SVFlux Verification Manual

2D / 3D Seepage Modeling Software
Verification Manual
Written by:
Robert Thode, P.Eng., B.Sc.G.E.
Edited by:
Murray Fredlund, P.Eng., Ph.D.
SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Software License
The software described in this manual is furnished under a license agreement. The software may
be used or copied only in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Software Support
Support for the software is furnished under the terms of a support agreement.
Copyright
Information contained within this Verification Manual is copyrighted and all rights are reserved by
SoilVision Systems Ltd. The SVFLUX software is a proprietary product and trade secret of SoilVision
Systems. The Verification Manual may be reproduced or copied in whole or in part by the software
licensee for use with running the software. The Verification Manual may not be reproduced or
copied in any form or by any means for the purpose of selling the copies.
Disclaimer of Warranty
SoilVision Systems Ltd. reserves the right to make periodic modifications of this product without
obligation to notify any person of such revision. SoilVision does not guarantee, warrant, or make
any representation regarding the use of, or the results of, the programs in terms of correctness,
accuracy, reliability, currentness, or otherwise; the user is expected to make the final evaluation in
the context of his (her) own problems.
Trademarks
Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
SoilVision is a registered trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
SVOFFICE is a trademark of SoilVision Systems, Ltd.
CHEMFLUX is a registered trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
SVFLUX is a trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
SVHEAT is a trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
SVAIRFLOW is a trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
SVSOLID is a trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
SVSLOPE is a registered trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
ACUMESH is a trademark of SoilVision Systems Ltd.
FlexPDE is a registered trademark of PDE Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2012
by
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Printed in Canada
Last Updated: April 7, 2015
Table of Contents
3 of 93
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6
ONE-DIMENSIONAL SEEPAGE..................................................................................... 7
2.1 TRANSIENT-STATE ............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Haverkamp (1977)....................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Celia (1990) ................................................................................................................ 8
2.1.3 1D Mass Balance ........................................................................................................ 8
2.1.4 SoilCover Comparison ................................................................................................ 9
2.1.5 SoilCover Comparison #2.......................................................................................... 12
2.1.5.1
2.1.5.2
2.1.5.3
2.1.5.4
2.1.5.5
2.1.6
Evaporation - Wilson (1990)...................................................................................... 17
2.1.6.1
2.1.6.2
2.1.6.3
2.1.7
2.1.8
3
Model Geometry ...............................................................................................................13

Material Properties ............................................................................................................13
Boundary Condition ..........................................................................................................14
Climate Data .....................................................................................................................14
Comparison.......................................................................................................................15
Model geometry and boundary conditions ..........................................................................17
Material properties ............................................................................................................18
Results and discussion .......................................................................................................20
Evapotranspiration - Tratch (1995) ........................................................................... 21

Gitirana Infiltration Examples ................................................................................... 23
TWO-DIMENSIONAL SEEPAGE.................................................................................. 25
3.1 STEADY-STATE ........................................................................................................... 25
3.1.1 2D Cutoff .................................................................................................................. 25
3.1.2 2D Earth Fill Dam .................................................................................................... 28
3.1.2.1
3.1.2.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.1.7
3.1.8
3.1.9
3.1.10
3.1.11
3.1.12
3.1.13
3.1.14
Review Boundary..............................................................................................................28
Filter Scenario...................................................................................................................29
X Component of Left to Right Flow ............................................................................ 30

Simple Water Balance ............................................................................................... 31
Decreasing Pipe Size ................................................................................................. 31
Axisymmetric Verification.......................................................................................... 32
Drain-Down Verification ........................................................................................... 34
Roadways Subgrade Infiltration................................................................................. 36
Refraction Flow Example .......................................................................................... 40
Axisymmetric Aquifer Pumping Well ....................................................................... 40
Dam Flow .............................................................................................................. 41
Dupuit Model ......................................................................................................... 42
Well Object vs Rectangle ........................................................................................ 43
2D Well Object with Head Boundary Condition ...................................................... 45
3.1.14.1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................46
3.1.14.2 Geometry and Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................46
3.1.14.3 Material Properties ............................................................................................................47
3.1.14.4 Results and Discussions ....................................................................................................47
3.1.14.4.1 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)..............................................................47
3.1.14.4.2 Distributions of the Head (h) .......................................................................................49
3.1.14.4.3 Flux Flow ...................................................................................................................50
3.1.15
2D Well Object with Review by Pressure Boundary Condition ................................ 50
Table of Contents
4 of 93
3.1.15.1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................50
3.1.15.2 Geometry and Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................50
3.1.15.3 Material Properties ............................................................................................................51
3.1.15.4 Results and Discussions ....................................................................................................52
3.1.15.4.1 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)..............................................................52
3.1.15.4.2 Distributions of the Head (h) .......................................................................................53
3.1.15.4.3 Flux Flow ...................................................................................................................54
3.2 TRANSIENT STATE ........................................................................................................... 54

3.2.1 Transient Reservoir Filling ........................................................................................ 54
3.2.2 Celia Infiltration Example ......................................................................................... 58
3.2.3 Evapotranspiration - Triangular and Rectangular Root Distributions......................... 60
3.2.4 A Transient 2-D Infiltration Problem ......................................................................... 62
THREE-DIMENSIONAL SEEPAGE.............................................................................. 64
4.1 STEADY-STATE ................................................................................................................ 64

4.1.1 Wedge Example ......................................................................................................... 64
4.1.2 Cube Example ........................................................................................................... 65
4.1.3 Toe Example ............................................................................................................. 65
4.1.4 3D Well Object vs Cylinder ....................................................................................... 66
4.1.5 3D Well Object with Head Boundary Condition ......................................................... 68
4.1.5.1
Purpose.............................................................................................................................69
4.1.5.2
Geometry and Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................69
4.1.5.3
4.1.5.4
Results and Discussions.....................................................................................................70
4.1.5.4.1 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)................................................................70
4.1.5.4.2 Distributions of the Head (h) .........................................................................................71
4.1.6
3D Well Object with Review by Pressure Boundary Condition ................................... 72
4.1.6.1
Purpose.............................................................................................................................72
4.1.6.2
Geometry and Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................72
4.1.6.3
4.1.6.4
4.1.6.4.1 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)................................................................74
4.1.6.4.2 Distributions of the Head (h) .........................................................................................75
4.1.7
Confined Aquifer 3D Ideal ......................................................................................... 76
4.1.7.1
4.1.7.2
4.1.7.3
4.1.7.4
4.1.7.5
4.1.7.6
4.1.7.7
Purpose.............................................................................................................................76
Theis System.....................................................................................................................76
Model ...............................................................................................................................77
Geometry and Properties ...................................................................................................78
Remarks............................................................................................................................82
4.2 TRANSIENT STATE ........................................................................................................... 83

4.2.1 Drain-Down Example ................................................................................................ 83
4.2.2 Cube Drain-Down Example ....................................................................................... 83
4.2.3 Cube, Wedge, and Toe Transient Example ................................................................. 84
SENSITIVITY OF THE FINITE ELEMENT MESH ..................................................... 85
5
5.1
MODEL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 85
5.2
5.3
6
Table of Contents
5 of 93
INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .............................................................. 86

SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.......................................................................... 87
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 92
Introduction
6 of 93
1 INTRODUCTION
The word Verification, when used in connection with computer software can be defined as the
ability of the computer code to provide a solution consistent with the physics defined by the
governing partial differential equation, PDE. There are also other factors such as initial conditions,
boundary conditions, and control variables that also affect the accuracy of the code to perform as
stated.
Verification is generally achieved by solving a series of so-called benchmark problems.
Benchmark problems are problems for which there is a closed-form solution or for which the
solution has become reasonably certain as a result of long-hand calculations that have been
performed. Publication of the benchmark solutions in research journals or textbooks also lends
credibility to the solution. There are also example problems that have been solved and published in
User Manual documentation associated with other comparable software packages. While these are
valuables checks to perform, it must be realized that it is possible that errors can be transferred
from ones software solution to another. Consequently, care must be taken in performing the
verification process on a particular software package. It must also be remembered there is never
such a thing as complete software verification for all possible problems. Rather, it is an ongoing
process that establishes credibility with time.
SoilVision Systems takes the process of verification most seriously and has undertaken a wide
range of steps to ensure that the SVFLUX software will perform as intended by the theory of
saturated-unsaturated water seepage.
The following models represent comparisons made to textbook solutions, hand calculations, and
other software packages. We at SoilVision Systems Ltd. are dedicated to providing our clients with
reliable and tested software. While the following list of example models is comprehensive, it does
not reflect the entirety of models, which may be posed to the SVFLUX software. It is our
recommendation that water balance checking be performed on all model runs prior to presentation
of results. It is also our recommendation that the modeling process move from simple to complex
models with simpler models being verified through the use of hand calculations or simple
spreadsheet calculations.
Introduction
7 of 93
2 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SEEPAGE
The following examples compare the results of SVFLUX against published 1D solutions presented in
textbooks or journal papers. One-dimensional scenarios were entered in SVFLUX through the use of
a thin 1D column.
2.1 TRANSIENT-STATE
Transient or time-dependent models allow the benchmarking of time-stepping aspects of the
SVFLUX software.
2.1.1
Haverkamp (1977)
The Haverkamp (1977) model involves infiltration into a 1D column of material. A series of
infiltration experiments were performed by Haverkamp in the laboratory using a plexiglass column
uniformly packed with sand to verify the numerical results. The model was originally solved using
1D finite element and 1D finite difference solution methods. Time-steps used in the analysis were
varied in the original work to determine their effect on the solution. The best solution presented is
with small time-steps (10 seconds) and a dense grid.
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
Haverkamp1977
The material properties used in Haverkamps analysis were custom equations defined in terms of
elevation head rather than soil suction. The model was initially set up in SVFLUX and then minor
modifications were made to the finite element script file to duplicate the solution exactly. The script
file presenting the exact comparison of results can be provided upon request.
The results of the comparison may be seen in Figure 1. Previous issues with varying timesteps are
rendered insignificant given the automatic time-step refinement present in the SVFLUX software. It
can be seen that the mesh selected by SVFLUX automatically duplicates the best results presented
by the Haverkamp solution. The solution took 26 seconds on a P-4 2.8GHz computer and used a
total of 604 nodes.
-10
Pressure head (cm)
-20
-30
dt = 10 sec
dt = 30 sec
-40
dt = 120 sec
Dense Grid
SVFlux
-50
-60
-70
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
De pth (cm)
Figure 1 Comparison between SVFLUX and Haverkamp (1977) as presented by Celia (1990)
Introduction
2.1.2
8 of 93
Celia (1990)
Celia (1990) performed comparisons of 1D solvers by varying the time-steps and the solution
methods (finite difference or finite element). His results are considered classic solutions and are
commonly used to benchmark the validity of 1D infiltration models. The solution presented by Celia
used the h-based formulation of Richards equation and a Newton-Raphson iterative method.
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
Celia1990
A replica of Celias model was set up using the SVFLUX software. Celia presented the material
properties for the model as van Genuchtens equation for the soil-water characteristic curve and as
van Genuchten and Mualems equation for representing the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
curve. Since both methods are implemented in the SVFLUX software the parameters used for the
material could be input directly.
The results of the comparison may be seen in Figure 2. As in the previous model it can be seen
that the automatic mesh generation and automatic time-step refinement allow quick convergence
to the correct solution. A solution for this model was achieved in 43 minutes using an average of
897 nodes.
0
Pressure head (cm)
-200
Dense Grid
-400
dt = 20 sec
dt = 2.4 min
-600
dt = 12 min
dt = 60 min
-800
SVFlux
-1000
-1200
0
20
40
60
80
100
De pth (cm)
Figure 2 Comparison between SVFLUX and results presented by Celia (1990)
2.1.3
1D Mass Balance
An infiltration model was created which verifies the mass-balance of a simulated rainfall for a
period of 1 day. A single storm event is input into SVFLUX and a 24-hour period is run. The
reported total flow into the 1D column should be equal to the amount of rainfall if calculations are
correct. Zero flux boundaries on three sides of the model disallow any flux in or out of the model
with the exception of the top boundary.
Project:
Model:
Columns
Day1
Precipitation:
0.1 m3/day/m2
Material:
ksat:
Grey Till
0.9 m/day
Introduction
Laboratory Interpolated
Fredund and Xing Fit
9 of 93
Laboratory Data
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1e-3
1e-2
1e-1
1e+0
1e+1
1e+2
1e+3
1e+4
1e+5
1e+6
Soil suction (kPa)
Figure 3 Soil-water characteristic curve for 1D mass-balance model

