2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling slug tests in unconfined aquifers taking into account water table kinematics, wellbore skin and inertial effects

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
44
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
2
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…McElwee and Zenner (1998) derived a new solution of slug test by using the Navier-Stokes equation for flow in the wellbore and the Hvorslev model for flow in the aquifer, of which the robustness of solution was subsequently tested by field data (McElwee, 2001). Malama et al (2011) modeled slug tests in unconfined aquifers taking into account water table kinematics, wellbore skin and inertial effects. In addition to above mentioned studies, other scientists also devoted significant efforts to slug test reasearch by incorporating the effects of partial penetration, anisotropy, short well screens, aquifer compressibility and finite radius well skins (Brown et al, 1995;Hyder and Butler, 1995;Hyder et al, 1994;Mills, 2010;Singh, 2007;Widdowson et al, 1990).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…McElwee and Zenner (1998) derived a new solution of slug test by using the Navier-Stokes equation for flow in the wellbore and the Hvorslev model for flow in the aquifer, of which the robustness of solution was subsequently tested by field data (McElwee, 2001). Malama et al (2011) modeled slug tests in unconfined aquifers taking into account water table kinematics, wellbore skin and inertial effects. In addition to above mentioned studies, other scientists also devoted significant efforts to slug test reasearch by incorporating the effects of partial penetration, anisotropy, short well screens, aquifer compressibility and finite radius well skins (Brown et al, 1995;Hyder and Butler, 1995;Hyder et al, 1994;Mills, 2010;Singh, 2007;Widdowson et al, 1990).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Details of the slug-test procedures, data quality assessment, and analysis are given in Malama et al (2011, and Barrash and Cardiff (2013). Figure 5 shows example K profiles from a few wells within the central well field.…”
Section: Hydraulic Conductivity From Multilevel Slug Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The result indicated that the assumption of water table as a constant‐head boundary will overestimate transmissivity. Malama, Kuhlman, Barrash, Cardiff, and Thoma () extended the solution of Hyder et al () by replacing the constant‐head condition at the water table with a free boundary that represented the linearized kinematic water table boundary condition (Neuman, ) and by considering the inertial wellbore effects (kinematic water table condition [KWTC] model). The results of Malama et al () indicated that the model with a KWTC essentially yielded the same head distribution as the confined KGS model, except in the region close to the water table where it produced a more physically realistic result.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, the well drilling and development often generate a disturbed near‐well zone (wellbore skin) that may have higher or lower hydraulic conductivity than that of the formation. Interpretation of slug test results using a model without the wellbore skin will lead to incorrect hydraulic conductivity estimation if the wellbore skin exists (Hyder et al, ; Malama et al, ; Yang & Gates, ; Yeh & Chen, ). More specifically, in the case of a skin less permeable than the formation, one might underestimate the hydraulic conductivity over an order of magnitude; whereas in the case of a high‐conductivity case, one will overestimate the hydraulic conductivity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation