Analytical Solutions for Benchmarking Cold Regions Subsurface Water Flow and Energy Transport Models: One-Dimensional Soil Thaw
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Advances in Water Resources 70 (2014) 172–184 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Advances in Water Resources journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advwatres Analytical solutions for benchmarking cold regions subsurface water flow and energy transport models: One-dimensional soil thaw with conduction and advection ⇑ Barret L. Kurylyk a, , Jeffrey M. McKenzie b, Kerry T.B. MacQuarrie a, Clifford I. Voss c a Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada b Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada c U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: Numerous cold regions water flow and energy transport models have emerged in recent years. Dissimi- Received 11 February 2014 larities often exist in their mathematical formulations and/or numerical solution techniques, but few Received in revised form 11 May 2014 analytical solutions exist for benchmarking flow and energy transport models that include pore water Accepted 13 May 2014 phase change. This paper presents a detailed derivation of the Lunardini solution, an approximate Available online 21 May 2014 analytical solution for predicting soil thawing subject to conduction, advection, and phase change. Fifteen thawing scenarios are examined by considering differences in porosity, surface temperature, Darcy veloc- Keywords: ity, and initial temperature. The accuracy of the Lunardini solution is shown to be proportional to the Analytical solutions Stefan number. The analytical solution results obtained for soil thawing scenarios with water flow and Thawing front Phase change advection are compared to those obtained from the finite element model SUTRA. Three problems, two Thermohydraulic models involving the Lunardini solution and one involving the classic Neumann solution, are recommended as Stefan problem standard benchmarks for future model development and testing. Freezing and thawing Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction the influence of design alternatives for cold regions infrastructure [31], and to investigate hypothetical hydrological processes on A number of powerful simulators of cold regions subsurface Mars [2,32]. water flow and energy transport have emerged in recent years These cold regions models are characterized by diversity in both e.g., [1–16]. These models, most of which are briefly described by their nomenclature and underlying theory due to the differing Kurylyk and Watanabe [17], simulate subsurface energy exchange backgrounds of researchers in this multi-disciplinary field. These via conduction, advection and pore water phase change and variations elicit the demand for benchmarking problems to test account for reduction in hydraulic conductivity due to pore ice for- the physics and numerical schemes of these models and to conduct mation e.g., [17–21]. Researchers have employed these models to inter-code comparisons. These benchmarking problems can be quantify the subsurface hydrological and thermal influences of cli- formulated from existing analytical solutions or developed from mate change in cold regions. Simulated and/or observed climate well-posed numerical problems [4]. For example, groundwater change impacts in cryogenic soils include permafrost degradation, flow and energy transport models that include the dynamic active layer expansion, talik formation, dormant aquifer activation, freeze–thaw process have been tested against analytical solutions, and changes to the timing, magnitude, and temperature of ground- such as the Neumann or Stefan solutions [33], which predict the water recharge and discharge [22–29]. Three other emerging propagation of soil thawing or freezing by considering subsurface applications of cold regions subsurface flow and heat transport heat exchange through conduction and pore water phase change. models are to aid in the design and analysis of frozen soil barriers These classic solutions do not accommodate advective heat trans- to impede the migration of contaminated water [30], to simulate port and are therefore limited in their ability to fully test numerical models that include subsurface heat transfer due to groundwater flow. Indeed the inclusion of heat advection via subsurface water ⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Civil Engineering, UNB, 17 flow is one primary advantage of many of these emerging models Dineen Drive, P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada. Tel.: +1 506 453 4521. in comparison to simpler conduction-based cold regions heat E-mail address: [email protected] (B.L. Kurylyk). transport models e.g., [34,35]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2014.05.005 