Buoyant convection in heterogeneous porous media with an inclined permeability jump: an experimental investigation of filling box-type flows

Bharath, K. S.; Flynn, M. R.

doi:10.1017/jfm.2021.542

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regimes (ii) and (iii) are respectively associated with the arrest and retraction of the gravity current front. Similar kinds of flow behaviour have been documented in the related studies of Goda & Sato (2011), Acton, Huppert & Worster (2001), Sahu & Flynn (2017) and Bharath, Sahu & Flynn (2020), who examined, theoretically and experimentally, distributed drainage over a deep lower layer having a relatively small permeability. Most notably, and consistent with Pritchard et al (2001) and Farcas & Woods (2009), these related studies found that gravity currents stop elongating when the rate of basal drainage from the gravity current underside matches the source influx.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…The equivalence documented at the end of the previous paragraph runs contrary to the experimental observations of Bharath et al (2020). They studied gravity currents propagating along a permeability jump, and demonstrated that dispersion leads to enhanced gravity current elongation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…If such a collision were to occur, then a secondary gravity current would appear, which has the potential to influence the evolution of the gravity current propagating along the interbed layer – see e.g. Bharath & Flynn (2021). Turning from the laboratory to the field, it is important to reiterate that our research is motivated by examples of environmental flows in geological layers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because predicting the extent of mixing in this lower layer is a complicated task that relies on numerous factors (see e.g. figure 10 in Bharath et al (2020), and the discussion thereof), we will confine ourselves to two limiting scenarios, which we label as perfect mixing and no mixing. Both of the perfect mixing and no mixing cases are idealizations.…”

Section: Governing Equationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(For analytical convenience and consistent with previous studies -e.g. Huppert & Woods (1995), , Bharath et al (2020) and Sahu & Neufeld (2023) -we assume a dense rather than a light gravity current. As a result, the gravity current appears 'upside down' relative to those expected e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Sheikhi,

Flynn

2024

J. Fluid Mech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract