4.5 Article

Simulating imbibition process using interacting capillary bundle model with corner flow: The role of capillary morphology

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.01.057

关键词

Interacting tube bundle model; Non-circular cross-section tubes; Imbibition in drained tubes; Gravity forces

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interacting capillary bundle model has been much attended for modeling of imbibition process, however, how the tube morphology controls the front displacement is not well discussed in the available literature, especially when corner flow of wetting phase is considered. Tubes with non-circular cross-sections were used for simulating imbibition process performed on drained bundle of tubes. Different combinations of the interacting tubes with equilateral triangular, square, and circular cross sections were used in the bundle model to explore the role of capillary morphology. The evolution of displacement front, as well as transient water saturation profiles along the model, were obtained for oil-water two phase system. The results showed that the position of displacement front is controlled by the shape factor of tubes. The cylindrical capillaries present the highest front velocity while the equilateral triangular tubes indicate the lowest one, and the square tubes falls in between. It has been observed when the water injection rate is low, the displacement interfaces in the cylindrical model may advance slower than those of in non-circular tubes, especially at early times. The gravity force was also considered in a vertical interacting bundle model, which has been rarely attended in previous studies, and it is found that the behavior of dimensionless differences between front positions in presence and absence of gravity forces versus dimensionless time is linear. Results of this work help to better understand the role of tube morphology on displacement efficiency in imbibition process when wetting phase is present in the corner of drained angular tubes.

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

4.5
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