1 / 38

Simulating Unsaturated Flow Fields with Ground Penetrating Radar and Saturation Measurements

This study aims to estimate unsaturated flow velocities through inverse modeling of flow parameters, using soil moisture content and Ground Penetrating Radar. The research focuses on the importance of unsaturated flow, Ground Penetrating Radar, soil moisture, inverse modeling, and tracer tests. The study investigates the remediation potential in the unsaturated zone for contaminants like deicing chemicals and jet fuel, particularly at the Gardermoen airport site. The research also explores the significance of sedimentological heterogeneities and the use of GPR for high-resolution spatial analysis.

xaviern
Download Presentation

Simulating Unsaturated Flow Fields with Ground Penetrating Radar and Saturation Measurements

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. and Nils-Otto Kitterød2 Stefan Finsterle1 Simulating Unsaturated Flow Fields Based on Ground Penetrating Radar and Saturation Measurements 1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Earth Sciences Division 2 University of Oslo, Department of Geophysics, nilsotto@geofysikk.uio.no

  2. Purpose: Estimate unsaturated flow velocities by inverse modelling of flow parameters conditioned on soil moisture content and Ground Penetrating Radar Why unsaturated flow? Why Ground Penetrating Radar? Why soil moisture? Why inverse modelling? Why do a tracer test?

  3. Why unsaturated flow? Protection of groundwater resources The Gardermoen airport

  4. The Moreppen research station Oslo Airport Gardermoen 2 km 4 km

  5. Main problem: Deicing chemical Jet fuel However: Good remediation potential in the unsaturated zone (oxygen is the best electron acceptor) On the runways (acetate, formeate) On the airplanes (glycol) Consumption of ~ 400 mill. liter/year Residence time?

  6. Electromagnetic Wave Propagation g2 = j w m ( s + j w e) e Most important in unsaturated zone Soil moisture content, q: e = f(q) Sedimentological heterogeneities Why Ground Penetrating Radar?

  7. Moreppen research site utm-N Oslo Airport Gardermoen p35 p47 p45 Moreppen research p43 site 6,677,840 p41 p33 6,677,820 6676500 p42 p44 p46 6,677,800 p48 6674500 6,677,780 6,677,760 6672500 N 6,677,740 615,750 615,800 railway 10m runways 616 000 618 000 utm-E

  8. Sea level (~10.000 BP) Cross section of a delta p47 Delta topset Delta foreset Delta topset Iso-crones Delta foreset Delta bottomset What did we see?

  9. Moreppen p47 p45 N p47 10 m GPR profiles p45 p43 p43 p41 p41

  10. Þ geological architecture inverse modeling Þ West- East position [m] 0 2 depth [m] Þ soil moisture content, because e = f(q) 4 0 20 40 Why GPR? Significance of heterogeneities to flow?

  11. Þ easy Þ high resolution in space Þ continuous in time N p47 Þ satellite radar 10 m p45 Moreppen p43 p41 GPR(47) N10 N10 N18 N18 N30 N30 N36 N36 N42 N42 N32 N32 N38 N38 GPR(45) N44 N44 N12 N12 N34 N34 N40 N40 N46 N46 N20 N20 GPR profiles GPR(44) GPR(46) 5 m Why soil moisture? (compared to other variables)

  12. soil moisture content 0.2 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta topset 29.8 3.0 interpolation in 3D

  13. soil moisture content 0.3 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta topset 29.8 3.0

  14. soil moisture content 0.5 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta topset 29.8 3.0

  15. soil moisture content 1.0 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta topset 29.8 3.0

  16. soil moisture content 1.5 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta topset 29.8 3.0

  17. soil moisture content 2.0 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta topset 29.8 3.0

  18. soil moisture content 2.5 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta foreset 29.8 3.0

  19. soil moisture content 3.0 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta foreset 29.8 3.0

  20. soil moisture content 3.5 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O delta foreset 29.8 3.0

  21. soil moisture content 3.7 m below the surface Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O below groundwater table 29.8 3.0

  22. soil moisture content Moreppen, May 11. 1995 vol% H2O fence diagram 29.8 3.0

  23. Þ honor observations Þ include a priori information Þ consistent homogenization question of scale!! Why inverse modeling?

  24. findmodel parameters that minimize | cal. – obs. | kabs,Sr, 1/a, n |qcalc – qobs | Inverse modeling:

  25. top1 top2 dip1 dip2 dry c11 c16 saturated ~ 0.5 sat. 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 depth (m) depth (m) depth (m) 12 12 12 6 6 6 10 10 10 8 8 8 4 4 4 2 2 2

  26. top1 observed top2 most likely dip1 with uncertanty dip2 c11 and c16 are the conditioning wells

  27. qobs – qcalc for the whole flow domain

  28. Þ validate model parameters by independent observations Primary observations is reproduced , but are we able to reproduce (or make forecasts) of non-observed variables? Why do a tracer test?

  29. Moreppen Moreppen N N p47 p47 10 m 10 m GPR profiles GPR profiles p45 p45 p43 p43 p41 p41

  30. Moreppen Lysimeter trench N p47 10 m GPR profiles p45 p43 p41 Prenart probe

  31. Background, 48 mm/day, through the dripper lines Bromide (Br) Tritiated water (HTO) 2.3 m 3.5 m 6 m

  32. day 1 12 6 10 8 4 2 0 0 0 day 2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 depth (m) -3 -3 -3 day 3

  33. -1.82 m (Br) 1.00 -1.83 m (Br) -2.95 m (Br) 0.80 -3.09 m (Br) -3.30 m (Br) 0.60 F(x) for [Br] and [HTO] -1.78 m (HTO) 0.40 -2.49 m (HTO) 2.8 m iso -2.95 m (HTO) 3.3 m iso -3.09 m (HTO) 1.8 m iso -3.30 m (HTO) 0.20 1.8 m ani Moreppen tracer test 2.8 m ani Søvik and Alfnes et al. (2001) 3.3 m ani 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 time <days>

  34. 1.0 -2.48 m (Br) -2.84 m (Br) 0.8 0.6 F(x) for [Br] and [HTO] 0.4 0.2 2) Effective parameters 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 time <days> Future work 1) Preferential flow How much ? How fast?

  35. heterogeneous isotropic 0 -1 -2 -3 homogeneous anisotropic 12 6 10 8 4 2

  36. a b c

  37. breakthrough curves (42 mm/d infiltration) 15 10 number of particles 5 heterogeneous isotropic (case a) 10 11 12 7 8 9 saturation (all) time (days) pressure (all) pressure and saturation saturation (no dip2) pressure (no dip2) homogeneous anisotropic

More Related