4.3 Article

Comparison of Approaches for Predicting Solute Transport: Sandbox Experiments

Journal

GROUND WATER
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages 421-431

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00859.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [EAR-0229713, EAR-0229717, IIS-0431069, IIS-0431079, EAR-0450336, EAR-0450388, EAR-1014594]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The main purpose of this paper was to compare three approaches for predicting solute transport. The approaches include: (1) an effective parameter/macrodispersion approach (Gelhar and Axness 1983); (2) a heterogeneous approach using ordinary kriging based on core samples; and (3) a heterogeneous approach based on hydraulic tomography. We conducted our comparison in a heterogeneous sandbox aquifer. The aquifer was first characterized by taking 48 core samples to obtain local-scale hydraulic conductivity (K). The spatial statistics of these K values were then used to calculate the effective parameters. These K values and their statistics were also used for kriging to obtain a heterogeneous K field. In parallel, we performed a hydraulic tomography survey using hydraulic tests conducted in a dipole fashion with the drawdown data analyzed using the sequential successive linear estimator code (Yeh and Liu 2000) to obtain a K distribution (or K tomogram). The effective parameters and the heterogeneous K fields from kriging and hydraulic tomography were used in forward simulations of a dipole conservative tracer test. The simulated and observed breakthrough curves and their temporal moments were compared. Results show an improvement in predictions of drawdown behavior and tracer transport when the K tomogram from hydraulic tomography was used. This suggests that the high-resolution prediction of solute transport is possible without collecting a large number of small-scale samples to estimate flow and transport properties that are costly to obtain at the field scale.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available