2.1. Governing equations

In a Cartesian coordinate $\boldsymbol {x}=(x,y,z)$, we consider a 3-D cell containing fluid-saturated porous media bounded by two horizontal plates with a uniform porosity $\phi$. The cell has a height of $H$, and its length and width are both $L$. The permeability of porous media is either homogeneous, characterised by a constant value $\bar {K}$, or heterogeneous, defined by a spatial function $K(\boldsymbol {x})=\bar {K}f(\boldsymbol {x})$ following a certain distribution. Here $f(\boldsymbol {x})$ is a normalised function to describe permeability heterogeneity, with an average value of unity over the entire domain. Note that the permeability is generally considered a second-order tensor with anisotropy in the horizontal and vertical directions (Rapaka et al. Reference Rapaka, Pawar, Stauffer, Zhang and Chen2009; Green & Ennis-King Reference Green and Ennis-King2014; De Paoli, Zonta & Soldati Reference De Paoli, Zonta and Soldati2017; Nield & Bejan Reference Nield and Bejan2017). For simplicity, we assume isotropic permeability in this study. The details of generating a heterogeneous permeability field are discussed in the following section. The cell is maintained at a constant concentration at the top and zero concentration at the bottom. Meanwhile, there is a consistent unstable geothermal gradient across the domain against the direction of gravity. In other words, the saturated porous media are heated from below and cooled from above. We denote concentration and temperature as $S$ and $T$, respectively. The top and bottom boundaries are marked with subscripts ‘$top$’ and ‘$bot$’, respectively. The density of fluid follows a linear relation as $\rho =\rho _0[1-\beta _{T} (T-T_{top})+\beta _{S} (S-S_{bot})]$, where $\beta _{T}$ and $\beta _{S}$ are linear coefficients of expansion and $\rho _0$ is a reference value. The governing equations of an incompressible Darcian flow with both heat and mass transfer read

(2.1a)$$\begin{gather} \boldsymbol{\nabla} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{u} = 0 , \end{gather}$$

(2.1b)$$\begin{gather}\boldsymbol{u} ={-}\frac{K(\boldsymbol{x})}{\mu}[\boldsymbol{\nabla} p+(\beta_{S} S - \beta_{T} T) \rho_{0} g \boldsymbol{e}_{z}] , \end{gather}$$

(2.1c)$$\begin{gather}\frac{(\rho c)_{m}}{(\rho c_{p})_{f}}\frac{\partial T}{\partial t} ={-}\boldsymbol{u} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{\nabla} T+\kappa_{m} \nabla^{2} T , \end{gather}$$

(2.1d)$$\begin{gather}\phi \frac{\partial S}{\partial t} ={-}\boldsymbol{u} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{\nabla} S+\phi \kappa_{S} \nabla^{2} S. \end{gather}$$

Here $\boldsymbol {u}$ is the seepage velocity, $p$ is the pressure, $g$ is the gravitational acceleration, $\boldsymbol {e}_z$ is the vertical unit vector opposite to direction of gravity, $\mu$ is fluid viscosity, $(\rho c)_{m}$ is the overall heat capacity of solid and fluid, $(\rho c_{p})_{f}$ is the heat capacity of fluid, $\kappa _m$ is the overall thermal diffusivity and $\kappa _{S}$ is the molecular diffusivity of concentration field, respectively. The subscript ‘$m$’ represents the combination of both the solid matrix and saturated fluid, whereas ‘$f$’ represents the fluid alone. Note that local thermal equilibrium is assumed in (2.1c). Periodicity is imposed on the horizontal directions, namely, the $x$ and $y$ dimensions, for all variables. The boundary conditions at the bottom and top boundaries are

(2.2a)$$\begin{gather} u_z = 0,\quad T = T_{bot},\quad S = S_{bot},\quad \mbox{at}\ z=0, \end{gather}$$

(2.2b)$$\begin{gather}u_z = 0,\quad T = T_{top},\quad S = S_{top},\quad \mbox{at}\ z=H. \end{gather}$$

The above governing equations are non-dimensionalised by the height $H$, the temperature difference $\Delta T=T_{bot}-T_{top}$, the concentration difference $\Delta S=S_{top}-S_{bot}$, the characteristic velocity $U_c=\bar {K}g\rho _0\beta _{S} \Delta S / \mu$, and the characteristic time scale $t_c = \phi H / U_c$, respectively. Then the non-dimensionalised equations are

(2.3a)$$\begin{gather} \boldsymbol{\nabla} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{u} = 0 , \end{gather}$$

(2.3b)$$\begin{gather}\boldsymbol{u} = [-\boldsymbol{\nabla} p+ (\varLambda T -S)\boldsymbol{e}_z]f(\boldsymbol{x}), \end{gather}$$

(2.3c)$$\begin{gather}\sigma \frac{\partial T}{\partial t} ={-}\boldsymbol{u} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{\nabla} T+ \frac{Le}{{Ra}_S}\nabla^{2} T , \end{gather}$$

(2.3d)$$\begin{gather}\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} ={-}\boldsymbol{u} \boldsymbol{\cdot} \boldsymbol{\nabla} S+ \frac{1}{{Ra}_S}\nabla^{2} S . \end{gather}$$

In the remainder of this article, all variables are dimensionless unless otherwise mentioned. Note that both the temperature and concentration differences are positive, which means the two scalars simultaneously drive convective motions.

There are four dimensionless control parameters in the above equations, including the heat capacity ratio $\sigma$, the Lewis number ${Le}$, the concentration Rayleigh number ${Ra}_S$ and the temperature Rayleigh number ${Ra}_T$, which are respectively defined as

(2.4a–d) \begin{align} \sigma = \frac{(\rho c)_m}{\phi(\rho c_p)_f}, \quad {Le} = \frac{\kappa_m}{\phi\kappa_S}, \quad {Ra}_S = \frac{\bar{K}Hg\rho_0\beta_S \Delta S}{\kappa_S \mu \phi}, \quad {Ra}_T = \frac{\bar{K}Hg\rho_0\beta_T \Delta T}{\kappa_m\mu}. \end{align}

The density ratio $\varLambda =(\beta _T\Delta T)/(\beta _S \Delta S) = {Ra}_T {Le} / {Ra}_S$ can be assembled to measure the strength of the temperature difference relative to the concentration difference. The non-dimensionalised boundary conditions at the bottom and top boundaries then become

(2.5a)$$\begin{gather} u_z = 0,\quad T = 1,\quad S = 0,\quad \mbox{at}\ z=0, \end{gather}$$

(2.5b)$$\begin{gather}u_z = 0,\quad T = 0,\quad S = 1,\quad \mbox{at}\ z=1. \end{gather}$$

2.2. Permeability heterogeneity

Before solving the governing equations, the heterogeneous permeability field must be properly generated as a reflection of realistic geological formations. Permeability in natural geological formations is empirically assumed to follow a log-normal distribution. Thus, the normalised permeability function $f(\boldsymbol {x})$ is modelled by the exponential of a random Gaussian field $G(\boldsymbol {x})$ which has zero mean and unit standard deviation (Oliver Reference Oliver1995; Camhi, Meiburg & Ruith Reference Camhi, Meiburg and Ruith2000; Abrahamsen, Kvernelv & Barker Reference Abrahamsen, Kvernelv and Barker2018). The autocovariance function of $G(\boldsymbol {x})$ is given as $C(\boldsymbol {x})=\exp (-({\boldsymbol {x}}/{l_r})^2)$ where $l_r$ denotes the non-dimensionalised correlation length. We use the Dykstra–Parsons coefficient $V_{DP}$ to measure the strength of heterogeneity. When permeability is log-normally distributed, $V_{DP}$ can be expressed as $V_{DP}=1-\mathrm {e}^{-s_{\ln {k}}}$, where $s_{\ln {k}}$ is the standard deviation of logarithmic $f(\boldsymbol {x})$ (Kong & Saar Reference Kong and Saar2013). Consequently, the normalised permeability function $f(\boldsymbol {x})$ can be expressed as

(2.6)\begin{equation} f(\boldsymbol{x})=\exp\left(-\frac{s^2_{\ln{k}}}{2}+s_{\ln{k}}G\right). \end{equation}

2.3. Numerical details

To numerically solve the governing equations (2.3) with boundary conditions (2.5), we first take the divergence of (2.3b) and combine it with continuity equation (2.3a). An equation for pressure can be obtained as

(2.7)\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{\nabla}\boldsymbol{\cdot}(f\boldsymbol{\nabla} p) = \frac{\partial}{\partial z}[(\varLambda T-S)f], \end{equation}

with boundary conditions as

(2.8)\begin{equation} \left.\frac{\partial p}{\partial z}\right|_{z=0,1} = (\varLambda T-S)|_{z=0,1}. \end{equation}

For homogeneous porous media, $f(\boldsymbol {x})$ equals one in the entire domain. Equation (2.7) reduces into a Poisson's equation, which can be solved by the same numerical method as described in Hu et al. (Reference Hu, Xu and Yang2023). Specifically, apply Fourier transform in the horizontal directions and solve a set of tridiagonal systems in the vertical direction. However, $f(\boldsymbol {x})$ becomes spatially dependent when considering heterogeneity. Equation (2.7) is generally a Poisson's equation with variable coefficients and can no longer be solved by a fast direct algorithm. Therefore, an iterative V-cycle multigrid method is employed (Briggs, Henson & McCormick Reference Briggs, Henson and McCormick2000). The iteration stops when the divergence of velocity field is less than $10^{-6}$. After solving the pressure field, the velocity can be calculated using (2.3b). The advection–diffusion equations for temperature and concentration can then be solved by the scheme described in Ostilla-Mónico et al. (Reference Ostilla-Mónico, Yang, Van Der Poel, Lohse and Verzicco2015). Initially, the concentration and temperature fields have vertically linear distributions based on their boundary values.

In this study, the Lewis number and heat capacity ratio are fixed at $Le=100$ and $\sigma =1$, respectively. The parameter spaces are shown in figure 1. For homogeneous porous media, we explore four concentration Rayleigh numbers ranging from $10^3$ to $10^4$ and six temperature Rayleigh numbers ranging from zero, i.e. without geothermal gradient, to $300$. The Rayleigh numbers fall within ranges estimated by Hu et al. (Reference Hu, Xu and Yang2023) for realistic conditions in CO$_2$ sequestration, with the concentration Rayleigh number up to $10^5$ and the temperature Rayleigh number as high as $10^3$. For heterogeneous cases, we fix the concentration Rayleigh number at $10^3$ and the temperature Rayleigh numbers at zero or $50$. The two parameters concerning heterogeneity are correlation length $l_r$, ranging from $0.1$ to $1.0$, and the Dykstra–Parsons coefficient $V_{DP}$, ranging from $0.1$ to $0.6$. Previous studies on permeability heterogeneity in porous media in the context of CO$_2$ sequestration have considered various ranges of the Dykstra–Parsons coefficient and correlation length (Waggoner et al. Reference Waggoner, Castillo and Lake1992; Jensen et al. Reference Jensen, Lake, Corbett and Goggin1997; Camhi et al. Reference Camhi, Meiburg and Ruith2000; Farajzadeh et al. Reference Farajzadeh, Ranganathan, Zitha and Bruining2010; de Dreuzy et al. Reference de Dreuzy, Carrera, Dentz and Le Borgne2012; Ranganathan et al. Reference Ranganathan, Farajzadeh, Bruining and Zitha2012; Kong & Saar Reference Kong and Saar2013; Islam et al. Reference Islam, Korrani, Sepehrnoori and Patzek2014a,Reference Islam, Lashgari and Sephernoorib). To conclude, $V_{DP}$ and $l_r$ vary in the ranges $0.01 \le V_{DP} \le 0.9$ and $0.01 \le l_r \le 3$, respectively. Therefore, the parameters explored in this study are representative of realistic conditions.

Figure 1.

Parameter spaces for (a) homogeneous and (b) heterogeneous porous media. Note that we set ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=0$ or $50$ in heterogeneous porous media.

3.1. Alternation of flow structures

3.1.1. Root-mean-square of velocity field $u^{rms}$

We first look at the time- and volume-averaged root-mean-square (r.m.s.) of velocity field $u^{rms}$ as shown in figure 2. The observation in figure 2(a) is evident that $u^{rms}$ shows no significant change for ${Ra}_T=0$ and $10$ regardless of ${Ra}_S$. However, when considering a constant concentration Rayleigh number, $u^{rms}$ demonstrates an approximately linear escalation with increasing ${Ra}_T$ for values exceeding $40$. It is noteworthy that the slope differs for various ${Ra}_S$ values. For clarification, the observed decrease in $u^{rms}$ with increasing ${Ra}_S$ at a fixed temperature Rayleigh number is due to the non-dimensionalisation of variables used in our study. The dimensional velocity should increase with stronger driving forces. Exploring the variations of $u^{rms}$ with the density ratio $\varLambda$, we observe a consistent linear trend in the data with respect to $\varLambda$. A linear best-fit model of $u^{rms}=0.115(\varLambda +1)$ is also depicted in figure 2(b). Such a linear tendency can be explained by the fact that the total driving forces of convection include density differences induced by both concentration and temperature differences. However, only concentration difference is used when non-dimensionalising the governing equations, resulting in a $(\varLambda +1)$ term for the non-dimensionalised $u^{rms}$.

Figure 2.

Root-mean-square of time- and volume-averaged velocity varies with (a) temperature Rayleigh number ${Ra}_T$ and (b) density ratio $\varLambda$. The grey dashed line in (b) is a linear fit $u^{rms}=0.115(\varLambda +1)$. The ratio of Péclet number $Pe$ to its analytical relation $Pe_e$ against ${Ra}_S$ is plotted in (c), with the grey dashed line indicating unity value.

Recently, Zhu et al. (Reference Zhu, Fu and De Paoli2024) have presented a theoretical relation for the r.m.s. of velocity $u^{rms}$ (or the corresponding Péclet number $Pe$), the Nusselt number $Nu$ and the Rayleigh number $Ra$ in single-component convective porous media flows. Similarly, we can obtain a relation in the double-diffusive scenario for $u^{rms}$, the Nusselt and Rayleigh numbers, which reads

(3.1)\begin{equation} Pe^2={Ra}_S[\varLambda Le(Nu_T-1)+(Nu_S-1)], \end{equation}

where $Pe= {Ra}_S u^{rms}$. The derivation details are provided in Appendix B. The ratio of numerical measurements to the theoretical relation is depicted in figure 2(c). The results demonstrate excellent agreement between the measurements and theory, both for ${Ra}_T = 0$ and for ${Ra}_T > 0$.

3.1.2. Structures of the flow

The flow structures exhibit variations with concentration and temperature Rayleigh numbers. Figure 3 presents horizontal slices of vertical velocity, concentration, and temperature at $z=0.5$ for two concentration Rayleigh numbers. To analyse the impacts of different temperature gradients, the subfigures are organised in descending rows corresponding to increasing ${Ra}_T$. For a fixed ${Ra}_S$, it is notable that only when ${Ra}_T$ is greater than $40$ do the flow structures alter significantly. When ${Ra}_T=0$ and $10$, the concentration field comprises randomly distributed column-like structures of comparable size. In other words, the flow is almost unaffected if ${Ra}_T<{Ra}_{cr}$, aligning with the aforementioned assumption. However, as ${Ra}_T$ surpasses ${Ra}_{cr}$, either concentration or temperature difference can independently drive convection, while their combined effect leads to more intricate flow patterns. The concentration field displays sheet-like structures and cellular structures with elongated borders where concentration reaches maximum or minimum. The interfaces of concentration structure in horizontal directions become more distinct as ${Ra}_T$ increases for a fixed ${Ra}_S$ when ${Ra}_T>{Ra}_{cr}$ (see figure 3c–e).

Figure 3.

Horizontal slices of vertical velocity, concentration and temperature at $z=0.5$. The left three columns correspond to ${Ra}_S=10^3$, and the right three columns to ${Ra}_S=10^4$. Each row represents a temperature Rayleigh number, ranging from (a) 0 to (e) 300.

It is worth noting that the temperature structures display variations at an identical ${Ra}_T$ when the concentration Rayleigh number differs. This suggests that the density ratio also influences the flow structures. For instance, when ${Ra}=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=100$ (density ratio corresponding to $\varLambda =10$), parallel sheet-like structures prevail in the left panel of figure 3(d). The temperature field is similar to convection solely driven by temperature at ${Ra}_T=100$. However, when ${Ra}=10^4$ and ${Ra}_T=100$ (density ratio corresponding to $\varLambda =1$), parallel sheets break down and reorganise. This is due to the differing relative strengths of buoyancy induced by temperature and concentration. In the former case, $\varLambda =10$ indicates the flow is primarily driven by temperature difference, resulting in structures similar to those solely driven by ${Ra}_T=100$. In the latter case, the buoyant forces from concentration and temperature are equivalent, leading to deviations from structures of RDC driven by either ${Ra}_S=10^4$ or ${Ra}_T=100$.

Furthermore, upon comparing temperature and concentration slices under identical control parameters, it is evident that concentration structures typically concentrate in the centre of corresponding temperature structures, where the vertical velocity attains its maximum. This observation implies high concentration can be transported quickly from the top plate to the bottom in these areas and vice versa. To further illustrate such implications, vertical slices of concentration at $y=0.5L$ for ${Ra}_S=10^4$ are presented in figure 4. For large ${Ra}_T$, the concentration structures consist of numerous short fingers emerging from the boundaries and a few long plumes extending across the entire vertical direction, reflecting the footprints of large-scale rolls induced by temperature. As ${Ra}_T$ increases, more and more concentration fingers are confined within a short vertical distance apart from the top and bottom boundaries, and the plumes become thinner. In addition, mixing is enhanced and concentration is more homogenised in the bulk region for increasing temperature gradient.

