Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Predicting air flow in calendered paper sheets from $\mu$-CT data: combining physics with morphology

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Combining cheap pore-network flow simulations with a few geometric pore-space descriptors yields substantially better predictions of air flux through paper, with different descriptors decisive for uncompressed and calendered sheets.

desk verdict A careful, transparent in-sample demonstration that geometric descriptors can correct PNM flux predictions, but the 'predictive power' claim is overreaching without any out-of-sample validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10606 v1 pith:K6J44F4R submitted 2025-06-12 physics.flu-dyn

Phillip Gräfensteiner , Andoni Rodriguez , Peter Leitl , Ekaterina Baikova , Maximilian Fuchs , Eduardo Machado Charry , Ulrich Hirn , André Hilger
show 5 more authors
Ingo Manke Robert Schennach Matthias Neumann Volker Schmidt Karin Zojer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn PACS 47.56.+r
keywords airpermeanceporenetworkmodelcomputationalfluiddynamicsgeometricdescriptorspower-lawregressioncalenderedpaperμ-CTimagingtortuosity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Air flow through paper is usually predicted either from a single easy-to-measure quantity like porosity or from expensive simulations, and this paper asks whether a cheap pore-network simulation corrected by a few geometry measurements can do much better. Using μ-CT images of uncompressed and calendered paper, it compares CFD-computed fluxes with six power-law regression models built from pore-network flux and descriptors such as geodesic tortuosity, specific surface area, and median pore radius. The central result is that adding the right descriptor markedly improves prediction accuracy, and the right descriptor is sample-specific: geodesic tortuosity for uncompressed paper ($R^2$ from 0.62 to 0.71), specific surface area for compressed paper ($R^2$ from 0.87 to 0.98). A second finding is that a descriptor strongly correlated with porosity can still add real predictive value, so high correlation does not imply redundancy.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a family of six power-law regression models of the form $v = c_0 x_1^{c_1} \cdots x_n^{c_n}$, made linear by taking logarithms and fitted by least squares to CFD fluxes. The fitted exponents on porosity $\varepsilon$, specific surface area $S$, mean and standard deviation of geodesic tortuosity $\mu(\tau)$ and $\sigma(\tau)$, median pore radius $r_{\max}$, and the PNM flux $v_{\mathrm{PNM}}$ are the quantitative measure of how much each quantity corrects the pore-network prediction. The PNM flux itself comes from a graph representation of the pore space whose local conductances are computed with an analytical conduit formula, so the regressions inherit the physics of the network model and add morphology on top.

