Hydraulic conductivity imaging from 3‐D transient hydraulic tomography at several pumping/observation densities

3‐D Hydraulic tomography (3‐D HT) is a method for aquifer characterization whereby the 3‐D spatial distribution of aquifer flow parameters (primarily hydraulic conductivity, K) is estimated by joint inversion of head change data from multiple partially penetrating pumping tests. While performance of 3‐D HT has been studied extensively in numerical experiments, few field studies have demonstrated the real‐world performance of 3‐D HT. Here we report on a 3‐D transient hydraulic tomography (3‐D THT) field experiment at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site which is different from prior approaches in that it represents a “baseline” analysis of 3‐D THT performance using only a single arrangement of a central pumping well and five observation wells with nearly complete pumping and observation coverage at 1 m intervals. We jointly analyze all pumping tests using a geostatistical approach based on the quasi‐linear estimator of Kitanidis (1995). We reanalyze the system after progressively removing pumping and/or observation intervals; significant progressive loss of information about heterogeneity is quantified as reduced variance of the K field overall, reduced correlation with slug test K estimates at wells, and reduced ability to accurately predict independent pumping tests. We verify that imaging accuracy is strongly improved by pumping and observational densities comparable to the aquifer heterogeneity geostatistical correlation lengths. Discrepancies between K profiles at wells, as obtained from HT and slug tests, are greatest at the tops and bottoms of wells where HT observation coverage was lacking.

[1]  E. Sudicky A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer: Spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and its role in the dispersion process , 1986 .

[2]  M. Celia,et al.  Large-scale natural gradient tracer test in sand and gravel, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, 2, Analysis of spatial moments for a nonreactive tracer , 1991 .

[3]  Allan D. Woodbury,et al.  The geostatistical characteristics of the borden aquifer , 1991 .

[4]  W. W. Wood,et al.  Large-Scale Natural Gradient Tracer Test in Sand and Gravel, , 1991 .

[5]  Michael A. Celia,et al.  Large-scale natural gradient tracer test in sand and gravel, Cape Cod, Massachusetts: 3. Hydraulic c , 1992 .

[6]  E. Eric Adams,et al.  Field study of dispersion in a heterogeneous aquifer , 1992 .

[7]  P. Jussel,et al.  Transport modeling in heterogeneous aquifers: 1. Statistical description and numerical generation of gravel deposits , 1994 .

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

[9]  P. Kitanidis Quasi‐Linear Geostatistical Theory for Inversing , 1995 .

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

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

[12]  W. Barrash,et al.  Hierarchical geostatistics and multifacies systems: Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Boise, Idaho , 2002 .

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

[14]  Michael D. Knoll,et al.  VSP traveltime inversion: Near‐surface issues , 2004 .

[15]  W. Barrash,et al.  Significance of porosity for stratigraphy and textural composition in subsurface, coarse fluvial deposits: Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site , 2004 .

[16]  Clifford H. Thurber,et al.  Parameter estimation and inverse problems , 2005 .

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

[18]  Michael D. Knoll,et al.  Reflectivity Modeling of a Ground-Penetrating-Radar Profile of a Saturated Fluvial Formation , 2006 .

[19]  W. P. Clement,et al.  Crosshole Radar Tomography in a Fluvial Aquifer Near Boise, Idaho , 2006 .

[20]  Michael D. Knoll,et al.  Traveltime inversion of vertical radar profiles , 2006 .

[21]  Michael D. Knoll,et al.  Investigating the stratigraphy of an alluvial aquifer using crosswell seismic traveltime tomography , 2006 .

[22]  Tom Clemo,et al.  Field, laboratory, and modeling investigation of the skin effect at wells with slotted casing, Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site , 2006 .

[23]  Jacques R. Ernst,et al.  Application of a new 2D time-domain full-waveform inversion scheme to crosshole radar data , 2007 .

[24]  R. Knight,et al.  Improving crosshole radar velocity tomograms: A new approach to incorporating high-angle traveltime data , 2007 .

[25]  Cheng-Haw Lee,et al.  Time to Change the Way We Collect and Analyze Data for Aquifer Characterization , 2007, Ground water.

[26]  Tom Clemo,et al.  MODFLOW-2005 Ground-Water Model - User Guide to the Adjoint State Based Sensitivity Process (ADJ) , 2007 .

[27]  Wei Li,et al.  Three‐Dimensional Geostatistical Inversion of Flowmeter and Pumping Test Data , 2008, Ground water.

[28]  A. Bellin,et al.  A Bayesian approach for inversion of hydraulic tomographic data , 2009 .

[29]  Hiromitsu Saegusa,et al.  Hydraulic tomography in fractured granite: Mizunami Underground Research site, Japan , 2009 .

[30]  Michael D. Knoll,et al.  Capacitive conductivity logging and electrical stratigraphy in a high-resistivity aquifer, Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site , 2009 .

[31]  John H. Bradford,et al.  Estimating porosity with ground‐penetrating radar reflection tomography: A controlled 3‐D experiment at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site , 2009 .

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

[33]  Peter Dietrich,et al.  A field assessment of high‐resolution aquifer characterization based on hydraulic travel time and hydraulic attenuation tomography , 2011 .

[34]  M. Cardiff,et al.  3‐D transient hydraulic tomography in unconfined aquifers with fast drainage response , 2011 .

[35]  Tian-Chyi J. Yeh,et al.  Robustness of joint interpretation of sequential pumping tests: Numerical and field experiments , 2011 .

[36]  James Irving,et al.  Inversion of Multiple Intersecting High-Resolution Crosshole GPR Profiles for Hydrological Characterization at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site , 2011 .

[37]  M. Anderson,et al.  Foreword: Lessons Learned About Contaminant Hydrogeology from Legacy Research Sites , 2011, Ground water.

[38]  Walter A. Illman,et al.  Three‐dimensional transient hydraulic tomography in a highly heterogeneous glaciofluvial aquifer‐aquitard system , 2011 .

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

[40]  Peter K. Kitanidis,et al.  A field proof‐of‐concept of aquifer imaging using 3‐D transient hydraulic tomography with modular, temporarily‐emplaced equipment , 2012 .

[41]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  Parameter Estimation by Ensemble Kalman Filters with Transformed Data , 2010 .

[42]  Division on Earth Contaminants in the subsurface , 2013 .

[43]  Jet-Chau Wen,et al.  Joint interpretation of sequential pumping tests in unconfined aquifers , 2013 .

[44]  Steven J. Berg,et al.  Field Study of Subsurface Heterogeneity with Steady‐State Hydraulic Tomography , 2013, Ground water.

[45]  M. Cardiff,et al.  Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution from Multi-level Slug Tests and Multivariate Facies Associations in a Conglomeratic Fluvial Aquifer, Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site , 2013 .

[46]  P. Kitanidis,et al.  Aquifer heterogeneity characterization with oscillatory pumping: Sensitivity analysis and imaging potential , 2013 .