Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407

www.elsevier.com/locate/advwatres

Simulating groundwater ow to surface water features

with leaky beds using analytic elements
Mark Bakker *

Water Resources Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands

Received 17 March 2006; received in revised form 30 May 2006; accepted 1 June 2006
Available online 24 July 2006

Abstract

A new analytic element approach is presented for simulating the steady-state interaction between groundwater and surface water fea-
tures with leaky beds. Surface water features (lakes, streams or polders) are modeled as semi-conned areas with xed but spatially vary-
ing water levels that are separated from the aquifer by a leaky layer. Each semi-conned area is modeled locally as a two-aquifer system
by adding an additional layer of high transmissivity on top of the aquifer. A theoretical analysis is presented to develop guidelines for the
selection of the transmissivity of the additional layer for modeling applications. The analytic element solution allows for the analytic
computation of head and ow in the aquifer, and of the vertical leakage through the leaky bed. The approach requires a discretization
of the boundary of the surface water feature only. Conditions of continuity of head and normal ow are met exactly at collocation points
on the boundary of each semi-conned area; the comprehensive discharge is continuous everywhere. Results of the analytic element
approach compare well with an exact solution for ow to a circular lake; either the lake level or the net lake ux may be specied. Good
agreement was also obtained with a high-resolution nite-dierence model for a case where the surface water boundary coincides exactly
with the numerical grid. A model of a meandering river with a variable water table is presented as a practical application.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Groundwatersurface water interaction; Analytic element method; Leakage

1. Introduction where T [L2/T] is the transmissivity of the aquifer and c [T]

Groundwater ow below shallow lakes and streams is
often modeled as semi-conned ow, where the aquifer is
overlain by a surface water feature with a xed water level
that is separated from the aquifer by a leaky layer. Accu-
rate representation of the areal distribution of the vertical
leakage through the leaky layer at the bottom of a lake
or stream is necessary when modeling groundwatersurface
water interaction (e.g. [8, p. 217]). The areal distribution of
leakage through the leaky layer may be characterized by
the leakage factor. The leakage factor k is dened as (e.g.
[8,22])
p the river level, rather than explicitly modeling the semi-con-
k Tc 1
*
Tel.: +31 15 2783714.
E-mail address: markbak@gmail.com
is the resistance to vertical ow of the leaky layer; the leak-
age factor has dimensions of length. It may be shown that
for surface water features with a constant head, the vertical
leakage decreases to 5% of the value on the boundary at a
distance of 3k from the boundary (e.g. [22, p. 33]).
When the width W of a river is much smaller than the
leakage factor (W  k), the leakage varies little across
the river and may often be approximated as uniform. When
the width W is much larger than the leakage factor
(W  k), all leakage occurs near the boundaries of the
river; for such cases it may be possible to approximate
the head in the aquifer along the boundary as equal to
ned ow beneath the river. When the width is on the order
of the leakage factor, the distribution of leakage across the
river bed must be modeled explicitly for accurate results. In
numerical models, the vertical ux through a grid cell is

0309-1708/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.06.001
400 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407

often constant over the cell (e.g. river cells in MODFLOW

[14]). This means that the cell size should be chosen much water level h*
smaller than the leakage factor, such that the areal varia-
leaky layer
tion of the leakage may be approximated accurately (e.g.
[3,12]). In analytic element models, spatially variable leak- section 2
Qx0 Q
age has been modeled with the multi-quadric area-sink [21]. x0
z
The leakage for these area-sinks is computed at a number
of points called multi-quadric points, and is interpolated section 1 x section 3
smoothly between these points. Application of multi-quad- d d
ric area-sinks may become impractical as the spacing
between multi-quadric points normal to the boundary Fig. 1. Vertical cross-section of an aquifer with a semi-conned area
(Section 2).
needs to be on the order of the leakage factor (at least
within 3k from the boundary) to approximate the leakage
accurately (e.g. [13]). water level in the lake is constant and equal to h*
Alternatively, lakegroundwater interaction has been (Fig. 1). The ow in the aquifer to the left and right of
modeled by representing the lake as an area of high trans- the lake is Qx0, and thus the net discharge of the lake is zero
missivity (e.g. [23,2]). This idea was applied to analytic (a ow-through lake). The resistance to vertical ow in the
element models by [15,16], who represented lakes in sin- aquifer is neglected (the DupuitForchheimer approxima-
gle-aquifer ow by high-transmissivity inhomogeneities. tion), and the specic discharge in the leaky layer is
In this paper, a resistance is added to the bottom of the approximated as vertical (qz) and is computed as
lake by modeling the eect of the lake on the aquifer with
an additional layer of high transmissivity on top of the qz h  h =c 2
aquifer system. This additional layer is separated from where h is the head in the aquifer. The exact solution to this
the aquifer by a leaky layer. In contrast with the nite- problem may be written in terms of a discharge potential U
dierence model of [2], the additional layer extends only dened as (e.g. [19])
over the area of the lake, and the leakage between the
aquifer and the lake is computed analytically. U Th 3
The objective of this paper is to present a new analytic The discharge vector ~
Q, the vertically integrated horizontal
element approach for modeling steady two-dimensional ow, is obtained from the discharge potential as
ow in aquifers that contain semi-conned regions such
as occur beneath partially penetrating streams and lakes, ~ rU
Q 4
and below polders. The analytic modeling of conned or
The aquifer is divided in three sections (see Fig. 1). In Sec-
unconned aquifers with local areas of semi-conned ow
tions 1 and 3, the discharge potential fullls Laplaces dif-
is complicated as the dierential equation for semi-conned
ferential equation
ow is dierent from the dierential equation for conned
and unconned ow. Each semi-conned area is bounded r2 U 0 5
by a polygon, and within each polygon the xed water level
In Section 2, the governing dierential equation is the mod-
above the aquifer may vary spatially to represent, for
ied-Helmholtz equation
example, a varying water level in a river, or the variation
of xed water levels in polders (e.g. [18]). The resistance r2 U  Th U  Th =k2 6
of the leaky layer separating the surface water from the
where k is the leakage factor (1). The head and x-compo-
aquifer will be approximated as constant within each
nent of the discharge vector are continuous everywhere in
semi-conned area. Rivers with highly heterogeneous chan-
the aquifer. The exact solution consists of separate expres-
nel bend deposits (e.g. [10]) may be modeled with multiple
sions for each section of aquifer and is given by, e.g. [1]
semi-conned areas, each with constant aquifer and leaky
layer properties. The proposed approach requires a discret- U1 Qx0 x d  k tanhd=k Th
ization of the boundary of each semi-conned area only; no U2 Qx0 k sinhx=k= coshd=k Th 7
areal discretization or areal distribution of control points is 
U3 Qx0 x  d k tanhd=k Th
needed to obtain a solution.
where the expression for Ui is valid in section i. It is
2. Methodology straightforward to verify that this solution fullls the dier-
ential equations and the boundary conditions.
The proposed methodology is introduced through a sim- In this paper, it is proposed to approximate the problem
ple example of steady ow in a vertical cross-section. Con- of Fig. 1 by replacing the lake with an additional (ctitious)
sider a horizontal aquifer with transmissivity T. A long layer with a high transmissivity T *, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
lake with constant width 2d is separated from the aquifer As a result, the aquifer consists locally of two layers at the
by a leaky layer with a resistance to vertical ow c; the position of the lake. The main advantages of this approach
 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407 401

additional layer with where

high transmissivity T*
b T =T T  13
leaky layer
It may be veried that (12) fullls the dierential equations
Qx0
section 2 and boundary conditions.
Q
x0 When the transmissivity T * of the additional layer rep-
z
resenting the lake approaches innity, parameter a
section 1 x section 3 approaches 1, and parameter b approaches zero. Further-
d d more, in the limit for T * approaching innity, the leakage
factor ~k of the approximate problem (10) becomes the leak-
Fig. 2. Approximation of a semi-conned area by an additional layer of age factor of the original problem (1). Hence, the expres-
high transmissivity T *.
sions for Ui of the approximate problem (12) are identical
to the solution of the original problem (7) in the limit for
are threefold: the approach may be extended to obtain T * approaching innity. Also note that the head
accurate analytic element solutions in two-dimensional / U2 =T  in the additional layer representing the lake
DupuitForchheimer ow and multi-aquifer ow; the becomes equal to h* everywhere in Section 2 when T *
water level h* of the surface water may vary spatially approaches innity. In practice, T * should be chosen large,
and, an accurate water budget of the surface water feature for example three-orders of magnitude larger than T. For
may be readily computed. These advantages will be dis- T * = T 103, the values of a and b are a = 0.9990 and
cussed in detail in the next sections, but rst the approxi- b = 0.0009990, which are close enough to 1 and 0 to give
mate problem shown in Fig. 2 will be solved exactly, and accurate results for most practical purposes.
it will be demonstrated that the solution is identical to To assess the accuracy of the approximation further, a
the solution of the problem shown in Fig. 1 (Eq. (7)) when normalized error is dened:
the transmissivity T * of the layer representing the lake e Dhapprox  Dhexact =Dhexact 14
approaches innity.
where Dh is the dierence in head in the aquifer between the
In Fig. 2, ow in Section 2 is governed by two coupled
left and right edge of the lake. Using (7) and (12) and com-
dierential equations
bining terms gives
r2 U /  h=c U =T   U=T =c
8 bd=k a3=2 tanhd=~k  tanhd=k
2
r U h  /=c U=T  U =T =c   e 15
tanhd=k
where / is the head in the additional layer representing the The normalized error is evaluated for three values of T*/T
lake, and U* = T */. The general solution to (8) may be in Fig. 3; some specic values are given in Table 1. It is con-
written as (e.g. [6]) cluded from the gure and table that the error increases
with 2d/k, the width of the lake relative to the leakage fac-
U a1 x a2 T   a3 coshx=~
k  a4 sinhx=~
k tor. When T */T increases by one-order, the error decreases
9
~ ~
U a1 x a2 T a3 coshx=k a4 sinhx=k by approximately one-order.

where ai are constants and the leakage factor is

p 10
0
~k acT 10
where 10-1

a T  =T T  11
10-2
Boundary conditions are that the head and ow are contin-
uous in the aquifer from section 1 to section 2, and from -3
section 2 to section 3 (See Fig. 2). In addition, the ow in 10

the aquifer is Qx0 on either side of the lake, and the head
at the origin in the additional layer representing the lake 10-4
is set equal to the water level h* of the lake. The exact solu-
tion to this problem is 10-5

U1 Qx0 x ad  a~
k tanhd=~
k Th 

U Q ax ak sinhx=k= coshd=~

2 x0
~ ~ k T  h 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
12
U2 Qx0 bx  a~
k sinhx=~k= coshd=~
k Th
~ tanhd=k
~ Th Fig. 3. Semi-log plot of normalized error e vs. 2d/k for three values of
U3 Qx0 x  ad ak T */T.
402 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407
Table 1
Normalized error e (15) for dierent values of 2d/k and T */T
2d/k T * = T 102 T * = T 103 T * = T 104
1 7.43 105 7.44 106 7.44 107
2 8.85 104 8.87 105 8.88 106
4 6.44 103 6.48 104 6.48 105
10 3.47 102 3.50 103 3.50 104
20 8.42 102 8.49 103 8.50 104
40 1.83 101 1.85 102 1.85 103
A similar conclusion was drawn by [2], who performed a
numerical study to determine the best ratio of hydraulic
conductivities to use in the simulation of a high-k lake that
cuts through several model layers. They used a lake that
was 600 by 700 m at the surface, with a smaller size in lower
layers, and a small resistance of the leaky layer of 0.1 days.
The aquifer thickness was approximately 40 m and the
hydraulic conductivity 10 m/d so that the leakage factor
was 6.3 m; the cell size was 100 by 100 m, several times
the leakage factor. They studied the convergence speed
and mass balance error of their MODFLOW model and
obtained reasonable results for the water level at the center
of the lake when the hydraulic conductivity of the lake was
103104 times the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer.
They obtained small gradients in the water level in the lake
for certain cases, as their lake was more than 100 leakage
factors long.
The range of values for d/k in Table 1 represents the
upper range of values expected for groundwater-stream
interaction, and thus Table 1 represents the maximum
errors that may be expected with the presented approach.
This may be seen by making use of the results of [1], who
derived that for straight shallow streams in direct contact
with the aquifer, accurate one-dimensional Dupuit solu-
tions are obtained when the leakage factor is chosen equal
to 0.44 times the thickness of the aquifer (for stream widths
equal to at least half the aquifer thickness). The result of [1]
is valid for isotropic aquifers; when the vertical hydraulic
conductivity is smaller than the horizontal hydraulic con-
ductivity, the leakage factor will be larger than 0.44 times
the aquifer thickness. For streams with a leaky bottom
(and for many lakes), the value of k will be much larger
than 0.44 times the aquifer thickness, and thus the errors
presented in Table 1 represent the upper range of expected
errors.
3. Analytic element approach
The approach presented in the previous section is
applied to model two-dimensional, steady DupuitForch-
heimer ow in aquifers containing bounded areas of
semi-conned ow. Inside each semi-conned area, an
additional layer of high transmissivity T * is added on top
of the aquifer; the additional layer is separated from the
aquifer through a leaky layer with a constant resistance c
to vertical ow. The head in the additional layer will be
xed, but may vary spatially. Each semi-conned area is
bounded by a polygon. The head and the component of
ow normal to the boundary are continuous inside the
aquifer across the boundary (the perimeter) of the semi-
conned area.
The analytic element method will be applied to model
the ow in the aquifer. Aquifer features outside the semi-
conned areas are modeled with analytic elements for
single-aquifer ow, and may include wells, streams and riv-
ers (line-sinks), recharge areas (area-sinks), leaky walls
(line-doublets), and areal inhomogeneities in the aquifer
properties (bounded by line-doublets); all these and other
elements are described in, e.g. [19,11]. Flow inside a semi-
conned area, which is approximated as a two-layer
system, is modeled with analytic elements for multi-aquifer
ow. The water level in the additional layer of high trans-
missivity will be modeled with multi-aquifer line-sinks [5].
This means that the water level above the semi-conning
layer may vary by specifying line-sinks with dierent heads.
The high transmissivity of the additional layer results in a
near planar head distribution between line-sinks in the
additional layer. In this fashion, a river with a varying
water level may be modeled, for example.
Analytic elements in the model are divided in three
groups:
Analytic elements located outside the semi-conned
area.
