ARMA 10-221

Analysis of sand production processes at the pore scale using the discrete element method and
lattice Boltzman procedures.
Raquel Quadros Velloso
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Euripedes A. Vargas Jr.
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Clemente J. Gonçalves
Senior Engineer, Research Division (CENPES), Petrobras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Armando Prestes
Research Engineer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Copyright 2010 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in
Salt Lake City, UT June 27–30, 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.
ABSTRACT: It is believed that coupled fluid-mechanical-erosional phenomena associated to sand production derived from
microscale based mechanisms as the disaggregation of particles from the rock matrix and their transport through the pores are best
described at the particle and pore level. The present work presents results obtained from a numerical simulation study of these
phenomena at the pore scale level. This study was carried out by coupling the discrete element method for the analysis of the
mechanical behavior of the rock and lattice-Boltzman method for the simulation of fluid flow at the pore level. Computer codes
were written to simulate both processes using the procedures described. One objective of the work was an improvement in the
knowledge of micromechanical processes leading to solids production. It is believed that such understanding will improve the
constitutive relationships necessary for sand prediction and used in continuum based methods of prediction, more amenable for
applications in real case situations. Rock properties and texture, boundary conditions (stresses and drawdown) in the
disaggregation and particle transport were considered. Preliminary results of the DEM-two phase LBM coupling are also
presented. Advantages and limitations of this micromechanical approach are also discussed.

Models that try to predict sand production rates and

1. INTRODUCTION
The different processes involved in sand production are
generally associated to deformation and failure of the
rock, rock-fluid interaction, and solids transport. Sand
production can be described by two mechanisms [1]:
1. Mechanical instabilities and localized failure of the
rock in the vicinity of the well due to stress
concentrations;
2. Hydromechanical instabilities due to erosion which
manifests in the disaggregation and particle transport
caused by seepage forces.
These two mechanisms are coupled as stress
concentrations lead to localized failure which in turn
leads to amounts of displaced particles transported by
the fluid. The displacement of particles leads to an
increase of rock porosity causing a readjustment of the
interparticle forces leading to a further increase in the
failed zone of the rock mass.
produced volumes are generally continuum based,
incorporating fluid-mechanical coupling and erosion
phenomena [1, 2, 3, 4]. For the solution of these
problems it is necessary that a constitutive relation for
the eroded mass of solids is established. Several
constitutive relations of this type have been proposed for
that purpose in order to reproduce laboratory test results.
Such relations are inspired in the filtration theories for
fines through a solid matrix. Besides the constitutive
relation for erosion (relating the erosion process to pore
flow), relationships between mechanical processes
(deformation and failure) with erosion have also to be
established. All the mechanisms that couple mechanical,
flow and erosion happen at the microscopic scale as
disaggregation of a particle from the rock mass and its
transport through the pore structure is best described at
the particle and pore scale. A better understanding of
such basic mechanisms may help substantially in the
improvement of the constitutive relations necessary for
sand production prediction.
Numerical modeling at the particle and pore scale is a
tool that may be useful in the study of the fundamental
mechanisms as described for sand production. One way
to carry out this modeling is by coupling a method that
treats particle movement and their interaction with fluid
flow at pore level. For the simulation of movement and
particle interaction, the DEM (Discrete Element Method)
[5] has been widely used.
As for coupling of DEM with flow, several approaches
can be followed. Perhaps the simplest way is to use a
Darcy based continuum model for flow superimposed to
a discrete particle code. Some implementations of this
type have been used for sand production studies and
hydraulic fracturing [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. An alternative
approach involves the local averaged solution of Navier-
Stokes equations developed by Anderson and Jackson
[11]. In this method, flow variables are solved in a cell
containing various solid particles and fluid-particles
interaction are considered through semi-empirical
relationships. Such methods have been applied to
fluidization studies [12, 13].
The simulation of flow at the pore scale in the real
geometry demands the solution of Navier-Stokes and
mass conservation equations in this domain. However,
the traditional computational fluid dynamics methods
can be very inefficient when dealing with complex
geometries as the ones encountered in porous media.
When flow is coupled with particle movement, these
solution procedures become even less efficient as it is
generally necessary that meshes have to be regenerated
along the simulation stages. Hu [14] and Maury [15]
present simulation of the coupling between particle
movements and fluid flow using finite elements in 2D,
with a low fraction of solids and without particle
interaction. Grof et al. [16] coupled DEM to a flow
simulator considering stationary flow conditions.
An alternative method for the solution of the flow
equations is the denominated lattice-Boltzmann method
(LBM) which has been successfully used in flow
simulations of complex geometries and demonstrated to
be more efficient than the more traditional methods
under such conditions [17, 18]. LBM has often been
used in one and two phase flow simulations in porous
media as soil and rocks [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29]. In these simulations the main objective was
the determination of permeability and saturation-
capillary pressure relationships of the porous medium.
Ladd [30] proposed the application of LBM in the
analysis of suspended particles in a fluid by coupling
LBM with the movement of the solid particles without
interaction amongst them. Cook and Noble [31] coupled
LBM to the DEM for the study of bed erosion in 2D.
Boutt et al. [32] applied the coupled system LBDEM to
the study of hydraulic fracturing problems.
A particular aspect that should be very relevant in the
process of sand production is related to capillary forces.
However, little consideration has been devoted to its
quantification in the microscale. Gili and Alonso [33]
coupled DEM with a pore network in 2D for the study of
unsaturated soils where capillary forces are calculated
through menisci established between two spheres.
Ibañez [34] used a similar approach in order to model
the behavior of unsaturated residual soils. Grof et al.
[16] introduced an approximate solution for the capillary
forces on a coupled simulation using the DEM with a
numerical solution (finite volume) of Navier-Stokes
equations in 3D.
One problem associated to the application of
conventional LBM to the solution of Navier-Stokes
equations in the case of incompressible fluids is the
effect of compressibility itself [35]. This effect becomes
particularly acute when imposing pressure gradients at
the boundaries. In the present work, the formulation
proposed by He and Luo [35], one that reduces the effect
of compressibility in conventional LBM was used. This
work presents initially results obtained with a computer
implementation of He and Luo’s formulation for LBM
coupled to DEM for one phase flow conditions. The
work also presents preliminary simulations using
coupled DEM-LBM for two phase flow conditions. In
both cases sand production conditions are focused.
2. THE METHODS
2.1. Solid particle motion
Motion of particles and their interaction are modeled in
the present work by the Discrete Element Method
(DEM). DEM was introduced by Cundall [36] for the
analysis of rock mechanics problems and later
specialized to granular media by Cundall and Strack [5].
In this method, Newton´s second law is used to describe
the motion of an individual particle. The equation that
governs the translation motion of an individual particle i
is:
dv i nci
mi = F f ,i + ∑ Fc,ij + Fg ,i (1)
dt j =1
where mi e vi are respectively mass and velocity of
particle i, nci is the number of contacts of particle i.
Forces acting on particle are fluid transferred force Ff,i,
gravitational force Fg,i, and contact forces between
particles i and j Fc,ij. The equation that governs the
rotational motion of particle i is:
dϖ i nci
Ii
dt
= T f ,i + ∑ Tij (2)
j =1
where ωi is the angular velocity of particle i, Ii is the
moment of inertia of particle i, Tij is the torque generated
by the contact forces between particles i and j and Tf,i is
the torque generated by the fluid force on particle i.
Motion equations (1) and (2) are integrated using a
central difference scheme. Details of expressions for
accelerations, velocities and displacements can be found
in Cundall and Strack [5].
Contact forces between particles are calculated through a
force-displacement law. The contact behavior depends
on the contact constitutive behavior. In the present work
a linear elastic constitutive behavior was adopted for the
contact. Contacts have bonds that are allowed to fail in
shear and tension.
2.2. One phase flow
One phase flow occurring in the pores of a porous
medium can be described by Navier-Stokes equations.
LBM is a technique for the solution of these equations.
In the present work the formulation proposed by He and
Luo [35] is used. This formulation reduces considerably
the errors due to compressibility in relation to the
conventional formulation of LBM, allowing application
of larger pressure gradients.
