Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 78:115 | Cite as

Improving accuracy and efficiency in discrete-continuum karst models

  • Rob de RooijEmail author
Thematic Issue
  • 23 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Characterization, Modeling, and Remediation of Karst in a Changing Environment

Abstract

Discrete-continuum or hybrid models couple one-dimensional conduit flow with the surrounding three-dimensional flow in the fractured rock matrix. The applicability of these models to real karst aquifers is somewhat limited not only because they require detailed information about the conduit network, but also these models typically require considerable computational efforts. Moreover, in some models the simulated conduit-matrix exchange fluxes critically depend on a lumped exchange parameter and as such the accuracy of discrete-continuum models can be questionable. This study presents some ideas to improve the accuracy and efficiency of discrete-continuum models. It is shown that a well-index should be used instead of a lumped exchange parameter. It is also illustrated that local grid refinement around the conduits as well as parallel solvers based on domain decomposition can be useful to increase the computational efficiency of discrete-continuum models.

Keywords

Karst Modeling Parallel computing Local grid refinement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Carl S. Swisher Foundation and the University of Florida (UF) Water Institute. The author wishes to acknowledge the UF High Performance Computing Center for its support for carrying out the parallel computations.

References

  1. Balay S, Abhyankar S, Adams M, Brown J, Brune P, Buschelman K, Dalcin L, Eijkhout V, Gropp W, Kaushik D (2017) PETSc Users Manual Revision 3.8. Argonne National Lab. (ANL), ArgonneCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birk S, Liedl R, Sauter M (2006) Karst spring responses examined by process-based modeling. Ground Water 44:832–836.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2006.00175.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng J, Chen C (2005) An integrated linear/non-linear flow model for the conduit-fissure-pore media in the karst triple void aquifer system. Environ Geol 47:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Rooij R (2008) Towards improved numerical modeling of karst aquifers: coupling turbulent conduit flow and laminar matrix flow under variably saturated conditions. University of Neuchatel, NeuchatelGoogle Scholar
  5. De Rooij R, Graham W (2017) Generation of complex karstic conduit networks with a hydrochemical model. Water Resour Res 53:6993–7011.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020768 doiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Rooij R, Perrochet P, Graham W (2013) From rainfall to spring discharge: Coupling conduit flow, subsurface matrix flow and surface flow in karst systems using a discrete-continuum model. Adv Water Resour 61:29–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falgout R, Yang UM (2002) HYPRE high performance preconditioners. In: International conference on computational science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 632–641Google Scholar
  8. Gallegos JJ, Hu BX, Davis H (2013) Simulating flow in karst aquifers at laboratory and sub-regional scales using MODFLOW-CFP. Hydrogeol J 21:1749–1760.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-1046-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu BX, Xu Z (2016) Numerical simulation of groundwater flow and solute transport in a karst aquifer with conduits. In: Groundwater-contaminant and resource management. InTechOpenGoogle Scholar
  10. Hubinger B, Birk S, Hergarten S (2016) A new equation solver for modeling turbulent flow in coupled matrix-conduit flow models. Groundwater 54:596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karypis G, Kumar V (1998) MeTis: unstructured graph partitioning and sparse matrix ordering system, Version 4.0, Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaufmann G, Romanov D, Hiller T (2010) Modeling three-dimensional karst aquifer evolution using different matrix-flow contributions. J Hydrol 388:241–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kavouri K, Karatzas GP (2016) Integrating diffuse and concentrated recharge in karst models. Water Resour Manag 30:5637–5650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keating E, Zyvoloski G (2009) A stable and efficient numerical algorithm for unconfined aquifer analysis. Ground Water 47:569–579.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00555.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kincaid TR (1997) Ground water—surface water exchange in the unconfined karstified Floridan aquifer. In: Gunay G, Johnson AI (eds) Karst Water and Invironmental Impacts. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 405–412Google Scholar
  16. Kiraly L (1998) Modelling karst aquifers by the combined discrete channel and continuum approach. Bulletin du Centre d’Hydrogéologie 16:77–98Google Scholar
  17. Kiraly L, Perrochet P, Rossier Y (1995) Effect of epikarst on the hydrograph of karst springs: a numerical approach. Bulletin du Centre d’Hydrogéologie 14:199–220Google Scholar
  18. Kresic N, Panday S (2017) Numerical groundwater modelling in karst. Geological Society, London.  https://doi.org/10.1144/sp466.12 (Special Publications 466)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pan L, Wierenga PJ (1995) A transferred pressure head based approach to solve Richards equation for variably saturated soils. Water Resour Res 31:925–931.  https://doi.org/10.1029/94wr03291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Panday S, Huyakorn PS (2008) MODFLOW SURFACT: a state-of-the-art use of vadose zone flow and transport equations and numerical techniques for environmental evaluations. Vadose Zone J 7:610–631.  https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2007.0052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Panday S, Langevin CD (2012) Improving sub-grid scale accuracy of boundary features in regional finite-difference models. Adv Water Resour 41:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peaceman DW (1978) Interpretation of well-block pressures in numerical reservoir simulation. Soc Pet Eng J 18:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peaceman DW (1983) Interpretations of well-block pressure in numerical reservoir simulation with non-square grid blocks and anisotropic permeability. Soc Pet Eng J 23:531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reimann T, Geyer T, Shoemaker WB, Liedl R, Sauter M (2011a) Effects of dynamically variable saturation and matrix-conduit coupling of flow in karst aquifers. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr010446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reimann T, Rehrl C, Shoemaker W, Geyer T, Birk S (2011b) The significance of turbulent flow representation in single-continuum models. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reimann T, Giese M, Geyer T, Liedl R, Marechal JC, Shoemaker WB (2014) Representation of water abstraction from a karst conduit with numerical discrete-continuum models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:227–241.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-227-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ross PJ (1990) Efficient numerical methods for infiltration using Richards equation. Water Resour Res 26:279–290.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i002p00279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shoemaker WB, Kuniansky EL, Birk S, Bauer S, Swain ED (2008) Documentation of a conduit flow process (CFP) for MODFLOW-2005. In: Techniques and methods, Book 6, Chapter A24. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  29. Vangenuchten MT (1980) A Closed-Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu ZX, Hu BX, Davis H, Cao JH (2015) Simulating long term nitrate-N contamination processes in the Woodville Karst Plain using CFPv2 with UMT3D. J Hydrol 524:72–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water InstituteUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations