4.6 Article

Can fluid-solid contact area quantify wettability during flow?-A parametric study

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Volume 280, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2023.118992

Keywords

Two-tracer method; Wettability; Liquid-solid interfacial area; Grain size; Surface roughness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The liquid-solid contact area in a porous medium is difficult to characterise due to its heterogeneity and large-scale interaction. Two-tracer experiments are used to quantify the liquid-solid contact area and its relationship with different factors. When the organic phase is immobile, increasing flow rate does not significantly change the residual saturation, but the water-solid contact area increases due to corner flow. When both organic and aqueous phases flow, the relationship between water saturation and water-solid contact area depends on grain size.
Wettability characterisation in a porous medium is challenging owing to the heterogeneity and large-scale of the interacting surface. Measuring the liquid-solid contact area can be used as a real-time wettability quantification at the Darcy scale. However, flow, grain size, and saturation path can affect the liquid-solid contact area. In this work, we use the two-tracer experiments to quantify the liquid-solid contact area and relate it with different parameters affecting the liquid-solid contact area. We do experiments at different conditions, i.e. (a) when the organic phase is at residual saturation and (b) when both phases flow. When the organic phase is immobile, increasing the flow rate does not change the residual saturation significantly; however, the water-solid contact area increases because of the increased corner flow. When both organic and aqueous phases flow, the relationship between the water saturation and water-solid contact area is found to be dependent on the grain size.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available