Differences

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

--- test_cases:seven [2014/12/19 11:32]
grenier
+++ test_cases:seven [2014/12/19 14:33]
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".
+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 independant of temperature) 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. The recommanded benchmark 2 and 3 are included in the InterFrost project as TH1 cases (differing by flow velocities). The recommanded benchmark 1 (Neuman case) is an option to complement the Lunardini case provided as T1.
+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
-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
+A presentation of the TH1 Case by Barret Kurylyk was made during the kick off meeting ({{:test_cases:kurylyk-interfrost-th1_benchmark_design.pdf|Kurylyk}}).
-Another source is the presentation by Barret Kurylyk of these items for the kick off meeting ({{:test_cases:kurylyk-interfrost-th1_benchmark_design.pdf|Kurylyk}}).
+The recommanded benchmark Kurylyk et al 2014 Cases 2 and 3 are included in the InterFrost project as two TH1 cases differing by the flow velocity considered: Velocities of 10 and 100 m/yr should be considered.
+Benchmark 1 (Neumann solution) recommanded by Kurylyk et al 2014 is an option to complement the Lunardini case provided in the InterFrost project as T1.
-Main points are summed up below.
-Initial and boundary conditions
+**TH1 Test Case**
-{{ :test_cases:conditions.jpg?200 |}}
+Initial and boundary conditions:
-{{ :test_cases:figkurylyk.jpg?200 |}}
+{{ :test_cases:conditions.jpg?400 |}}
+Parameter set:
+{{ :test_cases:diapositive2.jpg?900 |}}
+The analytical solutions of Kurylyk et al 2014 are accessible here as as xls {{: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 |}}