Nguyen Van Hoang

doi:10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.003

doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.003

计量
- 文章访问数: 538
- HTML全文浏览量: 188
- PDF下载量: 52
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-05-05
- 录用日期: 2021-10-09
- 网络出版日期: 2021-12-20
- 刊出日期: 2021-12-15

Determination of groundwater solute transport parameters in finite element modelling using tracer injection and withdrawal testing data

Van Hoang Nguyen^,

1.
Institute of Geological Sciences-Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

More Information

Corresponding author: N_V_Hoang_VDC@yahoo.com

①Trieu Duc Huy (Project head). 2015. Groundwater protection in large cities (city: Hanoi). Vietnam National Center for Water Resources Planning and Investigation-MoNRE.
①Tong Thanh Tung. 2015. Specialized report: Interpretation and analysis of aquifer parameters for pumping test at group-well test CHN5 in Nghiem Xuyen-Thuong Tin-Hanoi. Project “Groundwater protection in large cities (city: Hanoi)”. Vietnam National Center for Water Resources Planning and Investigation-MoNRE.

摘要

- /
- /
- /
- /
- /
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).
- Groundwater solute transport /
- Tracer injection /
- Effective porosity /
- Longitudinal dispersivity /
- Flow distortion coefficient /
- Normalized concentration
①Trieu Duc Huy (Project head). 2015. Groundwater protection in large cities (city: Hanoi). Vietnam National Center for Water Resources Planning and Investigation-MoNRE.
①Tong Thanh Tung. 2015. Specialized report: Interpretation and analysis of aquifer parameters for pumping test at group-well test CHN5 in Nghiem Xuyen-Thuong Tin-Hanoi. Project “Groundwater protection in large cities (city: Hanoi)”. Vietnam National Center for Water Resources Planning and Investigation-MoNRE.
注释:

HTML全文

Figure 1. Location map of the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. Testing wells' scheme, location and Pleistocene aquifer on fresh-brackish boundary

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. Hydrogeological section through the testing wells

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 4. Well log of central well CHN5

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 5. GW TDS in the injection well

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 6. TDS of the pumped out GW

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 7. GW flow through the injection well section

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 8. Breakthrough curves of TDS in injection and pumping wells

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 9. The transformation of absolute solute concentration into normalized solute concentration

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 10. Drawdown curve of the pumping well QS-5A 13 (Tong Thanh Tung, 2015)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 11. The average least squares and corresponding effective porosity and longitudinal dispersivity

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 12. Absolute solute concentration in the pumped GW and outside the pumping well screen corresponding to the minimal least squares

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 13. Normalized solute concentration in the pumped GW and outside the pumping well screen corresponding to the minimal least squares

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. Estimated hydraulic parameters of the Pleistocene aquifer and well information in the testing area

Well	Aquifer	Well’s capacity (L/s)	Drawdown (m)	Hydraulic conductivity (m/d)	Transmissivity (m²/d)
LK114	qh	3.33	2.54	12.19	210
LK140A	qp	13.20	7.88	20.71	290
LK141	qp	12.62	1.03	70.00	1 610
LK119A	qh	3.84	1.15	9.20	260
LK120	qp	11.48	0.78	152.00	1 670
LK121	qp	12.33	2.05	36.82	630
LK122	qp	6.06	15.17	12.80	80
LK104	qp	6.67	2.35	22.68	410
LK101	qp	9.09	5.04	23.14	240
LK102	qp	12.50	0.87	58.05	1 680
LK103	qh	8.33	3.47	9.70	330
LK129	qp	21.79	1.09	83.53	2 510
LK110	qp	7.82	4.04	18.28	210
LK130	qh	0.40	16.19

下载: 导出CSV

Table 2. The average least squares and corresponding effective porosity and longitudinal dispersivity

n_eff	a_L (m)	Average least squares	n_eff	a_L (m)	Average least squares	n_eff	a_L (m)	Average least squares
0.26	1.80	0.003 728	0.29	2.70	0.002 551	0.33	2.30	0.001 569
0.26	1.90	0.004 006	0.29	2.80	0.002 734	0.33	2.40	0.001 429
0.26	2.00	0.004 286	0.29	2.90	0.002 919	0.33	2.50	0.001 329
0.26	2.10	0.004 565	0.29	3.00	0.003 104	0.33	2.60	0.001 264
0.26	2.20	0.004 840	0.30	1.80	0.001 288	0.33	2.70	0.001 227
0.26	2.30	0.005 111	0.30	1.90	0.001 231	0.33	2.80	0.001 212
0.26	2.40	0.005 377	0.30	2.00	0.001 222	0.33	2.90	0.001 217
0.26	2.50	0.005 636	0.30	2.10	0.001 253	0.33	3.00	0.001 239
0.26	2.60	0.005 889	0.30	2.20	0.001 314	0.34	1.80	0.004 463
0.26	2.70	0.006 136	0.30	2.30	0.001 399	0.34	1.90	0.003 792
0.26	2.80	0.006 375	0.30	2.40	0.001 500	0.34	2.00	0.003 239
0.26	2.90	0.006 608	0.30	2.50	0.001 615	0.34	2.10	0.002 785
0.26	3.00	0.006 832	0.30	2.60	0.001 743	0.34	2.20	0.002 414
0.27	1.80	0.002 522	0.30	2.70	0.001 880	0.34	2.30	0.002 113
0.27	1.90	0.002 746	0.30	2.80	0.002 023	0.34	2.40	0.001 871
0.27	2.00	0.002 980	0.30	2.90	0.002 172	0.34	2.50	0.001 679
0.27	2.10	0.003 220	0.30	3.00	0.002 325	0.34	2.60	0.001 530
0.27	2.20	0.003 463	0.31	1.80	0.001 608	0.34	2.70	0.001 417
0.27	2.30	0.003 706	0.31	1.90	0.001 418	0.34	2.80	0.001 336
0.27	2.40	0.003 948	0.31	2.00	0.001 293	0.34	2.90	0.001 281
0.27	2.50	0.004 188	0.31	2.10	0.001 220	0.34	3.00	0.001 250
0.27	2.60	0.004 424	0.31	2.20	0.001 190	0.34	3.10	0.001 239
0.27	2.70	0.004 656	0.31	2.30	0.001 194	0.35	1.80	0.005 981
0.27	2.80	0.004 884	0.31	2.40	0.001 227	0.35	1.90	0.005 125
0.27	2.90	0.005 107	0.31	2.50	0.001 282	0.35	2.00	0.004 407
0.27	3.00	0.005 325	0.31	2.60	0.001 357	0.35	2.10	0.003 803
0.28	1.80	0.001 720	0.31	2.70	0.001 446	0.35	2.20	0.003 298
0.28	1.90	0.001 871	0.31	2.80	0.001 549	0.35	2.30	0.002 876
0.28	2.00	0.002 043	0.31	2.90	0.001 660	0.35	2.40	0.002 525
0.28	2.10	0.002 231	0.31	3.00	0.001 774	0.35	2.50	0.002 235
0.28	2.20	0.002 430	0.32	1.80	0.002 257	0.35	2.60	0.001 997
0.28	2.30	0.002 637	0.32	1.90	0.001 922	0.35	2.70	0.001 802
0.28	2.40	0.002 849	0.32	2.00	0.001 668	0.35	2.80	0.001 645
0.28	2.50	0.003 063	0.32	2.10	0.001 482	0.35	2.90	0.001 521
0.28	2.60	0.003 274	0.32	2.20	0.001 348	0.35	3.00	0.001 426
0.28	2.70	0.003 482	0.32	2.30	0.001 260	0.36	1.80	0.007 748
0.28	2.80	0.003 689	0.32	2.40	0.001 210	0.36	1.90	0.006 698
0.28	2.90	0.003 894	0.32	2.50	0.001 191	0.36	2.00	0.005 805
0.28	3.00	0.004 096	0.32	2.60	0.001 198	0.36	2.10	0.005 044
0.29	1.80	0.001 320	0.32	2.70	0.001 226	0.36	2.20	0.004 397
0.29	1.90	0.001 375	0.32	2.80	0.001 273	0.36	2.30	0.003 846
0.29	2.00	0.001 463	0.32	2.90	0.001 335	0.36	2.40	0.003 378
0.29	2.10	0.001 578	0.32	3.00	0.001 409	0.36	2.50	0.002 980
0.29	2.20	0.001 713	0.33	1.80	0.003 215	0.36	2.60	0.002 645
0.29	2.30	0.001 863	0.33	1.90	0.002 718	0.36	2.70	0.002 363
0.29	2.40	0.002 025	0.33	2.00	0.002 320	0.36	2.80	0.002 126
0.29	2.50	0.002 195	0.33	2.10	0.002 005	0.36	2.90	0.001 931
0.29	2.60	0.002 371	0.33	2.20	0.001 758	0.36	3.00	0.001 769

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(28)

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

Bear J, Verruijt A. 1987. Modeling groundwater flow and pollution. D Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht: Holland.

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

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.

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.

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

Fetter CW. 2001. Applied Hydrogeology. Prentice Hall Inc. New Jersey 07458.

Fried JJ. 1975. Groundwater pollution: Theory, methodology, modelling, and practical rules. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. 330.

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

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.

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

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.

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 27^th IAHR Congress California, USA.

Huyakorn PS, Pinder GF. 1983. Computational methods in subsurface flow. Academic Press, New York: 473.

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.

Klotz D, Seiler K P, Moser H. 1980. Dispersivity and velocity relationship from laboratory and field experiments. Journal of Hydrology, 45(4): 169-184.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Welty C, Gelhar LW. 1994. Evaluation of longitudinal dispersivity from non-uniform flow tracer tests. Journal of Hydrology, 153(1): 71-102.

