Premium
Three‐dimensional finite difference saturated‐unsaturated flow modeling with nonorthogonal grids using a coordinate transformation method
Author(s) -
An Hyunuk,
Ichikawa Yutaka,
Tachikawa Yasuto,
Shiiba Michiharu
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1029/2009wr009024
Subject(s) - finite difference , finite volume method , discretization , finite element method , coordinate system , finite difference method , mathematics , grid , stencil , regular grid , finite difference coefficient , computer science , flow (mathematics) , mixed finite element method , mathematical optimization , mathematical analysis , computational science , geometry , mechanics , engineering , physics , structural engineering
Study of the saturated‐unsaturated flow in porous media is of interest in many branches of science and engineering. Among the various numerical simulation methods available, the finite difference method is advantageous because it offers simplicity of discretization. This method has been widely used for simulating saturated‐unsaturated flows. However, the simulation of geometrically complex flow domains requires the use of high‐resolution grids in conventional finite difference models because conventional finite difference discretization assumes an orthogonal coordinate system. This makes a finite difference model computationally less efficient than other numerical models that can treat nonorthogonal grids, such as the finite element model and finite volume model. To overcome this disadvantage, we use a coordinate transformation method and develop a multidimensional finite difference model for simulating saturated‐unsaturated flows; this model can treat nonorthogonal grids. The cross‐derivative terms derived by the coordinate transformation method are evaluated explicitly for ease of coding. Therefore, a 7 point stencil is used for implicit terms in the iterative calculation, as in the case of conventional finite difference models with an orthogonal grid. We assess the performance of the proposed model by carrying out test simulations. We then compare the simulation results with dense grid solutions in order to evaluate the numerical accuracy of the proposed model. To examine the performance of the proposed model, we draw a comparison between the simulation results obtained using the proposed model and the results obtained by using (1) a model in which all terms are considered fully implicitly, (2) a finite element model, and (3) a conventional finite difference model with a high‐resolution orthogonal grid.