4.6 Article

Generalized Modeling of Spontaneous Imbibition Based on Hagen-Poiseuille Flow in Tortuous Capillaries with Variably Shaped Apertures

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 30, 期 18, 页码 5142-5151

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la5007204

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41102080]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [CUG130404, CUG130103]
  3. Key Laboratory of Tectonics and Petroleum Resources of the Ministry of Education, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) [TPR-2013-18]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spontaneous imbibition of wetting liquids in porous media is a ubiquitous natural phenomenon which has received much attention in a wide variety of fields over several decades. Many traditional and recently presented capillary-driven flow models are derived based on Hagen-Poiseuille (H-P) flow in cylindrical capillaries. However, some limitations of these models have motivated modifications by taking into account different geometrical factors. In this work, a more generalized spontaneous imbibition model is developed by considering the different sizes and shapes of pores, the tortuosity of imbibition streamlines in random porous media, and the initial wetting-phase saturation. The interrelationships of accumulated imbibition weight, imbibition rate and gas recovery and the properties of the porous media, wetting liquids, and their interactions are derived analytically. A theoretical analysis and comparison denote that the presented equations can generalize several traditional and newly developed models from the literature. The proposed model was evaluated using previously published data for spontaneous imbibition measured in various natural and engineered materials including different rock types, fibrous materials, and silica glass. The test-results show that the generalized model can be used to characterize the spontaneous imbibition behavior of many different porous media and that pore shape cannot always be assumed to be cylindrical.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据