In the LBM, the problem domain is discretized by a
lattice where an evolution equation is given by:
f i (x + ei ∆t , t + ∆t ) =
∆t (3)
f i (x, t ) − ( fi (x, t ) − fieq (x, t ))
τ
where τ is the collision relaxation time, ∆t is time
interval, fi is the local pressure distribution function, ei
represents the lattice velocity and i = 1, .., b, b being the
number of discrete velocities of the lattice. In the present
work, D2Q9 (two dimensional, 9 velocities) and D3Q19
(three dimensional, 19 velocities) lattices are used. The
equilibrium distribution function is given by [35]:
fieq (x, t ) =
  (e ⋅ u ) 9 (ei ⋅ u )2 3 u 2   (4)
wi  p + p0 3 i 2 + − 
  c 2 c4 2 c 2  
where p0 is the initial (constant) pressure and
p = p0 + δp, δp being the pressure fluctuation, u is the
fluid velocity, wi are coefficients that depend on the
lattice and c is magnitude of the lattice velocity given
by:
∆x
c= (5)
∆t
∆x being the lattice spacing. After imposing initial and
boundary conditions, LBM equations are solved and the
macroscopic variables of flow can be obtained through
the following expressions:
b
p(x, t ) = ∑ f i (x, t ) (6)
i =1
1 b
u(x, t ) = ∑ ei fi (x, t )
p0 i =1
(7)
Viscosity and fluid density are given by:
c2  τ 1 
ν= ∆t  −  (8)
3  ∆t 2 
p ( x, t )
ρ (x, t ) = (9)
cs2
where cs is the sound velocity in the fluid and for D2Q9
and D3Q19 lattices is given by:
c2
cs = (10)
3
2.3. Fluidmechanical coupling
Coupling of flow processes simulated with LBM and
particle movement was initially proposed by Ladd [30]
with the objective of the simulating the particular case of
suspended particles. Contact between particles was not
modeled in that work. Cook and Noble [31]
implemented the coupling between DEM and LBM for
the solution of 2D fluidmechanical problems using the
immersed moving boundary scheme as proposed by
Noble and Torczynsky [37].
Coupling between fluid flow and particle movement
involves two stages:
1. Definition of the boundary condition imposed to the
fluid by the solid particles in motion.
2. Calculation and transfer of the drag forces from the
fluid flow to the solid particles.
In order to simulate the fluidmechanical interactions
between solid particles and fluid flow, LBM must be
modified in order to incorporate the boundary condition
of the solids in motion. The boundary condition at the
solid surface is one of no-slip, that is, the solid is
impermeable and the fluid adjacent to the solid surface
moves with the same velocity of the solid. The immersed
moving boundary condition, proposed by Noble and
Torczynsky [37], the one adopted in the present work,
modifies LB equation (Eq. (3)) in order to impose the
no-slip condition in the sites of the lattice covered by the
particles. The modified LB equation is then given by:
fi (x + ei ∆t , t + ∆t ) = fi (x, t ) −
∆t (11)
(1 − B(x, t ))( fi (x, t ) − fieq ( x, t )) + B(x, t )Ωis (x, t )
τ
where B is a weighing function given by:
 ε (x, t )(τ / ∆t − 0.5) b
B ( x, t ) = (12) N (x, t ) = ∑ N i (x, t ) (18)
(1 − ε (x, t )) + (τ / ∆t − 0.5) i =1

and ε is the solid fraction at the site, defined by fraction

of the volume at the lattice site occupied by the solid
(ii) Generation of surface tension
particle. In Eq. (11), Ωis is the additional collision term
that modifies pressure distribution functions at the lattice Initially, color gradient is determined:
nodes covered by solid particles in a way that the no-slip
ei
condition is imposed. This term is given by: g=∑
c
∑ [R j (x + e i ∆t , t ) − B j (x + e i ∆t , t )] (18)
i j
Ωis (x, t ) = f −i (x, t ) − fi (x, t ) +
(13) And with this value a perturbation is added to the
fieq ( ρ , u s ) − f −eqi (x, t ) populations which creates a surface tension:
where us is particle velocity at position x, in time t and –i  (e ⋅ g )2 1 
represents opposite direction to direction i. N i" (x, t ) = N i' (x, t ) + wi A g  i 2 −  (19)
 c2 g 2
In LBM, forces that are transferred to the solid particles  
can be determined directly from the summation of
A is a parameter chosen to set the magnitude of the
momentum transfer from the fluid sites to the solid
surface tension.
