Title: Discussion of “Stream Multiaquifer Well Interactions” by Govinda C. Mishra and Mohd Fahimuddin
Abstract: The authors have attempted to analyze unsteady flow to a well taping two aquifers under the influence of an unsteady stream stage. The following points are raised: 1. Although it has been acknowledged that most streams only partially penetrate the upper aquifer, the study is based on a stream that fully penetrates the upper aquifer, thereby limiting its application. 2. The symbol K is used to denote unit step response function for rise in stream stage. This introduces some confusion as K is generally used to denote hydraulic conductivity. 3. Eq. 3 when used with s shows that the stream stage needs to be broken down into a number of time steps even for a constant rate of rise. Although theoretically, a single time step can be used for a constant rate of rise of stream stage, defining s thus increases the computations as the explicitly appearing t has been implicitly incorporated into s. Eq. 7 is a repetition of an earlier proposed equation equation below Eq. 3 . 4. The image well theory is generally applied for a constant stage of stream. The authors have applied the image well theory, assuming that the stream stage varies with time. This should have been explicity stated because such an application yields inconsistencies. 5. The authors have used two types of kernels for solving convolution equations. The kernels p1, p2, pi, and in are similar but different from the kernel s. This introduces inconsistency. Kernels defined on a similar basis should have been used. In view to keep uniformity of kernels, the s needs to be defined as was done by Singh 1994 . The following equation from Singh 1994, p. 19 is reproduced here
Publication Year: 2007
Publication Date: 2007-05-15
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 2
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot