Advertisement

Assessment of unsteady Brinkman’s model for flow in karst aquifers

  • Md Sarim JamalEmail author
  • Abeeb A. Awotunde
  • Abdulazeez Abdulraheem
  • Hasan Y. Al-Yousef
  • Mayez A. Al-Mouhamed
  • Faisal A. Fairag
Original Paper
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

The Brinkman’s equation simplifies the numerical modeling of karst aquifers by allowing the use of a single transport equation to model the flow of fluids in both the free-flow and porous regions, in effect reducing the error arising from improper modeling of the interface between the two regions. Most equations available to model flow within karst aquifers deal with steady flow conditions. This may not be accurate in aquifers where unsteady conditions exist. We considered the effects of unsteady flow conditions in karst aquifers by assessing the addition of an unsteady flow term to the Brinkman’s equation. We solved the coupled mass conservation-transport equations that models unsteady fluid transport in karst aquifers and studied the effects of unsteady flow conditions on tracer transport in two different sample aquifers and compared to the results obtained from the steady flow Brinkman’s equation. The solution method adopted is sequential and it involves solving the unsteady Brinkman’s model first, followed by the advection-diffusion-adsorption equation using the cell-centered finite volume approach. The first example presented here is a simple aquifer model consisting of a single conduit surrounded by porous regions. The second example is a complicated structure consisting of complex geometrical caves embedded in a highly heterogeneous porous media. The results show that, inside the caves, the unsteady Brinkman’s model yielded lower tracer concentrations at early times when compared to the steady flow model. At longer times, both models produced almost similar results. In particular, the results obtained from the simplified example case (Example 1) indicate that the velocity profiles for unsteady flow within open conduits do not instantly yield a parabolic shape expected from the Brinkman’s equation, but gradually develops into one starting from a linear profile. Results obtained also show that the addition of unsteady flow term to the Brinkman’s model does not affect the flow of tracer within porous media in any significantly observable manner.

Keywords

Brinkman’s Model Karst aquifers Unsteady flow Tracer transport Finite volume method Advection-diffusion-adsorption equations 

References

  1. Adler PM (1979) Motion and rupture of a porous sphere in a linear flow field. J Rheol (N Y N Y) 23:25–37.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbogast T, Brunson DS (2007) A Computatonal method for approximating a Darcy-Stokes system governing a vuggy porous media. Comput Geosci 11:207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbogast T, Lehr HL (2006) Homogenization of a Darcy-Stokes system modeling vuggy porous media. Comput Geosci 10:291–302.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-006-9024-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer S, Liedl R, Sauter M (2003) Modeling of karst aquifer genesis: influence of exchange flow. Water Resour Res 39:1285.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beavers GS, Joseph DD (1967) Boundary conditions at a naturally permeable wall. J Fluid Mech 30:197.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112067001375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beavers GS, Sparrow EM, Magnuson RA (1970) Experiments on coupled parallel flows in a channel and a bounding porous medium. J Basic Eng 92:843.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3425155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birk S, Liedl R, Sauter M, Teutsch G (2003) Hydraulic boundary conditions as a controlling factor in karst genesis: a numerical modeling study on artesian conduit development in gypsum. Water Resour Res 39:SBH 2-1–SBH 2-14.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borghi A, Renard P, Cornaton F (2016) Can one identify karst conduit networks geometry and properties from hydraulic and tracer test data? Adv Water Resour 90:99–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinkman HC (1949) A calculation of the viscous force exerted by a flowing fluid on a dense swarm of particles. Appl Sci Res 1:27–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02120313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cao Y, Gunzburger M, Hua F, Wang X (2010) Coupled Stokes-Darcy model with Beavers-Joseph interface boundary condition. Commun Math Sci 8:1–25.  https://doi.org/10.4310/CMS.2010.v8.n1.a2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen Z (2007) Reservoir simulation: mathematical techniques in oil recovery. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreybrodt W, Gabrovsek F (2010) A model of karstification in extended limestone plains by mixing corrosion. In: Andreo B, Carrasco F, Duran JJ (eds) Advances in research in karst media. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durlofsky L, Brady JF (1987) Analysis of the Brinkman equation as a model for flow in porous media. Phys Fluids 30:3329–3341.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.866465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Field MS, Pinsky PF (2000) A two-region nonequilibrium model for solute transport in solution conduits in karstic aquifers. J Contam Hydrol 44:329–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(00)00099-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallegos JJ, Hu BX, Davis H (2013) Simulating flow in karst aquifers at laboratory and sub-regional scales using MODFLOW-CFP. Hydrogeol J 21:1749–1760.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-1046-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghasemizadeh R, Yu X, Butscher C, Hellweger F, Padilla I, Alshawabkeh A (2015) Equivalent porous media (EPM) simulation of groundwater hydraulics and contaminant transport in karst aquifers. PLoS One 10:e0138954.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138954 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Göppert N, Goldscheider N (2007) Solute and colloid transport in karst conduits under low- and high-flow conditions. Ground Water 46:61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00373.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. He J, Killough JE, Fadlelmula F et al (2015) A unified finite difference model for the simulation of transient flow in naturally fractured carbonate Karst Reservoirs. Paper SPE-173262-MS. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 23–25 February. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, TexasGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill ME, Stewart MT, Martin A (2010) Evaluation of the MODFLOW-2005 conduit flow process. Ground Water 48:549–559.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00673.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huntoon PW (1999) Karstic permeability: organized flow pathways created by circulation. In: Karst modeling proceedings, special publication 5. Karst Waters Institute: Akron, pp 79–81Google Scholar
  21. Jackson JA (1997) Glossary of geology. American Geological Institute, VirginaGoogle Scholar
  22. Jamal MS, Awotunde AA (2018) Full-field to sector modeling for efficient flow simulation in karst aquifers. J Hydrol 564:682–696.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2018.07.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jamal MS, Awotunde A, Asad A (2018) Utilization of the Brinkman’s Equation to Model Flow and Tracer Transport within Karst Reservoirs. 80th EAGE Conf Exhib.  https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201800839
  24. Kincaid TR, Hazlett TJ, Davies GJ (2005) Quantitative groundwater tracing and effective numerical modeling in Karst: an example from the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida. In: Sinkholes and the engineering and environmental impacts of Karst. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp 114–121.  https://doi.org/10.1061/40796(177)13
  25. Kossack CA, Gurpinar O (2001) A methodology for simulation of vuggy and fractured reservoirs. SPE-66366-MS. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 11–14 February. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas.  https://doi.org/10.2118/66366-MS
  26. Krotkiewski M, Ligaarden IS, Lie KA, Schmid DW (2011) On the importance of the Stokes-Brinkman equations for computing effective permeability in karst reservoirs. Commun Comput Phys 10:1315–1332.  https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.290610.020211a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LaBaugh JW, Rosenberry DO (2008) Introduction and characteristics of flow. In: Field techniques for estimating water fluxes between surface water and ground water. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 4–D2: RestonGoogle Scholar
  28. Layton WJ, Schieweck F, Yotov I (2002) Coupling fluid flow with porous media flow. SIAM J Numer Anal 40:2195–2218.  https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142901392766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Long JCS, Remer JS, Wilson CR, Witherspoon PA (1982) Porous media equivalents for networks of discontinuous fractures. Water Resour Res 18:645–658.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR018i003p00645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nield DA, Bejan A (2013) Convection in porous media. Springer New York, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pankow JF, Johnson RL, Hewetson JP, Cherry JA (1986) An evaluation of contaminant migration patterns at two waste disposal sites on fractured porous media in terms of the equivalent porous medium (EPM) model. J Contam Hydrol 1:65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7722(86)90007-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Popov P, Efendiev Y, Qin G (2009a) Multiscale modeling and simulations of flows in naturally fractured Karst reservoirs. Commun Comput Phys 6:162–184.  https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.2009.v6.p162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Popov P, Qin G, Bi L, Efendiev Y, Ewing RE, Li J (2009b) Multiphysics and multiscale methods for modeling fluid flow through naturally fractured carbonate karst reservoirs. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 12:218–231.  https://doi.org/10.2118/105378-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rajanayaka C, Kulasiri D (2001) Investigation of a parameter estimation method for contaminant transport in aquifers. J Hydroinf 3:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reimann T, Geyer T, Shoemaker WB, Liedl R, Sauter M (2011) Effects of dynamically variable saturation and matrix-conduit coupling of flow in karst aquifers. Water Resour Res 47:W11503.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Russel W, Sangtae K (1985) Modeling of porous media by renormalization of the Stokes equations. J Fluid Mech 154:269–286.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112085001525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scanlon BR, Mace RE, Barrett ME, Smith B (2003) Can we simulate regional groundwater flow in a karst system using equivalent porous media models? Case study, Barton Springs Edwards aquifer, USA. J Hydrol 276:137–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00064-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shoemaker WB, Kuniansky EL, Birk S et al (2007) Documentation of a Conduit Flow Process (CFP) for MODFLOW-2005Google Scholar
  39. Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (2010) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks. Springer Netherlands, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Srinivasan S, Nakshatrala KB (2012) A stabilized mixed formulation for unsteady Brinkman equation based on the method of horizontal lines. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 68:642–670.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.2544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trice R (2005) Challenges and insights in optimising oil production form middle eastern karst reservoirs. SPE-93679-MS. In: Proceedings of SPE Middle East oil and gas show and conference, 12–15 march. Society of Petroleum Engineers, BahrainGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang X (2009) On the coupled continuum pipe flow model (CCPF) for flows in karst aquifer. Discret Contin Dyn Syst - Ser B 13:489–501.  https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdsb.2010.13.489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu Z, Hu BX, Davis H, Cao J (2015) Simulating long term nitrate-N contamination processes in the Woodville karst plain using CFPv2 with UMT3D. J Hydrol 524:72–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2015.02.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang C, Bennett GD (2002) Applied contaminant transport modeling, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhu T, Waluga C, Wohlmuth B, Manhart M (2014) A study of the time constant in unsteady porous media flow using direct numerical simulation. Transp Porous Media 104:161–179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-014-0326-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md Sarim Jamal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abeeb A. Awotunde
    • 1
  • Abdulazeez Abdulraheem
    • 1
  • Hasan Y. Al-Yousef
    • 1
  • Mayez A. Al-Mouhamed
    • 2
  • Faisal A. Fairag
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Petroleum Engineering & GeosciencesKing Fahd University of Petroleum & MineralsDhahranKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Computer Engineering DepartmentKing Fahd University of Petroleum & MineralsDhahranKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics & StatisticsKing Fahd University of Petroleum & MineralsDhahranKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations