| Institute of Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences | Host |
| Groundwater Science and Engineering Limited | Publish |
| Citation: |
Nguyen Van Hoang. 2021. Determination of groundwater solute transport parameters in finite element modelling using tracer injection and withdrawal testing data. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9(4): 292-303. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.003
|
Determination of groundwater solute transport parameters in finite element modelling using tracer injection and withdrawal testing data
-
Abstract
The groundwater tracer injection and withdrawal tests are often carried out for the determination of aquifer solute transport parameters. However, the parameter analyses encounter a great difficulty due to the radial flow nature and the variability of the temporal boundary conditions. An adaptive methodology for the determination of groundwater solute transport parameters using tracer injection and withdrawal test data had been developed and illustrated through an actual case. The methodology includes the treatment of the tracer boundary condition at the tracer injection well, the normalization of tracer concentration, the groundwater solute transport finite element modelling and the method of least squares to optimize the parameters. An application of this methodology was carried out in a field test in the South of Hanoi city. The tested aquifer is Pleistocene aquifer, which is a main aquifer and has been providing domestic water supply to the city since the French time. Effective porosity of 0.31, longitudinal dispersivity of 2.2 m, and hydrodynamic dispersion coefficients from D = 220 m2/d right outside the pumping well screen to D =15.8 m2/d right outside the tracer injection well screen have been obtained for the aquifer at the test site. The minimal sum of squares of the differences between the observed and model normalized tracer concentration is 0.00119, which is corresponding to the average absolute difference between observed and model normalized concentrations of 0.035 5 (while 1 is the worst and 0 is the best fit).
-
-
References
[1] Barone FS, Rowe RK, Quigley RM. 1992. A laboratory estimation of diffusion and adsorption coefficients for several volatile organics in natural clayey soils. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 10(3): 225-250. doi: 10.1016/0169-7722(92)90062-J [2] Bear J, Verruijt A. 1987. Modeling groundwater flow and pollution. D Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht: Holland. [3] Brouyère S. 2003. Modeling tracer injection and well-aquifer interactions: A new mathematical and numerical approach. Water Resource Research, 39(3): 1070-1075. doi: 10.1029/2002WR001813 [4] Do Van Binh. 2013. Source and formation of the arsenic in ground water in Hanoi, Vietnam. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1(1): 102-108. [5] Dong P. 1998. Mathematical modelling of coastal processes. Proceedings of the Forty Ninth Scottish Universities “Physical processes in the Coastal Zone: Computer modelling and remote sensing”. 95-108. [6] Drost W, Klotz D, Koch A et al. 1968. Point dilution methods of investigating ground water flow by means of radioisotopes. Water Resource Research, 4(1): 125-146. doi: 10.1029/WR004i001p00125 [7] Fetter CW. 2001. Applied Hydrogeology. Prentice Hall Inc. New Jersey 07458. [8] Fried JJ. 1975. Groundwater pollution: Theory, methodology, modelling, and practical rules. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. 330. [9] Gelhar LW, Welty C, Rehfeldt KR. 1992. A critical review of data on field-scale dispersion in aquifers. Water Resource Research, 28(7): 1955-1975. doi: 10.1029/92WR00607 [10] Glen BC, Welty C, Buxton HT. 1999. Design and analysis of tracer tests to determine effective porosity and dispersivity in fractured sedimentary rocks, Newark basin, New Jersey. US Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4126A. [11] Gutierrez A, Klinka T, Thiery D, et al. 2013. TRAC, a collaborative computer tool for tracer-test interpretation. EPJ Web of Conferences 50: 03002. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20135003002 [12] Hall SH. 1996. Practical single-well tracer methods for aquifer testing. In: Tenth National Outdoor Action Conference and Exposition, National Groundwater Association, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 11. [13] Honjo Y, Sato K, Nguyen Van Hoang. 