6 views

Uploaded by maribo2005

modelling leakege

save

- Modelado de Elementos Finitos de Drenaje Subsuperficial en Suelos Finos de Arcilla Finlandesa
- Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus using variations in transmissivity and RQD with depth.pdf
- Koefisien Ke
- le4ct1
- MPRWA Agenda Packet 7-29-15
- Lecture 4
- BAO Approved USGS Review Criss Letter v1.1
- Development of Grouting Technique - Stop Criteria and Field Tests
- Darcy's Law Exercise and Problems
- Engineering Geology Field Manual Volume I Chap09
- USEPA Groundwater Development SOP Pt 18
- Assignment 3
- Shrestha and Shrestha
- Upflow Manual
- How to Set Up Dewatering Plan for Excavations
- 2 SoilProperties Hayes
- A River for Jaffna -By S. Arumugam
- 2._Chapter_1_–_5
- Water Availability and Use
- 2-SoilProperties-Hayes.ppt
- seepage-3
- Groundwater Temperature Sierra de Las Nieves
- Listing and Description
- tmp5656.tmp
- Surges in Pipelines
- grim163-237
- Ae 37-2008 Notification
- Chap14
- 10 - Drainage Symposium Sardaigne Presentation Anglais
- M1.pdf
- Pumping Test Procedures
- airlift_testing_in_exploration_coreholes_rlh_final.pdf
- AquiferTest Pro Help
- 0140-Birch
- seep modeling.pdf
- Acoustic and optical borehole imaging for fractured.pdf
- 1116_1_02.pdf
- 10.1.1.948.3163
- JAG_2004.pdf
- Fc Example
- A_Simple_Approach_to_Managing_Dewatering.pdf
- Aquifer Props
- 906969 Aquifer Testing Guidance
- Fc Example
- CMartinez Modelling Fractured Rock Heterogeneity in Open Pit May 2016 0
- Nitrates Summary
- Hydrogeology and Human Health_2017
- LA UR 05 6741 Conceptual Model 050818 Laur
- Chapter 5 - Groundwater Well Design.pdf
- Hydrogeology and human health_2017.pdf
- Review Occurrence of the Pathogenic Amoeba Naegleria 2017
- 010Murray,W
- 1116_1_02
- 762900715
- Example 2
- Chapter 3 - Groundwater Flow to Wells.pdf
- 889766.pdf
- A_Simple_Approach_to_Managing_Dewatering.pdf
- 134

You are on page 1of 46

**rivers using the unsaturated flow
**

model VS2DTI

Groundwater Systems & Water Quality Programme

Internal Report IR/05/019

BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

**GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS & WATER QUALITY PROGRAMME
**

INTERNAL REPORT IR/05/019

**Modelling leakage from perched
**

rivers using the unsaturated flow

model VS2DTI

**The National Grid and other C Jackson
**

Ordnance Survey data are used

with the permission of the

Controller of Her Majesty’s

Stationery Office.

Ordnance Survey licence number

Licence No:100017897/2005.

Keywords

**Unsaturated zone model; river-
**

aquifer interaction.

Front cover

**Simulated steady-state pressure
**

head distribution beneath

perched river.

Bibliographical reference

**JACKSON, C. 2005. Modelling
**

leakage from perched rivers

using the unsaturated flow model

VS2DTI. British Geological

Survey Internal Report,

IR/05/019. 38pp.

**Copyright in materials derived
**

from the British Geological

Survey’s work is owned by the

Natural Environment Research

Council (NERC) and/or the

authority that commissioned the

work. You may not copy or adapt

this publication without first

obtaining permission.

Contact the BGS Intellectual

Property Rights Section, British

Geological Survey, Keyworth,

e-mail ipr@bgs.ac.uk You may

quote extracts of a reasonable

length without prior permission,

provided a full acknowledgement

is given of the source of the

extract.

© NERC 2005. All rights reserved Keyworth, Nottingham British Geological Survey 2005

**BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
**

The full range of Survey publications is available from the BGS British Geological Survey offices

Sales Desks at Nottingham, Edinburgh and London; see contact

details below or shop online at www.geologyshop.com

Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG

The London Information Office also maintains a reference 0115-936 3241 Fax 0115-936 3488

collection of BGS publications including maps for consultation. e-mail: sales@bgs.ac.uk

The Survey publishes an annual catalogue of its maps and other www.bgs.ac.uk

publications; this catalogue is available from any of the BGS Sales Shop online at: www.geologyshop.com

Desks.

The British Geological Survey carries out the geological survey of Murchison House, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3LA

Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the latter as an agency 0131-667 1000 Fax 0131-668 2683

service for the government of Northern Ireland), and of the e-mail: scotsales@bgs.ac.uk

surrounding continental shelf, as well as its basic research

projects. It also undertakes programmes of British technical aid in

geology in developing countries as arranged by the Department London Information Office at the Natural History Museum

for International Development and other agencies. (Earth Galleries), Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London

SW7 2DE

The British Geological Survey is a component body of the Natural

Environment Research Council. 020-7589 4090 Fax 020-7584 8270

020-7942 5344/45 email: bgslondon@bgs.ac.uk

**Forde House, Park Five Business Centre, Harrier Way,
**

Sowton, Exeter, Devon EX2 7HU

01392-445271 Fax 01392-445371

**Geological Survey of Northern Ireland, 20 College Gardens,
**

Belfast BT9 6BS

028-9066 6595 Fax 028-9066 2835

**Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford,
**

Oxfordshire OX10 8BB

01491-838800 Fax 01491-692345

**Sophia House, 28 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9LJ
**

029–2066 0147 Fax 029–2066 0159

Parent Body

Natural Environment Research Council, Polaris House,

North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 1EU

01793-411500 Fax 01793-411501

www.nerc.ac.uk

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Model structure....................................................................................... 14 5 Estimating leakage rates from perched rivers............................................................ iv 1 Introduction ............................... 31 5...... 35 References ................................ 2 3 Introduction to VS2DTI .................................................................................................................. 7 3...........3 Results ........................... 10 4........... 38 i ............... 32 6 Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................................... 10 4...................... 1 2 Simulation of leakage from rivers . 31 5.. 10 4...........................................1 Background................3 Constructing an unsaturated flow model ..........................................................................................................1 Introduction ............. 7 3...........................................................................................................2 Considering flow through the river-bed . 37 Appendix 1 Steps involved in constructing an unsaturated flow model using VS2DTI.................................................................................................................................................... 7 4 Unsaturated zone modelling of perched rivers...... 7 3.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................IR/05/019 Contents Summary .....................................2 Installing VS2DTI ......................1 Considering flow through the aquifer................................................................

.............3 Figure 3 Numerical model conceptualisation of river-aquifer interaction for a perched river with the water table significantly below the river stage...11 Figure 10 Textural class parameters used to define river bed and aquifer hydraulic properties (Hydraulic conductivity values are defined in m3/sec) . River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0....................... River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.................17 Figure 18 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.......... Water table elevation: –5 m....... Water table elevation: –3 m.................................................... River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0..1 m day-1 .... (c) 334 days and (d) 2000 days ...........19 Figure 22 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution........1 m day-1 .13 Figure 13 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution................16 Figure 16 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution..IR/05/019 FIGURES Figure 1 Numerical model conceptualisation of river-aquifer interaction for an influent river with the water table above the river stage 2 Figure 2 Numerical model conceptualisation of river-aquifer interaction for an effluent river with the water table just below the river stage. Water table elevation: –10 m.............................5 days..................................16 Figure 17 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution................................................... River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 .................... Water table elevation: –4 m..............................................19 ii ....... River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 .........................................1 m day-1 ..12 Figure 11 Relationship between (i) pressure head and saturation and (ii) pressure head and relative hydraulic conductivity included in the VS2DTI river cross-section models 13 Figure 12 Relationship between saturation and relative hydraulic conductivity included in the VS2DTI river cross-section models ... Water table elevation: –10 m....................4 Figure 5 Groundwater head versus river leakage relationship included in MODFLOW.......... River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 ............ River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0...9 Figure 8 Structure of VS2DTI river model with the water table set at –25 m ......................................18 Figure 20 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution....... Water table elevation: –5 m..................15 Figure 15 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution....17 Figure 19 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution..... (b) 14 days.............................4 Figure 4 Schematic diagram of assumptions of perched river conditions implemented in MODFLOW ............................ River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 ........5 Figure 6 Example of the construction of a VS2DTI model of a dam....................................... River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0..............18 Figure 21 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution...........................15 Figure 14 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.. Water table elevation: –4 m.... Water table elevation: –2 m................................................................................1 m day-1 ....1 m day-1 ........ River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 .......... Water table elevation: –2 m.................11 Figure 9 Structure of the VS2DTI model in the vicinity of the river ...........................8 Figure 7 Example VS2DTI post-processor output of simulated pressure head in dam after approximately (a) 0............................... Water table elevation: –3 m.......

.................. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0........28 Figure 36 Vertical variation of pressure head with elevation beneath the river.............................. Water table elevation: –20 m....22 Figure 29 Vertical variation of total head with elevation beneath the river........... Water table elevation: –20 m.23 Figure 30 Vertical variation of total head with elevation beneath the river....21 Figure 26 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution..............28 Figure 37 Simulated water table elevation versus river leakage (inflow) for two model scenarios..........34 TABLES Table 1 Comparison of the simulated and estimated maximum leakage rates from the river based on the consideration of the flow through the river bed .......1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity)..1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity)................................1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity) ...... River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0..........................29 Figure 38 Comparison of the simulated water table elevation versus river leakage curves with the estimated curve based on the consideration of flow through the aquifer under an assumed unit hydraulic gradient ......................33 iii .........................1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity) ................. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1......................... Water table elevation: –25 m.............25 Figure 33 Vertical variation of saturation with elevation beneath the river... Water table elevation: –15 m....................................24 Figure 31 Vertical variation of total head gradient with elevation beneath the river....21 Figure 27 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution............... River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 ................1 m day-1 ................. Water table elevation: –15 m..25 Figure 32 Vertical variation of total head gradient with elevation beneath the river...... Water table elevation: –25 m...........20 Figure 24 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.............1 m day-1 ........... River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 .. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.....................................32 Figure 39 River channel structure and hydraulic properties showing the assumption that the pressure head is equal to zero just below the river bed...............22 Figure 28 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution...33 Figure 40 Comparison of the simulated water table elevation versus river leakage curves with the estimated curves based on the consideration of flow through the river bed ..........................20 Figure 25 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution................ River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 .............................. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0............................................. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.IR/05/019 Figure 23 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0......................................26 Figure 34 Vertical variation of saturation with elevation beneath the river......................................................... River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 .........................1 m day-1 ..27 Figure 35 Vertical variation of pressure head with elevation beneath the river.................. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1.... River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0...................... River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1......

which will affect the width of the column of vertically flowing water. The rate of leakage from a perched river is complex and governed by the following features: • The river stage and water table elevation. which depends on the head in the aquifer. but this will not be the case for the simulation of channel scale river-aquifer interaction processes. However.. is similar to that which is simulated using the unsaturated flow simulation code. • The thickness of the river bed deposits. for example in which the shape of the river channel is more complex. • The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the river bed and the aquifer. is discussed. The assumptions that it is only the aquifer medium that governs the rate of flow to the water table and that this occurs through a saturated column with a width that is equivalent to that of the perched river is simplistic. 1988). • The relationship between pressure head and moisture content and between hydraulic conductivity-moisture content for the porous media. the unsaturated flow model code VS2DTI (Hsieh et al. This representation of the river assumes that the channel is rectangular. • The width and length of the river channel. Further work is requires to understand the process of river aquifer interaction in different hydrogeological settings. the river stage and the hydraulic properties of the river. 2000) is used to simulate a surface water-groundwater system in detail. The approaches to modelling perched rivers that are incorporated into saturated groundwater flow models based on these assumptions are likely to be adequate for regional scale models. To determine the accuracy of this simplified relationship. Under perched conditions the leakage from a river reaches a maximum value as the water table is lowered. This relationship between groundwater head and leakage from a river in a coupled surface water-groundwater system. this maximum leakage rate cannot be assumed to occur immediately as the water table falls below the bed of the river. that a bed separates the surface water from the aquifer. in which the detailed flow pattern beneath the river is not of interest. This should involve a literature review of the research undertaken to date and the simulations of different types of river-aquifer systems. The first aim is to investigate and verify the adequacy of the relationship between water table elevation and river leakage that is used to represent river-aquifer interaction in saturated groundwater flow models. The second objective is to highlight some of the tasks involved in the process of constructing an unsaturated groundwater flow model to contribute to the development of BGS best practice guidelines for numerical modelling. • The shape of the river channel. such as MODFLOW McDonald and Harbaugh. that it banks are vertical and impermeable and.IR/05/019 Summary The objectives of the modelling work are two-fold. which is included in MODFLOW and other saturated groundwater flow models. The shape of the curve describing the relationship between water table elevation and river leakage. which is implemented in MODFLOW and commonly applied in other saturated groundwater flow model codes. VS2DTI. The process of developing an unsaturated flow model using this software is described. • The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. River-aquifer interaction is usually represented in saturated groundwater flow models by a simple Darcian type leakage mechanism. iv .

2000). would form part of the best practice guidelines for numerical modelling being developed as part of the Digital Geoscience Spatial Model (DGSM) project.IR/05/019 1 Introduction This report has been produced as part of a short numerical modelling investigation into leakage between perched rivers and aquifers using the unsaturated zone simulation code VS2DTI (Hsieh et al. The second objective was to highlight some of the tasks involved in the process of constructing an unsaturated groundwater flow model. The objectives of the modelling work were two-fold. The first aim was to investigate and verify the adequacy of the relationship between water table elevation and river leakage that is used to represent river-aquifer interaction in saturated groundwater flow models. This would inform the further development of the groundwater flow models developed by BGS. the information from which.. 1 .

