4.6 Article

A FRACTAL MODEL FOR CAPILLARY FLOW THROUGH A SINGLE TORTUOUS CAPILLARY WITH ROUGHENED SURFACES IN FIBROUS POROUS MEDIA

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0218348X21500171

关键词

Fractal; Capillary; Imbibition Height; Imbibition Mass; Roughness

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51576114]
  2. Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [2018CFA066, 2019CFA026, 2019CFB103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a fractal model for capillary flow through a single tortuous capillary with roughened surfaces in fibrous porous media was derived. The results of the model were found to be in agreement with existing models in the literature. It was observed that the imbibition height and mass of capillary rise decrease with increasing relative roughness, while the equilibrium time in the capillary decreases with increasing roughness. Additionally, the imbibition height and mass of capillary rise were found to increase with imbibition time.
In this paper, a fractal model for capillary flow through a single tortuous capillary with roughened surfaces in fibrous porous media is derived. The determined imbibition height and imbibition mass of capillary rise are in satisfying agreement with the existing models reported in the literature. It is found that the imbibition height and imbibition mass of capillary decreases with increasing relative roughness. Besides, it is observed that the equilibrium time in a single tortuous capillary with roughened surfaces decreases with an increase in relative roughness. In addition, it is seen that the imbibition height and imbibition mass of capillary rise increases with imbibition time. With the proposed fractal model, the physical mechanisms of capillary flow through a single tortuous capillary with roughened surfaces in fibrous porous media are better elucidated. One advantage of our fractal analytical model is that it contains no empirical constant, which is usually required in previous models.

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

4.6
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