gwat12071-sup-0001-AppendixS1.docxWord 2007 document85KAppendix S1. Discussion of Hantush analytic solution, model benchmark exercises, and verification of Hantush analytical solution assumptions
gwat12071-sup-0002-FigureS1.docxWord 2007 document85KFigure S1. Plot of Hantush (1960) well function H(u,β) verses 1/u. The numbers on each line represent different values of β.
gwat12071-sup-0003-FigureS2.docxWord 2007 document85KFigure S2. (A) Schematic diagram illustrating MODFLOW benchmark model domain geometry. The blue region schematically denotes the area of elevated pore pressures that are plotted in cross section in (B). (B) Comparison of computed head increases using MODFOW (solid black line) and our analytical-numerical model (red dashed lines) results assuming constant pumping for 10 years. The parameters used in the model are listed in Table S1.
gwat12071-sup-0004-FigureS3.docxWord 2007 document85KFigure S3. (A) Cross-sectional schematic diagram showing geometry of reservoirs and confining units in a radial coordinate system with injection into the basal reservoir at r = 0 m. Comparison of published computed (excess) fluid pressures above hydrostatic conditions using TOUGH2 (solid black lines) and our hybrid analytical-numerical model (red dashed lines) due to fluid injection. Confining unit permeability was between 10−17 m2 (B), 10−18 m2 (C), 10−19 m2 (D), and 10−20 m2 (E). Results are after 30 years of continuous injection (after Birkholzer et al. 2009).
gwat12071-sup-0005-TableS1.docxWord 2007 document85KTable S1. Parameters used in MODFLOW benchmark study.
gwat12071-sup-0006-TableS2.docxWord 2007 document85KTable S2. Parameters used in TOUGH2 benchmark exercise.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.