-1-

This document is a reproduction of the pre-print of:

Ababou R., 1990 : Numerical Analysis of Unsaturated Flow Equations, in Computational

Methods in Water Resources, Part A: Computational Methods in Subsurface Hydrology,
G. Gambolati et al. eds., Comput. Mechanics Publi. & Springer-Verlag, New York,
pp. 151-160, 1990. [Proceedings of the CMWR 1990 International Conference held in
June 1990 in Venice, Italy].

Numerical Analysis of Unsaturated Flow Equations

Rachid ABABOU
Southwest Research Institute,
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,
San Antonio, Texas, USA

1. NONLINEAR ADVECTION-DIFFUSION EQUATIONS

For transient flow in variably saturated porous media, a mixed variable formulation
of the governing equation is obtained by combining the mass conservation equation

∂θ ∂t = − ∇. Q

with the Darcy-Buckingham equation

Q = -K∇H

whence:

∂θ (h, x ) ∂t =∇( K (h, x )(∇h + g )) (1)

where H = h + g.x is the hydraulic potential, h is pressure head, and g is the cosine vector
aligned with the acceleration of gravity and equal to (0, 0, -1) if the third axis is vertical
pointing downwards. Defining the specific moisture capacity C = ∂θ/∂h yields the pressure-
based Richards equation:

C (h, x )∂h ∂t =∇( K (h, x )(∇h + g )) (2)

Introducing a nonlinear moisture diffusivity D = K/C, assuming a spatially

homogeneous moisture retention curve θ(h), and h ≤ 0 everywhere, yields the moisture-based
version of eq. (1):

1
 -2-

∂θ ∂t =∇( D(θ , x )∇θ + gK (θ , x )) (3)

In the detailed 3-dimensional simulations of [1] and [2], the finite difference
method was applied to the mixed form (1), which is more mass conservative than eq. (2) and
is not limited to negative pressures as eq. (3). For convenience, however, we will use the
standard Richards equation (2) for the numerical analyses to be developed in this paper.

The nonlinear gravity term containing (g) acts as forced convection, in competition
with the diffusion term represented by the elliptic operator ∇(K∇h). For homogeneous media,
eqs. (2) and (3) can be reformulated as follows, respectively:

C (∂h ∂t + V .∇h)=∇( K∇h) (2)'

and:

∂θ ∂t + V .∇θ =∇( D∇θ ) (3)'

where:
V = - (∂K/∂θ) g (4)

The vector V represents the velocity of pressure or moisture disturbances, in the

absence of the right-hand side diffusive terms. Note that moisture and pressure waves
propagate at the same speed in homogeneous media. The convective-diffusive form taken by
equations (2-3) suggests that a Peclet number might be used to characterize convection versus
diffusion effects.

A Peclet number emerges quite naturally from the Kirchoff transform

formulation [1]. This transform is valid for the class of heterogeneous media possessing a
homogeneous relative conductivity curve Kr(h), i.e. with a separable conductivity curve
K(h, x) = Ks(x) Kr(h). But we focus here on the more restricted case where both the saturated
and relative conductivities are homogeneous, i.e. with a homogeneous conductivity curve
K(h) = KsKr(h). The Kirchoff transform is then defined by:

φ (h)=∫−∞ K (h')dh'
h
(6)

Substituting eq. (6) in eq. (2) and using chain rules yields:

∂φ ∂t + V .∇φ = D∇ 2φ (7)

2
 -3-

Here again, the wave velocity V is given by equation (4), or equivalently by

V = αDg, where α = ∂ nK/∂h is the slope of the log-conductivity/pressure curve.

Given the form of the Kirchoff equation (7), the Peclet vector Pe = V /D emerges as
a relative measure of convective versus diffusive moisture transport over the chosen length
scale ( ). Furthermore, substituting the above expression for V gives a very simple expression
for the Peclet vector:

Pe = - α g (8)

which reveals the special role played by the α-parameter. Since transforms like θ(h) or φ(h)
do not fundamentally alter the ratio of convection versus diffusion coefficients, this Peclet
vector characterizes the transport of pressure as well as moisture, Kirchoff potential, or any
other quantity that can be related to pressure in a one-to-one fashion.

2. TRUNCATION ERROR ANALYSIS

In this section, we evaluate truncation error as a function of mesh size and time step
for a nonlinear, implicit finite difference discretization of the Richards equation. Note that
truncation analysis compares the discrete and differential operators, but is not concerned with
the numerical errors incurred by the dependent variable itself, or with the space-time
propagation of such errors (stability), or with the additional errors incurred while solving the
nonlinear discretized system (linearization). Our purpose here is to identify potential sources
of inaccuracies by looking at the leading order terms of truncation error.

