臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

文獻已經證明單井抽水試驗能有效反算水文地質參數分佈場，然而，如何將
抽水試驗運用於大範圍含水層將是一個新的挑戰，如果能以兩口井同時進行
抽水，將可產生更多的水流資訊使洩降的影響範圍擴大。但是目前還沒有文
獻以現地雙井抽水試驗的方式在現地進行研究。因此，本研究進行現地雙井
抽水試驗，利用暫態洩降數據反算儲水係數及流通係數分佈場，並檢定反算
的結果，了解雙井抽水試驗是否可以用更少的時間及更高的效率反算水文地
質參數分佈。
現地雙井抽水試驗於雲林科技大學校內進行，獲得的洩降將以水力斷層掃描
進行分析。除了現地雙井抽水試驗外，本研究也利用VSAFT2 數值模型建置
虛擬含水層，進行與現地雙井抽水試驗相似的模擬抽水試驗。水力斷層掃描
方法同樣用於數值試驗獲得的洩降數據分析，分為重複驗證及非重複驗證，
利用洩降驗證直接評估水力斷層掃描及VSAFT2 數值模型反算流通係數及儲
水係數分佈的能力。
研究成果顯示，利用多組抽水試驗數據聯合反算可以獲得更詳盡的流通係數
及儲水係數分佈場。但是相較於單井抽水試驗，雙井抽水試驗無法使用較少
組抽水試驗數據反映更詳盡的流通係數及儲水係數分佈場，洩降驗證驗證結
果說明了兩者沒有明顯差異。

Many researches have been proved that tomography can be successfully applied
to field-single pumping tests. However, how to apply the technique to big-scale
problems would be a challenge. If we could pumping two well simultaneously, it
would make bigger interference range. For now, two well pumping test has not
been investigated in field site. Therefore, the major purpose of this study is
conduct two well pumping test in situ. We get transient drawdown to inverse
transmissivity (T) field and storativity (S) field. The estimated T field and S field
would be validated, to test whether two well pumping test makes better result and
decrease cost of time.
Field two well pumping were conducted in National Yunlin University of science
and Technology (NYUST) campus. The analysis method using Hydraulic
Tomography (HT) to inverse T field and S field in VSAFT2 ( Variably saturated
flow and transport in 2-dimensions) model. Beside, we also use VSAFT2 model
estimating T field and S field using data from similar tests simulated in a
synthetic aquifer. We divide redundant validation and non-redundant validation.
Results show that Hydraulic Tomography joint multiple pumping test data
inversion would image better T field and S field. However, Comparison with
single well pumping test, two well pumping can cannot using less data to make
more detail T field and S field. The results of validation illustrate that redundant
validation and non-redundant validation have not obvious different.

中文摘要 ................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................iii
CONTENT ............................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................... vii
CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
1-1 PREFACE ............................................................................ 1
1-2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 1
1-3 STUDY MOTIVATION ................................................................... 4
1-4STUDY PURPOSE ....................................................................... 5
1-5 FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 5
CHAPTER2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 7
2-1 DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELD SITE ...................................................... 7
2-2 HYDRAULIC TOMOGRAPHY ............................................................... 11
2-3 FIELD EXPERIMENT ................................................................... 12
2-4 NUMERICAL EXPERIMENT ............................................................... 14
2-5 ANALYSIS DATA OF SEQUENTIAL PUMPING TEST ........................................... 18
2-6 PERFORMANCE STATISTICS ............................................................. 19
CHAPTER3 RESULT AND DISCUSS ............................................................ 21
3-1 RESULTS OF NUMERICAL EXPERIMAMT .................................................... 21
3-1-1 ESTIMATION RESULT ................................................................ 21
3-1-2 VALIDATION OF ESTIMATED FIELD .................................................... 30
3.2 RESULTS OF FIELD EXPERIMENT ........................................................ 34
3.2.1ESTIMATION RESULTS ................................................................ 34
3.2.2 VALIDATION OF ESTIMATED FIELDS.................................................... 42
CHAPTER4 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ..................................................... 45
REFERENCE .............................................................................. 48

1. Chen, J.S., C.S. Chen, H.S. Gau, C.W. Liu (1999), A two-well method to evaluate transverse dispersivity for tracer tests in a radially convergent flow field,J . Hydrol., 223 (3–4) , pp. 175–197
2. Cooper, H. H., Jr., and C. E. Jacob (1946), A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well-field history, Eos Trans. AGU, 27(4), 526–534
3. Desbarats, A.J. (1992), Spatial averaging of the hydraulic conductivity in three-dimensional heterogeneous porous media. Mathematical Geology 24 (3), 249–267, doi:10.1007/BF00893749 doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00117-1
4. Huang, S.-Y., J.-C. Wen, T.-C. J. Yeh, W. Lu, H.-L. Juan, C.-M. Tseng, J.-H. Lee, and K.-C. Chang(2011), Robustness of joint interpretation of sequential pumping tests : Numerical and field experiments, Water Resour. Res., 47, W10530.DOI:10.1029/2011WR010698
5. Illman, W. A., A. J. Craig, and X. Liu (2008), Practical issues in imaging hydraulic conductivity through hydraulic tomography, Ground Water, 46(1), 120 – 132.DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00374.x
6. Kuhlman, K. L., A. C. Hinnell, P. K. Mishra, and T.-C. J. Yeh (2008), Basin-scale transmissivity and storativity estimation using hydraulic tomography, Ground Water, 46(5), 706–715, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2008.00455.x.
7. Liu, S., T.-C. J. Yeh, and R. Gardiner (2002), Effectiveness of hydraulic tomography: Sandbox experiment, Water Resour. Res., 38(4), 1034, doi:10.1029/2001WR000338. 49
8. Liu, X., W. A. Illman, A. J. Craig, J. Zhu, and T.-C. J. Yeh (2007), Laboratory sandbox validation of transient hydraulic tomography, Water Resour. Res., 43, W05404, doi:10.1029/2006WR005144
9. Straface, S., T.-C. J. Yeh, J. Zhu, S. Troisi, and C. H. Lee (2007), Sequential aquifer tests at a well field, Montalto Uffugo Scalo, Italy, Water Resour.Res., 43, W07432, doi:10.1029/2006WR005287.
10. Theis, C. V. (1935), The relation between lowering the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground water storage, Eos Trans. AGU, 16, 519–52
11. Wen, J. C., C. M. Wu, T.-C. J. Yeh, and C. M. Tseng (2010), Estimation of effective aquifer hydraulic properties from an aquifer test with muti-well observations (Taiwan), Hydrogeol. J., 18, 1143–1155, doi:10.1007/ s10040-010-0577-1.
12. Wen X.-H, J.J. Gómez-Hernández(1996), Upscaling hydraulic conductivities in heterogeneous media: An overview, J. Hydrol., 183 (1–2) ix-xxxii, doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(96)03111-3
13. Wu, C.M., T.-C. J.Yeh, J. Zhu, T.H. Lee,N. S.Hsu, C.H. Chen, andA. F. Sancho (2005), Traditional analysis of aquifer tests: Comparing apples to oranges?, Water Resour. Res., 41,W09402, doi:10.1029/2004WR003717.
14. Xiang, J., T.-C. J. Yeh, C.-H. Lee, K.-C. Hsu, and J.-C. Wen (2009), A simultaneous successive linear estimator and a guide for hydraulic tomography analysis, Water Resour. Res., 45, W02432, doi:10.1029/2008WR007180. 50
15. Yeh, T.-C. J. (1992), Stochastic modeling of groundwater flow and solute transport in aquifers, Hydrological Processes, 6(4), 369-395.DOI: 10.1002/hyp.3360060402
16. Yeh, T.-C. J., and S. Liu (2000), Hydraulic tomography: Development of a new aquifer test method, Water Resour. Res., 36(8), 2095–2105, doi:10.1029/2000WR900114.
17. Zhu, J., and T.-C. J. Yeh (2005), Characterization of aquifer heterogeneity using transient hydraulic tomography, Water Resour. Res., 41, W07028, doi:10.1029/2004WR003790.