Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principle of superposition versus control volume finite difference approach in analyzing the step-drawdown test data

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A nonlinear partial differential equation is required for representing groundwater flow in an unconfined aquifer. In pumping tests, analytical models use the linearized version of Boussinesq’s flow equation with the principle of superposition to incorporate the effects of time-varying pumping rate and boundary conditions for estimating aquifer properties. This linearized assumption along with other simplified site conditions could generate significant errors in estimated aquifer properties. Numerical models often are capable of handling complex site conditions and used the control volume finite difference method for simulating groundwater flow. The objective of this study is to investigate the differences in estimations by these two methods when they are used with step-drawdown test data. Pumping and recovery groundwater levels recorded in a pumping well and two monitoring wells were analyzed using analytical and numerical methods. The location of these wells near a stream provided a unique opportunity to investigate the application of the principle of superposition in space. The analytical model performed well in calculating drawdown in individual wells but failed to produce a common set of aquifer properties for all three wells. In particular, transmissivity values show approximately a 47% difference among the three wells. Finer grid resolutions along with the control volume finite difference method in numerical modeling were able to calibrate a set of aquifer properties that simulate drawdown curves during both pumping and recovery tests in all three wells. Moreover, the results depicted that the boundary effect on estimated aquifer properties attenuates as the distance from the boundary increases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Due to the sensitive nature of the airport facility, raw data would remain confidential, and authors have no permission to be shared.

Code availability

Groundwater Modeling System (GMS) used in this study is commercially available. AQTESOLV is freely accessible from http:// www.aqtesolv.com/demo.htm

References

  • Attard G, Winiarski T, Rossier Y, Eisenlohr L (2016) Review: impact of underground structures on the flow of urban groundwater. Hydrogeol J 24:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan MJ, Endres AL, Rudolph DL, Parkin G (2005) A field-scale study of pumping-induced drainage and recovery in an unconfined aquifer. J Hydrol 315:52–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulton NS (1954) Unsteady radial flow to a pumped well allowing for delayed yield from storage. Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Publ 37:472–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower KM, Gable CW, Zyvoloski GA (2005) Grid resolution study of groundwater flow and transport. Groundwater 43:122–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chang YC, Yeh HD, Chen GY (2010) Transient solution for radial two-zone flow in unconfined aquifers under constant-head tests. Hydrol Process 24:1496–1503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay PB, Vedanti N, Singh VS (2015) A conceptual numerical model to simulate aquifer parameters. Water Resour Manag 29:771–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CC, Chang CC (2003) Well hydraulics theory and data analysis of the constant-head test in an unconfined aquifer with the skin effect. Water Resour Res 39:1121–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng KB, Dagan G, Barrash W, Cardiff M, Rabinovich A (2022) Statistical analysis of aquifer hydraulic properties by a continuous pumping tomography test: application to the boise hydrogeophysical research site. Water Resour Res 58:e2022WR032464. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffield GM (2007) AQTESOLV for windows version 4.5 user’s guide, HydroSOLVE, Inc, Reston, VA

  • Eggleston JR, Zarriello PJ, Carlson CS (2015) Groundwater and surface-water interaction and effects of pumping in a complex glacial-sediment aquifer, phase 2, east-central Massachusetts (No. 2015–5174). US Geological Survey

  • Gunawardhana LN, Al-Rawas GA (2016) A comparison of trends in extreme rainfall using 20-year data in three major cities in Oman. J Eng Res 13:137–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardhana LN, Kazama S (2009) Tidal effects on aquifer thermal regime: an analytical solution for coastal ecosystem management. J Hydrol 377:377–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardhana LN, Al-Harthi P, Sana A, Baawain MS (2021) Analytical and numerical analysis of constant-rate pumping test data considering aquifer boundary effect. Environ Earth Sci 80:543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09833-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halford KJ, Hanson RT (2002) User guide for the drawdown-limited, Multi-Node Well (MNW) Package for the U.S. Geological Survey’s modular three-dimensional ground-water flow model, versions MODFLOW–96 and MODFLOW–2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–293, p 33

