4.6 Article

GAS PERMEABILITY IN POROUS MEDIA WITH ROUGH SURFACES BY FRACTAL-MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0218348X23401680

关键词

Fractal; Gas Permeability; Roughness; Porous Media

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gas permeability of fractal porous media with rough surfaces is modeled using a probability model and simulated numerically. The model considers both Poiseuille flow and Knudsen flow mechanisms and can be described by structural parameters such as pore fractal dimension, tortuosity fractal dimension, relative roughness, and porosity. The model is validated by comparing with experimental data and shows good agreement. The predicted results show that gas permeability decreases with increasing relative roughness and tortuosity fractal dimension, and increases with increasing porosity and pore fractal dimension. Our gas permeability model provides insights into the physical mechanisms of gas transport in porous media with rough surfaces.
Gas permeability is an important parameter for gas transport in microporous and nanoporous media. A probability model of gas permeability of fractal porous media with rough surfaces is proposed and numerically simulated by the Monte Carlo technique. This model consists of two gas flow mechanisms: the Poiseuille flow and the Knudsen flow, and can be expressed by structural parameters, such as the pore fractal dimension, the tortuosity fractal dimension, the relative roughness and porosity. The validity of the proposed model is investigated through the available experimental data, and a good agreement is obtained. The predicted results indicate that gas permeability of microporous and nanoporous media with rough surfaces decreases with the increase of the relative roughness and the tortuosity fractal dimension, and increases with the increase of porosity and the pore fractal dimension. Our gas permeability model could reveal the physical mechanisms of gas transport in porous media with rough surfaces.

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