Geology topics

Henk M. Haitjema

Publications and source records attributed to Henk M. Haitjema.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2018

Groundwater modeling

The state of the science and practice in groundwater modeling brings to mind highly sophisticated computer models that are running in parallel on many multi-processor machines. These models are expected to incorporate many different processes of both saturated and unsaturated groundwater flow and transport and possibly the media to which it connects, like surface waters and the atmosphere. We are increasingly aware we cannot study groundwater flow in isolation if we are to make useful predictions of, for instance, the impacts of climate change on the groundwater regime. We have come a long way. Today we are no longer limited to equations for flow toward a well, perhaps near an infinitely long straight canal (method of images), to sandbox models in the laboratory, or to simple steady state models of flow in a single aquifer. We now have computer models that solve groundwater flow and transport in multi-aquifer settings under transient conditions and with a user-friendly graphical user interface that allows widespread use. Additionally, multi-media models are now leaving the research environment and becoming available to mainstream consultants. So in that sense the science of groundwater modeling has matured. The practice of groundwater modeling, however, has also matured. We have come to realize that model output, being a necessary simplification of an unknowably complex natural world, has inherent limitations. That is, a model of reality is not reality itself. There is uncertainty associated with all facets of our model—parameterization, aquifer geometry and discretization, boundary conditions, and future hydrologic drivers such as future pumping regimes and climates. Today a model is now more appropriately seen as a tool that provides a quantitative framework to make supportable forecasts rather than an oracle that gives us all the answers. In this chapter we set out to briefly review the state of the science and practice in modeling. In doing so, we augment existing assessments from the journal Groundwater (e.g., Hunt and Zheng 2012; Langevin and Panday 2012; Molz 2017a,b; White 2017), specifically in terms of modeling approach. An effective modeling approach is critical. If a modeler does not decompose the societal problem correctly, the model will not be fit-for-purpose, no matter how sophisticated the code’s capabilities. Moreover, capabilities of codes will be ever improving; good modeling practices have a timelessness that is more robust. How best to decompose the problem and provide models that are accepted? We lay out here some approaches for today’s applied groundwater modeling. Specifically, we suggest: (1) a step-wise modeling process; (2) including a two-dimensional areal model within this process; (3) keeping abreast of industry standards; and (4) ways to increase acceptance of the models we produce.

Book chapter↗

USGS2014

Simulation of water-table aquifers using specified saturated thickness

Simulating groundwater flow in a water-table (unconfined) aquifer can be difficult because the saturated thickness available for flow depends on model-calculated hydraulic heads. It is often possible to realize substantial time savings and still obtain accurate head and flow solutions by specifying an approximate saturated thickness a priori, thus linearizing this aspect of the model. This specified-thickness approximation often relies on the use of the “confined” option in numerical models, which has led to confusion and criticism of the method. This article reviews the theoretical basis for the specified-thickness approximation, derives an error analysis for relatively ideal problems, and illustrates the utility of the approximation with a complex test problem. In the transient version of our complex test problem, the specified-thickness approximation produced maximum errors in computed drawdown of about 4% of initial aquifer saturated thickness even when maximum drawdowns were nearly 20% of initial saturated thickness. In the final steady-state version, the approximation produced maximum errors in computed drawdown of about 20% of initial aquifer saturated thickness (mean errors of about 5%) when maximum drawdowns were about 35% of initial saturated thickness. In early phases of model development, such as during initial model calibration efforts, the specified-thickness approximation can be a very effective tool to facilitate convergence. The reduced execution time and increased stability obtained through the approximation can be especially useful when many model runs are required, such as during inverse model calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, multimodel analysis, and development of optimal resource management scenarios.

Ground Water↗

USGS2010

A hybrid finite-difference and analytic element groundwater model

Regional finite-difference models tend to have large cell sizes, often on the order of 1–2 km on a side. Although the regional flow patterns in deeper formations may be adequately represented by such a model, the intricate surface water and groundwater interactions in the shallower layers are not. Several stream reaches and nearby wells may occur in a single cell, precluding any meaningful modeling of the surface water and groundwater interactions between the individual features. We propose to replace the upper MODFLOW layer or layers, in which the surface water and groundwater interactions occur, by an analytic element model (GFLOW) that does not employ a model grid; instead, it represents wells and surface waters directly by the use of point-sinks and line-sinks. For many practical cases it suffices to provide GFLOW with the vertical leakage rates calculated in the original coarse MODFLOW model in order to obtain a good representation of surface water and groundwater interactions. However, when the combined transmissivities in the deeper (MODFLOW) layers dominate, the accuracy of the GFLOW solution diminishes. For those cases, an iterative coupling procedure, whereby the leakages between the GFLOW and MODFLOW model are updated, appreciably improves the overall solution, albeit at considerable computational cost. The coupled GFLOW–MODFLOW model is applicable to relatively large areas, in many cases to the entire model domain, thus forming an attractive alternative to local grid refinement or inset models.

Groundwater↗

USGS2005

Improving a regional model using reduced complexity and parameter estimation

The availability of powerful desktop computers and graphical user interfaces for ground water flow models makes possible the construction of ever more complex models. A proposed copper-zinc sulfide mine in northern Wisconsin offers a unique case in which the same hydrologic system has been modeled using a variety of techniques covering a wide range of sophistication and complexity. Early in the permitting process, simple numerical models were used to evaluate the necessary amount of water to be pumped from the mine, reductions in streamflow, and the drawdowns in the regional aquifer. More complex models have subsequently been used in an attempt to refine the predictions. Even after so much modeling effort, questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of the predictions remain. We have performed a new analysis of the proposed mine using the two-dimensional analytic element code GFLOW coupled with the nonlinear parameter estimation code UCODE. The new model is parsimonious, containing fewer than 10 parameters, and covers a region several times larger in areal extent than any of the previous models. The model demonstrates the suitability of analytic element codes for use with parameter estimation codes. The simplified model results are similar to the more complex models; predicted mine inflows and UCODE-derived 95% confidence intervals are consistent with the previous predictions. More important, the large areal extent of the model allowed us to examine hydrological features not included in the previous models, resulting in new insights about the effects that far-field boundary conditions can have on near-field model calibration and parameterization. In this case, the addition of surface water runoff into a lake in the headwaters of a stream while holding recharge constant moved a regional ground watershed divide and resulted in some of the added water being captured by the adjoining basin. Finally, a simple analytical solution was used to clarify the GFLOW model's prediction that, for a model that is properly calibrated for heads, regional drawdowns are relatively unaffected by the choice of aquifer properties, but that mine inflows are strongly affected. Paradoxically, by reducing model complexity, we have increased the understanding gained from the modeling effort.

Wisconsin↗