Combining a new inverse scheme with the two-dimensional large-scale ground penetrating radar tomography (2DLSGPRT), we suggest a method which can be applied for reconstructing an unknown aquifer's base location, using the groundwater free-surface data alone.

© All Rights Reserved

205 views

Combining a new inverse scheme with the two-dimensional large-scale ground penetrating radar tomography (2DLSGPRT), we suggest a method which can be applied for reconstructing an unknown aquifer's base location, using the groundwater free-surface data alone.

© All Rights Reserved

- final report for submission kebba.pdf
- Field Hydro Geology
- N.Som & S.C.Das
- Em 1110-2-3506 - Grouting Technology 1
- UNESCO Paris 2010 IHP VII Technical Documents in Hydrology N 85
- Cuba Molerio a IAEA CN 151 125
- Prospects for Managed Underground Storage of Recoverable Water, Report In Brief
- Converting Pump Head to Pre...
- Variable infiltration and river flooding resulting in changing groundwater quality – A case study from Central Europe
- Monitored Natira; Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water - Vol 1
- Central Adelaide PWA_2011
- Paste07
- Cerm Index
- Tarea-1
- astm d 5084
- Pump Energy Efficiency Calculation Tool
- Bomba de Pozo Upa 200b
- Pumps-_2009-1a
- PS-02-Hengki Sembiring Dan Rita Juliani
- groundwater wetlands notes kean university

You are on page 1of 9

Adam Szymański1

Abstract

Combining a new inverse scheme with the two-dimensional large-scale ground penetrating radar tomogra-

phy (2DLSGPRT), we suggest a method which can be applied for reconstructing an unknown aquifer’s base

location, using the groundwater free-surface data alone. The inverse procedure is based on the smoothing

2

and approximation of unknown real-valued functions in lN and H1 (0, L) Hilbert spaces, respectively. To test

the numerical consistency of the inverse scheme, one uses the synthetic data generated by 3D finite element

model (3DFEM). The results of the inverse procedure suggest that for moderate large-scale gradients, the

GPR measurements of a free-surface are accurate enough to define the geometry of a shallow unconfined

aquifer.

Keywords:

Ground Penetrating Radar measurements, inverse problem, unconfined aquifer, Dupuit-Forchheimer assump-

tion, Nonstandard Extended Boussinesq Approach, Standard Extended Boussinesq Approach

——————————————————————————————————————–

Dedicated to Professors S.R. Massel (?1939 - †2018) and W. Chybicki (?1953 - †2018)

——————————————————————————————————————–

1 Introduction

The above-mentioned 2DLSGPRT consists of a series of measurements to determine depth to free-surface from

the land surface (cf., Brown (2008)). However, in practice, one can only measure an interval where there is

the free-surface with respect to the land surface. Indeed, in soils, a transitional zone, known as the capillary

fringe, occurs above the free-surface. Within the capillary fringe, the water content increases with increasing

depth from partially saturated in the upper part to saturated in the lower part. Thus, GPR does not directly

measure the free-surface depth, but responds to saturated conditions within the capillary fringe. Hence, it seems

to be reasonable to use the GPR measurements for reconstructing the base location of shallow homogeneous

unconfined aquifers in coarse-textured soils, where the capillary fringe is narrow, and the difference in dielectric

properties between the unsaturated and saturated zones is contrasting. These characteristics of free-surfaces in

coarse-textured soils produce distinguishable reflections on GPR records.

In fact, Collins and Doolittle (1987) reported that GPR has been successfully used to determine depth to

water from the land surface in small areas with homogeneous geology. Bentley and Trenholm (2002) found

that GPR could estimate the depths to shallow free-surfaces with an accuracy of about 0.2 [m]. According to

GPR-field measurements reported by Johnson (1992), the average error of about 0.55 [m] between the actual

and GPR-derived values of depth to water below land surface has been observed.

Using GPR measurements of the groundwater free-surface as an input we construct the inverse problem for

describing its unknown base location. Similar problem has already been considered by Darnet et al. (2003).

They estimated the geometry of an unconfined aquifer from the inversion of surface Streaming Potential anoma-

lies, assuming that the water flow occurs in a homogeneous unconfined aquifer in steady-state conditions limited

at the bottom by impermeable aquifer’s base. Additionally, it has been assumed that the bottom of the aquifer

is horizontal and hence so is the flow (the Dupuit-Forchheimer (DF) assumption). Jardani et al. (2009) used

1 Environmental Protection Program, Poland (adi epp@wp.pl). Ownership: Environmental Protection Program

1

the similar technique. Furthermore, Zhang (2014) proposed a new inverse method to simultaneously estimate

heterogeneous hydraulic conductivities and unknown boundary conditions for steady-state flow in an uncon-

fined aquifer. She used again the DF assumption of negligible vertical flow. The reconstruction of groundwater

parameters from head data in an unconfined aquifer based on the Boussinesq equation is also described by

Knowles and Yan (2007).

Unfortunately, as was already pointed out by Baiocchi and Capelo (1984) the DF assumption is formally

inconsistent. Indeed, this assumption implicitly ignores the real flow process during the lowering the free-surface

and is used for simplifying the mathematical treatment of the problem only. Thus, all applications based on it

should not necessarily be considered as guidelines. Therefore, our aim here is to abandon such a nonphysical

assumption. Generally speaking, the proposed model is suitable for predicting the geometrical location of the

free-surface and both Darcy velocity components at it. Our formulation allows a closed-form solution of the

problem and an exhaustive discussion of its existence.

2

Although GPR records provide continuous free-surface profiles, we use the N-dimensional lN Hilbert space

to describe the observed field data, and by minimizing the metric in this space, we calculate the first derivative

of the free-surface for which only discrete noise-contaminated data values are given. Next, having defined the

smooth approximations for the groundwater free-surface h(x) and dh(x) dx , biased by the measurement errors, and

by minimizing the metric in the Hilbert space H1 (0, L) we reconstruct the geometry of an unconfined aquifer.

The present paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we discuss some basic issues related to the direct

problem proposed, section 3 shows the suggested inverse technique, section 4 presents a numerical example for

defining the geometry of an unconfined aquifer. Finally, in section 5 conclusions are drawn.

2 Direct problem

In this work we consider the steady-state flow in a homogeneous, isotropic, unconfined aquifer represented

by 2D vertical slab of length L, bounded by two-constant-head boundary conditions HS and HE (see Fig.1).

Thus, the direct problem is defined as follows;

dh(x) 2 dh(x)

vx (x, z)( ) +k + vx (x, z) = 0, f or z = h(x) (1)

dx dx

2

h(0) = HS , (2)

h(L) = HE , (3)

Vc (0, HS )

α= , (4)

Vc (L, HE )

p

where: x ∈ [0, L], α ∈ [0, 1], z = h(x), Vc (x, z) = [vx (x, z)]2 + [vz (x, z)]2 .

Further, we define the horizontal vx (x, z) and vertical vz (x, z) Darcy velocities as follows,

1 kb

vx (x, h(x)) = − √ (5)

2 a + bx

r

1 vx (x, h(x)) 2

vz (x, h(x)) = k[−1 + 1 − 4( ) ], (6)

2 k

where: a > 0, b < 0 are unknown real constants, and α, k, L, HS , HE > 0 are known real constants.

Formally, the system (1-6) can be considered as a nonstandard two-point boundary value problem for

the nonlinear first order differential equation in the H1 (0, L) space. Physically, the system (1-6) presents an

extension to the Standard Boussinesq Approach (SBA) considered by Darnet et al. (2003) and Zhang (2014),

and describes the groundwater flow at the free-surface of an unconfined aquifer. In terms of (1-6), the SBA

based on the DF assumption is treated as an approximation for the large-scale gradient m = (HE − L

HS )

approaching zero as the limit. The detailed description of SBA is presented by Bear (1979). Incidentally, the

linearized version of (1-6) reduces to SBA considered by Zhang (2014) (see Tab.1, the first example).

Generally speaking, the SBA approximation combines Darcy’s law with the shallow-water approximation to

describe the groundwater flow in an unconfined aquifer. However, it is not always clear when SBA will faithfully

reproduce the physical phenomena that one attempts to model. Thus, in this work we follow the line presented

by Baiocchi and Capelo (1984) and develop such an extension of SBA that allows the large-scale gradient to

be considered as a small but finite quantity. Formally, it means that the vertical Darcy velocity component

vz (x, h(x)) does always exist in contrary to SBA, where vz (x, h(x)) ≡ 0 .

Relation (1) describes the exact nonlinear differential equation governing the horizontal Darcy

velocity component vx (x, h(x)) ∈ C 1 (0, L) of the groundwater flow at the free-surface, where the

function vx (x, h(x)) is defined by (5), and the unknown function h(x) ≡ h(x, α) represents the geometrical

location of the free-surface, i.e., the interface between unsaturated and saturated soils where the hydraulic head

function equals the free-surface height. The methodology used to obtain (1) is the same as that reported by

Baiocchi and Capelo (1984) and will not be repeated here. Incidentally, a similar result has been obtained by

van Duijn and Schotting (2017) for the interface between fresh and salt groundwater. The coefficient k denotes

the spatially constant saturated hydraulic conductivity. The existence of the impermeable horizontal bottom

of an aquifer, which is set as the hydraulic head datum (z = 0), is described by the dimensionless coefficient

α. We call it the kinematic deepness of an aquifer where α → 0 describes a kinematically shallow aquifer and

α → 1 a kinematically deep one.

The function h(x) ∈ H1 (0, L) can be considered as an element of a Hilbert space endowed with the following

norm, s

Z L

dh(x) 2

khk H1 (0,L) = [h2 (x) + ( ) ]dx . (7)

0 dx

Using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus the solution of (1) takes the form,

Z x

V≡ K(vx (ξ, h(ξ))dξ = h0 (x), (8)

0

where V is the nonlinear Volterra integral operator with the kernel defined as follows,

r !

1 k vx (ξ, h(ξ)) 2

K(vx (ξ, h(ξ)) = −1 + 1 − 4( ) (9)

2 vx (ξ, h(ξ)) k

3

and h0 (x) = h(x) − C1 . C1 is an integration constant. By means of the boundary condition (2) we obtain

C1 = HS . We call this case the Nonstandard Extended Boussinesq Approach (NEBA). However, neglecting the

condition (4) and putting C1 = 0, we obtain the second case, called the Standard Extended Boussinesq Approach

(SEBA). Next, considering NEBA and assuming that vx ∈ D(V) ⊂ H1 (0, L) and h0 ∈ R(V) ⊂ H1 (0, L) where

the sets D(V) and R(V) denote the domain and the range of the operator V, respectively, we present the solution

of integral equation (8) in a closed-form. In fact, inserting (5) into (8) we obtain,

2 −2 p √ p p

h(x) = b [ (a + bx )3 − a3 − (a − b2 + bx )3 + (a − b2 )3 ] + HS . (10)

3

Incidentally, from (5) follows that vx (x, h(x)) is a strictly increasing function. Furthermore, we can show that

the graph of the free-surface elevation (10) is convex upwards. From (8) follows that h(x) is an absolutely

continuous function that has a first derivative for all x ∈ [0, L], and from (1) and (6) that h(x) belongs to the

class of strictly decreasing functions. Further, the kernel (9) is defined if vx (x, h(x)) ≤ 0.5k. Next, using (10)

and (3) we obtain the first equation needed for determining the unknown coefficients a and b. The second one

is obtained by means of (4). Finally, we have

p √ p p 3

(c + f )3 − c3 − (c + f − f 2 )3 + (c − f 2 )3 − mf 2 = 0, (11)

2

s r

f2 f2

α2 [1 − 1 − ]−1+ 1− = 0, (12)

c+f c

a b

c= , f= . (13)

L2 L

From the system of equations (11,12) follows that the parameters of the NEBA direct problem are m and

α. Thus, we have that a(m, α), b(m, α) and the information of the geometry of an unconfined aquifer is only

indirectly included in NEBA. Hence, in terms of this model the hypothetical aquifer’s base can be considered

as an element of the base location set Ω = (0, r) where 0 < r < HE .

