Thank you very much for this link, It will be usefull. In the data set that triggered my question the formation is too low permeability and the wells too far apart to record interference. Except in one case...where a fracture connects 2 wells. It would indeed be interesting to try the interference method on those.

Best regards,

hello, colleague,

In 2015 we published a paper in Journal of Hydrology to address some of the problem you have asked. The details of the paper are in Journal of Hydrology, vol. 529 (2015).

The "pulse test" you use here has been called the slug test in the literature. All other methods published before our method published in 2015 are based on the integer-order diffusion equation in a radial coordinate. The traditional methods based on a linear diffusion equation in a radial coordinate cannot address the delayed response which is due to scale effect or non-local effect.

In our approach, I introduced distributed-order fractional diffusion to address two time-scales (beta1 and beta2) for flow in small and large pores with the two levels having non-local effects in each form of pores.

We can see that the drawdown or recession of the water level in a well is subject to two levels of drainage.

cheers

ns

took me a while to find your publication – here is the DOI link for others: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.033

Thank you very much! Slug test is indeed the usual designation in English. I do not know why, but French hydrogeologists often call slug test the open hole slug test (Papadopoulos et al., 1973) and pulse the pressurized borehole slug test (as in Bredehoeft and Papadopoulos, 1980)