GEOLOGIJA 61/2, 205-214, Ljubljana 2018 https://doi.org/10.5474/geologija.2018.014 © Author(s) 2018. CC Atribution 4.0 License Comparison of the fully penetrating well drawdown in leaky aquifers between finite and infinite radius of influence under steady-state pumping conditions Primerjava znižanja gladine podzemne vode v hidravlično popolnem vodnjaku v polzaprtem vodonosniku med končnim in neskončnim radijem vpliva pri stacionarnem črpanju Mihael BRENČIČ Department of Geology, Natural Sciences Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Aškerčeva cesta 12, SI-1000 Ljubljana; e-mail: mihael.brencic@ntf.uni-lj.si Geological Survey of Slovenia, Dimičeva ulica 14, SI-1000 Ljubljana Prejeto / Received 11. 6. 2018; Sprejeto / Accepted 28. 11. 2018; Objavljeno na spletu / Published online 20. 12. 2018 Key words: leaky aquifer, groundwater drawdown, relative difference, absolute difference, modified Bessel functions of zero order, Hantush integral Ključne besede: polzaprt vodonosnik, znižanje podzemne vode, relativna razlika, absolutna razlika, modificirana Besselova funkcija ničelnega reda, Hantushev integral Abstract In the paper theoretical derivation of steady state groundwater well pumping from leaky aquifers with infinite and finite radius of influence are presented. Based on the extensive literature review following mainly Jacob and Hantush work equations were derived from the cylindrical Bessel partial differential equation and results expressed in the combination of modified Bessel functions of zero order of the first and the second kind (I0, K0). We have shown that equation for steady state well pumping in the infinite aquifer is infinite limit of Hantush integral. Mathematical characteristics of solutions for infinite and finite radius of well influence were combined in the way that they can be represented as relative and absolute differences of drawdowns of each model. In the case when available data do not allow us to make a decision on the type of the radius of influence of the pumping well, they can help us in the interpretation of various errors due to application of different analytical models of pumping test. Izvleček V članku je prikazana izpeljava enačb črpanja podzemne vode iz vodnjaka v polzaprtem vodonosniku pri stacionarnih pogojih za primer končnega in neskončnega radija vpliva. Na podlagi obsežnega pregleda literature, ki izhaja predvsem iz del Jacoba in Hantusha, smo iz cilindrične Besselove parcialne differencialne enačbe izpeljali izraze za znižanje podzemne vode, ki predstavljajo kombinacijo modificiranih Besselovih funkcij ničelnega reda prve in druge vrste (Ig, K0). Pokazali smo, da je enačba stacionarnega črpanja iz neskončnega vodonosnika neskončna limita Hantushevega integrala. Matematične značilnosti rešitve za neskončni in končni radij vpliva črpalnega vodnjaka omogočajo, da izraze združimo tako, da lahko prikažemo relativne in absolutne razlike med obema rešitvama. V primeru, da zaradi pomanjkanja podatkov ne moremo sprejeti odločitve o tem, s kakšnim radijem vpliva imamo opraviti, nam te razlike omogočajo interpretacijo različnih napak izbranih analitičnih modelov. Introduction The most important and reliable in situ methods for groundwater investigations are pumping tests. During them water is pumped from the well constructed in the soil or rock and groundwater drawdown in the surrounding of the pumping well is observed. Pumping tests are intended for determination of aquifer physical characteristics, aquifer water balance and groundwater chemical status. These are reasons why pumping tests and the theory which connected with them is central to the hydrogeological science. The theory of pumping test is well developed and very complex. Since the very beginning when Theis published first mathematical model for unsteady groundwater flow toward the well (Theis, 1935) many 206 Mihael BRENČIČ conceptual and mathematical models of pumping tests were developed (for the review see Batu, 1998; Lebbe, 1999; Yeh & Chang, 2013 and references there in). The appearance of water in intergranular porosity is conceptualized with the aquifer model which usually consists of three main elements: saturated part, unsaturated part and hydrogeo-logical barriers. Different combinations of these elements represent different hydrodynamical models of aquifers. In general, we are talking about two main hydrodynamical types of aquifers with transitions between them. The simplest one is confined aquifer where saturated part is confined between two impermeable hydrogeo-logical barriers. The other main aquifer type is unconfined aquifer where groundwater level fluctuates depending on the recharge. In natural conditions aquifers are complex entities consisting of beds with very different geometries and hydraulic characteristics. Aquifers where several beds with different hydraulic characteristics and contrasts are present are often conceptualised as leaky aquifers. In real aquifers drawdown of groundwater level during the pumping test or full well operation is complex. The very first study on leaky aquifers under steady-state groundwater flow was presented by De Glee (1930). Jacob (1946) extended the work on leaky aquifers by introducing transient effect of leakage. In his treatment the key assumption was that the vertical flow rate in the upper hy-drogeological barrier defined as an aquitard is proportional to the drawdown distribution in the same bed. Later Hantush and Jacob (1955) and Hantush (1959) derived analytical solutions for unsteady-state groundwater flow in leaky aquifer for fully penetrating well of infinitely small diameter. In addition, Hantush (1960, 1964) and DeWiest (1965) assumed that the piezometric head in the aquitard overlying permeable part of the aquifer does not change during water withdrawal from the underlying pumped part. The validity of the assumption that Darcian groundwater flow in the permeable pumped part of the aquifer is horizontal and in the overlying aquitard is vertical was tested by Neuman and Witherspoon (1969). The errors introduced by this assumption are less than 5 % if the difference in permeability between confined bed and semiconfining beds is of at least two orders of magnitude. Herrea and Figueroa (1969) and Herrea (1970) presented a correspondence principle where only the storage in the confining layers was taken into consideration. $en (2000) has widened leaky aquifer hydraulic theory to non-Darcian flow and latter this analysis was extended based on volumetric approach by Birpinar and $en (2004). For recent review on leaky aquifer hydraulic see Yeh & Chang (2013). During mathematical simulations of the drawdown the well radius of influence is very often represented as limiting factor in calculations. This parameter is difficult to determine in nature. It is also difficult to determine whether to use analytical model of finite or infinite radius of influence. Radius of influence is very often defined from empirical formulas such as Sichardt equations (Powers et al., 2007) or it's estimation is based on the expert judgement from the field study. From the theoretical and practical point of view it is interesting to observe differences in drawdown calculations between mathematical models which include finite or infinite radius of influence. In the paper mathematical analysis of drawdown in leaky aquifer during pumping test under steady-state conditions is presented. The analysis for the pumping tests with fully penetrating well in leaky aquifers with finite and infinite radius of well influence is extended based on solutions of Jacob (1946) and Hantush (1960, 1964). The comparisons are represented based on the various ratios between the drawdown for each of the different radius types under assumption that all other physical characteristic and pumping rate are the same. Ratios between different drawdowns are interpreted with various types of differences that can be interpreted as error analysis. Theoretical concepts are illustrated with numerical simulation. Finally, theoretical and numerical results are discussed. Mathematical model Conceptual model If the aquifer is not perfectly confined with upper and lower impermeable hydrogeological barrier leakage to the central water yielding unit - confined bed - may occur through the underlain or overlain semiconfining layer or aqui-tard. Leaky aquifers being either single or part of multi-layered aquifer systems and the degree of leakage between beds may become significant depending on the thickness and hydraulic conductivity of the confined bed which gives the main part of the aquifer yielding water. During pumping water from the aquitard water is also extracted through the confining layer. The conceptual model of the leaky aquifer is shown in Comparison of the fully penetrating well drawdown in leaky aquifers between finite and infinite radius of influence under. 