inducing multiple hydralic fractures from a horizontal wellbore
电磁感应 电磁场英文名词
4
物理学
第五版
物理学
第五版
物理学名词中英文对照
磁介质 磁化强度 磁化率 分子电流 分子磁矩 顺磁质 抗磁性
magnetic medium magnetization susceptibility molecular current molecular magnetic moment paramagnetism diamagnetism
附 录
3
物理学
第五版
物理学
第五版
物理学名词中英文对照
亨利 磁场能量 磁能密度
henry magnetic field energy magnetic energy density 位移电流 displacement current 电磁场 electromagnetic field 麦克斯韦 Maxwell,James Clerk 麦克斯韦方程组 Maxwell equations
附
录
6
物理学
第五版
物理学
第五版
物理学名词中英文对照
铁磁质 磁场强度
相对磁导率 传导电流 磁化电流 磁畴
ferromagnetic material magnetic field intensity Relative permeability conduction current magnetization current magnetic domain
物理学
第五版
物理学名词中英文对照
楞次 楞次定律 动生电动势 感生电动势 有旋电场 涡流
Lenz Lenz law motional electromotive force induced electromotive force curl electric field eddy current
油井水力压裂流_固耦合非线性有限元数值模拟_张广明
第30卷 第1期2009年1月石油学报AC TA PETROL EI SIN ICAVol.30J an. No.12009基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(No.10632080)资助。
作者简介:张广明,男,1980年5月生,2004年毕业于东北大学秦皇岛分校,现为中国科学技术大学近代力学系博士研究生,主要从事石油工程数值模拟研究。
E Οmail :zhgming @文章编号:0253Ο2697(2009)01Ο0113Ο04油井水力压裂流Ο固耦合非线性有限元数值模拟张广明1 刘 合1,2 张 劲3 彪仿俊1 吴恒安1 王秀喜1(11中国科学技术大学近代力学系 安徽合肥 230026; 21中国石油大庆油田有限责任公司 黑龙江大庆 163453;31中国石油大学石油天然气工程学院 北京 102249)摘要:基于多孔介质流Ο固耦合的控制方程,推导了相应的非线性增量有限元列式,并采用以节点位移和孔隙压力为自由度的黏结单元来模拟水力损伤造成的预设裂缝的起裂和扩展,在此基础上建立了油井水力压裂的有限元模型。
在该模型中考虑了压裂液的黏性系数和支撑剂的体积浓度随时间变化,所有参数均采用现场压裂的数据。
通过数值模拟,得到了缝口压力、射孔孔眼摩阻、沿程摩阻、井筒内液柱静水压力和地面井口压力随压裂时间的变化规律,并给出了“压裂作业三条线”,模拟得到的“压裂作业三条线”与现场压裂实测结果吻合良好。
关键词:水力压裂;多孔介质;流2固耦合方程;压裂液;非线性有限元;数值模拟中图分类号:TE 357111 文献标识码:ASimulation of hydraulic fracturing of oil w ell based on fluid 2solidcoupling equation and non 2linear f inite elementZHAN G Guangming 1 L IU He 1,2 ZHAN G Jin 3 B IAO Fangjun 1 WU Heng ’an 1 WAN G Xiuxi 1(1.Department of Modern Mechanics ,Universit y of Science and Technology of China ,Hef ei 230026,China;2.Pet roChina Daqing Oil f iel d Com pany L imited ,Daqing 163453,China;3.Facult y of Pet roleum Engineering ,China Universit y of Pet roleum ,B ei j ing 102249,China )Abstract :A set of non 2linear finite element formulae with incremental form was derived on the basis of the fluid 2solid coupling equa 2tions of porous fluid diff usion and deformation.The pore pressure cohesive elements were used to simulate the initiation and propaga 2tion of hydraulic pre 2defined f ractures resulted f rom hydraulic loading.A finite element model was proposed for hydraulic fracturing of oil well.Both the viscosity of fracturing fluid and volume concentration of proppant varied with time in the model.All of the simu 2lation parameters are f rom data of oil wells.Some parameters including pressure at the f racture mouth ,perforation friction ,string f riction ,hydrostatic pressure of fluid column in well bore and wellhead pressure have changed with fracture time.The presented“curves of stimulation treatment history ”are in good coincidence with those obtained f rom the field measurements.K ey w ords :hydraulic fracturing ;porous medium ;fluid 2solid coupling equation ;f racturing fluid ;non 2linear finite element model ;nu 2merical simulation 研究水力压裂的力学机理对于保障生产安全、提高生产效率至关重要,董平川等[1]基于小变形假设,建立了储层流Ο固耦合的有限元方程,路保平等[2]建立了井眼周围多孔介质储层的流Ο固耦合数学模型。
双螺带螺杆桨气液混合性能数值模拟及其工业应用
(1. School of Chemical Engineering and Technology,Tianjin University,Tianjin 300072,China; 2. State Engineering Research Centre for Distillation Technology,Tianjin University,Tianjin 300072,China)
张敏革等:双螺带螺杆桨气液混合性能数值模拟及其工业应用
·547·
中,本身由于水解反应产生部分气体,加上聚合物颗 粒在分散过程中带入少量空气,熟化罐中溶液往往存 在大量气泡,如果气泡不能很好地排出,溶液的均一 度将下降,严重时将降低后序外输泵和注聚泵的供液 能力,出现气蚀现象,影响泵的正常使用.
针对以上特殊情况,笔者开发了双螺带螺杆桨, 这种搅拌桨在高黏非牛顿流体中的流场特征以及对 溶液中气泡的作用效果是开发成功与否的关键.事 实上,到目前为止,对于搅拌槽内气液两相流的研究 大多数围绕六直叶涡轮桨或多层组合桨等径向流搅 拌桨展开[4-6],并且研究流体大部分为牛顿流体[7-8], 而对双螺带螺杆搅拌桨这种轴流式桨在高黏非牛顿 流体气液两相流中的流场研究还鲜见相关报道.本 文采用计算流体力学方法对双螺带螺杆桨气液两相 流搅拌流场进行了数值模拟分析,并进行工业试验证 实了这种搅拌桨应用于油田聚合物溶液配置过程中 的适用性.
随着轻化工、食品以及三大合成材料等工业的发 展,高黏流体尤其是高黏非牛顿流体的搅拌混合操作 日益增多[1].高黏非牛顿流体的混合理论以及搅拌桨 的设计、放大等均比牛顿型流体更为复杂.我国某油 田公司三次采油中采用聚合物驱油技术提高原油采 收率,这种聚合物溶液是一种高黏非牛顿流体[2-3],其 配制过程主要包括聚合物的分散、熟化以及外输等工
脊柱侧弯的非融合治疗
ORIGINAL ARTICLETreatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis:potential impact of dynamic stabilization based on imaging analysisThomas whorne III ÆFederico P.Girardi ÆCurtis A.Mina ÆIaonnis Pappou ÆFrank P.Cammisa JrReceived:19March 2008/Revised:19February 2009/Accepted:5March 2009/Published online:28March 2009ÓSpringer-Verlag 2009Abstract Intraspinous and pedicle screw-based (PSB)dynamic instrumentation systems have been in use for a decade now.By direct or indirect decompression,these devices theoretically establish less painful segmental motion by diminishing pathologic motion and unloading painful disks.Ideally,dynamics should address instability in the early stages of degenerative spondylolisthesis before excessive translation occurs.Evidence to date indicates that Grade II or larger slips requiring decompression should be fused.In addition,multiple segment listhesis,severe coronal plane deformities,increasing age,and osteoporosis have all been listed as potential contraindications to dynamic stabilization.We reviewed the exclusion and inclusion criteria found in various dynamic stabilization studies and investigational drug exemption (IDE)proto-cols.We summarize the reported limitations for both pedicle-and intraspinous-based systems.We then con-ducted a retrospective chart and imaging review of 100consecutive cases undergoing fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.All patients in our cohort had been indicated for and eventually underwent decompression of lumbar stenosis secondary to spondylolisthesis.We esti-mated how many patients in our population would havebeen candidates for dynamic stabilization with either interspinous or pedicle-based ing the criteria for instability outlined in the literature,32patients dem-onstrated translation requiring fusion surgery and 24patients had instability unsuitable for dynamic stabiliza-tion.Six patients had two-level slips and were excluded.Two patients had coronal imbalance too great for dynamic systems.Twelve patients were over the age of 80and 16demonstrated osteoporosis as diagnosed by bone scan.Finally,we found two of our patients to have vertebral compression fractures adjacent to the site of instrumenta-tion,which is a strict exclusion criteria in all dynamic trials.Thirty-four patients had zero exclusion criteria for intraspinous devices and 23patients had none for PSB dynamic stabilization.Therefore,we estimate that 34and 23%of degenerative spondylolisthesis patients indicated for surgery could have been treated with either intraspinous or pedicle-based dynamic devices,respectively.Keywords Dynamic stabilization ÁDegenerative spondylolisthesis ÁDynamics ÁSpinal fusionIntroductionKirkaldy-Willis divided the spectrum of degenerative changes in the lumbar spine into three distinct phases:(1)temporary dysfunction;(2)instability;and (3)re-stabi-lization.Stage 1degeneration is likely to respond to conservative measures.In terms of accepted treatment guidelines,treatment of early stage 2disease has been a gray area in which conservative measures have been the treatment of choice,but have a diminishing te stage 2cases are most likely to be treated with stabiliza-tion/fusion surgery.Finally,in stage 3the role ofwhorne IIISpine Service,Rush University Medical Center,1653W.Congress Parkway,Chicago,IL,USAF.P.Girardi ÁC.A.Mina (&)ÁI.Pappou ÁF.P.Cammisa Jr Spine Service,Hospital for Special Surgery,535E.70th Street,New York,NY,USA e-mail:minac@whorne III ÁF.P.Girardi ÁC.A.Mina ÁI.Pappou ÁF.P.Cammisa JrDepartment of Orthopedics,Weill Medical College of Cornell University,New York,NY,USAEur Spine J (2009)18:815–822DOI 10.1007/s00586-009-0941-9decompression without fusion serves a role.Dynamic sta-bilization offers an opportunity for more aggressive treatment of patients in the early stage2of Kirkaldy-Willis degeneration[9].Some patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis can be treated with decompression alone or with fusion.A certain number of both groups do not do well.Therefore,we perceive degenerative spondylolisthesis(DS)patients as ideal candidates for evaluating the applicability of dynamic stabilization.Degenerative spondylolisthesis is a segmental destabilization,which is the result of multifactorial degen-erative changes in the low lumbar spine.A number of factors have been associated with its development inclu-ding:disk degeneration,facet joint orientation,gender, ligament hyperlaxity,and physical overactivity[19].From a pathoanatomic perspective,DS evolves from degeneration of the disk.It eventually reduces its stiffness and places greater stress on the facets.When subjected to shear forces,this may lead to subluxation.Because of the inherent stability of L5and occasional presence of L5 sacralization,the L4-5and L3-4levels are more frequently affected.Progression of a slip results in facet hypertrophy and disk bulging,which in turn contribute to forward dis-placement of the thecal sac.Imaging studies demonstrate diminished cross-sectional area of the cauda equina,facet degeneration,and hypertrophy,and diffuse disk buckling and degeneration.All of these factors contribute to the symptoms of spinal stenosis and therefore are important in characterizing the extent of the disease.Fusion the best answer?Until recently,surgical options in the treatment of degene-rative lumbar spondylolisthesis have been limited.The two options available to the surgeon had been to either:(1) treat symptoms with conservative measures including physical therapy and injections;or(2)proceed with oper-ative decompression with or without fusion.In prior years, inconsistent fusion rates had been accompanied by unreli-able success.With the advent of fusion technologies such as cages and segmental instrumentation,the rate of fusion in degenerative cases now approaches95%.Unfortunately, the outcomes of fusion surgery have failed to improve at an equal rate.Even the most skilled surgeons achieve only a 50–70%good to excellent outcome with fusion surgery[2, 25].Also,there is no correlation to attain fusion success and clinical outcome;meaning,not all pseudoarthroses are painful nor are all successful fusions painless[23].One could argue that if instability alone were the cause of back pain,successful fusion shouldfix the problem every time. By fusing and stopping all motion(both normal and abnormal)one has not solved the problem.Poor results associated with fusions have been associated with abnor-mal loading at the bone–metal interface after cage insertion.Polikeit[17]demonstrated that cage insertion increased the stress and markedly altered the load transfer of the endplates.Similarly,McAfee[12]demonstrated that clinical success of fusion was dependent upon solid bone formation around the cage,resulting in an increase in the area of load transmission and decrease in the load over the footprint of the cage.Sengupta[23]concluded from this data that improvements in back pain in surgery depend more on the creation of a normal loading pattern than from the inhibition of motion.In addition,fusion carries with it the added risk of adjacent segment disease in the long term.There have been numerous studies examining the risk factors for and con-sequences of this post-fusion complication including accelerated degeneration of adjacent segments andflat back syndrome[16].Maintaining the protective effect of segmental motion can theoretically reduces the accelera-tion of adjacent segment degeneration[24]. Dynamics:unloading,not unmovingDynamic stabilization has arisen as a means to alter load transmission across degenerated spinal segments while avoiding the aforementioned problems with ing variable constructs,this technique has several theoretical advantages over fusion:(1)adjacent level protection[15, 24];(2)protection of rotatory stress to the sacroiliac joint during sitting[10];(3)maintenance of normal resting posture[6];(4)shorter OR time[24];(5)requirement of fewer levels of treatment,because unlike fusion one can stop below adjacent segments with degeneration[24].Two classes of dynamic stabilizers,intraspinous-(IS) and pedicle screw-based(PSB)dynamic systems have been in use for almost a decade now outside of North America. These devices theoretically establish less painful segmental motion by diminishing pathologic motion and unloading painful disks.Interspinous distraction devices(X-Stop, Wallis,DIAM,Coflex)function by‘‘inducingflexion’’in the degenerative segment and result in less buckling of the ligamentumflavum,offloading of the facets,and reduce IVD pressures[4].PSB dynamics systems(Graf ligament, Dynesys,Isobar,DSSS,M-brace,TFAS and TOPS)offload spinal units in a fashion similar to pedicle-based posterior instrumentation[20].Because they do not depend on the presence of posterior elements,pedicle-based systems can be used with posterior decompression.Whereas randomized studies have shown that fusion is beneficial in degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis,it is debatable whether added instrumentation is beneficial[11].Dynamic systems may combine advantagesof both:providing more stability than decompression alone,and being less invasive than instrumented fusion [24].Materials and methodsOur study was performed in two parts.In Part1,we sur-veyed the literature and current investigational drug exemption(IDE)studies to determine the indications for using dynamic stabilization systems.In Part2,we retro-spectively applied these criteria to a group of100 consecutive degenerative spondylolisthesis patients who had undergone surgery in our practice.The objective was to estimate the percentage of our DS patients who could have undergone dynamic stabilization with either inter-spinous or PSB systems.Part one:review of indicationsAfter reviewing the literature and IDE protocols,we assembled a list of criteria,which are considered in studies using both IS and PSB dynamic stabilization.Most of the listed inclusion/exclusion criteria for dynamic stabilizers are true for any operative DS candidate:they have mode-rate to severe lumbar spinal stenosis with leg pain,they have failed conservative treatment(NSAIDS,PT,injec-tions),they have had no prior fusion surgery and have no significant comorbidities precluding them from surgery. However,there were several inclusion/exclusion criteria in the dynamic studies that differentiated these patients from other DS patients.They included:(1)instability onflexion/ extension radiographs;(2)degree of spondylolisthesis slip;(3)age of patient;(4)degree of scoliosis;(5)degree of osteoporosis;(6)presence of vertebral body fracture;and (7)the number of levels of slip present.These criteria were uniformly mentioned in the literature and IDE studies of dynamic devices,and it was with these criteria that we determined our estimation of potential utility of dynamic stabilization(Tables1,2).Degree of slipDynamic stabilization systems are limited to cases with relatively minor deformity[24].Ideally,dynamics should address instability in the early stages of degeneration before excessive translation occurs[9,20].Schwarzenbach [20]believes that severe segmental instability and advanced disk disease increase the risk of failure in dynamic devices.The dynamic device studies to date have allowed only Grade I slip for interspinous and PSB systems (Table1).Evidence to date indicates that Grade II or larger slips requiring decompression should be fused[1].Multiple-level slipsMultiple segment anterolisthesis has not been evaluated in most dynamic studies addressing spondylolisthesis[14, 21].Patients with multiple-level listhesis will therefore be excluded as dynamic candidates.The Dynesys IDE did allow double-level DS slips;however,the large Dynesys study by Stoll et al.[24]did not.Coronal deformityThe dynamic stabilizers are designed to stop progression of only minor deformity in the coronal plane[24].Dynesys has been found to be useful in early stages of degenerative,Table1Summary of exclusion criteria for interspinous(IS)dynamic stabilizersExclusion criteria Xstop Wallis Coflex DIAM AverageinterspinousexclusionSource Thunder ZuchermanESJSenegas Spine Kim SinghInstability‘‘instability’’‘‘instability’’No DS[2mm onflex/ext [4mm‘‘unstable’’[3mmtranslationDegree of slip[Grade I[Grade I No DS N/A[Grade I[Grade I[Grade IAge N/A[50‘‘younger’’preference 18–60No‘‘elderly’’(max=71)N/A Age[80Scoliosis[25°[25°N/A[25°‘‘severe’’‘‘significant’’[25°scoliosis Quality of bone Severe OP Severe OP OP Severe OPDexa\-2.5OP OP Any OP Fracture of body Body fx Path fx N/A N/A N/A Body fx Any body fx Double spondy N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A Double OK Other––No Modic2or3no L5–S1lesion–––DS degenerative spondylolisthesis,OP osteoporosis,fx fracturegradual scoliosis,but as the deformity becomes more pronounced,failure is more likely[20].Currently,the maximum amount of degenerative scoliosis permitted in Dynesys investigational trial is listed as10°.The same is true for the other PSB devices analyzed here.The inter-spinous device protocols have uniformly allowed up to25°of coronal deformity and for this reason we will differ in our threshold for scoliosis between the IS and PSB groups (Table3).InstabilityTranslation of greater than3mm or5–10°of rotational movement on lateralflexion-extension radiographs is radiographic evidence of instability[1].In the past,this definition of instability has been an absolute indication for fusion[5].Some interspinous dynamic devices even list 2mm as a contraindication to their use[4].However,most of the interspinous IDE’s exclude cases of more than3mm of translational movement as seen onflexion-extension films including Coflex,XStop,and Wallis.The PSB sys-tems can tolerate more instability and they uniformly do not define a maximum translation as exclusion criteria[7].Age,osteoporosis,and fractureSengupta,a pioneer in dynamics,feels that dynamic sta-bilization is ideal for younger patients.In a younger patient with longer follow-up and greater physical demands,the likelihood of eventually developing adjacent disease with rigidfixation would be higher[21].In the older population one may be more inclined to use dynamics in the patient who might be at higher-risk for a more invasive fusion procedure.However,there have been some limitations defined with dynamics in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone[20].Unlike a fusion implant,a dynamic implant-bone interface will be actively tested on a daily basis for the life of the patient.Currently,most IS and PSB devices have set an upper limit of use around75–80years of age for their IDE(TOPS,Dynesys,Coflex,Wallis).All studies have exclusion criteria that include a diagnosis of osteoporosis and or chronic insufficiency fractures of the vertebral bodies [27].For the purpose of this study,we have defined an age greater than80,a diagnosis of osteoporosis,or a history of insufficiency fracture as reasons to exclude any type of dynamic stabilization as a surgical option.Table1outlines the exclusion criteria for interspinous dynamic stabilizers while Table2outlines the exclusion criteria for PSB dynamic stabilizers.Part two:radiographic evaluation of100degenerative spondylolisthesis patientsWe then reviewed and analyzed pre-operative imaging of a cohort who underwent surgery.We conducted a retro-spective chart and image review of169consecutive casesTable2Summary of exclusion criteria for pedicle screw-based(PSB)dynamic stabilizersExclusion criteria Dynesys Graf TOPS Isobar Average PSBexclusionSource IDE Stoll EJS Kim Khoo CastellviInstability‘‘unstable DS’’N/A N/A DS N/A[10mm translation Degree of slip[Grade I N/A[Grade I[Grade I[Grade II[Grade IAge20–8027–85(average58)N/A40–75N/A Age[80 Scoliosis[10°N/A Any‘‘scoliosis’’[10°Any‘‘scoliosis’’[10°scoliosis Quality of bone OP Dexa\-2.0N/A N/A OP OP Any OPFracture of body‘‘body fracture’’N/A N/A‘‘compromised’’body‘‘body fracture’’Any body fx Double spondy Yes No(single only)N/A No(single only)N/A Double OKOther Obesity––––DS degenerative spondylolisthesis,OP osteoporosisTable3Summary of100DS patientsN100Male40Female60Slip percentage(%)18(range0–62.5%)Meyerding IAge(range34–84)68.1Lumbar scoliosisAverage curve(degrees)12.2±5.6Osteoporosis(n)16Body fracture(n)2Level of spondyL3/44L4/586L5/14L3/4,L4/53L4/5,L5/13DS degenerative spondylolisthesisperformed by the two senior authors(FG and FC)prior to1 September2005.Each patient’s medical record number, age,and sex were recorded.Outpatient folders as well as the most recent XRs,CTs,and MRIs were reviewed. Radiographic measurements were assessed by an orthope-dic surgery chief resident.All measurements onfilms were performed by hand.Patients with any history of previous lumbar surgery,congenital anomalies,history of infection, trauma or tumor disorder of the spine were excluded. Presence of spondylolysis was another exclusion criteria. All patients in our cohort satisfied indications for and eventually underwent decompression of lumbar stenosis secondary to spondylolisthesis.After excluding the afore-mentioned patients,100patients remained for further evaluation.Radiographic evaluationsPlain AP and lateral radiographs of the entire lumbar spine were available in all patients.The amount of slip was quantified by the Meyerding classification system and by slip percentage as measured and described by Wiltse and Jackson[26].If more than one level presented with spondylolisthesis,each slip was recorded and measured separately.All anterior,intervertebral,and posterior lum-bar disk heights were ing lateral upright flexion/extension radiographs,we recorded slip stability and reducibility.This was assessed by remeasuring the slip percentage in both extension andflexion.Unstable slips were defined as[3mm of anterior translation onflexion films[8].Maximum forwardflexion and extension for each lumbar segment gave us the arc of motion allowed at each level.Cobb angles of structural and fractional coronal curves,curveflexibility,and the presence of lateral lis-thesis were all documented.ResultsOne-hundred and sixty-nine consecutive patients with a diagnosis of anterior degenerative spondylolisthesis pre-sented for surgery with the two senior authors(F.C.and F.G.)between the time period of3January2001and14 July2005.Thirty-seven of these patients had undergone prior lumbar surgery,leaving123patients.A careful review of the medical histories was undertaken to exclude the diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis(3),Paget’s disease (1),or other underlying metabolic disease that may have contributed to a degenerative pattern.Due to insufficient available imaging,18of the remaining patients were excluded from the study.We were left with100patients who underwent primary lumbar decompression±fusion to address degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.100%of the patients had a concomitant diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis.DescriptionAs Table3demonstrates,our group consisted of60 females and40males.The average age was68.0years with a standard deviation of10.2years.Six patients had two-level disease.There were no three-level slips.Eighty-six single-level slips occurred at the L4-5level,whereas four single slips occurred at L3-4and four single slips at L5-S1.All six double-level slips involved the L4-5 segment.The mean slip percentage was17.9%(Meyerding I). Thirty-one patients were deemed unstable with an increase of C3mm translation on lateralflexion radiographs.The average arc of motion for slip segments with slips was6.7°from maximumflexion to maximum extension.The aver-age disk height at the level of the slip decreased from anterior to posterior.The average posterior height was 9.1mm,the middle disk height was8.6mm,and the posterior disk height was6.5mm.Fifty-six(54%)of patients had coronal deformity pre-senting as lumbar scoliosis.The curves were usually small with an average of12.5°and a standard deviation of5.4°.Candidates for dynamic devicesWe conservatively estimated how many of our patients would be candidates for either intraspinous or PSB dynamic stabilization.We evaluated each of our100cases in the context of the aforementioned exclusion criteria to come up with an estimate of dynamic candidates.Table3 outlines each step in the exclusion process.Using the criteria of instability outlined above(more than3mm of translation or more than10°of rotation)we determined that32of our100patients demonstrated translation consistent with instability.As mentioned above, these patients would be poor candidates for any interspi-nous device treating spinal stenosis.In contrast,PSB systems can handle relative instability.We determined that 24of our100patients had slips greater than25%.Six patients from our cohort had double-level slips and were excluded from interspinous device usage.Some PSB systems have allowed adjacent two-level usage,but not at the level of degenerative spondylolisthesis[20,24].In the coronal plane,[25°of scoliosis was found in only two patients