the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
3D hydrogeological parametrization using sparse piezometric data
Abstract. When modelling contamination transport in the subsurface and aquifers, it is crucial to assess the heterogeneities of the porous medium, including the vertical distribution of the aquifer parameter. This issue is generally addressed thanks to geophysical investigations.
As an alternative, a method is proposed using inversion data from a 2D calibrated flow model (solely reliant on piezometric series) as parameterization constraints for a 3D hydrogeological model. The methodology is tested via a synthetic model, ensuring full knowledge and control of its structure. The synthetic aquifer is composed of five lithofacies, distributed according to a sedimentary pattern, and functions in an unconfined regime. The level of heterogeneity for hydraulic conductivity spans three orders of magnitude. It provides the piezometric chronicles used to inverse 2D flow parameter fields and the lithological logs used to interpolate the 3D lithological model. Finally, the parameters of each facies (hydraulic conductivity and porosity) are obtained through an optimization loop, that minimizes the difference between the 2D calibrated transmissivity and the transmissivity computed with the estimated 3D facies parameters.
The method estimate parameters close to the known initial parameters, even with sparse piezometric and lithological data sampling. The maximal discrepancy is 61 % of the initial value for the permeability and 16 % for the porosity (mean error 18 % and 4 %, respectively). Although the methodology does not prevent interpolation error, it succeeds in reconstructing flow and transport dynamics close to the control data. Due to the inherent limitations of the 2D inversion approach, the method only applies to the saturated zone at this point.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1662 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1662 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-81', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2022
Dear authors,
I read carefully your work and I found it a very important contribution in groundwater hydrology.
The methodology is clearly presented, the mathematical background as well.
The interpolation part may require some more details but on the other hand it mainly supports the concept.
The results and discussion of the proposed methodology is well presented as well.
On the other hand, I have some overall concerns:
1) The proposed method is only digestive for those who have specialized knowledge of the entire tools presented.
2) Please mention the innovation compared to similar works .
3) Most important the presented methodology is very complex to be reproduced. I am not saying that is bad! but there also similar works in the literature that do the same work with a simpler manner. Maybe it would be good, if possible, to have a comparison with one of them. Your method is more detailed but compared to simpler approach the performance is far more efficient? Otherwise, what is the reason to have such many methodological and sometime complex steps.
4) paragraph 2.4 The optimization part needs more details. It is not clear how optimization works here.
5)The proposed 3d methodology consist of inversion, interpolation, optimization. All these steps consider parameters. Therefore, an uncertainty analysis is required to study the uncertainty propagation.
6) How realistic is the upscale of such model to a real case study. I understand the research orientation which is very strong but, this is also a matter of discussion.
7) The fixed parameters of the aquifer model regarding transport it would be good to be accompanied by a sensitivity analysis.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-81-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dimitri Rambourg, 23 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-81', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-81/egusphere-2022-81-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dimitri Rambourg, 23 Jun 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-81', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2022
Dear authors,
I read carefully your work and I found it a very important contribution in groundwater hydrology.
The methodology is clearly presented, the mathematical background as well.
The interpolation part may require some more details but on the other hand it mainly supports the concept.
The results and discussion of the proposed methodology is well presented as well.
On the other hand, I have some overall concerns:
1) The proposed method is only digestive for those who have specialized knowledge of the entire tools presented.
2) Please mention the innovation compared to similar works .
3) Most important the presented methodology is very complex to be reproduced. I am not saying that is bad! but there also similar works in the literature that do the same work with a simpler manner. Maybe it would be good, if possible, to have a comparison with one of them. Your method is more detailed but compared to simpler approach the performance is far more efficient? Otherwise, what is the reason to have such many methodological and sometime complex steps.
4) paragraph 2.4 The optimization part needs more details. It is not clear how optimization works here.
5)The proposed 3d methodology consist of inversion, interpolation, optimization. All these steps consider parameters. Therefore, an uncertainty analysis is required to study the uncertainty propagation.
6) How realistic is the upscale of such model to a real case study. I understand the research orientation which is very strong but, this is also a matter of discussion.
7) The fixed parameters of the aquifer model regarding transport it would be good to be accompanied by a sensitivity analysis.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-81-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dimitri Rambourg, 23 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-81', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-81/egusphere-2022-81-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dimitri Rambourg, 23 Jun 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
267 | 98 | 9 | 374 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 267
- PDF: 98
- XML: 9
- Total: 374
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Raphaël Di Chiara
Philippe Ackerer
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1662 KB) - Metadata XML