Resolution analysis of tomographic slug test head data: Two‐dimensional radial case

Hydraulic tomography inverse problems, which are solved to estimate aquifer hydraulic properties between wells, are known to be ill-conditioned and a priori information is often added to regularize numerical inversion of head data. Because both head data and a priori information have effects on the inversed solution, assessing the meaningful information contained in head data alone is required to ensure comprehensive interpretation of inverse solutions, whether they are regularized or not. This study thus aims to assess the amount of information contained in tomographic slug tests head data to resolve heterogeneity in Kh, Kv/Kh, and Ss. Therefore, a resolution analysis based on truncated singular value decomposition of the sensitivity matrix with a noise level representative of field measurements is applied using synthetic data reflecting a known littoral aquifer. As an approximation of the hydraulic behavior of a real aquifer system, synthetic tomographic experiments and associated sensitivity matrices are generated using a radial flow model accounting for wellbore storage to simulate slug tests in a plane encompassing a stressed well and an observation well. Although fine-scale resolution of heterogeneities is limited by the diffusive nature of the groundwater flow equations, inversion of tomographic slug tests head data holds the potential to uniquely resolve coarse-scale heterogeneity in Kh, Kv/Kh, and Ss, as inscribed in the resolution matrix. This implies that tomographic head data can provide key information on aquifer heterogeneity and anisotropy, but that fine-scale information must be supplied by a priori information to obtain finer details.

[1]  John Doherty,et al.  Ground Water Model Calibration Using Pilot Points and Regularization , 2003, Ground water.

[2]  A. N. Tikhonov,et al.  REGULARIZATION OF INCORRECTLY POSED PROBLEMS , 1963 .

[3]  M. Anderson Hydrogeologic facies models to delineate large-scale spatial trends in glacial and glaciofluvial sediments , 1989 .

[4]  Andres Alcolea,et al.  Inverse problem in hydrogeology , 2005 .

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

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

[7]  Yonghong Hao,et al.  A temporal sampling strategy for hydraulic tomography analysis , 2013 .

[8]  J. Doherty,et al.  A hybrid regularized inversion methodology for highly parameterized environmental models , 2005 .

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

[10]  J. D. Bredehoeft,et al.  Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Paper No. H-21 , 1966 .

[11]  G. Forte,et al.  A three-dimensional hydrogeological–geophysical model of a multi-layered aquifer in the coastal alluvial plain of Sarno River (southern Italy) , 2014, Hydrogeology Journal.

[12]  Peter Dietrich,et al.  An inversion strategy for hydraulic tomography: Coupling travel time and amplitude inversion , 2007 .

[13]  André Revil,et al.  Hydraulic conductivity field characterization from the joint inversion of hydraulic heads and self‐potential data , 2014 .

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

[15]  Daniel Paradis,et al.  Permeability Profiles in Granular Aquifers Using Flowmeters in Direct‐Push Wells , 2011, Ground water.

[16]  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 .

[17]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Estimation of Aquifer Parameters Under Transient and Steady State Conditions: 1. Maximum Likelihood Method Incorporating Prior Information , 1986 .

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

[19]  James J. Butler,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of slug tests Part 2. Observation wells , 1995 .

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

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

[22]  W. Menke Geophysical data analysis : discrete inverse theory , 1984 .

[23]  Martin Sauter,et al.  Cross-well slug interference tests: An effective characterization method for resolving aquifer heterogeneity , 2010 .

[24]  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 .

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

[26]  R. Lefebvre,et al.  Single-well interference slug tests to assess the vertical hydraulic conductivity of unconsolidated aquifers , 2013 .

[27]  Yuanyuan Zha,et al.  Usefulness of flux measurements during hydraulic tomographic survey for mapping hydraulic conductivity distribution in a fractured medium , 2014 .

[28]  Akhil Datta-Gupta,et al.  Resolution and uncertainty in hydrologic characterization , 1997 .

[29]  Peter Dietrich,et al.  What information can we get from pumping tests?-comparing pumping test configurations using sensitivity coefficients , 2006 .

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

[31]  F. Spane Applicability of Slug Interference Tests for Hydraulic Characterization of Unconfined Aquifers: (1) Analytical Assessment , 1996 .

[32]  Yoram Rubin,et al.  Three‐dimensional Bayesian geostatistical aquifer characterization at the Hanford 300 Area using tracer test data , 2012 .

[33]  Peter Bayer,et al.  Hydraulic tomography analog outcrop study: Combining travel time and steady shape inversion , 2011 .

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

[35]  R. Lefebvre,et al.  Conceptual model of leachate migration in a granular aquifer derived from the integration of multi-source characterization data (St-Lambert, Canada) , 2014, Hydrogeology Journal.

[36]  James J. Butler,et al.  Ir2dinv: a finite-difference model for inverse analysis of two-dimensional linear or radial groundwater flow , 2001 .

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

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

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

[40]  W. Illman,et al.  Comparison of Hydraulic Tomography with Traditional Methods at a Highly Heterogeneous Site , 2015, Ground water.

[41]  Peter K. Kitanidis,et al.  An interactive Bayesian geostatistical inverse protocol for hydraulic tomography , 2006 .

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

[43]  Philippe Renard,et al.  Three-dimensional high resolution fluvio-glacial aquifer analog: Part 1: Field study , 2011 .

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

[45]  Geoffrey C. Bohling,et al.  Sensitivity and resolution of tomographic pumping tests in an alluvial aquifer , 2007 .

[46]  René Lefebvre,et al.  Hydraulic conductivity heterogeneity of a local deltaic aquifer system from the kriged 3D distribution of hydrofacies from borehole logs, Valcartier, Canada , 2008 .

[47]  W. Menke Chapter 10 – Factor Analysis , 2012 .

[48]  R. Penrose A Generalized inverse for matrices , 1955 .

[49]  P. K. Kitanidis,et al.  Large‐scale inverse modeling with an application in hydraulic tomography , 2011 .

[50]  H. Bouwer,et al.  A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells , 1976 .

[51]  Abraham Sageev,et al.  Slug Test Analysis , 1986 .

[52]  G. A. Bruggeman The Reciprocity Principle in Flow Through Heterogeneous Porous Media , 1972 .

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

[54]  Andrew Binley,et al.  Applying petrophysical models to radar travel time and electrical resistivity tomograms: Resolution‐dependent limitations , 2005 .

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

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

[57]  A. Rivera,et al.  Field characterization and data integration to define the hydraulic heterogeneity of a shallow granular aquifer at a sub-watershed scale , 2014, Environmental Earth Sciences.