The Effect of Well Efficiency on In-Situ Permeability Test ...
Transcript of The Effect of Well Efficiency on In-Situ Permeability Test ...
Western Michigan University Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU
Master's Theses Graduate College
4-1987
The Effect of Well Efficiency on In-Situ Permeability Test Results The Effect of Well Efficiency on In-Situ Permeability Test Results
Scott T. Dennis
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Geology Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Dennis, Scott T., "The Effect of Well Efficiency on In-Situ Permeability Test Results" (1987). Master's Theses. 1223. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/1223
This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE EFFECT OF WELL EFFICIENCY ON IN-SITU PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
by
Scott T. Dennis
A Thesis submitted to the
Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fu lfillm ent of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
Department of Geology
Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan
April 1987
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE EFFECT OF WELL EFFICIENCY ON IN-SITU PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
Scott T. Dennis, M.S.
Western Michigan University, 1987
The purpose of this study was to determine what effect well
efficiency has upon the results of in-situ permeability tests.
Several in -situ permeability tests were performed on wells
during various stages of their development. The well efficiency was
determined each time an in-situ test was performed. An accurate
value of permeability was determined by performing local aquifer
pumping tests. The accuracy of the results of the in -situ tests with
respect to the aquifer pump test results were then compared to the
efficiency of the well at the time of the test.
Test results showed that a linear relationship exists between
well efficiency and the accuracy of slug test results. A direct one
to one relationship exists using the Bouwer and Rice (1976) method of
data analysis, while a one to two relationship exists using the
Hvorslev (1951) method. Thus, the assumption by the authors that the
effect of well losses is negligible is incorrect.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my father. His inspira
tion and example taught me that anything can be accomplished i f you
dedicate yourself toward that goal. I t was his love and support that
gave me the desire and a b ility to undertake a project of this scope.
I would also lik e to thank my fellow employees at EDI
Engineering & Science who offered technical advice and assisted in
the publication of this thesis.
Scott T. Dennis
i i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. I f copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
UniversityMiadnlms
International300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Order Number 1330222
The effect o f well efficiency on in-situ permeability test results
Dennis, Scott Timothy, M.S.
WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, 1987
Copyright ©1087 by Dennis, Scott Timothy. All rights reserved.
U M I300 N. Zeeb Rd.Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V
1. Glossy photographs or pages.
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____
3. Photographs with dark background____
4. Illustrations are poor copy______
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy.
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page.
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages J8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.
11. Page(s) _________ lacking when material received, and not available from school orauthor.
12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages_____
15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received_______ _
16. Other _________________ ___________________ ___________________
UniversityMicrofilms
International
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Copyright by Scott T. Dennis
1987
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................... . . . . ............................................ i i
LIST OF TABLES ........................... . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ v ii
INTRODUCTION .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . 1
Results of Previous Studies .................................................. . . 3
Site A .............................. 4
Site B . . . . . ........................... ... ................................... 4
Site C . . . . . . . . ........................... ... 5
Suirmary of Three Sites ............................. 5
Purpose ......................................................... 6
Scope................................................................................... 7
HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING ....................................................................... 8
Aquifer Dimensions . . . . .......................................................... 8
Aquifer Hydraulics .................................................... 12
Slug Tests ............................... • • • *2
Previous Aquifer Pump Tests . . . . . . .................................. 16
FIELD METHODS ......................................................................... 19
Slug T e s t s ................................................................................... . . 20
Step-Drawdown Tests ........................................................................... 21
Well Development.................................................... 22
Pumping Tests . . . . . 23
i i i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
DATA EVALUATION METHODS......................................................... 25
Slug T e s t s ............................................................................................ 25
Bouwer and Rice (1976) ............................................................. 26
Hvorslev (1951) . ...................................... 27
