PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 2, 2024Journal of Fluid Mechanics3 citationsOpen Access

Porous media gravity current flow over an interbed layer: the impact of dispersion and distributed drainage

View Full Paper
SSS. SheikhiMFM. R. Flynn

Key Points

  • Dispersion degree within a porous medium gravity current depends directly on the formation dip angle alongside interbed layer depth and permeability.
  • Numerical simulations run using COMSOL show gravity current front tracking agrees with theory until the unmixed model predicts anomalous front retraction.
  • Highlights parametric boundaries where convective instabilities cause unmixed models to fail, defining valid regimes for distributed drainage models.

Abstract

Motivated by buoyancy-driven flows within geological formations, we study the evolution of a (dense) gravity current in a porous medium bisected by a thin interbed layer. The gravity current experiences distributed drainage along this low-permeability boundary. Our theoretical description of this flow takes into account dispersive mass exchange with the surrounding ambient fluid by considering the evolution of the bulk and dispersed phases of the gravity current. In turn, we model basal draining by considering two bookend limits, i.e. no mixing versus perfect mixing in the lower layer. Our formulations are assessed by comparing model predictions against the output of complementary numerical simulations run using COMSOL. Numerical output is essential both for determining the value of the entrainment coefficient used within our theory and for assessing the reasonableness of key modelling assumptions. Our results suggest that the degree of dispersion depends on the dip angle and the depth and permeability of the interbed layer. We further find that the nose position predictions made by our theoretical models are reasonably accurate up to the point where the no mixing model predicts a retraction of the gravity current front. Thereafter, the no mixing model significantly under-predicts, and the perfect mixing model moderately over-predicts, numerical data. Reasons for the failure of the no mixing model are provided, highlighting the importance of convective instabilities in the lower layer. A regime diagram is presented that defines the parametric region where our theoretical models do versus do not yield predictions in good agreement with numerical simulations.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sheikhi et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e70b41b6db643587684ef4https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2024.203
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Buoyant convection in heterogeneous porous media with an inclined permeability jump: an experimental investigation of filling box-type flows2021 · 7 citations
  2. 2Study of the Long Term Acid Gas Sequestration Process in the Borzęcin Structure: Measurements Insight2021 · 8 citations
  3. 3A review of CO2 storage in geological formations emphasizing modeling, monitoring and capacity estimation approaches2019 · 679 citations
  4. 4Recent advances in carbon dioxide geological storage, experimental procedures, influencing parameters, and future outlook2021 · 485 citations
  5. 5Convective dissolution of carbon dioxide in saline aquifers2010 · 375 citations