A Comparison of Models Describing Residual NAPL Formation in the Vadose Zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major shortcoming of multifluid flow simulators is the inability to predict the retention of nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in the vadose zone after long drainage periods. Recently, three theoretical models—the Wipfler and van der Zee (WVDZ) model; the Van Geel and Roy (VGR) model; and the Lenhard, Oostrom, and Dane (LOD) model—have been proposed for describing residual NAPL formation. The WVDZ model assumes a critical total liquid saturation below which all NAPL becomes residual. The VGR and LOD models are extensions of an existing hysteretic relative permeability–saturation–capillary pressure model and assume formation of residual NAPL during NAPL drainage and imbibition, respectively. In this study, we compared model predictions against results of a series of static pressure cell experiments. We found no experimental evidence supporting the WVDZ concept of a critical total liquid saturation. The other two models yielded reasonable predictions. The VGR and LOD models were then incorporated into a multifluid flow simulator, and simulations of two transient column experiments were conducted. Both models performed considerably better than simulations without considering the formation of residual NAPL, underwriting the importance of incorporating this process in simulators. Although the VGR and LOD models are based on different conceptual models, no clear performance differences could be observed when simulation results were compared against the transient experimental data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".