities
in two-phase flow by Li and Horne [2004b]. were then calculated using the measured data of the imbi-
[24] The drainage steam-water relative permeabilities were bition steam-water capillary pressure shown in Figure 3 and
calculated using the experimental data of the drainage steam- also plotted versus the normalized water saturation. Figure 4
water capillary pressure shown in Figure 1 and plotted versus shows the calculated results and the comparison to the
the normalized water saturation that is defined in equation (8). experimental values. The water relative permeabilities from
The calculated results and the comparison to the the Purcell relative permeability model are also the best fit
corresponding experimental data are shown in Figure 2. to the experimental data, the same as in drainage. The
The relative permeabilities in Figure 2 were normalized to results from the Corey relative permeability model are a
conduct the comparison. The method to do this is to divide the good fit too. The water phase relative permeabilities calcu-
experimental relative permeabilities by the corresponding lated by the Brooks-Corey relative permeability models are
end-point values. The same normalization has been applied less than the experimental values. The steam phase relative
to the experimental relative permeabilities shown in the permeabilities calculated by the Corey model and the
figures used to compare results in the remainder of this paper. Brooks-Corey model(except the Purcell model) are not
significantly different from each other but are less than
the experimental data in the imbibition case.

Figure 2. Calculated steam-water relative permeability Figure 3. Experimental data of imbibition steam-water
and the comparison to the experimental data from Mahiya relative permeability [Mahiya, 1999] and capillary pressure
[1999] in drainage. [Li and Horne, 2001].
4 of 9
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Figure 4. Calculated steam-water relative permeability
and the comparison to the experimental data [Mahiya, 1999]
in imbibition.
3.2. Nitrogen-Water Flow
[28] In the following section, we will discuss the calcu-
lated results and the comparison in nitrogen-water systems
to further confirm the phenomena that we observed. Li and
Horne [2004b] measured the nitrogen-water relative perme-
abilities using a steady-state method in a fired Berea core
sample similar to that used in the measurement of steam-
water relative permeabilities by Mahiya [1999]. The prop-
erties of the rock and fluids are listed in Table 1 (core
number 2). In this study, we drilled a plug from another part
of the same fired Berea sandstone that was used by Li and
Horne [Li and Horne, 2004b]. The length and diameter of
the plug sample were 5.03cm and 2.56cm respectively; the
porosity was 24.37% (core number 3 in Table 1). The
drainage nitrogen-water capillary pressure of the plug was
measured by using the semipermeable porous-plate method.
The measured data of the drainage nitrogen-water capillary
pressure along with the relative permeabilities from Li and
Horne [2004b] are plotted in Figure 5. Although the
nitrogen-water capillary pressure and relative permeability
Figure 5. Experimental data of drainage nitrogen-water
relative permeability and capillary pressure.
5 of 9
W06405
Figure 6. Calculated nitrogen-water relative permeability
and the comparison to the experimental data in drainage.
curves were not measured simultaneously, the residual
water saturations were almost the same for both.
[29] The results calculated using the relative permeability
models for the nitrogen-water flow (drainage) and the
comparison to the experimental data are shown in
Figure 6. The experimental data of water relative perme-
ability are located between the Purcell and the Corey
relative permeability models. The two models provide a
good approximation to the experimental data in this case.
The features of gas phase relative permeability curve
calculated by these models are similar to those of steam-
water flow (see Figure 4) except that the calculated results
are greater than the measured data.
3.3. Organic Liquid (Oil)-Water Flow
[30] Organic liquid (oil)-water flow exists in the study of
contamination in soils as well as in oil reservoirs. It may
also be helpful to look at the case of oil-water flow. Kleppe
and Morse [1974] reported the experimental data of imbi-
bition oil-water relative permeability and capillary pressure
in Berea sandstone with a permeability of 290 md and a
porosity of 22.5% (core number 4 in Table 1). The three
curves are shown in Figure 7. The calculated results of oil
Figure 7. Imbibition oil-water relative permeability and
capillary pressure from Kleppe and Morse [1974].
