Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:51:11.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulation of porosity reduction in random structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

P. B. Visscher  and
Joseph E. Cates
P. B. Visscher
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0324
Joseph E. Cates
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0324
Get access

Abstract

We describe an algorithm for computing the motion of a solid-liquid interface in 2D, which is applicable to geological pressure solution or to pressure sintering. The backward motion (toward the solid) of the interface is due to dissolution of the solid, and the forward motion (away from the solid) is due to the inverse process of reprecipitation. The interface velocity is assumed proportional to the difference between the solubility of the solid and the concentration of the solution. The former is dependent upon stress (the phenomenon of “pressure solution”), so our algorithm must also keep track of the stress. We use a Lagrangian grid, with constant-stress periodic boundary conditions. The method has been applied to porosity reduction in sandstone. It is applicable to other interface-following problems, such as freezing, if the motion is slow enough that heat transport is not rate-limiting.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 5 , Issue 10 , October 1990 , pp. 2184 - 2196
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Kessler, D. A., Koplik, Joel, and Levine, Herbert, in Computer Simulation of Microstructural Evolution, edited by Srolovitz, David J. (The Metallurgical Society, 1986), p. 95.Google Scholar
2Novikov, V. Y., Acta Metall. 26, 1739–1744 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Hunderi, O. and Ryum, N., Acta Metall. 27, 161–165 (1979); 29, 1737–1745 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Ronis, D., Bedeaux, D., and Oppenheim, I., Physica 90A, 487 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Ronis, D. and Oppenheim, I., Physica 117A, 317 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Srolovitz, D. J., Anderson, M. P., Grest, G. S., and Sahni, P. S., Scripta Metall. 17, 241–246 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Grest, G. S., Anderson, M. P., and Srolovitz, D. J., in Computer Simulation of Microstructural Evolution, edited by Srolovitz, David J. (The Metallurgical Society, 1986).Google Scholar
8 A problem to which one might apply this sort of algorithm is the application of real-space scale-coarsening (RNG) techniques which describe fluid dynamics well far from phase transitions [Visscher, P. B., J. Stat. Phys. 38, 989 (1985)] to systems near critical points, where the well-established discrete-cell description works well for small cells, but needs to incorporate interface motion in order to describe large cells.Google Scholar
9Sibley, D. F. and Blatt, H., J. Sed. Petrology 46, 881–896 (1976).Google Scholar
10de Boer, R. B., Nagtegaal, P. J. C., and Duyvis, E. M., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 41, 257–264 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Sprunt, E. S. and Nur, Amos, Geophysics 42, 726–741 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Weyl, P. K., J. Geophys. Res. 64, 2001–2025 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Bathurst, R. G. C., Liverpool Manchester Geological Journal 2, 11–36 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Bathurst, R. G. C., Carbonate Sediments and TheirDiagenesis, 2nd ed. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976).Google Scholar
15Rutter, E. H., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 283, 203–219 (1976).Google Scholar
16Robin, P. F., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 42, 1383–1389 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Angevine, C. L. and Turcotte, D. L., Geo. Soc. of Am. Bull. 94, 1129–1134 (1983).2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Near zero pressure, the pressure dependence should be quadratic [Paterson, M. S., Rev. Geophysics and Space Physics 11, 355–389 (1978)], but linearizing about some large average pressure gives the linear form we use. There is some discussion in the geological literature of possible dependence of the solubility on the shear stress: see R. B. de Boer, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 41, 249–256 (1977); P. F. Robin, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 42, 1383–1389 (1978) and references therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Hubbert, M. R. and Rubey, W. W., GSA Bull. 70, 115 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Brace, W. F., in Flow and Fracture of Rocks, AGU Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 16, edited by H. C. Heard, I. Y. Borg, N. L. Cantor, and C. B. Rayleigh, 265 (1972).Google Scholar
21Cohen, M. H. and Anderson, M. P., in Chemistry and Physics of Composite Media, edited by Tomkiewicz, M. and Sen, P. W., Proc. Volume 84–8, J. Electrochemical Society, p. 133 (1986); M. H. Cohen, AIP Conf. Proc. 154, Physics and Chemistry of Porous Media II, edited by J. R. Banavar, J.Koplik, and K. W. Winkler, American Institute of Physics, p. 3 (1987).Google Scholar
22 We have taken the bulk and shear moduli to be the same to simplify the calculation, because the exact values of the elastic constants are not critical in this simulation (elasticity is included mostly as a mechanism for modeling the stress concentration around grain contacts; we have used the nominal value E = 1010 N/m2). We could relax this assumption by using the method of Eqs. (10) and (11) to calculate the strain tensor, and multiplying appropriate components by elastic moduli to obtain the stress tensor and hence the force on each volume element (lattice point). However, this introduces complications when not all neighbors of a lattice point are solid, since the force across a\ bond depends on the displacements of other bonds. Equation (6) has the advantage that the force on a bond can be computed from its displacement alone.Google Scholar
23Glimm, J., Grove, J., Lindqvist, B., McBryan, O. A., and Tryggvason, G., SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 9, 61–79, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Glimm, J., Lindqvist, B., McBryan, O. A., and Tryggvason, G., Sharp and Diffuse Fronts in Oil Reservoirs: Front Tracking and Capillarity, Proc. on Mathematical and Computational Methods in Seismic Exploration and Reservoir Modelling, Houston, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, January 1985.Google Scholar
25Ray, J. R. and Rahman, A., J. Chem. Phys. 80, 4423 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Kennedy, G. C., Econ. Geol. 5, 629–653 (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Visscher, P. B., Fang, J. H., and Cates, J. C. (unpublished research).Google Scholar
28Houseknecht, D. W., AAPG Bulletin 71, 633 (1987), Fig. 2(a).Google Scholar
29Chaix, J. M., Guyon, M., Rodriguez, J., and Allibert, C. H., Scripta Metall. 22, 71 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Frost, H. J., Thompson, C. V., Howe, C. L., and Whang, J., Scripta Metall. 22, 65 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar