1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Dissolution-driven convection in a Hele–Shaw cell
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.4790511
    + View Affiliations - Hide Affiliations
    Affiliations:
    1 School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, 29 Oxford Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
    2 Harvard School of Public Health, 667 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA
    3 Department of Physics, Harvard University, 29 Oxford Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
    a) Present address: Schlumberger–Doll Research, 1 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 01239, USA.
    b) Present address: Collective Interactions Unit, OIST Graduate University, 1919-1 Tancha, Onna-son, Okinawa 904-0495 Japan.
    c) Present address: Departments of Mathematics and Biology, Penn State University, University Park, State College, Pennsylvania 16802, USA.
    d) Corresponding author: lm@seas.harvard.edu.
    Phys. Fluids 25, 024101 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4790511
/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/2/10.1063/1.4790511
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/2/10.1063/1.4790511

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Plan view of the Hele–Shaw cell and (b) side view of the complete experimental setup (not to scale).

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The red (▲), green ( ▼), and blue (•) channel concentration–intensity relationships, together with the curve fits used.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Horizontal, pure diffusion experiment. The concentration profile along a -transect for times , , , and in (a) dimensional and (b) similarity form. (c) Dissolved mass per unit interfacial-area. In (a)–(c), the thin solid curves are experimental results and the bold dotted curves are the analytic pure diffusion solutions Eqs. (3) and (4) . (d) Amplitude of perturbation away from pure diffusion (solid curve) together with an estimate of the measurement-error amplitude (dashed curve).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

“Jan11” convection experiment. Snapshots of the concentration field at times ( , ) after inception (a) (12, 0.016), (b) (160, 0.20), (c) (320, 0.40), (d) (710, 0.90), (e) (960, 1.2), (f) (3900, 4.9), (g) (12 000, 15), and (h) (21 000, 27). Solid curves in (a)–(f) are the 0.05 contour. Insets show in (b) a vertical concentration slice at various times (thin solid curves) together with the analytic solution Eq. (3) (bold dotted curve), in (e) an early merger (at intervals of approximately , , 0.15), and in (g) a merger of a reinitiated finger (at intervals of , , 0.60). The solid curves are the 0.05 contour. White spots are air bubbles (except along the left boundary where the camera was obscured).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

“Jan11” convection experiment. Temporal behavior of (a) the concentration profile along the horizontal slice below the KMnO-water interface, (b) the amplitude (the lower curve is a lower bound, subtracting the estimated measurement-error amplitude), (c) dissolution flux and dissolved mass per unit interfacial-area (the bold dotted curves are the analytic, pure diffusion solution Eqs. (4) ), and (d) horizontally averaged concentration profile as a function of . Contours in (d) are at intervals of 0.1 from 0.05 . Left panels show early times; right panels show the full time history. For the flux, circles are raw time-differentiated mass data and the curve is a smooth interpolation.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Amplitude against time for all convection experiments without bubbles at the interface in (a) dimensional and (b) advection–diffusion forms. In (b), the bold dotted line at = 47.9 is the theoretical lower bound on onset time. The second dotted line is proportional to , an excellent fit to both the maximum amplification across all horizontal wavenumbers and the growth of “white noise” initial conditions for horizontal wavenumber and for and .

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Flux against time across all convection experiments in (a) dimensional, (b) advection–diffusion, and (c) layer-thickness formulations. In (a), the bold dotted curve is the analytic, pure diffusion solution Eq. (4b) . In (c), the bold dotted curve is the late-time phenomenologically derived scaling Eq. (9c) . Fluxes have been smoothed to improve readability.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Horizontally averaged concentration profile against vertical coordinate for the “Jan11” experiment at times = 13.5, 26.0, 51.1, 63.6, and in the direction of the arrow ( = 8.0, 15, 30, 38, and 45). Fingers first impact the base of the cell at ( ≈ 6). The bold dotted profiles are the bulk concentration estimates from the phenomenological relation Eq. (9a) .

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Dissolved mass per unit interfacial-area against time across all convection experiments in (a) dimensional and (b) layer-thickness forms. The thick, dotted curve in (a) is the analytic, pure diffusion solution Eq. (4a) and in (b) is the late-time phenomenologically derived scaling Eq. (9d) , omitting the term.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Landmark times. (a) Amplitude onset (+), flux onset (▼), flux maximum (△), and nonlinear amplitude saturation (×) in advection–diffusion scalings. (b) Fingers half-way down the cell (▲), fingers impacting bottom (▽), and 50% average saturation (■) in layer-thickness scalings. Finger location measures are taken when the horizontally averaged concentration reaches 0.05 at that location.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Wavelength in time in the advection–diffusion framework across all convection experiments. The bold dotted curve is the stability theory prediction . Experimental wavelengths are defined as the average distance between peaks on a horizontal slice beneath the interface.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Vertical fingertip locations against (a) time and (b) horizontal coordinate in the advection–diffusion framework for the “Jan 11” experiment. In (a), the bold dotted line is ; the inset shows the same plot logarithmically and includes the curve .

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Summary of the six distinct regimes as a function of Rayleigh number and advection–diffusion time.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Experiment names, symbols, and parameters. Symbols are (sd) for short-dashed, (ld) for long-dashed, and (s) for solid. Errors in θ are ±0.02° and in are . To evaluate , , , and , we take , , and as described in Secs. III and IV , together with and . Errors in and are approximately 20%, 10%, and 7% for angles 0.11°, 0.21°, and 0.33°, respectively (principally due to the error in θ). Errors in are twice this percentage. Asterisks (*) denote experiments with a small bubble at the interface.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/2/10.1063/1.4790511
2013-02-15
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Dissolution-driven convection in a Hele–Shaw cell
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/2/10.1063/1.4790511
10.1063/1.4790511
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM