the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact of skin effect on single-well push-pull tests with the presence of regional groundwater flow
Abstract. Single-well push-pull (SWPP) test is one of the most important ways to estimate aquifer transport parameters, e.g. porosity, dispersivity, rate of biogeochemical reaction, but its application for determining the regional groundwater velocity has rarely been discussed in previous studies. In this study, a new numerical model of SWPP test considering regional groundwater flow and skin effects was established using the finite-element COMSOL Multiphysics. The effects of regional groundwater flow velocity and skin properties on breakthrough curves (BTCs) were thoroughly analyzed. Several important results were obtained in this study. Firstly, the regional groundwater velocity affects the types of BTCs through changing the pattern and location of the dividing streamline. Secondly, a positive (or negative) skin leads to a slower (or faster) tracer transport process. That is, a positive skin results in a higher concentrations at early stage at a given time. Thirdly, a smaller hydraulic conductivity ratio δ of the positive skin to the formation results in greater solute plume retardation in the skin zone. Besides, a larger thickness of the positive skin leads to a higher tracer concentration around the well. The opposite is true if the skin is negative. The general conclusion is that the skin effects on SWPP test are significant and should be considered.
- Preprint
(2035 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
-
RC1: 'text corretion', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jul 2018
- AC1: 'response to the review comments', Zhang Wen, 24 Oct 2018
-
RC2: 'Review for HESS – hess-2018-279', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Sep 2018
- AC2: 'response to the review comments', Zhang Wen, 24 Oct 2018
-
RC3: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #3, 23 Sep 2018
- AC3: 'response to the review comments', Zhang Wen, 24 Oct 2018
-
RC1: 'text corretion', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jul 2018
- AC1: 'response to the review comments', Zhang Wen, 24 Oct 2018
-
RC2: 'Review for HESS – hess-2018-279', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Sep 2018
- AC2: 'response to the review comments', Zhang Wen, 24 Oct 2018
-
RC3: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #3, 23 Sep 2018
- AC3: 'response to the review comments', Zhang Wen, 24 Oct 2018
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,856 | 391 | 49 | 2,296 | 70 | 67 |
- HTML: 1,856
- PDF: 391
- XML: 49
- Total: 2,296
- BibTeX: 70
- EndNote: 67
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1