4.3 Article

Using Resin-Based 3D Printing to Build Geometrically Accurate Proxies of Porous Sedimentary Rocks

期刊

GROUNDWATER
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 482-490

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12601

关键词

-

资金

  1. Aramco Research Center, Aramco Services Company, Houston, TX

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is capable of transforming intricate digital models into tangible objects, allowing geoscientists to replicate the geometry of 3D pore networks of sedimentary rocks. We provide a refined method for building scalable pore-network models (proxies) using stereolithography 3D printing that can be used in repeated flow experiments (e.g., core flooding, permeametry, porosimetry). Typically, this workflow involves two steps, model design and 3D printing. In this study, we explore how the addition of post-processing and validation can reduce uncertainty in the 3D-printed proxy accuracy (difference of proxy geometry from the digital model). Post-processing is a multi-step cleaning of porous proxies involving pressurized ethanol flushing and oven drying. Proxies are validated by: (1) helium porosimetry and (2) digital measurements of porosity from thin-section images of 3D-printed proxies. 3D printer resolution was determined by measuring the smallest open channel in 3D-printed gap test wafers. This resolution (400 p.m) was insufficient to build porosity of Fontainebleau sandstone (-13%) from computed tomography data at the sample's natural scale, so proxies were printed at 15-, 23-, and 30-fold magnifications to validate the workflow. Helium porosities of the 3D-printed proxies differed from digital calculations by up to 7% points. Results improved after pressurized flushing with ethanol (e.g., porosity difference reduced to -1% point), though uncertainties remain regarding the nature of sub-micron artifact pores imparted by the 3D printing process. This study shows the benefits of including post-processing and validation in any workflow to produce porous rock proxies.

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

4.3
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