0309-1708/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. B.L. Kurylyk et al. / Advances in Water Resources 70 (2014) 172–184 173 To the authors’ knowledge, no numerical models of subsurface thawing front are often referred to as ‘Stefan problems’. Various water flow and heat transport have been compared to analytical forms of the Stefan solution have been proposed in literature solutions that consider heat exchange due to conduction, advec- [42]; herein we briefly describe the development of a simple form tion, and pore water phase change. Exact analytical solutions that of the Stefan solution, which calculates the penetration of the include advection have been proposed for soil thawing problems thawing front into an initially frozen, thermally uniform, semi- [36,37], but these solutions are only valid if the pore water velocity infinite column of soil as a result of a sudden increase in surface is proportional to the thawing front penetration rate. This physical temperature (Fig. 1). Heat exchange occurs only due to conduction scenario is difficult to simulate given the Darcian approaches and pore water phase change. Soil thawing is assumed to occur employed in most existing numerical models e.g., [1,4], and thus over an infinitesimal temperature range, thus the soil at any point these exact solutions have not been utilized for benchmarking pur- in space and time is considered either frozen or thawed, although poses. A more general approximate analytical solution has also trace amounts of unfrozen residual water may remain within the been proposed by Lunardini [37] to estimate one-dimensional soil frozen section (Fig. 1). thawing subject to advection, conduction, and phase change. This The transient, one dimensional conduction equation is the gov- solution has received very little attention in hydrological literature erning heat transfer equation that represents temperature dynam- to date, which may be due in part to the geotechnical engineering ics within the thawed zone of the thawing soil: nomenclature employed, the lack of a detailed description of the @2T @T solution’s mathematical development and inherent limitations, k 6 6 2 ¼ cq for 0 x X ð1Þ and the approximate nature of the solution. @x @t The objectives of the present contribution are fivefold: where k is the bulk thermal conductivity of the thawed zone (W mÀ1 °C), c is the specific heat of the thawed medium (soil water 1. To present the governing equations, initial conditions, and matrix, J kgÀ1 °CÀ1), q is the density of the thawed zone (kg mÀ3), x boundary conditions for the classic Stefan and Neumann is the distance below the surface for any arbitrary point (m), T is the solutions for soil thawing. temperature distribution in the thawed zone (°C), t is time (s), and X 2. To detail the formulation of Lunardini’s [37] approximate is the distance between the surface and the interface between the solution in conventional hydrological nomenclature. thawed and frozen zones (m) (Fig. 1). 3. To determine the accuracy of this solution in the case of negli- For the Stefan solution, the boundary and initial conditions are: gible water flow via comparison to the exact Neumann solution. 4. To assess the accuracy of this solution in the case of high water Initial conditions : Tðx; t ¼ 0Þ¼Tf ð2Þ flow and heat advection via comparisons to results from a numerical model, and Surface boundary condition : Tðx ¼ 0; tÞ¼Ts ð3Þ 5. To choose three thawing scenarios to serve as benchmark problems for cold regions groundwater flow and energy Interface boundary condition : Tðx ¼ X; tÞ¼Tf ð4Þ transport models. Surface temperature We begin by first presenting the form and application of the classic Stefan and Neumann solutions [38], which are the basis Ts > Tf for the development and application of the approximate solution ΔT Tf developed by Lunardini [37]. This approximate solution [37] shall hereafter be referred to as the ‘Lunardini solution’, although we Time recognize that Lunardini developed and synthesized numerous Ts analytical solutions for cold regions soils [33,39]. The mathemati- Time =0 cal development of the Lunardini solution is presented in far more detail than in the original formulation to enable others to adapt it x for their own research purposes. The influence of soil conditions T ≤Ts (e.g., porosity and surface temperature) on the accuracy of the Lunardini solution is assessed by setting the Darcy velocity, and Water flow hence the heat advection, to a very low value and comparing the Fully X(t) (only in results to those obtained from the exact Neumann solution. Initially frozen Thawed Lunardini Because the Neumann solution does not accommodate advection, (with residual liquid solution) Lunardini solution results with high water flow rates are compared water, T=Tf) to results obtained from a numerical model of coupled water flow and heat transport with phase