Universitt Stuttgart - Institut fr Wasser- und Umweltsystemmodellierung Lehrstuhl fr Hydromechanik und Hydrosystemmodellierung Prof. Dr.-Ing.

Rainer Helmig

Masters Thesis

Forchheimer Porous-media Flow Models Numerical Investigation and Comparison with Experimental Data

Submitted by

Vishal A. Jambhekar
Matrikelnummer 2550192

Stuttgart, 26. November 2011

Examiner: Prof. Dr.-Ing Rainer Helmig Supervisors: Dipl.-Ing. Philipp Nuske and Dipl.-Ing. Katherina Baber

To my parents

To my parents

To my parents

I hereby acknowledge that I have prepared this masters thesis independently, and that only those sources, aids and advisors that are duly noted herein have been used and / or consulted.

Signature:

Date:

Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 Applications and motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Structure of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fundamentals of Porous Media Flow 2.1 Scales - the continuum approach . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Local equilibrium in porous media . . . . . . . . 2.3 Eective parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Porosity (): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Saturation (S ): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Intrinsic permeability(K ): . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Capillary pressure (Pc ): . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4.1 Micro-scale capillarity (pc ) . . . 2.3.4.2 Macro-scale capillarity (pc ) . . 2.3.5 Relative permeability (kr, ): . . . . . . . 2.4 Balance equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Mass balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Momentum balance . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.1 Darcy law . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.2 Forchheimer law . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Energy balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.1 Local thermal equilibrium . . . 2.4.3.2 Local thermal non-equilibrium 2.5 Multiphase non-Darcy ow . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Modied Ergun equation . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Barree-Conway equation . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2.1 Barree-Conway model for single 1 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 17 19 20 23 24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and multiphase

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ows

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.5.2.2 2.6 DuMuX

Barree-Conway approach for relative permeability-saturation relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 29 29 31 32 32

3 ITLR Experiment 3.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Isothermal experiment . . . . . 3.1.2 Non-isothermal experiment . . . 3.1.3 Motivation for the current work

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

4 Results and Discussion 34 4.1 Intrinsic permeability and Forchheimer coecient . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.1.1 Linear regression analysis for intrinsic permeability K and nonlinear regression analysis for Forchheimer coecient . . . . . . . . 35 4.1.1.1 Linear regression analysis for intrinsic permeability K . 35 4.1.1.2 Nonlinear regression for Forchheimer coecient . . . . 37 4.1.2 Nonlinear regression analysis for both intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.1.3 Apparent permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.1.3.1 Constant Forchheimer coecient for complete range of experimental data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.1.3.2 Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges . . . . . 44 4.1.3.3 Linear Forchheimer coecient (Re) . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.2 Test cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.2.1 Incompressible isothermal case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.2.2 Non-isothermal case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.2.2.1 With local thermal equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.2.2.2 With local thermal non-equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5 Conclusion 68

ii

List of Figures
1.1 Applications of porous media : (a) Catalytic converter for automobile exhaust system. (b) Porous heat exchanger for air cooled condensers. (c) Cooling pores in a gas turbine blade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro-scale to macro-scale transition [30] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denition of the REV [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capillary forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capillary pressure-saturation relationship [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deviation of experimental data from Forchheimer linear equation [23] Relative permeability-saturation relationship[3] . . . . . . . . . . . . Corrected relative permeability-saturation relationship [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 5 5 9 11 23 26 26 30 30 31 37 38 41 43 44 45 45 47 48 51

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2

Photograph of ITLR experimental setup [30] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Porous structure used in ITLR experiments [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic representation of ITLR experimental setup [30] . . . . . . . .

Linear regression with Darcy law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linear Darcy regression for intrinsic permeability K and nonlinear Forchheimer regression for Forchheimer coecient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Nonlinear regression with Forchheimer law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Apparent permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Constant Forchheimer coecient for the complete range of experimental data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Apparent permeability Kapp for limited Re ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Forchheimer coecient as a function of Reynolds number (Re) . . . . 4.9 Apparent permeability as a function of velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Incompressible isothermal model domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

4.11 Pressure distribution across porous domain for an incompressible isothermal ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.12 Velocity distribution across porous domain for an incompressible isothermal ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.13 Friction coecient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4.14 Model domain non-isothermal case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.15 Unphisical heating along edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.16 Pressure distribution across porous domain for a compressible non-isothermal ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.17 Temperature distribution across porous domain for a compressible nonisothermal ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.18 Velocity and density distribution across porous domain for a compressible non-isothermal ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.19 Evolution of pressure (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium) 61 4.20 Evolution of temperature (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.21 Evolution of velocity (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium) 63 4.22 Evolution of temperature (non-isothermal model with local thermal nonequilibrium) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

iv

List of Tables
2.1 Exponents for relative permeability kr and relative passability r for the liquid phase (l) and the gas phase (g ) [36, 37] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental data for isothermal case (ITLR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forchheimer coecient for dierent subsets of the experimental data . Percentage error for the calculated pressure gradients using dierent Forchheimer coecients given in Table 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forchheimer coecient for dierent subsets of the experimental data . Percentage error of the calculated pressure gradients using dierent intrinsic permeabilities and Forchheimer coecients given in Table 4.4 . . . Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of percentage errors of calculated pressure gradients using dierent approaches for Forchheimer coecient . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ergun coecient CE for dierent Forchheimer coecient approaches . Experimental and numerical velocity data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental and numerical friction coecients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boundary conditions non-isothermal case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Material parameters and input data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental and numerical wall temperatures (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental and numerical wall temperatures (non-isothermal model with local thermal non-equilibrium) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 36 38 39 40 42 46 49 50 53 54 57 57 64 67

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14

Nomenclature
T r, h f s g K Kf v vf lumped thermal condictivity [W/mK ] transition constant [1/m] Forchheimer coecient [1/m] relative passability of phase [-] intrinsic passability [m] thermal diusivity of the uid phase [m2 /s] convective heat transfer coecient [W/m2 K ] thermal condictivity of the uid phase [W/mK ] thermal condictivity of the porous matrix [W/mK ] gravity vector [m/s2 ] intrinsic permeability tensor [m2 ] hydraulic conductivity tensor [m/s] seepage velocity vector [m/s] Darcy or Forchheimer velocity vector [m/s] dynamic viscosity [kg/ms] kinematic viscosity [m2 /s] solid matrix porosity [-] surface tension [N/m] density [kg/m3 ]

vi

CE cpf d dp g h hf K Kf

Ergun coecient [-] specic heat capacity of the uid phase [J/kgK ] capillary diameter [m] averaged particle diameter [m] gravity [m/s2 ] piezometric head [m] specic enthalpy of uid [J/kg ] intrinsic permeability [m2 ] hydraulic conductivity [m/s]

Kapp apparent passability [m2 ] kr, L pc pn pw qf s sv S T uf vf z Nu relative permeability for phase [-] characteristic length [m] capillary pressure [P a] pressure of the non-wetting phase [P a] pressure of the wetting phase [P a] exchange energy between the solid matrix and the uid phase [W/m3 ] specic interfacial area [1/m] saturation of the uid phase [-] temperature [K ] specic internal energy of uid [J/kg ] Darcy or Forchheimer velocity [m/s] elevation head [m] Nusselt number [-]

vii

Pr Re

Prandtl number [-] Reynolds number [-]

viii

1 Introduction
1.1 Applications and motivation
Fluid ow and transport processes through porous structures is a topic of great interest in various scientic and technical elds. In particular, in engineering applications such as catalytic converters (used for reducing toxicity of exhaust emissions from automobiles engines, see Figure 1.1a), condensers (used as heat exchanger for cooling condensers, see Figure 1.1b) and gas turbines (used for cooling gas turbine blades, see Figure 1.1c), uid ow through porous media in the high-velocity regime becomes relevant. In heating and cooling applications, in addition to high-velocity ow, developing a deep understanding about nonisothermal ow and related heat-transfer processes becomes crucial. Motivated by real world engineering applications and scientic interest, many scientists have channeled research eorts towards developing a detailed understanding about these ow and transport processes by means of experimentation and numerical analysis. Authors like [22, 36, 4, 32, 37] used the Forchheimer law (see Section 2.4.2.2) [19] to describe high velocity ow. They supported their choice by stating that the Forchheimer law accounts for high velocity inertial eects.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1.1: Applications of porous media : (a) Catalytic converter for automobile exhaust system. (b) Porous heat exchanger for air cooled condensers. (c) Cooling pores in a gas turbine blade.

Mayer et al. [30] observed that metallic porous media oer an eective solution in many heating and cooling applications by the virtue of their inherent properties such as large surface area-to-volume ratio, high permeability and thermal dispersion of the uid due to the complex ow within pore channels. Pressure loss and convective heat transfer in these metallic structures have been investigated for the above mentioned engineering applications. At the Institute of Aerospace Thermodynamics / Institut fr Thermodynamik der Luft- und Raumfahrt (ITLR), University of Stuttgart, experiments are carried out to analyze and optimize a uniform metallic porous structure for cooling applications. The pressure drop across the structure and temperatures at dierent locations are measured to validate the numerical models for both isothermal and non-isothermal ow systems. In the scope of this masters thesis, the existing numerical model for a single-phase isothermal Darcy (creeping) ow is modied for high velocity non-Darcy ow by using the Forchheimer equation. The Forchheimer ow model is also extended to allow the description of nonisothermal ow with local thermal equilibrium and with local thermal non-equilibrium. The ultimate goal of the current work is to develop satisfactory isothermal and non-isothermal Forchheimer ow models. We achieve this by means of linking experimental data with numerical studies. Determination of accurate eective parameters from the experimental data is an important component of the current work. Thus, we review the Darcy and Forchheimer laws in the context of determination of the intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient and validate our numerical models against experimental measurements.

1.2 Objectives
Given below are the objectives of the current work Detailed analysis of the experimental data and determination of the intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient . Implementation of the Forchheimer model for a single-phase isothermal ow. Implementation of the Forchheimer model for a single-phase non-isothermal ow assuming local thermal equilibrium. Extension of the single-phase non-isothermal Forchheimer model for local thermal nonequilibrium.

 Setup of relevant numerical examples with appropriate boundary conditions. Attempt to validate above mentioned isothermal and non-isothermal models by comparing numerical simulations with experimental results. Detailed literature review for multiphase Forchheimer ow.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

Chapter 2: In this chapter, the theoretical background about the dierent scales, eective parameters, equilibrium criteria and balance equations necessary for the description of a complex porous media ow system is explained. In addition, this chapter also provides a brief introduction to the multiphase Forchheimer ow (see Section 2.5) and DuMuX , an open source simulation software for ow and transport processes in porous media (see Section 2.6). Chapter 3: The experimental setup and procedure are discussed in detail in this chapter. Chapter 4: Analytical determination of the intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient are discussed in detail in this chapter. The determined intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient are used for numerical simulations and the results are compared with corresponding experimental data.

2 Fundamentals of Porous Media Flow

2.1 Scales - the continuum approach
According to [32], the treatment of the problem of ow through a porous structure is largely dependent on the scale considered. At a small scale, one looks at just a few small pores (micro-scale or pore-scale). It is therefore convenient to use conventional uid mechanics approach to describe the ow phenomenon in the uid-lled spaces. However, when the scale is large (macro-scale), the eld of vision includes a large number of pore spaces. In such a case, the complicated ow paths and the need to describe complex spatial resolution of the porous structure rule out the possibility of using the conventional uid mechanics approach. Hence, a volume averaging (continuum) approach is used [32]. The nite scale an engineer would look at is the molecular scale. The continuum mechanics based approach is used for transition from the molecular scale to the micro-scale [1]. The consideration of a continuum corresponds to replacing the molecular properties by averaged properties over a large number of molecules. According to [21, 13], the consideration of a continuum at the macro-scale is a fundamental concept of uid mechanics. For example, air is used as the uid phase at ITLR for experiments and numerical simulations. Here, rather than looking at the movement of every single molecule, the overall air-ow is observed using averaged uid properties such as density and viscosity . In the context of the current work, the term phase is used to dierentiate between physical continua separated by a sharp interface (e.g., solid and uid phase). Initially, the continuum approach is used to transfer the molecular properties to the microscale or pore-scale in order to resolve the ow in pore spaces. In the context of the current work, micro-scale can be represented by the dimension of a unit cell forming the uniform porous structure (see Figure 2.1). At ITLR, numerical simulations are performed at the pore-

scale using conventional uid mechanics approach. However, for reasons discussed previously, for a large scale problem, the possibility of using the conventional approach is ruled out. Thus, further volume averaging is needed to describe the ow properties on the macro-scale.

Figure 2.1: Micro-scale to macro-scale transition [30]

Figure 2.2: Denition of the REV [21] The Figure 2.1 shows the dierent scales involved in the averaging process. The micro-scale properties are averaged over a representative elementary volume (REV) in order to obtain a macro-scale description of the system with eective parameters such as porosity , saturation S and intrinsic permeability K (see Section 2.3). The macro-scale is also referred to as the

REV-scale. It can be seen from Figure 2.1 that at the REV-scale, detailed spatial resolution of solid matrix and uid phase is lost, and eective volume averaged parameters (eective parameters) are available. For the process of volume averaging, proper selection of REV size is very crucial, as the volume-averaged quantities need to be independent of the REV-size. Figure 2.2 shows that the selected REV should not only be smaller than the ow domain, but it also should be larger than a single pore in the porous medium. A very small REV leads to oscillations due to existence of inhomogeneities at the micro-scale. On the other hand, a very large REV leads to uctuations caused by macroscopic heterogeneities of the medium [21].

2.2 Local equilibrium in porous media

The local thermodynamic equilibrium in porous media mainly consists of thermal, chemical and mechanical equilibria as follows:

Thermal equilibrium:
A system is said to be in local thermal equilibrium, if at any given point of the system all the phases exist at the same temperature T = Ts = Tf [K ].

Here, Ts and Tf are the temperatures of the solid matrix and uid phase respectively.

Chemical equilibrium:
A system is said to be in chemical equilibrium, if the potential for exchange of chemical components across dierent phases or within a phase is zero. In other words, there is no exchange of components within a phase or between dierent phases.

Mechanical equilibrium:
When multiple uid phases are present in the system, mechanical equilibrium refers to the existence of equal pressure on either side of the phase boundary (e.g., a lake surface). However, in the context of the porous media ow, one must account for the pressure jump

at the uid phase boundaries due to capillarity i.e., the capillary pressure (see Section 2.3.4) [21].

2.3 Eective parameters

2.3.1 Porosity ():
As discussed earlier, porous media consists of interconnected voids and a solid matrix. Porosity is dened as the ratio of the volume of pores in REV to the volume of REV: = Volume of pores in REV Volume of REV []. (2.1)

Here, 1 is the volume fraction of the solid matrix. For the current study porosity is assumed to be constant i.e. the solid matrix is assumed to be a rigid structure. Porosity is a dimensionless parameter.

2.3.2 Saturation (S ):
With the macro-scale approach and adaptation of REV for multiphase ow problems, a new eective parameter called saturation is introduced at the macro-scale. This parameter accounts for the existence of dierent uid phases in a given REV. In other words, it accounts for the fractions of the pore space occupied by dierent uid phases. The saturation of a uid phase is the ratio of the volume of uid phase in REV to the volume of pores in REV and is given as follows: S = Volume of uid phase in REV Volume of pores in REV []. (2.2)

Saturation, like porosity , is also a dimensionless parameter.

2.3.3 Intrinsic permeability(K ):

The intrinsic permeability K of a porous medium represents its ability to allow the uid to ow through. It is a macro-scale property. The intrinsic permeability tensor K is a part of the denition of the hydraulic conductivity tensor Kf . Hydraulic conductivity is a macroscale parameter which accounts for the inuence of viscosity and adhesion at the soil grain

surfaces [21]. The hydraulic conductivity tensor Kf for a single-phase ow is given as: Kf = K g m , s (2.3)

where K is the intrinsic permeability tensor, and are the density and viscosity of the uid respectively and g is the gravitational acceleration. The intrinsic permeability tensor is a second order tensor with nine components indicating permeabilities in dierent directions:
K=

Kxx Kxy Kxz Kyx Kyy Kyz Kzx Kzy Kzz

[m2 ].

(2.4)

Intrinsic permeability K is only dependent on the porous structure and can be same or dierent in dierent directions, depending on whether the porous matrix is isotropic or anisotropic.

2.3.4 Capillary pressure (Pc ):

2.3.4.1 Micro-scale capillarity (pc ) For a multiphase ow through porous media, a certain force acts at the interfacial area between dierent uid phases. This force is called surface tension and is strongly inuenced by the solid and uid properties. The surface tension caused by the interaction of the solid and the dierent uid phases leads to capillary pressure (pc ) [21]. Capillary pressure is dened as dierence between the pressure of the non-wetting (pn ) and wetting (pw ) phases at the interface as shown in Figure 2.3: pc = pn pw [P a]. (2.5)

Here, wetting and non-wetting phases are relative terms. For a two-phase ow system, the wetting phase is the phase which has higher anity with the solid phase. The Laplace equation for the capillary pressure is as follows: pc = 4 cos = pn pw d [P a], (2.6)

Figure 2.3: Capillary forces where is the surface tension for the uid phase, is the angle of contact between the uid phase and the solid phase and d is the pore diameter. 2.3.4.2 Macro-scale capillarity (pc ) From the detailed study of capillary eects, it is observed that the uid saturations have a strong inuence on the capillary pressure [21]. The macro-scale capillary eects are taken into account based on the fundamental correlation between the capillary pressure and saturation of the wetting phase and the non-wetting phase. Typical examples of multiphase ow system are: Imbibition - injection of a wetting phase into a porous medium to displace a non-wetting phase and draining - injection of a non-wetting phase into a porous medium to displace a wetting phase. For example, during a draining process, as the saturation of the wetting phase decreases, the wetting phase retreats into the smaller pores in the porous medium. It is noticed that a higher capillary pressure is needed for further displacement of the wetting phase. In this way, the required capillary pressure keeps increasing as the wetting phase moves into ner pores of the porous matrix. The capillary pressure required for the displacement of the wetting phase can be expressed as a function of its saturation (see Equation 2.7). Detailed discussion on the macro-scale capillary pressure-saturation relationship can be studied in [21]. pc = pc (Sw ). (2.7)

Many scientists came up with ideas to describe capillary pressure-saturation relationship. According to [21], the best known capillary pressure-saturation relationships for air-water systems could be found in the literature from Leverett (1941) [25], Brooks and Corey (1964) [10] and Van Genuchten (1980) [20]. Brooks and Corey: The capillary pressure-saturation relation proposed by Brooks and Corey is discussed below: Sw Swr = Se (pc ) = 1 Swr pd pc

for pc pd ,

(2.8)

where is the Brooks Corey parameter, pc is the capillary pressure, pd is the entry pressure, Se is the eective saturation, Sw is the wetting phase saturation and Swr is the residual saturation of the wetting phase (w). Here, Swr refers to the saturation of the detached part of a phase which is held back within the porous medium. Detailed description of residual saturation can be found in [21]. indicates the material grain size distribution and it ranges between 0.2 and 0.3. The Brooks-Corey relation is valid only for capillary pressure greater than entry pressure pd (see Figure 2.4). Here, entry pressure pd is the minimum pressure needed for the non-wetting phase to enter the porous medium. According to Brooks and Corey [10], the capillary pressure as a function of wetting phase saturation Sw is given as: pc (Sw ) = pd Se ; Van Genuchten: The capillary pressure-saturation relation proposed by Van Genuchten is as follows: Se (pc ) = Sw Swr m = [1 + ( pc )n ] 1 Swr for pc > 0, (2.10)
1

for pc pd .

(2.9)

where m, n and are Van Genuchten parameters, such that m = 1 (1/n). m and n and are dimensionless parameters whereas, has a dimension of [1/P a]. The Van Genuchten relation is valid for all capillary pressures greater than zero.

10

According to Van Genuchten [20], the capillary pressure as a function of wetting phase saturation Sw is given as: pc (Sw ) =
1 1 1 m (Se 1) n ;

for pc > 0.

(2.11)

Figure 2.4: Capillary pressure-saturation relationship [21] Figure 2.4 shows the capillary pressure-saturation relationship for an air-water ow system by Van Genuchten [20] and Brooks-Corey [10].

2.3.5 Relative permeability (kr, ):

Hydraulic conductivity of a porous medium is already discussed in Section 2.3.3. However, for a multiphase system, the hydraulic conductivity is dened as follows: Kf = Kkr,
g

m , s

(2.12)

where K is the intrinsic permeability tensor, and are the density and viscosity of the uid phase respectively and g is the gravitational acceleration. The relative permeability kr, is a dimensionless parameter and it depends on the uid phase saturation S [21]. The relative permeability kr, accounts for the dependence of eective permeability K kr, on saturation S through the relative permeability-saturation relationship. The best known

11

relative permeability-saturation relationships are proposed by Brooks and Corey (1964) [10] and Van Genuchten (1980) [20]. Brooks and Corey: The relative permeability-saturation relationship proposed by Brooks and Corey [21] for a two phase air-water system is as follows: kr,w = Se
2+3

and

(2.13)

kr,n = (1 Se )2 (1 Se ),

2+

(2.14)

where, as discussed in Section 2.3.4.2, and Se are the Brooks-Corey parameter and eective saturation respectively (see Equation 2.8). Here, kr,w and kr,n are the relative permeabilities of the wetting phase (water) and the non-wetting phase (air) respectively. Van Genuchten: The relative permeability-saturation relationship proposed by Van Genuchten [21] for a two phase air-water system is as follows: kr,w = Se [1 (1 Sem )m ]2
1

and

(2.15)

kr,n = (1 Se ) [1 Sem ]2m ,

(2.16)

where, as discussed in Section 2.3.4.2, m and Se are the Van Genuchten parameter and eective saturation respectively (see Equation 2.10). The parameters and describe the connectivity of pores. Generally, = 1 and = 1 [21]. 2 3

2.4 Balance equations

The choice of the continuum approach for the current work necessitates the denition of the laws for conservation of mass, momentum and energy.

12

2.4.1 Mass balance

The continuity equation or the mass balance equation ensures that the overall change of mass within a continuum is zero. The equation for conservation of mass for a free ow system is as follows: f + ( f v) q = 0, (2.17) t where f is the density of the uid, t is time, v is the velocity vector of the uid and q is the external source or sink. Equation 2.17 indicates that the rate of change of mass per unit control volume, uxes across the faces of the control volume and the potential sources and sinks must balance [1]. In the context of the current work, porosity is included in Equation 2.17, as the continuity is only considered for the uid ow through porous matrix: f + ( f v) q = 0. t (2.18)

Neglecting the source or sink term q and using the relation between the Darcy / Forchheimer velocity vector vf and seepage velocity vector v given by: v= equation 2.18 can be rewritten as follows: f + ( f vf ) = 0 . t (2.20) vf , (2.19)

The velocity vector vf is referred to as Darcy velocity vector in Section 2.4.2.1 and Forchheimer velocity vector in Section 2.4.2.2. Assuming an incompressibile uid, a rigid porous medium and no source or sink (q = 0), Equation 2.20 is reduced to the following mass balance equation: (vf ) = 0. (2.21)

13

On the other hand, an assumption of a compressible uid, a rigid porous medium and no source or sink (q = 0) leads to the following mass balance equation: f + ( f vf ) = 0 . t (2.22)

2.4.2 Momentum balance

This section discusses the macro-scale momentum balance equations for the uid ow through porous media. According to [32], the Darcy law (see Section 2.4.2.1) is used to describe slow or creeping ows and the Forchheimer law (see Section 2.4.2.2) is used for the description of high velocity ows. Both the Darcy law and the Forchheimer law are obtained experimentally in order to describe the ow through a porous medium and have become the macro-scale momentum equation of choice in literature [21, 32]. According to [13], these equations for momentum description allow the decoupling of the continuity and momentum balance. 2.4.2.1 Darcy law A French scientist, Henry Darcy in his work on the investigation of hydrological systems for water supply in the city of Dijon performed steady-state unidirectional ow experiments for a uniform sand column [14]. From his experimental observations, he proposed the Darcy law as follows: vf = Kf h, (2.23) where vf is the Darcy velocity vector, Kf is the hydraulic conductivity tensor as explained in Section 2.3.3 and h is the gradient of the piezometric head h given by: h= p +z fg [m], (2.24)

p where f is the pressure head and z is the elevation head. From Equation 2.24 and Equation g 2.3, the Darcy law can be rewritten as follows:

vf =

K (p +

f g z ),

(2.25)

where is the dynamic viscosity of the uid , p is the applied pressure gradient and K is the intrinsic permeability tensor of the porous matrix. For the current study, gravitational

14

eects are neglected and as the porous matrix is isotropic, the intrinsic permeability is treated as a scalar. Thus, the Darcy law boils down to: vf = K p. (2.26)

According to [21], Bear and Bachmat (1986) [6] derived the Darcy law. In the derivation, they have neglected inertial or time dependent eects. Thus, the Darcy law is only valid for slow (creeping) ows (Re << 1). Here, the Reynolds number (Re) is dened as the ratio of the inertia force to the viscous force: Re = Inertia Force = Viscous Force
f vf L

[],

(2.27)

where f , vf and are the density, velocity, and dynamic viscosity of the uid respectively. For the current work, the characteristic length (L= 1/901 [m]) is obtained from the specic 1 interfacial area (sv = 901 m ) [30]. The specic interfacial area sv is dened as the area of contact between the solid and uid phase per unit volume. 2.4.2.2 Forchheimer law An Austrian scientist Phillip Forchheimer (1901) [19] in his work Wasserbewegung durch Boden, investigated uid ow through porous media in the high velocity regime. During this study, he observed that as the ow velocity increases, the inertial eects start dominating the ow. In order to account for these high velocity inertial eects, he suggested the inclusion of an inertial term representing the kinetic energy of the uid to the Darcy equation [38]. The Forchheimer equation is given as follows: p = vf K
2 f vf .

(2.28)

Here, the parameter is called the Forchheimer coecient and vf stands for the Forchheimer velocity. The Forchheimer equation in the vector form is given below [22, 38, 32]: p = vf K
f |vf |vf ,

(2.29)

where vf is the Forchheimer velocity vector. Theoretical evaluation of the Forchheimer coecient is cumbersome. Thus, for most practical applications, this parameter is obtained from the best t to the experimental data.

