4.7 Article

Stability of reactive interfaces in saturated porous media under gravity in the presence of transverse flows

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 695, 期 -, 页码 439-466

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2012.31

关键词

fingering instability; Hele-Shaw flows

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Alberta Innovation Fund (AIF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stability of a horizontal interface between a solution of reactant A on top of another solution of reactant B is analysed. A chemical product C is generated at the interface as a result of a bimolecular chemical reaction A + B -> C. In general, all chemical components are assumed to have different densities and viscosities, and a transverse velocity is introduced parallel to the interface between the reactants. Although the transverse flow is known for its stabilizing effect in viscously unstable non-reactive systems in the presence of an injection velocity, it is shown here that it can actually destabilize an initially stable reactive front. An expression for the critical transverse velocity beyond which an initially stable interface is destabilized is derived in the case of an initial sharp interface for reactants of the same viscosity. The analysis is extended to a diffused profile, and purely buoyancy-driven flows are analysed first in the absence of viscosity contrast and then in the presence of transverse flows and viscosity contrast. Various possible density fingering scenarios are determined based on the relative contribution of each chemical component to the density profile. It is found that the chemical reaction can destabilize a buoyancy-stable initial interface by generating a non-monotonic density profile. Unlike the viscous fingering of a reactive interface, a symmetry in the stability characteristics with respect to density increase or decrease by chemical reaction product is observed in the case of chemically buoyancy-driven flows for identical reactants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据