What would settle it

Fit the same six regressions to experimentally measured Gurley fluxes instead of CFD fluxes, on cutouts aligned with the measured sheet positions. Because the prefactor $c_0$ can absorb the four-to-fivefold scale offset, the central claim predicts that the descriptor rankings should survive; if geodesic tortuosity stops helping for uncompressed paper or specific surface area stops helping for compressed paper, the CFD-as-ground-truth premise is the weak link. Repeating the CFD on a finer mesh with compressible flow would test whether the four-to-fivefold offset and the excluded cutout's implausible porosity disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is that pore-network (PNM) flux predictions can be corrected into close agreement with CFD reference fluxes by multiplying them by power-law factors in geometric descriptors of the pore space. For descriptor-only regressions, the uncompressed sample improves from $R^2=0.62$ with porosity alone to $R^2=0.71$ when tortuosity statistics are added; the compressed sample improves from $R^2=0.87$ with porosity alone to $R^2=0.98$ when specific surface area is added. When PNM flux is the base predictor, porosity as an extra factor raises the compressed-sample fit from $R^2=0.39$ to $R^2=0.89$. The paper further demonstrates that median pore radius remains useful even though it is strongly correlated with porosity, and that jointly fitted models lose the sample-specific gains, indicating that the corrections encode real microstructural differences rather than generic trends.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that CFD-simulated fluxes are the correct target, even though they run four to five times below the measured Gurley fluxes and one cutout was excluded because its simulated porosity looked like a mesh artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Corrected PNM fluxes give a computationally cheap way to map local air-permeance variations across many cutouts of a paper sheet, which full CFD cannot cover at the same cost.
  • The optimal correction descriptor is grade-specific, so a single universal porosity-permeability curve should not be assumed across different paper grades.
  • The compressed sample's poor PNM-only fit ($R^2=0.39$) and its rescue by porosity identify pore-throat and surface-area features that the simplified conduit model misses.
  • Strong correlation with porosity does not make a descriptor redundant, so feature screening by correlation alone can discard useful morphology information.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the fitted prefactor absorbs the four-to-fivefold CFD/experiment gap, the descriptor exponents are likely more transferable to real paper than the absolute predicted fluxes; refitting the same models to Gurley permeances would test this directly.
  • The same recipe—one fast network simulation plus a handful of image-based descriptors—could serve as a manufacturing proxy for local permeance, replacing case-by-case CFD on paper, filters, and gas-diffusion layers.
  • If compression shifts the decisive descriptor from tortuosity to surface area in paper, analogous processing-induced anisotropy in other fibrous sheets should be detectable by the same regression diagnostic before any tomographic segmentation is optimized.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses prediction of laminar air flow through thin paper sheets from μ-CT images, using two samples (uncompressed and calendered paper). The authors compute volume fluxes per cutout with CFD, approximate them with a pore network model (PNM), and then fit six power-law regression models that combine PNM fluxes with geometric descriptors (porosity, specific surface area, geodesic tortuosity mean/standard deviation, and median pore radius). Models are fitted separately for each sample and jointly for both samples, and are evaluated by in-sample R² and MAPE on log-transformed fluxes. The main findings are that adding geometric descriptors improves agreement with CFD relative to PNM alone or porosity alone, that the most useful descriptor differs between samples (geodesic tortuosity for uncompressed paper, specific surface area for compressed paper), and that a high correlation between two descriptors does not imply that one is redundant. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges the empirical nature of the regressions and the use of the same data for fitting and evaluation.

