Laboratory determination of porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and diffusivity for basalt cores

2020 ◽  
pp. 145-146
Author(s):  
A. Wylie ◽  
R. Jensen ◽  
G. Johnson
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-137
Author(s):  
Yu. N. Vodyanitskii ◽  
N. A. Avetov ◽  
A. T. Savichev ◽  
S. Ya. Trofimov ◽  
E. A. Shishkonakova

Author(s):  
Guglielmo Federico Antonio Brunetti ◽  
Samuele De Bartolo ◽  
Carmine Fallico ◽  
Ferdinando Frega ◽  
Maria Fernanda Rivera Velásquez ◽  
...  

AbstractThe spatial variability of the aquifers' hydraulic properties can be satisfactorily described by means of scaling laws. The latter enable one to relate the small (typically laboratory) scale to the larger (typically formation/regional) ones, therefore leading de facto to an upscaling procedure. In the present study, we are concerned with the spatial variability of the hydraulic conductivity K into a strongly heterogeneous porous formation. A strategy, allowing one to identify correctly the single/multiple scaling of K, is applied for the first time to a large caisson, where the medium was packed. In particular, we show how to identify the various scaling ranges with special emphasis on the determination of the related cut-off limits. Finally, we illustrate how the heterogeneity enhances with the increasing scale of observation, by identifying the proper law accounting for the transition from the laboratory to the field scale. Results of the present study are of paramount utility for the proper design of pumping tests in formations where the degree of spatial variability of the hydraulic conductivity does not allow regarding them as “weakly heterogeneous”, as well as for the study of dispersion mechanisms.


Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 1131
Author(s):  
Soonkie Nam ◽  
Marte Gutierrez ◽  
Panayiotis Diplas ◽  
John Petrie

This paper critically compares the use of laboratory tests against in situ tests combined with numerical seepage modeling to determine the hydraulic conductivity of natural soil deposits. Laboratory determination of hydraulic conductivity used the constant head permeability and oedometer tests on undisturbed Shelby tube and block soil samples. The auger hole method and Guelph permeameter tests were performed in the field. Groundwater table elevations in natural soil deposits with different hydraulic conductivity values were predicted using finite element seepage modeling and compared with field measurements to assess the various test results. Hydraulic conductivity values obtained by the auger hole method provide predictions that best match the groundwater table’s observed location at the field site. This observation indicates that hydraulic conductivity determined by the in situ test represents the actual conditions in the field better than that determined in a laboratory setting. The differences between the laboratory and in situ hydraulic conductivity values can be attributed to factors such as sample disturbance, soil anisotropy, fissures and cracks, and soil structure in addition to the conceptual and procedural differences in testing methods and effects of sample size.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document