Further, we can simplify the system (11,12) in the following way. From the relation (12) follows that,

C −1+M

D= (14)

1−C

where p

f f2 α2 − 1 + (1 − M ) 2

D= , M= , C=( ) . (15)

c c α2

Next, from the relation (11) we have,

3 2 2

m D M

1= p p2 p (16)

( (1 + D) − 1 − (1 + D − M )3 + (1 − M )3 )2

3

where

0 < M < (1 − H), H = (1 − α2 )2 . (17)

Having M as a solution of the equation (16) we obtain the equivalent form of the system (11,12) as follows,

f = D c, f 2 = M c. (18)

Let us now define the sets D(V) and R(V) in such a way that the solution of (8) does exist. It is easy to observe

that the solution of SBA formally exists for an arbitrary value of the large-scale gradient. In fact, this solution

H 2 −H 2

can be obtained in a closed-form, namely; a = HS2 and b = E L S . In this case (5) is only singular if one

assumes HE = 0.

In the case of NEBA, however, there exists an admissible set Π for the large-scale gradient that depends on

the kinematic deepness of an aquifer. It means that if a large-scale gradient considered for predicting the flow

in an aquifer does not belong to the above-mentioned set, the solution of NEBA does not exist. The admissible

set Π, which follows from the system (11,12), is defined by,

4

where

2 (1 − H)3/2 − 1 + H 3/2

mg (α) = . (20)

3 H(1 − H)1/2

The closed-form solution of (16) implies that for m ∈ Π and α ∈ (αg , 1), where αg is the solution of (20) for

mg (α) = m, the unique solution of (8) does exist. In other words (16) implies that the operator V is injective.

In this case (8) is conditionally well-posed in Tikhonov’s sense.

3 Inverse problem

2

Let us consider the N-dimensional lN Hilbert space equipped with the norm

v

uN

uX

khfs klN

2 =

t h2fs (xi ) (21)

i=0

for describing the observed field data, where N is the number of measurement points and the real-valued function

hfs (xi ) shows the free-surface elevation simulated by 3DFEM with respect to the predefined horizontal level

z ∈ Ω , since at this moment we do not know a proper location of the aquifer base (z = 0). However, it is

clear that measured data always contain certain errors, i.e., the initial information always differs from the true

one. Thus, with the function hfs (xi ) we associate the following real-valued functions hub lb

fs (xi ) and hfs (xi ) which

describe the upper and lower bounds of the measurement accuracy with respect to the free-surface hfs (xi ),

respectively. Remembering that the GPR technique only supplies the interval where there is the free-surface

elevation h(x), we define the measurement error by the following relation,

δ(xi ) = (hub lb

fs (xi ) − hfs (xi )) ≥ 0. (22)

Let us now consider the case where the error function δ(xi ) is treated as a random one. This implies that

ub lb

hub lb

fs (xi ) = hfs (xi ) + rand (xi ) and hfs (xi ) = hfs (xi ) − rand (xi ). The function rand supplies uniformly

distributed random numbers, which lie within a specified range β = (0, r1 ), and simulates the measurement

errors.

The above-introduced functions hub lb

fs (xi ) and hfs (xi ) contain noise, originating from errors in the acquisition

process of real-world phenomena, i.e, 2DLSGPRT. However, for the inverse procedure introduced we need the

C 1 (0, L) input functions. Hence, we propose the following C 1 -smoothing procedures based on the NEBA direct

problem,

min khub (xi , αub ) − hub

fs (xi )klN

2 (23)

αub ∈(αub

g , 1)

fs (0), HE = hfs (L), and

fs (xi )klN

2 (24)

αlb ∈(αlb

g , 1)

fs (0), HE = hfs (L). Notice that the metrics defined by (23) and (24) are the convex

functions, thus the values αub and αlb can be found by a numerical method. The smoothing technique suggested

above supplies two C 1 -approximations, namely : hub (x), vxub (x, hub (x)), vzub (x, hub (x)) and hlb (x), vxlb (x, hlb (x)),

vzlb (x, hlb (x)) for the upper and lower bounds discrete hub lb

fs (xi ) and hfs (xi ) functions, respectively.

Again, using the NEBA direct model we can approximate the unknown function h(x) by means of known

C 1 -functions hub (x) and hlb (x) in the following way,

2

1X

min k (h(x, α) − hn )kH1 (0,L) (25)

α∈(αub , αlb ) 2 n=1

5

hub (0)+hlb (0) hub (L)+hlb (L)

where h1 = hub (x, αub ), h2 = hlb (x, αlb ). The constraints for (25) are; HS = 2 , HE = 2 .

Notice also that at the free-surface the following relations are fulfilled,

= , = zub , (26)

dx vx (x, h(x)) dx vx (x, hub (x))

= zlb . (27)

dx vx (x, hlb (x))

The distance function in (25) is convex, so that we can find α by means of a numerical procedure. Hence, using

the NEBA direct problem we have localized the free-surface h(x) and defined the horizontal and vertical Darcy

velocities at it with respect to the predefined horizontal level z ∈ Ω which is, of course, not a base of an aquifer.

It is induced by the condition (4) which physically implies that the geometry of an aquifer does change due to

the movement of the free-surface only.

Having defined the free-surface, we can now find the unknown base of an unconfined aquifer (z = 0). To do

this, we use the SEBA direct problem. Indeed, in this case the solution of (1) can be written in the following

form,

2 p p

hinv (x) = b−2 [ (a + bx )3 − (a − b2 + bx )3 ]. (28)

3

Further, from (28) one obtains,

2 √ p

HSinv = b−2 [ a3 − (a − b2 )3 ] (29)

3

2 p p

inv

HE = b−2 [ (a + bL)3 − (a − b2 + bL)3 ] (30)

3

where the parameters for the SEBA direct model are given by (26), (27) and the coefficient α is defined by

minimizing the distance (25). Hence, the NEBA direct model is only used for defining the unknown free-surface

with respect to the arbitrary level z ∈ Ω and the SEBA direct model calculates the geometrical location of

the aquifer’s base z = 0, using the free-surface elevation previously defined as an input. Additionally, for

the infinitely deep aquifer the solution of SEBA can be written in a closed-form; hinv (x) = mx + HS , and

−km inv

vx (x, h(x)) = 1+m 2 . Thus, for HS → ∞ kh (x)k H1 (0,L) → ∞.

4 Numerical experiment

To illustrate the use of the above-proposed inverse problem, we assumed that β = (0, 0.275). By means of

3DFEM the function hfs (xi ) has been generated to obtain five random realizations for hub lb

fs (xi ) and hfs (xi )

where E[δ1 (xi ), δ2 (xi ), ..., δ5 (xi )] = [0.265, 0, 297, 0.223, 0.267, 0.251[m]] and i = [1, 2, ..., 20]. The operator E

denotes the mean value of a sample. Incidentally, 3DFEM solves the nonlinear elliptic boundary value problem

in the bounded domain Γ where the part of ∂Γ, called the free-surface, is unknown. As usually, at the free-

surface two boundary conditions were considered. Further, we assumed that z = 10[m]. From 3DFEM follows

that HSF EM = 26.956[m], HE F EM

= 13.246[m] and LF EM = 306.45[m] with respect to the aquifer base z = 0.

F EM

It means that m = -0.0447. Additionally, we assumed that kxx = kyy = kzz = k F EM = 1[m/d]. Next,

using the inverse procedure suggested above and calculating the mean values we obtained the following results;

HSinv = 27.345[m], HE inv

= 13.605[m], and minv = −0.0448. Figure 2 shows the free-surface elevations measured

from the base of the aquifer. Figures 3 and 4 present the horizontal and vertical Darcy velocity components at

the free-surface elevations shown in Figure 2, respectively. Let us now define the error of the inverse procedure

with respect to the unknown geometry in the following way,

khub lb

inv (x) − hinv (x)k H1 (0,L)

σ= inv k 1

. (31)

khinv (x) − HE H (0,L)

For the detailed description of (31) see the caption of Figure 2. In our case σ = 0.132. Of course, for the

error-free data one obtains the inverse results as defined by 3DFEM.

6

Figure 2: Free-surface elevations obtained by the use of 3DFEM and the inverse procedure, where; hFEM (x)

describes the free-surface elevation calculated by 3DFEM, hub inv (x) is the upper bound free-surface simulated by

the inverse procedure, hlb

inv ((x) is the lower bound free-surface simulated by the inverse procedure and hinv (x)

presents the free-surface obtained by the inverse procedure (aquifer’s base z = 0).

Figure 3: Horizontal Darcy velocities at the free-surfaces (see the caption of Fig.2 for detailed description)

Figure 4: Vertical Darcy velocities at the free-surfaces (see the caption of Fig.2 for detailed description)

7

5 Summary and conclusions

Combining our inverse scheme with the GPR technique we suggest a method which can be used for reconstructing

the geometry of an unconfined aquifer. To test the numerical consistency of the proposed inverses scheme, we

used the synthetic data generated by 3D finite element model where the free-surface boundary conditions have

been implemented. It should be noted that a similar technique has been used in this context by Cardiff and

Barrash (2011). They used the 3D numerical model based on the finite difference method where numerical cells

of the model are allowed to drain and water table movement is thus tracked.

The chosen here numerical example is complex enough so that it provides adequate testing of procedures

proposed above. To localize the unknown free-surface elevation, we used the concept of lower and upper

bounds functions. It follows from the physical characteristics of the GPR technique. Essentially, 2DLSGPRT is

composed of two direct nonlinear boundary value problems NEBA and SEBA. We apply NEBA for recognition

of the unknown free-surface with respect to the predefined base level. Next, SEBA is used for defining the

impermeable base of an unconfined aquifer. The solutions of both boundary value problems are obtained in

a closed-form. This enables the nonlinear Volterra integral equation of the first kind to be treated as the

conditionally well-posed problem in Tikhonov’s sense. As far as the author is aware, the NEBA and SEBA

techniques have not been presented before in the groundwater literature. Additionally, the models proposed

above show that the horizontal Darcy velocity component is bounded at the ground water table and should be

less or equal to 0.5k.

The procedures mentioned above are implemented using a computer algebra system Maxima. From the

numerical calculations follows that the geometry of an unconfined aquifer is very sensitive to inaccuracy of free-

surface measurements and inverse results highly depend on the value of the large-scale gradient. For example,

from the inverse procedure follows that for moderate large-scale gradients (m ≈ −0.045) the GPR measurements

are accurate enough to define the geometry of an unconfined shallow aquifer. In fact, for m = −0.0448 the error

of the inverse procedure with respect to the aquifer’s geometry is equal to 13.2[%]. Unfortunately, for small

values of the large-scale gradient (m ≈ −0.006) where the free-surface is described by slowly varying functions,

the GPR measurement accuracy does not allow the proper location of the aquifer’s base. Indeed, in this case the

small errors in the measurement data lead to relatively large errors in the geometry of an unconfined aquifer.

Although we consider here the shallow unconfined aquifers, i.e., L >> HS the parameter α shows different

regimes of the groundwater motion. In fact, for L >> HS and |m| → 0 a geometrically shallow aquifer should

be considered as a kinematically deep one. This is the reason that one needs the different accuracy for the

free-surface measurements.

6 References

Baiocchi, C., A. Capelo (1984), Variational and Quasivariational Inequalities. Application to Free Boundary

Problems, John Wiley, New York.

Bear, J. (1979), Hydraulics of Groundwater, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Bentley, L. R., N. M. Trenholm (2002), The accuracy of water table elevation estimates determined from ground

penetrating radar data, Journal of Engineering and Environmental Geophysics. 7, 37-53.

Brown, W., M. (2008), Using Ground Penetrating Radar and LIDAR data to construct a groundwater elevation

model for the Clatsop Plains, Clatsop County, Oregon, thesis for the Master of Science in Geology, Portland

State University.

Cardiff, M., W. Barrash (2011), 3-D transient hydraulic tomography in unconfined aquifers with fast drainage

response, WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 47, W12518, doi:10.1029/2010WR010367.

Darnet, M., G. Marquis, P. Sailhac (2003), Estimating aquifer hydraulic properties from the inversion of surface

Streaming Potential (SP) anomalies, Geophys. Res. Lett, 30, 13, 1679, DOI:10.1029/2003GL017631.

Doolittle, J., A. (1987), Using ground penetrating radar to study soil micro variability, Soil Science Society of

America Journal, 51, 491-493.

Jardani, A., A. Revil, W. Barrash, A. Crespy, E. Rizzo, S. Straface, M. Cardiff, B. Malama, C. Miller, T.

Johnson (2009), Reconstruction of the Water Table from Self-Potential Data: A Bayesian Approach,GROUND

WATER, Vol. 47, No.2, 213-227.

Johnson, D., G. (1992), Use of ground-penetrating radar for water-table mapping, Brewster and Harwich,

8

Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 90-4086, Marlborough, Mas-

sachusetts.

Knowles, I., A. Yan (2007), The reconstruction of groundwater parameters from head data in an unconfined

aquifer, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 208, 72-81.

Van Duijn, J. C., R. J. Schotting (2017), The Interface Between Fresh and Salt Groundwater in Horizontal

Aquifers: The DupuitForchheimer Approximation Revisited, Transp Porous Med., 117:481505 DOI 10.1007/s11242-

017-0843-y.

Zhang, Ye. (2014), Nonlinear Inversion of an Unconfined Aquifer: Simultaneous Estimation of Heterogeneous

Hydraulic Conductivities, Recharge Rates, and Boundary Conditions, Transp. Porous Med., DOI 10.1007/s11242-

014- 0275-x.

7 In memoriam

This paper is dedicated to the memory of professor Stan Massel, who at the time of his passing was still

working in the field of ocean wave dynamics and to the pure mathematician professor Wlodek Chybicki, who

was interested in applications. The numerous discussions with Stan and Wlodek inspired me and are always in

my mind. I want to thank God Almighty, as it is His grace which has guided me to scientific cooperation with

Stan and Wlodek.

- final report for submission kebba.pdfUploaded byKelvin Lungu
- Field Hydro GeologyUploaded byothmansaeed
- N.Som & S.C.DasUploaded bySD
- Em 1110-2-3506 - Grouting Technology 1Uploaded byPDHLibrary
- UNESCO Paris 2010 IHP VII Technical Documents in Hydrology N 85Uploaded byAbdelBrahm
- Prospects for Managed Underground Storage of Recoverable Water, Report In BriefUploaded byNational Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
- Cuba Molerio a IAEA CN 151 125Uploaded byLeslie F. Molerio-Leon
- Converting Pump Head to Pre...Uploaded bygirish_jagad
- Variable infiltration and river flooding resulting in changing groundwater quality – A case study from Central EuropeUploaded byAdip Wahyudi
- Monitored Natira; Attenuation of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground Water - Vol 1Uploaded byDenhamGuy
- Central Adelaide PWA_2011Uploaded byVivi Rocha
- Paste07Uploaded byheypartygirl
- Cerm IndexUploaded byVatova Jarrand
- Tarea-1Uploaded byDaniel González
- astm d 5084Uploaded byAndrés Moreno
- Pump Energy Efficiency Calculation ToolUploaded byYrty Kdfg
- Bomba de Pozo Upa 200bUploaded byHernan Rodrigo Castro
- Pumps-_2009-1aUploaded byashish2783
- PS-02-Hengki Sembiring Dan Rita JulianiUploaded bydr_bilt
- groundwater wetlands notes kean universityUploaded byapi-323312952
- ConferencePaperWaterPollutionResultingfromMiningActivityAnOverviewUploaded byAbhishek Pandey
- ENGR451 Notes 1 Winter 2019.pdfUploaded byWeixian Lan
- Anti Microbial Pest Control ManualUploaded byZulfiqar Ali
- Correcting GW Levels Using BEUploaded bygalvaone
- fieldsamp-wellshandbook.pdfUploaded byBrilian Dwi
- Analytical Modeling of CO2 Migration in Saline AquifersUploaded byعزت عبد المنعم
- Chapter 08 - US - Final SolutionsUploaded byLuay Kadhum Alwaili
- GeologiaUploaded byHeyner S. Millán Vargas
- Bernoulii Equation for Incompressible LiquidUploaded byJason Ross
- Linearinversionofseismicdata Arthurwegleinresearchpaperm Osrp 150111231808 Conversion Gate01Uploaded byZulfani Aziz

- Boussinesq approachUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Fukushima DrinkUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Feflow BugUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Boussinesq Approach(Part 1)Uploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Boussinesq Approach vs FeflowUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- PGE_Natura2000Uploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Reconstruction and Simulation of Geological StructuresUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Boussinesq Approach CalculatorUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Boussinesq approach (part 2)Uploaded byAdam Szymanski
- An Aquifer-Imitating TechniqueUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- DarcyUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- WRR_EPPUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Boussinesq Approach(Part 3)Uploaded byAdam Szymanski
- ABC_EPPUploaded byAdam Szymanski
- Feflow Boussinesq ApproachUploaded byAdam Szymanski

- Extractive fermentation with non-ionic surfactants to enhance butanol productionUploaded byAndres Tellez Rocha
- 3.4 Direct Comparison and Limit Comparison TestsUploaded byDileep Naraharasetty
- Kaytech-FLOPIPE2011Uploaded byColin Sillman
- R-11-28 (1).pdfUploaded bypouya
- QOL - Volume 4_Issue 3-4 - Milan Vukic_0Uploaded byMilanVukic
- 8435 Leche en PolvoUploaded bymavelo
- Normative IncrementalismUploaded byWill
- Physics ReviewerUploaded byChristina de Sena-Que
- A multi-model and multi-index evaluation of drought characteristics.pdfUploaded byIwan M Syariefuddin
- Graphene SimulationUploaded byMuraleetharan Boopathi
- Development of CalculusUploaded bySaumya Singh
- Signet Products Pvt. Ltd. - ProfileUploaded byGirish Nimbhorkar
- Wind Energy-pptUploaded bysebascian
- ZX_Product_Catalog.pdfUploaded byTanveer Aziz
- laporan 2 klmpqUploaded bySasmita Dewi
- Galaxy Redshift Abundance PeriodicityUploaded byRichard Orr
- Chapter 1-Introduction to EOR ArchiveUploaded byIsmail Muhammad
- Bonding2Uploaded byRam sharma
- Hidraulic HandbookUploaded bySebastian Cantillo
- Dave Chan_ International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering. _4, 2006, Vancouver, British Columbia_gt-Soft Soil Engineering _ Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Soft Soil EngineeriUploaded byWubetie Mengist
- Structural Analysis by Direct Stiffness MethodUploaded bynargissuhail
- AIPMT Pre Paper Solution 2012Uploaded bykriti4173
- The Appropriate Use of Approximate Entropy and Sample Entropy With Short Data SetsUploaded byEduardo Vieira
- 5x4 Step by Step GuideUploaded byBA (Hons) Photography, Contemporary Practice
- Exercise: Three-Phase Squirrel-Cage Induction Motor / Three-Phase Rotating MachinesUploaded byFesto Didactic
- myTest(33).docxUploaded bykrisnu
- advanced control PIDUploaded byEdgar Alonso
- Partial Differential Equations of Fluid DynamicsUploaded byinsan
- ATQ 1Uploaded byRamon Abas
- Calculus Practice QuestionsUploaded byAmAmAm