Experimental evidence of the stochastic behavior of the conductivity in radial flow configurations

  • G. SeverinoEmail author
  • S. De Bartolo
  • G. Brunetti
  • A. Sommella
  • C. Fallico
Original Paper


We deal with the spatial distribution of the hydraulic conductivity K within heterogeneous porous formations where a radial flow (typical of pumping and slug tests) is taking place. In particular, the study provides a wide data-set which is instrumental to corroborate theoretical findings about the stochastic behavior of K in the above flow configuration. Here, K-data pertain to a series of slug tests conducted within a large caisson which was densely instrumented in order to capture the transitional behavior of the conductivity from the near field (close to the pumping well) to the far field (away from the pumping well). For the experiments at stake, it is shown that the apparent conductivity \(K_{\mathrm{app}}\) is a very robust property. In fact, with the exception of a very tiny annulus surrounding the pumping well, \(K_{\mathrm{app}}\) can be used to solve flow (and transport) problems in close analogy to the effective theory approach adopted for a groundwater-type flow. It is hoped that the data-set exploited in the present study will be useful for other researchers who are engaged with similar studies.


Porous media Slug tests Stochastic modeling Apparent conductivity 



The constructive comments from two anonymous Referees have been deeply appreciated, and they have significantly improved the early version of the manuscript. This study was developed within the GNCS (Gruppo Nazionale Calcolo Scientifico - INdAM) framework.


  1. Aristodemo F, Ianchello M, Fallico C (2018) Smoothing analysis of slug tests data for aquifer characterization at laboratory scale. J Hydrol 562:125–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird N, Perrier E (2010) Multiscale percolation properties of a fractal pore network. Geoderma 160:105–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broyda S, Dentz M, Tartakovsky DM (2010) Probability density functions for advective-reactive transport in radial flow. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:985–992. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caia A, Di Lullo AG, De Ghetto G, Guadagnini A (2018) Probabilistic analysis of risk and mitigation of deepwater well blowouts and oil spills. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32:2647–2666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chevalier S, Bués MA, Tournebize J, Banton O (2001) Stochastic delineation of wellhead protection area in fractured aquifers and parametric sensitivity study. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 15:205–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper HH, Bredehoeft JD, Papadopulos IS (1967) Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resour Res 3:263–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dagan G (1982) Stochastic modeling of groundwater flow by unconditional and conditional probabilities: 1. conditional simulation and the direct problem. Water Resour Res 18:813–833. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dagan G, Lessoff SC (2007) Transmissivity upscaling in numerical aquifer models of steady well flow: unconditional statistics. Water Resour Res 43:W05431. Google Scholar
  9. Dagan G, Lessoff SC, Fiori A (2009) Is transmissivity a meaningful property of natural formations? Conceptual issues and model development. Water Resour Res 45:W03425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darvini G (2014) An example of solute spreading in nonstationary, bounded geological formations. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 28:297–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Bartolo S, Fallico C, Severino G (2018) A fractal analysis of the water retention curve. Hydrol Process 32:1401–1405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fallico C, De Bartolo S, Troisi S, Veltri M (2010) Scaling analysis of hydraulic conductivity and porosity on a sandy medium of an unconfined aquifer reproduced in the laboratory. Geoderma 160:3–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallico C, Ianchello M, De Bartolo S, Severino G (2018) Spatial dependence of the hydraulic conductivity in a well-type configuration at the mesoscale. Hydrol Process. Google Scholar
  14. Fallico C, Vita MC, De Bartolo S, Straface S (2012) Scaling effect of the hydraulic conductivity in a confined aquifer. Soil Sci 177:385–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giménez D, Rawls W, Lauren J (1999) Scaling properties of saturated hydraulic conductivity in soil. Geoderma 88:205–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gómez S, Severino G, Randazzo L, Toraldo G, Otero J (2009) Identification of the hydraulic conductivity using a global optimization method. Agric Water Manag 96:504–510. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harp DR, Vesselinov VV (2010) Stochastic inverse method for estimation of geostatistical representation of hydrogeologic stratigraphy using borehole logs and pressure observations. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:1023–1042. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hvorslev MJ (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations. Waterways experiment station corps of engineers. US Army Bull 36:1–50Google Scholar
  19. Indelman P (1996) Averaging of unsteady flows in heterogeneous media of stationary conductivity. J Fluid Mech 310:39–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Indelman P (2000) Unsteady source flow in weakly heterogeneous porous media. Comput Geosci 4:351–381. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Indelman P (2001) Steady-state source flow in heterogeneous porous media. Transp Porous Media 45:105–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Indelman P (2004) On macrodispersion in uniform—radial divergent flow through weakly heterogeneous aquifers. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 18:16–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Indelman P, Abramovich B (1994) Nonlocal properties of nonuniform averaged flows in heterogeneous media. Water Resour Res 30:3385–3393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Indelman P, Fiori A, Dagan G (1996) Steady flow toward wells in heterogeneous formations: mean head and equivalent conductivity. Water Resour Res 32:1975–1983. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Indelman P, Lessoff S, Dagan G (2006) Analytical solution to transport in three-dimensional heterogeneous well capture zones. J Contam Hydrol 87:1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knudby C, Carrera J (2006) On the use of apparent hydraulic diffusivity as an indicator of connectivity. J Hydrol 329:377–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lichtner PC, Tartakovsky DM (2003) Stochastic analysis of effective rate constant for heterogeneous reactions. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 17:419–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neuman SP (1994) Generalized scaling of permeabilities: validation and effect of support scale. Geophys Res Lett 21:349–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neuman SP, Tartakovsky D, Wallstrom TC, Winter CL (1996) Correction to “prediction of steady state flow in nonuniform geologic media by conditional moments: exact nonlocal formalism, effective conductivities, and weak approximation” by Shlomo P. Neuman and Shlomo Orr. Water Resour Res 32:1479–1480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritzi RW, Dominic DF, Slesers AJ, Greer CB, Reboulet EC, Telford JA, Masters RW, Klohe CA, Bogle JL, Means BP (2000) Comparing statistical models of physical heterogeneity in buried-valley aquifers. Water Resour Res 36:3179–3192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riva M, Guadagnini A, Neuman SP, Franzetti S (2001) Radial flow in a bounded randomly heterogeneous aquifer. Transp Porous Media 45:139–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riva M, Guadagnini L, Guadagnini A (2010) Effects of uncertainty of lithofacies, conductivity and porosity distributions on stochastic interpretations of a field scale tracer test. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:955–970. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rubin Y (2003) Applied sthocastic hydrogeology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulze-Makuch D, Cherkauer DS (1997) Method developed for extrapolating scale behavior. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 78:3–3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulze-Makuch D, Cherkauer DS (1998) Variations in hydraulic conductivity with scale of measurement during aquifer tests in heterogeneous, porous carbonate rocks. Hydrogeol J 6:204–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Severino G (2011a) Macrodispersion by point-like source flows in randomly heterogeneous porous media. Transp Porous Media 89:121–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Severino G (2011b) Stochastic analysis of well-type flows in randomly heterogeneous porous formations. Water Resour Res 47:W03520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Severino G (2019) Effective conductivity in steady well-type flows through porous formations. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 33(3):827–835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Severino G, Comegna A, Coppola A, Sommella A, Santini A (2010) Stochastic analysis of a field-scale unsaturated transport experiment. Adv Water Resour 33:1188–1198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Severino G, Coppola A (2012) A note on the apparent conductivity of stratified porous media in unsaturated steady flow above a water table. Transp Porous Media 91:733–740. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Severino G, Cuomo S (2019) On a class of integrals useful to solve well-type flows in heterogeneous porous formations. Water Resour Res. Google Scholar
  42. Severino G, De Bartolo S, Toraldo G, Srinivasan G, Viswanathan H (2012a) Travel time approach to kinetically sorbing solute by diverging radial flows through heterogeneous porous formations. Water Resour Res 48:W12527. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Severino G, Leveque S, Toraldo G (2019) Uncertainty quantification of unsteady source flows in heterogeneous porous media. J Fluid Mech. Google Scholar
  44. Severino G, Monetti VM, Santini A, Toraldo G (2006) Unsaturated transport with linear kinetic sorption under unsteady vertical flow. Transp Porous Media 63:147–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Severino G, Santini A (2005) On the effective hydraulic conductivity in mean vertical unsaturated steady flows. Adv Water Resour 28:964–974. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Severino G, Santini A, Sommella A (2003) Determining the soil hydraulic conductivity by means of a field scale internal drainage. J Hydrol 273:234–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Severino G, Santini A, Sommella A (2008) Steady flows driven by sources of random strength in heterogeneous aquifers with application to partially penetrating wells. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 22:567–582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Severino G, Santini A, Sommella A (2011) Macrodispersion by diverging radial flows in randomly heterogeneous porous media. J Contam Hydrol 123:40–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Severino G, Scarfato M, Comegna A (2017) Stochastic analysis of unsaturated steady flows above the water table. Water Resour Res 53:6687–6708. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Severino G, Tartakovsky D, Srinivasan G, Viswanathan H (2012b) Lagrangian models of reactive transport in heterogeneous porous media with uncertain properties. Proc R Soc A 468:1154–1174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ye M, Neuman SP, Guadagnini A, Tartakovsky DM (2004) Nonlocal and localized analyses of conditional mean transient flow in bounded, randomly heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour Res. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Water Resources Management and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of Naples Federico IIPortici, NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Naples - Federico IINaplesItaly
  3. 3.Department of Engineering for InnovationUniversity of SalentoLecceItaly
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations