2015
DOI: 10.1002/2015wr017852
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of pore structure and surface roughness on capillary trapping for 2‐D and 3‐D porous media: Comparison with percolation theory

Abstract: We study the impact of pore structure and surface roughness on capillary trapping of nonwetting gas phase during imbibition with water for capillary numbers between 10−7 and 5 × 10−5, within glass beads, natural sands, glass beads monolayers, and 2‐D micromodels. The materials exhibit different roughness of the pore‐solid interface. We found that glass beads and natural sands, which exhibit nearly the same grain size distribution, pore size distribution, and connectivity, showed a significant difference of the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
70
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
7
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[21c,86] In drainage, the wetting defending phase is mainly trapped by the bypass mechanism; in imbibition, however, the nonwetting defending phase can be trapped by either bypass or snap‐off, or a combination of both mechanisms, depending on the local topology of the pore structure, the surface roughness, and the Ca. [21a,c,87] In general, surface roughness could enhance the snap‐off trapping; bypass is more likely to be dominant at smaller Ca. [21c,88] Notably, using confocal microscopy on 3D index‐matching micromodels one can directly visualize and characterize the full 3D structure of the trapped ganglia, as shown in Figure c.…”
Section: Experiments and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[21c,86] In drainage, the wetting defending phase is mainly trapped by the bypass mechanism; in imbibition, however, the nonwetting defending phase can be trapped by either bypass or snap‐off, or a combination of both mechanisms, depending on the local topology of the pore structure, the surface roughness, and the Ca. [21a,c,87] In general, surface roughness could enhance the snap‐off trapping; bypass is more likely to be dominant at smaller Ca. [21c,88] Notably, using confocal microscopy on 3D index‐matching micromodels one can directly visualize and characterize the full 3D structure of the trapped ganglia, as shown in Figure c.…”
Section: Experiments and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is the dependence of the new N ca on pore geometry as described in the bracketed term in equation that shifts the separate CDC's in Figure to converge to Figure . The large values of G (Table ) explain the reason why the value of N ca needed to mobilize the nonwetting phase in micromodels using the conventional definition is much less than that in rock (Buchgraber et al, ; Geistlinger et al, ). The conventional definition is misleading, when using micromodel results to interpret displacements in porous rock.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, one is especially likely to misinterpret mobilization in micromodels, based on the value of N ca defined in equation . For instance, capillary numbers around 10 −5 as defined by equation correspond to considerable mobilization in micromodels, for example, S nw of about 10–15% (Buchgraber et al, ; Geistlinger et al, ). This greatly overestimates mobilization implied by similar capillary numbers in geological porous media.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that the capillary numbers for WW and IW are outside the range of applicability for percolation theory (Ca < 10 −6 ) (Geistlinger et al, ). As a result, quantitative predictions from percolation theory (e.g., power‐law predictions of residual ganglia size) are not applicable to this study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%