surface. In the immersed moving boundary scheme, the
fluid force in a particle is given by: (iii) Color redistribution in order to minimize the
diffusion from one color to the other
∆x3
Ff = − ∑ Bn ∑ Ωisei (14) At this stage, the method proposed by Latva-Kokko and
cs2 ∆t n i Rothman [40] was adopted:
n being the sites covered by the particle. Torque R ( x, t )
regarding the center of mass of the particle, xp, is given Ri" (x, t ) = N i" (x, t ) + ∆ i (20a)
R ( x, t ) + B ( x, t )
by:
B ( x, t )
∆x 3  s  Bi" ( x, t ) = N i" (x, t ) − ∆ i (20b)
Tf = − ∑ ( x − x p ) × 
 Bn ∑ Ω i ei  (15) R ( x, t ) + B ( x, t )
cs2 ∆t n  i 
R ( x, t ) B ( x, t )
∆i = β 2
N 0 ieq cos ϕ i (20c)
( R ( x, t ) + B ( x, t ) )
2.4. Two Phase Flow
The formulation for LBM used in the present work for being R and B the total number of red and blue particles
the case of two phase fluid flow follows the work of at one specific site, β is the parameter that provides the
Gunstensen and Rothman [38] and Rothman and Zaleski tendency of the two fluids to separate, φi is the angle
[39]. In that formulation, at each lattice site, two types of between the color gradient g and direction ei, and
fluid particles can coexist, the red and blue particles. N 0 ieq is given by Eq. (17) assuming that velocity u is
One defines Ri (x,t) as the red population at site x, and zero.
time t, velocity in direction i. Bi(x,t) can be defined
likewise for the blue fluid in a way that (iv) Propagation of populations to adjacent sites
Ni(x,t) = Ri(x,t) + Bi(x,t). The main idea is to separate
Ri (x + e i ∆t , t + ∆t ) = Ri" ( x, t )
the evolution of the population in four stages: (21)
(i) Collision Bi (x + e i ∆t , t + ∆t ) = Bi" ( x, t )
Wettability of a fluid in the solid phase is controlled by
N i' (x, t ) = N i (x, t ) −
∆t
τ
[N (x, t ) − N
i
eq
i ( x, t ) ] (16) only one parameter p ≥ 0, one that measures the red
color fraction at the solid sites. At the beginning of the
being: simulation, color at the solid sites is attributed with the
objective of calculating color gradients. If the red fluid is
N ieq (x, t ) = totally wetting then p=1, if it is partially wetting then
 1< p <0, and if both fluids have the same wettability then
(e i ⋅ u ) 9 (e i ⋅ u )2 3 u 2  (17)
p=0.
wi N (x, t ) 1 + 3 2 + − 
 c 2 c4 2 c 2 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Verification of the fluidmechanical coupling
Two examples are initially shown in order to
demonstrate the ability of the incompressible
formulation of LBM in order to correctly determine the
force transferred from the fluid to the solid particle. A
2D situation simulates a still particle while a 3D
situation simulates a moving particle.
The first example consists of a fixed disk located
between two parallel walls where one phase flow is
imposed as shown in Figure 1. This verification is
particularly relevant as it is representative of drag forces
transmitted to a particle in high solids concentrations (in
this case the walls are located near to the particle). The
parameters used in the simulations are: Reynolds
number = 0.0002; ∆x = 5.0E-5m; ∆t = 1.0E-4s; υ =
2.0E-6m2/s; ρ = 1000kg/m3; disk radius, a = 10∆x;
domain length, L = 20a. The purpose of the exercise was
to calculate the force transmitted by the fluid to the
particle.
Fig. 1. Geometry and boundary conditions of 2D example for
the verification of the drag force determination.