Significance. If the reported structure-property relationships survive out-of-sample testing, the work would be a practically relevant step toward inexpensive prediction of paper air permeance from tomographic data. The paper is transparent about the empirical status of the fitted laws, publishes all fitted coefficients in the supplementary tables, and carefully checks the sensitivity of PNM predictions to the conduit shape. The claim that descriptor correlation does not imply redundancy is interesting and falsifiable. However, the central evidence currently consists of in-sample fits to 11–12 cutouts with up to six parameters, so the significance of the descriptor-ranking conclusions depends on the cross-validation requested below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (27); Section 6.1; Tables S1–S3] The central claim that combining PNM fluxes with geometric descriptors 'significantly improves the predictive power' rests entirely on in-sample R² and MAPE. The paper explicitly states in §5.2 that the same data are used to fit and evaluate, and with 12 cutouts for uncompressed paper and 11 for compressed paper, models such as v(5) and v(6) contain up to six coefficients, so in-sample improvement is expected even if additional predictors are pure noise. In particular, the sample-specific conclusions about tortuosity versus surface area in §6.1 are based on R² differences of 0.70 vs. 0.71 and 0.97 vs. 0.98, which are well within the noise of fitting several competing models to roughly 11 points. I request leave-one-out cross-validation (or an equivalent out-of-sample protocol) for all models, with cross-validated R² and MAPE, and standard errors or confidence intervals for the fitted exponents. Without this, 'predictive power' is not established and the descriptor-relevance ranking may not transfer to new cutouts.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 2; Section 2.1] The paper treats CFD-computed fluxes as ground truth for air flow even though v_CFD and experimental Gurley fluxes differ by a factor of four to five. The regression prefactors can absorb a constant multiplicative offset, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that the offset is constant across the morphological range; if the CFD/experiment discrepancy depends on porosity or connectivity, the fitted descriptor exponents target a biased quantity. I ask the authors to quantify the CFD-versus-experiment relationship beyond medians and quartiles, for example with a pointwise scatter plot or a ratio-versus-porosity plot, or to explicitly restrict all claims to 'CFD flux' rather than measured air permeance. The exclusion of one compressed cutout for an 'implausibly large' CFD porosity (§2.1) is a related robustness concern, because a mesh artifact in one cutout raises the possibility of systematic mesh-induced bias in the remaining cutouts.
  3. [Section 2.1; Section 4.2] The targeted cutout design (eight cutouts near the mean porosity, two dense, two open) means the reported R² values are not estimates for a random sample of the paper sheet. The authors acknowledge in §4.2 that this design boosts the importance of other descriptors in explaining flow variation, but the in-sample model comparisons are still affected: the apparent success of a descriptor can depend on this stratified design. Please report results under a design-aware analysis, for example weighted R² or leave-one-group-out cross-validation where the three porosity strata are the groups, and state more cautiously that the descriptor ranking is specific to this stratified set.
  4. [Section 6.3, Figure 10] The generalization analysis in §6.3 fits a single model on the combined data and evaluates on the same two samples; this is still in-sample evaluation and cannot be read as evidence that the relationships generalize to other paper grades. The conclusion that 'the decrease in MAPE between v(1) and v(4) is consistent between both samples' should be rephrased as a statement about the fitted data, not about predictive generalization, unless an out-of-sample protocol is added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (27)] There appears to be a parenthesis error in the MAPE expression; it should read |log(v_CFD,k) - log(v_k)| / |log(v_CFD,k)| (or the percentage version).
  2. [Figure 5 and Section 3.2.3] The caption for Figure 5 assigns blue diamonds to the compressed sample and orange circles to the uncompressed sample, while the text in §3.2.3 assigns the colors the other way; please make these consistent.
  3. [Section 2.1] The word 'particurlarly' should be 'particularly'.
  4. [Section 6.1] The phrase 'mean absolute percentage MAPE' should be 'mean absolute percentage error MAPE'.
  5. [General notation] After Eq. (26), the notation for the predicted value log(v) is used without distinguishing it from the same symbol in Eq. (25); a hat or subscript would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central 'predictive power' claim rests on in-sample R^2; added descriptors improve the fit by construction, so the descriptor-relevance conclusions are not out-of-sample predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2 (fitting/validation) and Eq. (27); abstract]
    "However, due to the limited amount of available data, we always use the same data to fit the coefficients log(c0), c1, . . . , cn in Eq. (26) as we do to evaluate the statistics R^2 and MAPE defined in Eq. (27)."

    Abstract claims combining PNM fluxes with geometric descriptors 'significantly improves the predictive power of the pore network model', but this is evaluated by R^2/MAPE on the same 12/11 cutouts used for the least-squares fit of Eq. (26). Because R^2 is computed from that same fitted regression, adding a nested descriptor cannot decrease R^2; the reported jumps (v(3)->v(4): 0.39->0.89; v(1)->v(2): 0.87->0.98) are therefore guaranteed by the fitting procedure. The 'prediction' is the fitted value, not an independent forecast, and the sample-specific descriptor ranking (tortuosity vs surface area) rests on in-sample fit differences of 0.01 (0.70 vs 0.71; 0.97 vs 0.98).

full rationale

The only step I can exhibit as circular is the in-sample 'validation' protocol. The paper itself states that the same data are used to fit and to evaluate R^2/MAPE, and the reported improvements are properties of least-squares fitting of nested power-law regressions, not evidence of predictive power. This directly affects the central claim, so the score is 6 rather than lower. The correlation between CFD and experimental fluxes (factor 4-5) and the exclusion of one cutout are correctness/robustness concerns, not circularity. The self-citations to [11] and [16] provide context and descriptor definitions but are not load-bearing for the regression; the descriptors and PNM/CFD fluxes are computed in this paper. I do not see a self-definitional identity, imported uniqueness theorem, or renamed known result. The paper would need a leave-one-out or held-out evaluation before the descriptor-relevance conclusions can be called predictive.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities or forces. It relies on standard CFD and PNM modeling choices, a hand-chosen power-law regression family, and a set of empirical free parameters fitted to the CFD targets. The most consequential free choices are the regression coefficients, the pore-extraction parameters, the tortuosity radius cutoff, and the stratified cutout selection, all of which affect the quantitative conclusions.

free parameters (4)
  • Regression coefficients c_0...c_n for models v^(1)-v^(6) = e.g., uncompressed v^(5): log c0=8.3394, c_eps=-2.8884, c_rmax=0.22851, c_vPNM=2.5101 (Table S1)
    All model parameters are least-squares fitted to the same CFD data used for evaluation (Section 5.2).
  • SNOW pore-extraction parameters R and sigma = R=3, sigma=0.35
    Chosen iteratively in an 'iterative process' to keep the number of local maxima stable (Section S.3); a hand-tuned modeling choice that changes the network and hence PNM fluxes.
  • Tortuosity minimum pore radius = 1.5 micrometers
    Chosen so paths 'contribute to volume flow in a significant way' (Section 4.1, Geodesic tortuosity); no sensitivity analysis.
  • Cutout sampling design = 8 near mean porosity + 2 dense + 2 open per sample
    Stratified selection of 12 cutouts per sample (Section 2.1); this design shapes the observed correlations and R^2 values and is acknowledged by the authors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Steady incompressible Stokes flow with no-slip conditions applies in the pore space under the Gurley pressure difference
    Section 2.2.1, Eqs. (2)-(4), citing standard references; Reynolds numbers assumed small.
  • ad hoc to paper The pore space can be represented as a graph of pores and throats with cone-cylinder-cone conduits
    Section 3.2, Eq. (11)-(13) and Figure 3d; conduit shape choice changes PNM fluxes by factors 1.5-2 (Section 3.2.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The power-law regression form v = c0 * x1^c1 ... xn^cn is adequate
    Section 5.1; the authors state the fits 'do not suggest physically motivated expressions'.
  • ad hoc to paper CFD simulations are the ground truth for flow despite factor 4-5 offset from experiment
    Section 3.1 declares 'in the context of the present study, we consider the CFD-calculated fluxes as the ground truth'.
  • ad hoc to paper In-sample R^2 and MAPE are valid measures of predictive power
    Section 5.2 uses the same data for fitting and evaluation; no cross-validation or train/test split; MAPE formula in Eq. (27) also contains an apparent typo.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting air flow in calendered paper sheets from $\mu$-CT data: combining physics with morphology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6J44F4R

@misc{pith2026250610606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting air flow in calendered paper sheets from $\mu$-CT data: combining physics with morphology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6J44F4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10606}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting the macroscopic properties of thin fiber-based porous materials from their microscopic morphology remains challenging because of the structural heterogeneity of these materials. In this study, computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed to compute volume air flow based on tomographic image data of uncompressed and compressed paper sheets. To reduce computational demands, a pore network model was employed, allowing volume air flow to be approximated with less computational effort. To improve prediction accuracy, geometric descriptors of the pore space, such as porosity, surface area, median pore radius, and geodesic tortuosity, were combined with predictions of the pore network model. This integrated approach significantly improves the predictive power of the pore network model and indicates which aspects of the pore space morphology are not accurately represented within the pore network model. In particular, we illustrate that a high correlation among descriptors does not necessarily imply redundancy in a combined prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Slices of µ-CT data for uncompressed (a) and compressed (b) paper sheets (from cutouts 500 µm×500 µm×height). The solid and pore phase are depicted in black and gray, respectively. Since both types of (CFD and PNM) simulations performed in this study require spatially resolved 3D information of the pore phase, our common starting point is to predefine cutouts of the 3D stack of tomographic image data, where each cut… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Violin plots to compare the fluxes obtained experimentally by the Gurley method (purple, left axis) and the fluxes obtained from CFD simulations (gray, right axis) for a paper sample from [20], uncompressed, and compressed paper. To ease the comparison, plots of corresponding fluxes are superimposed at the common symmetry axis of the violin plot and a half of each violin plot is hidden. In each plot, the short horiz… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pore space before (a) and after (b) partitioning in distinct pore regions, where each pore region is represented by a vertex, and edges mark adjacent, connected pore regions. Analysis of the pore regions provides the positions of the pores, the diameters d1 and d2 of inscribed spheres of maximum diameter, the positions in which the pore regions touch and the largest Euclidean distance dth therein (c). Example for a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Axial-symmetric conduit with varying radius r(z) and cross-section C(z) along the z-axis. The inlet is at pressure p1 and the outlet at p2, respec￾tively. The diameter of the inlet and the outlet corresponds to the diameter dp of the inlet and outlet pore, respectively…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of the conduit shapes on the fluxes predicted by PNM for the cutouts of compressed (blue diamonds) and uncompressed (orange circles) paper. The fluxes obtained for half pore-throat-half pore conduits as shown in Figure 3d (horizontal axis) are compared to predic…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The values of the volume flow rates vCFD and vPNM differ by more than an order of magnitude. The actual difference in magnitude is determined, at least in part, by the choice of the conduit geometry, as explained above. Nevertheless, the flows predicted by PNM resemble…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatter plots visualizing the interdependence of geometric descrip￾tors for the cutouts of uncompressed (diamonds) and compressed (circles) paper sheets. The color coding indicates the values of the volume flow obtained by CFD simulations. Additionally, the correspondi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scatter plots of volume flow rates obtained by CFD simulations vs. the values predicted by the respective regression models. Separate fits of regres￾sion models have been determined for the data points of the uncompressed (or￾ange diamonds) and compressed sample (blue …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scatter plots of volume flow rates obtained by CFD simulations vs. the values predicted by regression models v (3) to v (6) (panels 9a to 9d) aiming at correcting the flow rate predictions obtained by PNM simulations. Separate fits of the regression model to the uncomp…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: collects the MAPE-values for all jointly fitted and separately fitted models, eval￾uated for both data sets of the uncompressed and the compressed sample. Bars with a light shading indicate the MAPE-values of the jointly fitted model, while the narrow bars with darker…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Torquato.Random Heterogeneous Materials: Microstructure and Macroscopic Proper- ties

    S. Torquato.Random Heterogeneous Materials: Microstructure and Macroscopic Proper- ties. Springer, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    L. G. Leal.Advanced Transport Phenomena: Fluid Mechanics and Convective Transport Processes. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  3. [3]

    T. J. Chung.Computational Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Succi, R

    S. Succi, R. Benzi, and F. Higuera. The lattice Boltzmann equation: A new tool for computational fluid-dynamics.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 47:219–230, 1991

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    X. Yang, Y. Mehmani, W. A. Perkins, A. Pasquali, M. Sch¨ onherr, K. Kim, M. Perego, M. L. Parks, N. Trask, M. T. Balhoff, M. C. Richmond, M. Geier, M. Krafczyk, L.-S. Luo, A. M. Tartakovsky, and T. D. Scheibe. Intercomparison of 3D pore-scale flow and solute transport simulation methods.Advances in Water Resources, 95:176–189, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Morgan and R

    D. Morgan and R. Jacobs. Opportunities and challenges for machine learning in materials science.Annual Review of Materials Research, 50, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    M. J. Blunt, B. Bijeljic, H. Dong, O. Gharbi, S. Iglauer, P. Mostaghimi, A. Paluszny, and C. Pentland. Pore-scale imaging and modelling.Advances in Water Resources, 51:197–216, 2013

