Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling Method
The present study compares flow paths in reservoirs with natural fractures, solved with Complex Analysis Methods (CAM), to those solved with Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM). One aim is to define scaling rules for the strength (flux) of the discrete natural fractures used in CAM models, whic...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Geofluids |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8838540 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832560055661101056 |
|---|---|
| author | Aaditya Khanal Ruud Weijermars |
| author_facet | Aaditya Khanal Ruud Weijermars |
| author_sort | Aaditya Khanal |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The present study compares flow paths in reservoirs with natural fractures, solved with Complex Analysis Methods (CAM), to those solved with Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM). One aim is to define scaling rules for the strength (flux) of the discrete natural fractures used in CAM models, which was previously theoretically defined based on the expected flow distortion. A major hurdle for quantitative benchmarks of CAM with EDFM results is that each of the two methods accounts for natural fractures with different assumptions and input parameters. For example, EDFM scales the permeability of the natural fractures based on a cubic equation, while CAM uses a flux strength. The results from CAM and EDFM are used to scale the flux strength of the natural fractures and improve the equivalent permeability contrast estimation for CAM. The permeability contrast for CAM is calculated from the ratio of the enhanced velocity inside natural fractures to the unperturbed matrix fluid velocity. A significant advantage of flow and pressure models based on CAM is the high resolution without complex gridding. Particle tracking results are presented for fractures with different hydraulic conductivity ranging from highly permeable to impervious. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a9aea7f07fed4db7b4c74fff7e756686 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1468-8115 1468-8123 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Geofluids |
| spelling | doaj-art-a9aea7f07fed4db7b4c74fff7e7566862025-02-03T01:28:34ZengWileyGeofluids1468-81151468-81232020-01-01202010.1155/2020/88385408838540Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling MethodAaditya Khanal0Ruud Weijermars1Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3116, USAHarold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3116 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3116, USAThe present study compares flow paths in reservoirs with natural fractures, solved with Complex Analysis Methods (CAM), to those solved with Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM). One aim is to define scaling rules for the strength (flux) of the discrete natural fractures used in CAM models, which was previously theoretically defined based on the expected flow distortion. A major hurdle for quantitative benchmarks of CAM with EDFM results is that each of the two methods accounts for natural fractures with different assumptions and input parameters. For example, EDFM scales the permeability of the natural fractures based on a cubic equation, while CAM uses a flux strength. The results from CAM and EDFM are used to scale the flux strength of the natural fractures and improve the equivalent permeability contrast estimation for CAM. The permeability contrast for CAM is calculated from the ratio of the enhanced velocity inside natural fractures to the unperturbed matrix fluid velocity. A significant advantage of flow and pressure models based on CAM is the high resolution without complex gridding. Particle tracking results are presented for fractures with different hydraulic conductivity ranging from highly permeable to impervious.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8838540 |
| spellingShingle | Aaditya Khanal Ruud Weijermars Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling Method Geofluids |
| title | Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling Method |
| title_full | Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling Method |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling Method |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling Method |
| title_short | Comparison of Flow Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Complex Analysis Methods (CAM) and Embedded Discrete Fracture Models (EDFM): Fundamental Design Differences and Improved Scaling Method |
| title_sort | comparison of flow solutions for naturally fractured reservoirs using complex analysis methods cam and embedded discrete fracture models edfm fundamental design differences and improved scaling method |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8838540 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT aadityakhanal comparisonofflowsolutionsfornaturallyfracturedreservoirsusingcomplexanalysismethodscamandembeddeddiscretefracturemodelsedfmfundamentaldesigndifferencesandimprovedscalingmethod AT ruudweijermars comparisonofflowsolutionsfornaturallyfracturedreservoirsusingcomplexanalysismethodscamandembeddeddiscretefracturemodelsedfmfundamentaldesigndifferencesandimprovedscalingmethod |