Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paper Modflow Vs Feflow
Paper Modflow Vs Feflow
Paper Modflow Vs Feflow
net/publication/263612704
CITATIONS READS
4 5,204
4 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Alloisio on 03 July 2014.
SARAH ALLOISIO
Water Management Consultants Ltd., 23 Swan Hill, Shrewsbury, SY1 1NN, United Kingdom
e-mail: salloisio@watermc.com
INTRODUCTION
The ability of the modelling packages MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1996)
and FEFLOW (Wasy Gmbh, 2002) to represent the above features has been reviewed
and compared. This has been done with reference to the dewatering / depressurisation
models developed for two large open pit copper mines in Northern Chile.
The purpose of this model is to assess the efficiency of a system of drainage tunnels in
providing dry conditions during the northward extension of an open copper pit. The
domain of this model is shown in Figure 1. The domain is included in a rectangle of
area 3.7 × 6.8 km, which is divided by a uniform finite-difference grid with 40 m
spacing into 93 rows and 171 columns. A uniform grid was chosen after trying several
configurations based on different degrees of refinement of the pit expansion area,
which were found to cause instability and convergence problems. It is noted that the
use of a uniform grid is far from ideal, because it introduces an unnecessary level of
resolution outside the pit expansion area, where a simplistic representation of the
groundwater system is sufficient to reproduce the regional flow pattern. In this respect,
a finite-element grid would allow the local refinement of the pit area without
computational difficulties.
A NNE-SSW sub-vertical fault runs across the pit area and acts as a preferential flow
path.
Fault structure
The fault running across the pit area in NNE-SSW direction is a linear sub-vertical
structure associated with an alteration zone, which coincides with a paleochannel in
the gravel deposits and represents a zone of enhanced groundwater flow. It is
represented in the model three top layers as a zone of higher hydraulic conductivity.
Drainage Tunnels
Groundwater discharge into the tunnels is reproduced using MODFLOW drain cells,
whereby flow, Q, is calculated as:
Q = C × (h – hdrain)
where:
h is the groundwater head
hdrain is the drain elevation
C is the drain conductance. This parameter can be initially estimated using Goodman’s
formula (Freeze and Cherry, 1979), and subsequently modified during model
calibration, to reproduce historic flow data.
Dewatering wells
The dewatering plan for the pit under consideration comprises only drainage tunnels,
therefore no wells were represented in the model. However, in other pit-dewatering
models developed in MODFLOW, dewatering wells located in the pit area have been
represented using MODFLOW stream cells. The well mechanism is generally not used
since this requires flow rates to be specified a priori, which can lead to over or under
pumping. The head dependent mechanism employed by stream cells, as well as drain
and river cells, enables the pumping rate to decrease as groundwater heads decline, in a
similar way to real well yields. The elevation of the stream cells is set to the base
elevation for each layer penetrated by the well, except for the lowest layer, where it is
set at the well bottom elevation.
Pit Seepage
This model was developed for a large open pit copper mine in the far north of Chile,
which is at its initial stage of development. The objectives of the model are:
1. investigate drawdown and pore pressure profiles resulting from the currently
planned dewatering / depressurisation system
2. test alternative dewatering strategies to assist in future mine planning and
geotechnical optimisation of the pit slope angles.
Figure 2 shows the model domain and grid. The area of the modelled domain is
approximately 203 km2. The finite-element grid has a coarse resolution (average 200
m spacing) outside the pit area, where detailed information on the groundwater system
is not available and a broad representation of regional flow can provide adequate
boundary conditions for the pit area. The model mesh is refined within the pit, where
node separation is about 25 m, and around the existing dewatering wells, where node
spacing is about 10 m. Local mesh refinement in the pit area and around the dewatering
wells does not affect the model stability and provides a more accurate simulation of the
phreatic surface and cones of drawdown than would be achievable using a finite-
difference scheme.
Blue circles:
constant head
boundaries
WELL 1
WELL 6 WELL 3
WELL 4
WELL 5
Alluvium Layer 1
Layer 2
Unit 1 Unit 3 Layer 3
Layer 4
Unit 2a
Unit 2a
Unit 2b
Layer 5
Layer 6
Unit 3a
Layer 7
Layer 8
Unit 3b
Fig. 3 Main hydrostratigraphic units and vertical discretisation of the FEFLOW model
The most important features that the FEFLOW model needs to reproduce accurately in
order to assess the performance of the current and alternative dewatering /
depressurisation plans include:
• faults and fractures with arbitrary dip
• development of perched conditions
• seepage into the pit
• dewatering wells with drawdown-dependent yield
Inclined faults and fractures
The main faults associated with alteration zones are represented as distinct zones of
hydraulic conductivity and storage. As the faults have dips of around 45 degrees,
several layers are required to provide an accurate step-wise approximation of the fault
inclination and geometry. However, many layers would reduce significantly the model
computational efficiency. For the model under consideration, the use of eight layers
was thought to achieve a good compromise between vertical resolution and
computation demand.
Minor faults and fractures that act as preferential flow paths are mainly linear
structures. When zones of distinct hydraulic parameters are used to represent these
structures, their width can be considerably overestimated if the portion of the model
mesh where they are located is not highly refined. Alternatively, FEFLOW can use
discrete feature elements. These are 1-D and 2-D elements connecting two or more
nodes within the same ‘slice’ (surface separating two model layers) or corresponding
nodes at adjacent slices, where flow is simulated according to specified laws for flow
porous media and channels. Discrete feature elements permit a much more accurate
representation of linear structures. However, they cannot connect two arbitrary nodes
across different slices, so that inclined faults and fractures still have to be
approximated by a combination of horizontal and vertical elements.
Perched conditions
In the pit area under study, wells are designed to operate through the low-conductivity
strongly argillised rock and the underlying high-conductivity weakly argillised rock
units. Due to the contrast in hydraulic conductivity, dewatering is likely to take place at
a much faster rate in the lower unit, thus inducing the development of perched
conditions in the upper unit. Flow occurring in the unsaturated zone underlying the
perched aquifer can be reproduced in FEFLOW in two ways:
• simulating groundwater flow using an equation for unsaturated or variably
saturated media based on a moveable model mesh
• using a phreatic slice configuration, where the model mesh is fixed and
unsaturated flow is approximated by scaling conductivity according to the
saturated thickness in an element.
The former approach provides a rigorous treatment of the multiple free-surface
problem, but it is computationally demanding, can cause convergence difficulties and
requires the assignment of unsaturated characteristics for which data are seldom
available. The latter is considered a pseudo-unsaturated modelling approach (Diersch,
2002), which provides an approximate representation of unsaturated flow, but is simple
and computationally robust. The pseudo-unsaturated method was employed in the
model under consideration, but was subsequently discarded because it could not
integrate adequately with the use of a moveable mesh to simulate the top phreatic
surface, as described below.
Pit seepage
Groundwater seepage into the pit slopes and floor is represented in the FEFLOW
model by means of transfer boundary nodes. The flow mechanism of transfer nodes is
analogous to the river, drain and stream mechanisms in MODFLOW, as it depends on
the difference between the groundwater head and a reference elevation and on a
conductance term. In the FEFLOW model, the reference elevation of transfer nodes is
set equal to the pit topography and boundary constraints are applied to allow only
outflows. The vertical expansion of the pit through different hydrogeological units can
be reproduced much more easily in FEFLOW than in MODFLOW. This is because the
BASD (Best Adaptation to Stratigraphic Data) technique is available in FEFLOW,
whereby all model slices except the base move to reflect changes in the phreatic
surface during the pit excavation. Therefore, pit seepage can be simulated by assigning
transfer nodes only at the model top slice and by lowering their reference elevation as
the pit deepens. As the pit excavation and dewatering progress, the moveable model
slices collapse to mirror deepening of the pit and drop in the water table, as shown
schematically in Figure 4. The change in hydraulic properties as the slices move due to
the excavation into different formations is also accounted for.
Elevation [masl]
4400
Year 1
4100 Year 3
4000
Year 4
Year 5
3900
Whilst leading to a simpler and more accurate representation of pit seepage, the use of
time-variant transfer nodes on a moveable mesh could not be used to represent the pit
expansion through time, as it was found to increase simulation times dramatically. In
order to simulate the pit development, a series of models, each representing a pit phase,
was developed and run sequentially. This solution is obviously less practical than
running a single time-variant simulation.
Dewatering wells
During the model calibration, abstraction from dewatering wells was represented using
well boundary nodes. Wells penetrating multiple slices were reproduced using the bore
option in FEFLOW, whereby well nodes are connected by a high-conductivity and
storage element, so that no vertical head gradient develops between well nodes located
on different slices.
In order to assess the performance of alternative dewatering / depressurisation
schemes, the dewatering wells were represented using constant head boundary nodes
constrained by flow. Constant heads were set equal to 5 m above the bottom of the
screen of the dewatering wells. The upper flow constraint was set equal to the largest
pumping rate estimated for each well, and the lower constraint was set equal to zero, in
order to prevent injection of water.
Other relevant issues that emerged during the development of the MODFLOW and
FEFLOW groundwater flow models for pit dewatering / depressurisation pertain the
following:
• I/O data format. MODFLOW produces an ASCII output file that includes data on
the model settings and parameters, as well as on simulated groundwater heads and
flows. It is therefore possible to check the model setup and analyse the results outside
pre-post processing packages. This is not the case in FEFLOW, where input and output
files are prepared in binary format and cannot be analysed outside FEFLOW graphics
interface.
• Pore pressure cross-sections. Easy extraction of pore-pressure profiles along
specified sections is of primary importance in a pit-dewatering model, because pore-
pressure profiles represent the input of geotechnical models employed to assess slope
stability. None of the MODFLOW post-processing packages currently available
provides pore pressure cross-sections as direct output. In the MODFLOW
implementation presented in this paper, cross-sections of pore pressure were
constructed by means of dedicated spreadsheets. FEFLOW can provide pore pressure
values along a section at all model layers, but performs no vertical interpolation, so
that external processing is still required.
• Time-variant simulations. These are performed in MODFLOW according to
stress periods and time steps specified a priori, so that inflows and outflows must be
averaged in time to reflect the time discretisation. Conversely, FEFLOW employs
adaptive time step refinement, where time steps are defined according to the time
resolution of input and output flows and the magnitude of changes in groundwater
heads and flows.
REFERENCES
Diersch H-J. G. (2002) Treatment of free surface in 2D and 3D groundwater modelling. White Papers Vol. I, Wasy
Software Feflow – Finite Element Subsurface Flow & Transport Simulation System, 67-100.
Freeze R. A., Cherry J. A.. (1979) Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632.
McDonald M. G., Harbaugh A. W. (1996) A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model.
USGS.
Wasy Gmbh (2002) User’s Manual. Wasy Software Feflow – Finite Element Subsurface Flow & Transport Simulation
System.