2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2019.103578
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dispersion modeling in pore networks: A comparison of common pore-scale models and alternative approaches

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
4
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The accuracy of each scheme was compared to a reference solution generated by FEM, and best agreement was found when a power-law approach was applied to both the advection diffusion and migration terms. This is consistent with our previous work on advection diffusion [32]. These model equations were implemented within the open-source package OpenPNM [11] based on the Gummel algorithm with relaxation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The accuracy of each scheme was compared to a reference solution generated by FEM, and best agreement was found when a power-law approach was applied to both the advection diffusion and migration terms. This is consistent with our previous work on advection diffusion [32]. These model equations were implemented within the open-source package OpenPNM [11] based on the Gummel algorithm with relaxation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…The source of the deviations between the PNM and FEM simulations resulting from the use of the upwind scheme were discussed in detail in a recent work [32]. They were attributed to the fact that in the presence of moderate to important advective effects (i.e., Péclet numbers equal or larger than unity), significant local concentration gradients appear, and the assumption of linear concentration profiles between pores loses accuracy.…”
Section: Analysis Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The work by Bijeljic stands out because of the use of pore-network models. A general feature of many porenetwork models is the implicit assumption of full mixing at the nodes which is only valid at low flow rates (Mehmani et al 2014;Sadeghi et al 2020). Bijeljic accounts for mixing at the nodes by placing particles in pores through either an area-weighted distribution or pressure-weighted distribution.…”
Section: Dispersion In Porous Mediamentioning
confidence: 99%