<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-22-5211-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Numerical modeling of flow and transport in the Bari industrial area by means
of rough walled parallel plate and random walk models</article-title><alt-title>Numerical modeling of flow and transport in Bari</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Numerical modeling of flow and transport in Bari}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{C. Cherubini et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Cherubini</surname><given-names>Claudia</given-names></name>
          <email>claudia.cherubini@unife.it</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5743-493X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Pastore</surname><given-names>Nicola</given-names></name>
          <email>nicola.pastore@poliba.it</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Rapti</surname><given-names>Dimitra</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Giasi</surname><given-names>Concetta I.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Physics &amp; Earth Sciences, University of Ferrara,
Via Saragat 1-, 44122, Ferrara, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>School of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, St Lucia,
Brisbane 4072, Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>DICATECh, Department of Civil,
Environmental, Building Engineering, and Chemistry,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Politecnico
di Bari, Bari, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>New Energies And environment Company (NEA)
Via Saragat 1-, 44122 Ferrara, Italy</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Claudia Cherubini (claudia.cherubini@unife.it) and Nicola
Pastore (nicola.pastore@poliba.it)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>11</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>10</issue>
      <fpage>5211</fpage><lpage>5225</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>1</day><month>March</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>20</day><month>March</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>31</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>14</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e132">Modeling fluid
flow and solute transport dynamics in fractured karst aquifers is one of the
most challenging tasks in hydrogeology.</p>
    <p id="d1e135">The present study investigates the hotspots of groundwater contamination in
the industrial area of Modugno (Bari – southern Italy), where the limestone
aquifer has a fractured and karstic nature.</p>
    <p id="d1e138">A rough walled parallel plate model coupled with a geostatistical analysis to
infer the values of the equivalent aperture has been implemented and
calibrated on the basis of piezometric data. Using the random walk theory,
the steady-state distribution of hypothetical contamination with the source
at the hotspot has been carried out, reproducing a pollution scenario which
is compatible with the observed one. From an analysis of the flow and
transport pattern it is possible to infer that the anticline affecting the
Calcare di Bari formation in direction ENE–WSW influences the direction of
flow as well as the propagation of the contaminant.</p>
    <p id="d1e141">The results also show that the presence of nonlinear flow influences
advection, in that it leads to a delay in solute transport with respect to
the linear flow assumption. This is due to the non-constant distribution of
solutes according to different pathways for fractured media which is related
to the flow rate.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\allowdisplaybreaks}?><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e154">The characterization and the description of phenomena that involve fractured
aquifers, especially when considered in relation to water resource
exploitation, are important issues because fractured aquifers serve as the
primary source of drinking water for many areas of the world. In fractured
rock aquifers, groundwater is stored in the fractures, joints, bedding
planes, and cavities of the rock mass. The ability of a fracture to transmit
water as well as contaminants depends primarily on the size of the opening,
or the fracture aperture.</p>
      <p id="d1e157">The parallel plate model is widely used to simulate flow in a fracture due to
its simplicity in idealizing a fracture. Many researchers (Baker, 1955;
Huitt, 1956; Snow, 1965, 1970; Gale,
1977) have used flow between smooth parallel plates as a model for flow in
fractures. The solution to the Navier–Stokes equation for flow between
parallel plates, known as plane Poiseuille flow, has been known to fluid
mechanicians since the nineteenth century.</p>
      <p id="d1e160">Witherspoon et al. (1980) and Elliott and Brown (1988) suggested that a
factor should be introduced into the parallel plate theory to take account of
the effects of joint surface properties.</p>
      <p id="d1e163">Zimmermann and Bodvarsson (1996) discussed the problem of fluid flow through
a rock fracture within the context of fluid mechanics. The derivation of the
“cubic law” was given as the solution to the Navier–Stokes equations for
flow between smooth, parallel plates. They analyzed the various geometric and
kinematic conditions that are necessary in order for the Navier–Stokes
equations to be replaced by<?pagebreak page5212?> the more tractable lubrication or HeleShaw
equations and reviewed various analytical and numerical results pertaining to
the problem of relating the effective hydraulic aperture to the statistics of
the aperture distribution.</p>
      <p id="d1e167">Some researchers proposed a variable aperture model, stating that it is
better adapted to describing flow and transport channeling effects than a
parallel plate model (Neretnieks et al., 1982; Bourke, 1987; Pyrak-Nolte,
1988; Tsang and Tsang, 1989; Tsang et al., 2001) where fracture apertures can
be described by normal (Lee et al., 2003), lognormal (e.g., Keller, 1998;
Keller et al., 1999), or gamma distributions (Tsang and Tsang, 1987), or a
self-affine scale invariance (Plouraboué et al., 1995).</p>
      <p id="d1e170">Neuzil and Tracy (1981) presented a model for flow in fractures where the
flow is envisioned as occurring in a set of parallel plate openings with
different apertures whose distribution was lognormal and used a modified
Poiseuille equation.</p>
      <p id="d1e173">They showed that the flow conformed to the cubic law and also that the
maximum flow occurs through the largest apertures, thereby emphasizing that
flow occurs through preferred paths. Thus, in their analysis, the flow
depended on the tail of the frequency distribution.</p>
      <p id="d1e176">Tsang and Tsang (1987) proposed a theoretical approach to interpret flow in a
tightly fractured medium in terms of flow through a system of statistically
equivalent one-dimensional channels of variable aperture. The channels were
statistically equivalent in the sense that the apertures along each flow
channel are generated from the same aperture density distribution and spatial
correlation length.</p>
      <p id="d1e179">Oron and Berkowitz (1998) have examined the validity of applying the “local
cubic law” (LCL) to flow in a fracture which is bounded by impermeable rock
surfaces. A two-dimensional order-of-magnitude analysis of the Navier–Stokes
equations yields three conditions for the applicability of LCL flow, as a
leading-order approximation in a local fracture segment with parallel or
nonparallel walls. These conditions demonstrate that the “cubic law” is
valid provided that aperture is measured not on a point-by-point basis, but
rather as an average over a certain length. Experimental work by
Plouraboué et al. (2000) in self-affine rough fractures with various
translations of the opposing fracture surfaces indicated that heterogeneity
in the flow field caused deviations from the parallel plate model for
fracture flow. Some researchers often find it convenient to represent
aperture fields in terms of equivalent aperture in the parallel plate model
(Zheng et al., 2008).</p>
      <p id="d1e182">Brush and Thomson (2003) developed three-dimensional flow models to simulate
fluid flow through various random synthetic rough walled fractures created by
combining random fields of aperture and the mean wall topography or
midsurface, which quantifies undulation about the fracture plane.</p>
      <p id="d1e186">The total flow rates from three-dimensional Stokes simulations were within
10 % of LCL simulations with geometric corrections for all synthetic
fractures. Differences between the Navier–Stokes (NS) and Stokes
simulations clearly demonstrated that inertial forces can significantly
influence the internal flow field within a fracture and the total flow rate
across a fracture.</p>
      <p id="d1e189">Klimczak et al. (2010) carried out flow simulations through fracture networks
using the discrete fracture network model (DFN) where flow was modeled
through fracture networks with the same spatial distribution of fractures
for correlated and uncorrelated fracture length-to-aperture relationships.
Results indicate that flow rates are significantly higher for correlated
DFNs. Furthermore, the length-to-aperture relations lead to power-law
distributions of network hydraulic conductivity which greatly influence
equivalent permeability tensor values. These results confirm the importance
of the correlated square root relationship of displacement to length scaling
for total flow through natural opening-mode fractures and, hence, emphasize
the role of these correlations for flow modeling.</p>
      <p id="d1e192">Wang et al. (2015) developed and tested a modified LCL (MLCL) taking into
account local tortuosity and roughness, and works across a low range of local
Reynolds numbers. The MLCL was based on (1) modifying the aperture field by
orienting it with the flow direction and (2) correcting for local roughness
changes associated with local flow expansion/contraction. In order to test
the MLCL, they compared it with direct numerical simulations with the
Navier–Stokes equations using real and synthetic three-dimensional rough
walled fractures, previously corrected forms of the LCL, and experimental
flow tests. The MCL proved to be more accurate than previous modifications of
the LCL.</p>
      <p id="d1e195">The continuous time random walk (CTRW) approach provides a versatile
framework for modeling (non-Fickian) solute transport in fractured media.</p>
      <p id="d1e198">Berkowitz et al. (2001) examined a set of analytical solutions based on the
CTRW approach to analyze breakthrough data from tracer tests to account for
non-Fickian (or scale-dependent) dispersion behavior that cannot be properly
quantified by using the advection–dispersion equation.</p>
      <p id="d1e201">Cortis and Birkholzer (2008) developed a macroscopic model based on the CTRW
framework, to characterize the interaction between the fractured and porous
rock domains by using a probability distribution function of residence times.
