transient modelling of groundwater flow, application to tunnel dewatering
TRANSCRIPT
1
Transient Modelling of Groundwater Flow
Application to Tunnel Dewatering
E.J. Wexler, P.Eng.
Earthfx Incorporated
February 13, 2013
2
Outline Introduce the SEC Case Study Review general concepts of numerical
modelling Show how basic principles and models can
be extended to more complex settings Discuss results of SEC model and insights
gained
3
SE Collector Sewer Environmental Assessment
Done for Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. and Regional Municipality of York
Study to look at impact of construction dewatering on groundwater and baseflow in nearby streams
Previous construction (16th Ave) needed large-scale dewatering after boring into Thorncliffe aquifer
SEC alignment designed to pass mostly through Newmarket Till
Design used sealed shafts and EPBM when in aquifers (now EPBM for entire run)
Study used MODFLOW to investigate baseline impacts and contingencies (e.g., TBM rescue and delays).
4
Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Links to York-Durham Sewer System to Duffins Creek WPCP Hydrogeologic investigation by CRA
5
Alignment is 15 km long Four tunnel boring machines 3.6 m sealed concrete liner Shafts for access and turning TBM Shaft 13 for connection to existing sewer Construction currently underway
6
Dewatering applications for groundwater models:
How long will we have to pump to reach target levels?
How much will we have to pump to maintain levels?
What are the impacts on: nearby wells
nearby streams (baseflow) and wetlands
Can we optimize pumping rates and minimize impacts?
7
What is a groundwater model?
A model is a simplified representation of a real physical system
We want to analyze response in simple system and extrapolate
Need to simplify because we often have limited knowledge of subsurface geology
Limited data on hydraulic properties
Inputs (e.g. recharge) are highly variable in time and space.
8
Mathematical groundwater model:
Based on two simple principals
Darcy’s Law: Flow is proportional to change in head (gradient)
q = - K dh/dx (K is hydraulic conductivity)
Conservation of mass:
Flow out – Flow in = Decrease in storage
Flow in/out can be related to heads through Darcy’s Law
Change in storage can also be related to change in head through the storage coefficient
Two basic types of models: analytical and numerical
9
Analytical solutions for predicting drawdown:
Integrate the GW flow equation directly. Get “closed form” solution
Steady-State: Single and multiple wells (e.g., Theim equation)
Line sources (e.g., DF drain discharge)
Transient Single well – constant discharge (Theis)
Single well – constant drawdown (Lohman)
Late time (straight-line) solutions (Jacob)
Multiple wells (super-position) and boundaries
Leaky aquifers and partial penetration (Hantush)
Multiple aquifers (Neuman-Witherspoon)
Recharge and regional flow
Change in streamflow Hunt (1999) and others
10
Analytical solutions example:
What pumping rate do I need to get a 2 m drawdown at 30 days at the edge of a 100 m wide site. T is 650 m2/d, S is 0.0015
If there was a stream 500 m from the well with a bed thickness of 1 m and a K’ of 0.086 m/d, how much flow would be coming from the stream?
11
Limitations of analytical solutions:
Need to assume infinite extent or that h=Ho at some radius of influence
Simple geometry
Uniform properties Theis eqn assumes single, infinite aquifer with no recharge
and fully penetrating well
Simple stream geometry and properties.
Note: More complex solutions can address specific limitations. Image wells and superposition can help deal with boundary
issues
12
Numerical Models:
Finite Difference Methods:
Break area into a rectangular grid
Approximate derivatives in GW flow equation with expressions relating to heads in neighbouring cells
Flows must satisfy mass balance criteria
Solve for heads at centre of cell
Finite Element Method
Break area into triangular or rectangular mesh
Approximate head in element as simple function of heads at nodes and take derivatives
Combine with weighted residual method to minimize error
Solve for heads at each node
13
Groundwater Modelling Programs:
Many codes available
MODFLOW-2005 is a finite difference code
developed by U.S. Geological Survey
open source and free (www.usgs.gov/software)
Many user-interfaces (e.g. Visual MODFLOW or GW-Vistas) available for purchase
FEFLOW 6.0 is a Finite-Element Code
developed by DHI-WASY
closed source
built in GUI
Which method is better?
FD Guy FE Guy
14
Numerical models have many important features:
Multiple aquifers and aquitards
Irregular geometry and discontinities
Irregular boundaries
Spatial variability in hydraulic properties
Variation in recharge rates
Multiple pumping sources
Confined/unconfined transition
Interaction with streams
Warning: All models are simplifications. Not all features can be represented and are often unknown. Simplifying assumptions, and extrapolations should be identified.
15
Model information requirements (Conceptual Model):
Model geometry Model extent should be determined by natural hydrologic
boundaries
Layer thickness (B) and continuity
Aquifer and aquitard properties (K, T, S, Sy)
Boundary conditions (heads and inflows at physical limits of model)
Initial Conditions (heads at t=0)
Simple conceptual model for a well in a confined aquifer Assumes infinite areal extent
16
SEC Model extents: Included all of Duffins Creek and Rouge River watersheds All overburden layers and weathered bedrock Large model but better able to analyze affects on streams
17
Question: Local versus sub-regional models:
Dewatering analysis may only need a local-scale model
Impact assessment needs to consider effects beyond site boundary
Detailed information may exist only on site
Process and extrapolate from other information: Surficial geology and bedrock maps
Aquifer maps
MOE WWIS and UGAIS geotechnical data
Larger scale model should not sacrifice detail at local scale
18
Model grid design:
Model grid should be refined (i.e., small cells or elements) around area of interest
Often use expanding grid to reach model boundaries
Uniform grids are better for regional models because all features (e.g., streams) are of interest
19
Portion of SEC Model grid: Uniform 100-m cell size outside of SEC study area. Down to 2.5 x 2.5 m near Shaft 13
20
SEC Model layer geometry defined by analyzing borehole data Many monitoring wells and geotechnical boreholes installed for SEC Other data obtained from YPDT database
21
SEC Model Geology: Good geologic control along the alignment Less detail at depth (e.g., to locate bedrock valleys) Information about Newmarket Till extent used in design Tunnel passes through TAC and ORAC at some locations
22
Geology section outside SEC area inferred primarily from MOE WWIS geologic logs Location errors, ft-m conversion errors, and other data quality issues add to difficulty in interpretation process Potentiometric surfaces from MOE WWIS static water levels
23
Three main types of Boundary Conditions:
Known head at boundary Constant or time-dependent
Lakes and large rivers
Known flow at boundary No-flow at stream divides
Impermeable boundaries (aquifer base)
Head-dependent flow Leakage across confining units
Leakage across stream beds
H=H0
No Flow
No Flow
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15
No Flow
Model for a well in a confined aquifer with simple boundaries
24
SEC Model uses natural hydrologic boundaries No-flow boundaries at regional groundwater divide Lateral boundaries defined by Rouge/Duffins watersheds Constant head (72.5 masl) at Lake Ontario
25
Boundary Conditions for Dewatering:
Specifying flow at a well or multiple well points: Useful if you need to know the time to achieve target
drawdown
Can provide detailed pumping schedule (e.g., if using multiple wells on different benches)
Specified Head Once target is achieved, head can be maintained with
decreased rate of pumping
Can set head and determine inflows from mass balance
MODFLOW CHD package allows you to turn on constant head boundaries. We modified to turn them off again.
Dewatering ahead of TBW was simulated with moving CH boundary
Click for Animation
26
Aquifer properties:
Aquifer tests conducted by CRA: Provide local information on T and S
Regional aquifer and aquitard properties K’s inferred from previous studies and lithologic log data
Aquitard properties inferred previous work (e.g., Gerber and Howard) and regional ORM model calibration
Local data incorporated and K’s refined
27
Aquifer Inflows:
For simple models, recharge can be estimated and refined through calibration
For SEC, groundwater recharge determined through separate water budget analysis
Used USGS Precipitation-Runoff model (PRMS)
Daily water balance calculated for each model cell
Daily climate data inputs (P, Temp, Solar Radiation)
Soil Properties and land use (e.g., % impervious and vegetative cover density) from available mapping
Simulated 7 years and averaged results
28
SEC Model recharge: High values on Oak Ridges Moraine and Iroquois Beach Lower recharge on Halton and Newmarket Till and urban areas
29
Aquifer Outflows:
For dewatering with wells or wellpoints, discharge rates are specified.
For drains, a control elevation is specified.
For SEC Model, all permitted groundwater takings were represented
Streams represented by MODFLOW rivers or drains Discharge calculated internally based on difference
between stage and aquifer head
Stage is assumed constant (other MODFLOW packages adjust stage based on upstream inflows and leakage)
30
Model calibration:
After we define geometry, boundary conditions, aquifer properties, and inflows, we still need to calibrate to observations.
For SEC, calibration targets were observed potentials and average baseflow in stream
K’s and recharge primary calibration factors
MOE WWIS water levels Data quality problems, large number makes them useful
Baseflow estimated for HYDAT gauges Automated base-
flow separation methods not exact
31
Match of simulated (blue) to observed (red) is reasonable White areas are “dry”, heads are below base of ORAC
32
Match aquifer test results to calibrate storage properties Also tried to match simulated and observed 16th Ave dewatering
33
Modelling dewatering and streamflow depletion:
Pumping near a stream can induce surface water infiltration.
More likely, pumping can reduce amount of water that would naturally discharge to the steam.
Impacts depend on pumping rate, proximity to stream, and aquifer properties (transmissivity and storage), and streambed properties
34
Modelling dewatering and streamflow depletion:
Lag between start of pumping and change in flow
Due to high storage (Sy)
May not see in short-term test Recovery is also lagged
35
SEC Dewatering analysis – Baseline Scenario:
Four Tunnel Drives: TBM run in regular mode through Newmarket Till
Run in EPBM mode through aquifers
Shafts: Sealed shafts in aquifers; open shafts in till.
Shaft 13 needs dewatering for 5 months at end for connection to old sewer
Water takings: 300 L/m at Shaft 11 for construction
All other water from municipal supply
(now permitted for 220 L/min for construction and 300 L/min for seepage and dewatering).
Change in baseflow determined by subtracting simulated baseflow from simulated discharge under baseline conditions
36
Schedule for Tunnel Drives and Shaft construction (not current schedule) Green indicates no expected impact (sealed shafts and EPBM mode)
37
Click for Animation Simulated Drawdowns and Change in GW Discharge to Streams
38
Simulated change in baseflow (GW discharge to stream) Largest changes occur as TBM approaches channel
39
Click for Animation Contingency Simulations: Stuck TBM on Drive A
40
Conclusions:
Numerical models can account for complex geology, multiple aquifers and aquitards, and regional flow conditions
Transient flow modelling is needed to represent behavior of groundwater system under short-term and longer-term dewatering
Models can account for decreasing inflows over time
Can account for change in aquifer storage and seasonal changes in recharge
Can be used to assess time-dependent changes to groundwater discharge to streams
Models results and understanding of geology helped in route selection and dewatering design to minimize impacts.