2

Phase
2D finite element program for stress analysis and support design
around excavations in soil and rock

Groundwater Verification Manual

Part I

© 2017 Rocscience Inc.

1
Table of Contents

1 Shallow Unconfined Flow With Rainfall ................................................................... 5

1.1 Problem description ............................................................................................ 5
1.2 Analytical Solution ............................................................................................. 6
1.3 Results ................................................................................................................. 6
1.4 References ........................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Data Files ............................................................................................................ 7
2 Flow Around a Cylinder ............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Problem description ............................................................................................ 8
2.2 Analytical Solution ............................................................................................. 9
2.3 Results ................................................................................................................. 9
2.4 References ......................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 10
3 Confined flow under dam foundation ....................................................................... 11
3.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 11
3.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 12
3.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 13
3.4 References ......................................................................................................... 14
3.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 15
4 Shallow Unconfined flow through Earth Dam ......................................................... 16
4.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 16
4.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 17
4.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 17
4.4 References ......................................................................................................... 19
4.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 19
5 Unsaturated flow Behind an Embankment ............................................................... 20
5.1 Problem Description ......................................................................................... 20
5.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 20
5.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 21
5.4 References ......................................................................................................... 21
5.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 22
6 Steady-state Seepage Analysis through Saturated-unsaturated Soils ....................... 23
6.1 Problem Description ......................................................................................... 23
6.1.1 Isotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain .............................................. 23
6.1.2 Anisotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain ......................................... 24
6.1.3 Isotropic earth dam with a core and horizontal drain ............................... 24
6.1.4 Isotropic earth dam under steady-state infiltration ................................... 24
6.1.5 Isotropic earth dam with seepage face ...................................................... 24
6.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 24
6.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 25
6.3.1 Isotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain .............................................. 25
6.3.2 Anisotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain ......................................... 27
6.3.3 Isotropic earth dam with a core and horizontal drain ............................... 29
6.3.4 Isotropic earth dam under steady-state infiltration ................................... 31

2
 6.3.5 Isotropic earth dam with seepage face ...................................................... 33
6.4 References ......................................................................................................... 36
6.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 36
7 Seepage within Layered Slope .................................................................................. 37
7.1 Problem Description ......................................................................................... 37
7.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 38
7.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 39
7.4 References ......................................................................................................... 41
7.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 42
8 Flow through Ditch-drained Soils ............................................................................. 43
8.1 Problem Description ......................................................................................... 43
8.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 44
8.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 45
8.4 References ......................................................................................................... 46
8.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 46
9 Seepage through Dam ............................................................................................... 47
9.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 47
9.1.1 Homogeneous dam.................................................................................... 47
9.1.2 Dam with impervious core ........................................................................ 48
9.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 49
9.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 49
9.3.1 Homogeneous dam.................................................................................... 49
9.3.2 Dam with impervious core ........................................................................ 50
9.4 References ......................................................................................................... 51
9.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 52
10 Steady-state Unconfined Flow using Van Genuchten Permeability Function.......... 53
10.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 53
10.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 53
10.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 54
10.4 References ......................................................................................................... 55
10.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 55
11 Earth and rock-fill dam using Gardner permeability function .................................. 55
11.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 55
11.1.1 Uniform earth and rock-fill dam ............................................................... 56
11.1.2 Heterogeneous earth and rock-fill dam ..................................................... 56
11.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 57
11.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 57
11.3.1 Uniform earth and rock-fill dam ............................................................... 57
11.3.2 Heterogeneous earth and rock-fill dam ..................................................... 57
11.4 References ......................................................................................................... 58
11.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 58
12 Seepage from Trapezoidal Ditch into Deep Horizontal Drainage Layer .................. 59
12.1 Problem Description ......................................................................................... 59
12.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 60
12.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 62
12.4 References ......................................................................................................... 64

3
 12.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 64
13 Seepage from a triangular ditch into a deep horizontal drainage layer..................... 65
13.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 65
13.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 66
13.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 69
13.4 References ......................................................................................................... 70
13.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 70
14 Unsaturated Soil Column .......................................................................................... 71
14.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 71
14.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 72
14.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 73
14.4 References ......................................................................................................... 74
14.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 74
15 Radial Flow to a Well in a Confined Aquifer ........................................................... 75
15.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 75
15.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 76
15.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 77
15.4 References ......................................................................................................... 77
15.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 78
16 Radial flow to a well in an unconfined aquifer ......................................................... 79
16.1 Problem description .......................................................................................... 79
16.2 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 80
16.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 81
16.4 References ......................................................................................................... 82
16.5 Data Files .......................................................................................................... 82

4
1 Shallow Unconfined Flow With Rainfall
1.1 Problem description

The problem considered in this section involves the infiltration of water downward
through soil. It is characterized by a boundary of flow domain also known as a free
surface. Such a problem domain is said to be unconfined.

Water may infiltrate downward through the soil due to rainfall or artificial infiltration.
Rainfall can be presented as a uniform discharge P (m/s), defined as the amount of water
per unit area that enters the aquifer per unit time. Figure 1-1 shows the problem of flow
between two long and straight parallel rivers, separated by a section of land. The free
surface of the land is subjected to rainfall. Figure 1-2 shows the problem as modeled in
Phase2.

Figure 1-1: Unconfined flow under rainfall

Figure 1-2: Shallow unconfined flow under rainfall as constructed in Phase2

The model shown in Figure 1-2 uses 225 three-noded triangular finite elements. Table
1-1 summarizes other relevant model parameters.

5
 Table 1-1: Model parameters
Parameter Value
Total head at left boundary (h1) 3.75 m
Total head at right boundary (h2) 3.0 m
Width (L) 10.0 m
Infiltration rate (P) 2.5e-6 m/s
Hydraulic conductivity (k) 1.0e-5 m/s

1.2 Analytical Solution

The equation for flow can be expressed as

 2  2
   2   P
x 2 y 2
For one-dimensional flow, such as that encountered in the present example, solution of
equation (1.1) after application of the appropriate boundary conditions yields the
horizontal distance, xa, at which the maximum elevation of the free surface in Figure 1-1
is located, as [1]

L k h12  h22 
xa  1  
2 P L2 

The corresponding maximum height for the free surface, hmax, can be calculated as

hmax  h12 
L
h1  h22   L  x x
xa 2 P
k

1.3 Results

Figure 1-3 shows contours of pressure head and the phreatic line.

6
 Figure 1-3: Pressure head contour plot as produced by Phase2

Table 1-2 compares the co-ordinates of the maximum height of the free surface predicted
by Phase2 with those calculated analytically.

Table 1-2: Maximum height of free surface co-ordinates

  Phase2 Analytical 
xa 4.22 3.99
hmax 4.52 4.25

The Phase2 results are in close agreement with the analytical solution. If necessary, a
finer mesh discretization could be used to improve the results.

1.4 References

1. Haar, M. E. (1990) Groundwater and Seepage, 2nd Edition, Dover

1.5 Data Files

The input data files groundwater #001_01.fez (regular mesh), and groundwater
#001_02.fez (uniform mesh) can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

7
2 Flow Around a Cylinder
2.1 Problem description

This example examines the problem of uniform fluid flow around a cylinder of unit
radius as depicted in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2 shows the problem as implemented in
Phase2.

Figure 2-1: Fluid flow surrounding impermeable cylinder

Figure 2-2: Phase2 model geometry

Owing to the symmetry of the problem around the x-axis, only one half of the domain is
discretized in the Phase2 model. The half domain is represented with 442 six-noded
triangular elements.

Table 2-1 summarizes the material and model properties used.

8
 Table 2-1: Model parameters
Parameter Value
Head at left boundary (1) 1.0 m
Head at right boundary (2) 0m
Domain length (L) 8.0 m
Hydraulic conductivity (k) 10-5 m/s
Cylinder radius (a) 1m

2.2 Analytical Solution

The closed form solution for this problem is given in [1]. This analytical solution gives
the total head values at any point (r, θ) in the problem domain as

 a2 
  U  r   cos   0.5
 r 

1   2
where U is the uniform undisturbed velocity =
L

2.3 Results

Figure 2-3 shows contours of total head with the values at a number of specified locations
in the domain. These results from Phase2 are compared with those provided in [2]. The
Phase2 results were within 4% of those provided in [2], as well as analytical values.

Figure 2-3: Total head contour plot produced by Phase2

9
Table 2-2 compares the results from Phase2 with those calculated using the equations in
2.2 and those presented in [2].

Table 2-2: Total head at selected points in problem domain

Coordinate Total Head
2
x y Phase Analytical Ref. [2]
4 1 0.5 0.5 0.5
4.5 0.866 0.381 0.374997 0.378
5 0 0.263 0.25 0.2765
6 0 0.203 0.1875 0.2132
8 0 0 -0.03125 0

2.4 References

1. Streeter, V.L. (1948), Fluid Dynamics, McGraw Hill

2. Desai, C. S., Kundu, T. (2001), Introductory Finite Element Method, Boca Raton, Fla.
CRC Press

2.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater #002.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

10
3 Confined flow under dam foundation
3.1 Problem description

The problem considered is a simple example of confined flow. It was selected to help
assess the performance of Phase2 on confined flow problems.

Figure 3-1 shows a dam that rests upon a homogeneous isotropic soil [1]. In the example,
the walls (entity 1) and base (entity 2) of the dam are assumed to be impervious. The
water level is 5 m upstream of the dam and 0 m downstream.

4m

5m
A B 2 C D

Impermeable surface Isotropic Soil

1 1
10m
Impermeable surfaces Impermeable surface

2
8m 12m 20m

Figure 3-1: Model geometry

The model created in Phase2 for this problem, with the mesh used, is shown in Figure
3-2.

11
 Figure 3-2: Confined flow under dam foundation as modeled in Phase2

The following boundary conditions were used for the model:

 The total head along the line segment, upstream of the dam, that lies between points
A and B (Figure 3-1), is equal to 5 m
 The total head along the line segment, downstream of the dam, that lies between
points C and D, is equal to 0 m

The Phase2 model was discretized using 427 three-noded triangular finite elements.

3.2 Analytical Solution

The flow is considered to be two-dimensional with negligible flow in the lateral direction.
The flow equation for isotropic soil can be expressed as

 2  2
 0
x 2 y 2

This equation can be solved either using a numerical procedure or a flow net. Flow net
techniques are well documented in groundwater references.

The accuracy of numerical solutions for the problem is dependent on how the boundary
conditions are applied. For the particular example in this document, two boundary
conditions are applied:
 No flow occurs across the impermeable base, and
 The pressure heads at the ground surface upstream and downstream of the dam are
solely due to water pressure

12
3.3 Results

Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 show contours of pressure head and total pressure head,
respectively.

Figure 3-3: Pressure head contour plot produced using Phase2

Figure 3-4: Total head contour plot produced using Phase2

Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6 compare total head values from Phase2 with those obtained
from [1]. These head pressures are calculated at points along line 1-1, which is located 4
m below the dam base (see Figure 3-1), and along segment 2-2, a vertical cross section
passing through the rightmost base of the dam.

The results from Phase2 agree closely with those provided in [1].

13
 5.00E+00

4.50E+00

4.00E+00

3.50E+00

3.00E+00
Total Head (m)

Phase2
2.50E+00
Analytical [1]

2.00E+00

1.50E+00

1.00E+00

5.00E-01

0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (m)

Figure 3-5: Total head variation along line 1-1

1.40E+00

1.20E+00

1.00E+00
Total Head (m)

8.00E-01
Phase2
Analytical [1]
6.00E-01

4.00E-01

2.00E-01

0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (m)

Figure 3-6: Total head variation along line 2-2

3.4 References

1. Rushton, K. R., Redshaw, S.C. (1979), Seepage and Groundwater Flow, John Wiley &
Sons, U.K.

14
3.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater #003.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

15
4 Shallow Unconfined flow through Earth Dam

4.1 Problem description

This example considers the problem of seepage through an earth dam. The task of
calculating the shape and length of the free surface (line of seepage) is quite complicated.
Some analytical solutions based on presenting flow nets as confocal parabolas are
available in [1] and [2].

Line of seepage
0.3L
y1

x1
h

L
d

Figure 4-1: Earth dam with trapezoidal toe drain

Figure 4-1 shows a dam that has a trapezoidal toe drain.

The Phase2 model geometry and boundary conditions used in this example are shown in
Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2: Earth dam as modeled in Phase2

16
The total head on the upstream face of the dam was taken to be 4 m, and the toe drain
was located at the downstream toe of the dam, i.e. total head at location (22,0) was taken
to be 0. The boundary condition at the toe was assumed to be undefined, meaning that it
initially either had flow, Q, or pressure head, P, equal to 0. A total number of three-noded
triangular finite elements were used to model the problem.

4.2 Analytical Solution

By defining the free surface as Kozney’s basic parabola [1], we can evaluate y1, the
vertical height of the underdrain, as

y1  d 2  L2  d

Then the minimum horizontal length of the underdrain, x1, equals

y1
x1 
2

4.3 Results

Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show contours of pressure head and total head, respectively.

Figure 4-3: Pressure head contour plot produced by Phase2

17
 Figure 4-4: Total head contour plot produced by Phase2

The minimum length and height of the underdrain were measured in Phase2 and the
results are shown in Figure 4-5.

18
 Figure 4-5: Length and height of minimum underdrain

The following table compares the minimum drain dimensions from Phase2 with
theoretical results.

Table 4-1: Minimum drain dimensions (m)

Phase2 Analytical
x1 0.226 0.242

y1 0.395 0.484

As can be seen, the Phase2 results are in good agreement with theory.

4.4 References

1. Haar, M. E. (1990), Groundwater and Seepage, 2nd edition, Dover.

2. Raukivi, A.J., Callander, R.A. (1976), Analysis of Groundwater Flow, Edward Arnold.

4.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater #004.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

19
5 Unsaturated flow Behind an Embankment
5.1 Problem Description

The geometry of the problem considered in this section is taken from the FLAC manual
[1]. The example is modified slightly to handle two different materials. Two materials
with different coefficients of permeability are considered. Figure 5-1 shows the geometry
of the proposed model.

Figure 5-1: Embankment model in Phase2

The saturated hydraulic conductivities of material 1 and material 2 are 1x10-10 m/s and
1x10-13 m/s respectively. Phase2 model geometry is presented in Figure 5-1. The problem
is discretized into 746 6-noded triangular finite elements. Total head boundary conditions
of 10 m and 4 m are applied to the left and right boundaries of the model, respectively.
Zero flow (impermeability) is assumed at the top and at the bottom of the embankment.

5.2 Analytical Solution

For this problem, Phase2 results are compared with those from FLAC presented in [1].
Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 show the contours of pressure head and flow lines produced by
FLAC.

Figure 5-2: Pressure head contour plot produced by FLAC

20
 Figure 5-3: Flow lines produced by FLAC

5.3 Results

Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5 show the pressure head contours and flow lines produced by
Phase2. Both are in close agreement with FLAC.

Figure 5-4: Pressure head contour plot produced by Phase2

Figure 5-5: Flow line plot produced by Phase2

5.4 References

21
1. Coetzee, Hart, et al. (1995), Flac Basics: An introduction to FLAC and a guide to its
practical application in geotechnical engineering. Minneapolis, MA.: Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc.

5.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#005.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

22
6 Steady-State Seepage Analysis through Saturated-Unsaturated
Soils
In this verification example, five earth dams with various properties are modeled using
Phase2. Pressure head contours for each example are compared to the flownets presented
in Fredland & Rahardjo [1].

6.1 Problem Description

This problem concerns seepage through an unsaturated earth dam. The geometry of the
problem considered in this section, which is shown in Figure 6-1, is taken from [1].
1

Figure 6-1: Isotropic earth dam with horizontal drain

In Phase2, the problem is discretized into 336 3-noded triangular finite elements. The
mesh used for this example was created using mapped mesh option to nearly replicate
that used in [1]. The five different cases studied are as follows:

6.1.1 Isotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain

The first case considers an isotropic earth dam with 12 m horizontal drain. The
permeability function used in the analysis is shown in Figure 1-2.

Figure 6-2: Permeability function for the isotropic earth dam

23
6.1.2 Anisotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain

For the second case, the dam is modeled with anisotropic soil. The water coefficient
permeability in the horizontal direction is assumed to be nine times larger than in the
vertical direction.

6.1.3 Isotropic earth dam with a core and horizontal drain

The third case considers an isotropic dam having a core with a lower coefficient of
permeability. Figure 6-3 shows the permeability function used for the core material.

Figure 6-3: Permeability function for the core material

6.1.4 Isotropic earth dam under steady-state infiltration

The fourth case considers the effect of infiltration on the dam shown in Figure 6-17.
Infiltration is simulated by applying a flux boundary of 1x10-8 m/s along the boundary of
the dam.

6.1.5 Isotropic earth dam with seepage face

The fifth case demonstrates the use of an unknown boundary condition, which is usually
used for the case of developing seepage faces.

6.2 Analytical Solution

The results of finite-element analysis by Lam (1984) [2] are presented in [1] in the form
of two-dimensional contour charts. Figure 6-4 shows the results in [1] for the first case.

24
 Figure 6-4: Pressure head contour data for isotropic earth dam [1]

6.3 Results

6.3.1 Isotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain

Figure 6-5, Figure 6-6, and Figure 6-7 show the flow vectors, pressure head and total
head fields calculated by Phase2 for the first case.

Figure 6-5: Flow vector plot produced by Phase2 for first case

25
 Figure 6-6: Pressure head contour plot produced by Phase2 for first case

Figure 6-7: Total head contour plot produced by Phase2 for first case

Figure 6-8 shows a comparison between Phase2 results and results from [1] for the
pressure head distribution along line 1-1 (see Figure 6-1).

26
 8

4
Pressure Head (m)

2
Analytical
Phase2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-2

-4

-6
Distance (m)

Figure 6-8: Pressure head distributions along line 1-1 for isotropic earth dam

6.3.2 Anisotropic earth dam with a horizontal drain

Figure 6-9 presents the flow vectors and the location of the phreatic line from the Phase2
groundwater model.

Figure 6-9: Flow vector plot and phreatic surface for earth dam with anisotropic permeability

Figure 6-10 and Figure 6-11 show the contours for pressure head and total head
throughout the dam.

27
 Figure 6-10: Pressure head contour plot for earth dam with anisotropic permeability

Figure 6-11: Total head contour plot for earth dam with anisotropic permeability

Figure 6-12 compares Phase2 results to those from [1] for the pressure head distribution
along line 1-1.

28
 8

4
Pressure Head (m)

Analytical
2 Phase2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-2

-4
Distance (m)

Figure 6-12: Pressure head distributions from Phase2 and [1] along line 1-1

6.3.3 Isotropic earth dam with a core and horizontal drain

The results from the third case show that the hydraulic head change takes place largely in
the zone around the core. The flow vectors show that the water flows upward into the
unsaturated zone and around the core zone as shown in Figure 6-13. Pressure head and
total head contours are presented in Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15.

Figure 6-13: Flow vectors and phreatic surface for isotropic earth dam with core and horizontal
drain

29
 Figure 6-14: Pressure head contour plot for isotropic earth dam with core and horizontal drain

Figure 6-15: Total head contour plot for isotropic earth dam with core and horizontal drain

Figure 6-16 compares Phase2 results and those from [1] for the pressure head distribution
along line 1-1.

30
 8

2
Pressure Head (m)

Phase2
0
Analytical
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-2

-4

-6

-8
Distance (m)

Figure 6-16: Pressure head distributions along line 1-1 from Phase2 and [1]

6.3.4 Isotropic earth dam under steady-state infiltration

Figure 6-17 plots the flow vectors and phreatic line calculated by Phase2 for the fourth
case. Pressure head and total head contours are presented in Figure 6-18 and Figure 6-19
respectively.

Figure 6-17: Flow vectors and phreatic surface for isotropic earth dam under steady-state infiltration

31
 Figure 6-18: Pressure head contour plot for isotropic earth dam under steady-state infiltration

Figure 6-19: Total head contour plot for isotropic earth dam under steady-state infiltration

Figure 6-20 compares Phase2 results to those from [1] for pressure head distribution
along line 1-1.

32
 10

6
Pressure Head (m)

4
Analytical
Phase2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-2

-4
Distance (m)

Figure 6-20: Comparison of pressure head distributions along line 1-1 from Phase2 and [1]

6.3.5 Isotropic earth dam with seepage face

The boundary conditions and the phreatic surface for the fifth case are presented in
Figure 6-21. Pressure head and total head contours are presented in Figure 6-22 and
Figure 6-23 respectively.

Slope face

Figure 6-21: Flow vectors and phreatic surface for isotropic earth dam with seepage face

33
 Figure 6-22: Pressure head contour plot for isotropic earth dam with seepage face

Figure 6-23: Total head contour plot for isotropic earth dam with seepage face

Figure 6-24 compares Phase2 results to those from [1] for the pressure head distribution
along the slope face.

34
 0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.5

-1
Pressure Head (m)

-1.5
Analytical
Phase2
-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4
Distance (m)

Figure 6-24: Pressure head distributions along seepage face from Phase2 and [1]

Figure 6-24 compares Phase2 results to those from [1] for the pressure head distribution
along line 1-1.

10

6
Pressure Head (m)

4
Analytical
Phase2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-2

-4
Distance (m)

Figure 6-25: Pressure head distributions along line 1-1 from Phase2 and [1]

35
6.4 References

1. Fredlund, D.G. and H. Rahardjo (1993), Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, John
Wiley.

2. L. Lam and D. G. Fredlund (1984), “Saturated-Unsaturated Transient Finite Element

Seepage Model for Geotechnical Engineering,” Adv. Water Resources, vol. 7, pp. 132-
136.

6.5 Data Files

The input data files groundwater#006_01.fez to groundwater#006_05.fez can be found

in the Phase2 installation folder.

36
7 Seepage within Layered Slope

7.1 Problem Description

This example considers the problem of seepage through a layered slope. Rulan and
Freeze [1] studied this problem using a sandbox model. The material of the slope
consisted of medium sand and a fine sand with relatively lower permeability. The
geometry of the problem is shown in Figure 7-1 and the two permeability functions used
to model the soil are shown in Figure 7-2. These permeability functions are similar to
those presented by Fredlund and Rahardjo [2].

Infiltration
2

Medium sand

Fine sand
1 1

Medium sand

2
Figure 7-1: Layered slope problem geometry

Figure 7-2: Permeability functions for materials used in model

37
The Phase2 model geometry used in this example is shown in Figure 7-3.

Figure 7-3: Layered slope model in Phase2

A constant infiltration rate of 2.1·10-4 m/s is applied to the top of the side of the slope.
The water table is located at 0.3 m from the toe of the slope. The boundary condition at
the slope face was assumed to be undefined, meaning that it initially either had flow, Q,
or pressure head, P, equal to 0.

7.2 Analytical Solution

Fredlund and Rahardjo present their own finite element analysis for this problem in [2].
The resultant pressure head data are shown in the figure below.

38
 Figure 7-4: Hydraulic head data at t = 208 s for unsteady-state flow analysis in [1]

7.3 Results

Figure 7-5 shows the location of the calculated water table location and the direction of
the flow vectors.

Figure 7-5: Flow vectors and phreatic surface as calculated by Phase2 for isotropic earth dam with
constant infiltration

Figure 7-6 and Figure 7-7 show contours of pressure head and total head from Phase2,
respectively.

39
Figure 7-6: Pressure head contour plot for isotropic earth dam with constant surface infiltration

Figure 7-7: Total head contour plot for isotropic earth dam with constant surface infiltration

Figure 7-8 and Figure 7-9 compare the total head distributions along sections 1-1 and 2-2
(see Figure 7-1). Phase2 results are in good agreement with [2].

40
 0.7

0.6

0.5
Total Head (m)

0.4
Analytical [1]
Phase2
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Distance (m)

Figure 7-8: Total head variation along line 1-1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Total Head (m)

Analytical [1]
0.5
Phase2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Distance (m)

Figure 7-9: Total head variation along line 2-2

7.4 References

1. Fredlund, D.G. and H. Rahardjo (1993) Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, John
Wiley

41
7.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#007.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

42
8 Flow through Ditch-drained Soils

8.1 Problem Description

In problems related to ditch-drained aquifers, numerical solutions are often used to

predict the level of the water table and the distribution of soil-water pressure. The
problem considered in this section involves the infiltration of water downward through
two soil layers.

The depth of the soil to the impermeable level is 0.5 m. The ditch is assumed to be water
free. Figure 8-1 illustrates the problem.

Infiltration

Unsaturated zone
Initial water table

Saturated zone

0.5m
Soil B

Soil A

1.0m

Figure 8-1: Drainage through multi-layered soil

The soil properties of the layered system are given in the following table, simulating a
coarse and a fine soil. The lower layer has a thickness of 0.1 m. The rate of incident
rainfall (infiltration) is taken to be equal to 4.4e-6 m/s. Table 8-1 summarizes the soil
parameters used.

Table 8-1: Soil conductivity and Gardner’s parameters

43
 Soil A Relative Conductivity 1.11e-3 (m/s)

Gardner’s parameters a = 1000, n = 4.5

Soil B Relative Conductivity 1.11e-4 (m/s)

Gardner’s parameters a = 2777.7, n = 4.2

The Phase2 model for the problem is shown in Figure 8-2.

Figure 8-2: Multi-layered soil model in Phase2

The problem is modeled using 459 three-noded triangular finite elements.

8.2 Analytical Solution

An alternative finite element solution for this problem can be found in Gureghian (1981)
[1]. A sketch of the problem with pressure head contours is shown in Figure 8-3.

44
 Figure 8-3: Pressure head contours for layered soil problem, as developed in [1]

8.3 Results

Figure 8-4: Pressure head contour plot for multi-layered soil in Phase2

45
 Figure 8-5: Total head contour plot for multi-layered soil in Phase2

Figure 8-4 gives the distribution of the soil-water pressure head for the unsaturated
regime above the water table. The computed total head contours are presented Figure 8-5.
The Phase2 results are in close agreement with the solution provided in [1].

8.4 References

1. Gureghian A. (1981), “A two dimensional finite element solution scheme for the
saturated-unsaturated flow with application to flow through ditch drained soils:” J.
Hydrology. (50), 333-353.

8.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#008.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

46
9 Seepage through Dam

9.1 Problem description

Seepage flow rate through earth dams is examined in this section. The geometry and
material properties for two earth dams are taken from Bowles’ Physical and geotechnical
properties of soils [1].

9.1.1 Homogeneous dam

The seepage rate through a homogeneous dam is verified in this section. This problem is
presented on p. 295 of [1]. Figure 9-1 shows detailed geometry of the dam. A total head
of 18.5 m is applied on the left side of the dam and the seepage flow rate is calculated on
the right side of the dam. A customized permeability function is used to model the
material conductivity for the saturated-unsaturated zone (Figure 9-2). This hydraulic
conductivity function is similar to the one presented in Chapius et al. [2]. The dam is
discretized using 4-noded quadrilateral finite elements. A total of 391 finite elements are
used for the mesh.

Figure 9-1: Homogenous earth dam as modeled in Phase2

47
 Figure 9-2: Permeability function for the isotropic earth dam

9.1.2 Dam with impervious core

The second problem in this section considers a dam with an impervious core (Figure 9-3).
The hydraulic permeability for the dam and the drain material are assumed to follow the
functions shown in Figure 9-4.

Figure 9-3: Dam with impervious core geometry detail

48
 1.00E-04

1.00E-05
Earth dam
Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

Drain
1.00E-06

1.00E-07

1.00E-08

1.00E-09

1.00E-10

1.00E-11

1.00E-12
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
M atric suction (kPa)
Figure 9-4: Permeability function for isotropic earth dam and drain

9.2 Analytical Solution

Bowles calculated the leakage flow rate through these dams using flow net techniques,
which neglect the unsaturated flow. Chapuis et. al. [2] solved the same examples using
SEEP/W, a finite element software package. Phase2 results are compared with both
Bowles [1] and SEEP/W [2] results.

9.3 Results

9.3.1 Homogeneous dam

Phase2 predicts a flow rate of Q = 1.378·10-3 m3/(min·m) which compares well with the
flow rate estimated by Bowles [1], which used two approximate methods that neglect the
unsaturated flow. Bowles’ two methods gave Q = 1.10·10-3 and 1.28·10-3 m3/(min·m).
Chapuis et al. [2] solved the same example using finite element software SEEP/W. The
flow rate calculated using SEEP/W was 1.41·10-3 m3/(min·m) for a mesh of 295 elements
and a flow rate of 1.37·10-3 m3/(min·m) for a mesh of 1145 elements.

49
 Figure 9-5: Pressure head contours for homogenous dam in Phase2

Figure 9-5 presents the flow vectors and the location of the phreatic line from Phase2
ground water model. Figure 9-6 shows the contours of total head with flow lines in the
homogenous dam.

Figure 9-6: Total head contours and flow lines for homogenous dam in Phase2

9.3.2 Dam with impervious core

Phase2 predicts a flow rate of Q = 4.23·10-6 m3/(min·m) which compares well with the
flow rate estimated by Bowles [1], Q = 3.8·10-6 m3/(min.m). Chapuis et al. [2] solved the
same example using finite element software SEEP/W. The flow rate calculated using
SEEP/W was 5.1·10-6 m3/(min·m) for a coarse mesh and 4.23·10-6 m3/(min·m) for a finer
mesh of 2328 elements.

50
 Figure 9-7: Pressure head contours for isotropic dam with impermeable core

Figure 9-8: Total head contours and flow lines for isotropic dam with impermeable core

9.4 References

1. Bowles J.E. (1984), Physical and geotechnical properties of soils. 2nd Ed. McGraw
Hill, New York.

2. Chapuis, R., Chenaf D, Bussiere, B. Aubertin M. and Crespo R. (2001), “A user’s

approach to assess numerical codes for saturated and unsaturated seepage
conditions”, Can Geotech J. 38: 1113-1126.

51
9.5 Data Files

The input data files groundwater#009_01.fez and groundwater#009_02.fez can be

found in the Phase2 installation folder.

52
10 Steady-state Unconfined Flow using Van Genuchten
Permeability Function

10.1 Problem description

Unconfined flow in a rectangular domain was analyzed in this section. The sensitivity of
seepage face height to the downstream head is examined. The Van Genuchten [1] closed
form equation for the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function is used to describe the
soil properties for the soil model. A Dupuit-Forcheimer model [2], which assumes
equipotential surfaces are vertical and flow is essentially horizontal, is also used for
comparison.

A 10 m x 10 m square embankment has no-flow boundary conditions on the base and at

the top. The water level at the left boundary is 10 m. Four different water levels (2, 4, 6
and 8 m) at the downstream boundary are considered. The soil has a saturated
conductivity of Ks = 1.1574·10-5 m/s. The values of the Van Genuchten soil parameters
are α = 0.64m-1, n = 4.65. The geometry and the mesh discretization are shown in Figure
10-1.

Figure 10-1: Phase2 model and meshing for rectangular embankment

10.2 Analytical Solution

Figure 10-2 shows the theoretical phreatic lines for each downstream head developed in
[2] using the Dupuit-Forcheimer model.

53
 Water Table Position (m)

X Coordinate (m)
Figure 10-2: Phreatic surfaces with variable downstream head [2]

10.3 Results

Figure 10-3 shows the variation of the phreatic surface with changing downstream water
level predicted by Phase2. It can be seen that the absolute length of the seepage face
decreases significantly with an increase in the water level at the downstream boundary.

12

10

8
Total Head (m)

Phase2 - 2M
Phase2 - 4M
6
Phase2 - 6M
Phase2 - 8M

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (m)

Figure 10-3: Phreatic surfaces for various downstream water levels in Phase2

54
Table 10-1 presents comparison of discharge values and seepage face from [2] and
Phase2.

Table 10-1: Discharge velocities and seepage face dimensions

Model Downstream Discharge Seepage face
Dimensions Water Level (m) (m/sec) (m)
Clement et. al. [2] 10m x 10m 2 6.0764x10-5 4.8

Phase2 10m x 10m 2 6.0659x10-5 5.0

10.4 References

1. Genuchten, V. M (1980), “A closed equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity

of unsaturated soils” , Soils Sci Soc Am J. 44: 892-898

2. Clement, T.P, Wise R., Molz, F. and Wen M. (1996), “A comparison of modeling
approaches for steady-state unconfined flow”, J. of Hydrology 181: 189-209

10.5 Data Files

The data input file groundwater#010.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

11 Earth and rock-fill dam using Gardner permeability function

11.1 Problem description

Seepage in a uniform earth and rock-fill dam is examined in this section. Nonlinear
modeling is used to represent the seepage flow above and below the free surface.
Gardner’s nonlinear equation [1] between permeability function k w and pressure head is
used in this section and it can be presented as

ks
kw 
1  ah n

where a and n are the Gardner parameters

h = pressure head (suction)

55
 k w = permeability
k s = saturated permeability

11.1.1 Uniform earth and rock-fill dam

Figure 11-1 shows detailed geometry of the first dam studied. The upstream elevation
head is 40 m and the downstream elevation head is 0 m. The geometry of the dam is
taken from [2]; the slope of the upstream face is 1:1.98 and the slope of the downstream
face is 1:1.171 (Figure 11-1). Gardner’s parameters are assigned values of a  0.15 and
n  6.

Figure 11-1: Uniform earth and rock-fill dam model geometry

11.1.2 Heterogeneous earth and rock-fill dam

Figure 11-2 shows a dam with a permeable foundation and toe drain [2]. The
permeability coefficient of the foundation of sand layer is 125 times that of the earth dam
and blanket. The toe drain has a permeability coefficient 10000 times larger than that of
the dam. Table 11-1 shows the Gardner’s parameters for the different model layers.

Figure 11-2: Heterogeneous dam with permeable foundation and toe drain

56
 Table 11-1: Material parameters for heterogeneous dam
Layer Ks (m/s) a n
Dam 1x10-7 0.15 2
Foundation 1.25x10-5 0.15 6
Toe drain 1x10-3 0.15 6

11.2 Analytical Solution

For this problem, Phase2 results are compared to those obtained using ABAQUS
commercial software, which are presented by Zhang et al. in [2].

11.3 Results

11.3.1 Uniform earth and rock-fill dam

Figure 11-3 shows the pressure head contour plot produced by Phase2, which indicates
that the elevation of the release point on the downstream face is 19.404 m. This
compares well to ABAQUS results from [2], which predict an elevation of 19.64 m for
identical dam geometry.

Figure 11-3: Pressure head contour plot in Phase2, indicating elevation of release point

11.3.2 Heterogeneous earth and rock-fill dam

Figure 11-4 and Figure 11-5 show the distribution of the total head contours from [2] and
Phase2 respectively. Phase2 results were in a good agreement with those obtained from
ABAQUS.

57
 Figure 11-4: Total head contours for heterogeneous dam [2]. Units in m·102.

Figure 11-5: Total head contour plot in Phase2

11.4 References

1. Gardner, W. (1956), “Mathematics of isothermal water conduction in unsaturated

soils.” Highway Research Board Special Report 40 International Symposium on
Physico-Chemical Phenomenon in Soils, Washington D.C. pp. 78-87.

2. Zhang, J, Xu Q. and Chen Z. (2001), “Seepage analysis based on the unified

unsaturated soil theory”, Mechanics Research Communications, 28 (1) 107-112.

11.5 Data Files

The input data files groundwater#011_01.fez and groundwater#011_02.fez can be

found in the Phase2 installation folder.

58
12 Seepage from Trapezoidal Ditch into Deep Horizontal Drainage
Layer

12.1 Problem Description

Seepage from a trapezoidal ditch into a deep horizontal drainage layer is analyzed in this
section. The geometry of the problem is depicted in Figure 12-1.

H α
Soil, k

B1

Figure 12-1: Seepage from a trapezoidal ditch

The Phase2 model for the problem described in the previous section is shown in Figure
12-2. Owing to symmetry, only half of the problem was modeled.

59
 Figure 12-2: Phase2 model of trapezoidal ditch and deep drainage layer

The Phase2 model uses the following input parameters:

 Ditch half-width B/2 = 25 m

 Ditch depth H = 10 m
 Bank angle α = 45°
 Soil hydraulic conductivity k = 10-5 m/s

12.2 Analytical Solution

Vedernikov (1934) proposed a direct method to solve for the seepage from such a ditch.
He proposed the following equation for calculating the flow:

60
where A is a function of B/H and cot α . In this example, we will use B = 50 m, H = 10 m
and α = 45° which will yield a value of A = 3 [1].

He also proposed the following equation for calculating the width of the flow at an
infinite distance under the bottom of the ditch:

Using the above equations, the flow through the system was calculated to be 0.0008 m3/s.
The width of the seepage zone was calculated to be 80 m.

Figure 12-3: Theoretical flow net (from Harr, 1990 [1])

The analytical solution used for total head is a flow net drawn by hand using
Vedernikov’s boundary conditions (width of seepage zone, depth to horizontal
equipotential lines). Figure 12-4 shows the flow net used to obtain the analytical
solution.

61
 Figure 12-4: Hand-drawn flow net according to Vedernikov’s boundary conditions

12.3 Results

A discharge section was added to the Phase2 model to compute the flow at the lower
boundary and compare it to the Vedernikov solution. The results are depicted in Figure
12-5. Phase2 is in good agreement with the flow net shown in Figure 12-3.

62
 Figure 12-5: Flow net and flow vector plot generated by Phase2

The discharge section shows a flow of 0.0004082 m/s through the model. The total flow
from the trapezoidal ditch is thus 0.000816 m/s. Upon analysis of the flow vectors, the
seepage zone appears to be approximately 42 m wide, equivalent to an 84 m seepage
zone when symmetry is accounted for. These results are similar to those in [1], which
predict a seepage zone 80 m wide and a flow of 0.008 m/s.

A material query was added at the center of the ditch to obtain the total head distribution
along the vertical cross-section immediately underlying the ditch. Figure 12-6 plots total
head as a function of depth and compares Phase2 results to those drawn from the flow net
in Figure 12-4.

63
 60

50

40
Total Head (m)

30
Analytical
Phase2

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-10
Distance (m)

Figure 12-6: Comparison of Phase2 and analytical solutions for total head distribution below centre
of ditch

12.4 References

1. Haar, M. E. (1990), Groundwater and Seepage, 2nd Edition, Dover.

12.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#012.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

64
13 Seepage from a triangular ditch into a deep horizontal drainage
layer
13.1 Problem description

Seepage from a triangular ditch into a deep horizontal drainage layer is analyzed in this
section. The geometry of the problem is depicted in Figure 13-1.

H α
Soil, k

Figure 13-1: Triangular ditch with deep underlying drainage layer

The Phase2 model for the problem described in the previous section is shown in Figure
13-2. Only half of the problem was modeled due to symmetry.

65
 Figure 13-2: Triangular ditch as constructed in Phase2

The Phase2 model uses the following input parameters:

 Ditch half-width B/2 = 10 m

 Ditch depth H = 10 m
 Bank slope α = 45°
 Soil conductivity k = 10-3 m/s

13.2 Analytical Solution

Vedernikov (1934) proposed a direct method to solve for the seepage from such a ditch.
He proposed the following equation for calculating the flow:

where A is a function of α . In this example, we will use B = 20m, H = 10m and α = 45°,
which will yield a value of A = 2 [1].

66
He also proposed the following equation for calculating the width of the flow at an
infinite distance under the bottom of the ditch:

Using these equations, the flow through the system was calculated to be 0.04 m3/s. The
width of the seepage zone was calculated to be 40 m.

Figure 13-3: Theoretical flow net beneath triangular ditch from Harr (1990) [1]

To determine the total head variation with depth immediately beneath the ditch, a flow
net was drawn by hand using Vedernikov’s boundary conditions (width of seepage zone,
depth to horizontal equipotential lines). Figure 13.5 shows the flow net used to obtain
this analytical solution.

67
Figure 13-4: Hand-drawn flow net indicating total head along vertical axis of problem space

68
13.3 Results

A discharge section was added to the model to compute the total flow and compare it to
the Vedernikov solution. The output is depicted in Figure 13.3.

Figure 13-5: Flow net and flow vectors produced by Phase2

The discharge section shows a flow of 0.020175 m3/s through the model, which equates
to a total flow from the trapezoidal ditch of 0.0404 m3/s. This is very similar to the
analytical Vedernikov solution.

Upon inspection of the flow vectors, the seepage zone appears to be approximately 21 m
wide, which equates to a total seepage zone of 42 m when symmetry is accounted for.
This is in close accordance with Vedernikov’s solution.

A material query was added at the center of the ditch to obtain the total head values along
the vertical axis of the model. Figure 13 compares the head distribution obtained using
Phase2 with the analytical solution.

69
 60

50

40
Total Head (m)

Analytical
30
Phase2

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (m)

Figure 13-6: Comparison of Phase2 and analytical solutions for total head beneath ditch. Note that x
= 40 m corresponds to the bottom of the ditch.

13.4 References

1. Haar, M. E. (1990), Groundwater and Seepage, 2nd Edition, Dover.

13.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#013.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

70
14 Unsaturated Soil Column
14.1 Problem description

Steady-state capillary head distribution above the water table in a narrow soil column is
analyzed in this example. The geometry of the problem is depicted in Figure 14.1.

z
vadose zone
L

water table

Figure 14-1: Narrow soil column above the water table

Table 1 summarizes the model and material parameters used in this instance.

Table 14-1: Model parameters

Parameter Value
Column height (L) 1m
Saturated soil conductivity (Ks) 10-7 m/s
Infiltration/Exfiltration rate (v) ±8.64·10-4 m/day
Sorptive number (α) 1 m-1

The Phase2 model for the problem is shown in Figure 14-2. The model is a very thin soil
column (2 mm wide), 1 meter deep to the water table.

71
 Figure 14-2: Infiltration and exfiltration in a narrow column as modeled in Phase2

14.2 Analytical Solution

Gardner (1958) [1] proposed an analytical solution to this problem. He proposed the
following equation for calculating capillary head:

1 
 ( z)  
1
ln 
  Ks
 
  K s   e  L  z  


where z is the vertical coordinate (m) and other parameters are as defined in Table 14-1.

72
14.3 Results

A material query was added throughout the depth of the column to plot the pressure head
values. The output is depicted in Figure 14-3 for the constant infiltration case and Figure
14-4 for the constant exfiltration case. The Phase2 results are in good agreement with the
analytical solution presented by Gardner.
0
-0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0

-0.2

-0.4
Depth (m)

Analytical
-0.6
Phase2

-0.8

-1

-1.2
Pressure Head (m)

Figure 14-3: Plot of pressure head against depth comparing the Gardner analytical results to the
results from Phase2 for the constant infiltration case
0
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

-0.2

-0.4
Depth (m)

Analytical
-0.6
Phase2

-0.8

-1

-1.2
Pressure Head (m)

Figure 14-4: Plot of pressure head against depth comparing the Gardner analytical results to the
results from Phase2 for the constant exfiltration case

73
14.4 References

1. Gardner, W.R. (1959), Some Steady-State Solutions of the Unsaturated Moisture Flow
Equation with Application to Evaporation from a Water Table, Soil Science 35 (1958)
4, 228-232.

14.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#014.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

74
15 Radial Flow to a Well in a Confined Aquifer

15.1 Problem description

The problem concerns the radial flow towards a pumping well through a confined
homogeneous, isotropic aquifer. The problem is axisymmetric. The problem geometry is
shown in Figure 15-1.

Q
Ground surface

rw
H

Aquifer b

re

Figure 15-1: Vertical well in confined aquifer

The left side of the figure above is the axis of symmetry and represents the centre line of
the well.

The Phase2 model used to simulate this problem is shown in Figure 15-2. To ensure
highly accurate results, the model mesh was created with 6-noded triangular elements and
the discretization density and element density were increased near the well where high
pore pressure gradients were expected.

75
Figure 15-2: Phase2 model

Axisymmetry is turned on. The Phase2 model uses the following input parameters:

 Well radius rw = 0.15 m

 Boundary radius re = 40 m
 Aquifer depth b = 5 m
 Water table height H = 16 m
 Volumetric pumping rate Q = 0.125 m3/s
 Soil conductivity k = 0.002 m/s

The pumping boundary condition was simulated by applying a negative normal

infiltration of q along the length of the well. The magnitude of q was calculated by
dividing the volumetric pump rate (Q) by the surface area of the well:

Q 0.125
q   0.0265m / s
2rwl 2 0.155

where l represents the length of the well. In this case it fully penetrates the reservoir so l
= b.

15.2 Analytical Solution

According to Davis (1966) [1] the head h at any radius r is given by the analytical
solution [1]

Q r 
hH ln c 
2kb  r 

where H is the head at the far boundary, re is the radius of the far boundary, b is the
thickness of the aquifer, k, is the permeability in the aquifer and Q is the volumetric
pumping rate.

76
15.3 Results

The steady state solution for total head produced by Phase2 is shown in Figure 15-3.

Figure 15-3: Total head contour plot from Phase2

Figure 15-4 compares the total head values computed by Phase2 with those derived from
the analytical solution in [1].

18

16

14

12
Total Head (m)

10
Analytical
Phase2
8

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Radial Distance (m)

Figure 15-4: Total head distribution with increasing radial distance from well

Clearly, Phase2 is in good accordance with the analytical solution. A maximum error of
4.1% was observed at the edge of the well.

15.4 References

1. Davis, S.N. and DeWiest, R.J.M., (1966), Hydrogeology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.

77
15.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#015.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

78
16 Radial flow to a well in an unconfined aquifer

16.1 Problem description

The problem concerns the radial flow from an aquifer towards a pumping well in a
homogeneous, isotropic soil. The aquifer has an impermeable base but is unconfined at
the top. The well penetrates the entire aquifer. The problem is axisymmetric. Figure
16-1 shows the problem geometry.

Q
Ground surface

rw
H

re

Figure 16-1: Radial flow to a well in an unconfined aquifer

The left side is the axis of symmetry and represents the centre line of the well.

The Phase2 model used to simulate this problem is shown in Figure 16-2. To ensure
highly accurate results, the model mesh was created with 6-noded triangular elements and
the discretization density and element density were increased near the well where high
pore pressure gradients were expected.

79
 Figure 16-2: Pumping from a well in an unconfined aquifer as modeled in Phase2

Axisymmetry is turned on. The Phase2 model uses the following input parameters:

 rw = 0.15 m
 re = 40 m
 H = 16 m
 Q = 0.125 m3/s
 k = 0.002 m/s

The pumping boundary condition was simulated by applying a negative normal

infiltration of q along the length of the well. The magnitude of q was calculated by
dividing the volumetric pump rate (Q) by the surface area of the well:

Q 0.125
q   0.00829m / s
2rwl 2 0.1516

Where l represents the length of the well. In this case the well fully penetrates the aquifer
so l = 16 m.

16.2 Analytical Solution

The height of the water table h at any radius r can be obtained from the analytical
solution [1]

Q  rc 
h2  H 2  ln 
k  r 

Where H is the head at the far boundary, re is the radius of the far boundary, k, is the
permeability in the aquifer and Q is the volumetric pumping rate.

80
16.3 Results

The steady state solution for pressure head is shown in Figure 16-3.

Figure 16-3: Pressure head contours from the Phase2 model

The height of the water table compared to the analytical solution is shown in Figure 16-4.

17

16

15
Total Head (m)

Analytical
14
Phase2

13

12

11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Radial Distance (m)

Figure 16-4: Total head in Phase2 model compared with analytical results

81
Clearly, Phase2 matches the analytical solution well. The maximum error is 7.3% at the
edge of the well.

16.4 References

1. Davis, S.N. and DeWiest, R.J.M., (1966). Hydrogeology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.

16.5 Data Files

The input data file groundwater#016.fez can be found in the Phase2 installation folder.

82