Upload
buddy-douglas
View
229
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Laboratoire Environnement, Géomécanique & Ouvrages
Comparison of Theory and Experiment for Solute Transport in Bimodal
Heterogeneous Porous Medium
Fabrice Golfier LAEGO-ENSG, Nancy-Université, FranceBrian Wood Environmental Engineering, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, USAMichel Quintard IMFT, Toulouse, France
Scaling Up and Modeling for Transport and Flow in Porous Media 2008, Dubrovnik
Introduction
• Highly heterogeneous porous medium: medium with high variance of the log-conductivity
• Multi-scale aspect due to the heterogeneity of the medium.
• Transport characterized by an anomalous dispersion phenomenon: Tailing effect observed experimentally
• Different large-scale modeling approaches :non-local theory (Cushman & Ginn, 1993), stochastic approach (Tompson & Gelhar, 1990), homogenization (Hornung, 1997), volume averaging method (Ahmadi et al., 1998; Cherblanc et al., 2001).
• First-order mass transfer model (with a constant mass transfer coefficient) is the most usual methodDoes such a representation always yield an upscaled model that works?
Large scale modeling
1 1
V VV V
c c dV c c dV
c c c c
First-order mass transfer model obtained from volume averaging method (Ahmadi et al., 1998; Cherblanc et al., 2003, 2007 )
Objective: Comparison of Theory and Experiment for two-region systems where significant mass transfer effects are
present
Case under consideration:Bimodal porous medium
Volume fractions of the two regions
-region
-region
Darcy-scale equations
* in the -regionc
c c ct
v D
* in the -regionc
c ct
v D
B.C.1 at c c A
* *B.C.2 at c c A n D n D
Upscaling
• Closure relations
• Macroscopic equations:
* 1 1 *
ConvectionDispersion Inter-phase mass transferAccumulation
Accumulat
Matrix ( )
Inclusion ( )
region
cc c c c
t
region
c
t
vD
* 1 1 *
ConvectionDispersion Inter-phase mass transferion
c c c c vD
c c c c c r c c
b b
c c c c c r c c
b b
Closure variables
Effective coefficients are given by a series of steady-state closure problems
Example of closure problem
Closure problem for related to the source :
Calculation performed on a simple periodic unit cell in a first approximation
* * 1 v b v D b D c
B.C.1 at A b b
* 1 v b D b c
* * *B.C.2 at A n D b n D n D b
Periodicity i i b r l b r b r l b r
0 0
b b
geometry of the interface needed
b c
* *
b v bD D I
steady-state assumption !
Experimental SetupZinn et al. (2004) Experiments
Parameters
High contrast, =1800
0.505 0.505 0.004/0.004 0.0004/0.0004 1.32 0.66
Low contrast, =300 0.505 0.505 0.002/0.002 0.0002/0.0002 1.26 0.63
, ,/L L , ,/T T highQ lowQ3cm /min3cm /minmm
Parameters calibrated from direct simulations
Two dimensional inclusive heterogeneity pattern
• 2 different systems• 2 different flowrates• ‘Flushing mode’
injectionK
K
33.5%
66.5%
Concentration fields and elution curves
Comparison with large-scale model
• 1rt-order mass transfer theory under-predicts the concentration at short times and over-predicts at late times
• Origin of this discrepancy?– Impact of the unit cell
geometry ?– Steady-state closure
assumption ?
300
1800
Impact of pore-scale geometry
No significant improvement!!
Steady state closure assumption
• Special case of the two-equation model (Golfier et al., 2007) :– convective transport neglected within the inclusions– negligible spatial concentration gradients within the
matrix– inclusions are uniform spheres (or cylinders) and are
non-interacting* *
2
15, 3D, spherical inclusionsD
a
* *2
8, 2D, cylindrical inclusionsD
a
Harmonic average of the eigenvalues
of the closure problem !
• Transient and asymptotic solution was also developped by Rao et al. (1980) for this problem
Discrepancy due to the steady-state closure assumption
Analytical solution of the associated closure problem
Discussion and improvement
• First-order mass transfer models:– Harmonic average for * forces the zeroth, first and
second temporal moments of the breakthrough curve to be maintained (Harvey & Gorelick, 1995)
– Volume averaging leads to the best fit in this context !!
• Not accurate enough?– Transient closure problems– Multi-rate models (i.e., using more than one
relaxation times for the inclusions)– Mixed model : macroscale description for mass
transport in the matrix but mass transfer for the inclusions modeled at the microscale.
Mixed model: Formulation
• Limitations:– convection negligible in -region– deviation term neglected at
B.C.1 at c c A
* *B.C.2 at c c A n D n D
1 1
* *,
matrix ( ) :
mixed
A
region
cc c c dA
t V
v nD D
*
inclusion ( ) :region
cc
t
D
A c
Interfacial flux
Valuable assumptions if high
Mixed model: Simulation
• Dispersion tensor : solution of a closure problem (equivalent to the case with impermeable inclusions)
• Representative geometry (no influence of inclusions between themselves is considered)
* *,
1mixed
V
dVV
b v bD D I
Concentration fields for both regions at t=500 mn ( =300 – Q=0.66mL/mn)
Simulation performed with COMSOL M.
Mixed model: Results
• Improved agreement even for the case = 300 where convection is an important process
• But a larger computational effort is required !!
Conclusions
• First-order mass transfer model developed via volume averaging:
– Simple unit cells can be used to predict accurate values for *, even for complex media.
– It leads to the optimal value for a mass transfer coefficient considered constant
– Reduction in complexity may be worth the trade-off of reduced accuracy (when compared to DNS)
• Otherwise, improved formulations may be used such as mixed models