The results obtained with LBM were compared with the
results obtained by Richou et al. [41] who simulated the
same flow problem using finite differences. Figure 2
shows a comparison between the two procedures and a
good agreement was obtained.
Fig. 2.Comparison of the results obtained with incompressible
LBM and results obtained by Richou et al. [41].
In order to evaluate the motion of solid particles in the
lattice and the evaluation of forces transferred from the
fluid to the particles, a sphere immersed into an initially
still fluid is considered. A constant velocity is imposed
for the particle and a periodic flow condition is imposed
in the flow direction. For the case of a sphere moving
with constant velocity in a fluid, considering low
Reynolds numbers, Stokes' law provides the drag force:
Fd = 6πρυR(-up) (22)
Where R is the sphere radius and up is the sphere
velocity. Simulation data, in non dimensional values are:
up = 0.005; R = 5∆x; υ = 1/6; ρ = 1.0; ∆x = 1.0; ∆t = 1.0.
For these values Reynolds number is 0.15 and the drag
force is 0.0785. The lattice dimension is 60x60x60. An
evolution of the drag force is presented in Figure 3
where a satisfactory agreement is obtained between
LBM and the analytical solution, an error of
approximately 5 % was found for this lattice dimension.
Fig. 3. Comparison between the analytical solution (blue line)
and the numerical solution (red line) for the drag force. The
figure on the side shows the velocities and flow lines obtained
in the numerical simulation.
3.2. Simulation of sand production
In order to evaluate the implemented procedures for the
fluid mechanical coupling applied to deformation, failure
and erosion of granular media, 2D situations were
analyzed. Initially, 2D simulations were carried out in
order to evaluate the stress-strain-failure of synthetic
granular media.
Considering the limitations of LBM regarding pressure
differential that can be applied when using LBM, the
synthetic granular media used in the simulations have a
higher deformability and smaller strength than the real
materials. Parameters of the synthetic materials are
presented in table 1 and the stress-strain curves of the
biaxial tests are presented in figure 4. It is possible to
observe that the materials present a behavior compatible
with the one of geologic materials.
Table 1. Mechanical parameters of the materials.
Mat# Rmin Rmax µ KN KS σcontact τcontact
[mm] [mm] [-] N/m N/m [Pa] [Pa]
1 0.20 0.25 0.25 1.0e6 1.0e6 25.0 200.0
2 0.20 0.25 0.50 1.0e6 1.0e6 50.0 200.0
3 0.15 0.25 0.25 1.0e6 1.0e6 25.0 200.0
 pressure field and flow velocities for the case
M3∆P2S100 is presented in Figure 9.
Subsequently, simulation of sand production is carried
out. In the simulation stages carried out, the granular
medium is submitted to a confining stress equal in the
vertical and horizontal directions and a hole is
introduced at the right wall with concomitant application
of a pressure difference between the three remaining
walls and the hole (Figure 5). These conditions
(confining stresses and pressure differences) are
maintained constant during the simulation, the wall at
the left hand side (where the hole is) is maintained fixed.
In order to allow fluid connectivity in this 2D scheme,
the same approach used by Boutt et al. [32] was used,
one which considers a hydraulics radius of the solid Fig. 5. Boundary conditions for the sand production
simulations.
particles as a percentage of the mechanical radius. In this
case the hydraulic radius was taken as 80% of the
mechanical radius.

Fig. 6. Sand production curves for materials M1 and M2.

Fig. 4. Stress-strain behavior simulated with DEM for the

materials used in the sand production simulations.

The simulation of sand production are referred by the

acronym Mm∆PpSs where m refers to the material (table
1), p is the pressure gradient imposed: p=1 for ∆P/L =
0.8kPa/m, and p = 2 for ∆P/L = 1.6kPa/m, s is the
confining pressure in Pa. Figure 6 shows the solids
production along time. One observes that material M1
(less resistant) produced solids only when submitted to Fig. 7. Sand production curves for materials M1 and M3.
the highest confining stress (100 Pa) while in the other
situations a stable arch was formed.
