Estimating Regional Hydraulic Conductivity Fields—A Comparative Study of Geostatistical Methods

Geostatistical estimations of the hydraulic conductivity field ( K ) in the Carrizo aquifer, Texas, are performed over three regional domains of increasing extent: 1) the domain corresponding to a three-dimensional groundwater flow model previously built (model domain); 2) the area corresponding to the 10 counties encompassing the model domain (County domain), and; 3) the full extension of the Carrizo aquifer within Texas (Texas domain). Two different approaches are used: 1) an indirect approach where transmissivity ( T ) is estimated first and K is retrieved through division of the T estimate by the screen length of the wells, and; 2) a direct approach where K data are kriged directly. Due to preferential well screen emplacement, and scarcity of sampling in the deeper portions of the formation (> 1 km), the available data set is biased toward high values of hydraulic conductivities. Kriging combined with linear regression, simple kriging with varying local means, kriging with an external drift, and cokriging allow the incorporation of specific capacity as secondary information. Prediction performances (assessed through cross-validation) differ according to the chosen approach, the considered variable (log-transformed or back-transformed), and the scale of interest. For the indirect approach, kriging of log T with varying local means yields the best estimates for both log-transformed and back-transformed variables in the model domain. For larger regional scales (County and Texas domains), cokriging performs generally better than other kriging procedures when estimating both (log T ) ∗ and T ∗ . Among procedures using the direct approach, the best prediction performances are obtained using kriging of log K with an external drift. Overall, geostatistical estimation of the hydraulic conductivity field at regional scales is rendered difficult by both preferential well location and preferential emplacement of well screens in the most productive portions of the aquifer. Such bias creates unrealistic hydraulic conductivity values, in particular, in sparsely sampled areas.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43202/1/11004_2005_Article_7308.pd