Vol. 337 No. 7 (2026)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18799/24131830/2026/7/5739
Impact of relative permeability and capillary pressure parameterization on the inversion results of unsteady-state core flooding data
Relevance. Simultaneous estimation of relative permeability and capillary pressure-saturation functions from unsteady-state core flooding experiments is considered a promising way to reduce the scope of laboratory measurements. However, practical application of this approach is complicated by the non-uniqueness of the inverse problem, the limitation of experimental data, and the dependence of the result on the selected representation of the target curves. Under these conditions, the type of parameterization of relative permeability and capillary pressure curves becomes one of the key factors controlling both the quality of curve reconstruction and the uncertainty assessment. Aim. To evaluate the impact of the parameterization of relative permeability and capillary pressure on the results of numerical inversion and on the subsequent uncertainty quantification. Methods. Two approaches for describing the target functions were considered: analytical parameterization based on the Corey–Brooks and Skjaeveland models, and pointwise parameterization at saturation nodes. The analysis was performed on three two-phase computational experiments of unsteady-state oil displacement by water: a baseline synthetic case with smooth curves, a more complex synthetic case with variable curvature of the functions, and a digital LBM-based experiment at the pore scale. The inverse problem was solved using gradient-based optimization combined with an ensemble-based uncertainty analysis over multiple initial models. Results and conclusions. It was shown that analytical parameterization provides fast inversion and acceptable reconstruction for simple smooth curves, but leads to biased solutions and underestimated uncertainty bounds when the true saturation functions have a complex shape. In some cases, analytical models fail to reproduce complex saturation profiles and yield non-physical capillary pressure estimates. Pointwise parameterization is computationally more expensive, but it allows a wider class of functional shapes to be represented, provides a better match to complex experimental data, and produces more realistic confidence intervals. It is concluded that analytical parameterization is suitable for rapid estimates and simple cases, whereas the pointwise approach is a more reliable tool for reconstructing complex relative permeability and capillary pressure curves and for consistent uncertainty assessment.
For citation: Dzharkinov R.B., Fokin M.I., Duchkov A.A., Krutko V.V., Avdonin A.S. Impact of relative permeability and capillary pressure parameterization on the inversion results of unsteady-state core flooding data. Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. Geo Assets Engineering, 2026, vol. 337, no. 7, pp. 228-246. https://doi.org/10.18799/24131830/2026/7/5739
Keywords:
relative permeability, capillary pressure, numerical inversion, unsteady-state core flooding, curve parameterization, uncertainty analysis
References:
1. Peaceman D.W. Fundamentals of numerical reservoir simulation. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2000. Vol. 6, 176 p.
2. Mohammad R.S., Tareen M.Y.K., Mengel A., Shah S.A.R., Iqbal J. Simulation study of relative permeability and the dynamic capillarity of waterflooding in tight oil reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2020, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1891–1896. DOI: 10.1007/s13202-020-00856-x.
3. McPhee C., Reed J., Zubizarreta I. Core analysis: a best practice guide. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2015. Vol. 64, 852 p.
4. Nojabaei B., Johns R.T., Chu L. Effect of capillary pressure on phase behavior in tight rocks and shales. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2013, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 281–289. DOI: 10.2118/159258-PA.
5. Johnson E.F., Bossler D.P., Bossler V.O.N. Calculation of relative permeability from displacement experiments. Transactions of the AIME, 1959, vol. 216, no. 1, pp. 370–372. DOI: 10.2118/1023-g.
6. Qadeer S. Techniques to handle limitations in dynamic relative permeability measurements.. Tulsa: Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)., 2002. 184 p.
7. Huang D.D., Honarpour M.M. Capillary end effects in coreflood calculations. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 1998, vol. 19, no. 1–2, pp. 103–117. DOI: 10.1016/S0920-4105(97)00040-5.
8. Rücker M., Bartels W.B., Singh K., Brussee N., Coorn A., Van der Linde H.A., Bonnin A., Ott H., Hassanizadeh S.M., Blunt M.J., Mahani H., Georgiadis A., Berg S. The effect of mixed wettability on pore-scale flow regimes based on a flooding experiment in Ketton limestone. Geophysical Research Letters, 2019, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 3225–3234. DOI: 10.1029/2018GL081784.
9. Sorop T.G., Masalmeh S.K., Suijkerbuijk B.M., Van der Linde H.A., Mahani H., Brussee N.J., Marcelis F.A., Coorn A. Relative permeability measurements to quantify the low salinity flooding effect at field scale. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference. Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–12 November 2015. SPE, 2015. 15 p.
10. Gupta R., Maloney D., Laverick D., Longoria R., Poore L., Spitzenberger J. A novel laboratory method for determining capillary pressure and wettability while measuring steady-state relative permeability. International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts. Snowmass, Colorado, USA, 21–26 August 2016. 12 p.
11. Amrollahinasab O., Azizmohammadi S., Ott H. Simultaneous interpretation of SCAL data with different degrees of freedom and uncertainty analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 2023, vol. 153. DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105074.
12. Berg S., Dijk H., Unsal E., Hofmann R., Zhao B., Ahuja V.R. Simultaneous determination of relative permeability and capillary pressure from an unsteady-state core flooding experiment? Computers and Geotechnics, 2024, vol. 168. DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106091.
13. Hemmati N., Borazjani S., Badalyan A., Genolet L., Behr A., Zeinijahromi A., Bedrikovetsky P. Determining relative permeability and capillary pressure from mixed-wet core floods. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 2024, vol. 239. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoen.2024.212885.
14. Khadivi K. Quantifying uncertainties of CO₂-oil relative permeability and capillary pressure curves through automatic history matching core flood data. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2025, vol. 15, no. 11. DOI: 10.1007/s13202-025-02005-8.
15. Kalule R., Abderrahmane H.A., Ahmed S., Alameri W., Al-Shalabi E.W. Relative permeability and capillary pressure estimation via physics-informed machine learning and reinforcement learning. Petroleum, 2026, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 430–443. DOI: 10.1016/j.petlm.2026.04.005.
16. Brooks R.H., Corey A.T. Hydraulic properties of porous media and their relation to drainage design. Transactions of the ASAE, 1964, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 26–28. DOI: 10.13031/2013.40684.
17. Van Genuchten M.T. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1980, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 892–898. DOI: 10.2136/SSSAJ1980.03615995004400050002X.
18. Lomeland F., Ebeltoft E., Thomas W.H. A new versatile relative permeability correlation. International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts. Toronto, Canada, 21–25 August 2005. 12 p.
19. Skjaeveland S.M., Siqveland L.M., Kjosavik A., Thomas W.L., Virnovsky G.A. Capillary pressure correlation for mixed-wet reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2000, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 60–67. DOI: 10.2118/39497-MS.
20. Sylte A., Mannseth T., Mykkeltveit J., Nordtvedt J.E. Relative permeability and capillary pressure: effects of rock heterogeneity. Reviewed Proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium of the SCA. The Hague, 1998. pp. 14–16.
21. Shirangi M.G. History matching production data with truncated SVD parameterization. Master’s thesis. Tulsa, 2018. 234 p.
22. Zhou X.H., Wang H., McClure J., Chen J., Xiao H. Inference of relative permeability curves in reservoir rocks with ensemble Kalman method. The European Physical Journal E, 2023, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 44. DOI: 10.1140/epje/s10189-023-00296-5.
23. On the interpretation of unsteady state experiments in heterogeneous rock by stochastic methods. Amrollahinasab O., Jammernegg B., Azizmohammadi S., Ott H. InterPore Journal, 2025, vol. 2, no. 2. DOI: 10.69631/ipj.v2i2nr44.
24. Dell'Oca A., Manzoni A., Siena M., Bona N.G., Moghadasi L., Miarelli M., Renna D., Guadagnini A. Stochastic inverse modeling of transient laboratory-scale three-dimensional two-phase core flooding scenarios. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2023, vol. 202. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2022.123716.
25. Yang Z., Shabani M., Solano N., Ghanizadeh A., Clarkson C.R. Experimental determination of gas-water relative permeability for ultra-low-permeability reservoirs using crushed-rock samples: implications for drill cuttings characterization. Fuel, 2023, vol. 347. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.128331.