1997. Groundwater of Hanoi, Vietnam: Parameter identification by the Bayesian method. Proceedings of Theme C: Groundwater: An Endangered Resource (463-468), the 27th IAHR Congress California, USA. [14] Huyakorn PS, Pinder GF. 1983. Computational methods in subsurface flow. Academic Press, New York: 473. [15] Keisuke K, Takeshi H, An Thuan Do, et al. 2017. Groundwater recharge in suburban areas of Hanoi, Vietnam: Effect of decreasing surface-water bodies and land-use change. Hydrogeology Journal, 25: 727-742. [16] Klotz D, Seiler K P, Moser H. 1980. Dispersivity and velocity relationship from laboratory and field experiments. Journal of Hydrology, 45(4): 169-184. [17] Martyna G, Emiliano S, Daniel S, et al. 2021. Arsenic behavior in groundwater in Hanoi (Vietnam) influenced by a complex biogeochemical network of iron, methane, and sulfur cycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 407(5). [18] Nguyen Van Hoang. 2018. Study on the finite element modeling software for simulation of groundwater flow and solute transport by groundwater-application to aquifer in central plain of Vietnam. Codded ĐT. NCCB-ĐHƯD. 2012-G/04 supported by NAFOSTED-MOST. [19] Novakowski KS. 1992. An evaluation of boundary conditions for one-dimensional solute transport: 1-Mathematical development. Water Resource Research, 28(9): 2399-2410. doi: 10.1029/92WR00593 [20] Rifai MNE, Kaufman WJ, Todd DK. 1956. Dispersion phenomena in laminar flow through porous media. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory and Division of Civil Engineering, University of California, 93(2): 157. [21] Sharma PK, Sawant VA, Shukla SK, et al. 2014. Experimental and numerical simulation of contaminant transport through layered soil. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 8(4): 345-351. doi: 10.1179/1939787913Y.0000000014 [22] Shook GM, Ansley SL, Wylie A. 2004. Tracers and Tracer Testing: Design, Implementation, and Interpretation Methods. US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. Report NEEL/EXT-03-01466. [23] Welty C, Gelhar LW. 1994. Evaluation of longitudinal dispersivity from non-uniform flow tracer tests. Journal of Hydrology, 153(1): 71-102. [24] Yan X, Qian J, Ma L. 2019. Experimental study on the velocity-dependent dispersion of the solute transport in different porous media. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7(2): 106-114. [25] Zhou L. 2002. Solute transport in layered and heterogeneous soils. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College. Ph. D. Thesis. [26] Zhu H, Jia C, Xu Y, et al. 2018. Study on numerical simulation of organic pollutant transport in groundwater northwest of Laixi. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 6(4): 106-1114. [27] Zienkiewicz OC, Morgan K. 1983. Finite Elements and Approximation. Academic Press. [28] Zlotnik VA, Logan J D. 1996. Boundary Conditions for Convergent Radial Tracer Tests and Effect of Well Bore Mixing Volume. Papers in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences: 159. -
Access History
Figures(13)
Tables(2)
Export File
Citation
Nguyen Van Hoang. 2021. Determination of groundwater solute transport parameters in finite element modelling using tracer injection and withdrawal testing data. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9(4): 292-303. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.003
Format
Content
DownLoad:
-
Figure 1.
Location map of the study area
-
Figure 2.
Testing wells' scheme, location and Pleistocene aquifer on fresh-brackish boundary
-
Figure 3.
Hydrogeological section through the testing wells
-
Figure 4.
Well log of central well CHN5
-
Figure 5.
GW TDS in the injection well
-
Figure 6.
TDS of the pumped out GW
-
Figure 7.
GW flow through the injection well section
-
Figure 8.
Breakthrough curves of TDS in injection and pumping wells
-
Figure 9.
The transformation of absolute solute concentration into normalized solute concentration
-
Figure 10.
Drawdown curve of the pumping well QS-5A 13 (Tong Thanh Tung, 2015)
-
Figure 11.
The average least squares and corresponding effective porosity and longitudinal dispersivity
-
Figure 12.
Absolute solute concentration in the pumped GW and outside the pumping well screen corresponding to the minimal least squares
-
Figure 13.
Normalized solute concentration in the pumped GW and outside the pumping well screen corresponding to the minimal least squares