Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- test_cases:seven [2014/07/29 17:56]
grenier created
+++ test_cases:seven [2014/12/19 11:44]
grenier
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-...
+Advection with constant velocity is here added to conduction and phase change. Analytical solution are proposed from Kurylyk et al. 2014 paper based on a reassessment of solutions by Lunardini. Although not physically realistic (constant velocity) these solutions can be used for benchmarking purposes: "Lack of fidelity to physical processes does not limit ability to serve as benchmark".
+The paper Kurylyk et al. 2014 describes at depth the analytical solutions available, the suggested benchmark cases and SUTRA code runs to compare with these solutions. One may refer to "Analytical solutions for benchmarking cold regions subsurface water flow and energy transport models: One-dimensional soil thaw with conduction and advection" by B. Kurylyk, J. McKenzie, K. MacQuarrie, C. Voss in Advances in Water Resources 70 (2014) 172–184
+Another presentation of TH1 by Barret Kurylyk was made during the kick off meeting ({{:test_cases:kurylyk-interfrost-th1_benchmark_design.pdf|Kurylyk}}).
+The recommanded benchmark 2 and 3 are included in the InterFrost project as two TH1 cases differing by the flow velocity considered. The recommanded benchmark 1 (Neuman case) is an option to complement the Lunardini case provided as T1.
+Initial and boundary conditions:
+{{ :test_cases:conditions.jpg?400 |}}
+Parameter set:
+{{ :test_cases:parametersth1.jpg?1000 |}}
+The analytical solutions of Kurylyk et al 2014 are contained in this {{:test_cases:mmc1.xlsx|file}}.
+The approach used for SUTRA code is summed up in two figures from Kurylyk et al 2014 as a source of inspiration. They provide the simulated domain and the approach for the freezing curve function in order to approximate the step function with a linear curve:
+{{ :test_cases:figkurylyk.jpg?300 |}} {{ :test_cases:freezingcurvesutra.jpg?400 |}}