    2013

  8. [8]

    S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke.Stochastic Geometry and its Applica- tions. J. Wiley & Sons, 3rd edition, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Jeulin.Morphological Models of Random Structures

    D. Jeulin.Morphological Models of Random Structures. Springer, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Ohser and K

    J. Ohser and K. Schladitz.3D Images of Materials Structures: Processing and Analysis. Wiley-VCH, 2009

    2009

  3. [11]

    Neumann, P

    M. Neumann, P. Gr¨ afensteiner, E. Machado Charry, U. Hirn, A. Hilger, I. Manke, R. Schen- nach, V. Schmidt, and K. Zojer. R-vine copulas for data-driven quantification of descriptor relationships in porous materials.Advanced Theory and Simulations, 7:2301261, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Neumann, M

    M. Neumann, M. Ademmer, M. Osenberg, A. Hilger, F. Wilde, S. Muench, M. D. Hager, U. S. Schubert, I. Manke, and V. Schmidt. 3D microstructure characterization of polymer battery electrodes by statistical image analysis based on synchrotron X-ray tomography. Journal of Power So...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Ademmer, P.-H

    M. Ademmer, P.-H. Su, L. Dodell, J. Asenbauer, M. Osenberg, A. Hilger, J.-K. Chang, I. Manke, M. Neumann, V. Schmidt, and D. Bresser. Unveiling the impact of cross-linking redox-active polymers on their electrochemical behavior by 3D imaging and statistical microstructure anal...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Dodell, M

    L. Dodell, M. Neumann, M. Osenberg, A. Hilger, G. Studer, B. Esser, I. Manke, and V. Schmidt. Quantifying local heterogeneities in the 3D morphology of X-PVMPT battery electrodes based on FIB-SEM measurements.ACS Materials Letters, 7:1914–1921, 2025

    1914

  7. [15]

    Whitaker

    S. Whitaker. Flow in porous media I: A theoretical derivation of Darcy’s law.Transport in Porous Media, 1:3–25, 1986

    1986

  8. [16]

    Neumann, E

    M. Neumann, E. Machado-Charry, E. Baikova, A. Hilger, U. Hirn, R. Schennach, I. Manke, V. Schmidt, and K. Zojer. Capturing centimeter-scale local variations in paper pore space viaµ-CT: A benchmark study using calendered paper.Microscopy and Microanalysis, 27:1305–1315, 2021. 25

    2021

  9. [17]

    S. R. Sternberg. Biomedical image processing.Computer, 16:22–34, 1983

    1983

  10. [18]

    Machado Charry, M

    E. Machado Charry, M. Neumann, J. Lahti, R. Schennach, V. Schmidt, and K. Zojer. Pore space extraction and characterization of sack paper usingµ-CT.Journal of Microscopy, 272:35–46, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Paper and board: Determination of air permeance (medium range) – Part 5: Gurley method

    ISO 5636-5:2013. Paper and board: Determination of air permeance (medium range) – Part 5: Gurley method. Standard, Geneva: Standard, International Organization for Standardization, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Leitl, E

    P. Leitl, E. Machado-Charry, E. Baikova, M. Neumann, U. Hirn, V. Schmidt, and K. Zojer. Joint distributions of local pore space properties quantitatively explain simulated air flow variations in paper.Transport in Porous Media, 148:1–22, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    P. H. Valvatne and M. J. Blunt. Predictive pore-scale modeling of two-phase flow in mixed wet media.Water Resources Research, 40:W07406, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    J. Zhao, F. Qin, Q. Kang, C. Qin, D. Derome, and J. Carmeliet. A dynamic pore network model for imbibition simulation considering corner film flow.Water Resources Research, 58:WR032332, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Aslannejad, S