Step-Drawdown Tests . . . . . . . . . . ................................... 29
Predicted versus Actual Drawdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Pumping Tests ............................................................ 31
Boulton's (1963) Method ..............................................................31
Time-Drawdown Evaluation .......................................................... 32
RESULTS . . . . . . ....................... 35
Slug Tests .......................................................... 35
Well I W - 1 ...................... 35
Well IW-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Well P W -6 ............................................................ 43
Summary.................................................................................... 47
Pumping Tests .................................................................................... 47
Well IW-1 . . . ......................................................................... 47
Well IW-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Well P W -6 .............................. 53
Well Efficiency .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . 55
Relationship between Slug Tests and Aquifer Tests . . . . . 56
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Relationship between Slug Tests and Well Efficiency . . . . 59
Bouwer and Rice (1976) . . . . . . . . . . 59
Hvorslev (1951) 61
CONCLUSION.......................... 63
Slug Tests ...................... . . ............................................................. 63
Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
APPENDICES ...................... . . . . . . 65
A. Data and Plots for Slug Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
B. Data and Plots for Aquifer Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. .1 0 8
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. Results of Previous Testing - Site A .................................... 4
2. Summary of Previous Test Results ................................... . . 6
3. Results of In-Situ Permeability Tests . . . . ..................... 14
4. Pertinent Well and Aquifer Data for Slug Tests ................. 35
5. Values Used for Permeability Calculations: IW-1 . . . . . 39
6. Results of Slug Tests: IW-1 .............................. ... 39
7. Values Used for Permeability Calc: I W - 2 ................................ 40
8. Results of Slug Tests: IW-2 ..................................................... 43
9. Values Used for Permeability Calc: P W -6 ................................ 46
10. Results of Slug Tests: PW-6 ... .......................... ... 46
11. Well Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... 56
12. Results of Slug Tests on Monitor Wells . . . . . . . . . 59
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Study Area and Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Water Table Elevation . . . . ........................... . . . . . . 10
3. Elevation of Clay Surface........................................................... 11
4. Typical Grain-Size Distribution ............................................... 13
5. Slug Test Results with Respect to Depth ................................ 15
6. Aquifer Test Plot from 1985 ....................................................... 18
7. Data Plots for Bouwer & Rice: IW-1 . . ............................... 37
8. Data Plots for Hvorslev: IW-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. Data Plots for Bouwer & Rice: IW -2 .................... 41
10. Data Plots for Hvorslev: I W - 2 ...................................... 42
11. Data Plots for Bouwer & Rice: PW-6................................44
12. Data Plots for Hvorslev: P W -6 .......................................45
13. Results of Slug Tests . . . . . ............................................... 48
14. Semi-Logarithmic Plot of Aquifer Test Data: IW-1 . . . . 50
15. Logarithmic Plot of Aquifer Test Data: IW-2 . . . . . . 51
16. Semi-Logarithmic Plot of Aquifer Test Data: IW-2 . . . . 52
17. Semi-Logarithmic Plot of Aquifer Test Data: PW-6 . . . . 54
18. Accuracy of Slug Test Results ................................................... 58
19. Relationship Between Bouwer & Rice Results andWell Efficiency . . . . . . .......................................................... 60
20. Relationship Between Hvorslev Results andWell Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
vi i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INTRODUCTION
Background
Groundwater contamination has received increased attention since
the early 1970's and many instances of contamination are now well
documented. Much of the contamination that is now receiving atten
tion is the result of past waste disposal or handling practices.
Successful remediation of this contamination is highly dependent upon
the knowledge of the hydrology of the impacted aquifer and the
a b ility to predict the movement of contamination. Parameters which
must be defined to determine the movement of contaminants, include
the aquifer's hydraulic conductivity, the hydraulic gradient, and the
porosity of the aquifer. The response of the aquifer to the with
drawal of groundwater from purge wells can be estimated using
hydraulic parameters and aquifer dimensions. These calculations w ill
then allow for the most effective placement and pumping rate selec
tion of the purge well to control the groundwater and capture the
contamination.
The hydraulic gradient and direction of flow are easily deter
mined from groundwater elevation data collected from a minimum of
three monitoring wells. The porosity of the aquifer may be estimated
using numerous published ranges of values (Driscoll, 1986; Fetter,
1980; Freeze & Cherry, 1979) corresponding to the type of material
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
that is found in the aquifer. However, the hydraulic conductivity,
or permeability, is not as easily obtainable, since i t can vary
within the same type of material.
