SPE-179666-MS

Modeling Relative Permeability Variations in Three-Phase Space

Amir Kianinejad, Xiongyu Chen, and David A. DiCarlo, University of Texas at Austin

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 11–13 April 2016.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Three-phase relative permeability can vary greatly from two-phase relative permeability as mechanisms
such as flow coupling, double displacement, and layer drainage flow regime play a role in three-phase
flow. These are on top of the dependency of three-phase relative permeability on two saturations and
saturation path/history. The net result is that it is difficult to model/predict relative permeabilities in
three-phase space. In this work, we present three-phase oil relative permeability data measured along 11
saturation paths, in a water-wet consolidated (Berea sandstone) and unconsolidated (sandpack) porous
media. These saturation paths cover a wide swath of the three-phase saturation space, providing a better
physical understanding of the complete three-phase phase space. Three different oils (crude oil, mineral
oil, and n-octane) are used in the experiments; the varying viscosities, spreading coefficients, and
composition of the oils allows us to investigate the effect of different drainage mechanisms on relative
permeability curves. Our data show that there are significant variations between the curves depending on
the media, final water saturation, and fluids. In particular, when the media and fluids are held constant,
oil relative permeability can vary an order of magnitude at the same oil saturation, depending on the initial
condition and water saturation. We find that within each media, all the curves represent a similar shape,
but reach to a different residual saturation. This suggests that residual oil saturation is the key parameter
in observed relative permeability differences along different saturation paths. We examine this hypothesis
with the most common three-phase relative permeability models, i.e. Saturation Weighted Interpolation,
Stone I and II, where we vary residual oil saturation to fit the experimental data. We find that if residual
oil saturation is used as a fitting parameter, the models predict experimental data well. Otherwise, without
varying residual oil saturation, these relative permeability models perform poorly in predicting experi-
mental data.

Introduction
Three-phase flow occurs during several improved/enhanced oil recovery processes (Kantzas et al., 1988;
Kovscek and Cakici, 2005; Mohsenzadeh et al., 2015; Kazemi Nia Korrani et al., 2014; Kianinejad et al.,
2015). Depending on the process, each process requires a particular saturation path/history for the flowing
phases, i.e. water, oil, and gas (e.g. during water alternating gas injection (WAG), or steam injection)
(Schneider and Owens, 1976; Jerauld and Salter, 1990; Dana and Skoczylas, 1999; Mohsenzadeh et al.,
2015). One of the most important parameters for accurately modeling and predicting the performance of
2 SPE-179666-MS

these complicated processes is relative permeability (Delshad et al., 1987; Delshad and Pope, 1989; Blunt
et al., 1994; Jerauld, 1997; Blunt, 2001; Shahverdi and Sohrabi, 2013; Dehghanpour and DiCarlo, 2013;
Sun et al., 2014). However, three-phase relative permeability can vary greatly from two-phase relative
permeability as several mechanisms such as flow coupling, double displacement, and layer drainage flow
regime play a role in three-phase flow (Oak et al., 1990; Blunt, et al., 1995; DiCarlo et al., 2000a;
Al-Dhahli et al., 2013; Alizadeh and Piri, 2014b). In addition, three- phase relative permeability depends
on two saturations and saturation path/history (Oak, 1991; Akbarabadi and Piri et al., 2013; Dehghanpour
and DiCarlo, 2013; Alizadeh and Piri, 2014a; Kianinejad et al., 2014). All of these make it difficult to
model/predict relative permeabilities in three-phase space.
Over the past several decades, many empirical relative permeability models have been developed to
predict relative permeabilities under different conditions (Corey et al., 1956; Brooks and Corey, 1964;
Stone, 1970; Stone, 1973; Parker et al., 1987; Baker, 1988; Jerauld, 1997; Larsen and Skauge, 1998;
Blunt, 2000; Beygi et al., 2015). Almost all of these models obtain three-phase relative permeabilities
from the two-phase relative permeability curves (Baker, 1988; Stone, 1970). However, several studies
reported inaccuracies of these models in predicting experimental data (Fayers and Matthews, 1984;
Delshad and Pope, 1989; Fayers, 1989; Oak et al., 1990; Blunt, 2000). To improve these models (and
possibly make them easier to use by requiring fewer fitting parameters), it is essential to obtain a better
physical understanding of relative permeability in three-phase space.
In this work, we present 11 sets of three-phase oil relative permeability data measured in water-wet
media along different saturation paths, covering the entire three-phase saturation space with different
initial and final conditions. Our data set consists of relative permeabilities in consolidated (Berea
sandstone) and unconsolidated (sandpack) water-wet media, with three different oils. These oils vary in
viscosity, composition, and spreading coefficients. This wide range of variables in our data set provides
a better understanding of the entire three-phase space.
In the following, we first present the experimental data along different saturation paths with different
porous media and fluids. We show how relative permeabilities change over the three-phase space, and
identify the key differences in those curves. Next, we examine the performance of the most commonly
used relative permeability models, namely saturation weighted interpolation (SWI), Stone I and II, against
our data, and discuss how these models match the experimental data.

Materials and methods

The three-phase oil relative permeability data presented in this work were measured along 11 different
saturation paths, with different oils in a consolidated and an unconsolidated media. In particular, three
different fluids were used as the oil phase in the measurements. These fluids vary in viscosity,
composition, and density.

Porous media
Two different porous media were used during the experiments. A 3-ft long sandpack was used for the
first 7 experiments, (Test 1-7), whereas for the other 4 experiments, Test 8-11, a 2-ft long Berea sandstone
core was used as the porous media. The sandpack column had a porosity of 0.365 and permeability of 13
darcy, while the Berea sandstone used in these experiments had a porosity and permeability of 0.21 and
300 md, respectively. More details regarding the experiments can be found in (Kianinejad et al., 2015a;
2015b). Table 1 lists the details of the experiments.
SPE-179666-MS 3

Table 1—Details of the experiments

Test Porous media Oil phase Spreading coefficient

1 Sandpack n-Octane Negative

2 Sandpack n-Octane Negative
3 Sandpack n-Octane Negative
4 Sandpack n-Octane Negative
5 Sandpack n-Octane Negative
6 Sandpack n-Octane Negative
7 Sandpack n-Octane Negative
8 Berea sandstone Crude oil Negative
9 Berea sandstone Crude oil Negative
10 Berea sandstone Crude oil Negative
11 Berea sandstone Soltrol 220 Positive

Fluids
As mentioned above, three different fluids were used as the oil phase in the experiments. For Tests 1-7,
n-Octane, for Test 8-10, a crude oil sample from a Malaysian oil field, and for Test 11, a mineral oil
sample, Soltrol 220, was used as the oil phase. In all of the experiments, 10 wt% NaBr aqueous solution
was used as the water phase and air was used as the gas phase. The physical properties of the fluids used
in the experiments are listed in Table 2.

Table 2—Physical properties of fluids used in the experiments

Fluid Density (kg/m3) Viscosity (cp)

Brine (10 wt% NaBr) 1069 1.23

n-Octane 703 0.51
Crude oil 95S 30
Soltrol 220 S11 4.7
Air 1.2 0.02

Experimental procedure
All of the relative permeability data in this work were measured during gravity drainage experiments.
The cores were saturated with fluids at different initial conditions, and opened to the atmosphere to drain
by gravity. At the same time, water and gas were injected from the top to control the saturation path and
to minimize capillary end effect, respectively. In-situ saturations along the core were measured at different
times using dual-energy CT scanning technique. These saturation profiles were then used to obtain fluid
fluxes at each interval along the core at different times, through material balance equation
(1)

where u is flux, S is saturation, ␾ is porosity, z is position along the core (positive downward), and t
is time. i and j denote phase and time interval respectively. The calculated fluid fluxes were then used to
calculate relative permeabilities at each time and position through the Darcy’s equation,
(2)
4 SPE-179666-MS

where k is absolute permeability, kr is relative permeability, ␮ is viscosity, P is pressure, ␳ is density,

and g is gravity. More details regarding the derivation of the equations above, relative permeability
calculation procedure, assumptions and criteria, and the saturation profiles measured during the experi-
ments are given in (Kianinejad et al., 2015a; 2015b).

Relative permeability data

As mentioned earlier, we report three-phase oil relative permeabilities measured along 11 different
saturation paths. Figure 1 shows the saturation paths of the experiments in three-phase space. The
saturation paths shown in Figure 1 start at high liquid saturation, and move towards the direction of
increasing gas saturation as the experiments proceed. In other words, all of the experiments presented in
this work (Fig. 1) move in the direction of decreasing water saturation, decreasing oil saturation, and
increasing gas saturation (DDI). In the following, we show relative permeability data measured along
these saturation paths in two categories based on their respective porous medium.

Figure 1—Saturation paths during three-phase experiments. The starting point is at high liquid saturations region and the direction is
towards increasing gas saturation.

Figure 2 shows the three-phase oil relative permeability data measured along 7 saturation paths during
Tests 1-7 in our sandpack column. Figure 2 shows that oil relative permeability varies significantly along
different saturation paths. For instance, oil relative permeability changes almost two orders of magnitude
between Test 3 and 6, at the same oil saturation of So ⫽ 0.2. Although, it should be noted that water
saturations are different during these experiments. In addition, Figure 2 shows that the relative permea-
bility data of each experiment extrapolate to a different residual oil saturation, indicating that residual oil
saturation depends on water saturation. More details on the data shown in Figure 2 are discussed in
(Kianinejad et al., 2015a).
SPE-179666-MS 5

Figure 2—Oil relative permeability as a function of oil saturation measured during Test 1-7 in sandpack.