The results of the 1D model may be summarized as follows:
Application:
Intensity:
0.1 m3/day/m2 x 0.1m = 0.01 m3/day

start 9:00 am
end 17:00 (5:00pm)
Reported flux in: 0.010043 m3/day

Error:
0.43%
2.1.4
SoilCover Comparison
The question of how the results of SVFLUX compare to the traditionally accepted SoilCover program
has surfaced in the past while. The purpose of this set of benchmark models is to explain the
similarities and differences between the two software packages. The primary theoretical difference
is that the current version of SVFLUX does not couple in heat flow.
How significant is thermal coupling in standard models? Two examples are set up and the results of
the two programs are compared in order to attempt to determine computational differences. A
cover scenario was chosen for the comparison and the results are presented in the following
paragraphs.
In this example a 1m cover is placed over a 3m tailings material. The bottom boundary is forced to
a constant suction of 10 kPa. The initial conditions are considered hydrostatic through the suction
of 10 kPa at elevation zero.
The material properties for the cover material are as follows.
Introduction
10 of 93
0.450
1.00E-01
User Points
Water Content (dec.)
1.00E-02
Curv e Fit
0.350
1.00E-03
Slope Function
0.300
1.00E-04
0.250
1.00E-05
0.200
1.00E-06
0.150
1.00E-07
0.100
1.00E-08
0.050
1.00E-09
0.000
0
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Slope Function (1/kPa)
0.400
1.00E-10
1000000
Matric Suction (kPa)
Figure 4 Soil-water characteristic curve for Cover material

0
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1.00E+00
1000000
0.50
0.45
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
0.40
1.00E-04
0.35
1.00E-05
0.30
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
0.25
1.00E-08
0.20
1.00E-09
1.00E-10
0.15
1.00E-11
0.10
Volumetric Water Content
Relative Permeability
1.00E-01
1.00E-12
0.05
1.00E-13
1.00E-14
0.00
Figure 5 Hydraulic conductivity for the Cover material (ksat=5e-2 cm/s)

Likewise the material properties for the tailings material are as follows.
0.500
1.00E-01
User Points
1.00E-02
Curve Fit
Water Content (dec.)
0.400
Slope Function
1.00E-03
0.350
1.00E-04
0.300
1.00E-05
0.250
1.00E-06
0.200
1.00E-07
0.150
Slope Function (1/kPa)
0.450
1.00E-08
0.100
1.00E-09
0.050
0.000
0
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1.00E-10
1000000
Figure 6 Soil-water characteristic curve for the Tailings material
Introduction
11 of 93
Matric Suction (k Pa)

0
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1.00E+00
0.50
1.00E-01
0.45
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
0.40
1.00E-04
0.35
1.00E-05
0.30
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
0.25
1.00E-08
0.20
1.00E-09
0.15
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
Volumetric Water Content
Relative Permeability
1000000
0.10
1.00E-12
0.05
1.00E-13
1.00E-14
0.00
Figure 7 Hydraulic conductivity for the Tailings material (ksat=5.7e-5 cm/s)

The model is run for a total of 184 days with relative humidity set at 60%. A total of 87 nodes are
used for the SoilCover analysis. Ground temperatures are calculated within SoilCover by looking up
latitudes.
Evapotranspiration is included in the SoilCover analysis, but does not significantly affect the end
result. Vegetative and freeze/thaw options were turned off in the SoilCover analysis. The
cumulative results of the SoilCover analysis may be seen in the following figure.
500
400
300
Flux (mm)
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Day
PE
AE
PT
AT
ET
Precip
Run Off
Infil.
Figure 8 SoilCover results of numerical model with cover
200
Introduction
Flux (m)
12 of 93
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0
50
100
150
200
Time (days)
PE
AE
Precipitation
Net Flux
Figure 9 SVFLUX results of numerical model with cover

Items to note regarding the comparative analysis are as follows:
AE separates quickly from PE at around day 33 in the SoilCover analysis. This is

impossible because there has not been enough potential evaporation at this time to drive
suctions up past 3000 kPa. AE and PE only separate past a suction of 3000 kPa (Wilson,
1997).
Generally the results are the same and indicate good agreement between SoilCover and
SVFLUX.
The source of the difference in the initial split was investigated. It was found that AE and PE split
on approximately day 30 in SoilCover while not splitting until day 38-40 in SVFLUX. This variation
results in the difference in the predicted AE between the two packages. The suction profiles at day
46 were plotted for each software package and it was found that the cause of the difference is due
to a single node going to a very high suction (18,000 kPa) in SoilCover. This is an error caused by
a lack of nodal resolution near the upper boundary.
2.1.5
SoilCover Comparison #2
A comparison between SVFLUX and SoillCover is presented in this section. SVFLUX version 5.80
and SoilCover version 4.01 will be used to run the same 1-D problem. The problem is simulated in
a period of one month (i.e., 31 days). Comparisons on soil suction distributions and actual
evaporation calculated using the two programs are reported in this verification manual.
Project:
Model:
Theoretical_Verification (SoilCover)
CompareSoilCover (SVFLUX)
GH-1-95R (for SoilCover) and
GH95AVE under
Introduction
2.1.5.1
13 of 93
Model Geometry
The material column is 2 m in height as shown in Figure 10. The elevation of the bottom of the
problem is set at 0.00 m.
Figure 10 Schematic illustration of the 1-D material column that used in the comparison
2.1.5.2
Material Properties
The material used in this comparison was gravel. The soil-water characteristic curve of the gravel is
presented in Figure 11. It can be seen from Figure 11 that the air entry value of the material is
approximately equal to 0.1 kPa. Plot of the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is shown in Figure
12.
0.35
Volumetric water content
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
Soil suction (kPa)
Figure 11 Plot of the soil-water characteristic curve for the gravel material
Introduction
14 of 93
1.0E+01
Hydraulic conductivity (m/da
1.0E-01
1.0E-03
1.0E-05
1.0E-07
1.0E-09
1.0E-11
1.0E-13
1.0E-15
1.0E-17
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
Soil suction (kPa
Figure 12 Plot of the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for the gravel material
2.1.5.3
Boundary Condition
The top of the material column is subjected to both precipitation and evaporation. More details on
the precipitation and evaporation can be seen in the Climate Data section.
The bottom of the material column is subjected to a constant head boundary condition (i.e., porewater pressure equal to -5 kPa).
It is noted that SoilCover requires input temperature at the bottom of the problem. A temperature
of 5 degree was set for the bottom of the problem.
2.1.5.4
Climate Data
Climate data used in this comparison is the data measured by weather station. Plots of the
temperature data are presented in Figure 13. Plots of the relative humidity are presented in Figure
14. Plots of precipitation and potential evaporation are shown in Figure 15.
35
Max
Min
Mean
30
25
Temperature (C)
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
0
10
15
20
25
Time (days)
Figure 13 Plot of the max, min and mean air temperatures
30
Introduction
15 of 93
90
Relative humidity (RH%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Max
10
Min
Mean
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (days)
Figure 14 Plot of the max, min and mean relative humidity values
15
Precipitation
Volume of water (mm/day)
Potential Evaporation
12
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (days)
Figure 15 Plot of precipitation and potential evaporation
2.1.5.5
Comparison
The 1-D problem was modeled in SoilCover with 98 nodes along the material column and 1055
nodes for SVFLUX. Calculated results for pore-water pressures along the material column using
SoilCover and SVFLUX are presented in Figure 16.
Calculated soil suction profiles for the material column at the end of day 31 using SVFLUX and
SoilCover are presented in Figure 17. Calculated actual evaporations for the simulation period using
the two programs are presented in Figure 18.
The calculation results show that the two programs essentially agreed with another. There was a
slight difference between the calculation results which is likely due to the following reasons:
Number of nodes,
A small difference in the best-fitted soil-water characteristic curve and the best-fitted
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function (i.e., due to the requirements in each program
are slightly different),
Introduction
16 of 93
Interpolation technique used in the two programs (i.e., for unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity on logarithmic scale) and
The temperature boundary condition at the bottom of the problem in SoilCover program.
0
Pore-water pressure (kPa)
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
SVFlux 1.902
SVFlux 1.408
SoilCover 1.701
-6
0
SVFlux 1.799
SVFlux 1.04
SoilCover 1.599
10
15
SVFlux 1.701
SoilCover 1.902
SoilCover 1.408
20
SVFlux 1.599
SoilCover 1.799
SoilCover 1.04
25
30
Time (days)
Figure 16 Comparison between pore-water pressures calculated using SVFLUX and SoilCover at
different elevations along the material column (i.e., 1.902 m, 1.799 m, 1.701 m, 1.599 m, 1.408 m and 1.04
m)
Elevation of the soil column (m)
SVFlux
SoilCover
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Pore-water pressure (kPa)
Figure 17 Comparison between pore-water pressure profiles calculated using SVFLUX and SoilCover at
the end of day 31
Introduction
17 of 93
Accumulative of actual evaporation (mm)
SVFlux
SoilCover
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (days)
Figure 18 Comparison between cumulative actual evaporations calculated using SVFLUX and SoilCover
for 31 days of simulation.
2.1.6
Project:
Model:
Evaporation - Wilson (1990)

USMEP
LimitingFunction1997_SVFlux, WilsonPenman1994_SVFlux, EmpiricalAE_SVFlux
The classic solution to the coupling of material-atmosphere equations is presented by Wilson

(1990). In the PhD thesis a column of sand was subjected to drying in a laboratory environment in
which the temperature and relative humidity were controlled. Measurements of actual evaporation
and the distributions of temperature along the column depth were obtained, providing several
measures that can be used for the verification of the numerical model.
2.1.6.1
Model geometry and boundary conditions
A Modified Penman approach to the calculation of actual evaporation was presented in the thesis
(hereafter termed the Wilson-Penman method). Wilson (1990) coded a 1D finite element package
termed Flux in order to compare the physical results to a numerical solution. The geometry and
configuration of the column may be seen in the following figure.
Figure 19 Numerical simulation of the drying column test (Wilson, 1990)
Introduction
18 of 93
An initial comparison to the results obtained by Wilson (1990) was performed by Gitirana (2004)
using the FlexPDE solver used by SVFLUX. The FlexPDE formulation presented by Gitirana included
full coupling of the temperature partial differential equations. The results of this work are presented
in Figure 20.
Figure 20 Results of Gitirana (2004) as compared to Wilson (1990)

