Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Assessment of the Hydraulic Profiling Tool for Lower Permeability Characterization 用于下部渗透性特征描述的水力剖面测量工具评估

Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI: 10.1111/gwmr.12685

Gaisheng Liu, Steven Knobbe

{"title":"Assessment of the Hydraulic Profiling Tool for Lower Permeability Characterization","authors":"Gaisheng Liu, Steven Knobbe","doi":"10.1111/gwmr.12685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12685","url":null,"abstract":"The Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) has become one of the most widely accepted approaches for obtaining vertical profiles of hydraulic conductivity (K) in environmental site investigations. The current tool, however, is limited to use in moderately permeable settings with a measurable K range of 0.03 to 25 m/d. In this work, we added a low‐flow injection system to standard HPT and modified the field profiling procedure so that it could be used more effectively in lower‐K settings. The modified lower‐K HPT was tested and evaluated against direct‐push slug tests at a field site in the Kansas River floodplain. Results indicated that when the injection rate was reduced, injection pressure decreased, which reduced the potential of injection‐induced formation alteration. A particular challenge of applying HPT in lower‐K zones is the large pressure generated by probe advancement; this can significantly affect the pressure signal measured at the injection screen. Our results showed that the impacts of advancement‐generated pressure could be mitigated by reducing the speed of probe advancement. Compared to K estimates by slug tests, the vertical variability in HPT K was much lower. The reduced variability in HPT K was likely due to formation alteration during probe advancement, as well as pressure interference from injections at previous depths and probe advancement at the bottom. Additional work, such as the use of a smaller‐diameter probe, is needed to further improve the performance of HPT in lower permeability zones.","PeriodicalId":501449,"journal":{"name":"Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142225049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Studies in Parameter Estimation for Analytical Transport Equations 分析运输方程参数估计研究

Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation Pub Date : 2024-08-17 DOI: 10.1111/gwmr.12684

Andrew Mills

{"title":"Studies in Parameter Estimation for Analytical Transport Equations","authors":"Andrew Mills","doi":"10.1111/gwmr.12684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12684","url":null,"abstract":"Three new programs have been developed to perform parameter estimation to assist in the calibration of analytical contaminant transport models. The Domenico equation was chosen as an example analytical model for each of the three programs rather than a model with the exact solution, because the former is a closed‐form expression involving significantly less processing time. One of the programs studied is a quasi‐exhaustive search method and the second is a successive parameter variation method. The third program is based on Box's Complex nonlinear, direct‐search optimization method. The three programs and an already available calibration tool (PEST) were compared in tests using data from two different sites in southeastern Pennsylvania. These tests demonstrated the validity of the three programs as examples to assist the calibration of groundwater analytical transport models. The final estimates for the parameter values for the three methods and PEST applied to the data from each of the two sites compared quite closely and, with two exceptions were well within an order of magnitude of each other. The three newly available programs individually should serve as calibrating tools indispensable for field hydrogeologists, environmental project managers, and others who have been asked to run analytical transport models. The results from the runs performed on the two sites indicate the Complex method to be the best option as a calibration tool, with the quasi‐exhaustive method and the successive parameter estimation method being acceptable alternatives.","PeriodicalId":501449,"journal":{"name":"Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142195399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Groundwater Federal Regulatory Summary for 2023 2023 年地下水联邦法规摘要

Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI: 10.1111/gwmr.12640

Charles Job

引用次数: 0