Evaluating the hydraulic conductivity at three different scales within an unconfined sand aquifer at Lachenaie, Quebec

Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 1212-1220

  Chapuis, Robert P ^a   Dallaire, Véronique ^a   Marcotte, Denis ^a   Chouteau, Michel ^a   Acevedo, Nelson ^a   Gagnon, Francis ^a  

^a ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Gradation; Hydraulic conductivity; Monitoring well; Pumping; Sand; Scale effect

Indexed keywords

AQUIFERS; CLAY DEPOSITS; GRAIN SIZE AND SHAPE; GROUND PENETRATING RADAR SYSTEMS; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY;

GRADATION; MONITORING WELLS; SCALE EFFECT;

SAND;

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; UNCONFINED AQUIFER;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; QUEBEC [CANADA]; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 18844443044     PISSN: 00083674     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/t05-045     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abichou, T., Benson, C., Friend, M., and Wang, X. 2002. Hydraulic conductivity of a fractured aquitard. In Evaluation and remediation of low permeability and dual porosity environments. Edited by M.N. Sara and L.G. Everett. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Pubtication STP 1415. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa. pp. 25-37.
2. AFNOR. 1992. Norme NF P94-132, Essai d'eau Lefranc. Association Française de normalisation (AFNOR), Paris.
3. ASTM. 2003a. Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils (D422). In ASTM annual CDs of standards. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
4. ASTM. 2003b. Standard test method for specific gravity of soils (D854). In ASTM annual CDs of standards. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
5. ASTM. 2003c. Standard test method for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock (D2216). In ASTM annual CDs of standards. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
6. Bouwer, H., and Rice, R.C. 1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources Research, 12: 423-428.
7. Bradbury, K.R., and Muldoon, M.A. 1990. Hydraulic conductivity determinations in unlithified glacial and fluvial materials. In Ground water and vadose zone monitoring. Edited by D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication STP 1053. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa. pp. 138-151.
8. Bruner, D.G., and Lutenegger, A.J. 1994. Measurement of saturated hydraulic conductivity in fine-grained glacial tills in Iowa: comparison of in situ and laboratory methods. In Hydraulic conductivity and waste contaminant transport in soil. Edited by D.E. Daniel and S.J. Trautwein. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication STP 1142. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa. pp. 255-265.
9. Butler, J.J., Jr., and Healey, J.M. 1998a. Relationship between pumping-tests and slug-test parameters: scale effect or artifact? Ground Water, 36(2): 305-313.
10. Butler, J.J., Jr., and Healey, J.M. 1998b. Relationship between pumping-tests and slug-test parameters: scale effect or artifact? Authors' reply to discussion. Ground Water, 36(2), 867-868.
11. CAN/BNQ. 1988. Soils - determination of permeability by the Lefranc method. Canadian Standards Association and Bureau de normalisation du Québec, CAN/BNQ 2501-135-M88.
12. Carrier, W.D., III. 2003. Goodbye Hazen; Hello, Kozeny-Carman. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 129(11): 1054-1056.
13. Cazaux, D., and Didier, G. 2002. Comparison between various field and laboratory measurements of the hydraulic conductivity of three clay liners. In Evaluation and remediation of low permeability and dual porosity environments. Edited by M.N. Sara and L.G. Everett. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication STP 1415. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pa. pp. 3-24.
14. Chapuis, R.P. 1998. Overdamped slug test in monitoring wells: review of interpretation methods with mathematical, physical, and numerical analysis of storativity influence. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(5): 697-719.
15. Chapuis, R.P. 2001. Extracting piezometric level and hydraulic conductivity from tests in driven flush-joint casings. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 24(2): 209-219.
16. Chapuis, R.P. 2004. Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using effective diameter and void ratio. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(5): 787-795.
17. Chapuis, R.P., and Aubertin, M. 2003. On the use of the Kozeny-Carman equation to predict the hydraulic conductivity of soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(3): 616-628.
18. Chapuis, R.P., and Chenaf, D. 2003. Variable-head field permeability tests in driven casings: physical and numerical modeling. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 26(3): 245-256.
19. Chapuis, R.P., and Wendling, G. 1991. Monitoring wells: measurement of permeability with minimal modification of ground water. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(5): 871-875.
20. Chapuis, R.P., Baass, K., and Davenne, L. 1989. Granular soils in rigid-wall permeameters: method for determining the degree of saturation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26(1): 71-79.
21. Chapuis, R.P., Acevedo, N., Marcotte, D., and Chouteau, M. 1997. Caractérisation hydrogéologique d'un aquifère à nappe libre à Lachenaie, Québec. In Proceedings of the 50th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Ottawa, Ont., 20-22 October 1997. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Allistøn, Ont. 450-458. [In French.]
22. Chapuis, R.P., Chenaf, D., Bussière, B., Aubertin, M., and Crespo, R. 2001. A user's approach to assess numerical codes for saturated and unsaturated seepage conditions. Canadian Geotechnical, Journal, 38(5): 1113-1126.
23. Chapuis, R.P., Chenaf, D., Acevedo, N., Marcotte, D., and Chouteau, M. 2005. Unusual drawdown curves for a pumping test in an unconfined aquifer at Lachenaie, Quebec: field data and numerical modeling. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42: 1133-1144.
24. Charny, I.A. 1951. A rigorous derivation of Dupuit's formula for unconfined seepage with seepage face. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, USSR, 79(6): 937-940. [In Russian.]
25. Chenaf, D., and Chapuis, R.P. 1998. Numerical study of steady-state pumping in an unconfined aquifer. In Proceedings of the 51st Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Edmonton, Alta., 4-7 October 1998. Canadian Geotechnical, Society, Alliston, Ont. pp. 523-528. [In French.]
26. Cooper, H.H., Jr., and Jacob, C.E. 1946. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 27(4): 526-534.
27. Dupuit, J. 1857. Mémoire sur le mouvenient des eaux dans les terrains perméables. Mémoire déposé en 1857, rapporté,aux comptes-rendus des séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris, tome LII, séance du 3 juin 1861.
28. Dupuit, J. 1863. Éudes théoriques et pratiques sur le mouvement des eaux dans les canaux découverts et à travers les terrains perméables. 2nd ed. Dunod, Paris. Chapt. 7, pp. 229-293.
29. Gelhar, L.W. 1993. Stochastic subsurface hydrology. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
30. Gloaguen, E., Chouteau, M., Marcotte, D., and Chapuis, R.P. 2001. Estimation of hydraulic conductivity of an unconfined aquifer using cokriging of GPR and hydrostigraphic data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 47: 135-152.
31. Hazen, A. 1892. Some physical properties of sand and gravel, with special reference to their use in filtration. In Massachusetts State Board of Health, 24th Annual Report, Boston, Mass. pp. 539-556.
32. Hazen, A. 1911. Discussion of "Dams on sand formations," by A.C. Koenig. Transactions of the American Society of Civil, Engineers, 73: 199-203.
33. Herzog, B.L., and Morse, W.J. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity at a hazardous waste disposal site: comparison of laboratory and field-determined values. Waste Management and Research, 4: 177-187.
34. Herzog, B.L., and Morse, W.J. 1990. Comparison of slug test methodologies for determination of hydraulic conductivity in fine-grained sediments. In Ground water and vadose zone monitoring. Edited by D.M. Nielsen and A.I. Johnson. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication STP 1053. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa. pp. 152-164.
35. Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time-lag and soil permeability in ground water observations. US Army Engineering Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Bulletin 36.
36. Jacob, C.E. 1944. Notes on determining permeability by pumping tests under water table conditions. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report.
37. NAVFAC. 1974. Design manual - soil mechanics, foundations, and earth structures. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Design manual DM7. US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
38. Neuman, S.P. 1994. Generalized scaling of permeabilities: validation and effect of support scale. Geophysical Research Letters, 21(5): 349-353.
39. Niemann, W.L., and Rovey, C.W., II. 2000. Comparison of hydraulic conductivity values obtained from aquifer pumping tests and conservative tracer tests. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 20(3): 122-128.
40. Panfilov, M. 2000. Macroscale models of flow through highly heterogeneous porous media. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
41. Renard, P., and de Marsily, G. 1997. Calculating equivalent permeability: a review. Advances in Water Resources, 20(5-6): 253-278.
42. Rovey, C.W., II, and Cherkauer, D.S. 1995. Scale dependency of hydraulic conductivity measurements. Ground Water, 33(5): 769-780
43. Rovey, C.W., II, and Niemann, W.L. 1998. Relationship between pumping-test and slug-test parameters: scale effect of artifact?: discussion. Ground Water, 36(6): 866-867.
44. Rovey, C.W., II, and Niemann, W.L. 2001. Wellskins and slug tests: where's the bias? Journal of Hydrology, 243(1-2): 120-132.
45. Rushton, K.R., and Howard, K.W.F. 1982. The unreliability of open observation boreholes in unconfined aquifer pumping tests. Ground Water, 20: 546-550.
46. Taylor, D.W. 1948. Fundamentals of soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York
47. Vidstrand, P. 2001. Comparison of upscaling methods to estimate hydraulic conductivity. Ground Water, 39(3): 401-407
48. Vogel, H.-J., and Roth, K. 2003. Moving through scales of flow and transport in soils. Journal of Hydrology, 272: 95-106.
49. Vonhof, J.A. 1975. Hydrodynamic response - or slug test as a means to monitor the progress of well development. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 12(1): 1-12.
50. Warren, J., and Price, H. 1961. Flow in heterogeneous porous media. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 1: 153-169.
51. Wen, X.-H., and Gomez-Hernandez, J.J. 1996. Upscaling hydraulic conductivities in, heterogeneous media: an overview. Journal of Hydrology, 183: 9-32.