Figure 3 shows the three-phase oil relative permeability data measured in our Berea sandstone during
Test 8-11. In this figure, the data corresponding to Tests 8-10 show relative permeability of crude oil,
while the data of Test 11 show relative permeability data to the mineral oil Soltrol 220. The data shown
in Figure 3 show the same behavior of relative permeability in Berea sandstone as that of the data shown
in Figure 2 for the sandpack. Like in the sandpack, Figure 3 shows that oil relative permeability in Berea
sandstone varies significantly along different saturation paths, while the residual oil saturations also differ
from one another. More details on the data shown in Figure 3 are discussed in (Kianinejad et al., 2015b).

Figure 3—Oil relative permeability as a function of oil saturation measured during Test 8-11 in Berea sandstone.

In unconsolidated water-wet sandpacks, it has been experimentally shown before that in spreading
systems (systems with positive spreading coefficient), residual oil saturation can reach to a few percent
in presence of water and gas (Zhou and Blunt, 1997; Sahni et al., 1998; DiCarlo et al., 2000a; 2000b). In
such systems, the oil phase remains a connected phase at low saturations through forming a film layer
6 SPE-179666-MS

between water and gas, which results in oil relative permeability to be only a function of oil saturation
(Pereira et al., 1996; Blunt, 2001; Piri and Blunt, 2002). Pore scale modeling predicts that oil relative
permeability during this layer drainage mechanism at these low saturations is proportional to So2 (Fenwick
and Blunt, 1998; DiCarlo et al., 2000a; Piri and Blunt, 2005a; 2005b). However, this flow regime has not
been experimentally observed in consolidated rocks. Here, we present the relative permeability data
during this layer drainage flow regime in our Berea sandstone rock.
We mentioned that Test 11 was conducted in Berea sandstone rock with a mineral oil, Soltrol 220. This
oil sample results in a positive spreading coefficient, which theoretically results in layer drainage flow
regime at low saturations. Spreading coefficient is defines as
(3)

where Cs is spreading coefficient, ␥gw is gas/water interfacial tension, ␥go is gas/oil interfacial tension,
and ␥ow is oil/water interfacial tension. During Test 11, we determine that ␥gw ⫽ 72mN/m, ␥go⫽
25.9mN/m, and ␥om ⫽ 36.4mN/m in our system, which results in spreading coefficient of Cs ⫽ 9.7 mN/m.
Figure 4 shows the three-phase oil relative permeability data in our Berea sandstone rock measured
during Test 11 on a log-log scale. This figure shows that, the slope of oil relative permeability data
suddenly changes and becomes proportional to So2 at low saturations (So ⬍ 0.2). This is the characteristic
behavior of layer drainage flow regime, indicating that layer drainage mechanism dominating the flow in
that saturation region. This figure shows that at very small oil saturations, the oil relative permeability is
still a finite value, and non-zero. Therefore, this mechanism can yield high oil recovery factors in oil
reservoirs.

Figure 4 —Oil relative permeability as a function of oil saturation measured during Test 11 in Berea sandstone. The oil relative
permeability at low oil saturations is proportional to So2, indicating the layer drainage flow regime.

In the following, we discuss how the existing empirical three-phase relative permeability models
perform in predicting our experimental data.
Modeling
It has been previously shown (Kianinejad et al., 2015a; 2015b) that by simply only changing residual oil
saturation, the simple Corey model fits our experimental data well, in both sandpack and Berea sandstone.
SPE-179666-MS 7

However, in the petroleum industry, it is common practice to estimate three-phase relative permeabilities
from the two-phase relative permeability curves. This can be useful in the sense that it is known that the
rock properties do affect the two-phase relative permeabilities, and also as seen above, the three-phase
relative permeabilities.
Here we examine this approach of using residual oil saturation as the only fitting parameter, with the
most commonly used empirical models, (e.g. Saturation Weighted Interpolation (SWI), Stone I and II,
etc.) to fit our experimental data. Again, we use residual oil saturation as the only fitting parameter in these
models to fit relative permeability data along different saturation paths.

Saturation Weighted Interpolation (SWI)

Saturation Weighted Interpolation (SWI) model was first introduced by Baker (1988). This model obtains
three-phase relative permeability by interpolating between the two-phase relative permeability curves
(4)

where kro(w) is two-phase oil relative permeability to water flooding in water/oil system, kro(g) is two-
phase oil relative permeability to gas flooding in oil/gas system, Sw is water saturation, Sg is gas saturation,
Swr is residual water saturation, and Sgr is residual gas saturation.
We (Kianinejad et al., 2015a) previously have shown that for our sandpack, the two-phase oil relative
permeability curves follow the Corey-type model
(5)

(6)

with Swr ⫽ 0.1, nkrow ⫽ 2, and nkrog ⫽ 2.3. By using these two-phase relative permeability curves, and
only changing residual oil saturations, we fit our experimental data for sandpack. Figure 5 shows the
results. In this figure, the blue points show the experimental data, while the black curve shows the SWI
model prediction. Figure 5-a to 5-g show that by changing residual oil saturation, SWI model fits the
experimental data along different saturation paths well.
8 SPE-179666-MS

Figure 5—Experimental three-phase oil relative permeability in sandpack as a function of oil saturation along with empirical model
predictions: (a) Test 1, (b) Test 2, (c) Test 3, (d) Test 4, (e) Test 5, (f) Test 6, (g) Test 7.
SPE-179666-MS 9

For our Berea sandstone, we measured that the two-phase oil relative permeability to gas follows the
Corey-type model
(7)

with C ⫽ 0.7 and nkrog ⫽ 5. However, since we did not measure two-phase oil relative permeability
to water in our Berea sandstone, we use the data reported by Oak et al. (1990) for Berea sandstone in our
calculations. The data reported by Oak et al. (1990) follow the Corey-type model
(8)

with nkrow ⫽ 2. Using the same approach as the data for the sandpack, we change the residual oil
saturation to fit our experimental relative permeability data for Berea sandstone, using the two-phase
relative permeability curves presented in equations 7 and 8. Figure 6 shows the experimental data (blue
points) along with the SWI model fit (black curve) to the data. Like the results shown in Figure 5 for
sandpacks, simply changing residual oil saturations results in a good prediction of relative permeability
in Berea sandstone using SWI model. Table 3 lists the parameters used in SWI model to fit the
experimental data. It should be mentioned that here, we do not discuss the relative permeability data of
Test 11, as the flow mechanism in Test 11 is different from the other experiments (the oil phase in Test
11 is different from that of Test 8-10) and is discussed separately later.

Figure 6 —Experimental three-phase oil relative permeability in Berea sandstone as a function of oil saturation along with empirical
model predictions: (a) Test 8, (b) Test 9, (c) Test 10.
10 SPE-179666-MS

Table 3—The parameters used to fit the experimental data by SWI

model
Test nkrow nkrog Sor Sw

1 2 2.3 0.08 0.136

2 2 2.3 0.14 0.21
3 2 2.3 0.17 0.24
4 2 2.3 0.16 0.27
5 2 2.3 0.15 0.29
6 2 2.3 0.11 0.35
7 2 2.3 0.098 0.43
8 2 5 0.185 0.267
9 2 5 0.345 0.365
10 2 5 0.255 0.305

Stone I
Stone (1970) introduced his first model based on the assumption of gas and water phases blocking the flow
of the oil phase. This model estimates the three-phase oil relative permeability from the two-phase relative
permeability curves. Equation 9 is the normalized version of Stone I model developed by Aziz and Settari
(1979):
(9)

where
(10)

(11)

(12)

In equations above, Som is the three-phase residual oil saturation. Som can be evaluated by the linear
relation suggested by Fayers and Matthews (1984)
(13)

where
(14)

In equation 13, Sorw and Sorg are the residual oil saturations in two-phase oil/water and oil/gas systems,
respectively.
Using the previously mentioned two-phase relative permeability curves (Equations 5-8) for sandpack
and Berea sandstone, Figures 5 and 6 show the three-phase relative permeability curves (red dashed curve)
estimated by Stone I model for sandpack and Berea sandstone against the experimental data. Comparing
the Stone I predictions with the SWI model predictions shows that the SWI model predicts our relative
permeability data better than Stone I. For SWI model, R2 ⫽ 0.927 and R2 ⫽ 0.97 for the sandpack and
Berea sandstone respectively, while these values for Stone I model are R2 ⫽ 0.717 and R2 ⫽ 0.864,
respectively.
SPE-179666-MS 11

To examine the same approach of importance of residual oil saturation in Stone I model, as the
approach we used in SWI model, instead of using the equations 13 and 14 to estimate three-phase residual
oil saturation (Som), here we manually change the three-phase residual oil saturation (Som) to fit the
experimental data. The green dot-dashed curves in Figures 5 and 6 show the results. Comparing the red
dashed and green dot-dashed curves in Figs. 5 and 6 shows that manually changing the three-phase
residual oil saturation greatly improves the performance of the Stone I model in fitting our experimental
data in both sandpack and Berea sandstone.

Stone II
A few years later, Stone (1973) introduced a new three-phase model to predict relative permeabilities. Eq.
15 shows the normalized version of Stone II (Dietrich, 1979):
(15)

where kro(wi) is the end-point oil relative permeability in two-phase water/oil system at irreducible
water saturation.
To examine Stone II against our experimental data, we needed two-phase water and gas relative
permeability curves during oil flooding, krw(o) and krg(w), in addition to the two-phase oil relative
permeability curves, kro(w) and kro(g), we used in previous models. However, we did not measure these
two-phase water and gas relative permeability curves in our sandpack and Berea sandstone sample.
Therefore, in this section we assume typical two-phase water and gas relative permeability curves (krw(o)
and krg(o)) reported in the literature to examine the performance of Stone II model.
Honarpour (Honarpour et al., 1986; Honarpour and Mahmood, 1988) reports the Corey-type relations
given in Eq. 16 and 17 as the typical gas and water relative permeability curves in two-phase gas/oil and
water/oil systems for unconsolidated media. We use these two relative permeability curves to estimate
three-phase oil relative permeability using Stone II model (Eq. 15).
(16)

(17)

On the other hand, for Berea core sandstone, we use the two-phase relative permeability data reported
by Oak et al. (Oak, 1990; Oak et al., 1990; Oak, 1991) for Berea sandstone to calculate three-phase oil
permeabilities by Stone II. The relative permeability curves reported by Oak et al. (1990) follow the
Corey-type model
(18)

(19)

where C ⫽ 0.16. We incorporate the two-phase relative permeability curves given in Eq. 16-19 along
with the previously used relative permeability curves for each porous medium in the Stone II model, Eq.
15, to match our experimental data in both the sandpack and Berea sandstone. Figures 5 and 6 show the
Stone II model (dotted purple curve) predictions along with the experimental data. Comparing the Stone
II predictions with the other models predictions and the experimental data shows that the Stone II model
12 SPE-179666-MS

performs poorly in predicting the experimental data. In addition, this model predicts negative values for
Tests 6 and 7. This is why Figures 5-f and 5-g do not show the Stone II model predictions. Moreover,
Stone II does not require residual oil saturation, and therefore we could not change residual oil saturation
to make the fits better.

Blunt
As mentioned in the previous section, in spreading systems residual oil saturation can reach to a few
percent. In these low saturations, it has been shown that oil relative permeability is only a function of oil
saturation (⬀ So2). However, the above discussed models do not consider such flow mechanism, and
therefore cannot reproduce the experimental data for such systems. Blunt (2000) extended the saturation
weighted interpolation (SWI) model to model the layer drainage flow regime occurring in spreading
systems during gas injection processes. Here, we examine the model developed by Blunt (2000) against
our experimental data of Test 11, which is a spreading system.
Blunt (2000) extended the SWI model as:
(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

where Sob is bulk oil saturation, Sol is saturation of oil in layers, S*o is the oil saturation at which layer
drainage regime begins, S*g is the gas saturation at which layer drainage regime begins, and k*ro(g) is the
oil relative permeability at S*o. To predict the oil relative permeability during Test 11, we use the
equations 20-23 along with the relative permeability curves given in Eqs. 5-8. In addition, we assume that
gas relative permeability (krg) in Eq. 20 is proportional to S2g (Honarpour et al., 1986; Ghanbarian-
Alavijeh and Hunt, 2012). The model predictions along with the experimental data are shown in Figure
7. This figure shows that the model fits the experimental data well. It should be noted that the bumps in
the model prediction shown in Figure 7 are due to the changes in gas saturation during the experiment,
which consequently results in oscillations in calculated gas relative permeability.
SPE-179666-MS 13

Figure 7—Experimental three-phase oil relative permeability in Berea sandstone in spreading system as a function of oil saturation and
the Blunt (2000) model prediction.

Discussion
Comparing the experimental data with the model prediction curves shown in Figures 5 and 7 show that,
SWI model (including its extension by Blunt (2000) for layer drainage flow regime) perform the best in
predicting our experimental data among the three models studied in this work. However, it should be
noted that residual oil saturation was the key to the good performance of SWI model. Otherwise, the
model could not predict relative permeabilities along different saturation paths. The importance of residual
oil saturation can be also emphasized in the performance of Stone I model. Figures 5 and 6 clearly show
that manually changing three-phase residual oil saturation, Som, greatly improves the performance of the
model, since the relations suggested by Fayers and Matthews (1984) (Eqs. 13 and 14) did not predict the
correct residual oil saturation. Therefore, more data and studies are necessary in order to develop a better
relation for estimating residual oil saturation. Moreover, Figures 5 and 6 show that the Stone I model
performs poorly mostly at low saturation region. This is in fact the region of great importance, as many
enhance oil recovery processes occur in that saturation region. Therefore, correct estimation of relative
permeability is essential for modeling and simulation of such processes.
Figures 5 and 6 show that the Stone II model fails greatly in predicting our experimental data. Although
one possible factor in poor performance of Stone II is the lack of actual experimental data for two-phase
systems, which made us assume typical values for each porous media, but the poor performance of Stone
II compared to Stone I was previously reported by many studies (Oak, 1990; Oak et al., 1990; Fayers and
Matthews, 1984; Fayers, 1989; Delshad and Pope, 1989).
14 SPE-179666-MS

Conclusions
In this work, we presented three-phase oil relative permeability data in a water-wet consolidated (Berea
sandstone) and unconsolidated (sandpack) porous media along 11 saturation paths, covering the most of
the three-phase saturation space. Three different oils with different viscosities, compositions, and
spreading coefficients were used in the measurements. We tested three most commonly used empirical
models, namely saturation weighted interpolation, Stone I and II, against our experimental data. Overall,
we find that
● Oil relative permeability varies significantly depending on the saturation path
● Residual oil saturation depends on water saturation
● Layer drainage flow regime occurs in spreading systems in Berea sandstone rock, and oil relative
permeability during this flow regime is proportional to So2
● Residual oil saturation is the key for correctly predicting three-phase relative permeability
● SWI model performs the best among the models studied in this work
● Changing the three-phase residual oil saturation greatly improves the performance of Stone I, but
SWI still performs better

Nomenclature
C fitting constant, dimensionless
Cs: spreading coefficient, N/m
g: gravity, m/s2
k: absolute permeability, darcy
kri: relative permeability to phase i, dimensionless
k*rg(o): gas relative permeability at the beginning of layer drainage regime, dimensionless
kro(g): oil relative permeability to gas flooding, dimensionless
k*rg(o): oil relative permeability to water flooding, dimensionless
kro(w): oil relative permeability to water flooding, dimensionless
kro(wi): end-point oil relative permeability at irreducible water saturation, dimensionless
krg(o): gas relative permeability to oil flooding, dimensionless
krw(o): water relative permeability to oil flooding, dimensionless
ni: phase i exponent for relative permeability, dimensionless
Pc: capillary pressure, Pa
Pi: pressure of phase i, Pa
Si: saturation of phase i, dimensionless
S*g: gas saturation at which layer drainage flow regime starts, dimensionless
Sir: residual saturation of phase i, dimensionless
S*o: oil saturation at which layer drainage flow regime starts, dimensionless
Sob: saturation of oil in bulk, dimensionless
Sol: saturation of oil in layers, dimensionless
t: time, s
ui: flux of phase i, m/s
z: position along porous media

Greek letters
␮i: viscosity of phase i, cp
␥: interfacial tension, N/m
␳i: density of phase i, kg/m3
SPE-179666-MS 15

⌽i: potential of phase i, Pa

␾: porosity, dimensionless

Subscripts
i: phase
g: gas
o: oil
w: water

Acknowledgement
We gratefully acknowledge the gas enhanced oil recovery joint industry project (JIP) at the University of
Texas at Austin for their financial support of this work. The relative permeability versus saturation data
are available upon request by emailing David A. DiCarlo or Amir Kianinejad at dicarlo@mail.utexas.edu
or kianinejad.ami r@utexas.edu.

References
Akbarabadi, Morteza, and Mohammad Piri. 2013. ⬙Relative Permeability Hysteresis and Capillary Trapping Character-
istics of Supercritical CÜ2/brine Systems: An Experimental Study at Reservoir Conditions.⬙ Advances in Water
Resources 52: 190 –206. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.06.014.
Al-Dhahli, Adnan, Marinusl J. van Dijke, and Sebastian Geiger. 2013. ⬙Accurate Modelling of PoreScale Films and Layers
for Three-Phase Flow Processes in Clastic and Carbonate Rocks with Arbitrary Wettability.⬙ Transport in Porous
Media 98 (2): 259 –86. doi: 10.1007/s11242-013-0144-z.
Alizadeh, A. H., and M. Piri. 2014a. ⬙The Effect of Saturation History on Three-phase Relative Permeability: An
Experimental Study.⬙ Water Resources Research 50 (2): 1636 –64. doi: 10.1002/2013WR014914.
Alizadeh, A. H., and M. Piri. 2014b. ⬙Three-Phase Flow in Porous Media: A Review of Experimental Studies on Relative
Permeability.⬙ Reviews of Geophysics 52 (3): 468 –521. doi: 10.1002/2013RG000433.
Aziz, Khalid, and Antonin Settari. 1979. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Chapman & Hall.
Baker, L. E. 1988. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations.⬙ In SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium. Vol.
SPE-17369-MS. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Beygi, Mohammad Reza, Mojdeh Delshad, Venkateswaran S. Pudugramam, Gary A. Pope, and Mary F. Wheeler. 2015.
⬙Novel Three-Phase Compositional Relative Permeability and Three-Phase Hysteresis Models.⬙ SPE-165324-PA,
February. doi: 10.2118/165324-PA.
Blunt, Martin J. 2000. ⬙An Empirical Model for Three-Phase Relative Permeability.⬙ Spe Journal 5 (4): 435–45.
Blunt, Martin J. 2001. ⬙Flow in Porous Media — Pore-Network Models and Multiphase Flow.⬙ Current Opinion in Colloid
& Interface Science 6 (3): 197–207. doi: 10.1016/S1359-0294(01)00084-X.
Blunt, Martin, Dengen Zhou, and Darryl Fenwick. 1995. ⬙Three-Phase Flow and Gravity Drainage in Porous Media.⬙
Transport in Porous Media 20 (1-2): 77–103.
Blunt, M.J., D.H. Fenwick, and Dengen Zhou. 1994. ⬙What Determines Residual Oil Saturation in Three-Phase Flow?⬙ In
SPE-27816-MS. SPE: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/27816-MS.
Brooks, R. H., and A. T. Corey. 1964. ⬙Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media.⬙ Hydrology Papers, Colorado State
University, no. March.
Corey, A.T., C.H. Rathjens, J.H. Henderson, and M.R.J. Wyllie. 1956. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeability.⬙ SPE-737-G,
November. doi: 10.2118/737-G.
Dana, E, and F Skoczylas. 1999. ⬙Gas Relative Permeability and Pore Structure of Sandstones.⬙ International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (5): 613–25. doi: 10.1016/S0148-9062(99)00037-6.
Dehghanpour, Hassan, and David DiCarlo. 2013. ⬙A Comparative Study of Transient and Steady-State Three-Phase Oil
Permeability.⬙ Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 52 (1): 54 –63.
Dehghanpour, H., and D.A. Di Carlo. 2013. ⬙Drainage of Capillary-Trapped Oil by an Immiscible Gas: Impact of Transient
and Steady-State Water Displacement on Three-Phase Oil Permeability.⬙ Transport in Porous Media 100 (2):
297–319. doi: 10.1007/s11242-013-0217-z.
Delshad, Mojdeh, Mohammad Delshad, G.A. Pope, and L.W. Lake. 1987. ⬙Two- and Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities
of Micellar Fluids.⬙ SPE-13581-PA, September. doi: 10.2118/13581-PA.
16 SPE-179666-MS