    H. Aslannejad, S. M. Hassanizadeh, A. Raoof, D. A. M. de Winter, N. Tomozeiu, and M. T. van Genuchten. Characterizing the hydraulic properties of paper coating layer using FIB- SEM tomography and 3D pore-scale modeling.Chemical Engineering Science, 160:275–280, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Fischer, C

    R. Fischer, C. M. Schlep¨ utz, D. Hegemann, R. M. Rossi, D. Derome, and J. Carmeliet. Four-dimensional imaging and free-energy analysis of sudden pore-filling events in wicking of yarns.Physical Review E, 103:053101, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Bernab´ e

    Y. Bernab´ e. Gaseous flow through heterogeneous, partially connected networks of pipes. Scientific Reports, 8:14956, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Sohr.The Navier-Stokes Equations: An Elementary Functional Analytic Approach

    H. Sohr.The Navier-Stokes Equations: An Elementary Functional Analytic Approach. Springer, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    K. Xu, W. Wei, Y. Chen, H. Tian, S. Xu, and J. Cai. A pore network approach to study throat size effect on the permeability of reconstructed porous media.Water, 14:77, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    T. I. Gombosi.Gaskinetic Theory. Cambridge Atmospheric and Space Science Series. Cambridge University Press, 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    J. Zhao, F. Qin, D. Derome, Q. Kang, and J. Carmeliet. Improved pore network models to simulate single-phase flow in porous media by coupling with lattice Boltzmann method. Advances in Water Resources, 145:103738, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    I. M. Hutten.Handbook of Nonwoven Filter Media. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Schindelin, I

    J. Schindelin, I. Arganda-Carreras, E. Frise, V. Kaynig, M. Longair, T. Pietzsch, S. Preibisch, C. Rueden, S. Saalfeld, B. Schmid, J.-Y. Tinevez, D. W. White, V. Harten- stein, K. Eliceiri, P. Tomancak, and A. Cardona. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysi...

    2012

  24. [32]

    P. Leitl. Modelling the air flow through a paper web using computational fluid dynamics. Master’s thesis, Graz University of Technology, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Gostick, Z

    J. Gostick, Z. Khan, T. Tranter, M. Kok, M. Agnaou, M. Sadeghi, and R. Jervis. PoreSpy: A Python toolkit for quantitative analysis of porous media images.Journal of Open Source Software, 4:1296, 2019. 26

    2019

  26. [34]

    Soille.Morphological Image Analysis: Principles and Applications

    P. Soille.Morphological Image Analysis: Principles and Applications. Springer, 2nd edition, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    C. R. Maurer, R. Qi, and V. Raghavan. A linear time algorithm for computing exact Euclidean distance transforms of binary images in arbitrary dimensions.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 25:265–270, 2003

    2003

  28. [36]

    J. T. Gostick. Versatile and efficient pore network extraction method using marker-based watershed segmentation.Physical Review E, 96:023307, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Gostick, M

    J. Gostick, M. Aghighi, J. Hinebaugh, T. Tranter, M. A. Hoeh, H. Day, B. Spellacy, M. H Sharqawy, A. Bazylak, A. Burns, et al. OpenPNM: a pore network modeling package. Computing in Science & Engineering, 18:60–74, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Ioannidis and I

    M. Ioannidis and I. Chatzis. Network modeling of pore structure and transport-properties of porous-media.Chemical Engineering Science, 48:951, 1993

    1993

  31. [39]

    T. Sochi. Newtonian flow in converging-diverging capillaries.International Journal of Modeling, Simulation, and Scientific Computing, 04:1350011, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Akbari, D

    M. Akbari, D. Sinton, and M. Bahrami. Viscous flow in variable cross-section microchannels of arbitrary shapes.International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 54:3970–3978, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    X. Miao, K. M. Gerke, and T. O. Sizonenko. A new way to parameterize hydraulic con- ductances of pore elements: A step towards creating pore-networks without pore shape simplifications.Advances in Water Resources, 105:162–172, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Rodriguez de Castro, M

