Abstract:Earthquake‐induced aquifer permeability changes have been observed both in the laboratory and the field. However, the effects of multiple earthquakes on aquifer systems have rarely been differentiated. In this study, we analyze the piezometric response to earthquake pairs that occurred on the same day. The results show that events with higher seismic energy may result in a rise in piezometric level, and the seismic waves enhanced the permeability of the aquifer by different magnitudes. Stress/strain history fr… Show more
“…Since the actual transmissivity of the Jingle (estimated from pumping test) is higher than the upper limit of the tidal response model, the value obtained from the tidal response is significantly lower than the value obtained from coseismic response. Similar results were found in well X10; the transmissivity estimated from the coseismic response and pumping test (Sun, Xiang, & Shi, 2019) was 2 orders of magnitude higher than the value from the tidal response (Sun et al, 2018). Based on the understanding of frequency saturation, if the actual transmissivity is close to or lower than the upper limit, the value estimated from coseismic and tidal response should be similar.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Wang et al (2018) also attempted to determine the vertical leakage and transmissivity using the earth tide response of the well water level given by the leakage model of a semiconfined aquifer. The above methods have been widely applied in studies of coseismic water level response (Elkhoury et al, 2011; Shi et al, 2015; Sun et al, 2015), assessment of strain sensitivity of the well‐aquifer system (Sun, Xiang, Shi, Hu, et al, 2019; Yan et al, 2016, the earthquake‐induced variation of shallow crust permeability (Liao et al, 2015; Shi et al, 2018; Sun, Xiang, & Shi, 2019; Wang et al, 2016), and inversion of the aquifer permeability parameters (Elkhoury et al, 2006; Shi & Wang, 2016; Shi et al, 2019).…”
Estimating the hydraulic parameters of a target aquifer is key to properly evaluating the groundwater resources. Conventional methods are costly, and measurements are infrequent. There are currently four popular methods for estimating aquifer parameters using the response of the well water level to a periodic loading. However, the differences and accuracy of the results obtained by these methods are still poorly understood. This study compares the four response models. We analyze the mechanisms of the phase lag between well water level and periodic loadings during such loading and discuss the applicability of each model. Taking the Jingle well in Shanxi Province as an example, hydraulic parameters were estimated using different models and compared. The results show that the aquifer transmissivity estimated using the periodic response methods depends on the loading frequency. This dependency is mainly determined by the difference between the actual aquifer transmissivity and the upper limit of transmissivity resolvable by the model. The tidal and barometric pressure response methods are suitable for low transmissivity aquifers, while seismic wave suitable is responsible for high transmissivity aquifers.
“…Since the actual transmissivity of the Jingle (estimated from pumping test) is higher than the upper limit of the tidal response model, the value obtained from the tidal response is significantly lower than the value obtained from coseismic response. Similar results were found in well X10; the transmissivity estimated from the coseismic response and pumping test (Sun, Xiang, & Shi, 2019) was 2 orders of magnitude higher than the value from the tidal response (Sun et al, 2018). Based on the understanding of frequency saturation, if the actual transmissivity is close to or lower than the upper limit, the value estimated from coseismic and tidal response should be similar.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Wang et al (2018) also attempted to determine the vertical leakage and transmissivity using the earth tide response of the well water level given by the leakage model of a semiconfined aquifer. The above methods have been widely applied in studies of coseismic water level response (Elkhoury et al, 2011; Shi et al, 2015; Sun et al, 2015), assessment of strain sensitivity of the well‐aquifer system (Sun, Xiang, Shi, Hu, et al, 2019; Yan et al, 2016, the earthquake‐induced variation of shallow crust permeability (Liao et al, 2015; Shi et al, 2018; Sun, Xiang, & Shi, 2019; Wang et al, 2016), and inversion of the aquifer permeability parameters (Elkhoury et al, 2006; Shi & Wang, 2016; Shi et al, 2019).…”
Estimating the hydraulic parameters of a target aquifer is key to properly evaluating the groundwater resources. Conventional methods are costly, and measurements are infrequent. There are currently four popular methods for estimating aquifer parameters using the response of the well water level to a periodic loading. However, the differences and accuracy of the results obtained by these methods are still poorly understood. This study compares the four response models. We analyze the mechanisms of the phase lag between well water level and periodic loadings during such loading and discuss the applicability of each model. Taking the Jingle well in Shanxi Province as an example, hydraulic parameters were estimated using different models and compared. The results show that the aquifer transmissivity estimated using the periodic response methods depends on the loading frequency. This dependency is mainly determined by the difference between the actual aquifer transmissivity and the upper limit of transmissivity resolvable by the model. The tidal and barometric pressure response methods are suitable for low transmissivity aquifers, while seismic wave suitable is responsible for high transmissivity aquifers.
“…The permeability increase highlighted over the last twelve years is corroborated over geological ages thanks to the statistical analysis of existing pumping tests data in comparable aquifers of the island. Since we highlight over twelve years that permeability globally increase over the period, but that some earthquakes can also decrease permeability, it follows that permeability decrease should be transient because of: i) the tropical climate with hurricane and extreme rainfall regularly flushing particles and thus unclogging fractures, ii) the possible effect of successive earthquakes (as in 2018), considering that stress/strain from consecutive earthquakes may generate a stronger permeability increase following the second earthquake 54 , and iii) on a long-term scale, earthquakes increasing permeability may be more numerous than earthquakes decreasing permeability, with possible azimuthal 27 and compression/extension effects dependences.…”
Earthquakes affect near-surface permeability, however temporal permeability evolution quantification is challenging due to the scarcity of observations data. Using thirteen years of groundwater level observations, we highlight clear permeability variations induced by earthquakes in an aquifer and overlaying aquitard. Dynamic stresses, above a threshold value PGV > 0.5 cm s−1, were mostly responsible for these variations. We develop a new model using earth tides responses of water levels between earthquakes. We demonstrate a clear permeability increase of the hydrogeological system, with the permeability of the aquifer increasing 20-fold and that of the aquitard 300-fold over 12 years, induced by fracture creation or fracture unclogging. In addition, we demonstrate unprecedented observations of increase in permeability due to the effect of extreme tropical deluges of rainfall and hurricanes. The water pressure increase induced by the exceptional rainfall events thus act as piston strokes strong enough to unclog congested fractures by colloids, particles or precipitates. Lastly, an analysis of regional permeabilities also highlights a permeability increase over geological timeframes (× 40 per million years), corroborating the trend observed over the last decade. This demonstrates that permeability of aquifers of andesitic volcanic islands, such as the Lesser Antilles, significantly evolve with time due to seismic activity and extreme rainfall.
“…where θ o = −0.92k(u 3 ) o and (u 3 ) o is the amplitude of the vertical displacement of the Rayleigh waves. Sun et al (2018Sun et al ( , 2019 interpreted the water-level oscillations in response to seismic waves to estimate the aquifer parameters based on Cooper's model (1965) which shows that the amplitude ratio and the phase shift of water-level oscillations response to Rayleigh waves have the following expressions for the amplitude ratio and the phase shift of the response…”
Section: Groundwater Oscillations In Response To Seismic Wavesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been known for a long time that groundwater responds to seismic waves (e.g., Byerly and Blanchard 1935). Some recent efforts have made use of this response to estimate aquifer properties (Barbour et al 2019;Shih 2009;Sun et al 2019Sun et al , 2020, based on a model developed by Cooper et al (1965). Such efforts may provide useful understanding on the dependence of aquifer properties on the frequency of the forcing mechanisms.…”
Groundwater responses to Earth tides and barometric pressure have long been reported and increasingly used in hydrogeology to advance our understanding of groundwater systems. The response of groundwater to seismic waves has also been used in recent years to study the interaction between earthquakes and fluids in the crust. These methods have gained popularity for monitoring groundwater systems because they are both effective and economical. This chapter reviews the response of groundwater system to Earth tides, barometric pressure, and seismic waves as a continuum of poroelastic responses to oscillatory forcing across a broad range of frequency.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.