#Well drawdown test eastern washington skin#
#Well drawdown test eastern washington windows#

Bull Eng Geol Environ 69:143–152ĭuffield GM (2007) AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.5 User’s Guide. Water Resour Res 39:1121–1135ĭeveughele M, Zokimila P, Cojean R (2010) Impact of an impervious shallow gallery on groundwater flow.

#Well drawdown test eastern washington skin#

Water Resour Manag 29:771–784Ĭhen CC, Chang CC (2003) Well hydraulics theory and data analysis of the constant-head test in an unconfined aquifer with the skin effect. Groundwater 44:300–305Ĭhattopadhyay PB, Vedanti N, Singh VS (2015) A conceptual numerical model to simulate aquifer parameters. Hydrol Process 24:1496–1503Ĭhapuis RP, Belanger C, Chenaf D (2006) Pumping test in a confined aquifer under tidal influence. Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Publ 37:472–477Ĭhang YC, Yeh HD, Chen GY (2010) Transient solution for radial two-zone flow in unconfined aquifers under constant-head tests. J Hydrol 315:52–70īoulton NS (1954) Unsteady radial flow to a pumped well allowing for delayed yield from storage. 1536‐G, pp 181–203.īevan MJ, Endres AL, Rudolph DL, Parkin G (2005) A field-scale study of pumping-induced drainage and recovery in an unconfined aquifer. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4225īennett GD, Patten EP (1962) Constant‐head pumping test of a multiaquifer well to determine characteristics of individual aquifers. Hydrogeol J 24:5–19īarlow PM, Moench AF (1999) WTAQ-A computer program for calculating drawdowns and estimating hydraulic properties for confined and water-table aquifers: U.S. Therefore, it was concluded that the simplified analytical solutions may lead to misleading estimations of aquifer properties when the pumping test was conducted in an area with complex site conditions.Īttard G, Winiarski T, Rossier Y, Eisenlohr L (2016) Review: impact of underground structures on the flow of urban groundwater. Numerical simulation conducted by considering a horizontal potentiometric surface as in the analytical model produced an averaged root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) of 0.055 m, which was approximately 57% higher than the RMSE value estimated with the effect of the hydraulic gradient. Calibrated aquifer properties without the boundary effect showed clear differences, where the transmissivity, anisotropy ratio and specific yield varied by 12%, 34% and 53%, respectively, as compared to the results obtained by including the boundary effect. Moreover, time varying water heads during the pumping and recovery tests were simulated numerically to determine the effect of hydraulic gradient, which does not satisfy the assumption of horizontal potentiometric surface used in the analytical solution. This site condition violates the assumption that the aquifer is of infinite areal extent. In this study, drawdown records collected in a pumping well and two monitoring wells located near a river, were analyzed to investigate the boundary effects on the estimated aquifer properties. However, numerous assumptions used to develop the analytical solution are not always compatible with the actual site conditions. In this method, measured drawdown in the pumping well and the monitoring wells are usually matched with type curves developed by various analytical methods. The constant-rate pumping test (CRT) is commonly used to determine the aquifer properties.