    A. Rodriguez de Castro, M. Agnaou, and J. Gostick. Predicting shear-thinning fluid flows in porous media using pore network modeling: Simulations and experimental validation. Transport in Porous Media, 149:453–478, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Holzer, B

    L. Holzer, B. Iwanschitz, T. Hocker, L. Keller, O. M. Pecho, G. Sartoris, P. Gasser, and B. M¨ unch. Redox cycling of Ni–YSZ anodes for solid oxide fuel cells: influence of tortuosity, constriction and percolation factors on the effective transport properties.Journal of Power ...

    2013

  36. [44]

    Barman, H

    S. Barman, H. Rootz´ en, and D. Bolin. Prediction of diffusive transport through polymer films from characteristics of the pore geometry.AIChE Journal, 65:446–457, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Neumann, O

    M. Neumann, O. Stenzel, F. Willot, L. Holzer, and V. Schmidt. Quantifying the influence of microstructure on effective conductivity and permeability: virtual materials testing. International Journal of Solid and Structures, 184:211–220, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Schladitz, J

    K. Schladitz, J. Ohser, and W. Nagel. Measuring intrinsic volumes in digital 3D images. In A. Kuba, L. G. Ny´ ul, and K. Pal´ agyi, editors,International Conference on Discrete Geometry for Computer Imagery (DGCI), pages 247–258, Berlin, 2006. Springer, Lecture Notes in Comput...

    2006

  39. [47]

    Holzer, P

    L. Holzer, P. Marmet, M. Fingerle-Straß, A. Wiegmann, M. Neumann, and V. Schmidt. Tortuosity and Microstructure Effects in Porous Media: Classical Theories, Empirical Data and Modern Methods. Springer, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    E. W. Dijkstra. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs.Numerische Mathematik, 1:269–271, 1959

    1959

  41. [49]

    Serra.Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology

    J. Serra.Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology. Academic Press, 1982

    1982

  42. [50]

    Holzer, D

    L. Holzer, D. Wiedenmann, B. M¨ unch, L. Keller, M. Prestat, P. Gasser, I. Robertson, and B. Grob´ ety. The influence of constrictivity on the effective transport properties of porous 27 layers in electrolysis and fuel cells.Journal of Materials Science, 48:2934–2952, 2013

    2013

  43. [51]

    M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, J. Neter, and W. Li.Applied Linear Statistical Models. McGraw-Hill, 5th edition, 2004

    2004

  44. [52]

    Hommel, E

    J. Hommel, E. Coltman, and H. Class. Porosity–permeability relations for evolving pore space: A review with a focus on (bio-)geochemically altered porous media.Transport in Porous Media, 124:589–629, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    R. Gebart. Permeability of unidirectional reinforcements for RTM.Journal of Composite Materials, 26:1100–1133, 1992

    1992

  46. [54]

    Nabovati, E

    A. Nabovati, E. W. Llewellin, and A. C. M. Sousa. A general model for the permeability of fibrous porous media based on fluid flow simulations using the lattice Boltzmann method. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 40:860–869, 2009

    2009

  47. [55]

    Matlab, 2022

    The MathWorks Inc. Matlab, 2022. Version: 9.12 (R2022a)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Spiess and N

    A.-N. Spiess and N. Neumeyer. An evaluation ofR 2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in pharmacological and biochemical research: A Monte Carlo approach.BMC Pharmacology, 10:6, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    H. Peng, F. Long, and C. Ding. Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27:1226–1238, 2005

    2005

  50. [58]

    J. H. van der Linden, G. A. Narsilio, and A. Tordesillas. Machine learning framework for analysis of transport through complex networks in porous, granular media: A focus on permeability.Physical Review E, 94, 2016. Statements and Declarations F unding.The authors appreciate f...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.