Figure 4.

Vertical slices of concentration at $y=0.5L$ for ${Ra}_S=10^4$: (a) ${Ra}_T=0$, (b) ${Ra}_T=10$, (c) ${Ra}_T=40$, (d) ${Ra}_T=100$, (e) ${Ra}_T=200$ and (f) ${Ra}_T=300$.

The horizontal slices in figure 3 indicate that the structure sizes vary with the Rayleigh numbers. The size of dominant structures is typically quantified by the mean radial wavenumber at the centre plane $z=0.5$. Consider a 2-D power spectrum of the concentration slice at $z=0.5$, $E(k_x,k_y)$, where $k_x$ and $k_y$ are the wavenumbers in the $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively. The time-averaged radial wavenumber for concentration is defined as

(3.2)\begin{equation} k_{rS}=\left\langle\frac{\displaystyle\iint\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}E(k_x,k_y)\,\mathrm{d}k_x \,\mathrm{d}k_y}{\displaystyle\iint E(k_x,k_y)\,\mathrm{d}k_x \,\mathrm{d}k_y}\right\rangle. \end{equation}

In 3-D RDC, numerical measurements have provided fitted scalings of $k_r\approx 0.17Ra^{0.52}$ by Hewitt et al. (Reference Hewitt, Neufeld and Lister2014) and $k_r\approx 0.25Ra^{0.49}$ by De Paoli et al. (Reference De Paoli, Pirozzoli, Zonta and Soldati2022). In figure 5(a), we present the variations of $k_{rS}$ with both concentration and temperature Rayleigh numbers. Results from De Paoli et al. (Reference De Paoli, Pirozzoli, Zonta and Soldati2022) are also included for comparison, showing good agreement with our results at ${Ra}_T=0$. For the case ${Ra}_T=10$, $k_{rS}$ is nearly the same as for ${Ra}_T=0$ at a fixed ${Ra}_S$. However, when ${Ra}_T \ge 40$, the wavenumber does not follow the approximate 1/2 power scaling with ${Ra}_S$. Here, we define an effective Rayleigh number $Ra_e$ to indicate the total driving buoyant forces of both concentration and temperature as

(3.3)\begin{equation} Ra_e \equiv {Ra}_S+Le {Ra}_T = {Ra}_S(1+\varLambda). \end{equation}

After plotting $k_{rS}$ against $Ra_e$ in a logarithmic coordinate in figure 5(b), we find that the averaged radial wavenumber exhibits a linear increase with the effective Rayleigh number. The best data fitting results in

(3.4)\begin{equation} k_{rS} \approx 0.23 Ra_e^{0.47}. \end{equation}

The fitting exponent and coefficient are close to the fitted scaling by De Paoli et al. (Reference De Paoli, Pirozzoli, Zonta and Soldati2022). Although our numerical measurements do not perfectly collapse on the best-fit line, the fitted scaling successfully captures the trend of structure size varying with the Rayleigh numbers.

Figure 5.

The mean radial wavenumber $k_{rS}$ of concentration field at $z=0.5$ against (a) the concentration Rayleigh number ${Ra}_S$ and (b) the effective Rayleigh number $Ra_e={Ra}_S+Le {Ra}_T$. The black empty circles in (a) represent 3-D numerical results from De Paoli et al. (Reference De Paoli, Pirozzoli, Zonta and Soldati2022) in single-component RDC. The grey dashed line in (b) is the best power fit $k_{rS}=0.23Ra_e^{0.47}$.

3.1.3. Concentration mean profiles

In figure 6 we plot the concentration mean profiles for all cases in the parameter space. The symbol angle brackets stand for an average over time and $(x,y)$ planes. For each profile, there are two distinct boundary layers near the top and bottom plates, and the concentration is approximately linear with height in the bulk regions around the centre. For a fixed ${Ra}_S$, the thickness of boundary layers decreases and the concentration gradient near the centre changes from positive to negative with increasing ${Ra}_T$. We measure the concentration gradient $G_S$ in the range $0.4\le z \le 0.6$ and plot its dependence on ${Ra}_S$ and ${Ra}_T$ in figure 7. Then $G_S$ becomes negative when ${Ra}_T$ is larger than $40$ for all explored ${Ra}_S$. In other words, the concentration gradient in the bulk is opposite to that imposed on the vertical boundaries provided that ${Ra}_T$ exceeds the critical $Ra_{cr}$. Such a phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that increasing ${Ra}_T$ for a fixed ${Ra}_S$ is equivalent to increasing density ratio, resulting in a higher vertical velocity. Flow with high vertical velocity can transfer high concentration quickly from the top to the bottom with little diffusion, and vice versa. Consequently, the concentration gradient in the bulk becomes negative. A positive value of the concentration gradient is expected at low ${Ra}_T$. However, it is noteworthy that the minimum $G_S$ occurs at ${Ra}_T=10$ with two lower concentration Rayleigh numbers, ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and $2\times 10^3$. In the context of RDC, De Paoli et al. (Reference De Paoli, Pirozzoli, Zonta and Soldati2022) reported similar counter-gradient flux regions at the edge of thermal boundary layer at small Rayleigh numbers (${Ra}=10^3$ in their cases), ascribing this phenomenon to vertical plumes that carry their momentum and temperature almost unchanged across the fluid layer. These regions tend to diminish with increasing ${Ra}$. Based on our current numerical results, we can only offer a qualitative description of this phenomenon rather than a definitive explanation. In our cases, although only a very small ${Ra}_T$ is introduced at ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and $2\times 10^3$, the nonlinear interaction between concentration and temperature results in extending the counter-gradient flux regions into the bulk and can significantly invert the concentration gradient.