Delshad, Mojdeh, and Gary A. Pope. 1989. ⬙Comparison of the Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models.⬙ Transport
in Porous Media 4 (1): 59 –83.
DiCarlo, David A., Akshay Sahni, and Martin J. Blunt. 2000a. ⬙The Effect of Wettability on Three- Phase Relative
Permeability.⬙ Transport in Porous Media 39 (3): 347–66.
DiCarlo, David A., Akshay Sahni, and Martin J. Blunt. 2000b. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet Oil-Wet
and Mixed-Wet Sandpacks.⬙ SPE Journal 5 (01): 82–91.
Dietrich, J.K. 1979. ⬙Relative Permeability During Cyclic Steam Stimulation of Heavy-Oil Reservoirs.⬙ In SPE-7968.
Ventura, California: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/7968-PA.
Fayers, F.J. 1989. ⬙Extension of Stone’s Method 1 and Conditions for Real Characteristics in Three- Phase Flow.⬙
SPE-16965-PA, November. doi: 10.2118/16965-PA.
Fayers, F. J., and J. D. Matthews. 1984. ⬙Evaluation of Normalized Stone’s Methods for Estimating Three-Phase Relative
Permeabilities.⬙ Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 24 (02): 224 –32.
Fenwick, Darryl H., and Martin J. Blunt. 1998. ⬙Network Modeling of Three-Phase Flow in Porous Media.⬙ SPE-38881-
PA, March. doi: 10.2118/38881-PA.
Ghanbarian-Alavijeh, Behzad, and Allen G. Hunt. 2012. ⬙Comparison of the Predictions of Universal Scaling of the
Saturation Dependence of the Air Permeability with Experiment.⬙ Water Resources Research 48 (8). doi:
10.1029/2011WR011758.
Honarpour, Mehdi, Leonard F. Koederitz, and A. Herbert Harvey. 1986. Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs.
CRC Press, Inc.
Honarpour, M., and S. M. Mahmood. 1988. ⬙Relative-Permeability Measurements: An Overview.⬙ Journal of Petroleum
Technology 40 (08): 963–66.
Jerauld, G. R. 1997. ⬙General Three-Phase Relative Permeability Model for Prudhoe Bay.⬙ SPE Reservoir Engineering 12
(4): 255–63.
Jerauld, G.R., and S.J. Salter. 1990. ⬙The Effect of Pore-Structure on Hysteresis in Relative Permeability and Capillary
Pressure: Pore-Level Modeling.⬙ Transport in Porous Media 5 (2): 103–51. doi: 10.1007/BF00144600.
Kantzas, A., I. Chatzis, and F.A.L. Dullien. 1988. ⬙Enhanced Oil Recovery by Inert Gas Injection.⬙ In SPE-17379-MS.
SPE: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/17379-MS.
Kazemi Nia Korrani, Aboulghasem, Gary R. Jerauld, and Kamy Sepehrnoori. 2014. ⬙Coupled Geochemical-Based
Modeling of Low Salinity Waterflooding.⬙ In SPE-169115-MS. SPE: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/169115-MS.
Kianinejad, Amir, Behdad Aminzadeh, Xiongyu Chen, and David A. DiCarlo. 2014. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities
as a Function of Flow History.⬙ In SPE-169083-MS. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 12-16 April, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/169083-MS.
Kianinejad, Amir, Xiongyu Chen, and David A. DiCarlo. 2015a. ⬙The Effect of Saturation Path on Three-Phase Relative
Permeability.⬙ Water Resources Research 51 (11): 9141–64. doi: 10.1002/2015WR017185.
Kianinejad, Amir, Xiongyu Chen, and David A. DiCarlo. 2015b. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeability in Consolidated
Media.⬙ In SPE-175129-MS. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, September 28-30, 2015, Houston, Texas,
USA. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/175129-MS.
Kianinejad, Amir, Milad Saidian, Marzieh Mavaddat, Mohammad Hossein Ghazanfari, Riyaz Kharrat, and Davood
Rashtchian. 2015. ⬙Worm-like Micelles: A New Approach for Heavy Oil Recovery from Fractured Systems.⬙ The
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 93 (5): 951–58. doi: 10.1002/cjce.22166.
Kovscek, A.R., and M.D. Cakici. 2005. ⬙Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide and Enhanced Oil Recovery. II. Coopti-
mization of Storage and Recovery.⬙ Energy Conversion and Management 46(11-12): 1941–56. doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2004.09.009.
Larsen, J.A., and Arne Skauge. 1998. ⬙Methodology for Numerical Simulation With Cycle-Dependent Relative Perme-
abilities.⬙ SPE Journal 3 (2): 163–73. doi: 10.2118/38456-PA.
Mohsenzadeh, A., Y. Al-Wahaibi, R. Al-Hajri, and B. Jibril. 2015. ⬙Effects of Concentration, Salinity and Injection
Scenario of Ionic Liquids Analogue in Heavy Oil Recovery Enhancement.⬙ Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 133 (September): 114 –22. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.036.
Mohsenzadeh, A., Y. Al-Wahaibi, A. Jibril, R. Al-Hajri, and S. Shuwa. 2015. ⬙The Novel Use of Deep Eutectic Solvents
for Enhancing Heavy Oil Recovery.⬙ Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 130 (June): 6 –15. doi:
10.1016/j.petrol.2015.03.018.
Oak, M. J. 1990. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Water-Wet Berea.⬙ In SPE-20183-MS. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
SPE-179666-MS 17

Oak, M. J. 1991. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Intermediate-Wet Berea Sandstone.⬙ In SPE- 22599-MS. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
Oak, M.J., L.E. Baker, and D.C. Thomas. 1990. ⬙Three-Phase Relative Permeability of Berea Sandstone.⬙ SPE-17370-PA,
August. doi: 10.2118/17370-PA.
Parker, J. C., R. J. Lenhard, and T. Kuppusamy. 1987. ⬙A Parametric Model for Constitutive Properties Governing
Multiphase Flow in Porous Media.⬙ Water Resources Research 23 (4): 618 –24.
Pereira, G.G., W.V. Pinczewski, D.Y.C. Chan, L. Paterson, and P.E. Oren. 1996. ⬙Pore-Scale Network Model for
Drainage-Dominated Three-Phase Flow in Porous Media.⬙ Transport in Porous Media 24 (2): 167–201. doi:
10.1007/BF00139844.
Piri, Mohammad, and Martin J. Blunt. 2002. ⬙Pore-Scale Modeling Of Three-Phase Flow In Mixed-Wet Systems.⬙ In
SPE-77726-MS. SPE: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/77726-MS.
Piri, Mohammad, and Martin J. Blunt. 2005a. ⬙Three-Dimensional Mixed-Wet Random Pore-Scale Network Modeling of
Two-and Three-Phase Flow in Porous Media. II. Results.⬙ Physical Review E 71 (2): 026302.
Piri, Mohammad, and Martin J. Blunt. 2005b. ⬙Three-Dimensional Mixed-Wet Random Pore-Scale Network Modeling of
Two-and Three-Phase Flow in Porous Media. I. Model Description.⬙ Physical Review E 71 (2): 026301.
Sahni, Akshay, Jon Burger, and Martin Blunt. 1998. ⬙Measurement of Three Phase Relative Permeability during Gravity
Drainage Using CT.⬙ In SPE-39655-MS. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Schneider, F.N., and W.W. Owens. 1976. ⬙Relative Permeability Studies of Gas-Water Flow Following Solvent Injection
in Carbonate Rocks.⬙ SPE-5554-PA, February. doi: 10.2118/5554-PA.
Shahverdi, Hamidreza, and Mehran Sohrabi. 2013. ⬙An Improved Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Hysteresis
Model for the Simulation of a Water-Alternating-Gas Injection.⬙ Spe Journal 18 (5): 841–50. doi: 10.2118/152218-PA.
Stone, H.L. 1970. ⬙Probability Model for Estimating Three-Phase Relative Permeability.⬙ Journal of Petroleum Technol-
ogy 22 (2): 214 –18. doi: 10.2118/2116-PA.
Stone, H.L. 1973. ⬙Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability And Residual Oil Data.⬙ PETSOC- 73-04-06, October.
doi: 10.2118/73-04-06.
Sun, Alexander Y., Amir Kianinejad, Jiemin Lu, and Susan Hovorka. 2014. ⬙A Frequency-Domain Diagnosis Tool for
Early Leakage Detection at Geologic Carbon Sequestration Sites.⬙ 12th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies, GHGT-12 63 (0): 4051–61. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.437.
Zhou, Dengen, and Martin Blunt. 1997. ⬙Effect of Spreading Coefficient on the Distribution of Light Non-Aqueous Phase
Liquid in the Subsurface.⬙ Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 25 (1): 1–19. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7722(96)00025-3.