Comparison of three methods of hydrogeological parameter estimation in leaky aquifers using transient flow pumping tests

Abstract

Accurate knowledge of hydrogeological parameters is essential for groundwater modeling, protection and remediation. Three methods (type curve fitting method, inflection point method and global curve‐fitting method (GCFM)) which are frequently applied in the estimation of leaky aquifer parameters were compared using synthetic pumping tests. The results revealed GCFM could provide best parameter estimation among the three methods with fewer uncertainties associated with the processes of parameter estimation. GCFM was also found to be both time saving and of low cost and is thus more preferable for hydrogeological parameter estimation than the other two methods. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

New graphical methods for estimating aquifer hydraulic parameters using pumping tests with exponentially decreasing rates

“…In addition, the drawdown sensitivity is much higher between the times corresponding to local extreme points than other times (Figures and ). As a consequence, if the pumping duration is relatively short, which is commonly encountered in real situations (Li et al, ), one would better employ the analytic method for parameter estimation.…”

“…Aquifer hydraulic parameters including hydraulic conductivity ( K ) and specific storage ( S s ) are crucial to hydrogeological and environmental investigations, such as groundwater hydraulics, groundwater depletion, land subsidence, and aquifer contamination. Field pumping test may be the most effective and common approach for estimating aquifer parameters (Li, Qian, & Wu, ). Hydraulic parameters of a confined aquifer are commonly interpreted from a constant‐rate pumping test in the field (Mishra, Vessilinov, & Gupta, ; Sen & Altunkaynak, ; Yeh & Chang, ).…”

Weighted joint curve inversion of aquifer parameters in pumping tests with multiple observation wells

“…Hydrogeological parameters are indicators of aquifer properties and are essential for evaluating groundwater resources (Li et al 2014;Li et al 2019;Bashandy et al 2024). These parameters include the hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, specific yield (for phreatic aquifers), storage coefficient (for confined aquifers), leakage coefficient, and influence radius.…”

“…However, these software packages only use some of the pumping test data from either the pumping or recovery phase. Although different methods can be applied to the pumping and recovery phases to obtain the aquifer parameters, the differing methods can lead to discrepancies in parameters calculated from different phases of a single pumping test (Li et al 2014). Moreover, owing to the quality of well construction and aquifer heterogeneity, the calculated parameters can vary between different observation wells, even when using data from the same phase (Herweijer and Young 1990).…”

Quantification of the hydraulic diffusivity of a bentonite‐sand mixture using the water head decrease measured upon sudden flow interruption

“…Because the hydraulic diffusivity corresponds to the ratio of two physical properties of the aquifer, techniques based on a separate quantification of the hydraulic conductivity and specific storage of the aquifer were promoted to evaluate the hydraulic diffusivity. The most widely used methods are pumping or slug tests (Brauchler, Hu, Dietrich, & Sauter, ; Chesnaux, ; Lin, Qian, & Wu, ), but other hydrogeological techniques are also used for assessing hydraulic conductivity, such as geophysical logging, borehole flowmeter tests, direct‐push methods, or hydraulic tomography (Butler, ).…”