22
Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions

Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Final Project

Summary of Results &

Conclusions

Page 2: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM

Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted ARM at nodes with targets

Head predictions are more robust (consistent among different calibrated models) than transport (particle tracking) predictions.

Observations

Page 3: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Calibration Prediction

Group ARM h

ARM ET (x10e7)

ARM h (at targets)

ARM h(at pumping wells)*

1 1.16 0.20 2.87 5.02

2 0.8 0.52 1.81 2.27

3 1.18 0.47 2.73 12.77

4 2.39 0.78 0.80 0.76

5 2.07 1.10 1.61 2.61

6 0.96 0.48 2.13 2.90

7 0.92 0.96 1.18 0.92

8 0.50 0.60 3.70 2.71

9 0.054 0.0049 3.54 2.29

A good calibrationdoes not guaranteean accurate prediction.

A calibrated ARMof around 1 is a good calibration.

Page 4: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Group P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

1 5450 playa 2561 PW2 5060 playa 1098 PW4

401 PW4 1465 playa

1220 PW2

2 2120 PW2 606 PW2 709 playa 474 PW4

595 PW4 608 playa 310 PW3

3 5247 PW2 1088 PW2 1599 playa 361 PW4

510 PW4 2317 PW1

2243 playa

4 6601 playa 1226 PW2 592 playa 623 PW4

846 PW4 968 playa 1194 PW2

5 4548 playa 1660 PW2 1513 playa 1412 PW4

744 PW4 817 PW1 4410 playa

6 1.20E5 PW5

820 PW2 1.82 E4 PW5 587 PW4

576 PW4 1.19 E5 PW5

9990 PW5

7 4083 playa 1039 PW2 618 playa 647 PW4

629 PW4 908 playa 2484 PW2

8 2810 PW2 986 PW2 752 playa 659 PW4

577 PW4 359 PW1 502 PW3

9 546 PW1 534 PW2 1156 playa 402 PW4

1121 playa

91 PW1 1170 PW2

Truth 672 PW1

549 PW2

1.25 E5 playa

359 PW4

650 PW4

238 PW1

1712 playa

Particle Tracking Resultstravel time (yr) & exit location

4

4

4

6

5

5

3

5

4

number of “hits”

Page 5: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

To use conventional inverse models/parameter estimationmodels in calibration, you need to have a pretty good idea of zonation (of K, for example).

Also need to identify reasonable ranges for thecalibration parameters.

(New version of PEST with pilot points does not need zonation as it works with continuous distribution of parameter values.)

Page 6: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

K distribution

Layer 1 Layer 2Layer 3

Note anisotropy

Kx/Kz1001011100

n0.20.20.30.40.3

Truth

Page 7: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Truth Group 4 Group 7

Layer 1 - Zonation

Page 8: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Truth Group 4 Group 7

Layer 1 - Zonation

Group 2

Hyd. Conductivity (ft/yr)

Kx & Ky Kz

7000 50

55000 30000

22000 11000

Page 9: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Truth

Group 1

Layer 1 - Zonation

Group 6

Page 10: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Truth

Group 1Group 5

Layer 1 - Zonation

Group 3Group 6

Page 11: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Layers 2, 3layer 2

Truth layer 3

Group 7

Truth layer 2

layer 3

Group 4

Page 12: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Leakance arrayRepresenting KV of confining bed

1 ft/day

10 ft/day

Truth

Page 13: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

0.35 ft/yr

0.67 ft/yr

Recharge

Truth

Page 14: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

ET – extinction depth

10 ft

15 ft

Truth

Page 15: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Group P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

1 5450 playa 2561 PW2 5060 playa 1098 PW4

401 PW4 1465 playa

1220 PW2

2 2120 PW2 606 PW2 709 playa 474 PW4

595 PW4 608 playa 310 PW3

3 5247 PW2 1088 PW2 1599 playa 361 PW4

510 PW4 2317 PW1

2243 playa

4 6601 playa 1226 PW2 592 playa 623 PW4

846 PW4 968 playa 1194 PW2

5 4548 playa 1660 PW2 1513 playa 1412 PW4

744 PW4 817 PW1 4410 playa

6 1.20E5 PW5

820 PW2 1.82 E4 PW5 587 PW4

576 PW4 1.19 E5 PW5

9990 PW5

7 4083 playa 1039 PW2 618 playa 647 PW4

629 PW4 908 playa 2484 PW2

8 2810 PW2 986 PW2 752 playa 659 PW4

577 PW4 359 PW1 502 PW3

9 546 PW1 534 PW2 1156 playa 402 PW4

1121 playa

91 PW1 1170 PW2

Truth 672 PW1

549 PW2

1.25 E5 playa

359 PW4

650 PW4

238 PW1

1712 playa

Particle Tracking Resultstravel time (yr) & exit location

4

4

4

6

5

5

3

5

4

number of “hits”

Page 16: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

7

1

26

4

5

3

p31

p7

Page 17: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Calibration Prediction

Group ARM h

ARM ET (x10e7)

ARM h (at targets)

ARM h(at pumping wells)*

1 1.16 0.20 2.87 5.02

2 0.8 0.52 1.81 2.27

3 1.18 0.47 2.73 12.77

4 2.39 0.78 0.80 0.76

5 2.07 1.10 1.61 2.61

6 0.96 0.48 2.13 2.90

7 0.92 0.96 1.18 0.92

8 0.50 0.60 3.70 2.71

9 0.054 0.0049 3.54 2.29

Calibration to ET doesn’t improve prediction for this problem

Page 18: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Calibration to Fluxes

When recharge rate (R) is a calibration parameter, calibrating to fluxes can help in estimating K and/or R.

R was not a calibration parameter in our problem.

Page 19: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

H1H2

q = KI

In this example, flux information helps calibrate K.

Page 20: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

or discharge information helps calibrate R.

Page 21: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

All water discharges to the playa.Calibration to ET merely fine tunesthe discharge rates within the playaarea. Calibration to ET does nothelp calibrate the heads and K valuesexcept in the immediate vicinityof the playa.

In our example, total recharge is known/assumed to be 7.14E08 ft3/year and discharge = recharge.

Page 22: Final Project Summary of Results & Conclusions. Generally predicted ARM at targets > Calibrated ARM Generally, predicted ARM at pumping wells > Predicted

Conclusions

• Calibrations are non-unique.

• A good calibration (even if ARM = 0) does not ensure that the model will make good predictions.

• Need for an uncertainty analysis to accompany calibration results and predictions.

• You can never have enough field data.

• Modelers need to maintain a healthy skepticism about their results.