Field Study of Hydrogeologic Characterization Methods in a Heterogeneous Aquifer

Hydraulic conductivity (K) and specific storage (S(s)) are required parameters when designing transient groundwater flow models. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of commonly used hydrogeologic characterization approaches to accurately delineate the distribution of hydraulic properties in a highly heterogeneous glaciofluvial deposit. The metric used to compare the various approaches was the prediction of drawdown responses from three separate pumping tests. The study was conducted at a field site, where a 15 m × 15 m area was instrumented with four 18-m deep Continuous Multichannel Tubing (CMT) wells. Each CMT well contained seven 17 cm × 1.9 cm monitoring ports equally spaced every 2 m down each CMT system. An 18-m deep pumping well with eight separate 1-m long screens spaced every 2 m was also placed in the center of the square pattern. In each of these boreholes, cores were collected and characterized using the Unified Soil Classification System, grain size analysis, and permeameter tests. To date, 471 K estimates have been obtained through permeameter analyses and 270 K estimates from empirical relationships. Geostatistical analysis of the small-scale K data yielded strongly heterogeneous K fields in three-dimensions. Additional K estimates were obtained through slug tests in 28 ports of the four CMT wells. Several pumping tests were conducted using the multiscreen and CMT wells to obtain larger scale estimates of both K and S(s). The various K and S(s) estimates were then quantitatively evaluated by simulating transient drawdown data from three pumping tests using a 3D forward numerical model constructed using HydroGeoSphere (Therrien et al. 2005). Results showed that, while drawdown predictions generally improved as more complexity was introduced into the model, the ability to make accurate drawdown predictions at all CMT ports was inconsistent.

[1]  Brian R. Zurbuchen,et al.  Support volume and scale effect in hydraulic conductivity: Experimental aspects , 2000 .

[2]  Junfeng Zhu,et al.  Laboratory sandbox validation of transient hydraulic tomography , 2007 .

[3]  Dirk Schulze-Makuch,et al.  Variations in hydraulic conductivity with scale of measurement during aquifer tests in heterogeneous, porous carbonate rocks , 1998 .

[4]  Brian R. Zurbuchen,et al.  Field study of hydraulic conductivity in a heterogeneous aquifer: Comparison of single‐borehole measurements using different instruments , 2003 .

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

[6]  M. S. Hantush Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers , 1960 .

[7]  W. Illman Strong field evidence of directional permeability scale effect in fractured rock , 2006 .

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

[9]  A Revil,et al.  A Potential‐Based Inversion of Unconfined Steady‐State Hydraulic Tomography , 2009, Ground water.

[10]  Russell G. Shepherd,et al.  Correlations of Permeability and Grain Size , 1989 .

[11]  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 .

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

[13]  R. Silberstein,et al.  The sensitivity of a catchment model to soil hydraulic properties obtained by using different measurement techniques , 1999 .

[14]  Steven H. Wolf,et al.  Evaluation of Hydraulic Conductivities Calculated from Multiport‐Permeameter Measurements , 1991 .

[15]  Walter A. Illman,et al.  Hydraulic tomography using temporal moments of drawdown recovery data: A laboratory sandbox study , 2007 .

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

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

[18]  Alexandre Boucher,et al.  Applied Geostatistics with SGeMS: A User's Guide , 2009 .

[19]  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 .

[20]  Junfeng Zhu,et al.  Sequential aquifer tests at a well field, Montalto Uffugo Scalo, Italy , 2007 .

[21]  Brent Clothier,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THREE FIELD METHODS FOR MEASURING SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY , 1985 .

[22]  Donald R. F. Harleman,et al.  Dispersion-Permeability Correlation in Porous Media , 1963 .

[23]  James J. Butler,et al.  Hydrogeological Methods for Estimation of Spatial Variations in Hydraulic Conductivity , 2005 .

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

[25]  D. Hillel,et al.  COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ASSESSING SOIL HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES , 1993 .

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

[27]  J. Carrera,et al.  A discussion of scale effects on hydraulic conductivity at a granitic site (El Berrocal, Spain) , 1995 .

[28]  Junfeng Zhu,et al.  Comparison of aquifer characterization approaches through steady state groundwater model validation: A controlled laboratory sandbox study , 2010 .

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

[30]  Vedat Batu Aquifer Hydraulics: A Comprehensive Guide to Hydrogeologic Data Analysis , 1998 .

[31]  Arturo A. Keller,et al.  A stochastic analysis of steady state two‐phase flow in heterogeneous media , 2005 .

[32]  I. White Comment on “A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer: Spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and its role in the dispersion process” by E. A. Sudicky , 1988 .

[33]  D. Cherkauer,et al.  Scale Dependency of Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements , 1995 .

[34]  Ramesh S. Kanwar,et al.  Comparison of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Measurement Methods for a Glacial-Till Soil , 1994 .

[35]  Reply [to Comment on A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer: Spatial , 1988 .

[36]  Walter A. Illman,et al.  Heterogeneity in hydraulic conductivity and its role on the macroscale transport of a solute plume: From measurements to a practical application of stochastic flow and transport theory , 2010 .

[37]  Jesús Carrera,et al.  An analysis of hydraulic conductivity scale effects in granite (Full‐scale Engineered Barrier Experiment (FEBEX), Grimsel, Switzerland) , 2005 .

[38]  J. Maréchal,et al.  Use of hydraulic tests at different scales to characterize fracture network properties in the weathered‐fractured layer of a hard rock aquifer , 2004 .

[39]  Walter A Illman,et al.  Practical Issues in Imaging Hydraulic Conductivity through Hydraulic Tomography , 2008, Ground water.

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

[41]  D. W. Scott On optimal and data based histograms , 1979 .

[42]  Guk-Rwang Won American Society for Testing and Materials , 1987 .

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

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

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

[46]  G. Fogg,et al.  Transition probability-based indicator geostatistics , 1996 .

[47]  Walter A. Illman,et al.  Steady-state hydraulic tomography in a laboratory aquifer with deterministic heterogeneity: Multi-method and multiscale validation of hydraulic conductivity tomograms , 2007 .

[48]  R. Kodešová,et al.  Comparison of soil hydraulic property measurement methods , 2004 .

[49]  Giuseppe Provenzano,et al.  Factors Affecting Field and Laboratory Measurement of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity , 1996 .

[50]  James J. Butler,et al.  Relationship Between Pumping‐Test and Slug‐Test Parameters: Scale Effect or Artifact? , 1998 .

[51]  Diane M. McKnight,et al.  Transport and cycling of iron and hydrogen peroxide in a freshwater stream: Influence of organic acids , 2003 .

[52]  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 .

[53]  J. J. Butler,et al.  The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests , 1997 .

[54]  Steven F. Carle,et al.  Three‐dimensional hydrofacies modeling based on soil surveys and transition probability geostatistics , 1999 .

[55]  Marco Bianchi,et al.  SGeMS: A Free and Versatile Tool for Three‐Dimensional Geostatistical Applications , 2009 .

[56]  Jet-Chau Wen,et al.  A simultaneous successive linear estimator and a guide for hydraulic tomography analysis , 2009 .

[57]  Geoffrey C. Bohling,et al.  A field assessment of the value of steady shape hydraulic tomography for characterization of aquifer heterogeneities , 2007 .

[58]  F. Massey The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit , 1951 .

[59]  J. H. Dane,et al.  Physical and Mineralogical Data to Determine Soil Hydraulic Properties , 1985 .

[60]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Field Determination of the Three-Dimensional Hydraulic Conductivity Tensor of Anisotropic Media: 2. Methodology and Application to Fractured Rocks , 1985 .