Next Article in Journal
Water and Suspended Sediment Budgets in the Lower Mekong from High-Frequency Measurements (2009–2016)
Next Article in Special Issue
An Effective Kalman Filter-Based Method for Groundwater Pollution Source Identification and Plume Morphology Characterization
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Multiple Typhoons on Severe Floods in the Mid-Latitude Region (Hokkaido)
Article Menu
Issue 7 (July) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Water 2018, 10(7), 844; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10070844

Three Geostatistical Methods for Hydrofacies Simulation Ranked Using a Large Borehole Lithology Dataset from the Venice Hinterland (NE Italy)

Earth Science Department ‘Ardito Desio’, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 25 April 2018 / Revised: 19 June 2018 / Accepted: 21 June 2018 / Published: 25 June 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heterogeneous Aquifer Modeling: Closing the Gap)
Full-Text   |   PDF [8000 KB, uploaded 25 June 2018]   |  

Abstract

A large borehole lithology dataset from the shallowly buried alluvial aquifer of the Brenta River Megafan (NE Italy) is used in this paper to model hydrofacies with three classical geostatistical methods, namely the Object-Based Simulation (OBS), the Sequential Indicator Simulation (SIS), and the Truncated Gaussian Simulation (TGS), and rank alternative output models. Results show that, though compromising with geological realism and rendering a noisy picture of subsurface geology, the pixel-based TGS and SIS are better suited than OBS for their ease of conditioning to closely spaced boreholes, especially in fine-scale simulation grids. In turn, SIS appears to provide better prediction and less noisy hydrofacies models than TGS without requiring assumptions about relationship among operative facies, which makes it particularly suited for use with large borehole lithology datasets lacking detail and quality consistency. Flow simulation on a test volume constrained with numerous boreholes indicates the SIS hydrofacies models feature well-connected sands forming relatively fast flow paths as opposed to TGS models, which instead appear to carry a more dispersed flow. It is shown how such a difference primarily relates to ‘noise’, which in TGS models is so widespread to translate into a disordered spatial distribution of K and, consequently, a nearly isotropic simulated flow. View Full-Text
Keywords: alluvial porous aquifer; hydrofacies; geostatistical simulation; borehole lithology database; aquifer assessment; sand connectedness alluvial porous aquifer; hydrofacies; geostatistical simulation; borehole lithology database; aquifer assessment; sand connectedness
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Marini, M.; Felletti, F.; Beretta, G.P.; Terrenghi, J. Three Geostatistical Methods for Hydrofacies Simulation Ranked Using a Large Borehole Lithology Dataset from the Venice Hinterland (NE Italy). Water 2018, 10, 844.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top