from our cohort.However,39patients dem-onstrated curves greater than10°.Both the TOPS and Dynesys devices are limited to curves less than10°according to their IDEs.The PSB systems lost a significant number from the cohort with this exclusion criteria.Since the interspinous devices are more tolerant of coronaldeformity allowing up to25°,only two cases were exclu-ded from their usage based on scoliosis.Age and osteoporosis were other factors listed as pos-sible limitations in the application of dynamic stabilization. The age and osteoporosis exclusion criteria are the same for both interspinous and PSB systems.In our group of 100,12patients were over the age of80and16demon-strated osteoporosis as diagnosed by DEXA scan.Finally, we found two of our patients to have vertebral compression fractures adjacent to the site of instrumentation,a strict exclusion criteria in all dynamic trials.For each individual case in our study,we summed the total number of exclusion criteria for both interspinous and PSB systems.For usage of interspinous devices,the aver-age number of exclusion criteria per case was1.2.A total of34patients(34%)had zero exclusion criteria and were therefore considered potential candidates for interspinous device.In the case of PSB systems,there was an average of 1.1exclusion criteria per case.Twenty-three of100patients(23%)had zero exclusion and therefore would be candidates for pedicle-based dynamic systems(Table4). DiscussionCurrent interest in dynamic stabilization has been driven by dissatisfaction with current techniques addressing lumbar degeneration.Recent publications have shown dynamics to have promise in the treatment of early degenerative lumbar stenosis[3,18,27].Degenerative spondylolisthesis offers a greater challenge for dynamic stabilization for it is a pro-cess in which abnormal loading is accompanied by abnormal positioning.Accurately defining the indications for these new tech-nologies is an ongoing challenge.No studies have identified predictors of success in relation to indications and most are limited in their power secondary to small sample sizes[7].Table4Exclusion Criteria applied100DS patients100Degenerative Spondy Patients\/Include ExcludeInstability68≥ 3mm translation32100≥ 10mm translation076> Meyerding I2488Age > 8012Scoliosis98< 25 degrees261< 10 degrees3984Osteoporosis1698Body Fracture294Double Spondy6Interspinous Candidates:34%34 of 100 with no Exclusion CriteriaPedicle Screw Based Candidates:23%23 of 100 with no Exclusion Criteria *DS = Degenerative SpondylolisthesisIn the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis,insta-bility inflexion-extension radiographs has served as an effective indicator for fusion[5].However,when there is relative stability,is dynamic stabilization a viable option? Dynamic stabilization leaves the spinal segment mobile, and its intention is to alter the load-bearing pattern of the motion segment and control abnormal motion[22].Suc-cessful dynamic stabilization therefore seems to be highly dependent upon the current load distribution across the end-plates.This might be evaluated in the DS spine in two ways.(1)Thefirst involves the congruency of opposing endplates.Do they have irregularities that cause them to buckle?Are there osteophytes that prevent them from loading in a physiologic manner?Have Schmorl’s nodes developed?Close examination of AP and lateral radio-graphs should give an indication of their congruency.(2) The second involves the orientation of opposing endplates. Especially in the setting of spondylolisthesis,it is important to notice whether the endplates are still oriented in parallel planes.In the case of pure anterior translation,the end-plates should be for the most part congruent in their loading surfaces regardless of the amount of translation.On the other hand,if the superior body begins to tilt forward or ‘‘recline’’,this causes an increased contact point at the body to body interface.A pressure profilometry study revealed the anisotropic properties of degenerated disks, and showed that patterns of loading,rather than the abso-lute levels of loading,was related to pain generation in the degenerated spine[13].Grob[7]proposes that dynamic systems will fail some patients whose pain is the result of high spot-loading in certain positions,rather than move-ment per se.Fusion,he argues,eliminates all possible moving into painful positions,whereas the potential to trigger such points still exists in dynamic stabilization.In this conservative estimate,34%of DS patients would be suitable for intraspinous dynamic devices and23% candidates for PSB devices.It is important to note that dynamic stabilization devices can and should be employed prior to the need for decompression and fusion.Our esti-mate therefore does not include the candidates who were not also indicated for surgical decompression.Many sur-geons think that in the early stages of disease progression, dynamic devices would be more optimally employed[20, 21].The enormous growth potential of dynamic stabiliza-tion lies in the evolution of surgical indications such that patients who are treated non-surgically today may be treated surgically in the future.In addition,dynamics have a role in revision lumbar disease[20].Our study was limited to degenerative spondylolisthesis patients with no history of prior surgery.It is also important to distinguish the different capabi-lities of the various dynamic devices.The interspinous devices are limited in the amount of decompression that can be performed,whereas the pedicle-screw bases systems like Dynesys or TOPS can accommodate a more complete decompression.This study used exclusion criteria found for both groups,however,in reality these types of devices are mechanically very different.Additional research is necessary to more clearly define when an interspinous device is preferable to a pedicle-based system.Our study suggests that over a third of operative cases of degenerative spondylolisthesis could be addressed with dynamic stabilization rather than decompression/fusion. Also,many additional patients could potentially be surgi-cally treated at an earlier stage of disease using dynamic stabilization.Analyzing cases of failed dynamics makes a strong argument for the use of dynamic stabilization.In previous studies,revision of dynamic stabilization has involved simply removing the implants and then success-fully converting to fusion[24].In light of their relative ease of salvage,no potential future surgical options,including arthroplasty,have been eliminated[4].However,additional clinical trials specifically comparing dynamic stabilization to traditional decompression/fusion are needed to further define the role of dynamic stabilization.References1.Bambakidis NC,Feiz-Erfan I,Klopfenstein JD,Sonntag VK(2005)Indications for surgical fusion of the cervical and lumbar motion segment.Spine30:S2–S6.doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000174509.31291.262.Boos N,Webb JK(1997)Pedicle screwfixation in spinal disorders:a European view.Eur Spine J6:2–18.doi:10.1007/BF016765693.Cakir B,Ulmar B,Koepp H,Huch K,Puhl W,Richter M(2003)Posterior dynamic stabilization as an alternative for dorso-ventral fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative instability.Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb141:418–424.doi:10.1055/s-2003-415684.Christie SD,Song JK,Fessler RG(2005)Dynamic interspinousprocess technology.Spine30:S73–S78.doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000174532.58468.6c5.Detwiler PW,Marciano FF,Porter RW,Sonntag VK(1997)Lumbar stenosis:indications for fusion with and without instru-mentation.Neurosurg Focus3:e46.Freudiger S,Dubois G,Lorrain M(1999)Dynamic neutralisationof the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg119:127–132.doi:10.1007/ s0040200503757.Grob D,Benini A,Junge A,Mannion AF(2005)Clinical expe-rience with the dynesys semirigidfixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in50cases after an average of2years.Spine30:324–331.doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000152584.46266.258.Iguchi T,Kanemura A,Kasahara K,Kurihara A,Doita M,Yoshiya S(2003)Age distribution of three radiologic factors for lumbar instability:probable aging process of the instability with disc degeneration.Spine28:2628–2633.doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000097162.80495.669.Kirkaldy-Willis WH,Farfan HF(1982)Instability of the lumbarspine.Clin Orthop Relat Res165:110–123。
多孔介质中两相不可压缩不易混溶渗流问题的特征配置法(英文)
多孔介质中两相不可压缩不易混溶渗流问题的特征配置法(英
文)
马宁
【期刊名称】《应用数学》
【年(卷),期】2006(19)1
【摘要】多孔介质中两相不可压缩不易混溶渗流问题是非线性偏微分方程的耦合系统,其中压力方程是椭圆的用配置法逼近,而饱和度方程是对流占优的抛物方程,用特征配置法来逼近,并且证明了数值解的存在唯一性,最后得到了最优的误差估计.【总页数】10页(P195-204)
【关键词】不可压缩;不易混溶;特征线;配置法
【作者】马宁
【作者单位】山东大学数学与系统科学学院
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】O241.82
【相关文献】
1.多孔介质中不可压缩非溶混驱动问题之混合迎风有限元法的收敛性和最大值原理[J], 哈什姆;胡健伟
2.多孔介质中两相可压缩混溶流体驱动问题的交替方向法 [J], 陈宁
3.多孔介质中可压缩可混溶驱动问题的特征—有限体积元法H^1模误差估计 [J], 马克颖
4.多孔介质中不可压缩流体的可混溶驱动问题的全离散有限元配置法 [J], 马宁
5.多孔介质中不可压缩流体的可混溶驱动问题的配置法 [J], 鲁统超
因版权原因,仅展示原文概要,查看原文内容请购买。
不同因素对超细尾砂胶结充填料流动性、强度和微观结构的影响
第14卷第5期2023年10月有色金属科学与工程Nonferrous Metals Science and EngineeringVol.14,No.5Oct. 2023不同因素对超细尾砂胶结充填料流动性、强度和微观结构的影响滑怀田*1, 王清亚2(1.山西工程技术学院矿业工程系, 山西 阳泉 045000; 2.东华理工大学地球科学学院, 南昌 330013)摘要:为实现超细尾砂的高效利用,开展一系列实验研究了不同因素对超细尾砂胶结充填料流动性、强度和微观结构的影响。
首先,研究了旋流器给料压力和沉沙口直径对超细尾砂浓度和产率的影响,并研究了超细尾砂的沉降特性。
然后,通过单轴抗压强度测试、坍落度和流变测试以及扫描电镜对超细尾砂胶结充填料进行研究。
结果表明,沉砂口直径和给料压力会显著影响尾矿的底流产率和浓度。
絮凝剂剂量对尾砂沉降速率的影响较大,对最终浓度的影响不明显。
料浆质量浓度越大,其流动性越差,且当质量浓度高于72%后,料浆的流动性显著变差。
养护温度、养护时间以及配合比均会对超细尾砂胶结充填体的强度产生影响。
低温环境下,充填体的水化进程缓慢,导致其水化产物少、结构松散且裂隙较多,这是造成充填体强度降低的根本原因。
关键词:超细尾砂;充填体;流动性;强度;微观结构中图分类号:TD853 文献标志码:AEffects of different factors on the fluidity, strength and microstructure ofsuperfine tailings cemented paste backfillHUA Huaitian *1, WANG Qingya 2(1.Department of Mining Engineering , Shanxi Institute of Technology ,Yangquan 045000,Shanxi ,China ;2. School of Earth Sciences ,East China University of Technology ,Nanchang 330013,China )Abstract: To achieve efficient utilization of superfine tailings, a series of experiments were carried out to investigate the effects of different factors on the fluidity, strength and microstructure of the superfine tailing cemented paste backfill (SCPB). Firstly, the effects of cyclone feed pressure and sinker diameter on the concentration and yield of superfine tailings were explored and the settling characteristics of superfine tailings investigated, respectively. Then, the SCPB was investigated by uniaxial compressive strength tests, slump and rheological tests and scanning electron microscopy. The results show that the diameter of the sand settling port and the feed pressure significantly affect the bottom flow yield and concentration of tailings. The dosage of flocculant has a greater effect on the settling rate of tailings, and a less significant effect on the final concentration. The greater the mass concentration, the poorer the flowability of the slurry, which becomes significantly worse when the mass concentration is above 72%. Curing temperature, curing time and mix proportion will all affect the strength of SCPB. The slow hydration of the filler at low temperatures results in low hydration products, a loose structure and a high number of fissures, which is the underlying cause of the reduction of filler strength.收稿日期:2023-02-20;修回日期:2023-04-13基金项目:阳泉市科技局项目(2020YF040);山西工程技术学院科研项目(2020SQD-01)通信作者:滑怀田(1987— ),讲师,主要从事矿山充填开采方面的研究。
基于鲁棒极限学习机的污泥膨胀智能检测方法
基于鲁棒极限学习机的污泥膨胀智能检测方法
焦广利;张璐;钟麦英
【期刊名称】《山东科技大学学报:自然科学版》
【年(卷),期】2022(41)3
【摘要】污水处理运行数据中常含有离群点,严重影响污泥膨胀检测效果。
针对该问题提出一种基于鲁棒极限学习机的智能检测方法。
首先,考虑到极限学习机的输出权值由最小二乘估计获得,易受离群点的影响导致模型鲁棒性较差,通过引入M-估计技术构建基于鲁棒极限学习机(RELM)的离群点检测模型,实现离群点的检测和修正。
其次,建立基于鲁棒极限学习机的污泥膨胀检测模型,根据污泥膨胀检测模型误差及阈值逻辑完成污泥膨胀的检测。
最后,利用污水处理厂采集的运行数据对提出的智能检测方法进行验证。
实验结果表明,本研究方法不仅可以实现离群点的有效修正,而且可以完成污泥膨胀的准确检测。
【总页数】10页(P111-120)
【作者】焦广利;张璐;钟麦英
【作者单位】山东科技大学电气与自动化工程学院
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】TN929.5
【相关文献】
1.一种基于鲁棒估计的极限学习机方法
2.基于k-means聚类和变分位鲁棒极限学习机的短期负荷预测方法
3.基于k-means聚类和变分位鲁棒极限学习机的短期负
荷预测方法4.基于混合粒子群算法和多分位鲁棒极限学习机的短期风速预测方法5.基于收缩极限学习机的故障诊断鲁棒方法
因版权原因,仅展示原文概要,查看原文内容请购买。
离心泵瞬态模拟中滑移界面形状和位置研究
离心泵瞬态模拟中滑移界面形状和位置研究王超越1 王福军1,2【摘要】摘要:滑移网格法是分析离心泵瞬态流场的最主要方法,其中滑移界面形状和位置的选取方式对流场计算结果有直接影响,而目前对如何选取离心泵滑移界面并无统一的看法。
以一台离心泵为研究对象,采用5种不同的滑移界面方案分别对水泵流场进行瞬态模拟,对比不同工况下的外特性、基本流态和隔舌处压力脉动特性等。
研究表明,方案I(紧贴叶轮的短一字形滑移界面)和方案Ⅴ(环绕叶轮的倒U字形滑移界面)的水泵效率平均计算误差均在1%左右,且两者在轴面流态和蜗壳进口的速度分布上均与实际情况吻合良好,而方案Ⅴ更能突出泵腔流体流速的梯度变化,且在隔舌处的压力脉动特性方面最符合已有研究结果。