26. Shi J.Q., Xue Z., Durucan S. Supercritical CO2 core flooding and imbibition in Tako sandstone – influence of sub-core scale heterogeneity. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2011, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75–87. DOI: 10.1016/J.IJGGC.2010.07.003.
27. Youssef S., Deschamps H., Dautriat J., Rosenberg E., Oughanem R., Maire E., Mokso R. 4D imaging of fluid flow dynamics in natural porous media with ultra-fast X-ray microtomography. International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts. Napa Valley, California, 2013. pp. 1–12.
28. Fokin M.I., Duchkov A.A., Zubavichus Ya.V., Golovin S.V., Krutko V.V. Synchrotron radiation for solving problems of the oil and gas industry. Science and Technologies of Siberia, 2024, no. 1, pp. 81–88. (In Russ.)
29. Rakshun Ya.V., Khomyakov Yu.V., Glushkov E.I., Gogolev A.S., Gorbachev M.V., Darin A.V., Darin F.A., Dolbnya I.P., Rashchenko S.V., Chernov V.A., Chkhalo N.I., Sharafutdinov M.R. "Microfocus" – the first beamline in Russia combining coherent and incoherent X-ray methods for geology and geochemistry. Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. Geo Assets Engineering, 2025, vol. 336, no. 5, pp. 229–251. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.18799/24131830/2025/5/5122.
30. Li W. Inverse modeling and uncertainty quantification of nonlinear flow in porous media models. PHD thesis. California, 2014. 156 p.
31. Berg S., Unsal E., Dijk H. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for parameterization of multiphase flow models. Transport in Porous Media, 2021, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 27–57. DOI: 10.1007/s11242-021-01576-4.
32. Jennen H., Alves R.J., Eler F.M., Müller S.C. Handling multimodality with ensemble MCMC for uncertainty quantification of relative permeability and capillary pressure. Offshore Technology Conference Brasil. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 2025.
33. De Miranda G.B., Dos Santos R.W., Chapiro G., Rocha B.M. Uncertainty quantification on foam modeling: the interplay of relative permeability and implicit-texture foam parameters. Transport in Porous Media, 2025, vol. 152, no. 1. DOI: 10.1007/s11242-024-02137-1.
34. Andrianov N., Mohammadkhani S., Rostami B., Al-Masri W.F. Intermittent injection of supercritical CO₂ in oil-brine-saturated rocks: experimental data and numerical modelling. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2025, vol. 144. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2025.104382.
35. Valdez A.R., Rocha B.M., Chapiro G., Weber dos Santos R. Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis for relative permeability models of two-phase flow in porous media. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020, vol. 192. DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107297.
36. Berg S., Unsal E., Dijk H. Non-uniqueness and uncertainty quantification of relative permeability measurements by inverse modelling. Computers and Geotechnics, 2021, vol. 132. DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103964.
37. Rapoport L.A., Leas W.J. Properties of linear waterfloods. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1953, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 139–148. DOI: 10.2118/213-G.
38. Newville M., Otten R., Nelson A., Stensitzki T., Ingargiola A., Allan D., Fox A., Carter F., Rawlik M. LMFIT: non-linear least-squares minimization and curve-fitting for Python (Version 1.3.3) [Computer software]. 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.598352.
39. Levenberg K. A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 1944, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 164–168. DOI: 10.1090/qam/10666.
40. Marquardt D.W. An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1963, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 431–441. DOI: 10.1137/0111030.
41. Doherty J.E., Hunt R.J., Tonkin M.J. Approaches to highly parameterized inversion: a guide to using PEST for model-parameter and predictive-uncertainty analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5211, 2010. 71 p. DOI: 10.3133/sir20105211.
42. Liu H., Qinjun K., Leonardi C.R., Sebastian S., Narváez A., Jones B.D., Williams J.R., Valocchi A.J., Harting J. Multiphase lattice Boltzmann simulations for porous media applications: a review. Computational Geosciences, 2016, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 777–805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S10596-015-9542-3.
43. Gostick J.T., Khan Z.A., Tranter T.G., Kok M.D., Agnaou M., Sadeghi M., Jervis R. PoreSpy: a Python toolkit for quantitative analysis of porous media images. Journal of Open Source Software, 2019, vol. 4, no. 37. DOI: 10.21105/JOSS.01296.
