Laboratory sandbox validation of transient hydraulic tomography

[1] Hydraulic tomography is a method that images the hydraulic heterogeneity of the subsurface through the inversion of multiple pumping or cross-hole hydraulic test data. Transient hydraulic tomography is different from steady state hydraulic tomography in that it utilizes transient hydraulic head records to yield the distribution of hydraulic conductivity (K) as well as specific storage (Ss) of an aquifer. In this paper we demonstrate the robustness of transient hydraulic tomography through the use of hydraulic head data obtained from multiple cross-hole pumping tests conducted in a laboratory sandbox with deterministic heterogeneity. We utilize the algorithm developed by Zhu and Yeh (2005) to conduct the transient inversions and validate the K and Ss tomograms using a multimethod and multiscale validation approach previously proposed by Illman et al. (2006). Validation data consist of cross-hole tests not used in the inversion as well as other hydraulic tests that provided local (core, single-hole tests) as well as large-scale (unidirectional flow-through tests) estimates of hydraulic parameters. Results show that the algorithm is able to yield consistent estimates that agree with independently collected local as well as large-scale hydraulic parameter data. In addition, we find that the transient hydraulic tomography requires a fewer number of pumping tests to estimate a similar quality K tomogram when compared with steady state hydraulic tomography, as the former approach utilizes more data from each pumping test. Overall, we find that transient hydraulic tomography is a robust subsurface characterization technique that can delineate the subsurface heterogeneity in both K and Ss from multiple pumping or cross-hole hydraulic tests.

[1]  Walter A. Illman,et al.  Stochastic simulations of steady state unsaturated flow in a three-layer, heterogeneous, dual continuum model of fractured rock , 2005 .

[2]  C. E. Jacob,et al.  A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well‐field history , 1946 .

[3]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Type curve interpretation of a cross‐hole pneumatic injection test in unsaturated fractured tuff , 2001 .

[4]  T. Harter,et al.  A Numerical Model for Water Flow and Chemical Transport in Variably Saturated Porous Media , 1993 .

[5]  T. Yeh,et al.  Hydraulic tomography: Development of a new aquifer test method , 2000 .

[6]  Junfeng Zhu,et al.  Traditional analysis of aquifer tests: Comparing apples to oranges? , 2005 .

[7]  Chunmiao Zheng,et al.  Analysis of Solute Transport in Flow Fields Influenced by Preferential Flowpaths at the Decimeter Scale , 2003, Ground water.

[8]  Peter Dietrich,et al.  A travel time based hydraulic tomographic approach , 2003 .

[9]  C. V. Theis.  The relation between the lowering of the Piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground‐water storage , 1935 .

[10]  Peter Dietrich,et al.  Identification of the permeability distribution in soil by hydraulic tomography , 1995 .

[11]  C. Dirksen,et al.  Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods , 2018, SSSA Book Series.

[12]  T.-C. Jim Yeh,et al.  Observation and three-dimensional simulation of chloride plumes in a sandy aquifer under forced-gradient conditions , 1995 .

[13]  James J. Butler,et al.  Pumping tests in networks of multilevel sampling wells: Motivation and methodology , 1999 .

[14]  Tian-Chyi J. Yeh,et al.  Characterization of aquifer heterogeneity using transient hydraulic tomography , 2004 .

[15]  Shuyun Liu,et al.  Effectiveness of hydraulic tomography: Sandbox experiments , 2001 .

[16]  T. Yeh,et al.  Analysis of hydraulic tomography using temporal moments of drawdown recovery data , 2006 .

[17]  James J. Butler,et al.  Steady shape analysis of tomographic pumping tests for characterization of aquifer heterogeneities , 2002 .

[18]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Steady-state analysis of cross-hole pneumatic injection tests in unsaturated fractured tuff , 2003 .

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

[20]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Three‐dimensional numerical inversion of pneumatic cross‐hole tests in unsaturated fractured tuff: 2. Equivalent parameters, high‐resolution stochastic imaging and scale effects , 2001 .

[21]  T.-C. Jim Yeh,et al.  Stochastic modelling of groundwater flow and solute transport in aquifers , 1992 .

[22]  C. McDermott,et al.  New experimental techniques for pneumatic tomographical determination of the flow and transport parameters of highly fractured porous rock samples , 2003 .