Flow in Anisotropic Soil: Horizontal and Vertical Scale Calculation

  • Thread starter Thread starter tzx9633
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flow Soil
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the calculation of horizontal and vertical scales in anisotropic soil flow, specifically questioning the correctness of provided equations and examples. Participants debate the appropriate values for vertical and horizontal scales, with one asserting that the vertical scale should be 6.1m and the horizontal scale calculated as 4.3m based on the ratio of hydraulic conductivities. Another contributor points out that the original horizontal scale was 7.6m, leading to confusion over the transformations used in the calculations. There is a consensus that the transformation method in the example is flawed and that a different approach would yield more accurate results. The conversation highlights the complexities of applying theoretical models to real-world geotechnical problems.
tzx9633

Homework Statement


In this question , it's stated that the horizontal scale is sqrt(kx / kz) X vertical scale ... i think the author's is wrong for horizontal scale and vertical scale in example 8.3...

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I think the vertcal scale should be 6.1m , as shown in the picture , the horizontal scale , which is sqrt(kx / kz) X vertical scale should be sqrt(1/2) X 6.1 = 4.3m
 

Attachments

  • 717.PNG
    717.PNG
    14.3 KB · Views: 521
  • 718.PNG
    718.PNG
    30.4 KB · Views: 488
  • 719.PNG
    719.PNG
    23.9 KB · Views: 479
Physics news on Phys.org
notes here :
 

Attachments

  • 720.png
    720.png
    42.5 KB · Views: 492
  • 721.png
    721.png
    40 KB · Views: 511
  • 722.PNG
    722.PNG
    19.4 KB · Views: 493
I also noticed that the example in the notes are also wrong ...
How could it be ?
Or i misunderstood something ?
Anyone can help ?
 
tzx9633 said:
I also noticed that the example in the notes are also wrong ...
How could it be ?
Or i misunderstood something ?
Anyone can help ?
What equation is being solved?
 
  • Like
Likes tzx9633
Chestermiller said:
What equation is being solved?
What do you mean ?
I mean in the first question :
I think the vertcal scale should be 6.1m , as shown in the picture , the horizontal scale , which is sqrt(kx / kz) X vertical scale should be sqrt(1/2) X 6.1 = 4.3m
 
tzx9633 said:
What do you mean ?
I mean in the first question :
I think the vertcal scale should be 6.1m , as shown in the picture , the horizontal scale , which is sqrt(kx / kz) X vertical scale should be sqrt(1/2) X 6.1 = 4.3m
kx/kz = 2, not 1/2. And the original horizontal distance scale before change of variables was 7.6 m. So the new horizontal distance scale after change of variables is 7.6√2.
 
  • Like
Likes tzx9633
Pls refer to this
Chestermiller said:
kx/kz = 2, not 1/2. And the original horizontal distance scale before change of variables was 7.6 m. So the new horizontal distance scale after change of variables is 7.6√2.
one , in the notes , it's stated that horizontal scale = sqrt (kz /kx) x vertical scale ...

so , at the example in the first post , it's clear that the horizontal scale = 7.6m , but the vertical scale isn't stated .
I agree that the horizontal scale = sqrt(1/2) x vertical scale

How could horizontal scale = 7.6 x sqrt(2) ??
 

Attachments

  • 720.png
    720.png
    33.6 KB · Views: 483
  • 718.PNG
    718.PNG
    33 KB · Views: 516
tzx9633 said:
Pls refer to this

one , in the notes , it's stated that horizontal scale = sqrt (kz /kx) x vertical scale ...

so , at the example in the first post , it's clear that the horizontal scale = 7.6m , but the vertical scale isn't stated .
I agree that the horizontal scale = sqrt(1/2) x vertical scale

How could horizontal scale = 7.6 x sqrt(2) ??
I see what you are saying. It looks like you are correct in your criticism.
 
  • Like
Likes tzx9633
Chestermiller said:
I see what you are saying. It looks like you are correct in your criticism.
Then, what should the vertical scale be? It's not provided, or I miss out something?
 
  • #11
tzx9633 said:
Then, what should the vertical scale be? It's not provided, or I miss out something?
I don't like anything about what your book is doing here. There is really no characteristic length scale in the x direction, because the system is infinite in that direction. In the y direction, a logical characteristic length scale would be the height of the permeable formation, which is not specified in the figure. So talking about length scales here makes no sense to me.

What they are really doing here is using a mapping of the independent variable to transform the differential equation into a mathematically more tractable form. This is not the same as specifying a length scale for the system. I have never seen anyone call it this (before now).

Also, I don't like the transformation they have used. I would have done it much differently. I would have written the following:
$$x=x' \left(\frac{k_x}{k_z}\right)^{1/4}$$
$$z=z' \left(\frac{k_z}{k_x}\right)^{1/4}$$
That would transform the differential equation (more symmetrically) into:
$$\sqrt{k_xk_z}\left(\frac{\partial ^2 H}{\partial z'^2}+\frac{\partial ^2 H}{\partial x'^2}\right)=0$$
The original flow equations, in terms of the stream function and the head are:
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z}=-k_x\frac{\partial H}{\partial x}$$
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}=+k_z\frac{\partial H}{\partial z}$$
Applying our coordinate mapping to these equations yields:
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z'}=-\sqrt{k_xk_z}\frac{\partial H}{\partial x'}$$
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x'}=+\sqrt{k_xk_z}\frac{\partial H}{\partial z'}$$
So, by applying this transformation of the independent variables, the equations transform into those for an isotropic formation, with a hydraulic conductivity equal to the geometric mean of the vertical- and horizontal hydraulic conductivities of the anisotropic formation.

Anyway, that's what I would do (and also what I actually have done in solving real-world groundwater problems).
 
  • Like
Likes tzx9633
  • #12
Chestermiller said:
I don't like anything about what your book is doing here. There is really no characteristic length scale in the x direction, because the system is infinite in that direction. In the y direction, a logical characteristic length scale would be the height of the permeable formation, which is not specified in the figure. So talking about length scales here makes no sense to me.

What they are really doing here is using a mapping of the independent variable to transform the differential equation into a mathematically more tractable form. This is not the same as specifying a length scale for the system. I have never seen anyone call it this (before now).

Also, I don't like the transformation they have used. I would have done it much differently. I would have written the following:
$$x=x' \left(\frac{k_x}{k_z}\right)^{1/4}$$
$$z=z' \left(\frac{k_z}{k_x}\right)^{1/4}$$
That would transform the differential equation (more symmetrically) into:
$$\sqrt{k_xk_z}\left(\frac{\partial ^2 H}{\partial z'^2}+\frac{\partial ^2 H}{\partial x'^2}\right)=0$$
The original flow equations, in terms of the stream function and the head are:
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z}=-k_x\frac{\partial H}{\partial x}$$
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}=+k_z\frac{\partial H}{\partial z}$$
Applying our coordinate mapping to these equations yields:
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z'}=-\sqrt{k_xk_z}\frac{\partial H}{\partial x'}$$
$$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x'}=+\sqrt{k_xk_z}\frac{\partial H}{\partial z'}$$
So, by applying this transformation of the independent variables, the equations transform into those for an isotropic formation, with a hydraulic conductivity equal to the geometric mean of the vertical- and horizontal hydraulic conductivities of the anisotropic formation.

Anyway, that's what I would do (and also what I actually have done in solving real-world groundwater problems).
Hi , can you help me in the following thread ? Thanks in advance !
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/variation-of-pore-pressure-due-to-consolidation.931282/
 
Back
Top