These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. A simple approach using Bouwer and Rice's method for slug test data analysis. Yang SY; Yeh HD Ground Water; 2004; 42(5):781-4. PubMed ID: 15457801 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of empirical, semi-empirical and physically based models of soil hydraulic functions derived for bi-modal soils. Kutílek M; Jendele L; Krejca M J Contam Hydrol; 2009 Feb; 104(1-4):84-9. PubMed ID: 19022525 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A closed form slug test theory for high permeability aquifers. Ostendorf DW; DeGroot DJ; Dunaj PJ; Jakubowski J Ground Water; 2005; 43(1):87-101. PubMed ID: 15726927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Determination of specific yield for the Biscayne Aquifer with a canal-drawdown test. Bolster CH; Genereux DP; Saiers JE Ground Water; 2001; 39(5):768-77. PubMed ID: 11554256 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A modification to the Bouwer and Rice method of slug-test analysis for large-diameter, hand-dug wells. Rupp DE; Selker JS; Simůnek J Ground Water; 2001; 39(2):308-14. PubMed ID: 11286079 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Numerical modeling of slug tests with MODFLOW using equivalent well blocks. Yang L; Wang XS; Jiao JJ Ground Water; 2015; 53(1):158-63. PubMed ID: 24635451 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A Novel Semi-Analytical Solution of Over-Damped Slug Test in a Three-Layered Aquifer System. Cao M; Wen Z; Chen G; Hu C; Zhu Q; Jakada H Ground Water; 2024; 62(3):417-426. PubMed ID: 37646611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A simple correction for slug tests in small-diameter wells. Butler JJ Ground Water; 2002; 40(3):303-7. PubMed ID: 12019645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Near-well nonlinear flow identified by various displacement well response testing. Zenner MA Ground Water; 2009; 47(4):526-35. PubMed ID: 19245376 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Numerical study of variable-density flow and transport in unsaturated-saturated porous media. Liu Y; Kuang X; Jiao JJ; Li J J Contam Hydrol; 2015 Nov; 182():117-30. PubMed ID: 26379086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Numerical study identifying the factors causing the significant underestimation of the specific discharge estimated using the modified integral pumping test method in a laboratory experiment. Sun K J Contam Hydrol; 2015 Sep; 180():1-11. PubMed ID: 26210034 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Simplified Solution Using Izbash's Equation for Non-Darcian Flow in a Constant Rate Pumping Test. Xiao L; Ye M; Xu Y; Gan F Ground Water; 2019 Nov; 57(6):962-968. PubMed ID: 30937895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Analytical interpretation of slug test in a vertical cutoff wall. Lim J; Lee D; Zlotnik VA; Choi H Ground Water; 2014; 52(2):284-90. PubMed ID: 23442033 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Slug test in confined aquifers, the over-damped case: quasi-steady flow analysis. Koussis AD; Akylas E Ground Water; 2012; 50(4):608-13. PubMed ID: 21883190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of instream methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity in sandy streambeds. Landon MK; Rus DL; Harvey FE Ground Water; 2001; 39(6):870-85. PubMed ID: 11708453 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]