MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414330966 · doi:10.1002/nag.70085

Using H‐Convergence to Calculate the Numerical Errors for 1D Unsaturated Seepage in Transient Conditions

2025· article· en· W4414330966 on OpenAlexaff
Arij Krifa, Robert P. Chapuis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretizationConvergence (economics)Transient (computer programming)Numerical analysisComputer simulationSuctionInfiltration (HVAC)Finite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Numerical modeling plays a pivotal role in understanding transient unsaturated flow, which is critical for applications such as groundwater recharge, stormwater management, and contaminant transport. This study investigates the effect of time step refinement on numerical solutions for a vertical infiltration 1D test in a vertical column. First, the element size, ES , was selected to have all calculations in the MCD, the mathematical convergence domain. Then, the numerical and mathematical convergences of the numerical solutions were studied versus the time step, Δ t . The study provided results for hydraulic head, unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, volumetric water content, and vertical water velocity versus elevation, elapsed time t , and Δ t . Asymptotic behavior was obtained for all unknowns when Δ t → 0. All results for all parameters gave linear relationships between the log of the numerical error and the log of Δ t , as predicted by mathematics. Thus, they proved that a good code converges mathematically when ES and Δ t are decreased. For this 1D problem, the MCD is reached for Δ t ≤ 1 s, which is a small MCD. For larger Δ t values (2 ≤ Δ t ≤ 100 s), the code converges numerically in the numerical convergence domain (NCD), where the solutions respect the user‐defined convergence criteria but deviate from the true mathematical convergence criterion, underscoring that a fine temporal discretization is critical. The study also demonstrates that small Δ t steps ensure physically consistent behavior, as reflected in smooth slope volumetric water content versus suction curves, whereas large Δ t steps produce oscillations and instability.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207