W is the width of the river (m). Impermeable banks Water table River stage River bed Aquifer Figure 1 Numerical model conceptualisation of river-aquifer interaction for an influent river with the water table above the river stage Figure 1 shows the condition in which the elevation of the water table is higher than the river stage. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model of a cross-section through a river. K is the hydraulic conductivity of the river bed (m day-1). Consequently. 2 . This representation of the river assumes that the river channel is rectangular. for example. the river stage and the hydraulic properties of the river. that it banks are vertical and impermeable and. the flow between the river and the aquifer is vertical.IR/05/019 2 Simulation of leakage from rivers River-aquifer interaction is usually represented in saturated groundwater flow models by a simple Darcian type leakage mechanism. h River is the river stage and. 1988). that river bed deposits separate the surface water from the aquifer. Whilst MODFLOW is only one of many saturated groundwater flow codes. The material composing the river bed is assigned a hydraulic conductivity (m day-1) and thickness (m). which depends on the head in the aquifer. In this case the river receives groundwater from the aquifer at a rate expressed by the Darcian flow equation: h River − h Aquifer Q = K × W × L× (Equation 1) B where: Q is the flow rate (m3day-1). it is the most commonly applied and therefore is used to illustrate how river-aquifer interaction is implemented in numerical models. L is the length of the river reach (m). which is included in MODFLOW (Macdonald and Harbaugh. B is the thickness of the river bed (m). h Aquifer is the head in the aquifer.

however. Equation 1 becomes: Q = C × (h River − h Aquifer ) (Equation 2) If the head in the aquifer falls below the river stage. is not the case when the water table falls below the base of the river bed and the river becomes perched. the contours of total groundwater head are near horizontal and consequently. In order to determine the leakage from the river under these conditions it is assumed in MODFLOW. Macdonald and Harbaugh (1988) state: “… that further lowering of the regional water table will not increase this gradient. that the vertical hydraulic gradient beneath the river is equal to unity. seepage from the stream must at some point become independent of head in the aquifer. the hydraulic gradient is reversed and the river recharges the aquifer. This assumption is supported by considering the flow condition represented in Figure 4. Under these conditions. Figure 2 shows the case in which the water table has fallen just below the river stage. In this case if the water table is assumed to be near vertical in the vicinity of the river. as that head continues to decline. This. the column of aquifer beneath the river may have become unsaturated causing the hydraulic conductivity to reduce. however. the linear relationship between head difference and river leakage is maintained and the numerical representation of this interaction process does not need to be modified in the saturated flow model code. In all situations. Consequently. other than the river stage and head in the aquifer. In this case.IR/05/019 For convenience. the vertical head gradient is approximately equal to one. Figure 2 Numerical model conceptualisation of river-aquifer interaction for an effluent river with the water table just below the river stage Figure 3 shows the situation in which the river has become perched due to the water table falling significantly below the bed of the river. are combined into a single conductance term. C. Thus. Figure 4 shows the condition where the regional water table has fallen far enough below the base of the river so that only a narrow column of saturated aquifer exists beneath the bed of the river. and because it is difficult to define the thickness of a river bed and its associated hydraulic conductivity. the terms on the right hand side of Equation 1. as it is in many saturated groundwater flow models. seepage from the stream is independent of further head decline in the aquifer. The situation shown in Figure 4 is itself an oversimplification of field conditions. Equation 2 still applies. with units of m2day-1. which may often involve complex patterns of saturated and unsaturated material beneath the stream. once a condition similar to that in Figure 4 is established.” 3 .

4 . • Consequently. which describes the leakage from the river under perched conditions. Macdonald and Harbaugh (1988). • To enable the correct representation of this maximum flow in the numerical model. This leakage is quantified and represented in MODFLOW using the following argument: • The hydraulic gradient beneath the aquifer is equal to unity when the river is perched. derive an approximate Darcian type equation. where Q Limit is the maximum flow between the river and the aquifer. W and L are the width and length of the river. respectively. the flow from the river to the aquifer is governed by the hydraulic properties of the aquifer beneath the river bed. K Aquifer is the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer beneath the river bed and. which occurs under perched conditions.IR/05/019 Z Base Figure 3 Numerical model conceptualisation of river-aquifer interaction for a perched river with the water table significantly below the river stage h=z Figure 4 Schematic diagram of assumptions of perched river conditions implemented in MODFLOW Using this assumption. • This flow can thus be expressed by Q Limit = K Aquifer × W × L . suppose that the difference in head between the river stage and the base of the river bed drives this flow under perched conditions (Figure 3).

it incorporates the simplifying assumptions that the hydraulic gradient beneath the river is equal to unity and that the width of the saturated column is equivalent to the width of the river. Though the accuracy of the representation of the flow 5 . • Thus. In this section the derivation of the relationship between groundwater head and leakage from a river in a coupled surface water-groundwater system has been derived. A. in this case the conductance of the river bed is equal to 1 day-1. the conductance terms in the two equations are different and depend on either the river bed or the aquifer hydraulic conductivity.IR/05/019 • An equivalent conductance. which shows the relationship between river leakage and water table elevation. this curve is often presented in the literature e. Section B represents the condition when the elevation of the water table is between the river stage and the base of the river bed and river water leaks to the aquifer. of the river bed (which applies under perched conditions only) can then be calculated by equating Q Limit and the head difference (h River − Z Base ) . Rushton (2003). The three sections. Equation 2 represents the mechanism when the water table is above the base of the river bed and Equation 3 is used when it is below it. As described above. based on Darcy’s equation. 5 4 A 3 2 1 Leakage rate (m3/day) B 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1 -2 Head / elevation (m) -3 River stage C Bottom of river bed. C Limit = Q Limit (h River − Z Base ) (Equation 3) Equations 2 and 3 are used to represent river-aquifer interaction under different water table elevations in MODFLOW and other saturated groundwater flow models. This simple relationship is implemented in MODFLOW and commonly applied in other saturated groundwater flow model codes. Section C represents the conditions when the river is perched and the water table is below the base of the river bed. In addition to being included in numerical models. Section A represents the condition when the water table is above the river stage and the river is influent. Whilst Equation 3 is commonly used to represent perched conditions in numerical models.g. B and C. shown in the figure represent the three types of flow condition which can operate in the aquifer. C Limit . Z-Base -4 Head versus leakage rate -5 Figure 5 Groundwater head versus river leakage relationship included in MODFLOW Equations 2 and 3 describe the curve plotted in Figure 5.

more accurate numerical models may be required. an assessment of the errors that can be produced when using the simplified relationships discussed above is required. developed by the USGS (Hsieh et al. The use of an unsaturated flow model to investigate the relationship between river leakage and groundwater head is described in the following sections of this report. The unsaturated flow model code used to simulate the coupled river-aquifer system is VS2DTI. To determine if this is the true. This is a graphical software package.IR/05/019 behaviour beneath the river channel is not likely to be important in regional groundwater models. The process of developing an unsaturated flow model using this software is described briefly in the next section. if models are to be used to simulate river- aquifer interaction in detail. 2000) for simulating fluid flow and solute transport in variably saturated porous media. 6 . This has been undertaken to assess if the shape of the curve shown in Figure 5 is accurate and to examine if the maximum leakage rates that the unsaturated models predict are in agreement with those calculated using Equation 3. where the near channel flow pattern is of little interest. This can be performed by simulating surface water- groundwater systems using unsaturated flow models to produce the groundwater head versus river leakage curve plotted in Figure 5..

3 CONSTRUCTING AN UNSATURATED FLOW MODEL The VS2DTI pre-processor interface and an example model are shown Figure 6. The installation procedure is simple and the software is accompanied by a clear set of help files in html format. some additional parameters have to be defined. The hydraulic properties of the dam are shown in Figure 6. These show the movement of the saturation front through the dam until steady-state conditions are reached. at no cost. Richards equation is expressed as: ∂ψ ∇ ⋅ K (ψ ) ∇H = C(ψ ) ∂t where K (ψ ) is the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity [LT-1].usgs. 2000).IR/05/019 3 Introduction to VS2DTI 3. The process of construction of an unsaturated flow model using VS2DTI is similar to that undertaken when developing a saturated flow model. Haverkamp et al. defined by the near triangular polygon representing the dam. During the simulation either a no-flow condition will be specified along this boundary or the pressure head will be set to zero. A regular finite difference mesh is superimposed onto the model domain.2 INSTALLING VS2DTI VS2DTI can be downloaded. The interface is used to run the simulation code VS2DT (Healy. The solute transport processes that can be simulated include advection. This shows a model used to simulate the flow through a dam fill. The right hand model boundary is represented as a seepage face. In addition to VS2DTI. The process of constructing an unsaturated model using VS2DTI is described in detail in Appendix 1.S. C(ψ ) is the specific moisture capacity [L-1].. The resulting pressure head profiles at four times during the simulation of the dam are shown in Figure 7. the flow and solute transport package. The initial condition is based on an equilibrium profile in which the pressure head is set to the negative of the elevation head. Lappala et al.. from the U. Geological Survey’s web site (http://water. first-order decay. VS2DTI is a graphical pre- processor and post-processor that is used to construct numerical models and analyse the results of simulations.1 BACKGROUND VS2DTI is a Windows based graphical software package for simulating flow and solute transport in unsaturated porous media in one or two dimensions. the condition along which cannot be defined a priori. adsorption and ion exchange (Hsieh et al.html) as part of VS2DI. However. 3. 3. 1987). The total head is specified as 10 m along the left hand model boundary and as 0 m in the bottom right hand corner of the model. The relationships between hydraulic conductivity and moisture content versus pressure head can be described using the methods presented by Brooks and Corey (1964). dispersion.gov/software/ground_water. H is the total head [L] and ψ is the pressure head [L]. 7 . VS2DHI. VS2DI also contains a similar code for simulating flow and energy transport in variably saturated media. which is a finite-difference model that solves the Richards (1931) equation for fluid flow and the advection dispersion equation for solute transport. (1977) or van Genuchten (1980). because of the relationships between pressure head and moisture content and between moisture content and hydraulic conductivity. 1990. Strictly.

IR/05/019 Figure 6 Example of the construction of a VS2DTI model of a dam 8 .

5 days. (b) 14 days. (c) 334 days and (d) 2000 days 9 .IR/05/019 a) b) c) d) Figure 7 Example VS2DTI post-processor output of simulated pressure head in dam after approximately (a) 0.

observation points could not placed at every node in the vertical in the thicker models. in which the elevation of the model base (equivalent to the water table elevation) is set to –25 m is shown in Figure 8. The river is 2 m wide. The river stage is set to 0 m in all models. eight models are built which are identical except for the elevation of their bottom boundary. 10 . -3. which is commonly applied in saturated groundwater models. which are assigned a saturated hydraulic conductivity of either 1 m day-1 or 0. respectively. with the saturated hydraulic conductivity set to 1 m day-1. 4. The bed of the river is represented by two layers of eight cells. Each model simulates an 864. which represents the water table. at each of which the total head. Observation points are defined along a vertical line below the river. The porosity is set to 25% throughout the model domain. In the first group the bed of the river is assigned the same hydraulic properties as the aquifer material. All models are 40 m wide and use a regular 0.000-second (10-day) period from an initially saturated condition by the end of which steady conditions have been reached.25 m square mesh. -4. –20 and -25 m. In each of the two groups. The models are split into two groups. -5. Because there is a limit on the maximum number of observation points that can be used. This involved examining if the maximum leakage rates that the unsaturated models predict are in agreement with those calculated using Equation 3. the saturated hydraulic conductivities of the river bed and aquifer are 0. In the second group the hydraulic conductivity of the river bed deposits is one-tenth of that of the aquifer medium for all pressure heads. pressure head and moisture content are recorded during the simulation period. The structure of one of the models. -15. -10.2 MODEL STRUCTURE To fulfil these objectives a number of similar models were built representing cross-sections through a river-aquifer system.IR/05/019 4 Unsaturated zone modelling of perched rivers 4.1 m day-1 and 1 m day-1.1 m day-1 (Figure 9).1 INTRODUCTION As described in Section 2 one of the objectives of the modelling was to use VS2DTI to derive the relationship between river leakage and the water table elevation to assess if the shape of the curve shown in Figure 5 is accurate. which are derived by assuming that the hydraulic gradient beneath the river is equal to unity and that the width of the saturated aquifer column is equal to the width of the river. This numerical modelling could then be used to quantify the errors involved in the simplistic saturated flow modelling methods. Models are constructed with water table elevations of -2.

impermeable river banks River bed cells (black) Observation points Figure 9 Structure of the VS2DTI model in the vicinity of the river 11 . Total head = river stage = 0 m No flow cells (white) representing vertical.IR/05/019 Specified total head boundary. Total head = river stage = 0 m Observation points Specified total head boundary. Total head = elevation of model base Figure 8 Structure of VS2DTI river model with the water table set at –25 m Specified total head boundary.

γ = 1 −1 β and. Figure 10 shows the van Genuchten parameters used in the models developed in this investigation. In all the river cross-section models the values of α and β are 0. Figure 10 Textural class parameters used to define river bed and aquifer hydraulic properties (Hydraulic conductivity values are defined in m3/sec) 12 . ψ < 0 : Se = 1 (1 − C ⋅ D ) −γ 2 (1+ αψ ) β γ Kr = Dγ 2 β −1 β C = αψ D =1 + αψ Saturated conditions .pressure head. Kr is the relative hydraulic conductivity (a dimensionless parameter). respectively. which are appropriate for a sandy medium when compared to values derived empirically from field samples (Stephens. This model defines the saturation and hydraulic conductivity as functions of the pressure head using the following expressions: Unsaturated conditions .0.pressure head. ψ ≥ 0 : Se =1 K r =1 where: Se is the effective saturation (a dimensionless parameter). Values for the van Genuchten parameters have been defined for different porous media but are not representative of hydraulic properties. α and β are the van Genuchten parameters derived from least squares fitting of the above equations to field data.2. 1996). the van Genuchten model is adopted.IR/05/019 4.3 and 3.1 Porous media hydraulic properties To define the relationships between pressure head and hydraulic conductivity and between pressure head and saturation.

specified using the van Genuchten model are shown in Figure 11 for α = 0.7 0.8 Relative hydralic conductivity 0. This shows the rapid drop in saturation and hydraulic conductivity with increasingly negative pressure heads.3 0.2 0.7 0.9 1 Saturation Figure 12 Relationship between saturation and relative hydraulic conductivity included in the VS2DTI river cross-section models 13 .0 .9 Relative hydraulic conductivity 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.IR/05/019 The relationships between pressure head and its two dependent variables.7 0.5 0. saturation and relative hydraulic conductivity.6 0.1 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Pressure he ad (m) Figure 11 Relationship between (i) pressure head and saturation and (ii) pressure head and relative hydraulic conductivity included in the VS2DTI river cross-section models 1 0.6 0. 1 Saturation Relative hydralic conductivity or saturation 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.4 0. The relationship between relative hydraulic conductivity and saturation specified using these parameters values is shown in Figure 12.2 0.4 0.3 and β = 3.3 0.

• Near saturated conditions are maintained just beneath the river in models with the higher bed conductivity. which is fully saturated in only two of the models.3 RESULTS 4. each of which has the same water table elevation.3. The following observations can be made about these sixteen pressure head distributions: • Pressure heads are higher (less negative) beneath the river when the river bed hydraulic conductivity is assigned the higher value of 1 m day-1. The aquifer only stays saturated beneath the river in the models in which the river bed deposits have the same hydraulic conductivity as that of the aquifer and in which the elevation of the water table is either –2 m or –3 m. • The lower river bed hydraulic conductivity results in less leakage to the aquifer for the same water table elevation and consequently. the results are shown for the model in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one-tenth that of the aquifer. These figures provide little quantitative information but are useful for visualising the flow pattern and pressure head distribution which is similar to the moisture content distribution. The dark blue colours represent area of the system where the pressure head is near to zero and the moisture content is near saturation.1 Simulated steady-state pressure head distributions Figures 13 to 28 show the pressure head distributions in each of the sixteen models at the end of the ten-day simulation period by which time steady-state conditions have been reached. The red colours represent high suctions (larger negative pressure heads) where the moisture content is near to the residual moisture content for the porous medium. In the first of each pair. In the second figure of the pair. from the river to the water table. • There is a vertical column. 14 . The sixteen figures are grouped into eight pairs. a lower moisture content in the aquifer. the figure relates to the model in which the river bed and aquifer hydraulic conductivity are the same. • The bell-shaped pressure head distribution indicates that flow occurs in both the horizontal and vertical direction.IR/05/019 4.

Water table elevation: –2 m. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 14 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.1 m day-1 15 . Water table elevation: –2 m. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –2 m Figure 13 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.

River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 16 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. Water table elevation: –3 m. Water table elevation: –3 m. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.1 m day-1 16 .IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –3 m Figure 15 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.

IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –4 m Figure 17 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 18 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0. Water table elevation: –4 m. Water table elevation: –4 m.1 m day-1 17 .

Water table elevation: –5 m. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –5 m Figure 19 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 20 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.1 m day-1 18 . Water table elevation: –5 m.

IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –10 m Figure 21 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. Water table elevation: –10 m. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 22 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.1 m day-1 19 . Water table elevation: –10 m.

River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 24 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –15 m Figure 23 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. Water table elevation: –15 m.1 m day-1 20 . Water table elevation: –15 m. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.

River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 26 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. Water table elevation: –20 m.1 m day-1 21 .IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –20 m Figure 25 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. Water table elevation: –20 m.

1 m day-1 22 . River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 Figure 28 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0. Water table elevation: –25 m. Water table elevation: –25 m.IR/05/019 Water table elevation: –25 m Figure 27 Simulated steady-state pressure head distribution.

t.t. The following observations can be made from these two figures: • The total head reduces with depth beneath the river and flow is vertically downwards. 0 Total head (w. • The curvature of the total head versus elevation plots at the top and bottom of the profiles is greater in the models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one-tenth of that of the aquifer material. • The total head is equal to the river stage at the top of the profile and equal to the water table elevation at the bottom of each profile.t.t. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 23 . at -25m) -10 Elevation (m) -15 -20 -25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Total head (m) Figure 29 Vertical variation of total head with elevation beneath the river.t. at -10m) Total head (w.t. at -15m) Total head (w. parts of the central sections of each of the curves are straight lines or near straight lines (where the total head gradient is equal to one). In Figure 30 the total head is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one-tenth of that of the aquifer material. at -2m) Total head (w. The exact points at which aquifer state variables were monitored during each of the simulations are shown in Figure 8.2 Vertical variation of total head In Figure 29 and 30 the total head is plotted at each of the nodes located on the vertical line directly beneath the centre of the river. In both the figures the curve is plotted for each of the simulations with different water table (w. • Towards the top of each profile the rate of decrease of total head is greater than 1 m per metre depth.) elevations.t. at -4m) Total head (w. at -20m) Total head (w. The total heads are plotted at the end of the 10-day simulation period when steady conditions have been reached.IR/05/019 4.3. • Towards the bottom of each profile the rate of decrease of total head is less than 1 m per metre depth. This indicates that pressure head decreases (becomes more negative) and moisture content reduces just below the river bed. at -5m) -5 Total head (w. In Figure 29 the total head is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is the same as that of the aquifer. at -3m) Total head (w.t.t. • In the models with lower water table elevations. This indicates that pressure head increases (becomes less negative) and moisture content rises near the water.

1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity) 4. The following observations can be made from these two figures: • Towards the top of each profile the total head gradient is greater than one. at -2m) Total head (w. • The head gradients are significantly higher just beneath the river in the models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one-tenth of that of the aquifer. In both the figures the curve is plotted for each of the simulations with different water table (w. Over these sections moisture content and pressure head are also constant and the total head varies because of the change in elevation head only.t. • Towards the bottom of each profile the total head gradient is less than one. at -10m) Total head (w.t.t. In Figure 32 the total head gradient is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one- tenth of that of the aquifer material. at -3m) Total head (w. This indicates that pressure head increases (becomes less negative) and moisture content rises near the water table.3. at -15m) Total head (w.3 Vertical variation of total head gradient In Figure 31 and 32 the total head gradient is plotted at each of the nodes located on the vertical line directly beneath the centre of the river. at -20m) Total head (w.t. 24 .t. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0.t. • The head gradients are constant and equal to one over only small sections of the profile in the models with lower water table elevations.t.IR/05/019 0 Total head (w.t. The curves are based on the total heads at the end of the 10-day simulation period when steady conditions have been reached as shown in Figures 29 and 30. at -4m) Total head (w. at -25m) -10 Elevation (m) -15 -20 -25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Total head (m) Figure 30 Vertical variation of total head with elevation beneath the river. In Figure 31 the total head gradient is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is the same as that of the aquifer. at -5m) -5 Total head (w.) elevations.t. This indicates that pressure head decreases (becomes more negative) and moisture content reduces just below the river bed. head gradients of up to 7 m per metre are simulated.

at -10m) dH/dZ (w. at -4m) -20 dH/dZ (w. at -2m) dH/dZ (w.1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity) 25 . at -5m) dH/dZ (w.t.t. at -2m) dH/dZ (w.t. at -15m) dH/dZ (w.t.t.t.t.t. at -5m) dH/dZ (w. at -15m) dH/dZ (w.t. at -4m) -20 dH/dZ (w. at -25m) -25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total head gradient (m) Figure 31 Vertical variation of total head gradient with elevation beneath the river. at -25m) -25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total head gradient (m) Figure 32 Vertical variation of total head gradient with elevation beneath the river.IR/05/019 0 -5 Elevation (m) -10 -15 dH/dZ (w. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 0 -5 -10 Elevation (m) -15 dH/dZ (w.t.t. at -3m) dH/dZ (w.t. at -20m) dH/dZ (w. at -20m) dH/dZ (w.t. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0. at -10m) dH/dZ (w. at -3m) dH/dZ (w.t.t.t.

t.) elevations.t. In both the figures the curve is plotted for each of the simulations with different water table (w. at -20m) Saturation (w.t. The following observations can be made from these two figures: • The saturations are higher in the models with the higher river bed hydraulic conductivity.4 Vertical variation of saturation In Figure 33 and 34 the saturation is plotted at each of the nodes located on the vertical line directly beneath the centre of the river. at -15m) Saturation (w. at -25m) -10 Elevation (m) -15 -20 -25 0.t. 0 Saturation (w. the total head gradient equal to one. • The saturation reduces to a minimum below the river before rising to a value of one at the water table. at -10m) Saturation (w. Only over these sections is the pressure head constant and consequently.t.8 0. • The saturation is constant over a relatively short section of the vertical profiles. at -3m) Saturation (w.3.t. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 26 . The curves are based on the saturations at the end of the 10-day simulation period when steady conditions have been reached.t. • The lowest saturations are simulated in the models with the lowest water table elevations. In these models more water can leak from the river. In Figure 34 the saturation is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one-tenth of that of the aquifer material. at -2m) Saturation (w.t.6 0. at -5m) -5 Saturation (w.9 1 Saturation Figure 33 Vertical variation of saturation with elevation beneath the river.7 0. • In the models with a saturated river bed hydraulic conductivity of 1 m day-1 the moisture content is near saturation over the whole depth profile for water table elevations higher than –5 m. In Figure 33 the saturation is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is the same as that of the aquifer.t. at -4m) Saturation (w.IR/05/019 4.

1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity) 4. at -10m) Saturation (w.t. In both the figures the curve is plotted for each of the simulations with different water table (w. • The highest suctions are simulated in the models with the lowest water table elevations. In these models more water can leak from the river. • The pressure head is constant over a relatively short section of the vertical profiles.t.5 Vertical variation of pressure head In Figure 35 and 36 the pressure head is plotted at each of the nodes located on the vertical line directly beneath the centre of the river. In Figure 36 the pressure head is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one-tenth of that of the aquifer material.) elevations.6 0. The curves showing the vertical variation of pressure head are similar to those for moisture content. The following observations can be made from these two figures: • The pressure heads are highest (least negative) in the models with the higher river bed hydraulic conductivity. at -25m) -10 Elevation (m) -15 -20 -25 0.7 0.9 1 Saturation Figure 34 Vertical variation of saturation with elevation beneath the river.3. The curves are based on the pressure heads at the end of the 10-day simulation period when steady conditions have been reached.IR/05/019 0 Saturation (w. • The pressure head reduces with depth below the river to a minimum before rising to a value of zero at the water table. at -3m) Saturation (w.t. the total head gradient equal to one. at -20m) Saturation (w.t. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0. In Figure 35 the pressure head is plotted for the each of the eight models in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is the same as that of the aquifer. at -5m) -5 Saturation (w.t.t. Only over these sections is the moisture content constant and consequently.t. at -4m) Saturation (w.t. 27 . at -15m) Saturation (w. at -2m) Saturation (w.t.8 0.

at -2m) Pressure head (w.t. at -2m) Pressure head (w.IR/05/019 0 Pressure head (w. at -25m) -10 Elevation (m) -15 -20 -25 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 Pressure head (m) Figure 36 Vertical variation of pressure head with elevation beneath the river.t. River bed saturated hydraulic conductivity: 0. River bed and aquifer saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 0 Pressure head (w.t. at -15m) Pressure head (w. at -20m) Pressure head (w.t.t.t.t.1 m day-1 (one-tenth of aquifer’s conductivity) 28 . at -10m) Pressure head (w. at -10m) Pressure head (w. at -4m) Pressure head (w. at -5m) -5 Pressure head (w.t.t.t. at -4m) Pressure head (w.t.t. at -15m) Pressure head (w.t.t. at -25m) Elevation (m) -10 -15 -20 -25 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 Pressure head (m) Figure 35 Vertical variation of pressure head with elevation beneath the river.t. at -3m) Pressure head (w. at -3m) Pressure head (w.t. at -20m) Pressure head (w. at -5m) -5 Pressure head (w.

Rushton.E+00 1. However.E-05 8. These modelled curves could then be compared with that presented in Figure 5 based on the assumptions described in Section 2 i.e.E-05 4.E-05 3 Inflow (m /second) Figure 37 Simulated water table elevation versus river leakage (inflow) for two model scenarios Whilst these curves correspond to those described in the literature (MacDonald and Harbaugh. 29 .e. from the constant total head cells representing the river. As the water table falls below the river bed the leakage from the river approaches a limiting value. but at lower water table elevations of approximately –5 to –10 m.E-05 2. the maximum leakage does not occur when the water table is just below the bed of the river.E-05 7. The curves could be constructed using VS2DTI because the code provides information on the flow across the model boundaries i.IR/05/019 4.E-05 9.E-05 6. The curves of water table elevation against river leakage are plotted in Figure 37 for the model in which the saturated hydraulic conductivity is uniform throughout the system and the model in which the hydraulic conductivity of the river bed is one-tenth of that of the aquifer.E-05 5.3. For lower water table elevations the total head gradient is equal to one along a section of the vertical profile beneath the river. 1988. which in this case is below –1 m. 2003).1 m/day) -25 0. 0 -5 Water table elevation (m) -10 -15 -20 Modelled (River bed K = 1 m/day) Modelled (River bed K = 0.6 Water table elevation versus river leakage One of the main objectives of the modelling was to use VS2DTI to construct graphs showing the relationship between water table elevation and river leakage for two rivers with different bed hydraulic conductivities. The curves are of a similar shape to that presented in Figure 5.E-05 3. predicting the their exact shape is difficult because of the complex pattern of unsaturated flow beneath the river which incorporates the following features: • The total head gradient across the river is greater than one for all water table elevations in these two models. • The total head gradient is equal to one at some point along the vertical profile beneath the river bed. that a unit hydraulic gradient exists beneath the river under perched conditions and that the width of the column of water beneath the river (which is assumed to be saturated) can be assumed to be the same as the width of the channel.

30 . Given these features. If the hydraulic properties and geometry of the river are known estimates can be made based on simplified assumptions. the question arises of whether it is possible to estimate the maximum leakage rate from the two rivers represented in this modelling investigation prior to running the simulations. It is approximately equal to the channel width (where the vertical total hydraulic gradient is greater than one) just below the river but widens with depth. In the next section such estimates are made and compared to those obtained using the numerical models.IR/05/019 • A continuous vertical total head gradient equal to one indicates that the pressure head and moisture content are constant. • The width of the flowing column of water from the river to the water table is not constant.

as shown by the modelling.1×10-5 m3 sec-1. This gives an estimate for the maximum river leakage of: 1 Q Limit = × 2 ×1 = 2.0×10-5 m3 sec-1.3 ×10 −5 m 3 / sec 86400 The relationship between water table elevation and river leakage based on this value is plotted in Figure 38 in addition to the two modelled curves. In the second method it is assumed that the total head is equal to the elevation head just beneath the river and the maximum leakage is calculated by considering the flow through the river bed only. Because this method of estimating the maximum leakage from the river does not take into consideration the hydraulic properties of the river it is the same for all river bed hydraulic conductivity values. 5. This is because the total head gradient just beneath the river. could be estimated by assuming that assuming that the vertical total hydraulic gradient in the aquifer is equal to one and that the width of the column of vertically flowing water is equal to that of the river channel. is always slightly greater than unity and the aquifer medium remains near to saturation. This is the approach described in Section 2.IR/05/019 5 Estimating leakage rates from perched rivers In the two models described above the saturated river bed hydraulic conductivity is either 1 m day-1 or 0. L is the length of the river reach (1 m as the models represent cross-sections through the channel). QLimit. In the first method the maximum leakage is estimated by assuming that the vertical total hydraulic gradient in the aquifer is equal to one and that the width of the column of vertically flowing water is equal to the river channel width. In the model with the higher river bed hydraulic conductivity the maximum river leakage is computed to be 8. In the model with the lower river bed hydraulic conductivity the maximum river leakage is computed to be 2. In this section two methods are used to estimate the maximum river bed leakage assuming that only the saturated hydraulic properties of the aquifer and the geometry of the river are known. the estimated value is lower than that simulated by the numerical model. In this case. W is the width of the river (2 m) and. Compared to the case in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is the same as that of the aquifer medium. the simple Darcian calculation reduces to: Q Limit = K Aquifer × W × L where: KAquifer is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (1 m day-1 or 1/86400 m sec-1). 31 .1 CONSIDERING FLOW THROUGH THE AQUIFER As described in Section 2 the maximum leakage from a perched river.1 m day-1.

However.E-05 2. for the case in which the river bed hydraulic conductivity is one- tenth of that of the aquifer. For the case where the river bed hydraulic conductivity is the same as that of the aquifer material. that the total head is equal to the elevation head at this point. A second method by which the maximum rate of leakage from the river could be estimated is through a consideration of the river bed only.E-05 8.25 River bed hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 or 0. 32 .5 = 2.IR/05/019 0 Water table elevation (m) -5 -10 -15 Modelled (River bed K = 1 m/day) -20 Modelled (River bed K = 0.E-05 6.E-05 4. the estimated value of maximum leakage is approximately four times less than that simulated. The values used to calculate the flow rate are shown in Figure 39 and are: Total head gradient: 1. The relationships between water table elevation and river leakage based on these estimates are plotted in Figure 40 in addition to those calculated using the numerical models. It could be assumed that the moisture content just beneath the river bed is very near to saturation and consequently. If this is the case.E-05 3 Inflow (m /second) Figure 38 Comparison of the simulated water table elevation versus river leakage curves with the estimated curve based on the consideration of flow through the aquifer under an assumed unit hydraulic gradient 5. then a simple Darcian calculation can be made to estimate the flow rate based on the head difference across the river bed.E-05 3. the numerical modelling has shown that the river bed hydraulic conductivity does affect the leakage to the aquifer under perched conditions in these example river-aquifer systems.E-05 9.1 m/day) Estimated -25 0.1 m day-1 River width: 2 m River channel length: 1 m The values for maximum leakage rate calculating using these parameter values are listed in Table 1.E-05 5. However. the difference between the estimated and simulated values is not significantly large.125/0. the width of the river and its conductivity. The values obtained using this method are both underestimates of those simulated by the two numerical models.E-05 7.E+00 1.2 CONSIDERING FLOW THROUGH THE RIVER-BED The previous method of estimating the maximum leakage from a river does not depend on the properties of the river bed.

1 × 10-5 5. the hydraulic conductivity does not reduce significantly and the moisture content remains near to saturation in both model scenarios. Even though the aquifer is unsaturated just beneath the river.5 m h = z = -1.0 × 10-5 5.125 m K = 1 or 0.1 m day-1 2.2 × 10-5 River bed hydraulic conductivity: 0. 2m h=0m 0.IR/05/019 The estimated values of flow are less than those simulated because the vertical total hydraulic gradient across and just beneath the river bed is greater than the assumed value.1 m/day Figure 39 River channel structure and hydraulic properties showing the assumption that the pressure head is equal to zero just below the river bed Table 1 Comparison of the simulated and estimated maximum leakage rates from the river based on the consideration of the flow through the river bed Modelled flow Estimated flow m3/sec m3/sec River bed hydraulic conductivity: 1 m day-1 8.2 × 10-6 33 .

E-05 7.E-05 3.E-05 8.E-05 5.E-05 9.1 m/day) Estimated (River -20 bed K = 1 m/day) Estimated (K = 0.IR/05/019 0 Water table elevation (m) -5 -10 Modelled (River -15 bed K = 1 m/day) Modelled (River bed K = 0.E-05 3 Inflow (m /second) Figure 40 Comparison of the simulated water table elevation versus river leakage curves with the estimated curves based on the consideration of flow through the river bed 34 .E-05 4.E-05 6.E-05 2.1 m/day) -25 0.E+00 1.

Under perched conditions the leakage from a river does tend towards a maximum value. • The thickness of the river bed deposits. which will affect the width of the column of vertically flowing water. Models of only two different river-aquifer systems have been developed in this investigation: (i) a homogeneous system represented by a single porous medium and (ii) the same system containing a lower permeability river bed. to investigate the influence of the vertical variation of horizontal hydraulic conductivity in Chalk aquifers. thus assign a river bed conductance. A thorough search of the literature would be beneficial. which is included in MODFLOW and other saturated groundwater flow models. it is difficult to estimate the maximum leakage from a river and. However. The approach to modelling perched rivers that is incorporated into saturated groundwater flow models based on these assumptions is likely to be adequate for regional scale models. is similar to that which is predicted by the unsaturated flow simulation code. prior to running a saturated flow model. The influence of the shape of the river channel has not been addressed in this modelling work but is worthy of investigation. However. • The shape of the river channel. • The pressure head-moisture content and hydraulic conductivity-moisture content relationships for the porous media. 35 . • The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer.IR/05/019 6 Conclusions and recommendations This numerical modelling has illustrated that the shape of the curve describing the relationship between water table elevation and river leakage. These models could include the representation of heterogeneous or anisotropic aquifers with different river channel geometries and varying river stages. the construction of models to simulate typical hydrogeological settings found in UK river catchments would be worthwhile. Whilst the shape of the water table elevation versus river leakage curve is adequately described by two straight lines (as in Figure 5). In this case the detailed flow pattern beneath the river is not of interest and the river bed conductance is essentially only a “calibration parameter” but with some basis on the experience of other similar catchments. The nature of the relationship between water table elevation and river leakage would again be of interest. The simulation of a river channel in which flow occurs through its banks will result in different moisture content distributions and may reduce vertical hydraulic gradients beneath the river. • The width and length of the river channel. • The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the river bed and the aquifer. this maximum leakage rate cannot be assumed to occur immediately as the water table falls below the bed of the river. The rate of leakage from a perched river is complex and governed by the following features: • The river stage and water table elevation. Layered aquifers may be of particular interest for example. It has only been possible to review the literature briefly during this work. this will not be the case for the simulation of channel scale river-aquifer interaction processes. VS2DTI. The assumptions that it is solely the aquifer that governs the rate of flow to the water table and that this occurs through a saturated column with a width that is equivalent to that of the river is simplistic. The number of different types of river-aquifer systems that could be simulated is infinite. However.

the installation and use of VS2DTI for the simulation of unsaturated flow systems and. Though it could be argued that unsaturated zone models are difficult to parameterise and thus verify. their application to simple systems is of major benefit in terms of gaining a better understanding of the processes operating. has proved to be straightforward.IR/05/019 Finally. the interpretation of its results. 36 .

RW. M. Groundwater hydrology. EP. 1990. p. AT. England. RH AND COREY. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. AW. 892-898. VAN GENUCHTEN. v. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. Conceptual and computational models. no. (2000). 1987. 44.S. 1996. W AND HEALY. PA. WINGLE. 5. U. HEALY. Simulation of solute transport in variably saturated porous media with supplemental information on modifications to the U. RW. U. 27 p. RUSHTON.S. DB. WIERENGA. Hydraulic properties of porous media: Fort Collins. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4025. Capillary conduction of liquids in porous mediums. MCDONALD. TH.M. 1 . p. R. G. 285-294.S. 41. Chichester. J. TOVINA. HAVERKAMP. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4099. 3. RW. Vadose zone hydrology. HEALY. Physics. PJ AND VACHUD. 2003.S. KR.318. MODFLOW: A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. LAPPALA. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 9. New York. 1964. (1988). VS2DI – A graphical software package for simulating fluid flow and solute transport or energy transport in variably saturated porous media. EG. L. RICHARDS. 576. Colorado State University Hydrology Paper no. Lewis Publishers. M. MG AND HARBAUGH. Documentation of computer program VS2D to solve the equations of fluid flow in variably saturated porous media: U. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. v.IR/05/019 References BROOKS. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations. 37 .S. A comparison of numerical simulation models for one-dimensional infiltration. 1980. HSIEH. VAUCLIN. 06-A1. 1931. 9-4130. U. Geological Survey's Computer Program VS2D. STEPHENS. 1977. AND WEEKS.

or moisture content distribution. the equilibrium profile. 1.e. The condition along a seepage face can switch between these two types during a simulation. Model units used for length. Specify parameters relating to fluid flow a. 8. 6. 11. Define the basic model parameters. pressure head. b. saturation and concentration (if transport is simulated) are recorded over time. Set up the model drawing area and draw the model domain using the polygon drawing tools. 9. Brooks-Corey. A textural class defines the hydraulic and transport properties of a porous medium in the model domain. If a seepage face is defined. b. time and mass. Specify the textural classes. The simulation of solute transport is not considered. the condition will not be known a priori. evaporation/transpiration or a seepage face. Specify the recharge periods which are time periods when the boundary conditions and stresses remain unchanged. 13. Draw polygons relating to the regions of different textural class. 3.IR/05/019 Appendix 1 Steps involved in constructing an unsaturated flow model using VS2DTI The process of constructing an unsaturated flow model using VS2DTI is described by the following procedure. moisture content and hydraulic conductivity: van Genuchten. Haverkamp or Tabular Data. Run the model and analyse the results using the post-processor or text output files. Define the parameters relating to the numerical solution process. 38 . specified flux (L/T). Specify which hydraulic characteristic function is being used to define the relationship between pressure head and. Specify the boundary conditions. pressure head. moisture content. Co-ordinate system to be used: radial or Cartesian. Specify parameters controlling the writing of model output. 10. Whether simulating transport or not. but the boundary will either be impermeable or the pressure head will be set to zero along it. pressure head or moisture content distribution. 2. specified volumetric flow rate (L3/T). specified total head. c. 4. This involves specifying the following: a. 7. Construct the finite difference mesh. Specify the location of observation points where total head. 12. These may be either no-flow. specified pressure head. Specify the initial hydraulic condition i. 5. Specify the method for calculating the inter-cell relative hydraulic conductivity. c. Specify the type of initial hydraulic condition: equilibrium profile.

- Modelado de Elementos Finitos de Drenaje Subsuperficial en Suelos Finos de Arcilla FinlandesaUploaded byCésar Lifonzo
- Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus using variations in transmissivity and RQD with depth.pdfUploaded bymdanieeeel
- Koefisien KeUploaded byAmelia Husnan
- le4ct1Uploaded byAhmed
- MPRWA Agenda Packet 7-29-15Uploaded byL. A. Paterson
- Lecture 4Uploaded byMong
- BAO Approved USGS Review Criss Letter v1.1Uploaded bybpiper9318
- Development of Grouting Technique - Stop Criteria and Field TestsUploaded byVinodh Kumar Yalla
- Darcy's Law Exercise and ProblemsUploaded byWandy Gunawan
- Engineering Geology Field Manual Volume I Chap09Uploaded byLibAmau
- USEPA Groundwater Development SOP Pt 18Uploaded byumm_mike
- Assignment 3Uploaded bySANDEEP SINGH
- Shrestha and ShresthaUploaded byCentral Department of Geology
- Upflow ManualUploaded byReno Sulbakti
- How to Set Up Dewatering Plan for ExcavationsUploaded byNaveen Bansal
- 2 SoilProperties HayesUploaded byNiiteSajo
- A River for Jaffna -By S. ArumugamUploaded byMuttiah Yathindra
- 2._Chapter_1_–_5Uploaded byPriÑcé Ȝßōðđy
- Water Availability and UseUploaded byMarie Garner
- 2-SoilProperties-Hayes.pptUploaded byAbdul Kabasy
- seepage-3Uploaded byahmad
- Groundwater Temperature Sierra de Las NievesUploaded byMuhammad Irfa'udin
- Listing and DescriptionUploaded byioanciornei
- tmp5656.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- Surges in PipelinesUploaded byRaghuveer Rao Pallepati
- grim163-237Uploaded byanar
- Ae 37-2008 NotificationUploaded byKishore Damarasetti
- Chap14Uploaded bynelbru
- 10 - Drainage Symposium Sardaigne Presentation AnglaisUploaded bybelaveloso
- M1.pdfUploaded byZenite Carvalho Leal

- Pumping Test ProceduresUploaded bymaribo2005
- airlift_testing_in_exploration_coreholes_rlh_final.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- AquiferTest Pro HelpUploaded bymaribo2005
- 0140-BirchUploaded bymaribo2005
- seep modeling.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- Acoustic and optical borehole imaging for fractured.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- 1116_1_02.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- 10.1.1.948.3163Uploaded bymaribo2005
- JAG_2004.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- Fc ExampleUploaded bymaribo2005
- A_Simple_Approach_to_Managing_Dewatering.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- Aquifer PropsUploaded bymaribo2005
- 906969 Aquifer Testing GuidanceUploaded bymaribo2005
- Fc ExampleUploaded bymaribo2005
- CMartinez Modelling Fractured Rock Heterogeneity in Open Pit May 2016 0Uploaded bymaribo2005
- Nitrates SummaryUploaded bymaribo2005
- Hydrogeology and Human Health_2017Uploaded bymaribo2005
- LA UR 05 6741 Conceptual Model 050818 LaurUploaded bymaribo2005
- Chapter 5 - Groundwater Well Design.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- Hydrogeology and human health_2017.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- Review Occurrence of the Pathogenic Amoeba Naegleria 2017Uploaded bymaribo2005
- 010Murray,WUploaded bymaribo2005
- 1116_1_02Uploaded bymaribo2005
- 762900715Uploaded bymaribo2005
- Example 2Uploaded bymaribo2005
- Chapter 3 - Groundwater Flow to Wells.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- 889766.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- A_Simple_Approach_to_Managing_Dewatering.pdfUploaded bymaribo2005
- 134Uploaded bymaribo2005