方案Ⅲ(紧贴叶轮的长一字形滑移界面)和方案Ⅳ(紧贴基圆的长一字形滑移界面)均将整个泵腔设为旋转域,水泵效率计算误差达5.2%和9.2%,且两者的轴面流态也明显有悖于已有研究结论。
方案Ⅳ和方案Ⅱ(紧贴基圆的短一字形滑移界面)均将旋转域紧贴隔舌,导致隔舌对液流的切割作用被放大,表现为隔舌处的进口流速严重下降。
综合分析表明,直接将泵腔设为旋转域和将滑移界面紧贴隔舌的做法均会使模拟结果有较大偏差,推荐将滑移界面取为环绕叶轮的倒U字形,该方式能在保证模拟精度的同时反映最真实的流动特性。
【期刊名称】农业机械学报【年(卷),期】2017(048)001【总页数】8【关键词】离心泵;滑移网格法;滑移界面;瞬态分析引言对于叶轮机械内部旋转流场的模拟而言,最常用的方法有多参考坐标系法(Multiple reference frame,MRF)、滑移网格法(Sliding mesh method,SMM)和动态网格法(Dynamic mesh method,DMM)等。
其中,MRF是一种适于稳态模拟的近似解法,而SMM和DMM则常用于瞬态模拟[1-2]。
离心泵内的流动是一种复杂的三维湍流流动,具有瞬态性、强旋转性和脉动性等特点[3-4],故更适合以瞬态方法进行模拟。
10kW有机工质向心透平气动设计及优化研究
收稿日期:2016⁃06⁃22;最终稿修改日期:2017⁃11⁃29基金项目:国家国际科技合作专项项目(ISTCP)(2014DFA60990)。
作者简介:李 晓(1991⁃),女,工学硕士。
研究方向:有机工质汽轮机热力设计。
10kW 有机工质向心透平气动设计及优化研究李 晓1,2,张燕平2,朱志成2,黄树红1,2(1华中科技大学中欧清洁与可再生能源学院,武汉430074;2华中科技大学能源与动力工程学院,武汉430074)摘要:根据给定的工质R245fa 和透平输出功率10kW,利用MATLAB 软件编写有机工质向心透平气动设计程序,对设计输入参数进行敏感性分析,并利用遗传优化算法(Genetic Algorithm)对一维气动设计进行全局优化,得到约束条件下最高轮周效率为85.76%。
在ANSYS 平台上利用一维气动设计优化结果进行三维造型设计和计算流体力学(Computational fluid dynamics,CFD)数值模拟。
CFD 模拟结果显示,模拟的透平输出功率与一维设计结果误差为3%,透平效率误差为2.08%,说明一维气动设计准确性。
关键词:向心透平;气动设计;全局优化;数值模拟分类号:TK14 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1001⁃5884(2018)01⁃0011⁃04Aerodynamic Design and Optimization of 10kW ORC Radial⁃inflow TurbineLI Xiao 1,2,ZHANG Yan⁃ping 2,ZHU Zhi⁃cheng 2,HUANG Shu⁃hong 1,2(1China⁃EU Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy,Huazhong University of Science and Technology,430074Wuhan,China;2School of Energy and Power Engineering,Huazhong University of Science and Technology,430074Wuhan,China)Abstract :Computational program for aerodynamic design of ORC radial⁃inflow turbine was encoded by MATLAB,optimized for working fluid R245fa and a turbine output power of 10kW,to conduct sensitivity analysis on input parameters.The unidimensional aerodynamic design was optimized by using genetic algorithm,and a maximum wheel efficiency of 85.76%was achieved with constraints.The optimized result was used to run 3D profile design and Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)simulations by ANSYS.It is shown that the unidimensional aerodynamic design is accurate,with minor deviations of 3%on turbine output power and 2.08%on turbine efficiency.Key words :radial⁃inflow turbine ;aerodynamic design ;global optimization ;numerical simulation0 前 言近年来,由于资源短缺及环境污染等问题,对可再生能源的利用和能量回收的关注越来越多[1]。
SPE-159919译文
SPE 159919裂缝型页岩气藏中多尺度流动的扩展有限元建模M. Sheng1, SPE, G. Li, SPE,中国石油大学(北京), S.N. Shah, SPE, and X. Jin, SPE, 俄克拉何马大学版权所有2012,石油工程师学会这篇是准备在美国德克萨斯州圣安东尼奥2012年10月8-10日举行的SPE年度技术会议和展览上进行发表的文章。
本文是SPE程序委员会选定审查的,当中未确认作者所提交的摘要信息。
本文的内容没有被石油工程师学会审查的,也未进行作者更正。
材料不一定反映石油工程师在社会的任何位置,管理人员或成员。
在没有石油工程师的社会的书面同意的情况下禁止电子复制、分发、或储存该文章的任何部分。
印刷复制许可限制在300字以内的摘要;插图不可以被复制。
摘要必须明显包含和承认SPE所有的版权。
摘要一个页岩气的经济生产方案需要更好地了解其气体流动方式和建立合适的油气藏模型。
在复杂的裂缝中和多尺度流动通道中气体流动行为的复杂程度加强。
这篇文章结合改进页岩气运输模型和扩展有限元建模(XFEM)来描述页岩气的主要流动机制和其离散裂隙网络。
页岩气的被视为具有离散裂缝的双重渗透介质。
离散裂缝不需要划分网格,它可以将给定的位置、长度和取向放在任何地方。
岩石变形与瓦斯流动的隐式耦合反映页岩气的应力敏感性。
此外,在破碎断裂中的置换和基质孔隙水压力被视为不连续的近似函数集合。
用计算机编码的开发一个模型,此模型以双渗介质固结问题为验证代码。
结果表明与常规压力场的连续裂缝模型的比较,页岩气的压力场明显被离散裂缝干扰。
因此,将页岩气所处裂隙认为是多孔介质离散裂缝是很重要的。
为提高上述模型的应用,页岩气储层提出了一个案例研究。
模拟在裂缝性储层中以双模式网络为基础。
因为前者使孔隙水压力场耗尽对称,显而易见正交裂隙网络是一个与斜裂缝相反的理想模式。
此外,敏感区域是控制压力衰减的主要因素。
结果表明,所提出的模型和代码是能够模拟页岩气藏所处的离散裂隙网络的。
液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱的使用、常见故障处理与维护保养
第 30 卷第 2 期分析测试技术与仪器Volume 30 Number 2 2024年3月ANALYSIS AND TESTING TECHNOLOGY AND INSTRUMENTS Mar. 2024大型仪器维护与维修(130 ~ 137)液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱的使用、常见故障处理与维护保养许晓辉,李 坚,王小乔,吴福祥,潘秀丽,李 赟,李 运,王月玲,邵长春,张生萍(兰州市食品药品检验检测研究院/国家市场监管重点实验室(食品中农药兽药残留监控),甘肃兰州 730050)摘要:液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱(liquid chromatography tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry, LC-MS/MS)广泛应用于环境分析、食品安全、药物代谢研究、生物医学等领域,主要用于复杂样品基质中痕量目标物检测,既适用于小分子有机化合物定性,又可用于痕量化合物定量. 其主要检测模式是多反应监测模式(multiple reaction monitoring, MRM),以定性离子对的丰度比来进行定性,以定量离子对的峰响应进行定量,在MRM检测模式下具有出色的检测灵敏度和定量功能. LC-MS/MS的合理规范使用与维护保养,是保证检测数据准确有效、仪器可持续正常运行的基本要求,也是降低仪器维修成本的重要举措. 阐述了安捷伦LC-MS/MS的工作原理、开机与关机、调谐,探讨了常见的故障及应对措施、日常维护保养的内容,旨在为合理规范使用仪器提供参考.关键词:液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱仪;三重四极杆;使用;故障处理;维护保养中图分类号:O657. 63 文献标志码:B 文章编号:1006-3757(2024)02-0130-08DOI:10.16495/j.1006-3757.2024.02.009Use, Troubleshooting and Maintenance of Liquid Chromatography Tandem Triple Quadrupole Mass SpectrometryXU Xiaohui, LI Jian, WANG Xiaoqiao, WU Fuxiang, PAN Xiuli, LI Yun, LI Yun, WANG Yueling, SHAOChangchun, ZHANG Shengping(Lanzhou Institute for Food and Drug Control/Key Laboratory of Pesticides and Veterinary Drugs Monitoringfor State Market Regulation, Lanzhou 730050, China)Abstract:The liquid chromatography tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is widely used in environmental analysis, food safety, drug metabolism research, biomedicine and other fields. It is mainly used for the detection of trace targets in complex sample matrix, which is suitable for the qualitative of small molecular organic compounds and the quantitative of trace compounds. The main detection mode is multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). It has excellent detection sensitivity and quantitative function in MRM mode by abundance ratio of qualitative ion pair to qualitative and peak response of quantitative ion pair to quantitative. Reasonable standard use and maintenance of the LC-MS/MS is the basic requirement to ensure accurate and effective test data and sustainable normal operation of the收稿日期:2023−12−11; 修订日期:2024−03−07.基金项目:2022年度兰州市第二批科技计划项目(2022-2-45),兰州市科技发展指导性计划项目(2023-ZD-231),甘肃省药品监督管理局科学技术类项目(2022GSMPA0068)作者简介:许晓辉(1986−),男,硕士,高级工程师,主要从事食品药品检验检测,E-mail:******************通信作者:王小乔(1973−),女,本科,高级工程师,主要从事食品药品检验检测,E-mail:****************;张生萍(1971−),女,本科,高级工程师,主要从事食品药品检验检测,E-mail:*****************.instrument, and is also an important measure to reduce the maintenance cost of the instrument. The operating principle, power-on, power-off, tune about the LC-MS/MS of Agilent were described, and the common faults and countermeasures, as well as the contents of daily maintenance were discussed in order to provide a reference for the rational and standardized use of the instrument.Key words:LC-MS/MS;triple quadrupole;use;troubleshooting;maintenance当前,液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱(liquid chromatography tandem triple quadrupole mass spectrometry,LC-MS/MS)已广泛应用于定性定量检测保健品及中成药违法添加药物[1]、中成药真伪鉴别[2]、农作物和禽畜肉等食品中农兽药残留[3-6]、药物代谢及药物动力学研究[7]、临床药理学研究[8]、天然药物开发研究[7]、新生儿筛选[9]、蛋白与肽类的鉴定[8]、毒物分析[10]、环保[11]、食品[12-13]、化妆品[14]、自来水[15]、海水[16]、卫生防疫[17]等行业,其具有高分离能力、高选择性、高灵敏度、检测限低、分析速度快及能够提供相对分子质量与结构信息等优点. 研究表明,60%的仪器故障都可归因于缺乏预防性维护,如果实验室采取了预防性维护措施,可将机械系统的故障率降低,因此规范使用与持续性维护保养是延长仪器使用寿命和保证数据结果真实性、准确性的关键工作. 在实际工作中,仪器操作不当和维护保养不到位,都会导致仪器发生故障,一旦损坏,厂家上门维修时,不仅增加仪器使用成本,而且影响工作进度. 因此,正确规范使用及维护保养仪器尤为重要,将会延长仪器正常运行时间、最大限度提高效率并延长仪器寿命. 本文从安捷伦LC-MS/MS的基本原理、开机和关机、调谐、常见故障分析和基本维护保养方面进行论述,以期为LC-MS/MS规范使用与维护保养提供参考.1 基本原理LC-MS/MS由液相、质谱、真空和载气部分组成. 液相部分分离被测物,质谱部分检测碎片离子,样品经液相部分分离后进入质谱部分被离子化,质谱的质量分析器会根据离子碎片质量数大小按质荷比将其分开,得到一级质谱图和二级质谱图. LC-MS/MS构造主要包括离子源、毛细管、离子光学组件、四极杆1(Quadrupole 1,Q1)和四极杆3(Quadrupole 3,Q3)、碰撞池(Quadrupole 2,Q2)、检测器和真空系统. 一般粗真空在199.983~333.305 Pa (1.5~2.5 Torr,1 Torr=133.322 Pa)之间,碰撞气关闭时高真空在 3.999×10−4~7.999×10−4Pa(3×10−6~ 6×10−6 Torr)之间,碰撞气打开时高真空在2.533×10−3~3.066×10−3 Pa(1.9×10−5~2.3×10−5 Torr)之间.离子源是LC-MS/MS的“心脏”,电喷雾离子源(electron spray ionization,ESI)是目前应用极为广泛的电离方式,其工作原理是:雾化器的喷雾针被带高电压的半圆柱体形电极环绕,带有被测物质离子的流动相在雾化针尖端发生雾化,由于半圆形电极和毛细管间的电压不同,产生的电场使液滴表面富集带同种电荷的离子,而内部带相反电荷的离子聚集,形成带电液滴的细喷雾,液滴在电场的作用下,飞向毛细管. 加热的氮气干燥气体反向流动,带走液滴中的中性溶剂分子,从而收缩液滴,直到排斥的静电力超过液滴表面张力,引起库仑爆炸. 这个过程不断重复,直到待分析物离子最终变成气态进入毛细管. 带有安捷伦喷射流技术的ESI源与普通ESI源的电离原理相同,提供和普通ESI源相同的离子特征,但在喷射流技术中增加了加热的鞘流气,并可以在喷嘴处施加喷嘴电压,更高的温度可以提高流动相的蒸发率,有利于气溶胶的形成和液滴的蒸发,减少喷雾中的大液滴. 由于使用了热梯度聚焦技术,同轴的鞘流气有助于减少离子扩散,将更多的离子引入到质谱(mass spectrometry,MS)中,减少中性溶剂束进入MS,提高了灵敏度,降低了噪音.三重四极杆质谱的四极杆分析器由4根棒状电极组成,其互相平行且距离相等,构成四极电场,四极电场对角位置的2根电极被连接在一起,其中一对同时施加直流电压和射频电压,而另一对施加极性相反、大小相同的直流电压和振幅/频率相同、相位相反的射频电压. 射频电压和直流电压相互叠加,且两对电极不停地快速切换极性,在四极杆之间形成动态电场,使离子呈螺旋轨道运动. Q1和Q3由直流电(direct current,DC)和射频电(radio frequency,RF)控制,Q2仅由允许所有离子通过的RF控制. 对于给定的DC和RF组合,由于振幅是第 2 期许晓辉,等:液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱的使用、常见故障处理与维护保养131规定的,只有特定质荷比的离子才能通过四极杆到达检测器,其他离子无法通过四极杆. 基于工作原理,三重四极杆质谱有4种常见数据采集扫描模式,分别是全扫描(MS2 Scan)、选择性离子扫描(selected ion monitor,SIM)、子离子扫描(pro ion scan)、多反应监测模式扫描(multiple reaction monitoring,MRM).2 开机和关机2.1 开机如果使用液氮罐,打开液氮罐自增压阀门,调节液氮罐分压表的输出压强为约0.7 MPa(~100 psi,1 MPa=145.037 psi),并检查前级泵的镇气阀状态,使其处于关闭. 如果使用氮气发生器,打开气路开关,再打开氮气发生器电源,工作半小时后,调节输入LC-MS/MS氮气压力表数值约为0.7 MPa(~100 psi),并确认前级泵镇气阀处于关闭状态. 使用氮气发生器,请务必依照相应厂家建议,定期维护,更换过滤芯等,防止氮气污染质谱,影响仪器性能. 打开高纯氮气主阀门,调节高纯氮气钢瓶次级减压表输出压强至0.15 MPa(~22 psi),最大不要超过0.2 MPa(~29 psi). 依次打开计算机、液相色谱仪各个模块电源、质谱仪电源开关,机械泵开始工作,仪器开始自检,等待大约5 min,仪器自检完成,这时进入MassHunter工作站监视真空泵的真空值,当真空值达到规定值且Turbo1和Turbo2涡轮泵的转速达到100%之后,质谱状态信号灯变为绿色,仪器才能使用. 一般来说停机较长时间后开机时,需要抽真空至少6 h后才可分析样品.2.2 关机在MassHunter采集软件内右键点击三重四极杆MS的图标,下拉图中选择“Vent”,确认要放空,选择“Yes”,可以在三重四极杆Method的Diagnosis界面观察涡轮泵转速的下降情况. 分子涡轮泵转速和功率基本为0后,等待30 min,关闭MassHunter软件. 然后关闭质谱、液相色谱仪各模块及电脑的电源. 需注意的是:如果长时间关机请拔掉质谱主电源线,关闭氮气室气体通路开关. 如果使用液氮罐,关闭液氮罐增压阀门. 如果使用氮气发生器,关闭氮气发生器电源开关. 建议不要关闭碰撞气高纯氮减压阀,在仪器关机后,并不会消耗高纯氮,但可以使整个管路保持正压,有效保护高纯氮的捕集阱不被环境空气污染.3 调谐调谐包括3种方式:自动调谐(autotune)、检验调谐(checktune)和手动调谐(manual tune). 自动调谐是在整个质量范围内自动调节质谱各种参数,使其获得最佳性能参数. 检验调谐是以当前调谐文件参数采集数据,确认和评价质谱参数是否发生偏移,不改变当前质谱参数. 手动调谐是手动改变质谱性能各个参数. 自动调谐步骤:右键点击采集软件中三重四极杆图标,选择“On”. 在Context下拉框中选择“Tune”,选择切换到Tune界面,等待三重四极杆图标变绿,达到Ready状态后,如果是Jet Steam源,请继续等待15~30 min,然后再进行调谐,如果是ESI源,无需等待可以直接进行调谐. 点击“Autotune”页面,上部是极性选择和自动调谐选项,可以对正、负极性分别做调谐或者选择正负极性同时调谐. 一般情况下,不必选“Both”,只要调谐需要的极性即可. “Start from factory default”选项大部分情况不必选择,不选择此项时,调谐参数优化从上次调谐结果开始,选择此项则自动调谐会从工厂默认参数开始. 点击“Autotune”按钮,调谐液会自动进入质谱,自动开始调谐. 自动调谐结束后,底部显示调谐完成,并自动弹出调谐报告,调谐文件会自动保存为“atunes.Tune.xml”. 调谐结束后,调谐液会自动关闭. 检验调谐是调用当前调谐文件参数来采集数据,确认和评价仪器是否有偏移,通过检验调谐结果来判别质谱是否存在问题,并不改变质谱各个参数. 如果检验调谐不通过,还可以对质谱进行自动调谐. 需注意的是,“Jet Steam”在“ON”状态下不要直接打开离子源,将质谱检测器设置为“Standby”状态,等待温度下降至125 ℃后,才能打开离子源,避免烧坏离子源加热组件. 三重四极杆质谱一般较稳定,不需要经常进行调谐,或者在“Checktune”不能通过时进行调谐,自动调谐周期一般2~3个月即可.调谐是否通过,主要通过调谐报告中一些参数来判断,调谐报告都会详细记录调谐质谱的基本情况,包括调谐时真空读数、调谐时离子源参数、质量准确度差值、半峰宽差值、调谐离子响应等(如图1所示). 其中,质量准确度差值和半峰宽差值直接决定了调谐及检验调谐是否通过,质量准确度差值132分析测试技术与仪器第 30 卷(Delta)指实测质荷比(mass to charge ratio,m/z)和目标m/z的差值,也就是质量准确度,一般小于0.2即认为正常. 半峰宽差值(delta)指实测半峰宽(full width at half maxima)和目标半峰宽的差值,也就是分辨率,一般“unit”与0.7的差值在0.14之内、“wide”与1.2的差值在0.6之内、“widest”与2.5的差值在1.25之内. 有时调谐报告显示黄色的“Adjust”,如果目标分析物m/z范围在该质量数以下,可以直接用,不受影响. 如果目标分析物m/z 范围在该质量数范围内,则必须进行调谐,才可测样. 有时虽然调谐结果全通过,显示绿色,但此时也要关注调谐离子响应,如果本次调谐与本机之前调谐离子响应相比,下降不多则认为仪器正常,如下降很多则认为仪器不正常,此时造成仪器响应下降的原因有很多,主要有离子源、喷雾针、毛细管和调谐液,建议维护离子源和喷雾针,清洗毛细管或更换毛细管,更换新的调谐液.4 常见故障分析4.1 不出峰不出峰应查看喷雾、真空和电流. (1)由于样品是由离子源喷雾进入质谱,所以第一步应查看喷雾.打开手电筒,将光通过另一侧视窗照进离子源内部,在离子源的视窗处,通过放大镜来检查喷雾针状态,正常状态下喷雾应是细密的伞状连续喷雾,非正常状态下喷雾不连续,甚至是没有喷雾. (2)观察采集软件质谱参数状态栏,查看真空.粗真空应在266.644 Pa(2 Torr)左右,高真空在0.001 3 Pa(10−5 Torr)左右. 如果粗真空参数较好,可能是毛细管堵塞,如果粗真空参数无法达到,可能是由于机械泵故障. 如果高真空参数较好,可能是由于碰撞气体不足导致. (3)查电流和毛细管电流. 这两个反映的是离子化效率,仪器稳定时,电流值应是稳定的,如果发现电流值降低,则可能是离子源受到污染,导调谐时真空读数调谐时离子源参数调谐离子响应质量准确度差值半峰宽差值m/z m/zm/z m/zm/z m/zm/z m/z图1 调谐报告Fig. 1 Tuning report第 2 期许晓辉,等:液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱的使用、常见故障处理与维护保养133致离子化效率降低.4.2 漏液漏液分为管路漏液和进样器漏液. 当柱压出现明显下降,仪器一定出现了漏液. 管路漏液时,流出的液体会触发仪器报错,但进样器漏液仪器往往不会报错,因而不易察觉. 此外,进样器漏液往往会导致样品无法部分或完全进入液相系统从而造成不出峰. 为进一步验证进样器是否存在漏液,可以通过切换进样器的六通阀来判断. 当进样器处于主路时,来自泵的液体从六通阀1号位进入,2号位流出,然后经过计量泵、定量环、针和针座进入到六通阀5号位,从6号位流出进入柱温箱. 当进样器处于旁路时,来自泵的液体从六通阀1号位进入,6号位直接流出到柱温箱. 因此,进样器在主路时经过部件较多,所以进样器处于主路时的压强理论上要比在旁路高. 切换进样阀,如果主路压强比旁路的高,则进样系统不会有太大漏液,如果主路压强与旁路持平或更低,则进样器可能存在漏液.4.3 氮气不足引发仪器报错由于氮气发生器压强不足导致质谱氮气供应不足,引起仪器报错. 解决方法:关闭工作站,关闭液相部分所有模块电源,重启质谱(直接关闭电源开关停5 s后再开启电源),待质谱自检完毕后,开启液相,待液相自检完毕后,重新打开工作站. 或者把连接质谱和液相的数据线“romote”拔掉,重启后再插上.4.4 针座堵塞判断针座是否堵塞,可以通过查看自动进样器主路和旁路状态压强值来判断. 记录主路状态压强值后,切换到旁路状态,待稳定后再记录其压强值,如果两者压强值相差0.3~0.5 MPa(3~5 bar,1 bar=0.1 MPa)左右,则进样针和针座可能没有堵塞,如果主路状态比旁路状态压强大较多,则进样针和针座发生了堵塞. 针座堵塞时,常用解决方法是反冲.4.5 质谱响应低质谱响应低时,首先检查被测溶液化学性质,确保样品完全溶解,样品溶液澄清透明,确保样品新鲜且得到正确储存. 其次检查液相压强与质谱状态参数,确保液相管路没有受到污染且质谱运行良好,确保仪器已正确调谐并检查调谐离子响应强度.同时检查离子源、毛细管是否受污染,如受污染,则要清洗或更换毛细管,拆开离子源,对离子源通路进行清洗. 最后检查雾化器中针头位置以及喷雾针是否受样品污染在针头产生絮状物,并在流动相流速合理的条件下查看喷雾状态,检查雾化器端部是否发生损坏.4.6 背景噪音高排除流动相本身噪音高的原因,背景噪音高主要有以下原因:离子源受到污染,质量检测器受到污染,喷雾器污染或者损害或者设置有误,质量过滤器值设置不当,溶剂及流动相选择不当. 因此,若背景噪音高,着重从以上方面排查.4.7 重复性差重复性差直观表现在两个方面,一是色谱峰漂移,二是定量离子对峰面积不稳定. 重复性主要跟流动相流速、压强、调谐、碰撞气压强、气体流速、毛细管、离子源、喷雾等相关. 因此,重复性差主要从以下方面排查:确保干燥气流流速和温度相对于溶剂流速无误,确保溶剂已经彻底脱气,确保液相色谱背压稳定,确保相对于液相色谱流速设置的雾化气体压强足够高,确保雾化器喷雾正常,确保离子源及毛细管没有受到污染.4.8 碎裂结果不理想母离子碎裂结果不理想,主要原因是碎裂电压设置过高. 最佳碎裂电压主要跟被分析化合物的质量数有关,一般碎裂电压最佳值处在化合物质量数三分之一左右. 因此,离子碎裂结果不理想时,需重新优化碎裂电压.4.9 质量精度不佳质量精度是碎裂离子实测质量数与理论质量数的误差. 出现质量精度不佳,则需要重新校准质量轴,同时确保用于调谐的离子涵盖样品离子的质量范围,并且显示出强而稳定的信号,确保干燥气流速和温度相对于溶剂流速无误,确保溶剂已经彻底脱气. 如果以水作为流动相组成部分,确保使用去离子水(> 18.2 MΩ·cm).5 维护与保养LC-MS/MS的维护保养主要包括两大模块,即色谱部分和质谱部分. 