2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of surface roughness on the heat transfer characteristics of water flow through a single granite fracture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides, the rougher fracture surface contributes to the longer flow paths that a particle moves within fractures, resulting in a weaker conductivity/permeability if the same pressure difference is applied on the opposing boundaries [36,77,122,123]. The previous works have shown that the fracture surface roughness, especially the secondary roughness, plays a significant role on the nonlinear flow properties of rock fractures, because the eddy flow occurs due to the surface roughness [79].…”
Section: Effect Of Fracture Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, the rougher fracture surface contributes to the longer flow paths that a particle moves within fractures, resulting in a weaker conductivity/permeability if the same pressure difference is applied on the opposing boundaries [36,77,122,123]. The previous works have shown that the fracture surface roughness, especially the secondary roughness, plays a significant role on the nonlinear flow properties of rock fractures, because the eddy flow occurs due to the surface roughness [79].…”
Section: Effect Of Fracture Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the accuracy of the 3D coupled hydrothermal model has been further verified. An important reason for the error is that the fracture surface in the experiment is rough and wavy, 41 which is different from the fracture surface in the numerical model with a constant aperture. Another possible reason is that the accuracy of the experimental data may be limited.…”
Section: Numerical and Experimental Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The calculation parameters include the fluid density ρ f = 1000 kg/m 3 , the dynamic viscosity coefficient of the fluid μ = 0.001 Pa second, the specific heat of the fluid C f = 4200 J/(kg °C), the thermal conductivity coefficient of the fluid k f = 0.6 W/(m °C), the density of the rock specimen ρ s = 2360 J/(kg °C), the specific heat of the rock specimen C s = 1015 J/(kg °C), and the thermal conductivity coefficient of the rock specimen k s = 2 W/(m °C). The other parameters (fracture aperture, fluid velocity, and fluid temperature at the inlet) are obtained directly from the experimental data, as shown in Table . Two values for the heat exchange coefficient h are used: (1) the average heat transfer coefficient and (2) the coefficient calculated according to the empirical formula h = 543 v 0.9 in Zhao and Tso, where v is the fluid flow velocity.…”
Section: Experimental Verification Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In rock mechanics laboratories, rock samples are tested under various stress conditions that mimic different depths and stress regimes in the crust. The in situ interactions such as terrestrial heat and fluid flow can also be considered as the process of thermal-mechanical coupling or fluid-solid coupling (He et al, 2016;Li et al, 2017;Luo et al, 2016). Most of such studies concentrated on observing and characterizing the cracks, or elucidating the influence of flaw arrays on the coalescence process, which throw light on the mechanisms of crack nucleation and propagation from preexisting fractures.…”
Section: Fracture Coalescence At Various Scalesmentioning
confidence: 99%