Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Giorgio Cassiani

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 7. Comparison of measured and simulated movement of the centre of mass of the tracer.

Figure 7 Comparison of measured and simulated movement of the centre of mass of the tracer.

Related Figures (6)

Fig. 2. Cross-borehole radar ZOP results for borehole pair (H-R1, H-R2) showing change in moisture content (A6) using CRIM model at various times following injection of tracer. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in moisture content.
Fig. 2. Cross-borehole radar ZOP results for borehole pair (H-R1, H-R2) showing change in moisture content (A6) using CRIM model at various times following injection of tracer. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in moisture content.
Fig. 3. Cross-borehole 2D ERT results between boreholes H-E2 and H-E1 showing change in resistivity at various times following injection of tracer. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in resistivity. Also shown is position of injection well H-I2. By using the Archie model in Eq. (3), it is possible to derive for a given pixel the ratio of saturation at given time to the saturation at the reference (pre- tracer) state. If it is assumed that the initial moisture content is relatively uniform with depth (see Binley et al. (2002) for supporting evidence) and the porosity is also relatively uniform, then the centre of mass of
Fig. 3. Cross-borehole 2D ERT results between boreholes H-E2 and H-E1 showing change in resistivity at various times following injection of tracer. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in resistivity. Also shown is position of injection well H-I2. By using the Archie model in Eq. (3), it is possible to derive for a given pixel the ratio of saturation at given time to the saturation at the reference (pre- tracer) state. If it is assumed that the initial moisture content is relatively uniform with depth (see Binley et al. (2002) for supporting evidence) and the porosity is also relatively uniform, then the centre of mass of
Fig. 4. Cross-borehole 3D ERT results showing change in moisture content following injection of tracer. Only increases in moisture content over 0.01 is shown. model (Van Genuchten, 1980) describing the unsatu- rated hydraulic relationships is adopted. With such an approach, the unsaturated characteristics are described by: based on pressure, water content or mixed formu- lations (Celia et al., 1990). For the purpose of this study, modelling of the unsaturated zone was carried out using the 3D finite element model FEMWATER (Lin et al., 1997), based on the pressure formulation. While this approach sometimes leads to water mass balance inaccuracy (Celia et al., 1990), no such problem was observed in our simulations carried out here. In FEMWATER, the widely used van Genuchten
Fig. 4. Cross-borehole 3D ERT results showing change in moisture content following injection of tracer. Only increases in moisture content over 0.01 is shown. model (Van Genuchten, 1980) describing the unsatu- rated hydraulic relationships is adopted. With such an approach, the unsaturated characteristics are described by: based on pressure, water content or mixed formu- lations (Celia et al., 1990). For the purpose of this study, modelling of the unsaturated zone was carried out using the 3D finite element model FEMWATER (Lin et al., 1997), based on the pressure formulation. While this approach sometimes leads to water mass balance inaccuracy (Celia et al., 1990), no such problem was observed in our simulations carried out here. In FEMWATER, the widely used van Genuchten
Fig. 5. Cross-borehole 3D ERT results showing change in moisture content between boreholes E2 and El] at various times following injection of tracer. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in resistivity. Also shown is position of injection well H-I2.
Fig. 5. Cross-borehole 3D ERT results showing change in moisture content between boreholes E2 and El] at various times following injection of tracer. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in resistivity. Also shown is position of injection well H-I2.
Fig. 6. Simulation results showing change in moisture content between boreholes H-E2 and H-E1 at selected times following injection of tracet for two hydraulic conductivity values. Values are shown averaged over block sizes equivalent to those used for the 3D ERT. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in moisture content. Also shown is position of injection well H-I2.
Fig. 6. Simulation results showing change in moisture content between boreholes H-E2 and H-E1 at selected times following injection of tracet for two hydraulic conductivity values. Values are shown averaged over block sizes equivalent to those used for the 3D ERT. Horizontal arrow shows position of centre of mass of change in moisture content. Also shown is position of injection well H-I2.
Fig. 8. Comparison of measured and simulated change in vertical spread of the tracer.
Fig. 8. Comparison of measured and simulated change in vertical spread of the tracer.
Related topics:
HydrologyGround Penetrating RadarELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHYGroundwater flowUnsaturated FlowUnsaturated Zone
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved