Resurrection of a reservoir sandstone from tomographic data using three-dimensional printing

Ishutov, Sergey; Hasiuk, Franciszek; Fullmer, Shawn M.; Buono, Antonio; Gray, Joseph N.; Harding, Chris

doi:10.1306/11111616038

Cited by 30 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among them, infiltration, immersing the samples into the infiltrant, can strengthen the mechanical performance to a certain degree, though it is only applied to the exterior, leaving the interior parts loosely cemented. The post-processing steps will cause the cementation of the gypsum powder to become unevenly distributed, which is in agreement with the findings from previous studies [34,80].…”

Section: Core Scale Geomechanical Propertiessupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Postprocessing effect, infiltration specifically, significantly alters the mechanical property of 3D printed rocks, which, on the other hand, cannot penetrate completely into the samples using the infiltrant (glue). If abundant pore spaces were remained in the central part [80], the modulus of bulk samples could not meet the expectation. Therefore, samples 5-8 that experienced sufficient postprocessing steps with higher binder saturation were selected to be the reference for comparison with the values that were predicted by upscaling methods.…”

Section: The Comparison Of Upscaling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geomechanical Upscaling Methods: Comparison and Verification via 3D Printing

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding geomechanical properties of rocks at multiple scales is critical and relevant in various disciplines including civil, mining, petroleum and geological engineering. Several upscaling frameworks were proposed to model elastic properties of common rock types from micro to macroscale, considering the heterogeneity and anisotropy in the samples. However, direct comparison of the results from different upscaling methods remains limited, which can question their accuracy in laboratory experiments. Extreme heterogeneity of natural rocks that arises from various existing components in them adds complexity to verifying the accuracy of these upscaling methods. Therefore, experimental validation of various upscaling methods is performed by creating simple component materials, which is, in this study, examining the predicted macroscale geomechanical properties of 3D printed rocks. Nanoindentation data were first captured from 3D printed gypsum powder and binder rock fragments followed by, triaxial compression tests on similar cylindrical core plugs to acquire modulus values in micro and macroscale respectively. Mori-Tanaka (MT) scheme, Self-Consistent Scheme (SCS) method and Differential Effective Medium (DEM) theory were used to estimate Young’s modulus in macroscale based on the results of nanoindentation experiments. The comparison demonstrated that M-T and SCS methods would provide us with more comparable results than DEM method. In addition, the potential applications of 3D printed rocks were also discussed regarding rock physics and the geomechanics area in petroleum engineering and geosciences.

show abstract

Section: Core Scale Geomechanical Propertiessupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: The Comparison Of Upscaling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Geomechanical Upscaling Methods: Comparison and Verification via 3D Printing

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their work demonstrates the potential of 3D printing for systematically changing the geometry of printed models to investigate fundamental flow processes and subsequently applying the results to real-world situations. Ishutov et al (2017) investigated discrepancies in porosity, permeability and mean pore throat radius between sandstone samples and upscaled 3D printed versions based on CT scans of the natural rock samples. The printed samples had similar permeabilities and scaled mean pore throat radii to the original samples; however, porosity in the printed samples was higher than expected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Flow and Transport Experiments on 3D Printed Micromodels with Direct Numerical Simulations

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding pore-scale flow and transport processes is important for understanding flow and transport within rocks on a larger scale. Flow experiments on small-scale micromodels can be used to experimentally investigate pore-scale flow. Current manufacturing methods of micromodels are costly and time consuming. 3D printing is an alternative method for the production of micromodels. We have been able to visualise small-scale, single-phase flow and transport processes within a 3D printed micromodel using a custom-built visualisation cell. Results have been compared with the same experiments run on a micromodel with the same geometry made from polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA, also known as Perspex). Numerical simulations of the experiments indicate that differences in experimental results between the 3D printed micromodel and the Perspex micromodel may be due to variability in print geometry and surface properties between the samples. 3D printing technology looks promising as a micromodel manufacturing method; however, further work is needed to improve the accuracy and quality of 3D printed models in terms of geometry and surface roughness.

show abstract

“…Currently 3D printers can build proxies near the scale of the coarsest natural reservoir rocks (e.g., Ishutov et al, 2015;Head and Vanorio, 2016;Sukop et al, 2016;Ishutov et al, 2017b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating 3D-printed porous proxies by tomography and porosimetry

Hasiuk

Ishutov

Pacyga

2018

RPJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The objective of this study was to evaluate how accurately a 3D printer could manufacture basic porous models. Geoscience research is evolving toward numerical prediction of porous rock properties, but laboratory tests are still considered standard practice. 3D printing digital designs of porous models (proxies) is a way to bridge the gap between these two realms of inquiry.Design/methodology/approach. Digital designs of simple porous models were 3D-printed on an inkjet-style (polyjet) 3D printer. Porosity and pore-throat size distribution of proxies were measured with helium porosimetry, mercury porosimetry, and computed tomography image analysis. Laboratory results on proxies were compared with properties calculated on digital designs and CT images.Findings. Bulk volume of proxies was by 0.6-6.7% lower than digital designs. 3D-printed porosity increased to 0.2-1.9% compared to digital designs (0-1.3%). 3D-printed pore throats were thinner than designed by 10-31%.Research limitations/implications. Incomplete removal of support material from pores yielded inaccurate property measurements. The external envelope of proxies was 3D-printed at higher accuracy than pores.Practical implications. Characterization of these simple models improves understanding of: 1) how more complex rock models can be 3D-printed accurately; and 2) how both destructive (mercury porosimetry) and non-destructive (computed tomography and helium porosimetry) methods can be used to characterize porous models.Originality/value. Validation of 3D-printed porous models using a suite of destructive and non-destructive methods is novel. Disciplines Earth Sciences | Environmental Sciences | Geology CommentsThis is a manuscript of the article Franciszek Hasiuk, Sergey Ishutov, Artur Pacyga, "Validating 3D-printed porous proxies by tomography and porosimetry," Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2018 For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. ABSTRACT PurposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate how accurately a 3D printer could manufacture basic porous models. Geoscience research is evolving toward numerical prediction of porous rock properties, but laboratory tests are still considered standard practice. 3D printing digital designs of por...

show abstract

Resurrection of a reservoir sandstone from tomographic data using three-dimensional printing

Cited by 30 publications

References 33 publications

Geomechanical Upscaling Methods: Comparison and Verification via 3D Printing

Geomechanical Upscaling Methods: Comparison and Verification via 3D Printing

Comparison of Flow and Transport Experiments on 3D Printed Micromodels with Direct Numerical Simulations

Validating 3D-printed porous proxies by tomography and porosimetry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About