2002
DOI: 10.1029/2001wr001131
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the porous‐continuum modeling of gravity‐driven fingers in unsaturated materials: Extension of standard theory with a hold‐back‐pile‐up effect

Abstract: [1] The traditional Richards equation (RE) in combination with standard monotonic properties (constitutive relations and hysteretic equations of state) has been shown to lack critical physics required to model gravity-driven fingering (GDF). We extend the RE with an experimentally observed hold-back-pile-up (HBPU) effect not captured in the standard porous-continuum RE formulation. We postulate the HBPU effect is tied to wetting front sharpness and can be mathematically formulated in a variety of ways to inclu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
77
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
1
77
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the authors do not think that the hysteresis in the h-q relationship explains the saturated finger tips and the drainage behind it, which brings an upward negative pressure and a growth of fingers. It has recently been recognized that the general theory of Richards' equation is insufficient for predicting finger flow [de Rooij, 2000;Glass, 2001, Wang et al, 2003;Jury et al, 2003], and additional terms to Richards' equation have been proposed for expressing mathematically the nonmonotonic moisture profiles [Eliassi and Glass, 2002]. Since Richards' equation is a combination of equation (1) and the mass conservation equation, and mass conservation is universal for any flow, we think that the inability of Richards' equation to predict the occurrence of fingers stems from the inadequacy of applying equation (1) across the wetting front in materials that exhibit finger flow.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the authors do not think that the hysteresis in the h-q relationship explains the saturated finger tips and the drainage behind it, which brings an upward negative pressure and a growth of fingers. It has recently been recognized that the general theory of Richards' equation is insufficient for predicting finger flow [de Rooij, 2000;Glass, 2001, Wang et al, 2003;Jury et al, 2003], and additional terms to Richards' equation have been proposed for expressing mathematically the nonmonotonic moisture profiles [Eliassi and Glass, 2002]. Since Richards' equation is a combination of equation (1) and the mass conservation equation, and mass conservation is universal for any flow, we think that the inability of Richards' equation to predict the occurrence of fingers stems from the inadequacy of applying equation (1) across the wetting front in materials that exhibit finger flow.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A strong motivation for these studies were mathematical results excluding the existence of overshoot profiles for the traditional Richards equation from hydrology (Nieber 1996;Otto 1996Otto , 1997Geiger and Durnford 2000;Glass 2001, 2002;Egorov et al 2003;DiCarlo 2005DiCarlo , 2013Duijn et al 2007;Juanes 2008, 2009). It has been conjectured that new theoretical approaches might be unavoidable (Eliassi and Glass 2002;Duijn et al 2007Duijn et al , 2013Juanes 2008, 2009;Hilfer et al 2012;Nieber et al 2005) to reconcile theory and experiment. On the other hand, a recent investigation (Hilfer and Steinle 2014) has uncovered the existence of saturation overshoot profiles within the traditional theory in the hyperbolic limit, while the Richards equation represents a special parabolic limit.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, since that theory also predicts an infinite wetting front velocity at t ¼ 0 [Philip, 1959], it can be expected to exhibit inconsistencies similar to the ones in the classical GA approach, particularly during the early stage of infiltration. It would be interesting to test emerging theories for variably saturated two-fluid flow in porous media that account for a dynamic capillary pressure [Gray and Hassanizadeh, 1991;Eliassi and Glass, 2002;Hassanizadeh et al, 2002;Cueto-Felgueroso and Juanes, 2009;Hilpert, 2012] and that can also model saturation overshoot at an infiltration front.…”
Section: Discussion and Summarymentioning
confidence: 99%