Comparison of three geostatistical methods for hydrofacies simulation: a test on alluvial sediments |
| |
Authors: | Diana dell’Arciprete Riccardo Bersezio Fabrizio Felletti Mauro Giudici Alessandro Comunian Philippe Renard |
| |
Institution: | 1. Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra ??A. Desio??, Universit?? degli Studi di Milano, via Cicognara 7, 20129, Milano, Italy 3. Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra ??A. Desio??, Universit?? degli Studi di Milano, CNR ?C IDPA, via Mangiagalli 34, 20133, Milano, Italy 2. Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra ??A. Desio??, Universit?? degli Studi di Milano, via Mangiagalli 34, 20133, Milano, Italy 4. Centre of Hydrogeology and Geothermics, University of Neuchatel, Rue Emile Argand, 11, 2000, Neuchatel, Switzerland
|
| |
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?m3) 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?m3 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. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|