Academia.eduAcademia.edu
1 Supporting Information Groundwater model parameter values and ranges: Realistic ranges of hydraulic conductivities of the aquifer, as well as values of porosity and hydraulic gradient of the model domain are obtained from reported values of local groundwater models and pumping tests (Balke, 1973; Voigt and Kilian, 2007). For the aquitard, typical ranges of the hydraulic conductivity and porosity of clays and silts are defined (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; McWhorter and Sunada, 1977). The average observed recharge rates between the years 1971 and 1990 (Erftverband, 1995) range from 205 to 268 mm/a, and the average value of 237 mm/a is taken as the upper limit value for our study area. This is because we expect a relatively low groundwater recharge rate mainly due to sealed surfaces, surface runoff, and sewer discharges directly into the river, which is considered typical for urban environments. As the lower bound for the range of recharge rates, we choose 5% of the average observed precipitation (774 mm/a) from 1961 to 1990 (DWD, 2006), which equals 39 mm/a. Porosity values of aquifer and aquitard are fixed in the model domain and based on reported averages. Calibration procedure: For the calibration of the regional 3D groundwater flow model, simulated groundwater levels are compared to mean measured groundwater levels at the 46 selected observation wells. The obtained average head difference is 0.13 m, and only two wells near the river show a discrepancy larger than 0.5 m. The model accuracy is calculated using the root mean square error (RMSE) between actual measurements of hydraulic head and model generated hydraulic head at the end of each model run. The minimal RMSE is about 0.32 m and the normalized RMSE is 5 %, which is considered acceptable (Fig. S1). 2 Fig. S1. Comparison of measured and simulated heads calibrated with 3D flow model. Validation of 2D cross-sectional model For validation, the 2D cross-section model is compared with the 3D model results (Fig. S2). After 110 years simulation time (1900-2010), the difference of temperature distribution between 2D (Fig. 7) and 3D cross sections reveals to be minor with a maximum temperature difference along the profile with < 0.2 °C. With this accuracy, the computationally much more efficient 2D model is taken for the subsequent simulations. 3 Fig. S2. Temperature distribution after 110 years simulation (reference case with linear temperature increase at hot spot) for selected cross section of 3D model and of emulated vertical 2D model. References Balke K-D. 1973. Geothermische und hydrogeologische Untersuchungen in der südlichen Niederrheinischen Bucht. Bundesanstalt für Bodenforschung und den Geologischen Landesämtern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Hannover. DWD. 2006. Mittelwerte des Niederschlages, Deutscher Wetter Dienst. Erftverband. 1995. Basisplan III zur Sicherstellung der Wasserversorgung im Bereich des ErftverbandsRep., Erftverband, Bergheim. Freeze RA, Cherry JA. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall. McWhorter DB, Sunada DK. 1977. Ground-water hydrology and hydraulics. Water Resour. Publications. Voigt J, Kilian L. 2007. Grundwassermodell für das Rheinische Braunkohlerevier, in Modellbericht, RWE Power AG, Cologne.