Understanding the flow behaviour of copolymer and associative polymers in porous media using extensional viscosity characterization: Effect of hydrophobic association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associative polymer (AP) and hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM), the two commonly used polymers for heavy oil recovery, are reported to exhibit very different flow behaviour in porous media despite having similar shear viscosity. The kind of hydrophobic association (intramolecular or intermolecular) that AP exhibit is concentration dependent and will influence both shear and elongational flow in the porous media. To understand flow behaviour of these two polymers in porous media, the role of hydrophobic association on shear and extensional rheology and its effect on the resistance factor (RF) and residual resistance factor in porous media are investigated over a non‐associating HPAM polymer. The results suggest that shear rheology and the Deborah number cannot explain the porous media flow behaviour. However, direct measurements of extensional properties using a capillary breakup extensional rheometer have shown the marginal difference between two polymers at a lower concentration (1000 ppm) and the considerable difference at a higher concentration (2000 ppm), indicating an intramolecular and intermolecular association, respectively. These results are in accordance with porous media observations where both polymers have shown a similar RF at 1000 ppm. Whereas, at 2000 ppm AP showed a much higher RF at low/intermediate fluxes, and a similar RF at high flux, suggesting the transformation from intermolecular association to intramolecular association. The significant drop in the extensional viscosity at high strain rates after exhibiting the maxima explains this behaviour.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".