They presented a parametric study of how CTRW parameters evolve, describing
transport as a function of the hydraulic conductivity ratio between fractured
and porous domains.</p>
      <p id="d1e205">Srinivasan et al. (2010) presented a particle-based algorithm that treats a
particle trajectory as a subordinated stochastic process that is described by
a set of Langevin equations, which represent a CTRW. They used
convolution-based particle tracking (CBPT) to increase the computational
efficiency and accuracy of these particle-based simulations. The combined
CTRW–CBPT approach allows us to convert any particle tracking legacy code
into a simulator capable of handling non-Fickian transport.</p>
      <?pagebreak page5213?><p id="d1e208">Dentz et al. (2015) developed a general CTRW approach for transport under
radial flow conditions starting from the random walk equations for the
quantification of non-local solute transport induced by heterogeneous flow
distributions and by mobile–immobile mass transfer processes. They observed
power-law tails of the solute breakthrough for broad distributions of
particle transit times and particle trapping times. The combined model
displayed an intermediate regime, in which the solute breakthrough is
dominated by the particle transit times in the mobile zones, and a late time
regime that is governed by the distribution of particle trapping times in
immobile zones.</p>
      <p id="d1e211">The present study is aimed at
analyzing the
scenario of groundwater contamination of the industrial area of Modugno (Bari
– southern Italy) where the limestone aquifer has a fractured and karstic
nature.</p>
      <p id="d1e214">Previous studies carried out in the same aquifer have applied different
conceptual models to model fluid flow and contaminant transport.</p>
      <p id="d1e217">Cherubini (2008) applied the discrete feature approach (Diersch, 2002) where
the three-dimensional geometry of the subsurface domain describing the matrix
structure was combined by interconnected two-dimensional and one-dimensional
discrete feature elements in two dimensions in order to simulate,
respectively, fractures and karstic cavities in the Bari limestone aquifer.
The fracture distribution was inferred from a nonparametric geostatistical
analysis (indicator Kriging) of fracture frequency data which had been
derived by Rock Quality Designation (RQD) (Priest and Hudson, 1976) data of
the contaminated area of the ex Gasometer.</p>
      <p id="d1e220">Cherubini et al. (2008) compared the flow modeling results of the previous
work with those from a new hydrogeological reconstruction of the
heterogeneities in the same aquifer by means of multiple realizations
conditioned to borehole data (RQD population), in order to obtain a
three-dimensional distribution of fracture frequency, cavities, and terra
rossa lenses.</p>
      <p id="d1e224">Cherubini and Pastore (2010) applied the nested sequential indicator
simulation algorithm to represent the geological architecture of the Bari
limestone aquifer which provided reliable prediction of fluid flow. According
to phenol transport, the presence of
preferential pathways was detected.</p>
      <p id="d1e227">Cherubini et al. (2013)a realized a three-dimensional flow model of the Bari
limestone aquifer supported by a detailed local-scale geologic model realized
by means of sequential indicator simulation (SIS) of lithofacies unit
sequences. In this study, a lumped parameter approach was used and calibrated
on the groundwater discharge and global hydraulic gradient where fluid flow
in fractures was represented by the cubic law, and the Darcy–Weisbach
equation was used to estimate the resistance term in the karst network.</p>
      <p id="d1e230">Masciopinto et al. (2010) adopted a conceptual model consisting of a
three-dimensional parallel set of horizontal planar fractures in between rock
layers, each fracture having a variable aperture generated by a stationary
random field conditioned to the data derived from pumping-tracer tests. The
particle tracking solution was combined with the PHREEQC-2 results to study
two-dimensional laminar/non-laminar flow and reactive transport with
biodegradation in each fracture of the conceptual model.</p>
      <p id="d1e233">Masciopinto and Palmiotta (2013) derived new equations of the fracture
aperture as functions of a tortuosity factor to simulate fluid flow and
pollutant transport in fractured aquifers. MODFLOW/MT3DMS water velocity
predictions were compared with those obtained using a specific software
application which solves flow and transport problems in a
<?xmltex \hack{\mbox\bgroup}?>three-dimensional<?xmltex \hack{\egroup}?> set of parallel fissures. The results of a
pumping/tracer test carried out in a fractured limestone aquifer in Bari
(southern Italy) have been used to calibrate advective–dispersive tracer
fluxes given by the applied models. Successful simulations of flow and
transport in the fractured limestone aquifer were achieved by accommodating
the new tortuosity factor in models whose importance lies in the possibility
of switching from a discrete to a continuum model by taking into account the
effective tracer velocity during flow and transport simulations in fractures.</p>
      <p id="d1e240">Masciopinto and Visino (2017) carried out filtration tests on a set of 16
parallel limestone slabs with thicknesses of about 1 cm where rough surfaces
and variable fracture apertures had been artificially created. The
experimental filtration results suggest that model simulations of perturbed
virus transport in fractured soils need to also consider pulse-like sources
and sinks of viruses. This behavior cannot be simulated using conventional
model equations without including a new kinetic model approach.</p>
      <p id="d1e243">The present work focuses on the investigation of the hotspots of aquifer
contamination in order to infer the location of the sources.</p>
      <p id="d1e247">A rough walled parallel plate model has been implemented and calibrated on
the basis of piezometric data and has coupled a geostatistical analysis to
infer the values of the equivalent aperture.</p>
      <p id="d1e250">The current study introduces a novel approach for simulating flow and
transport in fractured aquifers by means of combining a rough walled parallel
plate model for the flow simulation coupled with inverse modeling and
geostatistical analysis to infer the values of the equivalent aperture
together with the random walk theory to reproduce the scenario of
contamination.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Geological and hydrogeological framework</title>
      <p id="d1e259">It is well known that hydraulic properties and consequently fluid circulation
and contaminant propagation in carbonate rocks are strongly influenced by the
degree of rock fracturing and, in general, the presence of mechanical
discontinuities, like faults, joints, or other tectonic elements such as
syncline or anticline axes (Caine et al., 1996; Caine and Forster, 1999;
Antonellini et al., 2014; Billi et al., 2003). Also, the<?pagebreak page5214?> deformation
mechanisms are mainly controlled by the physico-chemical properties of rocks,
which are, in turn, the result of different composition, depositional
setting, and diagenetic evolution (Zhang and Spiers, 2005; Rustichelli et
al., 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e262">From the geological point of view, the investigated area is located in the
Murge Plateau corresponding to a broad antiformal structure oriented WNW–ESE
and represents the bulging foreland of the Pliocene–Pleistocene Southern
Apennines orogenic belt (Pieri et al., 1997; Doglioni, 1994; Forster and
Evans, 1991; Korneva et al., 2014; Parise and Pascali, 2003).</p>
      <p id="d1e265">The stratigraphy of the Murge area consists of a Variscan crystalline
basement topped by 6–7 km thick Mesozoic sedimentary cover (represented by
the Calcare di Bari formation) followed by relatively thin and discontinuous
Cenozoic and Quaternary deposits (Calcareniti di Gravina formation). Figure 1
shows the simplified geological map of the area of Bari.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Calcare di Bari formation (Cretaceous)</title>
      <p id="d1e273">The Calcare di Bari succession consists of biopeloidal and peloidal
wackestones/packstones alternating with stromatolithic bindstones with
frequent intercalations of dolomitic limestones and grey dolostones. The
formation shows a thickness of about 470 m. Most of the Calcare di Bari
formation shows facies features related to peritidal environments; only the
upper part suggests a relatively more distal and deeper environment belonging
to an external platform setting (Pieri et al., 2012; Fig. 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e276">This succession appears stratified and fissured and, where it does not show
tectonic discontinuities, it is characterized by a subhorizontal or slightly
inclined lying position. This formation is subjected to the complex and
relevant karstic phenomena that locally lead to the formation of cavities of
different shapes and sizes, partially or completely filled by “terra rossa”
deposits. The degree of fracturing degree affecting the Calcare di Bari
formation is quite variable and mainly depends on the geological and
structural (faults, anticline axis, etc.) evolution of the area, including
faulting and folding. Also, the distribution of the local measurement of the
RQD index is confirmed by the variability of the electrical resistivity along
geoelectrical profiles (with lengths from 500 to 1000 m) and from the
propagations of the P and S waves (seismic measurements; length of about
1000 m).</p>
      <p id="d1e279">On the basis of borehole and in situ surveys, carried out by private
companies, the following was observed.</p>
      <p id="d1e282"><list list-type="bullet">
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e287">The fracturing degree of the Calcare di Bari formation is quite variable
and it is expressed by the RQD values that vary between 16 % and 25 %
(maximum borehole depths: 30 m). Based on the classification system of Deere
and Deere (1988) the rock mass is of “very poor rock quality”
(RQD &lt; 25 %).</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e293">Medium values of the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of about 36, indicate, following
the Bieniawski classification (1989), very poor rock mass (class IV).</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e299">In addition, profiles of the electrical resistivity (depth &lt; 30 m)
allow us to emphasize the presence of very variable electric resistivity
values with variations between 100 (low fracture carbonates rocks) and
1700 Ohm m for very fractured formations, with local values on the order of
3–4000 Ohm m in the case of underground cavities.</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e305">Similarly, the velocities of seismic waves <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> have average values
on the order of 1300 and 800 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, in highly fractured
limestones, and 2300 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and 1400 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for compact formations.</p>
            </list-item>
          </list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Calcareniti di Gravina formation (lower Pleistocene)</title>
      <p id="d1e370">This unit unconformably lies on the Calcare di Bari
formation. Its
thickness varies from a few meters to 20 m and its depositional environments
are related to offshore settings. The lower boundary is transgressive and is
locally marked by reddish residual deposits and/or by brackish silty deposits
passing upward to shallow water calcarenite rich in bioclasts.</p>
      <p id="d1e373">As regards the structural features of these deposits, it is possible to
observe that the anticline affecting the Cretaceous succession of the Calcare
di Bari formation with an ENE–WSW axial direction (Fig. 1) causes a partial
diversion of the water courses, whose path seems to be also influenced by
some NE–SW fault (NE of Modugno). The former phenomenon is due to the
antithetically dipping flanks of the gentle fold, while the latter effect is
likely a consequence of the denser fracturing along the shear zone and hence
the increased erodibility of the local outcropping limestone enhancing the
water flow concentration.</p>
      <p id="d1e376">In general, the limestone bedrock hosts a wide and thick aquifer due to a
diffuse rock fracturing and the karstic phenomena.</p>
      <p id="d1e379">Moreover, the irregular spatial distribution of the fractures and karstic
channels makes the Bari aquifer very anisotropic. The average hydraulic
conductivity of this aquifer is generally estimated to be 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e419">The groundwater flows toward the sea, under a low gradient, in different
subparallel fractured layers separated by compact (i.e., not fractured) rock
blocks.</p>
      <p id="d1e422">In proximity to the coast, the carbonate (Mesozoic) stratum contains
freshwater flowing in phreatic conditions and floating on underlying
saltwater of continental intrusion. The location of the transition zone
between freshwater and salt water has thickness and position variable and
changes over time depending on the distribution of the hydrostatic pressures
of the system.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e427">Simplified geological map of the area of Bari: (1) Calcare di Bari
formation (Cretaceous); (2) Calcareniti di Gravina formation (Lower
Pleistocene); (3) hydrographic network; (4) anticlinal axis; (5) syncline
axis; (6) fault (uncertain);
(7): escarpment.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page5215?><sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Hydrologic and hydrogeologic water budget</title>
      <p id="d1e443">The effective infiltration has been estimated by means of the hydrologic and
hydrogeologic water budget of the subtended basin. Climatic data registered
in the thermopluviometric stations present in the area have been elaborated
and the average rainfall module and the monthly evapotranspiration have been
calculated for the 3 decades 1974–2005.</p>
      <p id="d1e446">Twelve climatic stations have been considered (Bari – hydrographic station,
Bari – observatory station, Bitonto, Grumo Appula, Adelfia, Casamassima,
Mercadante, Ruvo di Puglia, Corato, Altamura, Santeramo, Gioia del Colle) and
for each station the monthly rainfall and evapotranspiration map has been
realized by means of the <italic>inverse distance weighting</italic> algorithm. The
latter has been estimated by means of the Thornthwaite method, applying a
crop coefficient of 0.40.</p>
      <p id="d1e452">The hydrologic and hydrogeologic basins have been defined on the basis of
literature data and the regional thematic cartography.</p>
      <p id="d1e455">The lithotypes in the study area are principally limestones and calcarenites
with secondary permeability, characterized by a high transmissivity. The
zones in proximity to tectonic structures create preferential flow paths, but
at the same time generate a dismemberment of the aquifer that could not be
able to feed the flow downstream. Because of that it proves to be difficult
to carry out a zonation of recharge areas, and therefore a constant runoff
coefficient of 0.10 has been considered for the whole basin. In Fig. 2 the
map of the (a) annual precipitation and (b) estimated evapotranspiration
evaluated for the hydrological basin of the study area is shown.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e461">Map of <bold>(a)</bold> annual precipitation and <bold>(b)</bold> estimated
evapotranspiration evaluated for the hydrological basin of the study area.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Well-performance tests: step-drawdown tests</title>
      <p id="d1e483">Ninety-eight long-term step-drawdown hydraulic tests have been analyzed in
the study area.</p>
      <p id="d1e486">A step-drawdown test is a single-well test in which the well is pumped at a
low constant discharge rate until the drawdown within the well stabilizes.</p>
      <p id="d1e489">Step-drawdown tests can be used to evaluate the characteristics of the well
and its immediate environment. Unlike the aquifer test, it is not designed to
produce reliable information concerning the aquifer, even though it is
possible to estimate the transmissivity of the immediate surroundings of the
catchment. This test determines the critical flow rate of the well, as well
as the various head losses and drawdowns as functions of pumping rates and
times. Finally, it is designed to estimate the well efficiency, to set an
exploitation pumping rate, and to specify the depth of installation of the
pump.</p>
      <p id="d1e492">The total drawdown at a pumping well is given by
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M10" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) represents
the registered drawdown, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) the pumped flow rate,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (T L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) the linear aquifer loss coefficient, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(T L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are, respectively, the linear
and nonlinear well-loss coefficients.</p>
      <p id="d1e658">This equation can be made explicit in terms of aquifer transmissivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), the transmissivity of the damage zone <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SKIN</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the nonlinear term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Cherubini and Pastore, 2011):

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M32" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SKIN</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>ln⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SKIN</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:msup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) represents the well radius, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SKIN</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (L)
the radius of the damage zone, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) the radius of influence of the
well.</p>
      <p id="d1e923">The total drawdown is formed from three components: the hydraulic component
of the aquifer assuming a valid Thiem function, a skin function presented by
Cooley and Cunningham (1979) assuming that the transmissivity and the radius
of the damage zone are, respectively, equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SKIN</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SKIN</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and a contribution related to nonlinear
losses introduced by Wu (2001).</p>
      <p id="d1e972">The radius of influence of the well is obtained by means of the Sichart
equation:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M39" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3000</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        In Fig. 3 is reported the statistical distribution of the estimated
transmissivity values along the study area.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e1000">Statistical distribution of log<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page5216?><sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Linear model of regionalization of transmissivity</title>
      <p id="d1e1031">The geostatistical analysis has been carried out on the log<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
transmissivity values using the S-GemS open-source code (Remy, 2004).</p>
      <p id="d1e1043">The experimental variogram, which provides a description of how the data are
related (correlated) with distance, has been calculated (Fig. 4). Because the
Kriging algorithm requires a positive definite model of spatial variability,
the experimental variogram cannot be used directly. Instead, a model must be
fitted to the data to approximately describe the spatial continuity of the
data. An exponential model has been used to fit the experimental variogram
described by the function:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M43" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the variance (sill), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) the lag, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) the
correlation length (range). In our case <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> assumes a value of 1.2 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> a
value of 10000 m.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e1119">Omnidirectional experimental variogram fitted with an exponential
model; sill <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.2, range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10000 m.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1142">Figure 5 shows the ordinary Kriging interpolation of log<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e1164">Ordinary Kriging interpolation of log<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page5217?><sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Analysis of piezometric data</title>
      <p id="d1e1197">Figure 6 shows the spatial distribution of hydraulic heads on the basis of
the 2012 measurement campaign. A global trend in the direction of groundwater
flow from SW to NE is evident. A relevant aspect is the presence of high
hydraulic head values in proximity to ASI and Bosch wells.</p>
      <p id="d1e1200">Possible explanations for the increase in hydraulic gradient are (1) lower
transmissivity as shown through the step drawdown tests; (2) the transition
from a more permeable outcropping lithotype to a less permeable one resulting
in a decrease in the effective infiltration; (3) the presence of sinkholes
and fissures at the surface giving rise to a point source recharge; and
(4) hydraulic disconnection due to lower interconnectivity of the fracture
system.</p>
      <p id="d1e1203">The aquifer transmissivity in that zone is on the order of
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The trend observed in the hydraulic gradient
confirms the increase in the aquifer transmissivity from upstream to
downstream: in fact, the tests carried out in proximity to the coast have
returned a transmissivity value of 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p id="d1e1284">Measured piezometric heads (m, slm) from the February 2012
monitoring campaign.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f06.jpg"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7">
  <title>Analysis of the scenario of contamination for the study area</title>
      <p id="d1e1299">The various monitoring campaigns carried out have shown a contamination by
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons which, unlike petroleum products, are
denser than water and can exist as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs).</p>
      <p id="d1e1302">The presence of two hotspot areas has been detected, located upstream of the
groundwater flow, coherently with the state of contamination detected
downstream.</p>
      <p id="d1e1305">Figure 7 shows the location of the detected contamination
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d1e1327">The pollution indicator has been chosen on the basis of the toxicologic and
cancirogenic parameters, the solubility, the sorption coefficient, and the
maximum detected contaminant concentration. On the basis of the results of
this screening, the tetrachloroethylene (PCE) has the highest concentration,
as well as low values of reference dose factors
(RDFs) and slope
factors (SFs).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e1333">Location of the detected contamination by PCE
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f07.jpg"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page5218?><sec id="Ch1.S8">
  <title>Parallel rough walled fracture model</title>
      <p id="d1e1369">The simplest model of flow through rock fractures is the parallel plate model
(Huitt, 1956; Snow, 1965) which conceptualizes the fractured medium as made
by a set of smooth parallel plates with the same hydraulic aperture <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L)
that are separated by a uniform distance. This is actually the only
geometrical fracture model for which an exact calculation of the hydraulic
conductivity is possible.</p>
      <p id="d1e1379">Natural fractures present rough walls and complex geometries. Nonlinear flow
may occur through rough walled rock fractures; as a consequence, the inertial
effect dominates the flow dynamics, giving rise to a deviation from Darcy's
law. Fluid flow through a set of natural fracture planes can be expressed
using the Darcy–Weisbach equation:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M67" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) represents the hydraulic diameter (2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for the parallel plate
model), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Darcy–Weisbach coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) is the hydraulic
head, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) is the distance, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (L T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the average velocity
in fracture calculated as
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M75" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>(L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the volumetric flow rate per unit length of
fracture and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (–) is the number of fractures.</p>
      <p id="d1e1544">The Darcy–Weisbach equation can be rewritten in terms of volumetric flow per
unit length:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M80" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        The term in square brackets represents the equivalent hydraulic
transmissivity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rough walled fractures.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p id="d1e1634">Map of log10 of aquifer transmissivity determined by means of the
inverse modeling algorithm.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f08.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p id="d1e1646">Map of simulated hydraulic heads.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f09.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p id="d1e1657">Graph of the calibration.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f10.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1666">The Darcy–Weisbach coefficient or friction factor depends on the flow
regime. In the case of a smooth walled fracture and linear flow regime, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
is equal to
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M84" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">96</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <italic>Re</italic> represents the Reynolds number:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M85" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (7), the cubic law (Witherspoon et al., 1980)
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is proportional to the cubic power of the fracture aperture is
obtained:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M87" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        The cubic law is not always adequate to represent the flow process in
natural fractures, so a deviation from linearity can be observed.</p>
      <?pagebreak page5219?><p id="d1e1764">The friction factor depends on the flow regime described by the Reynolds
number and can be represented by the following relationship found by
Nazridoust at al. (2006):
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E11" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M88" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">123</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.687</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S9">
  <title>Inverse flow modeling</title>
      <p id="d1e1803">Inverse modeling is a technique used to estimate unknown model parameters
using as input data punctual values of the state variables (hydraulic head
flow). Generally, in real problems the number of parameters to estimate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)
is higher than the number of measured values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). For example, this is the
case with mapping hydraulic transmissivity values varying continuously in
space.</p>
      <p id="d1e1820">For underdetermined inverse problems of this kind the objective function
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) can be written in this way:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E12" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M92" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fitness</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">penalty</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the vector of measured values of state variables
(e.g. hydraulic transmissivity), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
represents the vector of parameter values.</p>
      <p id="d1e1887">The fitness function responds to maximum likelihood criteria between the
observed and simulated values and can be written as
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E13" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M95" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fitness</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">h</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">h</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the model that, starting from the parameter vector,
estimates the state variable, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the measurement error
covariance matrix. Generally this function can be reduced to the square root
of the sum of the squared difference between the measured and simulated RMSE:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E14" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M98" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">fitness</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close="∥" open="∥"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">h</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>H</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents a parameter of accuracy of observed data.</p>
      <p id="d1e2016">The penalty function is used to discriminate the solutions with values of
the fitness function comparable by means of geostatistical criteria
(Kitanidis, 1995):
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E15" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M100" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">penalty</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="bold">-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">β</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the spatial covariance matrix, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a
unit vector, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean of the values of the parameters. The
penalty function can be rewritten by eliminating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E16" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M105" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">penalty</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">G</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">G</mml:mi><mml:mo>≡</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="bold">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="bold">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">X</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        The common assumption is that the spatial distribution of the parameters
follows the geostatistical distribution defined by the variogram. Under this
hypothesis the covariance matrix present in the penalty function can be
defined as
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E17" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M106" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S10">
  <title>Solute transport modeling</title>
      <p id="d1e2236">Solute transport in fracture neglecting the effect of matrix diffusion and
the chemical reactions can be described by the following
advection–dispersion equation:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E18" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M107" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (M L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the concentration of a solute and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> T<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the symmetric dispersion tensor with the following
components:

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M113" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E19"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (L) are the
longitudinal and transverse dispersivities, respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e2510">For pure advective transport the particle moves along the flow lines. In
order to represent dispersion phenomena, the random walk method adds a random
displacement to each particle, independently of the other particles, in
addition to advective displacement.</p>
      <?pagebreak page5220?><p id="d1e2513">For a given time step <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, considering the tensorial nature of the
dispersion and the spatially variable velocity field, each particle moves
according to

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M117" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E20"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mspace width="1em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          with

              <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M118" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E21"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are two normally distributed random variables. For
steady-state flow and for a source constant intensity, the assumption that
the particles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> released in time interval (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
follow exactly the same random trajectories of the particles <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> released
during the previous interval (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is possible. Under
this assumption only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> particles are needed to simulate the location of the
particles at a previous time step.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S11">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S11.SS1">
  <title>Flow modeling</title>
      <p id="d1e3060">The MODFLOW numerical code coupled with the inverse model approach presented in the
previous section has been used to model groundwater flow.</p>
      <p id="d1e3063">The numerical simulations have been carried out on a two-dimensional domain
of 968.7 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The domain has been discretized by means of a structured
grid of 100 m in size.</p>
      <p id="d1e3075">In correspondence to the coastline, a first type of boundary condition has
been imposed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m), and along the detected watershed a second type of
boundary condition (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>); the recharge from upstream
is simulated by means of a first type of boundary condition where the
hydraulic heads are equal to the detected regional values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–41 m
(Piano di Tutela delle Acque Regione Puglia, Tav. 6.2
<uri>http://old.regione.puglia.it/index.php?page=documenti&amp;id=29&amp;opz=getdoc</uri>,
last access: February 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e3139">A second type of boundary condition on the whole simulation domain has been
imposed that concerns the mean effective infiltration calculated from the
hydrologic budget <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.037</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3176">The algorithm of inverse modeling has been applied to carry out the
estimation of the spatial distribution of the equivalent transmissivity
(Fig. 8) on the basis of the observed hydraulic head (vector <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), the
regionalization model (matrix <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) described by the variogram of the
logarithm of the hydraulic transmissivity
determined in the previous section.</p>
      <p id="d1e3193">The inverse model algorithm follows those steps. (1) Start from a conditional
simulation of the log of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> determined by means of the hydraulic
tests conducted in the area. (2) A set of pilot points are chosen in the area
using a regularly spaced criterion and the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been
determined for each pilot point (vector <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). (3) By means of the
ordinary Kriging interpolation of the pilot points the map of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is obtained and represents the input datum of the flow numerical model.
(4) The hydraulic head has been determined using the flow numerical model
(vector <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the values of the objective function have been
determined using Eq. (12). (5) The values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are updated for
each pilot point.</p>
      <p id="d1e3255">Using the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm, the values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for
each pilot point are updated as long as the objective function is minimized.</p>
      <p id="d1e3269">Figure 9 shows the results obtained from the flow model in steady-state
condition, calibrated with the measurement campaign of February 2012
(Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e3272">Table 2 shows the data of model calibration and Fig. 10 shows the graph of
the calibration.</p>
      <p id="d1e3275">The outcomes of the calibration are satisfactory. The comparison between the
simulated and observed data has given a mean absolute residual equal to
0.57 m, an RMSE equal to 4.57 m, and a correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
equal to 0.997. In the following figures and tables are shown the results for
the flow model.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><caption><p id="d1e3293">Comparison between the observed and simulated hydraulic heads with
related residuals, relative to the measurement campaign of February 2012.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Obs.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Computed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Residual</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">head (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">head (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">head (m)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.480</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.682</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.798</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L1-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.278</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.835</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.443</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.611</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.205</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.594</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.110</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.217</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.107</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.321</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.515</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.194</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L2-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.722</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.466</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.256</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.386</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.801</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.415</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L3-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.163</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.870</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.293</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5.441</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.519</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.078</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.536</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.315</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.221</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L4-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.450</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.567</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.117</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.926</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5.851</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.075</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L5-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">33.649</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">35.587</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.938</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L8-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.532</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.809</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.277</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L7-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.880</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.516</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.636</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L6-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.892</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.651</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.759</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.807</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.281</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.474</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.705</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.236</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.469</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.167</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.276</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.109</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.317</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.279</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.038</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.360</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.245</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.115</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.418</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.144</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.274</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L14-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">34.370</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">33.776</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.594</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">L15-S</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">35.260</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">34.477</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.783</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">P2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.760</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.865</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.105</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><caption><p id="d1e3823">Data of model calibration.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean residual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.138</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean absolute residual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.566</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Root mean squared residual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.743</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sum of squared weighted residual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.571</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3885">The simulated hydraulic head distribution together with the equivalent
transmissivity map put into evidence how the anticline
affecting the Calcare di Bari formation in direction
ENE–WSW influences the flow directions. Furthermore, they highlight how the
hydraulic circulation is more active along the coast coherently with a higher
degree of fracturing and karst phenomena.</p>
      <p id="d1e3888">Once the equivalent hydraulic transmissivity map has been obtained, and
assuming a value of the number of sets of fractures <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the
spatial distribution of the mean equivalent aperture and the velocity field
can be obtained.</p>
      <?pagebreak page5221?><p id="d1e3902">Assuming the cubic law to be valid, the mean equivalent aperture can be
obtained as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E22" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M161" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mroot><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mroot><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The velocity field results:

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M162" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E23"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            whereas assuming the Darcy–Weisbach equation to be valid, the mean
equivalent aperture and the flow field can be obtained by means of the
following iterative steps starting from the values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> previously evaluated:

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M166" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">123</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.687</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mroot><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mroot><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E24"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eq</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Figure 11 shows the relative percentage of error in the flow velocity
magnitude for different numbers of fractures.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><caption><p id="d1e4380">Relative percentage of error in the flow velocity magnitude for
different numbers of fractures: <bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 4;
<bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 28.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><caption><p id="d1e4423">Steady-state distribution of hypothetical contamination using the
random walk model with the source contamination localized in correspondence
to the hotspot of the contamination considering a number of fracture of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 and a longitudinal and transversal dispersion
coefficient equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 m and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 7 m.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><caption><p id="d1e4473">Breakthrough curves of hypothetical continuous contamination
released in correspondence to the hotspot, determined for linear and
nonlinear flow models, evaluated at the downstream boundary.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><caption><p id="d1e4484">Mean travel time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at varying
numbers of fractures
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for linear and nonlinear models.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/5211/2018/hess-22-5211-2018-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4516">As the number of fractures increases, the velocity magnitude decreases;
therefore, the friction factor reaches a value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">96</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Anyway,
the percentage of error in the flow velocity magnitude seems not to be
negligible. In fact, for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> a minimum value of 8 % is
obtained, reaching a value of 28 % for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These results
show that under natural hydraulic gradient conditions in fractured limestone
the nonlinearity of the flow cannot be negligible. It is clear that under a
forced hydraulic gradient due to anthropic stresses the equivalent
transmissivity decreases dramatically, with a value less than 40 % of
Darcian-like hydraulic transmissivity (Cherubini et al., 2012).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S11.SS2">
  <title>Analysis of the scenario of contamination</title>
      <?pagebreak page5222?><p id="d1e4567">A particle tracking transport method has been applied for the simulation of
contaminant transport. A punctual source contamination has been imposed in
correspondence to the detected hotspot equal to a PCE concentration of
1283 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g L<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This localization is coherent with the soil
contamination detected in the area.</p>
      <p id="d1e4589">In order to solve the advective transport equation a numerical Lagrangian
particle-based random walk method is implemented. For each time step a
constant number of 500 particles have been released into the domain from the
source. According to the Rauch et al. (2005) assumption reported in the
previous section, only 500 particles are needed to simulate the steady-state
distribution of the hypothetical contamination. Even if the source of
contamination has been considered punctual, the obtained simulation scenario
proves to be compatible with the observed one, and therefore it is possible
to assume that the sources of contamination are located in correspondence to
the detected hotspot (Fig. 12).</p>
      <p id="d1e4592">Figure 13 shows the breakthrough curves of hypothetical continuous
contamination released in correspondence to the hotspot, determined for
linear and nonlinear flow models, evaluated at the downstream boundary for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20.</p>
      <p id="d1e4613">Figure 14 shows the mean travel time at a varying number of fractures for the
linear and nonlinear models. With an increasing number of fractures, the
travel time increases in a linear way, because the cross-sectional area
increases as well. The figures highlight that travel time for the nonlinear
model is higher than the linear assumption. In a particular way, the
percentages of error are in the range of 6.22 %–5.34 % passing from
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 (<italic>Re</italic> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02–10.60) to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<italic>Re </italic> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.002–1.51). This is coherent with what was detected by
Cherubini et al. (2012, 2013b, 2014), who carried out hydraulic and tracer
tests on an artificially created fractured rock sample and found a pronounced
mobile–immobile zone interaction leading to a non-equilibrium behavior of
solute transport.</p>
      <p id="d1e4666">The existence of a non-Darcian flow regime was shown to influence the
velocity field by giving rise to a delay in solute migration with respect to