Hydraulic conductivity has classically been determined from data
obtained from aquifer pumping tests. While these tests provide good
data, they are often elaborate, time-consuming, and costly. Another
serious drawback is the disposal of contaminated groundwater gener
ated by the pumping. Regulations governing the handling of these
waters often require that they be treated as hazardous waste, the
cost of which can be extremely high. In addition, pumping tests
generally do not work well in materials of low permeability.
An alternative to the pumping test is an in-situ permeability
test, what is commonly referred to as a slug or bailer test. A slug
test is performed by instantaneously injecting a known quantity of
water, while a bailer test is performed by withdrawing a known
quantity of water from a well. As the water level returns to eq u ili
brium, i t is monitored and recorded. These data are then analyzed to
determine the aquifer characteristics. These tests have the advan
tage of being very quick, inexpensive, and easy to perform. The slug
test also eliminates the need for disposal of contaminated ground
water since very l i t t l e , i f any, is withdrawn from the well.
While slug tests provide data in a very quick and economical
way, the portion of the aquifer that is tested is very small. The
values from these tests, therefore, should be considered to be point
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
values. The results can also be affected greatly by local in flu
ences. Since the test is quick and economical, however, many wells
can be tested in a short period of time.
Proper well construction techniques can greatly reduce most
influences around the well which may affect the slug test; however,
the degree of well development may also affect the results of the
test. While documentation of'well construction can account for most
variables which may cause erroneous results, the degree of well
development cannot be accurately determined prior to fie ld testing of
the finished well.
Results of Previous Studies
Various sites have been investigated by EDI Engineering &
Science at which numerous slug tests were performed as well as
aquifer pumping tests. A comparison of the results of these investi
gations shows that the values of permeability calculated from the
pumping tests were 1.5 to 7 times greater than the values calculated
from the slug tests. I t was believed that efficiency of the wells
used for the slug tests accounted for a large portion of the error;
however, the effect of well efficiency on slug test results has not
been documented. The following section presents the results of three
of these sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Site A
The aquifer at this site consists of well sorted sands with
occasional interbedded gravel lenses. Testing was performed on two
monitoring wells adjacent to and at the same depth as a purge well.
The aquifer at the purge well is 93 feet thick. Field and laboratory
tests were used to evaluate the aquifer's permeability. The results
of fie ld testing are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Results of Previous Testing - Site A
Method Well K(cm/sec)
In-S itu , Bouwer-Rice MW 12C 1.45 x 10“2MW 12D 1.1 x 10"2
In-S itu , Hvorslev MW 12C 2.7 x 10"2MW 12D 2.2 x 10"2
Aquifer Test PW 6.3 x 10"2
Site B
The aquifer at Site B consists of well sorted sand and gravel.
The unconfined aquifer ranges from 28 to 38 feet thick. The aquifer
materials become somewhat more coarse with depth. Slug tests were
performed on twelve monitoring wells and evaluated using the Bouwer
and Rice (1976) data evaluation method. The results of the slug-3 -2tests ranged from 2.0 x 10 to 3.1 x 10 centimeters per second
-2(cm/sec), with an average of 1.8 x 10 cm/sec.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Two aquifer pumping tests were also performed at this location.-2These tests resulted in a permeability estimate of 5.4 x 10 cm/sec.
Site C
This s ite consists primarily of poorly sorted sand and gravel.
The aquifer consists of 3 to 5 foot thick lenses that vary between
medium to coarse sand and clayey s ilty sand. Slug tests were
performed on 21 monitoring wells which ranged in depth within the
aquifer. The results of the slug tests using the Bouwer and Rice-3 -3technique ranged from 1.1 x 10 to 4.3 x 10 cm/sec, with an
-3average value of 2.2 x 10 cm/sec. An aquifer pumping test resulted-2in an estimated permeability of 1.4 x 10 cm/sec.
Summary of Three Sites
Permeability values from slug tests from a ll three of these
sites produced permeability values lower than those calculated from
the aquifer pumping tests. A summary of these results is presented
in Table 2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
Table 2
Summary of Previous Test Results
Method Site Well K(cm/sec)
Result of Slug Test Compared to Aquifer
Test Result
In-S itu, Bouwer-Rice A MW 12C 1.45 x 10"2 23%MW 12D 1.10 x 10"2 18%
In-Situ, Hvorslev A MW 12C 2.7 X 10"2 53%MW 12D 2.2 X 10“2 34%
Aquifer Test A 6.3 X 10“2 -In-Situ, Bouwer-Rice B * 1.8 X 10"2 33%Aquifer Test B ** 5.4 X 10"2 -In-S itu, Bouwer-Rice C * * * 2.2 X 10”3 16%Aquifer Test C 1.4 X 10-2
* Average of 12 wells in v ic in ity of Aquifer Test.* * Average of 2 tests.
* * * Average of 21 wells in v ic in ity of Aquifer Test.
While slug tests consistently produced significantly lower
results than the aquifer tests, the cause could not be documented.
I t was believed that well efficiency accounted for these low results;
therefore, this study was designed to document that well efficiency
can significantly affect the results of slug tests.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect well
efficiency has upon the slug test results. Existing methods for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
evaluating slug test data assume that the well is 100% e ffic ien t. I f
a relationship can be established between well efficiency and slug
test results, results of slug tests could be corrected based upon the
efficiency of the well so that a more accurate value of the hydraulic
conductivity of the aquifer could be reported.
Scope
The effect of well efficiency w ill be evaluated by performing
in -situ permeability tests on several wells throughout their develop
ment. The efficiency w ill also determined at the time of the slug
test. Results of the slug tests and the well efficiency tests w ill
be evaluated to determine i f a relationship exists.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING
The site of this investigation consists of a water table aquifer
composed of well sorted sands underlain by a thick, massive grey
clay. A detailed hydrogeological investigation has been conducted
from 1983 to 1986 which included the construction of 88 monitoring
wells. The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 1. The
following section presents the aquifer dimensions and hydraulics
determined from this hydrogeological investigation.
Aquifer Dimensions
Water table elevations measured in the monitoring wells indicate
that a groundwater divide trends east-west through the central
portion of the site. Water levels collected on November 7, 1986 are
presented in Figure 2. This groundwater flow pattern is consistent
with data collected over the past three years.
The top of the grey clay which forms the base o f the aquifer
slopes downward toward the southwest and to the south. Several
subtle valleys were defined in the surface of the clay. Several
borings were extended into the clay and indicate that the clay
exceeds 50 feet in thickness. The elevation of the surface of the
clay is shown in Figure 3.
The aquifer consists of outwash deposits which range from fine
sands near the water table to s ilty fine sands at the base of the
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduc,reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Figure 2. Water Table Elevation (Arbitrary Datum)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
:u a ijr:li II ’ -"**; a j \ 3
; , g r
\ y c - f ,"■ » v
» m * i l l ; • f f *
t v: \ f " - Y ‘
/ ! ' T / •
/ / ■ &/ V * . •' <■. .'O is
•» \A* • ! \ v \ . * • *
i
i
3?
S 52— fs
. ! Ai •-V . IM J W fi Y > - jSsr \ YV 7 ■
i?r~"‘ \ ' y / t . j
- ) / : / l 5 v/u __
f r . . . . / t t \ /". / . \ \ ( . ( _____
a- /"« : J/) ^ ' vr f c ^ P : \ \ \ \ /
« v v \ \ . /■
V ' *nt *=*2 / -
«» 1 11 ** I It /. f l l /tv- li '
It
y / < / J" / / /
; i : V ' /s. * - ■■',i V iv < ^ * j z * e ' i j w « \\ /
V. /~ - S \ \
/
. A ■/*!
SX-T+Jsl.» '
\ N \
r \ .- IW VtM «. >.
Figure 3. Elevation of Clay Surface (Arbitrary Datum)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
aquifer. Grain-size distribution analyses of soils from several
borings throughout the site indicates that the aquifer materials
become more fine with depth. A typical grain-size analysis of
samples from various depths below the water table is shown in Figure
4.
The aquifer is thickest in the extreme southwestern portion of
the study area where i t reaches a thickness of 38 feet. The aquifer
thins to the north to a thickness of 20 feet.
Aquifer Hydraulics
Permeability of the aquifer decreases with depth in the aquifer
as the percentage of fine-grained sediments increases. This was
determined by performing over 30 slug tests and two aquifer pump
tests.
Slug Tests
More than 30 slug tests were performed during 1984 and 1985.
The data were evaluated using the Bouwer and Rice method and the
results summarized in Table 3. The wells tested varied in depth with
respect to the aquifer base. The relationship between depth and
permeability is shown graphically in Figure 5. The average of the-3slug test results in the lower ten feet of the aquifer is 1.55 x 10
cm/sec. The average of the test results from wells screened greater-3than ten feet above the base the aquifer is 3.8 x 10 cm/sec.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
ASTM SIEVE NO.
2D0:Su.100
20
r*. eii sGRAIN DIAMETER (mm)
Figure 4. Typical Grain-size Distribution With Respect to Depth Below Water Table
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERC
ENT
FINE
R
14
Table 3
Results of In-Situ Permeability Tests
Well No.
Screen Height Above Base of Aquifer ( f t )
Permeabi1i ty (cm/sec)
2 15 *4.00 x 10"33 14 3.46 x 10"3
7B 11 9.51 x 10“47C 1 4.63 x 10"48B 19 *4.24 x lO’ 39B 10 3.07 x 10”39C 0.5 9.81 x 10-4
10B 13.5 2.47 x 10"3IOC 1.5 7.88 x 10“411A 24 3.67 x 10"3
118 10 *2.55 x 10"312A 15.5 3.69 x 10"312B 7.5 1.06 x 10'313B 11 2.67 x 10"38C 0.9 1.49 x 10“3
11C 2.5 1.44 x 10"324A 19.0 5.73 x 10’ 324B 0.1 1.65 x 10“327A 24.6 4.87 x 10"327C 4.3 1.55 x 10-328C 5 9.15 x 10"430 2 1.55 x 10“3
33A 14 5.35 x 10"333B 1.5 1.67 x 10"3
* Average of two tests.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERM
EABI
LITY
(C
M/S
EC)
.006
.005
.004
.003
.002
.001
0 10 20
HEIGHT ABOVE AQUIFER BASE (FEET)
Figure 5. Permeability With Respect to Depth
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Previous Aquifer Pump Tests j
Two aquifer pump tests were performed in August, 1985. The two
tests were performed at the same location and were identical except
for the portion of the aquifer tested. Wells were constructed for
the tests in two-well clusters, with one well screened near the base
and one well screened in the upper portion of the aquifer. Four of
these clusters were constructed. The pumping well cluster was con
structed of 4-inch casing with 5-foot long screens. The monitoring
wells were constructed of 2-inch galvanized casing with 3-foot long
screens. Monitor well clusters were located 25 feet west, 25 feet
east, and 50 feet east of the pumping well cluster, respectively.
Water levels during the tests were monitored continuously in a ll
six monitor wells, as well as in the 4-inch well that was not being
pumped. Water levels in these seven wells were checked periodically
using the wetted-tape method to verify the accuracy of the continuous
water level recorders. The water level in the pumped well was also
periodically determined and recorded. The drawdowns measured from
the wells in the pumped portion of the aquifer were used to determine
the hydraulic characteristics of that portion of the aquifer, while
the water levels from the non-pumped portion were used to estimate
the ratio between vertical and horizontal permeability.
The wells were pumped at approximately 4 gallons per minute. At
this pumping rate, water levels in monitoring wells twenty-five feet
from the pumping well became relative ly stable about one hour after
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
pumping commenced, pgure 6 presents a semi-logarithmic plot of data
from the test conducted in the basal portion of the aquifer.
The results of the aquifer tests were evaluated using the
Boulton (1963) method for pumping at non-equilibrium conditions,
distance-drawdown straight-line techniques, and Theis (1935) curve-
f it t in g for the recovery data. The results of these two tests
revealed that in the area where the tests were performed, the trans
missivity of the upper portion of the aquifer ranges from 660 to 880
square feet per day ( f t /day), while the transmissivity of the basal2portion of the aquifer ranges from 104 to 158 f t /day. The storage
coefficient in the upper portion of the aquifer was calculated to be
0.09 while in the basal portion i t is 0.01 to 0.02. The aquifer at
this location is 22 feet thick; therefore, the aquifer tests result_2in a permeability of about 1.2 x 10 cm/sec in the upper portion and
-32.1 x 10 cm/sec in the basal portion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRAW
DOWN
(F
EET)
1.2
1.0
0.5
21012
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (HOURS)
Figure 6. 1985 Aquifer Test Plot
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
| FIELD METHODS
The aquifer being tested is outwash sediments consisting of fine
sands underlain by a thick clay formation. The wells were screened
at the bottom of the outwash deposits. A 2-inch diameter monitoring
well was drilled 10 to 25 feet away from the location of each purge
well to be used for this study. Soils information from the boring
for each monitoring well was used to design the purge well. The
purge wells were used for testing because they would accommodate a
submersible pump for the step-drawdown test. Three purge wells were
tested.
The wells tested consisted of 6-inch diameter casing and screen,
wells IW-1 and IW-2 with a 20-foot long screen and PW-6 with a
10-foot screen. After the wells were installed, they were developed
with compressed a ir . Periodically, the development was stopped and
the water level allowed to stabilize. A step-drawdown test was then
conducted to determine the well efficiency. After the water level
had fu lly stabilized, a slug test was performed. Upon completion of
the slug test, the well was developed further and the testing proce
dure repeated.
After testing was completed, the well was developed completely
to ensure peak efficiency during operation. After this final develop
ment, an aquifer test was performed. Water levels were monitored in
the pumped well and the nearby monitor well during pumping. Water
level data collected from the monitor well were used to calculate19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
accurate transmissivity, storage coefficient, and permeability
values.
Slug Tests
In-situ permeability tests, or slug tests, are single-well
aquifer tests in which a known quantity of water is injected into the
well. After the water is injected, the water level is monitored as
i t returns to the original static level.
Rapid measurement of the water level during the test is required
for wells in moderately permeable or very permeable formations. This
was accomplished through the use of a pressure transducer suspended
in the well linked to an electronic data logger. A SE1000B Environ
mental Data Logger was used for this investigation. This instrument
is manufactured by In -S itu , Inc. of Laramie, Wyoming. The pressure
transducer has a range of 0 to 10 pounds per square inch (psi). This
allows for monitoring of water levels with heads from 0 to 23 feet
above the transducer. This transducer/data logger system was c a li
brated to have an accuracy of +0.01 foot.
There are various methods of causing a slug of water to be
injected into a well. The method used involves in it ia lly applying a
constant vacuum to the well. This causes the water level within the
well to rise. After the flow into the well is stabilized, the vacuum
is released, creating the effect of an instantaneous injection of a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
slug of water. Of th | various methods available, this was determined
to be the most e ffic ien t.
Step-Drawdown Tests
Step-drawdown tests were performed to determine well efficiency.
A step-drawdown test is a single-well aquifer test in which the well
is pumped in three or more steps. The pumping rate is increased with
each successive step. The water level responses at each of the three
pumping rates are then compared to evaluate well efficiency. The
water levels were monitored using the same recording device used for
the slug tests.
A submersible pump was lowered into the well and placed near the
bottom of the well screen. The pressure transducer was then sus
pended above the pump intake. Water flow rates were controlled using
a gate valve. Flow rates were measured using an in -line flowmeter
accurate to 0.1 gallon per minute. The flow rate was periodically
checked using a 3.5 gallon bucket and a stopwatch. The gate valve
must be operated e ffic ien tly during the test so that the flow rates
can be quickly changed to the desired rate.
