Fig 1.
Image created by the authors in QGIS 3.10 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Table 1.
Regional stratigraphic list in the study area.
Fig 2.
Flowchart of model development.
Image created by the authors in Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Fig 3.
Lithological changes in the plain (A) and cross-sections (B) in the Kolwezi nappe area. Image created by the authors in QGIS 3.10, Datamine Studio RM 1.2.45.0 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Fig 4.
Distributions of observation wells in the area of interest, the number around the well means the depth of wells.
Image created by the authors in QGIS 3.10 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Fig 5.
Demonstration of geology model in the model area and the Musonoi mine area, (A), (B), (C) and (D) means 3D mesh in the study area, cross-sections in the study area, 3D mesh in the area of interest and cross-sections in the area of interest, respectively. Image created by the authors in Tecplot 360 Ex 2014R1 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Table 2.
Estimation of hydraulic conductivity along the long anisotropy principal axis in the plain for each parameter zonation of each model layer in the study area (unit: m/d).
Table 3.
Scenario set of main factors for sensitivity analysis.
Fig 6.
Local sensitivity of different geology zones and recharge conditions on water level changes.
Image created by the authors in Python and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Fig 7.
Comparison of simulated and observed drawdown in 12 observation wells.
Image created by the authors in Excel 2016 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Fig 8.
Comparison of the maximum drawdown during the pumping test for 6 wells.
Image created by the authors in Excel 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Table 4.
Statistics of the absolute differences between observed and simulated drawdown among 28 wells.
Table 5.
Calibrated hydraulic conductivity along the long anisotropy principal axis in the plain for each parameter zonation of each model layer in the study area (unit: m/d).
Fig 9.
Contour map of maximum drawdown in the area of interest.
Image created by the authors in QGIS 3.10 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Fig 10.
Observed drying and rewetting of the model layer.
Image created by the authors in Excel 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Fig 11.
Layout of designed dewatering wells for 140 mL shaft.
Image created by the authors in QGIS 3.10 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.
Table 6.
Dewatering scenarios set for 140 mL shaft.
Fig 12.
Contour map of drawdown after 1 year under 140 mL shaft for 8 scenarios, (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) represent the scenario 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Image created by the authors in QGIS 3.10 and Visio 2016; no copyrighted material was used.