Manuscript Accepted For Publication in Journal of Ground Water On March 2005 (See Vol. 44, No.6 - GROUND WATER - November

Manuscript accepted for publication in Journal of Ground Water on March 2005 (see Vol. 44, No.
6 –GROUND WATER – November

– December 2006, pages 797 – 802). The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com
1 Grid Cell Distortion and MODFLOW’s Integrated Finite-

2 Difference Numerical Solution
3
4 by Dave M. Romero and Steven E. Silver
5
6
7 Abstract
9 The ground water flow model MODFLOW inherently
10 implements a non-generalized integrated finite-difference
11 (IFD) numerical scheme. The IFD numerical scheme allows for
12 construction of finite-difference model grids with

13 curvilinear (piecewise-linear) rows. The resulting grid is
14 comprised of model cells in the shape of trapezoids and is
15 distorted in comparison to a traditional MODFLOW finite-
16 difference grid. A version of MODFLOW-88 (herein referred
17 to as MODFLOW IFD) with the code adapted to make the one-
18 dimensional DELR and DELC arrays two dimensional, so that
19 equivalent conductance between distorted grid cells can be
20 calculated, is described. MODFLOW IFD is used to inspect
21 the sensitivity of the numerical head and velocity solutions
22 to the level of distortion in trapezoidal grid cells within

23 a converging radial flow domain. A test problem designed
24 for the analysis implements a grid oriented such that flow
25 is parallel to columns with converging widths. The
26 sensitivity analysis demonstrates MODFLOW IFD’s capacity to
27 numerically derive a head solution and resulting intercell
28 volumetric flow when the internal calculation of equivalent
29 conductance accounts for the distortion of the grid cells.

30 The sensitivity of the velocity solution to grid cell
1 Romero
Manuscript accepted for publication in Journal of Ground Water on March 2005 (see Vol. 44, No.6 –GROUND WATER – November
1 distortion indicates criteria for distorted grid design. In
2 the radial flow test problem described, the numerical head
3 solution is not sensitive to grid cell distortion. The
4 accuracy of the velocity solution is sensitive to cell
5 distortion with error less than one percent if the angle
6 between the non-parallel sides of trapezoidal cells is less
7 than 12.5 degrees. The error of the velocity solution is
8 related to the degree to which the spatial discretization of
9 a curve is approximated with piecewise linear segments.

10 Curvilinear finite-difference grid construction adds
11 versatility to spatial discretization of the flow domain.
12 MODFLOW-88’s inherent IFD numerical scheme and the test
13 problem results imply that more recent versions of MODFLOW
14 2000, with minor modifications, have the potential to make
15 use of a curvilinear grid.
16
17 Introduction
18
19 The ground water flow model MODFLOW (McDonald and

20 Harbaugh 1988) inherently implements a non-generalized
21 integrated finite-difference (IFD) numerical scheme (Romero
22 and Maddock 2003). The inherent IFD numerical scheme allows
23 for adding versatility to the spatial discretization of the
24 flow domain. Specifically, rectangular model grid cells
25 typically associated with finite-difference numerical
26 schemes can be distorted into trapezoids to create a

27 curvilinear finite-difference grid. This paper presents an
2 Romero
1 evaluation of the effect of grid cell distortion on the
2 MODFLOW IFD numerical solution of head and calculation of
3 intercell ground water flow. The evaluation entails
4 inspecting the relationship between the level of spatial
5 resolution in a curvilinear grid of a fixed radial
6 (converging) flow domain and the cell dimensions used to
7 derive the equivalent conductance between cells. A
8 sensitivity analysis reveals MODFLOW IFD’s capacity to
9 numerically derive a head solution and resultant intercell

10 volumetric flow when the internal calculation of equivalent
11 conductance between adjacent cells is affected by the
12 variable width of the cells. Sensitivity of the head
13 solution and ground water velocity to resolution of the
14 converging grid indicates criteria for grid design. A
15 previous test problem (Romero and Maddock 2003) is adapted
16 to relate numerical solution error to the angle of
17 trapezoidal cell convergence within a curvilinear grid so
18 that criteria for spatial refinement can be established.
19 Guidelines of curvilinear grid development are discussed.

