基于井水位气压效应计算含水层的水力参数

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2023.03.004

地震地质 ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (3): 652-667.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2023.03.004

基于井水位气压效应计算含水层的水力参数

刘伟¹⁾(), 白细民²⁾, 吕少杰¹⁾, 史浙明¹⁾^,^*(), 齐之钰¹⁾, 何冠儒¹⁾

¹⁾ 中国地质大学(北京), 地下水保护水利部重点实验室, 北京 100083
²⁾ 江西省勘察设计研究院有限公司, 南昌市水文地质与优质地下水资源开发利用重点实验室, 南昌 330000

收稿日期:2022-11-07 修回日期:2023-03-15 出版日期:2023-06-20 发布日期:2023-07-18
通讯作者: * 史浙明, 男, 1988年生, 教授, 主要从事地下水方面的研究, E-mail: szm@cugb.edu.cn。
作者简介:
刘伟, 男, 1998年生, 现为中国地质大学(北京)地质学专业在读硕士研究生, 主要从事地下水对气压和固体潮的响应研究, E-mail: 1635474420@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(41972251); 南昌市水文地质与优质地下水资源开发利用重点实验室项目

HYDROLOGICAL PROPERTIES ESTIMATION BY WATER LEVEL IN RESPONSE TO BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

LIU Wei¹⁾(), BAI Xi-min²⁾, LÜ Shao-jie¹⁾, SHI Zhe-ming¹⁾^,^*(), QI Zhi-yu¹⁾, HE Guan-ru¹⁾

¹⁾ China University of Geosciences, Beijing, Key Laboratory of Groundwater Protection, Ministry of Water Resources, Beijing 100083, China
²⁾ Nanchang Key Laboratory of Hydrogeology and High Quality Groundwater Resources Exploitation and Utilization, Jiangxi Institute Co., Ltd. of Survey and Design, Nanchang 330000, China

Received:2022-11-07 Revised:2023-03-15 Online:2023-06-20 Published:2023-07-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

研究井水位对气压信号的响应可揭示地下水运动规律、含水层储水机制等众多水文地质信息, 也可为求解含水层的水力参数提供新的途径。相较于传统野外水文地质试验, 利用井水位气压响应求解参数的方法具有原位、低成本、低扰动的优势。文中以位于曲江断裂带的高大井为研究对象, 基于不同时间段内井水位对气压信号的响应, 计算了含水层的水力参数。结果表明: 不同观测时段内高大井所在含水层的渗透率为8.89×10^-15~11.10×10^-15m², 导水系数为2.44×10^-6~3.05×10^-6m²/s, 总体变化不大, 说明地震后高大井含水层的渗透性并未发生显著改变, 曲江断裂带的渗透性相对比较稳定。利用气压响应方法计算的结果与前人利用固体潮响应和微水试验计算所得结果存在一定差异, 反映了利用不同井-含水层系统的响应模型反演的含水层水力参数所代表的空间尺度、模型的适用性及参数范围的差异性。由于气压信号作用的频段更宽, 模型反演的参数更多, 且在不同水文地质条件下均能记录其响应, 使得气压响应模型的适用性更为广泛。

关键词: 井水位, 气压响应, 参数估计, 云南高大井

Abstract:

Groundwater, as one of the most active components of the earth's crust, has a sensitive reflection to crustal stress as well as solid deformation. Previous studies have shown that fluctuations in barometric pressure cause corresponding dynamic changes in well water level, and the response of well water level to barometric pressure signal can reveal a lot of hydrogeological information such as groundwater movement law and aquifer water storage mechanism, and can also provide a new way to estimate the hydraulic parameters of the aquifer. The method of using well water level in response to barometric pressure to estimate the hydraulic parameters is in-situ, low cost, and low disturbance, which has certain advantages compared with traditional field hydrogeological tests.
We analyze the water level and barometric pressure data of the monitoring wells in the fault zone, and the change characteristics of the permeability of the fault zone can be obtained. The seismicity of the Qujiang fault is strong, and studying its permeability and evolution characteristics plays an important role in understanding the seismicity in this area. Therefore, in this study, we took the Gaoda well in the Qujiang fault zone in Yunnan Province as the object of study, and collected minute level data of well water level and barometric pressure from February 2019 to July 2020, based on the response of the well water level to the barometric pressure signal in different periods to calculate the hydraulic parameters of the aquifer using barometric response function and analyzed the change characteristics of the permeability of the fault zone after the earthquake. At the same time, compared and analyzed the parameter estimation results with the results calculated by previous methods using well water level in response to earth tide and slug test. The results show that:
(1)The aquifer permeability of the Gaoda well ranges from 8.89×10^-15 to 11.10×10^-15m² and the transmissivity ranges from 2.44×10^-6 to 3.05×10^-6m²/s during different observation periods, and the overall variation is not significant and fluctuates within a certain range, indicating the aquifer permeability of the Gaoda well did not change significantly after the earthquake, and the permeability of the Qujiang fault zone was relatively stable. Meanwhile, previous studies on the tidal analysis of the Jiangchuan well near the southern section of the Xiaojiang fault zone, which is 16.6km away from Tonghai, showed that the permeability of its aquifer did not change significantly after the Tonghai 5.0 earthquake in 2018, indicating that the permeability of the southern section of the Xiaojiang fault zone and the Qujiang fault zone are relatively stable, and the hydraulic characteristics of the two have a certain similarity, and the comparison result between the two wells is referential to some extent.
(2)The hydraulic parameters of the aquifer calculated based on the response of well water level to the barometric pressure are somewhat different from those calculated by previous authors using earth tide responses and slug tests, and the obtained parameters are slightly lower than those obtained by earth tide responses and slug tests, this may be due to the different factors considered by different methods and the different degrees of fracture development in the part of the fault zone where the well is located, resulting in a certain degree of heterogeneity in the aquifer, causing differences in the results obtained by different methods, which reflect the differences in the spatial scales, the applicability of the models, and the parameter range represented by the aquifer hydraulic parameters inferred by the response models of different well-aquifer systems. In addition, the barometric pressure signal acts in a wider frequency band, more parameters are inferred by the model, and its response can be recorded under different hydrogeological conditions, making the response model to barometric pressure more widely applicable.

Key words: well water level, barometric pressure response, parameter estimation, Gaoda well in Yunnan Province

刘伟, 白细民, 吕少杰, 史浙明, 齐之钰, 何冠儒. 基于井水位气压效应计算含水层的水力参数[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(3): 652-667.

LIU Wei, BAI Xi-min, LÜ Shao-jie, SHI Zhe-ming, QI Zhi-yu, HE Guan-ru. HYDROLOGICAL PROPERTIES ESTIMATION BY WATER LEVEL IN RESPONSE TO BAROMETRIC PRESSURE[J]. SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY, 2023, 45(3): 652-667.

图/表 9

图 1 高大井的位置及其周边的地质构造图

Fig. 1 Location of the Gaoda well and surrounding geological structures.

图 2 高大井的岩性及钻孔剖面示意图(改自张体移等, 2012; Ma et al., 2019)

Fig. 2 Lithology and wellbore structure of the Gaoda well(adapted from ZHANG Ti-yi et al., 2012; Ma et al., 2019).

图 3 2019年2月—2020年7月高大井的水位、气压和体应变时间序列及频谱分析图 a 水位; b 气压; c 体应变; d 水位振幅谱; e 气压振幅谱; f 体应变振幅谱

Fig. 3 Time series and spectral analysis plot of water level, barometric pressure, and volume strain in Gaoda well from February 2019 to July 2020.

图 4 理想开放井-含水层系统对气压的响应示意图 (改自Rojstaczer, 1988; Hussein et al., 2013; Odling et al., 2015)

Fig. 4 Schematic of the response of an ideal open well-aquifer system to barometric pressure (adapted from Rojstaczer, 1988; Hussein et al., 2013; Odling et al., 2015).

图 5 不同数据长度下高大井增益(Gain)和相位滞后(Phase)拟合曲线 a 数据长度为30d; b 数据长度为180d; c数据长度为1a; d 数据长度为1.5a。灰色段代表固体潮频段

Fig. 5 Gain and Phase lag fitting curves for different data lengths in Gaoda well.

表 1 不同数据长度下高大井的拟合参数

Table 1 Fitting parameters of the Gaoda well with different data lengths

数据长度	Q/W	( $L c o n 2$ /2D_con)/d	( $r w 2$ /T_aqu)/d	BE	T_cf
30d	483.1087	5.3530	0.01108	0.32	0.75
180d	344.1701	3.9793	0.01156	0.31	0.8
1a	189.9513	2.5683	0.01352	0.31	0.75
1.5a	339.0560	4.6928	0.01384	0.31	0.8

表 1 不同数据长度下高大井的拟合参数

Table 1 Fitting parameters of the Gaoda well with different data lengths

数据长度	Q/W	( $L c o n 2$ /2D_con)/d	( $r w 2$ /T_aqu)/d	BE	T_cf
30d	483.1087	5.3530	0.01108	0.32	0.75
180d	344.1701	3.9793	0.01156	0.31	0.8
1a	189.9513	2.5683	0.01352	0.31	0.75
1.5a	339.0560	4.6928	0.01384	0.31	0.8

表 2 不同数据长度下高大井的越流系数、渗透率和导水系数

Table 2 Leakage coefficient, permeability and transmissivity of the Gaoda well with different data lengths

数据长度	σ_con/s^-1	k/m²	T_aqu/m²·s^-1
30d	1.08×10^-10	11.10×10^-15	3.05×10^-6
180d	1.45×10^-10	10.64×10^-15	2.92×10^-6
1a	2.25×10^-10	9.10×10^-15	2.50×10^-6
1.5a	1.23×10^-10	8.89×10^-15	2.44×10^-6

图 6 响应振幅比(增益)和频率之间的关系

Fig. 6 Relation between response amplitude ratio(Gain)and frequency.

表 3 3种不同方法计算的高大井越流系数、渗透率和导水系数(数据来源于Ma et al., 2019)

Table 3 Leakage coefficient, permeability, and transmissivity of the Gaoda well calculated by three different methods(data from Ma et al., 2019)

试验方法	σ_con/s^-1	k/m²	T_aqu/m²·s^-1
气压	1.67×10^-10	1.00×10^-14	2.75×10^-6
固体潮		4.00×10^-14	1.10×10^-5
微水试验		6.93×10^-14	1.90×10^-5

参考文献 41

[1]	方慧娜. 2013. 利用地下水位气压效应反演汶川地震前后含水层参数的研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学.
	FANG Hui-na. 2013. Estimating aquifer parameters from the barometric-pressure effect of groundwater before and after Wenchuan earthquake[D]. China University of Geosciences, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[2]	胡小静, 付虹, 卞跃跃, 等. 2022. 云南红河地区地下流体井-含水层系统特征研究[J]. 地震研究, 45(2): 300-307.
	HU Xiao-jing, FU Hong, BIAN Yue-yue, et al. 2022. Study on the characteristics of the well-aquifer system of the underground fluid observation in Honghe region, Yunnan Province[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 45(2): 300-307. (in Chinese)
[3]	胡小静, 付虹, 李琼. 2018. 滇南地区近期水位趋势上升异常机理初探[J]. 地震学报, 40(5): 620-631.
	HU Xiao-jing, FU Hong, LI Qiong. 2018. Preliminary study on abnormal mechanism of groundwater level rising in southern Yunnan[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 40(5): 620-631. (in Chinese)
[4]	荆振杰, 刘风香, 张井飞, 等. 2016. 曲江断裂南东段全新世滑动速率[J]. 世界地质, 35(3): 778-784.
	JING Zhen-jie, LIU Feng-xiang, ZHANG Jing-fei, et al. 2016. Holocene slip rate of southeastern segment of Qujiang fault[J]. Global Geology, 35(3): 778-784. (in Chinese)
[5]	孙小龙, 刘耀炜, 付虹, 等. 2020a. 我国地震地下流体学科分析预报研究进展回顾[J]. 地震研究, 43(2): 216-231.
	SUN Xiao-long, LIU Yao-wei, FU Hong, et al. 2020a. A review of study in the analysis and prediction of seismic subsurface fluids during the past ten years in China[J]. Journal of Seismological Research, 43(2): 216-231. (in Chinese)
[6]	孙小龙, 向阳, 李源. 2020b. 深井水位对地震波、固体潮和气压的水力响应--以范县井为例[J]. 地震学报, 42(6): 719-731.
	SUN Xiao-long, XIANG Yang, LI Yuan. 2020b. Hydraulic response of water level to seismic wave, earth tide and barometric pressure in deep well: A case study of the Fanxian well in Henan Province[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 42(6): 719-731. (in Chinese)
[7]	王洋, 张波, 侯建军, 等. 2015. 曲江断裂晚第四纪活动特征及滑动速率分析[J]. 地震地质, 37(4): 1177-1192. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-4967.2015.04.019. DOI
	WANG Yang, ZHANG Bo, HOU Jian-jun, et al. 2015. Late Quaternary activity of the Qujiang fault and analysis of the slip rate[J]. Seismology and Geology, 37(4): 1177-1192. (in Chinese)
[8]	张卉. 2021. 井-含水层系统对周期性荷载的响应及受地震影响的研究[D]. 北京: 中国地质大学.
	ZHANG Hui. 2021. The response of well-aquifer system to periodic loadings and earthquakes[D]. China University of Geosciences, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[9]	张体移, 吴富焕, 毕青, 等. 2012. 通海高大水位异常与地震分析[J]. 云南大学学报(自然科学版), 34(S2): 86-92.
	ZHANG Ti-yi, WU Fu-huan, BI Qing, et al. 2012. Water level anomalies and seismic analysis of Tonghai Gaoda[J]. Journal of Yunnan University(Natural Sciences Edition), 34(S2): 86-92. (in Chinese)
[10]	张昭栋, 郑金涵, 张广城. 1988. 水井含水层系统与水位观测系统对固体潮与地震波的响应[J]. 地震学报, 10(2): 171-182.
	ZHANG Zhao-dong, ZHENG Jin-han, ZHANG Guang-cheng. 1988. Response of well-aquifer system and water level observation system to earth tides and seismic waves[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica, 10(2): 171-182. (in Chinese)
[11]	张昭栋, 郑金涵, 张广城, 等. 1989. 承压井水位对气压动态过程的响应[J]. 地球物理学报, 32(5): 539-549.
	ZHANG Zhao-dong, ZHENG Jin-han, ZHANG Guang-cheng, et al. 1989. Response of water level of confined well to dynamic process of barometric pressure[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 32(5): 539-549. (in Chinese)
[12]	Allègre V, Brodsky E E, Xue L, et al. 2016. Using earth-tide induced water pressure changes to measure in situ permeability: A comparison with long-term pumping tests[J]. Water Resources Research, 52(4): 3113-3126. DOI URL
[13]	Acworth R I, Rau G C, Halloran L, et al. 2017. Vertical groundwater storage properties and changes in confinement determined using hydraulic head response to atmospheric tides[J]. Water Resources Research, 53(4): 2983-2997. DOI URL
[14]	Acworth R I, Rau G C, Mccallum A M, et al. 2015. Understanding connected surface-water/groundwater systems using Fourier analysis of daily and sub-daily head fluctuations[J]. Hydrogeology Journal, 23(1): 143-159. DOI URL
[15]	Cutillo P A, Bredehoeft J D. 2011. Estimating aquifer properties from the water level response to earth tides[J]. Ground Water, 49(4): 600-610. DOI PMID
[16]	Cooper H H, Bredehoeft J D, Papadopulos I S. 1967. Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water[J]. Water Resources Research, 3(1): 263-269. DOI URL
[17]	Furbish D J. 1991. The response of water level in a well to a time series of atmospheric loading under confined conditions[J]. Water Resources Research, 27(4): 557-568. DOI URL
[18]	Hsieh P A, Bredehoeft J D, Farr J M. 1987. Determination of aquifer transmissivity from earth tide analysis[J]. Water Resources Research, 23(10): 1824-1832. DOI URL
[19]	Hussein M E A, Odling N E, Clark R A. 2013. Borehole water level response to barometric pressure as an indicator of aquifer vulnerability[J]. Water Resources Research, 49(10): 7102-7119. DOI URL
[20]	Jacob C E. 1940. On the flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer[J]. Transactions American Geophysical Union, 21(2): 574-586. DOI URL
[21]	Kitagawa Y, Fujimori K, Koizumi N. 2002. Temporal change in permeability of the rock estimated from repeated water injection experiments near the Nojima fault in Awaji Island, Japan[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(10): 121-1-121-4.
[22]	McMillan T C, Rau G C, Timms W A, et al. 2019. Utilizing the impact of earth and atmospheric tides on groundwater systems: A review reveals the future potential[J]. Reviews of Geophysics, 57(2): 281-315. DOI URL
[23]	Ma Y, Wang G, Yan R, et al. 2019. Long-term in situ permeability variations of an active fault zone in the interseismic period[J]. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(B3): 5279-5289. DOI
[24]	Odling N E, Serrano R P, Hussein M E A, et al. 2015. Detecting the vulnerability of groundwater in semi-confined aquifers using barometric response functions[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 520: 143-156. DOI URL
[25]	Quilty E G, Roeloffs E A. 1991. Removal of barometric pressure response from water level data[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 96(B6): 10209-10218.
[26]	Qi Z, Shi Z, Rasmussen T C. 2023. Time- and frequency-domain determination of aquifer hydraulic properties using water-level responses to natural perturbations: A case study of the Rongchang Well, Chongqing, southwestern China[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 617: 128820. DOI URL
[27]	Rojstaczer S. 1988. Determination of fluid flow properties from the response of water levels in wells to atmospheric loading[J]. Water Resources Research, 24(11): 1927-1938. DOI URL
[28]	Rasmussen T C, Crawford L A. 1997. Identifying and removing barometric pressure effects in confined and unconfined aquifers[J]. Ground Water, 35(3): 502-511. DOI URL
[29]	Renard F, Gratier J P, Jamtveit B. 2000. Kinetics of crack-sealing, intergranular pressure solution, and compaction around active faults[J]. Journal of Structural Geology, 22(10): 1395-1407. DOI URL
[30]	Rahi K A, Halihan T. 2013. Identifying aquifer type in fractured rock aquifers using harmonic analysis[J]. Ground Water, 51(1): 76-82. DOI PMID
[31]	Spane F A. 2002. Considering barometric pressure in groundwater flow investigations[J]. Water Resources Research, 38(6): 141-148.
[32]	Sun X, Shi Z, Xiang Y. 2020a. Frequency dependence of in situ transmissivity estimation of well-aquifer systems from periodic loadings[J]. Water Resources Research, 56(11): e2020WR027536.
[33]	Sun X, Xiang Y. 2019a. Heterogeneous permeability changes along a fault zone caused by the Xingwen M5.7 earthquake in SW China[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(24): 14404-14411. DOI URL
[34]	Sun X, Xiang Y. 2020b. Comparison of transfer function models for well-aquifer system response to atmospheric loading[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 590: 125494. DOI URL
[35]	Sun X, Xiang Y, Shi Z. 2018. Estimating the hydraulic parameters of a confined aquifer based on the response of groundwater levels to seismic Rayleigh waves[J]. Geophysical Journal International, 213(2): 919-930. DOI URL
[36]	Sun X, Xiang Y, Shi Z, et al. 2019b. Sensitivity of the response of well-aquifer systems to different periodic loadings: A comparison of two wells in Huize, China[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 572: 121-130. DOI URL
[37]	Toll N J, Rasmussen T C. 2007. Removal of barometric pressure effects and earth tides from observed water levels[J]. Ground Water, 45(1): 101-105. PMID
[38]	Weeks E P. 1979. Barometric fluctuations in wells tapping deep unconfined aquifers[J]. Water Resources Research, 15(5): 1167-1176. DOI URL
[39]	Wang Y, Zhang B, Hou J, et al. 2014. Structure and tectonic geomorphology of the Qujiang Fault at the intersection of the Ailao Shan-Red River fault and the Xianshuihe-Xiaojiang fault system, China[J]. Tectonophysics, 634: 156-170. DOI URL
[40]	Xue L, Li H B, Brodsky E E, et al. 2013. Continuous permeability measurements record healing inside the Wenchuan earthquake fault zone[J]. Science, 340(6140): 1555-1559. DOI PMID
[41]	Zhang H, Shi Z, Wang G, et al. 2019. Large earthquake reshapes the groundwater flow system: Insight from the water-level response to earth tides and atmospheric pressure in a deep well[J]. Water Resources Research, 55(7): 4207-4219. DOI URL

基于井水位气压效应计算含水层的水力参数

HYDROLOGICAL PROPERTIES ESTIMATION BY WATER LEVEL IN RESPONSE TO BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 41

相关文章 5

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	李继业, 晏锐, 张思萌, 胡澜缤, 孟令蕾, 周晨. 井水位潮汐响应与小地震调制作用的关系[J]. 地震地质, 2023, 45(3): 668-688.
[2]	陈敏, 唐小勇, 郭卫英, 贺曼秋, 巩浩波, 李光科, 陈雷, 杨林, 陈凯, 谭君, 贾鸿飞. 重庆大足井水位对邻井抽水的奇异响应及其机理[J]. 地震地质, 2012, (2): 359-364.
[3]	顾申宜, 张慧, 解晓静, 刘阳. 海南井水位中期和中短期异常信息的提取方法及其特征分析[J]. 地震地质, 2010, 32(4): 638-646.
[4]	车用太, 鱼金子, 张大维, 孙振, 简春林, 彭贵荣. 北京平原区基岩井水位的年动态特征及其成因分析[J]. 地震地质, 1994, 16(3): 255-263.
[5]	张昭栋, 郑香媛, 殷积涛, 张教样. 井水位振荡试验及其结果[J]. 地震地质, 1992, 14(2): 183-188.