Pumping test interpretation by combination of Latin hypercube parameter sampling and analytical models

Pumping tests in groundwater reservoirs are a much used and recommended method to derive hydraulic properties of aquifers and aquitards at the field scale. Interpretation of pumping tests can be done by fitting analytical or numerical models to the obtained field data using optimisation procedures. In this paper, an interpretation methodology is presented and implemented in the form of a computer code that combines analytical solutions for confined, semi-confined and unconfined single and multiple layer schematisations, with random parameter generator routines to find best fitting parameter sets to measured pumping test data. As this requires a large number of Monte Carlo (MC) runs, the number of required simulations is restricted by using a stratified instead of a pure random sampling technique. Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) is used as the stratified random sampler. The analytical solutions are defined in the Laplace domain and inverted numerically using the well-known Stehfest algorithm. The program uses a number of iteration cycles during which parameters sets are generated within predefined limits using the LHS technique. Parameters sets which satisfy a chosen maximum value for a selected objective function (root mean square (RMSE) or mean relative deviation (MRD)) are retained and used to update parameter limits for the next cycle. The objective function criterion is decreased during subsequent cycles while the limits of the sampling intervals are adapted. The number of determinable parameters is dependent on the aquifer schematisation and conceptual model that is chosen. After each cycle, statistics of the parameter values of the realisations which satisfy the objective function criterion are calculated. The method is demonstrated with examples including synthetic datasets and field data. The synthetic data examples show that the program is able to retrieve the parameter values used for generating drawdown sets very well. Typical runtimes on a PC are no more than a few minutes. The program can easily be extended with additional analytical solutions for other schematisations.

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

[2]  C. Hemker Transient well flow in layered aquifer systems: the uniform well-face drawdown solution , 1999 .

[3]  Amvrossios C. Bagtzoglou,et al.  On Latin Hypercube sampling for efficient uncertainty estimation of satellite rainfall observations in flood prediction , 2006, Comput. Geosci..

[4]  James J. Butler,et al.  KGS-HighK: A Fortran 90 program for simulation of hydraulic tests in highly permeable aquifers , 2006, Comput. Geosci..

[5]  M. D. McKay,et al.  A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code , 2000 .

[6]  Jason Wittenberg,et al.  Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results , 2003 .

[7]  J J Butler,et al.  Drawdown and Stream Depletion Produced by Pumping in the Vicinity of a Partially Penetrating Stream , 2001, Ground water.

[8]  Budiman Minasny,et al.  A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information , 2006, Comput. Geosci..

[9]  V. T. Chow On the determination of transmissibility and storage coefficients from pumping test data , 1952 .

[10]  Hongbin Zhan,et al.  Groundwater flow to a horizontal or slanted well in an unconfined aquifer , 2002 .

[11]  G. Bruggeman Analytical solutions of geohydrological problems , 1999 .

[12]  Bruce Hunt Visual Basic programs for spreadsheet analysis. , 2005, Ground water.

[13]  G. Kruseman,et al.  Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data , 1983 .

[14]  H. Yeh,et al.  A new closed-form solution for a radial two-layer drawdown equation for groundwater under constant-flux pumping in a finite-radius well , 2003 .

[15]  Philippe Renard,et al.  The future of hydraulic tests , 2005 .

[16]  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 .

[17]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Theory of Flow in a Confined Two Aquifer System , 1969 .

[18]  C. Hemker Transient well flow in vertically heterogeneous aquifers. , 1999 .

[19]  Harald Stehfest,et al.  Remark on algorithm 368: Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms , 1970, CACM.

[20]  C. E. Jacob,et al.  Non-steady radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer , 1955 .

[21]  The influence of delayed drainage on data from pumping tests in unconfined aquifers , 1973 .

[22]  An approximate analytical solution for well flow in anisotropic layered aquifer systems. , 2004 .

[23]  Hongbin Zhan,et al.  On the horizontal-well pumping tests in anisotropic confined aquifers , 2001 .

[24]  N S Boulton,et al.  ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM NON-EQUILIBRIUM PUMPING TESTS ALLOWING FOR DELAYED YIELD FROM STORAGE. , 1963 .

[25]  E. H. Lloyd What is, and what is not, a Markov chain? , 1974 .

[26]  B. Hunt,et al.  Extension of Hantush and Boulton Solutions , 2005 .

[27]  C. E. Jacob Radial flow in a leaky artesian aquifer , 1946 .

[28]  B. Hunt,et al.  Flow to a Well in a Two-Aquifer System , 2007 .