Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2017/iii/paper-332/1/solution

Take upwards and write , so that the unperturbed interface is , with carbon dioxide above and water below. Use the sharp-interface, incompressible flow version of Darcy's law, with constant porosity and permeability of a porous medium, no capillary pressure, and effectively unbounded layers. The distinction between Darcy flux and interface speed matters: the base flux is , since the printed is the speed of the interface. Thus the base pressure gradients satisfy
The mass density ordering is stabilizing, whereas injection of the less viscous fluid into the more viscous fluid produces the Saffman–Taylor instability.
For linear stability analysis, displace the interface by . Taking the divergence of Darcy's law shows that the perturbation pressure satisfies the Laplace equation. Decay away from the interface gives, for ,
The kinematic boundary condition and continuity of normal Darcy flux give
Meanwhile pressure continuity, evaluated on the displaced interface, gives
Eliminating yields the buoyancy-modified Darcy fingering dispersion relation:
Every nonzero wavenumber decays when , grows when , and is neutral at equality, where
The zero wavenumber is a uniform displacement and is neutral. Without a short-scale regularization such as surface tension, this model has no fastest-growing finite wavenumber: on the unstable side its growth rate increases without bound as increases. Finite layer depths would change the dispersion relation; none are specified here.
Taking and a year of days, the data give
The numerical paragraph supplies no porosity, so it cannot determine a unique numerical interface speed. If were instead intended to mean Darcy velocity, the numerical critical value would be , and the interface would move at . These two velocity conventions must not be conflated.

New to topics? Read the docs here!