色谱部分着重注意样品净化完全彻底、管路冲洗、流动相脱气、流动相达到色谱级要求、水相防微生物、定期更换泵头密封垫、使用安捷伦专用进样瓶等,平时记录液相柱压数值,134分析测试技术与仪器第 30 卷关注柱压波动,及时更换水相,在有效期内使用水相,隔一定时间对水相流动相瓶进行微生物清洗.微生物清洗通过在水相流动相瓶加入水并置于95 ℃水浴锅中煮沸,再以色谱纯甲醇或者乙腈清洗水相流动相瓶,最后用超纯水冲洗干净. 每测试一定数量样品之后,使用50%异丙醇、水、有机相与水等依次对管路进行彻底冲洗. 注意样品进样浓度,进样浓度不宜过大,否则会对离子源造成污染. 同时,建议1~2 µL进样体积,当进样体积过大时,尤其是基质复杂样品,除杂不彻底,会造成进样针堵塞.质谱部分着重关注喷雾针、离子源、真空泵状态及泵油状况、捕集阱、氮气压强、废液等. 使用氮气发生器要保证废液瓶口水平面低于排水口水平面,并按时倾倒废液,按时维护保养氮气发生器. 平时注意记录质谱参数状态,如粗真空、高真空、股电流、毛细管电流,如果发现质谱参数和规定数值有偏差,要及时进行排查,同时要按照规定,定期做好维护保养,具体维护保养的内容如表1所列.表 1 维护保养的内容Table 1 Content of maintenance维护频次事项描述涉及备件或耗材每日必做检查及清洗离子源离子源每天测完样品后都需要使用50%异丙醇/水的混合液清洗,擦拭锥孔时最好180°擦拭,且不要有液体滴落无纺布、棉签检查真空读数打开采集软件,观察仪器采集软件右上方状态参数栏的真空读数N/A每周必做清洗电喷雾雾化室每周清洗离子源可以有效去除前期试验带来的污染喷雾针、绝缘套件、无纺布、棉签超声清洗雾化器取下超声清洗雾化器,并用枪头保护好针尖,分别用异丙醇、甲醇、水等溶剂超声10~15 min喷雾针检查泵每周检查机械泵油位置,保证油面在min和max线中间,查看泵油颜色是否透明,检查机械泵泵滤网是否堵塞泵油、过滤器每月必做检查质谱废液桶当废液桶内液体比较多时,及时把多余的溶液倒掉N/A检查氮气压强是否正常普通氮气的压强控制在0.70 MPa左右(~100 psi),高纯氮气控制在0.15 MPa左右(~22 psi)N/A每半年必做清洗毛细管需注意检查毛细管时需要放真空,导电毛细管应使用超声清洗,具体操作:1 g Alconox清洁粉末放入100 mL量筒,用超纯水充分溶解,将毛细管两头用1 mL移液枪枪头套住,竖直放入充满Alconox溶液的量筒中,确保液面没过毛细管,超声清洗10 min后用超纯水冲洗干净毛细管、清洁粉末更换喷雾针喷雾针露出喷雾器的顶端76.2 µm喷雾针更换泵油半年更换一次泵油及油气过滤芯可以大幅提高真空泵的使用寿命,其中机械泵用AVF45 platinum 0.946 4 L的泵油泵油、油气过滤器每年必做检查及更换气体净化器检查空气过滤网是否堵塞. 每年更换一次氮气过滤器可以有效去除普通氮气的杂质,每年更换氮气捕集阱空气过滤器、氮气过滤器、氮气捕集阱清洗光学组件每年清洗光学组件可以保证仪器性能N/A检查光电/电子倍增器电压从调谐报告里找到电子倍增管(EMV)或光电倍增管(PMT)/微通道板光电倍增管(MCP)电压,离最高限值很近,则需要准备新检测器光电倍增器、电子倍增器注:N/A表示不适用6 结语液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱仪属于大型贵重精密仪器,应健全仪器管理制度,由专人负责管理,固定仪器操作人员,未经过培训人员不得随意操作仪器. 在实际工作中,要保证仪器处于可持续良好运行状态,延长仪器使用寿命,降低仪器故障,从而降低仪器运行成本. 除了要配备不间断电源(uninterruptible power system,UPS),保证仪器电压稳定持续,还要熟悉掌握仪器规范使用规程,按操第 2 期许晓辉,等:液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱的使用、常见故障处理与维护保养135作规程使用仪器,定期做好仪器维护保养. 同时,更重要更容易被忽视的是要保证样品除杂干净彻底及澄清,样品溶剂应和流动相比例一致,并在上机进样之前,采取一定的措施方法验证样品是否除杂完全,如动物源性食品中兽药残留提取净化样品,放在冷冻冰箱过夜,如有脂肪没有除去干净,便会在进样瓶瓶底析出. 要掌握样品基质特点及目标检测物浓度,进样体积不宜过大,防止堵塞进样针、色谱柱及污染喷雾针与毛细管. 其他高难度维护维修则需联系厂家工程师上门进行. 总之,使用液相色谱串联三重四极杆质谱仪这种大型精密仪器,一定要进行岗前培训,培训合格之后,持证上岗,按照规范严格操作,定期进行维护保养.参考文献:席彰, 周亚兰, 康靖, 等. 高效液相色谱-三重四级杆质谱快速筛查及定量检测改善睡眠类保健品和中成药中的22个精神类化合物[J ]. 药物分析杂志,2022,8(2):320-328. [XI Zhang, ZHOU Yalan,KANG Jing, et al. High performance liquid chromato-graphy-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry rapid screening and quantitative detection of 22 psychotrop-ic compounds in health care products and Chinese pat-ent medicines for improving sleep [J ]. Chinese Journ-al of Pharmaceutical Analysis ,2022,8 (2):320-328.][ 1 ]李婷, 程显隆, 王郡瑶, 等. 超高效液相色谱-三重四极杆质谱法用于含阿胶中成药中胶类皮源检测研究[J ]. 中国药学杂志,2023,58(3):260-265. [LI Ting, CHENG Xianlong, WANG Junyao, et al. Identi-fication of gelatin in traditional Chinese patent medi-cines by UPLC-QqQ-MS [J ]. Chinese Pharmaceutical Journal ,2023,58 (3):260-265.][ 2 ]谷麟, 程逸凡, 杨光昕, 等. 质谱技术在动物源性食品兽药多残留检测中的研究进展[J ]. 食品与发酵科技,2023,59(2):110-119. [GU Lin, CHENG Yifan,YANG Guangxin, et al. Research progress in the de-tection of veterinary drug residues in food of animal origin by mass spectrometry [J ]. Food and Fermenta-tion Science & Technology ,2023,59 (2):110-119.][ 3 ]郑耀林, 林秋凤, 杨乐, 等. 液相色谱-高分辨质谱技术在兽药残留检测中的研究进展[J ]. 食品科学,2023,44(3):359-365. [ZHENG Yaolin, LIN Qiu-feng, YANG Le, et al. Progress on liquid chromato-graphy-high resolution mass spectrometry in the de-termination of veterinary drug residues: a review [J ].[ 4 ]Food Science ,2023,44 (3):359-365.]刘阳, 邓仕萍, 刘丹, 等. QuEChERS-高效液相色谱-串联质谱法测定牛生乳中12种脂溶性农药及其3种代谢物残留[J ]. 农药学学报,2023,25(3):710-720.[LIU Yang, DENG Shiping, LIU Dan, et al. Determin-ation of 12 lipid soluble pesticides and three metabol-ites in raw milk by QuEChERS-high performance li-quid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J ].Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science ,2023,25 (3):710-720.][ 5 ]昝珂, 赵磊, 姜大成, 等. 超高效液相色谱串联质谱法筛查款冬花中135种农药残留及其风险评估[J ]. 中国药物警戒,2023,20(8):885-890. [ZAN Ke,ZHAO Lei, JIANG Dacheng, et al. Determination of 135 pesticide residues in Farfarae Flos by UPLC-MS/MS and risk assessment [J ]. Chinese Journal of Pharmacovigilance ,2023,20 (8):885-890.][ 6 ]黄彪, 蔡方超, 赵鑫, 等. LC-MS/MS 法测定比格犬血浆中红景天苷和酪醇的浓度及其药动学研究[J ].药学服务与研究,2021,21(2):117-121, 127.[HUANG Biao, CAI Fangchao, ZHAO Xin, et al.Concentration determination of salidroside and p-tyro-sol in Beagle dogs by LC-MS/MS method and related pharmacokinetics study [J ]. Pharmaceutical Care and Research ,2021,21 (2):117-121, 127.][ 7 ]宇家仪, 郝依萌, 马璟. LC-MS/MS 技术在蛋白质药物生物定量分析中的应用进展[J ]. 中国医药工业杂志,2022,53(12):1689-1698. [YU Jiayi, HAO Yi-meng, MA Jing. Advances in LC-MS/MS for biologic-al quantitative analysis of protein drugs [J ]. Chinese Journal of Pharmaceuticals ,2022,53 (12):1689-1698.][ 8 ]刘舒畅, 赖光锐, 赵彦艳. 液相色谱-串联质谱技术检测羊水中氨基酸与酰基肉碱结果分析[J ]. 中国医科大学学报,2019,48(10):874-877. [LIU Shuchang,LAI Guangrui, ZHAO Yanyan. Characterizing amino acids and acyl carnitines in amniotic fluid by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J ]. Journ-al of China Medical University ,2019,48 (10):874-877.][ 9 ]刘少丹, 王燕燕, 闵涛, 等. LC-MS/MS 研究漂发对头发中氟硝西泮及代谢物含量的影响[J ]. 现代科学仪器,2022,39(2):46-49. [LIU Shaodan, WANG Yanyan, MIN Tao, et al. LC-MS/MS study of the ef-fect of hair bleaching on the content of flunitrazepam and its metabolites in hair [J ]. Modern Scientific In-struments ,2022,39 (2):46-49.][ 10 ]136分析测试技术与仪器第 30 卷。
Hydraulic_Fracturing_Simulation
Development and Validation of Fully-CoupledHydraulic Fracturing Simulation CapabilitiesMatias G. Zielonka, Kevin H. Searles, Jing Ning and Scott R. BuechlerExxonMobil Upstream Research Company3120 Buffalo Speedway, Houston, TX 77098Abstract: The problem of the propagation of a hydraulically driven fracture in a fully saturated, permeable, and porous medium is investigated. Fluid driven fracture propagation in porous media is a coupled problem with four unknown fields: the flow of the fracturing fluid within the fracture, the flow of the pore fluid within the pores, the porous medium deformation, and the fracture configuration. The corresponding governing equations are the mass balance of the fracturing fluid, mass balance of the pore fluid, equilibrium of the porous medium, and fracture initiation and propagation criteria. In this work, the recently co-developed Abaqus fully-coupled hydraulic fracturing modeling capabilities are evaluated by assessing their consistency, convergence, and accuracy qualities. The Abaqus “coupled pressure/deformation cohesive elements” and “coupled pressure/deformation extended finite elements (XFEM)” are used to model the propagation of the fracture and the flow of the fracturing fluid, while the porous medium deformation and pore-fluid flow are modeled with coupled “pore-pressure/deformation” continuum finite elements. The propagation of a vertical planar fluid-driven fracture with constant height and vertically uniform width within a prismatic-shaped reservoir (KGD model), and the propagation of a horizontal, circle-shaped, planar, fluid-driven fracture within a cylindrical reservoir (“Penny-Shaped” model) are simulated in both two and three dimensions. The Abaqus numerical solution obtained with each modeling technique (cohesive and XFEM) is compared with asymptotic analytical solutions for both the KGD and Penny-shaped models in the toughness/storage dominated and viscosity/storage dominated propagation regimes. Both methods are found to accurately reproduce the analytical solutions, and converge monotonically as the mesh is refined. This validation of the newly developed hydraulic fracturing capabilities within Abaqus provides confidence in its ability and readiness to simulate fluid driven fracturing applications for the oil and gas industry including injection, stimulation, and drilling operations.Keywords: geomechanics, soil mechanics, fracture mechanics, hydraulic fracturing, fluid-driven fracturing, geostatic, soils, pore pressure, cohesive elements, extended finite elements, XFEM, reservoir, drilling, injection.1. IntroductionHydraulic fracturing is a fundamental problem in Petroleum Engineering and plays a critical role in many applications within the oil and natural gas industry. The process can be generally defined as the intentional (or unintentional) initiation and propagation of a fracture due to the2014 SIMULIA Community Conference 1 /simuliapressurization of fluid that flows within the fracture. Examples of applications include (a) the stimulation of rock formations with poor or damaged permeability to increase conductivity between the reservoir and the producing wells, (b) improvement of produced water re-injection (PWRI) where water is injected to replace produced fluids and maintain reservoir pressure or provide enhanced oil recovery, (c) cuttings reinjection (CRI) where a slurry of drill cuttings is injected into a formation to mitigate the cost and risk of surface disposal, (d) in-situ stress measurement by balancing the fracturing fluid pressure in a hydraulically opened fracture with the geostatic stresses, and (e) wellbore integrity analysis of drilling operations to avoid propagating near-wellbore fractures that could result in drilling fluid losses to the formation and an inability to effectively clean the wellbore.Knowledge of the fracture dimensions (length/width/height), fracture geometry, and wellbore pressure is crucial for both the design and integrity of hydraulic fracturing field operations. For stimulation, PWRI and CRI, one of the fundamental questions is whether or not fracture containment is achieved. This means that the injection fluid and fracture are confined to a target interval or “pay” zone for PWRI and stimulation, or a dedicated disposal domain for CRI. Other important considerations include predictions of the injection rate, pressure, or injected volume required to initiate fractures, inject under matrix conditions, or minimize the potential for inducing fractures while drilling.Currently, there are no reliable techniques to measure fracture geometries during or after the hydraulic fracturing process. Furthermore, direct solutions of the underlying differential equations representing the different physical processes occurring during fracturing are difficult to construct, even in their most simplified forms. Therefore, the development of a numerical simulator with accurate predictive capability is of paramount importance.The computational modelling of hydraulic fracturing of porous media is a challenging endeavor. The difficulty originates primarily from the strong non-linear coupling between the governing equations, as the process involves at least the interaction between four different phenomena: (i) the flow of the fracturing fluid within the fracture, (ii) the flow of the pore fluid and seepage of fracturing fluid within the pores, (iii) the deformation of a porous medium induced by both the hydraulic pressurization of the fracture and the compression/expansion and transport of pore fluid within the pores, and (iv) the fracture propagation which is an inherently an irreversible and singular process. Additionally, fracture propagation typically occurs in heterogeneous formations consisting of multiple layers of different rock types, subjected to in-situ confining stresses with non-uniform magnitudes and orientations. Furthermore, fracturing fluids typically exhibit nonlinear rheologies and the leakoff of these fluids from the fracture into the surrounding rock is often history dependent.There are a number of commercial hydraulic fracture simulators used in the oil and natural gas industry for rapid design, analysis and prediction of fracture size, treating pressures, and flows (Clearly 1980, Meyer 1989, Warpinski 1994). These simulators rely in strong simplifying assumptions to render the problem solvable in realistic times:∙Fractures are assumed to be planar and symmetric with respect to the wellbore∙Fracture geometries are represented with few geometric parameters2 2014 SIMULIA Community Conference/simulia∙The formation is assumed to be unbounded and modeled using linear elasticity theory resulting in an integral equation relating fracture opening and fluid pressure ∙The fracture propagation is modeled within the framework of linear elastic fracture mechanics without any consideration of pore fluid pressure effects∙Leakage of fracturing fluid from the fracture into the rock is modeled as one dimensional and decoupled from the porous medium deformation.Although these simulators are useful in predicting broad trends and upper/lower bounds in operational parameters, their reliability and accuracy are restricted to