4.7 Article

Modification of the Local Cubic Law of fracture flow for weak inertia, tortuosity, and roughness

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 2064-2080

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014WR015815

关键词

modified Local Cubic Law; Local Cubic Law; roughness; Navier-Stokes equations; fluid flow; fracture

资金

  1. Center for Frontiers of Subsurface Energy Security (CFSES) at the University of Texas at Austin, an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001114]
  2. Geology Foundation of the University of Texas
  3. National Science Foundation [EAR-0439806, EAR-0345710]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The classical Local Cubic Law (LCL) generally overestimates flow through real fractures. We thus developed and tested a modified LCL (MLCL) which takes into account local tortuosity and roughness, and works across a low range of local Reynolds Numbers. The MLCL is based on (1) modifying the aperture field by orienting it with the flow direction and (2) correcting for local roughness changes associated with local flow expansion/contraction. In order to test the MLCL, we compared it with direct numerical simulations with the Navier-Stokes equations using real and synthetic three-dimensional rough-walled fractures, previous corrected forms of the LCL, and experimental flow tests. The MLCL performed well and the effective errors () in volumetric flow rate range from -3.4% to 13.4% with an arithmetic mean of |delta| (<|delta|>) equal to 3.7%. The MLCL is more accurate than previous modifications of the LCL. We also investigated the error associated with applying the Cubic Law (CL) while utilizing modified aperture field. The from the CL ranges from -14.2% to 11.2%, with a slightly higher <|delta|>=6.1% than the MLCL. The CL with the modified aperture field considering local tortuosity and roughness may also be sufficient for predicting the hydraulic properties of rough fractures.

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