Low-Flow Hydraulic Conductivity Tests at Wells that Cross the Water Table

Ground Water

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 426-431

  Aragon Jose, Alejandra T ^a   Robbins, Gary A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRAINAGE PROBLEMS; EFFECTIVE RADIUS; LOW-FLOW SAMPLING; MONITORING WELLS; RECOVERY CURVES; SAND PACK; SLUG TEST; SLUG TESTING; SPECIFIC YIELD; STEADY-STATE FLOWS; WATER TABLES;

AQUIFERS; SAND; WATER LEVELS; WELL TESTING;

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY;

FRESH WATER;

DRAINAGE; DRAWDOWN; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; LOW FLOW; PARAMETERIZATION; SLUG TEST; STEADY FLOW; WATER TABLE; WELL WATER;

ARTICLE; EVALUATION; GEOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; WATER SUPPLY;

FRESH WATER; GEOLOGY; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 79955164755     PISSN: 0017467X     EISSN: 17456584     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00742.x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Bartlett, S.A., G.A. Robbins, J.D. Mandrick, M.J. Barcelona, W. McCall, and M. Kram 2004. Comparison of hydraulic conductivity determinations in direct push and conventional wells. Technical Report TR-2252-ENV. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. (accessed 2010).
2. Binkhorst, G.K., and G.A. Robbins 1998. Conducting and interpreting slug tests in monitoring wells with partially submerged screens. Ground Water 36, no. 2: 225-229.
3. Binkhorst, G.K. 1992. Evaluation of slug test methods for determining hydraulic conductivity in unconfined aquifers. M.S. thesis, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
4. Bouwer, H. 1989. The Bouwer and Rice slug test-an update. Ground Water 27, no. 3: 304-309.
5. Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice 1976. A slug test method for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources Research 12, no. 3: 423-428.
6. Butler, J.J. Jr. 1997. The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests. New York: Lewis Pub.
7. Henebry, B.J., and G.A. Robbins 2000. Reducing the influence of skin effects on hydraulic conductivity determinations in multilevel samplers installed with direct push methods. Ground Water 38, no. 6: 882-886.
8. Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in ground water observations. Bulletin 36. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
9. McCabe, D.M. 1996. Evaluation of a method for obtaining multilevel hydrogeologic data from ground water monitoring wells. M.S. thesis, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
10. Metcalf, M., and G.A. Robbins 2007. Comparison of water quality profiles from shallow monitoring wells and adjacent multilevel samplers. Ground Water Monitoring Review and Remediation 27, no. 1: 84-91.
11. Puls, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona 1996. Ground water issue: Low-flow (minimal drawdown) ground-water sampling procedures. Ada, Oklahoma: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/S-95/540. Superfund Technology Support Center for Groundwater, RSKERL.
12. Robbins, G.A., A.T. Aragon-Jose, and A. Romero 2009. Determining hydraulic conductivity using pumping data from low-flow sampling. Ground Water 47, no. 2: 271-276.
13. Van Rooy, D. 1988. A note on the computerize interpretation of slug test data. Progress Report 66. Institute of Hydrodynamics and Hydraulic. Engineering, Technical University of Denmark.