Should hydraulic tomography data be interpreted using geostatistical inverse modeling? A laboratory sandbox investigation

The robust performance of hydraulic tomography (HT) based on geostatistics has been demonstrated through numerous synthetic, laboratory, and field studies. While geostatistical inverse methods offer many advantages, one key disadvantage is its highly parameterized nature, which renders it computationally intensive for large‐scale problems. Another issue is that geostatistics‐based HT may produce overly smooth images of subsurface heterogeneity when there are few monitoring interval data. Therefore, some may question the utility of the geostatistical inversion approach in certain situations and seek alternative approaches. To investigate these issues, we simultaneously calibrated different groundwater models with varying subsurface conceptualizations and parameter resolutions using a laboratory sandbox aquifer. The compared models included: (1) isotropic and anisotropic effective parameter models; (2) a heterogeneous model that faithfully represents the geological features; and (3) a heterogeneous model based on geostatistical inverse modeling. The performance of these models was assessed by quantitatively examining the results from model calibration and validation. Calibration data consisted of steady state drawdown data from eight pumping tests and validation data consisted of data from 16 separate pumping tests not used in the calibration effort. Results revealed that the geostatistical inversion approach performed the best among the approaches compared, although the geological model that faithfully represented stratigraphy came a close second. In addition, when the number of pumping tests available for inverse modeling was small, the geological modeling approach yielded more robust validation results. This suggests that better knowledge of stratigraphy obtained via geophysics or other means may contribute to improved results for HT.