Digital simulation of the scale effect in hydraulic conductivity

Hydrogeology Journal

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 216-225

  Rovey II, Charles W ^a  

^a MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000990753     PISSN: 14312174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s100400050146     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bouwer H, Rice RC (1976) A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resour Res 12 (3):423-428
2. Bradbury KR, Muldoon MA (1990) Hydraulic conductivity determinations in unlithified glacial and fluvial materials. In: Nielson DM, Johnson AI (eds) Ground water and vadose zone monitoring. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 1142, pp 138-151
3. Butler JJ Jr, McElwee CD, Liu W (1996) Improving the quality of parameter estimates obtained from slug tests. Ground Water 34 (3):480-490
4. Cedergren HR (1977) Seepage drainage and flow nets. Wiley Interscience, New York
5. Chirlin GR (1989) A critique of the Hvorslev method for slug test analysis: The fully penetrating well. Ground Water Monitor Rev, Spring 1989:130-138
6. Cooper HH, Bredehoeft JD, Papadopulos IS (1967) Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resour Res 3 (1):263-269
7. Guyonnet D, Mishra S, McCord J (1993) Evaluating the volume of porous medium investigated during slug tests. Ground Water 31 (4):627-633
8. Hyder Z, Butler JJ Jr (1995) Slug tests in unconfined formations: an assessment of the Bouwer and Rice technique. Ground Water 33 (1):16-22
9. Hvorslev MJ (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations. Waterways Experimental Station, US Army Corps of Engineers, Bull 36, 50 pp
10. McConnell C (1993) Double porosity well testing in the fractured carbonate rocks of the Ozarks. Ground Water 31 (1):75-83
11. McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1984) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. US Geological Survey, 528 pp
12. Neuman SP (1994) Generalized scaling of permeabilities: validation and effect of support scale. Geophys Res Lett 21 (5):349-452
13. Rayne TW (1993) Variability of hydraulic conductivity in sandy till: the effects of scale and method. PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 134 pp
14. Rovey CW II (1994) Assessing flow systems in carbonate aquifers using scale effects in hydraulic conductivity. Environ Geol 24:244-253
15. Rovey CW II, Cherkauer DS (1995) Scale dependency of hydraulic conductivity measurements. Ground Water 33 (5):769-780
16. Sageev A (1986) Slug test analysis. Water Resour Res 22 (8):1323-1333
17. Sánchez-Vila X, Carrera J, Girardi JP (1996) Scale effects in transmissivity. J Hydrol 183 (1/2):1-22
18. Sauter M (1991) Assessment of hydraulic conductivity in a karst aquifer at local and regional scale. In: Proc 3rd Conf on Hydrogeology, ecology, monitoring, and management of ground water in karst terranes, Dublin, Ohio National Ground Water Assoc, pp 39-56
19. Webb EK, Anderson MP (1996) Simulation of preferential flow in three-dimensional, heterogeneous conductivity fields with realistic internal architecture. Water Resour Res 32 (3):533-545
20. Zlotnik V (1994) Interpretation of slug and packer tests in anisotropic aquifers. Ground Water 32 (5):761-766