the values that could be obtained under the assumption of a linear flow
field. Furthermore, the presence of inertial effects was shown to<?pagebreak page5223?> enhance
non-equilibrium behavior. In a particular manner, they found that the
percentage of error in the travel time with respect to the linear flow
assumption varied in the range of 5.90 %–40.75 %, corresponding to a
range of <italic>Re</italic> of 29.48–52.16. These results highlight the fact that
as the scale of observation increases, the error in the mean travel time with
respect to the linear flow model becomes more relevant. In fact, at field
scale also for <italic>Re</italic>, just above the unit (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 28),
the error is equal to 5.34 %, comparable with the error of 5.90 %
found at laboratory scale for <italic>Re</italic> equal to 29.48. This means that
under anthropic stresses multiple pumpings or injections give rise to a
higher flow velocity and then higher <italic>Re</italic>, leading to a dramatic delay
on contaminant transport. Therefore, nonlinear flow must be considered in
order to have a more accurate estimation of the breakthrough curve and mean
travel time of contaminated scenarios.</p>
      <p id="d1e4700">In fracture networks, the presence of nonlinear flow plays an important role
in the distribution of the solutes according to the different pathways. In
fact, the energy spent to cross the path should be proportional to the
resistance to flow associated with the single pathway, which in a nonlinear
flow regime is not constant but depends on the flow rate. This means that by
changing the boundary conditions, the resistance to flow varies and
consequently the distribution of solute in the main and secondary pathways
also changes, giving rise to a different behavior of solute transport
(Cherubini et al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e4703">This concept has to be taken into account in case of cleanup of the aquifer
using for example the Pump &amp; Treat system. The multiple pumping and
reinjection of the treated groundwater give rise to a higher flow velocity in
the aquifer, resulting in a much greater hydraulic gradient. In this case
nonlinear flow behavior has to be taken into account in order to obtain more accurate
cleanup strategies.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S12" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4713">The present study is aimed at analyzing the scenario of groundwater
contamination (by investigating the hotspots) of the industrial area of
Modugno (Bari – southern Italy) where the limestone aquifer has a fractured
and karstic nature.</p>
      <p id="d1e4716">The presence of hotspot areas has been detected, located upstream of the
groundwater flow, coherently with the state of contamination detected
downstream and the soil contamination.</p>
      <p id="d1e4719">A rough walled parallel plate model has been implemented and calibrated on
the basis of piezometric data and has coupled a geostatistical analysis to
infer the values of the equivalent aperture. Using the random walk theory,
the steady-state distribution of hypothetical contamination with the source
contamination at the hotspot has been carried out.</p>
      <p id="d1e4722">The flow and transport models have reproduced the flow pattern well and have
given a pollution scenario that is compatible with the observed one.</p>
      <p id="d1e4726">From an analysis of the flow and transport pattern it is possible to infer
that the anticline affecting the Calcare di Bari formation in direction
ENE–WSW influences the direction of flow as well as the propagation of the
contaminant.</p>
      <p id="d1e4729">The results also show that the presence of nonlinear flow influences
advection, in that it leads to a delay in solute transport with respect to
the linear flow assumption. Moreover, the distribution of solute according to
different pathways is not constant, but is related to the flow rate.</p>
      <p id="d1e4732">This is due to the non-proportionality between the energy spent to cross the
path and the resistance to flow for fractured media, which affects the
distribution of the solutes according to the different pathways.</p>
      <p id="d1e4735">The obtained results represent the fundamental basis for a detailed study of
the contaminant propagation in correspondence to the hotspot area in order to
find the best cleanup strategies and optimize any anthropic intervention on
the industrial site.</p>
      <p id="d1e4738">Future developments of the current study will be to implement a transient
model and to include the density-dependent flow in the simulations.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e4745">Research data can be publicly accessed in the Supplement to
this paper.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e4748">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5211-2018-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5211-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e4757">CC and NP dealt with data analysis, modeling and interpretation, DR
dealt with the geology part and interpretation of results, and CIG
dealt with interpretation of results and theoretical
analysis.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e4763">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4769">The authors would like to acknowledge the editor and reviewers for their
valuable comments and suggestions that helped improve the
manuscript.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Philippe Ackerer <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by: Eric Zechner and
Nicole Sund</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Antonellini, M., Cilona, A., Tondi, E., Zambrano, M., and Agosta, F.:
Fluid-flow numerical experiments of faulted porous carbonates, Northwest
Sicily (Italy), Mar. Petrol. Geol., 55, 186–201, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, W. J.: Flow in fissured formations, Proceedings of 4th Worm Petroleum
Congress, Carlo Colombo, Rome, 379–393, 1955.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B., Kosakowski, G., Margolin, G., and Scher, H.: Application of
Continuous Time Random Walk Theory to Tracer Test Measurements in Fractured
and Heterogeneous Porous Media, Ground Water, 39, 593–603, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bieniawski, Z. T.: Engineering Rock Mass Classifications, John Wiley &amp;
Sons, New York, 251, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Billi, A., Salvini, F., and Storti, F.: The damage zone-fault core transition
in carbonate rocks: implications for fault growth, structure and
permeability, J. Struct. Geol., 25, 1779–1794, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Brush, D. J. and Thomson, N. R.: Fluid flow in synthetic rough-walled
fractures: Navier-Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations, Water
Resour. Res., 39, 1085, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002WR001346</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bourke, P. J.: Channeling of flow through fractures in rock, in Proceedings
of GEOVAL-1987 International Symposium, 1, Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate
(SKI), Stockholm, 167–177, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Caine, J. S. and Forster, C. B.: Fault zone architecture and fluid flow:
Insights from field data and numerical modeling, in: Faults and sub-surface
fluid flow in the shallow crust, edited by: Haneberg, W. C., Mozley, P. S.,
Moore, C., and Goodwin, L. B., AGU Geophysical Monograph, 113, 101–127,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Caine, J. S., Evans, J. P., and Forster, C.: Fault zone architecture and
permeability structure, Geology, 24, 1025–1028, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C.: A modeling approach for the study of contamination in a
fractured aquifer, Geotechnical and geological engineering, Springer, the
Netherlands, 26, 519–533, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C. and Pastore, N.: Modeling contaminant propagation in a
fractured and karstic aquifer, Fresen. Environ. Bull., 19, 1788–1794, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Cherubini, C. and Pastore, N.: Critical stress scenarios for a coastal
aquifer in southeastern Italy, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1381–1393,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-1381-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-11-1381-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C., Pastore, N., and Francani, V.: Different approaches for the
characterization of a fractured karst aquifer, World scientific and
engineering academy and society, Transactions on fluid mechanics,
Wisconsin-Usa, 1, 29–35, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Cherubini, C., Giasi, C. I., and Pastore, N.: Bench scale laboratory tests to
analyze non-linear flow in fractured media, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16,
2511–2522, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2511-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-16-2511-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C., Giasi, C., and Pastore, N.: Fluid flow modeling of a coastal
fractured karstic aquifer by means of a lumped parameter approach, Environ.
Earth Sci., 70, 2055–2060, 2013a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Cherubini, C., Giasi, C. I., and Pastore, N.: Evidence of non-Darcy flow and
non-Fickian transport in fractured media at laboratory scale, Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci., 17, 2599–2611, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2599-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-17-2599-2013</ext-link>, 2013b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Cherubini, C., Giasi, C. I., and Pastore, N.: On the reliability of
analytical models to predict solute transport in a fracture network, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2359–2374, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2359-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-18-2359-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Cooley, R. L. and Cunningham, A. B.: Consideration of energy loss in theory
of flow to wells, J. Hydrol., 43, 161–184, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Cortis, A. and Birkholzer, J.: Continuous time random walk analysis of solute
transport in fractured porous media, Water Resour. Res., 44, W06414,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006596" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007WR006596</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Deere, D. U. and Deere, D. W.: The rock quality designation (RQD) index in
practice, Rock classification systems for engineering purposes, edited by:
Kirkaldie, L., ASTM Special Publication Philadelphia, Am. Soc. Test. Mater.,
984, 91–101, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Dentz, M., Kang, P. K., and Le Borgne, T.: Continuous Time Random Walks for
Non-Local Radial Solute Transport, Adv. Water Resour., 82, 16–26, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Diersch, H. J. G.: FEFLOW finite element subsurface flow and transport
simulation system, User's manual/Reference manual/White papers, Release 5.1,
WASY Ltd, Berlin, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Doglioni, C.: The Puglia uplift (SE Italy) An anomaly in the foreland of the
Apenninic subduction due to buckling of a thick continental lithosphere,
Tectonics, 13, 1309–1321, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Elliott, G. M. and Brown, E. T.: Laboratory measurement of the
thermo-hydro-mechanical properties of rock, Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydroge., 21,
299–314, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Forster, C. B. and Evans, J. P.: Hydrogeology of thrust faults and
crystalline thrust sheets: results of combines field and modelling studies,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 18, 979–982, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Gale, J. A.: Numerical Field and Laboratory Study of Flow in Rocks with
Deformable Fractures, Sci. Ser. 72, Inland Waters Dir., Water Resources
Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Huitt, J. L.: Fluid Flow in Simulated Fractures, Amer. Inst. Chem. Eng. J.,
2, 259–264, 1956.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Lee, J., Kang, J. M., and Choe, J.: Experimental analysis on the effects of
variable apertures on tracer transport, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1015,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001246" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001WR001246</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Keller, A.: High resolution, non-destructive measurement and characterization
of fracture apertures, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 35, 1037–1050, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Keller, A. A., Roberts, P. V., and Blunt, M. J.: Effect of fracture aperture
variations on the dispersion of contaminants, Water Resour. Res., 35, 55–63,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Kitanidis, P.: Quasi?linear geostatistical theory for inversing, Water
Resour. Res., 31, 2411–2419, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01945" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95WR01945</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Klimczak, C., Schultz, R. A., Parashar, R., and Reeves, D. M.: Cubic law with
aperture-length correlation: implications for network scale fluid flow,
Hydrogeol. J., 18, 851–862, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Korneva, I., Tondi, E., Agosta, F., Rusctichelli, A., Spina, V., Bitonte, R.,
and Di Cuia, R.: Structural properties of fractured and faulted Cretaceous
platform carbonates, Murge Plateau (Southern Italy), Mar. Petrol. Geol., 57,
312–326, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Masciopinto, C. and Palmiotta, D.: Flow and Transport in Fractured Aquifers:
New Conceptual Models Based on Field Measurements, Transport Porous Med., 96,
117–133, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Masciopinto, C. and Visino, F.: Strong release of viruses in fracture flow in
response to a perturbation in ionic strength: Filtration/retention tests and
modeling, Water Res., 126, 240–251, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Masciopinto, C., Volpe, A., Palmiotta, D., and Cherubini, C.: A combined
PHREEQC-2/parallel fracture model for the simulation of laminar/non-laminar
flow and contaminant transport with reactions, J. Contam. Hydrol., 117,
94–108, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Nazridoust, K., Ahmadi, G., and Smith, D. H.: A new friction factor
correlation for laminar, single-phase flows through rock fractures, J.
Hydrol., 329, 315–328, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.032" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.032</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page5225?><ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Neretnieks, I., Eriksen, T., and Tahtinen, P.: Tracer movement in a single
fissure in granitic rock: Some experimental results and their interpretation,
Water Resour. Res., 18, 849–858, 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Neuzil, C. E. and Tracy, J. V.: Flow Through Fractures, Water Resour. Res.,
17, 191–199, 1981.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Oron, A. P. and Berkowitz, B.: Flow in rock fractures: The local cubic law
assumption reexamined, Water Resour. Res., 34, 2811–2825, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Parise, M. and Pascali, V.: Surface and subsurface environmental degradation
in the karst of Apulia (southern Italy), Environ. Geol., 44, 247–256, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Pieri, P., Festa, V., Moretti, M., and Tropeano, M.: Quaternary tectonic
activity of the Murge area (Apulian foreland-Southern Italy), Ann. Geofis.,
40, 1395–1404, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Pieri, P., Sabato, L., Spalluto, L., and Tropeano, M.: Note Illustrative
della Carta Geologica d'Italia alla scala <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50.000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> foglio 438, Bari, Nuova
Carta Geologica d'Italia alla scala <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50.000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> – Progetto CARG,
ISPRA-Servizio Geologico d'Italia, ISBN 2035-8008, January 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Plouraboué, F., Kurowski, P. J., Hulin, P., Roux, S., and Schmittbuhl,
J.: Aperture of rough crack, Phys. Rev., 51, 1675–1685, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Plouraboué, F., Kurowski, P., Boffa, J. M., Hulin, J. P., and Roux, S.:
Experimental study of the transport properties of rough self-affine
fractures, J. Contam. Hydrol., 46, 295–318, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Priest, S. D. and Hudson, J. A.: Discontinuity spacings in rock, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min., 13, 135–148, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Pyrak-Nolte, L. J., Cook, N. G. W., and Nolte, D.: Fluid percolation through
single fractures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 15, 1247–1250, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Rauch, R., Schäfer, W., and Wagner, C.: Solute Transport Modelling. An
introduction to Models and Solution Strategies, Gebrüder Borntraeger
Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin Tuggart, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Remy, N.: Geostatistical Earth Modeling Software: User's Manual, Stanford
University, 15–18, available at: <uri>http://sgems.sourceforge.net/</uri> (last
access: July 2018), 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Rustichelli, A., Tondi, E., Agosta, F., Cilona, A., and Giorgioni, M.:
Development and distribution of bed-parallel compaction bands and pressure
solution seams in carbonates (Bolognano Formation, Majella Mountain, Italy),
J. Struct. Geol., 37, 181–199, 2012.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Snow, D. T.: A Parallel Plate Model of Fractured Permeable Media, PhD
Dissertation, University of California, 1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Snow, D. T.: The Frequency and Apertures of Fractures in Rocks, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min., 7, 23–40, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Srinivasan, G., Tartakovsky, D. M., Dentz, M., Viswanathan, H., Berkowitz,
B., and Robinson, B. A.: Random walk particle tracking simulations of
non-Fickian transport in heterogeneous media, J. Comput. Phys., 229,
4304–4314, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Tsang, Y. W. and Tsang, C. F.: Channel model of flow through fractured media,
Water Resour. Res., 23, 467–479, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Tsang, Y. W. and Tsang, C.-F.: Flow channeling in a single fracture as
two-dimensional strongly heterogeneous permeable medium, Water Resour. Res.,
25, 2076–2080, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Tsang, C.-F., Tsang, Y. W., Birkhölzer, J., and Moreno, L.: Dynamic
channeling of flow and transport in saturated and unsaturated heterogeneous
media, in Flow and Transport Through Unsaturated Fractured Rock, 2nd ed.,
Geophys. Monograph, 42, 33–44, AGU, Washington, D.C., 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, L., Cardenas, M. B., Slottke, D. T., Ketcham, R. A., and Sharp Jr., J.
M.: Modification of the Local Cubic Law of fracture flow for weak inertia,
tortuosity and roughness, Water Resour. Res., 51, 2064–2080, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Witherspoon, P. A., Wang, J. S. Y., Iwai, K., and Gale, J. E.: Validity of
the cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture, Water Resour.
Res., 16, 1016–1034, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Wu, Y. S.: NonDarcy Displacement of Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media, Water
Resour. Res., 37, 2943–2950, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000389" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001WR000389</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X. and Spiers, C. J.: Compaction of granular calcite by pressure
solution at room temperature and effects of pore fluid chemistry, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min., 42, 950–960, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Zheng, Q., Dickson, S. E., and Guo, Y.: On the appropriate “equivalent
aperture” for the description of solute transport in single fractures:
Laboratory-scale experiments, Water Resour. Res., 44, W04502,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR005970" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007WR005970</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Zimmerman, R. W. and Bodvarsson, G. S.: Hydraulic conductivity of rock
fractures, Transpot Porous Med., 23, 1–30, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Numerical modeling of flow and transport in the Bari industrial area by means of rough walled parallel plate and random walk models</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Modeling fluid
flow and solute transport dynamics in fractured karst aquifers is one of the
most challenging tasks in hydrogeology.</p><p>The present study investigates the hotspots of groundwater contamination in
the industrial area of Modugno (Bari – southern Italy), where the limestone
aquifer has a fractured and karstic nature.</p><p>A rough walled parallel plate model coupled with a geostatistical analysis to
infer the values of the equivalent aperture has been implemented and
calibrated on the basis of piezometric data. Using the random walk theory,
the steady-state distribution of hypothetical contamination with the source
at the hotspot has been carried out, reproducing a pollution scenario which
is compatible with the observed one. From an analysis of the flow and
transport pattern it is possible to infer that the anticline affecting the
Calcare di Bari formation in direction ENE–WSW influences the direction of
flow as well as the propagation of the contaminant.</p><p>The results also show that the presence of nonlinear flow influences
advection, in that it leads to a delay in solute transport with respect to
the linear flow assumption. This is due to the non-constant distribution of
solutes according to different pathways for fractured media which is related
to the flow rate.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Antonellini, M., Cilona, A., Tondi, E., Zambrano, M., and Agosta, F.:
Fluid-flow numerical experiments of faulted porous carbonates, Northwest
Sicily (Italy), Mar. Petrol. Geol., 55, 186–201, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, W. J.: Flow in fissured formations, Proceedings of 4th Worm Petroleum
Congress, Carlo Colombo, Rome, 379–393, 1955.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Berkowitz, B., Kosakowski, G., Margolin, G., and Scher, H.: Application of
Continuous Time Random Walk Theory to Tracer Test Measurements in Fractured
and Heterogeneous Porous Media, Ground Water, 39, 593–603, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bieniawski, Z. T.: Engineering Rock Mass Classifications, John Wiley &amp;
Sons, New York, 251, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Billi, A., Salvini, F., and Storti, F.: The damage zone-fault core transition
in carbonate rocks: implications for fault growth, structure and
permeability, J. Struct. Geol., 25, 1779–1794, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Brush, D. J. and Thomson, N. R.: Fluid flow in synthetic rough-walled
fractures: Navier-Stokes, Stokes, and local cubic law simulations, Water
Resour. Res., 39, 1085, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001346" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001346</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bourke, P. J.: Channeling of flow through fractures in rock, in Proceedings
of GEOVAL-1987 International Symposium, 1, Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate
(SKI), Stockholm, 167–177, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Caine, J. S. and Forster, C. B.: Fault zone architecture and fluid flow:
Insights from field data and numerical modeling, in: Faults and sub-surface
fluid flow in the shallow crust, edited by: Haneberg, W. C., Mozley, P. S.,
Moore, C., and Goodwin, L. B., AGU Geophysical Monograph, 113, 101–127,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Caine, J. S., Evans, J. P., and Forster, C.: Fault zone architecture and
permeability structure, Geology, 24, 1025–1028, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C.: A modeling approach for the study of contamination in a
fractured aquifer, Geotechnical and geological engineering, Springer, the
Netherlands, 26, 519–533, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C. and Pastore, N.: Modeling contaminant propagation in a
fractured and karstic aquifer, Fresen. Environ. Bull., 19, 1788–1794, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C. and Pastore, N.: Critical stress scenarios for a coastal
aquifer in southeastern Italy, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1381–1393,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-1381-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-1381-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C., Pastore, N., and Francani, V.: Different approaches for the
characterization of a fractured karst aquifer, World scientific and
engineering academy and society, Transactions on fluid mechanics,
Wisconsin-Usa, 1, 29–35, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C., Giasi, C. I., and Pastore, N.: Bench scale laboratory tests to
analyze non-linear flow in fractured media, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16,
2511–2522, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2511-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2511-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C., Giasi, C., and Pastore, N.: Fluid flow modeling of a coastal
fractured karstic aquifer by means of a lumped parameter approach, Environ.
Earth Sci., 70, 2055–2060, 2013a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C., Giasi, C. I., and Pastore, N.: Evidence of non-Darcy flow and
non-Fickian transport in fractured media at laboratory scale, Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci., 17, 2599–2611, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2599-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2599-2013</a>, 2013b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Cherubini, C., Giasi, C. I., and Pastore, N.: On the reliability of
analytical models to predict solute transport in a fracture network, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2359–2374, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2359-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2359-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Cooley, R. L. and Cunningham, A. B.: Consideration of energy loss in theory
of flow to wells, J. Hydrol., 43, 161–184, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Cortis, A. and Birkholzer, J.: Continuous time random walk analysis of solute
transport in fractured porous media, Water Resour. Res., 44, W06414,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006596" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006596</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Deere, D. U. and Deere, D. W.: The rock quality designation (RQD) index in
practice, Rock classification systems for engineering purposes, edited by:
Kirkaldie, L., ASTM Special Publication Philadelphia, Am. Soc. Test. Mater.,
984, 91–101, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Dentz, M., Kang, P. K., and Le Borgne, T.: Continuous Time Random Walks for
Non-Local Radial Solute Transport, Adv. Water Resour., 82, 16–26, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Diersch, H. J. G.: FEFLOW finite element subsurface flow and transport
simulation system, User's manual/Reference manual/White papers, Release 5.1,
WASY Ltd, Berlin, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Doglioni, C.: The Puglia uplift (SE Italy) An anomaly in the foreland of the
Apenninic subduction due to buckling of a thick continental lithosphere,
Tectonics, 13, 1309–1321, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Elliott, G. M. and Brown, E. T.: Laboratory measurement of the
thermo-hydro-mechanical properties of rock, Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydroge., 21,
299–314, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Forster, C. B. and Evans, J. P.: Hydrogeology of thrust faults and
crystalline thrust sheets: results of combines field and modelling studies,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 18, 979–982, 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Gale, J. A.: Numerical Field and Laboratory Study of Flow in Rocks with
Deformable Fractures, Sci. Ser. 72, Inland Waters Dir., Water Resources
Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Huitt, J. L.: Fluid Flow in Simulated Fractures, Amer. Inst. Chem. Eng. J.,
2, 259–264, 1956.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, J., Kang, J. M., and Choe, J.: Experimental analysis on the effects of
variable apertures on tracer transport, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1015,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001246" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001246</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Keller, A.: High resolution, non-destructive measurement and characterization
of fracture apertures, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 35, 1037–1050, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Keller, A. A., Roberts, P. V., and Blunt, M. J.: Effect of fracture aperture
variations on the dispersion of contaminants, Water Resour. Res., 35, 55–63,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Kitanidis, P.: Quasi?linear geostatistical theory for inversing, Water
Resour. Res., 31, 2411–2419, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01945" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01945</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Klimczak, C., Schultz, R. A., Parashar, R., and Reeves, D. M.: Cubic law with
aperture-length correlation: implications for network scale fluid flow,
Hydrogeol. J., 18, 851–862, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Korneva, I., Tondi, E., Agosta, F., Rusctichelli, A., Spina, V., Bitonte, R.,
and Di Cuia, R.: Structural properties of fractured and faulted Cretaceous
platform carbonates, Murge Plateau (Southern Italy), Mar. Petrol. Geol., 57,
312–326, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Masciopinto, C. and Palmiotta, D.: Flow and Transport in Fractured Aquifers:
New Conceptual Models Based on Field Measurements, Transport Porous Med., 96,
117–133, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Masciopinto, C. and Visino, F.: Strong release of viruses in fracture flow in
response to a perturbation in ionic strength: Filtration/retention tests and
modeling, Water Res., 126, 240–251, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Masciopinto, C., Volpe, A., Palmiotta, D., and Cherubini, C.: A combined
PHREEQC-2/parallel fracture model for the simulation of laminar/non-laminar
flow and contaminant transport with reactions, J. Contam. Hydrol., 117,
94–108, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Nazridoust, K., Ahmadi, G., and Smith, D. H.: A new friction factor
correlation for laminar, single-phase flows through rock fractures, J.
Hydrol., 329, 315–328, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.032" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.032</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Neretnieks, I., Eriksen, T., and Tahtinen, P.: Tracer movement in a single
fissure in granitic rock: Some experimental results and their interpretation,
Water Resour. Res., 18, 849–858, 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Neuzil, C. E. and Tracy, J. V.: Flow Through Fractures, Water Resour. Res.,
17, 191–199, 1981.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Oron, A. P. and Berkowitz, B.: Flow in rock fractures: The local cubic law
assumption reexamined, Water Resour. Res., 34, 2811–2825, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Parise, M. and Pascali, V.: Surface and subsurface environmental degradation
in the karst of Apulia (southern Italy), Environ. Geol., 44, 247–256, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Pieri, P., Festa, V., Moretti, M., and Tropeano, M.: Quaternary tectonic
activity of the Murge area (Apulian foreland-Southern Italy), Ann. Geofis.,
40, 1395–1404, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Pieri, P., Sabato, L., Spalluto, L., and Tropeano, M.: Note Illustrative
della Carta Geologica d'Italia alla scala 1:50.000 foglio 438, Bari, Nuova
Carta Geologica d'Italia alla scala 1:50.000 – Progetto CARG,
ISPRA-Servizio Geologico d'Italia, ISBN 2035-8008, January 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Plouraboué, F., Kurowski, P. J., Hulin, P., Roux, S., and Schmittbuhl,
J.: Aperture of rough crack, Phys. Rev., 51, 1675–1685, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Plouraboué, F., Kurowski, P., Boffa, J. M., Hulin, J. P., and Roux, S.:
Experimental study of the transport properties of rough self-affine
fractures, J. Contam. Hydrol., 46, 295–318, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Priest, S. D. and Hudson, J. A.: Discontinuity spacings in rock, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min., 13, 135–148, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Pyrak-Nolte, L. J., Cook, N. G. W., and Nolte, D.: Fluid percolation through
single fractures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 15, 1247–1250, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Rauch, R., Schäfer, W., and Wagner, C.: Solute Transport Modelling. An
introduction to Models and Solution Strategies, Gebrüder Borntraeger
Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin Tuggart, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Remy, N.: Geostatistical Earth Modeling Software: User's Manual, Stanford
University, 15–18, available at: <a href="http://sgems.sourceforge.net/" target="_blank">http://sgems.sourceforge.net/</a> (last
access: July 2018), 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Rustichelli, A., Tondi, E., Agosta, F., Cilona, A., and Giorgioni, M.:
Development and distribution of bed-parallel compaction bands and pressure
solution seams in carbonates (Bolognano Formation, Majella Mountain, Italy),
J. Struct. Geol., 37, 181–199, 2012.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Snow, D. T.: A Parallel Plate Model of Fractured Permeable Media, PhD
Dissertation, University of California, 1965.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Snow, D. T.: The Frequency and Apertures of Fractures in Rocks, Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min., 7, 23–40, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Srinivasan, G., Tartakovsky, D. M., Dentz, M., Viswanathan, H., Berkowitz,
B., and Robinson, B. A.: Random walk particle tracking simulations of
non-Fickian transport in heterogeneous media, J. Comput. Phys., 229,
4304–4314, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Tsang, Y. W. and Tsang, C. F.: Channel model of flow through fractured media,
Water Resour. Res., 23, 467–479, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Tsang, Y. W. and Tsang, C.-F.: Flow channeling in a single fracture as
two-dimensional strongly heterogeneous permeable medium, Water Resour. Res.,
25, 2076–2080, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Tsang, C.-F., Tsang, Y. W., Birkhölzer, J., and Moreno, L.: Dynamic
channeling of flow and transport in saturated and unsaturated heterogeneous
media, in Flow and Transport Through Unsaturated Fractured Rock, 2nd ed.,
Geophys. Monograph, 42, 33–44, AGU, Washington, D.C., 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, L., Cardenas, M. B., Slottke, D. T., Ketcham, R. A., and Sharp Jr., J.
M.: Modification of the Local Cubic Law of fracture flow for weak inertia,
tortuosity and roughness, Water Resour. Res., 51, 2064–2080, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Witherspoon, P. A., Wang, J. S. Y., Iwai, K., and Gale, J. E.: Validity of
the cubic law for fluid flow in a deformable rock fracture, Water Resour.
Res., 16, 1016–1034, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, Y. S.: NonDarcy Displacement of Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media, Water
Resour. Res., 37, 2943–2950, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000389" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000389</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, X. and Spiers, C. J.: Compaction of granular calcite by pressure
solution at room temperature and effects of pore fluid chemistry, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min., 42, 950–960, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Zheng, Q., Dickson, S. E., and Guo, Y.: On the appropriate “equivalent
aperture” for the description of solute transport in single fractures:
Laboratory-scale experiments, Water Resour. Res., 44, W04502,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR005970" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR005970</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Zimmerman, R. W. and Bodvarsson, G. S.: Hydraulic conductivity of rock
fractures, Transpot Porous Med., 23, 1–30, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