A higher confining stress may produce a higher
deviatoric state of stress in the vicinity of the hole,
leading to the creation of a failed zone prone to be
eroded. Figure 7 shows the production curves obtained
with materials M1 and M3, the only difference between
them is the fact that material M3 has smaller grain sizes
and it is more non-uniform than M1. The production rate
of material M3 was the highest encountered for the two
simulated cases. Figure 8 shows the domain at the final
stages of simulation in the two cases: a stable arch Fig. 8. Final stages of simulations M3∆P2SC100 (left hand
(M2∆P2S080), solids produced (M3∆P2S100). The side) and M1∆P2SC080 (right hand side). In the back of
image, the pressure field is plotted. (in Pa).
 Fig. 9. Final stages of simulation M3∆P2SC100. On the left
hand side the velocity field [m/s] is plotted and on the right
hand side the pressure field [Pa] is plotted. Some solid
particles have been erased for a better visualization of the
fields.
3.3. Capillary force simulation
This section focuses on a particular aspect relevant to
solids production which is the capillary force generated
by the presence of various fluid phases inside the pores.
The results try to demonstrate the ability of LBM in
simulating correctly the capillary force that appears in a
meniscus between solid particles. The example consists
in two fixed solid spheres surrounded by a non-wetting
fluid and having an amount of a wetting fluid at their
contact. Simulation using LBM proceeds until a
permanent and stable condition is reached (figure 10).
The capillary forces determined with two phase LBM
were compared with an analytical solution presented by
Gili and Alonso [33] for the capillary force generated by
the meniscus between the two spheres (figure 11). One
notices that the analytical solution is valid for wetting
angles up to approximately 50º. Figure 12 shows
meniscus evolution when a constant force is applied
upwards on the upper sphere. This force has a magnitude
larger than the capillary force generated at the meniscus
shown.
Fig. 10. LBM simulation results for equilibrium configurations
of menisci between two spheres.
Fig. 11. Comparison between the results obtained with two
phase flow LBM simulations and the solution presented in Gili
and Alonso [33].
Fig. 12. Meniscus evolution with particle motion.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The present work presented a methodology for the
fluidmechanical coupling between DEM and LBM in
order to simulate sand production problems in the
microscale. Considering one phase flow problems,
simulations were carried out varying the following
parameters: strength, boundary stresses, pressure
gradients and grain size. The incompressible LBM
formulation used reproduced well the forces transmitted
to a solid particle but, although able to apply pressure
differentials up to 50 times higher than values applied
using the conventional formulation, these pressure
differentials are not high enough to simulate real
problems.
Two phase flow simulations were carried out and the
results obtained suggest that LBM is able to correctly
simulate the action of the capillary forces on solid
particles. An advantage of two phase flow simulations in
relation to using analytical solutions is that it is not
limited to particles of regular geometries or low wetting
angles. Preliminary results concerning DEM-LBM
coupling for two phase problems were presented.
The main advantages of LBM are its ability to simulate
different mechanisms in the microscale as the
determination of drag forces and capillary forces, both
relevant to the simulation of sand production problems.
This way, LBM coupled to DEM appears to be an
adequate tool for the understanding and verification of
stress-strain x failure x flow x erosion constitutive
relations.
LBM is not, however, without problems and what could
be considered as its limitations at present are:
1. Relatively low pressure differentials can be imposed
in the simulations. This limitation precludes the adoption
of strength parameters for the materials compatible to
real geologic materials.
2. High computational costs. This however is a common
feature of microscale simulations. One should observe,
however, that numerical implementation of DEM-LBM
coupling is prone to parallelization. Also, LBM can be
considered as a rigorous method, especially when
dealing with two-phase flow, free from simplifications
and it is understandable that it may be slower that other
methods that adopt simplifications.
Despite the shortcomings stated above, one should note
that the use of a coupled DEM-LBM as proposed in the
present work for sand production simulations is not to
solve real scale problems but to evaluate and even
suggest macroscopic constitutive relations to be used in
more conventional simulators.
REFERENCES
1. Vardoulakis, I., M. Stavropoulou, P. Papanastasiou.
1996. Hydro-mechanical aspects of the sand production
problem. Transport in Porous Media 22: 225-244.
2. Papamichos, E., I. Vardoulakis, J. Tronvoll, A.
Skærstein. 2001. Volumetric sand production model
and experiment. Int. J. Num. An. Meth. Geomech. 25:
789-808.
3. Wang, J. 2003. Mathematical and Numerical Modeling
of Sand Production as a Coupled Geomechanics-
Hydrodynamics Problem. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Calgary.
4. Detournay, C., C. Tan, B. Wu. 2006. Modeling the
mechanism and rate of sand production using FLAC. In
Proc. of the 4th Int. FLAC Symp. on Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics, Madrid. Paper No. 08-10.
R. Hart and P. Varona, Eds.
5. Cundall, P.A., O.D.L. Strack. 1979. A discrete
numerical model for granular assemblies. Géothecnique
29(1): 47-65.
6. O'Connor, R.M., J.R. Torczynski, D.S. Preece, J.T.
Klosek, J.R. Williams. 1997. Discrete element
modeling of sand production. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min.
Sci. 34: paper No. 231.
7. Dorfmann, A., L. Rothenburg, M.S. Bruno. 1997.
Micromechanical modeling of sand production and
arching effects around a cavity. Int. J. Rock Mech. &
Min. Sci. 34: paper No. 068.
8. Preece, D.S, R.P. Jensen, E.D. Perkins, J.R. Williams.
1999. Sand production modeling using superquadric
discrete elements and coupling of fluid flow and
particle motion. Rock Mechanics for Industry.
9. Bruno, M.S., A. Dorfmann, K. Lao. 2001. Coupled
particle and fluid flow modeling of fracture and slurry
injection in weakly consolidated granular media. Rock
Mechanics in the National Interest.
10. Liming, L., E. Papamichos, P. Cerasi. 2006.
Investigation of sand production mechanisms using
DEM with fluid flow. In Proc. Int. Symp. ISRM, Eurock
2006, Liège, Belgium, 9-12 May 2006.
11. Anderson, T.B., R. Jackson, R.. 1967. A fluid
mechanical description of fluidized beds: equations of
motion. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 6: 527-539.
12. Xu, B.H., A.B. Yu, A.B. 1997. Numerical simulation of
the gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed by combining
discrete particle method with computational fluid
dynamics. Chem. Eng. Sci. 52(16): 2785-2809.
13. Di Renzo, A., F.P. Di Maio. 2007. Homogeneous and
bubbling fluidization regimes in DEM-CFD
simulations:Hydrodynamics stability of gas and liquid
fluidized beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62: 116-130.
14. Hu, H.H. 1996. Direct simulation of flows of solid-
liquid mixtures. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22(2): 335-352.
15. Maury, B. 1999. Direct simulations of 2D fluid-particle
flows in biperiodic domains. J. Comp. Physics 156:
325-351.
16. Grof, Z., J. Cook, C.J. Lawrence, F. Štěpánek. 2009.
The interactiom between small clusters of cohesive
particles and laminar flow: Coupled DEM/CFD
approach. J. Petr. Sci. Eng. 66: 24-32.
17. Bernsdorf, J., F. Durst, M. Schäfer. 1999. Comparison
of cellular automata and finite volume techniques for
simulation of incompressible flows in complex
geometries. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 29: 251-264.
18. Geller, S., M. Krafczyk, J. Tölke, S. Turek, J. Hron.
2006. Benchmark computations based on lattice-
Boltzmann, finite element and finite volume methods
for laminar flows. Computers & Fluids 35: 888-897.
19. Gunstensen, A.K., D. Rothman. 1993. Lattice-
Boltzmann studies of immiscible two-phase flow
trough porous media. J. Geoph. Res. 98(B4): 6431-
6441.
20. Ferreol, B., D.H. Rothman. 1995. Lattice-Boltzmann
simulations of flow through Fontainebleau sandstone.
Transport in Porous Media 20: 3-20.
21. Martys, N., H. Chen, H. 1996. Simulation of
multicomponent fluids in complex three-dimensional
geometries by the lattice Boltzmann method. Phys. Rev.
E 53: 743-750.
22. Olson, J.F., D. Rothman. 1997. Two-fluid flow in
sedimentary rock: simulation, transport and complexity.
J. Fluid Mech. 341: 343-370.
23. Hazlett, R.D., S.Y. Chen, W.E. Soll. 1998. Wettability 37. Noble, D.R., J.R. Torczynsky. 1998. A lattice-
and rate effects on immiscible displacement: Lattice Boltzmann method for partially saturated computational
Boltzmann simulation in microtomographic images of cells. Int. J. Modern Phys. C 9(8): 1189-1201.
reservoir rocks. J. Petr. Sci. Eng. 20: 167-175.
38. Gunstensen, A.K., D.H. Rothman. 1991. Lattice
24. Keehm, Y. 2003. Computational Rock Physics: Boltzmann model for immiscicle fluids. Phys. Rev. A
Transport Properties in Porous Media and 43(8): 4320-4327.
Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.
39. Rothman, D.H., S. Zaleski. 2004. Lattice-Gas cellular
25. Kutay, M.E., A.H. Aydilek, E. Masad. 2006. Automata. 1st paperback ed. Cambridge. Cambrige
Laboratory validation of lattice Boltzmann method for University Press.
modeling pore-scale flow in granular materials.
40. Latva-Kokko, M., D.H. Rothman. 2005. Diffusion
Computers and Geotechnics 33: 381-395.
properties of gradient-based lattice Boltzmann models
26. Ramstad, T., P.-E. Øren, S. Bakke. 2009. Simulation of of immiscible fluids. Phys. Rev. E 71: 056702.
two-phase flow in reservoir rocks using a lattice
41. Richou, A.B., A. Ambari, J.K. Nacin. 2004. Drag force
Boltzmann method. In Prec. SPE Annual Tech. Conf.
on a circular cylinder midway between two parallel
and Exhib. New Orleans, Lousiana, USA, 4-7 October
plates at very low Reynolds numbers - Part 1: Poiseuille
2009. SPE124617.
flow (numerical). Chem. Eng. Sci. 59: 3215-3222.
27. Pan, C., M. Hilpert, C.T. Miller. 2004. Lattice-
Boltzmann simulation of two-phase flow in porous
media. Water Resour. Res. 40: W01501.
28. Schaap, M.G., B.S.B. Christensen, M.L. Porter, D.
Wildenschild. 2006. Linking experimental capillary
pressure-saturation data with lattice Boltzmann
simulations. In Computational Methods in Water
Resources - XVI International Conference,
Copenhagen, Dinamarca.
29. Porter, M.L., M.G. Schaap, D. Wildenschild. 2009.
Lattice-Boltzmann simulations of the capillary
pressure-saturation-interfacial area relationship for
porous media. Adv. Water Res. 32: 1632-1640.
30. Ladd, A.J.C. 1994. Numerical simulations of particle
suspensions via a discretized Boltzmann equation: Part
I. Theoretical foundation. J. Fluid Mech. 271: 285-309.
31. Cook B.K., D.R. Noble. 2004. A direct simulation
method for particle-fluid systems. Eng. Comp. 21: 151-
168.
32. Boutt, D.F., B.K. Cook, B.J.O.L. McPherson, J.R.
Williams. 2007. Direct simulation of fluid-solid
mechanics in porous media using the discrete element
and lattice-Boltzmann methods. J. Geoph. Res. 112:
B10209.
33. Gili, J.A., Alonso, E.E. 2002. Microstructural
deformation mechanisms of unsaturated granular soils.
Int. J. Numer. Ana. Meth. Geomech. 26:433-468.
34. Ibañez, J.P. 2008. Discrete micromechanical modeling
of residual soils. 394p. PhD. Thesis. PUC/Rio. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil (in Portuguese).
35. He, X., L.-S. Luo. 1997. Lattice Boltzmann Model for
Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equation. J. Stat.
Physics 88(3/4): 927-944.
36. Cundall, P.A. 1971. A computer model for simulating
progressive, large scale movements in blocky rock
systems. In Proc. Symp. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., Nancy 2,
No.8.