the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Coupling of numerical groundwater-ocean models to improve understanding of the coastal zone
Abstract. Coastal zones are increasingly acknowledged as dynamic yet fragile components of global ecosystems amidst escalating anthropogenic activities and complex land-ocean interactions. Understanding the interactions between groundwater and the ocean is crucial for managing submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) and seawater intrusion (SWI), vital for coastal ecosystem preservation and water resource management. This research proposes an integrated modeling approach that couple groundwater flow and physical oceanographic models to accurately simulate coastal-ocean groundwater interactions.
In this work, a TELEMAC-3D based three-dimensional hydrodynamic model was initially developed to capture marine conditions with variable salinity and temperature. A MODFLOW6 groundwater model was subsequently constructed. The models were efficiently coupled using Flopy and Telapy, enabling precise co-simulation of hydrodynamic and groundwater systems. Validation of the coupled model against empirical data confirmed its high fidelity, with errors within acceptable ranges.
This coupled model employs dynamic boundary conditions, overcoming the limitations of traditional coastal groundwater models that assume constant salinity. This enhancement significantly improves the accuracy and practicality of simulating SGD processes in the coastal ocean. The bidirectional feedback mechanism within the coupled model strengthens the analysis of interactions between the ocean and groundwater systems. It accounts for variations in the seawater boundary under tidal influence and the reciprocal impact of groundwater dynamics on the hydrodynamic conditions of nearshore waters. This holistic enhancement bolsters the model's hydrological simulation capabilities, providing a more comprehensive depiction of the intricate water-salt exchange mechanisms in coastal systems.
- Preprint
(1559 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(12903 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3384', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Dec 2024
reply
This manuscript presents a new model that dynamically couples a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model with a groundwater model to capture ocean-land interaction related to groundwater discharge and seawater intrusion. The authors simulate groundwater and ocean water dynamics for a laboratory setup and a realistic coastal setup, both fairly classical scenarios. Simulation results show enhanced submarine groundwater discharge and seawater intrusion when interaction is present. The development of such a model is both challenging and highly relevant to researchers in both oceanography and groundwater studies. I find the manuscript suitable for publication, after some clarifications.
General comments:
- The description of the model in Section 2 requires improvement, particularly on the boundary conditions (BC) used to couple the two models, as this is the central part of the manuscript. Most of the coupling methodology described in Section 2.3 (Step 2) addresses how the model components are engineered and how the interface is set up (Fig. 1). Subsection 2.3.2 primarily discusses the BC for MODFLOW and not TELEMAC. It would be helpful to explicitly state the actual BC used in equation form, enabling researchers to apply similar methods to other numerical models within the community. Key aspects that need clarification include: What specific parameters are exchanged at the boundary, and at what dynamic conditions? Is there a mass flux across the interface? Are salinity and temperature fluxes considered at the boundary based on mass flux but without accompanying mass input? Or are the profiles specified at the boundary and diffused? How is the hydraulic head incorporated into the coupling? The descriptions on P5 L28-29 and P6 L1-7 are vague and need to be elaborated to address these points in detail.
- The oceanic regions in Figures 5 and 6 are difficult to interpret. The contour lines are not visible, and the differences between Figure 5c and 5e are unclear, contrary to what is stated on P11 L18. The color scheme can be improved, such as using a different color scheme for the ocean, to enhance clarity. A similar issue exists in Figure 7. To better highlight the differences between the two models, displaying the actual difference (Coupled minus Single) could be more effective. I think the bottom two figures should be labeled as (c) or something.
- How were the values for salinity and temperature selected? The behavior of the ocean flow is highly sensitive to these parameters. Were these values chosen based on conditions observed somewhere or from previous studies? I understand that salinity and temperature conditions can vary over various parameter spaces, so it would be helpful to clarify the conditions that the authors had in mind.
Specific comments:
Most of the suggestions below focus on improving clarity. Since the primary readers of the journal are oceanographers, I recommend using oceanographic terminologies when explaining ocean models as much as possible.
P4 L11. What are the equations for temperature and salinity? How do they mix horizontally and vertically? A more explicit explanation is required.
P5 L1. It would be clearer to show separate equations for horizontal and vertical and use different parameters for Coriolis and gravity. Note that the Coriolis force is not a buoyancy force (L7).
Fig. 1. The model structure would be easier to understand if the components were better referenced in the manuscript. Please consider numbering the components in the flowchart.
P8 Fig 2. The caption needs more detail. I suppose the “sea water” part refers to the ocean model and the “confined aquifer” refers to the groundwater model. However, “freshwater” seems to represent a boundary condition, not a model. Please clarify this distinction.
L19-21. Is there a flow entering the ocean model domain? The usage of salinity and temperature on the “left side” is unclear and should be clarified.
P9 L10-13. A more quantitative description of the validation is needed. How do the modeled seawater toe location, seawater height, and time for the model to reach a steady state compared to the laboratory experiment?
L31-P10 L8. Including a figure that shows the difference between the coupled model and the single model (couple minus single) would help illustrate the descriptions provided here.
P11 L1. How does the temperature vary? Is the variation linear with depth, or does it change over time? Figure 6c seems to suggest warm water beneath cold water, which needs clarification.
L3-4. What is the purpose of dividing the operation into two phases?
P15 L16-26. The discussion about the shape of the seawater intrusion would be easier to follow if a contour line were drawn. Particularly to indicate where flow direction reverses in the aquifer.
Subsection 3.2.4. I can recognize that the flow field varies with tides, but how much of the difference between the coupled and single models is due to tides versus the coupling effect itself? A comparison with a coupled model that does not include tides would help isolate the impact of tides. My impression is that the focus of this section is on understanding the effect of realistic oceanic conditions rather than specifically examining tides.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3384-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
68 | 23 | 5 | 96 | 14 | 2 | 1 |
- HTML: 68
- PDF: 23
- XML: 5
- Total: 96
- Supplement: 14
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1