Slug tests in a confined aquifer: experimental results in a large soil tank and numerical modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variable-head (slug) tests in a confined aquifer can be interpreted using different methods that either consider or neglect the influence of the instantaneous deformation of an elastic solid matrix. This paper defines a unified interpretation for slug tests: it is based on the velocity graph describing the conservation equation underlying all methods. If the storativity S has no influence, the velocity graph is a straight line. If S has an influence, the theory considering this influence predicts the graph should be a curve. Numerous slug tests were performed in a large tank containing a confined aquifer. Other tests were used to determine independently the transmissivity T and S values of the confined aquifer which are compared with those obtained from slug tests. The velocity graphs of the slug tests provided straight lines instead of the smooth curves as predicted by the theory. A numerical analysis of these tests in the sand tank was performed using a finite element method. The analysis gave straight lines instead of curves for any S value and therefore confirmed the experimental observation (in velocity graphs) that slug test results do not depend of S and thus cannot be used to determine the S value.Key words: slug test, hydraulic conductivity, storativity, numerical modeling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".