Evaluating hydrogen displacement in sandstones: a comparative study of pore-network modelling and pore-scale visualisation experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Underground hydrogen storage in porous formations is a promising solution for large-scale energy storage. Understanding hydrogen flow and trapping at the pore-scale is crucial for assessing storage capacity and recovery efficiency. While pore-scale flow visualisation experiments provide realistic insights, they are resource intensive and technically challenging. Pore-network models offer a computationally efficient tool for simulating multiphase flow in porous media and can serve as a valuable complement to pore-scale experiments. However, their accuracy remains a key uncertainty and must be evaluated for future application. This study evaluates the performance of a quasi-static pore-network model by comparing its predictions against three-dimensional pore-scale hydrogen flow visualisation experiments in a homogeneous Bentheimer sandstone and a layered Clashach sandstone. The model was calibrated to match experimental end-state saturations, and its performance was evaluated through comparisons of spatial saturation profiles and pore occupancy. The novelty of this study lies in the direct comparison of hydrogen displacement between pore-scale experimental observations and pore-network model simulations, providing an assessment of model performance under varying degrees of rock heterogeneity relevant to underground hydrogen storage. The pore-network model shows good agreement with experimental observations for the homogeneous rock, particularly during drainage, and is subsequently used to analyse additional scenarios, including cyclic hydrogen injection and withdrawal, and wettability variations. These simulations provide insights into capillary pressure behaviour and residual saturation trends. In contrast, for the heterogeneous and layered Clashach sandstone, the model fails to capture the trapping and fluid redistribution observed experimentally during imbibition, revealing limitations in modelling fine-scale heterogeneity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".