4.5 Article

Simplified contaminant source depletion models as analogs of multiphase simulators

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY
卷 97, 期 3-4, 页码 87-99

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2008.01.001

关键词

DNAPL; source depletion models; streamtube modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four simplified dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source depletion models recently introduced in the literature are evaluated for the prediction of long-term effects of source depletion under natural gradient flow. These models are simple in form (a power function equation is an example) but are shown here to serve as mathematical analogs to complex multiphase flow and transport simulators. The spill and subsequent dissolution of DNAPLs was simulated in domains having different hydrologic characteristics (variance of the log conductivity field=0.2, 1 and 3) using the multiphase flow and transport simulator UTCHEM. The dissolution profiles were fitted using four analytical models: the equilibrium streamtube model (ESM), the advection dispersion model (ADM), the power law model (PLM) and the Damkohler number model (DaM). All four models, though very different in their conceptualization, include two basic parameters that describe the mean DNAPL mass and the joint variability in the velocity and DNAPL distributions. The variability parameter was observed to be strongly correlated with the variance of the log conductivity field in the ESM and ADM but weakly correlated in the PLM and DaM. The DaM also includes a third parameter that describes the effect of rate-limited dissolution, but here this parameter was held constant as the numerical simulations were found to be insensitive to local-scale mass transfer. All four models were able to emulate the characteristics of the dissolution profiles generated from the complex numerical simulator, but the one-parameter PLM fits were the poorest, especially for the low heterogeneity case. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据