Processing of outcrop-based lidar imagery to characterize heterogeneity for groundwater models.

Accurate representation of heterogeneity at varying scales is vital for modeling solute dispersion in groundwater aquifers and petroleum reservoirs. Dispersion, the result of varying velocities in a flow field, is, in part, due to material heterogeneity. In order to represent the influence of heterogeneity at the outcrop scale, a series of terrestrial LIDAR scans at millimeter-scale point spacing were recorded in sediments located in braided stream exposures west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and outside the Hanford Site in Washington. Scans are projected onto a vertical plane and converted to a high-resolution TIFF image. Using the mean and standard deviation of the ‘‘stacked’’ images, the data are processed through a series of filters to enhance textural information and distinguish between lithologies. The product is converted to a grid with numerical color values for each lithology (e.g., sandstone, gravel). Each lithologic class is assigned reasonable values of hydraulic conductivity. Groundwater flow and transport time are simulated using MODFLOW and MODPATH, respectively. Simulations show that flow and solute transport are focused in the coarser-grained laminae of cross-bedded units. Flow may be focused into some areas in finer-grained beds as well, if the adjacent gravel bed has been cut. Thus, most of the flow may be focused into a smaller volume of the material making up the aquifer. This result shows that terrestrial LIDAR can be successfully applied to produce synthetic stratigraphy for use in fluid flow models.

[1]  D. Lichti,et al.  Angular resolution of terrestrial laser scanners , 2006 .

[2]  Arlen W. Harbaugh,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model - User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process , 2000 .

[3]  Georg Teutsch,et al.  Heterogeneity patterns of Quaternary glaciofluvial gravel bodies (SW-Germany): application to hydrogeology , 2003 .

[4]  Katherine A. Klise,et al.  Exploring solute transport and streamline connectivity using lidar‐based outcrop images and geostatistical representations of heterogeneity , 2009 .

[5]  Graham E. Fogg,et al.  Groundwater Flow and Sand Body Interconnectedness in a Thick, Multiple-Aquifer System , 1986 .

[6]  Peter J. Fawcett,et al.  Chronotopographic analysis directly from point-cloud data: A method for detecting small, seasonal hillslope change, Black Mesa Escarpment, NE Arizona , 2007 .

[7]  J. Davis,et al.  Environments of Formation and Controls on Spatial Distribution of Calcite Cementation in Plio-Pleistocene Fluvial Deposits, New Mexico, U.S.A. , 2004 .

[8]  François Blais,et al.  Review of measurement quality metrics for range imaging , 2008, J. Electronic Imaging.

[9]  D. Benson,et al.  Application of a fractional advection‐dispersion equation , 2000 .

[10]  S. Gorelick,et al.  Heterogeneity in Sedimentary Deposits: A Review of Structure‐Imitating, Process‐Imitating, and Descriptive Approaches , 1996 .

[11]  R. Gaupp,et al.  A 3D HIGH RESOLUTION MODEL OF BOUNDING SURFACES IN AEOLIAN‐FLUVIAL DEPOSITS: AN OUTCROP ANALOGUE STUDY FROM THE PERMIAN ROTLIEGEND, NORTHERN GERMANY , 2007 .

[12]  Gary A. Smith,et al.  Relating Small-Scale Permeability Heterogeneity to Lithofacies Distribution , 2004 .

[13]  Jesús Carrera,et al.  On the relationship between indicators of geostatistical, flow and transport connectivity , 2005 .

[14]  A. Miall The Geology of Fluvial Deposits , 2006 .

[15]  Georg Teutsch,et al.  Numerical simulation of subsurface characterization methods : application to a natural aquifer analogue , 1999 .

[16]  M. Anderson Hydrogeologic facies models to delineate large-scale spatial trends in glacial and glaciofluvial sediments , 1989 .

[17]  Rina Schumer,et al.  Fractional Dispersion, Lévy Motion, and the MADE Tracer Tests , 2001 .

[18]  Peter S. Mozley,et al.  The effect of carbonate cementation on permeability heterogeneity in fluvial aquifers: An outcrop analog study , 2006 .

[19]  M. Dentz,et al.  Modeling non‐Fickian transport in geological formations as a continuous time random walk , 2006 .

[20]  Steven F. Carle,et al.  Geologic heterogeneity and a comparison of two geostatistical models: Sequential Gaussian and transition probability-based geostatistical simulation , 2007 .

[21]  Robert D. Fiete,et al.  Image quality of increased along-scan sampling for remote sensing systems , 1999 .

[22]  G. Teutsch,et al.  Relating lithofacies to hydrofacies: outcrop-based hydrogeological characterisation of Quaternary gravel deposits , 1999 .

[23]  P. K. Weyl,et al.  Influence of Texture on Porosity and Permeability of Unconsolidated Sand , 1973 .

[24]  Emmanuel P. Baltsavias,et al.  A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning , 1999 .

[25]  F. Phillips,et al.  Relationship between fluvial bounding surfaces and the permeability correlation structure , 1997 .

[26]  Dennis Denney,et al.  Optimal Coarsening of 3D Reservoir Models for Flow Simulation , 2006 .

[27]  Vincent C. Tidwell,et al.  Heterogeneity, permeability patterns, and permeability upscaling: Physical characterization of a block of Massillon sandstone exhibiting nested scales of heterogeneity , 2000 .

[28]  David W. Pollock,et al.  User's guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3; a particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow model , 1994 .

[29]  Brian Berkowitz,et al.  Anomalous transport in laboratory‐scale, heterogeneous porous media , 2000 .