Notes on Estimation of Hydraulic Conductivity Using Slug Test Analysis
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 2, Issue 1
Abstract
Two methods of analysis were utilized in the evaluation of over 70 sets of slug test data taken from a contaminated site in southwestern Ohio. The tests were performed in till and a variety of underlying glacial outwash sediments ranging from clay to gravel. During data analysis it was necessary to carefully evaluate the geometry of the test well and local flow conditions for their conformance to the assumptions of the method of analysis. This paper introduces several situations where the well construction and the flow conditions at the site affected the accuracy and interpretation of the collected test data.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Binkhorst, G. K., and Robbins, G. A. (1994). “A review and assessment of factors affecting hydraulic conductivity values determined from slug tests.”EPA/600/R-93/202, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
2.
Bouwer, H.(1989). “The Bouwer and Rice slug test—an update.”Ground Water, 27(3), 304–309.
3.
Bouwer, H., and Rice, R. C.(1976). “A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells.”Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 423–428.
4.
Brown, D., Narasimhan, T. N., and Demir, Z.(1995). “An evaluation of the Bower and Rice method of slug test analysis.”Water Resour. Res., 31(5), 1239–1246.
5.
Cooper, H. H., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, S. S.(1967). “Response of a finite diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water.”Water Resour. Res., 3(1), 263–269.
6.
Dawson, K., and Istok, J. (1991). Aquifer testing: design and analysis of pumping and slug tests. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Mich.
7.
Duffield, G. M., and Rumbaugh, J. O. III. (1992). Geraghty & Miller's AQTESOLV aquifer test solver 1.1 documentation. Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group, Reston, Va.
8.
“FEMP glacial till/vadoze zone investigations report.” (1994). U.S. Dept. of Energy, Fernald Ofc., Fernald, Ohio.
9.
Fenneman, N. M. (1916). “The geology of Cincinnati and vicinity.”Ohio Geological Survey Bull. 19, Columbus, Ohio.
10.
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A. (1979). Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
11.
Hyder, Z., and Butler, J. J.(1995). “Slug tests in unconfined formations: an assessment of the Bouwer and Rice technique.”Ground Water, 33(1), 16–22.
12.
Kruseman, G. P., and de Ridder, N. A. (1989). Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data, 2nd Ed., Bull. 11. Int. Inst. for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wagenengen, The Netherlands.
13.
Palmer, C. D., and Paul, D. G. (1987). “Problems in the interpretation of slug test data from fine-grained glacial till.”Proc., NGWA FOCUS Conf. on Northwest Ground Water Issues, Columbus, Ohio, 99–123.
14.
“Remedial investigation report for operable unit 5.” Vol. 1 of 3. (1994). U.S. Dept. of Energy, Fernald Ofc., Fernald, Ohio.
15.
“Standard test method for (field procedures)—instantaneous change in head (slug tests) for determining hydraulic properties of aquifers.” (1991a). Method D4044, ASTM, Philadelphia.
16.
“Standard test method (field procedure) for withdrawal and injection well tests for determining hydraulic properties of aquifer systems.” (1991b). Method D4050, ASTM, Philadelphia.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January 1997
Pages: 18 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Jan 1, 1997
Published in print: Jan 1997
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.