Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by ZLOTNIK, V. A. Articles by OLAGUERA, F. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Using Direct-push Methods for Aquifer Characterization in Dune-lake Environments of The Nebraska Sand Hills

¹ Department of Geosciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0340
² School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0517
³ Department of Geosciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0340

View larger version (42K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Study area in the Sand Hills, Nebraska. (a) Sites of 11 test holes across the water table and an additional hole on the dune crest for eolian sediment dating using the optically stimulated luminescence technique (OSL). Map indicates TDS (g/L) and pH for several lakes in the area and an outline of the buried Blue Creek paleovalley, after McCarraher (1977). (b) Surface profile along the cross section A-A'-A''

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Geoprobe® tools (a) system for slug testing SP16, (b) EC probe SC300, and (c) EC probe SC 400 (modified from Geoprobe Systems Tools Catalogue, 2003)

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. A schematic diagram of three DP cycles: (a) cycle of delineation of the formation texture using EC on downward run; (b) sheathed screen deployment on the downward run and screen exposure on the upward run for slug test and water sample collection; and (c) cycle of core collection on downward run

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Formation electrical conductivity (EC) profile and speed of penetration from Hole 3 indicating typical stratigraphy of the area. Boxes indicate tested intervals and corresponding hydraulic conductivity K and TDS

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Calibration curve TDS (g/L) as a function of electrical specific conductance EC (mS/cm) in the study area (a) for lake water from pre-trip data after Gosselin (1997), (b) for groundwater from after-trip data in Table 2

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. Underdamped and overdamped slug test responses in Hole 2 at depth 7.2 m and 3.6 m

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 7. Correlation between hydraulic conductivity data obtained using DP from slug tests (KST) and from grain-size analyses (KGSA)