2006Unpublished venueRequires access

Groundwater Flow Modeling

Neven Kresic

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

Groundwater contaminant plumes are delineated in the Monahne River alluvial aquifer and in the underlying confined aquifer as shown in Figure 17.1. The two aquifers are separated by a low-permeable, discontinuous silty clay layer (see Figure 17.2). Hydrogeologic assessment indicates that the contamination from the upper, unconfined aquifer enters the lower aquifer through the ‘‘window’’ in the silty clay layer due to the difference in hydraulic heads in the two aquifers. Develop a groundwater modeling concept and a model that will be used in the design of a well extraction system for containment of the two plumes. Hydraulic conductiv- ities of the upper and lower aquifers, as determined from slug tests, are 2.6 104 and 3.4 103 m=s, respectively. Hydraulic conductivity of the confining silty clay layer, determined in the laboratory from Shelby tube samples, is 6.5 107 m=s. Average annual recharge rate in the alluvial aquifer is estimated at 2.5 109 m=s, which corresponds to 12% of the gross annual precipitation in the area (660 mm).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Groundwater contaminant plumes are delineated in the Monahne River alluvial aquifer and in the underlying confined aquifer as shown in Figure 17.1. The two aquifers are separated by a low-permeable, discontinuous silty clay layer (see Figure 17.2). Hydrogeologic assessment indicates that the contamination from the upper, unconfined aquifer enters the lower aquifer through the ‘‘window’’ in the silty clay layer due to the difference in hydraulic heads in the two aquifers. Develop a groundwater modeling concept and a model that will be used in the design of a well extraction system for containment of the two plumes. Hydraulic conductiv- ities of the upper and lower aquifers, as determined from slug tests, are 2.6 104 and 3.4 103 m=s, respectively. Hydraulic conductivity of the confining silty clay layer, determined in the laboratory from Shelby tube samples, is 6.5 107 m=s. Average annual recharge rate in the alluvial aquifer is estimated at 2.5 109 m=s, which corresponds to 12% of the gross annual precipitation in the area (660 mm).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Groundwater contaminant plumes are delineated in the Monahne River alluvial aquifer and in the underlying confined aquifer as shown in Figure 17.1. The two aquifers are separated by a low-permeable, discontinuous silty clay layer (see Figure 17.2). Hydrogeologic assessment indicates that the contamination from the upper, unconfined aquifer enters the lower aquifer through the ‘‘window’’ in the silty clay layer due to the difference in hydraulic heads in the two aquifers. Develop a groundwater modeling concept and a model that will be used in the design of a well extraction system for containment of the two plumes. Hydraulic conductiv- ities of the upper and lower aquifers, as determined from slug tests, are 2.6 104 and 3.4 103 m=s, respectively. Hydraulic conductivity of the confining silty clay layer, determined in the laboratory from Shelby tube samples, is 6.5 107 m=s. Average annual recharge rate in the alluvial aquifer is estimated at 2.5 109 m=s, which corresponds to 12% of the gross annual precipitation in the area (660 mm).

Key concepts: Groundwater flow, Environmental science, Groundwater, Geology, Hydrology (agriculture), Geotechnical engineering, Aquifer

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Groundwater Flow Modeling — Research Paper | ScholarLens