Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 36

4.

1 Introduction
In Chapter 3 we treated the steady-state groundwater problems. In many cases it is
necessary to deal with the problems where heads change with time. These so called time
dependent problems are called transient problems, or unsteady problems or nonsteadystate problems. In the derivation of the equation for transient flow, the continuity
equation has to be modified in such a way that the volume outflow equals the volume of
inflow rate plus the rate of release of water from storage. Therefore, we must introduce
into continuity equation an expression for the rate of release of water from the aquifer.
Therefore, we need to define the storage coefficient S, which represents the volume of
water released from storage per unit area of aquifer per unit decline in head. Thus
S = (-V)/(xy) (4-1)
where V is the volume of water released from storage within a volume whose area is
xy and whose thickness is b. When water is released from storage, V is positive and
H is negative (S is positive). When water is taken up into storage, V is negative and
H is positive (S is positive). The rate of release from storage V/t can be written as
-Sxy(H/t) . We can now calculate the water balance of a rectangular soil column
(x by y) of thickness b:
inflow -outflow =infl. of R + V/t
q(x)ybt+q(y)xbt -q(x+x)ybt-q(y+y)xbt =R(x,y)xy-Sxy(H/t)
and by dividing through by xy we get

(4-2)
By taking the limit (see Frame 3.1) and using the Darcy law and definition T = Kb, we
get the transient flow equation for confined flow:

(4-3)
which can also be written as

(4-4)

For unconfined aquifer with Dupuit assumptions, Eq. (3-18) can be modified as shown
below (basicly different symbol should be used for unconfined aquifer!)

(4-5)
where (H-HB) is the thickness of the water conducting layer (see also Fig. 3-3).
Eq. (4-5) cannot be solved without iteration within each time step and also we need
iteration inside each iteration, i.e. iteration at several levels (for more details see Section
4.5?).

4.2 Numerical solution of the transient flow equation in


1-D case
4.2.1 Finite difference approximation in space and time
In transient flow problems we need to consider the change in head both in space and
time. For one-dimensional problem this can be clarified by Fig. 4-1.

Fig. 4-1. Example of space-time finite difference grid for one-dimensional transient
flow equation (i = index in x-direction and t in time).

There are two very important aspects which need to be discussed. In transient flow
problems we must know at time t = 0 the head for all nodes i=1,..NX. This is so called
initial condition for the problem. Moreover, we need to know the boundary conditions for
the system as discussed in Chapter 3. In transient case we need to define the boundary
conditions as a function of time, i.e. it is possible that also boundary conditions
change with time. The numerical solution of transient flow problems can be illustrated as
a marching problem: we start from time t=0 and proceed forward in time one time step at
a time. Using the known initial condition at time t=0 we solve all the unknown nodal
values at time t=1 and so on. In a more general way we can consider nodal values at time
t as known values and we would like to solve the head values at time t+1, i.e. in the
numerical solution head values
are assumed to be known and
values to be solved using the numerical methods.

are the unknown

The next step is to have finite difference approximation of partial derivatives of head both
in space and time. As an example we consider one-dimensional form of Eq. (4-3) without
the recharge term:

(4-6)
The partial derivative of H with respect to time can be replaced by several approximation

Forward difference approximation

Backward difference approximation

Central difference approximation

(4-7a)

(4-7b)

(4-7c)

Due to the fact that in the numerical solution we are marching forward, we use the
approximation (4-7a). Central difference approximation may cause instability problems.
The finite difference approximation of the second partial derivative of head with respect
to x can also done in several ways. In an explicit approximation we use head values from
time level t only

(4-8a)

In fully implicit approximation we use values from unkown time level t+1

(4-8b)
and in a so called weighted approximation we use head values from both time level t and
time level t+1

(4-8c)
where weighting parameter is a so called coefficient of implicity. In the special case
that =0, approximation (4-8c) is explicit, if =1 it is fully implicit and when =0.5, it
is called Crank-Nicolson approximation.

4.2.2 Solution of one-dimensional drawdown example


Consider first a hypothetical problem as illustrated in Fig. 4-2. Aquifer head can be
controlled at both boundaries. The initial head in the aquifer at time t=0 is H1 =100 units
and at time t=0, the head at both boundaries is suddenly lowered to level H2 = 0 units.
The change in boundary conditions implies that head in the aquifer immediately starts to
fall and the drawdown should be calculated. The equation to be solved is in this case
scaled in such a way that the one-dimensional transient flow equation

(4-9a)
is converted into a scaled equation of the form:

(4-9b)
Eq. (4-9b) implies that "suitable parameter combination" has been chosen in such a way
that the coefficients T and S can be eliminated from the equation. In the scaled equation x
varies from 0 to 1 and since the problem is symmetric with respect to the midway
between the drains, it is necessary to calculate only half of the system and the right
boundary is a no-flow boundary due to symmetry. In the numerical formulation of this
example, H* is replaced by H to shorten the equations but the reader should remember
than in Examples 4.1-4.3 we are dealing with scaled values of head.

The reason for choosing this type of case is that there is an analytical solution to this
specific problem under the initial and boundary conditions described above. The
analytical solution is described as

(4-10)
where H1 is the initial head at time t = 0.
The initial and boundary conditions for the system are:
H(t,x) = H1 ; t = 0, 0 <= x <= 0.5 (4-11a)
H(t,x) = H2 ; t > 0, x = 0 (4-11b)
dH/dx = 0 ; t > 0, x = 0.5 (4-11c)
The problem has been solved using three different methods: explicit (Example 4.1),
iterative implicit (Example 4.2) and implicit solution with tridiagonal algorithm
(Example 4.3).

Fig. 4-2. One-dimensional drawdown example.

Example 4.1 Solution of the 1-D transient drawdown problem using explicit method
(file SGH_E401.XLS)
Download SGH_E401.XLS
In the explicit numerical solution, forward fifference approximation (4-7a) is chosen for
the partial derivative of H with respect to time and explicit approximation (4-8a) is
selected for replacing the second partial derivative of H with respect to x.

(4-12)
After substitution of the approximations the only unknown value is
and it is
straightforward to solve the equation with respect to the unknown value:

(4-13)
In the numerical solution mesh-centered grid is chosen in such a way that totally 10
intervals with length x = 0.05 is used indicating that the total number of nodes is 11.
The left boundary H1t+1 is a fixed head boundary and the right boundary node H11t+1 is a
no-flow boundary node.
Due to the fact that initial condition at time t=0 is known for all nodes i=1,..NX, it is easy
to solve the unknown values at time t+1 one by one starting from the left boundary where
H1t+1 = H2 is known as boundary condition. The right boundary is treated utilizing the
fictitious node, i.e. H12t+1 = H10t+1 , which makes the solution possible in the no-flow
boundary.
The formulation of the equations of the EXCEL-cells is very simple and e.g. for cell D13
the equation reads
=D12+dtime/deltax^2*(C12-2*D12+E12) (4-14)
where dtime is the length of the time step t and deltax is the length of the space step x.
The only problem with the solution is the proper selection of the time step. The numerical
solution of Eq. (4-9) involves the calculation of water balance for each cell and if too
much water is taken from one cell during a time step, this will result in a solution that
starts to oscillate around its initial value and finally the solution collapses. The instability
of the solution can be avoided by selecting time small enough to ensure that during one
time step too much water is not taken from any cell. The selection of time step for onedimensional problems can be done by using the following condition (e.g. Chapra and
Canale 1988):

(4-15)
In the scaled drawdown example T/S=1 and x = 0.05. This implies that t has to be
smaller or equal to 0.00125 for the the solution to be stable.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4-1. Comparison of explicit numerical solution (t=0.001 min) and analytical
solution of the drawdown example.
Table not shown here. Goto printed material or file SGH_E401.XLS !
______________________________________________________________________
Comparison of calculated and analytical solution for node 2 at x = 0.05 using time step
t=0.001, is given in Fig. 4-3 indicating that at the beginning of calculation, the explicit
solution overestimates the drawdown for node 2 but for time >0.010, the numerical
solution is very close to the analytical one. It is obvious that if smaller time steps were
used, more accurate results could be obtained but at the expense of increased
computational burden.
The user can test the stability of the solution by changing the time step of the EXCELsolution shown in the file SGH_E401.XLS. It is easy to see that e.g. if t = 0.002 min,
the solution is not stable anymore, but starts to oscillate.
Example 4.2 Solution of the 1-D transient drawdown problem using iterative
implicit method
(file SGH_E402.XLS)
Download SGH_E402.XLS
In the implicit solution, the space derivatives of Eq. (4-9) are replaced by approximation
(4-8c) which results in a system where there are three unknowns in each equation:
and

Fig. 4-3. Comparison of time dependent numerical and analytical solution of the
drawdown example at x = 0.05 (t = 0.001 min, x = 0.05).

(4-16)
Therefore, it is not possible to solve all three unknowns from this one equation. It is
possible to solve
from (4-16) by transfering the other two unknown values to the
right hand side. This results in an equation

(4-17)
It is possible to write a similar equation for all the cells and use EXCEL-iteration to solve
all the unknowns. This implies that we have to activate the EXCEL-iteration option
(TOOLS-OPTIONS-CALCULATION). The solution is shown in the file
SGH_E402.XLS and e.g. for cell D13 the equation reads:
=(D12+dtime/deltax^2*( (1-Alfa)*(C12-2*D12+E12) +Alfa*(C13+E13) ) )/Denom
(4-18)
where Denom is the denominator of Eq. (4-17), Alfa the coefficient of implicity
deltax and dtime as defined previously in Example 4.1.

and

Implicit numerical solutions are unconditionally stable indicating that the length of time
step t can chosen in such a way the the accuracy is high enough. The implicity
coefficient influences the accuracy of the numerical solution: for small time steps
optimum is close to 0.5 and with increasing the length of the the time step, optimum
value of starts to approach value 1.0. Unfortunately there exist no general law for
selecting and optimum value needs to be determined by trial and error.
The drawdown example was solved using the iterative implicit method. The results of the
implicit numerical solution using the same time step t=0.001 min as in Example are
shown in Fig. 4-4. When implicity factor has value 0.6, numerical and analytical
solution are in very good agreement with each other throughout the whole computation
period.

Fig. 4-4. Comparison of implicit iterative solution method and analytical solution for
x=0.05 (t = 0.001, = 0.6, x =0.05).
Explicit solution was unstable for time step t >0.00125 min. Implicit solution does not
suffer from instability even if large time steps are used. If the implicity factor is
selected in an optimum way (usually by trial-and-error), it is possible to get very good
results between numerical and analytical solutions e.g. using time which is several times
longer than the time step that can be used in the explicit solution method. The results
from an example where time step t = 0.01 and = 0.8, are shown in Fig. 4-5 indicating
that an excellent agreement between numerical and analytical solution can be obtained
with
Example 4.3 Solution of the 1-D transient drawdown problem using implicit method
and tridiagonal algorithm (file SGH_E403.XLS)
Download
SGH_E403.XLS
The implicit finite difference approximation given in Eq. (4-16) can be solved by so
called direct solution methods. The idea is to arrange Eq. (4-16) in such a way that all
three unknown values are transferred to the left hand side and all the known terms to the
right hand side of the equation. In this way it is possible to write Eq. (4-16) in a form
Ai

+ Bi

+ Ci

= Di

(4-19)

Fig. 4-5. Comparison of implicit iterative solution method and analytical solution for
x=0.05 (t = 0.01, = 0.8, x =0.05).
Terms Ai,...,Di can be obtained by collecting the coefficients of the unknown values of H
from Eq. (4-16):

(4-20a)

(4-20b)

(4-20c)
Equation (4-19) can be applied for all inner nodes i = 2,..,NX-1 and all these equations,
together with equations for the boundary nodes i=1 and i=NX can be written in matrix
form as follows:

B1

C1

A2

B2

D1
C2

D2

A3

B3
Ai

C3
....
Bi

D3
=.
Ci

(4-21a)

Di

Ai+1 Bi+1 Ci+1


.....
ANx

Di+1

BNx

DNx

Equation (4-21a) can be also be written as


=
where

(4-21b)
is NX-by-NX tri-diagonal coefficient matrix,

values and

is NX -vector of unknown H-

is NX -vector of known coefficients.

In the drawdown example, H1t+1 = H2 is a known value therefore the coefficients of the
equation of the first node are as follows:
B1 = 1
A 1 = C1 = 0

(4-22)

D1 = H2
The boundary node NX is impermeable indicating that
=
. It would also be
possible to use the concept of fictitious node, but in this case the above relationship is
substituted directly to the equation for the last node and this results in the following
equations for the coefficients:

(4-23a)

(4-23b)
CNx = 0

(4-23c)

(4-23d)

The system of equations (4-21) ia a linear system of equations and the coefficient matrix
has a special tri-diagonal structure which makes the solution very efficient. The
derivation of the Thomas algorithm that can be used to solve (4-21) is not shown here
(see e.g. Remson and Hornberger 1971; Wang and Anderson 1982), but the algorithm
itself is given:
For node 1:
V 1 = B1

(4-24a)

G1 = C1/V1

(4-24b)

U1 = D1/V1

(4-24c)

And repeatedly for nodes 2,, Nx


Vi = Bi -AiGi-1

(4-24d)

Ui = (Di -AiUi-1)/Vi

(4-24e)

Gi = Ci/Vi

(4-24f)

The solution for node Nx:


XNx = Unx

(4-24g)

And backward substitution from Nx-1 down to 1:


Xi = Ui -GiXi+1

(4-24h)

This algorithm is very efficient in terms of computer resources and it forms an essential
part of some of the numerical solution methods of the 2-D transient flow problems
discussed in Section 4.3.
The solution of the drawdown problem with the implicit method and tri-diagonal
algorithm is possible to accomplish in the EXCEL-cells, but it would require the storing
of all the vectors A,..G, X (8 vectors) for each time step and it would not be very
practical. Instead, it was decided that Visual Basic programming language available in
EXCEL5.0 and later versions, is used to solve the drawdown example together with the
tri-diagonal matrix solution. The subroutine for solving the the Thomas algorithm when
coefficients Ai,...,Di are given as vectors, is given in Fig. 4-6.
Fig. 4-6. Visual Basic program for the solution of the tri-diagonal (Thomas)
algorithm

(A, B, C, D, X, V, G and U are all vectors).


'---------------------------TRIDIAGONAL ALGORITHM
Sub TRI()
Dim i As Integer
V(1) = B(1)
G(1) = C(1) / V(1)
U(1) = D(1) / V(1)
For i = 2 To Neq
V(i) = B(i) - A(i) * G(i - 1)
U(i) = (D(i) - A(i) * U(i - 1)) / V(i)
G(i) = C(i) / V(i)
Next i
' Solution stored to vector X(i)
X(Neq) = U(Neq)
For i = Neq - 1 To 1 Step -1
X(i) = U(i) - G(i) * X(i + 1)
Next i
End Sub

The Visual Basic program for solving the drawdown example is given in the file
SGH_E403.XLS and it is not shown here. The basic idea of the program is that the
parameters needed in calculation (e.g. time step t, discretization in space x, total
number of time steps and coefficient of implicity alfa) are given in normal EXCEL cells.
The Visual Basic program reads these parameters from the cells, solves the system and
writes the results to sheet "Results". This is an example of a computer program where
EXCEL is the so called "user interface" and calculations are performed using a
programming language. Several examples of these type of modeling systems where
EXCEL is the user interface are shown in Section 4.3 and Chapters 5-6. In the user
interface examples the key factor is a "button", which can be connected to specific Visual
Basic subroutine. Once the button is clicked with the mouse, it starts the execution of the
subroutine connected to the button. This implies that it is very easy to develop "userfriendly" programs which perform several tasks with single clicking of the mouse.

4.3 Numerical solution of the transient flow equation in


2-D case
The numerical solution of the two-dimensional transient flow equation follows basicly
the same concepts than the solution of the one-dimensional case. If programming
languages are used to solve the equation, the solution is straighforward as shown in
Examples 4-7 of Section 4.4. In EXCEL-solution, the basic difference is that the third
dimension - time - makes the solution much more complicated. EXCEL is especially
suitable for solving two-dimensional problems: 2-D steady-state solution or 1-D transient
solution. The third dimension necessitates either the use of two sheets to solve the
problem (see Examples 4.4 and 4.5) or application of Visual Basic programming
language (see Example 4.6 of Section 4.4).

4.3.1 Test example of Kinzelbach


As an example of 2-D transient flow case consider an example discussed earlier by
Kinzelbach (1986). In the test example a rectangular confined 700 x 700 m2 aquifer is
divided to 7 by 7 nodes (x = y = 100 m) in a block-centered grid. Aquifer
transmissivity is T = 0.1 m2 s-1 and storage coefficient S = 0.001. The discharge well is
located in node (4,4) and the amount of pumping is Q = 1 m3 s-1 . The boundary
conditions are as follows: constant head H = 50 m at west and east boundary and no-flow
boundary at north and at south.

4.3.2 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using explicit method


Two-dimensional transient flow equation can be solved using either explicit or implicit
methods. Consider first the equation for 2-D transient flow in confined aquifer:

(4-25)
In the case of homogenous anisotropic aquifer TX = TY = T. Recharge R(x,y,t) for
pumping case can be calculated as R(x,y,t) = -Q/(xy)
In the explicit solution the partial derivatives are replaced by approximations (4-7a) and
(4-8a):

(4-26)

and it is straightforward to solve the unknown


to give the equation for solution of
the 2-D transient flow equation using explicit methods (x = y):

(4-27)
Example 4.4 (SGH_E404.XLS)

Download SGH_E404.XLS

The 2-D transient test example of Kinzelbach was solved using explicit method as
described by simple equation (4-27). In the EXCEL-solution it is necessary to use two
sheets 'S1' and 'S2' in such a way that 'S2' contains the head-values from the previous
time step at level t ("old values") and new values at time level t+1 are solved to sheet 'S1'.
The solution proceeds as follows:
0) Define H-initial for all nodes in sheet 'S2'
1) Solve

for all nodes using Eq. (4-27) (see EXCEL equation below). The results

are written to sheet 'S1'


2) Copy the grid from sheet 'S1' to sheet 'S2' to be used as "old values" for the next
time step
3) Increase total time of computation and go back to 1) unless the total number of
time steps has been calculated
In the actual EXCEL-solution given in file SGH_E404.XLS, Visual Basic subroutines
connected to buttons are used to perform the necessary operations indicated by 0)..3)
above. The subroutines were recorded by the TOOLS - RECORD MACRO - RECORD
NEW MACRO -option.
For cell E18 (pumping node) in sheet 'S1' the EXCEL-equation reads:
= 'S2'!E18+Const*('S2'!D18+'S2'!F18+'S2'!E17+'S2'!E19-4*'S2'!E18 - Well/Trans)

where Const = Tt/{SS(x)2} and Well = -R(x)2 = Q and Trans = T.


The results of the computation can be compared to solution given by Kinzelbach (1984).
The comparison of the results when total time of computation was 100 s and t was 10 s
are given in Table 4-2 indicating that the results are the same.

4.3.3 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using iterative implicit method
Explicit solution methods suffer from unstability if the time step used in the computations
is too long. Implicit methods as shown in Section 4.2 do not suffer from this type of
problems. In the implicit method the second partial derivatives of Eq. (4-26) are replaced
by a weighted approximation between the new and old values:

(4-28)
where is the weighting coefficient ( =0 is explicit,
is the Crank-Nicolson approximation).

=1 is fully implicit and

=0.5

Table 4-2. Comparison of EXCEL-solution and solution given by Kinzelbach (1986)


for the test example of Section 4.3.1.
Consult printed paper or file SGH_E404.XLS

Eq. (4-28) includes totally five unknown H-values and it is not possible to explicitly
solve all these unknown values without matrix-inversion. However, the solution can
obtained by utilizing the iteration option of EXCEL in a corresponding way that was
described in Chapter 3 for steady-state problems. In this Section iterative implicit method
is used which implies that
is solved from equation (4-28) and all the other unknown
values remain at the right hand side of the equation:

(4-29)
The relatively complicated-looking equation for solving iteratively
to EXCEL-formula as follows (for pumping cell E18 in sheet 'S1').

can be converted

=('S2'!E18+(1-Alfa)*Const*('S2'!D18+'S2'!F18+'S2'!E17+'S2'!E19-4*'S2'!E18)+
Alfa*Const*(D18+F18+E19+E17) - Const*Well/Trans )/(1+Alfa*Const*4)

where Const = Tt/{SS(x)2} and Well = -R(x)2 = Q, Trans = T and Alfa =

The iteration option of EXCEL has to be activated (TOOLS-OPTIONSCALCULATION) before solution can be obtained.
Example 4.5 (file SGH_E405.XLS)

Download SGH_E405.XLS

The test example of Kinzelbach was solved using the iterative implicit method. In this
case longer time steps can be used. The comparison of the EXCEL-results with H-values
calculated by Kinzelbach at time 1000 s using time step t = 100 s are given in Table 4-3.
The result differ around 0.1-0.2 m from each other and the main reason for these
deviations is the convergence criteria which was 0.001 m for EXCEL-solution and 0.05
m for the solution given by Kinzelbach (1986).

4.3 Numerical solution of the transient flow equation in


2-D case
The numerical solution of the two-dimensional transient flow equation follows basicly
the same concepts than the solution of the one-dimensional case. If programming
languages are used to solve the equation, the solution is straighforward as shown in
Examples 4-7 of Section 4.4. In EXCEL-solution, the basic difference is that the third
dimension - time - makes the solution much more complicated. EXCEL is especially
suitable for solving two-dimensional problems: 2-D steady-state solution or 1-D transient
solution. The third dimension necessitates either the use of two sheets to solve the
problem (see Examples 4.4 and 4.5) or application of Visual Basic programming
language (see Example 4.6 of Section 4.4).

4.3.1 Test example of Kinzelbach


As an example of 2-D transient flow case consider an example discussed earlier by
Kinzelbach (1986). In the test example a rectangular confined 700 x 700 m2 aquifer is
divided to 7 by 7 nodes (x = y = 100 m) in a block-centered grid. Aquifer
transmissivity is T = 0.1 m2 s-1 and storage coefficient S = 0.001. The discharge well is
located in node (4,4) and the amount of pumping is Q = 1 m3 s-1 . The boundary
conditions are as follows: constant head H = 50 m at west and east boundary and no-flow
boundary at north and at south.

4.3.2 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using explicit method

Two-dimensional transient flow equation can be solved using either explicit or implicit
methods. Consider first the equation for 2-D transient flow in confined aquifer:

(4-25)
In the case of homogenous anisotropic aquifer TX = TY = T. Recharge R(x,y,t) for
pumping case can be calculated as R(x,y,t) = -Q/(xy)
In the explicit solution the partial derivatives are replaced by approximations (4-7a) and
(4-8a):

(4-26)
and it is straightforward to solve the unknown
to give the equation for solution of
the 2-D transient flow equation using explicit methods (x = y):

(4-27)
Example 4.4 (SGH_E404.XLS)

Download SGH_E404.XLS

The 2-D transient test example of Kinzelbach was solved using explicit method as
described by simple equation (4-27). In the EXCEL-solution it is necessary to use two
sheets 'S1' and 'S2' in such a way that 'S2' contains the head-values from the previous
time step at level t ("old values") and new values at time level t+1 are solved to sheet 'S1'.
The solution proceeds as follows:
0) Define H-initial for all nodes in sheet 'S2'
1) Solve

for all nodes using Eq. (4-27) (see EXCEL equation below). The results

are written to sheet 'S1'


2) Copy the grid from sheet 'S1' to sheet 'S2' to be used as "old values" for the next
time step
3) Increase total time of computation and go back to 1) unless the total number of
time steps has been calculated

In the actual EXCEL-solution given in file SGH_E404.XLS, Visual Basic subroutines


connected to buttons are used to perform the necessary operations indicated by 0)..3)
above. The subroutines were recorded by the TOOLS - RECORD MACRO - RECORD
NEW MACRO -option.
For cell E18 (pumping node) in sheet 'S1' the EXCEL-equation reads:
= 'S2'!E18+Const*('S2'!D18+'S2'!F18+'S2'!E17+'S2'!E19-4*'S2'!E18 - Well/Trans)

where Const = Tt/{SS(x)2} and Well = -R(x)2 = Q and Trans = T.


The results of the computation can be compared to solution given by Kinzelbach (1984).
The comparison of the results when total time of computation was 100 s and t was 10 s
are given in Table 4-2 indicating that the results are the same.

4.3.3 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using iterative implicit method
Explicit solution methods suffer from unstability if the time step used in the computations
is too long. Implicit methods as shown in Section 4.2 do not suffer from this type of
problems. In the implicit method the second partial derivatives of Eq. (4-26) are replaced
by a weighted approximation between the new and old values:

(4-28)
where is the weighting coefficient ( =0 is explicit,
is the Crank-Nicolson approximation).

=1 is fully implicit and

=0.5

Table 4-2. Comparison of EXCEL-solution and solution given by Kinzelbach (1986)


for the test example of Section 4.3.1.
Consult printed paper or file SGH_E404.XLS

Eq. (4-28) includes totally five unknown H-values and it is not possible to explicitly
solve all these unknown values without matrix-inversion. However, the solution can
obtained by utilizing the iteration option of EXCEL in a corresponding way that was

described in Chapter 3 for steady-state problems. In this Section iterative implicit method
is used which implies that
is solved from equation (4-28) and all the other unknown
values remain at the right hand side of the equation:

(4-29)
The relatively complicated-looking equation for solving iteratively
to EXCEL-formula as follows (for pumping cell E18 in sheet 'S1').

can be converted

=('S2'!E18+(1-Alfa)*Const*('S2'!D18+'S2'!F18+'S2'!E17+'S2'!E19-4*'S2'!E18)+
Alfa*Const*(D18+F18+E19+E17) - Const*Well/Trans )/(1+Alfa*Const*4)

where Const = Tt/{SS(x)2} and Well = -R(x)2 = Q, Trans = T and Alfa =

The iteration option of EXCEL has to be activated (TOOLS-OPTIONSCALCULATION) before solution can be obtained.
Example 4.5 (file SGH_E405.XLS)

Download SGH_E405.XLS

The test example of Kinzelbach was solved using the iterative implicit method. In this
case longer time steps can be used. The comparison of the EXCEL-results with H-values
calculated by Kinzelbach at time 1000 s using time step t = 100 s are given in Table 4-3.
The result differ around 0.1-0.2 m from each other and the main reason for these
deviations is the convergence criteria which was 0.001 m for EXCEL-solution and 0.05
m for the solution given by Kinzelbach (1986).

4.3.4 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using SOR-method


In Chapter 3 SOR -method (Successive Over Relaxation) was used to solve steady-state
groundwater problems. The method can alse be used to solve transient flow problems.
The idea is simple: iterate with SOR-method during each time step until convergence is
attained. In steady-state solution it was necessary do the iteration cycle only once but in
transient case the iteration cycle is repeated as many times as there are time steps in the
computation. Initial estimate for each iteration cycle is the head-value from the previous
time step.

The equation to be solved is (4-25) and weighted implicit finite difference approximation
as shown by Eq. (4-28) is used. Eq. (4-28) is solved in terms of
as shown in Eq. (429) but in this case we need write the iteration equation (in Example 4.5 EXCEL
performs automatically the iteration):

(4-30)
where m denotes the iteration index. In equation (4-30) two unknown nodal values can be
obtained from the iteration level m+1 and two from iteration level m. Finally, the over
relaxation is included by equation:

(4-31)
where is the over relaxation parameter. When convergence has been reached, the
following substitution is made for all nodes:

(4-32)
Examples of the application of SOR-method in solving transient 2-D flow problems are
given in Section 4.4.

4.3.5 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using LSOR-method


The solution method (SOR) described in the previous Section is purely point iterative, i.e.
no vector or matrix manipulations are needed. In inhomogenous aquifers with irregular
grid spacing the SOR-method may prove to be inefficient in terms of computer resources.
When implicit methods are used, the heads in the surrounding nodes are also unknown.
Therefore, theoretically it would be best to solve all the unknown heads simultaneously
by forming a system of equations and solving the matrix presentation e.g. with Gaussian
elimination. This type of method could be called direct solution method. Unfortunately,
matrices are usually very large- NX by NY - and most of the elements of the matrices
would be zero indicating unnecessary use of both memory and computational time.
A very often used compromise between point iterative and full-equation solution is a
method called LSOR (Line Successive Over Relaxation) which combines iterative and
direct implicit solution methods. The basis of LSOR is to obtain a tridiagonal set of

equations by writing the finite difference approximations implicitly along columns (or
rows) and explicitly along rows (or columns). Each column is solved at its turn and this
procedure is continued until desired convergence is achieved. The decision whether the
solution should be orientated along columns or rows depends on the problem. The
direction of greater hydraulic conductivity and smaller block size is preferable (Trescott
et al. 1976).
The equation to be solved is (4-25) and in homogenous case the implicit finite difference
approximation is given by (4-28) (repeated here to clarify the formulation of the equation
and the coefficients of the tri-diagonal algorithm).

(4-28)
Consider the case that the solution is oriented implicitly along rows and explicitly along
columns. For row j equation (4-28) can the be written in the form:
; i=1,..,NX (4-33)
where the coefficients Ai,...Di can be obtained by collecting terms from (4-28) and
assuming that x = y:

(4-34a)

(4-34b)

(4-34c)

(4-34d)
Eq. (4-33) is a tridiagonal system of equations which can be solved very efficiently with
the Thomas algorithm described in Section 4.2.2 and Eqs. (4-24).

It can be seen that coefficient Di includes also unknown values from rows j-1 and j+1 and
therefore it is necessary to iterate. In the LSOR-method the solution of the tri-diagonal
system of equations given by (4-33) and (4-34) must be solved successively for all rows
j=1,..NY. Initial values for the iteration are the head-values from the previous time step.
Basicly (4-33) and (4-34) should be written in terms of
instead of
indicating
that we need to iterate. In the actual computer program (see e.g. SGH_D2.PAS) this poses
no problem since the most recent iteration values are stored in the matrix of the unknown
head-values and iteration level is automatically taken into account.
SOR-method is included in LSOR in a similar way as shown in the previous Section
4.3.4 for point iterative method. The only difference is that
of equation (4-31) is
replaced by the result of the solution of the tri-diagonal algorithm and new head value for
iteration level m+1 is calculated at the same time for all nodes in one row.
Examples of the application of LSOR-method in solving transient 2-D flow problems are
given in Section 4.4.

4.3.6 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using IADI-method


In very inhomogenous aquifers with very irregular grid spacing it may be necessary to
use IADI-method (Iterative Alternating Direction Implicit) which is based on the idea that
during each iteration, the solution is done implicitly both along rows and along columns.
If iteration is omitted, the method is called ADI (see. e.g. Wang and Anderson 1982) but
ADI without iteration does not offer any advantages over LSOR-method.
In the IADI-method we both iterate and solve the equations implicitly along rows and
along columns. The coefficients of the row-oriented solution was already given in the
previous Section by Eqs. (4-33) and (4-34). Now it is necessary to develop the
corresponding equations for the implicit solution along colums. It is straightforward to
see that for column i the equations are:
; j=1,..,NY (4-35)
and

(4-36a)

(4-36b)

(4-36c)

(4-36d)
During each iteration both (4-33) and (4-35) are solved before the convergence is
checked. (4-33) and (4-35) are solved repeatedly until the convergence is achieved. It is
also possible to include over relaxation into IADI.
Examples of the application of IADI-method together with the comparison of the
efficiency of SOR, LSOR and IADI-methods are given in Section 4.4.

4.4 Extension of 2-D transient solution methods to


inhomogenous aquifers and irregular grid spacing
In solving practical problems it is necessary to treat inhomogenous aquifers and usually
also the case that grid spacing is not constant in either X- or Y-direction. The treatment of
inhomogenous aquifers using EXCEL is very complicated if Visual Basic programming
is not used. The treatment of irregular grid spacing would lead to even greater difficulties
without programming. The purpose of this Section is develop programs which can be
used to solve "real-life" problems with heterogenity and varying grid spacing. Inevitably
this leads to programming languages. One example of Visual Basic with EXCEL is given
(Example 4.6) but otherwise the programs have been written using Turbo Pascal 6.0 and
both the source files and the executable files are given.
The derivation of the methods for solving 2-D transient flow in inhomogenous aquifer
and irregular grid spacing is carried out only for block-centered grid due to the fact that
location-dependent storage coefficient and recharge can be treated mathematically
slightly easier in block-centered than in mesh-centered case (see Section 4.4.1 for
explanation).

4.4.1 Treatment of inhomogenous aquifers


In inhomogenous aquifers transmissivity T, storage coefficient SS and recharge R are not
constant but vary as a function of location (x,y). In the numerical solution it is necessary
to define Ti,j , SSi,j and Ri,j for all nodes i=1,..,NX and j=1,..,NY. In many cases the aquifer is
dived to zones (zonation) and each zone is connected to its own T, SS and R-values. In
this way the number of parameters is reduced dramatically as compared to case when we
have to define different T, SS and R-values for all nodes. The geometry of the zones is

determined from prior information of the geology of the flow region. The zonation is
discussed later on in Chapter 5.
The starting point for deriving solution to inhomogenous aquifers is to estimate
internodal transmissivity if T is not constant. Previously, in Section 3.5.4 we calculated
average transmissivity using geometric mean (Eq. (3-40)). However, it is preferable to
use a so called harmonic mean as an estimate of transmissivities between nodes of the
finite difference grid. The definition of the internodal transmissivities is shown in Fig. 4-7
and the necessary equations are given in Eqs. (4-37). As an example it can be clarified
that TXi-1,i denotes the estimated "average" transmissivity between nodes (i-1,j) and (i,j).
TXi-1,i = 2Ti-1,jTi,j/(Ti-1,j + Ti,j) (4-37a)
TXi,i+1 = 2Ti+1,jTi,j/(Ti+1,j + Ti,j) (4-37b)
TYj-1,j = 2Ti,j-1Ti,j/(Ti,j-1 + Ti,j) (4-37c)
TYj,j+1 = 2Ti,j+1Ti,j/(Ti,j+1 + Ti,j) (4-37d)

Fig. 4-7. Definition of internodal transmissivities in block-centered grid.


The harmonic mean has the advantage of us allowing to include impermeable boundaries
in a simple way as shown later on.
In the block-centered grid the treatment of SSi,j and Ri,j is straightforward since these are
cell (block)-dependent (=constant value inside a single cell) and in finite difference
approximation this is automatically taken into account. The grid is designed in such a
way that cell-boundaries coincide with the zone-boundaries and in this way each cell is

located completely inside one zone. In mesh-centered grid the material boundaries are
slightly more difficult to handle. If the nodes are located on the zone boundary (see Fig.
4-8), SSi,j and Ri,j have different value on the left and right hand side of the boundary node
and this should be taken into account in the computer program. This is due to the fact that
in mesh-centered grid Ssi,j is the average storage coefficient of the area surrounding the
node as shown by dotted line in Fig. 4-8. If the nodes of the mesh-centered grid are not
located on the zone-boundaries, it creates an other type of difficulty: the nodal grid is
more difficult to form due to the fact that we have to avoid the boundaries which,
however, would be the most obvious choice for placing the nodes. This difficulty is
illustrated in Fig. 4-9.

Fig. 4-8. Influence area of a single node in mesh-centerd grid.

Fig 4-9. a) Division of aquifer to cells in block-centered grid


b) Placement of nodes in mesh-centered grid if nodes are not located on the
boundary between two zones of different properties.

In Fig. 4-9 we see the same aquifer with two different zones divided to both block-and
mesh-centered grids. In block-centered version the treatment of the zones is easy as
shown in Fig. 4-9a. If we want to avoid the placement of nodes on the zone boundaries in
the mesh-centerd grid, we are facing with problem of location of the nodes as shown in
Fig. 4-9b. On the other hand, if the nodes are located on the boundaries, we need to
calculate "average" values for storage coefficient and recharge term and if zone 1 and
zone 2 differ from each other very much, this may create additional error to solution. As a
final conclusion it can said that it is preferable to use block-centered grid because the
only thing that need to be averaged is internodal transmissivity.

4.4.2 Finite difference approximation for inhomogenous aquifer and


irregular grid spacing
Now it is time to derive the finite difference approximation for 2-D flow in confined
aquifer for inhomogenous case with irregular grid spacing. The equation to be solved is
repeated here:

(4-25)
As a first step we apply the finite difference approximation to first spatial derivatives of
Eq. (4-25) and take into consideration the implicit weighting factor .

4.3.4 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using SOR-method


In Chapter 3 SOR -method (Successive Over Relaxation) was used to solve steady-state
groundwater problems. The method can alse be used to solve transient flow problems.
The idea is simple: iterate with SOR-method during each time step until convergence is
attained. In steady-state solution it was necessary do the iteration cycle only once but in
transient case the iteration cycle is repeated as many times as there are time steps in the
computation. Initial estimate for each iteration cycle is the head-value from the previous
time step.
The equation to be solved is (4-25) and weighted implicit finite difference approximation
as shown by Eq. (4-28) is used. Eq. (4-28) is solved in terms of
as shown in Eq. (429) but in this case we need write the iteration equation (in Example 4.5 EXCEL
performs automatically the iteration):

(4-30)
where m denotes the iteration index. In equation (4-30) two unknown nodal values can be
obtained from the iteration level m+1 and two from iteration level m. Finally, the over
relaxation is included by equation:

(4-31)
where is the over relaxation parameter. When convergence has been reached, the
following substitution is made for all nodes:

(4-32)
Examples of the application of SOR-method in solving transient 2-D flow problems are
given in Section 4.4.

4.3.5 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using LSOR-method


The solution method (SOR) described in the previous Section is purely point iterative, i.e.
no vector or matrix manipulations are needed. In inhomogenous aquifers with irregular
grid spacing the SOR-method may prove to be inefficient in terms of computer resources.
When implicit methods are used, the heads in the surrounding nodes are also unknown.
Therefore, theoretically it would be best to solve all the unknown heads simultaneously
by forming a system of equations and solving the matrix presentation e.g. with Gaussian
elimination. This type of method could be called direct solution method. Unfortunately,
matrices are usually very large- NX by NY - and most of the elements of the matrices
would be zero indicating unnecessary use of both memory and computational time.
A very often used compromise between point iterative and full-equation solution is a
method called LSOR (Line Successive Over Relaxation) which combines iterative and
direct implicit solution methods. The basis of LSOR is to obtain a tridiagonal set of
equations by writing the finite difference approximations implicitly along columns (or
rows) and explicitly along rows (or columns). Each column is solved at its turn and this
procedure is continued until desired convergence is achieved. The decision whether the
solution should be orientated along columns or rows depends on the problem. The

direction of greater hydraulic conductivity and smaller block size is preferable (Trescott
et al. 1976).
The equation to be solved is (4-25) and in homogenous case the implicit finite difference
approximation is given by (4-28) (repeated here to clarify the formulation of the equation
and the coefficients of the tri-diagonal algorithm).

(4-28)
Consider the case that the solution is oriented implicitly along rows and explicitly along
columns. For row j equation (4-28) can the be written in the form:
; i=1,..,NX (4-33)
where the coefficients Ai,...Di can be obtained by collecting terms from (4-28) and
assuming that x = y:

(4-34a)

(4-34b)

(4-34c)

(4-34d)
Eq. (4-33) is a tridiagonal system of equations which can be solved very efficiently with
the Thomas algorithm described in Section 4.2.2 and Eqs. (4-24).
It can be seen that coefficient Di includes also unknown values from rows j-1 and j+1 and
therefore it is necessary to iterate. In the LSOR-method the solution of the tri-diagonal
system of equations given by (4-33) and (4-34) must be solved successively for all rows
j=1,..NY. Initial values for the iteration are the head-values from the previous time step.

Basicly (4-33) and (4-34) should be written in terms of


instead of
indicating
that we need to iterate. In the actual computer program (see e.g. SGH_D2.PAS) this poses
no problem since the most recent iteration values are stored in the matrix of the unknown
head-values and iteration level is automatically taken into account.
SOR-method is included in LSOR in a similar way as shown in the previous Section
4.3.4 for point iterative method. The only difference is that
of equation (4-31) is
replaced by the result of the solution of the tri-diagonal algorithm and new head value for
iteration level m+1 is calculated at the same time for all nodes in one row.
Examples of the application of LSOR-method in solving transient 2-D flow problems are
given in Section 4.4.

4.3.6 Solution of 2-D transient flow case using IADI-method


In very inhomogenous aquifers with very irregular grid spacing it may be necessary to
use IADI-method (Iterative Alternating Direction Implicit) which is based on the idea that
during each iteration, the solution is done implicitly both along rows and along columns.
If iteration is omitted, the method is called ADI (see. e.g. Wang and Anderson 1982) but
ADI without iteration does not offer any advantages over LSOR-method.
In the IADI-method we both iterate and solve the equations implicitly along rows and
along columns. The coefficients of the row-oriented solution was already given in the
previous Section by Eqs. (4-33) and (4-34). Now it is necessary to develop the
corresponding equations for the implicit solution along colums. It is straightforward to
see that for column i the equations are:
; j=1,..,NY (4-35)
and

(4-36a)

(4-36b)

(4-36c)

(4-36d)
During each iteration both (4-33) and (4-35) are solved before the convergence is
checked. (4-33) and (4-35) are solved repeatedly until the convergence is achieved. It is
also possible to include over relaxation into IADI.
Examples of the application of IADI-method together with the comparison of the
efficiency of SOR, LSOR and IADI-methods are given in Section 4.4.

(4-38)
Due to the fact that the grid size is not constant, we need to define cell width xi
and cell height yj for all i=1,..,NX and j=1,..,NY. This automatically implie that we also
need to have coordinates (xi, y j) for all nodal points. In this way the distance between
nodes (i-1,j) and (i,j) is xi- x i-1) and the distance between nodes (i,j) and (i,j+1) is yj+1- y j.
It is now possible to write Eq. (4-38) into its final discretized form. In order to simplify
the notation, a fully implicit approximation with = 1 is chosen:

(4-39)
where the internodal transmissivities TXi-1,i, TXi,i+1, TYj-1,j and TYj,j+1 are given in Eqs. (437).
LSOR-solution

Consider the case that the LSOR-solution described in Section 4.3.5 is oriented implicitly
along rows and explicitly along columns. For row j equation (4-39) can again be written
in the form (same as previously):
; i=1,..,NX (4-33)
where the coefficients Ai,...Di can be obtained by collecting terms from (4-39):

(4-40a)

(4-40b)

(4-40c)

(4-40d)
The solution is accomplished in the way described in Section 3.4.5.
In a corresponding way it is possible to define the coefficients Ai,...Di for the IADIsolution described in Section 4.3.6.

4.4.3 Treatment of boundary conditions in the finite difference solution


using SOR-, LSOR or IADI-methods
In this section we formulate the solution of the problem in such a way that the
coefficients Ai,...Di of e.g. the LSOR -solution (Eqs. (4-40)) can always be computed
using the same equations all over the finite difference grid. The purpose of this is to make
the computer program as simple as possible without the need to use IF - THEN-structures
to distinguish different type of boundary conditions. The goal can be achieved 1) by
utilizing fictitious cells that surround the active nodes in all directions to treat the
impermeable boundaries, 2) by assigning very large value to specific storage coefficient
to handle the Dirichlecht boundary conditions and 3) by specifying non-zero horizontal
flux boundaries and sinks/sources as recharge values.

1) Treatment of impermeable boundaries using fictitious cells (nodes)


Let the active region of the aquifer be divided to i=1,..,NX and j=1,..,NY cells. In the
computer program we define fictitious cells around the active cells and assign zero local
transmissivities in these fictitious cells. In this way the internodal transmissivity as
calculated by harmonic mean with Eqs. (4-37) will be zero and no water is flowing
through the boundary. The best thing is that coefficients Ai,...Di can be calculated for all
nodes i=1,..,NX without the need to test if the boundary is impermeable or not.
2) Dirichlecht boundary conditions
A common algorithmic way of treating fixed head node is possible by assigning to it an
extremely large storage coefficient, e.g. 1020, and then treating it like an ordinary internal
node according to Eqs. (4-40). A node which can store infinitely much water will not
change its head value in reaction to inflows or outflows appreciably (see e.g. Kinzelbach
1986). Therefore it is necessary to define the prescribed head as an initial value in the
beginning of the computation.
3) Non-zero horizontal flux boundaries and sinks/sources
A unified treatment of non-zero horizontal flux boundaries can be done by setting the
flux-boundary as an impermeable boundary (i.e no special operations needed), and giving
the flux as a volumetric value over time (e.g. m3 d-1) distributed to the corresponding cells
along the flux-boundary. The computer code changes the volumetric inflow/outflow to
the corresponding recharge value by dividing it by the area of the cell. In a similar way it
is possible to handle sinks/sources, e.g. pumping from well or artificial groundwater
recharge. Sink/source is also given in volumetric units over time.
The concepts 1)..3) described above allow us to write very simple computer programs to
calculate 2-D transient flow in confined aquifers (calculation of unconfined aquifers
discussed in Chapter 5). Examples will be given in Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5.

4.4.4 EXCEL and Visual Basic solution of 2-D transient flow using IADImethod
The basic principle of the IADI-solution is to solve the 2-D equations alternately
implicitly along the rows and explicitly along the columns and vice versa. One iteration
loop includes implicit solution both along rows and along columns.
Example 4.6 (file SGH_E406.XLS)

Download SGH_E406.XLS

The test example of Kinzelbach (1986) described in Section 4.3.1 was solved using the
IADI-method which was programmed using Visual Basic of EXCEL. The programs are
given in sheet 'Prog_IADI' of file SGH_E406.XLS and the listing of the program is not
given here. The EXCEL-file includes also a relatively complete user interface so that it is
possible to use the same file for solving other problems as well. The main drawback of

the Visual Basic solution is that the computational efficiency is very low as compared to
programming languages as Pascal, C or Fortran. However, it is educationally useful to go
through the program and see the details of programming a "general" solution to 2-D
transient flow problems.
The user interface is located on the sheet 'MAIN' and is composed of several "buttons"
which can be used to select the parameters needed to changed. General parameters
include e.g. the number of nodes (cells) in X- and Y-direction, selection of time step and
total time of computation, convergence stopping criteria and max. number of iterations
during one time step and successive over relaxation parameter . In the solution method
given in the file, the convergence of the IADI-method can be further accelerated by
applying the over relaxation method.
Cell width xi and cell height yj for all i=1,..,NX and j=1,..,NY need to be given on the
sheet 'DX_DY' and it is not necessary to have constant values for these. The computer
program calculates xi and yj for all nodes based on the cell width and height data.
In this program each cell is given its own T-value in sheet 'T', storage coefficient value SS
in sheet 'S' and initial value for head at the beginning of the computation in sheet 'Hiniti'.
Completely impermeable areas inside the region can be taken into account by assigning
zero transmissivity to the corresponding cells. Dirichlecht boundary conditions can be
treated by assigning very large SS-value for those nodes (see sheet 'S' in the file).
Moreover, recharge R from precipitation (not used in the test example) in sheet 'R' and
sink/source in sheet 'Sink' can be defined for all cells. In our test example sink for node
(4,4) is -1 m3 s-1.
When all the necessary parameter values have been given, the computation can be started
by clicking the button "COMPUTATION". The program does not store the intermediate
values anywhere and only the final solution at the end of the computational time is shown
in sheet 'OUT'.
The test example was calculated for a period of 1000 s using time step of 100 s. These are
the same input values used in the example 4.5 previously. The computation was done first
using 0.001 m as convergence criteria and in a second run the convergence criteria had
the same value 0.05 m that was used by Kinzelbach (1986). The results are shown in
Table 4-3 and these results should be compared with the results of the Table 4-2. An
optimum value for over relaxation parameter has to be found by trial-and-error and in this
application OPT is around 1.15..1.2.

4.4.5 Solution of 2-D transient flow using SOR-, LSOR- and IADI-methods
using Pascal-programming language
In Section 4.4.4 it was shown that it is possible to develop a numerical solution of 2-D
transient groundwater flow using EXCEL as a user interface and Visual Basic under
EXCEL as the programming language. However, if large grids need to ba calculated it is
preferable to do the programming part using Pascal, C or Fortran. Visual Basic is an

interpreter whereas Pascal, C and Fortran source files can be compiled to an executable
version which is much faster (50..100 times faster?) than the Visual Basic code used
together with EXCEL. The purpose of this Section is to describe a program which
calculates the 2-D flow system using three different solution methods: SOR, LSOR and
IADI.

Table 4-3. Results of the test example of Kinzelbach calculated by IADI-method


(Visual Basic of EXCEL)
Consult the file SGH_406.XLS

The source file is not listed here and the reader needs to look at the file SGH_D2.PAS
which is included in the "electronic textbook". The user interface of the program SGH_E407.XLS or SGH_D2.XLS - is described in detail in Chapter 6and therefore it is
not discussed here. However, the reader who wants to recalculate the examples described
in Example 4.7, needs to look at the instructions of how to use the model from Chapter 6.
Example 4.7

Download SGH_D2-package(SGH_2002.ZIP)

The purpose of this example is to compare the total computational time of a hypothetical
aquifer discharged by a single well. The aquifer is 1000 by 1000 m2 and totally 15 cells
are used in both X- and Y-direction in such a way that cell width/height data is: 4
cells/100 m, 2 cells/80 m, 4 cells/60 m, 4 cells/45 and the cell in the middle of thea is 20
by 20 m2. The pumping well is located in node (8,8) and the amount of discharge is 10
000 m3d-1 and is given as negative value (sink) in the user interface file
(SGH_E407.XLS). There are two zones in the aquifer: zone 1 has T-value 2000 m2 d-1
and in zone 2 T is 500 m2 d-1. The corresponding specific storage coefficients are 0.02 and
0.01, respectively. First five cells in the horizontal direction are in zone 2 and cells 6..15
in zone 1.
The purpose of the example is to test the computational speed of the three different
solution methods and and find the optimum over relaxation parameter OPT , which gives
the shortest total time used for computation. The computer program gives as output value
the total time used for computations. The convergence criteria used in all calculations
was 0.001 m. The results of the comparison are given in Table 4-4 and in Fig. 4-10. In
terms of total computational time, LSOR proved to be slightly better than the IADImethod and SOR-method was clearly slower in the solving the test example. The
optimum value for over relaxation parameter was 1.65 for LSOR- and IADI-methods
and 1.70 for SOR-method. The influence of on the time needed to calculate

the test example was very large. If standard IADI-method with no over relation is used
(=1), the computational time is 3.68 seconds and if OPT is used, the time is only 1.50
seconds.
Table 4-4. Total computational time (s) of the test example for different solution
methods and different values of the over relaxation parameter (computer: 100
Mhz Pentium processor).

1
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85

SOR
4.77
4.17
3.89
3.62
3.41
3.19
2.91
2.8
2.58
2.36
2.31
2.03
1.86
1.76
1.76
1.98
2.6

LSOR
3.46
3.02
2.91
2.69
2.48
2.31
2.2
2.03
1.87
1.71
1.65
1.48
1.37
1.49
1.58
1.86
2.52

IADI
3.68
3.18
3.02
2.8
2.63
2.47
2.36
2.14
1.98
1.87
1.71
1.59
1.5
1.54
1.69
1.92
2.58