Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 1631–1649 | Cite as

Groundwater Modeling Under Variable Operating Conditions Using SWAT, MODFLOW and MT3DMS: a Catchment Scale Approach to Water Resources Management

  • Majid Ehtiat
  • S. Jamshid Mousavi
  • Raghavan Srinivasan
Article
  • 129 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents an integrated modeling approach by linking soil and water application tool (SWAT), modular finite difference groundwater flow (MODFLOW) and modular 3-dimensional multi-species transport (MT3DMS) models capable of predicting a groundwater system response, in terms of flow and salt concentrations, to current and future development conditions. SWAT, a semi-distributed hydrologic model, estimates the spatio-temporal distribution of groundwater recharge rates. These rates are then input to MODFLOW using an interface module developed that maps the HRU-based spatial resolution of SWAT outflows into the cell-based spatial structure of inputs to MODFLOW and MT3DMS. The integrated SWAT-MODFLOW-MT3DMS model is used in modeling Dehloran aquifer system located in the arid western region of Iran, experiencing changes in land-use, irrigation system and pumping locations and loads. The results illustrate the significance of the developed integrated modeling tool in quantifying the impact of changes in land and surface water resources on its subsurface water system.

Keywords

Groundwater systems Integrated modeling approach Recharge SWAT 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been partially supported by the research grant No. 40/758 provided by Research Grants Program of Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbaspour KC, Johnson CA, Genuchten MT (2004) Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J 3:1340–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbaspour KC, Faramarzi M, Ghasemi SS, Yang H (2009) Assessing the impact of climate change on water resources in Iran. Water Resour Res 45:W10434.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold JG, Allen PM, Bernhardt G (1993) A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model. J Hydrol 142:47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment - Part 1: Model development. J American Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashraf Vaghefi S, Mousavi SJ, Abbaspour KC, Srinivasan R, Yang H (2013) Analyses of the impact of climate change on water resources components, drought and wheat yield in semiarid regions: Karkheh River Basin in Iran. Hydrol Process 28(4).  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9747
  6. Bailey RT, Wible TC, Arabi M, Records RM, Ditty J (2016) Assessing Regional-Scale Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions using a Coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model. Hydrol Process.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10933
  7. Cao G, Zheng C, Scanlon BR, Liu J, Li W (2013) Use of flow modeling to assess sustainability of groundwater resources in the North China Plain. Water Resour Res 49:159–175.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR011899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu J, Zhang C, Zhou H (2010) Study on interface and frame structure of SWAT and MODFLOW models coupling. Geophys Res Abstr 12:EGU2010–EGU4559Google Scholar
  9. Chung IM, Kim NW, Lee J, Sophocleous M (2010) Assessing distributed groundwater recharge rate using integrated surface water-groundwater modeling: application to Mihocheon watershed, South Korea. Hydrogeol J 18:1253–1264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-010-0593-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conan C, Bouraoui F, Turpin N, Marsily G, Bidoglio G (2003) Modeling Flow and Nitrate Fate at Catchment Scale in Brittany (France). J Environ Qual 32:2026–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doherty J (2002) Manual for PEST, 5th edn. Watermark Numerical Computing, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  12. Doherty J (2003) Ground water model calibration using Pilot points and Regularization. Groundwater 41(2):170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty J, Hunt RJ (2010) Approaches to highly parameterized inversion: A guide to using PEST for groundwater model calibration. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5169, Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey, United States, 59 pGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehtiat M, Mousavi SJ, Ashraf Vaghefi S, Ghaheri A (2016) Analysis of Recharge Conceptualization in Inverse Groundwater Modeling. Hydrol Sci J 61(15).  https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1151978
  15. Faramarzi M, Abbaspour KC, Schulin R, Yang H (2009) Modelling blue and green water resources availability in Iran. Hydrol Process 23(3):486–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1995) The digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties, version 3.5 (CD-ROM), RomeGoogle Scholar
  17. Galbiati L, Bouraoui F, Elorza FJ, Bidoglio G (2006) Modeling diffuse pollution loading into a Mediterranean lagoon: Development and application of an integrated surface-subsurface model tool. Ecol Model 193:4–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelhar LW, Welty C, Rehfeldt KR (1992) A Critical Review of Data on Field-Scale Dispersion in Aquifers. Water Resour Manag 28(7):1955–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model-Users guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process. Open-File Report 00–92. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey, 121Google Scholar
  20. Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E (2008) Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database (http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org)
  21. Ke KY (2014) Application of an integrated surface water-groundwater model to multi-aquifers modeling in Choushui River alluvial fan, Taiwan. Hydrol Process 28:1409–1421.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim NW, Chung IM, Won YS, Arnold JG (2008) Development and application of the integrated SWAT-MODFLOW model. J Hydrol 356:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin HT, Ke KY, Tan YC, SC W, Hsu G, Chen PC, Fang ST (2013) Estimating Pumping Rates and Identifying Potential Recharge Zones for Groundwater Management in Multi-Aquifers System. Water Resour Manag 27:3293–3306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0347-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luo Y, Sophocleous M (2011) Two-way coupling of unsaturated-saturated flow by integrating the SWAT and MODFLOW models with application in an irrigation district in arid region of West China. J Arid Land 3(3):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahab Ghods Consulting Engineers (1989) Groundwater study of Dehloran, Mousian and Einkhosh Plains (Available in Persian)Google Scholar
  26. Mahab Ghods Consulting Engineers (1992) Groundwater study of Dehloran, Mousian and Einkhosh Plains – Dehloran Groundwater Modelling Report, Vol. 2, 453 p. (Available in Persian)Google Scholar
  27. Mahab Ghods Consulting Engineers (2008) Groundwater study of Dehloran Plain, Vol. 3 (Available in Persian)Google Scholar
  28. Moor C, Doherty J (2006) The cost of uniqueness in groundwater model calibration. Adv Water Resour 29:605–623.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Narula KK, Gosian AK (2013) Modeling hydrology, groundwater recharge and non-point nitrate loadings in the Himalayan Upper Yamuna basin. Sci Total Environ 468-469:S102–S116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newell PT, Meng CI, Sibeck DG, Lepping RP (1989) Some low-altitude cusp dependencies on the interplanetary magnetic field. J Geophys Res 94:8921–8927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oude Essink GHP (2001) Density dependent groundwater flow-Salt water and heat transport. IHE Lecture notes HH426/01/1Google Scholar
  32. Perkins SP, Sophocleous M (1999) Development of a comprehensive watershed model applied to study stream yield under drought conditions. Groundwater 37:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pisinaras V, Petalas C, Tsihrintzis VA, Karatzas GP (2013) Integrated modeling as a decision-aiding tool for groundwater management in a Mediterranean agricultural watershed. Hydrol Process 27:1973–1987.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pulido-Velazquez M, Pena-Haro S, Garcia-Prats A, Mocholi-Almudever AF, Henriquez-Dole L, Macian-Sorribes H, Lopez-Nicolas A (2015) Integrated assessment of the impact of climate and land-use changes on groundwater quantity and quality in Mancha Oriental (Spain). Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:1677–1693.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1677-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rejani R, Jha MK, Panda SN, Mull R (2008) Simulation Modeling for Efficient Groundwater Management in Balasore Coastal Basin, India. Water Resour Manag 22:23–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9142-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sangrey DA, Harrop-Williams KO, Klaiber JA (1984) Predicting groundwater response to precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron 110(7):957–975Google Scholar
  37. Schuol J, Abbaspour KC, Sarinivasan R, Yang H (2008) Estimation of freshwater availability in the West African Sub-continent using the SWAT hydrologic model. J Hydrol 352:30–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zheng C, Wang PP (1999) MT3DMS: A modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems; documentation and user’s guide SERDP-99-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Majid Ehtiat
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Jamshid Mousavi
    • 3
  • Raghavan Srinivasan
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)TehranIran
  2. 2.College of Engineering, Civil Engineering GroupArdakan UniversityYazdIran
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  4. 4.Texas Agricultural Experimental Station, Spatial Science LabTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations