12 views

Uploaded by Mahatab Hasan

A research article

- chapter 2
- Hydraulic Design Series No
- Assignment
- 640-4693-1-PB.pdf
- Permeability and Seepaage
- 52860284 the Hydraulic Gradient
- Pump.pdf
- One Meter to Find Them All
- transicion.docx
- OPTIMIZED AQUIFER MANAGEMENT,USING LINEAR PROGRAMMING.
- 149_Eow2007fullpaper.pdf
- Chapter 2 Incompressible Flow Through Pipes
- 3 Minor Losses
- HVAC lecture part 6
- Pipe Networks
- NE-ENG-76
- Wisconsin-dry-hydrants
- ENGR451 Notes 1 Winter 2019.pdf
- Design of Drip Irrigation System
- noman 125

You are on page 1of 15

RESOURCES

RESEARCH,

VOL.28,NO.12,PAGES

3293-3307,

DECEMBER

1992

FieldStudyof Dispersion

in a Heterogeneous

Aquifer

2. SpatialMomentsAnalysis

E. Emc ADAMSAND LYNN W. GELHAR

Department

ofCivilEngineering,

Massachusetts

Institute

of Technology,

Cambridge

Analysis

isperformedofa 20-month natural

gradienttracerstudy inthesaturated

zoneofa highly

heterogeneousaquifer.

Graphicalpresentation

of concentrationdistributions

versustimeandspatial

moments analysis

reveal

dramatically

non-Gaussianbehavioranda systematic

massloss.Implications

of themasslossonplume momentsisanalyzedthrough sensitivity

studies.

Themoments dataare

interpreted

by applying

twosimple models:(1) pureadvection froma continuous source,and(2)

advection

plusdispersionina converging

nonuniformflowfield.A longitudinal

dispersivity

of5-10m

isestimated

fromthelattermodelandissomewhat largerthanthevalueof about1.5m calculated

by

Rehfeldtet al. (thisissue)usingthe stochastic

theoryof Gelharand Axness(1983)basedon

independentmeasurements ofthespatialvariation

ofhydraulic

conductivity.

Thedispersivity

of5-!0

misanorderofmagnitude larger

thanvaluesmeasured atrecently

studied

fieldsites(Borden

andCape

Cod)withlessheterogeneity, butan orderof magnitude lowerthanwouldbe computed fromthe

momentsdata if the flow is presumedto be uniform.

consiststypically of poorly sorted to well-sorted sandy

The purposehereis to describethe analysisandinterpre- gravel and gravelly sand with minor amounts of silt and clay

tation of a natural gradient saturatedzone tracer test involv-

[Rehfeldt et al., 1989]. The aquifer overlies the Eutaw

ing a limited area pulseinjection.The study,referredto as aquitardwhoseupperelevationvariesfromabout55to 52 m

MADE 1 (firstmacrodispersion experiment),wasperformed msl, while the local grade varies from about 67 to 65 m msl.

at the site of the Columbus Air Force Base (CAFB) in The local water table varies seasonally from a low of about

northeasternMississippi.The overallgoalof the fieldexper- 61 m in late fall to a high of 63-65 m in late winter or early

imentation was to test the validity and practicality of re-

spring.

cently developed stochastictheories [e.g., Gelhar and Ax-

Gravimetric and volumetric analyses from four cores

ness, 1983; Dagan, 1984] which describe field-scale

indicate a gradual decreasein porosity with elevation within

dispersivemixing in heterogeneousaquifers.The Columbus

the aquifer. The average porosity and standard deviation

site is particularly interestingbecauseof the high degreeof

from 84 core segments were 0.31 and 0.08, respectively

heterogeneity and the large-scale variations in hydraulic

[Boggset al., 1990, this issue]. Because of potential consol-

conductivity. A primary objective is the evaluationof the

idation during core extraction, the mean may be a lower

macrodispersivityas it is influencedby the large-scaleflow

bound and subsequentanalysis assumesa porosity of n =

nonuniformity at this site. 0.35.

In the tracer test, conducted between October 1986 and

Severalaquifertestsprovide globalestimatesfor horizon-

June1988,10m3 of tracersolution wasinjected through five

tal and vertical hydraulicconductivitiesK h and Kv [Boggs

closelyspacedinjectionwells over a periodof 48 hours.The

et al., 1990].For the site as a whole, test AT2 (with pumping

screenedinterval of the tracer injectionwells was about0.6

well located approximately 60 m downgradient from the

m, between elevations 57 and 58 m msl. Figure 1 shows a

localinjection site;seeFigure1) impliesKh '-'-2 X 10-2

planview of the site identifyingthe point of tracerinjection

as well as locations of the multilevel samplers,borehole

crn/s and K v = 2.8 x 10-3 crn/s. Thetracerinjection serves

as a more local aquifer test indicating that, within a distance

flowmeter wells used for determininghydraulic conductiv-

of 20-30m downgradient of theinjection, Kn = 2.6 x 10-3

ity, and observationwells usedfor measuringpiezometric crn/sor almost 1 order of magnitudelower than that given by

head.The injectedsolutionincludeda total of seventracers, AT2.

but manyof thesewere exploratoryin natureandthe only Also of importanceto the tracer study is the strongspatial

onethat hasbeenanalyzedin detailis bromide.The injected variability in hydraulic conductivity, which can be expected

massof bromidewas 25 kg, resultingin an injectionconcen- to produce strongmacrodispersioneffects [Gelhar and Ax-

tration of 2500 mg/L (ppm). hess,1983;

Dagan,1984;Gelharetal., 1992].Thevariabilit'Y

at the Columbus site is greater than at other intensively

Site Characterization studied field sites including Otis Air Force Base on Cape

Cod, Massachusetts [LeBlanc et al., 1991] and the Borden

Detaileddescriptions of thesitefeatures

aredeveloped by landfill in Ontario [Sudicky, 1986]. Figure 2 displays thi

Boggset al. [1990,thisissue];thefocushereis onthemain heterogeneityin terms of contours of hydraulic conductivity,

featurespertinen.

t to interpretationof thetracertest.The along the longitudinal-vertical section A-A' identified in

aquiferis an alluvialterracedepositassociated with the Figure 1. Hydraulic conductivity was computed from bore-

Copyright1992by theAmerican GeophysicalUnion. hole flowmeter rates following procedures outlined by Reh-

Papernumber 92WR01757. feldt et al. [1989]. Figure 2 suggestsan increasingtrend in

0043-1397/92/92WR-01757505.00 conductivity with elevation above the aquitard and with

3293

3294 ADAMSANDGELHA_R:

FIELDSTUDYOFDISPERSION

IN A HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,2

o FLONMETER

&

pumpingwell, and tracer injection.

distancedowngradient from the injection, until about 150 m decreasein massrecovery and severalpossibleexplanations

at which point the longitudinaltrend reverses.Note that the of the mass underecovery are discussed. The sensitivity of

injectionis locatedin a regionof comparativelylow hydrau- the moments estimates to mass loss errors is then demon-

lic conductivity, which is consistentwith the previously stratedby analyzingseveral different plume extrapolations.

mentioned aquifer tests. Analysis of 2187 hydraulic conduc- The moments information is interpreted by applying two

tivity measurementsfrom 49 test wells givesa meanestimate differenttransportmodels:(1) pure advectionfrom a contin-

for the variance in the natural log of K (undetrended)of 4.5 uous source and (2) advection and dispersion in a nonuni-

[Boggs et al., 1990]. form flow field. The advection-dispersionmodel is usedto

Contours of head are shown in Figure 3 based on the estimatethe longitudinal dispersivity.

observation wells shown in Figure 1. Shallow wells are

screenedover elevationsof about 60-61 m and deep wells

are screened at an elevation of about 56 m msl. The head TRACER CONCENTRATIONS

data imply flow toward regions of high hydraulicconductiv- Bromide was sampledusing an array of multilevel sam-

ity, resultingin horizontalconvergenceand verticallyup- plers (MLS). Although severaldifferent designsand methods

ward flow over the first 100-200 m downgradientfrom the of installation were used, most MLS contained about 25

injection.

portswith a typical vertical spacingof 0.38 m extendingover

Considerable additional data have been collected at the

a vertical interval of about 54-62 m msl. The array was

CAFB sitewith particularemphasis

on characterizing

spatial extendeddowngradientas the experimentprogressedand

variability of hydraulic conductivity. Data include results the 189 MLS sampledduring the last two "snapshots" are

from slugtests,double-packertests,lab permeameter tests, shown in Figure 1.

grainsizeanalyses,varioussurfacegeophysicalstudies,and The basicarray was sampledduringeight surveysor "snap-

boreholegeophysicallogs [Boggset al., 1990]. shots," extendingover a period of about 600 days from the

time of injection(seeTable 1). Samplingconsistedof withdraw-

Scope

ing equal quantitiesof fluid from each port with a portable

The analysisof the tracer experimentis developedfirst peristalticpump.A typicalsurveytook 2 or 3 days.Collected

throughgraphicalpresentationswhich displayoverall fea- samples werethentransportedto the TVA LaboratoryBranch

tures of the concentration distribution as it evolves. The (Chattanooga,

Tennessee)and analyzedby high-pressure liq-

spatial moments of the concentration are then estimated uidchromatography (HPLC). It shouldbe notedthat not all of

fromthe actualconcentration

datausinga linearinterpola- the samplesfor snapshot8 (elapsedtime - 594 days) were

tion scheme.The 0th momentanalysisrevealsa systematic analyzed; data that were analyzed are limited to the plume

ADAMS

ANDGELHAR:

FIELD

STUDY

OFDISPERSION

INA HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2 3295

A ,

I I

84

INJECTION

SITE

60

SB

m 54

S0

4B

tO- < K < 10e i'-: 18-4 < K < /0 -9

ili 10-2 < K < 10-' K < [0 -4 Icmls) FLON

46

1

-2O 2B0

E)i.,:;-!:anc (rn)

denote measurementsof hydraulic conductivity usingborehole flowmeter.

centerline and the downgradient region composedof MLS to be irregular and patchy with a persistent minimum lbr all

installed subsequentto snapshot 7. Details concerningthe snapshotsat a distance of about 25 m downgradient. The

samplingand chemical analysis are describedby Betsonet al. concentration downstream from the peak should decrease

[1985]and Boggs et al. [this issue]. monotonically in the direction of flow, suggestingthat even

with the rather dense sampling network, some details of the

Horizontal Data Presentation concentration distribution were not being captured.

Figures 5a-Sd display tracer concentrations (parts per

Figures 4a-4h display contours in the horizontal plane of

million) in four horizontal slices for "snapshot 7" which was

depth-maximum bromide concentration in units of milli-

sampledapproximately 500 days after the injection and is the

gramsper liter (parts per million) for each of the eight snap-

last snapshotto be analyzed completely. Because they are at

shots.Contours were generatedby linear interpolationafter

fixed elevations, the contours in Figure 5 show even more

triangulatingthe horizontal coordinatesof the MLS array. In

order to account for tracer mass on the MLS (lateral) bound- patchinessthan the contours of depth-maximum concentra-

aries,the plume was extrapolatedby addinga set of fictitious tion shown in Figure 4.

zero-concentration MLS at a prescribeddistance(the typical Finally, Figure 5e shows depth-integrated contours (units

MLS spacingof 6 m) from the outsideof the array. of ppm m) for the same snapshot. Vertical integration

For each snapshotthe downgradientextent of the MLS assumes a porosity of 0.35 and, to account for any finite

array at the time of samplingis indicatedby an arrow. The concentration at the top and bottom of the MLS array, the

finite concentrations recorded at the edge of the array plume was extrapolated by adding fictitious zero concentra-

suggestthat the tracer hasmigratedpastthe MLS array in all tion ports above and below the uppermost and lowermost

cases.Uncertainty associatedwith plumetruncationis dis- ports, respectively, of each MLS. The top zero-concentra-

cussedin a following section. tion port was located either 0.38 m above the top port (0.38

Figure 4 suggeststhat the plume was transportedessen- m is the vertical port spacing) or at elevation 61.5 m (the

tially downgradientwith substantiallateral spreading.The approximate elevation of the water table), whichever was

overalldilution of the plume was very rapid, reflectingthe higher. The lower zero-concentration port was located either

strongdispersivemixingin thisvery heterogeneous material. 0.38 m below the bottom port or at elevation 53.5 m (the

In 500 daysthe maximumconcentration detecteddecreased approximate elevation of the aquitard), whichever was

from2500to 99 ppm,thoughthe peakmovedlessthan10m lower. Sensitivity of plume calculations to horizontal and

fromthe injectionpoint(seeFigure49). The plumetended vertical extrapolationis discussedin the following section

3296 ADAMSANDGELHAR:FIELDSTUDYOFDISPERSION

IN A HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,2

s o

MLS

400

N

Boundary

35O

300

250

6?' .6

Injection Point

200

150

`50 1 O0 150 200 250 0 $0 1 O0 1.50 200 250

meters meters

surveys.Symbolsdenotepiezometerlocations.

Figures 6a-6h show concentration contours along the

soonerand the peak concentrationsare much higher for the

longitudinal-vertical section I-I' shown in Figure 1. These sampleddistributionsthan for the "equivalent" Gaussian

distribution. This observation suggestssome obvious limita-

figures again show the extreme patchinessas well as the

plume's tendency to migrate upward and spreadthrough tions of applying a traditional second-momentanalysisto

regionsof highesthydraulic conductivity. characterize plume dispersionat this site.

Longitudinal Mass Distribution

Spatialmomentswere computedfor each snapshotusing

Figures 7a-7 plot the longitudinaldistributionof total the definition

massfor snapshots2-7 usinga longitudinal" stepsize" of 10

m. In each case the distribution was normalized by the

amount of mass recovered (i.e., the area under each curve is

unity) and a Gaussiandistribution with similar 0th, 1st, and

2nd longitudinal moments has been superimposedfor com- where c(x, y, z) is the sampledconcentration,n is porosity

parison. These figures confirm that, after snapshot3, the (assumedequal to 0.35), and i,j,k are nonnegative integers.

plumeis stronglynon-Gaussian,with a long front of reason- The moments algorithm is essentially as described by Gara-

ably uniform massdensity leading a very slow movingcore bedian et al. [199!] and involves first a vertical integrationat

region. By snapshot7 (elapsedtime - 503 days) approxi- each MLS, assuminglinear interpolation of concentration

mately 50% of the recovered mass remained in the core betweenports, followedby horizontalintegration,assuming

(definedby a downgradientdistancelessthan 20 m) and the linear interpolation over a triangulated domain. Zero-

peak of the massdistributionhad migratedonly about 5 m, concentration ports were included along the top, bottom,

representinga velocity of about 0.01 m/d. By contrast,the andsidesof the MLS array, as describedpreviously.Famil-

leading edge was moving at a rate of greater than 0.4 m/d iar plumepropertiessuchas centerof mass(, y, z-) and

based on the fact that significant tracer was found at the spatialsecond-centralmomenttensorwere then computed

farthestdowngradientMLS (- 250 m from injection)during from the moments.Note that calculationswere performed

snapshot8 (elapsedtime - 594 days). alongfixed Cartesianaxes x, y, z (see Figure 1), and then

Two important characteristicsof a contaminantplumeare transformedto principalaxesby diagonalizing the second-

the arrival time of significantconcentrations(at the leading moment matrix of the plume. Plume characteristicsare

edge) and the magnitude of peak concentration.Note that describedin Table 1, which also summarizesadditional

ADAMS

AND

GELHAR:

FIELD

STUDY

OFDISPERSION

INAHETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2 3297

, . . . a)Snapshot

1(day

9;cm= 2050

ppm) . .

a) 61meters

b) 60meters

b)Snapshot

2 (day

49;cax

= 1200)

c) 59meters

*<:1 c)Snapshot

3(day

126;

c.sx

= 350)

d) 58meters

. . d)Snapshot

4 (day

202;

cx= 240)

Fig. 5. Tracerconcentration

in horizontalplanefor snapshot

7.

Fiduciarymarksare spacedevery 20 m. (a-d) Contoursof constant

concentration(parts per million). (e) Depth-integratedconcentra-

.. e)

Snapshot

5(day

279;

cax

=210) tion (ppm m) assumingporosityequal to 0.35. Plotted contoursare

0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30, etc.

..... .i

. '

........

f]Snapshot

6(day

370;

c,,x

=130)

analyzed,

the

maximum

observed

concentra

(both

with and without spatial filtering), and the maximum concentra-

tion of an equivalent Gaussian distribution.

....... ' ..... concentrations

versus

mum concentration time.In

observed, addition

two tothe

spatially actual

filtered maxi-

maxima

...... aregiven.Filter 1 refersto a uniformspatialaverageof all

...... sample points within a horizontal distance of 5 m and a

$ )Snap,hot

*(ay

s03;

c,,==

0) vertical

distance

of0.5mofa given

port;

filter2 issimilar

exceptthe horizontaldistanceis 10 m and the vertical

........... distance

is 1.0 m. In the first casebetween5 and 10points

typically

contribute

tothe

average,

while

inthe

second

case

between40 and50pointscontributeto theaverage.It canbe

' ' seen

thatevenwiththelarger

filterinterval,

observed

peak

h)Shayshot

(aay

S4;

, =0.(y>S0m)) concentrations

aftersnapshot

2 aresignificantly

greater

than

............... the equivalentGaussianpeaks,confirmingthe earlierobser-

. ............ ,. vation

based

onlongitudinal

mass

distribution.

Fig.4. Horizontal

contours

ofdepth-maximum

concentration

Fractional

MassRecovery

(partsper million)for snapshots

1-8. Fiduciarymarksare spaced

every20 m. Overallmaximum

concentrations

are indicated

in Figure9 showsfractionalmassrecoveryversustime. In

parentheses.

Arrows

indicate

maximum

length

ofMLSarray.

Note addition

to thebasecaseestimate

of porosity

(n = 0.35),

that

analysis

forsnapshot

8isincomplete

fory 150m.Plottedcalculations

arealso

plotted

forn = 0.3and0.4.Notethat

contours

are

0.3,

!,3,10,

30,etc. calculations

havealso

been

made

forsnapshot

8 (elapsed

3298 ADAMS AND GELHAR: FIELD STUDY OF DISPERSIONIN A HETEROGENEOUSAQUIFER, 2

were analyzed, this estimate was made by adding the mass

recovered during snapshot 8 from the downgradient MLS

added after snapshot7 to a "discounted" mass associated

with snapshot7. The "discount" was 76% basedon the ratio

Snapshot

1

of averageconcentrationsfrom MLS analyzed duringboth

snapshots7 and 8. Inclusion of results for snapshot8

indicatesthat the major expansionof the MLS array be-

tween snapshots7 and 8 has increasedmass recovery

somewhat.Nevertheless,the generalpatternof decreasing

massrecovery with time persists. In early snapshots,mass

recoveryexceeds100%, while with successivesnapshots,

b) Snapshot

2

massrecovery declinesmonotonically, being about 100% at

snapshot3 and decliningto less than 50% at snapshot7.

The excessivemassrecovery in early snapshotscould be

due to spurioushydraulic connection among MLS, due to

their methodof installationand enhancedby the pressureof

injection.This possibilityis examinedin greaterdetailby

Boggs and Young [1988], who describe results of some field

c) Snapshot

3 tests of MLS conductedprior to tracer injection. It is also

probablethat the injected tracer solution was initially con-

centrated in regions of relatively high local hydraulic con-

ductivity. To the extent the MLS samplepreferentiallyfrom

thoseregions,while the spatialintegrationusedto compute

massrecovery assumesuniform tracer concentration, initial

mass recovery would be overestimated.

d) Snapshot

4

The subsequentdecrease in mass recovery to levels far

lessthan 100% is consideredto be a greater concern because

it affects our interpretation of the plume at longer and more

environmentally relevant time scales. It should, however, be

recognized that a similar degree of mass loss was found in

the caseof the Bordentracer experiment[Freyberg, 1986].A

recent reanalysisof the Borden data [Rajaram and Gelhat,

e) Snapshot

5 1991] shows mass recoveries as low as 50% in the later

samplingsessions.Several possibilitieswere explored to

20 m addressthe issue of declining mass recovery; each is dis-

cussedbriefly below.

2m["' Horizontal plume truncation. As illustratedin Figure 4,

the leadingedgeof the plume is truncatedin all surveys.This

clearly results in some mass loss, and indeed it may be the

f) Snapshot

6

most important factor in the mass loss. On the other hand,

because only small amounts of tracer were detected along

the lateral and upstreamedgesof the MLS array, especially

duringthe later snapshots,one can concludethat horizontal

truncationwas primarily limited to the downgradientdirec-

tion. Estimatesof truncationlosscan be madeby estimating

the likely rangeof solutevelocityand then extrapolatingthe

g) Snapshot

7 plume downgradient based on observed mass densities at the

leading edge. Solute velocity can be estimated from mea-

surementsof hydraulic conductivity and the gradient of

piezometric head, but such estimates are weakened by the

largespatialvariability in K, especiallywhen consideringthe

maximum solute velocity which would define the leading

edge.

Alternatively, solutevelocity can be estimatedby noting

the relative increase/decreasein mass recovery between

successivesurveys as a function of the increase in MLS

h) Snapshot

8 coverage. For example, between snapshots7 and 8 (an

Fig. 6. Contours of tracer concentration(parts per million) elapsedtime of 91 days) the MLS array was extendedby

alongplume centerline(sectionI-I' in Figure 1). Horizontal scaleis about 100 m, while the mass recovery increasedfrom 43 to

same as Figures 4 and 5. Vertical scale is distorted !0X. Plotted 48% of injectedmass.Assuminga massdensityof 0.00175

contours are 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30, etc.

m- attheleading

edge(seeFigure7), a massbalance

based

on a movingcontrolvolumesuggests

a solutevelocityof

ADAMS

ANDGELHAR:

FIELD

STUDY

OFDISPERSION

INAHETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2 3299

08

I. 0.136 GAUSS

o

.

o

o.o ]

.0.03 z

0.03

0J32

O.O O.ol

,,,I,,, , i,, ,,ll,, , i,, ,i,,,, i,, i o.oo -

0.O(0400

-50 0 50 100150200250300 -lOO -5o o 50 lOO 150 330 IOO

Longitudinal

Distance

(meters) Longitudinal

Distance

(metere)

a) Snapsiot

' (dy49) d) Snapshot

5 (day279)

0.08

O.O7 DATA

o

"----g

ATAI

.....

1 GAUSS 0.136 GAUSS

o

0.O4 0.o4

.N

om 0.(:13

0J32

0.01

0ffi ,,,lil,,llll&l,,,

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 20O -lOO -50 o 50 1Do 15o 330

b3ngitudinal

Distance

(mete's) b3ngiludinal

Distan (meters)

b)Snapshot

3 (day126) e) Snapshot

6 (day370)

0.(38

0.08 0.06 ..... GAU

0.O4 o.

' o.a

o.

O.Ol

-100 -50 0 513 1 150 200

Lor Distance

(meters) i Da (

c) Snapshot

4 (day202) Snarehot7 (day3)

400m throughsnapshot7. Sincethe arraylengthwas only as +2% for snapshot 7. The differencein sensitivitymaybe

160m, about 40% of the injectedmasscould have been due to the differencein water table elevation.Snapshot6

transporteddowngradientof the array. Similar calculations took placeduringearlyNovember, at a time of low ground-

basedonsnapshots 6 and7 suggest a solutevelocityof about water level, while snapshot7 occurredin mid-March, with

0.9 m/d leadingto a truncationloss of about 50% as of near-maximum water levels. The infiltration of fresh water

snapshot7. duringthe latter survey most likely resultedin lower con-

Vertical plume truncation. Nonzero concentrations centrationsat the upper ports.

were often observedat the uppermostport of many MLS Vadosezone concentrations. During the winter of 1987/

andoccasiohally at the lowermost. This effectwasac- 1988, nine cores were collected and analyzed for tracer

countedfor by an extrapolationproceduredescribedprevi- mass. The spatially integrated concentration was less than

ously.Sensitivitytests,designedto gaugethe uncertaintyin 2% of the injectedmass, suggestingthat this was not an

thisprocedure,suggest

anuncertainty

in massrecoveryof as important source.

3300 ADAMS AND GELHAlt.:FIELD STUDY OF DISPERSION

IN A HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER, 2

Snapshot

Characteristic 2 3 4 5 6 7

Numberof MLS analyzed 61 102 124 128 139 162

Fractionalmassrecovery* 2.06 0.99 0.68 0.62 0.54 0.43

Center of mass,? m

. 0.12 -2.91 -3.50 -4.15 -5.56 -14.1

37 3.54 8.20 11.3 14.! 18.1 43.2

58.14 58.82 58.52 58.48 58.53 59.03

Mean displacement,m

hor 3.54 8.70 11.8 14.7 18.9 45.6

/.ver 0.64 1.32 1.02 0.98 1.03 1.53

Variances

alongprincipal

axes,m2

2680

crl 38.8 131 170 304 520 79.9

o'_

cry3

19.2 22.5

3.21 3.26

15.0

2.78

17.0

2.73

23.1

3.06 2.94

Orientationof principalaxes, deg -29.6 19.5 15.1 16.2 17.7 18.0

counterclockwise from local y

Maximum observed concentration, ppm

No filter 1200 440 240 210 130 99

Ah = 5 m; Av = 0.5 m 320 146 89.8 67.8 54.7 30.0

Ah = 10 m; Av = 1.0 m !67 83.9 44.7 38.4 30.4 19.5

"Equivalent" Gaussiandistribution 181 45.8 36.8 23.7 12.7 2.44

?Origintaken as point of injection (x, y) and mean sea level (z).

Uncertainty in porosity. The mean porosity measured throughsnapshot6, between five and seven of the MLS each

from 84 core segmentswas 0.31 and, to accountfor potential contributedover 5% of the recovered mass. Sensitivity tests

consolidationduring handling, an estimatedporosity of 0.35 in which certain MLS were omitted from the spatial inter-

was chosen. Experience at other sites and the measured polationshowedvariation of order 5% in massrecovery. In

standard deviation of 0.08 suggestan uncertainty in n of responseto this concern, 14 additional MLS were added to

order +0.05, which translates to about a 15% uncertaintyin the interior of the array (within 30 m from the point of

mass recovery. injection) between snapshots 6 and 7. In the analysis of

Concentrations below detection level. The reported de- snapshot 7, only one MLS contributed over 5% of the

tection level for the HPLC analysis of bromide was 0.01 recovered mass. While this increased our confidence regard-

ppm. As the plume grew larger and average concentration ing horizontal resolution, it raised another serious concern:

decreased, the possibility was raised that calculated mass The newly installed MLS had consistently lower concentra-

recovery was influenced by the assumptionthat measure- tion than neighboringolder MLS. Compared with a mass

ments below detection were rounded to zero. However, a recovery of 43% with all MLS, the recovery calculated

calculation made for snapshot 7 in which concentrations without the new MLS was 47%, or a relative increase of 9%.

below detection were rounded up to 0.01 ppm showedan This suggests the possibility of sampler bias, which is

increasein massrecovery of lessthan 0.5% of injectedmass, explored further below.

suggestingthat this was not a significant source of uncer- MLS bias. There are several mechanisms that could

tainty. contribute to an undersamplingof plume mass by an indi-

Horizontal MLS resolution. The high variabilityin aqui- vidual MLS. First, there is some suggestionof a negative

fer properties and observed tracer concentrationraised the correlationbetween tracer concentrationand hydraulic con-

possibilitythat the MLS spacingwas insufficientto resolve ductivity, especiallyin the more concentratedregions of the

plume features. This concern was reinforcedby the fact that plume. Assumingthat each MLS port draws preferentially

E] CMAX(Filter1) 1, - - -n=0.35

lO

3

ooo

o CMAX(Filter2)

CMAX(Gauss) ._. l?,,, n=0.30

, 102

E

:3 101

._

Elapsed

Time(days) Elapsed

Time(days)

Fig. 8. Peakconcentration

versustime. Fig. 9. Fractional

massrecoveryversustime.

ADAMS

ANDGELHAR:

FIELDSTUDY

OFDISPERSION

INAHETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2 3301

fromregionsof highestlocalconductivity

suggests

anunder-

sampling

for tracer mass. Concentrationwould be lower in ,.:! Fob

s(x)

themorehighlyconductive region,andby a marginthat .. - .... Fscaled(X)

increases

with time, becausethe morehighlyconductive

regions

are more easilyflushed.Second,breakthrough

curvesfor laboratory columns show some retardationof

bromide

relativeto a conservative

reference

tracer(tritium).

Theseobservationsare explainedby the attractionof the

anionic

tracer(bromide)to thepositivelycharged

ironoxide

surface

expectedat the low sitevaluesof pH. Calculations I I

basedon these column tests suggestthat about 19% of the Xl X2longitudinal

distance

injectedtracer may be associatedwith solidsand hence Fig. 11. Hypotheticallongitudinalmass distributionused in sen-

unavailableto be sampled [BoggsandAdams,thisissue].In sitivity studiesof plume truncation errors.

combination withmatrixdiffusion, sorptioncouldalsohelp

explainthehighinitialmassrecoveryandtheslowresponse

time,in additionto the low equilibriumrecovery[Goltzand dinalvariance ((r]2)appears to growat an accelerated

rate

Roberts, 1987]. whilecrY2

(essentially

the lateralvariance)increases

in a

Further evidence for these mechanismsis found in com- moregradual(andnonmonotonic) fashion,andcr33

(essen-

parisonsof tracer concentrations

analyzedfrom six seg- tially the vertical variance) shows little trend. One notes that

mentedcoresand correspondingMLS (eachabout 1 m from 0- maybesignificantly affectedby plumetruncation (tobe

itscompanioncore) duringOctober1988(approximately 2 discussed in greaterdetailbelow)whilecr22 and (r3are

yearsafter injection[Boggsand Adams,this issue]).For expected to be much less affected.

eachcore segment,fluid wasfirst extractedat a pressureof

0.5 bar and then additional fluid was extracted at 5 bar. MOMENTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Concentrationsof fluidextractedat the lowerpressurewere From the preceding discussion it is clear that the plume

significantly

lower than those of corresponding fluid ex-

has been truncated longitudinally, and that a major portion

tractedat the higher pressure. In addition, for some of the

of the "missing mass" could be downgradient of the MLS

segments, tracer was chemicallyextracted;in general,con-

array. It is also probable that some of the missing mass

centrationcomputed for these segmentswas greater still.

resideswithin the samplingarray, but is simply being under-

Takenas a whole, the average ratio of tracer massextracted

sampled. The following sensitivity study examines how our

by the MLS to that extracted from the cores (using a

interpretationof plume shape (i.e., the longitudinal spatial

weightedaverageof concentrationfrom the two pressures) moments) varies with different assumptions concerning

was0.79. If accountis taken of the finite separationbetween these two sources of missing mass.

coreand correspondingMLS, usingconcentrationgradients Consider a longitudinal mass distribution as shown in

obtainedin snapshot7 (sampled9 monthsearlier), the ratio Figure 11. The longitudinal coordinate is x and, unlike the

was 0.62. Assuming that none of the sorbed tracer was

distributionsshown in Figure 7, the solid line in Figure 11

removedby the pressureextraction,we can multiplythese representsthe mass actually sampled, based on an assumed

ratiosby 0.81 (the fractionof unsorbedtracerimpliedby the porosity of n = 0.35. That is, the area under the curve

columntests)to estimateratiosof tracermassextractableby

equalsthe fractional mass recovery for the snapshot,as

theMLS to that within the core (sorbedplus liquid phase) summarizedin Table 1. The longitudinalextent of the array

rangingfrom 0.64 to 0.50. The implied MLS bias of 50-100%

is givenby x 1, andthe dottedline over the intervalx -< x 1

couldcertainlyaccountfor a significantportionof the mass represents an assumed scaled mass distribution, which is

loss.

linearly proportionalto the observed distribution. The scaled

distributionis relatedto the observeddistributionaccording

Spatial Variances to

0.35

or verticalplumetruncationand n is an assumedporosity.

1ongitudinal The scaledfractional mass recovery is thus related to the

2.5 -- -lateral.10

- - -vert

"observed"massrecovery(Table 1) accordingto

- zo

n

0.35

o downgradient

overa distance

xaa= x2 - x , witha uniform

.- ,'----,I , ,',, I .... I .... I .... density

which

isextrapolated

fromtheobserved

density

faa

oo lO 20 30 40 50 near the end of the array:

MeanDisplacement

(meters)

n

Fig. 10. Variancesalongprincipalaxesversusmeandisplace-

ment. fsca,dg

=fdgSUF0.3-'- (4)

3302 ADAMS AND GELHA.R:FIELD STUDY OF DISPERSIONIN A HETEROGENEOUSAQUIFER, 2

": ''"" "

,.

"*' ' ' 0

";;....'--......

;.";'..... ., ...... o

i.OI

....

0

i....

I....

t,.,l,,,,i,,,,

100

....

2120 300

Time(days)

400 500 8[ 70o

'% ,,,.

,"

' .."'1 ":"

o...

150 '" "/ '.:' \ ', '.

. ....:....

Time(days) ma (days)

b) Meandisp4acement

vs.time a) Ks rs. ame

...,, -

'.:.,:-:.-

' .:-':

;-' '

o .:. ::',L..:, .... , ......... 0 I .... i .... l.,,,il,,,

0 100 2ffi3oo 4oo 500 0 70o 0 lOO 200 3o 4oo

Time(days) MeanDispacemet

(meters)

c) Standard

deviation

va,dine

f) Variance

rs. meandispacement

moments to uncertainties

in porosity

(n = 0.35 _ 0.05) andMLS bias(SUF =

1.3+ 0.3).Solidlinesrepresent basecase(n = 0.35, SUF = !.3), longdashes representsensitivity

to porosity

(n =

0.30, 0.40 withSUF = 1.3),shortdashes representsensitivity

to MLS bias(SUF = 1.0, 1.6withn = 0.35), dots

representjoint variation(n = 0.3, SUF -- 1.0;n = 0.4, SUF = 1.6),andcirclesrepresentthecaseof no truncation

error.

such that

1.3 representsa best estimateof parametersand the varia-

tion representsour estimate of uncertainty based on the

Xctafsca,dg

= 1 -- Fsca (5) precedingdiscussion. An additionalrun was madeby select-

(Seedashed

lineinFigure

11.)Asa reference,

a value

offag ing SUF for each snapshotto be as large as necessarysuch

equalto 0.00175

m- waschosen

byextrapolating

themass thatxaain (5) waszero(i.e., no longitudinal

plumetrunca-

distributionfor snapshot7 (Figure7f). tion). Resultsare plottedin Figures12a-12f where, in each

A setof ninemomentscalculations wasperformed usinga case,the solidline representsthe basecase(n = 0.35, SUF

matrixof n = 0.30, 0.35, and 0.40 andSUF = 1.0, 1.3, 1.6. = 1.3), long dashesrepresentsensitivityto porosity(n =

The central(basecase)combinationof n = 0.35 and SUF = 0.30, 0.40 with SUF = 1.3), shortdashesrepresentsensi-

ADAMS

ANDGELHAR:

FIELDSTUDY

OFDISPERSION

IN A HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2 3303

tivityto MLS bias (SUF = 1.0, 1.6 with n = 0.35), dots I XBAR

representjoint variation(n = 0.3, SUF = 1.0; n = 0.4, / -SGX I

$UF = 1.6), and the circles represent the case of no

truncation

error.Resultsare shownfor all eightsnapshots, " / ..... KURTX'100

I

with the moments for snapshot8 estimatedfrom the concen-

trationssampled during snapshots7 and 8, as discussed 100

previously.

Figure12a showsthe inferredtotal plumelengthx2

comparedto the array lengthx (denotedby the circles),

plusthedowngradient

contribution

xaa.Notethat,for the

latersnapshots,

xaa represents

a substantial

portionof the ,

plumeunder all of the parametercombinations,but is 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

obviouslygreatestfor smallestporosityandleastMLS bias. Time

Underthe basecaseassumptions,

the totalplumelengthby a) Moments

versus

time

snapshot8 (ET = 594 days) would have been 430 m which

representsa velocity of about 0.7 m/d, comparedwith an

impliedvelocityof about0.4 m/d if therehadbeenno plume

truncation(x 2 = x = 260 m) and a velocity of over 1 rn/d

basedon the most conservativeassumptions. 15

Figures 12b- 12e displaythe time variationof the first four

longitudinalmoments, defined in terms of the central mo-

ments/xi given by

E 5

Mean displacement

0

= M/Mo (6) 0 50 100 150 200

MeanDisplacement

(meters)

Variance

b)Longitudinal

variance

vs.meandisplacement

2 2

2= 2 = M2/M-- M/M

O'x (7) Fig. 13. Moments evolution: observed data scaledwith base case

Skewness parameter assumptions.

3

o3

3 (8)

2orx 2orx

Kurtosis

given time vary substantially with parameter assumptions

4 (recall Figures 12b and 12c), their ratio is remarkably

1.5

constant. Under the assumption of a uniform flow field,

longitudinaldispersivityis defined simply as

M4/Mo-4M,M3/Mo

2+ 6M2M2/M-

3M/M

= 4

- 1.5 1 dcrx

2

2orx Al = (10)

2 d

(9)

Subsequent discussion will suggest that this is not a good

whereMi = Mi,0,0definedby (1). assumption,but it may be instructive to perform the calcu-

For and crx, the trends are the sameas for the total lation. Using (10), A increases initially with time for all

distributionlength: The same parameter combinationsthat parameterassumptionswhile at later times A varies less,

requirelong plume extrapolationresult in large values of displaying either a mild increase or decrease with time

meandisplacementand plume length. dependingon parameter assumptions. Through snapshot 8,

However, an oppositetrend is shownfor the third and the calculatedvalue ofA (using (10)) varies between about

fourth moments: Longitudinal skewnessand kurtosisare 50 m and 75 m depending on porosity and MLS bias.

greatestif there is no plumetruncation,and they declineas Several additional sensitivity runs were made with differ-

additionalmass is added downgradient.Althoughthe mag- entvaluesoffag andassumptions

concerning

theformof the

nitudes of both the skewhess and kurtosis vary with the downgradientmass distribution (e.g., a triangular distribu-

assumed variation in n and SUF, the variation in later tion rather than a uniform distribution). Although there were

snapshots is lessthanthe trendover time illustratedfor any quantitativedifferencesin computed moments, the trends in

singleparametercombination.For all parametercombina- momentevolution were within the range shown by the runs

tions, the skewnessfirst increaseswith time, reachinga presented above. In order that the field data can be com-

value of order unity and then graduallydecreasesto zero. pared with simple model predictions, discussedbelow, mo-

For most parametercombinations,the kurtosisalso in- mentsfor the scaleddata (usingbasecaseparametersof n =

creasesinitially, reachinga value as high as about 2, and 0.35 and SUF = 1.3) are replotted in Figure 13; Figure 13a

thendeclinestoward an equilibriumvalue of between-0.5 plots the first four momentsversus time while Figure 13b

and - 1. plotscq2

versus.In addition,Figure13a alsoplotsa

Figure 12f displayslongitudinalvariance versusmean transversestandard deviation defined by (0'220'33)

1/2

, using

displacement.

Whilethemagnitudes ofboth0-x2 andatany data presentedin Table 1 and Figure 10.

3304 ADAMSANDGELHA_R:

FIELD STUDYOFDISPERSION

IN A HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,2

,, ',, - - -SKEWX-100 / -'l

two simpletransportmodels are developed.It shouldbe ',, "., ..... KURTX.100

emphasizedthat the ultimate aim of this research is a 100

physicalunderstanding

of transportprocesses

which will

lead to a predictive model, capable of describingplume

0

characteristicsbased on independently measurableinput

parameters.However, our first stepis a simplediagnostic

model that attempts to explain the plume characteristics

based on likely (but not necessarilymeasurable)model 0 100 2130 300 400 500 600 700

Time(days)

inputs.

a) Moments

vs.time

ContinuousSource in a Uniform Flow Field 25 , , , ', I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' i ' ' '

a relatively tight formation and that by the end of the

experiment,much of the mass had remainedvery near the

injectionsite. (The peak moved about $ m in 500 days.)

Meanwhile,massappearedto have slowly "bled" from the

sourceand been transporteddowngradientat a rate up to 2

ordersof magnitudefaster. Hence our "model" is a contin-

uouspoint sourcereleasedinto a uniformflow field. Assume

a sourcelocated at the origin, discharginga unit of massover o

0 59 100 150 200

a period T at a constant rate th -- 1/T. Let the seepage MeanDisplacement

(meters)

velocity be u and neglect longitudinaldispersion.Lateral b)Longitudinal

variance

rs. mean

displacement

and vertical dispersionmay occur, but they do not affectthe

Fig. !4. Moments evolution: continuoussource model.

longitudinalmass distribution. Then the normalizedlongitu-

dinal mass distribution is given by

f(x)= 1- &(x)+

,

ur

O<x-<ut, t<r

(11)

source with no longitudinal dispersion. However, the as-

sumptionwas basedon the observationof a nearly uniform

f(x) =0 x> ut, t < r

mass distribution within the array and a comparison of the

suchthat $0 f(x) dx = 1. The ith longitudinalabsolute theoretical moments (Figure 14) with the observed moments

moment is without any extrapolation (circles in Figures 12b-12f) still

showsqualitative agreement. We conclude that the contin-

(uT)iri+l uous source/uniform flow field model provides a simple

Mi =

T

f(x)x i dx = i+1 (12)

overall description, if not a prediction, of observed plume

behavior.

where r = t/T.

Equations(6)-(9), (11), and (12) were used to computethe

Instantaneous Source in a Two-Dimensional

first four longitudinal moments for a continuous source

resemblingthe MADE 1 plume. Model parametersu = 0.55 Nonuniform Flow Field

rn/d and T = 660 days were estimatedfrom the observed The second model examines the influence of flow nonuni-

massrecovery during snapshots7 and 8. Model momentsare formity by consideringan instantaneousdischarge of unit

plotted in Figures 14a and 14b for comparisonwith the massat time t = 0 at the origin of a steady flow field with

"observed" momentsshown in Figures 13a and 13b. Recall linear variation of seepagevelocity with space.

here and in the subsequentdiscussionthat the "observed" For simplicity we consider a two-dimensionalflow field,

moments shown in Figures 13a and 13b have been com- defined by the Cartesian coordinatesx and y:

putedfrom field measurementsscaledwith basecaseparam-

eterassumptions(n = 0.35, SUF = 1.3) in order to closethe u = u0(1 + ax) v = -uoay (13)

massbalance. ComparingFigures 13a and 14a for snapshot

4 (ET = 200 days) and beyond, good agreementis observed The rationalefor a convergingflow field (a > 0) is inferred

from the head field (see Figure 3) and the large increasein

in the trendsof evolutionof all of the moments,includingthe

monotonicincrease in and crx, the monotonicdecrease hydraulic conductivity that is shown by the borehole

toward zero of the skewness,and the decreaseand asymp- flowmeter observations(Figure 2). These features are dis-

totic limit of the kurtosis. However, the plot of second cussedfurther by Boggs et al. [this issue].

momentversusmean displacement(Figure 14b) clearly does If we assumethat dispersiontakes place alongprincipal

not continue to increase as fast as implied by the data in axes x and y at rates that are proportional to u(x), i.e.,

Figure 13b. To a certain extent the agreement in overall

trendsshouldnot be surprising,becauseour assumptionof a

Dxx= A]]u(x) Dyy= A22u(x

) (14)

uniformdistributionfor missingmassdowngradientfrom the wherethe dispersivities

All andA 22are constants,

thenthe

array is the same as the distribution from a continuous transportequation for t > 0 becomes

ADAMS

ANDGELHAR:

FIELDSTUDY

OFDISPERSION

iN A HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2 3305

----+ u +v =All ---+AllU +A22u s ................. '/t

Ot Ox Oy OxOx Ox

2 O2 El SKEW.1OO ?

.....

(15)

extension

of Aris's [1956]methodof moments,whereinthe

operation 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (days)

a) Moments

vs.time

is performedon eachterm of (15) resultingin the general

momentsevolution equation,

' ' ' I " ' ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' '

d

d'-]

Mid = Uo{Mi,j-2[J(J-

1)A22]

+Mi+l,j-2[j(j-

1)cA22

]

+ Mi-2,j[i(i- 1)Alii+ Mi-l,j[i+ ci2All]

+ Mijc(i-j)} 15

(17) lO

arbitrary

initialconditions,

Mij(O), andparameters

a, u0,

0 '

All, and A22. 0 40 8o 120 160 20o

Beforeproceeding,it is usefulto express(17) directlyin MeanDisplacement(meters)

termsof severalof the more recognizablecentralmoments, b) Longitudinal

variance

vs.meandisplacement

using(6)-(9):

Fig. 15. Moments evolution: nonuniform flow model.

d

dt- u(1

+ aAll+ a) (18)

resemblingthe plume and the resulting central moments are

dcr

2 presented in Figures 15a and 15b for comparison with the

= 2uo(A

11-t"og11.-t"O

O'x

2) (19) "observed" moments shown in Figures 13a and 13b. Pa-

rameters

include

u0= 0.03m/d,a = 0.15m-1 crx0

= Cry

0

= 3 m, All = 5 m, and A22 = 0.1 m. These parameters

d/.l,3 were chosenwithin their expected range, consistentwith the

dt = 3u(2aAllrrx

2+ a/x3) (20)

following evaluation, but a precise calibration has not been

attempted. A rough independent evaluation of the flow field

dl 4 2 - 2 parametersu0 and a can be extracted from data on head and

dt = 4Uo(3aAllP3 + 3AlO'x + 3aAlXO'x + atl4) hydraulic conductivity at the site. From Figure 3 (shallow

(21) piezometers)the hydraulicgradient at the point of injection

is around10-2 andthehydraulicconductivity

in theinjec-

do- tionhorizon(57-58m)isaround10-3 cm/s.Usinga porosity

dt 2u(A22

+tA22'ff

- Otory2) (22)of 0.35, the initial velocity u0 =

,--

100 m from the injection site the horizontal hydraulic gradi-

The longitudinalmomentsare seen to grow in responseto entdecreases to 10-3 andtheconductivityin theupperpart

both flow nonuniformity (a) and longitudinaldispersion of the sectionincreasesto 10-1 crn/s,indicating

a tenfold

(,411).Considerthe longitudinalplumevariance.In a uni- increasein the velocity.From (13) this increasecorresponds

form flow (a = 0), (19) with (18) yields (10), where plume to a = 0.1 m-1. Theseestimatedflow parameters

are

variancedepends only on longitudinaldispersivity.How- consistentwith the magnitudeof valuesusedin Figure 15.

ever,even if A l = 0, plumevariancecan still grow due to As seenin Figure 15a, the observed increase with time of

flowacceleration (a > 0) aslongasthe initialvalueof rrx > g andrrx2iscapturedwiththismodel, although thecomputed

0. The lateralplumevarianceis seento growin response to skewnessand kurtosisboth increasemonotonically,unlike

lateraldispersion(A22)butmaydecrease inresponse to flow the observed quantities. The transverse standard deviation

nonuniformity(a). firstdecreases

thenincreases,in qualitativeagreementwith

The effects of flow nonuniformity on longitudinal disper- observations. It is possible that the behavior of the mo-

sionhave been treated theoreticallyby Gelhar and Collins ments,particularlythe higherones,is overlyinfluenced by

[1971].The resultsof thatanalysisshowthatan accelerating the stronggradientin thepresumedvelocity.Althoughhead

large-scaleflow field interacts with dispersivemixing to contourssuggestan acceleratingflow field, it is likely that

produceenhancedlongitudinalspreading.This samefeature the velocitystopsincreasingor even decreasessomewhatafter

isreflected

in(19),whichshows

thattherateofgrowth

ofCrx

2 a certaindistance,

ratherthancontinuing

to increase

linearly.

is increased when a > 0. However,themajorconclusion

of thisexerciseappearsvalid:

Equation (17) was solved for an instantaneoussource thatthe observed

increase

in longitudinal

plumevariancecan

3306 ADAMS

ANDGELHA_R:

FIELDSTUDY

OFDISPERSION

IN A HETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2

mined above from the tracer second-moment analysis incor-

rn plumedata poratingthe influenceof large-scaleflow nonuniformity

(5-10m). The centraltendencyof the stochastic

predictionis

somewhatlower (about 1.5 m) but the prediction is quite

uncertain because of the large uncertainty in statistical

parameters

characterizing

the variabilityof hydrauliccon-

, ) ductivityand the preciseorientationof the flow relativeto

40- the bedding.We emphasizethat we do not considerthis

comparisona test of the validity (or nonvalidity)of the

0 stochastictheory.Indeed,furtherrefinementof this compar-

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 isonis probablynotjustifiedbecauseof uncertainties in the

moment estimates and the statistical parameters of the

(a) t (days)

hydraulicconductivity

variations,as well as acknowledged

differencesbetween field conditions and assumptionsunder-

25O00

lyingthe stochastic

theory(smalllog conductivityvariance

and uniform large-scaleflow field).

plume

data / The estimatedlongitudinaldispersivityof 5-10 m is an

order of magnitudelarger than that found in other recent

x2(m

2) comprehensive

tracerteststhatwerecarriedout at a similar

15000 -

scale,includingthe Bordensite, where a value of 0.43 m was

?_5

,/ observed[Freyberg, 1986] and the Cape Cod site, wherea

value of 0.96 m was observed [Garabedian et al., 1991].

