multiphysics simulation and characterization in support of energy geotechnology · 2016. 7. 28. ·...
Post on 09-Feb-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
Xiong (Bill) Yu, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Case Western Reserve University
April 26, 2014
Contributors from Former and Current Students:
Zhen (Leo) Liu, Assistant Professor, Michigan Technological University
Chanjuan Han, Graduate Research Assistant
Bin (Ben) Zhang, Michael Baker Jr. Inc.
Multiphysics Simulation and Characterization
In support of Energy Geotechnology
-
About myself
Ph.D. Purdue University 2003, B.S. and M.S.
Tsinghua University 1997, 2000
Joined CWRU in 2005
Current program affiliation
Civil engineering/Geotechnical engineering/Infrastructure
engineering
EECS, MAE, MSE and other programs
Research program focus/interest
Sustainable geo/infrastructure (design, sensor technology, SHM,
field instrumentation diagnose, etc.)
Durable and multifunctional civil engineering materials
Smart engineering systems
Energy and efficiency
-
Challenges Facing the Rising Energy Demand
Source: Energy Information Administration Data
-
Unsaturated uniform soil specimen subjected to surface freezing
Multiphysics: Example
Vertical internal stress
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
0 hour
He
ight (m
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
12 hours
He
ight (m
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
24 hours
Total volumetric water content
He
ight (m
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
50 hours
Total volumetric water content
He
ight (m
)
Distribution of total volumetric water content
Thermal boundary load
Thermo-hydro
Thermo-mechano
Liu and Yu 2012
-
Understand the Multiphysics Process in
Gas Hydrate Exploration
-
Gas Hydrate
Definition: Gas hydrates, or clathrate hydrates, is a solid, ice-like form consisting of a host
lattice of water molecules that enclose voids, each of which may contain one molecule of a
guest gas (Selim and Sloan 1985) .
Guest gases: CH4, C2H6, C3H8, i-C4H10, CO2 etc. (Bishnoi 1996, Englezos 1993).
Natural occurring conditions: High Pressures and Low Temperatures (Oceanic Sediments
and Permafrost Regions)
Gas hydrate core sample from 920 m deep
at the Mallik site, Canada (www.sciencewatch.com)
Gas hydrate studied
in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (usgs.gov)
Massive gas hydrates Gas hydrate-bearing sediment
-
Uniqueness as Energy Source
Huge amounts of methane in a concentrated form
Combustible low molecular weight hydrocarbons such as
methane, ethane, and propane
(Kvenvolden, 1993; Hyndman and Dallimore, 2001)
Organic Carbon
in the Earth
-
Gas Hydrate Explorations
Challenges:
Limitations in understanding hydrate reservoirs behaviors (Pawar and
Zyvoloski 2005).
Optimal strategy for gas hydrate resource utilization.
Strategies
Simulation studies including analytical and numerical models
coordinated with laboratory studies to address knowledge gaps that are
critical to the prediction of gas production (Moridis et al. 2006).
Field validation
-
Mechanisms Involved 1. Energy Balance (Thermal Field, T)
2. Mass Transfer (Hydraulic Field, H)
3. Momentum Balance (Mechanical Field, M)
4. Chemical Kinetics (Chemical Field, C)
it is a MULTI-PHYSICAL process.
-
Trends in Gas Hydrate Simulations Simulation models for gas hydrate
THMC model emerging
Seafloor stability, geohazards prediction
Liu and Yu 2013
THMC
-
Multiphysics Simulation Structure
2/4/2012
Thermal (T,Ө) Fourier’s eq.
Mechanical (u, T,Ө,h)
Navier’s eq.
Hydraulic (h,T,Ө) Richards’ eq.
Ө
T
u
Ө
h
i i,( , ), ( , )tC
i( , , ),T T
i( , )E
Water Characteristic
th
First Layer Coupling
Third Layer Coupling
Second Layer Coupling
Chemical Field Experimental
(C)
Energy Balance (T)
Mass Balance(H) Moment Balance
(M)
-
Governing Equations
duu
dt v v q h
j j j j j jd
mdt
v
Tj j j j j j j j
d
dt
vv v F
Tj j j j j j
ee e
t
v
ww w w w w w w wd
mdt
v v
g gg g g g g g g g g g gd d
mdt dt
v v
s 0d
dt
ww w w w w w w w w w w w wg +d
mdt
v
v v i σ F v
gg g g g g g g g g g w w wg +d
mdt
v
v v i σ F v
h h h h h 0g σ F
s s s s s 0g σ F
g gj j j j j
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
T zC T C T H m
t t
v σ v F v v v
hh h
dm
dt
Energy Balance
Momentum Balance
Mass Balance
-
Model simplifications
w ww w w wg
g
d kp m
dt
i
g g gg g g g ggg
d d kp m
dt dt
i
hh h
dm
dt
s h s h f s s h h' 0p g σ δ i
w,g
ggj j
j
j jj j jjk
pCT
C T T Ht
i
Water Mass (1)
Gas Mass (1)
Hydrate Mass (1)
Solid Momentum (Mechanical,3)
System Energy (1)
-
Auxiliary Relationships
e A+B expC
Tp
j jσ σw w wp σ δ
g g gp σ δ
f w g1p Sp S p
f' p σ σ δ
sh s h s h f' p σ σ σ σ δ
' :σ C ε
T1
2
ε u u
ww w ww w
gg
kp
v i
gg g gg g
gg
kp
v i
g w 1p p f S
g g
g
M p
RT
w g h s,01 w
w h h h
h
103.55.75 5.75 4.9801
119.5
Mm m m m
M
g
g h h h
h
160.13389
119.5
Mm m m m
M
1
37 3h0
h h f e 23
h
94000.585 10 exp kg m sm p p
T
3 3h h h3h
54200494977.17 W/m
109.5 1054.2 10
mm m
MH
4 2 4 2CH nH O CH +nH O (n = 5.75 in this study)
-
Implementation
0 4 8 12 16 200.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Satu
ration
Distance from bottom (m)
HydrateResSim
MH21
STARSOIL
STARSSOLID
STOMPHYD
UNIVHOSTON
NewModel
0 4 8 12 16 200.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Satu
ration
Distance from bottom (m)
HydrateResSim
MH21
STARSOIL
STARSSOLID
STOMPHYD
UNIVHouston
NewModel
1 Day 100 Day
Bottom Top
20 m
USGS-NETL Gas Hydrate Simulation Comparison Project: Case 1 (No Dissociation)
Saturation at different times
Liu and Yu 2013b
-
Implementation
Bottom Top
20 m
USGS-NETL Gas Hydrate Simulation Comparison Project: Case 2 (Dissociation)
1 Day 100 Day
0 4 8 12 16 200.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
HydrateResSim
MH21
STARS
STARSSOLID
STOMPHYD
TOUGHFXHydrate
UnivHouston
NewModel
Sa
tura
tio
n
Distance from bottom (m)
0 4 8 12 16 20
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
HydrateResSim
MH21
STARS
STARSSOLID
STOMPHYD
TOUGHFXHydrate
UnivHouston
NewModel
Sa
tura
tio
n
Distance from bottom (m)
Saturation at different times
Liu and Yu 2013b
-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Su
bsid
en
ce
(m
)
Time (day)
Subsidence
Hydrate Dissociation Ground Settlement
Profile of a hydrate-bearing zone and
corresponding computational domain
Liu and Yu 2013b
-
Understand the Multiphysics Process in
Underground Geothermal Heat
Exchanger
-
Geothermal Heat Exchanger
Summer: cooling mode Winter: heating mode
heat dispersion heat absorption
-
Prototype House with Geothermal Heat Pump
Prototype
• Geothermal heat pump
system installed under a
three-floor resident
house located in
Cleveland
• Instrumented (Tin,
Tout, flow velocity,
power consumption,
etc.)
