The hydrodispersive properties of porous sediments are strongly influenced by the heterogeneity at fine scales, which can be modeled by geostatistical simulations. In order to improve the assessment of the properties of three different geostatistical simulation methods (Sequential indicator simulation, SISIM; Transition probability geostatistical simulation, T-PROGS; Multiple point simulation, MPS) a comparison test at different scales was performed for a well-exposed aquifer analogue. In the analysed volume (approximately 30,000 m 3) four operative hydrofacies have been recognised: very fine sand and silt, sand, gravelly sand and open framework gravel. Several equiprobable realizations were computed with SISIM, MPS and T-PROGS for a test volume of approximately 400 m 3 and for the entire volume, and the different outcomes were compared with visual inspection and connectivity analysis of the very or poorly permeable structures. The comparison of the different simulations shows that the geological model is best reproduced when the simulations are realised separately for each highest rank depositional element and subsequently merged. Moreover, the three methods yield different images of the volume; in particular MPS is efficient in mapping the geometries of the most represented hydrofacies, whereas SISIM and T-PROGS can account for the distribution of the less represented facies.

Comparison of three geostatistical methods for hydrofacies simulation: a test on alluvial sediments / D. dell’Arciprete, R. Bersezio, F. Felletti, M. Giudici, A. Comunian, P. Renard. - In: HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL. - ISSN 1431-2174. - 20:2(2012), pp. 299-311.

Comparison of three geostatistical methods for hydrofacies simulation: a test on alluvial sediments

R. Bersezio
Secondo
;
F. Felletti;M. Giudici
;
A. Comunian
Penultimo
;
2012

Abstract

The hydrodispersive properties of porous sediments are strongly influenced by the heterogeneity at fine scales, which can be modeled by geostatistical simulations. In order to improve the assessment of the properties of three different geostatistical simulation methods (Sequential indicator simulation, SISIM; Transition probability geostatistical simulation, T-PROGS; Multiple point simulation, MPS) a comparison test at different scales was performed for a well-exposed aquifer analogue. In the analysed volume (approximately 30,000 m 3) four operative hydrofacies have been recognised: very fine sand and silt, sand, gravelly sand and open framework gravel. Several equiprobable realizations were computed with SISIM, MPS and T-PROGS for a test volume of approximately 400 m 3 and for the entire volume, and the different outcomes were compared with visual inspection and connectivity analysis of the very or poorly permeable structures. The comparison of the different simulations shows that the geological model is best reproduced when the simulations are realised separately for each highest rank depositional element and subsequently merged. Moreover, the three methods yield different images of the volume; in particular MPS is efficient in mapping the geometries of the most represented hydrofacies, whereas SISIM and T-PROGS can account for the distribution of the less represented facies.
Alluvial sediments; Aquifer characterization; Geostatistics; Hydrofacies; Heterogeneity
Settore GEO/02 - Geologia Stratigrafica e Sedimentologica
Settore GEO/12 - Oceanografia e Fisica dell'Atmosfera
2012
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
087 dell'Arciprete et al 2012.pdf

accesso riservato

Descrizione: Articolo nella versione finale dell'editore
Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 1.02 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.02 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/166446
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 96
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 87
social impact