3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00

0.01.53.04.56.07.59.0

10.5

K (m/s)

Dep

th b

elow

Top

(m)

10-6 110-4 10-210-6 110-4 10-2

5 tests, K structure assumed known 5 tests, K structure assumed unknown

15 tests, Inverse Zonation Adjusted15 tests, K structure unknown

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.001 0.1 10 1000t (s)

Δh

(m

)

Δh1

Δh1-Δh2

II> The Direct-Push Permeameter (DPP)

PT1

PT3

PT2

PT4

PT1

PT2

r1

r2r2

r1

r3r3

PT1

PT3

PT2

r2r2

r3r3

r2r2r1

r4r4

I> Introduction The direct-push permeameter (DPP) is a tool for the in-situ characterization of hydraulic conductivity (K) in shallow, unconsolidated formations. Our previous studies, including field work (Butler et al., 2007) and a systematic simulation assessment (Liu et al., 2008), have demonstrated that the DPP offers a promising means of obtaining K information at an unprecedented level of detail, accuracy and speed. In this study, we conduct a series of numerical simulation analyses to further explore different configurations of the DPP tool, such that the most information can be obtained from this technique in an efficient manner.

Butler, J. J., Jr., P. Dietrich, V. Wittig, and T. Christy (2007), Characterizing hydraulic conductivity with the direct-push permeameter, Ground Water, 45(4), 409– 419.Liu, G., G. C. Bohling, and J. J. Butler Jr. (2008), Simulation assessment of the direct-push permeameter for characterizing vertical variations in hydraulic conductivity, Water Resour. Res., 44, W02432, doi:10.1029/2007WR006078.

VI> Concluding Remarks: The DPP is able to provide an accurate, high-resolution K profile in a time-effective manner. A single test is most sensitive to the area immediately

surrounding the interval between the injection screen and the pressure transducers. Thin layers can be characterized by adding transducers or refining the intervals for tool advancement. Information on the K structure is important for the inverse estimation process. Such information may be obtained through continuously monitoring the back-injection pressure while the tool is advanced. Based on the results from this work as well as additional practical constraints, the three-PT configuration (A) is recommend as the optimal design.

The Direct-Push Permeameter for High-Resolution Characterization of Spatial Variations in Hydraulic Conductivity: Tool Design

Gaisheng Liu, Geoff Bohling, James J. Butler, Jr., Kansas Geological Survey, The University of Kansas; Peter Dietrich, Centre for Environmental Research, Germany

IV> DPP Injection-Induced Head Distribution

III> Sensitivity Analysis

V> Tool Design Results

(a) K Profile

(c) Two-PT Configurations

r1=0.15 m0.025 m

Q

PT1

PT2

Pressure Transducers

r2=0.40 m

r1=0.15 m0.025 m

Q

PT1

PT2

Pressure Transducers

r2=0.40 m

The prototype configuration consists of an injection screen and two pressure transducers.

The tool is advanced into the subsurface by direct-push technology. At desired depth, several hydraulic injection tests are conducted at

different rates. Head changes are monitored at transducers. K estimate is obtained analytically or numerically.

The steady-shape flow conditions allows for a dramatic reduction in the time needed in field application.

Injection Injection

ScreenScreen Pressure PortPressure Port

Pressure PortPressure Port

2121

11

4 rrhh

QK

iii hr

QK

4

Under Steady-Shape Conditions,

Under Steady-State Conditions,

ii

iKK

hhJ

ˆ/

)( 12

is the small perturbation around the base value at location i; and is the change in the difference ( ).

Positive: the DPP K estimate increases with the medium K.

Negative: the DPP estimate decreases when the medium K increases.

Zero: the DPP estimate does not change with the medium K.

iK

iK̂)( 12 hh

12 hh

Small impact by the low-Kskin on DPP accuracy

Estimate the horizontal component of anisotropic K

4.5

4.7

4.9

5.1

5.3

5.5

5.7

(a) Base Scenario

z (m

)

Q

ΔhPT1–ΔhPT2

= 0.012 m

PT1

PT2

Kr:Kz 100:1

ΔhPT1–ΔhPT2

= 0.013 m

0.010

0.015

Kr : Kz = 100:1

Skin

ΔhPT1–ΔhPT2

= 0.012 m

ΔhPT1–ΔhPT2

= 0.0

Skin K = Base K /10

Thickness 0.02 m

More influence by low-K than high-K layers(d) Low-K inclusion

4.7

4.9

5.1

5.3

5.5

5.7

z (m

)

ΔhPT1–ΔhPT2

= 0.026 m

0.005

0.01

0

0.0

15

0.0050.005

ΔhPT1–ΔhPT2

= 0.010 m

0.00

5

0.01

0

High KHHigh

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

9.0

10.5

K (m/s)

De

pth

be

low

To

p (

m)

10-6 110-4 10-2

(b) DPP Configurations Investigated

(A) Prototype - r1=0.15m, r2=0.40m, (B) r1=0.15m, r2=0.50m, (C) r1=0.10m, r2=0.20m

(d) Three-PT Configurations

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

9.0

10.5

K (m/s)

Dep

th b

elo

w T

op

(m

)

10-6 110-4 10-2 10-6 110-4 10-2

5 tests, K structure assumed unknown5 tests, K structure assumed known

15 tests, Inverse Zonation Adjusted15 tests, K structure unknown

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00

(A) r1=0.15m, r2=0.25m, r3=0.40m, (B) r1=0.10m, r2=0.20m, r3=0.30m,

(C) r1=0.15m, r2=0.30m, r2=0.50m

Δh2

K=1.5e-3 m/s

Ss=5e-6 /m.

Reference Profile Injection testsInverse Zonation Estimated (C)Estimated (B) Estimated (A)

Legend

4.5

4.7

4.9

5.1

5.3

5.5

5.7

5.9

-0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0025J

z (m

)

Injection

PT1

PT2

00

00

1-D Layered2-D Radial