-
Geometry
• U-pipe: D=100mm
• Pipe wall thickness: 5mm
• Length=60m
• Distance between inlet and outlet pipe=0.4m
• Borehole: R=0.4m
Boundary Conditions
• Pipe inlet temperature: Tinlet=7℃
• Flow rate:v=0.1m/s
• Soil temperature: T=15℃ (under depth of 4m)
Material Property
• Fluid: water
• Pipe: HDPE
• Refill material: bentonite
Non-isothermal Pipe
Flow
Physics Process and Simulation Model
soil
borehol
e
pip
e
Heat Transfer in Solid
Coupling
Process
-
Temperature(degC)
Figure 1 Temperature distribution
on the border of the borehole
and on the transverse section
Figure 2
Temperature
distribution along
the pipe
3-D Stationary Model
• Sensitivity analysis
• Optimize the design
3-D Time-dependent Model
• Compare the simulation and experimental data
• Calibration and optimization
Simulation Design and Schematic Results
-
Example Results: Sensitivity study
3-D Stationary Model: sensitivity analysis (d=50mm)
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Out
let T
empe
ratu
re (℃
)
Flow Velocity (m/s)
10m20m30m40m50m60m70m80m90m100m
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
He
at
Exc
ha
ng
e R
ate
(W
/m)
Depth of the pipe (m)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Flow velocity (m/s)
( ) / Lout inQ cvA t t
-
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
12
:00
AM
1
:00
AM
2
:00
AM
3
:00
AM
4
:00
AM
5
:00
AM
6
:00
AM
7
:00
AM
8
:00
AM
9
:00
AM
1
0:0
0 A
M
11
:00
AM
1
2:0
0 P
M
1:0
0 P
M
2:0
0 P
M
3:0
0 P
M
4:0
0 P
M
5:0
0 P
M
6:0
0 P
M
7:0
0 P
M
8:0
0 P
M
9:0
0 P
M
10
:00
PM
1
1:0
0 P
M
2012-10-08
T_in(experimental) T_out(simulation)T_out(experimental) BB_low(experimental)BB_high(experimental) 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
12
:00
AM
1
:00
AM
2
:00
AM
3
:00
AM
4
:00
AM
5
:00
AM
6
:00
AM
7
:00
AM
8
:00
AM
9
:00
AM
1
0:0
0 A
M
11
:00
AM
1
2:0
0 P
M
1:0
0 P
M
2:0
0 P
M
3:0
0 P
M
4:0
0 P
M
5:0
0 P
M
6:0
0 P
M
7:0
0 P
M
8:0
0 P
M
9:0
0 P
M
10
:00
PM
1
1:0
0 P
M
2012-10-09
T_in(experimental) T_out(simulation)T_out(experimental) BB_low(experimental)BB_high(experimental)
Example Results: time dependent process
-
Example Results: time dependent process
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
2012-11
T_in(experimental) T_out(simulation) T_out(experimental)
-
Multiphysics Parameters Characterization
-
Multiphysics Characterization: Thermal-TDR probe:
6 mm
Sensor probe
Thermocouple reading wire
Connect to TDR unit
Combine EM wave and
thermal excitations
-
Example of thermal pulse response
0 30 60 90 120 15020
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time(s)
Tem
pera
ture
(oC
)
25.6
25.8
26.0
26.2
26.4
Tem
perature(oC
)
Heat Pulse
Thermal Response
-
EM Wave TDR Signals in Sand and Clay
5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Re
lative
Vo
lta
ge
(V)
Scaled Distance(m)
Dry Sand
w=4%
w=8%
w=12%
5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Rel
ativ
e V
olta
ge(V
)
Scaled Distance(m)
Dry Clay
w=5%
w=10%
w=15%
-
0 10000 20000 30000
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Tem
pe
ratu
re (
oC
)
Time (s)
Heater
Receiver A
Receiver B
Specimen Center
Environmental Temp
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Thermal Conductivity (W/(m*K))
Temperature (oC)
Characterization of physical and
thermal process during freezing-
thawing
Variation of thermal
conductivity with
temperature
Zhang and Yu 2012
-
How to advance in this exciting field
Research
Understanding the intrinsic properties relevant to multiphysics
coupling
Innovative characterization tools
Simulation capability (multiscale, multiphysics, nonlinear, time
dependent system)
Education
Interdisciplinary (knowledge base, characterization, etc.)
Modeling
-
Acknowledgements
Funding Agencies National Science Foundation, The Ohio Department of Transportation/FHWA, TRB/National Research
Council, NCHRP-IDEA, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Cleveland Water Department, Industry
sponsors (GRL/PDI, WPC Inc., Durham Geo Enterprises, MWH Inc., DLZ Ohio Inc., etc)
Graduate Students Past: Xinbao Yu (UT Arlington), Bin Zhang (Mike Baker), Yan Liu (Mount Union Univ), Zhen Liu
(Michigan Tech), Junliang Tao (U. Akron)
Current: Ye Sun (Michigan Tech), Chih-Chien Kung, Guangxi Wu, Jianying Hu, Quan Gao, Yang Yang,
Chanjuan Han, Yuan Guo, Jiale Li
Undergraduate Researchers Pete Simko, John Holman, Yuan Gao, Andrew Bittleman, Pete Simko, Cassandra McFadden, Paul Mangola,
Jingsi Lang, Donald Cartwright, Alex Potter-weight, Randall Beck, Vanessa Penner,Peter Frank, Ben Ma,
Rebecca Ciciretti, Joseph Brenner, Javanni Gonzalez, Vanessa Penner, Grant Mott, et al.)
Department engineer: Jim Berrila
-
Thank you
top related