Flow in Anisotropic Soil: Horizontal and Vertical Scale Calculation

  • Thread starter Thread starter tzx9633
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flow Soil
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of horizontal and vertical scales in the context of flow in anisotropic soil, particularly focusing on the equations and examples presented in a homework problem. Participants are examining the correctness of these scales and the underlying equations used in the examples.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the correctness of the horizontal and vertical scale calculations presented in the homework example, suggesting that the vertical scale should be 6.1m and the horizontal scale calculated as sqrt(kx / kz) X vertical scale should yield 4.3m.
  • Another participant points out that kx/kz is actually 2, not 1/2, and states that the original horizontal distance scale was 7.6m, leading to a new horizontal distance scale of 7.6√2 after a change of variables.
  • There is a repeated concern about the examples in the notes being incorrect, with participants expressing confusion over the equations being solved and the transformations applied.
  • One participant critiques the approach taken in the notes, arguing that there is no characteristic length scale in the x direction due to the system's infinite nature and suggests a different transformation for the equations to achieve a more symmetric form.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the vertical scale, noting that it is not provided in the example and asking for clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the correctness of the scales and the equations used. There is no consensus on the proper calculations or the validity of the examples presented in the notes.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the provided examples, including missing assumptions and the lack of specified characteristic lengths, which complicates the discussion of length scales in the context of the problem.

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: 555
  • 718.PNG
    718.PNG
    30.4 KB · Views: 515
  • 719.PNG
    719.PNG
    23.9 KB · Views: 505
Physics news on Phys.org
notes here :
 

Attachments

  • 720.png
    720.png
    42.5 KB · Views: 516
  • 721.png
    721.png
    40 KB · Views: 531
  • 722.PNG
    722.PNG
    19.4 KB · Views: 512
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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: 510
  • 718.PNG
    718.PNG
    33 KB · Views: 544
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K