Transient well flow in vertically heterogeneous aquifers

Journal of Hydrology

Volumn 225, Issue 1-2, 1999, Pages 1-18

  Hemker, C J ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ground water; Heterogeneity; Pump tests; Unconfined aquifers; Unsteady flow; Well screens

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES; AQUIFER; HYDROLOGY;

ALGORITHMS; CONFINED FLOW; DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS; FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD; GROUNDWATER FLOW; HYDROLOGY; LAPLACE TRANSFORMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RADIAL FLOW; UNSTEADY FLOW; WATER WELLS; WELL TESTING;

DISCRETIZATION; PUMP TESTS; STEHFEST'S ALGORITHM; UNCONFINED FLOW; VERTICAL FLOW;

AQUIFERS;

AQUIFER; GROUNDWATER; HETEROGENEOUS MEDIUM;

AQUIFER; GROUNDWATER FLOW; HETEROGENEOUS MEDIUM;

EID: 0033596116     PISSN: 00221694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00137-7     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Boulton N.S. Analysis of data from non-equilibrium pumping tests allowing for delayed yield from storage. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engng. 26:1963;469-482.
2. Boulton N.S., Streltsova T.D. The drawdown near an abstraction well of large diameter under non-steady conditions in an unconfined aquifer. J. Hydrol. 30:1976;29-46.
3. Diodato D.M. Software Spotlight. Ground Water. 35:1997;922-923.
4. Hanson R.T., Nishikawa T. Combined use of flowmeter and time-drawdown data to estimate hydraulic conductivities in layered aquifer systems. Ground Water. 34:1996;84-94.
5. Hemker C.J. Transient well flow in leaky multiple-aquifer systems. J. Hydrol. 81:1985;111-126.
6. Hemker C.J., Maas C. Unsteady flow to wells in layered and fissured aquifer systems. J. Hydrol. 90:1987;231-249.
7. Hemker, C.J., Nijsten, G.J., 1997. Groundwater flow modeling using Micro-Fem: Version 3. Hemker, Amsterdam.
8. Indelman P., Dagan G., Cheng A.H.-D., Ouazar D. Sensitivity analysis of flow in multilayered leaky aquifer systems. J. Hydraul. Engng. 122:1996;41-45.
9. Kaleris V., Hadjitheodorou C., Demetracopoulos A.C. Numerical simulation of field methods for estimating hydraulic conductivity and concentration profiles. J. Hydrol. 171:1995;319-353.
10. Kruseman, G.P., de Ridder, N.A., 1979. Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. Bull. 11, ILRI, Wageningen.
11. Lebbe L., De Breuck W. Validation of an inverse numerical model for interpretation of pumping tests and a study of factors influencing accuracy of results. J. Hydrol. 172:1995;61-85.
12. Maas C. Groundwater flow to a well in a layered porous medium 1. Steady flow. Water Resour. Res. 23:1987;1675-1681.
13. Maas C. Groundwater flow to a well in a layered porous medium 2. Nonsteady multiple-aquifer flow. Water Resour. Res. 23:1987;1683-1688.
14. Moench A.F. Computation of type curves for flow to partially penetrating wells in water-table aquifers. Ground Water. 31:1993;966-971.
15. Moench A.F. Combining the Neuman and Boulton models for flow to a well in an unconfined aquifer. Ground Water. 33:1995;378-384.
16. Moench A.F. Flow to a well in a water-table aquifer: an improved Laplace transform solution. Ground Water. 34:1996;593-596.
17. Moench A.F., Ogata A. Analysis of constant discharge wells by numerical inversion of Laplace transform solutions. Rosenshein J., Bennett G.D. Groundwater Hydraulics. Water Resour. Monogr. Ser. 9:1984;146-170 Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, DC.
18. Narasimhan T.N., Zhu M. Transient flow of water to a well in an unconfined aquifer: applicability of some conceptual models. Water Resour. Res. 29:1993;179-191.
19. Neuman S.P. Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed response of the water table. Water Resour. Res. 8:1972;1031-1045.
20. Neuman S.P. Effect of partial penetration on flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Water Resour. Res. 10:1974;303-312.
21. Novakowski K.S. Analysis of aquifer tests conducted in fractured rock: a review of the physical background and the design of a computer program for generating type curves. Ground Water. 28:1990;99-107.
22. Papadopulos I.S., Cooper H.H. Drawdown in a well of large diameter. Water Resour. Res. 3:1967;241-244.
23. Ruud N.C., Kabala Z.J. Numerical evaluation of flowmeter test interpretation methodologies. Water Resour. Res. 32:1996;845-852.
24. Sen Z. Radial flow in vertically graded hydraulic conductivity aquifers. J. Hydraul. Engng. 115:1989;1667-1682.
25. Sépulveda N., Zack A.L. The effect of overburden stress on the specific storage and hydraulic conductivity of artesian aquifers. J. Hydrol. 128:1991;305-321.
26. Stehfest H. Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Commun. ACM. 13:1970;47-49.
27. Streltsova T.D. Well testing in heterogeneous formations. Exxon monographs. 1988;Wiley, New York.
28. Sudicky E.A., Unger A.J.A., Lacombe S. A noniterative technique for the direct implementation of well bore boundary conditions in three-dimensional heterogeneous formations. Water Resour. Res. 31:1995;411-415.
29. Székely F. Pumping test data analysis in wells with multiple or long screens. J. Hydrol. 132:1992;137-156.
30. Székely F. Estimation of unsteady, three-dimensional drawdown in single, vertically heterogeneous aquifers. Ground Water. 33:1995;669-674.
31. Xiang J. The evaluation of the flowmeter test in three-layer aquifers and the influence of disturbed zones. J. Hydrol. 166:1995;127-145.