JID: ADWR

ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Water Resources

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advwatres

Determination of the diffusivity, dispersion, skewness and kurtosis in

heterogeneous porous flow. Part II: Lattice Boltzmann schemes with
implicit interface
Irina Ginzburg
Irstea, Antony Regional Centre, HBAN, 1 rue Pierre-Gilles de Gennes CS 10030, Antony Cedex 92761, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: A simple local two-relaxation-time Lattice Boltzmann numerical formulation (TRT-EMM) of the extended method
Taylor dispersion of moments (EMM) is proposed for analysis of the spatial and temporal Taylor dispersion in d-dimensional
Skewness streamwise-periodic stationary mesoscopic velocity field resolved in a piecewise-continuous porous media. The
Kurtosis
method provides an effective diffusivity, dispersion, skewness and kurtosis of the mean concentration profile
Spatial and temporal moments
and residence time distribution. The TRT-EMM solves a chain of steady-state heterogeneous advection–diffusion
Residence-time distribution
Extended method of moments equations with the pre-computed space-variable mass-source and automatically undergoes diffusion-flux jump
Lattice Boltzmann ADE schemes on the abrupt-porosity streamwise-normal interface. The temporal and spatial systems of moments are computed
Interface jump within the same run; the symmetric dispersion tensor can be restored from independent computations performed
Numerical diffusion for each periodic mean-velocity axis; the numerical algorithm recursively extends for any order moment.
Stokes–Brinkman–Darcy porous flow We derive an exact form of the bulk equation and implicit closure relations, construct symbolic TRT-EMM
solutions and determine specific relation between the equilibrium and the collision degrees of freedom view-
ing an exact parameterization by the physical non-dimensional numbers in two alternate situations: “parallel”
fracture/matrix flow and “perpendicular” Darcy flow through porous blocks in “series”. Two-dimensional simu-
lations in linear Brinkman flow around solid and through porous obstacles validate the method in comparison
with the two heterogeneous direct LBM-ADE schemes with different anti-numerical-diffusion treatment which are
proposed and examined in parallel. On the coarse grid, accuracy of the three moments is essentially determined
by the free-tunable collision rate in all schemes, and especially TRT-EMM. However, operated within a single
periodic cell, the TRT-EMM is many orders of magnitude faster than the direct solvers, numerical-diffusion free,
more robust and much more capable for accuracy improving, high Péclet range and free-parameter influence
reduction with the mesh refinement. The method is an efficient predicting tool for the Taylor dispersion, asym-
metry and peakedness; moreover, it allows for an optimal analysis between the mutual effect of the flow regime,
Péclet number, porosity, permeability and obstruction geometry.

1. Introduction sification with respect to the dispersion and non-Gaussian properties of

Understanding of the structure and velocity influence on the mass
transport, prediction and optimization of the Taylor and environmen-
tal dispersion, elongated tails of the averaged (upscaled) solute distri-
butions and their time-rate, the residence-time distribution RTD, is a
task required in many engineering fields, such as chemical, polymer,
petrol, agricultural, ecological risk assessment and restoration, wastew-
ater treatment. We propose a simple numerical method for prediction
of the first four moments of the solute distribution from the steady-state
velocity field established in the streamwise-periodic representative unit
cell. Especially, we keep in mind a direct application in X-ray micro-
tomography images of the double porosity media, like the carbonates,
where the proposed method allows for the rock identification and clas-
the breakthrough curves.
Within the dispersion theory, established in fundamental works by
Taylor (1953), Aris (1956) and Brenner (1980), the Gaussian description
applies to upscaled distributions with the longitudinal Taylor dispersion
correction (Aris, 1956; Taylor, 1953) to molecular diffusion coefficient
[hereafter, DT and 0 , respectively] or, more generally, full dispersion
tensor (Brenner, 1980) due to the multi-dimensional gradients in
velocity field. The classical approach is focused on the spatial solute
evolution after an instantaneous point release, when the distribution
moments are computed via the spatial integration. The RTD introduced
by Danckwerts (1953) is commonly monitored in the outlet of the chem-
ical device (Cozewith and Squire, 2000), vegetation zone for pollutant

E-mail address: irina.ginzburg@irstea.fr

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.05.006
Received 9 March 2018; Received in revised form 7 May 2018; Accepted 8 May 2018
Available online xxx
0309-1708/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: I. Ginzburg, Advances in Water Resources (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.05.006
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
Fig. 1. Sketches for the heterogeneous obstacles or a composite material filled with the porous media, and a porous/solid/vegetation arrangement for dispersion
reduction within an unit periodic cell V.
remediation (Werner and Kadlec, 2000) or micro-channel (Cantu-Perez
et al., 2008), and it can be characterized through the temporal moments
integrated in time (Vikhansky, 2011). The Taylor regime is respectively
characterized by a time and space linear growing of the variance,
like 𝜎 2 = 2(0 + 𝐷𝑇 )𝑡 at a dimensionless time 𝑡′ = 𝑡0 ∕ ≥≈ Pe, or
𝜎 2 = 20−3 (0 + 𝐷𝑇 )𝑥 at a dimensionless distance 𝑥′ = 𝑥∕ ≥≈ Pe
0 
[hereafter, Pe = 0
is the characteristic Péclet number]. However,
many natural systems exhibit asymmetry, peakedness and heavy tails, a
long time or distance after release. So far, the Taylor dispersion theory
fails to explain the non-Fickian behavior of the molecular propagators in
heterogeneous porous beds (Berkowitz et al., 2008; Bijeljic et al., 2011),
successfully reproduced by the numerical simulations in double porosity
carbonates (Bijeljic et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2013). Recent studies sug-
gest that considering the vegetation as a porous zone offers a promising
prediction of the pollutant retention RTD observed in the experimental
vegetated channels and pond systems (see review Golzar, 2015). The
open question lies in the optimal design (Su et al., 2009) of the remedia-
tion zones through their permeability (resistance), porosity and geomet-
ric obstruction. The high-order moments quantify the deviations from
the normal distribution: the skewness (Sk, third-order moment) and
kurtosis (Ku, fourth-order moment) are responsible for the asymmetry
and peakedness, respectively. Let us assume that a continuous velocity
field 𝑢⃗𝜙 (𝑟⃗) is resolved in a heterogeneous piece-wise-continuous poros-
ity distribution 𝜙(𝑟⃗) [we keep in mind a sketch in Fig. 1]. A complete
evolution history needs to solve the d-dimensional advection–diffusion
equation (ADE) for the continuous concentration (𝑟⃗, 𝑡):
𝜕𝑡 (𝜙) + ∇ ⋅ (𝑢⃗𝜙 ) = ∇ ⋅ (𝜙𝐃(0) ⋅ ∇), ∇ ⋅ 𝑢⃗𝜙 = 0, 𝑟⃗ ∈ 𝑉𝜙 . (1)
The Taylor dispersion coefficient DT is the same in the two sys-
tems of moments: spatial, ⟨𝜙⟩−1 ⟨𝑥𝑛 𝜙⟩ and temporal, ∫−∞ 𝑡𝑛 𝑃 (𝑥, 𝑡)𝑑𝑡,
∞
𝑃 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝜕𝑡 ⟨(𝑥, 𝑡)⟩ [the brackets denote averaging over the fluid part
of a single periodic cell, {V𝜙 } ∈ V in Fig. 1]. However, the higher-order
moments differ in the two systems; their computation requires specific
initial/boundary set-up with the direct ADE solvers of Eq. (1) and
leads to a tedious numerical task combining the highly discontinuous
diffusion coefficients in complex interface/boundary geometry with the
high Péclet numbers. In a periodic arrangement, the solute evolution
is run through a long series of duplicated cells [V in Fig. 1]; since their
number increases with Pe, the computational time to the Taylor regime
grows as Pe2 , at least.
The Brenner’s B-method of moments (Brenner, 1980) circumvents
the problem: it restores the symmetric dispersion tensor 𝐃[𝑑 × 𝑑] =
0 𝑡
𝑉
⟨∇(𝐁 − 𝑟⃗) ∇(𝐁 − 𝑟⃗)⟩ independently solving d steady-state advection–
𝜙
diffusion equations for space-periodic vector-variable B[d] inside a sin-
gle cell. The finite-difference scheme (Salles et al., 1993) validated
the B-method in microscopic three-dimensional Stokes flow through
the regular, fractal, random and reconstructed porous media. A sim-
ilar dispersion boundary-value problem was recently parameterized
(Valdés-Parada et al., 2016) with the Reynolds number in slow in-
ertial flow through an uniform soil porosity. The extended method of
moments (EMM) extends the dispersion procedure to heterogeneous
soil and any-order spatial or temporal moments. Originated from the
2
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
ideas (Vikhansky, 2008) and substantial developments (Vikhansky and
Ginzburg, 2014), the EMM is elaborated (Ginzburg and Vikhansky,
2018) in the form of the recursive algorithm for prediction of (i) ef-
fective diffusion (structure) coefficient, (ii) Taylor dispersion dyadic,
and (iii) longitudinal coefficients of the high-order moments. Differ-
ently from the Brenner’s averaging of the Brownian particles moments or
the volume-averaging approach (Valdés-Parada et al., 2016), the EMM
searches for the solution of Eq. (1) in the form of a product of the low
frequency, slow monochromatic wave and a streamwise-periodic (say,
along the x-axis) oscillating scalar field 𝐵(𝜔, 𝛾; 𝑟⃗):
1
(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 𝐵(𝜔, 𝛾; 𝑟⃗) exp [𝑖(𝛾𝑥 − 𝜔𝑡)]. (2)
2𝜋
A simultaneous perturbative expansion is performed either for 𝐵(𝜔(𝛾), 𝑟⃗)
and temporal frequency 𝜔(𝛾), or for 𝐵(𝛾(𝜔), 𝑟⃗) and wavenumber 𝛾(𝜔); the
mathematical algorithms based upon are referred to as “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-
form”, respectively:
∑
∞ ∑
∞
“𝜔-form” ∶ 𝐵(𝜔, 𝛾; 𝑟⃗) = 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗)(𝑖𝛾)𝑛 , 𝜔(𝛾) = −𝑖 𝜔𝑛 (𝑖𝛾)𝑛 , (3a)
𝑛=0 𝑛=1
∑
∞ ∑
∞
“𝛾-form” ∶ 𝐵(𝜔, 𝛾; 𝑟⃗) = 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗)(𝑖𝜔)𝑛 , 𝛾(𝜔) = −𝑖 𝛾𝑛 (𝑖𝜔)𝑛 . (3b)
𝑛=0 𝑛=1
In both formulations, the (B-field) variable 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) solves a chain of
steady-state ADE with the recursively-built mass-sources. The two sets
{𝜔n } and {𝛾 n } are determined explicitly from the global mass conserva-
tion solvability condition; they sequentially determine the dispersion,
skewness and kurtosis (𝑛 = 2, 3, 4, respectively) in spatial and temporal,
respectively, system of moments; the solution procedure straight for-
wardly extends to any higher-order moment. Since the coefficients of
the two expansions are inter-related through simple algebraic formulae,
the two sets of moments become determined within the same solution
path. In a streamwise-uniform duct flow, the EMM moments correspond
(Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018) to the (upscaled) mean-concentration
solution obeying the high-order PDE (Mercer and Roberts, 1990; Ngo-
Cong et al., 2015) without need to resorting for its solving.
The EMM allows for the symbolic moments prediction in continu-
ous parameter space. So far, the Taylor dispersion, skewness and kur-
tosis were exemplified (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018; Vikhansky and
Ginzburg, 2014) in (i) parabolic (Poiseuille) profile in a channel and
cylindrical capillary, (ii) non-Newtonian power-law flow in a capillary,
(iii) shallow profile through different cross-section shapes, (iv) Darcy–
Brinkman flow in stratified fracture/matrix layers and (v), a “perpen-
dicular” Darcy flow through porous blocks. These solutions allow to
estimate the role of the porosity contrast and geometry aspect in the
first four moments, also providing their asymptotic Pe-scaling. The ref-
erence EMM solutions give the valuable benchmarks for direct solvers
of Eq. (1) and numerical EMM formulations. Furthermore, applying
the EMM decomposition to the effective, fourth-order-accurate mass-
conservation equation of a numerical scheme, the truncation interfer-
ence with the physical moments may become quantified quasi-exactly
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
in simple flow (Ginzburg, 2017b). The EMM copes with the station-
ary (exact, numerical or approximate) incompressible velocity field of
any nature. A periodic mesoscopic velocity field in porous beds and
random structures, e.g. computed with the two-relaxation-times (TRT)
Lattice Boltzmann (LBM) flow schemes in Newtonian flow (Ginzburg
et al., 2015b; Khirevich et al., 2014; Talon et al., 2012; Vogel et al.,
2015), non-Newtonian fluids (Talon and Bauer, 2013) or Darcy flow
in space-distributed permeability (Röding et al., 2016), is a natural in-
put for EMM numerical computations. Another promising application
is the shallow flow within the rigid or flexible vegetation interactions
(Buxton, 2018; Gac, 2014; Yang et al., 2017). Very different numerical
approaches apply for the effective diffusivity of the composite or porous
structure, e.g., Monte-Carlo simulations (Trinh et al., 2000), numerical
integration by random walks (Bolle et al., 2000), finite-element (Kim
et al., 1987) but also the direct solver (Ginzburg, 2005a; 2007) TRT-
ADE, e.g., in regular arrays (Chai et al., 2016a), unsaturated (Genty and
Pot, 2014) and saturated (Genty et al., 2017) porous media or porous
polymer films (Gebäck et al., 2015). The EMM provides not only the ef-
fective diffusivity but also the associated high-order structure moments
at zero velocity unit-cell simulations in the “𝜔-form”.
Our purpose is to propose a operationally simple numerical EMM
algorithm and to verify the EMM with its help in multi-dimensional het-
erogeneous Stokes–Brinkman–Darcy velocity field. We propose TRT −
EMM formulation based on the TRT-ADE model for heterogeneous soil
(Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014). A subtle point is that the diffusive
flux −𝜙0 ∇𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) should undergo the prescribed jump values on the
streamline-normal interfaces when 𝜙(𝑟⃗) becomes discontinuous. The
TRT − EMM benefits from main LBM advantages: it locally prescribes
the discontinuous diffusion values 𝜙0 (𝑟⃗) via one of its two relaxation
rates, and couples the diffusive-flux jump-vector with the advective ve-
locity in local equilibrium distribution. The total advection–diffusive
flux then automatically obeys the interfacial and solid-surface flux-
jump conditions, using the mass-conserving bounce-back reflection on
an impenetrable boundary. It should be recognized that such an im-
plicit interface tracking shares the bounce-back deficiency concerning
the inexact location of the closure continuity condition (Ginzburg, 2007;
2016; Ginzburg et al., 2015b). An alternative second-order accurate
scheme (Guo et al., 2015) has been recently introduced for location
of the concentration and flux jumps on the arbitrarily placed straight
and curved surface. We will restrict ourselves to stair-case midgrid wall
description and examine the difference between the fully-implicit node-
jump-tracking and semi-explicit link-jump-tracking only in pure diffusion
through porous blocks. Analytically, the TRT − EMM assessment is per-
formed by extending the exact Taylor-type analysis of the implicit clo-
sure relations and the symbolic solution construction (Ginzburg, 2007;
2016; Ginzburg et al., 2015b) from the streamline-invariant diffusion-
type interface problem to the Darcy advection through a streamline het-
erogeneity in a “series” of porous blocks. A special attention is put on
the consistent parameterization of the TRT − EMM solutions with the
dimensionless governing numbers in the presence of a space-variable
mass-source; a decisive role of the free-tunable equilibrium and colli-
sion degrees of freedom will be demonstrated in dispersion, skewness
and kurtosis. This symbolic analysis is not restricted to TRT − EMM and
concerns any LBM-ADE steady problem.
The TRT − EMM is applied in both “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-form” with the
purpose to validate the equivalence of their moments solution and to
examine their respective robustness. It was predicted (Ginzburg and
Vikhansky, 2018; Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) that the interface flux-
jumps and the associated mass-source terms become negligible when the
moments grow with Pe; this property would further simplify the method.
We will evaluate all these features in creeping Brinkman (1947) flow
through a “zigzag-type” solid and porous arrangements inspired from
the micro-channel design (Vikhansky, 2011) and similar to one depicted
in Fig. 1. The flow is solved with the local interface-implicit resistance-
force-based (improved) IBF scheme (Ginzburg et al., 2015b); the partial-
bounce-back “gray” link-based LBM-Brinkman models (see review Zhu
3
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
and Ma, 2009) and the local BF/IBF approaches are inter-related with
the help of the TRT collision operator (Ginzburg, 2016; Ginzburg et al.,
2015b); the advanced boundary treatment is developed in work (Silva
et al., 2017). The two-dimensional simulations will illustrate the EMM
ability for device optimization through reduction of the Taylor disper-
sion, porosity and Péclet number effect in moments. Once the moments
are predicted, the profiles can be restored from them, with the entropy-
maximization procedure (Ginzburg, 2017b; Vikhansky and Ginzburg,
2014) based on the idea (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2004). In principle at
least, the larger is the set of the predicted moments, the better is the
reconstruction, and the shorter is the time and length where it becomes
valid.
The predicted moments and reconstructed profiles will be compared
with their spatial and temporal counterparts by solving Eq. (1) directly.
The optimal in stability TRT-ADE scheme (Ginzburg et al., 2010) has
been recently applied for uniform porosity dispersion coefficient mea-
surement in Herschel–Bulkley non-Newtonian profile (Batôt et al., 2016)
and duct flow (Ginzburg and Roux, 2015; Yan et al., 2017), reactive
transport and bacterial chemotaxis (Yan et al., 2017) [see Ginzburg and
Roux, 2015 for earlier dispersion LBM]. The pore-scale breakthrough
curves simulations (Yan et al., 2017) in a randomly packed bed column
confirm the TRT-ADE reliability in comparison with much more com-
plicated LBM and alternative solution methods (Yang et al., 2016). The
LBM-ADE unlaboredly extends for non-linear mass transport (Chai et al.,
2016b; Ginzburg, 2006; Hammou et al., 2011; Servan-Camas and Tsai,
2010). There exist several LBM approaches for mass transfer in space-
discontinuous porosity. Similarly as in mesoscopic flow, the interface-
implicit schemes with the space-variable collision rates run uniformly
through the whole domain (Wassén et al., 2014). The TRT-ADE linear
heterogeneous scheme for Eq. (1) was first employed for EMM validation
(Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) in stratified flows where it confirmed
the predicted deviations from the Gaussian solution in moments and
reconstructed shapes. The TRT-ADE is supported by the fourth-order-
accurate truncation analysis and stability bounds in stratified Darcy
law (Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014); numerical dispersion, skewness
and kurtosis truncation estimates (Ginzburg, 2017b) in straight and
radial Poiseuille flow. In alternative heterogeneous approach (Zhang
et al., 2016), the single-relaxation-time SRT collision [which is a par-
ticular TRT subclass where the two relaxation rates are the same] op-
erates with the uniform rate and incorporates heterogeneity with the
semi-explicit partial bounce-back mechanism. The SRT approach (Perko
and Patel, 2014) couples the advective and diffusive (non-equilibrium)
fluxes through an equilibrium. In uniform soil, the TRT overcomes SRT
for stable velocity range due to the optimized dependency between its
free-tunable rate and diffusion coefficient (Ginzburg, 2012; Ginzburg
et al., 2010; Kuzmin et al., 2011a). The respective stability and accu-
racy of the different heterogeneous approaches has been not evaluated
yet.
The TRT-ADE and TRT − EMM are very similar but while there is
no specific sources and flux-jumps in TRT-ADE, the TRT − EMM does
not need any anti-numerical diffusion corrections required in transi-
tion and it can be accelerated for steady-state. The present works first
compares the two approaches for the first four moments in a “perpen-
dicular” flow configuration. This study reveals that, unlike in a “paral-
lel” flow, the TRT-ADE modifies the constant advection velocity due
to the heterogeneity in its anti-numerical-diffusion equilibrium cor-
rection. It has been already recognized that the discontinuity of the
concentration equilibrium weights results in discontinuous solute solu-
tion, and different interface-explicit strategies have been attempted for
a remedy (Ginzburg, 2006; Ginzburg and d’Humières, 2007; Yoshida
et al., 2014). In this work, an alternative anti-numerical-diffusion im-
plicit MRT-r approach (Ginzburg, 2013), based on the idea of the non-
diagonal multiple-relaxation-times matrix collision (Rasin et al., 2005;
Yoshida and Nagaoka, 2010), will be extended from the homogeneous
to heterogeneous soil. In contrast with the TRT-ADE, the MRT-r copes
with the continuous equilibrium and is able to remove the off-diagonal
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
numerical-diffusion on the coordinate discrete-velocity stencil. On top
of the accuracy study, we support all schemes with the velocity bound
estimates and evaluate their efficiency for Pe-range.
Finally, although all presented schemes may apply the full (diago-
nal) velocity sets, like d2Q9, d3Q15 or d3Q19, we limit this work to
the minimal schemes dDQ(2D+1). First, because they are sufficient for
TRT − EMM in isotropic diffusion. Second, because the numerical dis-
persion, skewness and kurtosis are influenced by the diagonal weight
stencil in direct solvers (Ginzburg, 2017b). Third, because the bounce-
back mass-conserving no-flux rule copes best with the coordinate sten-
cil on the mesh-aligned solid surface. In fact, the bounce-back creates
a spurious restriction of the tangential flux via the surface-inclined ve-
locity links: their accommodation layers modify the effective velocity,
molecular diffusion and dispersion coefficients even in a straight chan-
nel (Ginzburg, 2017a; Ginzburg et al., 2015a).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discuses the
computation of moments and introduces the direct solvers, LBM-ADE.
Section 3 summarizes the EMM and introduces its numerical formula-
tion, TRT − EMM. Section 4 derives and analyses effective bulk equation
and steady-state TRT − EMM interface conditions. Section 5 constructs
apparent TRT − EMM moments solution for blocks in “series” and com-
pares the TRT − EMM and LBM-ADE. Section 6 examines the TRT −
EMM symbolic solutions in channels: Poiseuille flow in Section 6.1,
a fracture/matrix stratified bounded system in Section 6.2, and two-
layered double-periodic Brinkman flow in Section 6.3. Section 7 com-
pares the TRT − EMM and LBM-ADE moments in heterogeneous flow
around solid and through porous obstacles. Section 8 concludes the pa-
per. Appendix A provides the mass-source in “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-form”.
Appendix B resumes the reference diffusion solution in “series” and for-
mulates its semi-explicit interface-jump tracking. Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3 and
7.2 are self-consistent for the TRT − EMM implementation which is re-
sumed in the algorithmic form in Appendix A.4.
2. A direct solving of the advection–diffusion equation (ADE)
We introduce dimensionless transport coefficients in Section 2.1,
the TRT framework in Section 2.2 and the direct LBM-ADE solvers in
Section 2.3.
2.1. The spatial and temporal moments in Taylor regime
Consider a single cell volume 𝑉 = {𝑟⃗} in d-dimensional periodic
porous space. Let {V𝜙 } ∈ V be a set of penetrable volumes with smooth
porosity distributions 𝜙(𝑟⃗) inside V𝜙 where concentration distribution
obeys Eq. (1); 𝜙(𝑟⃗) is discontinuous on the penetrable interface A𝜙 be-
tween V𝜙 and its neighbours, and on the solid surface As ∈ V𝜙 , see Fig. 1.
∑
Let ⟨𝜓⟩ = 𝑉𝜙 ∫𝑉 𝜓𝑑𝑉 denote the volume integration over a single cell.
𝜙
In the frame of the classical (Aris, 1956; Taylor, 1953) and generalized
(Brenner, 1980) dispersion theory extended to heterogeneous soil, the
cell-averaged mean concentration 𝐶̄ obeys the upscaled ADE in the de-
veloped Taylor regime:
⟨𝜙⟩ ⃗ ⟨⃗𝑢𝜙 ⟩
𝜕𝑡 𝐶̄ + ∇ ⋅ ⃗ 𝐶̄ = ∇ ⋅ 𝐃∇𝐶̄ , 𝐶̄ = ,  = . (4)
⟨𝜙⟩ ⟨𝜙⟩
The averaged interstitial (seepage) velocity ⃗ is constant and it is ar-
gued (Brenner, 1980; Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018) that Eq. (4) copes
with the symmetric constant dispersion tensor D. We assume that 𝜙(𝑟⃗)
and 𝑢⃗𝜙 (𝑟⃗) are periodic over V, at least for one of the coordinate axes,
say the x-axis, hereafter referred to as a “streamwise direction”. Molec-
ular diffusion tensor in Eq. (1) is set isotropic: 𝐃(0) = 0 𝐈. We aim to
determine the longitudinal transport coefficients in spatial and temporal
systems of moments.
The spatial dispersion characterizes the evolution of the point source
(𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) = 𝛿(𝑥 − 𝑥0 )𝛿(𝑡) through the spatial moments: nth-order raw
moments 𝜇𝑛 (𝑡) = ∫−∞ (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )𝑛 𝐶̄ (𝑥, 𝑡)𝑑𝑥 are measured for n ≥ 0; their cen-
∞
tral counterparts 𝜇𝑛⋆ (𝑡) are built from them for n ≥ 2 with the centroid
4
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
𝜇 1 (t) [hereafter, 𝜇 n (t) are normalized with the zero moment 𝜇0 (t)]. The
Péclet number Pe is measured with the characteristic seepage veloc-
 
ity 0 and length , Pe ≈ 0 . At a long enough time after release,
0
𝑡 ≈ Pe∕0 , the first four moments determine, respectively, the mean-
seepage velocity component 𝑥 , longitudinal dispersion coefficient D,
skewness Sk(t) and kurtosis Ku(t) of the averaged distribution 𝐶̄ (𝑥, 𝑡):
𝜇1 ( 𝑡 ) 𝜇 ⋆ (𝑡)
𝑥 = , 𝐷 = 2 , 𝐷 = 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 + 𝐷𝑇 , 𝐷𝑇 = 𝑘𝑇 0 ,
𝑡 2𝑡
1 𝜇 ⋆ (𝑡) 𝜇 ⋆ (𝑡)
Sk(𝑡) = Sk(𝑠) 𝑡− 2 = ( 3 ) , Ku(𝑡) = Ku(𝑠) 𝑡−1 = ( 4 ) − 3. (5)
3∕2 2
𝜇2⋆ (𝑡) 𝜇2⋆ (𝑡)
The effective diffusion coefficient 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 is measured at zero velocity; the
Taylor dispersion coefficient DT becomes apparent in motion because of
the solute gradients due to the structure heterogeneity or the transverse
velocity gradient; the variance (central second moment 𝜇2⋆ (𝑡)) grows lin-
early with time and the dispersion coefficient D sums 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 and DT . The
higher-order moments, skewness Sk(t) and kurtosis Ku(t) characterize
the distribution asymmetry and peakedness, respectively, and tend to
zero as time increases as 𝑡−1∕2 and 𝑡−1 . An exact (Gaussian) solution of
Eq. (4) gives Sk(𝑠) = Ku(𝑠) = 0. However, the high-order averaging of Eq.
(1) gives them non-zero solution in the simplest configurations, like the
Poiseuille duct flow or a constant, parallel or perpendicular, Darcy flow
through heterogeneous blocks, (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018; Vikhan-
sky and Ginzburg, 2014).
The “temporal dispersion” is quantified through the temporal mo-
ments of the residence-time distribution (RTD) due to Danckwerts
(1953). The RTD𝑃 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝜕𝑡 ⟨(𝑥, 𝑡)⟩ is monitored at a (signed) distance
x from the inlet, e.g. Vikhansky (2011); the dimensionless distance
𝑥∕ to the Taylor regime grows in proportion with Pe. The central
moments 𝜇𝑛⋆ (𝑥) = ∫0 (𝑡 − 𝑡̄(𝑥))𝑛 𝑃 (𝑥, 𝑡)𝑑𝑡 are accumulated in time; they
∞
are restored from the raw moments with the centroid 𝑡̄(𝑥) = 𝜇1 (𝑥) =
1 ∞
∫ 𝑡𝑃 (𝑥, 𝑡)𝑑𝑡 [hereafter, the raw moments are normalized with the
𝜇 (𝑥) 0
0
∞
zero moment 𝜇0 (𝑥) = ∫−∞ 𝑃 (𝑥, 𝑡)𝑑𝑡]. In the Taylor regime, the mean-
𝑥 𝜇2⋆ (𝑥)03
seepage velocity 𝑥 = 𝜇1 ( 𝑥 )
and dispersion coefficient 𝐷 = 2𝑥
have
the same solution as in Eq. (5); skewness Sk(x) and kurtosis Ku(x) of the
RTD are determined as:
1 𝜇3⋆ (𝑥) 𝜇4⋆ (𝑥)
Sk(𝑥) = Sk(𝑡) |𝑥|− 2 = , Ku(𝑥) = Ku(𝑡) |𝑥|−1 = ( )2 − 3. (6)
(𝜇2⋆ (𝑥))3∕2 𝜇2⋆ (𝑥)
Exact solution to Eq. (4) with the Heaviside entry [(0, 𝑡) = 1 for √ t≥0
and (𝑥, 𝑡 = 0) = 0, x ≠ 0] gives dimensionless values Sk(⋆𝑡) = Sk(𝑥) |𝑥| =
√
3 2(1 + 𝑘𝑇 )Pe−1 and Ku(⋆𝑡) = Ku(𝑥) |𝑥| = 30(1 + 𝑘𝑇 )Pe−1 . However, Sk(t)
and Ku(t) generally differ from this solution. Indeed, the spatial and tem-
poral moments, and hence their coefficients, are interconnected via sim-
ple algebraic formulae established with the help of the extended method
of moments (EMM) [see Eqs. (31) and (32) in Vikhansky and Ginzburg,
2014]. In this work, these relations will be verified in multi-dimensional
porous flow.
2.2. Lattice Boltzmann TRT framework
The LBM is operated on the cuboid computational grid within the
penetrable (fluid) d-dimensional domain 𝑟⃗ ∈ {𝑉𝜙 }; an equidistant mesh-
size is set equal to one lattice unit; the Péclet number is kept the same
in physical and numerical systems. The neighboring nodes are inter-
connected by the d-dimensional discrete velocity set dDqQ; it consists
of a zero-amplitude vector 𝑐⃗0 and 𝑄𝑚 = 𝑄 − 1 vectors 𝑐⃗𝑞 , each vector
𝑄
𝑐⃗𝑞 has the opposite one: 𝑐⃗𝑞̄ = −𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑞 = 1, … , 2𝑚 and the pair {𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑐⃗𝑞̄ }
is called a link. The local variable of the scheme is the set of Q real
numbers called “populations”: {𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝑞 = 0, … , 𝑄𝑚 }. The populations
{𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡)} enter into the local collision, sums with their post-collision val-
ues {𝑔𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡)} and then propagate to the neighbor sites according to their
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

discrete velocities. The two populations with the opposite velocities 𝑑

∑ 𝑄𝑚
are decomposed into their symmetric and anti-symmetric components, 𝑒−
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑡𝑞 𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) 𝑢𝜙,𝛼 (𝑟⃗)𝑐𝑞𝛼 + 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,−) (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝑞 = 1, … , , (10b)
2
{𝑓𝑞± = 12 (𝑓𝑞 ± 𝑓𝑞̄ )} and {𝑔𝑞± = 12 (𝑔𝑞 ± 𝑔𝑞̄ )}, 𝑞 = 1, … , 𝑄𝑚 ; in the present 𝛼=1
work, the symmetric component {𝑓𝑞+ } is updated with the same relax-
ation rate 𝑠+ 1 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡)
𝜙
for all links. The collision-stream algorithm then reads, 𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 𝐾 (𝑒𝑞) (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + (𝑟⃗), 𝐾 (𝑒𝑞) = 𝛽𝑒 , (10c)
adding a time-independent mass source quantity (𝑟⃗) to the outgoing
2 𝜙(𝑟⃗)
immobile population 𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 + 1), as follows:
𝑄𝑚
∑
𝑄𝑚 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), (10d)
𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗ + 𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑡 + 1) = 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + 𝑔𝑞− (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝑞 = 1, … , ,
2 𝑞=0
𝑄𝑚
𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟⃗ + 𝑐⃗𝑞̄ , 𝑡 + 1) = 𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) − 𝑔𝑞− (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝑐⃗𝑞̄ = −𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑞 = 1, … , , 𝑑
2 ∑ 𝑐𝑒 𝜙(𝑟⃗) 𝜙(𝑟⃗)
𝑄𝑚 ∕2 dDQ(2D+1) ∶ 𝑢2𝜙 (𝑟⃗) = 𝑢2𝜙,𝛼 ≤ , 𝑐𝑒 ≤ min . (10e)
∑ 𝛼=1
𝛽𝑒 𝑟⃗ 𝑑𝛽𝑒
𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 + 1) = 𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + (𝑟⃗) − 2 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) ; (7a)
𝑞=1 We note that Eq. (7a) does not need to compute 𝑒± 0
(𝑟⃗, 𝑡). When the
𝑄𝑚 + populations are initialized at the equilibrium, one prescribes 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0),
𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = −𝑠+ (𝑓 + (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) − 𝑒+
𝜙 𝑞 𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡)), 𝑞 = 1, … , , 𝑠𝜙 ∈]0, 2[. (7b) 𝑄𝑚
2 computes 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) = 𝑒+𝑞 + 𝑒𝑞 and 𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟
− ⃗, 𝑡 = 0) = 𝑒+
𝑞 − 𝑒𝑞 , 𝑞 = 1, … , 2 ,
−

∑𝑄 𝑚 ∑𝑄𝑚
An exact mass-conservation equation means that 𝑞=0 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗ + 𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑡 + e.g., with (𝑟⃗) = 0, then 𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) = 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) − 𝑞=1 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0). In
∑𝑄𝑚 what follows we address the minimal discrete velocity sets dDQ(2D+1):
1) = 𝑞=0 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + (𝑟⃗) for any equilibrium distribution {𝑒𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑒+ 𝑞 + d1Q3, d2Q5 and d3Q7; they are built on the coordinate discrete ve-
𝑒−
𝑞 } . The anti-symmetric component { 𝑔 − (𝑟
𝑞 ⃗, 𝑡 )} will be computed either locity vectors {𝑐⃗𝑞 = ±1⃗ 𝛼 }, 𝛼 = 1, … , 𝑑. These schemes yield the same
with the (two-relaxation-times) TRT operator or (multiple-relaxation-
weight 𝑡𝑞 = 12 for a diffusion-flux variable 𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) in 𝑒+ 𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡) and an
times) MRT-r operator. The TRT operator (Ginzburg, 2005a; 2007;
advective-flux 𝑢⃗𝜙 𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) in 𝑒−𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡), because of the isotropic condition
Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) applies the same relaxation rate 𝑠− 𝜙
for ∑𝑄 𝑚
all links and copes with Eq. (7c): 𝑡 𝑐 𝑐 = 𝛿𝛼𝛽 , ∀𝛼 , 𝛽. The macroscopic solution 𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) is defined
𝑞=1 𝑞 𝑞𝛼 𝑞𝛽
with the half mass-source value in Eq. (10c) for reduction of the trun-
𝑄𝑚 ± cation corrections (Kuzmin et al., 2011b) and correct parameteriza-
TRT ∶ 𝑔𝑞± (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = −𝑠± (𝑓 ± (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) − 𝑒±
𝜙 𝑞 𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡)), 𝑞 = 1, … , , 𝑠𝜙 ∈]0, 2[. (8)
2 tion of the modeled equation (d’Humières and Ginzburg, 2009). Be-
cause of this last objective, the weight distribution {tq ce } is also as-
The relaxation rates are space-dependent but time-independent in this
signed for the mass-term Λ+ 𝜙
(𝑟⃗) in Eq. (10a). The two scale param-
work. The two relaxation rates in Eq. (8) are defined from the locally
eters, ce and 𝛽 e , are set constant over the grid because of the leading-
prescribed positive eigenfunctions Λ±
𝜙
(𝑟⃗):
order continuity condition prescribed for 𝐾(𝑟⃗). When a local mass quan-
Λ𝜙 (𝑟⃗) tity 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒  is directly added to 𝑔𝑞+ in Eq. (7c), an equivalent scheme
𝑠± (𝑟⃗) = (Λ± + 12 )−1 , Λ+ (𝑟⃗) = , Λ± > 0 , Λ𝜙 > 0 . (9)
𝜙 𝜙 𝜙 Λ−
𝜙
(𝑟⃗) 𝜙 reads with 𝑒+ ⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 𝐾 (𝑒𝑞) + 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) . In the transient modeling of Eq.
𝑞 (𝑟
(1), (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) is set equal to 𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) and 𝛽 e ≡ 1. Since the transient term
It is convenient to parameterize Λ+𝜙
in Eq. (9) through a positive free- 𝛽𝑒 −1 𝜕𝑡 𝐾 vanishes at the steady state, the stationary solutions are 𝛽 e -
tunable parameter Λ𝜙 = Λ+ − , because Λ controls the truncation ac-
Λ
𝜙 𝜙 𝜙 independent but their convergence becomes accelerated when 𝛽 e > 1
curacy (Ginzburg, 2012; 2017b; Ginzburg and Roux, 2015), stability following (Ginzburg, 2006).
(Ginzburg, 2012; Ginzburg et al., 2010; Kuzmin et al., 2011a; Yan et al.,
2017) and interface/boundary accuracy (Cui et al., 2016; Demuth et al., 2.3. Direct transient LBM-ADE solvers
2016; Ginzburg, 2007; 2017a).
We extend the two classes of LBM-ADE isotropic schemes from
Remark 1. The same value 𝑠+ 𝜙
assigned for all the symmetric modes
the homogeneous to heterogeneous soil. A further extension to full
in Eq. (7c) is the most natural and quite stable choice according to the
anisotropic diffusion tensors may adopt either anisotropic-equilibrium
Von Neumann exact analysis (Ginzburg, 2013). The isotropic MRT mod-
(Chai et al., 2016b; Ginzburg, 2005a; 2012; Ginzburg and d’Humières,
els computed on the coordinate velocity sets dDQ(2D+1) then all re-
2007; Ginzburg et al., 2010; Servan-Camas and Tsai, 2010), link-wise
duce to the TRT operator (8). The “regularized” dDQ(2D+1) isotropic
collisions (Ginzburg, 2005a; Ginzburg and d’Humières, 2007) or non-
schemes (Wang et al., 2015) correspond to 𝑠+ 𝜙
≡ 1 and hence, Λ𝜙 = 12 Λ−
𝜙
.
diagonal matrix collisions (Dubois et al., 2016; Huang and Wu, 2014;
According to exact stability analysis (Ginzburg et al., 2010), Λ𝜙 = 14 , Rasin et al., 2005; Yoshida and Nagaoka, 2010); different techniques are
or the so-called optimal stability sub-class OTRT, may assure the suffi- combined, examined for numerical diffusion and supported with the cor-
ciency of the necessary stability conditions. The “regularized” choice is responding necessary stability bounds in homogeneous soil (Ginzburg,
not “optimal” but perhaps more robust than the SRT sub-class where 2013). In a space-variable velocity field, numerical diffusion is expected
𝑠+
𝜙
= 𝑠−
𝜙
, Λ𝜙 = (Λ− 𝜙
)2 and the non-negativity of the equilibrium function (Ginzburg and Roux, 2015; Huang and Wu, 2014) to be dominated by
{𝑒𝑞 = 𝑒+
𝑞 + 𝑒 − > 0} is proved (Kuzmin et al., 2011a) to become necessary
𝑞 the physical and numerical dispersion already in the moderate Péclet
1
in the limit Λ−
𝜙
→ 0. The OTRT with Λ𝜙 = 4
has larger velocity bounds range; the anti-numerical-diffusion treatment then becomes insignif-
in the isotropic and anisotropic schemes. icant. Nevertheless, let us start with two remarks on the numerical
diffusion because its role is important in diffusion-dominant processes
Remark 2. Another reason to keep Λ𝜙 independent from the trans-
through heterogeneous blocks in “series”.
port eigenfunction Λ−𝜙
is the consistent parameterization of the spatial
truncation correction and steady-state solutions by Pe; this property is Remark 3. The second-order Chapman–Enskog expansion, e.g.
guaranteed with the fixed value Λ𝜙 when the mass-source is constant Ginzburg (2005a), Servan-Camas and Tsai (2008), Chopard
(d’Humières and Ginzburg, 2009), and it will be examined for a space- et al. (2009), Ginzburg (2013) and Wang et al. (2015), pro-
variable source. vides the numerical-diffusion form Fnum . In heterogeneous
soil, Fnum sums with the right hand side (RHS) of Eq. (1):
In the present work, 𝑒± ∑𝑑 ∑𝑄 𝑚 ∑𝑑
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡) has the form: 𝐹 𝑛𝑢𝑚 = Λ−
𝜙 𝛼,𝛽=1 𝜕𝛽 𝜕𝑡 𝑢𝜙,𝛼  𝑡 𝑐 𝑐 = Λ−
𝑞=1 𝑞 𝑞𝛼 𝑞𝛽 𝜙 𝛼=1 𝜕𝛼 𝜕𝑡 𝑢𝜙,𝛼  [us-
𝑄𝑚 ing 𝐾 =  and 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,−) = 0 in Eq. (10b)]. Following Ginzburg
𝑒+
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + Λ+
𝜙
(𝑟⃗)) + 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝑞 = 1, … , , (10a)
2 (2005a), we replace 𝜕𝑡  by −𝜙−1 ∇ ⋅ 𝑢⃗𝜙  + 𝑂(𝜖 2 ) according to

5
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

{ }
the first-order expansion, and obtain for a time-independent ve- 0 𝜙2 𝜙
∑ Λ− Λ− , Λ− = Λ− , 𝑢2𝜙 < 𝑐𝑒 𝜙.
locity field: 𝐹 𝑛𝑢𝑚 = −Λ− 𝜙
𝜙−1 𝑑𝛼,𝛽=1 𝜕𝛼 𝑢𝜙,𝛼 𝜕𝛽 𝑢𝜙,𝛽 . In a constant 𝜙 = 𝜙,1
=
(𝑐𝑒 𝜙 − 𝑢2𝜙 ) 𝜙,2 𝜙,3
=
𝑐𝑒
(12c)
or streamline-invariant duct flow an equivalent form reads:
𝐹 𝑛𝑢𝑚 = 𝐹 𝑢 = −Λ− ∇ ⋅ 𝐃(𝑢) ∇ with 𝐃(𝑢) = 𝜙−1 {𝑢𝜙,𝛼 𝑢𝜙,𝛽 }. We note
2
𝜙 The ADE-r operates with the continuous equilibrium distribution.
that the forward-time central-finite-difference Lax–Wendroff schemes
The matrix {𝑆𝛼𝛽
−1 } is the inverse of the collision matrix {S }; the d
𝛼𝛽
(Hindmarsch et al., 1984) complement the diffusion tensor with a sim-
1
Δ2 eigenfunctions {Λ− = − 12 } are built with the eigenvalues {𝑠− } of the
ilar anti-numerical-diffusion form, like Λ−
𝜙
𝐃(𝑢) Δ𝑡𝑥 |Λ− = 1 (see Ginzburg 𝜙 𝑠−
𝜙
𝜙
𝜙 2
collision matrix {S𝛼𝛽 } (cf. Ginzburg, 2013, Eq. (54)). This collision op-
et al., 2010). In LBM-ADE, by adopting anisotropic approaches, 𝐹 𝑢
2
erator is called “rotated” because its matrix becomes diagonal in the
can be cancelled either with the help of the “hydrodynamic” type axes aligned with the velocity vector 𝑢⃗𝜙 ; ADE-r reduces to ADE-1D in
u𝜙, 𝛼 u𝜙, 𝛽 -equilibrium correction on the full velocity sets (Chai et al., one-dimensional flow. An extension of Eq. (12) to full velocity sets and
2016b; Ginzburg, 2005a; 2012; Ginzburg et al., 2010), or with the anisotropic diffusion tensor may follow (Ginzburg, 2013). We note that
non-diagonal collision matrix (Ginzburg, 2013; Rasin et al., 2005), or the necessary stability line from Eq. (12c) coincides with the ADE-c sta-
else combining the two techniques (Ginzburg, 2013). The alternative bility bound from Eq. (10e), but Λ− unboundly increases on the sta-
𝜙,1
LBM techniques involve the pseudo-velocities (Servan-Camas and Tsai, bility line degrading the truncation accuracy. In this work, we fix an
2008) or “body force” strategy (Chai et al., 2016b; Chopard et al., uniform value Λ𝜙 and define Λ+ = Λ𝜙 ∕ max{Λ− } = Λ𝜙 ∕Λ− in Eq. (9).
𝜙 𝜙 𝜙,1
2009; Servan-Camas and Tsai, 2008; Wang et al., 2015). Following The MRT-r then intrinsically operates with two distinguished values, Λ𝜙
∑𝑑
this approach, one may set 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,−) = Λ− 𝑡
𝜙 𝑞 𝛼=1 𝜕𝑡 𝑢𝜙,𝛼 𝑐𝑞𝛼 in Eq. (10b), and (the smaller valued) Λ𝜙 Λ− ∕Λ− ; their disparity may degrade the
𝜙,2 𝜙,1
without any velocity field approximation, but with need to resorting accuracy and stability against the Λ𝜙 -optimized TRT schemes (Ginzburg,
for the backward finite-difference approximate to compute 𝜕𝑡  𝑢⃗𝜙 . 2013).
Remark 4. The recurrence equations (Ginzburg and Roux, 2015;
Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) produce numerical-diffusion correction Remark 5. The two stability conditions in Eq. (10e) present a formal
to the RHS of Eq. (1) in the exact form: 𝐹 𝑛𝑢𝑚 = −Λ− ∇̄ 2 𝜙. The Chapman– extension to the necessary stability conditions established with the Von-
𝜙 𝑡
Enskog approximate is then matched applying twice ∇ ̄ 𝑡 𝜙 = −∇̄ ⋅ 𝑢⃗𝜙 , Neumann linear analysis (Ginzburg et al., 2010) in the absence of the
and replacing the central-differences by their differential counterparts. interface/boundary and mass-sources, but comprising the worst possible
This suggests that the removal of the entire numerical diffusion may scenario for the respective position of the wave and (constant) velocity
require the time-centered implicit anti-correction. vectors. Indeed, the velocity bound from Eq. (10e) assures the positive
We will consider two different anti-numerical-diffusion corrections semi-definiteness of the effective diffusion tensor Λ− 𝜙
(𝐈 − 𝐃(𝑢) ); the ADE-
𝑑
to the approximate form 𝐹 𝑢 (𝑟⃗) = −Λ− ∇ ⋅ 𝐃(𝑢) ∇, 𝐃(𝑢) = 𝜙−1 {𝑢𝜙,𝛼 𝑢𝜙,𝛽 } in
2
𝜙
j may exceed this bound by a factor 𝑑−1
in d2Q5 and d3Q7, especially
TRT-ADE schemes. They combine Eq. (8) with Eq. (10) on the coordinate 1
when Λ𝜙 = in Eq. (9). Numerical computations confirm the princi-
4
stencil dDQ(2D+1) in the three linear following forms, using (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = pal stability bounds and trends in duct flow (Ginzburg and Roux, 2015;
𝐾(𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝛽 e ≡ 1 and 𝜙 = 𝜙0 : Yan et al., 2017) and multi-dimensional porous-scale velocity field (Yan
ADE-c ∶ 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,±) = 0, Λ−
𝜙 𝑐𝑒 = 𝜙 , 𝜙 = 𝜙0 , (11a) et al., 2017).
Finally, we recall that the effective mean-seepage velocity of the
numerical scheme is detected by the first raw moment, while the ef-
𝑑
∑ fective quantity of the numerical diffusion is detected by the variance.
ADE-j ∶ 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) = 𝑡𝑞 𝜙−1  𝑢𝜙,𝛼 𝑢𝜙,𝛽 𝑐𝑞𝛼 𝑐𝑞𝛽 , 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,−) = 0, Λ−
𝜙 𝑐𝑒 = 𝜙 , (11b) The direct solvers compute the solute evolution through a long array
𝛼=1
of duplicated periodic unit cells (cf. V in Fig. 1). A very useful check
( ) is that, in the spatial spread and Taylor regime, all minimal schemes
𝑢2𝜙,𝑥
ADE-1D ∶ 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,±) = 0, Λ−
𝜙 𝑐𝑒 − = 𝜙 , 𝑢2𝜙,𝑥 ≤ 𝑐𝑒 𝜙. (11c) should produce 𝜇1 (𝑡 + 𝛿𝑡 ) − 𝜇1 (𝑡) =  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) 𝛿𝑡 where an arithmetical-mean
𝜙 value  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) (over the cross-section) replaces 𝑥 in a straight strat-
The ADE-c operates with a continuous equilibrium, but it models the ified flow; the ADE-j, ADE-1D and ADE-r minimal schemes produce
diffusion tensor with the correction −Λ−
𝜙
𝐃(𝑢) . The ADE-j with 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) van- 𝜎 2 (𝑡 + 𝛿𝑡 ) − 𝜎 2 (𝑡) = 2𝜙 𝛿𝑡 exactly in 𝜙-uniform constant Darcy flow u𝜙, x ,
𝑢2𝜙,𝑥
ishes only the diagonal entries −Λ−
𝜙
𝐃(𝑢) on the coordinate velocity sets; while the ADE-c gives 𝜎 2 (𝑡 + 𝛿𝑡 ) − 𝜎 2 (𝑡) = 2𝜙 (1 − )𝛿𝑡 . We note that
𝜙𝑐𝑒
we note that 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) is subject to the jumps when the velocity vector is the Taylor regime is difficult to reach at high Pe because the number
perpendicular to the interface. This is because of the discontinuity in of cells grows linearly with Pe and the computational time increases as
, although 𝐹 𝑢 (𝑟⃗) is space-continuous together with the
2
coefficients Λ−𝜙 Pe2 , at least.
velocity field 𝑢⃗𝜙 (𝑟⃗). The ADE-1D in Eq. (11c) is only suitable for 1D The three schemes (11) will be examined for the quality of their pro-
where it removes 𝐹 𝑢 with the help of the velocity-dependent relax- files and the first four moments in a “perpendicular” one-dimensional
2

ation function Λ− ; this scheme has been compared with ADE-j in ho-
𝜙
mogeneous soil (Ginzburg, 2013) and can be applied for Darcy flow in
“series”. In multi-dimensions, the MRT-r block-matrix collision allows
to remove 𝐹 𝑢 on the coordinate stencil (cf. Ginzburg, 2013, Eq. (44)).
2
Darcy flow through heterogeneous blocks, against the analytical EMM
solution (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018). The three schemes (11a),
(11b) and (12a) will be compared, between them and with the steady-
state TRT − EMM predictions, for dispersion, skewness and kurtosis in

We propose an extension to heterogeneous soil for 𝑔𝑞− (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) in Eq. (7a) as temporal and spatial moments in two-dimensional flow around solid and
follows: through porous obstacles.
𝑑
∑ 𝑄𝑚
MRT-r ∶ 𝑔𝑞− (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = − 𝑆𝛼𝛽 (𝑟⃗)(𝑓𝛽− (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) − 𝑒−
𝛽 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡)), 𝑞 = 𝛼 = 1, … , = 𝑑,
𝛽=1
2
3. Extended method of moments, EMM and TRT − EMM
(12a)
( ) The EMM provides an alternative way to compute the transport co-
0 𝜙 1 0 𝜙
𝑆𝛼𝛽
−1
= + 𝛿 + 𝑢 𝑢 , {𝛼, 𝛽} = 1, … , 𝑑. (12b) efficients in Eqs. (5) and (6). Section 3.1 formulates the corresponding
𝑐𝑒 2 𝛼𝛽 𝑐𝑒 (𝑐𝑒 𝜙 − 𝑢2 ) 𝜙,𝛼 𝜙,𝛽
𝜙 steady state boundary-value EMM problems; Section 3.2 proposes their
numerical formulation TRT − EMM based on the TRT operator (8) and
ADE-r ∶ 𝛽𝑒 = 1, 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,±) = 0, equilibrium distribution (10).

6
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

3.1. The EMM solution for the spatial and temporal moments
𝑆𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 𝑛−1 , 𝑛 ≥ 2, 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 𝜙 𝑛−1 (𝑟⃗)1⃗ 𝑥 , 𝑛 ≥ 1, (16e)
The extended method of moments (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018;
Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) searches a solution to Eq. (1) in the de-
composed form (2), either expanded into perturbative series in “𝜔-form” ⟨𝑀𝑛 + 𝑆𝑛 ⟩
(3a) or in “𝛾-form” (3b). Assume first that the coefficients of the two 𝜔𝑛 = − , 𝑛 ≥ 1. (16f)
⟨𝜙0 ⟩
expansions, {𝜔n } and {𝛾 n }, are known and their dimensionless counter-
Let 𝑛⃗ be a normal vector on the boundary or interface and ||𝜓||𝐴𝜙 =
parts are defined giving the mean characteristic velocity 0 and char-
acteristic length , respectively: 𝜓𝐴+ − 𝜓𝐴− denote the jump of a scalar variable 𝜓(𝑟⃗) on the interface A𝜙
𝜙 𝜙
along 𝑛⃗. Solution 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is constrained to the periodic, interface, bound-
𝜔𝑛 0−1 𝛾𝑛 0𝑛 ary and normalization conditions, respectively:
𝜔′𝑛 = and 𝛾𝑛′ = , 𝑛 ≥ 1. (13)
(𝑛−1) (𝑛−1)
𝑛 (𝑟⃗ + 𝐿𝑥 1⃗ 𝑥 ) = 𝑛 (𝑟⃗), (17a)
They determine the dimensionless transport coefficients in Eqs. (5) and
(6):
0 𝑛 ⋅ 𝐽⃗𝑛 ||𝐴𝜙 ,
||𝑛 ||𝐴𝜙 = 0, || − 𝜙 𝑛⃗ ⋅ ∇𝑛 ||𝐴𝜙 = ||⃗ (17b)
𝑥 = 0 𝜔′1 and , if 𝑥 ≠ 0, 𝑥 = , (14a)
𝛾1′

−𝜙 𝑛⃗ ⋅ ∇𝑛 |𝐴𝑠 = 𝑛⃗ ⋅ 𝐽⃗𝑛 |𝐴𝑠 , (17c)

𝐷 = −𝜔2 , 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 = −𝜔2 |𝑢⃗𝜙 =0 , (14b)

⟨𝑛 𝜙⟩
𝐷 3   = 0. (17d)
𝑘𝑇 (0 ) = − 1 = −𝜔′2 Pe − 1 = 𝑥 𝛾2′ Pe − 1, Pe = 0 , (14c) ⟨𝜙⟩
0 03 0
Eqs. (16a)–(16e) are linear with re-
√ spect to 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) because 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) and 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) in
0 𝑡 3𝜔′3 0 𝑡 6𝜔′
Sk(⋆𝑠) = Sk(𝑡) (𝑠)
− 4, Eq. (16a) are built with the known solution 𝑘 (𝑟⃗), k < n, n ≥ 1;

= √ ( )3∕2 , Ku⋆ = Ku(𝑡)  = (14d)
2 |𝜔′2 | 𝜔′2 2 these terms are exemplified in Eq. (A.1). The set {𝜔n } is built in Eq.
(16f) from the solvability condition ⟨𝑛 ⟩ = 0 which implies global
√ √ mass conservation.
|𝑥| 3𝛾3′ 𝑥′ |𝑥′ | |𝑥| 6𝛾 ′ |𝑥′ |
Sk(⋆𝑡) = Sk(𝑥) = √ ( ) , Ku(⋆𝑡) = Ku(𝑥) = 4 ′ . (14e) Since 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗), 𝑢⃗𝜙 (𝑟⃗) and hence, the advective flux 𝑢⃗𝜙 𝐵𝑛 are continuous,
 2 𝛾2′ 𝑥′
3∕2  𝛾2′ 2 𝑥 the normal component of the diffusion flux −𝜙 ∇𝐵𝑛 is subject to the
prescribed jump value: || − 𝜙∇ ̄ 𝑛 𝑛 ||𝐴 = ||𝜙𝑛−1 𝑛𝑥 ||𝐴 according to
In pure diffusion, 𝜔1 |𝑢⃗𝜙 =0 = 0 and the “𝜔-form” allows to compute 𝜙 𝜙

𝑒𝑓 𝑓 and the higher moments due to the structure; the “𝛾-form” becomes Eq. (17b) with Eq. (16e), when 𝜙(𝑟⃗) is discontinuous along the 𝑥−axis at
undefined. In motion, the two sets of the coefficients are inter-related: interface A𝜙 : ||𝜙(𝑟⃗)𝑛𝑥 ||𝐴𝜙 ≠ 0. Eq. (17b) comprises the solid side 𝑟⃗𝑠 ∈ 𝐴𝑠
with 𝜙(𝑟⃗𝑠 ) = 0, 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗𝑠 ) = 0, 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑟⃗𝑠 ) = 0 and prescribes the jump of the
1 𝜔′2 2𝜔′2 2 − 𝜔′1 𝜔′3
𝛾1′ = , 𝛾 ′
= − , 𝛾 ′
= , diffusion-flux normal component on the solid wall by Eq. (17c) with
𝜔′1 2 𝜔′ 3
3
𝜔′ 5 Eq. (16e): −𝑛⃗ ⋅ ∇𝑛 |𝐴𝑠 = 𝑛−1 𝑛𝑥 |𝐴𝑠 . The flux-jump term 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) and the
1 1
mass-term 𝑆𝑛 (𝑟⃗) vanish in x-parallel stratified channels and ducts where
5𝜔′2 3 − 5𝜔′1 𝜔′2 𝜔′3 + 𝜔′1 2 𝜔′4
𝛾4′ = − . (15) the boundary-value problem reduces to diffusion equation with the
𝜔′1 7 transversely variable mass-source and continuous advection–diffusion
flux.
The back transform 𝜔′𝑛 (𝛾𝑛′ ) has exactly the same form, exchanging 𝜔′𝑛
The B-field is defined to a constant; it is fixed, without loss of general-
and 𝛾𝑛′ . In what follows, we have 0 = |𝑥 | with the x(component mean
ity, by the normalization condition (17d). Using Eq. (17d) for all orders
𝑥 of seepage velocity ⃗ from Eq. (4); then, when 𝑥 > 0, 𝜔′ = 𝛾 ′ = 1 ∑
1 𝑛 k < n in Eq. (16f), the terms ⟨𝜙 𝑛𝑘−1 =1 𝜔𝑘 𝑛−𝑘 ⟩ and ⟨𝜙 𝑛−2 ⟩ vanish for
in Eqs. (14a)–(15). In theory, the two formulations are equivalent and n > 2 and {𝜔n } can be computed as:
produce identical transport coefficients with the help of Eq. (15); it is
⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 1 ⟩ ⟨𝜙 𝜕𝑥 1 ⟩
shown (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018) that the two problems are tack- 𝜔2 = −0 + − , (18a)
led through the linear combinations of the boundary-value problems. ⟨𝜙⟩ ⟨𝜙⟩
We focus on the “𝜔-form” because it is simpler and allows for pure dif-
fusion. ⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 𝑛−1 ⟩ ⟨𝜙 𝜕𝑥 𝑛−1 ⟩
𝜔𝑛 = − , 𝑛 ≥ 3. (18b)
In “𝜔-form”, the EMM looks for the scalar distribution {𝑛 (𝑟⃗)}, ⟨𝜙⟩ ⟨𝜙⟩
called B-field, which sequentially solves the steady-state ADE given by Eqs. (16f) and (18) allow to predict n longitudinal moments. The
Eqs. (16a)–(16e) inside a penetrable region 𝑟⃗ ∈ {𝑉𝜙 } ∈ 𝑉 of a single cell effective diffusivity 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 in Eq. (14b) and the associated higher-order
V, streamwise periodic along the x-axis: moments, due to the structure alone, are computed solving Eqs. (16)–
∇ ⋅ (𝑢⃗𝜙 (𝑟⃗)𝑛 (𝑟⃗) − 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗)) − 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = ∇ ⋅ 𝜙 ∇𝑛 , 𝑛 ≥ 1, 𝜙 = 𝜙(𝑟⃗)0 , (17) with zero velocity 𝑢⃗𝜙 = 0. In order to obtain the three trans-
(16a) port coefficients in Eq. (14), a symbolic or numerical procedure solves
Eqs. (16)–(17) three times with respect to 𝑛 (𝑟⃗), 𝑛 = 1, 2, 3, …; the coef-
ficients 𝜔2 , 𝜔3 and 𝜔4 from Eqs. (16f) and (18) then allow to compute,
𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 𝑀𝑛 (𝑟⃗) + 𝑆𝑛 (𝑟⃗) + 𝜙(𝑟⃗)0 𝜔𝑛 , 𝑛 ≥ 1, 0 = 1, (16b)
respectively, kT , Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) in Eq. (14) with the help of Eq. (13);
the temporal transport coefficients Sk(⋆𝑡) and Ku(⋆𝑡) from Eq. (14) are built
⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 ⟩ with the help of Eq. (15). The boundary value problem reads similar in
𝑀1 (𝑟⃗) = −𝑢𝜙,𝑥 0 , 𝑆1 = 0, 𝜔1 = = 𝑥 , (16c)
⟨𝜙⟩ the “𝛾-form” using Eqs. (A.2)–(A.4) with the non-zero mean-seepage ve-
locity 𝑥 . The boundary problem (16)–(17) can be solved independently
𝑛−1
∑ for each periodic direction of the unit cell V; the full-rank effective diffu-
𝑀𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 𝜙 𝜔𝑘 𝑛−𝑘 (𝑟⃗) + 𝜙 𝑛−2 − 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 𝑛−1 , 𝑛 ≥ 2, (16d) sion and dispersion tensors can be restored from d runs with the help of
𝑘=1 the formulation (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018); it applies either with

7
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

an isotropic or anisotropic tensor D(0) ; at the first order 𝑛 = 1, this pro- steady-state solution of {𝑔𝑞± } exactly [see Ginzburg, 2017a, Eq. (20)];
cedure extends the B-equation (Brenner, 1980; Salles et al., 1993) from we will make the use of the two steady-state linear combinations:
homogeneous to heterogeneous soil. An extension to any-order longitu- {
̄ 𝑞 𝑒 − − Λ− Δ
𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗) = [Δ ̄ 2 𝑒+ + (Λ𝜙 − 1 )Δ
̄ 2 𝑔 + ](𝑟⃗),
dinal coefficients is straightforward employing the recursive procedure 𝑞 𝜙 𝑞 𝑞 4 𝑞 𝑞
(Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014). − − − ̄ + 1 ̄2 −
Λ 𝑔 (𝑟⃗) = [Λ Δ𝑞 𝑒 − Δ 𝑒 − (Λ𝜙 − 1 )Δ ̄ 𝑞 𝑔 + ](𝑟⃗), 𝑟⃗ ∈ 𝑉𝜙 .
𝜙 𝑞 𝜙 𝑞 4 𝑞 𝑞 4 𝑞
(22)
3.2. Numerical formulation TRT − EMM
The central-differences apply link-wisely: Δ ̄ 𝑞 𝜓 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 1 (𝜓 (𝑟⃗ +
2
The TRT − EMM solves Eqs. (16)–(17) inside a unit cell V with the ̄
𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑡) − 𝜓(𝑟⃗ − 𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑡)) and Δ𝑞 𝜓(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 𝜓(𝑟⃗ + 𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑡) − 2𝜓(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + 𝜓(𝑟⃗ − 𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑡),
2
TRT collision operator from Eq. (8) and the equilibrium distribution ∀𝜓 = {𝑒± 𝑞 , 𝑔𝑞 }. Eq. (22) are derived with the space-uniform eigenfunc-
±
in Eq. (11), where it substitutes  = 𝑛 (𝑟⃗), 𝐾 = 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) = 0 and tions Λ± ; in our context, they apply inside piece-wise continuous porous
∑ 𝜙
𝑒(𝑞𝑢,−) = −𝑡𝑞 𝑑𝛼=1 𝐽𝑛𝛼 𝑐𝑞𝛼 ; 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) is set equal to zero because numerical dif- block V𝜙 . Plugging first Eq. (22) with (19) into Eq. (21), an exact form
fusion vanishes at steady state; 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,−) is introduced in order to couple the of the modeled mass-conservation equation reads:
advective flux and diffusion-flux correction 𝐽⃗𝑛 and then to produce the ̄ ⋅ (𝑢⃗𝜙 𝐵𝑛 − 𝐽⃗𝑛 ) − 𝑛 + 𝑅𝑛 = ∇
∇ ̄ ⋅ 𝜙 ∇
̄ 𝐵𝑛 , 𝜙 (𝑟⃗) = Λ− (𝑟⃗)𝑐𝑒 , (23a)
𝜙
diffusive-flux jump in Eq. (17b) implicitly. Eq. (11) becomes:
𝑒+
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) + Λ+ (𝑟⃗)𝑛 (𝑟⃗)), (19a)
𝜙 ( )∑
𝑄𝑚
̄ 2 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) + Λ𝜙 − 1
𝑅𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = −Λ𝜙 𝑐𝑒 Δ ̄ 2 𝑔 + (𝑟⃗), 𝑛 ≥ 1.
Δ (23b)
4 𝑞=1 𝑞 𝑞
𝑑
∑
𝑒−
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑡𝑞 (𝑢𝜙,𝛼 (𝑟⃗)𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) − 𝐽𝑛𝛼 (𝑟⃗))𝑐𝑞𝛼 , (19b) Eq. (23a) presents the central-difference approximate of Eq. (16a) up
𝛼=1 to correction 𝑅𝑛 (𝑟⃗). The first component in 𝑅𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is non-zero when
𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is a non-linear function of the spatial coordinate; the term
1 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) ∑𝑄𝑚 ̄ 2 +
𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 𝐵𝑛(𝑒𝑞) (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) +  (𝑟⃗), 𝐵𝑛(𝑒𝑞) = 𝛽𝑒 , (19c) (Λ𝜙 − 14 ) 𝑞=1 Δ𝑞 𝑔𝑞 presents the generic TRT truncation correction (see
2 𝑛 𝜙(𝑟⃗)
Ginzburg, 2017b; Ginzburg and Roux, 2015). Eq. (23) is not specific
for TRT − EMM; it describes the steady-state equation modeled with the
𝑄𝑚
∑ TRT operator and linear equilibrium distribution (19); in that, 𝐽⃗𝑛 = 0,
𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), 𝑟⃗ ∈ {𝑉𝜙 }. (19d)
when the advective–diffusion flux is set continuous on the interface.
𝑞=0

The TRT − EMM can be applied in the form (19) with the full dis- 4. Bulk and interface analysis in a parallel and a perpendicular
crete velocity sets and isotropic weights {tq }; the minimal sets apply flow
𝑡𝑞 = 12 . An acceleration parameter 𝛽 e ≥ 1 from Eq. (11) should respect
the stability condition (10e); the steady state solutions are independent The analysis developed in this section applies exactly for any steady-
from 𝛽 e and initial distribution 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0). Like the direct ADE solvers, state solution of Eq. (23), provided that 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) varies along one lattice
the TRT − EMM runs across the heterogeneous domains {V𝜙 } without direction. In particular, the described situation takes place in a “series”
any explicit interface conditions; the diffusive-flux-jump condition on of porous blocks and stratified channels as sketched in Fig. 2.
the solid surface is modeled implicitly with the bounce-back boundary
rule [see Eq. (29b)]. The effective interface/boundary closure relations 4.1. Parameterization property
will be derived and compared to Eqs. (17b) and (17c). The obtained
steady-state solution 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is normalized with Eq. (17d) yielding: When solution Bn (x) to Eq. (23) varies only along the x-axis, isotropic
solution 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗) to Eq. (21) reads:
⟨𝐵𝑛 𝜙⟩
𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) − 𝐵𝑛 , 𝐵𝑛 = , 𝑛 ≥ 1. (20)
⟨𝜙⟩ 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗) = 𝑡𝑞 (𝑥)𝑐𝑞𝑥
2
, then (24a)
All the integral values < 𝜓 > in Eqs. (16), (18) and (20) are computed
with the summation over the grid points; hence, by construction, the 𝑄𝑚 𝑄𝑚
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
mean-seepage velocity is set equal to  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = 𝑟⃗ 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑟⃗)∕ 𝑟⃗ 𝜙(𝑟⃗). Ap- 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗) = (𝑥) and ̄ 2 𝑔 + (𝑟⃗) = Δ
Δ ̄ 2 (𝑥). (24b)
∑ 𝑞 𝑞 𝑥
plying the summation procedure, the global population mass 𝑟⃗ 𝜌(𝑟⃗), 𝑞=1 𝑞=1
∑𝑄 𝑚
𝜌(𝑟⃗) = 𝑞=0 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡), is conserved exactly due to the discrete solvability Eq. (23) then becomes:
∑
condition 𝑟⃗ 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 0; the sum of all populations over the grid should
remain the same during computations. The terms 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) and 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) are ̄ ⋅ (𝑢⃗𝜙 𝐵𝑛 − 𝐽⃗𝑛 ) − 𝑛 − 𝛼𝑀 Δ
∇ ̄ 2 𝑛 = ∇ ̄ 𝐵𝑛 , 𝛼𝑀 = 1 − Λ𝜙 (1 − 𝑐𝑒 ).
̄ ⋅ 𝜙 ∇
𝑥 4
precomputed with Eqs. (16b)–(16e) exemplified in Eq. (A.1). In that,
(25)
𝑆𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is approximated with the help of the streamwise finite-differences
applied inside V𝜙 , e.g. using Eq. (A.6). We do not apply here the lo- We expect Eqs. (24a) and (25) to remain valid for any 𝑥−axis rotation
cal gradient solution, like 𝑐𝑒 ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐵𝑛 ≈ ∑𝑄𝑚 𝑔 − 𝑐𝑞𝑥 because of its intrinsic ∑𝑄𝑚 2
because of the isotropy of the term 𝑡𝑞 𝑞=1 𝑐𝑞𝑥 . Let us consider the fol-
𝑞=1 𝑞
correction due to the mass-source and velocity variations. The “𝛾-form” lowing dependency between Λ𝜙 and ce :
computes Eq. (19) with Eqs. (A.2) and (A.3) for 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) and Eq. (A.5) for
 1
𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗); the set {𝛾 n } is constructed with Eq. (A.4). The numerical recipe is Λ𝜙 = ,  > 0, then 𝛼𝑀 = −  , (26a)
(1 − 𝑐𝑒 ) 4
formulated for TRT − EMM in Appendix A.4.
At steady state, 𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 + 1) = 𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) in Eq. (7a) and an exact mass-
1 1
conservation equation reads: 𝛼𝑀 = 0 if  = , then Λ𝜙 = . (26b)
4 4(1 − 𝑐𝑒 )
𝑄𝑚 ∕2
∑ Eq. (26a) allows to produce the same solution 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) for any individ-
(𝑟⃗) = 2 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑟⃗). (21)
ual values Λ−
𝜙
and ce when the diffusion coefficient 𝜙 = Λ− 𝑐 is fixed.
𝜙 𝑒
𝑞=1
In motion, Eq. (26a) allows for a consistent control of Eq. (25) by Péclet
The recurrence equations (d’Humières and Ginzburg, 2009; Ginzburg, number and porosity contrast. We say then that Eq. (26) allows for a
2012; Ginzburg and Roux, 2015) express both the transient and the proper parameterization of the modeled Eq. (25). However, 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) becomes

8
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 2. Sketches for two porous blocks in “series” and two-layered stratified flow; analysis applies along the x-axis with respect to midpoint interface position
𝑥0 = 𝑥±0 ∓ 12 𝑐𝑞𝑥 .

dependent upon a free-tunable value ; its specific solution  = 1

van- In the “series” configuration along the x-axis, the Darcy velocity 𝑢⃗𝜙 =
4
ishes the truncation correction. Since Λ𝜙 → 1
as ce → 0, this choice is 𝑢⟂ 1⃗ 𝑥 and the flux-jump term 𝐽⃗𝑛 = 𝐽𝑛 1⃗ 𝑥 are both perpendicular with the
interface 𝑥 = 𝑥0 ; the jump value ||𝐽⃗𝑛 ||𝑥0 in Eq. (17b) is non-zero when
4
expected to be robust.
the two blocks have distinguished porosity. In a stratified channel along
Remark 6. In principle, the mass-term in Eq. (19) can be applied with the y-axis, the velocity profile 𝑢⃗𝜙 = 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑥)1⃗ 𝑦 is parallel with the interface
an individual free-tunable scale parameter 𝑐𝑒(𝑀) ∈ [0, 1], as: [y replaces x in Eq. (16) for stratified flow in this section, see Fig. 2]; Eq.
(23) reduces to the diffusion equation and the interface analysis applies
1 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒(𝑀)
𝑒+ in the (transverse) x-direction with 𝑢⟂ = 0 and 𝐽𝑛 = 0. Let us express Eq.
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡) = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡) − 𝑛 (𝑟⃗)) + 𝑛 (𝑟⃗), then
2 𝑠+𝜙 (25) in terms of the (phase-dependent) grid Péclet number Pe⊥ :
1 (𝑀) (𝑀) ̄ 𝑥 𝐵𝑛 − ∇
̄ 𝑥 𝐽 ′ −  ′ − 𝛼𝑀 Δ
̄ 2 ′ = Δ
̄ 2 𝐵𝑛 , 𝑟⃗ ∈ 𝑉𝜙 ,
𝛼𝑀 = 𝜙 (𝑐𝑒 − 𝑐𝑒 )) − Λ𝜙 (1 − 𝑐𝑒 ).
(1 − 2Λ− (27) 𝑃 𝑒⟂ ∇ 𝑛 𝑛 𝑥 𝑛 𝑥 (31a)
4

Eq. (27) reduces to Eq. (19) when 𝑐𝑒(𝑀) = 𝑐𝑒 and 𝛼 M then reduces to 𝑢⟂
Eq. (26b). However, when 𝑐𝑒(𝑀) ≠ 𝑐𝑒 , Bn depends upon ce and Λ− 𝑃 𝑒⟂ = , 𝐽 ′ = −1
𝜙 𝐽 𝑛 ,  𝑛 =  𝜙  𝑛 ,  𝜙 = Λ𝜙 𝑐 𝑒 .
′ −1 −
sepa- (31b)
𝜙 𝜙 𝑛
rately even if their product is fixed.
We consider an interface-cut link 𝑐𝑞𝑥
2 = 1, 𝑐 3 = 𝑐 ; 𝑒± from Eq. (19),
𝑞𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝑞
4.2. Interface conditions in a parallel and a perpendicular flow 𝑔𝑞− from Eq. (22) and 𝑔𝑞+ from Eq. (24a) then read:

𝑒+
𝑞 = 𝑡 𝑞 𝑐 𝑒 ( 𝐵 𝑛 + Λ𝜙 𝑐 𝑒  𝑛 ) ,
′
(32a)
Assume a flat interface 𝑥 = 𝑥0 midway the two grid nodes [𝑥− 0
, 𝑥+0
]
and, without loss of generality, fix the interface cut link 𝑐⃗𝑞 such that 𝑥±0
±
1
𝑐
2 𝑞𝑥
= 𝑥0 . The two steady state exact interface conditions of the TRT
𝑒−
𝑞 = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 Λ𝜙 𝜖𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 , 𝜖𝑛 = 𝑃 𝑒⟂ 𝐵𝑛 − 𝐽𝑛 ,
− ′ ′ ′
(32b)
operator (8) read ∀{𝑒±
𝑞 } (see Ginzburg, 2007; Ginzburg and d’Humières,
2007):
||𝑆𝑞 ||𝑥0 = 0, with ||𝑆𝑞 ||𝑥0 = 𝑆𝑞 |𝑥+ − 𝑆𝑞 |𝑥− , 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑥) = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 Λ−
𝜙 𝑛 (𝑥)𝑐𝑞𝑥 ,
′ 2
(32c)
0 0
1 − 1 −
𝑆𝑞 |𝑥− = 𝑒+
𝑞 + 𝑔 − Λ+ 𝑔 + | − , 𝑆𝑞 |𝑥+ = 𝑒+
𝜙 𝑞 𝑥0 𝑞 − 2 𝑔𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔𝑞 |𝑥+
+ +
, (28a)
0 2 𝑞 0 0
̄ 𝑥 𝐵𝑛 − 1 Δ
̄ 2 𝜖 ′ 𝑐 2 + 𝛼𝑀 ∇
̄ 𝑥 ′ ).
𝑔𝑞− (𝑥) = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑞𝑥 (∇ (32d)
4 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 𝑛

||𝐺𝑞 ||𝑥0 = 0, with ||𝐺𝑞 ||𝑥0 = 𝐺𝑞 |𝑥+ − 𝐺𝑞 |𝑥− , The central-difference operators imply: Δ ̄ 𝑞𝜓 = ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝜓 𝑐𝑞𝑥 = 1 (𝜓 (𝑥 +
0 0 2
̄ 2 ̄
𝑐𝑞𝑥 ) − 𝜓(𝑥 − 𝑐𝑞𝑥 )) and Δ𝑞 𝜓 = Δ𝑥 𝜓 𝑐𝑞𝑥 = 𝜓 (𝑥 + 𝑐𝑞𝑥 ) − 2𝜓(𝑥) + 𝜓(𝑥 − 𝑐𝑞𝑥 ),
2 2
1 + 1 +
𝐺𝑞 |𝑥− = 𝑒−
𝑞 + 𝑔 − Λ−
𝜙 𝑔𝑞 |𝑥0 , 𝐺𝑞 |𝑥0 = 𝑒𝑞 − 2 𝑔𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔𝑞 |𝑥0 .
−
− +
− − −
+ (28b)
0 2 𝑞 ∀𝜓.
Applying Eq. (10), the effective continuity condition of the scalar
4.3. Effective continuity condition
variable 𝐾(𝑟⃗) is set by Eq. (28a); the effective advective–diffusion
flux-jump condition for 𝑢⃗𝜙 𝐾(𝑟⃗) − 𝜙 ∇𝐾(𝑟⃗) is set by Eq. (28b). The
Plugging Eqs. (32a) and (32c), Eq. (28a) reads with
anti-bounce-back (ABB) and bounce-back (BB) rules (Ginzburg, 2005b;
2017a) apply for the incoming population 𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟⃗𝑏 , 𝑡 + 1) in the grid bound- 1 −
𝑆𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝐵𝑛 − Λ𝜙 (1 − 𝑐𝑒 )′𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥
2
)± 𝑔 | ∓. (33)
ary node 𝑟⃗𝑏 : 0 2 𝑞 𝑥0
ABB ∶ 𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟⃗𝑏 , 𝑡 + 1) = −[𝑓𝑞 + 𝑔𝑞+ + 𝑔𝑞− ](𝑟⃗𝑏 , 𝑡) + 2𝑒+
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗𝑠 ), (29a) We substitute Eq. (32d) for 𝑔𝑞− (𝑥), factorize tq ce and split 𝑆𝑞 (𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 )−1 into
the two components: 𝑇𝑞(2) |𝑥∓ – the second-order central-difference Tay-
0

BB ∶ 𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟⃗𝑏 , 𝑡 + 1) = [𝑓𝑞 + 𝑔𝑞+ + 𝑔𝑞− ](𝑟⃗𝑏 , 𝑡), 𝑟⃗𝑏 = 𝑟⃗𝑠 −

1
𝑐⃗ , 𝑟⃗ ∈ 𝐴𝑠 . (29b) lor expansion from 𝑥∓
0
to 𝑥 = 𝑥0 , and the remaining component 𝑅𝑞 |𝑥∓ .
2 𝑞 𝑠
0
Eq. (33) yields:
The BB applies for the no-flux condition in the direct ADE schemes
𝑆𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝑇𝑞(2) |𝑥∓ + 𝑅𝑞 |𝑥∓ ), with (34a)
and TRT − EMM; the ABB applies for the Heaviside input in the direct 0 0 0
RTD computations. We note that ABB and BB steady state closure rela-
tions are comprised in Eqs. (28a) and (28b), respectively: 1̄ 1 ̄2
𝑇𝑞(2) |𝑥∓ = 𝐵𝑛 ± ∇ 𝐵 𝑐 + Δ 𝐵 𝑐2 | ∓ , (34b)
1 − 0 2 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 8 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0
ABB ∶ 𝑒+
𝑞 + 2 𝑔𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔𝑞 |𝑟⃗𝑏 = 𝑒𝑞 (𝑟
+ + +
⃗𝑠 ), (30a)
1 ̄2 1 ̄2 ′ 1 ̄ ′ 𝑐 | ∓ .
𝑅𝑞 |𝑥∓ = −Λ𝜙 (1 − 𝑐𝑒 )′𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥
2
− Δ 𝐵 𝑐2 ∓ Δ 𝜖 𝑐 ± 𝛼 ∇
1 0 8 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 8 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 2 𝑀 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0
BB ∶ 𝑒−
𝑞 + 𝑔𝑞+ − Λ−
𝜙 𝑔𝑞 |𝑟⃗𝑏 = 0.
−
(30b) (34c)
2

9
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

When Λ𝜙 and ce are inter-related through Eq. (26a), Eq. (34c) be- key point is that 𝜕𝑥 𝐽𝑛 = 𝑆𝑛 = 𝑛 − 𝑀𝑛 − 𝜙𝜔𝑛 according to Eq. (16e).
comes: When 𝑃 𝑒⟂ = 0, 𝛼𝑀 = 0, Eqs. (31) and (34) with Eq. (35) then become,
( ) ( ) respectively:
1 ̄2 1 ̄2 ′ 1 1 ̄ 𝑥 ′ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 |𝑥∓ .
𝑅𝑞 |𝑥∓ = − ′𝑛 + Δ 𝐵 𝑐2 ∓ Δ 𝜖 𝑐 ± − ∇
0 8 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 8 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 2 4 𝑛 0 1 ̄2 𝑀 𝜔 𝜙 𝜔
−′𝑛 (𝑥) = (Δ 𝐵 − 𝑀𝑛′ − 𝜔̃ 𝑛 ), 𝑀𝑛′ = 𝑛 , 𝜔̃ 𝑛 = 𝑛 = 𝑛 , (37a)
(35) 2 𝑥 𝑛 𝜙 𝜙 0

Since ce is set constant over the grid, Eq. (28a), as well as Eqs. (34)–
1 1 ̄ 2 𝐽 ′ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 )||𝑥∓ , then
(35), become tq ce independent and parameterized by . A pure diffu- = ∶ ||𝐵𝑛(2) ||𝑥0 = ||(𝑀𝑛′ + 𝜔̃ 𝑛 ∓ Δ 𝑥 𝑛 (37b)
4 8 0
sion through a “series” of porous blocks is comprised with 𝑢⟂ = 0 and
||𝐽⃗𝑛 ||𝑥0 ≠ 0; the EMM then predicts the effective diffusivity and kurtosis
1
due to the porosity contrast (see Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018). In a = ∶ ||𝐵2(2) ||𝑥0 = 0, ||𝐵3(3) ||𝑥0 = 0. (37c)
semi-explicit diffusion scheme, formulated by Eqs. (B.4) and (B.5) for 4
comparison with the implicit jump-tracking via Eq. (19), 𝑒− 𝑞 = 0 and the Eq. (37b) is obtained by substituting  = 14 , Eq. (37a) and Δ ̄ 2 𝜖′ =
𝑥 𝑛
flux-jump value ||𝐽⃗𝑛 ||𝑥0 is interpolated to the interface and prescribed ̄ 2𝐽′
−Δ 𝑥 𝑛 into Eq. (35). When 𝑛 = 2, the RHS vanishes in Eq. (37b) be-
explicitly [then 𝜖 ′ ≡ 0 and ′ becomes replaced by ′ + ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐽 ′ in Eq. cause 𝜔̃ 𝑛 is constant ∀n, 𝑀2′ is constant and Δ ̄ 2 𝐽 ′ = 0. When 𝑛 = 3,
𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑥 2
(32)]. This scheme is expected to behave similar to the interface config- the RHS vanishes in Eq. (37b) because 𝐽3′ (𝑥) is the parabolic func-
uration which takes place in the stratified channels. tion, −2𝜕𝑥2 𝐽3′ − 𝜕𝑥 𝑀3′ = 𝜕𝑥3 𝐵3 when 𝛼𝑀 ( = 0) = 0 [using 𝜕𝑥 𝐽𝑛 = 𝑆𝑛 ],
Example 1 Stratified channels. In that case, 𝑃 𝑒⟂ = 0, Δ̄ 2 𝜖 ′ = 0 and ′ = and ∓ 1 Δ ̄ 2 𝐽 ′ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 = ∓ 1 𝜕 2 𝐽 ′ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 gives a continuation to the interface:
𝑥 𝑛 𝑛 𝑥 𝑛
̄ 2 𝐵 𝑛 − 𝛼𝑀 Δ
̄ 2 ′ is expressed from Eq. (31), the continuity condition 8 8 𝑥 3
−Δ 1
𝑥 𝑥 𝑛 ± 16 𝜕𝑥 𝑀3′ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 for the piece-wise linear function 18 𝑀3′ (𝑥) in the RHS of Eq.
(28a) gives with the help of Eqs. (34)–(35):
𝜕𝑥 𝐵3 (𝑥)𝑐𝑞𝑥 in the LHS of Eq. (37b). Then ||𝐵3(3) ||𝑥0 = 0 for
1 3
(37b), and ∓ 16
∀  ∶ ||𝐵𝑛(1) ||𝑥0 = 0 if 𝑛 (𝑥) = 0 ; (36a) the third-order polynomial solution B3 (x) [similarly as in Eq. (36c)].
We conclude that the semi-explicit and implicit interface-jump track-
ing impose the continuous polynomial solutions to pure diffusion equa-
1
= ∶ ||𝐵𝑛(2) ||𝑥0 = 0 if 𝑛 (𝑥) = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑛 ; (36b) tion (𝑛 = 2 and 𝑛 = 3) with two distinguished values,  = 18 and  = 14 ,
8
respectively. The choice  = 18 is the same as in stratified channels.
Example 3 Darcy velocity in a “series” when 𝑛 = 1. In that case, 𝑛 (𝑥)
1 ̄ 𝑥 ′ = 0, Δ
̄ 2 ′ = 0 and ∇
̄ 𝑥 𝐽 ′ = 0],
= ∶ ||𝐵𝑛(3) ||𝑥0 = 0 if 𝑛 (𝑥) = 𝑎𝑛 𝑥 + 𝑏𝑛 , with and Jn (x) are piece-wise constant [∇ 𝑛 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛
8
Bn (x) is the discrete exponential function and the term ∓ 81 Δ ̄ 2 𝜖 ′ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 =
1 1 𝑥 𝑛
𝑅𝑞 |𝑥∓ = ± 𝜕𝑥 ′𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 |𝑥∓ = ∓ 𝜕𝑥3 𝐵𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 |𝑥∓ ,
0 16 0 16 0 ̄ 2 𝐵1 𝑐𝑞𝑥 is non-zero in Eq. (35). When ′ (𝑥) is expressed from
∓ 81 𝑃 𝑒⟂ Δ
( ) 𝑥 1
1̄
∇ 𝐵 𝑐 =
1
𝜕 𝐵 +
1 3
𝜕 𝐵 𝑐 , then Eq. (31): ′ = 𝑃 𝑒⟂ ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐵1 − Δ
̄ 2 𝐵1 , the continuity condition given by
𝑥
2 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 2 𝑥 𝑛 12 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥
1
Eq. (28a) with Eq. (33) takes the form of the asymmetric Taylor expan-
1 1 1 3 sion from the two interface sides 𝑥± = 𝑥0 ± 12 𝑐𝑞𝑥 :
𝑆𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝐵𝑛 ± 𝜕𝑥 𝐵𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 + 𝜕𝑥2 𝐵𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥
2
± 𝜕 𝐵 𝑐 )| ∓ ; (36c)
0 2 8 48 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0 0

̄ 𝑥 𝐵1 𝑐𝑞𝑥 + 𝛼 + Δ
𝑆𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝐵1 ± 𝛼 − ∇ ̄ 2 𝐵1 𝑐 2 )|𝑥∓ , 𝑛 = 1, (38a)
0 𝑥 𝑞𝑥 0
1 1 1 ̄2
= ∶ ||𝐵𝑛(2) ||𝑥0 = ||′𝑛 ||𝑥0 = − ||Δ𝑥 𝐵𝑛 ||𝑥0 , ∀𝑛 (𝑥). (36d)
4 8 8
1 1
̄ 2 𝑛 = 0; 𝐵𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) 𝛼 − (𝑥∓ )= ∓ Λ𝜙 (1 − 𝑐𝑒 )𝑃 𝑒⟂ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 , 𝛼 − → if Λ𝜙 → 0, (38b)
Eqs. (36a)–(36c) take into consideration that Δ 𝑥
0 2 2
means here the 𝑘th -order central-difference Taylor expansion from the
interface nodes to the interface. Eq. (36a) indicates that a piece-wise- 1
linear function Bn (x) is continuous on the interface. This addresses a 𝛼 + (𝑥∓
0
) = ∓ 𝑃 𝑒⟂ 𝑐𝑞𝑥 + Λ𝜙 (1 − 𝑐𝑒 ). (38c)
8
pure diffusion in “series” with 𝑛 = 1 in Eq. (25), either with the semi-
explicit or implicit interface [since J1 (x) is piece-wise constant, Δ̄ 2 𝜖′ = 0 When Pe⊥ → 0, then 𝛼 − = 12 ∀Λ𝜙 and the analysis reduces to the pure
𝑥 𝑛
in the two cases]. Eq. (36b) tells that the parabolic function Bn (x) is diffusion problem discussed above. However, the perpendicular flow in-
continuous on the interface when 𝑛 (𝑥) is a piece-wise constant only troduces the asymmetric (not equal) coefficients of Pe⊥ in 𝛼 ± for two
provided that  = 18 . This condition supports an exact parabolic solu- neighbor nodes and the leading-order coefficient 𝛼 − becomes accurate
tion Bn (x) to Eq. (25) either in a stratified Darcy flow when 𝑛 = 1 or only in the asymptotic limit Λ𝜙 → 0. This suggests that the midway conti-
with the semi-explicit jump-tracking diffusion scheme in “series” when nuity of the solution B1 (x) and the measured dispersion coefficients will
𝑛 = 2. Eq. (36c) extends the exact closure condition of  = 18 to the third- degrade with Pe⊥ , and that only very small values  in Eq. (26a) will
order polynomial solution Bn (x) governed by the piece-wise linear mass improve for this; however, such a choice is rather unstable (Ginzburg
source. This addresses 𝑛 = 3 (kurtosis) in Eq. (25) with the semi-explicit and Roux, 2015; Kuzmin et al., 2011a). This continuity analysis extends
jump-tracking diffusion scheme in “series” (Eqs. (B.4) and (B.5)). It fol- straightforwardly for the next orders.
lows that  = 18 is the most suitable choice for diffusion equilibrium
𝜖𝑛′ = 0 when the mass-source is either piece-wise constant or linear. Eq. 4.4. Effective flux-jump condition
(36d) indicates that when the correction of 𝛼 M vanishes due to  = 14 ,
the interface continuity condition is exact for parabolic distribution Bn Plugging Eq. (32) into Eq. (28b), an exact form of the interface conti-
nuity condition for the total flux component Φ𝑥 = (𝑢⟂ 𝐵𝑛 − 𝐽𝑛 − 𝜙 ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐵𝑛 )
only if ||′𝑛 ||𝑥0 = 0, that is, when 𝑛 scales with 𝜙 and ′𝑛 is continu-
ous. The described situation takes place in the next example. reads:
Example 2 Pure diffusion with the implicit jump-tracking in “series” of
||𝐺𝑞 ||𝑥=𝑥0 = 0, with
porous blocks. In pure diffusion through two heterogeneous blocks,
𝜔2𝑛−1 = 0, Jn (x) and 𝑛 (𝑥) are, respectively, 𝑛 − 1 and 𝑛 − 2 order poly- 1 ̄ 𝑥 𝑛 𝑐 2 ) + 1 Δ̄ 2 𝑒− 𝑐 2 | ∓
𝐺𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑞𝑥 (Φ𝑥 ±  𝑐 − 𝛼𝑀 ∇
nomials. Let us show that  = 14 in Eq. (36d) assures the continuous 0 2 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 𝑞𝑥 4 𝑥 𝑞 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0
1̄ ̄ 𝑥 𝑛 ± 1 Δ ̄ 2  𝑐 )| ∓
solution both for the parabolic function B2 (x) and the third-order poly- = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑞𝑥 (Φ𝑥 ± ∇ Φ 𝑐 )| ∓ − 𝛼𝑀 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑞𝑥 (∇
nomial B3 (x). Eq. (19) matches the diffusion-flux jump implicitly via 2 𝑥 𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0 2 𝑥 𝑛 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0
̄2 ′ 1 ̄2 − 2 ̄ 𝑥 Φ 𝑥 =  𝑛 + 𝛼𝑀 Δ ̄ 2 𝑛 .
𝑒−
𝑞 = −𝑡𝑞 𝐽𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 , hence Δ𝑥 𝜖𝑛 becomes non-zero for 𝑛 = 3 (kurtosis). The + Δ 𝑒 𝑐 | ∓ , where ∇ (39)
4 𝑥 𝑞 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0 𝑥

10
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

̄ 2 𝑒− 𝑐 2 ||𝑥 = 0, Eq. (39) gives:

When ||Δ 𝑥 𝑞 𝑞𝑥 0
If ||∇̄ 𝑥 𝑛 ||𝑥 = 0, or ∀𝑛 if  = 1 , 𝛼𝑀 () = 0 ∶
0 4
̄
||(𝑢⟂ 𝐵𝑛 − 𝜙 ∇𝑥 𝐵𝑛 ) ||𝑥=𝑥0 = ||𝐽𝑛(1) ||𝑥=𝑥0 ,
(1)
1̄
with 𝐺𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑞𝑥 (Φ𝑥 ± ∇ Φ 𝑐 )| ∓ .
0 2 𝑥 𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0
Eq. (40) presents second-order accurate flux-jump condition of the
scheme; it is exact with respect to the interface location only when
all flux components are linear functions in space. This is valid in the
stratified Darcy flow when 𝑛 = 1 ∀ [𝑢⟂ = 𝐽𝑛 = 0, 1 is a piece-wise
constant, B2 is parabolic]; otherwise, Eq. (40) applies in a stratified
flow with  = 14 . Eq. (40) applies in pure diffusion in a “series” when
𝑛 = {1, 2} ∀ [because 𝑛 is piece-wise constant when 𝑛 = {1, 2}]. How-
̄ 2 𝑒− 𝑐 2 ||𝑥 is different from zero for all orders in the “perpen-
ever, ||Δ
𝑥 𝑞 𝑞𝑥 0
dicular” Darcy flow and it is expected to modify the coefficient of the
second-order correction in flux-jump effective location in Eq. (40). When
𝑛 (𝑥) is a linear function and Bn (x) is the third-order polynomial, e.g.,
in pure-diffusion problem, an exact midway location of the flux-jump
condition is reached with the specific value  = 24 5
: mass-source (see particular solutions Chai and Zhao, 2014; Cui et al.,
1 1
= ∶ Λ𝜙 = , (42b)
8 8(1 − 𝑐𝑒 )
5 5
= ∶ Λ𝜙 = . (42c)
24 24(1 − 𝑐𝑒 )
(40)
Firstly, Eq. (42a) vanishes 𝛼 M in Eq. (25) and provides continuous
parabolic and third-order polynomial pure-diffusion solution for B2 (x)
and B3 (x), respectively, in a “series” of porous blocks in the case of the
implicit interface tracking with Eq. (19). Secondly, Eq. (42b) assures
exact parabolic solution B1 (x), and hence the dispersion coefficient, in
a stratified Darcy flow. It also assures continuous, second and third-
order polynomial functions B2 (x) and B3 (x) in diffusion process in a
“series” of the porous blocks when the semi-explicit jump-tracking from
Eqs. (B.4) and (B.5) replaces Eq. (19). We note that Eq. (42b) is known
for the midway continuity of the parabolic solutions in the presence of
the heterogeneous diffusion coefficients (Ginzburg, 2007; 2017b), but
also for an exact location of the straight Dirichlet boundary with the anti-
bounce-back rule in parabolic distributions governed by the constant
2016 and general form Ginzburg, 2017b). When 𝑐𝑒 = 13 , Eqs. (42a) and

𝑛 = 𝑎𝑛 𝑥 + 𝑏𝑛 ,  =
5
, 𝛼 () =
1
∶ (42b) give, respectively, Λ𝜙 = 38 and Λ𝜙 = 16
3
; the first solution is known
24 𝑀 24 for its annihilation of the truncation coefficient due to the resistance
̃ (3) ||𝑥
||Φ = ||𝐽𝑛 ||𝑥0 , with
(2)
variation in the TRT Brinkman-flow scheme (Ginzburg et al., 2015b); the
𝑥 0
second solution assures the midway location of the interface-continuity
Φ̃ 𝑥 = −𝜙 𝜕𝑥 𝐵𝑛 = (Φ𝑥 + 1 𝜙 𝜕 3 𝐵𝑛 ), Φ𝑥 = −𝜙 ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐵𝑛 ,
6 𝑥 and the bounce-back no-slip condition in the parabolic velocity profile
̃ 𝑥 ± 1 𝜕𝑥 Φ
̃ 𝑥 𝑐𝑞𝑥 + 1 𝜕 2 Φ
̃ 𝑐 2 )| ∓ . (Ginzburg, 2007).
and 𝐺𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑞𝑥 (Φ (41)
0 2 8 𝑥 𝑥 𝑞𝑥 𝑥0 Thirdly, Eq. (42c) assures a midway location of the flux-continuity
and no-flux bounce-back boundary in the stratified flow governed by a
Eq. (41) is obtained using −𝛼𝑀 𝜕𝑥 𝑛 = 𝛼𝑀 𝜙 𝜕𝑥3 𝐵𝑛 in pure diffusion with piece-wise linear mass-source. It also assures the exact flux-jump condi-
linear source [∇̄ 𝑥 𝑛 = 𝜕𝑥 𝑛 , Δ
̄ 2 𝑛 = 0]: 𝐺𝑞 |𝑥∓ in Eq. (41) then gets an
𝑥 0 tion for the third-order polynomial diffusion solution in a “series” mod-
1
extra term (𝛼𝑀 + 8
− 16 )𝜙 𝜕𝑥3 𝐵𝑛 which vanishes with 𝛼𝑀 = 1
24
. The mod- eled with the semi-explicit jump-tracking. The implicit jump-tracking
𝑠𝑢𝑚)
eled third-order polynomial solution is exact with  = 24 5
in a stratified, from Eq. (19) needs however a parameter-dependent solution 𝐴(𝐾𝑢
either periodic or bounded by the bounce-back channel governed by from Eq. (B.3) for the same objective. These two (distinguished) solu-
the linear mass source. Eq. (41) also applies in a pure diffusion for 𝑛 = 3 tions provide an exact solution for the kurtosis [up to summation] in
(kurtosis) with the semi-explicit jump-tracking scheme where 𝑒− the pure-diffusion problem. Hence, on the one hand, the semi-explicit
𝑞 = 0,
jump-tracking makes the diffusion problem in “series” equivalent with
flux-jump value ||𝐽𝑛(2) ||𝑥0 is modeled exactly and the total linear mass-
the stratified channels. On the other hand, it does not vanishes the -
source includes 𝜕 x Jn (x) (see Eq. (B.5)).
dependency in parabolic and higher-order solutions Bn (x). To be con-
However, an implicit-jump diffusion scheme (19) incorporates
̄ 2 𝑒− 𝑐 2 ||𝑥 = − 1 𝑡𝑞 ||Δ
̄ 2 𝐽𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 ||𝑥 = trasted with the local “node-centered” implicit tracking in Eq. (19), the
an additional non-zero term 41 ||Δ 𝑥 𝑞 𝑞𝑥 0 𝑥
4 0 semi-explicit jump-tracking is more involved numerically because it is
− 28 𝑡𝑞 ||𝜕𝑥2 𝐽𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 ||𝑥0 with the parabolic distribution Jn (x) for 𝑛 = 3 “link-centered” and requires an interpolation of the prescribed jump-
(kurtosis); the difference with 𝐺𝑞 |𝑥∓ in Eq. (41) then reads: value to the interface.
0
𝑅𝑞 |𝑥∓ = 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑞𝑥 ((𝛼𝑀 − 18 )𝜕𝑥2 𝐽𝑛 + (𝛼𝑀 − 1
24
)𝜙 𝜕𝑥3 𝐵𝑛 )|𝑥∓ [using first Besides the space-variable mass sources, a new point in this inter-
0 0
face analysis is the presence of the non-zero interface-perpendicular ve-
−𝛼𝑀 𝜕𝑥 𝑛 = 𝛼𝑀 (𝜙 𝜕𝑥3 𝐵𝑛 + 𝜕𝑥2 𝐽𝑛 ), and then − 81 𝜕𝑥2 𝐽𝑛 𝑐𝑞𝑥 |𝑥∓ for con-
0 locity. It is predicted that the Darcy velocity u⊥ makes the continuity
tinuation of the parabolic solution Jn cqx in interface jump term
condition asymmetric from the two interface sides in “series”; this spe-
||𝐽𝑛(2) ||𝑥0 , Eq. (41)]. A particular (parameter-dependent) dependency cific deficiency only vanishes in the stability limit Λ𝜙 → 0; an impact of
(𝑟𝜙 , 𝑟ℎ ) from Eq. (B.3) then solves ||𝑅𝑞 ||𝑥0 = 0. this property on the moments will be examined in Section 5. Finally,
we note that the developed analysis procedure can be adopted for any
4.5. Summary linear equilibrium and collision operator in simple geometries, with a
possible extension for their rotation with respect to the lattice.
The bulk and interface analysis was developed in a common frame-
work for stratified channels and porous blocks in “series”. A specific 5. Series of porous blocks
dependency between  and ce from Eq. (26a) allows to parameterize
properly the modeled equation and the effective closure relations in We consider a periodic series of two porous blocks along the x-
these two situations. This analysis suggests that due to the linearity of axis with the interface at 𝑥0 = 0 (see Fig. 2). The porosity is 𝜙1 when
the truncation correction and the interface conditions with respect to the 𝑥 ∈] − ℎ1 , 0[ and 𝜙2 when x ∈ ]0, h2 [; the characteristic length is set
mass source 𝑛 and the flux-jump term 𝐽⃗𝑛 , the “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-form” equal to 𝐻 = ℎ1 + ℎ2 . The system can be parameterized through the
𝜙 ℎ
are numerically equivalent in these configurations when the control pa- porosity contrast 𝑟𝜙 = 𝜙1 and aspect ratio 𝑟ℎ = ℎ1 . Since the two blocks
2 2
rameter  from Eq. (26a) takes the same value in both formulations. are interchangeable, all results are invariant with respect to the simul-
Three physical-parameter independent solutions for  have been con- taneous transformation 𝑟𝜙 → 𝑟−1 and 𝑟ℎ → 𝑟−1 ; we consider 𝑟𝜙 ∈ [0, 1]
𝜙 ℎ
sidered: and rh > 0. Closed-form expressions are provided (Ginzburg and Vikhan-
1 1 sky, 2018): (i) the effective diffusivity 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 , skewness coefficients Sk(⋆𝑠)
= ∶ Λ𝜙 = , (42a)
4 4(1 − 𝑐𝑒 ) and Ku(⋆𝑠) (they are gathered in Eq. (B.1)); and (ii), for {𝜔′2 , 𝜔′3 }, and

11
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

hence 𝑘𝑇 (𝑒𝑓 𝑓 ) and Sk(⋆𝑠) , in the presence of the constant Darcy flow (see
Eqs. (58), (C.1) and (C.2) in Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018). We will
measure the differences to the exact solution in the following forms:
𝐷(𝑛𝑢𝑚) − 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 (1 + 𝑘𝑇 )
E(𝑘𝑇 ) = , when 𝑘𝑇 ≠ 0, (43a)
𝑒𝑓 𝑓 𝑘𝑇
𝐷(𝑛𝑢𝑚) − 0 (1 + 𝑘𝑇 )
E(D) = , (43b)
0 (1 + 𝑘𝑇 )
Sk(⋆𝑠,𝑛𝑢𝑚) Ku(⋆𝑠,𝑛𝑢𝑚)
E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) = − 1, E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) = − 1. (43c)
Sk(⋆𝑠) Ku(⋆𝑠)
Eq. (43a) is only applied for Darcy flow in “series”; we will show that
𝑒𝑓 𝑓 is the exact solution of the pure diffusion TRT − EMM and hence,
E(kT ) vanishes when kT → 0. This is to be contrasted with the direct ADE
solvers in the presence of the numerical diffusion, where E(kT ) diverges
when kT → 0. The blocks in “series” are challenging for both numerical
approaches, TRT − EMM and TRT-ADE, because the heterogeneity hap-
pens in the streamwise direction and the associated non-Gaussian effects
are relatively weak but non-zero.
Section 5.1 constructs and examines the symbolic solutions of the
TRT − EMM in pure diffusion. Section 5.2 extends this analysis for a
constant Darcy flow. Section 5.3 compares numerical solutions for the
three transport coefficients in the Darcy flow between the TRT − EMM
and the three TRT-ADE schemes from Eq. (11). The TRT-ADE schemes
are additionally examined on the continuity of their solutions.
5.1. Pure diffusion: symbolic TRT − EMM solutions
Eq. (20). The continuity condition is elaborated in Eqs. (34)–(35), and
discussed in Example 2of Section 4.3; the effective flux-jump condition
is developed in Eq. (39); the two conditions have the form of the central-
difference Taylor expansion from the neighbor interface nodes 𝑥0 ± 12 to
x0 .
When 𝑛 = 1, then 𝑀1 = 𝑆1 = 𝜔1 = 1 = 0, 𝐽1 = 𝜙 , 𝜕𝑥 𝐽1 (𝑥) = 0,
B1 (x) is piece-wise linear and Eq. (46) are exact [the superscript “(k)”
is dropped hereafter]. Hence, B1 (x) is exact and Eq. (16f), or Eq. (18),
⟨𝜙 𝜕𝑥 1 ⟩
produces 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 = −𝜔2 |𝑢𝜙,𝑥 =0 = 0 + exactly. Recall, 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 is the
⟨𝜙⟩
length-weighted harmonic mean from Eq. (B.1a).
When 𝑛 = 2, then 𝑀2 = 𝜙 and 𝑆2 = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 1 are piece-wise con-
stant, B2 (x) is parabolic, 𝐽2 (𝑥) = 𝜙 1 (𝑥) and the diffusive flux
−𝜙 𝜕𝑥 2 (𝑥) are piece-wise linear. Eq. (46b) assures the flux-jump con-
dition midway the interface link with Eq. (40) and the solution of the
system is exact ∀Λ𝜙 : 𝜔3 = 0, Sk(⋆𝑠) = 0. However, according to Eq. (37),
B2 (x) is discontinuous at 𝑥 = 𝑥0 except when Λ𝜙 obeys Eq. (42a).
When 𝑛 = 3, 𝜔1 = 𝜔3 = 0, 𝑀3 (𝑥) = (𝜙𝜔2 + 𝜙 )1 (𝑥) and 𝑆3 (𝑥) =
𝜙 𝜕𝑥 2 (𝑥) are piece-wise linear, B3 (x) is the third-order polynomial,
𝐽3 (𝑥) = 𝜙 2 (𝑥) and the diffusive flux −𝜙 𝜕𝑥 3 (𝑥) are parabolic. Ac-
cording to Eq. (37), 𝐵3 (𝑥+
0
) = 𝐵3 (𝑥−
0
) is only valid provided that Λ𝜙 obeys
Eq. (42a); exact continuous solution B3 (x) of the scheme is exemplified
in Fig. 3. In fact, when Λ𝜙 obeys Eq. (26a), the dimensionless B-field
interface jump-error is reduced with the second-order accuracy:
′ (1 + 𝑟ℎ )(−1 + 𝑟𝜙 )(−1 + 4)
||𝐵2 ||𝑥=𝑥0 = 𝐻 −2 ||𝐵2 ||𝑥=𝑥0 = , (47a)
4(𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝜙 )𝐻 2
′ 𝑟ℎ (−1 + 𝑟𝜙 )2 (−1 + 4)
||𝐵3 ||𝑥=𝑥0 = 𝐻 −3 ||𝐵3 ||𝑥=𝑥0 = . (47b)
8(𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝜙 )(1 + 𝑟ℎ 𝑟𝜙 )𝐻 2

In pure diffusion along the x-axis, Eq. (16a) reduces to the one- The two functions from Eq. (47) are displayed in Fig. 3; B2 (x) and
dimensional linear diffusion equation with respect to 𝐵𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) inside each B3 (x) are continuous at the midway position 𝑥 = 𝑥0 only with  = 14 in
block k: agreement with the interface analysis in Eq. (37). However, according
to the third-order accurate Taylor analysis in Eq. (39), the flux-jump
−𝜕𝑥 𝐽𝑛(𝑘) − (𝑛𝑘) (𝑥) = 𝜕𝑥 𝜙𝑘 0 𝜕𝑥 𝐵𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥), 𝐽𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 𝐵𝑛(𝑘−1
)
, 𝑛≥1. (44) condition || − 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 𝐵3 ||𝑥=𝑥0 = ||𝜙 2 (𝑥)||𝑥=𝑥0 is exact only with the
𝑠𝑢𝑚) 𝑠𝑢𝑚)
parameter-dependent value 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 (𝑟𝜙 , 𝑟ℎ ) from Eq. (B.3); 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 (𝑟𝜙 , 𝑟ℎ ) is
Mass-source (𝑛𝑘) obeys Eqs. (16b)–(16e) with 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 = 0. At the interface, 𝑠𝑢𝑚)
illustrated in Fig. 3. We note that 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 increases with the porosity con-
||𝐵𝑛 ||𝑥0 = 0 and || − 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 𝐵𝑛 ||𝑥0 = ||𝜙 𝑛−1 ||𝑥0 ; the periodic condition trast but remains confined to some suitable interval with realistic r𝜙 ,
is applied at the unit cell ends: 𝐵𝑛(1) |𝑥=−ℎ1 = 𝐵𝑛(2) |𝑥=ℎ2 . The TRT − EMM 𝑠𝑢𝑚)
e.g., 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 ∈ [0.29, 0.35] when 𝑟𝜙 ∈ [ 18 , 1[ for any aspect ratio.
solves Eq. (25) with 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 = 0:
The coefficient Ku(⋆𝑠) is estimated with Eq. (14d); its reference so-
̄ 𝑥 𝐽 (𝑘)
−∇ 𝑛 − (𝑛𝑘) (𝑥) − ̄ 2 (𝑘)
𝛼𝑀 Δ 𝑥 𝑛 = ̄ 2 𝐵 (𝑘) (𝑥),
𝜙𝑘 0 Δ 𝑥 𝑛 𝑛≥1. (45) lution is extended to the summation result Ku(⋆𝑠𝑢𝑚) in Eq. (B.2); Ku(⋆𝑠𝑢𝑚)
𝑠𝑢𝑚)
is the exact TRT − EMM solution only if using 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 from Eq. (B.3) in
B-field solution Bn (x) to Eqs. (44)–(45) is n-order polynomial; the 𝐽𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) combination with the third-order accurate finite-differences from Eq.
and (𝑛𝑘) (𝑥) are, respectively, the polynomials of orders 𝑛 − 1 and 𝑛 − 2. (A.6) for 𝜔4 = −
⟨𝜙 𝜕𝑥 3 ⟩
in Eqs. (16f) and (18). Fig. 4 shows that Ku(⋆𝑠)
Hence, when n ∈ [1, 3], the central-difference operators ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐽𝑛(𝑘) and ⟨𝜙⟩
(𝑘) (𝑘) is twice more accurate with Eq. (42a) against Eq. (42b), the relative
̄ ̄
Δ𝑥 𝐵𝑛 (𝑥) are exact, Δ𝑥 𝑛 = 0 and 𝛼 M -correction vanishes. Interface
2 2
error with Eq. (42a) is rather small in very coarse resolution, but its
conditions from Eq. (28) read, e.g., with 𝑥0 = 0 and 𝑐𝑞𝑥 = 1 as (see
amplitude increases with the porosity contrast.
Fig. 2):
In resume, the symbolic solutions exemplify the TRT − EMM scheme
[ ](1) [ ](2) and confirm the more generic interface Taylor analysis. The effective
1 − 1 −
𝑞 + 2 𝑔 𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔 𝑞
𝑒+ + +
|𝑥=− 1 = 𝑒+ 𝑞 − 2 𝑔 𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔 𝑞
+ +
|𝑥= 1 (46a)
2 2 diffusivity and zero skewness are exact solutions of the scheme; the
flux-jump condition and kurtosis are only exact (up to summation)
[ ](1) [ ](2) with Eq. (B.3). In turn, the semi-explicit jump-tracking scheme from
1 + 1 +
𝑞 + 2 𝑔 𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔 𝑞
𝑒− − −
|𝑥=− 1 = 𝑒−
𝑞 − 2 𝑔 𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔 𝑞
− −
|𝑥= 1 (46b) Appendix B.2 matches the flux-continuity and Ku(⋆𝑠𝑢𝑚) with parameter-
2 2
independent solution from Eq. (42c). All these zero-velocity solutions
[ ](1) [ ](2) allow for an efficient verification of the numerical implementation of
1 − 1
𝑞 − 2 𝑔 𝑞 − Λ𝜙 𝑔 𝑞
𝑒+ + +
|𝑥=−ℎ + 1 = 𝑒+
𝑞 + 𝑔𝑞− − Λ+
𝜙
𝑔𝑞+ |𝑥=ℎ − 1 . (46c) Eqs. (16)–(17) at the first three orders, 𝑛 = 1, 2, 3.
1 2 2 2 2

Eqs. (46a) and (46c) are continuity conditions (28a); Eq. (46c) is
5.2. Darcy flow in “series”
the flux condition (28b); the flux condition on the periodic inter-
face is satisfied automatically. Eq. (46) read with Eq. (19) and (24a): ̄ 𝑃
The constant Darcy velocity 𝑢⃗𝜙 = 𝑢⟂ 1⃗ 𝑥 , 𝑢⟂ = −𝑘𝐷 𝜈𝜌𝑥 describes the
∇
(𝑘)
𝑒+
𝑞
(𝑘)
= 𝑡𝑞 𝑐𝑒 (𝐵𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) + Λ+
𝜙
(𝑛𝑘) (𝑥)), 𝑒−
𝑞
(𝑘) = −𝑡 𝐽 (𝑘) (𝑥)𝑐
𝑞 𝑛
+ (𝑘) =
𝑞𝑥 and 𝑔𝑞 0
flow in “series” with the length-weighted harmonic-mean permeabil-
𝑡𝑞 (𝑛𝑘) (𝑥)𝑐𝑞𝑥
2 ; 𝑔 − (𝑘) (𝑥) is expressed from them with Eq. (22) where
𝑞 ity value kD and a piece-wise linear, continuous pressure distribution
𝑘
̄ 𝑞 𝑒+ and Δ
( ) ̄ 𝑞 𝑔 + (𝑘) apply on the solution of the given block k. Solution
Δ 𝑞 𝑞 P(x). Exact EMM solution (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018) shows that
{𝐵𝑛(1) (𝑥), 𝐵𝑛(2) (𝑥)} is determined by Eqs. (45)–(46) to a constant, fixed by 𝑘𝑇 (𝑒𝑓 𝑓 ) is asymptotically constant and all other transport coefficients

12
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

3 1
Fig. 3. Pure diffusion with TRT − EMM in a “series” of two equal-length blocks (ℎ1 = ℎ2 = 4) with porosity contrast 𝑟𝜙 = 4
(solid, red), 𝑟𝜙 = 2
(dot–dashed, blue),
1 1
𝑟𝜙 = 4
(dotted, black), 𝑟𝜙 = 8
(dashed, magenta). First diagram: continuous solution 3 (𝑥) with Eq. (42a). Second and third diagrams: normalized interface jumps
𝑠𝑢𝑚)
||𝐵2 ||𝑥0 and ||𝐵3 ||𝑥0 from Eq. (47). Last diagram: 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 (𝑟ℎ , 𝑟𝜙 ) from Eq. (B.3) versus rh . (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader
is referred to the web version of this article.)

3 1 1
Fig. 4. Pure diffusion in a “series” of two equal-length blocks ℎ = 𝐻∕2 ∈ [4, 20] with the porosity ratio 𝑟𝜙 = 4
(solid, red), 𝑟𝜙 = 2
(dot–dashed, blue), 𝑟𝜙 = 4
(dotted,
black), 𝑟𝜙 = 1
8
(dashed, magenta). The relative TRT − EMM error E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) to exact solution (B.1d) when  obeys Eq. (42a) (first diagram) and when  obeys Eq.
(42b) (second diagram). The two next diagrams are similar but with respect to Ku(⋆𝑠𝑢𝑚) from Eq. (B.2). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

𝑥 𝐻 Eq. (38) has the form of the asymmetric Taylor expansion from the two
decay with Pe = 0
:
interface sides; this asymmetry of the leading-order coefficient scales
Pe → ∞ ∶ 𝜔′2 ∼ Pe−1 , 𝜔′3 ∼ Pe−2 , 𝜔′𝑛 ∼ Pe1−𝑛 and with 𝑃 𝑒(⟂𝑘) and vanishes only in the limit Λ𝜙 → 0. The dispersion coeffi-
𝛾𝑛′ ∼ Pe1−𝑛 , ∀ 𝑛 ≥ 1, cient 𝐷 = −𝜔(2𝑛𝑢𝑚) is computed with Eqs. (16f) and (18):
√
𝐷
𝑘𝑇 (𝑒𝑓 𝑓 ) = − 1 ∼ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡, Sk⋆ ∼ Pe−1 , Ku⋆ ∼ Pe−1 . (48) 0 ∑ 𝑢 ∑ (𝑘)
𝑒𝑓 𝑓 𝐷(𝑛𝑢𝑚) = 0 + 𝜙𝑘 𝜕𝑥 (1𝑘) (𝑥𝑖 ) − ⟂  (𝑥 ). (52)
⟨𝜙⟩ 𝑘,𝑖 ⟨𝜙⟩ 𝑘,𝑖 1 𝑖
This behavior is principally different from the stratified flow (Ginzburg,
2017b) where the dimensionless coefficients grow with Pe [cf. Eq. (57)].
Numerical result D(num) is reproduced exactly using Eq. (A.6) for
5.3. Symbolic solutions with the TRT − EMM 𝜕𝑥 (𝑛𝑘) (𝑥𝑖 ).
Fig. 5 displays the analytical solution kT (r𝜙 , Pe) and the symbolic
The effective discrete equation (25) reads: prediction E(kT ) from Eq. (43a) versus space resolution per block ℎ =
𝐻
∈ [4, 12] when Pe ∈ [10, 500], 𝑟𝜙 ∈ [ 81 , 34 ]. We observe that E(kT ) in-
̄ 𝑥 𝐵 (𝑘) − ∇
𝑢⟂ ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐽 ( 𝑘 ) −  ( 𝑘 ) ( 𝑥 ) − 𝛼𝑀 Δ
̄ 2 (𝑘) = 𝜙𝑘 0 Δ
̄ 2 𝐵 (𝑘) (𝑥). (49)
2
creases with Pe and the porosity contrast; E(kT ) is relatively large, e.g.,
𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑥 𝑛 𝑥 𝑛
E(kT ) ≈ 60% when 𝑟𝜙 = 18 with four nodes per block and the conver-
The discrete solution 𝐵𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) to Eq. (49) reads:
gence is slower with the mesh refining when the porosity contrast is

𝑘)
1 + 𝑃 𝑒(⟂𝑘) ∕2 𝑢⟂
high. Since the modeled bulk equation is correct [up to discretization],
𝐵𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) = 𝑃𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) + 𝑃𝑛(−1 (𝑥)𝑟𝑥𝑘 , 𝑟𝑘 = , 𝑃 𝑒(⟂𝑘) = . (50) the deficiency might be attributed to the leading-order continuity con-
1− 𝑃 𝑒(⟂𝑘) ∕2 0 𝜙𝑘
dition in Eq. (38b) and it should then reduce with . Fig. 6 confirms
this prediction: E(kT ) reduces from ≈ 60% to ≈ 8% with  = 14 × 10−1
The coefficients of the n-order polynomials 𝑃𝑛(𝑘) (𝑥) are determined
by Eq. (49) by taking into account that ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝑟𝑥 = 1 (𝑟2 − 1)𝑟𝑥−1 and and to ≈ 3 − 4% with  = 14 × 10−2 . Here 𝜙k diminishes in one of the
2
̄ 𝑟 = (𝑟 − 1) 𝑟 . In equal porosity blocks, all transport coefficients in
2 𝑥 2 𝑥 −1 two blocks with porosity contrast and the leading-order coefficient in
Δ 𝑥 continuity equation (38b) degrades when the grid Péclet number 𝑃 𝑒(⟂𝑘)
Eqs. (14c)–(14e) automatically reduce to zero with 𝜔2 = −0 and 𝜔𝑛 = 0
increases. Interestingly, the symbolic solutions reveal a very strong error
for n ≥ 3. In heterogeneous blocks, (1𝑘) (𝑥) = −𝑢⟂ + 𝜙𝑘 𝜔1 , 𝜔1 = 𝑥 =
variation between an even/odd node-number resolution per block, e.g.,
𝑢⟂ 𝜙̄ −1 , 𝑆 (𝑘) = 0, Eq. (49) and 𝐵 (𝑘) (𝑥) read, respectively:
1 1 the even node-number is much more accurate when  = 14 in Fig. 6 [a
𝑃 𝑒(⟂𝑘) ∇
̄ 𝑥 𝐵 (𝑘) + 𝑃 𝑒(⟂𝑘) (1 ̄ 2 𝐵 (𝑘) ,
− 𝜙𝑘 𝜙̄ −1 ) = Δ 𝑥 1 (51a) similar situation is confirmed numerically]. The symbolic solutions also
show that an additional scale parameter 𝑐𝑒(𝑀) >> 𝑐𝑒 from Eq. (27) may
1

improve kT .
⟨𝜙⟩ Hence, the discrete-exponential symbolic solutions provide, together
𝐵1(𝑘) (𝑥) = −𝑥(1 − 𝜙𝑘 𝜙̄ −1 ) + 𝑏𝑘 + 𝑎𝑘 𝑟𝑥𝑘 , 𝜙̄ = . (51b)
𝐻 with the summation and finite-difference approximate, TRT − EMM nu-
The coefficients {ak , bk } are determined with the three interface merical solution and allow to analyze it in the continuous parameter
conditions (46) and Eq. (20). The effective continuity condition from space. However, they become rather involved at the next orders and do

13
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 5. Darcy flow through a “series” of two equal-length blocks. Left diagram: Dispersion coefficient kT (r𝜙 ) versus 𝑟𝜙 ∈ [10−1 , 1] when Pe = 10 (solid, red), Pe = 20
(dot–dashed, blue), Pe = 102 (dotted, black), Pe = 5 × 102 (dashed, magenta)[kT is asymptotically constant and almost the same for Pe = 102 and 5 × 102 ]. Middle
diagram: the TRT − EMM error E(kT )[%] from Eq. (43a) when Pe = {10, 20, 102 , 5 × 102 } and 𝑟𝜙 = 14 . Right diagram: E(kT )[%] when Pe = 102 and 𝑟𝜙 = 34 (solid, red),
𝑟𝜙 = 12 (dot–dashed, blue), 𝑟𝜙 = 14 (dotted, black), 𝑟𝜙 = 1
8
(dashed, magenta). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article).

3 1 1
Fig. 6. Darcy flow through a “series” of two equal-length blocks with the TRT − EMM when Pe = 102 and 𝑟𝜙 = 4
(solid, red), 𝑟𝜙 = 2
(dot–dashed, blue), 𝑟𝜙 = 4
1
(dotted, black), 𝑟𝜙 = (dashed, magenta). From left to right: E(kT ) from Eq. (43a) with  =
8
{ 14 , 40
1 1
, 400
in Eq. (26a). These symbolic solutions are only valid when
}
h is integer. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

Table 1
The reference EMM values for kT , Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) from Eq. (14) in a series of two equal-length
porous blocks (𝑟ℎ = 1, ℎ1 = ℎ2 = 4, 𝐻 = 8) at the porosity contrast r𝜙 . The Darcy velocity u⊥ and
𝑢⟂ 𝐻 𝑥 𝐻
molecular diffusion coefficient 0 are the same in all experiments, 𝑥 = ⟨𝜙⟩
, Pe = 0
.
1 1 1 1 1 3
r𝜙 12 10 8 4 2 4

Pe 2.36 × 101 2.33 × 101 2.28 × 101 2.05 × 101 1.71 × 101 1.46 × 101

kT 8.38 6.71 5.05 1.81 3.83 × 10 −1

6.06 × 10−2
Sk(⋆𝑠) −6.46 × 10−2 −8.35 × 10−2 −1.09 × 10−1 −1.91 × 10−1 −1.52 × 10−1 −3.79 × 10−2
Ku(⋆𝑠) −8.67 × 10−3 −2.26 × 10−3 9.34 × 10−3 8.48 × 10−2 1.47 × 10−1 5. × 10−2

not concern stability. Next section complements the TRT − EMM sym-
bolic analysis by numerical computations.
5.4. The TRT − EMM and TRT-ADE
In this section, the TRT − EMM and the three TRT-ADE schemes (11)
are examined on the base of their numerical solutions using the same
parameter range. The focus is put on the coarse resolution (ℎ1 = ℎ2 = 4,
1 1
𝐻 = 8) and high porosity contrast (𝜙1 ∈ [ 12 , 1], 𝜙2 = 1) [we set 𝑐𝑒 = 30 ,
Λ− = 12 , Λ−
𝜙
= 𝜙Λ− , 𝑢⟂ = 0.02[6]]. The reference EMM solution is gath-
ered in Table 1 for kT , Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠)and illustrated in Fig. 8 (bot-
tom row): whereas kT monotonously increases with the porosity contrast
(r𝜙 → 0), Sk(⋆𝑠) (𝑟𝜙 ) and Ku(⋆𝑠) (𝑟𝜙 ) are not monotonous and their values are
very small at the two limits, 𝑟𝜙 ≤ 10−1 and r𝜙 → 1: this makes it very dif-
ficult to match them accurately. The kT is asymptotically constant and
its value slightly increases with Pe, the Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) decay with Pe.
5.4.1. Numerical solutions by TRT − EMM
Recall that TRT − EMM is resumed in the algorithmic form in A.4.
The TRT − EMM sequentially solves Eq. (49) for 𝑛 = 1, 2, 3 in an unit pe-
riodic cell and computes the set {𝜔2 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔4 } with Eq. (16f) or Eq. (18);
their dimensionless counterparts in Eq. (13) are obtained with  = 𝐻
and 0 = 𝑥 ; they are then employed for the three transport coefficients
in Eq. (14). Their relative corrections to the reference solution are gath-
ered in Table 2 using  = 14 in Eq. (26a). Like in Fig. 6,  = 14 results
in very large errors at the high porosity contrast on the coarse grid, and
the amplitude of the relative corrections grow with the order n, from
E(kT ) to E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ). Table 3 shows that the three moments improve with
Λ𝜙 = { 16 , 12
1
} when 𝑟𝜙 ≤ 14 (high contrast). This is especially true with
|E(kT )|, which diminishes with Λ𝜙 = 12 1
up to the three orders of mag-
nitude in agreement with Fig. 6 and the prediction from the interface
Taylor analysis in Eq. (38b).
The symbolic solutions allow for the search of the root
(𝑟𝜙 , 𝑟ℎ , 𝐻, Pe), which solves E(𝑘𝑇 ) = 0; as might be expected,
its value approaches to zero or becomes negative. As one exam-
ple, Λ𝜙 = 2.62 × 10−3 assures E(𝑘𝑇 ) = 0 when 𝑟ℎ = 1, 𝑟𝜙 = 25 , 𝐻 = 8,
Pe = 18.29, in exact agreement with the numerical computations. Using
this value, E(kT ) in Table 3 reduces by two-three orders of magnitude
when 𝑟𝜙 = { 14 , 12 }. Furthermore, this very small value Λ𝜙 improves
drastically the kurtosis accuracy. To conclude, the TRT − EMM three

14
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Table 2
The TRT − EMM in small box ℎ1 = ℎ2 = 4, 𝐻 = 8: E(kT ), E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) from Eq. (43)
with respect to the reference values from Table 1. The TRT − EMM is applied with  = 14 in
Eq. (26a). Data are not in percents.
1 1 1 1 1 3
r𝜙 12 10 8 4 2 4

Pe 2.36 × 101 2.33 × 101 2.28 × 101 2.05 × 101 1.71 × 101 1.46 × 101

E(kT ) 1.3 × 101 1.01 × 101 7.39 2.37 4.58 × 10−1 7.03 × 10−2
E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) 1.1 × 101 5.83 2.68 2.58 × 10−1 1.35 × 10−1 1.63 × 10−1
E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) 3.29 × 102 8.75 × 102 −1.31 × 102 −2.75 −9.81 × 10−2 2.56 × 10−2

Table 3
1
The ratio of the errors in Eq. (43) with  = 4
from Table 2 to their values with  =
{ 16 , 12
1
, 2.62 × 10 } when 𝐻 = 8.
−3

1 1 1 1 1 3
r𝜙 12 10 8 4 2 4

𝜓 e𝑟𝑟(𝜓)|= 1 ∕e𝑟𝑟(𝜓)|= 1
4 6

kT 5.14 × 101 4.77 × 101 4.52 × 101 8.87 × 101 −9.92 −1.34
Sk(⋆𝑠) 9.01 6.73 4.59 1.36 1.19 −3.36
Ku(⋆𝑠) 1.44 1.5 1.59 1.77 1.58 × 10−1 −3.88 × 10−2
𝜓 e𝑟𝑟(𝜓)|= 1 ∕e𝑟𝑟(𝜓)|= 1
4 12
kT 1.19 × 103 −9.49 × 102 −2. × 102 −2.3 × 101 −3.67 −6.16 × 10−1
Sk(⋆𝑠) 3.28 4.07 8.4 −5.88 × 10−1 −2.65 × 10−1 −3.15 × 10−1
Ku(⋆𝑠) 4.32 4.74 5.37 3.02 1.34 × 10−1 −3.41 × 10−2
𝜓 e𝑟𝑟(𝜓)|= 1 ∕e𝑟𝑟(𝜓)|=2.62×10−3
4
kT 9.70 × 101 9.18 × 101 8.92 × 101 1.40 × 102 −5.89 × 102 1.85 × 101
Sk(⋆𝑠) −3.88 −3.05 −2.26 −8.32 × 10−1 −1.09 −2.10
Ku(⋆𝑠) −1.41 × 101 −1.27 × 101 −1.20 × 101 −3.00 × 102 6.81 × 10−1 −1.39 × 10−1

moments solution is very strongly impacted by the free-tunable param-
eter  from Eq. (26a) in the perpendicular Darcy flow in “series”; this
situation is similar to a very sharp Λ𝜙 dependency in bounce-back per-
meability measurements in dense solid arrays (Khirevich et al., 2014).
The “optimal”  value may differ in the three moments, but their
accuracy improves with the space resolution where their dependency
upon Λ𝜙 diminishes.
5.4.2. Numerical solutions by TRT-ADE
We apply now the three TRT-ADE d2Q5 schemes (11) for the spatial
dispersion in a series of porous blocks with the line release (𝑥, 𝑡 = 0) =
𝛿(𝑥 − 𝑥0 ). The system is set periodic in the y-direction; the ADE-1D from
Eq. (11c) and ADE-r from Eq. (12) produce the same solutions because
the problem is one-dimensional. While TRT − EMM was operated in one
unit cell, the direct solvers need a long array of the identical cells [typi-
cally, about 102 − 2 × 102 cells]. We measure the central spatial moments
and derive {𝜔1 − 𝜔4 } from them (see Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014):
⋆
𝜇 ( 𝑡 + 𝛿𝑡 ) − 𝜇 2 ( 𝑡 ) ⋆
𝜇 1 ( 𝑡 + 𝛿𝑡 ) − 𝜇 1 ( 𝑡 )
𝜔1 = , 𝜔2 = − 2 , seepage velocity is caused by the discontinuity of the equilibrium term
𝛿𝑡 2 𝛿𝑡
𝜇3⋆ (𝑡 + 𝛿𝑡 ) − 𝜇3⋆ (𝑡)
𝜔3 = , dicts that the concentration will undergo an interface jump in the case
6 𝛿𝑡
𝜇4′ (𝑡 + 𝛿𝑡 ) − 𝜇4′ (𝑡)
𝜔4 = − , 𝜇4′ (𝑡) = 𝜇4⋆ (𝑡) − 12(𝜇2⋆ )2 𝑡2 .
24𝛿𝑡
The obtained solution (53) is non-dimensionalized with Eq. (13) and
then employed in Eq. (14). Unlike the TRT − EMM, the direct solvers
do not reproduce exactly the Gaussian result Sk(⋆𝑠) = Ku(⋆𝑠) = 0 when
𝑟𝜙 = 1, unless for very specific Λ𝜙 values which vanish the truncation
corrections. In particular, they have been identified (Ginzburg, 2017b)
with ADE-j in the uniform porosity, constant velocity profile: E(Sk(⋆𝑠) )
1
is predicted to vanish with Λ𝜙 = 12 , while the optimal kurtosis choice
is Λ𝜙 = 16 . The present computations confirm these solutions with the
three schemes (11) in identical blocks (𝑟𝜙 = 1) where these two par-
ticular choices reduce Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) by one order of the magnitude
against Λ𝜙 = 14 . In two heterogeneous blocks, the simulations are run
using the TRT − EMM numerical parameters (given in the beginning of
1
Section 5.3); the highest porosity contrast 𝑟𝜙 = 25 complements these
computations. Since these computations are conducted close to the sta-
1
bility line from Eq. (10e), the ADE-c loses stability with Λ𝜙 = 12 [be-
cause of its negative numerical diffusion, in agreement with the predic-
tions (Ginzburg et al., 2010; Kuzmin et al., 2011a)].
Mean velocity 𝑥 . We observe that ADE-c and ADE-1D both repro-
𝑢⟂ 𝐻
duce 𝑥 = ⟨𝜙⟩ exactly, but this is not the case of ADE-j. Its relative er-
 (𝑛𝑢𝑚)
ror E𝑢 = 𝑥
− 1 is displayed in Table 4. We find that asymptotically
2Λ− 𝑢
E𝑢 ≈ − 𝐻 (𝑟𝜙 − 𝑟−1 𝜙
⟂
)2 in equal-length blocks and it vanishes in homo-
geneous soil 𝑟𝜙 = 1 in agreement with the previous results, e.g. Ginzburg
(2017a). These and other results show that: (i) Eu scales in proportion
to Λ− 𝑢⟂ ; (ii) Eu is independent of ce ; and (iii) Eu is independent of Λ𝜙 .
Table 4 confirms that Eu decays linearly with H and that the linear con-
vergence is reached faster with the smoother porosity contrast. Hence,
E𝑢 ∝ Pe × 𝑐𝑒 × Λ− 2 [recall, Λ− 𝜙
= 𝜙Λ− ]; it reduces linearly when Pe in-
creases with 1∕Λ− , but remains the same when Pe increases with 1/ce .
Further inspection reveals that an observed alteration of the mean-
𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) in Eq. (11b). Indeed, the effective continuity condition (28a) pre-
of discontinuous weights, when ||𝑒+ 𝑞 ∕||𝑥0 ≠ 0. Concentration profiles in
Fig. 7 confirm the presence of asymmetric interface jumps with ADE-j,
(53)
while ADE-c and ADE-1D both produce very similar smooth profiles in
highly heterogeneous blocks.
The dispersion coefficient kT . The numerical solution kT (r𝜙 ) and the
relative error E(kT ) from Eq. (43a) are displayed in Fig. 8 for three
schemes (11); their results are compared in Table 5. We observe that
𝑘𝑇 (𝑒𝑓 𝑓 ) and E(kT ) increase together when the porosity contrast grows
1
to 𝑟𝜙 = 25 . Nevertheless, all schemes match kT within 10–15% in a small
cell ℎ1 = ℎ2 = 𝐻∕2 = 4. Despite the mean-velocity error, the ADE-j is
the most accurate among the three schemes using the stable choice
Λ𝜙 = 14 . The accuracy of the direct solvers with Λ𝜙 = 14 is similar to
TRT − EMM results obtained with very small value  [see Tables 2 and
3], and much better than those which TRT − EMM produces with  = 14 ,
Λ𝜙 |𝑐 = 1 ≈ 0.259. The ADE-c and ADE-1D have very similar results in
𝑒 30

15
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Table 4
The ADE-j relative mean-velocity error Eu (r𝜙 ) in two equal-length porous blocks in “series”;
Λ− 𝑢
E𝑢 (𝑟𝜙 ) ∝ 𝐻 ⟂ , here 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 = 0.02[6] and Λ− = 12 , 𝐻 = {8, 20, 40}. Mean-seepage velocity 𝑥
is exact with ADE-c and ADE-1D ∀r𝜙 , but only in homogeneous blocks 𝑟𝜙 = 1 with ADE-j.
1 1 1 1 3
r𝜙 12 8 4 2 4

E𝑢 |𝐻=8 −2.14 × 10−2 −1.55 × 10−2 −7. × 10−3 −1.66 × 10−3 −2.78 × 10−4
E𝑢 |𝐻=8 /E𝑢 |𝐻=40 3.22 3.82 4.68 4.98 5.03
E𝑢 |𝐻=20 /E𝑢 |𝐻=40 1.55 1.94 2.0 2.0 2.01

Fig. 7. Concentration distribution in two porous blocks in series at 𝑡 = 5 × 104 steps after point release. Two first diagrams: ADE-c (blue) and ADE-1D (red) together
1
when 𝐻 = 8 and 𝐻 = 40 (profiles coincide). Two last diagrams: ADE-j when 𝐻 = 8 and 𝐻 = 40. Data: 𝑟𝜙 = 1∕25, 𝑢⟂ = 0.01(3), 𝑐𝑒 = 60 , Λ− = 12 , Λ−𝜙 = 𝜙Λ− , Pe = 24.6.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

1 3
Fig. 8. Three moments in two porous blocks of equal thickness 𝐻∕2 = 4 in series when 𝑟𝜙 ∈ [ 25 , 4 ]. Top row: the reference solution from Table 1 is plotted with the
solid line and numerical solution with symbols. Bottom row: E(kT ), E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) from Eq. (43); left diagram, dashed line: the prediction from Eq. (54) due to
the numerical diffusion in ADE-c. Left column: ADE-c (“lozenge”), ADE-j (“triangles”) and ADE-1D (“squares”) using Λ𝜙 = 14 . Middle column: ADE-j using Λ𝜙 = 12 1

1 1 1 1
(“lozenge”), Λ𝜙 = 4
(“triangles”), Λ𝜙 = 4
in bulk nodes and Λ𝜙 = 3 × 10−2 in interface nodes (“filled squares”). Right column: ADE-j using Λ𝜙 = 12
(“lozenge”); Λ𝜙 = 4
1
(“triangles”); Λ𝜙 = 6
(filled “circles”).

Table 5
Two equal-length porous blocks in “series” when 𝐻 = 8 and  = 14 in Eq. (26a). The table shows
the ratio of the relative errors: ADE-j to ADE-c (labeled “j/c”) and ADE-j to ADE-1D (labeled “j/r”),
1 3
versus 𝑟𝜙 ∈ [ 25 , 4 ].
1 1 1 1 1 3
r𝜙 25 12 8 4 2 4

E(kT ): “j/c” 8.42 × 10−1

8.56 × 10−1
9.99 × 10−1
− −1.13 × 10 −1
−1.47 × 10−2
E(kT ): “j/r” 8.02 × 10−1 7.05 × 10−1 6.93 × 10−1 7.21 × 10−1 9.27 × 10−1 1.31
E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) ∶ “j/c” 1.00 1.06 1.08 1.04 9.8 × 10−1 9.7 × 10−1
E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) ∶ “j/r” 9.77 × 10−1 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.00
E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) ∶ “j/c” 1.2 1.84 1.94 8.19 × 10−1 9.1 × 10−1 9.62 × 10−1
E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) ∶ “j/r” 1.05 1.38 1.59 1.1 9.92 × 10−1 1.

16
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
highly heterogeneous blocks. However, while E(kT ) converges to zero
when r𝜙 → 1 with ADE-j/ADE-1D, E(kT ) diverges with ADE-c because of
the numerical diffusion D(u) (x). Since the averaged coefficient < D(u) >
sums with the numerical dispersion, then:
⟨𝐷(𝑢) ⟩
E(𝑘𝑇 )|ADE-c ≈ E(𝑘𝑇 )|ADE-j + E(𝑢) (𝑘𝑇 ), E(𝑢) (𝑘𝑇 ) = , discontinuous symmetric weights. The relative ADE-j velocity error re-
𝑒𝑓 𝑓 𝑘𝑇
Λ− 𝑢2⟂ 𝐻
⟨𝐷(𝑢) ⟩ = − 𝜙 = 𝜙Λ .
, Λ− −
(54)
⟨𝜙⟩
This estimate fits well E(kT )|ADE-c in Fig. 8. Hence, ADE-c is unsuitable
for measurements of small valued kT but the three schemes produce
similar dispersion values at high porosity contrast, where the Taylor
and numerical dispersion dominate numerical diffusion.
Skewness Sk(⋆𝑠) and kurtosis Ku(⋆𝑠) . The ADE-j results for skewness and
kurtosis are displayed in Fig. 8 with different Λ𝜙 values; the ratio of
ADE-j relative errors to ADE-c and ADE-1D is compiled in Table 5 for
Λ𝜙 = 14 . In that case, the ADE-c is the most accurate for the two high
moments at the high porosity contrast, where it is followed by the ADE-
1D, but the ADE-j gains at relatively small contrast. On the whole, the
distinctions between the three schemes are very small for skewness, and
their results are comparable with the TRT − EMM in Table 2. Although
the difference between three schemes increases up to a factor of two for
kurtosis, they remain much more accurate than TRT − EMM.
Let us compare now the results in “series” with the truncation predic-
1
tion (Ginzburg, 2017b) in homogeneous soil. Like in that case, Λ𝜙 = 12
reduces E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) by the one order of magnitude in small porosity contrast,
but only twice in highly heterogeneous blocks where E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) is domi-
nated by the implicit interface rather than bulk truncation. In turn, the
computations with very small value Λ𝜙 = 3 × 10−2 , uniquely placed in
the interface nodes, show a drastic improvement of E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ). The ADE-
j and ADE-1D show very similar results reducing Λ𝜙 but ADE-c be-
comes unstable in this limit. Fig. 8 displays E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) with Λ𝜙 = { 12
1 1 1
, 6 , 4 }:
1
Λ𝜙 = 6 remains most accurate in highly heterogeneous blocks; the three
schemes show here similar results.
5.5. Summary
Construction of the exact steady-state symbolic solutions is extended
from the streamline-invariant (channel) configurations (Ginzburg, 2007;
Ginzburg et al., 2015b) to the streamwise heterogeneity in the presence
of a space-variable mass-source and an interface flux-jump. The sym-
bolic TRT − EMM solutions validate the interface Taylor analysis devel-
oped in a more general framework. The numerical results confirm that
the steady-state solutions can be parameterized by the dimensionless
group {r𝜙 , rh , Pe} provided that the two free parameters, Λ𝜙 and ce , are
inter-related through Eq. (26a); the transport coefficients then all be-
come dependent on one free parameter , except the effective diffusiv-
ity 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 and Sk(𝑠) = 0 which are exact solutions of the TRT − EMM pure-
diffusion scheme at the two first orders 𝑛 = 1 and 𝑛 = 2, respectively. At
order 𝑛 = 3, Ku(𝑠) = 0 is exact in the homogeneous porosity; otherwise,
the two distinguished solutions  produce the reference value Ku(⋆𝑠𝑢𝑚)
from Eq. (B.2) with the implicit and the semi-explicit interface-jump
trackings; they are useful for implementation check. It is confirmed nu-
merically that the “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-form” produce identical moment so-
lutions in the Darcy flow in “series” using transform (15), provided that
 takes the same value in both formulations. In the Darcy flow, the
inexactness of the closure relations penalizes the strong porosity con-
trast and the discrepancy typically increases with the order n, from kT
to Ku(⋆𝑠) ; we find that only very small values  improve the transport
coefficients on the coarse grid. Since this choice may cause instability,
we should conclude that the TRT − EMM needs relatively fine grids in
“series”.
At the same time, the three direct TRT-ADE schemes (11) are ex-
amined in heterogeneous series of porous blocks. We note that ADE-j
17
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
is exact for 𝑥 and 0 but not for Sk(s) and Ku(⋆𝑠) in uniform porosity
Darcy flow. With heterogeneous blocks in “series”, ADE-j produces in-
terface jumps in the concentration solution and they intrinsically mod-
ify the mean-seepage velocity. This effect is caused by the heterogene-
ity of the correction 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) in Eq. (11b); indeed, it plays the role of the
duces linearly with the space resolution and diffusion eigenfunction
Λ− , but grows linearly with the velocity amplitude; ADE-c and ADE-
1D reproduce the mean-seepage velocity exactly. Nevertheless, ADE-j
remains here most accurate for the dispersion coefficient. The ADE-
c omits the discontinuous correction 𝑒(𝑞𝑢,+) . Consequently, it produces
much more continuous profiles, but becomes relatively inaccurate when
kT is small (small porosity contrast) and the numerical diffusion from Eq.
(54) dominates the Taylor and numerical dispersion. The ADE-1D from
Eq. (11c) manifests itself as a good compromise in the examined param-
eter range. The three schemes are expected to have similar accuracy at
high Pe but differ for stability. In the present computations, the ADE-j
is the most stable among the three schemes when Λ𝜙 takes small values
and also improves the skewness coefficient.
To conclude, the direct solvers behave more accurately with the sta-
ble choice Λ𝜙 ≈ 14 than the TRT − EMM with  = 14 , Λ𝜙 ≈ 0.259. How-
ever, they are restricted to the coarse resolution where their solutions
(especially, skewness and kurtosis) strongly depend on Λ𝜙 , in compli-
ance with the predicted (Ginzburg, 2017b) moments truncation impact
in constant and parabolic profiles. Although the TRT − EMM needs a
finer resolution for the strong heterogeneity in “series”, it is much more
capable than the direct solvers for high Pe and weak Λ𝜙 -dependency
with the help of the grid refining.
6. Stratified flow
It has been demonstrated (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018) that in
the case of a constant Darcy flow, the non-Gaussian effects are much
stronger in the heterogeneous stratified channels than in porous blocks
in “series”. The two systems are sketched in Fig. 2; in this section, the
stratified system is “rotated” and the velocity field is parallel with the
x-axis in compliance with Eq. (16). The EMM and TRT − EMM symbolic
solutions will be compared in: (i) Poiseuille flow; (ii) bounded system of
open and diffusive layers; and (iii) stratified double-periodic Brinkman
flow, respectively, sketched in Figs. 9, 10 and 14.
In a stratified channel or duct flow 𝑢⃗𝜙 = 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑦, 𝑧)1⃗ 𝑥 , the B-field solu-
tion Bn (y, z) is streamwise-invariant, ∇ ⋅ 𝑢⃗𝜙 𝐵𝑛 = 0 and Eqs. (16b)–(16e)
read with 𝐽⃗𝑛 = 0, 𝑆𝑛 = 0. Thereby, Eq. (16a) reduces to the diffusion
equation:
−𝑛 (𝑦, 𝑧) = 𝜙 (𝜕𝑦2 + 𝜕𝑧2 )𝐵𝑛 (𝑦, 𝑧), 𝑛 ≥ 1. (55)
Interface conditions (17b) prescribe the continuity for Bn (y, z) and for
the normal-flux on the flat surface A𝜙 (y, z) separating any two porous
layers: ||𝐵𝑛 ||𝐴𝜙 (𝑦,𝑧) = 0 and || − 𝜙 ∇𝑛 𝐵𝑛 ||𝐴𝜙 (𝑦,𝑧) = 0; Eq. (17c) prescribes
zero-diffusion flux on the solid surface. Eq. (18) becomes:
⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 1 ⟩ ⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 𝑛−1 ⟩
𝜔1 = 𝑥 , 𝜔2 = −0 + , 𝜔𝑛 = , 𝑛 ≥ 3. (56)
⟨𝜙⟩ ⟨𝜙⟩
The sets {𝜔′𝑛 , 𝛾𝑛′ } from Eq. (13) and the transport coefficients from
Eq. (14) obey (see Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018; Vikhansky and
Ginzburg, 2014):
𝑘𝑇 ∼ 𝑃 𝑒2 ;
Pe → ∞ ∶ 𝜔′𝑛 ∼ Pe𝑛−1 , 𝛾𝑛′ ∼ Pe𝑛−1 ,
√ √
Pe → ∞ ∶ Sk(⋆𝑠) ∼ Pe, Ku(⋆𝑠) ∼ Pe, Sk(⋆𝑡) ∼ Pe, Ku(⋆𝑡) ∼ Pe. (57)
The TRT − EMM operates in the stratified geometry with 𝐽⃗𝑛 = 0 in Eq.
(19) and 𝑆𝑛 = 0 in Eq. (16e). The system is closed with the continuity
condition (28a) and either a symmetric, periodic or bounce-back no-flux
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 9. The TRT − EMM with Eq. (42a) in Poiseuille flow sketched in the first diagram. From left to right: the relative errors (in log-scale) E(D) , E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) )
from Eq. (43) versus H.

Fig. 10. Reference solution in fracture/diffusive-matrix two-layered bounded system sketched in the first diagram. From left to right: 𝑘𝑇 Pe−2 and asymptotic
ℎ1
solution Sk(⋆𝑠) Pe− 2 and Ku(⋆𝑠) Pe−1 from Eq. (14) versus 𝑟ℎ =
1
1 1
ℎ2
at 𝜙 = 10−2 (solid, red), 3
× 10−1 (dot–dashed, blue), 10−1 (dotted, black) and 2
(dashed, magenta);
𝑟ℎ = 0 corresponds to Poiseuille flow. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

condition (29b) on the horizontal ends. The effective interface continu- 𝛼𝑀 Pe2 Pe2
The second-order correction − 5𝐻 2
to the Taylor value 𝑘𝑇 = 210
ity condition ||𝐵𝑛 ||𝑥=𝑥0 = 0 is elaborated in Eqs. (34)–(36); it is exact
has place because of the parabolic distribution 1 (𝑦); when  = 14
with the midway interface position when Bn (y) is linear ∀Λ𝜙 , and when
and 𝛼 M vanishes with Eqs. (26a) and (42a), the remaining correction
Bn (y) is parabolic with  = 18 , Eq. (42b). The B-field B1 (y) is parabolic
in Eq. (58b) decays with fourth-order rate. In fact, Eq. (58b) is the
in a stratified Darcy flow because the mass-source 1 (𝑦) is a piece-
discrete counterpart of the Taylor solution, when the Taylor Ansatz
wise constant. A recursive construction of the symbolic solution of the
(Taylor, 1953) is solved with the discrete Laplacian and integration
TRT − EMM follows the EMM exact procedure (Ginzburg and Vikhan-
is performed via summation (see Ginzburg and Roux, 2015; Ginzburg
sky, 2018) but the averaging integration in Eqs. (16) and (20) becomes
⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑦)⟩
and Vikhansky, 2018). Using  = 14 , this property remains valid for all
performed via summation of the grid values, with 𝜔1 = ⟨𝜙(𝑦)⟩
=  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) . higher orders: the difference with the exact solution is only due to the
discrete Laplacian and the summation effect using Eq. (42a). Fig. 9 dis-
plays the corresponding relative errors versus channel resolution when
6.1. Straight Poiseuille flow Pe ∈ [1, 103 ] for E(D), E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) from Eq. (43). It is shown
that |E(D)| is very small and it becomes Pe-independent as Pe ≥ ≈ 102 .
In Poiseuille flow 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑦) = 32 𝑥 (1 − 4𝑦2 ∕𝐻 2 ), 𝜙(y) ≡ 1, the EMM and At the same time, |E(Sk(⋆𝑠) )| and |E(Ku(⋆𝑠) )| increase progressively with the
TRT − EMM solutions Bn (y) to Eq. (25) are order 4n polynomials. The order n, but they decrease very rapidly with the grid refining and agree
reference EMM solutions for {𝜔′𝑛 }, {𝛾𝑛′ } and the transport coefficients within 5% with the EMM when H ≈ 10. The relative corrections are al-
from Eq. (14) are provided (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018, see Ta- most Pe-independent because kT , Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) obey the Pe-scale from
bles 2 and 3). The coefficients of Bn (y) are set by Eq. (25) except the Eq. (57) on the numerical solution. The effective transport coefficients of
first and zeroth orders. The coefficient of the linear-term is set by the the ADE-j scheme (11) in a straight/radial Poiseuille flow have been de-
bounce-back closure, but its value does not affect the solution for {𝜔n } rived (Ginzburg, 2017b; Ginzburg and Roux, 2015). Using a coordinate
in Eq. (56) [because < 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑦)𝑦 >= 0 ]; hence, the transport coefficients stencil in a straight channel, the first moment produces mean-velocity
are not affected by an exact location of the no-flux boundary inside one  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) exactly; the second moment reproduces Eq. (58b) only provided
mesh spacing. When 𝑛 = 1, 1 (𝑦) =  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) − 𝑢𝑥 (𝑦), Δ ̄ 2 1 = −𝜕 2 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑦),
𝑦 𝑦 that the numerical dispersion vanishes thanks to Λ𝜙 = 14 (1 − 𝑐𝑒 (Λ− )2 )
2 ̄
B1 (y) solves: −1 + 𝛼𝑀 𝜕𝑦 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 = 0 Δ𝑦 𝐵1 (𝑦) and Eq. (56) produces the
2
(see Eqs. (72)–(76) in Ginzburg and Roux, 2015). With this choice,
dispersion value 𝐷(𝑛𝑢𝑚) = −𝜔(2𝑛𝑢𝑚) . The dispersion coefficient kT from Λ𝜙 → 14 when ce → 0 (Pe → ∞) and the TRT − EMM with Eq. (42a) shares
Eq. (14c) obtains solution: the same property; an advanced stability (Ginzburg et al., 2010) of
Λ𝜙 = 14 was confirmed (Ginzburg and Roux, 2015) in Poiseuille pro-
Pe2 (20 − 21𝐻 2 )Pe2 (4 − 5𝐻 2 + 𝐻 4 )Pe2  𝐻
𝑘(𝑇𝑛𝑢𝑚) = + − 𝛼𝑀 , Pe = 𝑥 , file at high Pe. We have also compared the highly-accurate truncation
210 210𝐻 6 5𝐻 6 0 estimate (Ginzburg, 2017b) for Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) against the TRT − EMM
(58a) solutions with  = 14 in the limit ce → 0: the ADE-j with Λ𝜙 = 14 shows
very slightly more accurate results than the TRT − EMM. To conclude,
and to be contrasted with the Darcy flow in “series”, it is underlined
Pe2 (20 − 21𝐻 2 )Pe2 1
𝑘(𝑇𝑛𝑢𝑚) = + if Λ𝜙 = , 𝛼 = 0. (58b) that in Poiseuille flow the direct solvers and TRT − EMM produce very
210 210𝐻 6 4(1 − 𝑐𝑒 ) 𝑀
similar results around stable choice Λ𝜙 = 14 .

18
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 11. Symbolic TRT − EMM solutions in fracture/diffusive-matrix with two equal-thickness layers at Pe = 102 . From left to right: E(D), E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) from Eq.
(43) (in log scale) versus channel width H when 𝜙 = 10−2 (solid, red), 13 × 10−1 (dot–dashed, blue), 10−1 (dotted, black) and 12 (dashed, magenta). (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

6.2. A bounded stratified open/diffusive system
We consider a system of two parallel layers of the thickness h1
and h2 bounded at 𝑦 = 0 and 𝑦 = 𝐻 = ℎ1 + ℎ2 ; the system is sketched
in Fig. 10: the bottom layer has porosity 𝜙 and zero velocity 𝑢⃗𝜙 = 0;
the top layer mimics a fracture (𝜙 = 1) and velocity profile u𝜙, x (y) is
parabolic there. The transport coefficients in Eq. (14) are set by Pe, 𝜙
and an aspect ratio 𝑟ℎ = ℎ1 ∕ℎ2 ; they obey Pe-scaling from Eq. (57) and
reduce to the Poiseuille solution when either 𝑟ℎ = 0 or 𝜙 → 0. The set
{𝛾′(n) } from Eq. (13) is constructed (Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014,
Eqs. (124)–(132)) and extended for a radial capillary; the reference so-
lution (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018) for {𝜔′2 − 𝜔′4 } is employed here
(Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018, Eqs. (C.10)–(C.12)) with 𝑟𝑏 = 𝑟−1 ℎ
). The
described here open/diffusive two-layered bounded system is similar,
but not identical with a fracture embedded into diffusive matrix, also
extended Ginzburg and Vikhansky (2018) to the porous Brinkman flow
in a fractured layer.
Since the solute may diffuse into the impermeable layer, the
fracture/diffusive-matrix manifests strong deviations from the Gaussian
prediction. Fig. 10 illustrates the porosity and aspect ratio effects in Pe-
1 trast 𝑟𝜙 = 10−1 , and it is much more accurate than in a perpendicular
independent solutions: kT /Pe2 and the two asymptotes, Sk(⋆𝑠) Pe− 2 and
Ku(⋆𝑠) Pe−1 . It is shown that at fixed Pe, kT monotonously increases with
rh and 𝜙. In contrast, when the diffusive layer is not too much thick, Sk(⋆𝑠)
and Ku(⋆𝑠) manifest very sharp peaks where their amplitudes grow when
𝜙 diminishes. Unlike in Poiseuille profile, where Sk(⋆𝑠) < 0 (the profiles
are shifted right), Sk(⋆𝑠) may change its sign in the presence of the diffu-
sive matrix. The direct computations (Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014)
with the ADE-j scheme (11b) of the spatial release and RTD in temporal
process demonstrate very sharp distribution profiles and agree with the
EMM prediction, e.g., within 5% for all three moments at small porosity
𝜙 = 10−1 and Pe ≈ 14 in a channel of 𝐻 = 12. The TRT − EMM solves
Eq. (25) for n ≥ 1; 𝐵𝑛(𝑘) (𝑦) is the 2n-polynomial in a porous layer (𝑘 = 1),
and 4𝑛−polynomial in an open layer (𝑘 = 2). The symbolic system is
closed by Eq. (28a) at the interface and by the bounce-back closure re-
lation (28b) in two boundary nodes, 𝑦 = 12 and 𝑦 = 𝐻 − 12 ; a constant
is fixed with Eq. (20). The closure relations are all prescribed with the
use of Eqs. (19), (22) and (24a), similar as in Eqs. (32)–(35); the trans-
verse central differences are all computed on the one-layer solution. Eq.
(36d) tells us that when Λ𝜙 obeys Eq. (42a), then the continuity con-
dition ||𝐵𝑛 ||𝑦=𝑦0 = 0 is not located midway at 𝑦0 = ℎ1 . As a result, the
dispersion coefficient kT obtains second-order parameter-dependent cor-
rection which vanishes for Poiseuille flow in Eq. (58b). The constructed
symbolic solutions for the three transport coefficients agree exactly with
the TRT − EMM numerical solution and they are employed to explore
the accuracy of the scheme within a continuous parameter space. The
symbolic solutions are formally defined for any rh and H ≥ 2; the nu-
merical system has an integer number of cells per layer, e.g., 𝑟ℎ = 1 im-
plies numerically that H is even. Figs. 11–13 display |E(D)|, |E(Sk(⋆𝑠) )|
and |E(Ku(⋆𝑠) )| at Pe = 102 towards H. In Fig. 11, the two layers have the
same thickness (𝑟ℎ = 1), but 𝜙 varies, 𝜙 ∈ [10−2 , 12 ]. In Figs. 12 and 13,
𝜙 = 10−1 , but the porous layer is thinner (rh ≤ 1) and thicker (rh ≥ 1),
respectively, than the open one. Fig. 11 shows that kT is more accurate
with the smaller 𝜙; however, Sk⋆ and Ku⋆ become less accurate when
𝜙 diminishes. The results displayed in Fig. 12 show that E(D) improves
when rh reduces to zero and the system approaches the Poiseuille flow;
E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) are not monotonous with rh : 𝑟ℎ = 0 and 𝑟ℎ = 1 are
more accurate than 𝑟ℎ ∈ [0, 1]. Fig. 13 shows that when an open layer is
not resolved sufficiently, e.g., 𝑟ℎ = 4, ℎ2 = 1 when 𝐻 = 5 or ℎ2 = 2 when
𝐻 = 10, kT becomes very inaccurate. At the same time, Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠)
are much less affected by rh .
In resume, because of an inexact interface continuity condition, the
TRT − EMM is less accurate than in open flow, but the errors decay
rather rapidly with the space resolution When 𝜙 = 10−1 , the three trans-
port coefficients agree with the reference result within ≈ 5% with 5
mesh spacings per layer using  = 14 . This is comparable with the mea-
surements of the kurtosis in pure diffusion in “series” with porosity con-
Darcy flow (cf. Table 2).
6.3. Porous Brinkman flow
We construct the reference EMM solutions in stratified Brinkman
flow in Section 6.3.1 and compare them with the symbolic TRT − EMM
solutions using the exact and discrete velocity profiles in Section 6.3.2.
6.3.1. The EMM is stratified porous flow
Consider a stratified system of two porous layers of porosity 𝜙i ,
permeability ki and width hi , 𝑖 = 1, 2, separated by a flat interface
at 𝑦 = 𝑦0 = − 𝐻2 + ℎ1 , 𝐻 = ℎ1 + ℎ2 . The velocity profile 𝑢⃗𝜙 = 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑦)1⃗ 𝑥
solves Brinkman equation (Brinkman, 1947) in the form (Ginzburg et al.,
2015b):
𝜈𝜌0 (𝑖) 𝜈𝜌0 2 (𝑖)
𝑢 +∇̄ 𝑥𝑃 = 𝜕 𝑢 , (59)
𝑘𝑖 𝜙 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) 𝑦 𝜙
𝜈
fi (𝜙) ∈ ]0, 1] determines Brinkman viscosity 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙)
, lim𝜙𝑖 →1 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) = 1 and
typically, 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) = 1 or 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) = 𝜙𝑖 . Velocity profile reads in the ith layer:
√
(𝑖)
̄ 𝑥𝑃
∇ 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙)
𝜉𝑖 𝑦 − 𝜉𝑖 𝑦
𝑢𝜙 (𝑦) = − (𝑘 − (𝑎𝑖 𝑒 + 𝑐𝑖 𝑒 )), 𝜉𝑖 = . (60)
𝜈𝜌0 𝑖 𝑘𝑖
The velocity and shear stress are set continuous on the interface:
||𝑢𝜙,𝑥 ||𝑦=𝑦0 = 0 and || 𝑓 𝜈(𝜙) 𝜕𝑦 𝑢(𝜙𝑖) ||𝑦=𝑦0 = 0, respectively. We consider a
𝑖
double periodic system along the x and y axes which is sketched in
Fig. 14 together with the profile 𝑢(𝜙𝑖) (𝑦). A bounded system can be ad-
dressed similarly, with the limiting case of the open/diffusive-matrix

19
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 12. Fracture/diffusive-matrix. Similar as in Fig. 11 but when an open layer layer is thicker than the diffusive one, 𝑟ℎ = ℎ1 ∕ℎ2 = { 14 , 12 , 1} and 𝜙 = 10−1 ; 𝑟ℎ = 0
corresponds to Poiseuille flow.

Fig. 13. Fracture/diffusive system. Similar as in Fig. 11 but when a diffusive layer is thicker than the open one, 𝑟ℎ = ℎ1 ∕ℎ2 = {1, 2, 4} and 𝜙 = 10−1 ; 𝑟ℎ = 0 corresponds
to Poiseuille flow.

1 1
1
Fig. 14. Stratified periodic Brinkman flow is sketched on the first diagram; the three next diagrams show results at D𝑎− 2 ≈ 56.5 (dotted, black) and D𝑎− 2 ≈ 20 × 56.5
(dashed, red), when 𝑘1 ∕𝑘2 = 10−3 and 𝑓 (𝜙) = 1, 𝜙1 = 1 and 𝜙2 = 1 . Second diagram: velocity profile (60). Third diagram: 𝜎 𝐶̄ (𝑥̄ , 𝑡) is reconstructed from Sk(𝑠) and
30 3 ⋆

Ku(⋆𝑠) when t/T ≈ 0.49Pe, Pe ≈ 740. Fourth diagram: RTD profile 𝜎P(x, 𝜏) is reconstructed from Sk(⋆𝑡) and Ku(⋆𝑡) when x/H ∼ 1.14Pe, Pe ≈ 740. Data at D𝑎− 2 ≈ 56.5
1

(dotted, black): Sk(⋆𝑠) Pe− 2 ≈ −0.88, Ku(⋆𝑠) Pe−1 ≈ 0.99, Sk(⋆𝑡) Pe− 2 ≈ 1.09, Ku(⋆𝑡) Pe−1 ≈ 1.7. Data at D𝑎− 2 ≈ × 56.5 (dashed, red): Sk(⋆𝑠) Pe− 2 ≈ −0.51, Ku(⋆𝑠) Pe−1 ≈ 0.41,
1 1 1 1
1
20
Sk(⋆𝑡) Pe− ≈ 0.74, Ku(⋆𝑡) Pe−1 ≈ 0.9. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).
1
2

from Section 6.2, when permeability tends to zero in one layer and be-
comes infinite in the other. In the double-periodic system, the four con-
stants in Eq. (60) are derived from two interface conditions and two
symmetry relations in the middle of each layer. Prescribing {fi (𝜙)}, the
velocity profile can be formulated in terms of the dimensionless Darcy
𝑘
number D𝑎 = 𝐻𝐷2 (with 𝑘𝐷 = (𝑘1 ℎ1 + 𝑘2 ℎ2 )∕𝐻), the permeability con-
trast and the aspect ratio. When the permeability has the same value in
the two layers, 𝑘𝑖 = 𝑘𝐷 , the double-periodic system reduces to a con-
̄ 𝑥𝑃
stant (“parallel”) Darcy flow 𝑢(𝜙𝑖) (𝑦) = −
∇
𝜈𝜌0
𝑘𝐷 . The Brinkman profile
(60) falls to the Darcy regime at small Da, and to the Stokes regime
at very high Da; the interface effects become important at the interme-
diate (Brinkman) regime, e.g., see Silva and Ginzburg (2016).
The EMM exact solution for the transport coefficients in Eq. (14) has
been constructed and analyzed in a “parallel” Darcy flow (Ginzburg
and Vikhansky, 2018; Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) through strati-
fied porosity and in a single bounded porous channel (Ginzburg and
Vikhansky, 2018). The Darcy system presents an interesting example
where the complex dispersion behavior is solely due to the porosity
contrast; this system manifests much stronger non-Gaussian effects than
the “perpendicular” Darcy flow in series at the same porosity contrast
and Pe. In a single porous channel, the transport coefficients are set by
two dimensionless parameters, f(𝜙)/Da and Pe; the relative dispersivity
𝑘𝑇 Pe−2 is predicted to decrease from the Stokes to the Darcy regime and
to increase when f(𝜙) decreases with 𝜙 at fixed Da. Exact solution for
the transport coefficients in a fracture embedded into porous Brinkman
flow has been constructed and confirmed numerically (Ginzburg and
Vikhansky, 2018); this system can be regarded as the limit system of

20
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 15. Effect of fk (𝜙) in stratified periodic Brinkman flow, Eq. (59). From left to right: the ratio of the Brinkman permeability to its Darcy value, kB /kD [ 𝑓𝑘 (𝜙) = 1
(solid red), 𝑓𝑘 (𝜙) = 𝜙𝑘 (dot–dashed, blue)] and the three reference values: 𝑘𝑇 Pe−2 , Sk(⋆𝑠) Pe− 2 and Ku(⋆𝑠) Pe−1 from Eq. (14) versus D𝑎− 2 . Legend: Pe = 102 (red, solid)
1 1

1
and Pe = 103 (black, dotted) when 𝑓𝑘 (𝜙) = 1; Pe = 102 (dot–dashed, blue) and Pe = 103 (dashed, magenta) when 𝑓𝑘 (𝜙) = 𝜙𝑘 . Data: 𝑘1 ∕𝑘2 = 10−3 , 𝜙1 = 30 , 𝜙2 = 13 ,
ℎ1 = ℎ2 = 𝐻∕2. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

√ √
the double-periodic Brinkman flow system. All these stratified systems versus 𝑥̄ = (𝑥 − 𝑥0 − 𝑥 𝑡)∕𝜎, 𝜎 = 𝜇2⋆ (𝑡) = 2𝐷𝑡 and (ii), the RTD𝜎P(x,
obey the Pe-scaling from Eq. (57). √ √
In Brinkman flow, 𝐵𝑛(𝑖) (𝑦) solves Eq. (55) where the source term 𝜏) versus 𝜏 = (𝑡 − 𝑡̄)∕𝜎, 𝑡̄ = 𝑥∕𝑥 , 𝜎 = 𝜇2⋆ (𝑥) = 2 𝐷3 𝑥. As has been
𝑥
𝑛 (𝑦) is computed with Eq. (16b) on the profile (60). Solution 𝐵𝑛(𝑖) (𝑦)
expected from the predicted moments, the profiles are more asymmet-
reads in terms of the 2k-order polynomials 𝑃𝑖(2𝑘) (𝑦) and 𝑋𝑖(2𝑘) (𝑦) as fol-
ric and sharp in the Darcy zone. Mean-concentration profiles are skewed
lows (see also dimensionless form Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018):
right since Sk(⋆𝑠) < 0. The RTD are typically skewed left, Sk(⋆𝑠) > 0 because
𝑛
∑ 𝑛
∑ of the Heaviside entry. These profiles can be compared to their coun-
𝐵𝑛(𝑖) (𝑦) = 𝑃𝑖(2𝑘) (𝑦)𝑒(𝑛−𝑘)𝜉𝑖 𝑦 + 𝑋𝑖(2𝑘) (𝑦)𝑒(𝑘−𝑛)𝜉𝑖 𝑦 , 𝑛 ≥ 1. (61) terparts in Poiseuille flow and in the limit case of a fracture embedded
𝑘=0 𝑘=0
into diffusive matrix (see results for Pe ≈ 740 in Figs. 10, 22 and 23 in
When 𝑘1 = 𝑘2 , 𝐵𝑛(𝑖) (𝑦) reduces to the 2n-order polynomial in the Darcy Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018). The profiles are clearly more asymmet-
flow. The coefficients in Eq. (61), except the zeroth and first-order terms, ric in the stratified Brinkman system than in an open flow; in the limit
are set by Eq. (55). The three remaining coefficients are fixed through system, their form depends on the porosity in the diffusive layer. The
the interface continuity condition ||𝐵𝑛(𝑖) ||𝑦=𝑦0 = 0 and the two symmetry constructed EMM moments are employed now to verify the TRT − EMM.
conditions; the remaining constant is fixed by Eq. (20). The final expres-
sions are lengthy but they allow to explore the transport coefficients in 6.3.2. The TRT − EMM in stratified porous flow
the full continuous parameter space. Once the set {𝜔n } is constructed, We construct symbolic TRT − EMM solutions in Brinkman velocity
the set {𝛾 n } is derived from it with Eqs. (13) and (15); the two sets de- profile extending the known classes of the exact solutions, the polyno-
termine the transport coefficients in Eq. (14); they obey the Pe-scale in mials (Cui et al., 2016; Ginzburg, 2007; 2017a) and the discrete expo-
Eq. (57). nents (Ginzburg et al., 2015b). The symbolic solutions allow to examine
Let us exemplify the role of the Brinkman viscosity in the two sys- the response of the transport coefficients on the numerical formulation,
tems, 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) = 1 and 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) = 𝜙𝑖 . Fig. 15 displays the relative effective per- but also on the quality of the velocity field, e.g., when Brinkman flow is
⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 ⟩𝜈𝜌0 computed with the discrete numerical scheme. Let us assume that the ve-
meability kB /kD , 𝑘𝐵 = − ̄ 𝑥𝑃 and the three transport coefficients ver-
∇
locity profile 𝑢(𝜙𝑖) (𝑦) solves the discretized Brinkman equation (Ginzburg
− 12 𝜙1
sus D𝑎 = √𝐻 in two equal-thickness layers with 𝑟𝜙 = 𝜙2
= 10−1 and et al., 2015b) in the layer i:
𝑘𝐷
𝑘
𝑟𝑘 = 𝑘1 = 10−3 . It is shown that kB reduces with fi (𝜙) in the transition 𝜈𝜌0 (𝑖) 𝜈(1 + 𝛿𝑖 )
2 𝑢 +∇̄ 𝑥𝑃 = ̄ 2 𝑢(𝑖) ,
𝜌 Δ (62)
− 12
(Brinkman) zone D𝑎 ∈ [10, 50]. The dispersion coefficient kT decays 𝑘𝑖 𝜙 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) 0 𝑦 𝜙
towards the Darcy regime and it only weakly depends upon Brinkman and reads
viscosity. The difference between 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) = 1 and 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙) = 𝜙𝑖 monotonously
increases in Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) towards the Darcy regime, together with their ̄ 𝑥𝑃
∇
𝑢(𝜙𝑖) (𝑦) = − (𝑘 − (𝑎𝑖 𝑟𝑦𝑖 + 𝑐𝑖 𝑟− 𝑦
𝑖 )),
− 12 𝜈𝜌0 𝑖
absolute values. In the Stokes zone, Sk(⋆𝑠) Pe and Ku(⋆𝑠) Pe−1 almost co- √
√
incide for Pe = 102 and Pe = 103 , meaning that the asymptotic regime 1 + 𝑏𝑖 𝜉𝑖2 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙)
(57) has been reached, like in an open flow. However, the asymptotes 𝑟𝑖 = √ , 𝑏𝑖 = 2 , 𝜉𝑖 = . (63)
1 − 𝑏𝑖 𝜉𝑖 + 4(1 + 𝛿𝑖 ) 𝑘𝑖
need much higher Pe in the Darcy zone. In resume, like in the single
porous channel (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018), 𝑘𝑇 Pe−2 decreases from 𝜈
As seen, the Brinkman viscosity 𝑓𝑖 (𝜙)
gets the relative correction {𝛿 i }
the Stokes to the Brinkman–Darcy regime, but the non-Gaussian effects with the different numerical approaches, like the finite-elements, finite-
are predicted to grow towards the Darcy zone. differences or LBM schemes because the truncation term Δ ̄ 2 [ 𝜈𝜌0 𝑢(𝑖) (𝑦)]
𝑥 𝑘 𝜙 𝑖
Fig. 14 illustrates the reconstructed mean-concentration and the
due to the Laplacian of the resistance sums with the viscous term (see
RTD profiles. In spatial and temporal systems, the two profiles are dis-
1 Ginzburg et al., 2015b and Ginzburg, 2016). This correction is similar
played together, one in Darcy’s range D𝑎− 2 ≈ 56.5 and another one with the 𝛼 M -term in Eq. (25). The coefficients {ai , ci } in Eq. (63) are set
1 − 12
in highly permeable zone D𝑎 ≈ 20 × 56.5; porosity and permeabil- by the effective interface conditions of a given scheme. In principle, the
ity contrasts correspond to Fig. 15. The reconstruction of the pro- symbolic solutions allow to examine an impact of the correction {𝛿 i },
files is based on the entropy maximization (Bandyopadhyay et al., or the implicit interface flow conditions, on the transport coefficients.
2004), respectively, constrained to the predicted spatial or temporal In this work we only verify for the discrete effect between an analytical
system of the first four moments. Following Vikhansky and Ginzburg velocity profile (60) and a model finite-difference profile, referred to as
(2014), Ginzburg and Vikhansky (2018), the normalized (dispersion- (“ideal”) IFD: it solves Eq. (62) with 𝛿𝑖 = 0 and second-order accurate
independent) distributions are displayed in a moving frame: (i) 𝜎 𝐶̄ (𝑥̄ , 𝑡) Taylor expansion in interface/boundary conditions (see Ginzburg et al.,

21
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 16. Impact of the velocity profile in stratified Brinkman flow. The two cases from Table 6 are displayed together: (a) D𝑎 = 10−2 and (b) D𝑎 = 10−4 , using analytical
velocity profile (60) (“Th”) and numerical profile (63) (“Num”). Legend: (a) “Th” (solid, red), (b) “Th” (dot–dashed, blue) and (a) “Num” (dotted, black), (b) “Num”
(dashed, magenta).

Table 6
Two-layered porous Brinkman flow: parameters in
four symbolic experiments with 𝑘1 ∕𝑘2 = 10−2 , 𝜙1 =
10−1 , 𝜙2 = 45 , 𝑓1 (𝜙) = 𝑓2 (𝜙) = 1.
Case Pe Da kT /Pe2 Sk(⋆𝑠)
(a) 10 2
10 −2
2.98 × 10 −3
−4.59
(b) 102 10−4 2.39 × 10−3 −7.72
(c) 10 10−2 2.98 × 10−3 −0.17
(d) 10 10−4 2.39 × 10−3 −0.22
2015b and Silva et al., 2017). Note that Eq. (63) coincides with Eq.
(60) in grid nodes provided that 𝑟𝑖 = 𝑒𝜉𝑖 . This condition can be formally
fulfilled prescribing Eq. (63) with a model value 𝑓𝑖(𝑛𝑢𝑚) :
𝑓𝑖(𝑛𝑢𝑚) = 2(1 + 𝛿𝑖 )𝑘𝑖 (cosh[𝜉𝑖 ] − 1).
Thereby, once the TRT − EMM symbolic solution is built for the discrete
profile (63), it describes the numerical solutions computed with the ex-
act profile using Eq. (64) and exact coefficients {ai , ci } from Eq. (60).
Solution Bn (y) to Eq. (25) is searched in the form:
𝑛
∑ 𝑛
∑ adjacent to the diffusive-matrix from Section 6.2, and it is much better
𝐵𝑛(𝑖) (𝑦) = 𝑃𝑖(2𝑘) (𝑦)𝑟(𝑖𝑛−𝑘)𝑦 + 𝑋𝑖(2𝑘) (𝑦)𝑟(𝑖𝑘−𝑛)𝑦 .
𝑘=0 𝑘=0
Similarly as in EMM solution (61), the coefficients are determined by
Eq. (25), except the zero- and the first-order term. The three remaining
coefficients are fixed through the continuity condition, Eq. (28a) with
Eqs. (22), (24a), similar as in Eqs. (32)–(35), and the symmetry con-
ditions in the middle of each layer; the remaining constant is set with
Eq. (20). The constructed solutions for 𝜔2 − 𝜔4 and 𝛾2 − 𝛾4 coincide with
the TRT − EMM numerical solutions for the different-type numerical
profiles (63) and analytical profile (60). As one example, the four ex-
periments in two equal-thickness layers combine D𝑎 = {10−2 , 10−4 } and
Pe = {10, 102 }; the reference EMM values are gathered in Table 6. Fig. 16
displays the relative differences TRT − EMM to EMM together for Eqs.
(60) and (63) in Brinkman zone D𝑎 = 10−2 and Darcy zone D𝑎 = 10−4 .
The first diagram shows that the relative velocity error  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) to 𝑥 is
most significant on the numerical profile in the Brinkman zone, and it
reduces to about 5% only when we have H/2 ≥ 10 nodes per layer; the
numerical profile then produces the most large corrections in the three
transport coefficients. This example suggests that an accurate descrip-
tion of the velocity gradients is essential for the accuracy in the first
four moments. These symbolic experiments were also run with Pe = 10,
cases (c) and (d) from Table 6. In these and other experiments, the
TRT − EMM with Pe = 10 is more accurate for the dispersion coefficient
against Pe = 102 , but the situation is reversed for E(Sk(⋆𝑠) ) and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) ) on
the coarse grid, e.g., |E(Sk(⋆𝑠) )| is larger by a factor of three, and E(Ku(⋆𝑠) )
is twice larger, with Pe = 10 against Pe = 102 . The described behavior is
similar to the truncation estimate (Ginzburg, 2017b) of the moments in
ADE-j scheme (11b), because when Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) are very small with
small Pe, the numerical corrections may become relatively large. Fig. 17
compares TRT − EMM with Λ𝜙 from Eqs. (42a) and (42b) on the ana-
lytical velocity profile (60) with the parameter setting from Table 6. On
the one hand, 𝛼𝑀 = 0 in Eq. (25) using Eq. (42a), the transport coeffi-
Ku(⋆𝑠) cients corrections are then solely due to the implicit interface tracking
and the summation effect. On the other hand, kT is exact in the Darcy
29.99
73.86 flow using Eq. (42b) [see Eq. (36b)].
0.17
Fig. 17 shows that, effectively, Eq. (42b) is more accurate for the
−0.22 three coefficients on the coarse grid in the Darcy regime D𝑎 = 10−4
(bottom row); this is especially true with kT . In the intermediate zone
D𝑎 = 10−2 (top row), the situation is reversed for all the three coeffi-
cients and Eq. (42a) is one-order more accurate on the coarse grid, es-
pecially for Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) . The results for Pe = 10 are similar in the two
cases (c) and (d) from Table 6.
To conclude, second-order accurate Brinkman numerical velocity
(64) profile causes additional corrections in the three transport coefficients
of the same order magnitude as the TRT − EMM with Eq. (42a) has in
the exact profile (cf. bottom row in Figs. 16 and 17). Using the ana-
lytical velocity profile in the Brinkman regime, the TRT − EMM retains
its solution within ≈ 10% when having H/2 ≈ 5 mesh spacings per layer.
Such a precision is quite comparable with the limit case of an open layer
(65) than what we have observed for the Darcy flow in “series”. The Darcy
regime may require to reduce Λ𝜙 towards Eq. (42b), because when the
velocity profile is relatively flat, the interface effects dominate the trun-
cation due to the velocity-variation in the mass-source. We note that the
non-uniform and flow-regime-dependent Λ𝜙 distribution has been also
suggested in TRT Brinkman flow modeling (Ginzburg et al., 2015b).
6.4. Summary
The TRT − EMM numerical formulation (19) was examined on
the base of its symbolic solutions in several stratified systems: open,
fracture/diffusive-matrix and heterogeneous porous flow. For the sake
of their validation, the EMM exact solutions (Ginzburg and Vikhansky,
2018) were extended to the stratified Brinkman flow. The TRT − EMM
behaves similarly to the direct solvers and much more accurately in a
“parallel” flow than in a “perpendicular” flow. The TRT − EMM trans-
port coefficients are identical with the “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-form” [using
Eq. (15)] in stratified channels provided that the free collision product
Λ𝜙 and the truncation coefficient 𝛼 M in Eq. (25) take the same values in
the two formulations. Their solutions are entirely parameterized by Pe
when Λ𝜙 and ce are inter-related through Eq. (26a). The transport coef-
ficients then obey the Pe-scale from Eq. (57) exactly for any individual
value of the characteristic velocity, ce , Λ− and Λ𝜙 , but they depend upon
the free-tunable parameter  from Eq. (26a). In the Stokes–Brinkman
regime,  = 14 is efficient because it vanishes the principal truncation
correction due to the mass-source variation with velocity. However, in
the Darcy zone,  = 18 is preferable for its advanced interface accuracy
in kT measurements. It was shown that the bad quality of the velocity

22
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
Fig. 17. Stratified Brinkman flow from Table 6. Top row: case (a), D𝑎 = 10−2 . Bottom row: case (b), D𝑎 = 10−4 . The TRT − EMM relative errors in three moments
are compared for Λ𝜙 = 1∕(4(1 − 𝑐𝑒 )) (solid, red), Eq. (42a), and Λ𝜙 = 1∕(8(1 − 𝑐𝑒 )) (dot–dashed, blue), Eq. (42b). (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
field may predominate over the truncation accuracy in the presence of
the high velocity gradients and impair the prediction of moments.
As a reminder, the direct solver (11b) produces the first moment
with the effective velocity  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) in a straight bounded channel only
if using the coordinate discrete-velocity stencil; otherwise the effective
mean velocity becomes modified in proportion to the diagonal velocity
weight tq in Eq. (10b) (see Ginzburg, 2017a). In addition to the reported
results, we observe that the direct ADE schemes extend this deficiency
to stratified heterogeneous interfaces. This property is to be contrasted
with the TRT − EMM: although its symbolic solutions were built with
the d2Q5 discrete velocities, the TRT − EMM stratified flow solutions are
identical for d2Q5 and d2Q9 because of the streamwise-invariance of the
steady-state solutions Bn (y) in straight channels. Thereby, the weight-
independence of the transport coefficients in the basic configurations is
another advantage of the steady-state TRT − EMM approach against the
direct simulation of moments.
7. Heterogeneous porous flow
We examine the TRT − EMM and three direct ADE schemes for tem-
poral and spatial dispersions in Brinkman flow around solid and porous
obstacles. Section 7.1 describes geometry and flow. Sections 7.2 and
7.3 address the numerical aspects of TRT − EMM and LBM-ADE, respec-
tively. Section 7.4 examines the physical insight on the obtained trans-
port coefficients.
7.1. Geometry and flow
We consider two-dimensional steady-state flow through a periodic
porous system consisting of two equivalent rectangular obstacles de-
picted in Fig. 18. The two obstacles are either solid (𝜙 = 0) or porous,
𝜙 ∈ { 18 , 14 , 12 , 34 , 19
20
}. The “basic cell” has the size [𝑋 × 𝐻] = [56 × 40]
(l.u); it is periodic along the x-axis and bounded by two horizontal solid
walls; the two obstacles [𝑋 × 𝑌 ] = [8 × 32] are distanced by 8 mesh spac-
ings; their centers are located at (𝑥, 𝑦) = (20, 16) and (𝑥, 𝑦) = (36, 24). The
linear Brinkman velocity field 𝑢⃗𝜙 (𝑥, 𝑦) is governed by a constant body
force 𝐹⃗ = 𝐹𝑥 1⃗ 𝑥 :
𝜈𝜌0 𝜈𝜌0 2
𝑢⃗ + ∇𝑃 − 𝐹⃗ = Δ 𝑢⃗𝜙 . (66)
𝑘 𝜙 𝑓 (𝜙)
23
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
The velocity field is solved with the d2Q9 IBF − LBM interface-implicit
scheme (Ginzburg et al., 2015b) using the bounce-back no-slip rule on
the solid surface. The resistance is prescribed with the permeability
value kf in a surrounding flow and km inside a porous obstacle; the ratio
𝑘𝑓
𝑘𝑚
= 108 is the same in the two flow experiments, hereafter referred to
1
as Exp. I and Exp. II, with {𝑘𝑓 , 𝑘𝑚 } = 4 × {107 , 10−1 }[l.u], D𝑎− 2 ≈ 63.25 ×
1
{10−4 , 1} in Exp. I, and {𝑘𝑓 , 𝑘𝑚 } = 4 × {105 , 10−3 }[l.u], D𝑎− 2 ≈ 63.25 ×
{10−3 , 10} in Exp. II. The two Darcy numbers {kf /(H × l)2 , km /(H × l)2 }
are kept fixed in l-times refined cell. Without obstacles, the channel flow
approaches the Stokes (Poiseuille) limit. The streamlines in Fig. 18 al-
low to observe the flow effect due to the low permeable obstacles in
Exp. II. Table 7 compiles the ratio of the effective mean-permeability 𝑘̄
to its open flow value kP ; the case of the solid obstacle is very similar
in the two experiments with 𝑘̄ ≈ 7.57 × 10−3 𝑘𝑃 ; otherwise, the mean-
permeability contrast between the two experiments is about 2.53. The
porosity 𝜙 impacts the velocity field only through the Brinkman viscos-
ity value 𝜈𝐵 = 𝜈∕𝑓 (𝜙); the effective permeability depends very weakly
on 𝜙 and the transport coefficients are practically the same for the flow
computed with 𝜈𝐵 = 𝜈∕𝜙 and 𝜈𝐵 = 𝜈.
7.2. The TRT − EMM: numerical set-up
The TRT − EMM applies algorithm from Appendix A.4 and it solves
Eqs. (16)–(17) using the TRT collision (8) with the equilibrium (19); the
mass-source 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) and the flux-jump 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) in Eqs. (16b)–(16e) are com-
puted in “𝜔-form” with Eq. (A.1) and in “𝛾-form” with Eqs. (A.2)–(A.5).
We aim to verify the equivalence of the two formulations in this two-
dimensional field. The velocity field is precomputed in the unit cell; due
⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 ⟩
to the linearity of the flow, its arithmetical mean value  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = ⟨𝜙⟩
is rescaled to the same value in all configurations. Prescribing 𝜙(𝑟⃗),
the velocity field and Pe =  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) 𝐻∕0 , the computations of Eqs. (16)–
(17) are performed three times sequentially for 𝑛 = 1, 2, 3; their steady-
state solution 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is then normalized with Eq. (20) and 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is used
to precompute 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) and 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) for the next orders, namely, 𝑛 = 2, 3, 4.
One does not need to solve the system at 𝑛 = 4, because {𝜔n } is de-
termined with Eq. (16f) or Eq. (18), and {𝛾 n } is determined with Eq.
(A.4) from the previous-level solution. No-flux condition is enforced
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 18. Porous flow. From left to right: basic periodic cell [𝑋 × 𝑌 ] = [56 × 40]; streamlines around two solid obstacles and permeable obstacles, in the Exp. I and
Exp. II, when the “basic cell” is refined by the factor of five.

Table 7
The ratio of the mean permeability 𝑘̄ to its open flow value 𝑘𝑃 = 𝐻 2 ∕12 in the two flow
systems, Exp. I and Exp. II, versus porosity 𝜙; the solid obstacle is comprised for 𝜙 = 0. The
𝑘
permeability contrast is 𝑘𝑓 = 108 is both systems but kf and km are 102 times smaller in
𝑚
Exp. II.
1 1 1 3 19
𝜙 0 8 4 2 4 20

Exp. I 7.57 × 10−3 1.98 × 10−2 2.03 × 10−2 2.08 × 10−2 2.12 × 10−2 2.14 × 10−2
Exp. II 7.57 × 10−3 7.83 × 10−3 7.93 × 10−3 8.11 × 10−3 8.29 × 10−3 8.43 × 10−3

Fig. 19. The TRT − EMM in porous flow, Exp. I, Pe ≈ 74. From left to right: numerical solution {𝜔(𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑚) }, {𝛾𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑚 } and the relative difference of {𝜔𝑛 (𝛾𝑛(𝑛𝑢𝑚) )} computed
with Eq. (15) to numerical solution {𝜔(𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑚) } with “𝜔-form”. Data: 𝑛 = 2 (solid, “triangles”), 𝑛 = 3 (dot–dashed, “lozenge”), 𝑛 = 4 (dotted, “squares”).

with the bounce-back rule; the total mass in the system is conserved
at each time step because of the solvability condition ⟨𝑛 ⟩ = 0. While
the exact global mass conservation provides a very valuable numerical
test, we find it more difficult to validate exactly with the “𝛾-form”, be-
cause of the round-off summation effect due to very large increase of the
values {𝛾 n } with n. As one example, the two sets {𝜔′𝑛 (𝑛𝑢𝑚) } and {𝛾𝑛′ (𝑛𝑢𝑚) }
are illustrated in Fig. 19. In a given configuration, the dimensionless co-
𝜔𝑛 𝛾𝑛 𝑥𝑛
efficients in Eq. (13), {𝜔′𝑛 = 𝑥 𝐻 (𝑛−1)
} and {𝛾𝑛′ = 𝐻 (𝑛−1)
} should remain
fixed by Pe; it has been confirmed that {𝜔′𝑛 (𝑛𝑢𝑚) } and {𝛾𝑛 (𝑛𝑢𝑚) } follow this
′ The d2Q5 scheme operates with four free parameters: ce , Λ− , Λ𝜙
dimensionless scaling when 𝑥 and H vary. Further, we confirm that the
set {𝜔′𝑛 (𝛾𝑛′ (𝑛𝑢𝑚) )}, obtained with Eq. (15), practically coincides with the
numerical solution {𝜔′𝑛 (𝑛𝑢𝑚) } obtained with the “𝜔-form”; the relative
difference between the two sets is exemplified in the last diagram in
Fig. 19. We note that Eq. (15) provides another very useful implemen-
tation check. Therefore, the two numerical formulations, “𝜔-form” and
“𝛾-form”, produce the same solution for the dispersion coefficient kT
and any one of them can be run for the prediction of the four transport
coefficients in Eq. (14).
Hereafter, we will display the relative differences of the trans-
port coefficients to their open-flow counterparts at the same Pe; they
are labeled as 𝛿D for 𝐷 = (1 + 𝑘𝑇 )0 , {𝛿Sk(⋆𝑠) , 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑠) } for {Sk(⋆𝑠) , Ku(⋆𝑠) }
and {𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) , 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡) } for {Sk(⋆𝑡) , Ku(⋆𝑡) }, respectively. The reference open
(Poiseuille) flow solutions is given in Table 3 (Ginzburg and Vikhansky,
2018). The simulations are run at Pe ≈ {7.4, 74, 740} in the basic cell
and Pe ≈ 7.4{ × 10, × 102 , × 103 } in five times finer cell; stability bound
from Eq. (10e) is adopted as an approximate. Although in several points
this condition was not satisfied when Pe ≥ ≈ 74, e.g., in “basic-cell” flow
around the solids and in Exp. II [using 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) =  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) ≈ 0.0355, 𝑐𝑒 = 30
1
],
stable results have been most of the time achieved using Λ𝜙 from Eq.
(42a) [Λ(𝜙𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) = Λ𝜙 |𝑐 1 ≈ 0.259]. As it might be expected, Eq. (10e) is
𝑒 = 30
not a necessary stability condition in a space-variable velocity field in
the rigorous sense, but it provides a very reasonable estimate, e.g., the
smallest porosity value 𝜙 = 18 becomes most unstable when Λ− 𝜙
reduces
for higher Pe.
and 𝛽 e . Recall that, when ce and Λ𝜙 are linked through Eq. (26a), the
solution becomes independent of the two separated values ce and Λ− ,
provided that their product 0 = 𝑐𝑒 Λ− is fixed, either in a “perpendic-
ular” or a “parallel” one-dimensional flow. This property remains valid
in one-dimensional flow, when the obstacles have the same porosity
and permeability as the surrounding √ flow. For example, √ if we employ
1
the two sets {𝑐𝑒 , Λ− , Λ𝜙 }: { 30 , 1∕3, Λ(𝜙𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) } and { 13 , 1∕3 × 10, 38 } with
the same value 0 = 𝑐𝑒 Λ− , the difference {𝛿𝐷, 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑠) , 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑠) } with the
open flow will be identical in the two cases and very small [because
the flow approaches the open regime], as {0.07, −2.21 × 10−7 , 0.13}[%]
in the “basic cell” at Pe ≈ 74, Exp. II. However, this exact parame-
terization property of Eq. (26a) is not valid in a two-dimensional
flow, e.g., in the presence of the solids, the relative difference be-
tween the two sets is {−8.7, 0.58, −0.15}[%] in the “basic cell”, but only
{−0.29, 0.01, −0.01}[%] for a five-times finer cell. Similarly, in the ab-
sence of solids when 𝜙 = 34 , the relative difference between the two pa-

24
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
Fig. 20. The TRT − EMM in porous flow. From left to right: number of time steps to steady state for dispersion (𝑛 = 1), skewness (𝑛 = 2) and kurtosis (𝑛 = 3) is
displayed together for four configurations in Eq. (10): 𝛽𝑒 = 1, 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10 (“filled triangle”); 𝛽𝑒 = 5, 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10 (“filled lozenge”); 𝛽𝑒 = 10: 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10
(“empty lozenge”) and 𝛽𝑒 = 1, 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) (“empty triangle”) [some points are absent when ce does not satisfy Eq. (10e)].
rameter sets is {1.48, −4.15, −0.46}[%] in the “basic cell” and it reduces
to {0.07, −0.05, −0.02}[%] in the refined cell.
This loss of the exact parameterization is because Eq. (24a) is not
exact any more and Eq. (25) obtains a different truncation component.
The effect of Λ𝜙 decays here approximately as 𝐻 −2 for all moments.
Since the TRT − EMM applies in a single cell, the insensitivity to the
free-parameters can be achieved over fine grids. It is important to stress
that the transport coefficients are all exactly parameterized by Pe and ce ,
meaning that they remain the same when the velocity field and diffusion
eigenfunction Λ− scale accordingly.
The steady-state solution 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) is independent of the acceleration pa-
rameter 𝛽 e in Eq. (10). When 𝛽 e > 1, ce , and velocity amplitude should
reduce approximately linearly with 𝛽 e , according to stability estimate
in Eq. (10e). The TRT − EMM computations are stopped when the rel-
ative difference in 𝛿D, 𝛿Sk⋆ and 𝛿Ku⋆ is less than 𝜖 = 10−11 over suc-
cessive 5 × 102 steps. Fig. 20 shows that the number of steps to steady
state is nearly the same in the three equations (𝑛 = 1, 2, 3); the number
of steps decreases linearly with the 𝑥 or 𝛽 e increase; that is, nearly
the same computational time is required with {𝑥 , 𝛽𝑒 } = {10𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) , 1}
or {𝑥 , 𝛽𝑒 } = {𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) , 10}. Since the small velocity amplitudes are more
accurate because of the truncation corrections, 𝛽 e is expected to be help-
ful. The results in Fig. 20 correspond to Exp. II in “𝜔-form”; the “𝛾-form”
typically requires a slightly larger number of steps. We note that when
Pe increases linearly due to the mesh refining, the number of steps to
steady state increases slightly.
Finally, it has been suggested (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018;
Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) that the mass-source component Sn
and flux-jump 𝐽⃗𝑛 from Eq. (16e) can be dropped at sufficiently high
Pe provided that the sets {𝜔′𝑛 } and {𝛾𝑛′ } grow with Pe for n ≥ 2, e.g.,
like in Eq. (57) with stratified flow. In fact, these two terms originate
from the diffusion term in Eq. (1) and they cannot be omitted in a
diffusion-dominated process, like in “series” of heterogeneous porous
blocks where {𝜔′2 } is asymptotically constant and decays with Pe for
n ≥ 3, see Eq. (48). Fig. 21 displays the relative differences in 𝛿D, 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡)
and 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡) between two EMM solutions, with and without {𝑆𝑛 , 𝐽⃗𝑛 }, in
the two flow experiments. In both of them, the three relative differ-
ences diminish from the interval [−20%, 40%] at Pe ≈ 7.4 to about 1% at
Pe ≈ 740, but they are still noticeable for 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) and 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡) at Pe ≈ 74 in
Exp. I. Since the spatial and temporal moments are inter-related through
Eq. (15), a similar situation will take place with 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑠) and 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑠) . These
simulations confirm that in the presence of the fractured velocity path,
Sn and 𝐽⃗𝑛 can be omitted at sufficiently high Pe making numerical im-
plementation much more simple.
7.3. The direct ADE schemes: numerical set-up
We model the spatial and temporal dispersion with the three d2Q5
schemes: ADE-c and ADE-j from Eq. (11), and ADE-r from Eq. (12); the
bounce-back is applied on the horizontal walls and solid obstacles. For
25
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
the spatial spread, an evolution of the plume distribution (𝑥 = 𝑥0 , 𝑦, 𝑡 =
0) = 1 is run through 102 − 2 × 102 basic cells; the raw moments 𝜇𝑛 (𝑡) =
∑ ∑ 𝑛
𝑥 𝑦 𝜙(𝑥, 𝑦)(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑡)(𝑥 − 𝑥0 ) 𝑑 𝑥𝑑 𝑦 are normalized with 𝜇 0 (t) and em-
ployed to compute the central moments 𝜇𝑛⋆ (𝑡) for 𝑛 = 2, 3, 4. The set
{𝜔(𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑚) } is derived from the moments with Eq. (53) and normalized
with Eq. (13); it determines  (𝑛𝑢𝑚) , 𝑘𝑇 = 𝐷 − 1 and Sk(⋆𝑠) , Ku(⋆𝑠) with Eq.
0
(14). As the reference example for ADE-j in open Poiseuille flow through
a “basic cell” [𝐻 = 40], we obtain  (𝑛𝑢𝑚) =  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) and the relative er-
rors {0.027, 0.53, 0.1}[%] for D, Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) , respectively, using the
porous flow parameter set [Pe ≈ 74, 𝑐𝑒 = 30 1
, 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) , Λ𝜙 = 14 ]. The
TRT − EMM convergence criteria is adopted, but the stop-value is much
higher, typically 𝜖 ≈ 10−6 . We note that the ADE schemes then only ap-
proximately reach the Taylor regime with the same order of steps as
the TRT − EMM needs to converge to the steady state. It follows that
operating in a single cell, the TRT − EMM is hundreds time faster al-
ready in the small Pe range. Further, since the time to the Taylor regime
and, accordingly, the number of the unit cells, increases linearly with
Pe, the ADE computational time increases as Pe2 . We also note that
TRT − EMM with Λ𝜙 |𝑐 = 1 ≈ 0.259 from Eq. (42a) behaved much more
𝑒 30
robustly than the three direct solvers in spatial dispersion. As one exam-
ple, the TRT − EMM reaches Pe ≈ 740 in the “basic-cell” [except 𝜙 = 18
in Exp. I] while ADE-r becomes undefined in Exp. II with all examined
porosity values when Pe ≥ 74 because Λ− 𝜙,1
becomes negative in several
points (cf. Eq. (12c)).
The temporal dispersion is modeled with the zero initial distribu-
tion (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑡 = 0) = 0; the Dirichlet boundary condition (𝑥 = 0, 𝑦, 𝑡) =
𝑏 is prescribed with the anti-bounce-back rule (29a) in boundary
nodes 𝑟⃗𝑏 = (𝑥 = 12 , 𝑦) using  = 𝑏 = 1 in 𝑒+ 𝑞 (𝑟
⃗𝑠 ). The RTD distribution
𝑃 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑡) ≈ 1 (𝐶̄ (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑡) − 𝐶̄ (𝑡 − 1, 𝑥𝑖 )) is monitored at each time step in a pre-
2
selected set of the grid points xi ; the RTD central moments 𝜇𝑛⋆ (𝑥) ≈
∑
̃ ̄ 𝑛 ̃ 1
𝑡 (𝑡 − 𝑡(𝑥𝑖 )) 𝑃 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑡)𝛿𝑡 , 𝑡 = 𝑡 − 2 , 𝛿𝑡 = 1, are accumulated in time using the
effective centroid value 𝑡̄(𝑥𝑖 ) = 𝜇1 (𝑥𝑖 ); the raw moments are all normal-
ized with the actual value 𝜇 0 (xi ). Since the Dirichlet anti-bounce-back
rule is not exact, 𝜇 0 (xi ) may slightly deviate from the steady-state exact
solution 𝜇 0 (xi ) ≡ 1. The set {𝛾 n } is extracted from the central moments
with the formulae (Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018; Vikhansky and
𝑥
Ginzburg, 2014); it determines  (𝑛𝑢𝑚) (𝑥𝑖 ) = 𝛾1 = 𝜇 (𝑥𝑖 ) , 𝑘𝑇 (𝑥𝑖 ) = 𝐷 − 1,
1 1 𝑖 0
Sk(⋆𝑡) (𝑥𝑖 ) and Ku(⋆𝑡) (𝑥𝑖 ) in Eq. (14). When the Taylor regime is reached,
typically at xi /H ≈ Pe, these values downstream remain approximately
the same. Within the “basic cell”, the RTD simulations are more robust
than the spatial spread and the three schemes reach Pe ≈ 740 in Exp. I;
ADE-c/ADE-j most of the time achieved for this as well in Exp. II. Since
the downstream distance should increase linearly with Pe, the computa-
tional time grows as Pe2 , like in the spatial spread. Let us recall that the
mean seepage velocity  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) is set with the TRT − EMM in any geome-
try by construction; the direct ADE schemes produce  (𝑛𝑢𝑚) =  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) on
the coordinate stencil in stratified channels, but  (𝑛𝑢𝑚) differs from the
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 21. Temporal dispersion, Exp. I (top row) and Exp. II (bottom row). From left to right: Pe ≈ {7.4, 74, 740}. The relative differences of the results in
𝛿(0 )(red, circle), 𝛿(Sk(⋆𝑡) )(blue, square) a𝑛𝑑 𝛿(Ku(⋆𝑡) )(black, lozenge) when TRT − EMM applies without Sn and 𝐽⃗𝑛 terms in Eq. (16) to “standard” solution with them.
The computations are run in the “basic cell” cell 56 × 40. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

Table 8
Temporal dispersion in Exp. I. Mean-velocity error Eu [in percents] at Pe ≈ 740 with the ADE-
c and ADE-j from Eq. (11) and ADE-r from Eq. (12a). The computations are run in a series of
“basic cells” [56 × 40], 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ≈ 0.0355 and 𝑐𝑒 = 301
. The ADE-r is undefined for 𝜙 = 0
because of the stability condition Λ−𝜙,1 > 0 in Eq. (12c); the ADE-c and ADE-j are unstable for
𝑟𝜙 = 18 .
1 1 1 3 19
𝜙 0 8 4 2 4 20

ADE-c[%] 4.25 − 1.74 × 10−2 5.18 × 10−2 3.29 × 10−2 1.44 × 10−2
ADE-r[%] −2.28 × 10−1 − −7.56 × 10−2 −4.53 × 10−2 −6.39 × 10−2 −8.09 × 10−2
ADE-j [%] 3.02 − −2.28 × 10−1 −2.13 × 10−1 −2.63 × 10−1 −3.13 × 10−1

prescribed constant Darcy value with ADE-j in porous blocks in “series”
[see Section 5.3.2]. Fig. 22 shows that the three ADE schemes mod-
ify the prescribed mean-velocity value in two-dimensional flow, both
in the spatial and temporal systems. When Pe ≈ 7.4 [velocity is small,
 (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10], ADE-c/ADE-r manifest quasi-identical relative ve-
locity error Eu ; it slightly differs with ADE-j but it has the same de-
pendency upon 𝜙. However, when Pe ≈ 74 [ (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ], ADE-j pro-
duces relatively large velocity errors and it reproduces the ADE-c only
with much smaller velocity, as  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10. Thus, although ADE-
j is often more stable than ADE-c close to the stability line, thanks to
the reduction of the (negative) numerical diffusion, it needs to operate
on a smaller velocity range in heterogeneous soil for the correct advec-
tion in the intermediate Pe range. Table 8 shows that when Pe ≈ 740,
the velocity error becomes small with all schemes using the same ve-
locity [ (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ]. As a reminder, a reduction of the velocity error

with Λ− = 𝑐 0 was first observed with ADE-j in “series” of porous blocks.
𝑒 7.4. The transport coefficients
Remarkably, this makes the advection process more accurate when Pe
grows decreasing Λ− .
Fig. 23 displays the three relative differences 𝛿D, 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) and 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡)
between the direct schemes and TRT − EMM. The three direct schemes
produce nearly identical results at Pe ≈ 7.4, where their difference with
TRT − EMM is within 0.5% for all three moments, and the largest dis-
crepancy happens for kT at the smallest porosity value 𝜙 = 18 . The anti-
numerical-diffusion mechanism does not play a role, either because
of the relatively smaller velocity  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10 or the predomi-
nant role of the Taylor and numerical dispersions. When Pe ≈ 74, the
three schemes produce similar results only provided that ADE-j oper-
ates with small velocity, as  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10 according to Fig. 22.
Finally, as it might be expected from the mean-velocity results in
Table 8, the difference with the TRT − EMM is very similar in the three
schemes at Pe ≈ 740. We note, however, that the difference between the
TRT − EMM and ADE increases with Pe; this can be partly related to
the fact that the steady-state Taylor regime is more difficult to reach
with ADE when Pe grows. On the whole, in this and all other spatial
and temporal dispersion experiments, a similar difference within 5%
between the TRT − EMM and the direct schemes was mostly observed
in the “basic cell”. We conclude that the three ADE schemes produce
similar solutions when their advection process is accurate enough, and
then confirm the TRT − EMM moments predictions.
Now, using the TRT − EMM solutions, we examine how the pres-
ence of the solid and porous obstacles impacts the transport coeffi-
cients. Fig. 24 displays the relative differences with respect to open
flow in Exp. I, both in the spatial and temporal dispersions. The dis-
persion coefficient 𝐷 = 0 (1 + 𝑘𝑇 ) is the same in the two systems and
𝛿D is displayed together for Pe ≈ 7.4{ × 10, × 102 , × 103 } in the first
diagram. The four relative differences, 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑠) , 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑠) and 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) , 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡) ,
are displayed together in the three next diagrams at fixed Pe. We ob-

26
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 22. Relative mean-velocity error E(U) in LBM-ADE. Exp. I: spatial (red, circle), temporal (blue, square); Exp. II: spatial (black, lozenge), temporal (magenta,
triangle). Top row: Pe = 7.4, ADE-c, ADE-r, ADE-j with 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10. Bottom row: Pe = 74, ADE-c [𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ], ADE-j [𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10], ADE-j [𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ]. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 23. Temporal dispersion, Exp. I, Pe ≈ {7.4, 74, 740} [ from left to right]. The relative differences of the LBM-ADE to TRT − EMM in D (red, circle), Sk(⋆𝑡) (blue,
square) and Ku(⋆𝑡) (black, lozenge). Top row: ADE-c from Eq. (11a). Middle row: ADE-r from Eq. (12a). Bottom row: ADE-j from Eq. (11b) with 𝑥 = 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) ∕10 when
Pe = 74. The results correspond to Fig. 22 and Table 8. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

27
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 24. Porous flow, Exp. I, TRT − EMM prediction for the relative difference with the open flow. First diagram: 𝛿D together for Pe ≈ 74 (red, “circle”),
740 (blue, “square”), 7400 (black, “lozenge”). The next three diagrams: Pe ≈ 7.4{ × 10, × 102 , × 103 }. The results are displayed together for 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑠) (red, empty circles),
𝛿Ku(⋆𝑠) (blue, empty square), 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) (black, filled circles) and 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡) (magenta, filled squares). The computations were run in the single periodic cell 280 × 200. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

serve that all moments are quite different for solid and highly-permeable Fig. 27 displays the RTD and the mean-concentration profiles com-
porous blocks. Remarkably, all transport coefficients become porosity- puted with the ADE-c at Pe ≈ 74. According to the predictions in
independent at Pe ≈ 740. The relative difference to open flow also be- Fig. 26 for Pe ≈ 74, 𝛿D ≈ 0 when 𝜙 = 18 and the RTD profiles almost
comes Pe-independent; that means that all transport coefficients obey coincide with their open flow counterparts. However, 𝛿D ≈ 0.6 when
the same (stratified flow) Pe-scaling from Eq. (57) in highly-permeable 𝜙 = 1920
and both the RTD and the mean-concentration profiles show
porous flow. A very interesting result in Fig. 24 is that the highly- that the porous system becomes more dispersive than the open flow. In
permeable porous system from Exp. I is very efficient in the suppres- self-similar coordinates, the reconstructed and numerical profiles agree
sion of the Taylor dispersion, independently of the porosity value. In- to each other and look very similar to the open-flow profiles because
deed, while 𝛿𝐷 ≈ −0.1 when Pe ≈ 7.4 (not shown), 𝛿D becomes ≈ −0.8 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) ≈ 0 and Ku(⋆𝑡) keeps its sign. We note that the concentration pro-
for Pe ≈ 74 and this difference further decreases with Pe towards 𝛿𝐷 ≈ files look more irregular in the less permeable system (Exp. II); they are
𝑘𝑇
(𝑝) − 1 ≈ −1 or kT ≈ 0. These results predict the dispersion coefficient more oscillating with the ADE-j scheme from Eq. (11b) because of the
𝑘𝑇
interface jumps [see “perpendicular” flow in series Fig. (7)]. At the same
to diminish by ≈ 80% at Pe ≈ 74, and almost to vanish at Pe ≈ 740 and
time, the ADE-c and ADE-r produce very similar moments and profiles
Pe ≈ 7400 towards 𝑘𝑇 = 0 in porous flow. The TRT − EMM also pre-
in both spatial and temporal systems.
dicts the relative degree of the asymmetry and peakedness in the mean-
Finally, Fig. 28 displays the normalized numerical RTD profiles at
concentration and RTD distributions against the open flow. Recall that
Pe ≈ 740; they are monitored closer to the inlet, when the Taylor regime
Sk(⋆𝑠) and Ku(⋆𝑠) are both negative in the spatial spread in open (Poiseuille)
has not been yet reached. We note that ADE-c and ADE-j produce very
flow where the mean-concentration profiles are hence skewed right
similar profiles at Pe ≈ 740 in agreement with the moments prediction.
and relatively flat (see Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018; Vikhansky and
The asymmetry of the profiles reduces with the porosity, following the
Ginzburg, 2014). Fig. 24 predicts that Sk(⋆𝑠) remains negative in porous
Taylor regime predictions in Fig. 26 [Sk(⋆𝑡,𝑝) > 0 and 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) (𝜙) ∈ [−1, −0.7]
flow but its absolute value increases [𝛿Sk(⋆𝑠) ≈ 2.5]; the kurtosis is pre-
monotonously increases with 𝜙]. The reconstruction from the four mo-
dicted to change the sign meaning a larger peakedness. The RTD profiles
ments is not accurate enough close to the inlet, but it improves down-
are typically skewed left because of the Dirichlet inlet condition [Sk(⋆𝑡)
stream and predicts RTD correctly already at 𝑥∕𝑋 ≈ 5 × 10−2 Pe. Accord-
and Ku(⋆𝑡) are both positive in open flow]. Fig. 24 predicts them to hold ing to results (Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014), an accurate reconstruc-
approximately the same form in the presence of the highly-permeable tion of very sharp distributions needs more moments. The positive as-
obstacles, because 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) ≈ 0 and 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡) ≈ 0.5. pect is that any order moments can be predicted with the TRT − EMM,
Fig. 25 displays the mean-concentration distribution 𝐶̄ (𝑥) and RTD applying Eqs. (16)–(17) sequentially.
profiles P(t) in Exp. I at Pe ≈ 74; they are produced by the direct solver
ADE-c when 𝜙 = 18 and compared with the reconstructed profiles (see
7.5. Summary
Section 6.3.1). Here, the reconstruction is performed from the exact
Poiseuille moments and from the TRT − EMM moments computed in
The TRT − EMM and three direct ADE d2Q5 schemes have been ex-
porous flow. The direct computations confirm the drastic reduction of
amined in two-dimensional Brinkman flow around solid and porous ob-
the Taylor dispersion with respect to an open flow. They also con-
stacles: the porosity contrast between the fracture and matrix was varied
firm that the self-similar (dispersion-independent) distribution 𝜎 𝐶̄ (𝑥̄ ) re-
in the interval 𝜙 ∈ [ 81 , 19
20
]; their permeability contrast was fixed to 108 ,
mains skewed right, but it is much sharper than in open flow. The recon-
two flow scenarios with Darcy numbers varying by a factor of 102 have
struction from the TRT − EMM moments practically coincides with the
been considered.
RTD numerical profiles; in self-similar coordinates, they look very alike
The Péclet number was varied in the interval Pe ∈ [7.4, 740] in
to open flow, in agreement with the moments predictions. The direct
the “basic cell” [8 mesh spacings per obstacle and the gap], and up
computations also confirm that the profiles are almost 𝜙-independent.
to Pe ≈ 7400 with the TRT − EMM in five-times finer cell. Whereas the
Fig. 26 displays the TRT − EMM predictions for the spatial and the
TRT − EMM was operated within a single periodic cell; the direct sim-
temporal dispersion in Exp. II. As has been expected from the mean-
ulations were run through one to two hundred of the duplicated cells.
permeability values in Table 7, the TRT − EMM predictions for flow
The TRT − EMM predictions were validated by the direct numerical sim-
around the solids are nearly the same in the Exp. I and Exp. II, but this
ulations; an agreement within ≈ 5% between the two approaches was
case is accommodated smoothly in Exp. II, because the porous obstacles
found in “basic cell” computing the relative, temporal (RTD) and spatial
are low permeable. A striking difference with the Exp. I in Fig. 24 is
(mean-concentration), moment differences with the open flow. The rela-
that kT increases almost linearly with 𝜙, hence the less-porous low-
tive accuracy of the two approaches agrees well with our error estimate
permeable blocks reduce the Taylor dispersion more efficiently. The
in stratified channels, but it is much better than it might be expected
Taylor dispersion reduction increases with Pe, but it remains weaker
from the analysis in “series”, for the same porosity contrast, Pe and dis-
than in Exp. I.
cretization level. Despite the space-variable mass-source and interface

28
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

Fig. 25. Comparison of the profiles in porous and open flow, Exp. I, Pe ≈ 74, 𝜙 = 18 . All diagrams: numerical profile in porous flow (blue, solid), reconstruction
from the TRT − EMM moments in porous flow (black, dashed) and from the√EMM moments in open flow (red, dotted). Two first diagrams: 𝐶̄ (𝑥) at t/T ≈ 0.41Pe
[𝑇 = 𝐻∕𝑥 , 𝐻 = 40] versus x/H and 𝜎 𝐶̄ (𝑥) versus 𝑥̄ = (𝑥 − 𝑥0 − 𝑥 𝑡)∕𝜎, 𝜎 = 2𝐷𝑡. Two last diagrams: RTD profiles 𝑃 ′ (𝑡′ ) = 𝑃 (𝑡)∕𝑇 versus 𝑡′ = 𝑡∕𝑇 at the distance
√
𝑥∕𝑋 = {0.54Pe, 0.68Pe, 0.81Pe} downstream, and 𝜎P(𝜏) versus 𝜏 = (𝑡 − 𝑡̄)∕𝜎, 𝜎 = 2𝐷𝑥−3 𝑥 when 𝑥∕𝑋 = 0.54Pe [or 40 periods of length 𝑋 = 56 downstream]. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 26. Similar as in Fig. 24 but in Exp. II. First diagram: 𝛿D together for Pe ≈ 74 (red, “circle”), 740 (blue, “square”), 7400 (black, “lozenge”). The next three diagrams:
Pe ≈ 7.4{ × 10, × 102 , × 103 }, respectively. The results are displayed together for 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑠) (red, “empty circles”), 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑠) (blue, “empty square”), 𝛿Sk(⋆𝑡) (black, “filled
circle”) and 𝛿Ku(⋆𝑡) (magenta, “filled square”). The computations were run in a single periodic cell 280 × 200. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 27. Comparison of the profiles in porous and open flow, Exp. II, Pe ≈ 74. All diagrams: numerical profile in porous flow (blue, solid), reconstruction from
the TRT − EMM moments in porous flow (black, dashed) and from the EMM moments in open flow (red, dotted). Two first diagrams: dimensionless RTD profiles
𝑃 ′ (𝑡′ ) = 𝑃 (𝑡)∕𝑇 versus 𝑡′ = 𝑡∕𝑇 at the distance 𝑥∕𝑋 = {0.54Pe, 0.68Pe, 0.81Pe} downstream when 𝜙 = 18 and 𝜙 = 19
20
, respectively. Third diagram: RTD in self-similar
coordinates when 𝜙 = 19 , 𝑥∕𝑋 = 0.54Pe [or 40 periods of the length 𝑋 = 56 downstream]. Last diagram: 𝜙 = 19 , 𝐶̄ (𝑥) at 𝑡′ = 0.4Pe versus x/H. (For interpretation of
20 20
the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

flux-jump, the TRT − EMM behaved more stably than the direct solvers
in the spatial spread.
The TRT − EMM solutions follow the dimensional analysis from
Eq. (13); the “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-form” produced almost identical solu-
tions for dispersion coefficient kT and, with the help of Eq. (14), for the
skewness and kurtosis in temporal and spatial dispersions. In a given
grid, Pe, ce and Λ𝜙 fix the steady state solutions for any reference ve-
locity 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) and diffusion eigenfunction Λ− ; however, an exact (ce -
independent) parameterization with Eq. (26a) is only valid asymptot-
ically in multi-dimensions. The scale parameter 𝛽 e from Eq. (10) accel-
erates the convergence to steady state and allows to operate efficiently at
small velocity amplitudes. It was shown that the non-local mass term Sn
and the flux-jump term 𝐽⃗𝑛 can be omitted already at Pe ≈ 740, in agree-
ment with the dimensional analysis (Vikhansky and Ginzburg, 2014) for
fractured-type flow. This property greatly simplifies the TRT − EMM be-
cause, on the one hand, the diffusion flux becomes continuous on the
porous and solid obstacles and, on the other hand, the finite-differences
can be avoided in precomputing Sn . The EMM can be then handled by
any standard linear ADE solver based on the continuous flux condition
and local mass-source.
Among the three ADE schemes, the ADE-c from Eq. (11a) and ADE-r
from Eq. (12) have shown very similar results within the ADE-r stability
range: 𝑢2𝜙 (𝑟⃗) < 𝑐𝑒 𝜙(𝑟⃗). Using Λ𝜙 = 14 , the ADE-c and ADE-j could remain
stable outside this interval, but their effective stability is more difficult

29
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
Fig. 28. Temporal dispersion in Exp. II, Pe ≈ 740. All diagrams: numerical profile in porous flow (blue, solid) and reconstruction from the TRT − EMM moments (black,
dashed). Three first diagrams: the RTD numerical profile in open flow (solid, red), porous flow at 𝜙 = 19
[or 25 periods of the length 𝑋 = 56] downstream the inlet. Last diagram: 𝜙 =
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
to estimate. The ADE-j needs a smaller velocity amplitude to reproduce
correctly the averaged seepage velocity in heterogeneous soil at the in-
termediate Pe-range. However, the three ADE schemes produce very
similar results at higher Pe where ADE-j reduces its velocity correction
reducing Λ− . At fixed Pe and grid, the transport coefficients in direct
simulations depend upon all numerical parameters: 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) , ce , Λ− and
Λ𝜙 separately, because of the truncation corrections (Ginzburg, 2017b).
A highly permeable “micro-channel”-type porous arrangement was
found most efficient for dispersion reduction in creeping Brinkman flow,
independently of the matrix porosity 𝜙 at the same mean-seepage veloc-
ity value 𝑥(𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) . When the Pe-behavior of moments becomes established,
e.g. fractured type Pe-scale from Eq. (57), the asymptotic solutions can
be estimated from the TRT − EMM computations performed at the in-
termediate Pe-range, saving drastically computational resources. The
TRT − EMM is especially suitable for mesh refining and clearly advan-
tageous for the prediction of the dispersion and the higher moments in
the Taylor regime. In transition to the Taylor regime, the EMM approach
allows to predict qualitatively an effect of different scenarios, e.g., due
to the flow regime and geometry aspects.
8. Concluding remarks
The two-relaxation-times Lattice Boltzmann linear advection–
diffusion scheme TRT − EMM has been proposed for the numerical for-
mulation of the extended method of moments (EMM) in d-dimensional
heterogeneous soil. The TRT − EMM incorporates locally the recursively
precomputed space-variable mass sources and automatically accounts
for the diffusion-flux interface jumps in the streamwise-discontinuous
porosity; the scheme allows for an optional acceleration to steady-state
with relatively small velocity amplitudes. A sequentially solved chain
of the boundary-value problems, independent for each mean-velocity
direction, provides three longitudinal Taylor coefficients: dispersion,
skewness and kurtosis; the full dispersion tensor can be restored from d-
independent runs and a recursive extension to the next order longitudi-
nal moments is straightforward. Although the whole evolution picture is
not described by the Taylor moments, they might indicate qualitatively
the relative role of the different factors for transition regimes. Provided
that the moments amplitudes grow with Pe, the diffusion-flux jump 𝐽⃗𝑛
and the associated non-local mass-source Sn become negligible and the
method can be run by any heterogeneous ADE solver based on the con-
tinuous diffusion flux. It has been confirmed that the (spatial) “𝜔-form”
and the (temporal) “𝛾-form” are numerically equivalent in providing the
two systems of moments; the “𝜔-form” is preferable because of its abil-
ity to the fully diffusive problems, its simplicity and higher numerical
reliability. The algebraic transforms between the temporal and spatial
systems of moments are also applicable to direct ADE computations:
for example, the RTD simulations under the Heaviside entry behaved
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
20
, and porous flow at 𝜙 = 18 at the distance 𝑥∕𝑋 = 0.034Pe
1
8
at 𝑥∕𝑋 = 0.054Pe [or 40 periods]. (For interpretation of the references to color in
more robustly than the spatial spread with the proposed LBM-ADE di-
rect schemes.
It has been recognized that, because of the truncation correction due
to the non-linear mass-source space variation, the fixed value of the
eigenfunction product Λ𝜙 is not sufficient to parameterize the steady-
state TRT solutions by Pe exactly; a specific dependency on the diffusion-
coefficient-scale parameter ce : Λ𝜙 (𝑐𝑒 ) = 1−𝑐 , guarantees this property in
𝑒
a “parallel” and a “perpendicular” flow for any mass-source; future anal-
ysis will attempt to extend this functionality to the multi-dimensional
flow. A robust choice  = 14 eliminates the mass-source truncation cor-
rection and assures continuous Bn solution for the three first orders with
the pure-diffusion implicit-jump tracking in “series”. However, the “per-
pendicular” Darcy flow through porous blocks presents an increasing dif-
ficulty benchmark for dispersion and higher-order moments where the
leading order midway location of the continuity condition requires a
rather “fragile” (unstable) limit  → 0 [or Λ𝜙 → 0]. The choice of Λ𝜙 is
therefore decisive for the high porosity contrast modeled on coarse grids
where very small values Λ𝜙 are expected to improve implicit interface
location in X-ray tomography “series-block” type geometry. In strati-
fied flow and fractured Brinkman flow through permeable obstacles,
the TRT − EMM and direct solvers behave much more accurately than
in “series” and have shown much smaller dependency on Λ𝜙 ;  = 14 is
recommended for TRT − EMM in fractured Brinkman flow, while  = 18
is more suitable in heterogeneous Darcy flow. Operated in a single cell,
the TRT − EMM copes very well with the grid refining for a solution in-
dependence upon free numerical parameters and high Péclet range. In
our parallel work we attempt to reduce Λ𝜙 -impact on the unresolved
continuity conditions with the help of the conjugate interface correc-
tions.
In the direct schemes, numerical diffusion becomes insignificant
against the Taylor dispersion at sufficiently high Pe and heterogene-
ity contrast. The two examined direct solvers, with the equilibrium
and collision anti-numerical-diffusion treatment, and the scheme with-
out any treatment, then show similar results but different stability in
compliance with the predictions. In diffusion-dominant heterogeneous
problems, the collision anti-numerical-diffusion collision treatment be-
comes preferable to the equilibrium approach because the discontinuous
equilibrium weights cause concentration jumps and modify the mean-
seepage velocity. This preference is expected to hold for the equilibrium
and collision models with heterogeneous anisotropy (Ginzburg, 2006;
Ginzburg and d’Humières, 2007). In the presence of solid and porous ob-
stacles, the prescribed mean-seepage velocity is not kept exact with all
direct schemes. To be contrasted, the TRT − EMM guarantees advection
velocity by construction and its steady solutions are numerical-diffusion
free. The proposed scheme applies with the stair-wise geometry descrip-
30
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

𝑛
∑
tion; it will be coupled with the more accurate interface and boundary
tracking for a fine description of solid and porous objects in future work. 𝑆𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 𝜙 𝛾𝑘 𝜕𝑥 𝑛−𝑘 , 𝑛 ≥ 2,
𝑘=1
To conclude, the proposed simple TRT − EMM is readily applicable
to tomographic rock images and reconstructed media for a systematic 𝑆1(𝛾) = 0, 𝑆2(𝛾) = 𝜙 𝛾1 𝜕𝑥 (1𝛾) , 𝑆3(𝛾) = 𝜙 (𝛾2 𝜕𝑥 (1𝛾) + 𝛾1 𝜕𝑥 (2𝛾) ),
classification of their dispersion properties, and for optimization design 𝑆4(𝛾) = 𝜙 (𝛾3 𝜕𝑥 (1𝛾) + 𝛾2 𝜕𝑥 (2𝛾) + 𝛾1 𝜕𝑥 (3𝛾) ), … . (A.3)
under desired moments constraints in composite material, wetland or
chemical device. Our artificial porous arrangement exemplified such The solution for {𝛾 n } reads:
kind of application: it has been found that the porous, highly permeable
⟨𝑀𝑛(𝛾) + 𝑆𝑛(𝛾) ⟩
obstacles reduce very efficiently the Taylor dispersion independently of 𝛾𝑛 = , 𝑛 ≥ 1, (0𝛾) = 1, then (A.4a)
their porosity, and that the moments then asymptotically obey the same ⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (0𝛾) ⟩
Pe−scale as in open flow. However, the Péclet number and porosity de-
pendencies both become more complicated with the weakly penetra- ⟨𝜙⟩ 1
𝛾1 = = , and , for 𝑛 ≥ 2 ∶ (A.4b)
ble obstacles and they may even enhance the Taylor dispersion against ⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 ⟩ 𝑥
the open flow. Brinkman creeping flow in the two Darcy regimes was
∑𝑛−1 ∑𝑛
𝑘=1 𝛾𝑘 < 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 𝑛−𝑘 > + < 𝑆𝑛 > +⟨𝜙 ⟩( 𝑚=1 𝛾𝑚 𝛾𝑛−𝑚 )
simulated, but further, the numerical EMM simulations in inertial flow −
may clarify the influence of the viscous and inertial resistance, turbu- 𝛾𝑛 = . (A.4c)
⟨𝑢𝜙,𝑥 ⟩
lence, shear layers or wake effects, as well as the role of heuristic flow-
model parameters, such as the Brinkman viscosity in the present study. The jump-term 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) reads:
Nonetheless, the flow should be described quite accurately, because it 𝑛
∑
was demonstrated that the prediction of moments is quite sensitive to 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 𝜙 ( 𝛾𝑘 𝑛−𝑘 )1⃗ 𝑥 , 𝑛 ≥ 1,
the quality of the heterogeneous velocity field. 𝑘=1

𝐽1(𝛾) = 𝛾1 𝜙 1⃗ 𝑥 , 𝐽2(𝛾) = 𝜙 (𝛾2 + 𝛾1 (1𝛾) )1⃗ 𝑥 ,

𝐽3(𝛾) = 𝜙 (𝛾3 + 𝛾2 (1𝛾) + 𝛾1 (2𝛾) )1⃗ 𝑥 , … . (A.5)
Acknowledgments
A.3. Computation of the 𝑆𝑛 (𝑟⃗)
The author is grateful to Alexander Vikhansky and Gonçalo Silva for
The mass term 𝑆𝑛 (𝑟⃗) in Eqs. (A.1) and (A.3) requires to precompute
their kind help.
𝜙 (𝑟⃗)𝜕𝑥 𝑘 (𝑟⃗) for k < n. When the three to four grid neighbors are avail-
able at point x along the longitudinal x-axis inside the continuous poros-
ity block V𝜙 , the third-order-accurate finite-differences apply:

Appendix A. The EMM: implementation details 2 1

𝜕𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) ≈ (𝑓 (𝑥 + 1) − 𝑓 (𝑥 − 1)) − (𝑓 (𝑥 + 2) − 𝑓 (𝑥 − 2)) + 𝑂(𝜖 4 ),
3 12
(A.6a)
A.1. The “𝜔-form”
1 1 1
The three first orders 𝑛 = 1, 2, 3 in Eqs. (16b)–(16e) read locally with 𝜕𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) ≈ ∓ 𝑓 (𝑥) ± 𝑓 (𝑥 ± 1) ∓ 𝑓 (𝑥 ∓ 1) ∓ 𝑓 (𝑥 ± 2) + 𝑂(𝜖 4 ), (A.6b)
2 3 6
(superscript “(𝜔)′′ is employed in “𝜔-form”):
11 3 1
𝜕𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) ≈ ∓ 𝑓 (𝑥) ± 3𝑓 (𝑥 ± 1) ∓ 𝑓 (𝑥 ± 2) ± 𝑓 (𝑥 ± 3) + 𝑂(𝜖 4 ). (A.6c)
(𝑛𝜔) = 𝑀𝑛(𝜔) + 𝑆𝑛(𝜔) + 𝜙𝜔𝑛 , 𝑛 ≥ 1, 𝜔1 = 𝑥 , 6 2 3
These operators are exact on the third-order polynomial solution.
𝑀1(𝜔) = −𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (0𝜔) , (0𝜔) = 1, 𝑆1(𝜔) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 (0𝜔) = 0, 𝐽1(𝜔) = 𝜙 1⃗ 𝑥 ,
In particular, in a series of porous blocks of the minimal thickness of
𝑀2(𝜔) = 𝜙𝜔1 (1𝜔) + 𝜙 (0𝜔) − 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (1𝜔) , 𝑆2(𝜔) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 (1𝜔) , 𝐽2(𝜔) = 𝜙 (1𝜔) 1⃗ 𝑥 , four nodes per block, Eq. (A.6b) applies with all points except the cor-
ners where Eq. (A.6c) applies; this allows to match pure diffusion solu-
𝑀3(𝜔) = 𝜙(𝜔1 (2𝜔) + 𝜔2 (1𝜔) ) + 𝜙 (1𝜔) − 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (2𝜔) ,
tions for kurtosis from Eq. (B.2). When only one or two neighbors are
𝑆3(𝜔) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 (2𝜔) , 𝐽3(𝜔) = 𝜙 (2𝜔) 1⃗ 𝑥 , 𝑆4(𝜔) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 (3𝜔) . (A.1) available inside the same porosity block, the standard two-three points
finite-differences apply for 𝜕 x f(x), like

Eqs. (16)–(17) with Eq. (A.1) are sequentially solved for (1𝜔) , (2𝜔) and 1
𝜕𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) ≈ ± (3𝑓 (𝑥) − 4𝑓 (𝑥 ∓ 1) + 𝑓 (𝑥 ∓ 2)) + 𝑂(𝜖 3 ),
(3𝜔) ; {𝜔n } is computed recursively with Eq. (16f) or Eq. (18) for 𝑛 =
2
1
2, 3, 4. 𝜕𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) ≈ ± (𝑓 (𝑥 ± 1) − 𝑓 (𝑥 ∓ 1)) + 𝑂(𝜖 3 ),
2
𝜕𝑥 𝑓 (𝑥) ≈ ±(𝑓 (𝑥) − 𝑓 (𝑥 ∓ 1)) + 𝑂(𝜖 2 ). (A.7)

The two first operators (A.7) are exact for parabolic distributions, the
A.2. The “𝛾-form” last one is only exact for a linear function f(x).

The three first orders 𝑛 = 1, 2, 3 in Eqs. (16b)–(16e) read with (super- A.4. The TRT − EMM algorithm
script “(𝛾)′′ applies in “𝛾-form”):
We resume the principal TRT − EMM steps following Section 3.2. The
TRT − EMM computes sequentially the steady state numerical solution
(𝑛𝛾) = 𝑀𝑛(𝛾) + 𝑆𝑛(𝛾) − 𝛾𝑛 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (0𝛾) , 𝑛 ≥ 1, (0𝛾) = 1, 𝑀1(𝛾) = 𝜙,
𝑛 (𝑟⃗) to Eqs. (16)–(17) for 𝑛 = {1, 2, 3}. This solution is used to compute
𝑀2(𝛾) = (𝜙 − 𝛾1 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 )(1𝛾) + 𝜙 𝛾12 (0𝛾) , the next-order mass-source terms 𝑀𝑛+1 (𝑟⃗) and 𝑆𝑛+1 (𝑟⃗), and then 𝜔𝑛+1
with Eq. (16f) in “𝜔-form” [or 𝛾𝑛+1 with Eq. (A.4a) in “𝛾-form”]; the
𝑀3(𝛾) = (𝜙 − 𝛾1 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 )(2𝛾) − 𝛾2 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (1𝛾) + 𝜙 (2𝛾1 𝛾2 + 𝛾12 (1𝛾) ), (A.2)
two sets {𝜔n } and {𝛾 n }, 𝑛 = {2, 3, 4}, define the transport coefficients in
Eqs. (14b)–(14e) with the help of Eqs. (13) and (15). One computational
and run for 𝑛 = {1, 2, 3} consists from the following steps:

31
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

1. Pre-initialization step: (f) In “𝜔-form”, 𝛾𝑛′ +1 (𝜔′𝑛+1 ) is computed with Eq. (15);
This step is the same for 𝑛 = {1, 2, 3}. In “𝛾-form”, 𝜔′𝑛+1 (𝛾𝑛′ +1 ) is computed with the inverse to Eq. (15);
(a) Prescribe the formulation: either “𝜔-form” or “𝛾-form” [use “𝜔- (g) If 𝑛 = 1 ∶ compute kT with Eq. (14c);
form” for pure diffusion in Eq. (1), note that “𝜔-form” is simpler]; If 𝑛 = 2 ∶ compute Sk(⋆𝑠) with Eq. (14d), and/or Sk(⋆𝑡) with
(b) Prescribe a single cell V and its longitudinal periodic direction, Eq. (14e);
say 1⃗ 𝑥 ; If 𝑛 = 3 ∶ compute Ku(⋆𝑠) with Eq. (14d), and/or Ku(⋆𝑡) with
(c) Prescribe porosity field 𝜙(𝑟⃗) ∈ [0, 1] and steady-state velocity Eq. (14e);
field 𝑢⃗𝜙 (𝑟⃗)[𝑙.𝑢], periodic along 1⃗ 𝑥 and resolved on the regular com- (h) Check steady-state criteria with the prescribed stop-value 𝜖,
putational grid inside the penetrable region 𝑟⃗ ∈ {𝑉𝜙 } ∈ 𝑉 , see 𝑘𝑇 (𝑡)−𝑘𝑇 (𝑡−𝑡(𝑟𝑢𝑛) )
e.g. | 𝑘𝑇 (𝑡)
| < 𝜖.
Eq. (1). (i) Repeat Computation step if neither the steady state nor the maxi-
2. Initialization step: mum number of iterations has been reached;
(a) Prescribe constant equilibrium parameters in Eq. (19): ce > 0 and Go to Output step otherwise.
𝛽 e ≥ 1 such that 𝑐𝑒 ≤ min𝑟⃗ 𝜙( 𝑑𝛽
𝑟⃗)
, 𝑑 = {1, 2, 3} with d1Q3, d2Q5 and 5. Output step.
𝑒
d3Q7, respectively; see Eq. (10e); Save 𝑛 (𝑟⃗), 𝜔𝑛+1 [and/or 𝛾𝑛+1 ] for the next pass if 𝑛 = {1, 2}.
(b) Optionally: rescale 𝑢⃗𝜙 [𝑙.𝑢] in linear (Stokes–Brinkman–Darcy) 6. Final step.
flow, and/or modify ce and 𝛽 e , to satisfy an approximate stability Go to Initialization step if 𝑛 = {1, 2};
∑ 𝑐 𝜙(𝑟⃗)
condition: 𝑢2𝜙 (𝑟⃗) = 𝑑𝛼=1 𝑢2𝜙,𝛼 ≤ 𝑒𝛽 , see Eq. (10e). When ce and Stop computations if 𝑛 = 3.
𝑒
𝛽 e are fixed, this condition is satisfied if 𝑢⃗𝜙 is multiplied by the Remark A.1. Steady-state fields 𝑛 (𝑟⃗), 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) and Λ± (𝑟⃗) are precom-
√ 𝜙
𝑐𝑒 𝜙(𝑟⃗) puted during initialization in the present algorithm. However, they can
scale value 𝑠 ∈]0, min𝑟⃗ 2 ]: 𝑢
⃗𝜙 → 𝑢⃗𝜙 × 𝑠.
𝛽𝑒 𝑢𝜙
∑ be recomputed at each time step for memory saving.
𝑟⃗∈{𝑉𝜙 } 𝑢𝜙,𝑥 (𝑟⃗)
(c) Precompute  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) = ∑ ;
𝑟⃗∈{𝑉𝜙 } 𝜙(𝑟⃗) Remark A.2. One pass 𝑛 = 1 is sufficient for the dispersion coefficient
(d) Prescribe Pe in Eq. (1) and compute Λ− from condition: kT : since 𝑆1 = 0 in “𝜔-form” and “𝛾-form”, the finite-difference operators
 (𝑠𝑢𝑚) [𝑙.𝑢] from Eqs. (A.6) and (A.7) are not needed and 1 (𝑟⃗) is computed locally.
Pe = 0 [𝑙.𝑢]
, 0 [𝑙.𝑢] = 𝑐𝑒 Λ− where [𝑙.𝑢] is the characteristic
length; Two runs 𝑛 = {1, 2} are required for Sk(⋆𝑠) and/or Sk(⋆𝑡) ; the three passes
(e) Prescribe 𝐵0 (𝑟⃗) = 0 (𝑟⃗) ≡ 1 and 𝜔1 with Eq. (16c) [or 𝛾 1 with 𝑛 = {1, 2, 3} are needed for Ku(⋆𝑠) and/or Ku(⋆𝑡) .
Eq. (A.4b) in “𝛾-form”], replacing 𝑥 by  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) ;
Remark A.3. In principle, the model parameters: ce , 𝛽 e , Λ− and Λ𝜙 (𝑟⃗)
(f) If 𝑛 = 2 or 𝑛 = 3, input already computed solution {𝑘−1 (𝑟⃗)} and
can differ in three separate runs provided that Pe and the necessary
{𝜔k } in “𝜔-form” [or {𝛾 k } in “𝛾-form”] with 𝑘 = 2, … , 𝑛;
stability condition 𝑐𝑒 ≤ min𝑟⃗ 𝜙( 𝑟⃗)
are respected.
(g) Precompute 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) with Eq. (A.1) in “𝜔-form” [or Eqs. (A.2)– 𝑑𝛽 𝑒
∑
(A.3) in “𝛾-form”]; check that 𝑟⃗∈{𝑉𝜙 } 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 0;
Appendix B. Diffusion in a series of porous blocks
(h) Precompute 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑟⃗) with Eq. (A.1) in “𝜔-form” [or Eq. (A.5) in “𝛾-
form”];
B.1. Reference solution
(i) Prescribe a positive distribution [or a constant value exemplified
in Eq. (42)] for collision number Λ𝜙 (𝑟⃗);
Λ𝜙 (𝑟⃗)
In pure diffusion through a series of two porous blocks of length 𝐻 =
Precompute Λ+
𝜙
(𝑟⃗) = Λ− (𝑟⃗)
with Λ−
𝜙
(𝑟⃗) = 𝜙(𝑟⃗)Λ− ; ℎ1 + ℎ2 with the porosity ratio r𝜙 and thickness ratio rh , the effective
𝜙
(j) Prescribe any initial local mass distribution 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0); diffusion coefficient 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 from Eq. (14b) and kurtosis coefficient Ku(s)
∑ from Eq. (5) read (see Ginzburg and Vikhansky, 2018):
Precompute global mass 𝑀 (𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏) = 𝑟⃗∈{𝑉𝜙 } 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0);
(k) Prescribe initial population solution {𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0)}, 𝑞 = 0, … , 𝑄𝑚 , (1 + 𝑟ℎ )2 𝑟𝜙 𝜙1 ℎ
e.g., using Eq. (19) with 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) = 0 : 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 = −𝜔2 = 𝑟 0 , 𝑟 = , 𝑟𝜙 = , 𝑟 = 1,
𝑄
(𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝜙 )(1 + 𝑟ℎ 𝑟𝜙 ) 𝜙2 ℎ ℎ2
𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) = 𝑒+
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡 = 0) + 𝑒−
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡 = 0), 𝑞 = 1, … , 2𝑚 ; (B.1a)
𝑄
𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) = 𝑒+ 𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡 = 0) − 𝑒−
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡 = 0), 𝑞 = 1, … , 2𝑚 , 𝑐⃗𝑞̄ = −𝑐⃗𝑞 ;
∑𝑄𝑚 ∕2
𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) = 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0) − 2 𝑞=1 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡 = 0). 𝑟 ∈]0, 1], 𝑟 |𝑟𝜙 =1 = 𝑟 |𝑟ℎ =0 = 1 ; (B.1b)
3. Computation step:
Perform t(run) collision/streaming steps (7a) using TRT operator (8):
(a) Compute 𝑠± (𝑟⃗) with Eq. (9) from Λ± (𝑟⃗);
𝜙 𝜙 Sk(⋆𝑠) = 0 ; (B.1c)
𝑄𝑚
(b) Compute 𝑒±
𝑞 (𝑟
⃗, 𝑡), 𝑞 = 1, … , 2
, with Eq. (19);
𝑄
(c) Compute {𝑔𝑞 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡)}, 𝑞 = 1, … , 2𝑚 , with Eq. (8);
±

(d) Set (𝑟⃗) = 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) in Eq. (7a) and compute 𝑓0 (𝑟⃗, 𝑡+ 1); 6𝜔4 𝐻2 𝑟2ℎ (𝑟2𝜙 − 1)2
Ku(𝑠) = Ku(𝑡)𝑡 = − = . (B.1d)
(e) Compute 𝑓𝑞 (𝑟⃗ + 𝑐⃗𝑞 , 𝑡 + 1) with Eq. (7a) when 𝑟⃗ + 𝑐⃗𝑞 ∈ {𝑉𝜙 }, 𝑞 = 𝜔22 0 2(1 + 𝑟ℎ )2 𝑟𝜙 (𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝜙 )(1 + 𝑟ℎ 𝑟𝜙 )
1, … , 𝑄𝑚 ;
(f) Compute 𝑓𝑞̄ (𝑟⃗𝑏 , 𝑡 + 1) in boundary node 𝑟⃗𝑏 with the bounce-back When all the integrals are computed via summation in Eq. (16), Ku(⋆𝑠)
rule using Eq. (29b) when 𝑟⃗𝑏 + 𝑐⃗𝑞 ∉ {𝑉𝜙 }. becomes:
4. Analysis step:
∑ (𝑟𝜙 − 1)2 (𝑟2ℎ (𝐻 2 (1 + 𝑟𝜙 )2 ) + 𝑟ℎ (𝑟ℎ 𝑟𝜙 + 1)(𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝜙 ))
(a) Compute 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡) and check whether 𝑀 (𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏) = 𝑟⃗∈{𝑉𝜙 } 𝜌(𝑟⃗, 𝑡); Ku(⋆𝑠𝑢𝑚) = . (B.2)
b) Compute (𝑛 + 1)th-order moments : 2(1 + 𝑟ℎ )2 𝑟𝜙 (𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝜙 )(1 + 𝑟ℎ 𝑟𝜙 )0
(a) 𝐵𝑛 (𝑟⃗) with Eq. (19c);
The 𝑟 should be the exact solution of any second-order accurate numer-
(b) 𝑛 (𝑟⃗) with Eq. (20);
ical scheme; the TRT − EMM from Eq. (19) and the direct ADE schemes
(c) 𝑀𝑛+1 (𝑟⃗) and 𝑆𝑛+1 (𝑟⃗) with Eq. (A.1) in “𝜔-form” [or Eqs. (A.2)–
(11) produce 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 exactly for any physical and free parameter choice.
(A.3) in “𝛾-form”];
However, the TRT − EMM with the implicit flux-jump tracking from
(d) 𝜔𝑛+1 with Eq. (16f) [or 𝛾𝑛+1 in “𝛾-form” with Eq. (A.4a)];
Eq. (19) produces Eq. (B.2) exactly only if Λ𝜙 from Eq. (26a) is com-
(e) 𝜔′𝑛+1 [or 𝛾𝑛′ +1 ] with Eq. (13) using, e.g., 0 =  (𝑠𝑢𝑚) ; 𝑠𝑢𝑚)
puted with  = 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 :

32
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]

I. Ginzburg Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34

𝑠𝑢𝑚)
𝐴(𝐾𝑢 (𝑟𝜙 , 𝑟ℎ ) Bolle, E.M.L., Quastel, J., Fogg, G.E., Gravner, J., 2000. Diffusion processes in composite
Λ𝜙 = , porous media and their numerical integration by random walks: generalized stochas-
1 − 𝑐𝑒 tic differential equations with discontinuous coefficients. Water Resour. Res. 36 (3),
𝑠𝑢𝑚) 7𝑟𝜙 + 𝑟ℎ (1 + 𝑟𝜙 (12 + 7𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝜙 )) 𝑠𝑢𝑚)
651–662.
𝐴(𝐾𝑢 (𝑟𝜙 , 𝑟ℎ ) = , lim 𝐴(𝐾𝑢 = ∞. (B.3) Brenner, H., 1980. Dispersion resulting from flow through spatially periodic porous media.
24(1 + 𝑟ℎ )2 𝑟𝜙 𝑟𝜙 →0 Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 297 (1430), 81–133.
Brinkman, H.C., 1947. A calculation of the viscous force exerted by a flowing fluid on a
The parameter-dependent solution (B.3) locates an interface jump in dense swarm of particles.. Appl. Sci. Res. A 1, 27–34.
Buxton, G.A., 2018. Modeling the effects of vegetation on fluid flow through an acid mine
Eq. (41) midway the grid nodes. Eqs. (B.1)–(B.3) are invariant with re- drainage passive remediation system.. Ecol. Eng. 110, 23–37.
spect to a simultaneous transformation 𝑟𝜙 → 𝑟−1
𝜙
and 𝑟ℎ → 𝑟−1
ℎ
. Cantu-Perez, A., Kee, S.P., Gavriilidis, A., 2008. Mixing and residence time distribution
studies in microchannels with floor herringbone structures. In: Proceedings of the
Comsol Conference. Hannover.
B.2. Semi-explicit diffusion jump-tracking Chai, Z., Huang, C., Shi, B., Guo, Z., 2016a. A comparative study on the Lattice Boltzmann
models for predicting effective diffusivity of porous media. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
98, 687–696.
Assume the coordinate discrete-velocity set to be applied in a pure-
Chai, Z., Shi, B., Guo, Z., 2016b. A multiple-relaxation-time Lattice Boltzmann model
diffusion process along the x-axis and the jump values ||⃗ 𝑛 ⋅ 𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑥 ± for general nonlinear anistropic convection–diffusion equations. J. Sci. Comput. 69,
1
𝑐
⃗ )
2 𝑞 𝐴𝜙
|| from Eq. (17b) to be precomputed midway the grid nodes. The 355–390.
modified TRT update then reads: Chai, Z., Zhao, T.S., 2014. Nonequilibrium scheme for computing the flux of the convec-
tion–diffusion equation in the presence of the Lattice Boltzmann method. Phys. Rev. E
90. 013305–15
𝑔𝑞+ (𝑥) → 𝑔𝑞+ (𝑥) + 𝛿𝑔𝑞+ (𝑥), 𝑔𝑞− (𝑥) → 𝑔𝑞− (𝑥) + 𝛿𝑔𝑞− (𝑥), Chopard, B., Falkone, J.L., Latt, J., 2009. The Lattice Boltzmann advection–diffusion
model revisited. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 171, 245–249.
1
𝛿𝑔𝑞± (𝑥) = (𝐽 (𝑥) ± 𝐽𝑞̄ (𝑥)), Cozewith, C., Squire, K.R., 2000. Effect of reactor residence time distribution on polymer
2 𝑞 functionalization reactions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 55, 2019–2029.
1
𝐽𝑞 (𝑥) = 𝑡𝑞 ||𝐽⃗𝑛 (𝑥 + 𝑐⃗𝑞 ) ⋅ 𝑛⃗||, 𝐽⃗𝑛 = 𝜙 𝑛−1 1⃗ 𝑥 , 𝑐⃗𝑞 = −𝑐⃗𝑞̄ .
Cui, S., Hong, N., Shi, B., Chai, Z., 2016. Discrete effect on the halfway bounce-back
(B.4) boundary condition of multiple-relaxation-time Lattice Boltzmann model for convec-
2
tion–diffusion equations. Phys. Rev. E 93. 043311–13
In contrast with Eq. (19), Eq. (B.4) copes with the pure diffusion equi- Danckwerts, P.V., 1953. Continuous flow systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2, 1–13.
Demuth, C., Mishra, S., Mendes, M.A., Ray, S., Trimis, D., 2016. Application and accuracy
librium function when the mass-source incorporates 𝜕𝑥 𝐽𝑛 (𝑥) = 𝑆𝑛 (𝑥) ac- issues of TRT Lattice Boltzmann method for solving elliptic PDEs commonly encoun-
cording to Eq. (16e): tered in heat transfer and fluid flow problems. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 100, 185–201.
d’Humières, D., Ginzburg, I., 2009. Viscosity independent numerical errors for Lat-
𝑒− ̃ + ̃
𝑞 ≡ 0 ,  𝑛 →  𝑛 =  𝑛 ( 𝑥 ) + 𝑆 𝑛 ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑒 𝑞 ( 𝑥 ) = 𝑡 𝑞 𝑐 𝑒 ( 𝐵 + Λ𝜙  𝑛 ) .
+ tice Boltzmann models: from recurrence equations to “magic” collision numbers.
(B.5)
Comp. Math. Appl. 58 (5), 823–840.
Dubois, F., Lin, C.A., Tekitek, M.M., 2016. Anisotropic thermal Lattice Boltzmann simula-
Eqs. (B.4) and (B.5) allow to verify numerically the symbolic analysis tion of 2d natural convection in a square cavity. Comput. Fluids 124, 278–287.
developed in Section 4. We note that {𝛿𝑔𝑞 = 𝛿𝑔𝑞+ + 𝛿𝑔𝑞− } is non-zero only Gac, J.M., 2014. A large eddy based Lattice-Boltzmann simulation of velocity distribution
for two opposite interface cut links which obtain the same prescribed in an open channel flow with rigid and flexible vegetation. Acta Geophys. 62 (1),
180–198.
flux-jump quantity: Gebäck, T., Marucci, M., Boissier, C., Arnehed, J., Heintz, A., 2015. Investigation of the
effect of the tortuous pore structure on water diffusion through a polymer film using
𝛿𝑔𝑞 |𝑥− =𝑥 1 = 𝑡𝑞 ||𝐽⃗𝑛 ⋅ 𝑛⃗||𝑥0 , Lattice Boltzmann simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 119 (16), 5220–5227.
0 0 − 2 𝑐𝑞𝑥
Genty, A., Gueddani, S., L. Dymitrowska, M., 2017. Computation of saturation depen-
𝛿𝑔𝑞̄ |𝑥+ =𝑥 1 = 𝑡𝑞 ||𝐽⃗𝑛 ⋅ 𝑛⃗||𝑥0 . (B.6) dence of effective diffusion coefficient in unsaturated argillite micro-fracture by Lat-
0 0 + 2 𝑐𝑞𝑥 tice Boltzmann method. Transp. Porous Media 117 (1), 149–168.
Genty, A., Pot, V., 2014. Numerical calculation of effective diffusion in unsaturated porous
Eq. (B.6) coincides with the flux-jump scheme (Guo et al., 2015) on the media by the TRT Lattice Boltzmann method. Transp. Porous Med. 105, 391–410.
Ginzburg, I., 2005a. Equilibrium-type and link-type Lattice Boltzmann models for generic
midway located straight interface when 𝑡𝑞 = 12 (minimal sets). Continu-
advection and anisotropic-dispersion equation. Adv. Water Res. 28, 1171–1195.
ity relation in Eq. (28a) remains the same but second-order accurate Ginzburg, I., 2005b. Generic boundary conditions for Lattice Boltzmann models and their
Eq. (40) becomes in diffusion case replaced by Eq. (B.7) with the exact application to advection and anisotropic-dispersion equations.. Adv. Water Res. 28,
flux-jump ||𝐽𝑛 ||𝑥=𝑥0 in the RHS: 1196–1216.
Ginzburg, I., 2006. Variably saturated flow described with the anisotropic Lattice Boltz-
mann methods.. J. Comput. Fluids 25, 831–848.
if ||∇̄ 𝑥 ̃ 𝑛 ||𝑥 = 0, or ∀ ̃ 𝑛 if  = 1 ∶ Ginzburg, I., 2007. Lattice Boltzmann modeling with discontinuous collision components.
0 4 Hydrodynamic and advection–diffusion equations.. J. Stat. Phys. 126, 157–203.
̄ 𝑥 𝐵𝑛 )(2) ||𝑥=𝑥 = ||𝐽𝑛 ||𝑥=𝑥 , Φ𝑥 = −𝜙 ∇
||(−𝜙 ∇ ̄ 𝑥 𝐵𝑛 . (B.7) Ginzburg, I., 2012. Truncation errors, exact and heuristic stability analysis of two-relax-
0 0 ation-times Lattice Boltzmann schemes for anisotropic advection–diffusion equation.
Commun. Comput. Phys. 11 (5), 1439–1502.
In pure diffusion in series of two porous blocks at order 𝑛 = 3, 𝑛 (𝑥) Ginzburg, I., 2013. Multiple anisotropic collisions for advection–diffusion Lattice Boltz-
is piecewise-linear and the semi-explicit scheme locates flux-jump con- mann schemes.. Adv. Water. Res. 51, 381–404.
5 Ginzburg, I., 2016. Comment on “an improved gray Lattice Boltzmann model for simu-
dition midway provided that  = 24 with Eq. (41); Eq. (B.2) is then
lating fluid flow in multi-scale porous media”: intrinsic links between LBE brinkman
held using Eq. (A.6) for 𝑆4 (𝑥) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 3 (𝑥) in Eq. (18b); second-order schemes. Adv. Water Resour. 88, 241–249.
accurate finite-differences are sufficient at 𝑛 = 1, 2, 3 to precompute Ginzburg, I., 2017. Prediction of the moments in advection–diffusion Lattice Boltzman
method II: attenuation of the boundary layers via double-𝜆 bounce-back flux scheme.
𝑆𝑛 (𝑥) = 𝜙 𝜕𝑥 𝑛−1 and to extrapolate ||𝐽𝑛 ||𝑥0 from the neighbor blocks.
Phys. Rev. E 95. 013305–42
Ginzburg, I., 2017. Prediction of the moments in advection–diffusion Lattice Boltzmann
References method I: truncation dispersion, skewness, and kurtosis. Phys. Rev. E 95. 013304–34
Ginzburg, I., d’Humières, D., 2007. Lattice Boltzmann and analytical modeling of flow
Aris, R., 1956. On the dispersion of a solute in a fluid flowing through a tube.. Proc. R. processes in anisotropic and heterogeneous stratified aquifers. Adv. Water Resour.
Soc. Lond. 235, 67–77. 30, 2202–2234.
Bandyopadhyay, K., Bhattacharya, A.K., Biswas, P., Drabold, A., 2004. Maximum entropy Ginzburg, I., d’Humières, D., Kuzmin, A., 2010. Optimal stability of advection–diffusion
and the problem of moments: a stable algorithm.. Phys. Rev. E 71 (5/2). 057701–4 Lattice Boltzmann models with two relaxation times for positive/negative equilib-
Batôt, G., Talon, L., Peysson, Y., Fleury, M., Bauer, D., 2016. Analytical and numerical rium. J. Stat. Phys. 139 (6), 1090–1143.
investigation of the advective and dispersive transport in Herschel–Bulkley fluids Ginzburg, I., Roux, L., 2015. Truncation effect on Taylor–Aris dispersion in Lattice Boltz-
by means of a Lattice-Boltzmann two-relaxation-time scheme. Chem. Eng. Sci. 141, mann schemes: accuracy towards stability.. J. Comput. Phys. 299, 974–1003.
271–281. Ginzburg, I., Roux, L., Silva, G., 2015a. Local boundary reflections in Lattice Boltzmann
Berkowitz, B., Emmanuel, S., Scher, H., 2008. Non-Fiskian transport and multiple-rate schemes: spurious boundary layers and their impact on the velocity, diffusion and
mass transfer in porous media. Water Resour. Res 44, W03402-16. dispersion. C. R. Mec. 343, 518–532.
Bijeljic, B., Mostaghimi, P., Blunt, M.J., 2011. Signature of non-Fickian solute transport Ginzburg, I., Silva, G., Talon, L., 2015. Analysis and improvement of Brinkman Lat-
in complex heterogeneous porous media. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (20), 204502. tice Boltzmann schemes: bulk, boundary, interface. similarity and distinctness with
Bijeljic, B., Mostaghimi, P., Blunt, M.J., 2013. Insights into non-Fickian solute transport finite-elements in heterogeneous porous media.. Phys. Rev. E 91, 023307.
in carbonates. Water Resour. Res. 49, 2714–2728.

33
JID: ADWR
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ginzburg
Ginzburg, I., Vikhansky, A., 2018. Determination of the diffusivity, dispersion, skewness
and kurtosis in heterogeneous porous flow part I: analytical solutions with the ex-
tended method of moments. Adv. Water Res. 115, 60–87.
Golzar, M., 2015. A brief review of pond residence time studies. In: Proceedings of the
Annual Postgraduate Research Student Conference. Sheffield, UK, pp. 32–37.
Guo, K., Li, L., Xiao, G., Yeung, N.A., Mei, R., 2015. Lattice Boltzmann method for conju-
gate heat and mass transfer with interfacial jump conditions. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
88, 306–322.
Hammou, H., Ginzburg, I., Boulerhcha, M., 2011. Two-relaxation-times Lattice Boltzmann
schemes for solute transport in unsaturated water flow, with a focus on stability. Adv.
Water Res. 34, 779–793.
Hindmarsch, A.C., Grescho, P.M., Griffiths, D.F., 1984. The stability of explicit time-in-
tegration for certain finite-difference approximation of the multi-dimensional advec-
tion–diffusion equation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 84 (4), 853–897.
Huang, R., Wu, H., 2014. A modified multiple-relaxation-time Lattice Boltzmann model
for convection-diffusion equation. J. Comput. Phys. 274, 50–63.
Khirevich, S., Ginzburg, I., Tallarek, U., 2014. Coarse- and fine-grid numerical behavior
of MRT/TRT Lattice-Boltzmann schemes in regular and random sphere packings. J.
Comput. Phys. 281, 708–742.
Kim, J.-H., Oschoa, J.A., Whitaker, S., 1987. Diffusion in anisotropic porous media.
Transp. Porous Med. 2, 327–356.
Kuzmin, A., Ginzburg, I., Mohamad, A.A., 2011a. The role of the kinetic parameter in
the stability of two-relaxation-times advection–diffusion Lattice Boltzmann scheme.
Comput. Math. Appl. 61 (12), 3417–3442.
Kuzmin, A., Guo, Z.L., Mohamad, A.A., 2011b. Simultaneous incorporation of mass and
force terms in the multi-relaxation-time framework for Lattice Boltzmann schemes..
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369, 2219–2227.
Mercer, G.N., Roberts, A.J., 1990. A centre manifold description of contaminant dispersion
in channels with varying flow properties. SIAM J. Appl. Math 50, 1547.
Ngo-Cong, D., Mohammed, F.J., Strunin, D.V., Skvortsov, A.T., Mai-Duy, N., Tran-Cong, T.,
2015. Higher-order approximation of contaminant transport equation for turbulent
channel flows based on centre manifolds and its numerical solution. J. Hydrol. 525,
87–101.
Perko, J., Patel, R.A., 2014. Single-relaxation-time Lattice Boltzmann scheme for advec-
tion–diffusion problems with large diffusion-coefficient heterogeneities and high-ad-
vection transport. Phys. Rev. E 89, 053309.
Rasin, I., Saucci, S., Miller, W., 2005. A multi-relaxation Lattice kinetic method for passive
scalar diffusion. J. Comput. Phys. 206, 453–462.
Röding, M., Schuster, E., Logg, K., Lundman, M., Bergström, P., Hanson, C., Gebäck, T.,
Lorén, N., 2016. Computational high-throughput screening of fluid permeability in
heterogeneous fiber materials. Soft Matter 12 (29). 6293–9
Salles, J., Thovert, J.F., Delannay, R., Prevors, L., Auriault, J.L., Adler, P.M., 1993. Taylor
dispersion in porous media. determination of the dispersion tensor. Phys. Fluids A 5
(10), 2348–2377.
Servan-Camas, B., Tsai, F.T.C., 2008. Lattice Boltzmann method for two relaxation times
for advection–diffusion equation: third order analysis and stability analysis.. Adv. Wa-
ter Res. 31, 1113–1126.
Servan-Camas, B., Tsai, F.T.C., 2010. Two-relaxation time Lattice Boltzmann method for
the anisotropic dispersive henry problem. Water Resour. Res. 46. W02515–W025
Silva, G., Ginzburg, I., 2016. Stokes–Brinkman–Darcy solutions of bimodal porous flow
across periodic array of permeable cylindrical inclusions: cell model, lubrication the-
ory and LBM/FEM numerical simulations. Transp. Porous Med. 111 (3), 795–825.
Silva, G., Talon, L., Ginzburg, I., 2017. Low- and high-order accurate boundary conditions:
from stokes to Darcy porous flow modeled with standard and improved Brinkman
Lattice Boltzmann schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 335, 50–83.
Su, T.M., Yang, S.C., Shih, S.S., Lee, H.Y., 2009. Optimal design for hydraulic performance
of free-water-surface constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 35, 1200–1207.
34
[m5GeSdc;June 29, 2018;16:56]
Advances in Water Resources 000 (2018) 1–34
Talon, L., Bauer, D., 2013. On the determination of a generalized Darcy equation for
yield-stress fluid in porous media using a Lattice-Boltzmann TRT scheme. Eur. Phys.
J. E Soft Matter 36 (12), 139.
Talon, L., Bauer, D., Gland, N., Youssef, S., Auradou, H., Ginzburg, I., 2012. Assessment of
the two relaxation time Lattice-Boltzmann scheme to simulate stokes flow in porous
media. Water Resour. Res. 48, W04526.
Taylor, G.I., 1953. Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A. 219, 186–2003.
Trinh, S., Arce, P., Locke, B.R., 2000. Effective diffusivities of point-like molecules in
isotropic porous media by monte carlo simulation. Transp. Porous Med. 38, 241–259.
Valdés-Parada, F.J., Lasseux, D., Bellet, F., 2016. A new formulation of the dispersion in
homogeneous porous media. Adv. Water Res 90, 70–82.
Vikhansky, A., 2008. Effect of diffusion on residence time distribution in chaotic channel
flow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 63, 1866–1870.
Vikhansky, A., 2011. Numerical analysis of residence time distribution in microchannels.
Chem. Eng. 86, 347–351.
Vikhansky, A., Ginzburg, I., 2014. Taylor dispersion in heterogeneous porous media: Ex-
tended method of moments, theory, and modelling with two-relaxation-times Lattice
Boltzmann scheme. Phys. Fluids 26. 022104–52
Vogel, L.E., Makowski, D., Garnier, P., Vieublé-Gonod, L., Coquet, Y., Raynaud, X.,
Nunan, N., Chenu, C., Falconer, R., Pot, V., 2015. Modeling the effect of soil meso- and
macropores topology on the biodegradation of a soluble carbon substrate. Adv. Wa-
ter Res. 83, 123–136.
Wang, L., Shi, B., Chai, Z., 2015. Regularized Lattice Boltzmann model for a class of con-
vection-diffusion equations. Phys. Rev. E 92. 043311–13
Wassén, S., Bordes, R., Gebäck, T., Bernin, D., Schuster, E., Lorén, N., Hermansson, A.M.,
2014. Probe diffusion in phase-separated bicontinuous biopolymer gels. Soft Matter
10 (41). 8276–87
Werner, T.M., Kadlec, R.H., 2000. Wetland residence time distribution modeling. Ecol.
Eng. 15, 77–90.
Yan, Z., Yang, X., Li, S., Hilpert, M., 2017. Two-relaxation-time Lattice Boltzmann method
and its application to advective–diffusive-reactive transport. Adv. Water Res. 109,
333–342.
Yang, J., Crawshaw, J., Boek, E.S., 2013. Quantitative determination of molecular prop-
agator distributions for solute transport in homogeneous and heterogeneous porous
media using Lattice Boltzmann simulations. Water Resour. Res. 49 (12), 8531–8538.
Yang, X., Mehmani, Y., Perkins, W.A., Pasquali, A., Schnherr, M., Kim, K., Perego, M.,
Parks, M.L., Trask, N., Balhoff, M.T., Richmond, M.C., Geier, M., Krafczyk, M.,
Luo, L.-S., Tartakovsky, A.M., Scheibe, T.D., 2016. Intercomparison of 3d pore-scale
flow and solute transport simulation methods. Adv. Water Res. 95, 176–189.
Yang, Z., Bai, F., Huai, W., An, R., Wang, H., 2017. Modelling open-channel flow with
rigid vegetation based on two-dimensional shallow water equations using the Lattice
Boltzmann method. Ecol. Eng. 106, 75–81.
Yoshida, H., Kobayashi, T., Hayashi, H., Kinjo, T., Washizi, H., Fukuzawa, K., 2014. Bound-
ary condition at a two-phase interface in the Lattice Boltzmann method for the con-
vection–diffusion equation. Phys. Rev. E. 90. 013303–10
Yoshida, H., Nagaoka, M., 2010. Multiple-relaxation-time Lattice Boltzmann model for the
convection and anisotropic diffusion equation. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 7774–7795.
Zhang, X., Crawford, J.W., Flavel, R.J., Young, I.M., 2016. A multi-scale Lattice Boltzmann
model for simulating solute transport in 3d X-ray-tomography images of aggregated
porous materials. J. Hydrol. 541, 1020.
Zhu, J., Ma, J., 2009. An improved gray Lattice Boltzmann model for simulating fluid flow
in multi-scale porous media. Comput. Geosci. 36, 1186.