Smallerdispersivities

are expectedat the Bordenand Cape

Cod sitesbecausethe aquifers at those sites are much less

heterogeneousthan that of the Columbus site. Figure 17

showsthe resultsof the three recent tracer tests appendedto

40 8O 120 160 the graphicalsummaryof field data on longitudinaldisper-

(b) (m) sivityby Gelharet al. [1985].Note that the Columbusdisper-

sivityis an order of magnitudesmallerthan that of several

Fig. 16. Comparisonof (a) meandisplacement

and(b) longitu- other field siteseven thoughthe Columbussite is very heter-

dinal second moment from the nonuniform flow model (equations

parameters). ogeneous.

(19)and(23))with plumedata(basecaseextrapolation Thesedifferences

suggest

thepossibility

of interpre-

tive problemswith the earlierfielddata suchas the failureto

recognize the effectof large-scale

flow nonuniformity.

becapturedby assuming a nonuniform flowfieldin conjunction The above resultsclearly demonstratethe dramaticinflu-

with a modestlongitudinaldispersivity. enceof large-scaleflownonuniformityon the rate of increase

In Figure 16a the analyticalsolutionof (18), of the longitudinalsecondmoment.Althoughthe individual

first- and second-moment estimates for the plume vary

1 + aAll widely (see Figures12b and 12c) dependingon how the

.... (e aut- 1)

missing massis distributed, (23)

theresultingplot of longitudinal

secondmomentversusmeandisplacement showsonlymod-

is plottedwith (1 + ch.ll)/a = 14 andauo = 0.0045, which est variation(see Figure 12f). Consequently,even though

follows the data quite well. Figure 16b showsthe depen- the sourcesof the missingmass cannot be resolved,the

dence of the second-moment evolution curve on the longi- longitudinal dispersivitycan be estimatedwith reasonable

tudinaldispersivity.The correspondingflow parametersare confidenceto be in the range of 5-10 m.

listed in Table 2. Comparison of the model moment evolu-

tion curves with the data suggeststhat the longitudinal

dispersivityis in the rangeof 5-10 m. This is in contrastwith

10000

a longitudinaldispersivityof around 70 m which would be

estimated,underthe assumptionof uniformflow, using(10). lOOO

One of the goals of the tracer experiment was to evaluate .

RELIABILITY

._

.,,, lO . low

ory [Gelhar and Axness, 1983] usingmeasurementsof the ._ intermediate

:')' ' - CaCod O recenttests

.1 ;,= Borden

TABLE 2. Flow Parametersfor Figure 16 .01

10-1100 101 102 10

3 10

4 105 10

6 10

7 108

2.5 0.087 0.052 scale (m)

5 0.111 0.040

10 0.250 0.018 Fig. 17. Summaryof fielddataon longitudinal

dispersivity

[after

Gelharet al., 1992]andresultsof recentcomprehensivetracer tests.

ADAMS

ANDGELHAR:

FIELD

STUDY

OFDISPERSION

INAHETEROGENEOUS

AQUIFER,

2 3307

SUMMARY

ANDCONCLUSIONS work. Useful suggestionswere provided by Harihar Rajaram of

MIT.

A 20-monthnaturalgradienttracerstudyhasbeenana- REFERENCES

lyzed.The studysite, the ColumbusAir ForceBasein

Aris, R., On the dispersionof a solute in a fluid flowing througha

northeastern

Mississippi,

ischaracterized

bya highdegree tube, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 235, 67-78, 1956.

ofheterogeneity

anda large-scale

trendinhydraulic

conduc- Betson,R. P., J. M. Boggs,S.C. Young, W. R. Waldrop, andL. W.

tivityalongthe pathof tracermovement.

The analysis Gelhar, Macrodispersionexperiment(MADE): Design of a field

includes

a graphicalpresentation

of theconcentration

distri- experiment to investigate transport processes in a saturated

bution

at varioustimes,andcalculation

of spatialmoments groundwater zone, Rep. EA-4082, Elec. Power Res. Inst., Palo

Alto, Calif., 1985.

basedon thesedistributions.

The momentsinformationis Boggs,J. M., and E. E. Adams, Field study of dispersionin a

interpreted

by applying

twodifferent

transport

models:

(1) heterogeneous aquifer,4, Investigationof adsorptionand sam-

pureadvectionfrom a continuous

sourcein a uniformflow pling bias, Water Resour. Res., this issue.

field,and(2) advection in a convergingBoggs,J. M.,

anddispersion and S.C. Young, Field evaluationof samplingwells

nonuniform flow field. The advection-dispersion

modelis for macrodispersion experiment,Top.Rep. EN-5816,Elec. Power

Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif., 1988.

usedto estimatethelongitudinaldispersivity. Boggs, J. M., S.C. Young, D. J. Benton, and Y. C. Chung,

Themajorconclusions regarding

theinterpretation

of the Hydrogeologiccharacterizationof the MADE site, Top. Rep.

tracerexperimentat the Columbussite are as follows: EN-6915, Elec. Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif., 1990.

1. The large-scale

accelerating

nonuniform

flowfield, Boggs,M. J., S.C. Young, L. M. Beard, L. W. Gelhar, K. R.

whichis evidentfrom independent

measurement

of headand Rehfeldt, and E. E. Adams, Field study of dispersionin a

heterogeneous

aquifer,1, Overviewand site description,Water

hydraulic

conductivity,

produces

a highlyskewed

plume Resour. Res., this issue.

whoserapidlyadvancing

leadingedgeapparently

wasnot Dagan,G., Solutetransportin heterogeneous

porousformations,J.

capturedby the expandingsamplingnetwork. Fluid Mech., 145, 151-177, 1984.

2. Numericalintegration of theplumeconcentration

data Freyberg,D. L., A naturalgradientexperimenton solutetransport

in a sand aquifer, 2, Spatial moments and the advection and

shows thattracermassrecoverydecreases to about50%, dispersionof nonreactivetracers, Water Resour. Res., 22(13),

reflecting

effectsof plumetruncation,

samplerbias,and/or 2031-2046, 1986.

tracersorptionwhichcannotbe definitively

quantified. Garabedian,S. P., D. R. LeBlanc,L. W. Gelhar,andM. A. Celia,

3. Numericalevaluationof the spatialmomentsof the Large-scale naturalgradienttracertestin sandandgravel,Cape

Cod, Massachusetts, 2, Analysisof spatialmomentsfor a nonre-

plume usingseveral differentassumptionsaboutthemissing activetracer, WaterResour.Res., 27(5), 911-924, 1991.

tracermassshowsthat individualmomentestimates vary Gelhar, L. W., and C. L. Axness, Three-dimensionalstochastic

widely,but the plot of longitudinalsecondmomentversus analysisof macrodispersion in aquifers, Water Resour. Res.,

meandisplacementshowsonly minor variations. 19(1), 161-180, 1983.

4. A simplecontinuous

sourcemodelthat presumes

a Gelhar,L. W., andM. A. Collins,Generalanalysisof longitudinal

dispersion

in nonuniformflow, Water Resour.Res., 7(6), 1511-

constant rate of mass release into a downstream zone of 1521, 1971.

uniform

highvelocityproduces

a plausible

overalldescrip- Gelhar,L. W., A. Mantoglou,C. Welty, and K. R. Rehfeldt,A

tionof the evolutionof the plumemoments. reviewof fieldscalephysicalsolutetransportprocesses

in satu-

5. A two-dimensional nonuniform flow advection- ratedandunsaturated porousmedia,Rep. EA-4190,Elec. Power

Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif., 1985.

dispersion

modeladequately

represents

themeandisplace- Gelhar,L. W., C. Welty, and K. R. Rehfeldt,A criticalreviewof

ment of the plume using flow field parametersthat are dataon field-scale

dispersion

in aquifers,WaterResour.Res.,

consistentwith independentestimatesof the flow accelera- 28(7), 1955-1974, 1992.

tionbasedontheheadandhydraulic conductivity

data. Goltz,M. N., andP. V. Roberts,Usingthe methodof momentsto

6. The nonuniform

flow advection-dispersion

modelad- analyzethree-dimensionaldiffusion-limited

solutetransport

from

temporaland spatialperspectives, WaterResour.Res., 23(8),

equatelyrepresentsthe plume second-moment evolution 1575-1585, 1987.

witha longitudinaldispersivity in the rangeof 5-10 m. This LeBlanc,D. R., S. P. Garabedian,

K. M. Hess,L. W. Gelhar,R. D.

rangeis somewhatlargerthan calculations(-1.5 m) based Quadri,K. G. Stollenwerk,andW. W. Wood,Large-scalenatural

onthe stochastictheoryof GelhatandAxness[1983],andan gradienttracertestin sandandgravel,CapeCod,Massachusetts,

orderof magnitudelargerthan values(0.4-1.0 m) foundin 1, Experimental designand observedtracermovement,Water

Resour. Res., 27(5), 895-910, 1991.

otherrecentcomprehensive tracertestsperformed at similar Rajaram,

H., andL. W. Gelhar,Three-dimensional

spatial

moments

scalebut with lessheterogeneity. analysis

of the Bordentracertest, WaterResour.Res.,27(6),

1239-1251, 1991.

7. If flownonunformity is ignored,theindicated disper-

sivity(equation(10))is an orderof magnitude larger(50-75 Rehfeldt,

K. R., L. W.Gelhar,

J. B. Southard,

andA.M. Dasinger,

Estimatesof macrodispersivity

basedon analysisof hydraulic

m). While suchhighvaluesof dispersivitycan be usedto conductivity

variability

at the MADE site,Rep.EN-6405,Elec.

matchthe longitudinalevolutionof plumevariance,theywill PowerRes. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif., 1989.

overestimateplume dilution.To properlyaccountfor both Rehfeldt,

K. R., J. M. Boggs,

andL. W. Gelhar,Fieldstudyof

plume spreadingand dilution at this site, one needsto dispersion

ina heterogeneous

aquifer,

3, Geostatistical

analysis

of

hydraulicconductivity,

WaterResour.Res., this issue.

recognizethe essentialnonuniformityof the large-scaleflow.

Sudicky,E. A., A natural

gradient

experiment onsolute

transport

in

a sandy aquifer:Spatial

variability

of hydraulic

conductivity

and

its rolein thedispersionprocess,WaterResour. Res.,22(13),

Acknowledgments.The work was supportedin part by the 2069-2082, 1986.

ElectricPowerResearch

Institute(EPRI), Project2485-5,which

was a joint effort of the Massachusetts

Instituteof Technology E. E. Adams

andL. W.Gelhar,

Department

ofCivilEngineering,

(MIT) andtheTennessee

ValleyAuthority(TVA). Thisportionof Massachusetts

Institute

of Technology,

Cambridge,

MA 02139.

the work was done at MIT under contract TV-6!664A with TVA.

Theworkwasalsosupported

by theNationalScience

Foundation, (ReceivedApril 8, 1991;

grantCES-8814615.We acknowledgethe cooperationof J. Mark revisedJuly 8, 1992;

Boggs

of TVA; his effortswereinstrumental

at all stagesof the acceptedJuly 23, 1992.)

- chapter 2Uploaded byAzreenoor Atieqah
- Hydraulic Design Series NoUploaded bykarthikraja21
- AssignmentUploaded bySanthosh Chandran R
- 640-4693-1-PB.pdfUploaded byabimana
- Permeability and SeepaageUploaded byCésar Torres Paitan
- 52860284 the Hydraulic GradientUploaded byJavan Omiti
- Pump.pdfUploaded byros56
- One Meter to Find Them AllUploaded byhachan
- transicion.docxUploaded byJean Pierre Veliz Cotrina
- OPTIMIZED AQUIFER MANAGEMENT,USING LINEAR PROGRAMMING.Uploaded byKim Ngamsritrakul
- 149_Eow2007fullpaper.pdfUploaded byAdrian van Hands
- Chapter 2 Incompressible Flow Through PipesUploaded byطريخم المشتاق
- 3 Minor LossesUploaded byFatbardha Morina
- HVAC lecture part 6Uploaded byAhmad Mubarok CF
- Pipe NetworksUploaded byMô Dion
- NE-ENG-76Uploaded byZack Lee
- Wisconsin-dry-hydrantsUploaded bySooraj Nair
- ENGR451 Notes 1 Winter 2019.pdfUploaded byWeixian Lan
- Design of Drip Irrigation SystemUploaded bySriram Sekaran
- noman 125Uploaded byKamran Ali
- 10.PIPE NETWORKS JAN 2015 pdf.pdfUploaded byburhanuddin
- Matlab IeeeUploaded bychandueee
- Open Ended PrintUploaded bySalleh Said
- LossCoefUploaded byJorge
- Mep Design Report-basantapurUploaded byAshok Bista
- 2C-12DetentionBasinOutletStructuresUploaded bymanwarkhan
- SSIS Final ReportUploaded bysccdofwyo
- Hydraulics LectUploaded byJebone Stein Web Juarbal
- Hydraulics F.C.leaUploaded byBhaskar Reddy
- Lect.12&13 ConsolidationUploaded bylkhdasou

- ParthsarthiUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- Barron_s 1100 WordsUploaded byShishir Kumar Nayak
- HW paperUploaded byAli Shah
- HW paperUploaded byAli Shah
- 180173315 1 Introduction of EOR Lectures PptUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- AP Pfc in Grou Heat Fluxes Tim AUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- WaterfloodingUploaded byAchmad Hairil
- WaterfloodingUploaded byAchmad Hairil
- Extension of DarcyUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- PE3023 Reservoir Engineering I HW Quizzes ExamsUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- 2. ScalingAnalysisUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- eor-1-160616224135Uploaded byMahatab Hasan
- tech%5CReservoir%5CDivPdf%5C46314.pdfUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- a6f12Uploaded byMahatab Hasan
- RudraiahNg_JPM07.pdfUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- Lecture 7 2010 Open Pit Planning and DesignUploaded byFelichi Dacumos Balajadia
- Cresson Adda2Uploaded byMahatab Hasan
- Notes La PlaceUploaded byNoman Qadir
- 1-s2.0-S0377025701001914-main.pdfUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- 2. ENGI9496 F13 Topic1 MechElecUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- 1. ENGI9496 F13 Topic1 Introduction Edits2Uploaded byMahatab Hasan
- Laplace TableUploaded byhyd arnes
- Mining and Environment_2Uploaded byTamani Moyo
- HARDLOCK V8 Trouble Shooting GuideUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- 01_02-I Am a Writer_presentationUploaded byNatiMelgaco
- WoodUploaded byMahatab Hasan
- Fluid MechanicsUploaded bySreeharan
- Oil Regulation 2009Uploaded byMahatab Hasan
- Oil Regulation 2009Uploaded byMahatab Hasan

- Ground Granulated Blast Slag (GGBS) In Concrete – A ReviewUploaded byIOSRjournal
- WWII 1945 Bombay India ReportUploaded byCAP History Library
- Low Energy CoolingUploaded bydazecheru871
- Ancient Near East.pdfUploaded byBulentErdem
- water resources and climate change.pdfUploaded byDrThrivikramji Kyth
- Miyawaki method presentation.pdfUploaded byatmurthi
- InfoWorks ICM Overview 60 Mins PDFUploaded byAnonymous lyVIwA6
- EudiometryUploaded byNikunj Gautam
- Carrier Loading Arm DesignUploaded byKalai Selvan
- Mistakes in ExperimentUploaded bySyu Ai
- Endothermic GeneratorUploaded byWilmer Quezada Murillo
- Global Warmong EassayUploaded byAmjad Laghari
- Deepwater Drilling ProblemsUploaded byzanzibarteam
- BENDIX BX 2150Uploaded byMarcos Valdez
- Solar Boiler TechUploaded byatseuc
- CHAPTER 3Uploaded bymaizansofia
- Project Report on Self Compacting ConcreteUploaded bySunilkumar Ce
- ISAP2011 Program AbstractsUploaded byRubia Binti Idris
- Sps Mk2 Bhs ManualUploaded byKerryjames Campbell Stenhouse
- Hydrogeological Aspects of the Open - Pit Mine Slope StabilityUploaded byMezamMohammedCherif
- NRC BWR ShutdownUploaded byat420
- Drying System ProjectUploaded byMuhammad Saadullah
- City of Boulder Request for Proposals Watt-Webb PropertiesUploaded byAndre Houssney
- FDV_APV_SW4_DN25-100_ATEX_UKUploaded byvipulsiet
- Durability Testing of Filled EmeraldsUploaded bykaveh25
- PAB rules2.pptUploaded byLeslie Balneg Rubin
- msma_drquek7Uploaded bybrothernip
- Volumen 2 Amaga-cauca-patia BasinsUploaded byEdwin Alexander Amado Prieto
- Geological Field report Kutch, GujratUploaded byAmit Mishra
- Notes on Virginia, Thomas JeffersonUploaded byEdward