Comparison of early and late travel times of pressure pulses induced by multilevel slug tests

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 514-529

  Cheng, Jiangtao ^a   Brauchler, Ralf ^b   Everett, Mark E ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Contour plot; Finite element simulation; Hydraulic tomography; Hydraulic travel time; Multilevel slug test

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952214016     PISSN: 19942060     EISSN: 1997003X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19942060.2009.11015288     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Audouin O, Bodin J (2008). Cross-borehole slug test analysis in a fractured limestone aquifer. J. Hydrology 348:510–523.
2. Bohling GC (1993). Hydraulic tomography in two-dimensional, steady state groundwater flow. Trans. American Geophysical Union 74, 141, 1993.
3. Bohling GC, Zhan X, Butler JJ Jr, Zheng L (2002). Steady shape analysis of tomographic pumping tests for characterization of aquifer heterogeneity. Water Resources Res. 38(12), 1324, doi: 10.1029/2001WR001176.
4. Brauchler R, Cheng JT, Dietrich P, Everett M, Johnson B, Liedl R, Sauter M (2007). An inversion strategy for hydraulic tomography: Coupling travel time and amplitude inversion. J. Hydrology 345:184–198.
5. Brauchler R, Liedl R, Dietrich P (2003). A travel time based hydraulic tomographic approach. Water Resour. Res. 39(12), 1370, doi: 10.1029/2003WR002262.
6. Butler JJ Jr (1997). The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. Lewis, Boca Raton, 252.
7. Butler JJ Jr, McElwee CD, Bohling GC (1999). Pumping tests in networks of multilevel sampling wells: motivation and methodology. Water Resour. Res. 35:3553– 3560.
8. Butler JJ Jr, Bohling GC, Hyder Z, McElwee CD (1994). The use of slug tests to describe vertical variations in hydraulic conductivity. J. Hydrology 156:137–162.
9. Cooper HH Jr, Bredehoeft JD, Papadopulos IS (1967). Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resour. Res. 3(1):263–269.
10. Conrad SH, Wilson JL, Mason WR, Peplinski WJ (1992). Visualization of residual organic liquid trapped in aquifers. Water Resour. Res. 28(2):467–478.
11. Ferris JG, Knowles DB (1954). The slug test for estimating transmissibility. U.S. Geol. Surv. Ground Water Note 26.
12. Ferris JG, Knowles DB, Brown RH, Stallman RW (1962). Theory of aquifer tests. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Supply Paper 1536-E.
13. Gottlieb J, Dietrich P (1995). Identification of the permeability distribution in soil by hydraulic tomography. Inverse Problems 11(2):353–360.
14. He Z, Datta-Gupta A, Vasco DW (2006). Rapid inverse modeling of pressure interference tests using trajectory-based traveltime and amplitude sensitivities. Water Resour. Res. 42(3), doi: 10.1029/2004WR003783.
15. Hvorslev MJ (1951). Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations. US Army Corps Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta. Bull., 36.
16. Hyder Z, Butler JJ Jr, McElwee CD, Liu W (1994). Slug tests in partially penetrating wells. Water Resour. Res. 30:2954–2957.
17. Liu WZ, Butler JJ Jr (1995). The KGS model for slug tests in partially penetrating wells (version 3.0). Kans. Geol. Surv. Comput. Ser. Rep., 95-1.
18. Maloszewski P, Zuber A (1985). On the theory of tracer experiments in fissured rocks with a porous matrix. J. Hydrology 79:333– 358.
19. McElwee CD, Butler JJ Jr, Bohling GC, Liu W (1995). Sensitivity analysis of slug tests, Part 2. Observation wells. J. Hydrology 164:69–87.
20. Neretnicks I (1980). Diffusion in the rock matrix: An Important factor in radionuclide migration?. J. Geophys. Res. 85(B8):4379– 4397.
21. Neuman SP (2005). Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and transport through fractured rocks. Hydrogeol. J. 13:124–147.
22. Novakowski KS (1989). Analysis of pulse interference tests. Water Resour. Res. 25(11):2377–2387.
23. Reimus PW (1995). The Use of Synthetic Colloids in Tracer Transport Experiments in Saturated Rock Fractures. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
24. Sirgue L, Pratt RG (2003). Waveform Inversion under Realistic Conditions: Mitigation of Non-linearity, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 694–697.
25. Spane FA (1996). Applicability of slug interference tests for hydraulic characterization of unconfined aquifers: (1) Analytical assessment. Ground Water 34(1):66–74.
26. Spane FA Jr, Thorne PD, Swanson LC (1996). Applicability of slug interference tests for hydraulic characterization of unconfined aquifers: (2) Field test examples. Ground Water 34(5):925–933.
27. Tosaka H, Masumoto K, Kojima K (1993). Hydropulse tomography for identifying 3-D permeability distribution. High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proc. 4th Annual International Conference, V1, 955– 959.
28. Vasco DW, Keers H, Karasaki K (2000). Estimation of reservoir properties using transient pressure data: an asymptotic approach. Water Resour. Res. 36:3447–3465.
29. Wu CM, Yeh TC J, Zhu J, Lee TH, Hsu NS, Chen CH, Sancho AF (2005). Traditional analysis of aquifer tests: comparing apples to oranges?. Water Resour. Res. 41(9), W09402, doi: 10.1029/2004W09402
30. Yeh TC J, Liu S (2000). Hydraulic tomography: Development of a new aquifer test method. Water Resour. Res. 36(8):2095– 2105.
31. Zhu J, Yeh TC J (2005). Characterization of aquifer heterogeneity using transient hydraulic tomography. Water Resour. Res. 41, W07028, doi: 10.1029/2004WR003790.
32. Zyvoloski GA, Robinson BA, Dash ZV, Trease LL (1995). Models and Methods Summary for the FEHM Application. Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, NM.