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Figure 8. Calculated oil-water relative permeability and
the comparison to the experimental data from Kleppe and
Morse [1974].
and water relative permeability and the comparison to the
experimental data are plotted in Figure 8. In oil-water flow,
the best fit to the wetting-phase (water phase in this case)
relative permeability is also from the Purcell relative per-
meability model. The water phase relative permeabilities
calculated using other models are not notably different from
each other but are much less than the experimental data in
this case. For the nonwetting-phase (oil phase in this case)
relative permeability, the Corey model and the Brooks-
Corey model (except the Purcell model) give good fits to
the experimental data.
[31] Beckner et al. [1988] reported imbibition oil-water
relative permeability and capillary pressure data which were
representative of actual field data (see Figure 9). The
capillary pressure data were also used to calculate oil-water
relative permeability with various methods. The results and
the comparison are shown in Figure 10. The Purcell model
produced the best fit to the water phase relative permeabil-
ity, as observed previously. The water phase relative per-
meabilities calculated using other models are less than the
data from Beckner et al. [1988].
Figure 9. Imbibition oil-water relative permeability and
capillary pressure from Beckner et al. [1988].
6 of 9
W06405
Figure 10. Calculated oil-water relative permeability and
the comparison to the data from Beckner et al. [1988].
3.4. Organic Liquid (Oil)-Gas Flow
[32] Organic liquid (oil)-gas flow also exists in the study
of contamination in soils as well as in oil reservoirs. We
made the same calculation and comparison using the data of
oil-gas relative permeability and capillary pressure mea-
sured in Berea sandstone by Richardson et al. [1952]. The
permeability and porosity of this core were 107 md and
17.7%; the length and diameter were 30.7 cm and 6.85 cm,
respectively (core number 5 in Table 1). The oil phase was
kerosene and the gas phase was helium. The experimental
data of the drainage oil-gas relative permeability and the
capillary pressure are shown in Figure 11. The calculated
results of relative permeability and the comparison to the
experimental values are demonstrated in Figure 12. We also
observed that the best fit to the wetting-phase relative
permeability in oil-gas flow was from the Purcell model.
[33] All the relative permeability and capillary pressure
curves we used in the previous sections have a common
feature: the residual saturation from the capillary pressure
curve is equal to that from the relative permeability curve.
Gates and Leitz [1950] reported oil-gas relative permeabil-
ity and capillary pressure curves without such a feature. The
Figure 11. Drainage oil-gas relative permeability and
capillary pressure from Richardson et al. [1952].
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Figure 12. Calculated oil-gas relative permeability and the
comparison to the experimental data from Richardson et al.
[1952].
experimental data of drainage oil-gas relative permeability
and capillary pressure, taken from Figure 4 in the paper by
Gates and Leitz [1950], were used in this study and are
depicted in Figure 13. These data were measured in a Pyrex
core with a permeability of 1370 md and a porosity of
37.4% (core number 6 in Table 1). The oil phase was
kerosene and the gas phase was air. The residual oil
saturation was about 30% according to the oil phase relative
permeability curve but was about 12% according to the
capillary pressure and the gas phase relative permeability
curves (see Figure 13). The reason might be the evaporation
of oil caused by continuous gas injection even after the
residual oil saturation by displacement was reached.
[34] The oil and gas relative permeabilities calculated
using various capillary pressure techniques were compared
to the experimental data measured by Gates and Leitz
[1950] and the results are shown in Figure 14. We observed
that the Corey model and the Brooks-Corey model (except
the Purcell model) yielded good fits to both the wetting and
nonwetting-phase relative permeabilities.
[35] In summarizing all the calculations that we have
made, including some not presented here, the Purcell model
Figure 13. Drainage oil-gas relative permeability and
capillary pressure from Gates and Leitz [1950].
7 of 9
W06405
Figure 14. Calculated oil-gas relative permeability and the
comparison to the experimental data from Gates and Leitz
[1950].
was the best fit to the wetting-phase (liquid) relative
permeability if the measured capillary pressure curve had
the same residual saturation as the relative permeability
curve.
3.5. Calculation of Capillary Pressure Using Relative
Permeability Data
[36] In some cases, relative permeability data are avail-
able but capillary pressure data are not. A method to
calculate capillary pressure function using relative perme-
ability is proposed in this section. As observed previously,
the Purcell model may be the best fit to the experimental
data of the wetting-phase relative permeability. Therefore
we can fit the experimental data of the wetting-phase
relative permeability using equation (15) to obtain the
value of the pore size distribution index l. According to
equation (12), the corresponding capillary pressure function
can be determined once the value of the pore size distribution
index l is available. The entry capillary pressure may be
measured readily or can be evaluated using other methods.
4. Physical Model and Discussion
[37] The techniques using capillary pressure to calculate
relative permeability were developed in the late 1940s.
Burdine [1953] pointed out that the calculated relative
permeabilities are more consistent and probably contain
less maximum error than the measured data because the
error in measurement is unknown. This may be true in some
cases. However, the differences between different relative
permeability models are obvious, especially for the wetting
phase. Therefore, one important question is which model is
most appropriate for practical use. The calculations in this
study showed that the Purcell model was the best fit to the
wetting-phase relative permeability. This seems surprising
because the concept of the tortuosity factor as a function of
wetting-phase saturation is not introduced for the calcula-
tion of the wetting-phase relative permeability in such a
case. A physical model was developed to demonstrate the
insignificant effect of the tortuosity factor on the wetting
phase, as shown in Figure 15. L is the direct distance
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Figure 15. Tortuosity in a single capillary tube.
between the ends of a single capillary tube and La is the
length of the tortuous capillary tube.
[38] Burdine [1953] obtained an empirical expression of
the effective tortuosity factor as a function of wetting-phase
saturation (see equation (4)). lrw is actually the ratio of the
tortuosity at 100% wetting-phase saturation to the tortuosity
at a wetting-phase saturation of S w. According to
equation (4), the tortuosity of the wetting phase is infinite
at the minimum wetting-phase saturation, that is equal to
residual water saturation Swr here. This may not be true for
the wetting phase because the wetting phase may exist on
the rock surface in the form of a continuous film, as shown
in Figure 15b. In this case, tw (Sm = Swr) may be close to
tw (1.0) (see Figure 15a), which demonstrates that there is
little effect of the wetting-phase saturation on the tortuosity
of the wetting phase. Similarly, based on equation (6), the
tortuosity of the nonwetting phase is infinite when the
wetting-phase saturation is equal to 1-Se. This may be true
because the nonwetting phase may exist in the form of
discontinuous droplets (see Figure 15c). In this case, Se is
equal to Sgr.
[39] It can be seen from the analysis here that the
tortuosity of wetting and nonwetting phases would behave
differently as a function of wetting-phase saturation. This
may be why it is necessary to introduce the tortuosity for the
nonwetting phase but not for the wetting phase.
[40] As stated previously, capillary pressure techniques
were developed originally in cases in which it is difficult to
measure relative permeability. Actually these techniques
may also be useful even in cases in which both relative
permeability and capillary pressure data are available. In
these cases, we can still calculate relative permeability using
the appropriate models with the capillary pressure data and
compare the results to the experimental values. If the
calculated results are consistent with the experimental
data, we may have more confidence on the experimental
measurements. This idea may also be applied to numerical
simulation.
5. Conclusions
[41] Based on the present study, the following conclu-
sions may be drawn:
[42] 1. The calculated results indicate that the Purcell
relative permeability model is the best fit to the experimen-
tal data of the wetting-phase relative permeability, which is
independent of the fluids systems (either gas-liquid or
liquid-liquid systems) and the saturation history (either
drainage or imbibition) in the cases studied. However the
8 of 9
W06405
Purcell relative permeability model is not a good fit for the
nonwetting phase.
[43] 2. For a consolidated water-wet porous medium, it is
not necessary to introduce the tortuosity factor in calculating
the wetting-phase relative permeability as long as the
measured capillary pressure curve had the same residual
saturation as the relative permeability curve.
[44] 3. Except for the Purcell relative permeability model,
the results of the nonwetting-phase relative permeability
calculated using the Corey model and the Brooks-Corey
model for the drainage case were almost the same and very
close to the experimental values. However, those for the
imbibition cases were different from the measured data.
[45] 4. A physical model was proposed to explain the
insignificant effect of tortuosity on the wetting-phase relative
permeability in a consolidated water-wet porous medium.
[46] 5. Capillary pressure function may also be calculated
from relative permeability data.
Notation
C constant.
krnw relative permeability of nonwetting phase.
krw relative permeability of wetting phase.
L direct distance between the ends of a single capillary
tube.
La length of the tortuous capillary tube.
Pc capillary pressure.
pe entry capillary pressure.
Se equilibrium saturation of wetting phase.
Sm minimum wetting phase saturation.
Sw wetting phase saturation.
Sw* normalized wetting phase saturation.
Snwr residual saturation of nonwetting phase.
Swr residual wetting phase saturation.
l pore size distribution index.
lrw tortuosity ratio of wetting phase.
lrnw tortuosity ratio of nonwetting phase.
tw tortuosity of wetting phase.
[47] Acknowledgments. This research was conducted with financial
support to the Stanford Geothermal Program from the Geothermal and
Wind division of the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG07-
99ID13763, the contribution of which is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Beckner, B. L., A. Firoozabadi, and K. Aziz (1988), Modeling transverse
imbibition in double-porosity simulators, paper presented at SPE Cali-
fornia Regional Meeting, Long Beach, Calif., 23 – 25 March.
Brooks, R. H., and A. T. Corey (1966), Properties of porous media affecting
fluid flow, J. Irrig. Drain. Div., 6, 61.
Burdine, N. T. (1953), Relative permeability calculations from pore size
distribution data, Trans. AIME, 198, 71.
Corey, A. T. (1954), The interrelation between gas and oil relative perme-
abilities, Prod. Mon., 19, 38.
Demond, A. H., and P. V. Roberts (1993), Estimation of 2-phase relative
permeability relationships for organic liquid contaminants, Water Resour.
Res., 29(4), 1081 – 1090.
Gates, J. I., and W. J. Leitz (1950), Relative permeabilities of California
cores by the capillary pressure method, paper presented at API meeting,
Los Angeles, Calif., 11 May.
Honarpour, M. M., L. Koederitz, and A. H. Harvey (1986), Relative Per-
meability of Petroleum Reservoirs, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
Horne, R. N., C. Satik, G. Mahiya, K. Li, W. Ambusso, R. Tovar, C. Wang,
and H. Nassori (2000), Steam-water relative permeability, paper pre-
sented at World Geothermal Congress, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, 28
May to 10 June.
W06405 LI AND HORNE: METHODS TO CALCULATE RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Kleppe, J., and R. A. Morse (1974), Oil production from fractured reser-
voirs by water displacement, paper presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Tex., 6 – 9 Oct.
Klinkenberg, L. J. (1941), The permeability of porous media to liquids and
gases, in API Drilling and Production Practice, pp. 200 – 213, Am. Pet.
Inst., Washington, D. C.
Li, K., and R. N. Horne (2001), An experimental and analytical study of
steam/water capillary pressure, SPEREE, 477 – 482.
Li, K., and R. N. Horne (2004a), Steam-water and air-water capillary pres-
sures: Measurement and comparison, J. Can. Pet. Technol., 43(7), 24 –
30.
Li, K., and R. N. Horne (2004b), Experimental study of gas slippage in
two-phase flow, SPEREE, 409 – 414.
Mahiya, G. F. (1999), Experimental measurement of steam-water relative
permeability, M.S. report, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
Mualem, Y. (1976), A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity
of unsaturated porous media, Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 513 – 522.
Parker, J. C., R. J. Lenhard, and T. Kuppusamy (1987), A parametric model
for constitutive properties governing multiphase flow in porous media,
Water Resour. Res., 23(4), 618 – 624.
9 of 9
W06405
Purcell, W. R. (1949), Capillary pressures—Their measurement using mer-
cury and the calculation of permeability, Trans. AIME, 186, 39.
Rajaram, H., L. A. Ferrand, and M. A. Celia (1997), Prediction of relative
permeabilities for unconsolidated soils using pore-scale network models,
Water Resour. Res., 33(1), 43 – 52.
Richardson, J. G., J. K. Kerver, J. A. Hafford, and J. S. Osoba (1952),
Laboratory determination of relative permeability, Trans. AIME, 195,
187.
van Genuchten, M. T. (1980), A closed form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44,
892 – 898.
Wu, Y. S., and L. H. Pan (2003), Special relative permeability functions
with analytical solutions for transient flow into unsaturated rock matrix,
Water Resour. Res., 39(4), 1104, doi:10.1029/2002WR001495.


R. N. Horne and K. Li, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94043, USA. (kewenli@stanford.edu)