(a)
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
2 4 6 Time, in days
8
0.05
(b)
(c)
0.06
0.04 0.03 0.02
0.05
α=0.5d-1
0.04
α=0.05d-1
0.03
α=0.005d-1
0.02
0.01 0
Apparent Bulk Conductivity, in S/m
0.5
Apparent Bulk Conductivity, in S/m
Fluid Specific Conductivity, in S/m
Sensitivity to mass transfer rate constant (α)
0.01
0
2
4 6 8 Time, in days
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Fluid Specific Conductivity, in S/m
(d)
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
2
4
6
Time, in days
8
0.05
(e)
(f)
0.06
0.04 0.03 0.02
0.05
nimmob=0.15
0.04
nimmob=0.10
0.03
nimmob=0.05
0.02
0.01 0
Apparent Bulk Conductivity, in S/m
0.5
Apparent Bulk Conductivity, in S/m
Fluid Specific Conductivity, in S/m
Sensitivity to immobile zone porosity (nimmob)
0.01
0
2
4
6
Time, in days
8
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Fluid Specific Conductivity, in S/m
Sensitivity analysis from numerical modeling of rate-limited mass transfer processes for an aquifer storage and recovery experiment: (a) mobile-domain fluid conductivity history (b) bulk conductivity history, and (c) the hysteresis in the bulk versus fluid conductivity curves for three different mass transfer rates; and (d) mobile-domain fluid conductivity history, (e) bulk conductivity history, and (f ) hysteresis assuming variation in the immobile porosity of the fracture zone [Singha et al., 2007]. Injection was from 0-5 days, storage from 5-7 days, and recovery from 7-10 days. These results provide evidence that geophysical methods can be used to estimate key parameters controlling rate-limited mass transfer in situ.
