• Aucun résultat trouvé

Computational Permeability Determination from Pore-Scale Imaging: Sample Size, Mesh and Method Sensitivities

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Computational Permeability Determination from Pore-Scale Imaging: Sample Size, Mesh and Method Sensitivities"

Copied!
18
0
0

Texte intégral

Figure

Table 1 Rock sample composition
Fig. 2 Visualization of a original core plug imaged and b considered sub-sample
Fig. 3 Sample porosity as a function of considered sub-volume. REV characteristic length size ( ∼ 1 mm 3 ) is determined from this pore-space characterization [same procedure as Bear (1972)]  0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2  0.001  0.01  0.1  1  10  100Porosity Volume
Table 2 Spatial discretization and number of mesh elements for the different studied configurations
+6

Références

Documents relatifs

In the present work, we have identified, for the first time, miRNAs expression patterns that can unambiguously differentiate benign, malignant and several subtypes

Some sarcomas following breast cancer may be due to shared genetic components (i.e., in the Li–Fraumeni syn- drome), as well as possibly to shared environmental factors, with

In the second case, no finite population size is assumed, but the gain from future patients is geometrically discounted, so that the gain from patient j if they receive treatment i is

A perfectly flat, infinite surface does not give any diffusely scattered light, any amount of scattered light will therefore signal the presence of surface roughness,

isogeometric boundary element method for elastostatic analysis”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 209-212: 87–100, 2012!. I sogeometric boundary element

Neumann or Robin boundary conditions â First results with a mixed formulation Dynamic equation : heat equation. Michel Duprez Rule of the mesh in the Finite Element

Excessive alcohol consumption remains a significant problem around the world and in France, with a 30% prevalence of hazardous and harmful drinkers.. 1 GPs are

As for the power, we see that crADDOW is less powerful than ADDOW, as expected since we reject less hypotheses, but we see that in most Groups and scenarios the loss of power is