15

Ergun and Orning (1949) [16] worked for the investigation of uid ow through packed columns and uidized beds. Based on this work, Ergun (1952) [15] proposed an expression for the Forchheimer coecient : CE = K 1 , m (2.30)

where CE is called Ergun constant and it accounts for inertial (kinetic) eects. K is the intrinsic permeability (see Section 2.3.3). From Equation 2.30 and Equation 2.29, we get the Ergun equation. This equation is also referred to as Forchheimer equation with Ergun expression for Forchheimer coecient [22, 32]: p = CE vf K K
f |vf |vf .

(2.31)

The Ergun coecient CE is strongly dependent on the ow regime. For slow ows, CE is very small. Thus, the second term on the right hand side of Equation 2.31 is very small and can be neglected. This reduces the Forchheimer equation to the Darcy equation. As the ow velocity increases, inertial eects also increase and the ow adapts to the Forchheimer ow regime [34]. These inertial eects are accounted for by the Ergun coecient CE and the kinetic energy of the uid f |vf |vf [38]. However, according to [31, 4, 2], a constant Ergun coecient CE is valid as long as the uid ow is laminar. Thus, in the high velocity ow regime, the Ergun coecient CE needs to be adapted to reect the experimental inertial eects.

2.4.3 Energy balance

As discussed in Section 1.1, in the scope of the current work, numerical models are implemented for both isothermal and non-isothermal ows. The non-isothermal model is implemented for two possible thermodynamic scenarios - namely, with local thermal equilibrium and with local thermal non-equilibrium. For the rst scenario, the system is not necessarily in thermal equilibrium globally. However, thermal equilibrium exists locally. This means that at any given point in the system, dierent phases exists at same temperature. In such a case, only one energy equation is required for the description of the temperature of each phase at any given point in the system. For the other scenario, there exists no thermal equilibrium. That is, at any given point in the system, dierent phases exist at dierent temperatures.

16

Thus, dierent energy equations are required for the description of the temperature of each phase. In what follows, these two scenarios are discussed in detail. 2.4.3.1 Local thermal equilibrium The behavior of non-isothermal ow system is strongly dependent on the ow velocity. For a slow ow system, as dierent phases (e.g., solid phase and uid phase) are in contact for a sucient period of time, the possibility for the system to exchange energy locally and to establish local thermal equilibrium always exists. In such a case, only one energy equation is sucient for the description of temperature of all phases at any given location within the system. For a single-phase ow through porous matrix, the energy balance equation is given as follows: T ) q = 0. ( f uf ) + ((1 ) s cps T ) + ( f hf vf ) ( t t (2.32)

Here, uf , hf , cps and T stands for the internal energy of the uid, the enthalpy of the uid, specic heat capacity of the solid matrix and temperature respectively. q is the external is averaged thermal conductivity of the solid matrix and the uid phase source or sink. and is given by Equation 2.33 [11, 9, 8] : = (1 )s + f W , mK (2.33)

where s and f are the thermal conductivities of the solid matrix and the uid phase respectively. 2.4.3.2 Local thermal non-equilibrium For high velocity ow, the interaction between dierent phases is rapid. Thus, dierent phases cannot exchange sucient amount of energy to establish local thermal equilibrium. Therefore, at any given location in the system, dierent phases exist at dierent temperatures. In such a case, one needs dierent energy equations for the description of the temperature of each phase. In the context of the current work, the energy equations for the solid matrix and the uid phase are given by Equation 2.34 and Equation 2.35 respectively: ((1 ) s cps Ts ) ((1 )s Ts ) qs = 0 t and (2.34)

17

 ( f uf ) + ( f hf vf ) (f Tf ) qf = 0, t

(2.35)

where qs and qf represent the exchange energy with other phases or external source/sink. In the context of the current work, qs = qf = qf s is the exchange energy between the solid matrix and the uid phase. The idea now, is to obtain an expression for exchange of energy between dierent phases. For this purpose, we present some fundamentals of heat transfer. In the context of the current work, transfer of thermal energy in the solid matrix and the uid phase takes place by means of two dierent processes: Firstly, by means of conduction - involving the transfer of thermal energy between dierent parts of a system due to temperature dierence. Secondly, by means of convection - involving the transfer of thermal energy due to the motion of molecules. Convection occurs only in uids, while conduction takes place in solids as well as uids. In order to determine the dominance of conductive or convective heat transfer, a new dimensionless number called Nusselt number is used. Nusselt number is dened as follows: Nu = hL Convective Heat Transfer Coecient = Conductive Heat Transfer Coecient f
f L

[].

(2.36)

is the convective heat transfer coecient and Here, h coecient.

is the conductive heat transfer

The Nusselt number can also be described in terms of other dimensionless numbers, namely - Reynolds number and Prandtl number: Nu = Nu(Re, Pr). (2.37)

For the denition of Reynolds number see Equation 2.27. Prandtl number is dened as the ratio of viscous diusion rate to the thermal diusivity: Pr = Viscous Diusion Rate = Thermal Diusivity []. (2.38)

18

Here, stands for the kinematic viscosity and the thermal diusivity is the ratio of thermal conductivity f to the volumetric heat capacity f cpf : = f f cpf m2 , s (2.39)

where cpf is the specic heat capacity of uid. For a single-phase ow system, the exchange of energy between the solid matrix and the uid phase is given by following equation: v (Ts Tf ). qf s = hs W , m3 (2.40)

where qf s is the heat exchange between the solid and the uid phase, Ts is temperature is convective heat transfer coecient and sv of the solid, Tf is temperature of the uid, h is specic interfacial area. From the denition of Nusselt number (see Equation 2.36), the can be expressed as: convective heat transfer coecient h = f Nu(Re, Pr) h L W . m2 K (2.41)

Various problem-specic Nusselt correlations are available in literature. The following Nusselt number correlation used in the current work is taken from [27]: Nu (Re, Pr)=0.023 Re0.8 Pr0.33 . (2.42)

2.5 Multiphase non-Darcy ow

This section provides a detailed overview of the dierent approaches available for modeling multiphase non-Darcy ow. These approaches would be useful for extension of the current work to high velocity multiphase ow in the future. The Forchheimer ow (see Section 2.4.2.2) is also referred to as non-Darcy ow in literature [12, 17, 4, 5, 3]. Realizing the importance of the non-Darcy multiphase ow in industrial applications, many authors [7, 17, 36, 3] have come up with dierent modeling approaches. Schfer and Lohnert (2006) [35] mentioned that most of the multiphase dryout models for nuclear research are based on the Ergun equation (see Section 2.5.1). Bennethum and Giorgi (1997) [7] derived the generalized Forchheimer equation for the description of single phase and multiphase ows. Ewing et al. (1999) [17] developed a numerical model for the description

19

of the non-Darcy multiphase ow through isotropic porous media. Barree and Conway (2007) [3] proposed a new Forchheimer type equation for the description of a multiphase non-Darcy ow (see Section 2.5.2). Wu et al. (2011) [39] supported and discussed the Barree-Conway approach for modeling multiphase non-Darcy ow through porous media. The classical approaches for capillary pressure-saturation relationship discussed in Section 2.3.4 and the relative permeability-saturation relationship discussed in Section 2.3.5 are valid for the Darcy ow regime (Re << 1). For a multiphase non-Darcy ow, the capillary forces are neglected for the sake of simplicity and only relative permeability kr, is taken into account [35, 37]. The relative permeability-saturation relationships for a multiphase non-Darcy ow are discussed in Section 2.5.1 and Section 2.5.2.2.

2.5.1 Modied Ergun equation

According to [36, 35], the modied Ergun equation is based on the Ergun equation (see Equation 2.31) and is used to describe multiphase non-Darcy ows. The modied Ergun equation for each phase in a multiphase non-Darcy ow is given by: p =
g

vf |vf |vf , kr, K r,

(2.43)

where p is the pressure gradient, is the density, is the dynamic viscosity, K is the intrinsic permeability, kr, is the relative permeability, vf is the Forchheimer velocity vector, is the intrinsic passability and r, is the relative passability for phase . Comparing Equation 2.43 with Equation 2.31 one can dene intrinsic passability as the ratio of the square root of intrinsic permeability to the Ergun coecient CE : = K 1 = CE [m]. (2.44)

Modied Ergun equation for the representation of the multiphase non-Darcy ow diers from the Ergun equation (see Equation 2.31) in terms of interpretation of the intrinsic permeability K and intrinsic passability . In the case of the modied Ergun equation, the intrinsic permeability and passability are interpreted in terms of spatial parameters as follows [28, 36, 35, 37, 26]: 3 d2 p K= and (2.45) A(1 )2

20

dp 3 , = B (1 )

(2.46)

where stands for porosity and dp is the averaged diameter of particles in the porous medium [35]. According to the denition of the modied Ergun equation, A = 150 and B = 1.75 [36, 37]. During multiphase ow through a porous medium, the ow area for one phase is reduced due to the existence of other phases. Relative permeability kr, and relative passability r, are the parameters which quantify the eect of the reduced ow area for each phase [37]. We have already discussed relative permeability kr, in Section 2.3.5. Relative passability r, for a certain phase is a part of the denition of eective passability = r, . For a gas-liquid non-Darcy ow system, relations between eective and intrinsic permeabilities and eective and intrinsic passabilities are given as follows: For the gas phase, Kg = Kkr,g (Sg ) and (2.47)

g = r,g (Sg ).

(2.48)

For the liquid phase, Kl = Kkr,l (1 Sg ) and (2.49)

l = r,l (1 Sg ).

(2.50)

Here, Sg is saturation of the gas phase. The relative permeability and passability for a gasn m liquid ow system are given as kr,g = Sg , kr,l = (1 Sg )n ,r,g = Sg , r,l = (1 Sg )m [36, 37]. Inserting the expression for the relative permeability and passability in Equation 2.43, we get the modied Ergun equation to estimate the pressure drop caused by each phase

21

in a non-Darcy gas-liquid ow system as follows: pg = g g pl = l g g g v m |vf g |vf g nK f g Sg Sg and (2.51)

l l vf l |vf l |vf l , n (1 Sg ) K (1 Sg )m

(2.52)

where pg is the pressure gradient for the gas phase and pl is the pressure gradient for the liquid phase. Here, vf g and vf l are the Forchheimer velocity vectors for the gas and liquid phases respectively.

Table 2.1: Exponents for relative permeability kr and relative passability r for the liquid phase (l) and the gas phase (g ) [36, 37] kr,l kr,g r,l r,g Exponent n n m m Lipinski 3 3 3 3 Reed 3 3 5 5 Theofanous 3 3 6 6 According to [36], commonly used values of the exponent n and m in Equation 2.51 and Equation 2.52 for relative permeability kr, and relative passability r, are proposed by Lipinski, Reed and Theofanous and are given in Table 2.1. Detailed discussion on the selection of exponents for relative permeability kr, and relative passability r, functions can be found in [36, 37] . According to [35], Tung and Dhir (1988) accounted the interfacial drag between dierent ow phases and added a new term to the Ergun equation as given below: pg = g g Fi g g v | v | v + f g f g f g nK m Sg Sg Sg and (2.53)

pl = l g where Fi
N m3

l Fi l vf l |vf l |vf l , n m (1 Sg ) K (1 Sg ) (1 Sg )

(2.54)

is the volumetric interfacial drag force [35].

22

Alternative to the modied Ergun equation, Barree and Conway proposed a new Forchheimer type formulation for the description of Darcy and Forchheimer ow regime. Their approach is discussed below.

2.5.2 Barree-Conway equation

Barree and Conway (2004) performed an experimental analysis of the non-Darcy ow through porous media [4]. They represented the Forchheimer equation in a form similar to the Darcy equation as given below: v f p = , (2.55) Kapp where vf is the Forchheimer velocity vector and Kapp is called apparent permeability and is dened as below: 1 K f |vf | 1 = 1+ . (2.56) Kapp K Thus, the Forchheimer equation can be rewritten as follows: p = v f K 1+ K
f |vf |

(2.57)

Figure 2.5: Deviation of experimental data from Forchheimer linear equation [23] As shown in Figure 2.5, the experimental data of Barree and Conway (thick blue line) did not follow the linear apparent permeability Kapp (thin blue and red lines) given by Equation 2.56 for a constant Forchheimer coecient (slope). Thus, Barree and Conway (2004) argued

23

that the Forchheimer coecient and thus, the apparent permeability Kapp must vary with the ow rate [4]. Barree and Conway also stated that a general model for a non-Darcy ow can be obtained by giving up on the expectation for a constant Forchheimer coecient [4]. The literature from Kaviany (1991) [22] and Nield & Bejan (2006) [32] discussed in Section 4.1.3 also supports this argument. From Equation 2.56, Barree and Conway suggested that the apparent permeability Kapp can also be given as follows: K , (2.58) kapp = 1 + Re where the Reynolds number Re (see Equation 2.27) is evaluated based on the characteristic length K [m]. There exists no direct relationship for the interpretation of the Forchheimer coecient and it has to be determined from the experimental data. 2.5.2.1 Barree-Conway model for single and multiphase ows Barree and Conway developed a new Forchheimer type equation for the representation of single and multiphase non-Darcy ows. They proposed an alternative relationship for the apparent permeability based on the Log-Dose equation [4] as follows: Kapp, = kr, + K kr, , E (1 + ReF ) (2.59)

where, Kapp, is the apparent permeability, kr, is the relative permeability and Re is the Reynolds number for phase . The exponents F and E are selected such that Equation 2.59 follows the experimental data. Most of the literature based on the Barree-Conway approach uses F = 1 [4, 3, 39]. According to [3], the Barree-Conway equation for apparent permeability is given as follows: Kapp, = K kmr, + (1 kmr, ) )E (1 + |vf |/ T , (2.60)

1 is called the transition constant and the minimum permeability ratio kmr, is where T m the ratio of the relative permeability kr, to the intrinsic permeability K [39]. Substituting Equation 2.60 in Equation 2.55, we get the general Barree-Conway relationship for single

24

and multiphase non-Darcy ows: p = K kmr, + v f

(1kmr, )

,
)E

(2.61)

(1+

|vf |/ T

where p is the pressure gradient for phase . Substituting E = 1 and the minimum permeability ratio kmr, = 0 in Equation 2.61, we get the Forchheimer equation for a single is related to the Forchheimer coecient as phase ow. Here, the transition constant T = 1 1 . T K m Barree and Conway (2007) [3] stated that their model takes into account the Reynolds number for each phase dependent on its intrinsic velocity (vf ) and the possibility of dening phase Reynolds number distinguishes their work from the previous ones. Wu et al. (2011) [39] presented a mathematical and numerical model to implement the Barree-Conway model for multiphase non-Darcy ows and also compared the numerical results with experiments. 2.5.2.2 Barree-Conway approach for relative permeability-saturation relationship The relative permeability-saturation relationship for a nitrogen-water non-Darcy porous media ow is predicted by many authors [33, 12, 3]. Barree and Conway (2007) tested nitrogenwater non-Darcy ow through various poppants (porous matrices) at dierent pressure gradients [3]. Given below is the brief summary of their experimental work. Barree and Conway experimentally evaluated the relative permeability-saturation relationship for a multiphase non-Darcy ow system. The long solid matrix, initially fully saturated with water was drained using nitrogen gas at dierent inlet pressures. Every single time prior to gas injection, it was carefully ensured that the porous matrix is completely saturated with water. A typical relative permeability-saturation relationship for a non-Darcy gas-water ow system is shown in Figure 2.6. Barree and Conway stated that the measured data cannot be used to calculate the relative permeability as long as the injected gas breaks through the other end of the porous medium. The break through point was observed to be at around 38% of the gas saturation. Figure 2.6 shows the calculated gas and water relative permeability only after the injected gas breaks through the other end. Directly measured data for both gas and

25

Figure 2.6: Relative permeability-saturation relationship[3]

Figure 2.7: Corrected relative permeability-saturation relationship [3]

26

water curves is aected by the non-Darcy ow, proportional to the Reynolds number (Re). Using individual phase saturation and velocity, the relative permeability curve of each phase is corrected for non-Darcy eects [3]. Figure 2.6 also shows corrected curves for non-Darcy relative permeability-saturation relationship of gas (magenta) and water (green) phases [3]. For details on non-Darcy corrections, please refer to [3, 24]. Barree and Conway performed ve tests at dierent injection pressures and observed that after application of non-Darcy corrections, the relative permeability data for a phase collapses to a consistent data set (see Figure 2.7). This data set is extrapolated beyond the measured values in order to predict relative permeabilities for both lower and higher saturations. For additional data and further details regarding the experiments performed by Barree and Conway, please refer to [3]. The modied Ergun equation discussed in Section 2.5.1 is a commonly used model in nuclear research for multiphase dryouts [36, 35, 37]. The acceptance of modied Ergun equation for the description of a multiphase ow through a well structured porous matrix is convenient as the intrinsic permeability (see Equation 2.45) and passability (see Equation 2.46) can be calculated in terms of spatial parameters. However, for a complex porous matrix, the intrinsic permeability K and passability need to be determined using the experimental data. On the other hand, according to [3, 39], the Barree-Conway model is valid for both Darcy and Forchheimer ow regimes. The Barree-Conway equation is a new approach mainly used in the petroleum industry. For this approach, even though there is no need to calculate the Forchheimer coecient , mathematical regression of the experimental data is anyway and the exponent E [4, 3]. required to determine the transition constant T The current work is restricted to single phase ow through porous medium and uses the Forchheimer equation with Ergun interpretation of the Forchheimer coecient (see Equation 2.31).

2.6 DuMuX
DuMuX (DUNE for multi-{phase, component, scale, physics, . . . } ow and transport in porous media) is an open-source software for simulating the ow and transport processes in porous media [18]. DuMuX is built on top of DUNE (Distributed and Unied Numerics

27

Environment). The main purpose of the DuMuX software is to provide a sustainable and consistent framework for the implementation and application of model concepts, constitutive relations, discretizations, and solvers for porous media applications. DuMuX can also be referred to as an additional DUNE module as it inherits its functionalities from the DUNE core modules. DuMuX mainly consists of two dierent sorts of module implementations, fully-coupled modules and decoupled modules. Fully-coupled modules describe the ow system using a strongly coupled system of equations, which can be mass balance equation, energy balance equation and balance equations for dierent phases. However, decoupled modules consist of a pressure equation which is iteratively coupled to a saturation equation, energy balance equations etc. As discussed in Chapter 1, Forchheimer models for single-phase isothermal and non-isothermal ow through porous media are implemented for numerical simulations in DuMuX for each of the following thermodynamic assumptions: Isothermal single-phase Forchheimer ow. Non-isothermal single-phase Forchheimer ow with local thermal equilibrium. Non-isothermal single-phase Forchheimer ow with local thermal non-equilibrium. Balance equations for the conservation of mass, momentum and energy for the above mentioned models are given in Section 2.4. Relevant numerical examples with appropriate boundary conditions are set up for each model and numerical simulations are performed for the same. Detailed description of numerical examples and comparison of numerical simulations with the experimental results are given in Chapter 4.

28

3 ITLR Experiment
As discussed in Section 1.1, a metallic porous medium oers an eective solution in many heating and cooling engineering applications. Motivated by this, an experimental analysis was performed in order to understand the convective cooling behavior of a well-structured homogeneous porous material at ITLR. The objective of this analysis is to develop a good understanding about the convective heat transfer process and to use this knowledge to enhance the eciency in cooling applications.

3.1 Experimental setup

Mayer et al. [30] conducted the experimental analysis for the current work at ITLR. In order to determine the pressure loss and the overall heat transfer, an experiment was set up as shown in Figure 3.1. The porous matrix for this work is a uniform honeycomb like cylindrical structure as shown in Figure 3.2. This cylindrical porous medium is held horizontally with the help of a metallic structure. On its surface, the porous cylinder is wound with a heating coil along its complete length and the heating coil in turn is covered with a thick layer of insulating material in order to minimize the heat loss. During experiments, the porous structure is exposed to a forced convective ow. The schematic representation of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 3.3. The experimental setup consists of three major parts as follows. Air Supply: Air at high pressure is supplied with the help of a compressor. A valve is used to regulate the air pressure and ow rate. The mass ow is measured using a Venturi nozzle.

Test Section: The test section is a circular pipe lled with the porous medium. The porous cylinder has a diameter, D = 30 mm and a total length, L = 295 mm. The porous cylinder is made up of Ni-alloyed steel. Thermocouples with a diameter of 0.25 mm are embedded

29

Figure 3.1: Photograph of ITLR experimental setup [30]

Figure 3.2: Porous structure used in ITLR experiments [29]

30

Figure 3.3: Schematic representation of ITLR experimental setup [30] into the tube wall at the inlet and the outlet of the porous cylinder. The thermocouples are also distributed at regular intervals along the tube length in order to measure the surface temperature of the porous structure. Data Acquisition System: The energy ow into the specimen is monitored and recorded by a single-phase energy meter. Pressure measurement modules with dierential pressure transducers are used to determine the pressure dierences between the inlet and the outlet of the specimen. Measurements of uid and wall temperatures were taken using a data acquisition unit. In the measurement procedure, the wall heat ux and the mass ow rate are held constant. The inlet of the horizontally placed cylindrical assembly is connected to the air supply unit which continuously supplies air at the desired inlet pressure. The outlet is positioned such that the air can escape directly into the atmosphere after traveling through the porous matrix. The pressure and the temperature are monitored by the data acquisition system. Two dierent experiments were conducted at ITLR for the current work and are discussed below.

3.1.1 Isothermal experiment

In this experiment, the complete system is assumed to be isothermal. That is, the temperature at dierent locations in the porous domain is assumed to be the same and equal to the atmospheric temperature. During the experiment, compressed air at high pressure is injected through the inlet and is released into the atmosphere at the outlet. As the experiment is

31

isothermal, no heat ux is supplied to the porous structure. The velocity and pressure loss across the cylindrical porous medium are measured. Mayer et al. performed pore-scale computational uid dynamics (CFD) simulations to evaluate a CFD model against the experimental data [30]. In the current work, the isothermal experimental data is used for the determination of intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient and to validate the REV-scale isothermal Forchheimer numerical model (see Section 4.2.1).

3.1.2 Non-isothermal experiment

During this experiment, compressed air at high pressure is injected through the inlet and is released into the atmosphere at the outlet. Once the ow is established through the porous medium, a constant heat ux is applied at the surface of the cylindrical porous structure. Upon reaching the steady-state, velocity and pressure are measured across the cylindrical porous matrix. Using thermocouples, surface temperature is measured at dierent locations along the length of the porous cylinder. Similar to the isothermal case, Mayer et al. also performed pore-scale simulations to evaluate a CFD model against the non-isothermal experimental data [30]. In the current work, the experimental data is used to validate the REV-scale non-isothermal Forchheimer numerical model (see Section 4.2.2).

3.1.3 Motivation for the current work

At ITLR, experiments are performed to analyze the heat-transfer properties of a uniform porous medium. In addition to the experimental analysis, pore-scale CFD simulations are also performed for the reduced domain for both isothermal and non-isothermal cases [30]. Even with the reduced domain, the complexity of ow paths and the porous structure make it very dicult to perform a detailed pore-scale numerical investigation [30]. Moreover, computational cost and time for the pore-scale CFD simulation has always been an issue. Thus, for a large scale application, with the need to describe a complex porous structure and limited computational resources, it would be practically impossible to perform a pore-scale CFD simulation. This motivates the use of the volume averaged (REV-scale) approach for the current work.

32

In the scope of the current work, as discussed in Section 2.6, the isothermal and nonisothermal models are implemented as a part of DuMuX . Numerical simulations are performed and an attempt is made to validate the implemented DuMuX models against the experimental data from ITLR (see Section 4.2).

33

4 Results and Discussion

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the ultimate goal of the current work is to develop thermodynamic models as discussed in Section 2.6 and validate them against experimental data. For this purpose, several numerical simulations have been carried out and are discussed in this chapter. Firstly, we look at and compare various approaches for the determination of intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient in Section 4.1. Secondly, in Section 4.2, the numerical results for an isothermal case are compared with the isothermal experimental data (see Section 4.2.1) and the numerical results for a non-isothermal case are compared with the non-isothermal experimental data (see Section 4.2.2).

4.1 Intrinsic permeability and Forchheimer coecient

As discussed in Section 2.4.2.2, for high velocity ow through porous media, the momentum is described by the Forchheimer equation. In order to perform numerical simulations with the Forchheimer model determining accurate values of intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient for the ow system becomes very crucial. The intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient for a ow system are either determined analytically by tting the experimental data with the Forchheimer equation or by using some standard relationships in terms of spatial parameters (see Section 2.5.1). For the current work, both intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient are determined by tting the experimental data for the isothermal case (see Table 4.1) with the Forchheimer equation given by Equation 2.28. Initial attempts to t both intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient over the complete range of the isothermal experimental data (see Table 4.1) using nonlinear regression analysis with the Forchheimer equation did not lead to a physically meaningful intrinsic permeability K . In order to overcome this issue, it was decided to use following three approaches. 1. Determine the intrinsic permeability K by performing linear regression analysis of the

34

experimental data with the Darcy equation and use this intrinsic permeability K for the nonlinear regression analysis with the Forchheimer equation to calculate the Forchheimer coecient (see Section 4.1.1). 2. Determine both intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient by performing nonlinear regression analysis for subsets of the experimental data (Re < 180) with the Forchheimer equation (see Section 4.1.2). 3. Use intrinsic permeability K from the above approach and adapt the Forchheimer coecient in order to account for high velocity (Re > 180) inertial eects [22, 32] (see Section 4.1.3).

4.1.1 Linear regression analysis for intrinsic permeability K and nonlinear regression analysis for Forchheimer coecient
For this approach, the idea is to rst calculate the intrinsic permeability K by performing linear regression analysis for dierent subsets of the experimental data given in Table 4.1 with the Darcy equation (see Equation 2.26). The calculated intrinsic permeability K is used for the nonlinear regression analysis of dierent subsets of the experimental data with the Forchheimer equation (see Equation 2.28) in order to determine the Forchheimer coecient . 4.1.1.1 Linear regression analysis for intrinsic permeability K For the current work, the available experimental data is well beyond the Darcy range, i.e, (Re >> 1). Thus, in order to determine the intrinsic permeability K , linear regression analysis is performed only for the set of rst three experimental data values in Table 4.1. The Darcy system of equations for the linear regression is given below: [pi ] = 1 [i vf i ] for i = {1, 2, 3}, K (4.1)

where the subscript i indicates the experiment number given in Table 4.1. The intrinsic permeability K calculated by linear regression is given below: K = 2.8 108 [m2 ]. (4.2)

35

Expt. no (i)

Table 4.1: Experimental data for isothermal case (ITLR) Pressure gradient(pExpt ) Density ( ) Viscosity () Velocity (vf ) kg kg m Pa [m] m3 m s s

Reynolds no. (Re) []

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

181.660 651.760 2120.25 4993.44 8004.28 12263.25 19448.21 24294.88 30284.81 40987.76 49150.42 58746.00 68519.69 78375.66 88688.64 100100.93 116934.34

1.131846076 1.133291891 1.138238830 1.148195312 1.158573870 1.173422397 1.198658910 1.215673561 1.236787096 1.274604158 1.303478797 1.337432461 1.372085828 1.407044240 1.443628417 1.484166729 1.543826676

1.80074 105 1.80101 105 1.80131 105 1.80158 105 1.80191 105 1.80218 105 1.80241 105 1.80257 105 1.80266 105 1.80273 105 1.80274 105 1.80274 105 1.80267 105 1.80261 105 1.80252 105 1.80238 105 1.80232 105 0.240404334 0.533709961 1.005893441 1.578759265 2.037208190 2.499192423 3.088510077 3.405504908 3.752667697 4.319910287 4.628402860 4.961807053 5.353980962 5.529258966 5.860607217 6.060703046 6.372508522

16.552 36.794 69.650 110.27 143.58 178.40 225.20 251.84 282.34 334.95 367.00 403.69 446.88 473.27 514.67 547.19 598.47

x 10

4 p [Pa/m]

10

ITLR Exp Linear Regression

12

100

200

300

400

500 Re []

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.1: Linear regression with Darcy law The intrinsic permeability given by Equation 4.2 and the experimental data for velocity and viscosity (see Table 4.1) are used with Equation 4.1 for the back calculation of the corresponding pressure gradients. The calculated pressure gradients pCalc (black plus marks) and the experimental pressure gradients (blue stars) are plotted against the ow Reynolds number (Re) as shown in Figure 4.1. The Reynolds number for each experimental data is determined using Equation 2.27 and is given in Table 4.1. From Figure 4.1, one can clearly observe that the calculated Darcy pressure gradients (black plus marks) immediately start diverging from the experimental pressure gradients (blue stars) and follow an inclined line. Moreover, the experimental pressure gradient drops nonlinearly with increasing Reynolds number (Re). From [19, 15, 22, 5, 32], one can say that, this nonlinear drop in the pressure gradient is caused by the high velocity inertial eects. As discussed in Section 2.4.2.2, these inertial eects are accounted for by the kinetic energy term in the Forchheimer equation. 4.1.1.2 Nonlinear regression for Forchheimer coecient In this section, the Forchheimer coecient is determined by performing nonlinear regression analysis of the experimental data with the Forchheimer equation (see Equation 2.28). Here, the intrinsic permeability K is given by Equation 4.2. The system of equations for nonlinear Forchheimer regression is as follows: [pi ] = i v f i
2 i vf i

1/K

for i = {1, 2, 3, . ., 17},

(4.3)

37

Table 4.2: Forchheimer coecient for dierent subsets of the experimental data Expt. dataset i Forch. coe. [1/m] Ergun coe.CE {1, 2, 3} 1 = 1608.66 CE 1 = 0.2499 {1, 2, . ., 6} 2 = 1573.28 CE 2 = 0.2444 {1, 2, . ., 9} 3 = 1757.76 CE 3 = 0.2731 {1, 2, . ., 17} 4 = 1902.16 CE 4 = 0.2955

x 10

p [Pa/m]

ITLR Exp Forch coeff 1 Forch coeff 2 Forch coeff 3 Forch coeff 4

10

12

14

100

200

300

400

500 Re []

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.2: Linear Darcy regression for intrinsic permeability K and nonlinear Forchheimer regression for Forchheimer coecient where the subscript i indicates the experiment number given in Table 4.1. The nonlinear regression analysis is performed for dierent subsets of the experimental data (i.e., i = {1, 2, 3}, i = {1, 2, 3, . ., 6}, i = {1, 2, 3, . ., 9} and i = {1, 2, 3, . ., 17}). The Forchheimer coecients obtained for dierent subsets of the experimental data are given in Table 4.2. These Forchheimer coecients are used along with intrinsic permeability K given by Equation 4.2, the experimental data for velocity and viscosity in Table 4.1 and Equation 4.3 to back calculate the corresponding pressure gradients. The calculated pressure gradients pCalc are plotted against the Reynolds number as shown in Figure 4.2. It appears from Figure 4.2, that the calculated pressure gradients match well with experimental ones, especially for lower Reynolds numbers (Re). However, it is clear from Table 4.3 that with the current approach, the pressure gradients at lower Reynolds numbers are predicted poorly.

38

Table 4.3: Percentage error for the calculated pressure gradients using dierent Forchheimer coecients given in Table 4.2 a ] % Errorp(1 ) % Errorp(2 ) % Errorp(3 ) % Errorp(4 ) pExpt [ P m 181.660 46.27 45.00 51.64 56.84 651.760 34.27 32.52 41.66 48.81 2120.25 18.87 16.95 26.97 34.81 4993.44 13.00 10.97 21.54 29.82 8004.28 13.23 11.11 22.19 30.86 12263.25 9.260 7.151 18.17 26.80 19448.21 4.580 2.500 13.35 21.84 24294.88 2.060 3.010 10.71 19.09 30284.81 3.080 1.940 8.660 16.96 40987.76 7.390 2.450 8.250 16.63 49150.42 8.140 5.150 5.320 13.52 58746.00 5.060 7.040 3.290 11.38 68519.69 3.350 5.380 5.200 13.48 78375.66 7.910 9.860 0.260 8.190 88688.64 6.600 8.580 1.730 9.800 100100.93 9.300 11.23 1.180 6.670 116934.34 11.08 12.98 3.090 4.640 Here, the percentage error for calculated pressure gradient pCalc is dened as follows: %Error(p): = 100 pExpt pCalc , pExpt (4.4)

where pCalc and pExpt stand for the calculated and experimental pressure gradients respectively. In Section 4.1.3, the apparent permeability Kapp for the current approach is determined using the intrinsic permeability K given by Equation 4.2 and the Forchheimer coecient 4 and compared with the apparent permeability Kapp of the approach discussed in Section 4.1.2.

4.1.2 Nonlinear regression analysis for both intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient
As discussed earlier in this chapter, determination of both intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient using the quadratic Forchheimer regression analysis for the complete set of the experimental data given in Table 4.1 did not lead to a physically meaningful intrinsic

39

permeability K . Thus, nonlinear regression analysis is repeated for dierent subsets of the experimental data. It is observed that the quadratic regression analysis of the experimental data with Reynolds number Re < 180 leads to a reasonable and physically meaningful value of the intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient . The system of equations for the nonlinear Forchheimer regression is as follows: [pi ] = i vi
2 i vi

1/K

for i = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6},

(4.5)

where the subscript i indicates the experiment number for Re < 180 given in Table 4.1. Here, the nonlinear regression analysis is performed for dierent subsets of the experimental data (i.e., i = {1, 2, 3}, i = {1, 2, 3, 4}, i = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and i = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}).

Table 4.4: Forchheimer coecient for dierent subsets of the experimental data Expt. dataset i Intr. perm. K [m2 ] Forch. coe. [1/m] Ergun coe.CE {1, 2, 3} K5 = 6.0687 108 5 = 1608.66 CE 5 = 0.3962 {1, 2, 3, 4} K6 = 5.7589 108 6 = 1593.02 CE 6 = 0.3822 8 {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} K7 = 4.1427 10 7 = 1510.57 CE 7 = 0.3074 8 {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6} K8 = 5.7299 10 8 = 1573.28 CE 8 = 0.3766 The Intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient calculated from the nonlinear Forchheimer regression of the above mentioned experimental datasets are given in Table 4.4. The Ergun coecient CE is calculated for each Forchheimer coecient using Equation 2.30. It is observed that the intrinsic permeability K for all the datasets mentioned in Table 4.4 has the same order of magnitude as obtained by Mayer et al. [30]. The intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient for each dataset given in Table 4.4 are used along with Equation 4.5 and the experimental data for density, velocity and viscosity given in Table 4.1 for the back calculation of pressure gradients pCalc . The calculated pressure gradients are plotted against Reynolds number (Re) as shown in Figure 4.3. The dotted line connecting the calculated pressure gradients indicate the quadratic behavior of the Forchheimer equation for the corresponding intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient pair in Table 4.4. Table 4.5 shows the percentage error for calculated pressure gradients pCalc . Here, the percentage error is determined using Equation 4.4. Comparing percentage errors in Table

40

x 10

4 p [Pa/m]

ITLR Exp Forch coeff 5 Forch coeff 6

10

Forch coeff 7 Forch coeff 8

12

100

200

300

400

500 Re []

600

700

800

900

1000

Figure 4.3: Nonlinear regression with Forchheimer law 4.3 and Table 4.5, it is clear that the current approach ts better over the complete range of the experimental data, especially for low Reynolds numbers (Re < 180). Thus, from Table 4.3 and Table 4.5, the best tted intrinsic permeability K and the Ergun coecient CE are chosen for numerical simulations as follows: K = K8 = 5.73 108 m2 and (4.6)

CE = CE 8 = 0.3766. The numerical results are compared with the experimental data in Section 4.2.

(4.7)

From Figure 4.3 and Table 4.5 it is also clear that at higher Reynolds numbers (Re > 180) the experimental data starts diverging from the current approach. Similar behavior is also observed by [22, 5, 32] and is discussed in Section 4.1.3.

4.1.3 Apparent permeability

As discussed in Section 2.5.2, Barree and Conway [4] in their work stated that if one gives up on the expectation of a constant Forchheimer coecient , any porous media ow regime can be described using the Forchheimer equation. They represented the Forchheimer equation by a Darcy-like equation (see Equation 2.55) , where the apparent permeability given by

41

Table 4.5: Percentage error of the calculated pressure gradients using dierent intrinsic permeabilities and Forchheimer coecients given in Table 4.4 a ] % Errorp(5 ) % Errorp(6 ) % Errorp(7 ) % Errorp(8 ) pExpt [ P m 181.660 6.9189 5.5958 5.8862 5.1192 651.760 1.4013 1.7924 6.6393 0.9305 2120.25 0.0870 0.2641 0.4089 1.2695 4993.44 0.4754 0.0233 1.2985 1.0638 8004.28 3.2408 2.6558 0.4181 1.5052 12263.25 1.3640 0.7096 2.0713 0.4422 19448.21 1.4409 2.1465 5.3562 3.2858 24294.88 3.1797 3.9012 7.2606 5.0282 30284.81 4.4719 5.2096 8.7130 6.3288 40987.76 4.1592 4.9333 8.6960 6.0656 49150.42 6.4367 7.2086 11.000 8.3184 58746.00 7.9362 8.7108 12.551 9.8070 68519.69 5.9489 6.7547 10.783 7.8786 78375.66 10.200 10.977 14.883 12.052 88688.64 8.6869 9.4873 13.531 10.584 100100.93 11.163 11.949 15.935 11.017 116934.34 12.692 13.473 17.458 12.526 Equation 2.56 can be rewritten as follows: |vf | 1 1 + . = Kapp K (4.8)

The apparent permeabilities Kapp are determined using the intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient for approaches discussed in Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.2. The apparent permeabilities Kapp for experiments are calculated using Equation 2.55 and the experimental data given in Table 4.1. Figure 4.4 shows a plot of the apparent permeability for the approaches discussed in Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.2. In Figure 4.4, slope of each data-line represents the Forchheimer coecient for the corresponding approach. It is very clear from Figure 4.4, that the approach discussed in Section 4.1.1 under-predicts the intrinsic permeability K and thus the apparent permeability Kapp over the complete range of the experimental data. It can also be seen from Figure 4.4, that for higher ow velocities, the apparent permeability Kapp for experiments (blue stars) starts behaving nonlinearly and diverges from the approach

42

12

x 10

10

ITLR Exp Data Forch Regression (K & ) (16) Darcy Regession (K) & Forch Regression ()

8 1/Kapp [m2]

0 0

3 .v/ [m1]

5 x 10

6
5

Figure 4.4: Apparent permeability discussed in Section 4.1.2. Barree and Conway (2005) [5] explained such behavior by stating that, the Forchheimer coecient should vary with the ow rate in order to account for inertial nonlinearities. Kaviany (1991) and Nield & Bejan (2006) [22, 32] stated that, the quadratic Forchheimer equation with a constant Forchheimer coecient is only valid up to a specic Reynolds number (for the current work Re 180), and for higher Reynolds numbers (Re > 180), the Forchheimer coecient should be adjusted in order to account for high velocity inertial eects. In the scope of the current work, an attempt is made to account for the inertial eects using one of the following approaches: 1. A constant Forchheimer coecient is dened for the complete range of the experimental data (see Section 4.1.3.1). 2. The complete set of the experimental data in Table 4.1 is divided into dierent ranges on the basis of the Reynolds number (Re) and a constant Forchheimer coecient is determined for each range (see Section 4.1.3.2). 3. For the high velocity ow regime (Re > 180), based on the experimental data, the Forchheimer coecient is described as a linear function of the Reynolds number (see Section 4.1.3.3).

43

4.1.3.1 Constant Forchheimer coecient for complete range of experimental data For this approach, the intrinsic permeability K is set to a constant value given by Equation 4.6. Using calculated apparent permeabilities Kapp for experiments, intrinsic permeability K and the experimental data along with Equation 4.8, a constant Forchheimer coecient (slope) is determined for the complete range of the experimental data as shown (green line) in Figure 4.5. The red line and the blue stars in Figure 4.5 describe the apparent permeabilities Kapp for the nonlinear regression approach (see Section 4.1.2) and experiments respectively.

12

x 10

ITLR Exp Data 10 Forch Regression (16) Forch Coeff Comp Range

8 1/Kapp [m2]

0 0

3 .v/ [m1]

5 x 10

6
5

Figure 4.5: Constant Forchheimer coecient for the complete range of experimental data Intrinsic permeability K given by Equation 4.6, Ergun coecient CE = 0.4904 determined using the Forchheimer coecient for the current approach and Equation 2.30 are used for numerical simulations. Pressure gradients pCalc are back calculated using Equation 2.29 and the experimental data from Table 4.1. The percentage errors for the calculated pressure gradients are determined using Equation 4.4 and compared with other approaches in Table 4.7. 4.1.3.2 Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges For this approach, the intrinsic permeability K is set to a constant value given by Equation 4.6. Using calculated apparent permeabilities Kapp for the experiments, intrinsic permeability

44

2500
ITLR Exp Forch Coeff Nonlinear Regression Forch Coeff (Re<180) Forch Coeff (180<Re<340) Forch Coeff (340<Re<475)

2000

Forch Coeff (Re>475)

[1/m]
1500 1000 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Re []

Figure 4.6: Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges

12

x 10

10

8 1/Kapp [m2]

ITLR Exp Forch Regression App Perm (Re<180) App Perm (180<Re<340) App Perm (340<Re<475) App Perm (Re>475)

0 0

3 .v/ [m1]

5 x 10

6
5

Figure 4.7: Apparent permeability Kapp for limited Re ranges

45

K and the experimental data along with Equation 4.8, corresponding Forchheimer coecients are determined and are shown (blue stars) in Figure 4.6. The calculated Forchheimer coecients are divided into dierent ranges on the basis of Reynolds number (Re) and an average Forchheimer coecient is determined for each Reynolds number range and is shown (horizontal magenta lines) in Figure 4.6. Using the average Forchheimer coecients , intrinsic permeability K and the experimental data along with Equation 4.8, apparent permeabilities Kapp are back calculated for each Reynolds number range and are shown (inclined magenta lines) in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7 show a plot of the Forchheimer coecient against the Reynolds number (Re) and a plot of the corresponding apparent permeability Kapp equation (see Equation 4.8) respectively. It can be seen from Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7 that the Forchheimer coecient for nonlinear regression approach (red line) discussed in Section 4.1.2 is constant for all ow velocities. Whereas, for the current approach, the Forchheimer coecient and therefore the apparent permeability Kapp are adjusted in order to account for nonlinear inertial eects at higher Reynolds numbers (Re > 180).

Table 4.6: Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges Reynolds number (Re) Forch. coe. Ergun coe. CE Re < 180 9 = 1573.28 CE 9 = 0.3766 180 < Re < 340 10 = 1615.25 CE 10 = 0.3866 340 < Re < 475 11 = 1709.87 CE 11 = 0.4093 Re > 475 12 = 1772.92 CE 12 = 0.4244 The Forchheimer coecient obtained for the dierent ranges of Reynolds numbers are given in Table 4.6. For each Reynolds number range, the Ergun coecient CE is calculated using Equation 2.30 and the corresponding Forchheimer coecient . The intrinsic permeability K given by Equation 4.6 and the Ergun coecients CE for dierent Reynolds number ranges from Table 4.6 are used for numerical simulations. Pressure gradients pCalc for the current approach are back calculated using Equation 2.29 and the experimental data from Table 4.1. The percentage errors for the calculated pressure gradients are determined using Equation 4.4 and compared with other approaches in Table 4.7.

46

2500
ITLR Exp Data Forch Coeff Nonlinear Regression Forch Coeff (Re<180) Forch Coeff Fit (180<Re<340) Forch Coeff Fit (340<Re<475) Forch Coeff Fit (Re>475) Forch Coeff f(Re)

2000

[1/m]
1500 1000 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Re []

Figure 4.8: Forchheimer coecient as a function of Reynolds number (Re) 4.1.3.3 Linear Forchheimer coecient (Re) Similar to Section 4.1.3.1 and Section 4.1.3.2, for this approach, the intrinsic permeability K is set to a constant value given by Equation 4.6. As discussed in Section 4.1.3.2, Forchheimer coecients for experiments (blue stars), nonlinear Forchheimer regression approach (red line) and Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges approach (magenta line) are shown in Figure 4.6. It is clear from Figure 4.6, that for Re > 180, the Forchheimer coecient for experiments varies linearly with the ow rate. Thus, as suggested by [22, 32], for the high velocity ow regime (Re > 180), a linear relationship between the Forchheimer coecient and the ow Reynolds number (Re) is determined (see Figure 4.8) as follows: (Re) = 0.6364 Re + 1560.3. (4.9)

It can be seen from Figure 4.8, that the linear description of the Forchheimer coecient (cyan line) accounts for nonlinear inertial eects at higher ow velocities (Re > 180). Equation 4.9 for the Forchheimer coecient allows the cubic behavior of the Forchheimer equation and follows the experimental data for Re > 180. A cubic form of the Forchheimer equation is given below: p = v f K 1 + (Re(|vf |)) K |vf | . (4.10)

47

12

x 10

10

8 1/Kapp [m2]

ITLR Exp Data Forch Coeff Nonlinear Regression Forch Coeff (Re<180) Forch Coeff (180<Re<340) Forch Coeff (340<Re<475) Forch Coeff (Re>475) Forch Coeff f(Re)

0 0

3 .v/ [m1]

5 x 10

6
5

Figure 4.9: Apparent permeability as a function of velocity Using Equation 4.8, the intrinsic permeability K given by Equation 4.6, the Forchheimer coecient given by Equation 4.9 and the experimental data (see Table 4.1), the apparent permeabilities Kapp are calculated for the high velocity ow regime (Re > 180). The calculated apparent permeabilities (cyan line) are plotted as shown in Figure 4.9. Pressure gradients pCalc for the current approach are back calculated using Equation 2.29 and the experimental data from Table 4.1. The percentage errors for the calculated pressure gradients are determined using Equation 4.4 and compared with other approaches in Table 4.7. From Figure 4.9 and Table 4.7, it is very clear that the current approach describes the experimental pressure gradients better than any other approach discussed in Section 4.1.1, Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.1.3. The Ergun coecient CE is determined from Equation 2.30 and Equation 4.9 as follows: CE = K (0.6364 Re + 1560.3). (4.11)

For the current approach, a constant Ergun coecient CE = 0.3766 (see Equation 4.7) for Re < 180 and a linear Ergun coecient CE (see Equation 4.11) for Re > 180 are used along with intrinsic permeability K given by Equation 4.6 for numerical simulations.

48

49

Table 4.7: Comparison of percentage errors of calculated pressure gradients using dierent approaches for Forchheimer coefcient a Nonlinear regression p(comp ) p(ranges ) p( (Re)) pExpt [ P ] m p(5 ) p(6 ) p(7 ) p(8 ) 181.660 6.9189 5.5958 5.8862 5.1192 10.830 5.1192 5.1192 651.760 1.4013 1.7924 6.6393 0.9305 2.4286 0.9305 0.9305 2120.25 0.0870 0.2641 0.4089 1.2695 3.7569 1.2695 1.2695 4993.44 0.4754 0.0233 1.2985 1.0638 5.7205 1.0638 1.0638 8004.28 3.2408 2.6558 0.4181 1.5052 9.2372 1.5052 1.5052 12263.25 1.3640 0.7096 2.0713 0.4422 7.6545 0.4422 0.2105 19448.21 1.4409 2.1465 5.3562 3.2858 5.0246 0.8202 0.8867 24294.88 3.1797 3.9012 7.2606 5.0282 3.3141 2.5963 1.6732 30284.81 4.4719 5.2096 8.7130 6.3288 2.0655 3.9187 1.8843 40987.76 4.1592 4.9333 8.6960 6.0656 2.5706 3.6337 0.3686 49150.42 6.4367 7.2086 11.000 8.3184 0.2146 0.5615 0.8572 58746.00 7.9362 8.7108 12.551 9.8070 1.3154 2.1542 1.1331 68519.69 5.9489 6.7547 10.783 7.8786 0.8874 0.0418 2.5873 78375.66 10.200 10.977 14.883 12.052 3.6317 3.5585 1.1205 88688.64 8.6869 9.4873 13.531 10.584 1.9583 0.5756 2.0297 100100.93 11.163 11.949 15.935 11.017 4.5811 2.1469 0.4002 116934.34 12.692 13.473 17.458 12.526 6.1773 3.8248 0.4379

4.2 Test cases

After analyzing the experimental data for the determination of the intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecient , the immediate objective is the validation of implemented DuMuX models by setting up a relevant numerical example for each model. Thus, a test case with appropriate boundary conditions is setup for an isothermal model (see Section 4.2.1) and a non-isothermal model (see Section 4.2.2).

4.2.1 Incompressible isothermal case

During incompressible isothermal experiments at ITLR, dierent pressure gradients are applied across the porous cylinder and the corresponding ow velocities are recorded (see Table 4.1). These pressure gradients are used as boundary conditions for numerical simulations with the corresponding DuMuX model and numerical results are compared with the experimental data. Nitrogen is used as a working uid for the numerical simulations in the current work. The incompressible behavior of the uid is ensured by xing the density and viscosity of the uid phase as given in Table 4.1. A set of simulations is performed using the intrinsic permeability K given by Equation 4.6 and the Ergun coecients CE for dierent Forchheimer coecient approaches discussed in Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.1.3 (see Table 4.8).

Table 4.8: Ergun coecient CE for dierent Forchheimer coecient approaches Approach for Forchheimer coecient Ergun Coecient CE Nonlinear Forchheimer regression 0.3766 Forchheimer coecient for complete data range 0.4904 0.3766 (Re < 180) 0.3866 (180 < Re < 340) Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges 0.4093 (340 < Re < 475) 0.4244(Re > 475) Forchheimer coecient = (Re) 0 .3766 (Re < 180) K (0.6364 Re + 1560.3) (Re > 180)

50

Model domain:

Figure 4.10: Incompressible isothermal model domain For simulating incompressible isothermal ow, due to the symmetric shape of the porous domain and the unidirectional ow velocity, only one quarter of the cylinder is modeled. For this domain, a uniform mesh with hexahedral elements is created using IcemCFD 12.1 as the meshing tool. The dimensions of the mesh are the same as that of the porous domain, i.e., length (L) = 295 mm and diameter (d) = 30 mm. The model domain is shown in Figure 4.10. Boundary conditions, input data and results for the incompressible isothermal case are discussed below. Boundary conditions: For the incompressible isothermal case, the ow is only governed by the pressure dierence applied across the cylinder. Thus, a Dirichlet boundary condition for pressure is applied at the inlet and the outlet of the domain. The Dirichlet boundary condition at the inlet is calculated from the pressure gradient data provided by ITLR. Whereas, the Dirichlet boundary condition at the outlet is set to the atmospheric pressure (100000 P a). The other boundaries are set to no ow (Neumann) boundary condition. As the problem is isothermal, the temperature throughout the domain is set to a constant atmospheric temperature, i.e., 300 K . Input data: The intrinsic permeability K for the solid matrix is obtained earlier in this chapter as K = 5.73 108 m2 (see Equation 4.6).

51

 The porosity of the solid matrix is provided by ITLR, i.e., = 0.558. The Ergun coecients CE belonging to dierent approaches are given in Table 4.8. The selection of the Ergun coecient CE depends on the approach one wants to use and the ow Reynolds number (Re). Results and discussion:

(a) Qualitative pressure distribution

(b) Quantitative pressure distribution

Figure 4.11: Pressure distribution across porous domain for an incompressible isothermal ow

(a) Qualitative velocity distribution

(b) Quantitative velocity distribution

Figure 4.12: Velocity distribution across porous domain for an incompressible isothermal ow Simulations are performed for each of the experimental observations using Ergun coecients CE belonging to dierent approaches mentioned in Table 4.8. In order to exhibit the distribution of the pressure and velocity elds across the porous cylinder, one of the simulations run is presented (see Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12). It can be observed from Figure 4.11b and

52

a pExpt [ P ] m

Table 4.9: Experimental and numerical velocity data vfExpt. m vf m (8 ) vf m (comp ) vf m (ranges ) vf s s s s 0.2404 0.5337 1.0059 1.5788 2.0372 2.4992 3.0885 3.4055 3.7527 4.3199 4.6284 4.9618 5.3539 5.5293 5.8606 6.0607 6.3725 0.2423 0.5283 1.0073 1.5785 2.0096 2.4899 3.1228 3.4751 3.8559 4.4318 4.8068 5.1954 5.5486 5.8629 6.1622 6.4615 6.8534 0.2571 0.5269 0.9869 1.5694 1.9477 2.4687 3.0135 3.3507 3.7152 4.2662 4.6248 4.9965 5.3319 5.6348 5.9210 6.2071 6.5819 0.2423 0.5283 1.0072 1.5785 2.0096 2.4899 3.1016 3.4515 3.7239 4.2798 4.6416 5.0167 5.3551 5.6009 5.8437 6.1272 6.4987

m s

( (Re))

181.660 651.760 2120.25 4993.44 8004.28 12263.25 19448.21 24294.88 30284.81 40987.76 49150.42 58746.00 68519.69 78375.66 88688.64 100100.93 116934.34

0.2571 0.5432 1.0314 1.6053 2.0315 2.5009 3.1095 3.4434 3.7996 4.3256 4.6647 5.0094 5.3073 5.5849 5.8287 6.0783 6.3922

Figure 4.12b, that for an incompressible isothermal ow, the pressure is linearly distributed and the ow velocity is constant along the axis of the porous cylinder. The numerical data for velocity is collected for the dierent sets of simulations performed using Ergun coecients CE for dierent approaches mentioned in Table 4.8. The experimental data for the pressure gradient and the corresponding experimental and numerical data for velocity are given in Table 4.9. The experimental and the numerical velocity data presented in Table 4.9 is used for the evaluation of the friction coecient f . The friction coecient of a porous medium is dened in terms of porosity and specic interfacial area sv as follows [30]: f= p3 . 2 f |vf | sv (4.12)

Table 4.10 shows calculated friction coecients and corresponding percentage errors belonging to the experimental and numerical velocities given in Table 4.9. Here, the percentage

53

a pExpt [ P ] m

54

181.660 651.760 2120.25 4993.44 8004.28 12263.25 19448.21 24294.88 30284.81 40987.76 49150.42 58746.00 68519.69 78375.66 88688.64 100100.93 116934.34

Table 4.10: Experimental and numerical friction coecients fExpt fN um ( Regr.) fN um (comp ) fN um (ranges ) fN um % Error fN um % Error fN um %Error 0.5355 0.5271 1.5716 0.4679 12.609 0.5271 1.5716 0.3893 0.3973 2.0365 0.3994 2.5857 0.3972 2.0365 0.3550 0.3541 0.2711 0.3687 3.8796 0.3540 0.2711 0.3364 0.3365 0.0371 0.3404 1.1884 0.3365 0.0371 0.3210 0.3298 2.7624 0.3511 9.4012 0.3298 2.7624 0.3226 0.3250 0.7413 0.3306 2.4793 0.3250 0.7413 0.3279 0.3208 2.1822 0.3445 5.0346 0.3252 0.8403 0.3322 0.3191 3.9636 0.3432 3.2931 0.3234 2.6458 0.3353 0.3175 5.2843 0.3420 2.0252 0.3404 1.5472 0.3322 0.3157 4.9890 0.3406 2.5299 0.3385 1.8818 0.3394 0.3147 7.2834 0.3399 0.1528 0.3374 0.5691 0.3440 0.3137 8.7908 0.3392 1.3874 0.3365 2.1772 0.3359 0.3127 6.8907 0.3387 0.8292 0.3357 0.0425 0.3513 0.3124 11.058 0.3382 3.7147 0.3424 2.5419 0.3449 0.3119 9.5486 0.3379 2.0309 0.3469 0.5798 0.3541 0.3115 12.024 0.3375 4.6633 0.3464 2.1617 0.3597 0.3109 13.542 0.3371 6.2623 0.3458 3.8465

fN um ( (Re)) fN um %Error 0.4679 1.5716 0.3758 2.0365 0.3376 0.2711 0.3254 0.0372 0.3228 2.7624 0.3221 0.1429 0.3235 1.3468 0.3250 2.1912 0.3270 2.4546 0.3313 0.2674 0.3341 1.5536 0.3375 1.8907 0.3418 1.7665 0.3443 1.9851 0.3487 1.0982 0.3520 0.5768 0.3574 0.6151

1 ITLR Exp Forch Coeff Nonlinear Regression Forch Coeff Comp Expt Data Forch Coeff Re Ranges Forch Coeff Funct of Re ITLR Num

f [] 0.1 10

100

Re []

1000

10000

Figure 4.13: Friction coecient error of the friction coecient f is dened as follows: % Error (f ) := 100 fExpt fN um , fExpt (4.13)

where fExpt and fN um are the experimental and numerical friction coecients respectively. Figure 4.13 shows a plot of the friction coecient f against the Reynolds number (Re). From Figure 4.13, Table 4.9 and Table 4.10, it is clear that, all of the approaches, viz., Quadratic Forchheimer regression (see Section 4.1.2), Forchheimer coecient for the complete range of experimental data (see Section 4.1.3.1), Forchheimer coecient for limited Re ranges (see Section 4.1.3.2) and Forchheimer coecient as a linear function of Reynolds number ( = (Re)) (see Section 4.1.3.3) t with the experimental data within an acceptable tolerance. However, the approach discussed in Section 4.1.3.3 gives the best t with a maximum deviation of 2 3% from the experimental data. It is natural to assume that after using properly tted intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer parameter , the numerical results should go well with experiments. However, one needs to take into account that the determination of a proper intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer parameter was one of the most challenging tasks in the current work. The Forchheimer coecient is a function of both the porous media structure and the ow regime, which makes it problem-specic [32]. Thus, it was very important to cross check the

55

selected intrinsic permeability K and Forchheimer coecient by validating the numerical results against the experimental data. It was observed that the DuMuX simulations for an incompressible isothermal ow through a porous medium takes considerably less time compared to the pore-scale CFD simulations performed at ITLR. Moreover, the pore-scale CFD simulations are performed for a small section of the experimental porous domain [30]. DuMuX takes approximately 150 sec of CPU time for a simulation of an isothermal case using the macro-scale approach. Whereas, the pore-scale CFD simulation performed by Mayer et al. (2010) [30] requires a comparatively larger computation time. Thus, one can say that, in addition to better numerical results (see Figure 4.13), the macro-scale approach for an isothermal ow system is very advantageous in terms of computational cost and time, especially for large scale problems.

4.2.2 Non-isothermal case

4.2.2.1 With local thermal equilibrium For heating and/or cooling applications it is very important to analyze the porous structure for its heat-transfer properties. Experimental analysis of heat transfer properties of a cylindrical porous structure is performed at ITLR. The experimental data from ITLR is used as the base, and an attempt is made to validate a non-isothermal DuMuX model with local thermal equilibrium against this experimental data. Nitrogen is used as a working uid for simulations in the current work. The model domain, boundary conditions and results for the nonisothermal case are discussed below. Model domain:

Figure 4.14: Model domain non-isothermal case

56

Unlike in the isothermal case, the complete cylindrical domain is modeled for the nonisothermal case. The model domain was extended to a length L = 400 mm whereas, the diameter is maintained the same as in the isothermal case i.e d = 30 mm. The extended domain is used to simulate the atmosphere, i.e., the model domain consists of 295 mm of porous matrix and 105 mm of atmosphere (atmosphere domain) as shown in Figure 4.14 by white and red colors respectively. The reasons for modeling the complete cylinder and using an extended domain are explained below in challenges. A uniform mesh with hexahedral elements is created using IcemCFD 12.1 as a meshing tool for this cylindrical model domain. Boundary conditions:

Table 4.11: Boundary conditions non-isothermal case Boundary condition Value Inlet pressure 101131.443 P a Outlet pressure 100000.000 P a Surface heat ux 22059.088 W/m2 Inlet temperature 299.749 K Outlet temperature 299.749 K For the non-isothermal case, a Dirichlet boundary condition is applied for pressure and temperature at the inlet and the outlet of the domain (see Table 4.11). A constant heat ux (Neumann) boundary condition is applied only at the surface of the porous matrix. Here, the outlet boundary condition refers to the outlet of the model domain and not the porous domain. Only one set of the experimental data as shown in Table 4.11 is available for the non-isothermal model validation. Table 4.12: Material parameters and input data Parameters Value Source a 0.028 W/m K Experts opinion s 15 W/m K ITLR cps 510 J/kg K Experts opinion 3 7900 kg/m ITLR 0.558 ITLR 8 2 K 5.73 10 m Current work 0.3866 Current work

57

Input data: Apart from boundary conditions, other additional input data and material parameters are needed for the simulations as shown in Table 4.12. This data was either provided by or discussed with an expert from ITLR. Some challenges: Extension of the model domain and addition of the atmospheric part to the model domain is a modeling trick. This trick is used in order to be able to simulate the ow at the outlet of the porous cylinder. Before using the extended domain, an attempt was also made to use the existing outow boundary condition available in DuMuX . However, it was found that this boundary condition fails for energy closure with the Forchheimer approach. Use of the extended domain for the atmospheric part also produced a need to describe parameters such as intrinsic permeability K and porosity for this domain. The intrinsic permeability and the porosity values of the extended domain are K = 1 105 m2 and = 1 respectively. With the usage of permeabilities orders of magnitude dierent for the porous medium and the atmospheric part, an unphysical jump in the ow properties viz., velocity, pressure and temperature was observed at the permeability junction during DuMuX simulations. This jump existed due to an averaging problem while writing the output at the permeability junction. This problem was countered by using the Piola transformation for evaluation of velocity uxes while writing the output.

Figure 4.15: Unphisical heating along edges Initially, only one quarter of the cylinder was modeled for the non-isothermal case (see Figure 4.15). However it was observed that, when the heat ux is applied at the surface of the

58

porous matrix, the long surface edges of the domain heat up more than the rest of the porous medium, which is unphysical. Hence, it was decided to model the entire cylindrical domain. One of the major problems with the non-isothermal model was its slow convergence. It was observed that the DuMuX model converges very slowly with the given boundary conditions. Thus, once a linear pressure eld is developed across the porous medium, the heat ux boundary condition is switched on, i.e., the heat ux is switched on at time t = 100 s. This helped to achieve faster convergence. Results and discussion: Typical distributions of the pressure and the temperature across the porous cylinder for a nonisothermal case is as shown in Figure 4.16 and Figure 4.17 respectively. It can be observed from Figure 4.16b, that unlike in the incompressible isothermal case, in the non-isothermal case, the pressure distribution is nonlinear over the solid matrix. This nonlinearity in the pressure distribution is due to the compressible behavior of the uid (i.e Nitrogen) and the temperature-dependency of the uid properties. It can also be seen from Figure 4.16b, that the pressure-drop across the atmospheric part of the model domain is very small. This low value of the pressure drop across the atmospheric part of the model domain is due to very high permeability and porosity in this part. In order to compensate for this pressure drop across the atmospheric part, the Dirichlet boundary condition for the inlet pressure is adjusted in such a way that the pressure drop across the porous cylinder matches with that of the experiment. Figure 4.17b shows a plot of the distribution of temperature along the length of the model domain. From Figure 4.17b, it is observed that the slope of the bulk temperature (brown line) and the slope of the surface temperature (black line) are equal. It is very important to know that this behavior of the slopes of the bulk and the surface temperatures is also observed for the experimental data at ITLR. Figure 4.18 shows the distribution of the velocity and density over the length of the porous medium. From Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.17b, it is observed that the velocity of the uid within the porous matrix increases with increase in temperature and the resulting decrease in uid density.

59

(a) Qualitative pressure distribution

(b) Quantitative pressure distribution

Figure 4.16: Pressure distribution across porous domain for a compressible nonisothermal ow

(a) Qualitative temperature distribution

(b) Quantitative temperature distribution

Figure 4.17: Temperature distribution across porous domain for a compressible nonisothermal ow

(a) Velocity distribution

(b) Density distribution

Figure 4.18: Velocity and density distribution across porous domain for a compressible non-isothermal ow

60

(a) 0.0 s

(b) 100.0 s

(c) 200.0 s

(d) 300.0 s

(e) 400.0 s

(f) 500.0 s

(g) 600.0 s

(h) 700.0 s

Figure 4.19: Evolution of pressure (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium)

61

(a) 0.0 s

(b) 100.0 s

(c) 200.0 s

(d) 300.0 s

(e) 400.0 s

(f) 500.0 s

(g) 600.0 s

(h) 700.0 s

Figure 4.20: Evolution of temperature (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium)

62

(a) 0.0 s

(b) 100.0 s

(c) 200.0 s

(d) 300.0 s

(e) 400.0 s

(f) 500.0 s

(g) 600.0 s

(h) 700.0 s

Figure 4.21: Evolution of velocity (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium)

63

Table 4.13: Experimental and numerical wall temperatures (non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium) Dist. from inlet [mm] Expt. temp TExp [K ] Num. temp TN um [K ] 0 299.75 299.75 43 439.24 452.05 68 454.72 526.96 84 464.63 573.83 105 477.63 634.01 203 538.32 892.92 235 558.15 968.39 295 595.29 1061.49 We have already discussed that for a non-isothermal model, the heat ux boundary condition for the surface of the cylinder is switched on at time t = 100 s, i.e., once a linear pressure eld is developed across the porous medium. In Figure 4.19, Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.21, this can be observed. It can also be inferred, that the uid behaves incompressibly as long as the heat ux boundary condition is switched o. This incompressible behavior might also exist due to the low pressure dierence applied across the porous cylinder which might not be the case for higher pressure dierences. However, in the current work, no conclusion can be made in this regard due to limited experimental data. For the non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium, comparison of numerical and experimental wall temperatures along the length of the porous cylinder is given in Table 4.13. We have already discussed from Figure 4.17b that for the current problem, the slope of the bulk temperature is equal to the slope of the surface temperature, as expected from the experimental observations at ITLR. However, from Table 4.13, it is very clear that the temperatures at the surface of the porous cylinder are considerably over-predicted by the current model. There could be various reasons for this over-prediction of the surface temperature. Some of the possible reasons are: unavailability of exact thermodynamic properties of the porous material and the uid (see Table 4.12) and selection of nitrogen as uid phase for numerical simulations instead of air (used for experiments at ITLR). However, the most probable reason is the selection of an improper thermodynamic model. As discussed in Section 2.4.3.1, the assumption of local thermal equilibrium is very well suited for the Darcy ow regime. As the ow velocity for the ITLR experiments is beyond the Darcy ow regime (see Table 4.1), it

64

is most likely that the phases are not in contact for a sucient period of time and no local thermal equilibrium exists within the system (see Section 2.4.3.2). Thus, it is concluded that the assumption of local thermal equilibrium is not appropriate to numerically simulate the non-isothermal experiments performed at ITLR. In order to simulate these experiments, local thermal non-equilibrium is assumed (see Section 4.2.2.2). 4.2.2.2 With local thermal non-equilibrium As discussed in Section 4.2.2.1, the possibility of existence of local thermal non-equilibrium motivates the use of a non-isothermal model with local thermal non-equilibrium for the current work. The implementation of non-isothermal model with local thermal non-equilibrium in DuMuX is discussed in Section 2.6. Similar to the model discussed in Section 4.2.2.1, an attempt is made to validate the current model against the experimental data. The model domain, boundary conditions and input data for the current numerical problem are same as that of the problem for non-isothermal model with local thermal equilibrium. The numerical results for this model are discussed below. Results and discussion: Figure 4.22 shows the evolution of the temperature eld for the uid (black) and the solid (magenta) phases. The plots for the evolution of the pressure and velocity elds for this case are not presented here as they are similar to that of the non-isothermal case with local thermal equilibrium (see Figure 4.19 and Figure 4.21). It can be clearly observed from Figure 4.22, that the wall heat ux boundary condition for the porous domain is switched on after time t = 100 s, (i.e., once a linear pressure eld is developed across the porous medium). For the non-isothermal model with local thermal non-equilibrium, comparison of experimental and numerical temperatures of the uid phase, along the length of the model domain surface is given in Table 4.14. Comparing Table 4.13 and Table 4.14, it is very clear that the assumption of local thermal non-equilibrium has denitely produced better numerical results. However, it can also be observed from Table 4.14, that even with the assumption of local thermal non-equilibrium, the numerical uid temperatures deviate from the experiments in the range of 8 20%.

65

(a) 0.0 s

(b) 100.0 s

(c) 200.0 s

(d) 300.0 s

(e) 400.0 s

(f) 500.0 s

(g) 600.0 s

(h) 700.0 s

Figure 4.22: Evolution of temperature (non-isothermal model with local thermal nonequilibrium)

66

Table 4.14: Experimental and numerical wall temperatures (non-isothermal model with local thermal non-equilibrium) Dist. from inlet [mm] Expt. temp TExp [K ] Num. temp TN um [K ] 0 299.75 299.75 43 439.24 372.35 68 454.72 406.12 84 464.63 424.62 105 477.63 461.33 203 538.32 597.22 235 558.15 643.84 295 595.29 709.35 Thus, in order to achieve better numerical results, in the future work, some modications are recommended viz., radial mesh grading (with ner mesh at the surface of the cylindrical domain), modication of the outow boundary condition in DuMuX for the high velocity Forchheimer ow, implementation of air as the uid phase in DuMuX and determination of a Nusselt number (Nu) relationship which precisely describes the exchange of energy between dierent phases [27].

67

5 Conclusion
In this work, the intrinsic permeability K and the Forchheimer coecients are determined by performing nonlinear regression analysis of the experimental data from ITLR in Section 4.1.1, Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.1.3. From the numerical results discussed in Section 4.2.1, it is concluded that an appropriate intrinsic permeability K (see Equation 4.6) is selected and depending on the desired precision, dierent approaches can be used for the determination of the Forchheimer coecient . From the Forchheimer equation (see Equation 2.28), we know that the inertial eects are directly proportional to the ow kinetic energy. From the detailed analysis of the experimental data, it is observed that, in order to imitate the inertial eects, one has to given up on the expectation of a constant Forchheimer coecient . Various approaches to determine the Forchheimer coecient for dierent ow regimes are explained in Section 4.1.3. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, tting the Forchheimer coecient to the experimental data produced better numerical results. However, before proceeding to the non-isothermal models, it was extremely important to get the momentum balance right. From Section 4.2.1, it is very clear that the Forchheimer coecient approach discussed in Section 4.1.3.3 precisely accounts for nonlinear inertial eects, especially in the high velocity ow regime (Re > 180) and provides the best t to the experimental data with a maximum deviation of 2 3%. Thus, it is concluded that the REV-scale approach provides an eective, ecient and economical solution for the numerical modeling of fast isothermal single-phase ow through porous media, especially for large scale applications. From the comparison of non-isothermal numerical results with the corresponding experimental data, it is concluded that the assumption of local thermal equilibrium is not appropriate as it fails to accurately describe the non-isothermal experimental data (see Section 4.2.2.1). The assumption of local thermal non-equilibrium denitely describes the experimental results more accurately (see Section 4.2.2.2). Also, with this assumption, the numerical results deviate

68

from the experiments in a reasonable range of 8 20%. However, for further improvement of results, radial mesh grading (with ner mesh at the surface of the cylinder), modication of the outow boundary condition in DuMuX , use of air as the uid phase and a precise Nusselt number (Nu) correlation for the exchange of energy between dierent phases are recommended.

69

Bibliography
[1] Katherina Baber. Modeling the Transfer of Therapeutic Agents from the Vascular Space to the Tissue Compartment (A Continuum Approach). Masters thesis, Institut fr Wasserbau, Lehrstuhl fr Hydromechanik und Hydrosystemmodellierung, 2009. [2] Matthew Balho, Andro Mikelic, and Mary Wheeler. Polynomial Filtration Laws for Low Reynolds Number Flows Through Porous Media. Transport in Porous Media, 81:3560, 2010. 10.1007/s11242-009-9388-z. [3] R. D. Barree and M.W. Conway. Multiphase Non-Darcy Flow in Proppant Packs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14 November 2007, Anaheim, California, U.S.A. 978-1-55563-148-2. [4] R.D. Barree and M.W. Conway. Beyond Beta Factors: A Complete Model for Darcy, Forchheimer, and Trans-Forchheimer Flow in Porous Media. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-29 September 2004, Houston, Texas, USA. 978-1-55563-151-2. [5] R.D. Barree and M.W. Conway. Reply to Discussion of "Beyond Beta Factors: A Complete Model for Darcy, Forchheimer, and Trans-Forchheimer Flow in Porous Media", 2005. [6] Jacob Bear and Yehuda Bachmat. Macroscopic modelling of transport phenomena in porous media. 2: Applications to mass, momentum and energy transport. Transport in Porous Media, 1:241269, 1986. 10.1007/BF00238182. [7] L. S. Bennethum and T. Giorgi. Generalized Forchheimer Equation for Two-Phase Flow Based on Hybrid Mixture Theory. Transport in Porous Media, 26:261275, 1997. 10.1023/A:1006536424162.

70

[8] A. Bhattacharya, V.V. Calmidi, and R.L. Mahajan. Thermophysical properties of high porosity metal foams. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 45:10171031, 2002. [9] K. Boomsma and D. Poulikakos. On the eective thermal conductivity of a threedimensionally structured uid-saturated metal foam. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 44:827836, 2001. [10] R. H. Brooks and A. T. Corey. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Hydrology papers, 3, 1964. Colorado State University. [11] V. V. Calmidi and R. L. Mahajan. The Eective Thermal Conductivity of High Porosity Fiber Metal Foams. Journal of Heat Transfer, 12:466471, 1999. [12] Faruk Civan and R. D. Evans. Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Data From Non-Darcy Flow of Gas/Brine System in Laboratory Cores. 1993. SPE Gas Technology Symposium, 28-30 June 1993, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 978-1-55563485-8. [13] Holger Class. Theorie und numerische Modellierung nichtisothermer Mehrphasenprozesse in NAPL-kontaminierten poro sen Medien. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, 2001. [14] H. P. G. Darcy. Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon. Victor Dalmont, Paris, 1856. [15] S. Ergun. Fluid ow through packed columns. Chem. ENG. Prog., 48:8994, 1952. [16] S. Ergun and A. A. Orning. Fluid Flow through Randomly Packed Columns and Fluidized Beds. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 41(6):11791184, 1949. [17] R. E. Ewing, R. D. Lazarov, S. L. Lyons, J. Papavassiliou, D. V. Pasciak, and G. Qin. Numerical well model for non-Darcy ow through isotropic porous media. Computational Geosciences, 3:185204, 1999. [18] B. Flemisch, M. Darcis, K. Erbertseder, B. Faigle, A. Lauser, K. Mosthaf, S. Mthing, P. Nuske, A. Tatomir, M. Wol, and R. Helmig. DuMuX: DUNE for multi-phase, component, scale, physics..., ow and transport in porous media. Advances in Water Resources, 34(9):1102 1112, 2011. New Computational Methods and Software Tools.

71

[19] P. Forchheimer. Wasserbewegung durch Boden. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieuer, 45 edition, 1901. [20] M. T. Van Genuchten. A Closed-From Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unstructured Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44:892898, 1980. [21] R. Helmig. Multiphase Flow and Transport Processes in the Subsurfaces : A Contribution to the Modelling of Hydrosystems. Springer, 1997. [22] M. Kaviany. Principles of Heat Transfer in porous Media. Springer-Verlag, 1991. [23] H. Kobus and U. de Haar, editors. Perspektiven der Wasserforschung, Mitteilung 14 der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), VCH Verlangsgesellschaft, Weinheim, 1995. [24] Bitao Lai and Jennifer L. Miskimins. A new technique for accurately measuring twophase relative permeability under non-darcy ow conditions. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19-22 September 2010, Florence, Italy. 978-1-55563-300. [25] M. C. Leverett. Capillary Behaviour in Porous Solids. Transcriptions of the AIME, 142:152196, 1941. [26] Liangxing Li and Weimin Ma. Experimental Study on the Eective Particle Diameter of a Packed Bed with Non-Spherical Particles. Transport in Porous Media, 89:3548, 2011. 10.1007/s11242-011-9757-2. [27] Tao Lu, Peixue Jiang, and Shengqiang Shen. Numerical and experimental investigation of convective drying in unsaturated porous media with bound water. Heat and Mass Transfer, 41:11031111, 2005. 10.1007/s00231-005-0634-9. [28] I. F. Macdonald, M. S. El-Sayed, K. Mow, and F. A. L. Dullien. Flow through Porous Media-the Ergun Equation Revisited. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 18(3):199208, 1979. [29] Barbara Mayer. Cold side porous structure for gas turbine cooling. Technical report, Institute of Aerospace Thermodynamics (ITLR), University of Stuttgart, November 2010. [30] Barbara Mayer, Weigand Bernhard, Andreas Heselhaus, and Michael Crawford. Heat transfer and pressure drop in a regular porous structure at high Reynolds numbers. Technical report, Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Poznaskiej, 2011.

72

[31] Agnes Montillet. Flow Through a Finite Packed Bed of Spheres: A Note on the Limit of Applicability of the Forchheimer-Type Equation. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 126(1):139143, 2004. [32] Donald A. Nield and Adrian Bejan. Convection in Porous Media. Springer, 2006. [33] A. Ouenes, G. Frasanion, and R. L. Lee. Simulated Annealing for Interpreting Gas/Water Laboratory Coreoods. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October 1992, Washington, D.C. 978-1-55563-500-8. [34] Douglas Ruth and Huiping Ma. On the Derivation of Forchheimer Equation by Means of an Averaging Theorem. Transport in Porous Media, 7:255264, 1992. [35] Patrick Schfer and Gunter Lohnert. Boiling experiments for the validation of dryout models used in reactor safety. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 236(1416):1511 1519, 2006. [36] Werner Schmidt. Inuence of Multidimensionality and Interfacial Friction on the Coolability of Fragmented Corium. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, May 2004. [37] E. Takasuo, V. Hovi, and M. Ilvonen. PORFLO modelling of the coolability of porous particle beds. Technical report, VTT, 2011. [38] H. Teng and T. S. Zhao. An extension of Darcys law to non-Stokes ow in porous media. Chemical Engineering Science, 55(14):2727 2735, 2000. [39] Yu-Shu Wu, Bitao Lai, Jennifer L. Miskimins, Perapon Fakcharoenphol, and Yuan Di. Analysis of Multiphase Non-Darcy Flow in Porous Media. Transport in Porous Media, 88:205223, 2011.

73