unrealistic scenarios intrinsic simplistic assumptions apply, i.e., situations where some of the coupling between the many different processes involved can be neglected, and with strong symmetry in confinement stresses and geology.The accurate modelling of the hydraulic fracturing process under realistic geologies, wellbore configurations, confining stress states, and operational conditions calls for a more advanced, multi-physics numerical simulator that incorporates the complex coupling between the injected fluid, the pore fluid, the rock deformation, and the fracture configuration, thus overcoming the limitations of currently available commercial simulation tools.To this end, fully-coupled hydraulic fracturing simulation capabilities that leverage (i) the existing Abaqus non-linear soil consolidation analysis solver, (ii) Abaqus cohesive elements for modelling interface decohesion, and (iii) Abaqus extended finite element method (XFEM) for modelling propagating discontinuities, are being co-developed between ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company and Dassault Systemes Simulia Corporation.Specifically, two new element classes have been integrated into the existing Abaqus/Standard coupled pore fluid diffusion and solid stress porous media analysis solver:i. A coupled pressure/deformation cohesive element that models the progressive damage ofnormal mechanical strength and normal hydraulic conductivity as well as the flow offracturing fluid within the opening fracture.ii.An enriched version of the continuum coupled pore fluid diffusion/stress elements capable of activating arbitrarily oriented discontinuities in both displacements and porepressures while simultaneously modelling the fracturing fluid flow along the fracture. This work describes and validates these two new formulations for hydraulic fracturing modeling by assessing consistency, accuracy and convergence qualities. The propagation of a fluid-driven vertical planar fracture of uniform width and constant height within a prismatic-shaped rock formation (Khristianovich-Geertsma-de Klerk, or KGD model) and the propagation of a horizontal, circle-shaped, planar, fluid-driven fracture within a cylindrical reservoir (radial or “Penny-Shaped” model) are simulated for both two and three dimensions (Clearly 1980, Geertsma 1969, Yew 1997). The numerical solution obtained with each new modeling technique (cohesive and XFEM) are then compared with available asymptotic analytical solutions for both the KGD and Penny-shaped models in the toughness/storage dominated and viscosity/storage dominated propagation regimes. Finally, the consistency, accuracy and convergence attributes are assessed for both methods.2014 SIMULIA Community Conference 3 /simulia42014 SIMULIA Community Conference /simuliaSection 2 describes the governing equations for each of the coupled processes as well as theconstitutive and kinetic relations assumed for the porous medium, pore fluid and fracturing fluid, including:i.Equilibrium equation for the porous medium ii.Constitutive equation for the porous medium (Biot’s theory of poroelasticity) iii.Continuity equation for the pore fluid iv.Continuity equation for the fracturing fluid v.Momentum equation for the pore fluid (Darcy’s Law) vi. Momentum equation for the fracturing (Lubrication Equation)Section 3 details the procedures employed by both formulations (cohesive and extended finite element methods) and the fracture initiation and propagation criteria. Section 4 defines the test models (KGD plane-strain and the Penny-Shaped models) and the model set-up and assumptions used within Abaqus, while Section 5 presents numerical results and assesses accuracy and convergence by comparing the main solution variables obtained with meshes of differentresolutions with available asymptotic analytical solutions. Finally, some concluding remarks are summarized in Section 6.2. Governing EquationsAs stated in the introduction, hydraulic fracturing involves the interaction between four different phenomena:i.Porous medium deformation ii.Pore fluid flow iii.Fracturing fluid flow iv. Fracture propagationThe equations and constitutive relation governing these coupled processes, i.e., Biot’s theory of poroelasticity for porous media, Darcy’s Law for pore fluid flow, Reynold’s lubrication theory for fracturing fluid flow and the cohesive zone model to characterize fracturing (Abaqus 2013, Charlez 1997)) are summarized in what follows.2.1 Porous Media DeformationPorous media can be modelled as an isotropic, poroelastic material undergoing quasistaticdeformation. The equilibrium equation enforced by Abaqus, when body forces are neglected is,, 0(1) while the poroelastic constitutive relation, assuming small strains, is given by, 2 (2) 2 13in which is Biot’s coefficient, and are the dry elastic shear and bulk moduli, is the dry Young’s modulus, and is the dry Poisson’s ratio. Abaqus is formulated in terms of Terzaghi effective stresses ′, defined for fully saturated media as (Abaqus 2013, Charlez 1997)In terms of the latter, the constitutive relation takes the form2 1Defining effective strains as1the constitutive relation simplifies to2This identity is identical to the constitutive relation for linear elastic materials, but expressed in terms of Terzaghi effective stresses ′ and effective strains ′. Abaqus internally translates total stresses and strains into Terzaghi effective stresses and strains to leverage this equivalence (Abaqus 2013).2.2 Pore Fluid FlowThe continuity equation for the pore fluid is, assuming small volumetric strains, given by1, 0where is the pore fluid seepage velocity, and and are Biot’s modulus and Biot’s coefficient, respectively. These two poroelastic constants are defined by the identities111where is the pore fluid bulk modulus, is the porous medium solid grain bulk modulus, and is the initial porosity. In Abaqus, the two compressibilities and are specified using the *POROUS BULK MODULI keyword. Pore fluid is assumed to flow through an interconnected pore network according to Darcy’s law,,in which is the permeability, is the pore fluid viscosity, is the hydraulic conductivity and is the pore fluid specific weight. Combining with the continuity equation, the pore fluid diffusion equation is obtained2014 SIMULIA Community Conference 5 /simulia62014 SIMULIA Community Conference /simulia1 , (3) Within Abaqus, the hydraulic conductivity and specific weight are specified through the *PERMEABILITY keyword.2.3 Fracturing Fluid FlowLongitudinal fluid flow within the fracture is governed by Reynold’s lubrication theory defined by the continuity equation0 and the momentum equation for incompressible flow and Newtonian fluids through narrow parallel plates (i.e., Poiseuille flow)where is the fracture gap (Figure 1), ∙ is the fracturing fluid flow (per unit width) across the fracture, and are the normal flow velocities of fracturing fluid leaking through the top and bottom faces of the fracture into the porous medium, is the fracturing fluid viscosity, and is the fracturing fluid pressure along the fracture surface parameterized with the curvilinear coordinate, .Figure 1: Fracture aperture, width and fracturing fluid flowAbaqus computes the normal fracturing fluid velocities as(4where and are the pore fluid pressures on the top and bottom surface of the fracture and and are the so-called “leakoff coefficients”. This simple leakoff model simulates a layer of filtrate that might accumulate and reduce the effective normal permeability of the fracture surfaces.Inserting the Poiseuille flow equation and the simplified leakoff model into the continuity equation for the fracturing fluid yields the final form: ∙2014 SIMULIA Community Conference 7 /simulia(5) Abaqus specifies the fracturing flow viscosity and leakoff coefficients with the *GAPFLOW and the *LEAKOFF keywords, respectively.2.4 Fracture Initiation and PropagationFracturing can be conceptualized as the transition between two limiting states: the undamaged state with continuous displacements and non-zero tractions in all directions and the fully damaged state characterized by the presence of a displacement discontinuity along a material interface with zero tractions in the direction normal to the interface. In Abaqus, this transition process is modeled as a progressive degradation of cohesive strength along a zero-thickness interface whoseorientation and extent is either predefined (cohesive element method) or calculated during the simulation (extended finite element method). The gradual loss of strength in the interface with increasing separation is defined with an interface traction/interface separation relation or cohesive law (Abaqus 2013, Ortiz 1999).For the purpose of this study, a traction-separation cohesive law with linear softening (Figure 2) is assumed, defined by the cohesive energy (area under the softening part of the traction separation curve) and the cohesive strength . For the cohesive element procedure, it is also required to define the traction-separation behavior prior to damage initiation, which is assumed to be linear with initial stiffness . The cohesive traction of the interface thus evolves from a maximum tensile strength at damage initiation, down to zero when the interface is fully damaged and free to open beyond the total separation . If the interface is unloaded prior to complete damage, the traction is assumed to ramp down linearly with a damaged stiffness . The interface effective tractions are therefore given byFigure 2: Cohesive law for Cohesive and XFEM proceduresUpon damage initiation, the fracture is pressurized by instantaneously applying the fracturing fluid pressure, , calculated from the fracturing fluid equations in Equation 5. The total tractions resisted by (and acting on) the interface elements are therefore given by T r a c t i o nSeparationCOHESIVEXFEM82014 SIMULIA Community Conference /simuliaAs stated in Section 2.1, the Abaqus porous media analysis solver is formulated in terms of Terzaghi effective stresses. Therefore, the cohesive strength defining the onset of interface decohesion must be understood in terms of an effective strength (and not total strength).3. Cohesive Element and Extended Finite Element MethodsThe evolution of a fracture is modelled in Abaqus through zero-thickness interface elements with separation resisted by gradually decreasing tensile tractions. For the cohesive element procedure, these interface elements are defined a priori and placed between continuum element faces, whereas in the extended finite element method (XFEM), they are inserted and oriented automatically during the course of the simulation within existing continuum elements.3.1 Cohesive Element MethodThe coupled pressure/deformation cohesive elements implemented in Abaqus (COHPE4P , COHAX4P , COH3D8P ) are standard linear isoparametric elements with displacement and pore pressure degrees of freedom associated with their corner nodes, as depicted in Figure 3 (nodes 1,2,3,4). Theseelements must be inserted a priori between the faces of adjacent pressure diffusion/stress elements (CPE4P , CAX4P , C3D8P ) in order to model the yet to open fracture. To accommodate the coupling of the fracturing fluid flow equations, the elements are equipped with additional pressure degrees of freedom (attached to the center of the element edges perpendicular to the fracture) to interpolate the fracturing fluid pressure after damage initiation (nodes 5 and 6, Figure 3).Figure 3: Coupled pressure/deformation cohesive elements for hydraulic fracturing The cohesive elements can have arbitrary undeformed geometric thickness as the instantaneous gap coupled in the fracturing fluid flow equation (Equation 5) is defined in Abaqus as thedifference between the deformed and underfed thickness, i.e., . Prior to damage, the top and bottom faces of the unopened fracture are subjected to the pore fluid pressure acting towards increasing separation and the cohesive effective tractions resisting separation,where is the stiffness of the cohesive element prior to failure (Figure 2). After damageinitiation, the pore fluid is displaced by the fracturing fluid pressurizing the interface. The total tractions acting on the top and bottom faces of the opening fracture are then substituted by5 64UndeformedConfiguration Deformed Configuration 243 12 56312014 SIMULIA Community Conference 9 /simuliawhere is the damaging stiffness (Figure 2). A coupled cohesive element method for hydraulic fracturing similar to the formulation just outlined is described by Boone, 1990 and Carrier, 2012.3.2 Extended Finite element method (XFEM)The Extended Finite Element Method (XFEM) is implemented within Abaqus using the so called “phantom node” approach (Abaqus 2013, Remmers 2008, Song 2006, Sukumar 2003). In this implementation, each enriched pressure diffusion/stress element (CPE4P , CAX4P , C3D8P ) isinternally duplicated with the addition of corner phantom nodes, as depicted in Figure 4, in which original nodes are represented with full circles and corner phantom nodes with hollow circles. Prior to damage initiation only one copy of the element is active. Upon damage initiation the displacement and pore pressure degrees of freedom associated with the corner phantom nodes are activated and both copies of the element are allowed to deform independently, pore pressures are allowed to diffuse independently, and the created interface behavior is enforced with a traction-separation cohesive law.Figure 4: Implementation of the XFEM with “corner” and “edge” phantom nodes In order to enable the solution of the fracturing fluid flow equations, the enriched elements also incorporate new “edge-phantom nodes” (depicted as red triangles in Figure 4) that interpolate the fracturing fluid pressure within the fracture. The pore fluid pressure and at the top and bottom faces of the fracture are interpolated from the pore pressure degrees of freedom at the corner real nodes and phantom nodes. The difference with the fracturing fluid pressure(interpolated at the edge-phantom node) is the driving force that controls the leakage of fracturing fluid into the porous medium (Equation 4).The fracture is extended to a new element ahead of the fracture tip when the maximum effective principal stress at this element (interpolated to the tip) in a given iteration is equal to the cohesive strength . The orientation of the fracture segment to be extended into the tip element is set to the Undeformedconfigurationafter damage Deformed configuration after damage 2,2 4,4 3,3 1,1342 13 4 1 22 43 1 Undeformed configuration before damagedirection perpendicular to the minimum principal stress of the current iteration. This fracture initiation/orientation criterion is defined in Abaqus through the keyword*DAGAMAGE INITATION, CRITERION=MAXPS, POSITION=CRACKTIPAs in the cohesive element formulation, the fracturing fluid pressure is applied to the top and bottom faces of the fracture and superposed to the cohesive tractions.4. Benchmark ModelsIn this section, the two formulations previously outlined (coupled pressure/displacement cohesive and extended finite elements) are applied to model the propagation of a hydraulically driven fracture in two different configurations:i.Horizontal, circle-shaped, planar, fracture within a cylindrical domain, (radial or “Penny-Shaped” model (Clearly 1980, Charlez 1997, Yew 1997))ii.Vertical, rectangle-shaped, planar fracture within a prismatic-shaped domain (Khristianovich-Geertsma-de Klerk, or KGD model (Charlez 1997, Geertsma 1969, Yew 1997)).These models serve as benchmark examples to assess the consistency, convergence and accuracy of the numerical solution obtained with Abaqus.4.1 Fracture Propagation RegimesDespite the simplicity of the fracture geometry and strong symmetry in the chosen benchmark problems, there are no available closed-form analytical solutions for these problems when all coupled processes are considered in the analysis, i.e., when the formation is assumed to be porous and permeable with pore fluid flow and fracturing fluid is leaking into the pore space displacing the pore fluid. However, using the more restrictive theoretical framework resulting from assuming (i) an infinite domain, (ii) material fully impermeable, (iii), material linear elastic, (iv) linear-elastic fracture mechanics, and (v) Carter’s leakoff model (Howard 1957, Charlez 1997), approximate analytical solutions exist in the form of regular asymptotic expansions (Bunger 2005, Detournay 2006, Garagash 2006, Hu 2010, Garagash 2011, Peirce 2008, Savitski 2002). The governing equations then simplify to (i) the equilibrium equation for the linear elastic material, that for an infinite domain can be represented as an singular integral equation relating fracture opening and fluid pressure, (ii) the local and global mass balance equations for the fracturing fluid, and (iii) the fracture propagation criterion, also expressible as a singular integral equation relating fracturing pressure and fracture toughness. A non-dimensional analysis of this reduced system of equations uncovers the presence of two pairs of competing physical processes. The first pair consists of competing dissipative mechanisms: (a) energy dissipated due to fluid viscosity and (b) energy dissipated due to fracture propagation; the second pair consists of competing components of fluid balance: (a) fluid storage within the fracture and (b) fluid leakage from the fracture into the surrounding material. Depending on which of the two dissipative mechanisms and which of the two storage mechanisms dominate, four primary limiting regimes of propagation emerge: ∙Viscosity dominated and storage dominated propagation regime ( ).∙Toughness dominated and storage dominated propagation regime ( ).10 2014 SIMULIA Community Conference/simulia2014 SIMULIA Community Conference 11 /simulia∙Viscosity dominated and leak-off dominated ( ). ∙ Toughness dominated and leak-off dominated regime (). These four fracture propagation regimes can be conceptualized in a rectangular parametric space where each limiting regime corresponds to each of the vertices of the rectangle with one dissipation mechanism dominating and the other being neglected, and one component of fluid global balance dominating with the other also neglected (Figure 5).Figure 5: Parametric diagram representing the four limiting propagation regimes ofhydraulically driven fracturesThis work analyzes each benchmark problem in both the toughness/storage-dominated (near- ) and the viscosity/storage-dominated (near- ) propagation regimes. The near- and the near- asymptotic solutions (small time solutions in the toughness and viscosity regimes) are used to compare to Abaqus numerical solutions for each formulation (cohesive element method and XFEM) with material parameters, loads, and boundary conditions that reproduce each of these propagation regimes.In order to render the Abaqus solution comparable with the asymptotic solutions, the modeldimensions and material properties are selected such that the more restrictive conditions for which these solutions apply are adequately recreated. Specifically, the dimensions of the domain of analysis are much bigger than the fracture aperture and length, the permeability is defined tominimize the influence of poroelastic effects ahead of the fracture tip, and cohesive properties are selected to ensure a small cohesive zone relative to the size of the fracture.4.2 Radial (Penny-Shaped) ModelThe first benchmark problem consists of an axisymmetric, penny-shaped, hydraulically-driven fracture propagating in a cylindrically shaped poroelastic formation as illustrated in Figure 6.∞∞0 ∞∞12 2014 SIMULIA Community Conference/simuliaFigure 6: Cylindrical domain with a horizontal, circular-shaped, hydraulically drivenfractureThe domain of analysis is characterized by the inner radius , outer radius , and height . The porous medium is characterized by Young’s modulus , Poisson ratio , fracture toughness , porosity , Biot’s coefficient , Biot’s modulus , and hydraulic conductivity. An incompressible Newtonian fluid with viscosity is injected at a constant rate at the center of the fracture from a vertical wellbore. The fracture aperture , , the net pressure , (defined as the difference between the fracturing fluid pressure , and the confining stress ), and the fracture radius are the sought quantities.4.3 Plane Strain (KGD) ModelThe second benchmark problem considers a hydraulically-driven vertical fracture propagating in a poroelastic prismatic-shaped formation of length L, depth R and height H as illustrated in Figure 7. 01,,。
土石坝心墙裂缝发展的扩展有限元模拟
山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2018,49(2):192-198VOL.49NO.22018Journal of Shandong Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition )doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2324.2018.02.003数字优先出版:2018-04-04土石坝心墙裂缝发展的扩展有限元模拟赵晓龙1,2,3,卞汉兵3,4,郑威5,孙兆辉3,章赛泽3,邱秀梅3*1.河海大学岩土力学与堤坝工程教育部重点实验室,江苏南京2100982.河海大学岩土工程科学研究所,江苏南京2100983.山东农业大学水利土木工程学院,山东泰安2710184.LEM3,CNRS 7239,洛林大学,梅兹法国570455.徐州市水利建筑设计研究院,江苏徐州221112摘要:由于土石坝水力劈裂过程复杂,关于其发展机理目前仍有争议。
无论是总应力法还是有效应力法都不能计算裂缝的扩展过程。
为了进一步研究土石坝水力劈裂的发展机理,参照混凝土材料损伤模型的建模思路,根据土石坝水力劈裂中裂缝的形成过程,并结合非饱和土的力学特点,提出了压实黏土的孔隙扩展模型和裂缝张开模型,用来描述土样裂缝产生前后的状态。
借助扩展有限元方法,对裂缝的扩展过程进行了数值模拟。
最后通过一个简单的算例,验证了该方法的可行性。
该方法对于水力劈裂的数值研究有一定的参考价值。
关键词:扩展有限元;裂缝扩展模型;土石坝;水力劈裂;数值模拟中图法分类号:TU43文献标识码:A 文章编号:1000-2324(2018)02-0192-07The XFEM on Clay Crack Extension in Core Wall of Earth Rockfill DamZHAO Xiao-long 1,2,3,BIAN Han-bing 3,4,ZHENG Wei 5,SUN Zhao-hui 3,ZHANG Sai-ze 3,QIU Xiu-mei 3*1.Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering/Hohai University,Nanjing 210098,China2.Geotechnical Research Institute/Hohai University,Nanjing 210098,China3.College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering/Shandong Agricultural University,Tai'an 271018,China4.LEM3CNRS 7239,Universitéde Lorraine,Metz 57045,France5.Xuzhou Water Conservancy Architectural Design and Research Institute,Xuzhou 221112,ChinaAbstract:There remains a controversial view on development mechanism of hydraulic fracture in earth rockfill dam due to its complexity.Both total stress method and effective stress method cannot calculate crack extension process.In order to study the development mechanism of hydraulic fracture further,a pore extension model and a crack extension model were proposed to describe soil state before and after the appearance of crack.These models were built according to modeling method of damage model of concrete material and crack formation process during hydraulic fracture in earth rockfill dam,combining with mechanical characteristics of unsaturated soil.Crack extension process was simulated numerically by extended finite element method (XFEM).Finally,the feasibility of this method was verified through a simple numerical example.This method has a certain reference value for numerical study of hydraulic fracture.Keywords:Extended finite element method (XFEM);crack extension model;earth rockfill dam;hydraulic fracture;numerical simulation土石坝水力劈裂是亟待解决的问题之一[1,2]。
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID
专利名称:HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID发明人:LI, Leiming,LIANG, Feng,AL-MUNTASHERI, Ghaithan A.,CAIRNS, Amy J.申请号:US2016/032637申请日:20160516公开号:WO2017/123274A1公开日:20170720专利内容由知识产权出版社提供摘要:A fracturing fluid including a base fluid including salt water, a polymer, a crosslinker, and a nanomaterial. The crosslinker may include a Zr crosslinker, a Ti crosslinker, an Al crosslinker, a borate crosslinker, or a combination thereof. The nanomaterial may include ZrO nanoparticles, TiO nanoparticles, CeO nanoparticles; Zr nanoparticles, Ti nanoparticles, Ce nanoparticles, metal-organic polyhedra including Zr, Ti, Ce, or a combination thereof; carbon nanotubes, carbon nanorods, nano graphene, nano graphene oxide; or any combination thereof. The viscosity and viscosity lifetime of fracturing fluids with both crosslinkers and nanomaterials are greater than the sum of the effects of crosslinkers and nanomaterials taken separately. Moreover, this synergistic effect offers significant, practical advantages, including the ability to use salt water rather than fresh water for fracturing fluids, the ability to reduce polymer loading to achieve a desired viscosity, and the ability to achieve better formation cleanup after the fracturing treatment.申请人:SAUDI ARABIAN OIL COMPANY,ARAMCO SERVICES COMPANY地址:31311 SA,77210-4535 US国籍:SA,US代理人:BRUCE, Carl E. et al.更多信息请下载全文后查看。
基于PHF-_SFM_非均质岩石材料水力压裂数值计算模型研究
proposed based on the Biot consolidation theory. The model incorporates the Mohr ̄Coulomb
关 键 词: 水力压裂ꎻ非均匀岩石ꎻPHF - SFMꎻ概率破坏ꎻ韦伯分布
中图分类号: TU 443 文献标志码: A 文章编号: 1005 - 3026(2023)08 - 1160 - 08
Study on Numerical Calculation Model of Hydraulic Fracture for
渗透系数 K 与平均有效应力 σ′m 的关系ꎬ以
P3D( Pseudo three ̄dimensional) 模型 [5] 等 的 理 论
及复杂边界条件等因素的数值计算方法ꎬ如:有限
单元法、离散元法
[6]
和相场法
[7]
等.
岩石材料微观特征的非均匀性对水力裂缝发
应变和体应变ꎻλ 和 G 为岩石材料的拉梅常数.
征. 通过与 KGD 模型对比验证该模型的可行性ꎬ并通过数值模拟分析了模型中 Weibull 模量和尺度参数以及
岩石材料性质对起裂压力、裂缝高度和裂缝宽度等的影响. 结果表明ꎬ概率破坏模型的引入不会影响起裂压
力ꎬ但会影响裂缝的几何特征. 当 Weibull 模量降低或尺度参数增加时ꎬ裂缝的几何特征离散性呈增大趋势.
+
tan(ξ(σ′m - ζRm ))ꎬ (6)
2
2
Kf =
kr
求解双重孔隙介质油藏压力的一种新方法
求解双重孔隙介质油藏压力的一种新方法
姚军;刘英才
【期刊名称】《中国石油大学学报(自然科学版)》
【年(卷),期】1999(023)004
【摘要】求解双重孔隙介质油藏不稳定渗流压力要比单孔隙介质油藏不稳定渗流压力复杂得多,而对于复杂边界条件的双重孔隙介质油藏模型,很难求得其压力解.提出了将单孔隙介质不稳定渗流压力解转换为双重孔隙介质渗流不稳定压力解的方法,其步骤是:①单孔隙介质油藏不稳定渗流的拉氏空间压力解(z)乘以拉氏变量z;②用zf(z)代替(z)中的z,得到一个表达式;③该表达式除以z即得到双重孔隙介质油藏不稳定渗流的拉氏空间压力解f(z);④采用数值拉氏反演Stehfest方法即可得到真实空间内的双重孔隙介质油藏不稳定渗流压力解.该方法求解过程简捷,计算结果正确.【总页数】3页(P42-44)
【作者】姚军;刘英才
【作者单位】石油大学石油工程系,山东东营,257062;冀东油田研究院
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】TE3
【相关文献】
1.双重孔隙介质低速非达西渗流油藏DST段塞流压力动态分析 [J], 霍进;贾永禄;蒋维军;吴小庆
2.一种求解低渗透油藏启动压力梯度的新方法 [J], 许建红;程林松;周颖;马丽丽
3.低渗压敏双重孔隙介质油藏合理产能研究 [J], 姜永;贾海松;吴浩君;汪跃;杨旭
4.双重孔隙介质油藏水平井压裂产能影响因素分析 [J], 刘波
5.花岗岩潜山双重孔隙介质油藏地质建模方法 [J], 潘晓庆;宋来明;牛涛;张雨晴;高玉飞
因版权原因,仅展示原文概要,查看原文内容请购买。
斯伦贝谢分段压裂技术
StageFRACSIMPLE, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVEStageFRAC services enable multistage hydraulic fractures of an uncemented completion in one pumping treatment.Openhole packers are run on conventional casing to segment the reservoir with ball-activated sleeves placed between each set of openhole packers.During pumping, balls are dropped from the surface to shift each sliding sleeve open and isolate previously frac-tured stages.This mechanical diversion combined withSchlumberger advanced fracturing fluid systems allows for precise fluid placement, complete zonal coverage, and greater effective fracture conductivity.The StageFRAC service also offers a relatively simple completion: The production casing is not cemented,there are no perforating operations, no bridge plugs are required for isolation, no overflushing of the stimulation treatment is needed, and no intervention is required once stimulation is completed. Finally,the entire wellbore is fracture stimulated in one pumping operation, reducing cycle times from days to hours.The service permits selective opening and closing of the ports to shut off unwanted fluids, thus maxi-mazing well production life.FIELD-PROVEN TECHNOLOGYSince the first StageFRAC well was completed in June of 2002, the technology has been used to complete more than 2,750 stages in more than 1.25 million ft of open hole, and more thanAPPLICATIONSIHydraulically fractured horizontal,deviated, and vertical wells IOpenhole and some cased hole completionsIHigh-temperature, high-pressure,H 2S, and CO 2environments ISandstone, carbonate, shale, and coal formationsBENEFITSIMaximize reservoir productivity with up to 17 stimulation stages in one wellboreICut completion timesfrom days to hours and shorten time to marketIMaximize well longevity by shutting out unwanted fluids IReduce fracture fluid damage through immediate flowbackFEATURESIImproved access to natural fracturesIAbility to space sleeves at optimal distances as dictated by reservoir conditionsIPost-stimulation intervention not requiredI Single, continuous operation IMaximized stimulation coverage in horizontal wells I Reliable isolation in open hole IRigless operations during fracturingISleeves that can be shifted to assist with reservoir managementMaximize reservoir drainageThe StageFRAC*†multistage fracturing service provides effective reservoir drainage through multistage fracturing of open-hole wellbores and reduces completion times from days to hours.The mechanical openhole packer with tandem elements is rated to 68.9 MPa [10,000 psi] and 218 degC [425 degF]./reservoircontact†Incorporating Packers Plus ®technology*Mark of SchlumbergerCopyright © 2007 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. 07-ST-028StageFRACThe Galaxie stimulation vessel mobilizing to treat the first StageFRAC job performed offshore West Africa.。
仿生多胞薄壁结构冲击吸能特性研究
仿生多胞薄壁结构冲击吸能特性研究
陈雅婷;洪熠豪;吴俊;吴菲;郑氏韦;赵顺秋
【期刊名称】《机械强度》
【年(卷),期】2024(46)3
【摘要】仿生多胞薄壁结构具有质量轻、抗冲击性能强等优点。
对莲藕、问荆进行仿生结构设计,与薄壁空管进行耦合,提出了两种新型的仿生多胞薄壁结构:一是薄壁空管与莲藕耦合结构(LR-IS),二是薄壁空管与莲藕、问荆耦合结构(LR-HS-IS)。
通过Pro/E建立模型,导入到有限元软件Abaqus中进行数值模拟分析。
此外,采用3D打印成型技术制作结构,通过落锤冲击试验和有限元数值模拟,对其在轴向冲击下的力学行为及吸能特性进行研究。
结果表明,仿生多胞薄壁结构具有较好的吸能效果,显著提高了承载能力、载荷效率和比吸能。
与单独的薄壁空管相比,仿生多胞薄壁结构不但能显著降低冲击效应,而且初始峰值力较为稳定。
除此之外,该结构也非常符合轻量化、高吸能的要求。
【总页数】6页(P750-755)
【作者】陈雅婷;洪熠豪;吴俊;吴菲;郑氏韦;赵顺秋
【作者单位】广东工业大学材料与能源学院
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】TG142.71
【相关文献】
1.锥形多胞薄壁管斜向冲击吸能特性仿真研究
2.几种新型薄壁组合结构的轴向冲击吸能特性研究
3.几种新型薄壁组合结构的轴向冲击吸能特性研究
4.泡沫铝填充薄壁金属管结构冲击吸能特性研究
5.轴向压溃下多胞薄壁结构的吸能特性研究
因版权原因,仅展示原文概要,查看原文内容请购买。
Na_(2)CO_(3)-Na_(2)SO_(4)复盐熔炼法从碱溶渣中高效分离钨的工艺研究
Na_(2)CO_(3)-Na_(2)SO_(4)复盐熔炼法从碱溶渣中高效分离钨的工艺研究冯浩;郭学益;许开华;于大伟;黄健;何鑫涛【期刊名称】《中国有色金属学报》【年(卷),期】2024(34)2【摘要】钨合金废料资源化利用过程中容易产生含钨碱溶渣,且该部分含钨碱溶渣中钨品位较高。
本文开发了一种复盐(Na_(2)CO_(3)-Na_(2)SO_(4))熔炼工艺,以对含钨碱溶渣中的钨进行高效分离;探究Na_(2)CO_(3)和Na_(2)SO_(4)的添加量、复盐熔炼温度、熔炼时间以及水浸液固比、水浸温度对钨回收率的影响。
结果表明:从含钨碱溶渣中高效分离钨的最优条件为n(W)∶n(Na_(2)CO_(3))∶n(Na_(2)SO_(4))=1∶1.25∶0.54,复盐熔炼温度为800℃,熔炼时间为3 h,水浸液固比为2.5,水浸温度为75℃,在该最优条件下可将含钨碱溶渣中99.93%的钨分离出来。
同时,本文通过XRD分析以及热力学分析对复盐熔炼的反应机理进行了探讨,复盐体系的构建有助于降低体系共熔点,降低能耗,同时有助于促进碱溶渣与反应介质的充分接触,提高反应效率。
【总页数】8页(P529-536)【作者】冯浩;郭学益;许开华;于大伟;黄健;何鑫涛【作者单位】中南大学冶金与环境学院;荆门市格林美新材料有限公司【正文语种】中文【中图分类】TF841【相关文献】1.Na_(2)SiO_(3)/Na_(2)CO_(3)复合制备清洁型碱矿渣胶凝材料2.Na_(2)SO_(4)/Na_(2)SiO_(3)复掺激发富镁镍渣-粉煤灰基地质聚合物的微观结构及性能研究3.Na_(2)CO_(3)⁃CaO协同浸出钨冶炼除磷渣中钼和钨4.Na_(2)SO_(4)改性Co_(3)O_(4)催化NaBH_(4)-NH_(3)BH_(3)复合物水解放氢性能研究5.冷却结晶法回收乙烯废碱液中Na_(2)SO_(4)研究因版权原因,仅展示原文概要,查看原文内容请购买。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
Mb p8pu WM propard br pr@#wtbn tOlmmrl,TX, Oatobor 2-s, lees.
q tha S2rd Annual Tochnkal OwIhronco and F.xhlbitbn01the Socioty ot Petroloum Engirwro hold In t
‘o
“
z
INDUCINGWLT!PLE HYDRAULICFRAGTURESFROM A HORIZONTAL UELLB the welltwe, end their potential impact on stimulation operations. This is one of the prima purposesof this paper. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to acquaint the reader with the theory, technical approach, and the results of a series of hydraulicfracture stimulation tests which ware designed to both open and propagatenatural fractures~and to induce additionalmiiltiple racturesas a preferredmethod F of enhancing productionfrom a low pressure, low permeability gas reservoir.2 The wall was completed utilizing extamal casing packers to partitionthe horizontal wellbore into a number of zones which could be stimulated separatelywith treatments which would take into account tbe number and spacing of the natural fractures in the zone (see Figure 1). Analysis of the video camsra survey of the wellborerevealed that there were five fracturesets, three of which mi ht be propagated during a stimulation operation.3 Tl#s InforiaatfonOE used to design a series W of date fraci to obtain information on breakdcwn closure pressure, fracture gredient pressure, and stress ratio. The results of tha data frac indicated msl Iple closure pressure determinations as suspected, \ The frac gradient was detemined to be 0.2F and 0.31 si/ft, and the stress retio to be .20 and .27. ! his data indicated that the rock strata in the area of the horizontal well isnearlystwess relieved. The objective of the tests conducted and reported on in this paper is to present evidence supportingour conclusionthat two sets of natural fractures were opened and propagated during stimulation operations, and induced fractures along a third directioncontrolledby the regional stress field. Two systems of fracturediagnostics were used to collectdata which would either confirm or reject our hypothesis, One I-14s a tilt meter sy,tem and the other Was the use of radioactive tr~cer isotopas in the fra~hefluids and their subsequent detection in near wellbore environmentby the use of the multispectralgamsna ray log. In addition, pressure tests and gas sample analysis ware used ta conffrm multiple fractureorientations. GEOLOGICSETTING The test wall is located in the west-central plateau region of the Appalachian Basin (see Figure 2). The rock strata generally exhibit a low 1 to 1-1/2 degrae dip southeast toward the center of the Basin, The regional dip is interrupted by small amplitude anticline and synclines witt generallyless than 300 feet of closure. Faultin$ of the basement rocks during pre-Cambrian tires produced a series of normal faults in the ara (Figure 3) which have produced measurableeffectj of the strpta as high as the Oevonianage rocks, Superposition of the basement faults on the Lowsn Huron structuremap (Figure4) shows corresondencc with ma~or structural features at this Eorizon, Structuraltrends as mapped on the Barea sandston! found above the target Lower Huron shales anc production trendsfrom the shalesshow correspondin~
4*
SPE
SPE 16249 Inducing Multiple Hydraulic Fractures From a Horizontal We!!bore
by W.K. Overbey Jr,, BDM Engineering SmAces D.A. Wilkins, Grace, Shuwm, Mmre & Assoos. SPE Members Corp.; A.B. Yost 11, U.S. DOE; and
rI
A series of stimulations ware designed to open and propa te :Iatural fractures known to wal 1 in Wayne exist along a 2%0 foot horizontal werq County, West VIrglnla, The stimulations also designed to induce f racturas in the fomstion as -11 as propagate the natural fractures b~ manipulating pressure and injection rates. numberof radioactive tracerswere used to detens~ne where fractures were opened and propagated at differentinJectionrates. The tracers were found in fractwes in zones other than the one pumped into, a fact consideredprime facie evidence that natural fracturas with two or more orientations had been opened and propagated. Pressure testing. and gas sampling of the isolated zcnes confirm that fracture cotmtunication accomplishedalong was nearly 1000 fact of borahole by stimulation of one 400 foot long section. A techn?quefor inducing multiple multiple hydraulic fractures With orientations was demonstrated. BACKGROUND sol Ve Horizontal wells are drilled to production problams or to improve hydrocarbon recovery efficiency from a particular reservoir. It is bellevedthat the originalconceptof drilling horizontal wells was to contact more formation in a reservoir which was not a particularly outstanding producer,or which had other production problams. One of the earliest known attampts at horizontal drilling in the United States was that done in the Venango sandstone from a shaft drilled near Franklln, Pennsylvania In 1944. The particular problem being addressed was how to produce the heavy crude oil which had lost its solution gas because of the shallow de th of the format;on (less than 500 feet) and tRus was producedat slow rates, ~efatwces and ill ustrations end of paper. at