Smart pilot points using reversible‐jump Markov‐chain Monte Carlo

Pilot points are typical means for calibration of highly parameterized numerical models. We propose a novel procedure based on estimating not only the pilot point values, but also their number and suitable locations. This is accomplished by a trans-dimensional Bayesian inversion procedure that also allows for uncertainty quantification. The utilized algorithm, reversible-jump Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (RJ-MCMC), is computationally demanding and this challenges the application for model calibration. We present a solution for fast, approximate simulation through the application of a Bayesian inversion. A fast pathfinding algorithm is used to estimate tracer travel times instead of doing a full transport simulation. This approach extracts the information from measured breakthrough curves, which is crucial for the reconstruction of aquifer heterogeneity. As a result, the “smart pilot points” can be tuned during thousands of rapid model evaluations. This is demonstrated for both a synthetic and a field application. For the selected synthetic layered aquifer, two different hydrofacies are reconstructed. For the field investigation, multiple fluorescent tracers were injected in different well screens in a shallow alluvial aquifer and monitored in a tomographic source-receiver configuration. With the new inversion procedure, a sand layer was identified and reconstructed with a high spatial resolution in 3-D. The sand layer was successfully validated through additional slug tests at the site. The promising results encourage further applications in hydrogeological model calibration, especially for cases with simulation of transport.

[1]  K. Karasaki,et al.  Analytical models of slug tests , 1988 .

[2]  M. Sambridge,et al.  Transdimensional inference in the geosciences , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[3]  Niklas Linde,et al.  Morphological, hydrological, biogeochemical and ecological changes and challenges in river restoration – the Thur River case study , 2014 .

[4]  M. Marietta,et al.  Pilot Point Methodology for Automated Calibration of an Ensemble of conditionally Simulated Transmissivity Fields: 1. Theory and Computational Experiments , 1995 .

[5]  T. Le Borgne,et al.  Inferring transport characteristics in a fractured rock aquifer by combining single‐hole ground‐penetrating radar reflection monitoring and tracer test data , 2012, 1701.01877.

[6]  R. L. Cooley An analysis of the pilot point methodology for automated calibration of an ensemble of conditionally simulated transmissivity fields , 2000 .

[7]  J. Gómez-Hernández,et al.  Stochastic conditional inverse modeling of subsurface mass transport: A brief review and the self-calibrating method , 2003 .

[8]  Alberto Guadagnini,et al.  Multimodel framework for characterization of transport in porous media , 2015 .

[9]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

[10]  N. Linde,et al.  Towards improved instrumentation for assessing river-groundwater interactions in a restored river corridor , 2011 .

[11]  M. Sambridge,et al.  Trans-dimensional inverse problems, model comparison and the evidence , 2006 .

[12]  Albert Tarantola,et al.  Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems , 1995 .

[13]  Abraham Sageev,et al.  Slug Test Analysis , 1986 .

[14]  P. Bayer,et al.  Prediction of solute transport in a heterogeneous aquifer utilizing hydraulic conductivity and specific storage tomograms , 2015 .

[15]  Philippe Renard,et al.  Three-dimensional high resolution fluvio-glacial aquifer analog: Part 1: Field study , 2011 .

[16]  N. Sun Inverse problems in groundwater modeling , 1994 .

[17]  John A. Cherry,et al.  A New Multilevel Ground Water Monitoring System Using Multichannel Tubing , 2002 .

[18]  Bwalya Malama,et al.  Information content of slug tests for estimating hydraulic properties in realistic, high-conductivity aquifer scenarios , 2011 .

[19]  Michael N Fienen,et al.  On Constraining Pilot Point Calibration with Regularization in PEST , 2009, Ground water.

[20]  P. Green Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination , 1995 .

[21]  A. W. Harbaugh MODFLOW-2005 : the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model--the ground-water flow process , 2005 .

[22]  Calibration of Groundwater Models by Optimization of Parameters in Homogeneous Geological Zones , 1994 .

[23]  Charles F. Harvey,et al.  What does a slug test measure: An investigation of instrument response and the effects of heterogeneity , 2002 .

[24]  Jan Dettmer,et al.  Trans-dimensional finite-fault inversion , 2014 .

[25]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Estimation of Aquifer Parameters Under Transient and Steady State Conditions: 1. Maximum Likelihood Method Incorporating Prior Information , 1986 .

[26]  Brian R. Zurbuchen,et al.  Dynamic interpretation of slug tests in highly permeable aquifers , 2002 .

[27]  T. LaForce,et al.  Bayesian Reservoir History Matching Considering Model and Parameter Uncertainties , 2012, Mathematical Geosciences.

[28]  Zhenxue Dai,et al.  Inverse Modeling of Water-Rock-CO2 Batch Experiments: Potential Impacts on Groundwater Resources at Carbon Sequestration Sites. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  J. Doherty,et al.  A hybrid regularized inversion methodology for highly parameterized environmental models , 2005 .

[30]  Anandaroop Ray,et al.  Bayesian inversion of marine CSEM data with a trans‐dimensional self parametrizing algorithm , 2012 .

[31]  John Doherty,et al.  Ground Water Model Calibration Using Pilot Points and Regularization , 2003, Ground water.

[32]  W. K. Hastings,et al.  Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications , 1970 .

[33]  John Doherty,et al.  Approaches to Highly Parameterized Inversion: Pilot-Point Theory, Guidelines, and Research Directions , 2014 .

[34]  D. A. Zimmerman,et al.  A comparison of seven geostatistically based inverse approaches to estimate transmissivities for modeling advective transport by groundwater flow , 1998 .

[35]  G. Böhm,et al.  A laboratory study of tracer tomography , 2013, Hydrogeology Journal.

[36]  M. Boucher,et al.  Interpretation of Interference Tests in a Well Field Using Geostatistical Techniques to Fit the Permeability Distribution in a Reservoir Model , 1984 .

[37]  Liangping Li,et al.  Inverse methods in hydrogeology: Evolution and recent trends , 2014 .

[38]  Walter A Illman,et al.  Hydraulic/partitioning tracer tomography for DNAPL source zone characterization: small-scale sandbox experiments. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[39]  P. Kitanidis,et al.  Hydraulic conductivity imaging from 3‐D transient hydraulic tomography at several pumping/observation densities , 2013 .

[40]  M. Sambridge,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling methods to determine optimal models, model resolution and model choice for Earth Science problems , 2009 .

[41]  P. Green,et al.  Trans-dimensional Markov chain Monte Carlo , 2000 .

[42]  T. Gates,et al.  Wellbore Skin Effect in Slug‐Test Data Analysis for Low‐Permeability Geologic Materials , 1997 .

[43]  M. Sambridge,et al.  Seismic tomography with the reversible jump algorithm , 2009 .

[44]  Clayton V. Deutsch,et al.  GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide , 1993 .

[45]  D. Hastie,et al.  Model choice using reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo , 2012 .

[46]  J. A. Vargas-Guzmán,et al.  The successive linear estimator: a revisit , 2002 .

[47]  Akhil Datta-Gupta,et al.  Asymptotic solutions for solute transport: A formalism for tracer tomography , 1999 .

[48]  Javier Samper,et al.  Inverse problem of multicomponent reactive chemical transport in porous media: Formulation and applications , 2004 .

[49]  W. Illman,et al.  Comparison of Hydraulic Tomography with Traditional Methods at a Highly Heterogeneous Site , 2015, Ground water.

[50]  Niklas Linde,et al.  Self-potential investigations of a gravel bar in a restored river corridor , 2010 .

[51]  P. Kitanidis Persistent questions of heterogeneity, uncertainty, and scale in subsurface flow and transport , 2015 .

[52]  J. Doetsch Joint and constrained inversion of geophysical data for improved imaging of aquifer structure and processes , 2012 .

[53]  Nickolas Papanikolaou,et al.  A rare cause of abdominal pain , 2004, Gut.

[54]  Yoram Rubin,et al.  Strategic placement of localization devices (such as pilot points and anchors) in inverse modeling schemes , 2012 .

[55]  P. Bayer,et al.  A new sequential procedure for hydraulic tomographic inversion , 2013 .

[56]  Kamini Singha,et al.  Effects of spatially variable resolution on field-scale estimates of tracer concentration from electrical inversions using Archie’s law , 2006 .

[57]  John David Wilson,et al.  MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model -- GMG Linear Equation Solver Package Documentation , 2004 .

[58]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths , 1968, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[59]  S. Finsterle,et al.  Estimating flow parameter distributions using ground-penetrating radar and hydrological measurements , 2004 .

[60]  P. Renard,et al.  Geological realism in hydrogeological and geophysical inverse modeling: A review , 2015, 1701.01602.

[61]  A. S. Cullick,et al.  Construction of geostatistical aquifer models integrating dynamic flow and tracer data using inverse technique , 2002 .

[62]  Olivier Bour,et al.  Passive temperature tomography experiments to characterize transmissivity and connectivity of preferential flow paths in fractured media , 2014 .

[63]  John Doherty,et al.  Efficient nonlinear predictive error variance for highly parameterized models , 2006 .

[64]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and assessment of prior model probabilities in MLBMA with application to unsaturated fractured tuff , 2005 .

[65]  G. Mariéthoz,et al.  Multiple-point Geostatistics: Stochastic Modeling with Training Images , 2014 .

[66]  J. Doherty,et al.  Efficient Calibration/Uncertainty Analysis Using Paired Complex/Surrogate Models , 2015, Ground water.

[67]  Philippe Renard,et al.  Distance-based Kriging relying on proxy simulations for inverse conditioning , 2013 .

[68]  Velimir V. Vesselinov,et al.  Aquifer structure identification using stochastic inversion , 2008 .

[69]  A. Lavenue,et al.  Application of a coupled adjoint sensitivity and kriging approach to calibrate a groundwater flow model , 1992 .

[70]  James J. Butler,et al.  Inherent Limitations of Hydraulic Tomography , 2010, Ground water.

[71]  H. Haario,et al.  An adaptive Metropolis algorithm , 2001 .

[72]  Mario Schirmer,et al.  Fluctuations of electrical conductivity as a natural tracer for bank filtration in a losing stream , 2010 .

[73]  Andres Alcolea,et al.  Pilot points method incorporating prior information for solving the groundwater flow inverse problem , 2006 .