Information content of slug tests for estimating hydraulic properties in realistic, high-conductivity aquifer scenarios

Journal of Hydrology

Volumn 403, Issue 1-2, 2011, Pages 66-82

  Cardiff, Michael ^a   Barrash, Warren ^a   Thoma, Michael ^a   Malama, Bwalya ^b  

^a BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MONTANA TECH OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

Aquifer characterization; Identifiability; Kozeny Carman; Slug test; Wellbore skin

Indexed keywords

AQUIFER CHARACTERIZATION; IDENTIFIABILITY; KOZENY-CARMAN; SLUG TEST; WELLBORE;

ANOXIC SEDIMENTS; ESTIMATION; EXPERIMENTS; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; HYDROGEOLOGY; MARKOV PROCESSES; MONTE CARLO METHODS; NUMERICAL METHODS; OIL FIELD EQUIPMENT; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; TESTING; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATER LEVELS;

AQUIFERS;

ANISOTROPY; AQUIFER CHARACTERIZATION; DATA SET; HETEROGENEITY; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MARKOV CHAIN; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; POROSITY; SLUG TEST; UNCONFINED AQUIFER;

EID: 79955883821     PISSN: 00221694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.044     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barrash W., Clemo T. Heirarchical geostatistics and multifacies systems: Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Boise, Idaho. Water Resources Research 2002, 38(10):1196.
2. Barrash, W., Knoll, M.D., 1998. Design of research wellfield for calibrating geophysical methods against hydrologic parameters. In: Conference on Hazardous Waste Research. pp. 296-318.
3. Barrash W., Reboulet E.C. Significance of porosity for stratigraphy and textural composition in subsurface, coarse fluvial deposits: Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site. Geological Society of America Bulletin 2004, 116(9/10):1059-1073.
4. Barrash W., Clemo T., Fox J.J., Johnson T.C. Field, laboratory, and modeling investigation of the skin effect at wells with slotted casing, Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site. Journal of Hydrology 2006, 326:181-198.
5. Beckie R., Harvey C.F. What does a slug test measure: an investigation of instrument response and the effects of heterogeneity. Water Resources Research 2002, 38(12):1290.
6. Bouwer H., Rice R. A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources Research 1976, 12(3):423-428.
7. Bradford J.H., Clement W., Barrash W. Estimating porosity with ground-penetrating radar reflection tomography: a controlled 3-d experiment at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site. Water Resources Research 2009, 45(W00D26).
8. Bredehoeft J.D., Cooper H.H., Papadopulos I.S. Inertial and storage effects in well-aquifer systems: an analog investigation. Water Resources Research 1966, 2(4):697-707.
9. Butler J.J. Slug tests in site characterization: some practical considerations. Environmental Geosciences 1996, 3(2):154-163.
10. Butler J.J. The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests 1998, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.
11. Butler J.J. A simple correction for slug tests in small-diameter wells. Ground Water 2002, 40(3):303-307.
12. Butler J.J., Zhan X. Hydraulic tests in highly permeable aquifers. Water Resources Research 2004, 40:W12402.
13. Butler J.J., Bohling G.C., Hyder Z., McElwee C. The use of slug tests to describe vertical variations in hydraulic conductivity. Journal of Hydrology 1994, 156:137-162.
14. Cardiff M., Barrash W., Kitanidis P., Malama B., Revil A., Straface S., Rizzo E. A potential-based inversion of unconfined steady-state hydraulic tomography. Ground Water 2009, 47(2):259-270.
15. Clement W.P., Knoll M.D. Traveltime inversion of vertical radar profiles. Geophysics 2006, 71(3):K67-K76.
16. Cooper H.H., Bredehoeft J.D., Papadopulos I.S. Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resources Research 1967, 3(1):263-269.
17. Desbarats J. Spatial averaging of transmissivity in heterogeneous fields with flow toward a well. Water Resources Research 1992, 28(3):757-767.
18. Domenico P.A., Schwartz F.W. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology 1998, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA. second ed.
19. Faust C.R., Mercer J.W. Evaluation of slug tests in wells containing a finite-thickness skin. Water Resources Research 1984, 20(4):504-506.
20. Fox, J.J., 2006. Analytical Modeling of Fully-penetrating Pumping Tests at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site for Aquifer Parameters and Wellbore Skin. Ph.D. thesis. Boise State University.
21. Hastings W. Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 1970, 57(1):97-109.
22. Hvorslev, M., 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 36.
23. Hyder Z., Butler James J.J., McElwee C.D., Liu W. Slug tests in partially penetrating wells. Water Resources Research 1994, 30(11):2945-2957.
24. Irving G.D., Knoll M.D., Knight R.J. Improving crosshole radar velocity tomograms: a new approach to incorporating high-angle traveltime data. Geophysics 2007, 72(4):J31-J41.
25. Kipp K.L. Type curve analysis of inertial effects in the response of a well to a slug test. Water Resources Research 1985, 21(9):1397-1408.
26. Kitanidis P.K. Parametric estimation of covariances of regionalized variables. Water Resources Bulletin 1987, 23(4):557-567.
27. Leap D.I. A simple pneumatic device and technique for performing rising water level slug tests. Ground Water Monitoring Review 1984, 4(4):141-146.
28. Levy B.S., Pannell L.J., Dadoly J.P. A pressure-packer system for conducting rising head tests in water table wells. Journal of Hydrology 1993, 148:189-202.
29. Liu X., Cardiff M., Kitanidis P.K. Parameter estimation in nonlinear environmental problems. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 2010, 24(7):1003-1022.
30. Malama, B., Barrash, W., Cardiff, M., Thoma, M., Kuhlman, K.L., in press. Modeling slug tests in unconfined aquifers taking into account water table kinematics, wellbore skin and inertial effects. Journal of Hydrology.
31. McElwee C.D. Improving the analysis of slug tests. Journal of Hydrology 2002, 269(3-4):122-133.
32. McElwee C.D., Zenner M.A. A nonlinear model for analysis of slug-test data. Water Resources Research 1998, 34(1):55-66.
33. Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A., Rosenbluth M., Teller A., Teller E., Chem J. Equation of state calculations by fast computation machines. Physics 1953, 21:1087-1092.
34. Morin R., LeBlanc D., Teasdale W. A statistical evaluation of formation disturbance produced by well-casing installation methods. Ground Water 1988, 26(2):207-217.
35. Neuman S., Orr S. Prediction of steady state flow in nonuniform geologic media by conditional moments: exact nonlocal formalism, effective conductivities, and weak approximation. Water Resources Research 1993, 29(2):341-364.
36. Reboulet, E.C., Barrash, W., 2003. Core, Grain-size, and Porosity Data from the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site, Boise, Idaho. Tech. Rep. 03-02, CGISS. Boise State University.
37. Rovey C., Niemann W. Wellskins and slug tests: where's the bias?. Journal of Hydrology 2001, 243:120-132.
38. Springer, R.K., Gelhar, L.W., 1991. Characterization of Large-scale Aquifer Heterogeneity in Glacial Outwash by Analysis of Slug Tests with Oscillatory Response, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Tech. Rep. 91-4034, US Geological Survey.
39. Tronicke J., Holliger K., Barrash W., Knoll M.D. Multivariate analysis of cross-hole georadar velocity and attenuation tomograms for aquifer zonation. Water Resources Research 2004, 40(W01519). 10.1024/2003WR002031.
40. Van Der Kamp G. Determining aquifer transmissivity by means of well response tests: the underdamped case. Water Resources Research 1976, 12(1):71-77.
41. Zlotnik V.A., McGuire V.L. Multi-level slug tests in highly permeable formations: 1. Modification of the Springer-Gelhar (SG) model. Journal of Hydrology 1998, 204:271-282.