Comparison of methods for measuring vertical hydraulic properties in a sedimentary rock aquifer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The characterization of groundwater flow in fractured bedrock aquifers is presently based on a variety of hydraulic testing methods. Pumping tests are often employed, the interpretation of which are based on models derived for porous media environments that do not fully represent the complexities of fractured rock settings. In this paper, we measure aquifer properties using a variety of testing methods in order to evaluate which methods are best capable of producing reliable parameter estimates. The study was performed in a fractured sedimentary rock aquifer using four different field methods: constant head tests conducted using a straddle-packer system, pulse interference tests conducted under open-hole conditions, 12-hour isolated interval pumping tests and 48-hour open-hole pumping tests. Using the results of the constant head tests as the most reliable method for estimation of hydraulic conductivity and specific yield, the results obtained using the other three methods were compared with particular emphasis on the estimation of vertical hydraulic parameters in this setting. The effects of test measurement scale on hydraulic parameter estimates were also investigated. Evaluation of the open-hole pumping test data was performed using an analytical model that accommodates multiple horizontal fractures and a connection to a free surface boundary. The comparison shows that estimates of horizontal hydraulic conductivity were not dependent on test method with all methods providing equivalent results. Open-well pumping tests, however, were found not to reliably estimate values of vertical hydraulic conductivity and specific yield for this setting. Alternatively, pulse interference tests conducted under open-hole conditions may offer a less time-intensive option to constant head injection tests for determining vertical hydraulic parameters in a sedimentary rock setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".