A Simple Constant-Head Injection Test for Streambed Hydraulic Conductivity Estimation

Ground Water

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 867-871

  Cardenas, M Bayani ^a,b   Zlotnik, Vitaly A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; GRAIN SIZE AND SHAPE; SAND;

CONSTANT-HEAD INJECTION TEST (CHIT);

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY;

WATER;

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; STREAM BED; STREAMFLOW; TESTING METHOD;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; INSTRUMENTATION; SEDIMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER FLOW; WATER SUPPLY;

ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOLOGIC SEDIMENTS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; WATER; WATER MOVEMENTS; WATER SUPPLY;

GASTROPODA;

EID: 0242659121     PISSN: 0017467X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02428.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources Research 12, no. 3: 423-428.
2. Burger, R.L., and K. Belitz. 1997. Measurement of anisotropic hydraulic conductivity in unconsolidated sands: A case study from a shoreface deposit, Oyster, Virginia. Water Resources Research 33, no. 6: 1515-1522.
3. Butler, J.J. Jr. 2002. A simple correction for slug tests in small-diameter wells. Ground Water 40, no. 3: 303-307.
4. Butler, J.J. Jr. 1998. The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers.
5. Butler, J.J. Jr., V.A. Zlotnik, and M.-S. Tsou. 2001. Drawdown and stream depletion produced by pumping in the vicinity of a partially penetrating stream. Ground Water 39, no. 5: 651-659.
6. Butler, J.J. Jr., J.M. Healey, G.W. McCall, E.J. Garnett, and S.P. Loheide II. 2002. Hydraulic tests with direct-push equipment. Ground Water 40, no. 1: 25-36.
7. Calver, A. 2001. Riverbed permeabilities: Information from pooled data. Ground Water 39, no. 4: 546-553.
8. Cardenas, M.B., and V.A. Zlotnik. 2003. Three-dimensional model of modern channel bend deposits. Water Resources Research 39, no. 6: 10.1029/2002WR001383.
9. Cardenas, M.B. 2002. Detailed three-dimensional hydrogeologic study of a modern streambed (Prairie Creek site, Nebraska). M.S. thesis, Department of Geosciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
10. Cho, J.S., J.T. Wilson, and F.P. Beck Jr. 2000. Measuring vertical profiles of hydraulic conductivity with in-situ direct push methods. Journal of Environmental Engineering 126, no. 8: 775-777.
11. Dagan, G. 1978. A note on packer, slug, and recovery tests in unconfined aquifers. Water Resources Research 14, no. 5: 929-934.
12. Duwelius, R.F. 1996. Hydraulic conductivity of the streambed, east branch Grand Calumet River, northern Lake County, Indiana. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4218. Reston, Virginia: USGS.
13. Hinsby, K., P. Bjerg, L.J. Andersen, B. Skov, and E.V. Clausen. 1992. A mini slug test for determination of a local hydraulic conductivity of an unconfined sandy aquifer. Journal of Hydrology 136, no. 1-4: 87-106.
14. Hunt, B. 1999. Unsteady stream depletion from ground water pumping. Ground Water 37, no. 1: 98-102.
15. HydroSOLVE Inc. 2000. AQTESOLV for Windows User's Guide. Reston, Virginia: HydroSOLVE.
16. Izbicki, J.A. 2002. Geologic and hydrologic controls on the movement of water through a thick, heterogeneous unsaturated zone underlying an intermittent stream in the western Mojave Desert, southern California. Water Resources Research 38, no. 3: 10.1029/2000WR000197.
17. Kollet, S.J., V.A. Zlotnik, and D. Woodward. 2002. A field and theoretical study on stream-aquifer interactions under pumping conditions in the Great Plains, Nebraska. In Proceedings of AWRA 2002 Summer Specialty Conference "Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions," July 1-3, Keystone, Colorado, 29-34.
18. Kollet, S.J., and V.A. Zlotnik. 2003. Stream depletion predictions using pumping test data from a heterogeneous stream-aquifer system (a case study from the Great Plains, USA). Journal of Hydrology 281, nos. 1-2: 96-114.
19. Landon, M.K., D.L. Rus, and F.E. Harvey. 2001. Comparison of instream methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity in sandy streambeds. Ground Water 39, no. 6: 870-885.
20. McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh. 1984. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow model. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 83. Reston, Virginia: USGS.
21. Rus, D.L., V.L. McGuire, B.R. Zurbuchen, and V.A. Zlotnik. 2001. Vertical profiles of streambed hydraulic conductivity determined using slug tests in central and western Nebraska. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4212. Denver, Colorado: USGS.
22. Scaturo, D.M., and M.A. Widdowson. 1997. Experimental evaluation of a drive-point ground-water sampler for hydraulic conductivity measurement. Ground Water 35, no. 4: 713-720.
23. Springer, A.E., W.D. Petroutson, and B.A. Semmens. 1999. Spatial and temporal variability of hydraulic conductivity in active reattachment bars of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon. Ground Water 37, no. 3: 338-344.
24. Sophocleous, M.A., A.D. Koussis, J.L. Martin, and S.P. Perkins. 1995. Evaluation of simplified stream-aquifer depletion models for water rights administration. Ground Water 33, no. 4: 579-588.
25. Tavenas, F., M. Diene, and S. Leroueil. 1990. Analysis of the in situ constant-head permeability test in clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27, 305-314.
26. Van Rooy, D. 1988. A note on the computerized interpretation of slug test data. Institute of Hydrodyn. Hydraulic Eng. Prog. Rep. 66. Technical University of Denmark.
27. Vukovic, M., and A. Soro. 1992. Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity of Porous Media from Grain-Size Composition. Littleton, Colorado: Water Resource Publications.
28. Wilson, J.T., J.S. Cho, F.P. Beck, and J.A. Vardy. 1997. Field estimation of hydraulic conductivity for assessments of natural attenuation. Bioremediation 4, no. 2: 309-314.
29. Zlotnik, V. 1994, Interpretation of slug and packer tests in anisotropic aquifers. Ground Water 32, no. 5: 761-766.
30. Zlotnik, V., and M. Ferlin. 1994. Vibracoring technique for well installation and slug testing. In Proceedings of 8th National Outdoor Action Conference and Exposition, Aquifer Remediation, Ground Water Monitoring, Geophysical Methods, 647-651. Westerville, Ohio: NGWA.
31. Zlotnik, V.A., and H. Huang. 1999. Effect of partial penetration and streambed sediments on aquifer response to stream stage fluctuations. Ground Water 37, no. 4: 599-605.
32. Zlotnik, V.A., B.R. Zurbuchen, T. Ptak, and G. Teutsch. 2000. Support volume and scale effect in hydraulic conductivity: Experimental aspects. In Theory, Modeling, and Field Investigation in Hydrogeology: A Special Volume in Honor of Shlomo P. Neuman's 60th Birthday, ed. D. Zhang and C.L. Winter, 215-231. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 348.
33. Zurbuchen, B.R., V.A. Zlotnik, and J.J. Butler Jr. 2002. The dynamic interpretation of slug tests in highly permeable aquifers. Water Resources Research 38, no. 3: 10.1029/ 2001WR000354.