207 the fig. 1. In parallel to this model several other leaky aquifer conceptual models are available in the literature (Yeh & Chang, 2013) but are not taken in consideration. The leakage rates from the semiconfining layer - aquitard may be significant depending on hydraulic gradients around the pumping well. In the mathematical model of the pumping test from the leaky aquifer the thickness of the saturated part b' and vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard Kzp are taken into the account. It is hypothesised that leakage of water from the aqui-tard is strictly vertical and that no storage in this bed is present. The latter condition means that change of piezometric potential in the aquifer is simultaneous to change in the confined part of the aquifer. This part has transmissivity T that is defined as T=Kb; a product of hydraulic conductivity K and the thickness b of the confined part of the aquifer. Storage coefficient S of this defines vertical elastic properties of the aquifer. As a consequence of pumping from the aquifer the drawdown s appears on starting piezometric head h0 that is horizontal at any distance r from the well. The drawdown s at r at time t is defined as s(r,t)=h0-h(r,t). Radius of influence of groundwater pumping R is defined as the distance from the well where s(R,t)=0. Under steady-state pumping conditions at any time two models of radius of influence of groundwater pumping R can be defined. In the first mathematical model of the leaky aquifer R is finite and constant; R=const. In the second mathematical model of the leaky aquifer R is infinite; R=. Together with boundary and initial conditions already presented in the fig. 1 the following assumptions are applied in the mathematical model (Batu, 1998): the confined part of the aquifer is homogenous and isotropic, the extraction rate of the well Q is constant, the aquifer is horizontal, has constant thickness b and is overlain by an aquitard with constant vertical hydraulic conductivity Kzp and constant thickness of the saturated part b', the well penetrates entirely confined part of the aquifer, the diameter of the well is infinitesimally small with no storage and the groundwater flow in the confined part of the aquifer is horizontal. Governing equation Basic governing equation of the leaky aquifer in the vertical plane of the x, y, z Cartesian coordinate system is defined as (for derivation see Miletic & Heinrich Miletic, 1981) Fig. 1. Schematic cross section of a leaky confined aquifer with finite and infinite radius of influence. 208 Mihael BRENČIČ d2 s d2 s s Sds Hx2 = Ify2-B2~T~dt where (1) (2) is defined as leakage factor. In the cylindr ic al system of the coordinates r and y the equation (1) can be rewritten as (Hantush, 1964) d2s Ids 1 d2s s Sds ■ + -— + ■ (3) dr2 r dr r2 dq>2 B2 T dt and in the case of homogenous and isotropic aquifer according to $ d2s lds s Sds dv2 r dr B2 T dt (4) Equation (4) can be recognized as modified Bessel equation of zero order (Lebedeev, 1970). For parameters and other symbols see fig. 1. Basic solution In the solution of governing equation (4) following Hantush (1964) valid boundary and initial conditions are defined as: s(r, 0) = 0, r> 0 s(r, t) > 0, r ^ , t > 0 ( ds\ Q lim (r —) = --—, t> 0 r^o \ d r) 2nT (5) In (5) last condition is consequence of Dar-cy law. Final solution of the governing equation (Hantush, 1964) is S = 4 nT uu K exp u — r2 ) 4 B2u) u du (6) and at sufficiently large time i m is small enough that u«0. Consequently, integration borders become from 0 to x and (6) becomes 4 nT K exp I — u r2 ) 4 B2u) u du (9) Based on Gradshteyn and Ryzhik (1994; equation 3.471.9) uu = 0 exp (—2) u du = 2K0]2jq) (10) From (9) and (10) also follows y AB2 (11) and K0 is modified Bessel function of second kind of zero order. After short manipulation in (10) and (11) it can be shown that drawdown for the infinite leaky aquifer sI in steady-state conditions is Q /rx Z =2*TKo\B) s, = (12) Which is the same results as de Glee (1930) defined initially through another derivation of equations. Sieady siaie-soluiion in finiie leaky aquifer General solution of modified Bessel equation of zero order (4) is (Lebedev, 1972) ^/oQ+^oQ (13) where are where u is defined as r2S u = 4Tt (7) Integral (6) is known also as Hantush integral. It is important in many fields of mathematical physics and hydrology (Harris, 1997, 2001; Prodanoff et al., 2006). Detailed derivation of basic solution of leaky aquifer partial differentia 1 equation is given elsewhere (Hantush 1964; Batu 1998; Lebbe, 1999). Sieady siaie-soluiion in infiniie leaky aquifer In real aquifers steady-state conditions are reached only after longer time i. If we suppose that i than the limit of u is defined as (r"S\ lim u = lim I — I = 0 (8) C,C - constants 70 - modified Bessel function of first kind of zero order. Boundary conditions are defined as (Jacob, 1946) s(r, 0) = 0 r> 0 t = 0 s(R) = 0 (14) r—o V' dr) 2nT t—p t-pUTt, Determination of C1 and C2 of (13) from (14) leads to the equation of drawdown sF in finite leaky aquifer. Constants are determined in the area where r < R. Elaboration of constants is not simple and straightforward, it is based on derivatives of s and limit properties of K0(x) and I0(x) Comparison of the fully penetrating well drawdown in leaky aquifers between finite and infinite radius of influence under. 209 functions. Derivation of C1 and C2 is first given in Jacob (1946) and thoroughly summarised and elaborated in Batu (1998) and Miletic and Hein-rich-Miletic (1981). Presentation of this derivation is out of the paper's scope. After definit ion of constants it follows: - - ° k)-'oQ*o(§)1 2nT (15) Comparison of the drawdown for finite and infinite radius of influence Definitions In hydrogeology we are frequently encountering problem of choosing a proper aquifer conceptual model. Dealing with results of pumping test it is a question whether to use finite or infinite model of well radius of influence. Available geological data are often not detailed enough or some information are missing for choosing the proper conceptual model. In such situation for calculations several models are used and their results are compared with the actual field measurements. In the engineering practice measurements and calculated values are often expressed together with certain errors, among them are relative difference £ or absolute difference £ . The expres- r a -1- sion of those help us to understand the reliability of predictions preformed based on measurements and differences among them in their application of the mathematical models. These concepts can be used also in the comparison between drawdown calculations in leaky aquifers with finite and infinite radius of well influence under steady state pumping conditions. We can define following differences and quotients. If x is any quatitative measure absolute difference £ is defined as the absolute difference a between two measured values x1 and x2 £a = IX1 x2| (16) If reference value xref is present absolute dif- ference £ ' is defined as ^ref | (17) where x is any value from the model. The generalized relative difference £ is defined as £a _ \X1 x2 \ \X±+ X2\ \Xi+X"\ (18) Alternatively, average relative difference £avg can be defined as ang = O-v-. 2en 1*1 + *2I If the reference value x tive difference £ ' is 2|Xi X"1 £r , ^ I1 * 21 =f (19) |xi+X"| 2 ref is defined than rela- ref | X. ref X X. ref Sometimes £ ' is defined as r _ l*i-v2| r maxlx^x^ max|xw,x21 (20) (21) Differences and ratios between sF and st From mathematical point of view equations (12) and (15) are bearing some similarities. They can be easily used for the comparison between the modelled drawdown s in the aquifer with finite radius of influence - sF with the aquifer with infinite radius of influence - st under steady state conditions and the same pumping rate Q. After short manipulation it can be shown from (12) and (15) that 2nT 'o(l) (22) From that point right hand part of the (22) in the brackets can be understood as factor which is correcting infinite aquifer drawdown st to the finite aquifer drawdown sF. Based on this we can define correction factor cF o(f) and consequently Q 2nT [S; - cF] (23) (24) cF is independent of Q and depends only on B and Ewhich are geometrical and physical characteristics of the leaky aquifer. Due to aquifer physical characteristics relation st > cF is always present and due to the characteristics of modified Bessel functions K0(x) and I0(x) functional relation sT > sF is always valid. Consequently, head in the leaky aquifer with the same hydraulic characteristics under the same pumping rate Q is higher in the aquifer with finite radius of influence than in the aquifer with infinite radius of influence. It can be illustrated that under some circumstance heads around the well in both cases can be nearly equal. 210 Mihael BRENČIČ We can further elaborate relations by dividing equation (15) with (12) and gaining ^l-HtKf (25) SI K, or Si Se 0 (s) 'o (§) 7° O (!) K, 0 Q 7o (§) (26) From the properties of I0(o;) and in (25) and (26) follows Sp Sj-Sp — <1, sj-sp>0 sj j p sj j p (27) From mathematical point of view equations (20) and (26) are similar. If we accept sI as a reference value than (27) is relative error with st as a reference value x , can be defined as sD-Csi) = /o ft) K° (B) (28) Because sI > sF same conclusion as in (28) follows from (21). Equation (28) is not just a mere mathematical expression. It explains relation between two drawdown curves. If we have two leaky aquifers; with infinite and finite radius of influence under the same pumping rate and the same hydraulic characteristics £'(s) explains relative difference between both drawdown curves. Depending on r in the interval 0< £r'(si)<1 ratio explains relative differences between both drawdown curves. If the £'(s) is close or equal to 1 the curves have the same spatial distribution, and if sr'(sI)=0 drawdown curve of sI is beyond the radius of influence R of the finite leaky aquifer. With the analogies of equations from (16) to (19) and according to the definition in (16) subtracting (15) from (12) following expression for £a can be derived Q k Q £a 2 nT 2 nT Ce = Io S) Ko © (29) sI£!r(sI>) Absolute difference £a is expressed in length units. Comparing to £r'(sI) in (28) which is independent on pumping rate Q absolute difference £a depends on it. Relation between £a and £r'(sI) is also obvious. Generalized relative difference £r from (18) and with the help of (12) and (15) can be defined as ^ MM)] (30) Generalized relative difference £ is also dir mensionless quantity. It can be applied for analysis when no preference to sI or sF are given. This is the case when we are not sure if model of finite or infinite radius of influence is valid and we want to keep both results. Consequently, average relative difference £avg followed from definitions r above is defined as ['•(M)] in. _ °( _ (31) K(M)-2'.(ŽH(§) Results and discussion In the following chapter we are presenting numerical simulation results based on the previous mathematical theory. Simulations were performed with build in numerical functions of modified Bessel functions of the first kind I0 and the second kind K0 in Excel for Mac 16.16.1. and with the program for symbolic and numerical computation Mathematica for Mac version 11.3.0. Numerical results are discussed from the hydro-geological point of view. Estimation of leakage factor B Main physical parameter in simulations is leakage factor B defined in (2) which is combination of two other physical parameters and one variable which in our simulation can be considered as a constant. Those parameters are: trans-missivity T of the confined unit and Kzp which is vertical permeability of semi-confining layer while b' defines head in the later. Based on the ex-per\ judgement of T, Kzp and b' we have estimated values of B. For simulations b' = 2 m was used. As expected in the real aquifers T was considered on the interval between 5-10-2 m2/s and 10-5 m2/s and Kp was considered in the interval from 10-9 m/s to 10-6 m/s. Calculated values of B are represented on double logaritmic scale in fig. 2. Comparison of the fully penetrating well drawdown in leaky aquifers between finite and infinite radius of influence under. 211 Estimation of leakage factor B 100000 ——""""""""""" 10000 __ ——1000 100 10 1 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03 Trasmissivity [m2/s] 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 Fig. 2. Estimation of leakage factor B at different transmissivity values T for confined layer and permeability of Kzp of semi-confining layer at b'=2 m. In the range of applied T highest values of B are present at Kzp = 10-9 m/s. In this case B values are calculated in the interval between 173 m and 12,247 m. Lowest B values are present at Kzp = 10-6 m/s. In this case B values are calculated in the interval between 5.5 m and 387 m. Therefore, total simulated range of B is from 5.5 m to 12,247 m. From the simulated values we can see that B is influenced by the Kf. In leaky aqufers semi-confining layer with vertical permeability Kzp = 10-6 m/s due to the depression in confined layer it is highly unlikely that vertical flow will appear. Consequently, values of B in real aquifers tend to be in the higher part of the interval. Estimated values of B can be considered also in the evaluation of ratio R/B which is important in presentation of simulation results on the relative scale r/R. Expected radius of influence R in real aquifers under the steady state conditions are in the range of 500 m to 20,000 m. Consequently, expected approximate range of R/B is in the interval from 0.005 to 20. Simulation of relative difference £r'(sI) To illustrate behaviour of £r'(sI) given by equation (28) we have chosen aquifer with influence radius R of 5,000 m. Such radius of influence can be expected in many natural aquifers. Results of calculations are presented in the fig. 3 for leakage factors B from 50 m to 20,000 m. At relatively small values of B large part of the curve is flatter reflecting £r'(sI)=0. At higher r curve sharply turns up to values near £r'(sI)=1. With higher values of B curvature is becoming flatter and values of £r'(sI) are becoming to rise slowly. Curves below B=5,000 m which is the same value as chosen R are concave with higher B they become convex. For high B values and at lower r values £r'(sI) starts to rise quickly and then at middle values of r the curve flattens and become nearly linear. By simple reasoning it can be shown from (28) that results for different radius of influence R can be presented on the relative scale r/R. Diagram presented in fig. 4 is valid for any R at the same ratio R/B between radius of influence and leakage factor. Shape of lines are the same as they are on the fig. 3 and therefore reflecting the same relations as they are in the diagram for exact radius of influence. The diagram in fig. 4 can be understood as scaled diagram. Similarly, as before at relatively small values of B large part of the curve is equal to £r'(sI)=0 and then at the right side of the diagram the curve sharply turns up to values near £r'(sI)=1. From the diagram we can observe that for values of R/B < 1 the curves are concave and for values R/B > 1 the curves turn to be convex. Curves on both figures (figs. 3 and 4) are representing comparison of the drawdown sF in the aquifer with finite influence of well and the drawdown sI in the aquifer with infinite radius of influence. Values around 0 are showing that practically no difference is present among drawdowns when values of B or R/B are relatively small. Consequently, if we are dealing with relatively extensive leaky aquifer it is not important if we calculate drawdowns for finite or infinite radius model. In such cases the difference among drawdowns become important only near the radius of influence R. Estimation whether we can describe aquifer with finite or infinite aquifer radius of in- 212 Mihael BRENČIČ Relative difference e,' with reference value s, on regular distance scale « 0.2 Vr^— coOOJS^^ / o^ss^ / <>r/ / s 8 £ iJ ° B=1000 m 2000 2500 3000 Distance [m] Relative difference e/ with reference value s, on relative distance scale r/R „IftsO JUS 7, / ' I .«A0/ Jk 0.4 0.5 0.6 Relative distance r/R Fig. 3. Relative difference £ ' with reference value s, r I plotted on the regular distance scale. Fig. 4. Relative difference £ ' with reference value s rI plotted on the relative distance scale fluence becomes important with larger B values. Therefore, when semiconfining layer has several orders of magnitude lower vertical permeability than in confined layer it become important which analytical model for radius of influence is used. Differences become bigger close to the well comparing to higher B values where differences are important far away from the pumping well. Simulation of generalized relative difference Generalized relative differences are presented only for relative distance r/R and are given in the fig. 5. Shape of the lines for different ratios R/B are nearly similar to the lines in fig. 4 where relative difference is shown. They are more convex comparing to relative difference er'(sI). Comparison between relative differences Lines in fig. 4 and fig. 5 have similar shape therefore one may ask question whether there is any difference between the lines. For the comparison we have calculated both differences for two different ratios R/B = 1 and R/B = 0.25 respectively. Results are shown on the fig. 6. In spite of the similar shapes of the curves differences among curves exist. From the equations (28) and (30) it can be shown that for the same physical parameters R and B relative difference £r'(sI) is always larger than e. In the theoretical part of the paper we are not representing derivatives of (28, 30) but it can be illustrated that £r'(sI) always approach value of 1 (right part of the curve) slowly than e . Behaviour of e is x / u r r the consequence of its definition in (18) where comparing to (20) value is weighted by s. Comparison of the fully penetrating well drawdown in leaky aquifers between finite and infinite radius of influence under. 213 Fig. 5. Relative difference £r' plotted on the relative scale r/R. Fig. 6. Comparison of simulation between ^'(s^ and £r with the same ratio R/B plotted on the relative scale r/R. Conclusions In spite of the fact that in hydrogeological quantification of aquifers and their groundwater flow numerical models are widely applied, development of analytical mathematical models is still important. Analytical approach to groundwater flow enables different and deeper insight into the relations between different geometrical elements in the aquifers and their conceptual models. Analytical models are important for the control of numerical results and are very often applied as a scoping calculation representing first step in the consideration of hydraulic conditions in the aquifer. In the paper we have presented classical derivation of the head distribution in the leaky aquifer under steady state pumping conditions. We have shown that infinite limit of Hantush integral which represents solution of the non-steady state pumping conditions in the leaky aquifer is solution for the steady state conditions. We have shown that solutions for steady state conditions under finite and infinite pumping well radius of influence are mathematically similar and that based on this characteristics comparison between them can be performed. They can be represented as relative and absolute differences of drawdowns for each model. In the case when available data do not allow us to make a decision on the type of the radius of influence of the pumping well, they can help us in the interpretation of various errors due to application of different analytical models of pumping test. We have shown that at larger leakage factors B determination of radius of influence R for the large part of the aquifer is not important, they become important at larger factors B when contrast between permeabilities in the semi-confining unit and confined unit becomes larger. Under such condition differences in drawdown are important in the vicinity of the pumping well. 214 Mihael BRENČIČ For further consideration similar relation for non-steady solutions of the leaky aquifer are also interesting. Acknowledgment Suggestions and coments from Jože Ratej and Žiga Brenčič greatly improved the quality of the paper. The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P1-0020 "Groundwater and geochemistry". References Batu, V. 1998: Aquifer hydraulics - a comprehensive guide to hydrogeologic data analysis. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.: 727 p. Birpinar, M.E. & $en, Z. 2004: Forcheimer groundwater flow law type curves for leaky aquifers. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 9/1: 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) 1084-0699(2004)9:1(51) De Glee, G.J. 1930: Over Grondwaterstroomingen bij Wateronttrekking door van Putten, J. Waltman: 175 p. DeWiest, R.J.M. 1965: Geohydrology. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.: 532 p. Gradshteyn, I.S. & Ryzhik, I.M. 1994: Table of integrals, series, and products. Academic Press: 1204 p. Hantush, M.S. 1959: Nonsteady flow to flowing wells in leaky aquifers. Journal of Geophysical Research,64:1043-1052. Hantush, M.S. 1960: Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers. Journal of Geophysical Research, 65: 3713-3725. Hantush, M.S. 1964: Hydraulics of wells. In: Chow, V.T. (ed.): Advances in Hydrosciences. Academic Press, 1: 282 - 432. Hantush, M.S. & Jacob, C.E. 1955: Non-steady radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 36: 95 - 100. Harris, F.E. 1997: New approach to calculation of the leaky aquifer function. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 63: 913-916. Harris, F.E. 2001: On Kryachko's formula for the leaky aquifer function. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 81: 332-334. Herrea, I. 1970: Theory of multiple leaky aquifers. Water Resources Research, 6: 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR006i001p00185 Herrea, I. & Figueroa, G.E. 1969: A correspondence principle for the theory of leaky aquifers. Water Resources Research, 5: 900-904. Jacob, C.E. 1946: Radial flow in a leaky artesian aquifer. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 27: 198 - 205. Lebbe, L.C. 1999: Hydraulic parameter identification. Springer: 359 p. Lebedev, N.N. 1972: Special functions and their applications. Dover Publications Inc.: 308 p. Miletic, P. & Heinrich Miletic, M. 1981: Uvod u kvantitativnu hidrogeologiju - stjene meduzrnske poroznosti. RGN - fakultet sveu-cilista u Zagrebu: 220 p. Neuman, S.P. & Witherspoon, P.A. 1969: Applicability of current theories of flow in leaky aquifers. Water Resources Research, 5/4: 817-829. https://doi.org/10.1029/ WR005i004p00817 Powers, J.P., 2007: Construction dewatering and groundwater control: new methods and applications. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.: 638 p. Prodanoff, J.H.A., Mansur, W.J. & Mascarenhas, F.C.B. 2006: Numerical evaluation of Theis and Hantush-Jacob well function. Journal of Hydrology, 318/1-4: 173-183. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.026 Çen, Z. 2000: Non-Darcian groundwa-ter flow in leaky aquifers. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 45/4: 595-606. https://doi. org/10.1080/02626660009492360 Theis, C.V. 1935: The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 16: 519-24. Yeh, H.D. & Chang, Y.C. 2013: Recent advances in modelling of well hydraulics. Advances in Water Resources, 51: 27-51. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.03.006