Advertisement

Analysis of exact groundwater model within a confined aquifer: New proposed model beyond the Theis equation

  • M. Mathobo
  • A. AtanganaEmail author
Regular Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract.

The aim of this work was to develop the exact groundwater flow model within a confined aquifer. We argued that, the Theis groundwater flow model is an approximation of the real formulation of the model as Theis removed some components of the equation to have a simple model. Initially, we derived an exact groundwater flow equation for a confined aquifer so as to include all high order terms that were removed by Theis and also to take into account the assumptions that were used during the derivation of the groundwater flow by Theis. Thereafter, we proved that the new groundwater flow equation has a unique solution. We then derived a new numerical scheme for a singular partial differential equation that combines the Mellin transform and the Lagrange approximation of a continuous function. The Mellin transform was used to remove the singularity in the newly developed exact groundwater flow equation for a confined aquifer. The equation became ordinary, wherein we used the Adam Bashforth method to the ordinary differential equation in the Mellin space. The inverse of Mellin was then used to get the exact numerical scheme in real space. We present the stability analysis of the new numerical scheme using the von Neumann method. Lastly, numerical simulations using experimental field data are presented. Our solution is compared to that of Theis. Our simulations show the importance of the scaling factor which was removed from the Theis groundwater flow equation. The simulations also show that the change in drawdown dependdepends on the scaling factor.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Troldborg, J.C. Refsgaard, K.H. Jensen et al., Hydrogeol. J. 15, 843 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.D. Alexander, D. Poularikas, The Mellin Transform, The Handbook of Formulas and Tables for Signal Processing (CRC Press, Boca Raton, LLC, 1999) pp. 1--11Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.P. Anderson, W.W. Woessner, Applied Groundwater Modelling: Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport (Academic Press, California, 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atangana Abdon, Physica A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 505, 688 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atangana Abdon, Necdet Bildik, Math. Probl. Eng. 2013, 1 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Atangana, C. Ünlü, Sci. Iran. 23, 1837 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Atangana, G. Van Tonder, Stochastic Risk and Uncertainty Analysis for Shale Gas Extraction in the Karoo Basin of South Africa (Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2014) pp. 1--11Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Atangana, P.D. Vermeulen, Abstr. Appl. Analy. 2014, 381753 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.M. Barlow, A.F. Moench, Analytical solutions and computer programs for hydraulic interaction of stream-aquifer systems. (1998) U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98--415AGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.B. Bedient, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, Ground Water Contamination: Transport and Remediation, 2nd edition (Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey, 1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Benson, R. Schumer, S. Wheatcraft, M. Meerschaert, Transp. Porous Media 42, 211 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Benson, S. Wheatcraft, M. Meerschaert, Water Resour. Res. 36, 1403 (2000)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Betrand, P. Bertrand, J. Ovarlez, The Mellin Transform, The Transforms and Applications Handbook, second edition (CRC Press, Boca Raton, LLC, 2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Beven, J. Hydrol. 320, 18 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.G. Charney, R. Fjortoft, J. von Neumann, Tellus 2, 237 (1950)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Cloot, J.F. Botha, Water SA 32, 55 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Crank, P. Nicolson, Proc. Cambridge Philol. Soc. 43, 50 (1947)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C.W. Fetter, Applied Hydrogeology, 2nd edition (Macmillan, New York, Inc., 1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Gnitchogna, A. Atangana, Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Eq. 34, 1739 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Metropolis, A.W. Rosenbluth, M.N. Rosenbluth et al., J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Metzler, J. Klafter, Phys. Rep. 339, 1 (2000)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S.P. Nasholm, S. Holms, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 3038 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Poeter, D. Anderson, Ground Water 43, 597 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.C. Refsgaard, A.L. Højberg, I. Møller, M. Hansom, Ground Water 48, 633 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    T.E. Reilly, W. Harbough, Guidelines for evaluating groundwater flow models, Scientific Investigations Report, 2004-5038. (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C.V. Theis, Am. Geophys. Union Trans. 16, 519 (1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Delahaies, Numerical Solutions for Partial Differential Equations (2012) https://doi.org/www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/st/S.B/MAT3015_notes_2_2012.pdf

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fisica and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Groundwater Studies, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations