^å=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=ãÉíÜçÇ=Ñçê=ÅçãéìíáåÖ=ÖêçìåÇï~íÉê
êÉëáÇÉåÅÉ=íáãÉë
H.-J. G. Diersch
WASY Institute for Water Resources Planning and Systems Research, Berlin, Germany
N ^å=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=ãÉíÜçÇ=Ñçê=ÅçãéìíáåÖ=ÖêçìåÇï~íÉê=êÉëáÇÉåÅÉ=íáãÉë
NKN fåíêçÇìÅíáçå
The computation of residence (travel) times of dis-
solved solutes in the groundwater body or the determi-
nation of the groundwater age is traditionally
performed by particle tracking methods1,2,6 based on
the advective pore velocity distributions. Unfortu-
nately, such type of technique provides only point-
related information about the groundwater age in form
of isochrones and, furthermore, neglects effects of
hydrodynamic dispersion. A certain expedient can pro-
vide random work techniques6. However, they are
again point-related approaches and are often time-con-
suming, especially for 3D applications, since a large
number of particles are needed to obtain representative
results for practical requirements.
Recently Goode5 has proposed an interesting alter-
native in contrast to the above traditional approaches.
Its method is capable of computing the groundwater
age in a direct manner (practically in one step) at any
points of the model domain. Additionally, it includes
effects of the advection, diffusion and dispersion pro-
cesses. Goode’s method can be immediately performed
«aef=ö=ïïïKãáâÉéçïÉêÉÇÄóÇÜáKÅçã
N
by FEFLOW3 provided the basic variables, parameters
and boundary conditions are appropriately chosen.
Goode’s direct simulation strategy has taken over by
Perrochet7,4 and was successfully applied to practical
tasks by using FEFLOW. In the following the direct
age simulation strategy will be described in some
detail, which can be adapted by each FEFLOW user.
The main advantages of this approach can be summa-
rized as follows:
• It can be performed by FEFLOW in utilizing the
embodied modeling features.
• Both 2D and 3D problems are easily applicable.
• The method is effective and can be simply han-
dled.
• It also includes effects of mechanical dispersion
and diffusion.
• It can also be applied to transient flow conditions.
NKO qê~åëéçêí=bèì~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ
dêçìåÇï~íÉê=^ÖÉ
For a steady-state flow field the mean residence
time (’age’) A [d] can be determined from the concen-
cbcilt=ö=N
NK=^å=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=ãÉíÜçÇ=Ñçê=ÅçãéìíáåÖ=ÖêçìåÇï~íÉê=êÉëáÇÉåÅÉ=íáãÉë

tration C [mg/l] of a tracer injected as an impulse at equation the age source is B , where B corresponds to
time zero5. Accordingly, at any point in the model the thickness of the aquifer.)
domain the age A of the groundwater is considered as a
concentration-weighted travel time, viz., To solve Eq. (1-3) for the age A under a given
steady groundwater flow field q appropriate boundary
 conditions of 1st kind (Dirichlet-type) and 2nd kind
0 tC dt (Neumann-type) along inflowing and outflowing
A = ----------------- (1-1)
 boundary sections have to be prescribed in the follow-
 C dt0
ing manner: At inflowing boundaries the groundwater
age A can be usually imposed as a 1st kind boundary
condition, for instance, if setting A = 0 the age (as a
where t is the time and C corresponds to the concen-
relative time) is considered as the beginning time on
tration of the tracer. The dissolved concentration of the
such a boundary section. On the other hand, along out-
tracer have to satisfy the law of mass conservation
flowing boundaries a natural 2nd kind Neumann condi-
written in form of the advection-dispersion transport
tion can often be specified as n   D  A  = 0 , i.e., the
equation5:
age in normal direction n to the boundary does not
C change anymore (for instance typically if groundwater
 ------- + q  C =    D  C  (1-2) leaves the aquifer and enters surface water).
t

where  is the porosity, q is the Darcy velocity vector

and D represents the tensor of the hydrodynamic dis-
persion which includes effects of molecular diffusion
D d , longitudinal and transverse dispersivities  L ,  T ,
respectively. Multiplying Eq. (1-2) by time, integrating
through all times, applying partial integration and
inserting the definition (1-1), one finally obtains a
transport equation of the following type
q  A –    D  A  =  (1-3)
Equation (1-3) represents a steady-state transport
equation in which the mean age A is the primary vari-
able and the porosity  appears as an ’age source’ term
of unit strength on the right-hand side. (It should be
noted for a depth-integrated horizontal 2D transport
NKP tçêâáåÖ=píÉéë=áå=cbcilt
The solution of the age transport equation (1-3) in
2D and 3D can be simply performed by FEFLOW. One
utilizes the implemented transport equations which are
basically available in terms of either the contaminant
mass C or the temperature T variables. Instead, the
solution of the mass (or heat) transport equation is
mimicked for the age A . The following working steps
are now useful:
(1) Specification of a steady-state flow problem in a
common manner.
(2) Extension of the problem class to a transport prob-
lem. We recommend a mass transport problem under

O=ö=cbcilt

steady-state conditions (i.e., steady flow - steady mass
transport).
(3) Formulation of boundary conditions for the age A ,
e.g., A = 0 at inflowing boundaries and
n   D  A  = 0 at outflowing boundaries.
(4) Specification of the material conditions, where
properly the source term of zero order (’sink/source’) is
to be set as the age source in form of  (or B ). (Note,
FEFLOW’s problem editor provides copy functions
which benefits the assignment of the age source from
porosity data).
(5) Solution of the steady flow and the age transport
equations in one step. The evaluation of the results can
be done by the standard tools available in FEFLOW for
the concentration, e.g., isoline plotting, 3D visualiza-
tion, data exporting etc.
There is also a trick7 if the age computation is
required parallel to another transport equation so as
needed for density-driven processes. In this case the
problem is classified as a thermohaline problem in
which flow, mass and heat transport are simultaneously
simulated. Either the mass or the heat transport equa-
tion can then be used as the age transport equation.
This allows an new approach to the analysis of resi-
dence times for complex flow situations which were
impossible to date.
NKQ aÉãçåëíê~íáîÉ=bñ~ãéäÉ
Let us consider two aquifers which are separated by
an aquitard. The ratio of the hydraulic conductivities of
«aef=ö=ïïïKãáâÉéçïÉêÉÇÄóÇÜáKÅçã
NKQ=aÉãçåëíê~íáîÉ=bñ~ãéäÉ
the aquitard to the both aquifers is amounted to 1 :
1000. Furthermore, we assume a disturbance in the
aquitard in form of local ’hydrogeologic window’,
through which the lower aquifer can be threatened. The
hydrogeologic window should have the same conduc-
tivity than the aquifer. On top of the upper aquifer
groundwater recharge is input. The following questions
arise: At which travel times do surface-entering con-
taminants arrive the groundwater at different depths?
How is the influence of mechanical dispersion and dif-
fusion? What are the differences between a 2D and 3D
modeling of the hydrogeologic window in the aqui-
tard?
We start with a 2D modeling. Figure 1.1 displays
the cross-section of a 2D vertical model, where the
depicted steady-state pathlines and isochrones are
obtained by the traditional particle tracking approach
available in FEFLOW too.
cbcilt=ö=P
NK=^å=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=ãÉíÜçÇ=Ñçê=ÅçãéìíáåÖ=ÖêçìåÇï~íÉê=êÉëáÇÉåÅÉ=íáãÉë
Figure 1.1 2D (exaggerated) cross-sectional domain with pathlines and isochrones at 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50
years simulated by FEFLOW’s traditional particle tracking approach.
Now, the computation of the same problem via the
direct simulation of the groundwater age results a dis-
tribution of ages A for 10, 20,. 30, 40 and 50 years in
an isoline plot as shown in Fig. 1.2. Along the upper
boundary on which groundwater recharge is entering,
the age A is set to zero. A comparison of the results
(Fig. 1.2) with the particle tracking analysis (Fig. 1.1)
reveals a close agreement. Both simulations are per-
formed on the same mesh. The comparison between the
traditional particle tracking and Goode’s direct age
simulation requires negligible dispersion. Accordingly,
the results of Fig. 1.2 have been achieved by suppress-
ing the dispersivities (  L =  T = 0 ). To stabilize the
solution for the direct age simulation a streamline-
upwind method was used.
The effect of the hydrodynamic dispersion can be
seen in Fig. 1.3 for the depicted age distribution. Com-
Q=ö=cbcilt
pared to the case without dispersion (Fig. 1.2) two
main differences appears which can be of certain
importance for practical applications: (1) If dispersion
is considered the age is reduced in locations which are
mainly advectively affected as can be seen in the flow
region directly below the hydrogeologic window. It
means a longer travel time is required before a recharge
influence starting from the surface travels to a point in
the lower aquifer. This is caused by the dispersion,
where flow particles have to go a longer pathway
within the void space. However, a contrary effect can
be observed at the aquifer-aquitard contact zone. (2)
The age increases at the occurrence of hydrodynamic
dispersion (including diffusion) in impermeable or
low-permeable parts. This reveals physicochemical
effects on the travel times of the groundwater below the
aquitard which cannot be studied by common particle
tracking methods.
 NKQ=aÉãçåëíê~íáîÉ=bñ~ãéäÉ

Figure 1.2 Computed ages for 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years by the direct simulation of groundwater age (exag-
gerated cross-section), without mechanical dispersion  L =  T = 0 .

Figure 1.3 Computed ages for 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years by the direct simulation of groundwater age (exag-
gerated cross-section), with mechanical dispersion.

«aef=ö=ïïïKãáâÉéçïÉêÉÇÄóÇÜáKÅçã cbcilt=ö=R
NK=^å=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=ãÉíÜçÇ=Ñçê=ÅçãéìíáåÖ=ÖêçìåÇï~íÉê=êÉëáÇÉåÅÉ=íáãÉë

The use of Goode’s direct age simulation is simply times in 3D applications. It should be mentioned that
possible in the same way for 3D application, which will the direct age simulation can also be performed in the
be shown next along the above two-aquifer-aquitard sense of a backtracing. In this case the boundary condi-
problem. Now we assume that the hydrogeologic win- tions for the groundwater age have to be ’reversed’
dow in the aquifer has a three-dimensional extent. If we (inflow boundaries becoming outflow boundaries, and
use the traditional particle tracking method also avail- vice versa). For backtracing a reverse flow field is nec-
able for 3D in FEFLOW we can find pathlines and iso- essary during the age computations. FEFLOW pro-
chrone patterns so as displayed in Fig. 1.4. Since each vides a specific option termed as ’Reverse flow field’
particle tracking event is always related to single start- which can be set in the ’Specific option settings’ menu.
ing point one needs many points, especially in 3D, to Further modifications of Goode’s method appears pos-
get a possibly closed representation and to record sible. The extensions to transient flow problems are
(hopefully) all critical locations. For complex applica- described by Goode5 and Varne & Carrera8.
tions this leads immediately to a ’chaos’ of lines and
markers in the 3D space. In contrast to that, the pro-
posed direct age simulation does not suffer in such dif-
ficulties. Here, the groundwater age represents a scalar
quantity computed at each node of a mesh. It can be
evaluated by using the available postprocessing tools,
for instance, isolines or fringes in slices, through arbi-
trary cross-sections and 3D displays so as exemplified
in Fig. 1.5 showing the age distribution for 50 years in
form of a 3D isosurface.

NKR `çåÅäìÇáåÖ=oÉã~êâë
The computation of the age and residence times of
groundwater can be easily and efficiently performed by
the present Goode method. It is applicable in both 2D
and 3D cases. The direct age simulation is a welcome
completion of particle tracking approaches; especially
in such cases if effects of hydrodynamic dispersion
becomes important, e.g., for capture zone assessments,
or, more generally, in order to make cross-checks
against the traditional particle tracking method and to
obtained closed and better representations of residence

S=ö=cbcilt
 NKR=`çåÅäìÇáåÖ=oÉã~êâë

Figure 1.4 3D pathlines at selected starting points and isochrones marked at 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years as computed
by FEFLOW’s particle tracking method.

«aef=ö=ïïïKãáâÉéçïÉêÉÇÄóÇÜáKÅçã cbcilt=ö=T
NK=^å=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=ãÉíÜçÇ=Ñçê=ÅçãéìíáåÖ=ÖêçìåÇï~íÉê=êÉëáÇÉåÅÉ=íáãÉë

Figure 1.5 Computed age distribution for 50 years in the 3D flow domain forming a 3D isosurface.

U=ö=cbcilt
 NKR=`çåÅäìÇáåÖ=oÉã~êâë

oÉÑÉêÉåÅÉë
1. Bear, J. & Verruijt, A., Modeling groundwater flow and pollution.
Reidel Publ., Dordrecht, 1987.
2. Diersch, H.-J. G., Voigt, R. & Gründler, R., Visiometric tech-
niques in a 3D groundwater transport code, In: X Intern. Conf. on
Computational Methods in Water Resources, Heidelberg (Ger-
many), July 19-22, Vol.2 1994, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 1449-1456.
3. Diersch, H.-J. G., Interactive, graphics-based finite-element simu-
lation system FEFLOW for modeling groundwater flow, contam-
inant mass and heat transport processes. WASY Ltd., 2002.
4. Etcheverry, D. & Perrochet, P., Direct simulation of groundwater
transit-time distributions using the reservoir theory. Hydrogeol-
ogy Journal 8 (2000) 200-208.
5. Goode, D. J., Direct simulation of groundwater age. Water
Resources Research 32 (1996) 2, 289-296.
6. Kinzelbach, W., Numerische Methoden zur Modellierung des
Transports von Schadstoffen im Grundwasser. 2nd edition, Old-
enbourg Verlag, München/Wien, 1992.
7. Perrochet, P., Personal communication, Centre d’Hydrogéologie,
Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland, 1999.
8. Varne, M. & Carrera, J., Simulation of groundwater age distribu-
tions. Water Resources Research 34 (1998) 12, 3271-3281.

«aef=ö=ïïïKãáâÉéçïÉêÉÇÄóÇÜáKÅçã cbcilt=ö=V