Boundary depletion rate and drawdown in leaky wedge‐shaped aquifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents analytical solutions of the three‐dimensional groundwater flow to a well in leaky confined and leaky water table wedge‐shaped aquifers. Leaky wedge‐shaped aquifers with and without storage in the aquitard are considered, and both transient and steady‐state drawdown solutions are derived. Unlike the previous solutions of the wedge‐shaped aquifers, the leakages from aquitard are considered in these solutions and unlike similar previous work for leaky aquifers, leakage from aquitards and from the water table are treated as the lower and upper boundary conditions. A special form of finite Fourier transforms is used to transform the z‐coordinate in deriving the solutions. The leakage induced by a partially penetrating pumping well in a wedge‐shaped aquifer depends on aquitard hydraulic parameters, the wedge‐shaped aquifer parameters, as well as the pumping well parameters. We calculate lateral boundary dimensionless flux at a representative line and investigate its sensitivity to the aquitard hydraulic parameters. We also investigate the effects of wedge angle, partial penetration, screen location and piezometer location on the steady‐state dimensionless drawdown for different leakage parameters. Results of our study are presented in the form of dimensionless flux‐dimensionless time and dimensionless drawdown‐leakage parameter type curves. The results are useful for evaluating the relative role of lateral wedge boundaries and leakage source on flow in wedge‐shaped aquifers. This is very useful for water management problems and for assessing groundwater pollution. The presented analytical solutions can also be used in parameter identification and in calculating stream depletion rate and volume. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".