  • Hantush MS (1959) Nonsteady flow to flow wells in leaky aquifers. J Geophys Res 64:1043–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hantush MS (1961) Aquifer tests on partially penetrating wells. J Hydraul Div Proc Am Soc Civ Eng 87:171–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Hantush MS (1964) Hydraulics of wells. In: Chow VT (ed) Advances in hydroscience. Academic Press, New York, pp 281–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. geological survey modular ground-water model–user guide to modularization concepts and the ground water flow process. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 00–92

  • Karami GH, Younger PL (2002) Analysing step-drawdown tests in heterogeneous aquifers. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 35:295–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konikow LF, Hornberger GZ, Halford KJ, Hanson RT (2009) Revised multi-node well (MNW2) package for MODFLOW ground-water flow model. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6–A30, p 67

  • Langevin CD, Hughes JD, Banta ER, Niswonger RG, Provost AM (2017) Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 groundwater flow model, U.S. geological survey techniques and methods, book 6, chap. A55, p 197. https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6A55

  • Lin YC, Yang SY, Fen CS, Yeh HD (2016) A general analytical model for pumping tests in radial finite two-zone confined aquifers with Robin-type outer boundary. J Hydrol 540:1162–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin YC, Li MH, Yeh HD (2017) An analytical model for flow induced by a constant-head pumping in a leaky unconfined aquifer system with considering unsaturated flow. Adv Water Resour 107:525–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathias SA, Todman LC (2010) Step-drawdown tests and the Forchheimer equation. Water Resour Res 46:W07514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moench AF (1997) Flow to a well of finite diameter in a homogeneous, anisotropic water table aquifer. Water Resour Res 33:1397–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narsilio GA, Buzzi O, Fityus S, Yun TS, Smith DW (2009) Upscaling of Navier-Stokes equations in porous media: theoretical, numerical and experimental approach. Comput Geotech 36:1200–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman SP (1972) Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed response of the water table. Water Resour Res 8:1031–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman SP (1974) Effect of partial penetration on flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Water Resour Res 15:899–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nwankwor GI, Gillham RW, van der Kamp G, Akindunni FF (1992) Unsaturated and saturated flow in response to pumping of an unconfined aquifer: field evidence of delayed drainage. Groundwater 30:690–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopulos IS, Cooper HH (1967) Drawdown in a well of large diameter. Water Resour Res 3:241–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pujades E, Lopez A, Carrera J, Vazquez-Sune E, Jurado A (2012) Barrier effect of underground structures on aquifers. Eng Geol 145–146:41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tartakovsky GD, Neuman SP (2007) Three-dimensional saturated-unsaturated flow with axial symmetry to a partially penetrating well in a compressible unconfined aquifer. Water Resour Res 43:W01410. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theis CV (1935) The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Trans Am Geophys Union 16:519–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiem G (1906) Hydrologische Methoden. Gebhardt, Leipzig, Germany

  • Todd DK, Mays LW (2004) Groundwater hydrology, 3rd edn. Wiely, New York, p 656

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang CT, Yeh HD, Tsai CS (2012) Transient drawdown solution for a constant pumping test in finite two-zone confined aquifers. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:441–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh HD, Yang SY, Peng HY (2003) A new closed-form solution for a radial two-layer drawdown equation for groundwater under constant-flux pumping in a finite-radius well. Adv Water Resour 26:747–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to Oman Airport Management Company (OAMC) for funding the project (CR/ENG/CAED/17/01) and their support in data collection.

Funding

Authors are grateful to Oman Airport Management Company (OAMC) for funding the project (CR/ENG/CAED/17/01) and their support in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Katubedda, Sri Lanka

    L. N. Gunawardhana

  2. Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

    S. Ahmed & A. Sana

  3. Ministry of Labor, Muscat, Oman

    M. S. Baawain

Authors
  1. L. N. Gunawardhana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Sana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. S. Baawain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LG: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft, project administration. SA: validation, investigation. AS: methodology, resources & editing. MB: resources, review & editing, funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. N. Gunawardhana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: Samareh Mirkia.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gunawardhana, L.N., Ahmed, S., Sana, A. et al. Principle of superposition versus control volume finite difference approach in analyzing the step-drawdown test data. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21, 3913–3926 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05254-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05254-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation