Advertisement

Comparison of Sharp Interface to Variable Density Models in Pumping Optimisation of Coastal Aquifers

  • G. KopsiaftisEmail author
  • V. Christelis
  • A. Mantoglou
Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

A number of models have been developed to simulate seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers, which differ in the accuracy level and computational demands, based on the approximation level of the application. In this paper, four seawater intrusion models are employed to calculate the optimal pumping rates in a coastal aquifer management problem. The first model considers both fluid flow and solute transport processes and assumes a variable-density transition zone between saltwater and freshwater. The implementation of the model in simulation-optimisation routines is impractical, due to the computational time required for the simulation. The second model neglects the dispersion mechanism and assumes a sharp interface between saltwater and freshwater. The sharp interface model is significantly faster than the variable density model, however, it may introduce errors in the estimation of the seawater intrusion extent. The remaining two models are modifications of the second model, which intent to correct the inaccuracies of the simplified sharp interface approximation. All four models are utilised to simulate an unconfined coastal aquifer with multiple pumping wells and an optimisation method is used to calculate the maximum allowed pumping rates. The optimisation results are then analysed, in order to examine if the three sharp interface models could provide feasible solutions in the area of the variable density optimum, which is considered as a benchmark solution.

Keywords

Sharp interface models SEAWAT Pumping optimization Coastal aquifer Seawater intrusion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A previous shorter version of the paper has been presented in the 10th World Congress of EWRA Panta Rei Athens, Greece, 5-9 July 2017. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments in improving the paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors would like to declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Ketabchi H, Rajabi MM (2013) Optimal management of a freshwater lens in a small island using surrogate models and evolutionary algorithms. J Hydrol Eng 19(2):339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandler JW, Cheng QS, Nikolova NK, Ismail MA (2004) Implicit space mapping optimization exploiting preassigned parameters. IEEE T Microw Theory 52(1):378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng D, Ouazar D (1999) Analytical solutions: In: Seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers—concepts, methods and practices (pp. 163–191). Springer NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. Christelis V, Mantoglou A (2016) Coastal aquifer management based on the joint use of density-dependent and sharp interface models. Water Resour Manag 30(2):861–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christelis V, Regis RG, Mantoglou A (2017) Surrogate-based pumping optimization of coastal aquifers under limited computational budgets. J Hydroinf 20(1):164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christelis V, Mantoglou A (2018) Pumping Optimization of Coastal Aquifers Using Seawater Intrusion Models of Variable-Fidelity and Evolutionary Algorithms. Water Resour Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2116-0
  7. Dausman A, Langevin C, Bakker M, Schaars F (2010) A comparison between SWI and SEAWAT—the importance of dispersion, inversion and vertical anisotropy. 21st Salt Water Intrusion Meeting, Gov. of Azores, AzoresGoogle Scholar
  8. Dokou Z, Karatzas GP (2012) Saltwater intrusion estimation in a karstified coastal system using density-dependent modeling and comparison with the sharp-interface approach. Hydrol Sci J 57(5):985–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Efstratiadis A, Koutsoyiannis D (2002) An evolutionary annealing-simplex algorithm for global optimization of water resource systems. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Hydroinformatics, Cardiff, UK, International Water Association Publishing 2:1423–1428Google Scholar
  10. Efstratiadis A, Nalbantis I, Koukouvinos A, Rozos E, Koutsoyiannis D (2008) HYDROGEIOS: a semi-distributed GIS-based hydrological model for modified river basins. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 12(4):989–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Essaid HI, (1999) USGS SHARP Model. In Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers—Concepts, Methods and Practices (pp. 213–247). Springer NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferreira da silva JF, Haie N (2007) Optimal locations of groundwater extractions in coastal aquifers. Water Resour Manag 21:1299–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo W, Langevin CD (2002) User’s guide to SEWAT: A Computer Program for Simulation of Three – Dimentional Variable – Density Ground - Water Flow, BOOK 6, Chapter A7, Techniques of Water – Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, 7–18Google Scholar
  14. Karatzas GP, Dokou Z (2015) Optimal management of saltwater intrusion in the coastal aquifer of Malia, Crete (Greece) using particle swarm optimization. Hydrogeol J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1286-6
  15. Karterakis SM, Karatzas GP, Nikolos IK, Papadopoulou MP (2007) Application of linear programming and differential evolutionary optimization methodologies for the solution of coastal subsurface water management problems subject to environmental criteria. J Hydrol 342:270–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kopsiaftis G, Protopapadakis E, Voulodimos A, Doulamis N, Mantoglou A (2019) Gaussian process regression tuned by bayesian optimization for seawater intrusion prediction. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2019:2859429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koussis AD, Mazi K, Riou F, Destouni G (2015) A correction for Dupuit–Forchheimer interface flow models of seawater intrusion in unconfined coastal aquifers. J Hydrol 525:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koussis AD, Mazi K (2018) Corrected interface flow model for seawater intrusion in confined aquifers: relations to the dimensionless parameters of variable-density flow. Hydrogeol J 26(8):2547–2559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lal A, Datta B (2018) Development and Implementation of Support Vector Machine Regression Surrogate Models for Predicting Groundwater Pumping-Induced Saltwater Intrusion into Coastal Aquifers. Water Resour Manag 32(7):2405–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Llopis-Albert C, Pulido-Velazquez D (2014) Discussion about the validity of sharp-interface models to deal with seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers. Hydrol Proced 28:3642–3654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lu C, Chen Y, Luo J (2012) Boundary condition effects on maximum groundwater withdrawal in coastal aquifers. Ground Water 50(3):386–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu C, Werner AD (2013) Timescales of seawater intrusion and retreat. Adv Water Resour 59:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mantoglou A (2003) Pumping management of coastal aquifers using analytical models of saltwater intrusion. Water Resour Res 39(12):1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu C, Luo J (2014) Groundwater pumping in head-controlled coastal systems: the role of lateral boundaries in quantifying the interface toe location and maximum pumping rate. J Hydrol 512:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mantoglou A, Papantoniou M, Giannoulopoulos P (2004) Management of coastal aquifers based on nonlinear optimization and evolutionary algorithms. J Hydrol 297(1–4):209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pool M, Carrera J (2011) A correction factor to account for mixing in Ghyben-Herzberg and critical pumping rate approximations of seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010256
  27. Qahman K, Larabi A, Ouazar D, Naji A, Cheng AHD (2005) Optimal and sustainable extraction of groundwater in coastal aquifers. Stoch Env Res Risk A 19(2):99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Javadi A, Hussain M, Sherif M, Farmani R (2015) Multi-objective optimization of different management scenarios to control seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers. Water Resour Manag 29(6):1843–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ranjbar A, Mahjouri N (2018) Development of an efficient surrogate model based on aquifer dimensions to prevent seawater intrusion in anisotropic coastal aquifers, case study: the Qom aquifer in Iran. Environ Earth Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7592-2
  30. Roy DK, Datta B (2017) Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline Ensembles for Management of Multilayered Coastal Aquifers. J Hydrol Eng 22(9):04017031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rozos E, Efstratiadis A, Nalbantis I, Koutsoyiannis D (2004) Calibration of a semi-distributed model for conjunctive simulation of surface and groundwater flows. Hydrol Sci J 49(5):819–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sreekanth J, Datta B (2011) Comparative evaluation of Genetic Programming and Neural Network as potential surrogate models for coastal aquifer management. Water Resour Manag 25:3201–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strack ODL (1976) A single-potential solution for regional interface problems in coastal aquifers. Water Resour Res 12(6):1165–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Werner AD (2017) Correction factor to account for dispersion in sharp-interface models of terrestrial freshwater lenses and active seawater intrusion. Adv Water Resour 102:45–52Google Scholar
  35. Werner AD, Bakker M, Post VEA, Vandenbohede A, Lu C, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Simmons CT, Barry DA (2013) Seawater intrusion processes, investigation and management: Recent advances and future challenges. Adv Water Resour 51:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Technical University of AthensZografouGreece
  2. 2.British Geological SurveyEnvironmental Science CentreNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations