4.7 Article

Minimum Hydraulic Resistance Uncertainty and the Development of a Connectivity-Based Iterative Sampling Strategy

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 7, 页码 5593-5611

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2019WR025269

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1654009]
  2. USC Provost's PhD Fellowship
  3. Division Of Earth Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1654009] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of well-connected paths is commonly observed in spatially heterogeneous porous formations. Channels consisting of high hydraulic conductivity (K) values strongly affect fate and transport of dissolved species in the subsurface environment. Several studies have established a correlation between connectivity properties of the spatially variable K-field and solute first arrival times. However, due to limited knowledge of the spatial structure of the K-field, connectivity metrics are subject to uncertainty. In this work, we utilize the concept of the minimum hydraulic resistance and least resistance path to evaluate the connectivity of a K-field in a stochastic framework. We employ a fast graph theory-based algorithm to alleviate the computational burden associated with stochastic computations in order to investigate both the impact of the hydrogeological structural conceptualization and domain dimensionality (2-D vs. 3-D) on the uncertainty of the minimum hydraulic resistance. Finally, we propose an iterative data acquisition strategy that can be utilized to identify the least resistance path (which is linked to preferential flow channels) in real sites. A synthetic benchmark test is presented, showing the advantages of the proposed sampling strategy when compared to a regular sampling strategy. By using the iterative data sampling strategy, we were able to reduce first arrival time uncertainty by 47% (when compared to the regular sampling strategy), while maintaining site characterization efforts constant.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据