Consider the Richards equation (2), to be solved for a 1-dimensional homogeneous

medium using a fully implicit nonlinear finite difference discretization (Euler backwards in
time, 2-point centered in space). The differential and discretized equations are, respectively:

L(h)=− C (h)ht + ( K (h)(hx + g )) x =0 (9.a)

hin+1 − hin K in++11/ 2 ⎛ hin++11 − hin+1 ⎞

Lh ( )
n +1
i =− C n +1
i
Δt
+
Δx ⎜⎝
⎜
Δx
+ g ⎟⎟
⎠ (9.b)
K n +1
⎛ h − hi −1
n +1 n+1
⎞
− i −1/ 2 ⎜⎜ i + g ⎟⎟=0
Δx ⎝ Δx ⎠

3
 -4-

where g is a cosine representing gravity, with g = 0 if x is horizontal and g = -1 if x is vertical

downwards. The coefficients of the discrete operator are fully nonlinear, being expressed at
the current time step (n+1). The mid-nodal conductivities are approximated by a geometric
weighting:

K i +1/ 2 =[K (hi )K (hi +1 )]

12
(10)

In the case of an exponential K(h) curve, this scheme weights pressures

arithmetically, and it yields the exact midnodal conductivity in zones of spatially constant
pressure gradient.

The truncation error E(h) = L(h) - (h) at the nodes of the space-time mesh was
calculated in [1] using intermediate results from [3]. We choose here to express the final
result in terms of both flux (Q) and pressure (h) as follows:

⎡ ∂ ⎡ ∂ ⎛ ∂h ⎞ ⎤ C ∂ 2 h ⎤
E (h)≈Δt ⎢ ⎢ K ⎜ ⎟⎥ − 2 ⎥
⎣ ∂ x ⎣ ∂t ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ⎦ 2 ∂ t ⎦ (11)
Δx 2 ⎡ ∂ ⎛ ∂ 3 h ⎞ ∂ 3Q ⎤ Δx 2 ⎡ ∂ ⎛ ∂ 2 h ⎞⎤
+ ⎢ ⎜K ⎟− ⎥− ⎢α ⎜ Q ⎟⎥
24 ⎣ ∂x ⎜⎝ ∂x 3 ⎟⎠ ∂x 3 ⎦ 8 ⎣ ∂x ⎜⎝ ∂x 2 ⎟⎠⎦

where Q = -K(∂h/∂x+g), and α = ∂ nK/∂h. It is interesting to note that one recovers the linear
heat equation by letting K = 1, C = 1, and α = 0 in (9-11). Inserting in eq. (11) the identities:

ht = hxx and htt = -Qxxx = hxxxx,

leads to the verification of a well known result [4]: the order of accuracy of the linear heat
equation increases from 0(Δt) + 0(Δx2) to 0(Δt2) + 0(Δx4) with the choice Δt/Δx2 = 1/6.

Let us now discuss the implications of (11) in the fully nonlinear case. The 0(Δt)
term, due to temporal discretization errors, appears to be controlled by the rate of change of
the pressure gradient and by the second order time-derivative of pressure. The first of the two
0(ΔxΔx) terms is due to spatial discretization errors other than midnodal conductivity
weighting. The second 0(ΔxΔx) term is due solely to errors in evaluating midnodal
conductivities by the geometric rule (10), and vanishes in regions of spatially constant
pressure gradient, as expected in the case of exponential K(h).

Equation (11) simplifies considerably in the steady state case, since the
1-dimensional flux Q becomes constant in both space and time. The result suggests that, even

4
 -5-

in the transient case, spatial errors are dominated by the rate of change of pressure curvature
with depth, which can become quite large near sharp wetting fronts above and below the
inflexion point. This type of information may be used for designing optimal adaptive grid
procedures.

3. STABILITY ANALYSIS

To complement the previous truncation error analysis, we now examine how

numerical errors propagate as a function of time. In addition, we hope to capture at least some
of the additional error amplification effects due to inexact treatment of nonlinearity. Our
approach is to analyze the stability of a linearized version of the finite difference problem,
such that all nonlinear coefficients are evaluated from the solution at the previous time step
(no iterations). The unstable effect of linearization is partially taken into account by
unfreezing the nonlinear convective coefficient, while other coefficients remain frozen.

We focus once more on the case of 1-dimensional homogeneous media as in

eqs. (9). Consider the following linearized form of the finite difference system:

hin+1 − hin 1 ⎡ n ⎛ hin++11 − hin+1 ⎞ ⎛ h n+1 − hin−+11 ⎞⎤

C in = ⎢ K 1 ⎜⎜ + g ⎟⎟ − K n 1 ⎜⎜ i + g ⎟⎟⎥ (12)
Δt n Δx ⎣⎢ i + 2 ⎝ Δx ⎠ i−
2⎝
Δx ⎠⎥⎦

where the superscript (n+1) indicates the current time level. The form of this finite difference
system suggests that, while the nonlinear diffusion operator is treated implicitly, the nonlinear
gravity term g(K[i + 1/2] - K[i - 1/2])/Δx is treated explicitly since it is entirely evaluated at
the previous time level. Based on this remark, we will now examine how this discrepancy
affects the numerical stability of the solution.

The proposed method is to develop a Fourier stability analysis of equation (12)

with partially frozen coefficients. This is analogous to the usual frozen coefficients analysis as
described in [4], except that the nonlinearity of the gravity term is taken into account via the
quasilinear approximation:

Kn1 − Kn1
K in α n
( ) ( )
i+ i−
g 2 2
=g hi +1 − hin−1 + 0 Δx 2 (13)
Δx Δx 2

where again α = d nK/dh. The leading term on the right-hand side is expected to be a
reasonable approximation of the left-hand side if the quantity α h i + 1 − h i ≈ αΔx ∂h ∂x is

5
 -6-

on the order of unity or less. At any rate, even rough indications on the numerical stability of
the nonlinear unsaturated flow system will be useful given the lack of theoretical results in
this area. With this provision, substituting (13) into (12) yields the following mixed
implicit/explicit scheme:

~ ⎛ ~ ~ ⎞⎟ n+1 ~
−D h n+1
+ ⎜ 1 + D + D h − D h n+1
+1 ≈
i−
1 i −1 ⎜ i−
1
i+ ⎟
1 i
i+
1 i
2 ⎝ 2 2⎠ 2 (14.a)
1 ~ n 1 ~ n
− gαΔx Di hi −1 + hi + gαΔx Di hi +1
n
2 2

% is the dimensionless diffusion coefficient:

where D

K ⎛ 1⎞
~ i⎜ ± ⎟
⎝ 2⎠ Δt
D⎛ 1⎞ = (14.b)
i⎜ ± ⎟
⎝ 2⎠
Ci Δx 2

The stability of equation (14) with frozen diffusion coefficients can be studied in
the standard way using Fourier stability analysis [4]. This leads to a complex amplification
factor, ρ, characterizing the growth rate of numerical errors in time:

1 + jαgΔx Di sin (kΔx )

~
ρ≈ (15)
⎛~ ⎞ ⎛~ ⎞
~
1 + ⎜⎜ D 1 + D 1 ⎟(1 − cos(kΔx )) − j⎜ D −
~
D ⎟sin (kΔx )
⎟ ⎜ i+ 1 ⎟
⎝ i+ 2
1
i−
2 ⎠ ⎝ 2
i−
2 ⎠

where j is the square-root of -1, and k is a Fourier mode or wavenumber taking discrete
values: k ∈{π/L, ..., nπ/L}.

Requiring |ρ| ≤ 1 in equation (15) finally leads to the necessary and sufficient
stability condition:

−1
⎛ K Δt ⎞
Pe = αgΔx ≤ 2 1 + ⎜⎜ 2 i ⎟
2 ⎟
(16)
⎝ C i Δx ⎠

where Pe represents the grid Peclet number [see eq. (8)]. If the Peclet number is less than 2,
then the stability condition is always satisfied irrespective of the time step size. On the other
hand, if the Peclet number is greater than 2, stability requires a stringent constraint on the
time step size. To summarize, the stability condition is:

6
 -7-

Either : Pe= αgΔx ≤ 2 ;

(*)
K i Δt 2 . (17)
else : Pe= αgΔx ≥ 2 and ≤
C i Δz 2
(Pe − 2)(Pe + 2)

Recall that the Peclet number was defined as a convection to diffusion ratio [see
discussion above eq. (8)]. When the grid Peclet number of eqs. (16-17) is much smaller than
unity, pressure disturbances appearing at any node are smeared out by diffusion before
reaching the next node (stable case).

Finally, the effects of heterogeneity can be analyzed in a qualitative manner as follows.

Assume for instance that the α-parameter of the exponential conductivity curve is spatially
variable. The local Peclet number is therefore also spatially variable. Assuming (roughly) that
the previous stability analysis still holds locally, we see from equation (17) that instabilities
must be triggered in zones of coarse porosity where α takes large values. Equation (15) shows
that the most unstable Fourier modes are those with largest wavenumbers, having fluctuation
scales comparable to mesh size. And, equation (16) indicates that such instabilities will grow
faster where moisture diffusivity is high, e.g. in wet zones.

In order to minimize the chances of explosive error amplification, it seems

reasonable to require that the vertical mesh size be a fraction of the average length scale 1/α,
which typically lies in the range 10-100 cm for sandy to clayey soils. This guideline was used
to design large scale numerical experiments of unsaturated flow in [1] and [2].

4. CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR PICARD ITERATIONS

In practice, an iterative scheme such as Picard or Newton must be used to

iteratively linearize and solve the nonlinear algebraic system at each time step. For instance, a
modified Picard scheme that preserves the symmetry of the system was used in [1, 2]. In this
section, we show how the convergence of the Picard scheme can be investigated by applying
functional analysis methods [5, 6, 7] to the nonlinear mapping associated with the iteration
scheme. The proposed approach is to apply the Picard method directly to the partial
differential equation of unsaturated flow, and to examine the convergence properties of the
resulting iteration scheme, a priori independent of discretization.

(*)
This result was later corrected by Trégarot (2000) : see text appended at the end of this document.

7
 -8-

For illustration here, we will restrict our analysis to the special case of steady
unsaturated flow in a spatially homogeneous 1-dimensional medium, for which an exact
solution can be derived by direct integration. Assume that K(h) is exponential with exponent
α =∂ nK∂h and that the x-axis is vertical downwards. Define the dimensionless variables:

ξ = x/L, Ψ = -h/L, a = α/L, q = Q/Ks, and k = K/Ks,

where Ψ is the dimensionless suction head, always positive in unsaturated media. Our model
problem is steady infiltration or evaporation in a vertical column extending, say, from soil
surface at z = 0 (ξ = 0) to a water table or other boundary at z = L (ξ = 1). This can be
formulated as the boundary value problem:

L(Ψ )=(k (Ψ )(Ψξ + 1))ξ =0

(18)
Ψ (0 )=Ψ0 ;Ψ (1)=Ψ =1

A straightforward integration of (18) yields the conductivity profile k(ξ), which

itself can be used to obtain the suction profile Ψ(ξ). The complete solution is given by:

k(Ψ(ξ)) = q + (k1 - q) exp{a(ξ - 1)} (19.a)

q = {k1 - k0 exp(a)}/{1 - exp(a)} (19.b)

k(Ψ) = exp(-aΨ), k0 = k(Ψ0), k1 = k(Ψ1), (19.c)

q ≤ {1 - k1 exp(-a)}/{1 - exp(-a)} (19.d)

where the constant dimensionless flux q is either positive (downwards) or negative (upwards).
Note that the solution is only valid for boundary conditions such that Ψ(ξ) ≥ 0 on the [0, 1]
interval. This requires satisfying Ψ0 ≥ 0, Ψ1 ≥ 0, and the inequality (19.d) which boils down
to q ≤ 1 if a >> 1.

Let us now apply a Picard scheme with relaxation parameter ω to iteratively solve
(18). The solution is constructed by way of an iterated mapping:

(k (Ψ )(Ψ
n n +1
− Ψn ) ) =− ω L(Ψ )
ξ ξ
n
(20)
Ψ n +1 (ξ ) − Ψ n (ξ )=0atξ =0and ξ =1

8
 -9-

The residual operator (Ψ) is the same as the one defined in equation (18), and n is
the iteration counter. The Dirichlet conditions are implemented exactly at each iteration, since
they are linear.

At each iteration, the iterated mapping of equation (20) is a boundary value

problem that is directly integrable in terms of the incremental suction Ψ[n + 1] - Ψ[n]. One
obtains after some manipulations:

Ψn+1 = {(1 - ω) (.) + ω (.)} Ψn (21.a)

where is the identity operator satisfying (Ψ) = Ψ, and is the Picard iteration operator
defined by:

(Ψn) = {(Ψ1 - Ψ0 + 1) (Ψn) + (Ψ0 - ξ)} (21.b)

where is the ratio of two integral operators:

( )[ ( ξ
F Ψ n = ∫0 k Ψ n (s ) ds )
−1
] [∫ k (Ψ (s )) ds]
1
0
n −1
(21.c)

Each operator (.), (.), and (.) maps onto itself the space of continuous
functions Ψ(ξ) defined on the interval [0, 1], and (21.a) yields:

Ψ[n + 1](ξ) = Ψ[n](ξ) at ξ = 0 and ξ = 1.

The convergence properties of the Picard scheme are most directly related to the
properties of the iteration operator (21.a) which maps the old solution Ψ[n] into the new
solution Ψ[n + 1]. Without going into details, let us point out that the contraction mapping
theorem and Ostrowski's local convergence theorem [7] can be used to test the conditions
under which convergence occurs, and to estimate convergence rate in some function space
norm. Work along these lines is ongoing. The case of transient flow will be developed by
applying the same principles to the semi-discretized differential flow equation.

9
 - 10 -

REFERENCES

[1] Ababou, R. (1988). "Three-dimensional flow in random porous media", Ph. D. Thesis,
M.I.T., Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A., pp. 833, [Chapters 5 & 7].

[2] Ababou R., and Gelhar L.W. (1988). "A high-resolution finite difference simulator for
3D unsaturated flow in heterogeneous media", in: Computational methods in water
resources (VIIth Internat. Conf.), M. Celia and al. ed., Elsevier & Comput. Mech. Publi.,
Vol. 1, pp. 173-178.

[3] Vauclin M., Haverkamp R., and Vachaud G. (1979). "Résolution numérique d'une
équation de diffusion non linéaire", P.U.G., Grenoble, France, pp. 183.

[4] Ames W.F. (1977). "Numerical methods for partial differential equations", Academic
Press, New-York, pp. 365, [Chapter 2].

[5] Curtain R.F. and Pritchard A.J. (1977). "Functional analysis in modern applied
mathematics", Academic Press, New-York, pp. 339.

[6] Milne R.D. (1980). "Applied functional analysis: An introductory treatment", Pitman,
Boston.

[7] Ortega J.M. and Rheinboldt W.C. (1971). "Iterative solution of nonlinear equations in
several variables", Academic Press, New-York, pp. 572, [5.1, 7.1, 10.1, 12.1].

10
 - 11 -

ADDENDUM:
ERRATUM TO STABILITY ANALYZIS IN ‘CMWR 1990’ PAPER

NOTE. This short text is Appendix 2.A of G. Trégarot’s 2000 thesis (in french); it corrects an
erroneous equation in the stability analyzis (section 3) of the CMWR 1990 paper.

Trégarot G. (2000) : ‘Modélisation Couplée des Ecoulements à Saturation Variable avec Hé-
térogénéités, Forçages, et Interfaces Hydrologiques’. PhD thesis (dir. : R.Ababou), Institut
National Polytechnique de Toulouse, IMFT lab., Toulouse, France, May 2000 [in french].

Annexes du Chapitre 1 :

Annexe A.3 :

A.3.Calcul d'un critère de stabilité de l'équation discrétisée et linéarisée de Richards

L'analyse de la stabilité consiste à étudier la façon dont les erreurs d'arrondis (liées aux
limites de précision de la machine utilisée) s'accumulent et s'amplifient dans le temps.
Ababou (1988, 1990) s'est intéressé à l'équation de Richards discrétisée et linéarisée dans le
cas d'une infiltration 1D dans un sol homogène, en ne considérant toutefois que les
estimations des coefficients non linéaires au pas de temps précédent (linéarisation non
itérative ou explicite). Cette équation s'écrit (cf. chapitre 1, §2.3.2 et 2.3.3.) :

h in +1 − h in ⎡ h n +1 − h n +1 ⎤ ⎡ h n +1 − h in−+11 ⎤ K in+1 / 2 − K in−1 / 2

C in = K in+1 / 2 ⎢ i+1 2 i ⎥ − K in−1 / 2 ⎢ i ⎥ + g (1)
Δt n +1 ⎣ Δx ⎣ Δx Δx
2 Bx
⎦ ⎦

où :

n : niveau du pas de temps (Δtn+1 est le (n+1)ième pas de temps);

i : nœud du domaine dans la direction Ox (Δx est le pas d'espace selon Ox);
gBx : composante selon Ox du vecteur opposé à la gravité gB = -g /⎜g⎪, gBx = 0 si Ox est
horizontal (écoulement horizontal), gBx = 1 si Ox est vertical orienté vers le haut
(écoulement vertical) ;
C : capacité capillaire (m-1 ) ;
K : conductivité (m/s);
h : potentiel de pression capillaire (m) ;

La stabilité est analysée par la méthode de Fourier appliquée à l'équation ci-dessus, en gelant
les coefficients de diffusion. La non linéarité du terme convectif gravitaire est par contre prise

11
 - 12 -

en compte par une approximation quasi-linéaire (Ababou, 1988), en supposant la conductivité

décrite par le modèle exponentiel K(h) =Ks exp(βh) :

K in+1 / 2 − K in−1 / 2 Kn β
g Bx = g Bx i (h in+1 − h in−1 ) + o( Δx 2 ) (2)
Δx Δx 2

où β = ∂lnK/∂h (en m-1 ).

Cette approximation ne se justifie que lorsque β(hk+1 - hk ) ≈ βΔx(∂h/∂x) est au plus de l'ordre
de l'unité. Néanmoins, toute indication sur la stabilité du schéma de linéarisation, même
grossière, peut être utile, étant donné le manque de résultats théoriques à ce sujet.

L'introduction de l'approximation (2) dans l'équation linéarisée (1) nous donne :

− D*i−1 / 2 h in−+11 + (1 + D*i−1 / 2 + D*i+1 / 2 ) h in +1 − D*i +1 / 2 h in++11 ≈

βΔx * n β Δx * n (3)
− g Bx D i h i−1 + h in + g Bx D i h i +1
2 2

où D* est un coefficient de diffusion adimensionnel, proportionnel à Δtn+1 /Δx2 :

K in± 1 / 2 Δt n +1 K in Δt n +1
D *
i ±1/ 2 = et D = *
*

C*i Δx 2 C i Δx 2
i

L'analyse de stabilité par la méthode de Fourier appliquée à l'équation (3) nous donne la
condition suivante sur le facteur complexe d'amplification des erreurs (⎜ρ⎪ ≤ 1):

1 + jg Bx βΔxD*i sin( kΔx )

≤1
1 + (D*i−1/ 2 + D*i+1/ 2 ) [1 − cos( kΔx )] − j(D*i+1/ 2 − D*i−1 / 2 )sin( kΔx )
(4)

où k est le nombre d'onde, prenant les valeurs discrètes π/Lx,...,πNx/Lx, Lx est la longueur du
domaine selon Ox et Nx est le nombre de nœuds de la grille de calcul selon Ox.

Lorsque gBx = 0 (infiltration horizontale), la condition (4) est toujours vérifiée, et le schéma
discrétisé et linéarisé est inconditionnellement stable.

Lorsque gBx ≠ 0, c'est à dire en présence d'effets gravitaires, nous simplifions l'analyse en
supposant D*i−1 / 2 ≈ D*i ≈ D*i+1/ 2 . Dans ce cas, la condition (4) devient :

12
 - 13 -

1 + (g Bx βΔxD*i sin( kΔx ) )

2

≤1 (5)
(1 + 2D [1 − cos(kΔx )])
*
i
2

ou encore (après correction d'une erreur datant de BIGFLOW, 1993) :

⎛ g BxβΔx ⎞
2
⎡ ⎛ g BxβΔx ⎞ 2 ⎤ − 1
1− ⎜ ⎟ − cos(kΔx ) ⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥≥ * (6)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦⎥ D i

(6) doit être observée quelque soit la valeur du nombre d'onde, et notamment lorsque
cos(kΔx) = 1. La condition de stabilité nécessaire et suffisante est alors, compte tenu de
l'expression du coefficient de diffusion adimensionnel D* :

2
Δt ≤
Dβ g Bx
2 2

où D = K/C est la diffusivité capillaire et β = ∂lnK/∂h.

Soit, en posant gBx = 1 (écoulement vertical, cas le plus contraignant) :

2
Δt ≤ (7)
Dβ 2

Ainsi, pour un écoulement non-horizontal, des instabilités numériques peuvent apparaître

pour β grand (ce qui caractérise un milieu grossier) et pour une diffusivité capillaire grande,
ce qui est le cas au niveau des interfaces entre zones saturées et insaturées où D est infinie en
h = 0, θ = θs . Ce critère de stabilité donne simplement une idée des difficultés qui peuvent
apparaître et de l'ordre de grandeur des pas de temps qu'il faudrait choisir. Notons que la
condition de stabilité (7) ne dépend pas du pas d'espace Δz.

13