Articles | Volume 26, issue 23
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6147-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6147-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Three-dimensional hydrogeological parametrization using sparse piezometric data
Institut Terre et Environnement de Strasbourg, Université de
Strasbourg/EOST/ENGEES, CNRS UMR 7063, 5 rue Descartes, Strasbourg 67084,
France
Raphaël Di Chiara
Institut Terre et Environnement de Strasbourg, Université de
Strasbourg/EOST/ENGEES, CNRS UMR 7063, 5 rue Descartes, Strasbourg 67084,
France
Philippe Ackerer
Institut Terre et Environnement de Strasbourg, Université de
Strasbourg/EOST/ENGEES, CNRS UMR 7063, 5 rue Descartes, Strasbourg 67084,
France
Related authors
No articles found.
Guillaume Gru, Jean-François Girard, Philippe Ackerer, and Nolwenn Lesparre
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3611, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3611, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
We used global sensitivity analysis to study how magnetic resonance sounding signals respond to water flow parameters during a snowmelt event in a mountain catchment. This geophysical sounding technique is directly sensitive to subsurface water content. We show that the signals have a strong, dynamic sensitivity to only some parameters, while others remain uninfluential. This deeper understanding clarifies the potential and limitations of using such data to calibrate hydrological models.
David Luttenauer, Aronne Dell'Oca, Alberto Guadagnini, Sylvain Weill, and Philippe Ackerer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-73, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-73, 2024
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Land Surface Model outputs (evaporation, transpiration, groundwater recharge) are influenced by uncertain parameters. Global sensitivity metrics provide a ranking of the importance of uncertain factors. Evaporation is directly influenced by the net radiation and by the parameters associated with the top litter layer. Transpiration appears as mainly influenced by the vegetation characteristics and by albedo. Groundwater recharge is influenced mainly by soil-related parameters.
Nolwenn Lesparre, Sylvain Pasquet, and Philippe Ackerer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 873–897, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-873-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-873-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Vertical maps of seismic velocity reflect variations of subsurface porosity. We use such images to design the geometry of subsurface compartments delimited by velocity thresholds. The obtained patterns are inserted into a hydrogeological model to test the influence of random geometries, velocity thresholds, and hydraulic parameters on data estimated from the model: the depth of the groundwater and magnetic resonance sounding is a geophysical method sensitive to subsurface water content.
Kouamé Auguste Kouassi, William Francis Kouassi, Oi Mangoua Jules Mangoua, Philippe Ackerer, Gountôh Aristide Douagui, and Issiaka Savané
Proc. IAHS, 384, 49–56, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-384-49-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-384-49-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
La caractérisation des aquifères est importante pour la compréhension des eaux souterraines. La modélisation hydrodynamique par approche inverse se présente comme une solution appropriée pour déterminer un paramètre hydrodynamique tel que la transmissivité sur l'ensemble d'une nappe. Les valeurs de transmissivité identifiées dans ce travail présentent une bonne structure dans l'ensemble en comparaison des champs de transmissivités publiées dans des études en Afrique et dans le monde.
Cited articles
Ackerer, P., Trottier, N., and Delay, F.: Flow in double-porosity aquifers:
Parameter estimation using an adaptive multiscale method,
Adv. Water Resour., 73, 108–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2014.07.001, 2014.
Beven K.: Environmental modelling – An uncertain future?, Routledge, London,
310 pp., ISBN 9780415457590, 2009.
Boni, R., Meisina, C., Teatini, P., Zucca, F., Zoccarato, C., Franceschini,
A., Ezquerro, P., Béjar-Pizarro, M., Fernàndez-Merodo, J. A.,
Guardiola-Albert, C., Pastor, J. L., Tomás, R., and Herrera, G.: 3D
groundwater flow and deformation modelling of Madrid aquifer,
J. Hydrol., 585, 124773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124773, 2020.
Byrd, R. H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., and Zhu, C.: A limited memory algorithm for
bound constrained optimization, J. Sci. Comput., 16,
1190–1208, https://doi.org/10.1137/0916069, 1995.
Calcagno, P., Chilès, J.-P., Courrioux, G., and Guillen, A.: Geological
modelling from field data and geological knowledge: Part I. Modelling method
coupling 3D potential-field interpolation and geological rules,
Phys. Earth Planet. In., 171, 147–157,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2008.06.013, 2008.
Cardiff, M. and Kitanidis, P. K.: Bayesian inversion for facies detection: An
extensible level set framework, Water Resour. Res., 45, W10416,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007675, 2009.
Carrera, J. and Neuman, S. P.: Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient
and steady state conditions: 1. maximum likelihood method incorporating
prior information, Water Resour. Res., 22, 199–210,
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR022i002p00199, 1986.
Carrera, J., Alcolea, A., Medina, A., Hidalgo, J., and Slooten, L. J.: Inverse
problem in hydrogeology, Hydrogeol. J., 13, 206–222,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-004-0404-7, 2005.
Carter, R. D., Jemp, L. F., Pierce, A. C., and Williams, D. L.: Performance
matching with constraints, Soc. Petrol. Eng. J., 14,
187–196, https://doi.org/10.2118/4260-PA, 1974.
Coscia, I., Greenhalgh, S. A., Linde, N., Doetsch, J., Marescot, L.,
Günther, T., Vogt, T., and Green, A. G.: 3D crosshole ERT for aquifer
characterization and monitoring of infiltrating river water, Geophysics,
76, G49–G59, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3553003, 2011.
Crouzeix, M. and Raviart, P.-A.: Conforming and nonconforming finite element
methods for solving the stationary Stokes equations, Revue Française
d'automatique, informatique, recherche opérationnelle, Mathématique,
7, 33–75, 1973.
De Caro, M., Perico, R., Crosta, G. B., Frattini, P., and Volpi, G.: A
regional-scale conceptual and numerical groundwater flow model in
fluvio-glacial sediments for the Milan Metropolitan area (Northern Italy),
J. Hydrol., 29, 100683,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJRH.2020.100683, 2020.
de la Varga, M., Schaaf, A., and Wellmann, F.: GemPy 1.0: open-source stochastic geological modeling and inversion, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1–32, https://https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1-2019, 2019 (data available at: https://www.gempy.org, last access: 5 December 2022).
dell'Arciprete, D., Bersezio, R., Felletti, F., Giudici, M., Comunian, A.,
and Renard, P.: Comparison of three geostatistical methods for hydrofacies
simulation: a test on alluvial sediments, Hydrogeol. J., 20, 299–311,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0808-0, 2012.
Doetsch, J., Linde, N., Coscia, I., Greenhalgh, S. A., and Green, A. G.:
Zonation for 3D aquifer characterization based on joint inversions of
multimethod crosshole geophysical data, Geophysics, 75, G53–G64,
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3496476, 2010.
Eppelbaum, L. V.: Review of processing and interpretation of self-potential
anomalies: Transfer of methodologies developed in magnetic prospecting,
Geosciences, 11, 194, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11050194, 2021.
Fischer, P., Jardani, A., and Jourde, H.: Hydraulic tomography in coupled
discrete-continuum concept to image hydraulic properties of a fractured and
karstified aquifer (Lez aquifer, France), Adv. Water Resour., 137,
103523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125438, 2020.
Fu, J. and Gómez-Hernández, J. J.: A blocking Markov chain Monte Carlo
method for inverse stochastic hydrogeological modeling, Math.
Geosci., 41, 105–128, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-008-9206-0, 2009.
Guadagnini, L., Guadagnini, A., and Tartakovsky, D. M.: Probabilistic
reconstruction of geologic facies, J. Hydrol., 294, 57–67,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.02.007, 2004.
Harp, D. R., Dai, Z., Wolfsberg, A. V., Vrugt, J. A., Robinson, B. A.,
and Vesselinov, V. V.: Aquifer structure identification using stochastic
inversion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08404,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033585, 2008.
Hassane, M. M. and Ackerer, P.: Groundwater flow parameter estimation using
refinement and coarsening indicators for adaptive downscaling
parameterization, Adv. Water Resour., 100, 139–152,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.12.013, 2017.
Hendricks Franssen, H. J., Alcolea, A., Riva, M., Bakr, M., van der Wiel,
N., Stauffer, F., and Guadagnini, A.: A comparison of seven methods for the
inverse modelling of groundwater flow. Application to the characterisation
of well watchments, Adv. Water Resour., 32, 851–872,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.02.011, 2009.
Hoteit, H. and Ackerer, P.: TRACES user's guide, IMFS, Strasbourg, France,
2004.
Kitanidis, P. K. and Lane, R. W.: Maximum likelihood parameter estimation of
hydrologic spatial processes by the Gauss-Newton method, J. Hydrol., 79, 53–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(85)90181-7, 1985.
Klotzsche, A., van der Kruk, J., Linde, N., Doetsch, J., and Vereecken, H.: 3-D
characterization of high-permeability zones in a gravel aquifer using 2-D
crosshole GPR full-waveform inversion and waveguide detection, Geophys.
J. Int., 195, 932–944, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt275, 2013.
Lajaunie, C., Courrioux, G., and Manuel, L.: Foliation fields and 3D cartography
in geology: Principles of a method based on potential interpolation,
Math. Geol., 29, 571–584, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02775087, 1997.
Langousis, A., Kaleris, V., Kokosi, A., and Mamounakis, G.: Markov based
transition probability geostatistics in groundwater applications:
assumptions and limitations,
Stoch. Env. Res. Risk
A., 32, 2129–2146, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1504-y, 2017.
Lee, J. and Kitanidis P. K.: Large-scale hydraulic tomography and joint
inversion of head and tracer data using the Principal Component
Geostatistical Approach (PCGA), Water Resour. Res., 50, 5410–5427,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015483, 2014.
Lee, S., Wolberg, G., and Shin, S. Y.: Scattered data interpolation with
multilevel B-splines, IEEE T. Vis. Comput.
Gr., 3, 228–244, https://doi.org/10.1109/2945.620490, 1997.
Linde, N., Finsterle, S., and Hubbard, S.: Inversion of tracer test data using
tomographic constraints, Water Resour. Res., 42, W04410,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003806, 2006.
Lloyd, C. D. and Atkinson, P. M.: Assessing uncertainty in estimates with
ordinary and indicator kriging, Comput. Geosci., 27, 929–937,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(00)00132-1, 2001.
Luo, N., Illman, W. A., Zha, Y., Park, Y.-J., and Berg, S. J.: Three-dimensional
hydraulic tomography analysis of long-term municipal wellfield operations:
Validation with synthetic flow and solute transport data, J. Hydrol., 590, 125438, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2020.125438, 2020.
Majdalani, S. and Ackerer, P.: Identification of groundwater parameters using
an adaptive multiscale method, Groundwater, 49, 548–559,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00750.x, 2011.
Marini, M., Felletti, F., Beretta, G. P., and Terrenghi, J.: Three
geostatistical methods for hydrofacies simulation ranked using a large
borehole lithology dataset from the Venice Hinterland (NE Italy), Water,
10, 844, https://doi.org/10.3390/w10070844, 2018.
Millington, R. J. and Quirk, J. P.: Permeability of porous solids, T. Faraday Soc., 57, 1200–1207, https://doi.org/10.1039/TF9615701200, 1961.
Olsson, A. M. J. and Sandberg, G. E.: Latin hypercube sampling for stochastic
finite element analysis, J. Eng. Mech., 128, 121–125,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:1(121), 2002.
Pechlivanidis, I. G., Jackson, B. M., McIntyre, N. R., and Wheater, H. S.:
Catchment scale hydrological modelling: a review of model types, calibration
approaches and uncertainty analysis methods in the context of recent
developments in technology and applications, Global NEST J., 13,
193–214, 2011.
Phillips, D. L. and Marks, D. G.: Spatial uncertainty analysis: propagation of
interpolation errors in spatially distributed models, Ecol. Model.,
91, 213–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00191-3, 1996.
Poeter, E. P. and Hill, M. C.: Inverse models: a necessary next step in
groundwater modelling, Groundwater, 35, 250–260, 1997.
Prautzsch, H., Boehm, W., and Paluszny, M.: Bézier and B-spline techniques,
Springer, New York, USA, ISBN 978-3-642-07842-2, 2002.
Priyanka, B. N. and Mohan Kumar, M. S.: Three-dimensional modelling of
heterogeneous coastal aquifer: Upscaling from local scale, Water, 11,
421, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030421, 2019.
Rambourg, D., Ackerer, P., and Bildstein, O.: Groundwater parameter inversion
using topographic constraints and a zonal adaptive multiscale procedure: a
case study of an alluvial aquifer, Water, 12, 1899,
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12071899, 2020.
Sanchez-León, E., Leven, C., Haslauer, C. P., and Cirpka, O. A.: Combining
3D hydraulic tomography with tracer tests for improved transport
characterization, Groundwater, 54, 498–507, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12381,
2015.
Straface, S., Chidichimo, F., Rizzo, E., Riva, M., Barrash, W., Revil, A.,
Cardiff, M., and Guadagnini, A.: Joint inversion of steady-state hydrologic and
self-potential data for 3D hydraulic conductivity distribution at the Boise
Hydrogeophysical Research Site, J. Hydrol., 407, 115–128,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.013, 2011.
Tarantola, A.: Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter
estimation, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia,
USA, ISBN 0-89871-572-5, 2005.
Townley, L. R. and Wilson, J. L.: Computationally efficient algorithms for
parameter estimation and uncertainty propagation in numerical models of
groundwater flow, Water Resour. Res., 21, 1851–1860,
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR021i012p01851, 1985.
Viaroli, S., Lotti, F., Mastrorillo, L., Paolucci, V., and Mazza, R.: Simplified
two-dimensional modelling to constraint the deep groundwater contribution in
a complex mineral water mixing area, Riardo Plain, southern Italy,
Hydrogeol. J., 27, 1459–1478, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1910-3,
2019.
Vrugt, J. A., ter Braak, C. J. F., Diks, C. G. H., Robinson, B. A., Hyman, J.
M., and Higdon, D.: Accelerating Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation by
differential evolution with self-adaptive randomized subspace sampling,
Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, 10, 273–290,
https://doi.org/10.1515/IJNSNS.2009.10.3.273, 2009.
Wagener, T. and Kollat, J: Numerical and visual evaluation of hydrological and
environmental models using the Monte Carlo analysis toolbox, Environ.
Modell. Softw., 22, 1021–1033,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.06.017, 2007.
White, D. R.: Propagation of uncertainty and comparison of interpolation
schemes, Int. J. Thermophys., 38,
39, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-016-2174-6, 2017.
Zhang, Z. and Brusseau, M. L.: Characterizing three-dimensional hydraulic
conductivity distributions using qualitative and quantitative geologic
borehole data: Application to a field site, Groundwater, 36, 671–678,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb02842.x, 2005.
Short summary
The reproduction of flows and contaminations underground requires a good estimation of the parameters of the geological environment (mainly permeability and porosity), in three dimensions. While most researchers rely on geophysical methods, which are costly and difficult to implement in the field, this study proposes an alternative using data that are already widely available: piezometric records (monitoring of the water table) and the lithological description of the piezometric wells.
The reproduction of flows and contaminations underground requires a good estimation of the...