Comparison of slug and pumping tests for hydraulic tomography experiments: a practical perspective
- 232 Downloads
Hydraulic tomography is the simultaneous analysis of several hydraulic tests performed in multiple isolated intervals in adjacent wells to image heterogeneous hydraulic property fields. In this study, we compare the resolutions associated with hydraulic tomography experiments carried out with slug tests and pumping tests for simple configurations with hydraulic property values representative of an extensively studied littoral aquifer. Associated test designs (e.g., pumping rates, test durations) and the validity of the principle of reciprocity are also assessed. For this purpose, synthetic tomography experiments and their associated sensitivity matrices are generated using a radial flow model accounting for wellbore storage. The resolution analysis is based on a pseudo-inverse analysis of the sensitivity matrix with a noise level representative of field measurements. Synthetic experiments used equivalent perturbations for slug tests and pumping tests. Even though pumping tests induce a drawdown in observation intervals that is three times larger than head changes due to slug tests, resolutions for hydraulic conductivities (horizontal and vertical) are similar for the two tests and slightly lower for specific storage with pumping. However, experiments with pumping require fifty times more water and are seven times longer to perform than experiments with slug tests. Furthermore, reducing pumping rates to limit disposal of water or test durations to decrease field data acquisition time would considerably lower resolutions for either scenario. Analyses are done using all available stressed and observation intervals as required by the non-applicability of the principle of reciprocity for slug tests and pumping tests with important wellbore storage. This study demonstrates concepts that have important implications for the performance and analysis of hydraulic tomography experiments.
KeywordsAquifer characterization Heterogeneity Hydraulic tomography Slug tests Pumping tests Resolution analysis Principle of reciprocity
This study was supported by the Geological Survey of Canada as part of the Groundwater Geoscience Program and by NSERC Discovery Grants held by R. L. and E. G. The authors would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers that provided constructive reviews. This is ESS contribution number 20150440.
- Aster RC, Borchers B, Thurber CH (2005) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Butler Jr JJ, McElwee CD (1995) Well-testing methodology for characterizing heterogeneities in alluvial-aquifer systems: final technical report. Kans Geol Surv Open File Rep 75–95Google Scholar
- Caers J (2005) Petroleum geostatistics. Society of Petroleum Engineers, RichardsonGoogle Scholar
- Clemo T, Michaels P, Lehman RM (2003) Transmissivity resolution obtained from the inversion of transient and pseudo-steady drawdown measurements. In: Proceedings of MODFLOW and more 2003 understanding through modeling. Integrated Ground Water Modeling Center, Golden, CO, USA, pp 629–633Google Scholar
- Ferris JG, Knowles DB (1963) The slug-injection test for estimating the coefficient of transmissibility of an aquifer. In: US geological survey water-supply paper 15361-I, R. Bentall (compiler), p 299Google Scholar
- Kruseman GP, de Ridder NA (2000) Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. ILRI Publishing, WageningenGoogle Scholar
- Menke W (2012) Geophysical data analysis: discrete inverse theory, 3rd edn. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Moore EH (1920) On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix. Bull Am Math Soc 26:394–395Google Scholar
- Tikhonov AN (1963) Regularization of incorrectly posed problems. Sov Math Dokl 4(6):1624–1627Google Scholar
- Tikhonov AN, Arsenin VA (1977) Solution of Ill-posed problems. Wiley, New-YorkGoogle Scholar
- Tosaka H, Masumoto K, Kojima K (1993) Hydropulse tomography for identifying 3-D permeability distribution in high level radioactive waste management. In: Proceedings of the fourth annual international conference of the ASCE. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp 955–959Google Scholar