4.7 Article

What information can we get from pumping tests? - comparing pumping test configurations using sensitivity coefficients

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 319, 期 1-4, 页码 199-215

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.06.030

关键词

pumping tests; sensitivity analysis; aquifer characterization; test design

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper we present a comparison of two different pumping test configurations by means of sensitivity coefficients. Sensitivity coefficients, which are a measure for the relationship between a change in drawdown and a change in the parameter distribution, allow the analysis of the intrinsic characteristics of pumping tests in order to provide a better understanding of their response to aquifer heterogeneity. By considering the evolution of changes in the sensitivity distribution, a direct link between temporal and spatial information is given. Thus, any deviation in the parameter distribution in a particular area around the wells of the considered test configuration can be assigned to deviations in the drawdown Curve indicated by a changing slope. Consequently, sensitivity coefficients allow the assessment of temporal information from the drawdown curve. By means of sensitivity coefficients it can be shown that the spatial assignment of estimated parameters is much simpler for single-well than for two-well pumping tests. Based on a numerical example, difficulties and consequences arising from pumping test evaluation are illustrated as result of the intrinsic characteristics of the test configuration due to the particularities of the sensitivity distribution. In this context, misinterpretations resulting from the application of interpretation methods-such as the Theis Solution for the classical two-well pumping test-are demonstrated that might lead to inaccurate estimates of hydraulic parameters. For the reduction of non-uniqueness, a modified concept is proposed for an improved characterization of aquifer heterogeneity. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据