Numerical porosimetry: Evaluation and comparison of yield stress fluids method, mercury intrusion porosimetry and pore network modelling approaches

Abstract Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP) is still today the reference porosimetry technique despite its environmental health and safety concerns. As a safe alternative, the Yield Stress fluids Method (YSM) consists in computing the Pore Size Distribution (PSD) of a given material from the pressure drop vs. flow rate measurements during injection of a yield stress fluid. However, the question arises whether the PSDs provided by YSM are representative of the actual pore dimensions. To answer this question, three numerical methods to obtain the PSD from digital images are proposed and compared in the present work. First, direct numerical simulations of YSM tests are performed in the considered media. Then, realistic PSDs are extracted from the images by using pore Network Modelling (NM). Furthermore, the obtained networks are also used to simulate MIP tests. The quantitative numerical results allow the evaluation of the relevance of YSM as an alternative to toxic MIP.

[1]  Marios A. Ioannidis,et al.  A new approach for the characterization of the pore structure of dual porosity rocks , 2009 .

[2]  H. Giesche,et al.  Mercury Porosimetry: A General (Practical) Overview , 2006 .

[3]  Yashar Mehmani,et al.  Numerical Algorithms for Network Modeling of Yield Stress and other Non-Newtonian Fluids in Porous Media , 2012, Transport in Porous Media.

[4]  Ali Elkamel,et al.  Dual network extraction algorithm to investigate multiple transport processes in porous materials: Image-based modeling of pore and grain scale processes , 2019, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[5]  Aspects of flow of power-law fluids in porous media , 1995 .

[6]  C. Tsakiroglou,et al.  Dual‐porosity modelling of the pore structure and transport properties of a contaminated soil , 2008 .

[7]  Subhasish Subhasish,et al.  A Novel Method for Permeability Estimation from Micro-tomographic Images , 2018, Transport in Porous Media.

[8]  T. Papanastasiou.  Flows of Materials with Yield , 1987 .

[9]  Prashant,et al.  Direct simulations of spherical particle motion in Bingham liquids , 2011, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[10]  A. Rodríguez de Castro,et al.  Using Xanthan Gum Solutions to Characterize Porous Media with the Yield Stress Fluid Porosimetry Method: Robustness of the Method and Effects of Polymer Concentration , 2018, Transport in Porous Media.

[11]  Alasdair N. Houston,et al.  Quantification of the pore size distribution of soils: Assessment of existing software using tomographic and synthetic 3D images , 2017 .

[12]  A. H. P. Skelland,et al.  Non-Newtonian flow and heat transfer , 1967 .

[13]  Allen G. Hunt,et al.  Applications of percolation theory to porous media with distributed local conductances , 2001 .

[14]  P. Levitz,et al.  Liquid intrusion and alternative methods for the characterization of macroporous materials (IUPAC Technical Report) , 2011 .

[15]  Jeff T. Gostick,et al.  Versatile and efficient pore network extraction method using marker-based watershed segmentation. , 2017, Physical review. E.

[16]  A. Ahmadi,et al.  Numerical Simulation of Yield Stress Fluid Flow in Capillary Bundles: Influence of the Form and the Axial Variation in the Cross Section , 2017, Transport in Porous Media.

[17]  M. Dias,et al.  Immiscible Microdisplacement and Ganglion Dynamics in Porous Media , 1984 .

[18]  A. Skauge,et al.  Computation of polymer in-situ rheology using direct numerical simulation , 2017 .

[19]  Adrian Sheppard,et al.  Techniques for image enhancement and segmentation of tomographic images of porous materials , 2004 .

[20]  Jan Carmeliet,et al.  Characterisation of pore structure by combining mercury porosimetry and micrography , 2001 .

[21]  Marios A. Ioannidis,et al.  Statistical Synthesis of Imaging and Porosimetry Data for the Characterization of Microstructure and Transport Properties of Sandstones , 2011 .

[22]  E. W. Washburn.  The Dynamics of Capillary Flow , 1921 .

[23]  Winslow H. Herschel,et al.  Konsistenzmessungen von Gummi-Benzollösungen , 1926 .

[24]  M. A. Abou Najm,et al.  Non‐Newtonian Fluids in Action: Revisiting Hydraulic Conductivity and Pore Size Distribution of Porous Media , 2016 .

[25]  N. Burlion,et al.  X-ray microtomography: Application to microstructure analysis of a cementitious material during leaching process , 2006 .

[26]  Pierre Saramito,et al.  Progress in numerical simulation of yield stress fluid flows , 2017, Rheologica Acta.

[27]  D. Lasseux,et al.  From steady to unsteady laminar flow in model porous structures: an investigation of the first Hopf bifurcation , 2016 .

[28]  Keyu Liu,et al.  A method for determining oil-bearing pore size distribution in shales: A case study from the Damintun Sag, China , 2018, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.

[29]  Manouchehr Haghighi,et al.  Investigation of pore size distributions of coals with different structures by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) , 2018 .

[30]  Generalization of Darcy's law for Bingham fluids in porous media: from flow-field statistics to the flow-rate regimes. , 2015, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[31]  C. Tsakiroglou.  Correlation of the two-phase flow coefficients of porous media with the rheology of shear-thinning fluids , 2004 .

[32]  A. Rodríguez de Castro,et al.  Toward a New Method of Porosimetry: Principles and Experiments , 2014, Transport in Porous Media.

[33]  Christoph H. Arns,et al.  A comparison of pore size distributions derived by NMR and X-ray-CT techniques , 2004 .

[34]  Lizhi Xiao,et al.  NMR logging : principles and applications , 1999 .

[35]  Olaf Schenk,et al.  Solving unsymmetric sparse systems of linear equations with PARDISO , 2004, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[36]  Rajandrea Sethi,et al.  Extension of the Darcy–Forchheimer Law for Shear-Thinning Fluids and Validation via Pore-Scale Flow Simulations , 2012, Transport in Porous Media.

[37]  M. Loosdrecht,et al.  Effect of pore size distribution and particle size of porous metal oxides on phosphate adsorption capacity and kinetics , 2019, Chemical Engineering Journal.

[38]  Michael Fairweather,et al.  Studies for the development of a virtual permeameter , 2014, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[39]  A. Ambari,et al.  Yield stress fluids method to determine the pore size distribution of a porous medium , 2014 .

[40]  G. Gee,et al.  Application of critical path analysis to fractal porous media: comparison with examples from the Hanford site , 2002 .

[41]  Meimei Feng,et al.  Particle size distribution of aggregate effects on mechanical and structural properties of cemented rockfill: Experiments and modeling , 2018, Construction and Building Materials.

[42]  Alfred Daniel Hill,et al.  Theoretical and Numerical Simulation of Herschel-Bulkley Fluid Flow in Propped Fractures , 2013 .

[43]  M. Cieszko,et al.  Limit Models of Pore Space Structure of Porous Materials for Determination of Limit Pore Size Distributions Based on Mercury Intrusion Data , 2018, Transport in Porous Media.

[44]  Li Peng,et al.  Effect of shearing actions on the rheological properties and mesostructures of CMC, PVP and CMC + PVP aqueous solutions as simple water-based drilling fluids for gas hydrate drilling , 2016 .

[45]  Todor G. Baychev,et al.  Review of pore network modelling of porous media: Experimental characterisations, network constructions and applications to reactive transport. , 2016, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[46]  D. Lasseux,et al.  Origin of the inertial deviation from Darcy's law: An investigation from a microscopic flow analysis on two-dimensional model structures. , 2017, Physical review. E.

[47]  Juraj Kosek,et al.  Strategy for predicting effective transport properties of complex porous structures , 2011, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[48]  J. Killough,et al.  Effect of pore sizes on composition distribution and enhance recovery from liquid shale—Molecular sieving in low permeability reservoirs , 2019, Fuel.

[49]  A. Kovscek,et al.  Effects of Image Resolution on Sandstone Porosity and Permeability as Obtained from X-Ray Microscopy , 2018, Transport in Porous Media.

[50]  M. A. Abou Najm,et al.  Characterization of synthetic porous media using non‐Newtonian fluids: experimental evidence , 2018, European Journal of Soil Science.

[51]  Mehrez Agnaou,et al.  PoreSpy: A Python Toolkit for Quantitative Analysis of Porous Media Images , 2019, J. Open Source Softw..

[52]  C. L. Y. Leon,et al.  New perspectives in mercury porosimetry , 1998 .

[53]  Alkiviades C. Payatakes,et al.  Characterization of the pore structure of reservoir rocks with the aid of serial sectioning analysis, mercury porosimetry and network simulation , 2000 .

[54]  Jussi Timonen,et al.  Evaluation of a lattice-Boltzmann method for mercury intrusion porosimetry simulations , 2004, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[55]  Suihong Song,et al.  Combining pressure-controlled porosimetry and rate-controlled porosimetry to investigate the fractal characteristics of full-range pores in tight oil reservoirs , 2018, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.

[56]  K. Scrivener,et al.  A reassessment of mercury intrusion porosimetry by comparison with 1H NMR relaxometry , 2017 .

[57]  Determination of the Transport Properties of Single Fractures with the Aid of Critical Path Analysis , 2002 .

[58]  C. Tsakiroglou.  A methodology for the derivation of non-Darcian models for the flow of generalized Newtonian fluids in porous media , 2002 .

[59]  H. Narita,et al.  Characterization of sand sediment by pore size distribution and permeability using proton nuclear magnetic resonance measurement , 2008 .

[60]  Veerle Cnudde,et al.  Imaging and image-based fluid transport modeling at the pore scale in geological materials : a practical introduction to the current state-of-the-art , 2016 .

[61]  R. Mikhail,et al.  The contact angle in mercury intrusion porosimetry , 1981 .

[62]  L. Madariaga,et al.  Characterizing Porous Media with the Yield Stress Fluids Porosimetry Method , 2016, Transport in Porous Media.

[63]  Alan Burns,et al.  OpenPNM: A Pore Network Modeling Package , 2016, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[64]  Numerical modeling of non-Newtonian fluid flow in fractures and porous media , 2017, Computational Geosciences.

[65]  J. M. Nóbrega,et al.  Analytical solutions for Newtonian and inelastic non-Newtonian flows with wall slip , 2012 .

[66]  F. Alpak,et al.  Imaging and computational considerations for image computed permeability: Operating envelope of Digital Rock Physics , 2018, Advances in Water Resources.

[67]  W. B. Lindquist,et al.  Pore and throat size distributions measured from synchrotron X-ray tomographic images of Fontaineble , 2000 .