1 / 16

Michael Cardiff 1 and Warren Barrash 1 1 Boise State University

Bringing 3D Hydraulic Tomography into Field Practice: Opportunities, Complications, and New Developments. Michael Cardiff 1 and Warren Barrash 1 1 Boise State University. Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site (BHRS) Center for Geophysical Investigation of the Shallow Subsurface (CGISS).

brasen
Download Presentation

Michael Cardiff 1 and Warren Barrash 1 1 Boise State University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Bringing 3D Hydraulic Tomography into Field Practice:Opportunities, Complications, and New Developments Michael Cardiff1 and Warren Barrash1 1Boise State University Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site (BHRS) Center for Geophysical Investigation of the Shallow Subsurface (CGISS)

  2. Detailed Hydraulic Conductivity Data:A Continuing Challenge • Where will contaminants go? • How much mixing will take place? • Where are aquifers highly “connected”? Current options: • Partially-penetrating slug tests • Borehole flowmeters • Borehole geophysical methods • Geophysical tomography methods 1D, 2D, or 3D Variability 1D (Vertical Variability)

  3. 3D Hydraulic Tomography (HT):A “New” Characterization Approach • Data Collection Phase • Perform pumping from a discrete interval • Measure head changes at many discrete intervals in several wells • Repeat for several arrangements • Analysis Phase • Image subsurface hyd. conductivity (K) through inversion • Benefits: • Directly sensitive to K • Provides information about connectivity of high-K zones • Does not make homogeneity or “effective” parameter assumptions • Drawbacks: • Requires a detailed numerical model and moderate to high computational power • Equipment-intensive and possibly time-intensive • Imaging accuracy decreases with increasing distance from pumping and observation locations

  4. Open Questions • Can HT be made practical for field characterization? • Equipment challenges • Computational challenges • What “nuisance effects” impact quality of HT data and analysis? • E.g. borehole deviation, wellbore skin, wellbore hydraulics

  5. Testing HT at Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site (BHRS) • Permeable, unconsolidated and unconfined sand and gravel aquifer • Weakly heterogeneous (1-2 order of mag. K variation) • 15m thick • 18 fully-penetrating wells • Other hydrologic datasets (2,500 slug test records) available

  6. Field Campaign – Aug 1-6, 2010 • Pumped at successive 1m intervals in B4 and B5 (12 tests per well) • 7 observation intervals (every 2m) in wells B1, B2, C3, C4

  7. HT Implementation Hardware: • Custom multi-level packer/port systems • Fiberoptic pressure transducers • Custom-designed Labview data acquisition software (50 simultaneous data streams) Analysis Software: • MATLAB inversion software • MODFLOW model with ADJ (adjoint) sensitivity analysis process Visualization from HT software showing pumping problems A fiberoptic pressure transducer, with marker for scale HT setup showing pumping and monitoring wells (foreground) HT pumping and monitoring run from back of a van

  8. HT Data HT Head Change (drawdown) curves for one pumping test, one observation well

  9. HT Inversion Results • ≈300 datapoints fit (3 per drawdown curve) • Data inverted using geostatistical inversion (Kitanidis, 1995) • Regularization tied to geostatistics • Produces uncertainty metrics in addition to image • ≈80K parameters estimated (K in 1m x 1m x 0.6m blocks) Inversion results (K in m/s) along slices through observation wells

  10. HT Inversion Results – Data Fit Histogram of residuals for all data. Standard deviation = 2.0mm Histogram of residuals for inverted data. Standard devation = 2.1mm Cross-plot between inverted field data and simulated observations

  11. HT Inversion Results – Validation Comparison between HT and slug test data: • Similar trends in relative magnitude • Fine-scale variability not recovered • K values from HT are lower, more consistent with other historical tests (e.g. fully-penetrating pumping) Slug test data in: Cardiff, Barrash, Malama & Thoma (2011) JoH

  12. Effects of non-ideal conditions? Modeling: • Usually, assume pumping is a “point” source with known location The Real World: • Complex well hydraulics • Wellbore skin effects • Wellbore deviation Difficulties encountered in real-world applications

  13. Comparing FE models with detailed wellbore geometry HT data relatively insensitive to: • Near-wellbore skin • Existence of in-well impermeabilities (packers) and open intervals (ports) …but, sensitive to moderate wellbore deviation!

  14. Ongoing work Pumping Strategy • Refinement of HT components for increased flexibility and automation • Testing of alternative stimulation (pumping) strategies • Implementation at a “real” site! Interested? Pressure Transducers Packer / Port Hardware Data Acquisition System Numerical Model Inversion Code

  15. Conclusions • Hydraulic tomography can estimate feature connectivity patterns that may be difficult to detect with other methods • Careful design of data collection strategies, accurate data, and good numerical modeling are all key • Treating pumping and observation intervals as points is an adequate strategy for modeling • A portable installation for HT investigations is being refined for future field applications

  16. Thank you!Questions? Contact: Michael Cardiff MichaelCardiff@boisestate.edu (208)-426-4678 HT Funding Support: Primary support from NSF-CMG (Collaboration in Mathematics and Geosciences, DMS-0934680) Additional support from: NSF Grant EAR-0710949 EPA Grants X-96004601-0 and -1 US Army RDECOM ARL ARO grant W911NF-09-1-0534 Slug testing support: NSF grant EAR-0710949 EPA grants X-96004601-0 and -1

More Related