{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019715224534501644, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016429353778751369, 'mean_word_length': 5.525, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Joint Estimation of Hydraulic and Poroelastic Parameters from a Pumping Test

The coupling of hydraulic and poroelastic processes is critical in predicting processes involving the deformation of the geologic medium in response to fluid extraction or injection. Numerical models that consider the coupling of hydraulic and poroelastic processes require the knowledge of relevant parameters for both aquifer and aquitard units. In this study, we jointly estimated hydraulic and poroelastic parameters from pumping test data exhibiting “reverse water level fluctuations,” known as the Noordbergum effect, in aquitards adjacent to a pumped aquifer. The joint estimation was performed by coupling BIOT2, a finite element, two‐dimensional, axisymmetric, groundwater model that considers poroelastic effects with the parameter estimation code PEST. We first tested our approach using a synthetic data set with known parameters. Results of the synthetic case showed that for a simple layered system, it was possible to reproduce accurately both the hydraulic and poroelastic properties for each layer. We next applied the approach to pumping test data collected at the North Campus Research Site (NCRS) on the University of Waterloo (UW) campus. Based on the detailed knowledge of stratigraphy, a five‐layer system was modeled. Parameter estimation was performed by: (1) matching drawdown data individually from each observation port and (2) matching drawdown data from all ports at a single well simultaneously. The estimated hydraulic parameters were compared to those obtained by other means at the site yielding good agreement. However, the estimated shear modulus was higher than the static shear modulus, but was within the range of dynamic shear modulus reported in the literature, potentially suggesting a loading rate effect.