What’s On The Menu?

Finite Difference Finite Element Finite Volume

Wayne Hesch
Waterloo Hydrogeologic
2013 NGWA Summit
 Outline
• Numerical Methods
– Pros/Cons of Each Method
– What Factors Go Into Deciding What Method to Use?
• Challenges of Numerical Modeling
• Conceptual Approach to Groundwater Modeling
– Improving model acceptance/credibility
– Communicating models to non-modelers
• Example
 Take Home Points
• Don’t count out Finite Volume methods
– MODFLOW-USG is a game-changer; it combines
MODFLOW processes and packages with Finite
Element flexibility
• A Conceptual Approach to Modeling lets you…
– Present clear, concise results to stakeholders
– Evaluate several numerical models/methods
– Identify vulnerabilities, minimize uncertainty
• Find and choose the best numerical model
 Numerical Methods - Overview
Finite Difference Finite Element Finite Volume
MODFLOW FEFLOW MODFLOW-USG
Structured, Rectilinear Grids Triangular meshes Unstructured grids
(varying geometries)

Image Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rectilinear_grid.svg

http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wctg/netanal/honeycomb.gif
 MODFLOW
Strengths
• Widely used and accepted
• Open Source
• Well-documented
• FD solution is easy to
understand
• Mass conservative
• Numerous packages and
extensions available: PEST,
transport, particle tracking…
Weaknesses
• Inefficient grid refinement
• Not ideal for complex
geology (can have
disconnected cells)
• No local refinement for
wells and boundaries
• Limited representation of
anisotropy (conductivity
must be perpendicular to
grid cell faces)
 MODFLOW-LGR
Strengths
• Refine only in the area of
interest
• Local horizontal and vertical
refinement
• Two-way feedback between
the coarse and local grids --
consistent boundary
conditions along their
adjoining interface
• Easy to design local (child)
grids
Weaknesses
• No contaminant transport
between the parent/local
grids
• Only 9 Child Grid Regions –
not suited for refining
around flow boundaries or
individual wells
• File management – multiple
MODFLOW models (one for
parent and each child
grid(s))
 FEFLOW
Strengths
• Efficient mesh refinement
around wells and boundaries
• Variable stratigraphy
(sloping/pinchout layers)
• Versatile discretization of non-
rectangular model domains
• Representation of anisotropy
(each element fully represents
the conductivity tensor)
Weaknesses
• Local mass conservation is
not guaranteed
• Discontinuous velocities at
element boundaries
=>difficult to determine
unique pathlines
• Proprietary
• Steep learning curve
 MODFLOW-USG (Finite Volume)
• A new version of MODFLOW that uses
Un-Structured Grids
• Follows a Control Volume Finite Difference
formulation
• Discretize the model domain using triangular,
rectangular, or polygon-shaped geometries
 MODFLOW-USG
Strengths Weaknesses
• Flexible Grid Geometry • New!
– Refine around wells and
boundaries • Acceptance / Adoptance?
– Variable stratigraphy
• Not all add-on packages are
• Mass-conservative, robust and
efficient solutions supported (yet)
• Follows MODFLOW notation – Transport, UZF, …
– for most packages • Learning curve?
• Open source
• Efficient vertical gridding (sub-
layering)
• A framework for coupling
other processes (conduits,
fractures via CLN package,....)
 What Factors Decide What Tool to Use?
Technical Non-technical
• What processes have to be • Client/regulator
simulated requirements
• Data requirements • Company/organizational
standard
• In-house expertise
• Available Licenses/GUIs
• Cost
CHALLENGES OF NUMERICAL
MODELING
Challenges of Numerical Modeling
• First: Choose the Simulator
– FD, FE, or FV? Which one is best?
– Cannot change simulator mid-stream XS: Deformed Grid

• Second: Design Grid/Mesh

– Size? Type? Spacing?
– Deformed or Non-conforming layers?
XS: Uniform Grid
• Third: Assign parameters the grid/mesh
– If grid is modified, often need to adjust the inputs,
through several iterations… Inefficient!
 Consequences of Poor Decisions in
Numerical Modeling
• Wrong simulator
– Reach limits of the code capabilities
– Model instabilities, errors, long runtimes
RESULT: Re-design model in a new code… lost time/costs
• Inappropriate grid design
– Model instabilities, errors, long runtimes
– Inadequate resolution (eg. transport simulations)
RESULT: Re-design the grid and re-assign input
parameters, or re-create the model… lost time/costs
Model reliability/credibility is questioned
CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO
GROUNDWATER MODELING
 Conceptual Model
• Define the Geological Structure, Properties,
and Boundary Conditions with GIS shapes and
attributes
• Simulator-Independent
– Convert to MODFLOW, FEFLOW, or MODFLOW-USG
• Grid-Independent
– Generate multiple numerical grids or meshes
 Correlate Numerical Models to Conceptual Model

Conceptual
Model
Unstructured
Grid
Uniform Grid Deformed Grid
 Multiple Property Realizations
Conceptual Property Zones

60 cols
60 rows

140 cols
140 rows

3:1 Child
Grid
Refinement
Multiple Boundary Condition Realizations
Conceptual 28 cols
Boundary Conditions 27 rows
3 layers

186 cols
190 rows 85 cols
3 layers 117 rows
3 layers
 Benefits of Conceptual Modeling
• The decision of what numerical method to use is
delayed until later in the modeling workflow
• Allows the modeler to generate a range of
numerical models, with different grids/meshes,
for different simulators
– With a purely numerical modeling approach, this is
typically not practical due to the required time/effort,
and constraints on budgets for modeling projects
• The modeler can identify vulnerabilities in each
numerical method and reduce uncertainty of the
assumptions/predictions as a whole
How to improve model acceptance/credibility

• Evaluate several hypotheses

– Different simulators (FD, FE, FV)
Scenario1
– Different grid types/parameters
– Varying boundary condition assumptions
• Present results from a variety of
numerical representations, not just one Scenario2

– Run 10’s (100’s?) of numerical models for

the site (Stochastic Approach)
• Using Cloud resources similar to PEST runs?
Scenario3
 Effectively communicating models to stakeholders

• Correlate Conceptual Model to

Numerical Model (2D, 3D, transient)
• Inputs:
– Correlate model layers to cross-
sections/borehole logs
– Gridded property zones to GIS data
– Boundaries to GIS/raster data, transient
parameters
• Outputs:
– Interpret head/flux contours and pathlines
traveling through multiple hydrogeological
formations
Example: Evaluating Several Numerical Methods
Conceptual Model: 2D Example, homogenous unconfined aquifer,
river, two pumping wells, and constant head boundary conditions

Finite Difference Finite Element Finite Volume

MODFLOW FEFLOW MODFLOW-USG

Example: Mass Balance Comparison
MODFLOW-2005-fine USG-fine FEFLOW-fine
2000

1800
Cumulative Mass Balance (m3/d)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Const. Head River Leakage TOTAL IN Const. Head Wells (OUT) River Leakage TOTAL OUT
(IN) (IN) (OUT) (OUT)
 Summary
• Don’t count out Finite Volume methods
• MODFLOW-USG provides capabilities similar
to Finite Element methods, with familiarity of
MODFLOW packages/conventions
• Short-term concerns
– Acceptance/adoptance
– Learning curve
– Lengthy development cycles
 Summary
• Conceptual Approach to Groundwater Modeling:
– Overcomes many of the challenges of traditional
numerical modeling
• Allows the modeler to..
– Evaluate several numerical models/methods
– Identify vulnerabilities, minimize uncertainty
– Choose the best numerical model
– Improve credibility and reliability
– Present clear, concise results to stakeholders
 Acknowledgements
• Sorab Panday: USG slides/figures
• Serguei Chmakov: SLB, USG grid examples and
benchmarking results
Thank You.
Questions?