Parameter |
Case 1 |
Case 2 |
Average
transmissivity, T (m
2/day) |
20 |
20 |
Specific yield, S
y
|
0.1 |
NA |
Storage coefficient |
NA |
2 x 10
-4
|
Porosity, n |
0.3 |
0.3 |
Starting head -
aquifer (m) |
5 |
5 |
Mean head - river (m) |
5 |
5 |
Amplitude, sr
(m) |
5 |
5 |
Time period (days) |
1 |
1 |
Size of model (m) |
500 x 10 |
500 x 10 |
Grid |
251 x 6 |
251 x 6 |
Cell size, Δx (m) |
2 x 2 |
2 x 2 |
Time step, Δt(days) |
0.1 |
0.1 |
The model parameters
and inputs are explained below:
Download model - 1(To download, right click
and select "Save Link As" ) |
COMPARISON BETWEEN UNCONFINED AND
CONFINED AQUIFERS
This video compares
the effect of a sinusoidally oscillating boundary condition on the hydraulic
head in an unconfined aquifer with that in a confined aquifer. The two
aquifers differ only in the magnitude of their storage properties (specific
yield and storage coefficient). The modeling domain consists of a
time-variable head boundary on the left extreme, and a no-flow boundary on
the right. Details are provided in Table 2.5. |
|
The following
observations can be made from the video:
|
|
Case 1: The average
transmissivity of the unconfined aquifer is 20 m
2
/day and the specific yield is 0.1. The sinusoidal oscillation
of head in the river is characterized by an amplitude of 5 m and a time
period of 1 day. The response zone is approximately 50 m in length.
Case 2: The
transmissivity of the confined aquifer is 20 m
2
/day and the storage coefficient is 2 x 10
-4
. The sinusoidal oscillation of head in the river is
characterized by an amplitude of 5 m and a time period of 1 day. The response
zone is larger than in case 1, since the confined aquifer has a much lower
storage coefficient compared to the unconfined aquifer.
Since storage
properties of confined aquifers are smaller than those of unconfined aquifers
by several orders of magnitude (typically 2 or more), the response zones are
proportionally larger. |