کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
4576890 | 1629984 | 2012 | 19 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
SummaryFive modelling approaches were tested against a well-studied limestone aquifer constituting the Hydrogeological Experimental Site (HES) of Poitiers, France. The modelling exercise consisted of predicting the drawdown responses of a series of observation wells for two dipole (pumping–injection) flow experiments involving two distinct well pairs at the HES. The differences between model predictions appear to be mainly related to the hydraulic datasets used for model parameterisation and, to a much lesser extent, to the conceptual modelling approach (equivalent porous medium vs. discrete fracture networks), the model dimensionality (two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional), and/or the parameterisation approach (forward vs. inverse). Despite the abundance and diversity of calibration/parameterisation data, all of the models failed to predict the drawdowns with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Only the order of magnitude of the drawdowns was correctly predicted by three of the five models, whereas all models failed to predict the drawdown behaviour at both intermediate and late times. The primary source of error is attributed to a lack of information in the single-well pumping test data, which did not capture the multi-permeability structure of the aquifer as revealed a posteriori by the responses to dipole flow experiments. This highlights the need to develop novel (or improved) approaches to characterise the hydraulic properties of limestone aquifers.
► Five modelling approaches were tested against a well-studied limestone aquifer.
► Drawdown responses to dipole (pumping/reinjection) pumping tests had to be predicted.
► Differences between model predictions were controlled by parameterisation data.
► Only the order of magnitude of the drawdowns was correctly predicted.
► Single-well pumping test data did not capture the multi-permeability structure of the aquifer.
Journal: Journal of Hydrology - Volumes 454–455, 6 August 2012, Pages 82–100