A simple approach using Bouwer and Rice's method for slug test analysis

Ground Water

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 781-784

  Yang, Shaw Yang ^a   Yeh, Hund Der ^b  

^a VANUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AQUIFERS; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; LEAST SQUARES APPROXIMATIONS; POLYNOMIALS;

SLUG TEST; UNCONFINED AQUIFERS;

GROUNDWATER;

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; PARAMETERIZATION; SLUG TEST; UNCONFINED AQUIFER; WATER LEVEL;

GASTROPODA;

EID: 4444381077     PISSN: 0017467X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02732.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Black, J.K. 1978. The use of slug test in groundwater investigations. Water Services, March, 174-178.
2. Bouwer, H. 1989. The Bouwer and Rice slug test - An update. Ground Water 27, no. 3: 304-309.
3. 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.
4. Bredehoeft, J.D., H.H. Cooper Jr., and I.S. Papadopulos. 1966. Inertial and storage effects in well-aquifer systems: An analog investigation. Water Resources Research 2, no. 4: 697-707.
5. Butler Jr., J.J. 1998. The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. New York: Lewis.
6. Butler Jr., J.J. 2002. A simple correction for slug tests in a small-diameter well. Ground Water 40, no. 3: 303-307.
7. Chirlin, G.R. 1989. A critique of the Hvorslev method for slug test analysis: The fully penetrating well. Ground Water Monitoring Review 9, no. 2: 130-138.
8. Cooper Jr., H.H., J.D. Bredehoeft, and I.S. Papadopuls. 1967. Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resources Research 3, no. 1: 263-269.
9. Dagan, G., 1978. A note on packer, slug, and recovery tests in unconfined aquifers. Water Resources Research 14, no. 5: 928-934.
10. Ferris, J.G., and D.B. Knowles. 1954. The slug test for estimating transmissibility. U.S. Geological Survey Ground Water Note 26.
11. Gerald, C.F., and P.O. Wheatley. 1989. Applied Numerical Analysis. New York: Addison-Wesley.
12. Hyder, Z., and J.J. Butler Jr. 1995. Slug tests in unconfined formations: An assessment of the Bouwer and Rice technique. Ground Water 33, no. 1: 16-22.
13. Hyder, Z., J.J. Butler Jr., C.D. McElwee, and W. Liu. 1994. Slug tests in penetrating wells. Water Resources Research 30, no. 11: 2945-2957.
14. Jiao, J.J., and C.M. Leung. 2003. Spreadsheets for the analysis of aquifer test and slug test data. Ground Water 41, no. 1: 9-10.
15. Kemblowski, M.W., and C.L. Klein. 1988. An automated numerical evaluation of slug test data. Ground Water 26, no. 4: 435-438.
16. Rupp, D.E., J.S. Selker, and J. Simunek. 2001. A modification to Bouwer and Rice method of slug test analysis for large-diameter, hand-dug wells. Ground Water 39, no. 2: 308-314.
17. Van Rooy, D. 1988. A note on the computerized interpretation of slug test data. Institute of Hydrodynamics and Hydraulic Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Progress Report 66.
18. Yeh, H.D. 1987. Theis' solution by nonlinear least squares and finite-difference Newton's method. Ground Water 25, 710-715.