The Significance of Vertical and Lateral Groundwater–Surface Water Exchange Fluxes in Riverbeds and Riverbanks: Comparing 1D Analytical Flux Estimates with 3D Groundwater Modelling

Riverbed temperature profiles are frequently used to estimate vertical river–aquifer exchange fluxes. Often in this approach, strictly vertical flow is assumed. However, riverbeds are heterogeneous structures often characterised by complex flow fields, possibly violating this assumption. We characte...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inWater (Basel) Vol. 13; no. 3; p. 306
Main Authors Ghysels, Gert, Anibas, Christian, Awol, Henock, Tolche, Abebe, Schneidewind, Uwe, Huysmans, Marijke
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published MDPI AG 01.02.2021
Subjects
Aquatic resources
Aquifers
Australia
Belgium
Electric properties
Groundwater flow
groundwater–surface water interaction
heterogeneity
hydraulic conductivity
Hydrogeology
MODFLOW
temperature
United Kingdom
Water, Underground
Belgium
Australia
United Kingdom
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Riverbed temperature profiles are frequently used to estimate vertical river–aquifer exchange fluxes. Often in this approach, strictly vertical flow is assumed. However, riverbeds are heterogeneous structures often characterised by complex flow fields, possibly violating this assumption. We characterise the meter-scale variability of river–aquifer interaction at two sections of the Aa River, Belgium, and compare vertical flux estimates obtained with a 1D analytical solution to the heat transport equation with fluxes simulated with a 3D groundwater model (MODFLOW) using spatially distributed fields of riverbed hydraulic conductivity. Based on 115 point-in-time riverbed temperature profiles, vertical flux estimates that are obtained with the 1D solution are found to be higher near the banks than in the center of the river. The total exchange flux estimated with the 3D groundwater model is around twice as high as the estimate based on the 1D solution, while vertical flux estimates from both methods are within a 10% margin. This is due to an important contribution of non-vertical flows, especially through the riverbanks. Quasi-vertical flow is only found near the center of the river. This quantitative underestimation should be considered when interpreting exchange fluxes based on 1D solutions. More research is necessary to assess conditions for which using a 1D analytical approach is justified to more accurately characterise river–aquifer exchange fluxes.
ISSN:2073-4441
2073-4441
DOI:10.3390/w13030306