ProgramS for slug test in an unconfined aquifer considering
unsaturated flow
By Hongbing Sun,
Rider University, New Jersey
The readme file for the
setup of slug program
readme
Slug test source code
zipped file slug9src.zip
Executable file slug9.exe
Example input zipped files
Article: Sun, H., 2016. A
semi-analytical solution for slug tests in an unconfined aquifer considering
unsaturated flow. Journal
of Hydrology. 532, 29-36
This slug test program is
designed for a test in an unconfined aquifer utilized a new semi-analytical
solution which considers the vertical unsaturated flow in the groundwater. The
new solution incorporates the effects of partial penetrating, anisotropy,
vertical unsaturated flow, and a moving water table boundary. Compared to the
Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) model, the new solution can significantly
improve the fittings of the modeled to the measured hydraulic heads at the late
stage of slug tests in an unconfined aquifer, particularly when the slug well
has a partially submerged screen and moisture drainage above the water table is
significant. The radial hydraulic conductivities estimated with the new
solution are comparable to those from the KGS, Bouwer and Rice, and Hvorslev methods. In addition, the new solution also can be
used to examine the vertical conductivity, specific storage, specific yield,
and the moisture retention parameters in an unconfined aquifer based on slug
test data.
The
solution paper is in Journal of Hydrology, 2016. 532, 29-36.
Readme file:
Instruction for files in the slug9src.zip and the input.zip
1. The slug9src.zip has 5 files: two
files are for setup, the other three files are the source code files.
Two setup
files:
1). g77setup.bat is a
batch file for setting up the path for the g77 Fortran Compiler.
2). g77slug8.bat is the
batch file that compiles the three source files and creates the executable file
called slug6.exe
Three source files are:
slugtest9.f, laplace9.f besellsub.f
2. The input.zip
file has four example input files and one well data file
texas1403_9.txt
texasa027_9.txt
texasmw12.txt
butler66_2.txt
texasmw12_old.txt is an early calibrated data file used for sensitivity
analysis.
welldata.xls has the four measured wells' H/Ho data and their
measuring time (in seconds) for the input wells.
It seems butler66_2.txt
data does not have significant unsaturated flow and was added to compare with
the KGS model in this situation.
3. Other notes
The
input file in the examples is self-explanatory. The rows above the numbers are
the explanatory rows. The program skips these rows no matter what you enter
there.
One only needs to change
numbers in the example file and save it as a different file to run your own
data.
You
only need to change the numbers underneath the lines **Your
data line. User specified time for the slug test time is underneath line 5+....
For the number of user specified time, one needs to count how many time steps
you have and enter your time. Then copy the time of the time steps over.
4. To run the executable program, just type in slug9.exe
in the command line.
When the program prompts
for the input file, one needs to enter the full file name, including the suffix
The input file will have
to be in the same directory as slug9.exe file.
5. The output file is called the outfile.txt
The file has three
columns. One is the time column, another one is the H/Ho, and the third one is
the actual water level column(H/Ho)*Ho. These three
columns also are displayed on the screen.
Comparison with traditional models:
KGS and Bower and Rice Model
For articles: see link
Figure 1. Left underneath picture, log time vs. normalized head, right underneath picture, time
vs. log normalized head plots for well ST14-03 showing the best fit curves
from the new solution, the KGS model, and the Bouwer & Rice model to the
measured slug test data. Notice the significant improvement of the new
solution for fitting the late slug test data which were affected by
unsaturated drainage. |
|
|
|
Figure 2. Left underneath picture, log
time vs. normalized head, right
underneath picture, time vs. log normalized head plots for well
WSAICTA027 showing the best fit curves from the new solution, the KGS model,
and the Bouwer & Rice model to the measured data. |
|
|
|
Figure 3. Left underneath picture, log
time vs. normalized head, right
underneath picture, time vs. log normalized head plots for well MW-12
showing the best fit curves from the new solution, the KGS model, and the
Bouwer & Rice model to the measured data. |
|
|
|
Figure 4. Left underneath picture Log
time vs. normalized head; Right
underneath picture, time vs. log normalized head plots for well
Butler_6.2 showing the best fit curves from the new solution, the KGS model,
and the Bouwer & Rice model to the measured data (The measured data and
well parameters were from Butler, 1998, Tables 6.1 and 6.2). |
|
|
|
Table 2.
Comparison of hydraulic parameters estimated from the new solution and
traditional
models.
Well
ST14-03* |
||||||||||||
Models\Parameters |
Kr
(m/day) |
Kz (m/day) |
Ss (m-1) |
Sy |
ac
(m-1) |
ak (m-1) |
||||||
Sun (2016)
model |
2.76 |
1.78 |
2.5*10-5 |
0.1 |
1.5 |
250 |
||||||
KGS Model |
2.06 |
1.21 |
7.52*10-5 |
|||||||||
Bouwer &
Rice Model |
2.27 |
|||||||||||
Hvorslev |
2.95 |
|||||||||||
WSAICTA027* |
||||||||||||
Models\Parameters |
Kr
(m/day) |
Kz (m/day) |
Ss (m-1) |
Sy |
ac
(m-1) |
ak (m-1) |
||||||
Sun (2016)
model |
2.24 |
2.16 |
5*10-5 |
0.10 |
1.2 |
350 |
||||||
KGS Model |
2.39 |
0.286 |
6.84*10-5 |
|||||||||
Bouwer &
Rice Model |
1.89 |
|||||||||||
Hvorslev |
2.71 |
|||||||||||
MW-12*
|
||||||||||||
Models\Parameters |
Kr
(m/day) |
Kz (m/day) |
Ss (m-1) |
Sy |
ac
(m-1) |
ak (m-1) |
||||||
Sun (2016)
model |
2.51 |
2.24 |
2*10-4 |
0.12 |
0.8 |
400 |
||||||
KGS Model |
1.55 |
1.08 |
1.8*10-3 |
|
|
|
||||||
Bouwer &
Rice Model |
2.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Hvorslev |
2.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Butler-6.2 |
||||||||||||
Models\Parameters |
Kr
(m/day) |
Kz (m/day) |
Ss (m-1) |
Sy |
ac
(m-1) |
ak (m-1) |
||||||
Sun (2016)
model |
5.18 |
1.3 |
2*10-4 |
0.17 |
10 |
100 |
||||||
KGS Model |
4.73 |
1.89 |
2.5*10-4 |
|
|
|
||||||
Bouwer &
Rice Model |
4.39 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Hvorslev |
5.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
*Hydraulic
heads for slug testwells ST14-03, WSAICTA027, and MW-12 were obtained
from Houston and Braun, USGS. Hydraulic parameters and heads for slug
test well Buter-6.2
were obtained from Butler (1998) Table 6.1 and 6.2 on p.111-113. ac
moisture retention exponent (L-1 ), ak
relative conductivity exponent (L-1 ), Kr hydraulic
conductivity in the radial direction (L/T), Kz
hydraulic conductivity in the vertical direction (L/T), Ss specific storage
coefficient (L-1 ), Sy the
specific yield (dimensionless).
Email contact: hsun@rider.edu, phone: 609-896-5185
Department of Geological, Environmental, and Marine Sciences
Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
Updated by Hongbing Sun 2/12/2016