Analytic elements located inside the semi-conned area
(including elements to x the water level in the addi-
tional layer of high transmissivity).
Analytic elements representing the boundary of the
semi-conned area.
Outside each semi-conned area, the discharge potential
is governed by Laplaces equation (5), or Poissons equa-
tion in the presence of areal recharge. Inside each semi-con-
ned area, the discharge potential is governed by the
system of two dierential equations (8). The general solu-
tion for the potentials U* and U inside a semi-conned area
may be written as (see Appendix)
T
U F G
T T
16
T
U F G
T T
where F fullls Laplaces equation and G fullls the modi-
ed-Helmholtz equation
r2 G G=~k2 17
Note that the comprehensive potential, the sum of the
potentials in the two layers, is equal to F. Hence, the com-
prehensive ow Q,~ the sum of the ow in the two layers, is
equal to minus the gradient of F; the function G does not
contribute to the comprehensive ow
~ rU  rU rF
Q 18
 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407
The potential of elements located outside the semi-conned
area fullls Laplaces equation and contributes to the func-
tion F inside the semi-conned area, which also fullls La-
places equation. The potential of elements located inside
the semi-conned area consists of parts F and G (16); only
part F is valid outside the semi-conned area, since part G
does not fulll Laplaces equation.
The conditions along the boundary of each semi-con-
ned area are continuity of the head and the component
of ow normal to the boundary. These conditions are
met approximately by placing two strings of line elements
along the boundary of each semi-conned area. First, a
string of line-doublets that fulll Laplaces equation is
placed along the boundary (e.g. [19,17]). The potential
jumps across a line-doublet, but the component of ow
normal to the element is continuous across it; the strength
of a line-doublet represents the jump in the potential across
the element. Line-doublets are generally used to model
boundaries of inhomogeneities in the transmissivity in sin-
gle-aquifer ow [20,19]. As these line-doublets fulll
Laplaces equation, they contribute to the potential outside
the semi-conned area, and to the function F inside the
semi-conned area. Second, a string of line-sinks that fulll
the modied-Helmholtz equation is placed along the
boundary [5]; they contribute to the function G inside the
semi-conned area but do not contribute to the potential
outside the semi-conned area. The line-sinks have a zero
comprehensive extraction, and only act to redistribute ow
between the aquifer and the additional layer of high trans-
missivity inside the semi-conned area. The component of
ow normal to the element jumps across a line-sink, while
the potential is continuous; the strength of a line-sink rep-
resents the jump in the normal component of ow across
the element.
The string of line-doublets is chosen to coincide with the
string of line-sinks. The strength of both the line-doublets
and the line-sinks are represented by polynomials of degree
N, and thus each element has N + 1 free coecients. The
boundary condition of continuity of head and normal ow
is applied at N + 1 collocation points along each boundary
segment, resulting in 2N + 2 linear equations for the
2N + 2 free coecients. The collocation points are distrib-
uted along each element following the cosine rule, as sug-
gested by [17, Eq. (35)]. The linear equations are included
in the solution of the analytic element model (e.g. [19])
and may be solved using a standard routine for the solution
of linear equations. Through the proposed procedure, the
boundary conditions of continuity of head and normal ow
are met exactly at the collocation points and approximately
between them. The boundary condition will be met accu-
rately when reasonable choices are made for the length of
the elements and polynomial order of the strengths; exam-
ples are given in the next sections. It is noted that the over-
all water balance is met exactly. Neither the line-doublets
nor the line-sinks that are used to represent the boundary
of the semi-conned area have a net discharge. The net dis-
charge of the semi-conned area is regulated by the ele-
403
ments used to x the water level in the additional layer of
high transmissivity; the net discharge is exactly equal to
the combined discharge of these elements.
4. Example 1
The objective of the rst example is to compare results
of the proposed analytic element approach to the exact
solution for ow to a circular lake in an otherwise uniform
ow eld. Consider an aquifer with a transmissivity of
T = 200 m2/d. A circular lake centered at the origin and
with radius R = 500 m has a leaky bottom with resistance
to vertical ow c. Away from the lake the gradient of the
head is constant and equal to 0.005 in the positive
x-direction. The head is xed to 60 m at (x, y) =
(1000, 0), while the head in the lake is 50 m. The exact
solution to this problem is given in [4]. The analytic ele-
ment solution is obtained by dividing the boundary of
the lake up in 20 segments of equal length. Each segment
is modeled with a line-doublet and a line-sink of order 2,
as described in the previous section; the vertices of the line
elements are chosen such that the area inside the polygon is
equal to the area of the circular lake. The head in the addi-
tional layer representing the lake is xed by putting 20
multi-layer head-specied line-sinks inside the lake, right
on the boundary; these line-sinks have zero-order. The
transmissivity of the additional layer representing the lake
is 1000 times the transmissivity of the aquifer. The problem
is solved for two values of c.
In the rst case, c is chosen to be 500 days, such that the
leakage factor is k = 316 m, and the diameter of the lake is
3.16 times the leakage factor. Head contours for this case
are shown in Fig. 4a; contours in the top half (above the
dotted line) represent the analytic element solution, while
contours in the bottom half represent the exact solution.
The total discharge into the lake of the exact solution is
3853.9 m3/d (an average of approximately 5 mm/d over
the entire lake surface). The total discharge into the lake
for the analytic element solution is obtained by adding
the discharge of the 20 head-specied line-sinks that are
screened in the additional layer of high transmissivity; this
total discharge is 3855.9 m3/d, only 0.052% dierent from
the exact discharge.
In the second case, c is chosen to be only 50 days, which
results in a leakage factor of 100 m. For this case the diam-
eter of the lake is 10 times the leakage factor such that the
head in the aquifer approaches the head in the lake in the
center part of the lake. Contours for this case are shown
in Fig. 4b. The discharge into the lake is 7952.6 m3/d for
the exact solution and 7958.8 m3/d for the analytic element
solution, a dierence of 0.078%.
For a third case, the total discharge of the lake is spec-
ied rather than the water level in the lake; the total dis-
charge is specied as 5000 m3/d. For this case, the 20
head-specied line-sinks that x the head in the additional
layer with high transmissivity are replaced with 20 line-
sinks of unknown but equal head; the combined discharge
404 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407
AEM
h=52
Exact
a
AEM
h=52
Exact
b dierence solution, a closed boundary of 1500 m by 1500 m
Fig. 4. Comparison between the exact and analytic element solutions for a
circular lake with radius R = 500 m in a uniform ow. Upper half of each
gure is analytic element solution, lower half is exact solution. (a)
k = 316 m, h* = 50 m, (b) k = 100 m, h* = 50 m; contour interval is 1 m.
of the 20 line-sinks is specied to be 5000 m3/d. The value
of c is chosen to be 50 days, as in the previous case. The
computed water level in the lake for the exact solution is
h* = 52.155 m, and is very close to the computed water
level for the analytic element solution, which is h* =
52.158 m.
5. Example 2
The objective of the second example is twofold. First,
the capabilities to model a surface water feature with a
non-smooth boundary is assessed. Second, the capabilities
to model the interaction of a pumping well with such a fea-
ture will be demonstrated, including the capabilities to gen-
erate three-dimensional path lines. The geometry of the
problem is chosen to facilitate comparison with the results
of a nite-dierence model without introducing any error
due to a mismatch between the surface water feature and
500
MODFLOW
50
-50
h=51
AEM
-1000
-500 -50 50 1000
Fig. 5. Comparison of analytic element solution (lower-left half) with a
high-resolution MODFLOW solution (upper-right half) for ow to a
canal. Contour interval is 1 m.
the nite-dierence grid (i.e., the surface water boundary
coincides exactly with the numerical grid).
Consider a canal consisting of two perpendicular sec-
tions of 900 m long and 100 m wide (Fig. 5). The canal is
separated from the underlying aquifer by a leaky layer with
resistance to vertical ow c = 80 days; the water level in the
canal is 50 m. The transmissivity of the aquifer is approxi-
mated as T = 20 m2/d so that the leakage factor under the
canal is k = 40 m and the width of the canal is 2.5 times the
leakage factor. As the solution will be compared to a nite
is specied around the model. The inow along the bound-
ary is specied to be 0.2 m2/d.
In the analytic element model, each long side of the
canal is represented by eight line segments of equal length,
while the two short sides are divided in two line segments.
Each line segment is modeled with a line-sink and a line-
doublet of order 3, except for the four segments that come
together in the two corners near the origin, which are mod-
eled with line elements of order 8 to allow for greater var-
iation of the ow eld near the corner. The head in the
canal is xed with constant-strength head-specied line-
sinks placed on the edge of the canal in the additional layer
with high transmissivity; the line-sinks are order zero and
have the same lengths as the line-elements used to model
the boundary. The transmissivity of the additional layer
of high transmissivity is 100 times the transmissivity of
the aquifer. The inow along the boundary of the model
is simulated with line-sinks.
The results of the analytic element model are compared
to results of a high-resolution MODFLOW model [14].
The cell size is 10 by 10 m over the entire model; an addi-
tional layer of cells with a width of 1 m needed to be added
around the perimeter of the model to meet the inow
accurately along the boundary. The canal is modeled with
 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407
general head boundary (GHB) cells; there are 10 cells
across the canal, so that the leakage should be approxi-
mated accurately (e.g. [3,16]). A comparison of the analytic
element model and the MODFLOW model is shown in
Fig. 5. The model is symmetric across the line y = x
(the dotted line in the gure); the results of the analytic ele-
ment model are shown in the lower-left half of the gure,
and the MODFLOW results in the upper-right half. The
results are very similar.
Next, a pumping well is added at (x, y) = (200, 200)
with a discharge of 200 m3/d. Head contours of the analytic
element model near the well are shown in the upper part of
Fig. 6 (solid lines). The heavy solid line represents the 50 m
contour line, which is equal to the water level in the canal.
Inside this contour the head in the aquifer is smaller than
the water level in the canal, and water will inltrate from
the canal into the aquifer. Twenty path lines are started
from the well and traced against the ow direction (dashed
lines in upper part of Fig. 6); all path lines are started in the
middle of the aquifer. The well clearly draws water from
the other side of the canal. A projection of the heavy
dashed path line on the vertical x, z plane is shown in the
bottom part of Fig. 6 (heavy line). The vertical plane con-
tains several additional path lines along the same horizon-
tal trajectory. The four thin solid lines represent path lines
200
50
h=50
-50
-200
-400
H
H/2
0 56
-200 -50 50 200 400
Fig. 6. Interaction between a well and the canal of Example 2. Top part
are head contours with contour interval 0.5 m (solid), and path lines to the
well (dashed). Heavy solid line in bottom part is projection on vertical
plane along heavy dashed path line in top part. Bottom part contains
several additional path lines along same horizontal trajectory.
405
started at the well at dierent heights and traced against the
ow; the highest path line originates at the canal. The two
dashed lines represent path lines that were started at higher
elevations on the opposite side of the canal; these path lines
end at the canal.
6. Example 3
The objective of the nal example is to demonstrate that
the proposed analytic element approach can be used to
model ow to a meandering river with a variable water
level. Between x = 500 and x = 500, the centerline of
the river is approximated by the function 250 sin(500 x/p)
and is 60 m wide (Fig. 7). Beyond x = 500 and x = 500
the river is straight for an additional section of 930 m (only
partly shown in Fig. 7). The aquifer and leaky layer prop-
erties are the same as in the previous example and thus the
leakage factor is k = 40 m, and the river is 1.5k wide. The
water level in the stream varies approximately linearly
along the centerline of the stream with a gradient of
0.005; the water level at the origin is 59.47 m. The head
in the aquifer is xed at (x, y) = (0, 1000) to 70 m.
The boundary of the stream is divided in straight seg-
ments of which the projection in the x-direction is 50 m
long in the center (curved) section of the stream and
100 m long in the sections to the left and right of the curved
section. Each segment is modeled with a line-sink and a
line-doublet of order 5. The water level in the river is mod-
eled by specifying a string of head-specied line-sinks along
the centerline of the river in the additional layer of high
transmissivity, rather than on the edge, as was done in
the previous examples; it will be shown that this still results
in a constant water level across the stream, while using
fewer elements. The model consists of 160 elements with
a total of 800 unknown parameters. Head contours in the
aquifer are shown in Fig. 7. Contours of the water level
in the river are shown with the short dotted lines; they
are virtually straight across the width of the river.
400
64
63
63
55
-400
-600 600
Fig. 7. Head contours (solid) and river level contours (dotted) for
groundwater ow to a meandering river. Detailed contours in rectangular
area are shown in Fig. 8.
406 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407
-150
61.5
60.9
61.5 62.4
-300
100
-150
4 non-linear equations requires an iterative solution proce-
4 dure (e.g. [19, p. 413]).
5
-300
100
Fig. 8. Top part: Head contours (solid) and river level contours (dotted)
of rectangular area shown in Fig. 7, with levels in meters. Bottom part:
contours of upward leakage with levels in mm/d.
The leakage through the canal bottom is evaluated in
the bottom part of the meander in the lower right-hand
corner (the dashed rectangular box in Fig. 7). Groundwater
head and river level contours in this area are shown in the
top part of Fig. 8. The distribution of upward leakage
through the bottom of the river is computed with equation
(2). In the section of river shown, the upward leakage var-
ies from a low of 2.6 mm/d to a high of 10.6 mm/d; con-
tours of the leakage are shown in the bottom part of Fig.
8, illustrating the distribution of leakage across the river.
7. Summary and discussion
A new analytic element approach was presented for
modeling groundwater ow in aquifers with local semi-
conned areas representing lakes, streams, or polders.
The approach is approximate in two ways: inside each
semi-conned area an additional layer of high transmissiv-
ity is specied on top of the aquifer to represent the surface
water feature, and the boundary condition of continuity of
head and normal ow is met approximately along the
boundary of the semi-conned area; continuity of compre-
hensive ow is met exactly everywhere. A theoretical anal-
ysis of ow in a cross-section showed that the former
approximation gives accurate results when the transmissiv-
ity of the additional layer is taken as 100 times the trans-
missivity of the aquifer when the width of the surface
water feature is less than 10 times the leakage factor. For
larger surface water features, a larger transmissivity of
the additional layer should be used (see Table 1). Results
of the analytic element approach compare well with the
exact solution for uniform ow to a circular lake, and with
a high-resolution nite-dierence model of a canal consist-
ing of two straight segments that make a 90 degree angle.
Furthermore, it was shown that both lakes with a specied
water level and with a specied net lake ux may be mod-
eled. The nal example demonstrated that a meandering
river with a varying water level may be modeled accurately.
Outside the semi-conned areas, ow was modeled as
conned, but the formulation may easily be extended to
model unconned ow. The discharge potential for semi-
400
conned ow also fullls Laplaces equation (e.g. [19]),
but the boundary condition of continuity of head across
the boundary of the semi-conned areas becomes non-lin-
ear in terms of the discharge potential; the solution of these
The presented approach used a transmissivity below the
surface water feature that was the same as in the adjacent
aquifer, but that is not a limitation of the approach. A dif-
ferent transmissivity may be specied below the surface
water feature. This may be useful, for example, when the
400
surface water penetrates a signicant portion of the aquifer
(e.g. [9]). Anderson [1] proposed to specify a dierent trans-
missivity below a stream in direct contact with the aquifer
to negate errors introduced by adoption of the Dupuit
Forchheimer approximation. The approach also approxi-
mates the resistance of the leaky layer at the bottom of
the surface water feature as constant; variable bed resis-
tance may be modeled as piece-wise constant, using multi-
ple semi-conned areas.
The presented approach is limited to the case where
there is a hydraulic connection between the aquifer and
the surface water feature over the entire area of the feature.
When the head in the aquifer drops below the bottom of
the surface water feature, for example due to heavy pump-
ing, the equation for the leakage (2) does not depend any-
more on the head in the aquifer, but becomes constant.
This means that the discharge potential fullls Poisons
equation rather than the modied-Helmholtz equation.
Such cases require the development of an iterative proce-
dure to delineate the area in which the aquifer is not con-
nected hydraulically to the surface water. Flow in this
area may be modeled with the same analytic elements as
outside the semi-conned area.
The presented approach may be extended to model
multi-aquifer systems that are bounded on top by a semi-
conned area. The solution to such problems forms a com-
bination of the approach presented in this paper and the
analytic element approach for modeling polygonal inho-
mogeneities in multi-aquifer systems presented by [7].
Acknowledgements
This research was funded in part by the US EPA Eco-
logical Research Division and was carried out in collabora-
tion with WHPA, Bloomington, IN. The author is on
sabbatical from the Department of Biological and Agricul-
 M. Bakker / Advances in Water Resources 30 (2007) 399407 407

tural Engineering of the University of Georgia, Athens, [5] Bakker M, Strack ODL. Analytic elements for multiaquifer ow. J
GA. Sabbatical funding was obtained from the TU Delft Hydrol 2003;271(14):11929.
[6] Bakker M, Hemker K. Analytic solutions for groundwater whirls in
Grants program. box-shaped, layered anisotropic aquifers. Adv Water Resour
2004;27(11):107586.
Appendix [7] Bakker M. An analytic element approach for modeling polygonal
inhomogeneities in multi-aquifer systems. Adv Water Resour
Following [6], addition of the two dierential equations 2006:110. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.11.005.
[8] Bear J. Dynamics of uids in porous media. New York: Dover;
in (8) gives 1972.
r2 U U 0 19 [9] Butler JJ, Zlotnik VA, Tsou MS. Drawdown and stream depletion
produced by pumping in the vicinity of a partially penetrating stream.
Furthermore, multiplication of the rst equation in (8) with Ground Water 2001;39(5):6516599.
T and the second one with T * and subtracting the two [10] Cardenas MB, Zlotnik VA. Three-dimensional model of modern
channel bend deposits. Water Resour Res 2003;39(6). doi:10.1029/
equations gives
     2002WR001383.
T U T U [11] Haitjema HM. Analytic element modeling of groundwater ow. San
r2 T U  T  U 1  1 20 Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1995.
T c T c
[12] Haitjema HM, Kelson VA, De Lange W. Selecting MODFLOW cell
which may be rearranged to give sizes for accurate ow elds. Ground Water 2001;39(6):9318.
[13] Hansen DD. Analytic modeling of leakage in conned aquifer
T U  T  U systems. Masters thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN,
r2 T U  T  U 21
~
k2 2002.
[14] Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG. MODFLOW-
where ~k is given by (10). The solution to Laplaces equation 2000, the US Geological Survey modular ground-water modeluser
(19) is written as F(x, y) guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water ow process.
USGS Open-File Report 00-92, 2000.
U U F 22 [15] Hunt RJ, Krohelski JT. The application of an analytical element
model to investigate groundwaterlake interactions at Pretty Lake,
and the solution to the modied-Helmholtz equation (21) is
Wisconsin. Lake and Reservoir Manage 1996;12:48795.
written as the function G(x, y) multiplied, for convenience, [16] Hunt RJ, Haitjema HM, Krohelski JT, Feinstein DT. Simulating
by the constant (T + T *) ground waterlake interactions: approaches and insights. Ground
Water 2003;41(2):22737.
T U  T  U T T  G 23 [17] Jankovic I, Barnes R. High-order line elements in modeling two-
Combination of (22) and (23) leads to the general expres- dimensional groundwater ow. J Hydrol 1999;226(34):21123.
[18] Moorman JHN. Analytical element model analysis of the inuence of
sion (16).
dierent scenarios for the water level in a future retention basin. J
Hydrol 1999;226(3):14451.
[19] Strack ODL. Groundwater mechanics. Englewood Clis, NJ: Pren-
References tice-Hall; 1989.
[20] Strack ODL, Haitjema HM. Modeling double aquifer ow using a
[1] Anderson EI. Modeling groundwatersurface water interactions comprehensive potential and distributed singularities. 2. Solution for
using the Dupuit approximation. Adv Water Resour 2005;28:31527. inhomogeneous permeabilities. Water Resour Res 1981;17(5):
[2] Anderson MP, Hunt RJ, Krohelski JT, Chung K. Using high 5511560.
hydraulic conductivity nodes to simulate seepage lakes. Ground [21] Strack ODL, Jankovic I. A multi-quadric area-sink for analytic
Water 2002;40(2):11722. element modeling of groundwater ow. J Hydrol 1999;226(3):18896.
[3] Bakker M. Simulating groundwater ow in multi-aquifer systems [22] Verruijt A. Theory of groundwater ow. New York: Gordon and
with analytical and numerical Dupuit-models. J Hydrol 1999;222: Breach; 1970.
5564. [23] Winter TC. Numerical simulation analysis of the interaction of lakes
[4] Bakker M. Two exact solutions for a cylindrical inhomogeneity in a and groundwater. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1001,
multi-aquifer system. Adv Water Resour 2002;25(1):918. 1976.