Abstract
AbstractAlthough both are crucial parts of the hydrological cycle, groundwater and surface water had traditionally been addressed separately. In recent decades, considering them as a single hydrological continuum in light of their continuous interaction has become well established in the scientific community through the development of numerous measurement and experimental techniques. Nevertheless, numerical models, as necessary tools to study a wide range of scenarios and future event predictions, are still based on outdated concepts that consider groundwater and surface water separately. This study compares these “coupled models”, which result from the successive execution of a surface water model and a groundwater model, to a recently developed “integral model”. The integral model uses a single set of equations to model both groundwater and surface water simultaneously, and can account for the continuous interaction at their interface. For comparison, we investigated small-scale flow across a rippled porous streambed. Although we applied identical model domain details and flow conditions, which resulted in very similar water tables and pressure distributions, comparing the integral and coupled models yielded very dissimilar velocity values across the groundwater–surface water interface. These differences highlight the impact of continuous exchange across the interface in the integral model, which imitates such flow processes more realistically than the coupled model. A few decimeters away from the interface, modeled velocity fields are very similar. Since the integral model and the surface water component of the coupled model are both CFD-based (computational fluid dynamics), they require very similar computational resources, namely access to cluster computers. Unfortunately, replacing the surface water component of the coupled model with the widely used shallow water equations model, which indeed would reduce the computational resources required, produces inaccuracy.
Funder
DFG
Technische Universität Berlin
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,Modeling and Simulation
Reference69 articles.
1. Bardini, L., Boano, F., Cardenas, M.B., Revelli, R., Ridolfi, L.: Nutrient cycling in bedform induced hyporheic zones. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 84, 47–61 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2012.01.025
2. Bartram, J., Balance, R.: United Nations, and World Health Organization, eds. Water quality monitoring: a practical guide to the design and implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring programmes. 1st ed. London; New York: E & FN Spon Chapter 12. ISBN: 0419217304 (1996)
3. Bayon, A., Valero, D., García-Bartual, R., Vallés-Morán, F.J., López-Jiménez, P.A.: Performance assessment of OpenFOAM and FLOW-3D in the numerical modeling of a low Reynolds number hydraulic jump. Environ. Model. Softw. 80, 322–335 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.02.018
4. Blois, G., Best, J.L., Sambrook Smith, G.H., Hardy, R.J.: Effect of bed permeability and hyporheic flow on turbulent flow over bed forms. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(18), 6435–6442 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl060906
5. Boano, F., Camporeale, C., Revelli, R., Ridolfi, L.: Sinuosity-driven hyporheic exchange in meandering rivers. Geophys. Res. Lett. (2006). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027630
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献