Skip to main content
Log in

Experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of imbricated gravel structures on flow and solute transport in a highly heterogeneous alluvial-proluvial fan aquifer, SW China

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Fluid Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An alluvial-proluvial fan (APF) has heterogeneous characteristics, which result in the development of imbricated gravel channel networks formed by flow erosion. In this type of aquifer, groundwater flow and solute transport are significantly affected by the connectivity of the channels. This paper investigates the 2D connectivity of a heterogeneous APF aquifer based on a case study of the Dali APF and a physical box numerical model in order to determine how the imbricate gravel channel structures, which have different angles of inclination, influence the flow and solute transport under pumping conditions. Our results indicate that the continuity and connectivity among the imbricated gravels and the imbedded clay lenses of the APF aquifer are the key factor controlling the transport and evolution paths of the plume, while the gravel inclination angles influence the first arrival time, the peak arrival time, and the peak concentration of the downstream observation wells. A smaller gravel inclination angle results in a plume with a larger horizontal range and a smaller vertical range. In contrast, a larger inclination angle causes a later peak arrival time and a longer plume tail. This investigation provides insight into flow and transport within imbricated gravel structures and provides a valuable reference for groundwater risk assessment in similar APF aquifers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alizadeh AH et al (2018) Salt precipitation in ultratight porous media and its impact on pore connectivity and hydraulic conductivity. Water Resour Res 54(4):2768–2780

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett JP, Haslauer CP, Cirpka OA (2017) The impact of sedimentary anisotropy on solute mixing in stacked scour-pool structures. Water Resour Res 53(4):2813–2832

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bianchi M, Pedretti D (2017) Geological entropy and solute transport in heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour Res 53(6):4691–4708

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bianchi M, Pedretti D (2018) An entrogram-based approach to describe spatial heterogeneity with applications to solute transport in porous media. Water Resour Res 54(7):4432–4448

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bianchi M et al (2011) Spatial connectivity in a highly heterogeneous aquifer: from cores to preferential flow paths. Water Resour Res 47:W05524

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boon M, Bijeljic B, Krevor S (2017) Observations of the impact of rock heterogeneity on solute spreading and mixing. Water Resour Res 53(6):4624–4642

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bull WB (1977) The alluvial-fan environment. Prog Phys Geogr 1(2):222–270

    Google Scholar 

  8. Christensen S, Zlotnik VA, Tartakovsky DM (2010) On the use of analytical solutions to design pumping tests in leaky aquifers connected to a stream. J Hydrol 381(3–4):341–351

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chunmiao Z (2010) MT3DMS v5.3 a modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems, Supplemental User's Guide, Department of Geological Sciences The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487

  10. Chunmiao Z, Bennett G (1995) Applied contaminant transport modeling: theory and practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dagasan Y, Erten O, Renard P, Straubhaar J, Topal E (2019) Multiple-point statistical simulation of the ore boundaries for a lateritic bauxite deposit. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 33:65–878

    Google Scholar 

  12. Darcel C, Bour O, Davy P, de Dreuzy JR (2003) Connectivity properties of two-dimensional fracture networks with stochastic fractal correlation. Water Resour Res 39(10):1272

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dashtian H, Shokri N, Sahimi M (2018) Pore-network model of evaporation-induced salt precipitation in porous media: the effect of correlations and heterogeneity. Adv Water Resour 112:59–71

    Google Scholar 

  14. de Anna P et al (2014) Mixing and reaction kinetics in porous media: an experimental pore scale quantification. Environ Sci Technol 48(1):508–516

    Google Scholar 

  15. de Barros FPJ, Bellin A, Cvetkovic V, Dagan G, Fiori A (2016) Aquifer heterogeneity controls on adverse human health effects and the concept of the hazard attenuation factor. Water Resour Res 52(8):5911–5922

    Google Scholar 

  16. dell’Arciprete D et al (2012) Comparison of three geostatistical methods for hydrofacies simulation: a test on alluvial sediments. Hydrol J 20(2):299–311

    Google Scholar 

  17. Deutsch CV (1998) Fortran programs for calculating connectivity of three-dimensional numerical models and for ranking multiple realizations. Comput Geosci 24(1):69–76

    Google Scholar 

  18. Di Prima S, Marrosu R, Lassabatere L, Angulo-Jaramillo R, Pirastru M (2018) In situ characterization of preferential flow by combining plot- and point-scale infiltration experiments on a hillslope. J Hydrol 563:633–642

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ezzy T, Cox M, O’Rourke A, Huftile G (2006) Groundwater flow modelling within a coastal alluvial plain setting using a high-resolution hydrofacies approach; Bells Creek plain. Aust Hydrol J 14(5):675–688

    Google Scholar 

  20. Falivene O, Cabrera L, Saez A (2007) Large to intermediate-scale aquifer heterogeneity in fine-grain dominated alluvial fans (Cenozoic As Pontes Basin, northwestern Spain): insight based on three-dimensional geostatistical reconstruction. Hydrol J 15(5):861–876

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fernandez-Garcia D, Trinchero P, Sanchez-Vila X (2010) Conditional stochastic mapping of transport connectivity. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Finkel M, Grathwohl P, Cirpka OA (2016) A travel-time based approach to model kinetic sorption in highly heterogeneous porous media via reactive hydrofacies. Water Resour Res 52(12):9390–9411

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fiori A, Bellin A, Cvetkovic V, de Barros FPJ, Dagan G (2015) Stochastic modeling of solute transport in aquifers: from heterogeneity characterization to risk analysis. Water Resour Res 51(8):6622–6648

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fiori A, Jankovic I (2012) On preferential flow, channeling and connectivity in heterogeneous porous formations. Math Geosci 44(2):133–145

    Google Scholar 

  25. Freixas G, Fernàndez-Garcia D, Sanchez-Vila X (2017) Stochastic estimation of hydraulic transmissivity fields using flow connectivity indicator data. Water Resour Res 53(1):602–618

    Google Scholar 

  26. Frippiat CC, Illangasekare TH, Zyvoloski GA (2009) Anisotropic effective medium solutions of head and velocity variance to quantify flow connectivity. Adv Water Res 32(2):239–249

    Google Scholar 

  27. Glass RJ, Brainard JR, Yeh TCJ (2005) Infiltration in unsaturated layered fluvial deposits at Rio Bravo: macroscopic anisotropy and heterogeneous transport. Vadose Zone Journal 4(1):22–31

    Google Scholar 

  28. Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model—user guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process: U.S. Geological surVey open-file report 00–92 121:83–875

  29. Haslauer CP, Bárdossy A, Sudicky EA (2017) Detecting and modelling structures on the micro and the macro scales: assessing their effects on solute transport behaviour. Adv Water Resour 107(C):439–450

    Google Scholar 

  30. Henri CV, Fernandez-Garcia D, de Barros FPJ (2015) Probabilistic human health risk assessment of degradation-related chemical mixtures in heterogeneous aquifers: risk statistics, hot spots, and preferential channels. Water Resour Res 51(6):4086–4108

    Google Scholar 

  31. Henri CV, Fernàndez-Garcia D, de Barros FPJ (2016) Assessing the joint impact of DNAPL source-zone behavior and degradation products on the probabilistic characterization of human health risk. Adv Water Resour 88:124–138

    Google Scholar 

  32. Huysmans M, Dassargues A (2012) Modeling the effect of clay drapes on pumping test response in a cross-bedded aquifer using multiple-point geostatistics. J Hydrol 450–451:159–167

    Google Scholar 

  33. Knudby C, Carrera J (2005) On the relationship between indicators of geostatistical, flow and transport connectivity. Adv Water Resour 28(4):405–421

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lee S-Y, Carle SF, Fogg GE (2007) Geologic heterogeneity and a comparison of two geostatistical models: sequential Gaussian and transition probability-based geostatistical simulation. Adv Water Resour 30(9):1914–1932

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lester DR, Trefry MG, Metcalfe G (2016) Chaotic advection at the pore scale: mechanisms, upscaling and implications for macroscopic transport. Adv Water Resour 97:175–192

    Google Scholar 

  36. Libera A, de Barros FPJ, Guadagnini A (2017) Influence of pumping operational schedule on solute concentrations at a well in randomly heterogeneous aquifers. J Hydrol 546(C):490–502

    Google Scholar 

  37. Loschko M, Wöhling T, Rudolph DL, Cirpka OA (2018) Accounting for the decreasing reaction potential of heterogeneous aquifers in a stochastic framework of aquifer-scale reactive transport. Water Resour Res 54(1):442–463

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lu C et al (2018) A mobile–mobile transport model for simulating reactive transport in connected heterogeneous fields. J Hydrol 560:97–108

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mishra PK, Vesselinov VV, Neuman SP (2012) Radial flow to a partially penetrating well with storage in an anisotropic confined aquifer. J Hydrol 448–449:255–259

    Google Scholar 

  40. Molinari A, Pedretti D, Fallico C (2015) Analysis of convergent flow tracer tests in a heterogeneous sandy box with connected gravel channels. Water Resour Res 51(7):5640–5657

    Google Scholar 

  41. Moslehi M, de Barros FPJ (2017) Uncertainty quantification of environmental performance metrics in heterogeneous aquifers with long-range correlations. J Contam Hydrol 196:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  42. Norouzi Apourvari S, Arns CH (2016) Image-based relative permeability upscaling from the pore scale. Adv Water Resour 95:161–175

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pechstein A, Attinger S, Krieg R, Copty NK (2016) Estimating transmissivity from single-well pumping tests in heterogeneous aquifers. Water Resour Res 52(1):495–510

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pool M, Dentz M (2018) Effects of heterogeneity, connectivity, and density variations on mixing and chemical reactions under temporally fluctuating flow conditions and the formation of reaction patterns. Water Resour Res 54(1):186–204

    Google Scholar 

  45. Porta G, Chaynikov S, Riva M, Guadagnini A (2013) Upscaling solute transport in porous media from the pore scale to dual- and multicontinuum formulations. Water Resour Res 49(4):2025–2039

    Google Scholar 

  46. Priyanka BN, Mohan Kumar MS, Amai M (2018) Estimating anisotropic heterogeneous hydraulic conductivity and dispersivity in a layered coastal aquifer of Dakshina Kannada District, Karnataka. J Hydrol 565:302–317

    Google Scholar 

  47. Proce CJ, Ritzi RW, Dominic DF, Dai ZX (2004) Modeling multiscale heterogeneity and aquifer interconnectivity. Gr Water 42(5):658–670

    Google Scholar 

  48. Qin R, Wu Y, Xu Z, Xie D, Zhang C (2013) Numerical modeling of contaminant transport in a stratified heterogeneous aquifer with dipping anisotropy. Hydrol J 21:1235–1246

    Google Scholar 

  49. Renard P, Straubhaar J, Caers J, Mariethoz G (2011) Conditioning facies simulations with connectivity data. Math Geosci 43(8):879–903

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ritzi RW Jr (2000) Behavior of indicator variograms and transition probabilities in relation to the variance in lengths of hydrofacies. Water Resour Res 36(11):3375–3381

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sakata Y, Ikeda R (2013) Depth dependence and exponential models of permeability in alluvial-fan gravel deposits. Hydrol J 21(4):773–786

    Google Scholar 

  52. Savoy H, Kalbacher T, Dietrich P, Rubin Y (2017) Geological heterogeneity: Goal-oriented simplification of structure and characterization needs. Adv Water Res 109(C):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sklar LS et al (2017) The problem of predicting the size distribution of sediment supplied by hillslopes to rivers. Geomorphology 277:31–49

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sun AY, Ritzi RW, Sims DW (2008) Characterization and modeling of spatial variability in a complex alluvial aquifer: implications on solute transport. Water Resour Res 44(4):W04402

    Google Scholar 

  55. Trinchero P, Sanchez-Vila X, Fernandez-Garcia D (2008) Point-to-point connectivity, an abstract concept or a key issue for risk assessment studies? Adv Water Resour 31(12):1742–1753

    Google Scholar 

  56. Vassena C, Cattaneo L, Giudici M (2010) Assessment of the role of facies heterogeneity at the fine scale by numerical transport experiments and connectivity indicators. Hydrol J 18(3):651–668

    Google Scholar 

  57. Viero DP (2019) Modelling urban floods using a finite element staggered scheme with an anisotropic dual porosity model. J Hydrol 568:247–259

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wang X, Jourde H, Aliouache M, Massonnat G (2018) Characterization of horizontal transmissivity anisotropy using cross-hole slug tests. J Hydrol 564:89–98

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wang Y-L et al (2017) Characterizing subsurface hydraulic heterogeneity of alluvial fan using riverstage fluctuations. J Hydrol 547:650–663

    Google Scholar 

  60. Weissmann GS, Carle SF, Fogg GE (1999) Three-dimensional hydrofacies modeling based on soil surveys and transition probability geostatistics. Water Resour Res 35(6):1761–1770

    Google Scholar 

  61. Weissmann GS, Fogg GE (1999) Multi-scale alluvial fan heterogeneity modeled with transition probability geostatistics in a sequence stratigraphic framework. J Hydrol 226(1–2):48–65

    Google Scholar 

  62. Western AW, Bloschl G, Grayson RB (2001) Toward capturing hydrologically significant connectivity in spatial patterns. Water Resour Res 37(1):83–97

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ye M, Khaleel R (2008) A Markov chain model for characterizing medium heterogeneity and sediment layering structure. Water Resour Res 44(9):W09427

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ye Y, Chiogna G, Lu C, Rolle M (2018) Effect of anisotropy structure on plume entropy and reactive mixing in helical flows. Transp Porous Media 121(2):315–332

    Google Scholar 

  65. You M, Qin R, Cao G, Bao J (2016) Heterogeneous distribution of the aquifer sediments in an alluvial fan of Dali, Yunnan. Geol Explor 52(4):734–742 (in Chinese with English Abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Zarlenga A, de Barros FPJ, Fiori A (2016) Uncertainty quantification of adverse human health effects from continuously released contaminant sources in groundwater systems. J Hydrol 541:850–861

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zarlenga A, Janković I, Fiori A, Dagan G (2018) Effective hydraulic conductivity of three-dimensional heterogeneous formations of lognormal permeability distribution: the impact of connectivity. Water Resour Res 54(3):2480–2486

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zha Y et al (2019) Exploitation of pump-and-treat remediation systems for characterization of hydraulic heterogeneity. J Hydrol 573:324–340

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zheng Y, Shikhov I, Gbayan LK, Arns J-Y, Arns CH (2018) About the connectivity of dual-scale media based on micro-structure based regional analysis of NMR flow propagators. J Contam Hydrol 212:143–151

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zhu L, Dai Z, Gong H, Gable C, Teatini P (2016) Statistic inversion of multi-zone transition probability models for aquifer characterization in alluvial fans. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30(3):1005–1016

    Google Scholar 

  71. Zhu L, Gong H, Dai Z, Guo G, Teatini P (2017) Modeling 3-D permeability distribution in alluvial fans using facies architecture and geophysical acquisitions. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(2):721–733

    Google Scholar 

  72. Zovi F, Camporese M, Hendricks Franssen H-J, Huisman JA, Salandin P (2017) Identification of high-permeability subsurface structures with multiple point geostatistics and normal score ensemble Kalman filter. J Hydrol 548:208–224

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 41867031, 41402215 and 41562012), the Open Project Program of Engineering Research Center of Groundwater Pollution Control and Remediation, Ministry of Education (No. ERCDEE201608016), the Project for the Investigation and Evaluation of Geothermal Resources in the Zhangjiakou Area (No. DD20190129), and the Project for Basic Research CAGS (No. JYYWF20180501). We thank the executive editor and two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronggao Qin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (DOCX 718 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, J., Su, X., Liang, C. et al. Experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of imbricated gravel structures on flow and solute transport in a highly heterogeneous alluvial-proluvial fan aquifer, SW China. Environ Fluid Mech 21, 11–38 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-020-09760-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-020-09760-8

Keywords

Navigation