*4.1. One-Dimensional Modelling*

Figure 4a compares the outputs for FEFLOW and PerTy3 for transfer functions for modelling Experiments 1(1D)–6(1D). There was no perching for Experiments 1, 2 and 5. These resemble step-functions, with consistency of results between the two forms of modelling. The values of A for these experiments were 0.3, 0.75 and 0.75, respectively. The model outputs were again consistent, with Experiments 3 and 6 showing perching. The transfer function showed a step increase, followed by an apparent exponential approach to one. The model outputs for the ponded head for these experiments are also consistent (Figure 4b) and both show an exponential approach to equilibrium after a delay and an initial linear rise. The values of A for these experiments were both 1.5. The modelling outputs for Experiment 4 show the least consistency with the numerical rise in the transfer function being slower; and the ponded rise occurring slightly later but both intercepting the upper surface (500 cm). Drainage or rejected recharge occurs with the increase for the analytical function occurring nearly 5 years later than the numerical output for drainage. Overall, the modelling outputs show that the processes are correct and the outputs are adequate for use in groundwater modelling.

**Figure 4.** Of outputs from one-dimensional outputs from PerTy3 (semi-analyt-ical) (dashed) and FEFLOW (numerical) (solid) models (**a**) transfer functions; (**b**) ponded head and (**c**) normalized drainage volume.
