PreDarcy flow revisited under experimental investigation
 Fahd Siddiqui^{1}Email authorView ORCID ID profile,
 Mohamed Y. Soliman^{1},
 Waylon House^{1} and
 Akif Ibragimov^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1186/s4054301500812
© Siddiqui et al. 2016
Received: 27 July 2015
Accepted: 21 December 2015
Published: 16 January 2016
Abstract
Background
Sufficient literature has been published about PreDarcy flow in nonpetroleum disciplines. Investigators dissent about the significance of deviation of Darcy’s law at very low fluid velocities. Most of their investigations are based on coarse, unconsolidated porous media with an aqueous fluid. However little has been published regarding the same for consolidated oil and gas reservoirs. If a significant departure from Darcy’s law is observed, then this could have multiple implications on: reservoir limit tests, under prediction of reserves, unrecognized prospecting opportunities etc.
Methods
This study performs a comprehensive review of the literature. Experiments were conducted to confirm the presence and the significance of PreDarcy flow effect in petroleum rocks.
Results
The review of literature and experiments indicate the presence of PreDarcy effect. Contributing factors to PreDarcy effect are discussed and some reasons causing this effect are postulated. The experiments also show that this effect is significant.
Conclusion
PreDarcy effect is significant because it is the dominant flow regime in typical petroleum reservoirs.
Keywords
Background
Modern petroleum engineers have used many equations to describe the physics behind the fluid flow through porous media. Under ideal situations, these equations, which form the basis of modern software, yield accurate results. However, ever so often, engineers are faced with challenging problems that seemingly defy physics: be it a welltest problem, a historymatched simulation model, or even a tool as simple as the material balance. Upon further investigation, engineers have to concede to the simple explanation that the assumptions behind those equations were violated. Even further discomforting is the admission that engineers have not yet properly characterized the physics behind the fluid flow through porous media.
Darcy’s pioneering work is at the heart of all equations related to porous media. Often engineers use it without question. Forchheimer (Forchheimer 1901) demonstrated the departure from linearity for highvelocity flows. However, little has been said about the validity of Darcy’s law at low velocities. Considerable amount of work (Fishel 1935; Dudgeon 1966; Soni et al. 1978) has already been published in this area outside of petroleum, but it has not seeped through the petroleum engineering literature.
This paper aims to give a comprehensive nonpetroleum literature review of low velocity or preDarcy flow. The second part deals with showing experimentally if this effect is significant.
Darcy’s law
The following sections discuss some of the wellknown departures from Darcy’s law.
PostDarcy flow effect
Forchheimer (Forchheimer 1901) made observations that Darcy’s law deviated from linearity for high velocities. He attributed this to the inertial losses. He proposed a velocity squared term to account for this nonlinearity. Even in 1901, Forchheimer noted that some experimental data does not fit his newly proposed quadratic flow equation. He then proposed the addition of a cubic term to describe those data. Due to the less than proportional increase in flow velocity with respect to applied pressure gradient, this effect has shown a significant influence on well performance (Firoozabadi and Katz 1979; Evans and Civan 1994). This effect is generally termed as nonDarcy flow; however, in this study, we will refer to it as postDarcy flow. Later studies (Holditch and Morse 1976; Guppy et al. 1982; Martins et al. 1990) have published the impact of postDarcy flow on fractured gas wells. The literature already has effectively dealt with postDarcy flow, and the reader is suggested to consult elsewhere for a more comprehensive treatment of the subject.
Lowpressure Klinkenberg’s effect
This effect is also well known and ascribed to the Knudsen effect (slippage effect). Also known as the Klinkenberg effect (Klinkenberg 1941), who demonstrated that the permeability of a porous medium is a function of gas pressure. Wellknown published procedures exist to deal with this effect.
NonNewtonian fluid effect
Siddiqui et al. (Siddiqui et al. 2014) applied the above equation and solved the radial diffusivity equation for analyzing pressure transient tests. They validated the above equation with real field injection data.
PreDarcy flow
In radial flow, the crosssectional area to flow increases, which causes a decrease in fluid velocity for any, given constant flow rate.
Various nonpetroleum engineering literature (Fishel 1935; Dudgeon 1966; Soni et al. 1978) have already demonstrated deviations from Darcy linearity under very small velocity fluid flow. However, most of those studies were conducted on unconsolidated samples. The following sections examine their experiments and conclusions.
Published datasets
Fishel (Fishel 1935) observed that laboratory tests for permeability are made with much higher pressure gradients than those encountered in waterbearing formations. He conducted experiments with sand samples and water as the working fluid in a Utube apparatus. His conclusions were that Darcy’s law is valid for very low velocities (10^{−4} ft/day and above).
Soni et al. (Soni et al. 1978) conducted various experiments on different particle sized porous media. The objective of their study was to better correlate the values of a and m for particle size and porosities. Their experiments also suggested abrupt changes in flow regimes and categorized them into prelinear, linear, and postlinear flow regimes, and they too concluded that m < 1 for preDarcy flow. Their experiments were conducted with particle sizes in the range of 0.074 to 1.19 mm and with porosities as high as 48.75 %. They were able to identify preDarcy regime for velocity as high as 100 ft/day. This kind of information is relevant to unconsolidated reservoirs and shows qualitatively that even the near wellbore region might be experiencing preDarcy flow phenomenon.
Neuzil (Neuzil 1986) attributed the departures from Darcy’s law in the preDarcy range to subtle experimental errors: changes in water viscosity, measurement errors, small leaks, bacterial activity, incorrect assumption of steady state flow, gas generation and dissolution, and changes in medium matrix. However, he also conceded that an observational gap exists and that flow measurements have only been made at gradients several orders of magnitudes higher than in actual nature. Therefore, applicability of Darcy’s law can only be inferred at small gradients.
Fand et al. (Fand, et al. 1987) conducted experiments in the high velocity range, but also hinted the existence of preDarcy. Bear (Bear 1972) attributed the preDarcy phenomena to nonNewtonian behavior of fluids at low velocities. Bear also postulated that small countercurrents are generated along the prewalls in the direction opposite to the main flow giving rise the preDarcy effect.
Liu and Masliyah (Liu and Masliyah 1996) divided the flow in four regions: preDarcy, Darcy, Forchheimer flow, and turbulent flow. They suggested that the transitions between the flow regimes are smooth. They attributed the preDarcy effect to “surfaceinteractive flows” and that this effect is strongly dependent on the type of porous media and the flowing fluid.
Prada and Civan (Prada and Civan 1999) experimentally demonstrated the existence of a threshold pressure gradient for liquids. They attributed this threshold to frictional effects. Their experiments were conducted on consolidated sandstones, sandpacks, and shaly sandstone, with brine as the working fluid. They demonstrated that the threshold pressure gradient is an inverse power law of mobility.
Figure 3 also shows the velocity vs. gradient lines for different permeabilities encountered in petroleum reservoirs. These lines show that almost all of the experiments conducted were on high permeability (k > 500 mD) media and also confirm that most of the experimental data is not parallel to these lines (hence under preDarcy flow as discussed above). The shaded region shows the reservoirs with a permeability of 50 mD or less. Inspection of Fig. 3 alongside Fig. 1 reveals that only the experiments conducted by Fishel (1935) were in the low velocity range (v < 0.1 ft/day). As described earlier, at least 80 % of the porous media is flowing fluid with the velocity of 0.1 ft/day or lower.
Noting that most petroleum reservoirs have a permeability of 50 mD or less and that 80 % of the fluid in a typical reservoir is flowing with a velocity of 0.1 ft/day or less; a “region of interest” can be constructed on Fig. 3 (shaded) based on these constraints. This region describes a real petroleum reservoir having a permeability of 50 mD (or less) dominated with low velocity flow (0.1 ft/day or less). It becomes apparent that none of the experiments were conducted in this region of interest.
Methods
Most of the published work was concerned with coarse unconsolidated material with water as the working fluid. Petroleum reservoirs consist of consolidated rocks. In this study, authors carried out experiments on consolidated porous media with an organic (Soltrol130) fluid to match real field reservoir rock/fluid system. Use of consolidated samples also avoids the errors due to solids movement associated with unconsolidated samples. Organic fluid was chosen to observe the preDarcy effect without the polar interaction effects associated with aqua based fluids.
Fand et al. (Fand, et al. 1987) used a steel tube to contain the porous media (glass beads) and the fluid was allowed to flow through the media by a constant head gravity tank for low velocity flows. They used orifice plates to measure the flow rates. Meyer and Krause (Meyer and Krause 1998) used the traditional Hasslersleeve type permeameter. However, their experiments consisted of finding the low velocity gas flow effect. Fishel (Fishel 1935) described a Utube type apparatus (similar to the one used in this study) to apply low pressure gradient on a porous medium.
Experimental setup
Consolidated core samples from sandstone reservoirs of various permeabilities were used to study the preDarcy effect in these experiments. Samples with natural/induced fractures were not considered in this study.
Laboratory precision and uncertainty
The main sources of error in the experiment arise from the challenge of measurement of low flow rates and low pressure gradients. The setup described above can read pressures down to 0.5 mm head (4.9 Pa or 7 × 10^{−4} psi, assuming water head, Soltrol130 would result in even smaller least count). Low flow rates can also be directly read off down to zero with this setup.
Constant temperature was achieved using the laboratory HVAC system to maintain the temperature at 19 °C. The temperature variations, near the apparatus, were monitored every half hour and found to be within 0.2 °C. The sample was cleaned, dried and vacuumed, before saturating with Soltrol130 to remove impurities and air from the system. Constant confining pressure was applied with a hydraulic pump on the core holder to avoid annular flow and wall effects. The experiment was performed single phase to avoid multiphase effects. Viscosity of Soltrol130 was measured every hour and found to be constant.
These precautions helped with taking precise readings to avoid the experimental errors suspected by Neuzil (Neuzil 1986). Moreover, since the authors used organic fluid instead of water, this study avoids the electrostatic effects associated with the polar nature of water and its interaction with the porous medium.
Material balance checks were performed to establish certainty and accuracy of data. Each experiment was repeated for redundancy and validation. The validity of experimental setup was also confirmed by comparing the obtained value of permeability, for each sample, against the permeability value obtained from a conventional coreflooding experiment. These checks helped mitigate much of the uncertainty in the measurements made at Darcy and preDarcy velocities.
Results and discussion
Experimental data and results are plotted on Fig. 5 (which is an extension of Fig. 3). The experiments were conducted on samples with a range of permeability targeting the “region of interest” (shaded). PreDarcy phenomenon is clearly observed, and it occurs abruptly (as pointed out by other researchers) below a certain velocity value that depends on the medium. At these velocities, the plot of superficial velocity vs. pressure gradient deviates from the linear relationship of the Darcy’s law. Because all proper precautions were taken, this effect must be due to the nature of the fluid and rock interaction which manifests itself only at low velocities—preDarcy phenomena. The preDarcy deviation was observed in the range of 0.002 to 0.1 ft/day (for the tested samples with low to high permeabilities, respectively). And as observed earlier, at least 90 % of the fluid is moving with a velocity in that range (depending on rate/permeability). This observation confirms that the presence of preDarcy flow regime in a significant portion of the flow regime distributed in the reservoir.
Deviation from unit slope also points towards the existence of a “threshold pressure gradient” as described by previous researchers. However, for this study, it was considered that Eq. 4 is sufficient to describe mathematically the physics behind the preDarcy phenomenon. However, our experimental data does corroborate the existence of a threshold pressure gradient.
Physical explanations
The preDarcy effect occurs due to fluid and rock interaction phenomena at very low velocities. At very low velocities, the fluid/rock system behaves more like the flow of nonNewtonian power law fluid through the porous media (Eq. 2) than a Newtonian fluid (Eq. 1). The evidence of this explanation is hinted by the mathematical similarity of Eq. 4 and Eq. 2. However, the power law index (m value) for the preDarcy effect is defined more by the fluid/rock system than just by fluid properties (which is the case for nonNewtonian fluid) and is only applicable at very low velocities. This is evident by the fact that the same (Newtonian) fluid yielded a different m value for different media; more importantly, this behavior is manifested only at low velocities.
The superficial/Darcy velocity is a function of permeability, viscosity (internal resistance), and also the friction between the surface area of the pores in the permeable media and the moving fluid. This friction begins to change at low pressure gradient because dynamic friction is smaller than static friction. At very low velocities, the static friction begins to dominate the fluid movement behavior (along with the permeability and viscosity), thus contributing to the preDarcy effect.
Fourier’s law of heat conduction describes the flow of heat, under an applied temperature gradient, through a medium via the vibrations and diffusion of electrons. Mathematically, Darcy’s law is analogous to Fourier’s law of thermal conduction; however, they both describe a different physical phenomenon. Even though both laws yield the same partial differential equations, differences in the physics of the two processes become apparent at extreme ends. It is worth mentioning that at very low pressure gradients, fluid will not behave exactly same as electrons would under a very low temperature gradient. The vibration and diffusion of electrons follow the Fourier’s law even at lowest temperature gradients (except below the quantum phenomenon) in contrast to the fluid flow through porous medium, which involves physical transport of mass. Fluid will require some “threshold gradient” to shear and to begin flowing. Not only is the threshold gradient hinted in our experiments (and others’), the transition to flow manifests itself as the preDarcy effect. Hence, to extrapolate Darcy’s law down to lowest (zero), pressure gradients would be in gross error (as confirmed by the experiments in this study and others). The linearity will not hold for fluids the way it holds for electron diffusion (heat conduction). This idea must be factored in when understanding the solutions (e.g., welltest analysis) and the physics behind fluid flow as opposed to heat conduction.
Conclusions
 1.
Experiments from previous nonpetroleum literature are inconclusive about the existence of significant preDarcy effect. Those experiments, that confirm the existence of a preDarcy effect, were conducted on coarse unconsolidated material with an aqueous fluid, which casts a shadow on applicability to petroleum reservoirs.
 2.
A “region of interest” (to petroleum engineers) was identified and none of the published experiments were conducted in that region. This study experimentally showed the existence of preDarcy effects on consolidated core samples with organic fluid, in that region of interest.
 3.
Because most of the fluid is moving with a very low velocity, preDarcy effect is present in the significant portion of the flow regime distributed in the reservoir.
 4.
PreDarcy effect is caused by fluid/rock interaction, and some of the contributing factors were postulated. However, further studies are needed to list, investigate, and quantify them.
Unit conversions
1  ft/day  3.528E06  m/s 
1  stb/day  1.840E06  m^{3}/s 
1  psi  6895  Pa 
1  ft  0.3048  m 
1  mD  9.872E16  m^{2} 
1  psi/ft  22621  Pa/m 
Nomenclature

A crosssectional area, m ^{ 2 }

a empirical parameter

h formation thickness, m

k permeability, m ^{ 2 }

K _{ v } modified Bessel function of the second kind of order v

m empirical index

n flow behavior index (power law parameter)

p pressure, Pa

q flow rate, m ^{ 3 } /s

v superficial velocity, m/s

μ viscosity, Pa.s

μ _{ eff } effective viscosity, Pa.s ^{ n } .m ^{ 1n }
Declarations
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Anandakrishan M, Varadarajulu GH. Laminar and turbulent flow of water through sand. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. 1963;89(5):1–15. Retrieved from http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?13029.Google Scholar
 Basak P. NonDarcy Flow and Its Implications to Seepage Problems. Journal of the Irrigation & Drainage Division. 1977;103(4):459. Retrieved from http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?7800.Google Scholar
 Bear J. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Dover Publications. 1972. ISBN13: 9780486656755.Google Scholar
 Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN. Transport Phenomena. New York City: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1960. ISBN13: 9780471073925.Google Scholar
 Das, AK. Generalized Dary's Law including source effect. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1997;36(6):5759. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/970606Google Scholar
 Dudgeon, CR. An Experimental Study of the Flow of Water Through Coarse Granular Media. La Houille Blanche, 1966;7, 785. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/lhb/1966049Google Scholar
 Escande L. Experiments concerning the filtration of water through a rock mass. 1953. Reprint from Proceedings Minnesota International Hydraulics Convention.Google Scholar
 Evans RD, Civan F. Characterization of NonDarcy Multiphase Flow in Petroleum Bearing Formation. Bartlesville, OK: US Department of Energy; 1994. doi:10.2172/10142377.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fand RM, Kim BY, Lam AC, Phan RT. Resistance to the flow of fluids through simple and complex porous media whose matrices are composed of randomly packed spheres. Transactions of the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering. 1987;109(3):268–74. doi:10.1115/1.3242658.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Firoozabadi A, Katz DL. An analysis of highvelocity gas flow through porous media. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1979;31(2):211216. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6827PAGoogle Scholar
 Fishel VC. Further tests of permeability with low hydraulic gradients. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 1935;16(2):499. doi:10.1029/TR016i002p00499.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Forchheimer P. Wasserbewegung durch Boden. Zeits V Deutsch Ing. 1901;45:1781.Google Scholar
 Guppy KH, CincoLey H, Ramey HJ. Pressure buildup analysis of fractured wells producing at high flowrates. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1982;34(11):26562666. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10178PAGoogle Scholar
 Holditch SA, Morse RA. The effects of nonDarcy flow on the behavior of hydraulically fractured gas wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1976;28(10):1196. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5586PAGoogle Scholar
 Hubbert MK. Darcy's Law and two field equations of the flow of underground fluids. Petroleum Transactions AIME. 1957;2(1):222–39. doi:10.1080/02626665709493062.Google Scholar
 Klinkenberg LJ. The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and Gases. Drilling and Production Practice, (p. 200). New York, NY: American Petroleum Institute; 1941. Retrieved from https://www.onepetro.org/conferencepaper/API41200.Google Scholar
 Kutilek M. NonDarcian Flow of Water in Soils – Laminar Region: A Review. Fundamentals of Transport Phenomena in Porous Media. 1972;2:327–40. doi:10.1016/S01662481(08)705506.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Liu S, Masliyah JH. Single fluid flow in porous media. Chemican Engineering Communcations. 1996;148–150(1):653–732. doi:10.1080/00986449608936537.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Longmuir G. PreDarcy Flow: A Missing Piece of the Improved Oil Recovery Puzzle? SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery 2004; SPE 89433. Tulsa: SPE. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89433MSGoogle Scholar
 Martins JP, MiltonTaylor D. The effects of nonDarcy flow in propped hydraulic fractures. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference 1990; SPE 20790. New Orleans, Louisiana: SPE. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20709MSGoogle Scholar
 Meyer R, Krause FF. Experimental evidence for permeability minima at lowvelocity gas flow through naturally fomed porous media. Journal of Porous Media. 1998;1(1):93–106. doi:10.1615/JPorMedia.v1.i1.70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Neuzil CE. Groundwater Flow in LowPermeability Environments. Water Resour Res. 1986;22(8):1163–95. doi:10.1029/WR022i008p01163.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Prada A, Civan F. Modification of Darcy’s law for the threshold pressure gradient. Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering. 1999;22(4):237. doi:10.1016/S09204105(98)000837.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Savins JG. NonNewtonian Flow Through Porous Media. Ind Eng Chem. 1969;61(10):18–47. doi:10.1021/ie50718a005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Siddiqui F, Soliman MY, House W. A New Methodology for Analyzing NonNewtonian Fluid Flow Tests. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2014;124:173–9. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.10.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Slepicka F. The Laws of filtration and limits of their validity. I.A.H.R. Proceedings 9th Convention, 1961; 383394.Google Scholar
 Soni JP, Islam N, Basak P. An Experimental Evaluation of NonDarcian Flow in Porous Media. Journal of Hydrology. 1978;38(3):231. doi:10.1016/00221694(78)900707.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tek MR. Development of a Generalized Darcy Equation. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1957;9(6):4547. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/741GGoogle Scholar
 Wyckoff RD, Botset HG, Muskat M, Reed RW. The Measurement of Permeability of Porous Media for Homogeneous Fluids. Review of Scientific Instruments, July 1933;4(7):394. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1749155Google Scholar