Multi-dimensional finite element code for the analysis of coupled fluid energy, and solute transport (CFEST)

Abstract

PNL-4260 UC-94e Publication of these verification studies completes the first phase of the establishment of a responsive simulation capability for the program. Validation against recorded field data sets is the next step for the CFEST code. Following validation studies, CFEST will be employed in the evaluation of ongoing field studies of the Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage Program.

Estimation of the release and migration of lead through soils and groundwater at the Hanford Site 218-E-12B Burial Ground

“…The conceptual modelfor the burialsitewas the basisfor estimated ratesof groundwater movementthroughthe vadosezone and the unconfined aquifer,and for predicted ratesof leadmigrationfrom the burialgroundto downgradient locations and to the ColumbiaRiver. The CoupledFluid,Energy, and Solute Transport (CFEST)code (Gupta et al 1982; was used to produce a two-dimensional model of the regional aquifer in order to obtain parameters necessary for the lead transport analysis. The TRANSS code (Simmonset al 1986) was then employedto simulate mass flow and transport through the vadosezone and the unconfined aquifer using a one-dimensional streamtube approach.This approachis similarto that used in previously published documents for the HanfordSite (DOE 1987;1989).…”

“…The CFESTcode(Gupta et al 1982; was applied to mode] groundwater flow in the unconfined aquifer and to generate streamlines and travel times that were used in the transport simulations.The CFESTcode is being considered for acceptance as a Hanford Site standard for constructing models of the unconfined aquifer. Evans et al (1988) describe selection of the CFESTcode for application to the unconfined aquifer at the Hanford Site.…”

Comment on “Dispersive Transport Dynamics in a Strongly Coupled Groundwater‐Brine Flow System” by Curtis M. Oldenburg and Karsten Pruess

“…Although the results for the Henry and Elder problems are very interesting, we comment only on the results of Andersson's salt dome flow problem. More specifically, we take issue with Oldenburg and Pruess's negative conclusions regarding previous numerical solutions by other codes (i.e., NAMMU [Herbert et al, 1988]; SUTRA [Voss, 1984]; CFEST [Gupta et al, 1983]; and SWIFT [Reeves et al, 1986]) that obtained vastly different solutions from TOUGH2. We believe additional work should be done to identify which of these codes (if any) have obtained the proper solution to the salt dome flow problem.…”

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 7

“…WEST has been the subject of extensive verification efforts (see Chapters 4 in Cole et al 1988;Gupta et al 1987, andGupta et al 1982). Solutions have been obtained to 10 problems within three broad categories: 1) flow prediction tests (steady and unsteady drawdown in a confined aquifer, unsteady drawdown in a leaky confined aquifer, uniform regional flow with sources and sinks), 2) energy and solute mass transport verifications (Dirichlet upstream boundary condition, mixed upstream boundary condition, approximate analytical solution to an axisymmetric analysis including radially varying velocity), and 3) energy transport including cap and bedrock conduction (Avdonin's radial problem, Avdonin's linear problem, Gringarten-Sauty problem).…”