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.

Zhou L. 2002. Solute transport in layered and heterogeneous soils. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College. Ph. D. Thesis.

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.

Zienkiewicz OC, Morgan K. 1983. Finite Elements and Approximation. Academic Press.

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.

[1]	Qing-shan Li, Xiao-bing Kang, Mo Xu, Bang-yan Mao2023: Effects of coal mining and tunnel excavation on groundwater flow system in karst areas by modeling: A case study in Zhongliang Mountain, Chongqing, Southwest China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 391-407. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280031
[2]	Yi-hang Gao, Jun-hui Shen, Lin Chen, Xiao Li, Shuang Jin, Zhen Ma, Qing-hua Meng2023: Influence of underground space development mode on the groundwater flow field in Xiong’an new area, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 68-80. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280007
[3]	Tian Nan, Chen Yue, Wen-geng Cao, En-lin Mu, Yang Ou, Zhen-sheng Lin, Wei Kang2023: Effective groundwater level recovery from mining reduction: Case study of Baoding and Shijiazhuang Plain area, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 278-293. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280023
[4]	Sun Yu-kun, Liu Feng, Wang Hua-jun, Gao Xin-zhi2022: Numerical simulation of operation performance on production and injection of a double well geothermal system in Kailu Basin, Inner Mongolia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 196-208. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.02.008
[5]	Ma Xin, Wen Dong-guang, Yang Guo-dong, Li Xu-feng, Diao Yu-jie, Dong Hai-hai, Cao Wei, Yin Shu-guo, Zhang Yan-mei2021: Potential assessment of CO₂ geological storage based on injection scenario simulation: A case study in eastern Junggar Basin, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 279-291. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.002
[6]	Akoanung Ayaba ABENDONG, ENDENE Emmanuel, Enoh Jeanot FONGOH, AKOACHERE Richard Ayuk II, NJENG Napoleon Ngenge2019: A trigger-tube tracer dilution technique for determining Darcy and apparent velocities of groundwater in dug wells: A case study on phreatic aquiferous formation in Bamenda -Cameroon, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 182-194. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.02.009
[7]	YAN Xiao-san, QIAN Jia-zhong, MA Lei2019: Experimental study on the velocity-dependent dispersion of the solute transport in different porous media, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 106-114. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.02.002
[8]	LI Lu-lu, SU Chen, HAO Qi-chen, SHAO Jing-li2018: Numerical simulation of response of groundwater flow system in inland basin to density changes, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 6, 7-17. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2018.01.002
[9]	ZHU Heng-hua, JIA Chao, XU Yu-liang, YU Ze-min, YU Wei-jiang2018: Study on numerical simulation of organic pollutant transport in groundwater northwest of Laixi, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 6, 293-305. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2018.04.005
[10]	ZHANG Han-xiong, HU Xiao-nong2018: Simulation and analysis of Chloride concentration in Zhoushan reclamation area, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 6, 150-160. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2018.02.008
[11]	WANG Yao, HOU Li-sheng, CAI Yun-long2017: Scale effects of eroded sediment transport in Wujiang River Basin, Guizhou Province, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 182-192.
[12]	ZHOU Xun, WANG Xiao-cui, CAO Qin, LONG Mi, ZHENG Yu-hui, GUO Juan, SHEN Xiao-wei, ZHANG Yu-qi, TA Ming-ming, CUI Xiang-fei2016: A discussion of up-flow springs, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 279-283.
[13]	CHENG Tang-pei, LIU Xing-wei, SHAO Jing-Li, CUI Ya-li2016: Review of the algebraic linear methods and parallel implementation in numerical simulation of groundwater flow, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 12-17.
[14]	FENG Guan-hong, XU Tian-fu, ZHU Hui-xing2016: Dynamics of fluid and heat flow in a CO2-based injection-production geothermal system, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 377-388.
[15]	SUN Dong-sheng, ZHAO Wei-hua, LI A-wei, ZHANG An-bin2015: Analysis on method for effective in-situ stress measurement in hot dry rock reservoir, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 9-15.
[16]	Ya-feng CHEN, Qiang ZHANG, Shi-jie XIE2014: Application of Tracer Experiments to Predict Leakage Channel-An Example of a Power Plant in Zhen'An, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 49-55.
[17]	2014: The Experimental Investigations on Motion Features of Groundwater Flow near the Pumping Well, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 1-11.
[18]	2013: Structural Control on Groundwater Distribution and Flow in the South of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 1-8.
[19]	Wang Ping, Han Zhantao, Li Yasong, Chen Kang, Lv Xiaoli, Jian Ming2013: The Role of Groundwater Leakage through Deep Wells for the Deformation of Groundwater Flow: a Case Study in Cangzhou Area, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 80-87.
[20]	Zong-jun Gao, Yong-gui Liu2013: Groundwater Flow Driven by Heat, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 22-27.