### [EFM2] new example results, reworked exercise

parent 76843d61
 ... ... @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ active. Activate by clicking somewhere in the window.\\ On the command line in window 1 type\\ {\em cd /temp/EFM2-2015/ex1 }\\ {\em cd /temp/efm2019/ex1 }\\ \vspace{0.1cm} {\bfseries ... set the model parameters:}\\ ... ...
 ... ... @@ -2,36 +2,36 @@ \begin{enumerate} \item What are the driving forces for the movement of the contaminant?\\[1ex] {\em The piezometric head gradient induces flow from high to low potential.} \item What other physical processes or parameters influence the transport?\\[1ex] {\em The Darcy velocity q is determined by the permeability k and the dynamic viscosity $\mu$. A high permeability and a low viscosity lead to high velocities. However, the velocity that determines the advective transport of the contaminant is the seepage velocity $v= q / \phi$.\\ Dispersion and diffusion cause a smoothing of the concentration front, depending on the concentration gradient and the seepage velocity.} \item What parameters do you have to change and how in order to make it more difficult for the contaminant to enter $\Omega _2$? Use the model to answer the question. In section \ref{prop_paramI} the current values of properties and parameters of the model of the one-phase system are listed.\\[1ex] {\em By reducing the permeability $k_2$, the advective transport into the lense gets weaker. However, there is still a certain amount of the contaminant entering the lense. into the lense gets weaker. However, there is still a certain amount of the contaminant entering the lense. If one would reduce additionally the dispersivity $\alpha$ and the diffusion coefficient $D_m$, even less contaminant would be transported into the lense. For the unrealistically small values $k_2 \approx 10^{-25} [m^2]$, If one would reduce additionally the dispersivity $\alpha$ and the diffusion coefficient $D_m$, even less contaminant would be transported into the lense. For the unrealistically small values $k_2 \approx 10^{-25} [m^2]$, $\alpha _l \approx 10^{-6} [m]$, $\alpha _t \approx 10^{-7} [m]$ and $D_m \approx 10^{-20} [m]$, contaminant is still entering the lense. Here also the numerical diffusion comes into play again, i.e., if there is a $v_z \neq 0$ the numerical diffusion transports contaminant into the lense.} \item What remediation techniques would you suggest to remove the dissolved \item What remediation techniques would you suggest to remove the dissolved contaminant? What advantages / disadvantages does the proposed method have?\\[1ex] {\em A "pump and treat" technique is suggested. This method is feasible if the advective transport is the determining transport mechanism. An advantage is that it is relatively simple. The disadvantage is that the {\em A "pump and treat" technique is suggested. This method is feasible if the advective transport is the determining transport mechanism. An advantage is that it is relatively simple. The disadvantage is that the total remediation time might be very long (due to the low permeability lense) before all contaminant is removed. This implicates high operating costs. A possibility to enhance the remediation process could be to stimulate A possibility to enhance the remediation process could be to stimulate the biodegradation of the contaminant.} \end{enumerate} \subsection{Conclusion} ... ... @@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ \item The porosity, in contrast to the permeability, does not has such a big influence, mainly because the difference can be at maximum one whereas the permeabilities can differ by orders of magnitude. \end{itemize} \begin{figure}\centering \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/result1.png} \caption{K$_{\mathrm{fine}}$=0.3e-12 m$^2$, K$_{\mathrm{coarse}}$=5.89912e-11 m$^2$, $\Phi=0.5$, $\Delta p= 0.1$ bar, infiltration rate=0.5 kg/(m$^2$s), infiltration end time=30000 s, time=64684 s} \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/result_original.png} \caption{Simulation result for N$_2$ molefractions for original parameter: K$_{\mathrm{fine}}$=3.1e-11 m$^2$, K$_{\mathrm{coarse}}$=3.1e-10 m$^2$, $\Phi_{\mathrm{fine}}=0.1$, $\Phi_{\mathrm{coarse}}=0.2$, $\Delta p= 0.01$ bar, infiltration rate=0.4 kg/(m$^2$s), infiltration end time=5000 s, time=4055 s} \end{figure} \begin{figure}\centering \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/result2.png} \caption{K$_{\mathrm{fine}}$=0.3e-11 m$^2$, K$_{\mathrm{coarse}}$=5.89912e-11 m$^2$, $\Phi_1=0.5$, $\Phi_2=0.4$, $\Delta p= 0.1$ bar, infiltration~rate=0.5~kg/(m$^2$s), infiltration end time=20000 s, time=31984 s} \includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{pics/result_100LessPerm.png} \caption{Simulation result for N$_2$ molefractions for decreased fine lens permeability: K$_{\mathrm{fine}}$=3.1e-13 m$^2$, K$_{\mathrm{coarse}}$=3.1e-10 m$^2$, $\Phi_{\mathrm{fine}}=0.1$, $\Phi_{\mathrm{coarse}}=0.2$, $\Delta p= 0.01$ bar, infiltration rate=0.4 kg/(m$^2$s), infiltration end time=5000 s, time=4055 s} \end{figure} \clearpage

67.4 KB

28.4 KB

 ... ... @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ active. Activate by clicking somewhere in the window.\\ On the command line in window 1 type\\ {\em cd /temp/EFM2-2015/ex1}\\ {\em cd /temp/efm2019/ex1 }\\ \vspace{0.1cm} {\bfseries ... set the model parameters:}\\ ... ... @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ Change the parameters Name'' to lens2p'', InfiltrationEndTime'' to 5000'', and save the file before you leave the editor.\\ If you do not change the parameter Name'', your previous simulation results of the 1p2c part of the excercise will be overwritten! \vspace{0.1cm} {\bfseries ... start the simulation:}\\ ... ... @@ -193,6 +194,8 @@ You can do this either by changing the parameter Name'' in the file exercise {\em ./lens2pexercise1 -{}-parameterFile exercise1.input -{}-Problem.Name lens2p-highPEntry}\\ Additionally, in case you finished the exercise and want to have a look at the code at:\\ {\em cd /temp/efm2019/DUMUX/dumux-lecture/build-cmake/lecture/efm/1p2cvs2p }\\ \clearpage %%% Local Variables: %%% mode: latex ... ...
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!