Figure 6.

Concentration mean profiles: (a) ${Ra}_S=10^3$, (b) ${Ra}_S=2 \times 10^3$, (c) ${Ra}_S=5 \times 10^3$ and (d) ${Ra}_S=10^4$. Line colours from blue to red represent increasing temperature Rayleigh number.

Figure 7.

Concentration gradient calculated in the range $0.4\le z \le 0.6$.

3.2. Variation of fluxes with ${Ra}_S$ and ${Ra}_T$

The non-dimensionalised concentration flux is defined as the mean value of the vertical concentration gradient at the top and bottom boundaries:

(3.5)\begin{equation} Nu_S=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left\langle\left.\frac{\partial S}{\partial z}\right|_{z=0}+\left.\frac{\partial S}{\partial z}\right|_{z=1}\right\rangle\right), \end{equation}

where $\langle {\cdot }\rangle$ denotes averaging over time and horizontal directions. The definition of the heat flux $Nu_T$ is similar. Previous studies have analysed heat or concentration transfer in 3-D single-component RDC and concluded a nearly linear scaling law $Nu\sim \alpha _0 Ra$ at high Rayleigh numbers in the range $1750\le Ra \le 2\times 10^4$ with the linear coefficient $\alpha _0$ around $0.01$ (Hewitt et al. Reference Hewitt, Neufeld and Lister2014). However, it is not always the case when considering an additional aiding temperature gradient.

3.2.1. Numerical measurements

The variance of concentration flux with ${Ra}_S$ and ${Ra}_T$ is shown in figure 8. In figure 8(a), for the cases ${Ra}_T=0,10,40$, the linear relation can still retain for the ${Ra}_S$ range we explored and their curves almost collapse. For comparison, the linear relation $Nu_S=0.0096{Ra}_S+4.6$ given by (Hewitt et al. Reference Hewitt, Neufeld and Lister2014) is also depicted in figure 8(a). This indicates that when the temperature Rayleigh number is small, it merely influences concentration flux. However, for the cases ${Ra}_T=100$, $200$ and $300$, the variations with ${Ra}_S$ are clearly nonlinear, with an elevation at two smaller concentration Rayleigh numbers ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and $2\times 10^3$. In figure 8(b), the fluxes for two higher ${Ra}_S$ do not change significantly. However, for two lower ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and $2\times 10^3$, the fluxes increase linearly with ${Ra}_T$ and is nearly independent of ${Ra}_S$ when temperature Rayleigh number exceeds $100$. As a result, the fluxes change remarkably only when concentration Rayleigh number is small and temperature Rayleigh number is large compared with RDC without a temperature gradient. In other words, the flux increment is highly related to the density ratio. After rescaling concentration flux with the effective Rayleigh number ${Ra}_e$ in figure 9, we find that it decreases with density ratio and asymptotically attains a constant value. This asymptote will be explained by the scale analysis in the following section.

Figure 8.

The variance of concentration flux with (a) concentration Rayleigh number and (b) temperature Rayleigh number. The grey dashed line in (a) indicates a linear relation obtained by Hewitt et al. (Reference Hewitt, Neufeld and Lister2014) in 3-D RDC.

Figure 9.

The variation of (a) concentration and (b) heat flux rescaled by the effective Rayleigh number with density ratio. The grey dashed lines are (3.6a–d) given by scale analysis.

3.2.2. Scale analysis for concentration-dominant and temperature-dominant flow

Examine two contrasting scenarios with both high-${Ra}_S$ and ${Ra}_T$ characterised by the density ratio, with one corresponding to the concentration-dominant regime where $\varLambda \ll 1$ and the other to the temperature-dominant regime with $\varLambda \gg 1$. In the former case, the dominant driving forces for the flow are concentration, while in the latter, temperature takes precedence.

The concentration-dominant flow in the boundary layers is featured by the horizontal and vertical length scales as $x(\mathrm {or}\ y)\sim H$ and $z\sim \delta _S$, respectively. The scales of the velocity are $(U,V,W)$. The scale equivalences recommended by the governing equations are

(3.6a–d)\begin{equation} \frac{U}{H}\sim\frac{W}{\delta_S},\quad W\sim\frac{Kg \Delta \rho_S^\ast}{\mu},\quad U\frac{\Delta T^\ast}{H}\sim\kappa_T \frac{\Delta T^\ast}{\delta_T^2},\quad W\frac{\Delta S^\ast}{\delta_S}\sim\phi\kappa_S\frac{\Delta S^\ast}{\delta_S^2}. \end{equation}

The above equivalences can yield

(3.7a,b)\begin{equation} Nu_{S1}\sim\frac{\delta_S}{H}\sim {Ra}_S,\quad Nu_{T1}\sim\frac{\delta_T}{H} \sim {Ra}_S Le^{{-}1/2}. \end{equation}

Similarly, the scale equivalences for temperature-dominant flow are

(3.8a–d)\begin{equation} \frac{U}{H}\sim\frac{W}{\delta_T},\quad W\sim\frac{Kg \Delta \rho_T^\ast}{\mu},\quad U\frac{\Delta T^\ast}{H}\sim\kappa_T\frac{\Delta T^\ast}{\delta_T^2},\quad \frac{\delta_S}{\delta_T}W\frac{\Delta S^\ast}{\delta_S} \sim\phi\kappa_S\frac{\Delta S^\ast}{\delta_S^2}. \end{equation}

The above equivalences can yield

(3.9a,b)\begin{equation} Nu_{S2}\sim {Ra}_T Le^{1/2},\quad Nu_{T2} \sim {Ra}_T. \end{equation}

A straightforward assumption of the concentration and heat flux in a flow driven by both concentration and temperature gradients is that $Nu_S=\alpha _0({Ra}_S+{Ra}_T Le^{1/2})$ and $Nu_T=\alpha _0({Ra}_S Le^{-1/2}+{Ra}_T)$, which can be alternatively written as

(3.10a,b)\begin{align} \frac{Nu_S}{Ra_e}=\frac{(1-Le^{{-}1/2}) \alpha_0}{\varLambda+1}+Le^{{-}1/2}\alpha_0,\quad \frac{Nu_T}{Ra_e}=\frac{(Le^{{-}1/2}-Le^{{-}1}) \alpha_0}{\varLambda+1}+Le^{{-}1}\alpha_0. \end{align}

Using the aforementioned $\alpha _0 \approx 0.01$ and the fixed $Le=100$, then the above relation can be simplified to

(3.11a,b)\begin{equation} \frac{Nu_S}{Ra_e}=\frac{0.009}{\varLambda+1}+0.001,\quad \frac{Nu_T}{Ra_e}=\frac{0.0009}{\varLambda+1}+0.0001. \end{equation}

The above relations are also depicted in figure 9. The numerical measurements for concentration flux are in good agreement with the relation derived from scale analysis for all density ratios we have explored. However, the correlation for $Nu_T$ displays a significant discrepancy, particularly at low density ratios, roughly $\varLambda < 5$, and mostly at ${Ra}_T < 100$. This disparity arises because the linear scaling of flux and Rayleigh number is more precise at high-$Ra$ conditions, typically exceeding $10^3$, for single-component RDC (Hewitt et al. Reference Hewitt, Neufeld and Lister2014). The parameter space of ${Ra}_T$ investigated in this study does not fall within the high-$Ra$ range. Consequently, the heat flux measurements deviate from the scaling analysis relation at low density ratios.

3.3. Influence of domain size

To minimise the influence of horizontally periodic boundary conditions, the computational domain must be chosen carefully to ensure the presence of sufficient convective cells. To investigate the effect of domain size, we conduct a series of simulations at fixed Rayleigh numbers, ${Ra}_S=10^4$ and ${Ra}_T=100$, with six different aspect ratios ${A{\kern-4pt}R} =1/8,1/4,1/2,1,2$ and $4$. The aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of domain width in the $x$ direction to height in the $z$ direction. The simulation details are summarised in table 2 in Appendix A. Horizontal slices of concentration near the top boundary at $z=0.99$ are shown in figure 10(a–f) with increasing ${A{\kern-4pt}R}$. The narrow width in the $x$ direction significantly affects flow structures. For small aspect ratios, the flow is confined in the $x$ direction, leading to strips parallel to $x$ direction because of horizontal periodicity (see figure 10a,b). As the aspect ratio increases, flow structures evolve into more complex formations and convective cells are more visible. We also analyse the mean radial wavenumber for concentration at $z=0.9$ to examine its variation with ${A{\kern-4pt}R}$ in figure 10(g). Here $k_{rS}$ decreases with increasing ${A{\kern-4pt}R}$ and remains almost constant for ${A{\kern-4pt}R} \ge 1$. Considering the variations in flow structures and $k_{rS}$, we employ a computational domain of size $4H\times 4H\times H$ for all simulations. It is reasonable to conclude that this domain size is sufficient to capture the flow structures.

Figure 10.

Influence of domain width at different aspect ratios ${A{\kern-4pt}R}$. Horizontal slices of concentration near the top boundary at $z=0.99$ are presented in (a–f) corresponding to ${A{\kern-4pt}R} =1/8,1/4,1/2,1,2$ and $4$, respectively. The mean radial wavenumber for concentration slices at $z=0.9$ is presented in (g).

4.1. Validation for various realisations

In this study, the permeability fields are generated by a statistical random Gaussian field. It is necessary to prove that the numerical results are independent of realisations. To validate such an independence, we generate four realisations of permeability field under the same set of parameters with $l_r=0.1$ and $V_{DP}=0.3$. Numerical simulations have been conducted at Rayleigh numbers ${Ra}_S=10^3, {Ra}_T=0$ for these realisations. Simulation details are provided in Appendix A. Figure 12(a,b) show horizontal slices of concentration and the normalised permeability field at $z=0.9$, which exhibits similar structures regardless of realisations. The statistical concentration Nusselt number and r.m.s. velocity in figure 12(c) remain almost constant values for the four realisations. The maximum relative error, defined as the absolute error between the measurements and the mean value, divided by the mean value itself, is $1.48\,\%$ for $Nu_S$ and $0.76\,\%$ for $u^{rms}$. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that our results are independent of realisations of the permeability field.

Figure 12.

Four realisations of permeability field with $l_r=0.1$, $V_{DP}=0.3$ are generated and marked as $R1$ to $R4$. Flow structures and statistical results of these realisations at Rayleigh numbers ${Ra}_S=10^3$, ${Ra}_T=0$ are presented. (a,b) Horizontal slices of concentration and normalised permeability at $z=0.9$, respectively.(c) Variations of Nusselt number and r.m.s. velocity with realisations.

4.2. Single-component convection at ${Ra}_S=10^3$

First, we consider convection solely driven by concentration at a fixed Rayleigh number ${Ra}_S=10^3$. By varying $l_r$ from $0.1$ to $1.0$, and $V_{DP}$ from $0.1$ to $0.6$, the flow patterns and global responses vary accordingly. It is anticipated that higher permeability values are prone to manifest as heterogeneity strengthens. Meanwhile, the flow tends to preferentially traverse regions with greater permeability, where the resistance is weaker. As a result, the flow becomes more concentrated, and the velocity magnitude amplifies notably at these preferential locations.

Flow structures in our simulations shown in figure 13 are consistent with the above inferences. It is notable that velocity and concentration structures are largely influenced by both correlation length and heterogeneity intensity. When $l_r=0.1$ (see the left three columns of figure 13), i.e. for a small correlation length, large values of permeability are confined in small spots with diameter equivalent to $l_r$. If the porous medium is homogeneous, the concentration slice near the top boundary comprises hexagonal cells with distinct boundary lines. This pattern persists when $V_{DP}$ is small. However, as $V_{DP}$ increases, those boundary lines disperse horizontally and become coarser. The hexagonal convection cells are difficult to recognise when $V_{DP}=0.6$. Such coarseness indicates the intensified horizontal dispersion as heterogeneity strengthens for small $l_r$. To quantitatively describe this effect, we identify the boundaries of convection cells with regions where $S\ge \bar {S}+\sigma _S$ in the horizontal slice of concentration. This allows us to generate a binary field as shown in figure 14(b). Utilising the Matlab bwskel function, we extract the skeleton of above binary field in figure 14(c). By dividing the area of dark region in the binary field by the length of skeleton, we define a characteristic structure width $W_d$ to as a measure of horizontal dispersion effect for small correlation length. Its variation with $V_{DP}$ in figure 14(d) shows that the structure width generally increases with heterogeneity levels, except for one point $V_{DP}=0.1$ at the very beginning.

Figure 13.

Horizontal slices of permeability, vertical velocity and concentration at $z=0.9$. The left three columns correspond to $l_r=0.1$, and the right three columns to $l_r=1.0$. Each row represents a Dykstra–Parsons coefficient, ranging from (a) 0.1 to (c) 0.6. The Rayleigh numbers are ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=0$ for all simulations.

Figure 14.

In (a–c) the controlling parameters are set at ${Ra}_S=10^3$, ${Ra}_T=0$, $l_r=0.1$ and $V_{DP}=0.1$. (a) Horizontal slices of concentration at $z=0.9$. (b) Binary contour of (a) with dark region indicating $S\ge \bar {S}+\sigma _S$. (c) Skeleton of (b) extracted by the Matlab bwskel function. (d) Variation of structure width with $V_{DP}$ at ${Ra}_S=10^3, {Ra}_T=0$ and $l_r=0.1$.

When $l_r=1.0$ (see the right three columns of figure 13), the correlation length is larger than the typical size of convection cells in RDC in homogeneous porous media. The flow patterns are different from simulations with small $l_r$. Increasing $V_{DP}$ leads to the merger and reorganisation of convection cells, resulting in a coexistence of both large cells and small structures. Furthermore, the residence of small structures corresponds to regions with large permeability. This phenomenon is contributed to by the fact that the local Rayleigh number is proportional to permeability and comparably large over a wide range (larger than the given overall ${Ra}_S=10^3$), thus triggering more vigorous convection locally. Previous investigations (Hewitt et al. Reference Hewitt, Neufeld and Lister2014; Pirozzoli et al. Reference Pirozzoli, De Paoli, Zonta and Soldati2021; De Paoli et al. Reference De Paoli, Pirozzoli, Zonta and Soldati2022) into convection in porous media have revealed that convection scales become smaller as Rayleigh numbers increase. Hence, smaller structures emerge when $V_{DP}$ is large, owing to intensified convective motions occurring at locations characterised by higher permeability. This intensification also extends to the vertical velocity in these regions.

To provide a quantitative description of how permeability influences the velocity field, the correlation coefficient $C_r$ of permeability and magnitude of vertical velocity is calculated and presented in figure 15. The coefficient demonstrates a linear increase with heterogeneity and is largely unaffected by the specified correlation lengths. As the porous media exhibit greater heterogeneity, the correlation between permeability and the magnitude of vertical velocity strengthens, which is consistent with our expectations.

Figure 15.

The variation of correlation coefficient $C_r$ with $V_{DP}$.

Figure 16(a) shows the variation of $u^{rms}$ with correlation length $l_r$. When the heterogeneity is relatively weak, saying $V_{DP}=0.1 \sim 0.3$, $u^{rms}$ is nearly unchanged and close to that of the homogeneous simulation. Only when $V_{DP}$ is large does $u^{rms}$ remarkably deviate from homogeneous value. Yet it does not largely vary with the correlation length. For comparison, in figure 16(b), it is clear that $u^{rms}$ monotonically increases with $V_{DP}$, which is consistent with the fact that maximum permeability increases with $V_{DP}$. The three coloured lines roughly collapse, suggesting that the correlation length has minor effect on $u^{rms}$ compared with the strength of heterogeneity. In other words, the statistical velocity remains nearly unchanged regardless of how the permeability field with the same level of heterogeneity is spatially distributed.

Figure 16.

The variations of r.m.s. of velocity $u^{rms}$ with (a) correlation length $l_r$ and (b) Dykstra–Parsons coefficient $V_{DP}$. The Rayleigh numbers are ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=0$ for all simulations. The grey dashed line represents the corresponding value in homogeneous porous media under the same Rayleigh number.

Another important global response is the concentration flux at the upper and lower walls characterised by Nusselt number. In figure 17(a), $Nu_S$ shows non-monotonic variations with increasing heterogeneity for a fixed correlation length. For $l_r=0.1$, the flux is always larger than that of the homogeneous case and reaches the maximum at a moderate heterogeneity. For the other two $l_r$, the flux fluctuates around the homogeneous value as $V_{DP}$ increases. The $Nu_S$ decreases from a relatively large value from $V_{DP} = 0.5$ to $V_{DP} = 0.6$ compared with other $V_{DP}$ on the green curve. The relative variation, defined as the absolute error between current $Nu_S$ and $Nu_S$ in homogeneous convection divided by the homogeneous value, is $7.7\,\%$ at $V_{DP} = 0.6$. Although we are not able to disentangle the different variations between three explored $l_r$, the non-monotonic behaviour observed can be attributed to the ability of the flow to transport high concentration from top to bottom, which is quantified by the portion of area $\varOmega _{Su}$ containing both high concentration and downward velocity. Specifically, we calculate the total area in the $z=0.1$ plane satisfying $S^\prime > S^{std}$ and $u_z^\prime < -u_z^{std}$, and then divide it by the area of the plane. Here, $S^\prime$ and $u_z^\prime$ are the deviations from the horizontally averaged concentration and vertical velocity, respectively, and $S^{std}$ and $u_z^{std}$ are the corresponding standard deviations. The variations of $\varOmega _{Su}$ in figure 17(b) also exhibit non-monotonic behaviour, aligning with the trends of ${Nu}_S$ in figure 17(a).