20
21 MODFLOW Adapted For IFD Use
22
23 MODFLOW IFD herein refers to the existing version of
24 MODFLOW-88 (McDonald and Harbaugh 1988) adapted to allow for
25 flow in a curvilinear grid; the adaptations convert the one-
26 dimensional DELR and DELC arrays into two-dimensional arrays

27 and rewrite the equivalent conductance calculation in its
3 Romero
1 unreduced form (Romero and Maddock 2003). The changes are
2 minor and make the code capable of solving the governing
3 ground water flow equation within a finite-difference grid
4 in which the rows can be curved into piecewise linear
5 segments. Curved rows in the grid imply that individual
6 column widths are variable. An example of a curvilinear
7 grid is shown on Figure 1.
9
10 Figure 1. Example of curvilinear finite-difference grid and
11 illustration of row and column widths.
12
13 MODFLOW IFD is capable of simulating ground water flow
14 through either a rectilinear or a curvilinear grid. The
15 flow domain for a modeling problem can be created out of
16 both rectangular and trapezoidal cells to construct a grid
17 like that shown in Figure 1. The cell distortion method
18 employed in the model is analogous to that of the
19 Generalized Finite-Difference Package (Harbaugh 1992) except

20 that a model grid, rather than conductance between model
4 Romero
1 cells, is input to the model. MODFLOW IFD then calculates
2 the conductance based on the dimensions of the grid cells.
3 Another analogous method makes use of MODFLOW to simulate
4 cylindrical flow to a well, except that code is specifically
5 for cylindrical flow problems (Reilly and Harbaugh 1993).
7 The theory previously presented (Romero and Maddock
8 2003; Narasimhan and Witherspoon 1976) demonstrates that
9 model simulations with MODFLOW IFD can be considered a

10 method of generalized finite differences or, more
11 appropriately, a method of non-generalized integrated finite
12 differences. MODFLOW IFD source code, code documentation
13 and user documentation are freely available at
14 www.balleau.com.
15
16 Other model grid refinement studies focus on variable
17 density flow and transport (Schincariol et al. 1994;
18 Frolkovic and Schepper 2000; Kolditz et al. 1997) or
19 particle tracking (Zheng 1994). This paper describes a grid

20 refinement test that compares MODFLOW IFD calculated head
21 and velocity to the solution derived analytically. A grid
22 refinement study with MODFLOW IFD that involves a calculated
23 velocity field with transport or particle tracking would
24 require development of a method to link the curvilinear grid
25 of flow with the rectilinear grid of codes such as MT3DMS
26 (Zheng and Wang 1999), MODPATH (Pollock 1994) or PATH3D

27 (Zheng 1991). That linkage is not yet implemented.
5 Romero
3 MODFLOW IFD Equivalent Conductance
5 Expanding the capability of MODFLOW to simulate flow
6 through a curvilinear grid requires adapting the equivalent
7 conductance calculation between model grid cells to account
8 for trapezoidal shaped cells; the adaptation does not change
9 the MODFLOW equation used for calculating equivalent

10 conductance, but it rewrites the equation in an unreduced
11 form (Romero and Maddock 2003). MODFLOW uses one-
12 dimensional arrays (DELR and DELC) to store the width of
13 each column and row of a rectilinear grid. One-dimensional
14 arrays are sufficient for constructing a rectilinear grid
15 because individual row and column widths are constant. The
16 MODFLOW IFD numerical formulation uses two-dimensional
17 arrays to represent the average length of flow in the column
18 and row directions of trapezoidal shaped cells. Figure 1
19 shows a schematic of four trapezoidal cells that could be

20 used to represent two segments of a curvilinear grid. The
21 MODFLOW index convention for rows (i) and columns (j) is
22 shown so that each cell can be referenced. The length
23 DELR(j+1,i) is equal to the average of the two bases of the
24 trapezoid that encloses node i,j+1 and length DELC(j,i+1) is
25 equal to the height of the trapezoid that encloses node
26 i+1,j. Cell dimensions throughout the IFD model grid are

27 represented this way and the equivalent conductance
6 Romero
1 calculation between model cells is rewritten, in its
2 unreduced form, to account for column-width variability
3 (Romero and Maddock 2003). If the model grid cells were
4 rectangular, then DELR and DELC shown in Figure 1 would be
5 the same as in standard MODFLOW and the grid would be
6 rectilinear. Figure 1 also shows the angle of deviation
7 associated with a trapezoidal shaped cell. Cell shape
8 variability can be described with either the widths of the
9 adjacent cells (length of cell-to-cell bisectors) or the

10 angle of deviation associated with the non-parallel sides of
11 the trapezoid.
12
13 As with the standard version of MODFLOW, the
14 computation of ground water velocity through a curvilinear
15 grid must be calculated external to a model simulation.
16 MODFLOW and MODFLOW IFD solve for head and calculate
17 intercell volumetric flow rates. The volumetric flow rate
18 in each model formulation is derived from the head
19 difference and the equivalent conductance between adjacent

20 cells. Computation of ground water velocity requires
21 dividing the intercell volumetric flow rate by the area of
22 the cell face through which it flows. A point of interest
23 in the calculation of velocity within a curvilinear grid is
24 that the cell face can be the common area between two grid
25 cells with different average widths. A test problem is
26 developed to inspect how the MODFLOW IFD numerical solution

27 is affected by width changes between adjacent cells. The
7 Romero
1 term grid cell distortion herein refers to the level of
2 width change between adjacent model grid cells. In Figure
3 1, there is no grid cell distortion in the rows as MODFLOW
4 IFD does not currently account for it. Grid cell distortion
5 is distinguished from grid distortion in that a curvilinear
6 grid with high resolution representing the domain of
7 interest can be made to have a small amount of grid cell
8 distortion, while the grid as a whole exhibits significant
9 distortion in comparison to a rectilinear grid.

10
11 Test Problem Description
12
13 The effect of grid cell distortion on the numerical
14 solution is examined by spatially discretizing the same flow
15 domain for multiple cases with increased levels of
16 refinement. For each more-refined spatial discretization of
17 the flow domain, the numerical solution is compared with the
18 known analytical solution (Crank 1967). The flow domain
19 over which the grids are constructed is shown on Figure 2.

20 The model simulations are homogeneous and isotropic with a
21 head (h) gradient of 0.667 over a length (radius = r) of
22 4.57 meters (m).
23
8 Romero
2
3 Figure 2. Flow domain simulated for test problem.
4
5 The system for describing the level of spatial
6 refinement within a grid is based on the number of columns
7 in the grid that are used to represent flow converging over
8 90 degrees. Figure 3 shows the flow domain discretized with
9 multiple levels of refinement. In the first discretization,
10 a 90 degree angle (the entire flow domain) is spanned with
11 one column; in the second, 90 degrees is spanned with two 45

12 degree columns and so forth so that the angle spanned by a
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
9 Romero
1
2 Figure 3. Illustration of system for describing multiple
3 levels of spatial refinement for test problem.
4
5 single column is described as 90 degrees divided by the
6 total number of columns in the flow domain. Figure 3
7 illustrates how increasing grid resolution reduces grid cell
8 distortion between adjacent cells. Each grid contains 16
9 rows. For each case of spatial discretization, the block-

10 centered grid nodes are placed at the same radial location
10 Romero
1 so that any differences in the numerical solution between
2 grids are attributed to the distortion of the grid, not to
3 the location of the node where the solution is calculated.
4 The coefficients in MODFLOW’s numerical formulation are
5 conductance-based and equivalent conductance between
6 adjacent cells is affected by grid cell distortion. The
7 test problem inspects MODFLOW IFD’s capacity to numerically
8 derive a head solution and associated intercell volumetric
9 flow compared to the analytical solution when the internal

10 calculation of equivalent conductance is affected by grid
11 cell distortion.
12
13
14
11 Romero
1 Results and Discussion
3 The numerical solutions are compared to the analytical
4 solution of the steady-state radial flow problem developed
5 by Crank (Crank 1967). Figure 4 shows a comparison between
6 analytical and numerical solutions for head (Figure 4a) and
7 velocity (Figure 4b) along the radius of the flow domain for
8 different levels of grid refinement. The values h and r
9 are as defined on Figure 2. For the purpose of

10 presentation, normalized velocity is shown. Normalized
11 velocity is calculated by dividing each of the velocity
12 values on Figure 4b by 3.59 meters per second, which is the
13 smallest velocity resulting from the test problem.
14
15
16 Figure 4. Comparison between analytical and numerical
17 solutions for head (a) and velocity (b) along the radius of
18 the flow domain for various levels of grid refinement.
12 Romero
2 The head solution is unaffected by grid cell distortion.
3 The velocity solution is affected with significant
4 improvement in accuracy as the grid is refined and grid cell
5 distortion is reduced. Constructing a spatial grid with one
6 or two columns is considered an inadequate spatial
7 representation of the curve in the flow domain; however the
8 cases are included to inspect the associated solution error.
9 Figure 5 shows the sensitivity of the numerical velocity

10 calculation to curvilinear grid spatial refinement.
11
12
13
14 Figure 5. Sensitivity of numerical velocity percentage error
15 to grid refinement.
16
13 Romero
1 The percent error is derived as the analytical calculation
2 of velocity divided into the difference between the
3 analytical and numerical velocity calculations. The percent
4 error of the numerical velocity calculation is less than one
5 percent if the flow domain is constructed with a curvilinear
6 grid containing at least seven columns per 90 degrees or an
7 angle less than 12.5 degrees deviation per column (rounding
8 down to the nearest half degree). Users of the program may
9 require more or less than one percent error in the velocity

10 calculation for their purpose and may adjust the grid
11 resolution and grid cell distortion accordingly.
12
13 The error of the calculated velocity solution is
14 related to the degree to which the spatial discretization of
15 a curve is approximated by piecewise linear segments or grid
16 cell distortion as defined above. The relationship between
17 the numerical error and the approximated curve stems from
18 using the Divergence Theorem (Davis 1964) when the IFD
19 numerical scheme is formally derived from the analytical

20 governing flow equation. Details of the derivation and a
21 description of this relationship are in Romero and Maddock
22 (Romero and Maddock 2003).
23
24 The grid orientation for the test problem is such that
25 the direction of flow is radial along grid columns. Tests
26 designed to demonstrate the validity of the numerical

27 solution when flow is not parallel to grid columns are
14 Romero
1 planned, but are not presented here. However, the IFD
2 numerical method has been mathematically proven (Narasimhan
3 and Witherspoon 1976), so a grid with flow that is not
4 parallel to the row or column directions is expected to work
5 as well as does MODFLOW, so long as the grid exhibits enough
6 spatial refinement such that the average length of flow
7 between two piecewise linear cells adequately represents the
8 actual length of flow. This point is illustrated in Romero
9 and Maddock (Romero and Maddock 2003). The grid

10 construction criterion developed here provides a means to
11 quantify that adequacy. In the generalized case, the IFD
12 numerical scheme is defined to work within a grid
13 constructed from cells that have as many sides as the user
14 wishes. Grids of that type do not have rows and columns as
15 described in the curvilinear finite-difference grid used in
16 MODFLOW IFD (Figure 1) and the direction of flow relative to
17 any grid direction has no relevance with regard to accuracy
18 of the numerical solution. MODFLOW IFD is the special non-
19 generalized integrated finite-difference case in which model

20 cells are always constructed out of cells with six sides.
21 Standard MODFLOW is even more non-generalized than MODFLOW
22 IFD because its grid cells are always constructed from cells
23 with six orthogonal sides.
24
25
26
27
15 Romero
1 Implications of Curvilinear Grid Development
3 MODFLOW IFD model simulations within a curvilinear grid
4 require construction of a grid with rows and columns. Grid
5 cells within a model layer can be in the shape of rectangles
6 or trapezoids, thereby removing the constraint of spatially
7 orthogonal rows and columns. Distortion of individual rows
8 is not implemented here. Imposing a constraint on the
9 distortion of trapezoidal shaped cells for integrated

10 finite-difference calculations is analogous to the common
11 practice of constructing finite element grids comprised of
12 triangles that satisfy the geometric DeLaunay criterion
13 (DeLaunay 1934). Grid refinement tests with finite element
14 grids have shown that triangles with angles less than about
15 22.5 degrees can cause problems with the numerical solution
16 (Neuman 1996).
17
18
19 In addition to the versatility added to grid

20 construction with the implementation of MODFLOW IFD, the
21 principal directions of hydraulic conductivity within the
22 numerical model are affected. MODFLOW was developed under
23 the assumption that the governing flow equation is oriented
24 along the principal directions of hydraulic conductivity
25 (McDonald and Harbaugh 1988). It follows that these
26 directions in the modeled flow domain are parallel to the

27 row and column directions of the model grid. If the grid is
16 Romero
1 curvilinear, then the principal directions subject to
2 anisotropy will meander with the curve of the grid. Figure
3 6 shows an example of meandering principal directions of
4 hydraulic conductivity.
5
6
7
8 Figure 6. Illustration of meandering column to row
9 anisotropy factor subject to principal directions of
11
12 Others have recently added the capability of variable
13 principal hydraulic conductivity directions to a rectilinear

14 grid in MODFLOW 2000 (Anderman et al. 2002; Minnema et al.
15 2003). Those methods alter the principal directions using
16 operator and matrix splitting techniques implemented during
17 the numerical solution process. Rather than altering the
18 numerical solution process, the MODFLOW IFD approach alters
19 the grid to reflect changes in the principal directions of

17 Romero
2 MODFLOW is one of the most widely used groundwater flow
3 models in the fields of consulting and research. MODFLOW’s
4 inherent IFD numerical scheme and the illustrated test
5 problem indicate that with minor modifications, all versions
6 of MODFLOW may have the potential to make use of curvilinear
7 grids incorporated with the ground water flow process. The
8 code adaptations required to enable MODFLOW-88 to use its
9 IFD method in curvilinear grids are minor and do not affect

10 the numerical scheme or the solvers used to derive a
11 solution. Users of standard MODFLOW can readily make use of
12 the MODFLOW IFD implementation; rather than specifying DELR
13 and DELC arrays to define the grid of the flow domain, a
14 user inputs the x- and y-locations that define the corners
15 of the rectangle or trapezoid that encloses each block-
16 centered node for the topmost layer of the model grid. All
17 other model input is the same as in the standard version of
18 MODFLOW-88. If this same translation could be added to
19 MODFLOW 2000(Harbaugh et al. 2000), then versatility in grid

20 construction would potentially be made available as an
21 option to the many existing users of the program. MODFLOW’s
22 robust numerical scheme does not have to be limited to a
23 rectilinear grid.
24
25
26
27
18 Romero
1 Conclusions
3 MODFLOW IFD is capable of numerically deriving an
4 accurate head solution and resultant intercell volumetric
5 flow within a curvilinear grid constructed out of
6 trapezoids. In the test problem defined herein, the IFD
7 head solution is not affected by the level of refinement of
8 angular displacement in the curvilinear grid. The velocity
9 solution is affected, but associated error in the

10 calculation from intercell volumetric flow is reduced to
11 less than one percent if the angle between sides of
12 trapezoidal cells is less than 12.5 degrees. The test
13 problem is a hydrologic system in which flow directions are
14 parallel to the direction of grid columns; however, the
15 validity of the IFD numerical scheme in generalized grid
16 cases supports the expectation that the solution will be
17 valid for all flow directions.
18
19 MODFLOW’s inherent integrated finite-difference method

20 adds versatility to grid construction. A curvilinear grid
21 creates a meandering column to row anisotropy factor that
22 follows the directional change of the grid. Curvilinear
23 grids with column to row anisotropy can have utility in
24 either regional basins or local scale models where the
25 principal directions of hydraulic conductivity are expected
26 or known to change.
27
19 Romero
1 Minor modifications to MODFLOW-88’s source code are
2 required to enable utilization of its IFD numerical scheme
3 and the associated changes to user input are transparent.
4 MODFLOW-88’s inherent IFD numerical formulation and the test
5 problem results indicate that more recent versions of
6 MODFLOW 2000 have the potential to make use of curvilinear
7 grids incorporated within the ground water flow process.
9 Acknowledgment
10 The authors thank W. Peter Balleau for the insightful
11 comments that added clarity to the presentation of this
12 work. We also thank Steve Larson and Neil Blandford for
13 their thorough review of the manuscript and their comments.
14
15 References
16
17 Anderman, E.R., K.L. Kipp, M.C. Hill, J. Valstar, and R.M.

18 Neupauer. 2002. MODFLOW-2002, The U.S. Geological
19 Survey Modular Ground-Water Model – Documentation of
20 the Model-Layer Variable-Direction Horizontal
21 Anisotropy (LVDA) Capability of the Hydrogeologic-Unit
22 Flow (HUF) Package. USGS Open-File Report 02-409.
23
24 Crank, J. 1967. The Mathematics of Diffusion. Courtaulds
25 Limited Research Laboratory, Maidenhead. Oxford
26 University Press, 62-63.
27
28 Davis, H.F. 1964. Introduction to Vector Analysis. Allyn and
29 Bacon, Inc., Boston. College Mathematics Series, 185-
30 189.
31
32 Delaunay, B. 1934. “Sur la Sphere Vide”. Bulletin of the
33 Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Classes Mat. Nat.,
34 793-800.
35
36 Frolkovic, P., and H.D. Schepper. 2000. Numerical modelling
37 of convection dominated transport coupled with density
20 Romero
1 driven flow in porous media, Adv. Water Resour., 24,

2 63-72, 2000.
3
4 Harbaugh, A.W. 1992. A Generalized Finite-Difference
5 Formulation for the U.S. Geological Survey Modular
6 Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow
7 Model. USGS Open-File Report 91-494.
8
9 Harbaugh, A.W., E.R. Banta, M.C. Hill, and M.G. McDonald.
10 2000. Modflow-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular
11 Ground-Water Model-User Guide to Modularization
12 Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process. USGS Open-
13 File Report 00-92.
14
15 Kolditz, O., R. Ratke, H.J. Diersch, and W. Zielke. 1997.
16 Coupled groundwater flow and transport: 1. Verification
17 of variable density flow and transport models, Adv.
18 Water Resour., 21, 27-46.
19
20 McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh. 1988. A Modular Three-
21 Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model.
22 USGS Open-File Report 83-875.
23
24 Minnema, B., J.R. Valstar, A. Lourens, and M. de Jonge.
25 2003. MODFLOW-ANI: A Fully 2-D Anisotropy Package for
26 MODFLOW: MODFLOW and More 2003: Understanding through
27 Modeling – Conference Proceedings.
28
29 Narasimhan, T.N., and P.A. Witherspoon. 1976. An Integrated
30 Finite Difference Method for Analyzing Fluid Flow in
31 Porous Media. Water Resources Research, 12(1), 57-64.
32
33 Neuman, S.P. 1996. Numerical Methods in Subsurface
34 Hydrology, Personal Communication in Graduate Course,
35 The University of Arizona.
36
37 Pollock, D.W. 1994. User’s Guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT,
38 Version 3: A particle tracking post-processing package
39 for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite-
40 difference ground-water flow model. USGS Open-File
41 Report 94-464.
42
43 Reilly, T.E., A. Harbaugh. Source Code for the Computer
44 Program and Sample Data for the Simulation of
45 Cylindrical Flow to a Well Using the U.S. Geological
46 Survey Modular Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow
47 Model. USGS Open-File Report 92-659.
48
49 Schincariol, R.A., F.W. Schwartz, and C.A. Mendoza. 1994. On
50 the generation of instabilities in variable density
51 flow. Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, no. 4: 913-
52 927.
53
21 Romero
1 Romero, D.M. and T.M. Maddock III. 2003. MODFLOW: A Finite-

2 Difference Groundwater Flow Model or an Integrated
3 Finite-Difference Groundwater Flow Model?: MODFLOW and
4 More 2003: Understanding through Modeling – Conference
5 Proceedings. Paper available at www.balleau.com
6
7 Zheng, C. 1991. PATH3D 3.0: a ground-water path and travel-
8 time simulator. S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.,
9 Bethesda, Maryland.
10
11 Zheng, C. 1994. Analysis of Particle Tracking Errors
12 Associated with Spatial Discretization. Ground Water,
13 Vol. 32, no. 5: 821-828.
14
15 Zheng, C., and P.P. Wang. 1999. MT3DMS: A Modular Three-
16 Dimensional Multispecies Transport Model for Simulation
17 of Advection, Dispersion, and Chemical Reactions of
18 Contaminants in Groundwater Systems; Documentation and
19 User’s Guide. Contract Report SERDP-99-1.
20
22 Romero

Manuscript Accepted For Publication in Journal of Ground Water On March 2005 (See Vol. 44, No.6 - GROUND WATER - November

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Manuscript Accepted For Publication in Journal of Ground Water On March 2005 (See Vol. 44, No.6 - GROUND WATER - November

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Manuscript accepted for publication in Journal of Ground Water on March 2005 (see Vol. 44, No.

6 –GROUND WATER – November

1 Grid Cell Distortion and MODFLOW’s Integrated Finite-

9 The ground water flow model MODFLOW inherently

10 implements a non-generalized integrated finite-difference

11 (IFD) numerical scheme. The IFD numerical scheme allows for

12 construction of finite-difference model grids with

14 comprised of model cells in the shape of trapezoids and is

15 distorted in comparison to a traditional MODFLOW finite-

16 difference grid. A version of MODFLOW-88 (herein referred

17 to as MODFLOW IFD) with the code adapted to make the one-

18 dimensional DELR and DELC arrays two dimensional, so that

19 equivalent conductance between distorted grid cells can be

20 calculated, is described. MODFLOW IFD is used to inspect

21 the sensitivity of the numerical head and velocity solutions

22 to the level of distortion in trapezoidal grid cells within

24 for the analysis implements a grid oriented such that flow

25 is parallel to columns with converging widths. The

26 sensitivity analysis demonstrates MODFLOW IFD’s capacity to

27 numerically derive a head solution and resulting intercell

28 volumetric flow when the internal calculation of equivalent

29 conductance accounts for the distortion of the grid cells.

1 distortion indicates criteria for distorted grid design. In

2 the radial flow test problem described, the numerical head

3 solution is not sensitive to grid cell distortion. The

4 accuracy of the velocity solution is sensitive to cell

5 distortion with error less than one percent if the angle

6 between the non-parallel sides of trapezoidal cells is less

7 than 12.5 degrees. The error of the velocity solution is

8 related to the degree to which the spatial discretization of

9 a curve is approximated with piecewise linear segments.

11 versatility to spatial discretization of the flow domain.

12 MODFLOW-88’s inherent IFD numerical scheme and the test

13 problem results imply that more recent versions of MODFLOW

14 2000, with minor modifications, have the potential to make

15 use of a curvilinear grid.

19 The ground water flow model MODFLOW (McDonald and

21 integrated finite-difference (IFD) numerical scheme (Romero

22 and Maddock 2003). The inherent IFD numerical scheme allows

23 for adding versatility to the spatial discretization of the

24 flow domain. Specifically, rectangular model grid cells

25 typically associated with finite-difference numerical

26 schemes can be distorted into trapezoids to create a

1 evaluation of the effect of grid cell distortion on the

2 MODFLOW IFD numerical solution of head and calculation of

3 intercell ground water flow. The evaluation entails

4 inspecting the relationship between the level of spatial

5 resolution in a curvilinear grid of a fixed radial

6 (converging) flow domain and the cell dimensions used to

7 derive the equivalent conductance between cells. A

8 sensitivity analysis reveals MODFLOW IFD’s capacity to

9 numerically derive a head solution and resultant intercell

11 conductance between adjacent cells is affected by the

12 variable width of the cells. Sensitivity of the head

13 solution and ground water velocity to resolution of the

14 converging grid indicates criteria for grid design. A

15 previous test problem (Romero and Maddock 2003) is adapted

16 to relate numerical solution error to the angle of

17 trapezoidal cell convergence within a curvilinear grid so

18 that criteria for spatial refinement can be established.

19 Guidelines of curvilinear grid development are discussed.

21 MODFLOW Adapted For IFD Use

23 MODFLOW IFD herein refers to the existing version of