The non-invasive characterization of pumping-induced dewatering using ground penetrating radar

Abstract Ground penetrating radar (GPR) profiling is a non-invasive geophysical technique that has been used by Endres et al. [Ground Water 38 (2000) 566] to successfully image pumping-induced drainage in an unconfined aquifer. However, the drained water volume calculated from the GPR data was significantly less than the actual pumped volume. To investigate the reasons for this discrepancy, a seven-day pumping test and five-day recovery test was performed at Canadian Forces Base Borden in Ontario, Canada. A dense spatial coverage of GPR profiles was used to better quantify variations in drainage due to small-scale aquifer heterogeneity. In addition, a neutron moisture content probe was used to directly observe drainage and the soil moisture profile at a sealed well near the pumping well. Neutron logging indicated that the transition zone translated downward during pumping without undergoing significant extension. Comparison of the GPR- and neutron-derived transition zone drawdowns show nearly equal responses. Both of these observations support the hypothesis that the behaviour of the GPR reflection is an accurate measure of the transition zone response. In contrast, transition zone drawdown obtained from both GPR and neutron logging are significantly delayed relative to potentiometric drawdown, resulting in an extended capillary fringe. The drained water volume was determined from the GPR-derived transition zone drawdown data using a number of different approaches. Methods that incorporated information about spatial variations in drainage gave larger estimates of drained water volume; however, those estimates were still lower than the actual pumped volume. The unaccountable volume of water could be a result of several factors—aquifer heterogeneity may still not be adequately represented by the increased GPR coverage, and/or leakage from the underlying aquitard may be providing a significant volume of water.

[1]  R. Gillham,et al.  A Comparative Study of Specific Yield Determinations for a Shallow Sand Aquifer , 1984 .

[2]  Fletcher G. Driscoll,et al.  Groundwater and Wells , 1986 .

[3]  A. Urzúa,et al.  MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER PUMP TESTS USING GPR AND ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY , 1998 .

[4]  Allen F. Moench,et al.  Specific Yield as Determined by Type‐Curve Analysis of Aquifer‐Test Data , 1994 .

[5]  John A. Cherry,et al.  Migration of contaminants in groundwater at a landfill: A case study: 1. Groundwater flow and plume delineation , 1983 .

[6]  R. Baker,et al.  The application of time-lapse electrical tomography in groundwater studies , 1998 .

[7]  S. P. Neuman Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed response of the water table , 1972 .

[8]  Anthony L. Endres,et al.  Ground Penetrating Radar Imaging of an Aquifer During a Pumping Test , 2000 .

[9]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Effect of partial penetration on flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response , 1974 .

[10]  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 .

[11]  A Reassessment of Ground Water Flow Conditions and Specific Yield at Borden and Cape Cod , 2002, Ground water.

[12]  Allen F. Moench Combining the Neuman and Boulton models for flow to a well in an unconfined aquifer , 1995 .

[13]  Georgios P. Tsoflias,et al.  Monitoring pumping test response in a fractured aquifer using ground‐penetrating radar , 2001 .

[14]  Don W. Steeples,et al.  Seismic Reflection Study of a Shallow Aquifer During a Pumping Test , 1987 .

[15]  John M. Reynolds,et al.  An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics , 1997 .

[16]  Robert W. Gillham,et al.  Unsaturated and Saturated Flow in Response to Pumping of an Unconfined Aquifer: Field Evidence of Delayed Drainage , 1992 .