非完整井下单井注抽试验数值模拟方法改进

顾昊琛; 王全荣; 詹红兵

doi:10.3799/dqkx.2018.366

非完整井下单井注抽试验数值模拟方法改进

doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2018.366

顾昊琛^1, ,,
王全荣^1, , ,,
詹红兵²

1.
中国地质大学环境学院, 湖北武汉 430074
2.
德克萨斯农工大学地质与地球物理系, 美国德克萨斯 77840

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金青年基金 41502229

国家自然科学基金创新群体 41521001

中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金摇篮计划 CUGL160407

中国地质调查局项目 DD20190263

中国地质调查局项目 DD2019040022

详细信息

作者简介:
顾昊琛(1994—), 男, 硕士研究生, 主要从事地下水流动及污染物迁移规律数值模拟研究

通讯作者:
王全荣

中图分类号: P641.2
计量
- 文章访问数: 3264
- HTML全文浏览量: 1737
- PDF下载量: 50
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2018-12-09
- 刊出日期: 2020-02-15

An Improved Approach in Modeling Injection-Withdraw Test of the Partially Penetrating Well

Gu Haochen^{1
,
,},
Wang Quanrong^{1
, ,
,},
Zhan Hongbin²

1.
School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
2.
Department of Geology & Geophysics, Texas A&M University, Texas 77840, USA

摘要

摘要: 单井注抽试验（SWIW试验）具有成本低、耗时短、易操作等优点，被广泛用于获取野外含水层的弥散度等物理化学参数.然而，井筒附近的流场变化复杂，给模型求解带来不便，尤其是非完整井问题.针对非完整井SWIW试验问题，MODFLOW/MT3DMS软件中包含3种模块：传统WELL模块、高渗透性WELL模块和MNW模块，分别代表 3种常规的数值模拟方法.研究表明现有的这3个模块都存在一些假设条件，野外试验条件可能难以满足.为此，本研究提出一种新的计算方法，即将MNW模块中考虑井中溶质混溶的公式运用到高渗透性WELL模块上，通过一个参数反求案例的分析，证明SWIW试验模拟结果的精度得到提高.基于改进后的模型，探究传统模型中常用的两个假设条件的影响：忽略滤水管空间位置和假设试验过程中流场是稳定.结果表明：（1）非完整井井筒滤水管的位置对浓度结果的影响不可忽略；（2）含水层渗透系数与储水系数的比值较小时，稳定流场这个假设条件会带来误差.
- 反求参数 /
- 径向弥散 /
- 溶质运移 /
- 数值模拟 /
- 环境地质
Abstract: Single Well Injection-Withdraw (SWIW) test has been widely used to estimate physical and chemical parameters of aquifer due to its advantages of low budget, less time consuming and easy to operate. However, the complex flow fields near the wellbore pose challenges in solving the model of the SWIW test, especially for partially penetrating wells. Currently, three methods included in MODFLOW/MT3DMSwere used to deal with this problem:traditional WELL module, high permeability WELL module and MNW module, which respectively represent three types of commonly used numerical methods. However, it was found that all of these models were based on assumptions which might not be satisfied in the actual applications. In this study, a new method was developed by coupling the MNW module and high permeability WELL module. The case studies demonstrated the accuracy of the new model of the SWIW test. Meanwhile, we employed the new model to investigate two assumptions included in the previous studies, and found that:(1) the influence of the well screen location on the results was not negligible. (2) The assumption of the steady-flow field used in the traditional mathematical model of SWIW will cause non-negligible errors when the ratio of permeability coefficient to storage coefficient is small.
- parameters estimation /
- radial dispersion /
- solute transport /
- numerical simulation /
- environmental geology

HTML全文

图 1 单井注抽试验概念模型示意图（Wang et al., 2017）

a.注入过程；b.抽取过程(初期)；B为厚度（m）；黑色箭头表示井筒附近水流方向，蓝色箭头表示距离井较远的含水层水流方向，红色深浅表示溶质浓度的高低

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of single well injection and extraction test

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 网格系统平面示意图

Fig. 2. Grid system in a plan view

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 网格系统三维示意图

Fig. 3. Grid system in 3-D view

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 3种模型井筒滤水管里的水位对比

Fig. 4. Comparison of water level between three modules in the wellbore

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 3种模型井筒浓度对比图

a.井筒滤水管顶部；b.井筒滤水管中部

Fig. 5. Comparison of concentration between three modules in the wellbore

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 3种模块拟合结果

Fig. 6. The fitting results of the three modules

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 滤水管在不同位置下的计算结果对比

Fig. 7. Results comparison of the new method under different inlet pipe positions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 不同K/S_s下的井筒水位图

Fig. 8. The water level in wellbore under different K/S_s

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 不同K/S_s下的井筒浓度

Fig. 9. The concentration in wellbore under different K/S_s

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 3种模块反求的参数

Table 1. Parameters estimated by the three modules

	孔隙度	弥散度(m)
COMSOL模型	0.3	0.62
改进后的高渗CW模型	0.3	0.60
Huang et al.（2010）的解析解	0.5	0.59
MNW模型	0.3	0.45

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(22)

Chen, C., Wen, Z., Liang, X., et al., 2017. Estimation of Hydrogeological Parameters for Representative Aquifers in Jianghan Plain. Earth Science, 42(5):743-750(in Chinese with English abstract). http://www.en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-DQKX201705007.htm
Cvetkovic, V., Cheng, H., 2011. Evaluation of Single-Well Injection-Withdrawal Tests in Swedish Crystalline Rock Using the Lagrangian Travel Time Approach. Water Resources Research, 47(2):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009627
Gelhar, L.W., Collins, M.A., 1971. General Analysis of Longitudinal Dispersion in Nonuniform Flow. Water Resources Research, 7(6):1511-1521. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR007i006p01511
Gouze, P., Le Borgne, T., Leprovost, R., et al., 2008. Non-Fickian Dispersion in Porous Media:1. Multiscale Measurements Using Single-Well Injection Withdrawal Tracer Tests. Water Resources Research, 44(6):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr006278
Harbaugh, A.W., 2005. The US Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model: the Ground-Water Flow Process. US Geological Survey, Reston VA, 253.
Huang, J.Q., Christ, J.A., Goltz, M.N., 2010. Analytical Solutions for Efficient Interpretation of Single-Well Push-Pull Tracer Tests. Water Resources Research, 46(8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007647
Istok, J.D., 2013. Push-Pull Tests for Site Characterization. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York.
Li, M., Liu, W.B., Chen, C.X., 2003. Can MODFLOW Simulating the Groundwater Flow of Mixing Well? Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology, 30(5):116-117 (in Chinese).
Li, X., Wen, Z., Liang, X., et al., 2017. Aquifer Parameter Estimation of Transient Pumping Test Based on Analytical and Numerical Method. Earth Science, 42(5):743-750 (in Chinese with English abstract). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-DQKX201705009.htm
Mathias, S.A., Todman, L.C., 2010.Step-Drawdown Tests and the Forchheimer Equation. Water Resources Research, 46(7). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008635
McDonald, B., Harbaugh, A.W., 1988. MODFLOW, A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite Difference Ground-Water Flow Model, US Geological Survey, Reston VA, 588.
Neville, C.J., Tonkin, M.J., 2004. Modeling Multiaquifer Wells with MODFLOW. Ground Water, 42(6):910-919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.t01-9-.x
Peaceman, D.W., 1983. Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic Permeability. SPE Journal, 23(03):531-543. https://doi.org/10.2118/10528-pa
Rorabaugh, M.I., 1953. Graphical and Theoretical Analysis of Step-Drawdown Test of Artesian Well. Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, 79(362).
Schroth, M.H., Istok, J.D., 2005. Approximate Solution for Solute Transport during Spherical-Flow Push-Pull Tests. Ground Water, 43(2):280-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.0002.x
Tsang, Y.W., 1995. Study of Alternative Tracer Tests in Characterizing Transport in Fractured Rocks. Geophysical Research Letters, 22(11):1421-1424. https://doi.org/10.1029/95gl01093
Wang, Q.R., Zhan, H.B., Wang, Y.X., 2017. Single-Well Push-Pull Test in Transient Forchheimer Flow Field. Journal of Hydrology, 549:125-132. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.066
Zheng, C.M., Wang, P.P., 1999. MT3DMS:A Modular Three-Dimensional Multispecies Transport Model.Army Corps of Engineers, 169(4):1196-1197. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.169.4.9308495
Zheng, C.M., 2010. MT3DMS v5.3 Supplemental User's Guide.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC, 51.
陈晨, 文章, 梁杏等, 2017.江汉平原典型含水层水文地质参数反演.地球科学, 42(5):728-733. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2017.060
黎明, 刘文波, 陈崇希, 2003.MODFLOW能模拟地下水混合井流吗?水文地质工程地质, 30(5):116-117. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3665.2003.05.029
李霞, 文章, 梁杏等, 2017.基于解析法和数值法的非稳定流抽水试验参数反演.地球科学, 42(5):743-750. doi: 10.3799/dqkx.2017.062