the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelling contaminant transport of soil and landfills: A comparison study of three numerical codes
Abstract. The negligibly radioactive materials from a control area can be fed into further material cycles, to an incineration plant or disposed according to the type of clearance after clearance procedure, which is described in the German Radiation Protection Ordinance (Deutscher Bundestag, 2024b). The clearance values of the Radiation Protection Ordinance are based on the 10 µSv concept that limits the additional radiation exposure for the population or worker. In the past, analytical models were used to calculate radionuclide concentrations for groundwater path dose estimation. In this work, numerical groundwater models are used to simulate the distribution of radionuclides and provide spatial information on concentrations, which can be used as input data for dose estimation.
The transport processes of advection, diffusion, dispersion, sorption and decay are implemented in the simulation codes “distributed density-driven flow (d3f++)” (Fein and Schneider, 1999; Fein, 2004), “Dune for Multiphase flow and transport (DuMux )” (Flemisch et al., 2011; Koch et al., 2021) and “Simulation of Processes in Groundwater (SPRING)” (delta h, 2024). To compare the codes and their implemented transport processes, a simple 2D column and a generic 2D landfill body were modelled. The study demonstrated a good agreement between the three computational codes, thereby strengthening trust in numerical modelling for future applications in dose estimation. The differences in the concentration breakthrough curves can be attributed to the differences in the implementation of initial conditions (IC) for saturation, the influence of dispersion in the different codes and the upwind methods, highlighting the sensitivity to these parameters and numerical solvers. Although minor discrepancies emerge in the results, the study demonstrates that the concentrations and the times of maximum concentration are largely comparable.
- Preprint
(2788 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3970 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Aug 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on sand-2026-11', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jul 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on sand-2026-11', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jul 2026
reply
Benchmarking has become a standard method for quality assurance and confidence building in numerical analysis. The authors intend to achieve this goal in the field of waste disposal using three codes. The authors have made a very thorough attempt to identify the differences in the various physical processes and mathematical implementations. Numerous parameter variations were carried out based on two highly simplified examples. However, the differences are so great that, after reading through it, one loses confidence in the numerical results.
Two Codes, SPRING and d3f++ are based on the Richards’ formulation, a simplified multiphase flow method, supply similar results. The result of DuMux differs most from the other two codes in its temporal development 10% and also in its amplitude 50%.
As code developers, the authors must be able to identify and correct these differences before publication. In fact, it should be possible to simplify the two-phase flow to a Richards’ formulation to obtain the same results.
Specifically, the following comments still need to be taken into account:
- In terms of scientific publications, there is a lack of literature reviews on the state of the art in the field.
The phrase ‘the radionuclide .. groundwater model’ repeated in the manuscript, suggests that the authors are conflating two distinct processes: flow and transport.
Indeed, there are lots of numerical simulation dealing with the radionuclide spread since last thirty years, the statement ‘mostly analytical methods’ seems too abstract. - To verify the code implementation, a comparison between the numerical and analytical solutions are needed.
- In the example, the transport is simulated based on a steady state flow condition, so phase for flow using different formulation should not be the reason for the overall differences. The flow velocity from different codes should be analysed.
- The decay of radionuclides was mentioned in the context of the transport process but not addressed in detail. No calculation example was provided in this context. This needs to be added for the sake of completeness.
- Space distributions were mentioned, but no figure showing these results. It may helpful to find the reason for these differences.
Overall, the current version is not yet ready for publication. Taking the aforementioned comments into account, further work is required, and the manuscript should be rewritten.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-11-RC2 - In terms of scientific publications, there is a lack of literature reviews on the state of the art in the field.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52 | 14 | 4 | 70 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
- HTML: 52
- PDF: 14
- XML: 4
- Total: 70
- Supplement: 3
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper compares different numerical codes and their results for two simplified flow and transport problems and tries to keep a balance between numerical issues and the application to a real life problem. Anyway, the explanation of differences between resulting breakthrough curves is not fully consistent yet. It is recommended to clarify these parts, and check the overall structure again. Finally, a native English speaker should proofread.