Three approaches are available to calculate the actual evaporation: Wilson-Penman AE (Wilson,
1994), Limiting-Function AE (Wilson, Fredlund, and Barbor, 1997), and Empirical AE (Wilson,
Fredlund, and Barbor, 1997). Each approach can be simulated with fully coupled water flow and
heat using SVFlux and SVHeat. However this benchmark only presents uncoupled evaporative
simulations using Svflux package. Please see the SVHeat Verification Manual for the results of the
fully coupling simulations.
NOTE:
1.
2.
2.1.6.2
The model is required to set the Apply Surface Suction Correction option in the
Suction tab of SVFlux model settings dialog, and
The correction factor is set to be 1.8.
Material properties
The material properties in Wilsons thesis are presented as follows. The ksat value used in the
numerical modeling is presented as 3e-5 m/s. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and
gravimetric water content values calculated using the Brooks and Corey estimation method are
presented in Table 6.2 (p. 252). In the FLUX code developed by Wilson the Brooks and Corey
method of representing the SWCC and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function. General
hydraulic properties of the Beaver Creek sand are presented in Table 4.1 (p. 115).
In this benchmark the soil water characteristic curve (SWCC) is approximated with Fredlund and
Xing (1994) approach based on the Wilsons measured data. The parameters for SWCC and
hydraulic conductivity are presented inTable 1, Figure 21 and Figure 22.
Introduction
19 of 93
Table 1 Material properties used in the simulation of Wilsons evaporation benchmark
Material name
Material properties
Beaver Creek Sand
SWCC
Hydraulic
conductivity
Method and
parameters
Value
unit
Sat vwc
Fredlund and Xing
af
nf
mf
hr
0.405
m3/m3
4.046
1.692
1.181
12.415
kPa
Saturated k
2.592
m/day
Modified Campbell
Estimation
k min
Mcampbell p
1E-7
15
m/day
kPa
Figure 21 Soil water characteristic curve of Beaver Creek Sand used in Wilsons evaporation benchmark
Introduction
20 of 93
Figure 22 Hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated Beaver Creek Sand used in Wilson evaporation
benchmark
2.1.6.3
Results and discussion
Exactly replicating this benchmark is technically challenging because i) the original code made use
of an L parameter in the Brooks and Corey estimation in order to adjust the prediction. The use
of such an L parameter is not currently implemented in SVFlux. Therefore the Fredlund & Xing
SWCC fitting curve and the Modified Campbell hydraulic conductivity fitting curve were used and
adjusted to fit the data originally published by Wilson in Table 6.2.
The experimental results obtained by Wilson (1990) were then again compared to SVFLUX. The
results are shown in Figure 23. It can be seen from the results that a reasonable comparison is
obtained. It was found the correction number is related to material properties such as the value of
k min (seeTable 1). It was also found in the course of the comparison that i) the separation point
between the AE and PE as well as ii) the calculated AE later on in the calculation is highly sensitive
to slight variations in the representation of the SWCC and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
curve. To improve the modeling stability, an empirical correction number in SVFlux is utilized to
account for the steep suction gradient at the soil surface (see SVFlux Theory Manual for details).
The correction number in this benchmark is determined by trial and error.
Introduction
21 of 93
9.00
8.00
Measured Potential Evaporation
7.00
Evaporation (mm/day)
Measured AE, Column A (Wilson 1992)
6.00
Measured AE, Column B (Wilson 1992)
5.00
Simulation of Wilson PhD thesis (1990)
4.00
SVFlux simulation, Limiting-Function (1997)

Surface suction correction factor = 1.8
SVFlux simulation, Wilson-Penman (1994)
3.00
SVFlux simulation, Empirical AE (1997)

2.00
1.00
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time (day)
Figure 23 Comparison of evaporation simulated using SVFlux with laboratory data and numerical result
by Wilson (1990)
2.1.7
Project:
Model:
Evapotranspiration - Tratch (1995)

Evapotranspiration
TratchThesis1D_Final
The evapotranspiration simulations performed by Tratch (1995) examine the effects of a vegetation
cover on a column of material. The plant cover was allowed to develop over an entire growing
season and the measured evapotranspiration fluxes were used to calibrate a 1D finite element
computer model, SoilCover (Mend, 1993).
The evapotranspiration features of SVFLUX were used to duplicate the experimental and numerical
results. A vertical 1D model was set up with a 0.6m depth. An error limit of 0.0001 and 437 nodes
were used in the SVFLUX solver to achieve the desired accuracy. The model was run for an 86 day
time period allowing SVFLUX to automatically adjust the time-steps as required.
The base of the model consists of a flow boundary condition using the data from the Tratch thesis
in table B.5. During the experiment the base of the column was held at a constant head, therefore
Introduction
22 of 93
the basal flow rates represent the water that entered the model from a reservoir. An initial head =
0 kPa was entered into SVFLUX, which means that the column is fully saturated at the start of the
analysis.
An evapotranspiration boundary condition was applied to the top of the model. This caused an
evaporative flux to be applied to the top node and additionally a transpiration sink to be applied
below the surface. The evaporative flux data was entered as potential evaporation as presented by
Tratch, then SVFLUX computes the actual evaporation after Wilson (1997). A constant temperature
of 20oC and a constant relative humidity of 85% were used in SVFLUX instead of the exhaustive
diurnal datasets used by Tratch.
The transpiration sink is applied below the surface to a depth corresponding to the root zone. A
triangular root zone distribution was used. The root depth was held at 0 for 2 days and then
increased linearly as the growing season progressed to 0.6m at day 86. The transpiration sink is
also a function of the vegetative parameters of the plant cover. The leaf-area index (LAI) versus
time data (Figure 24) modifies the potential evaporation to give the potential evapotranspiration.
The plant limiting function (PLF) is determined from moisture limiting point of 100 kPa and a plant
wilting point of 200 kPa. As the suction increases in the model, the PLF decreases from 1 at the
limiting point to 0 at the wilting point. The calculated transpiration sink is a function of the potential
evapotranspiration, PLF, and active root zone.
5
4.5
4
3.5
LAI
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time (days)
Figure 24 Leaf-Area Index for Evapotranspiration Verification

The column was filled with an uniform silt. Tratch estimated the soil-water characteristic curve
(SWCC) for the silt. The SWCC data was fit with the Fredlund and Xing fit in SVFLUX. The resulting
parameters are a saturated volumetric water content of 0.371, an air-entry value of 25, an n
parameter of 3, m parameter of 0.58, and hr of 137 kPa. A saturated hydraulic conductivity, ksat,
of 0.001296 m/day was used for the silt and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is estimated
from the SWCC data using the Modified Campbell method with a p = 8 and a minimum hydraulic
conductivity of 1E-9 m/day. In Figure 25, it shows the results of the SVFLUX analysis compared to
the measured and computed values presented by Tratch. The model was solved in 45 minutes on a
Pentium 4 - 2.8 GHz computer. The SVFLUX values compare well to the Tratch analyses. The
difference between the evaporation curves is likely due to choice of exact material properties and
curve fitting parameters.
The model is particularly sensitive to hydraulic conductivity parameters. The lower value of the
transpiration sink calculated by SVFLUX can be attributed to the same effects. The divergence of
the SVFLUX transpiration from the measured values after day 70 is likely due to the upper limit on
the active root zone not considered for the sake of simplicity. Tratch documents a trial and error
method used to calibrate the active root zone in SoilCover to match the measured data.
Introduction
23 of 93
Figure 25 Comparisons between SVFLUX and results presented by Tratch (1995)
2.1.8
Project:
Models:
Gitirana Infiltration Examples

Columns
InfiltrationWithRO_Gitirana2005_prec1ksat;
InfiltrationWithRO_Gitirana2005_prec1p5ksat;
InfiltrationWithRO_Gitirana2005_prec10ksat
Gitirana (2005) presented a series of numerical models designed to test the ability of seepage
software to handle cases of varying infiltration. The specific initiative involved determining the
reasonableness of runoff calculations given increasing application of top boundary flux. For the
series of models created each one had a varying application intensity scaled to the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the model. The models were all unsaturated and homogeneous models
but each displayed the appropriate decay in actual infiltration, which would occur as the models
became saturated and the amount of runoff therefore increased.
Application rates of 1x, 1.5x, 2x, 4x, and 10x saturated hydraulic conductivity were set up. The
benchmarks also demonstrate the robustness of the numerical model in handling cases of
increasingly high precipitation events. As the intensity of the precipitation increases it becomes
increasingly difficult to handle the increase numerically. SVFlux admirably handles intensity
applications up to 10x ksat. It is therefore recommended to evaluate soil cover models in light of
how the intensities compare to the ksat of the top material in the numerical model. In the series of
models created a constant flux is applied to the top of the model. The model eventually saturates
and runoff begins to occur. This is demonstrated in the following figures which match well with the
original results presented by Gitirana (2005).
Introduction
24 of 93
800
Infiltration rate, mm/day
700
Precipitation rate, P = 10 ksat

600
500
400
P = 4 ksat
300
P = 2 ksat
P = 1.5 ksat
200
100
P = 1 ksat
0
0
Time, days
Figure 26 Graph of infiltration rate versus time

1.2
Precipitation rate, P = 1 ksat
Infiltration rate / Precipitation rate
1.0
0.8
P = 1.5 ksat
0.6
P = 2 ksat
0.4
P = 4 ksat
0.2
P = 10 ksat
0.0
0
Time, days
Figure 27 Graph of ratio of infiltration rate / precipitation rate versus time

It can be seen from the preceding figures that the SVFLUX software performs exceptionally well in
solving under extreme conditions.
Introduction
25 of 93
3 TWO-DIMENSIONAL SEEPAGE
An assorted allotment of models are used to verify the validity of the solutions provided by the
SVFLUX software. Comparisons are made either to textbook solutions, journal-published solutions,
or other software packages.
3.1 STEADY-STATE
The first steady-state model used to compare the two software packages involves flow beneath a
concrete gravity dam. The second model involves flow through an earth fill dam. Each scenario
begins with a brief description of the model followed by a comparison of the results from Seep/W
and SVFLUX.
3.1.1
Project:
Model:
2D Cutoff
EarthDams
Cutoff
Figure 28 Mesh from SVFLUX solver (Pentland, 2000)
Figure 29 Mesh from Seep/W (Pentland, 2000)
Introduction
26 of 93
On the left hand side of the model a reservoir is simulated by applying a head of 60m while on the
right side the water table is placed at the ground surface by setting a head of 40m. All other
boundaries are set to zero flow. The Figure 28 provides a view of the mesh automatically created
by the SVFLUX solver. 1
With manual preparation of data for a large and complex model, the processes of subdivision and
generation of error-free input may be much more costly and time-consuming than the computer
execution of the model according to Desai and Abel (1972).
Automatic mesh generation not only saves time in model creation but can also show where the
model gradients are high. In seepage analysis a rapidly changing head can result in high gradients
and these are of utmost importance when analyzing a concrete gravity dam.
Seep/W (version 5.0 and earlier) does not provide fully automatic mesh generation and requires
the user to draw and refine their own mesh. The user may encounter two models if they do not
correctly identify areas of high gradients and refine the mesh accordingly.
The first model will involve a lack of mesh resolution in areas of high gradients. Lack of proper
mesh refinement decreases the chances of convergence and overall solution accuracy. The second
model may involve refining the mesh in areas where gradients are minimal. Unnecessary
refinement can result in more nodes than necessary and the model takes longer than necessary to
solve.
The SVFLUX solver ensures that there is a proper number of nodes at the beginning of the model.
The SVFLUX solver also goes one step further by offering automatic mesh refinement while the
model is being analyzed. This ensures that at any time during the model solution the users can be
assured that the requirements of solution accuracy are being met. There is also a greater
assurance that there will be a proper convergence of your seepage model.
Figure 30 Comparison of computed head contours (Seep/W results in black, SVFLUX solver in color)
(Pentland, 2000)
The comparison of computed head shows that there is good agreement between the SVFLUX solver
and Seep/W. However, attention should be given to two details in Figure 30. The first is the
agreement in computed head near the downstream toe of the dam.
From the model description it can be seen that the mesh drawn in SVFLUX near the downstream
toe has greater resolution than the mesh provided by Seep/W. However, the heads computed by
both software packages are essentially the same. It can be concluded that Seep/W used more
nodes than required to provide the necessary accuracy and solution efficiency in this area. A
second detail is the increasing difference in computed head closer to the cutoff.
Introduction
27 of 93
From Figure 28 and Figure 29 in the model description it can be seen that the SVFLUX solver has
provided a much denser mesh than Seep/W in this area. The accuracy of a finite element solution
can be improved by one of two methods: either by refining the mesh, or by selecting higher order
displacement models (Desai and Abel, 1972).
It appears that the difference in the solved heads are the result of the denser mesh provided by
the SVFLUX solver. While the differences are small in this model, the differences may become more
apparent in a more complex model.
Figure 31 Computed vectors for SVFLUX solver (Pentland, 2000)
Figure 32 Computed vectors for Seep/W (Pentland, 2000)

The comparison of computed gradients shows general agreement between the two software
packages. Hydraulic gradient, according to Darcys law is the change in head over a change in
length, (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
It may be hard to detect in Figure 31 and Figure 32, but there appears to be differences in the
computed gradients for the same reason as stated for the comparison of the computed heads.
Introduction
28 of 93
Figure 33 Comparison of computed pressure contours (Seep/W results in black, SVFLUX solver in
color) (Pentland, 2000)
Pressure is calculated as u = * (h-y), where (Kg/m3) is the unit weight of water, h is hydraulic
head (m) and y (m) is the elevation in a two dimensional analysis. Because the calculation of
pressure depends on the variable, head, it can be expected that there will be slight differences in
the calculated pressures for the same reasons as there are differences in the comparison of head.
3.1.2
2D Earth Fill Dam
The second steady-state example used to compare SVFLUX and Seep/W is an earth fill dam. The
earth fill dam is analyzed on two scenarios. The first scenario does not include a filter material near
the toe of the dam and involves the use of a review boundary condition on the downstream face of
the dam to determine the length of the seepage face. The second scenario involves the use of a
filter material to ensure that water does not exit the dam on the downstream face.
3.1.2.1
Project:
Model:
Review Boundary
EarthDams
Earth_Dam
The first scenario involves the use of a review by pressure calculation of the location of the
downstream exit point. The comparison results may be seen in the following figures.
(Pentland, 2000)
Introduction
29 of 93
Figure 35 Computed vectors (SVFLUX solver) (Pentland, 2000)
Figure 36 Computed vectors (Seep/W) (Pentland, 2000)
3.1.2.2
Project:
Model:
Filter Scenario
EarthDams
Earth_Fill_Dam
The second scenario implements a filter underneath the downstream side the earth dam. Gradients
then converge on the edge of the filter. The following figures illustrate the result comparison.
(Pentland, 2000)
Figure 38 Computed vectors (SVFLUX solver) (Pentland, 2000)
Introduction
30 of 93
Figure 39 Comparison of computed pressure contours (Seep/W results in black, SVFLUX solver in
color) (Pentland, 2000)
3.1.3
X Component of Left to Right Flow
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
FS_Q1_LeftRight
The following model verifies the correct calculation of the x component (i.e., horizontal flow) of
left-right flow. This steady-state model is verified using hand calculations.
Flux 1
Flux 5
Head = 4m
Head = 3m
Y
4m
10m
X
Figure 40 Setup of left-to-right flow

Flow calculations by hand are as follows.
Q = kiA
Q = 1E-4 m/s x (4m-3m)/(10m-0m) x 4m x 1m
Q = 4E-5 m3/s
Resultant x flux calculated by SVFLUX across sections Flux 1 and Flux 5 is 4E-5 m3/s
0.00%)
(Error =
Introduction
3.1.4
31 of 93
Simple Water Balance
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
NatBCTest02
The following model illustrates the verification of flow across a flux section with a slightly irregular
shaped model. Flow through Flux Section 1 must equal flow out of Flux Section 2 as well as the flux
applied to the boundary at Flux Section 1.
2.5
Flux = 0.01 m 3 / s / m
2.5
5.0
Head = 2.5m
2.5
10.0
Figure 41 Confirmation of flow in and out across flux sections
The total flux applied at Flux Section 1 is equal to 0.01m3/s/ m2 x 2.5m x 1m = 0.025 m3/s. The
results of the flux section comparison are as follows:
Flux_1: -0.02451 m3/s
Flux_2: 0.024821 m3/s
3.1.5
Project:
Model:
Error: 2.0%
Error: 0.7%
Decreasing Pipe Size

WaterFlow
Wedge
This example confirms that mass is not lost through a decreasing pipe size. The pipe is 60m high
on the left side and 10m high on the right side. If a mass of water is not lost, then Flux_1 and
Flux_2 should be equal.
Introduction
32 of 93
Head = 60m
Flux 2
Y 60.0
Flux 1
10.0
Head = 10m
80.0
X
Figure 42 Decreasing pipe model setup

Results of the analysis are as follows:
Flux_2: 0.079239 m3/day
Flux_1: 0.079247 m3/day
3.1.6
Axisymmetric Verification
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
GradChange
This example illustrates the design of a simple box taking the form of an Axisymmetric model. A
head boundary condition of 11m is placed on the right-hand side of the model and a head
boundary condition of 10m is placed on the left side of the model. The box dimensions are 10m x
10m.
If the axisymmetric portion of the analysis is being properly considered then two aspects can be
observed, namely:
1.
The gradient in the x direction will increase from right to left, and
2.
The flux sections will display the same value.
Introduction
33 of 93
Figure 43 Axisymmetric analysis check

The final results from the flux section computations are as follows:
Flux_1: 0.026200 m3/s
Flux_2: 0.026189 m3/s
Flux_3: 0.025805 m3/s
The resultant gradient distribution is shown in the following figure. The contours show a constant
increase in flow velocity from right to left.
Figure 44 Gradient change in a Axisymmetric model
Introduction
3.1.7
34 of 93
Drain-Down Verification
Drain down of water in an unsaturated model can be particularly prone to errors in water balance
calculations. SVFLUX uses a mass-conservative formulation of the unsaturated flow equation (Celia,
Bouloutas, and Zarba, 1990) intended to minimize the error associated with water balance
calculations.
For verification of this model a square box is described with dimensions of 1m x 1m. Initial
conditions are saturated and water is allowed to drain out of the lower right of the model by slowly
decreasing the head over the lower 0.1m section of wall. The final head boundary condition on the
lower right section is 0.1m.
It should be noted that the drainage boundary condition applied to the lower right should be
applied slowly. If the boundary condition head equal to 0.1m is applied instantaneously at time
equal to zero, numerical instability can result.
A series of five scenarios with five different material properties were defined and run. The resultant
water-balance error and material properties are presented in the following tables and figures.
Table 2 Scenarios and resultant model errors
Start (m3)
0.350
0.242
0.320
0.301
0.315
Model Title
BoxDrainT1
BoxDrainT2
BoxDrainT3
BoxDrainT5
BoxDrainT6
End (m3)
0.0707
0.241888
0.313
0.201
0.2397
Error
3.7%
2.3%
6.2%
4.4%
1.0%
Table 3 Material properties for case BoxDrainT1

La bora to ry Inte rpolated
Fre du nd an d Xing Fit
Lab oratory Da ta
Mod ifie d Cam p bell
0 .3 5
1e -3
0 .3
1e -4
0 .2 5
1e -5
0 .2
1e -6
0 .1 5
1e -7
0 .1
1e -8
0 .0 5
1e -9
0
1e -3
1e-2
1 e-1
1 e+0
1 e+1
1e +2
Soil suction (kPa)
1e +3
1e+4
1 e+5
1 e+6
1e-3
1 e-2
1e -1
1e +0
1e+1
1 e+2
Soil suction (kPa)
1e +3
1e +4
1e+5
1 e+6
Introduction
35 of 93

Lab oratory Da ta
0 .2 5
1e+3
1e+2
1e+1
0 .2
1e+0
1e-1
1e-2
0 .1 5
1e-3
1e-4
0 .1
1e-5
1e-6
1e-7
0 .0 5
1e-8
1e-9
1e-1 0
0
1e -1
1e+0
1 e+1
1 e+2
1 e+3
1e +4
1e +5
1e+6
1 e+7
1 e-1
1 e+8
1e +0
1e +1
1e +2
1e +3
1e+4
1e+5
1 e+6
1 e+7
1 e+8
Soil suction (psf)
Soil suction (psf)

Lab oratory Da ta
0 .3 5
1e+2
1e+1
0 .3
1e+0
1e-1
0 .2 5
1e-2
1e-3
0 .2
1e-4
0 .1 5
1e-5
1e-6
0 .1
1e-7
1e-8
0 .0 5
1e-9
1e-1 0
0
1e -1
1e+0
1 e+1
1 e+2
1 e+3
1e +4
1e +5
1e+6
1 e+7
1 e+8
1 e-1
1e +0
1e +1
1e +2
1e +3
1e+4
1e+5
1 e+6
1 e+7
1 e+8
Soil suction (psf)
Soil suction (psf)

Lab oratory Da ta
0 .3 5
1e+3
1e+2
0 .3
1e+1
1e+0
0 .2 5
1e-1
1e-2
0 .2
1e-3
1e-4
0 .1 5
1e-5
1e-6
0 .1
1e-7
0 .0 5
1e-8
1e-1 0
1e-9
1e -1
1e+0
1 e+1
1 e+2
1 e+3
1e +4
1e +5
1e+6
1 e+7
1 e+8
1 e-1
1e +0
1e +1
1e +2
1e +3
1e+4
1e+5
1 e+6
1 e+7
1 e+8
1e+5
1 e+6
1 e+7
1 e+8
Soil suction (psf)
Soil suction (psf)

Lab oratory Da ta
0 .3 5
1e+2
1e+1
0 .3
1e+0
1e-1
0 .2 5
1e-2
1e-3
0 .2
1e-4
0 .1 5
1e-5
1e-6
0 .1
1e-7
1e-8
0 .0 5
1e-9
1e-1 0
0
1e -1
1e+0
1 e+1
1 e+2
1 e+3
1e +4
Soil suction (psf)
1e +5
1e+6
1 e+7
1 e+8
1 e-1
1e +0
1e +1
1e +2
1e +3
1e+4
Soil suction (psf)
3.1.8
Project:
Model:
Introduction
36 of 93
Roadways Subgrade Infiltration

Roadways
TRB01, TRB02, TRB03
The following scenarios are comparisons to Seep/W solutions previously published at the Canadian
Geotechnical Conference in Toronto (Barbour, Fredlund, Gan, and Wilson, 1991). A typical crosssection of a roadway was created and various infiltration rates were applied to the shoulders of the
highway. The resultant plots of pore-water pressure were presented.
The results obtained when using SVFLUX show reasonable agreement to the previously calculated
pore-water pressures. Slight difference between the computed water pressures beneath the
highway can be attributed to the increased mesh density generated by SVFLUX. The results also
indicate agreement between the calculation of runoff computed by SVFLUX and Seep/W.
Case 1 Steady-State Infiltration of 0.17 mm/day
Figure 45 Seep/W results as presented in Figure 6 of Barbour et al., 1991
Figure 46 Pore-water pressures as computed by SVFLUX
Introduction
Case 2 Steady-State Infiltration of 1.7 mm/day

Case 3 Steady-State Infiltration of 17 mm/day Runoff Included
37 of 93
Introduction

Case 4 Transient Infiltration of 2.0 mm/day Day 1
Figure 51 Seep/W results as presented in Figure 10a of Barbour et al., 1991
38 of 93
Introduction
Case 5 Transient Infiltration of 2.0 mm/day Day 10
Figure 53 Seep/W results as presented in Figure 10c of Barbour et al., 1991
39 of 93
3.1.9
Project:
Model:
Introduction
40 of 93
Refraction Flow Example

WaterFlow
Crespo
This model provides verification of the refraction law when water passes from one material to
another. The solution can be verified using either the flow lines or equipotentials since these lines
are perpendicular in the steady-state solutions when k is isotropic. A square domain of 10m x 10m
is set up.
The outer perimeter is impervious with the exception of the specified head boundary conditions.
The layer thicknesses are 4, 3, and 3m. The model was documented by Crespo (1993).
Figure 55 Verification of the refraction law using SVFLUX
3.1.10 Axisymmetric Aquifer Pumping Well

This example model describes a pumping well that intersects a confined aquifer which is horizontal
with a thickness, b. The aquifer is recharged by a constant-head lake at a distance R from the well
center (Figure 56 of Todd, 1980). The model was solved analytically almost 130 years ago. The
model is also presented by Chapuis, 2001.
Introduction
41 of 93
35
Hydraulic head h (m)
30
25
20
Todd, 1980
SVFlux
15
10
5
0
0.1
10
100
Radial distance r (m)
Figure 56 Comparison between SVFLUX and results calculated by Todd (1980)
3.1.11 Dam Flow

Two models are presented to show verification of flow through a dam cross-section. The solution
was published by Bowles (1984). Results are presented in the following figure.
Project:
Model:
EarthDams
Bowles95a
Figure 57 Steady-state conditions in a homogeneous dam for comparison of numerical results with
approximate results of Bowles (1984)
Bowles estimated the flow rate Q by two approximate methods that yielded 1.10e-3 m3 /(min*m)
and 1.28e-3 m3 /(min*m). SVFLUX yielded a flow rate of 1.41e-3m3 /(min*m). The emergence of the
water table on the downstream slope is at an elevation of approximately 10.0m whereas Bowles
estimated the exit point at approximately 6.5m.
Introduction
42 of 93
3.1.12 Dupuit Model

The following model illustrates calibration of SVFLUX to the solution originally presented by Dupuit
in 1863. The model examines an unconfined aquifer with an effective infiltration W of 0.4
m3/(m2year). The aquifer is 35 m thick and 3000 m long. The approximate solution to the model
may be found in many textbooks as:
h 22 h12
W 2
x1 x 22
K
[1]
A transformation changing the long dimension from 3000 m to 300 m was applied to both the
Seep/W solution and the SVFLUX solution. The reduction allows a significant reduction in the
number of elements, which are needed in the solution. The results are presented in the following
figures.
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
Dupuit
Figure 58 Steady-state seepage as calculated by Seep/W for an unconfined aquifer (ksat=1.0 x 10-4 m/s)
recharged by an effective infiltration W (Chapuis, 2001): (a) finite element mesh of 210 elements, (b)
finite element mesh of 3660 elements
Figure 59 Steady-state seepage calculated by SVFLUX for an unconfined aquifer recharged by an

effective infiltration W
Introduction
43 of 93
Figure 60 Finite element mesh refined according to areas of critical gradients in the unsaturated zone. A
total of 1589 nodes were used to achieve the above solution.
3.1.13 Well Object vs Rectangle

The purpose of the models in this section is to verify that the Well object can successfully represent
piezometric wells. A model with a classic rectangle representing a well is compared to a model with
a Well object. The results of the model with rectangle are then compared to the model with the
Well object. The Well object uses a sink mechanism to simulate pumping in piezometric wells (see
the SVFlux Theory Manual for a further description).
Project:
Model:
WellPumping
Well_Object_2D and Narrow_Rectangle_2D
a) Well_Object_2D
b) Narrow_Rectangle_2D
Figure 61 Model Well_Object_2D and model Narrow_Rectangle_2D

In the model Well_Object_2D (thereafter referred to as the Well Model), there is a Well object in
the center of the model domain. The vertical screen length of the well is 20 m which starts at
elevation 5 m and proceeds up to an elevation of 25 m. The well is enclosed by flux sections Flux1,
Flux2, Flux3 and Flux4 as shown in Figure 61. It is therefore possible to investigate the total flow
into the well through the values reported by the flux sections. The model Narrow_Rectangle_2D
(thereafter referred to as the Rectangular Model) is the same as the model Well_Object_2D but
makes use of a narrow rectangle to replace the well object. The vertical length of the rectangle is
20 m.
Introduction
44 of 93
R is used to represent the pumping rate applied to the rectangle in the Rectangular Model. W is
used to represent the pumping rate applied to the well in the Well Model. It should be noted that
the pumping rate applied in the rectangular model is specified as a flow, q, per unit length of the
sidewall (R). The applied pumping rate of the well (W) is specified as a total flow, Q, which is
spread over the entire vertical height of the well screen. The applied total pumping rate, Q of the
rectangle may be calculated as 2 * L * R in the Rectangular Model, where L is the side length of
the rectangle. This applied total pumping rate is referred to as Applied Pumping Rates. In order
to compare these two models, the rate W, is specified in the Well Model so that the Applied
Pumping Rates are kept the same in the two models. The relationship between W and R is
defined as W = 2 * L * R, where L is the side length of the rectangle in the Rectangular Model or
the screen length in the Well Model since these two lengths are identical (20 m).
The two models were run on a group of different R and W input values as shown in Table 7.
It is important to realize that there are three numbers which are of significance when measuring
the performance of such a system. The three numbers are as follows:
1.
Applied pumping rate: This number is the applied pumping rate as measured in terms
of m3 / T or m3 / T / L.
2.
Reported pumping rate: This is the rate of pumping as reported by the software. This is
reported as a single number for well objects. For rectangular objects, this number is taken
as the reported boundary flux on the well region.
3.
Flux section box: This number is the reported flow across flux sections surrounding the
well. In the Rectangular model these flux sections should accurately match the applied
pumping rates. It is the assumption when the measuring flow on the Well Model that the
zone of influence of the sink function does not extend outside of the flux sections.
Table 8 Fluxes on the Well Model and the Rectangular Model
The Rectangular Model

R
Reported
(m3/day
Flux
Error (%)
/m2)
(m3 /day)
The Well Model

W
Reported
(m3/day)
Flux
(m3/ day)
Error
(%)
Applied Pumping
Rate (m3/day)
-0.1
3.98
0.50%
-4
4.07
1.73%
-4
-0.2
7.96
0.50%
-8
8.14
1.73%
-8
-0.3
11.94
0.50%
-12
12.21
1.73%
-12
-0.4
15.92
0.50%
-16
16.27
1.67%
-16
-0.5
19.9
0.50%
-20
20.34
1.69%
-20
-0.6
23.88
0.50%
-24
24.42
1.65%
-24
The column on the right-hand side in above table is the Applied Pumping Rate of the both models.
The first three columns represent data from the Rectangular Model, the reported total flux across
the rectangle measured from the four flux sections and the error between the actual flux and the
Applied Pumping Rate. The next three columns represent data from the Well Model, the actual total
flux across the well measured from the four flux sections and the error between the actual flux and
the Applied Pumping Rate. The equation by which Errors on the column 3 (or 6) is calculated by
the equation below:
2 * ||Column2(or 5)| |Column7|| / (|Column2(or 5)| + | Column7|)
Introduction
45 of 93
Since all of the errors are small, it illustrates both the well object and the narrow rectangle
approaches can successfully represent the piezometric wells.
The distributions of Pore Water Pressure (PWP) and Head (H) in both the Well Model and the
Rectangular Model are the same for each row in the above table. The Figure 62 and Figure 63
represent the contour graphs of the Pore Water Pressure and Head of the Well Model and the
Rectangular Model respectively for the case of the sixth row of the table, i.e., the R is specified as
0.6 (m3/day/m2) in the Rectangular Model and the W is specified as 24 (m3/day) in the Well
Model.
a) Pore Water Pressure
b) Head
Figure 62 Contours of Pore Water Pressure and Head in the Well Model when R = -24 (m3 / day)
b) Head
Figure 63 Contours of Pore Water Pressure and Head in the Rectangular Model when P = -0.6 (m3 / day
/ m2)
3.1.14 2D Well Object with Head Boundary Condition

Project:
Model:
WellPumping
Well_Object_2D_head and Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head
These models are designed to verify the head boundary conditions as applied to a 2D well object
within SVFlux.
Introduction
46 of 93
3.1.14.1 Purpose
Two models are created in this verification in order to test the implementation of a head boundary
condition on a well object. A second model makes use of model geometry to verify the approach.
The goal of this verification is to verify that the same results can be obtained by both approaches.
3.1.14.2 Geometry and Boundary Conditions

The model Well_Object_2D_head geometry is shown
Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head geometry is shown in Figure 65.
in
Figure
Figure 64 Model Well_Object_2D_head
Figure 65 Model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head

These two models are all SVFlux Steady State 2D models.
64
and
the
model
Introduction
47 of 93
The boundary conditions of the well object in model Well_Object_2D_head are as follows:
Boundary Type:
Influence Distance:
Line Mesh Spacing:
Growth Factor:
Head 20 m
0.05 m
0.32 m
2
The boundary conditions of the narrow rectangle in model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head are as

follows:
Top and Bottom:
Two sides:
No BC
Head 20 m
The other boundary conditions are the same for the two models. A head of 30 m boundary is
defined for the two sides of the big rectangle and No BC is specified for the top and bottom of the
big rectangle. 6 stages with values 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 are utilized for both
models.
3.1.14.3 Material Properties

The both models use the same material properties.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity: 1 m/day
Porosity:
0.3
Fredlund and Xing Fit parameters:
af:
37 kPa
nf:
1
mf:
2
hr:
346 kPa
The rest of the parameters are taken as defaults of the software.
3.1.14.4 Results and Discussions

3.1.14.4.1 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)
The distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of model Well_Obect_2D_head are shown in
Figure 66 and the distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the model
Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head are shown in Figure 67.
Introduction
48 of 93
Figure 66 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Well_Object_2D_head at the last
stage (stage 6)
Figure 67 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head at

the last stage (stage 6)
The results of the models show the two models have very similar pore-water pressure (uw)
distributions.
Introduction
49 of 93
3.1.14.4.2 Distributions of the Head (h)

The distributions of the Head (h) of model Well_Obect_2D_head are shown in Figure 68 and the
distributions of the Head (h) of the model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head are shown in Figure 69.
Figure 68 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Well_Object_2D_head at the last stage (stage 6)
Figure 69 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head

at the last stage (stage 6)
The results of the models show the two models have very similar head (h) distributions.
Introduction
50 of 93
3.1.14.4.3 Flux Flow

The total flux flow to the well can be obtained through calculating the flows crossing each flux
section. The total flux flow to the well is 27.67 (m3/day) in the mode Well_Object_2D_head. The
total flux flow to the well is 27.75 (m3/day) in the mode Narrow_Rectangle_2D_head. There is
very small different between these two flux flows (About 0.29 % different).
The flux flow of the well object is significantly dependent on the parameter Influence Distance and
needs to be further investigated.
3.1.15 2D Well Object with Review by Pressure Boundary Condition

Project:
Model:
WellPumping
Well_Object_2D_review and Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review
These models are designed to verify the review by pressure boundary conditions as applied to a 2D
well object within SVFlux.
3.1.15.1 Purpose
Two models are created in this verification in order to test the implementation of a review by
pressure boundary condition on a well object. A second model makes use of model geometry to
verify the approach. The goal of this verification is to verify that the same results can be obtained
by both approaches.
3.1.15.2 Geometry and Boundary Conditions

The model Well_Object_2D_review geometries are shown in
Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review geometries are shown in Figure 71.
Figure 70 Model Well_Object_2D_review
Figure
70
and
the
model
Introduction
51 of 93
Figure 71 Model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review

The boundary conditions of the well object in model Well_Object_2D_review are as follows:
Boundary Type:
Influence Distance:
Line Mesh Spacing:
Growth Factor:
Review by Pressure
0.04 m
0.02 m
2
The boundary conditions of the narrow rectangle in model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review are as

follows:
Top and Bottom:
Two sides:
No BC
Review by Pressure
defined for the two sides of the big rectangle and No BC is specified for the top and bottom of the
big rectangle. 6 stages with values 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 are utilized for both
models.
3.1.15.3 Material Properties

Porosity:
0.3
af:
37 kPa
nf:
1
mf:
2
hr:
346 kPa
The rest of the parameters are taken as defaults of the software.
Introduction
52 of 93
3.1.15.4 Results and Discussions

3.1.15.4.1 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)
The distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of model Well_Obect_2D_review are shown in
Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review are shown in Figure 73.
Figure 72 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Well_Object_2D_review at the
last stage (stage 6)
Figure 73 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review at

distributions.
Introduction
53 of 93
3.1.15.4.2 Distributions of the Head (h)

The distributions of the Head (h) of model Well_Obect_2D_review are shown in Figure 74 and the
distributions of the Head (h) of the model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review are shown in Figure 75.
Figure 74 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Well_Object_2D_review at the last stage (stage 6)
Figure 75 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review at the last stage
(stage 6)
Introduction
54 of 93
3.1.15.4.3 Flux Flow

The total flux flow to the well can be obtained through calculating the flows crossing each flux
section. The total flux flow to the well is 44.91 (m3/day) in the mode Well_Object_2D_review. The
total flux flow to the well is 44.23 (m3/day) in the mode Narrow_Rectangle_2D_review. There is
very small different between these two flux flows (About 1.53 % different).
The flux flow of the well object is significantly dependent on the parameter Influence Distance and
needs to be investigated further.
3.2 TRANSIENT STATE

A number of transient models were used to verify the SVFLUX software. The following models
demonstrate the successful ability of the SVFLUX software to provide accurate transient solutions.
3.2.1
Transient Reservoir Filling
The model involves the filling of a reservoir. This section begins with a brief description of the
model followed by a comparison of the results obtained from both the SVFLUX and Seep/w
software packages.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Q=0
Qo=0, H=10
H=0
Q=0
0
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
Figure 76 Reservoir filling description (Pentland, 2000)

The earth fill dam considered is 28m high 52m in length and incorporates a filter on the
downstream toe of the dam. The initial conditions of head were obtained by first solving a steadystate run of the model with the head on the upstream face of the dam set to 4m and a head of 0m
on the lower portion of the filter. All other boundaries were set to zero flow. The results from the
steady-state analysis were then imported as the initial conditions for the transient analysis.
While the material properties remain the same in the transient flow model, the boundary conditions
change slightly. A head of 10 m is set on the upstream face of the dam to simulate a full reservoir
condition. The model is run for 16,383 hours. Below, the results from times 15, 255, 1023, 4095,
and 16383 hours are provided.
Introduction
55 of 93
1.E-02
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-05
Dam material
1.E-06
Toe Drain Material
1.E-07
1.E-08
1.E-09
1.E-10
1.E-11
1.E-12
100
50
-50
-100
-150
-200
Pore water pressure (kPa)
Figure 77 Material Properties (Pentland, 2000)
Results
Figure 78 Comparison of computed head contours at time 15 hours (Seep/W results in black, SVFLUX
solver in color) (Pentland, 2000)
Figure 79 Comparison of computed pore-water pressure contours at time 15 hours (Seep/W results in
black, SVFLUX solver in color) (Pentland, 2000)
Introduction
56 of 93
Figure 80 Comparison of computed pore-water head contours at time 255 hours (Seep/W results in
black, SVFLUX solver in color) Pentland (2000)
Introduction
57 of 93
Figure 85 Comparison of computed pressure contours at time 4095 hours (Seep/W results in black,
SVFLUX solver in color) (Pentland, 2000)
Introduction
58 of 93
Figure 86 Comparison of computed head contours at time 16383 hours (Seep/W results in black,
Figure 87 Comparison of computed pressure contours at time 16383 hours (Seep/W results in black,
It can be seen from the above figures that there is good agreement between the results from the
packages. Some differences appear, likely due to differences in temporal and spatial discretization
between the two programs (Pentland, 2000).
3.2.2
Celia Infiltration Example
Celia (1990) presented an infiltration example comparing finite difference and finite element
solutions. The example represents an approximate description of a field site in New Mexico. The
model involved unsaturated infiltration into a column of 100cm in depth. The paper by Celia
outlines the solution offered by both finite difference and finite element methods. The time-steps
are varied to illustrate the possible variation in solution profiles. The resulting profiles presented by
Celia are shown in Figure 88.
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
Celia1990
Introduction
59 of 93
Figure 88 (a) Finite difference and (b) finite element solutions using h-based equations with data of (13).
Finite difference solution using Dt=2.4 min did not converge in nonlinear iteration (Celia (1990))
The model was duplicated in the SVFLUX software package. Material properties presented in the
paper were converted from a functional to a digital representation. The results of SVFLUX as
compared to the finite element results presented by Celia are shown in Figure 89. Preliminary
sensitivity analysis indicates that differences between the solutions can be attributed to differences
in the representation of material properties.
SVFLUX results indicate correct solution of the infiltration model. The results also validate the
automatic time-step selection used by SVFLUX in solving transient models. Numerical oscillations
commonly encountered by the selection of large time-steps in finite element solvers can be
minimized using SVFLUX.
Dense grid
0
Pressure head (cm)
dt = 20 sec
-200
dt = 2.4 min
dt = 12 min
-400
dt = 60 min
SVFlux
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Depth (cm)
Figure 89 Difference between finite element solutions presented by Celia

and the solution obtained using SVFLUX
3.2.3
Introduction
60 of 93
Evapotranspiration - Triangular and Rectangular Root Distributions
SVFLUX supports 2 methods for specifying the distribution of roots in a model in which
evapotranspiration is applied. The triangular distribution method assumes the material area
occupied by roots is 0 at the maximum root depth and increases linearly to the ground surface or
top of the active root zone.
The rectangular distribution method assumes a constant area occupied by the roots within the root
zone. Figure 90 and Figure 91 illustrate the triangular and rectangular root distributions
respectively. The hypothesis for this test is that both distributions should pull the same amount of
water from the model.
Project:
Model:
VerifySVFLUX
ED_Initial, T2DexampleET, T2DExampleETRect
Figure 90 Triangular Potential Root Uptake
Figure 91 Rectangular Potential Root Uptake

The triangular and rectangular root distribution method both result in the same potential root
uptake. The same volume of water will be pulled from the material independent of which method is
used. The models T2DExampleET and T2DExampleETRect have been created to verify the above
condition.
The model consists of a single rectangular material region in 2D, 6m wide and 3m deep. An
evapotranspiration boundary has been applied to the right half of the top boundary. A head
boundary condition exists at the base of the model.
Introduction
61 of 93
Model T2DExampleET using a triangular root distribution calculates a total transpiration flux of
0.684442 m3/day while model T2DExampleETRect using a rectangular root distribution calculates a
total transpiration flux of 0.688750 m3 /day. This gives a percent difference of only 0.63%.
Even though the total water pulled form the model is the same the following contour plots show
how the water is being pulled out at different rates depending on depth for the triangular
distribution while being pulled out at the same rate for the rectangular distribution.
Figure 92 Triangular Root Distribution Transpiration Sink Contour
Figure 93 Rectangular Root Distribution Transpiration Sink Contour
3.2.4
Introduction
62 of 93
A Transient 2-D Infiltration Problem
Tsai et al. (1993) developed a finite-analytic (FA) method to solve problems associated with water
flow in unsaturated soils. They published the solutions obtained from their method for a transient
2-D flow of water under a strip source infiltration of constant flux for a uniform clay loam soil. They
also compared the solutions obtained from their method with those obtained from analytic and
finite element solutions. The below figures compare the results for two different times; 36 min and
72 min. This verification is for Case 1 as present by Tsai et al. (1993).
The paper also presents Case 2 (same a Case 1, but with a coarse sand) and Case 3 (similar to
Case 1 and Case 2 with alternating layers of silty loam and coarse sand)
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
Tsai1993_Case1, Tsai1993_Case2, Tsai1993_Case3
Figure 94 Contour of pressure head for simulation of infiltration with constant flux strip source for Clay
Loam: Time = 36 min (Tsai et al. 1993)
Loam: Time = 72 min (Tsai et al. 1993)
Introduction
63 of 93
The problem is duplicated in the SVFLUX software. The pressure head contours obtained from
SVFLUX are compared with those obtained from analytic solutions and finite element solutions
presented by Tsai et al (1993) (Figure 96 and Figure 97).
The results show that the SVFLUX solutions are comparable to the analytic solutions for all
pressure head values except for the lowest pressure head value. The discrepancy between the
results obtained from SVFLUX for the pressure head value of -200 cm may be attributed to the
SWCC. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the solutions are sensitive to the representation of
the SWCC.
80
H = -80
Finite Element Solutions From

the Paper
70
SVFlux
H = - 120 cm
60
H = - 160 cm
y (cm)
50
Analytical Solution from Paper
H = -200 cm
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
x (cm)
Loam resulted from SVFLUX, Analytical, and Finite Element solutions : Time = 36 min
80
H = -80
70
60
y (cm)
50
H = - 120 cm
SVFlux
40
H = - 160 cm
Finite Element Solutions From

Paper
30
20
H = -200 cm
Analytical Solutions from Paper
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
x (cm)
Loam resulted from SVFLUX, Analytical, and Finite Element solutions: Time = 72 min
Three-Dimensional Seepage
64 of 93
4 THREE-DIMENSIONAL SEEPAGE
Three-dimensional seepage models are presented in this chapter to provide a forum to compare
the results of the SVFLUX solver to the results of other seepage software and other documented
examples. Both steady-state and transient models are considered.
4.1 STEADY-STATE
The following models are presented as steady-state verification when time is assumed to be
infinite.
4.1.1
Wedge Example
The following model illustrates the use of a wedge to perform calculations for a three-dimensional
analysis. Flux sections are placed at various points in the model to compute water flow volumes.
The hydraulic conductivity was set at 0.1 m/s. The error limit of the software had to be decreased
to 0.00001 m/s in order to increase the solution accuracy.
Project:
Model:
WaterFlow
Wedge
Flux 1
Flux 2
Z
70
Flux 3
Flux 4
8
34
50
Y
50
Figure 98 Wedge model geometry

Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
1:
2:
3:
4:
48.260
48.230
48.228
47.705
m3/s
m3/s
m3/s
m3/s
Error:
Error:
Error:
Error:
0.00%
0.06%
0.07%
1.15%
4.1.2
65 of 93
Cube Example
The following example defines a cube of unit dimensions. Three vertical flux sections are then
placed through the model. The hydraulic conductivity is input as 0.1 m/s. All flux sections should
yield the same results if the model is being solved properly.
Project:
Model:
VerifySVFLUX
1.0
Flux 1
Flux 2
Flux 3
Head = 0.8
1.0
0.8
Head = 0.2
0.2
Y
1.0
Figure 99 2-D cross-section of 3-D cube

Flux 1: 0.6 m3/s
Flux 2: 0.6 m3/s
Flux 3: 0.6 m3/s
4.1.3
Error: 0.00%
Error: 0.00%
Error: 0.00%
Toe Example
The following model tests flow through a model containing a toe section. A toe section may be
added to irregular models to increase the accuracy of the flux calculations.
Flux = 0.1
m3/ s / m 2
Flux 2
Flux 3
1.0
Flux 4
Head = 0.2m
Z
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.1
Figure 100 Geometry of cube and wedge model

Flux
Flux
Flux
Flux
input: 0.1 m3/s

2: 0.1000 m3/s
3: 0.09856 m3/s
4: 0.1002 m3/s
4.1.4
66 of 93
Error: 0.00%
Error: 1.44%
Error: 0.20%
3D Well Object vs Cylinder
The purpose of the models in this section is to verify that the well object can successfully represent
piezometric wells in a 3D scenario. A model with a cylinder representing a well is first created in
order to prove the new Well object approach. The results of the cylinder are then compared to the
new Well object approach. The new well object approach requires far fewer nodes in order to
calculate resulting fluxes so there are significant benefits with the proposed new approach. The
Well object uses a sink mechanism to simulate pumping in piezometric wells (see the SVFlux
Theory Manual for a further description).
Project:
Model:
WellPumping
Well_Object_3D and Slender_Cylinder_3D
Figure 101 Well_Object_3D model
Figure 102 Slender_Cylinder_3D model

In model Well_Object_3D (thereafter referred to as the Well Model), there is a Well object in the
center of the model domain. The vertical screen length of the well is 20 m measured from the
bottom of the well. The well object represents a well with zero radius. The well is enclosed by flux
sections Flux1, Flux2, Flux3 and Flux4 as shown in Figure 101. So it is possible to investigate the
67 of 93
total flow into the well when a pumping rate is applied. The model Slender_Cylinder_3D (thereafter
referred to as the Cylinder Model) is the same as the model Well_Object_3D but makes use of a
slender cylinder to replace the well object. The length L of the cylinder is 20 m and the radius R of
the cylinder is 0.3 m.
R is used to represent the pumping rate applied to the cylinder in the Cylinder Model. W is used to
represent the pumping rate of the well in the Well Model. Values of the R and the W are input by
user. It should be noted that the pumping rate applied in the Cylinder model is specified as a flow,
q, per unit area of the sidewall (R). The applied pumping rate of the well (W) is specified as a total
flow, Q, which is spread over the entire vertical height of the well screen. The applied total
pumping rate, Q of the cylinder may be calculated as 2 * * r * L * R in the Cylinder Model, where
L is the length of the cylinder and r is the radius of the cylinder. These applied total pumping rates
are referred to as Applied Pumping Rates. In order to compare these two models, the rate W, is
specified in the Well Model so that the Applied Pumping Rates are kept the same in the two
models. The relationship between of W and R is defined as W = 2 * * r * L * R, where L is the
side length of the rectangle in the Cylinder Model or the screen length in the Well Model since these
two lengths are identical (20 m). The r is the radius of the cylinder (0.3 m)
The two models were run on a group of different R and W input values as shown in Table 8.
It is important to realize that there are three numbers which are of significance when measuring
the performance of such a system. The three numbers are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Applied pumping rate: This number is the applied pumping rate as measured in terms
of m3 / T or m3 / T / A.
Reported pumping rate: This is the rate of pumping as reported by the software. This is
reported as a single number for well objects. For cylinder objects, this number is taken as
the reported boundary flux on the well region.
Flux section box: This number is the reported flow across flux sections surrounding the
well. In the Cylinder model these flux sections should accurately match the applied
pumping rates. It is the assumption when the measuring flow on the Well Model that the
zone of influence of the sink function does not extend outside of the flux sections.
Table 9 Fluxes on the Well Model and the Cylinder Mode
The Cylinder Model
The Well Model
P
(m3/day
/m2)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Reported
Flux
(m3/ day)
3.72
7.44
11.16
14.88
Error
(%)
1.33%
1.33%
1.33%
1.33%
Run Time
(mm:ss)
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:03
0.5
0.6
18.6
22.33
1.33%
1.29%
11:03
11:02
R
(m3/ day)
3.77
7.54
11.31
15.08
Reported
Flux
(m3/day)
3.71
7.46
11.2
14.9
Error
(%)
1.60%
1.06%
1.06%
1.06%
Run Time
(mm:ss)
0:17
0:16
0:17
0:17
Applied
Pumping
Rate
(m3/day)
3.77
7.54
11.31
15.08
18.85
22.62
18.6
22.4
1.12%
1.06%
0:17
0:17
18.85
22.62
The last column in above table is the Applied Pumping Rate of the both models. The first four
columns are the data from the Cylinder Model, P, the actual total flux cross the cylinder measured
from the four flux sections, the error between the actual flux and the applied pumping rate and run
time. The next four columns are the data from the Well Model, the actual total flux across the well
measured from the four flux sections, the error between the actual flux and the applied pumping
rate and the run time. The equation by which Errors on the column 3 (or 7) is calculated by the
equation below:
68 of 93
2 * ||Column2(or 6)| |Column9|| / (|Column2(or 6)| + | Column9|)

Since all of the errors are small, it illustrates both well object and slender cylinder
approaches can successfully represent the piezometric wells. It also shows that the well
model is much faster than the cylinder model. It is about 41 times faster in the current
examples.
The distributions of Pore Water Pressure (PWP) and Head (H) of both the Well Model and the
Cylinder Model are the same for each row in above table. The Figure 103 and Figure 104 are the
contour graphs of the Pore Water Pressure and Head of the Well Model and the Cylinder Model
respectively for the case of the sixth row of the table, for example, the P is specified as 0.6
(m3/day/m2) in the cylinder model and the Rate is specified as 22.62 (m3/day) in the Well Model.
b) Head
Figure 103 Contours of Pore Water Pressure and Head in the well model when R = -22.62 (m3 / day)
b) Head
Figure 104 Contours of Pore Water Pressure and Head in the cylinder model when R = 0.62 (m3 / day /
m2)
4.1.5
Project:
Model:
3D Well Object with Head Boundary Condition

WellPumping
Well_Obect_3D_head and Slender_Cylinder_3D_head
These models are designed to verify the head boundary conditions as applied to a 3D well object
within SVFlux.
4.1.5.1
69 of 93
Purpose
Two models are created in this verification in order to test the implementation of a head boundary
condition on a well object. A second model makes use of model geometry to verify the approach.
The goal of this verification is to verify that the same results can be obtained by both approaches.
4.1.5.2
Geometry and Boundary Conditions
The model Well_Obect_3D_head geometries are shown in

Slender_Cylinder_3D_head geometries are shown in Figure 106.
Figure
105
and
the
Figure 106 Model Slender_Cylinder_3D_head

The boundary conditions of the well object in model Well_Object_3D_head are as follows:
Boundary Type:
Influence Distance:
Line Mesh Spacing:
Growth Factor:
Head 16 m
0.23 m
0.02 m
3
model
70 of 93
The boundary conditions of the slender cylinder in model Slender_Cylinder_3D_head are as

follows:
Top and Bottom:
Side:
No BC
Head 16 m
defined for the sides of the big cube and No BC is specified for the top and bottom of the big cube.
6 stages with values 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 are utilized for both models.
4.1.5.3
Material Properties

Porosity:
0.3
af:
37 kPa
nf:
1
mf:
2
hr:
346 kPa
The rest of the parameters are taken as by default of the software.
4.1.5.4
4.1.5.4.1
Results and Discussions

Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)
The distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of model Well_Obect_3D_head are shown in
Slender_Cylinder_3D_head are shown in Figure 108.
Figure 107 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Well_Object_3D_head at the last
stage (stage 6)
71 of 93
Figure 108 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Slinder_Cylinder_3D_head at the
distributions.
4.1.5.4.2
Distributions of the Head (h)
The distributions of the Head (h) of model Well_Obect_3D_head are shown in Figure 109 and the
distributions of the Head (h) of the model Slender_Cylinder_3D_head are shown in Figure 110.
Figure 109 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Well_Object_3D_head at the last stage (stage 6)
72 of 93
Figure 110 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Slinder_Cylinder_3D_head at the last stage (stage
6)
4.1.6
Project:
Model:
3D Well Object with Review by Pressure Boundary Condition

WellPumping
Well_Obect_3D_review and Slender_Cylinder_3D_review
4.1.6.1
Purpose
Two models are created in this verification in order to test the implementation of a review by
pressure boundary condition on a well object. A second model makes use of model geometry to
verify the approach. The goal of this verification is to verify that the same results can be obtained
by both approaches.
4.1.6.2
Geometry and Boundary Conditions
The model Well_Obect_3D_review geometries are shown in

Slender_Cylinder_3D_review geometries are shown in Figure 112.
Figure
111 and
the
model
73 of 93
Figure 112 Model Slender_Cylinder_3D_head

The boundary conditions of the well object in model Well_Object_3D_review are as follows:
Boundary Type:
Influence Distance:
Line Mesh Spacing:
Growth Factor:
Review by Pressure
0.23 m
0.02 m
3
The boundary conditions of the slender cylinder in model Slender_Cylinder_3D_review are as

follows:
Top and Bottom:
Side:
No BC
Review by Pressure
74 of 93
The other boundary conditions are the same for the two models. They are specified as a head 20 m
for the sides of the big cube and No BC for the top and bottom of the big cube. 6 stages with
values 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000 are utilized for both models.
4.1.6.3
Material Properties

Porosity:
0.3
af:
37 kPa
nf:
1
mf:
2
hr:
346 kPa
The rest of the parameters are taken as by default of the software.
4.1.6.4
4.1.6.4.1

Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw)
The distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of model Well_Obect_3D_review are shown in
Slender_Cylinder_3D_review are shown in
Figure 114.
Figure 113 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Well_Object_3D_review at the
75 of 93
Figure 114 Distributions of the Pore-Water Pressure (uw) of the Model Slinder_Cylinder_3D_review at
distributions.
4.1.6.4.2
Distributions of the Head (h)
The distributions of the Head (h) of model Well_Obect_3D_review are shown in Figure 115 and the
distributions of the Head (h) of the model Slender_Cylinder_3D_review are shown in Figure 116.
Figure 115 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Well_Object_3D_review at the last stage (stage 6)
76 of 93
Figure 116 Distributions of the Head (h) of the Model Slinder_Cylinder_3D_review at the last stage
(stage 6)
4.1.7
Project:
Model:
Confined Aquifer 3D Ideal

WellPumping
ConfinedAquifer3DIdeal
4.1.7.1
Purpose
A three dimensional SVFlux model of an ideal confined aquifer was constructed to verify the
implementation of wells against the classical Theis system. The Theis system is one-dimensional, of
infinite extent, and includes the well as a boundary condition. The SVFlux 3D model contained a
well at the center, and a large domain to minimize the effect of the boundary on the drawdown
near the well.
SVFlux models wells as a sink term in the differential equations. This eliminates the singularity in
the Theis model boundary condition, but spreads the local effect of the well over an area that may
be larger than the physical well. The extent of the spread is user adjustable.
4.1.7.2
Theis System
Given a confined aquifer with transmissivity T, and storativity S, the Theis solution (Freeze and
Cherry, 1979) for drawdown due to a pumping well is
h0 h(r , t )
Q
4 T
where h0 is the initial head, Q is the well pumping rate, and
e v
dv ,
v
77 of 93
r 2S
4Tt
The Theis solution models radial flow about the well located at
r 0,
and assumes no vertical
movement of fluid.
The initial condition for this system is
h(r ,0) h0 ,
and the boundary conditions are
lim h(r , t ) h0 ,
Q
h
lim r
.
r
2
T
r 0
The Theis model is of infinite extent, and the pumping sink is a singularity.
4.1.7.3
Model
Conceptual Model
To simulate the boundary conditions of the Theis model, the SVFlux model is a large cylinder with a
constant head of h0 at the cylinder wall, zero flux at the top and bottom, and the well at the center.
See the SVFlux Users Manual for information on setting up a well.
The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1177. It is a one layer cylindrical model with radius
20,000 m and depth 50 m. The well is in the center and has screened length 50 m.
Figure 11717 Conceptual Model for Theis Solution.

Numerical Model
The SVFlux model consists of two regions: ModelExtents and InnerRegion. InnerRegion was
included to improve the resolution of the finite element mesh near the well.
The SVFlux model has the following properties:

General
System
Type
Units
Time Units
3D
Transient
Metric
Day
World Coordinate System

X: Minimum
X: Maximum
Y:Minimum
Y: Maximum
Z:Minimum
Z: Maximum
-20,000 m
20,000 m
-20,000 m
20,000 m
0m
50 m
Time (day)
Start Time
Initial Increment
Maximum Increment
End Time
0
1e-5 (approx. 1 s)
1
10
4.1.7.4
Geometry and Properties
The well parameters are:

Line Mesh Spacing
Mesh Growth Coefficient
Influence Distance
Rate
1m
1
2m
-8640 m3/day
The model geometry is:

Surfaces
Bottom
Top
Region : ModelExtents
Circle center
Circle radius
Region : InnerRegion
Circle center
Circle radius
1
0m
50 m
(0 m, 0 m)
20,000 m
(0 m, 0 m)
100 m
Aquifer compressibility. Water is treated as incompressible for this model.

The finite element solver and mesh parameters are all left at their defaults.
78 of 93
4.1.7.5
79 of 93
Material Properties
Material Properties (AquiferSand):

Hydraulic Conductivity
Transmissivity
Porosity
Compressibility1
Storativity
4.1.7.6
8.64 m/day (10-4 m/s)

432 m2/day (5x10-3 m2/s)
0.4
10-7 kPa-1
4.9x10-5
Figure shows the drawdown as a function of distance from the well for the Theis analytical solution
and the Model solution. The modelled solution is sampled at a height of z = 25 m (half depth).
Figure compares the modelled drawdown with the Theis drawdown. Figure 120 is the same as
Figure , but zoomed in to show detail closer to the well.
The Theis solution, contains a singularity at u 0 (corresponding to r 0 ). The numerical
computation of the integral diverges to infinity close to the singularity, hence the need to start the
graphs at some distance away from the well. The minor divergence of the numerical model from
the Theis solution is due to SVFlux treating the well as a sink, rather than as a boundary condition.
Figure shows the mesh. The inner region causes the finer mesh at the center of the model. There
were 21,933 nodes that generated 14,628 cells. The cell sides on the outer edge of the model were
about 2000 m long. At the center, the cell horizontal extents range from 1 m at the center to 25 m
at the boundary of the inner region.
Figure shows the 2-D cross section at the well, zoomed in so that the extent of the drawdown is
clearer.
Figure 118 Drawdown after 10 days. RMSD = 0.5 m.
Figure 119 Comparison of Theis and Model drawdown.
80 of 93
Figure 120 Drawdown after 10 days out to 100 m.
Figure 121 Mesh.
81 of 93
82 of 93
Figure 122 Drawdown after 10 days (vertical scale is zoomed 50x).
4.1.7.7
Remarks
The Theis solution models drawdown for a confined aquifer of infinite extent. To verify it with
SVFlux requires a model with a 20 km radius to minimize the effect of the boundary condition on
drawdown near the well. At this scale, the effect of a well on the water table in the immediate
vicinity of the well is of less importance than the seepage over the extent of the region. If greater
detail is required close to the well, then a model that focusses on the well, rather than the region,
should be created.
The effect of the influence distance is only seen close to the well screen. Figure 123 shows the
result of varying the influence distance.
Figure 123 Drawdown near the well for various values of influence distance.
83 of 93
4.2 TRANSIENT STATE

Transient state or time dependent models are presented in the following sections.
4.2.1
Drain-Down Example
The drain-down example illustrates the use of the software to calculate drainage rates out of a
model. The model is initially saturated and then allowed to drain down to a residual saturation
level. The water leaving the model past the Flux 4 flux section is compared to the integrated
volume of water in the model at the start and at the end of a specified time.
The difference in integrated volumes should equal the flux reported. It is assumed for this model
that the volume integrals provide an accurate account of the total amount of water in the model at
any given time. The geometry and the location of flux sections are the same as presented in Figure
100.
Table 10 - Process of accuracy improvement
Trial #
1
2
3
4
Comments
Initial Final Volume Difference

Volume of of Water (m3)
(m3)
Water (m3)
First try - error limit = 0.3913
0.3682
0.0231
0.1
Increase error limit to 0.3913
0.3682
0.0231
0.01
0.36831
0.02299
0.001
0.36899
0.02231
0.0001
Flux 4
(m3)
Error
0.019165
-17%
0.01938
-16%
0.019912
-13%
0.021313
-4%
It can be noted that the accuracy of the water balance calculations is related to the error limit
specified. It should also be noted that the flux estimated as crossing the flux section was generally
calculated as being less than the actual flow indicated by the volume integrals. Convergence of the
model was also greatly improved by applying the outlet head boundary condition as a function over
time.
4.2.2
Cube Drain-Down Example
A cube of unit dimensions under initially saturated conditions was created for this example model.
A head boundary condition of 0.2 was placed along a strip on the right hand side of the y-z plane of
0.2 m height. Water was then allowed to drain out of the model and the difference between the
water volume integral and the values reported by a flux section along the opening was compared.
84 of 93
1.0
Flux 1
1.0
0.2
Head=0.2
Y
1.0
Figure 124 Geometry of the cube-drainage model
4.2.3
Cube, Wedge, and Toe Transient Example
A flux of 0.001 m3/s/m2 was applied to the top of the geometry shown below. If flow is properly
calculated, then the results of flux sections 2, 3, and 4 should all display 0.00036 m3/s.
Flux = 0.001
m3/ s / m 2
Flux 2
0.6
Flux 3
0.6
1.0
Flux 4
Head = 0.2m
Z
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.1
Figure 125 Application of flux in a 3-D transient model

Flux 2: 3.560e-4 m3/s
Flux 3: 3.407e-4 m3/s
Flux 4: 3.426e-4 m3/s
Error: 1.11%
Error: 5.36%
Error: 4.83%
Sensitivity of the Finite Element Mesh
85 of 93
5 SENSITIVITY OF THE FINITE ELEMENT

MESH
Finite element mesh is very important in a numerical simulation. A finer finite element mesh
commonly gives better calculation results. It has always been a question is: what is the resolution
of the finite element mesh that provides reasonably accurate results?
This section does not answer the question specifically, but will provide some senses of the relation
between: i) finite element mesh; ii) hydraulic conductivity of the material; and iii) simulation
results. A simple model was made up to study these relationships.
This example helps SVFLUX users be aware of this issue. In order to run this model, the auto
mesh refinement function in SVFLUX is turned off.
Project:
Model:
VerifySVFLUX
Madeup1&10&100&1000
5.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The model is made up by a rectangular Sandy Loam, which has a width of 200 m and a height of
100.
Figure 126 Geometry of the model

The sandy loam has saturated volumetric water content of 0.3, Specific gravity of 2.65. The
boundary conditions of the model are shown in Figure . The soil-water characteristic curve of the
Sandy is plotted in Figure 118.
Climate data is described for 4 running days in Table 11. The initial condition for this model is the
water pressure in entire material is equal to zero (m).
86 of 93
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1e-3
1e-2
1e-1
1e+0
1e+1
1e+2
1e+3
1e+4
1e+5
1e+6
Soil suction (kPa)
Figure 1187 Soil-water characteristic curve of the Sandy Loam

Table 11 Description of the climate data
Day
Precipitation
(m/day)
0
1
2
3
0
0.004
0
0
Potential
Evaporation
(m/day)
0
0.001
0.001
0.001
Temperature (0C) Relative humidity

(%)
20
20
20
20
70
70
70
70
5.2 INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS
In this sensitivity study, 4 different cases will be implemented (Table 12). For the first three cases
the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the material will be varied while the finite element mesh is
kept the same. The last case use the lowest saturated permeability and has finest finite element
mesh (i.e., increase number of nodes along the material surface).
The Modified Campbell (Fredlund, 1997) is used for the prediction of the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity function. The p-parameter is slightly changed between the first three cases to make
the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity functions for the three cases parallels to each other (Figure
119).
Table 12 Input parameters for the four cases
Case
1
2
3
4
Saturated hydraulic
conductivity (m/day)
10
100
1000
10
p - parameter for the

Modified Campbell model
12.5
12
11
12.5
Number of nodes in the

finite element mesh
593
593
593
2152
10
12.5
87 of 93
4292
1.E+03
Ksat = 10 m/day
Hydraulic conductivity (m/day) .
1.E+02
Ksat = 100 m/day
1.E+01
Ksat= 1000 m/day
1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100000 1000000
Soil suction (kPa)
Figure 1198 Hydraulic conductivity functions corresponding to three saturated hydraulic conductivity
5.3 SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the simulation results for the four cases. A brief discussion on the results and
the effects of the saturated hydraulic conductivity and the finite element mesh to the simulation
results are presented. The finite element mesh for the first three cases is shown in Figure 12029.
Plots of the simulation results for first three cases are shown in Figure 0 to Figure .
The finite element meshes for cases 4 and 5 (i.e., with 2152 nodes and 4292) are shown in Figure
and Figure , respectively. The simulation results for cases 4 and 5 are shown in Figure and Figure
121, respectively. Table 13 shows the summary of the simulation results for the 5 cases.
Figure 1209 Finite element mesh for the first three cases (i.e., cases 1 to 3)
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Precipitation
Water (m 3)
Water (m 3/day)
Precipitation
88 of 93
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Time (days)
Time (days)
Figure 130 Plot of the precipitation, evaporation and net surface flux for the case saturated hydraulic
conductivity of 10 m/day
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Precipitation
Water (m 3)
Water (m 3/day)
Precipitation
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Time (days)
Time (days)
Net surface
flux
Precipitation
Water (m 3/day)
Water (m )
Precipitation
89 of 93
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Time (days)
Time (days)
Figure 133 Finite element mesh for case 4 (2152 nodes)

Precipitation
Water (m )
Water (m 3/day)
Precipitation
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
90 of 93
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Time (days)
Time (days)
conductivity of 10 m/day using a fine finite element mesh (2152 nodes)
Figure 135 Finite element mesh for case 4 (4292 nodes)
Precipitation
Net surface
flux
Water (m 3/day)
Water (m )
Precipitation
91 of 93
Net surface
flux
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Actual and
potential
evaporation
Time (days)
Time (days)
conductivity of 10 m/day using a fine finite element mesh (4292 nodes)
Table 13 - Calculation of errors for 4 cases.
Case
1
2
3
4
5
Saturated Number of Average node

Total
Total actual Net surface
hydraulic
nodes
distance near precipitation evaporation flux (m3)
conductivity
material
(m3)
(m3)
(m/day)
surface
10
593
13.3
0.8
0.49
0.20
100
593
13.3
0.8
0.49
0.34
1000
593
13.3
0.8
0.49
0.32
10
2152
2
0.8
0.49
0.35
10
4292
1
0.8
0.49
0.32
Error
(%)
13.75
3.75
1.25
5
1.25
As can be seen from Table 13, with the same finite element mesh, the higher saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the material the better simulation results. Table 13 also shows that the finer finite
element mesh, the better simulation results. Case 1 appears to have a low accuracy due to
distances between nodes are too high. Cases 2 and 4 have reasonable good results.
It shows that there is a relationship between the accuracy of the model and the ratio (hydraulic
conductivity/distance between nodes near (or at) the material surface). It shows that this ratio of
equal to 10 should provide sufficient good simulation results.
References
92 of 93
6 REFERENCES
Barbour, S.L., Fredlund, D.G., Gan, J. K-M., and G.W. Wilson, (1991). Prediction of Moisture
Movement in Highway Subgrade Soils, 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto,
ON., Canada
Bowles, J.E., (1984). Physical and geotechnical properties of soils. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Celia, M.A. and E.T. Bouloutas, (1990). A General Mass-Conservative Numerical Solution for the
Unsaturated Flow Equation. Water Resources Research, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 1483-1496,
July.
Chapuis, Robert P., Chenaf, D., Bussiere, B., Aubertin, M., R. Crespo, (2001). A users approach to
assess numerical codes for saturated and unsaturated seepage conditions. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 38: 1113-1126.
Crespo, R., (1993). Modelisation par elements finis des ecoulements a travers les ouvrages de
retenue et de confinement des residus miniers. M.Sc.A. thesis, Ecole Polytechnique de
Montreal, Montreal.
Dupuit, J., (1863). Etudes theoriques et pratiques sur le mouvement des eaux dans les canaux
decouverts et a travers les terrains permeables. 2nd ed. Dunod, Paris.
Gitirana, G., (2004). Weather-Related Geo-Hazard Assessment Model for Railway Embankment
Stability, PhD Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Gitirana, G.G., Fredlund, M.D., Fredlund, D.G., (2005). INFILTRATION-RUNOFF BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS IN SEEPAGE ANALYSIS, Canadian Geotechnical Conference, September 1921, Saskatoon, Canada
Freeze, R. and Cherry, J. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, pp314 319.
Haverkamp, R., Vauclin, M., Touma, J., Wierenga, P.J., and G.Vachaud, (1977). A Comparison of
Numerical Simulation Models for One-Dimensional Infiltration, Soil Science Society of
America Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2.
MEND 1993. SoilCover users manual for evaporative flux model. University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Pentland, J.S., (2000). Use of a General Partial Differential Equation Solver for Solution of Heat and
Mass Transfer Problems in Soils, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
FlexPDE6.x Reference Manual 2007. PDE Solutions Inc. Spokane Valley, WA 99206.
Freeze, R. A. and J. Cherry, (1979). Groundwater. PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Todd, D.K. (1980). Groundwater hydrology, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Tratch, D.J., (1995). A Geotechnical Engineering Approach to Plant Transpiration and Root Water
Uptake, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Tratch, D.J., Wilson, G.W., and D.G. Fredlund, (1995). An introduction to analytical modeling of
plant transpiration for geotechnical engineers, Proceedings, 48th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 771-780.
References
93 of 93
Wilson, W., (1990). Soil Evaporative Fluxes for Geotechnical Engineering Problems. PhD Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

SVFlux Verification Manual

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SVFlux Verification Manual

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2D / 3D Seepage Modeling Software

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Evaporation - Wilson (1990)...................................................................................... 17

Model Geometry ...............................................................................................................13

Evapotranspiration - Tratch (1995) ........................................................................... 21

X Component of Left to Right Flow ............................................................................ 30

2D Well Object with Review by Pressure Boundary Condition ................................ 50

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

3.2 TRANSIENT STATE ........................................................................................................... 54

4.1 STEADY-STATE ................................................................................................................ 64

3D Well Object with Review by Pressure Boundary Condition ................................... 72

Confined Aquifer 3D Ideal ......................................................................................... 76

4.2 TRANSIENT STATE ........................................................................................................... 83

MODEL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 85

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .............................................................. 86

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Pressure head (cm)

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Pressure head (cm)

Figure 2 Comparison between SVFLUX and results presented by Celia (1990)

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Fredund and Xing Fit

Soil suction (kPa)

Figure 3 Soil-water characteristic curve for 1D mass-balance model

0.1 m3/day/m2 x 0.1m = 0.01 m3/day

Reported flux in: 0.010043 m3/day

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Water Content (dec.)

Slope Function (1/kPa)

Matric Suction (kPa)

Figure 4 Soil-water characteristic curve for Cover material

Matric Suction (kPa)

Volumetric Water Content

Figure 5 Hydraulic conductivity for the Cover material (ksat=5e-2 cm/s)

Slope Function (1/kPa)

Matric Suction (kPa)

Figure 6 Soil-water characteristic curve for the Tailings material

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Matric Suction (k Pa)

Volumetric Water Content

Figure 7 Hydraulic conductivity for the Tailings material (ksat=5.7e-5 cm/s)

Figure 8 SoilCover results of numerical model with cover

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Figure 9 SVFLUX results of numerical model with cover

AE separates quickly from PE at around day 33 in the SoilCover analysis. This is

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Volumetric water content

Soil suction (kPa)

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Hydraulic conductivity (m/da

Soil suction (kPa

Figure 13 Plot of the max, min and mean air temperatures

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Relative humidity (RH%)

Volume of water (mm/day)

Figure 15 Plot of precipitation and potential evaporation

SoilVision Systems Ltd.

Pore-water pressure (kPa)

Elevation of the soil column (m)

Pore-water pressure (kPa)

SoilVision Systems Ltd.