Figure 17.

The variations of (a) concentration flux ${Nu}_S$ and (b) portion of area $\varOmega _{Su}$ containing both high concentration and downward velocity at $z=0.1$ with Dykstra–Parsons coefficient $V_{DP}$. The Rayleigh numbers are ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=0$ for all simulations.

4.3. DDC at ${Ra}_S=10^3$, ${Ra}_T=50$

In the last subsection, the driving force only consists of concentration difference. In this subsection, an additional driving force stemming from an aiding temperature difference is introduced, maintaining a fixed temperature Rayleigh number of ${Ra}_T=50$. The parameter $l_r$ varies from $0.1$ to $1.0$, and $V_{DP}$ ranges from $0.1$ to $0.6$. The permeability field for each $l_r$ and $V_{DP}$ remains the same as the previous subsection.

From our earlier discussion on DDC in homogeneous porous media, we know that for the specified driving forces of ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=50$, the predominant flow structures manifest as vertically parallel sheet-like formations. In figure 18, we present typical structures of vertical velocity and concentration considering permeability heterogeneity. Compared with those in the absence of a temperature Rayleigh number, we observe similar variations for different $V_{DP}$ values at a fixed $l_r$. Specifically, when $l_r$ is small (see the left three columns of figure 18), horizontal dispersion and coarseness of sheet-like concentration structures are noticeable. The parallel characteristic of flow structures seems to vanish as heterogeneity becomes strong. When $l_r$ is large (see the right three columns of figure 18), parallel sheets begin to interconnect and interact with each other with increasing $V_{DP}$. In addition, flow velocities are more pronounced in regions characterised by higher permeability.

Figure 18.

Horizontal slices of permeability, vertical velocity and concentration at $z=0.9$. The left three columns correspond to $l_r=0.1$, and the right three columns to $l_r=1.0$. The Rayleigh numbers are ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=50$ for all simulations.

In contrast to the non-monotonic variations observed in the concentration flux $Nu_S$ for single-component convection in heterogeneous porous media, the flux $Nu_S$ exhibits a consistent decrease with increasing $V_{DP}$ across all three correlation lengths, as shown in figure 19(a) for DDC. Furthermore, the flux considering permeability heterogeneity is generally lower than that of homogeneous convection under the same driving forces. Similar to the analysis in the absence of ${Ra}_T$, we calculate the portion of area with high concentration and downward velocity. The decreasing behaviour of ${Nu}_S$ is well captured by the decreasing $\varOmega _{Su}$ in figure 19(b), indicating that the flow becomes less effective at transporting concentration from top to bottom with greater heterogeneity, regardless of the correlation lengths.

Figure 19.

The variations of (a) concentration flux $Nu_S$ and (b) portion of area $\varOmega _{Su}$ containing both high concentration and downward velocity at $z=0.1$ with Dykstra–Parsons coefficient $V_{DP}$. The Rayleigh numbers are ${Ra}_S=10^3$ and ${Ra}_T=50$ for all simulations.

4.4. Qualitative comparisons with previous findings

Previous studies on permeability heterogeneity have primarily focused on the convective dissolution process, or the above-mentioned one-sided convection. While direct comparisons between their results and ours are not feasible due to different boundary conditions at the bottom, we can analyse the influences of various control parameters and gain valuable insights.

Specifically, Ranganathan et al. (Reference Ranganathan, Farajzadeh, Bruining and Zitha2012) and Farajzadeh et al. (Reference Farajzadeh, Ranganathan, Zitha and Bruining2010) investigated single-component convective dissolution in heterogeneous porous media, where a no-flux condition for concentration is employed on the bottom boundary. Our findings are consistent with their observations in that the correlation length has a minor effect on the dissolution rate (concentration flux in our study) compared with the heterogeneity level. In addition, flow pattern regimes differ at various correlation lengths and heterogeneity levels. For instance, the flow structures at small $V_{DP}$ are similar to those in the homogeneous case, while at large $V_{DP}$ and small $l_r$, the flow is more dispersive. However, we also noted some differences in the variations of the dissolution rate (concentration flux in our study) with heterogeneity levels, which we attribute to different boundary conditions for concentration at the bottom, resulting in a time-evolving transient process in their studies and a statistically steady state in ours. In addition, the coexistence of both large and small structures at large $l_r$ and $V_{DP}$ is not observed in their studies. This difference can be attributed to the dimensional differences between their 2-D simulations and our 3-D simulations.

Islam et al. (Reference Islam, Lashgari and Sephernoori2014b) studied convective dissolution with geothermal gradients in reservoirs with permeability variations. They found that CO$_2$ dissolution is enhanced with increasing both ${Ra}_S$ and $V_{DP}$, which differs from the variations of $Nu_S$ in our study. They also concluded that the geothermal effect has a minor effect on the overall dissolution process, which seems contradictory to our results. However, a detailed examination of their parameters reveals consistent results regarding the effect of the geothermal gradient, with the concentration Rayleigh number of $10^2\le {Ra}_S \le 10^4$, the buoyancy ratio of $2\le N \le 100$, and a fixed Lewis number of 310. The definition of $N$ is $N=\beta _c\Delta c/ \beta _T\Delta T= {Ra}_S/(Le{Ra}_T)$, which is exactly the reciprocal of the density ratio $\varLambda$ in our study. In other words, their density ratio ranges from $0.01\le \varLambda \le 0.5$. Using the relation $\varLambda =Le {Ra}_T /{Ra}_S$, the temperature Rayleigh number ranges from $0.0032\lesssim {Ra}_T \lesssim 16.13$. Our results, as well as those in Hu et al. (Reference Hu, Xu and Yang2023), show that within these ranges of density ratio and temperature Rayleigh number, the geothermal gradient has a minor effect on dissolution.