Coupled reactive mass transport and fluid flow: Issues in model verification

Abstract

Model verification and validation are both important steps in the development of reactive transport models. In this paper, a distinction is made between verification and validation, and the focus is on codifying the issues of verification for a numerical, reactive transport flow model. First, the conceptual basis of model verification is reviewed, which shows that verification should be understood as a first step in model development, and be followed by a protocol that assures that the model accurately represents system behavior. Second, commonly used procedures and methods of model verification are presented. In the third part of this paper, an intercomparison of models is used to demonstrate that model verification can be performed despite differences in hydrogeochemical transport code formulations. Results of an example simulation of transport are presented in which the numerical model is tested against other hydrogeochemical codes. Different kinetic formulations between solid and aqueous phases used among numerical models complicates model verification. This test problem involves uranium transport under conditions of varying pH and oxidation potential, with reversible precipitation of calcium uranate and coffinite. Results between the different hydrogeochemical transport codes show differences in oxidation potentials, but similarities in mineral assemblages and aqueous transport patterns. Because model verification can be further complicated by differences in the approach for solving redox problems, a comparison of a fugacity approach (based on O 2 partial pressure) to both the external approach (based on hypothetical electron activity) and effective internal approach (based on conservation of electrons) is performed. The comparison demonstrates that the oxygen fugacity approach produces different redox potentials and mineral assemblages than both the effective internal and external approaches.