During the operation of the in it ia l step-drawdown test, i t
became apparent that the flow rate must be kept extremely low to
avoid developing the well during test, thus improving the well
efficiency and producing erroneous test results. I t was doubtful
that the low flow rates required (.5 to .75 gallons per minute) would
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
produce turbulent flow to a degree that would allow for accurate test
analysis. Because of these potential problems, the final step was
extended until the water level had stabilized. This allowed for
accurate determination of the well efficiency once the actual aquifer
transmissivity had been determined.
Well Development
Three slug tests were conducted on well IW-1. Test A was
conducted after the well was developed for 15 minutes, and the water
level had stabilized. Upon completing test A, the well was developed
for about 1.5 hours at which time the water produced from the well
was free of sand. However, the water s t i l l contained a large amount
of s i l t . Test B was then conducted after the water table had stabi
lized. After Test B, the well was pumped for about 2 hours at a rate
of approximately 15 gallons per minute (gpm). This pumping resulted
in s ilt-fre e water. The well was again a ir developed for about 30
minutes to remove a ll sand that may have been drawn into the well
during pumping, but settled to the bottom of the well rather than
being removed through the pump. The well was allowed to stabilize
overnight. Test C was performed the following morning.
Two slug tests were performed on well IW-2. Test A was con
ducted when the water level stabilized after approximately 20 minutes
of developing. After Test A, the well was a ir developed for approxi
mately two hours. The well was allowed to rest two days, before Test
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
B was performed. While the well was developed further after Test B
was performed, no additional slug tests were performed.
Four tests were performed on well PW-6. Test A was conducted
after approximately 25 minutes of a ir development and a rest period
to allow the water level to stab ilize . The well was then a ir
developed for about two hours. Following a lengthy rest period, Test
B was performed. The well was then further a ir developed for two
hours. After the water level had stabilized and Test C completed,
the well was pumped for one hour at a rate of approximately 15
gallons per minute. This pumping resulted in sand-free and rela
tive ly clear water. After pumping, the well was developed for an
additional two hours. Test D was conducted after the water level had
stabilized.
Pumping Test
Upon completion of well development, a one-hour aquifer test was
performed. This test was performed using the same submersible pump
used for the step-drawdown tests. Flow rates were kept constant
throughout the test using a single gate valve. The flow rates ranged
between 11 and 14 gallons per minute and were measured using an
in -line flowmeter accurate to 0.1 gallon per minute. The flow was
periodically checked using a 5-gallon bucket and a stopwatch. During
pumping, water levels were monitored in the purge well and in the
2-inch monitor well located nearby using the transducer/data logger
system previously described.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
The data gathered from the pumped well during this testing were
then used to determine the final specific capacity and efficiency of
the purge well. The water level response in the nearby monitoring
well allowed for an accurate calculation of the aquifer transmis
s iv ity near the purge well.
Pumping was discontinued after one hour because the water levels
were relatively stable. Based upon the water level response during
the 5-day aquifer test in 1985, extending the duration of pumping was
not expected to result in any significant additional drawdown (see
Figure 6).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DATA EVALUATION METHODS
Water level data were recorded and stored in the memory of an SE
1000 B Environmental Data Logger. The data was transferred to an IBM
PC computer via an RS-232 serial port and stored on floppy disks.
Software to fa c ilita te the data transfer was supplied by In-S itu ,
Inc. After transfer of the data to the PC, the data was edited using
PC-Write word processing software to format the data for import into
a Lotus f i le . Once the data are in the Lotus f i l e , the data can
easily be manipulated and graphed with the desired format and scale.
Programs were developed by the author for the IBM PC to calcu
late permeability and to evaluate the step-drawdown test data, and to
evaluate portions of the aquifer test and well efficiency calcula
tions.
Slug Tests
Data from the slug tests were manipulated and graphed using
Lotus spreadsheet software. The graphs were prepared so that the
data could be evaluated using the techniques described by Bouwer and
Rice (1976) and Hvorslev (1951). These are two of the available
analytical methods that can be used for calculating the permeability.
Other solutions are available; however, either they are curve-fitting
techniques, or they do not allow for partial penetration of the wells
or they do not allow for cases in which the aquifer is unconfined.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Bouwer and Rice (1976)
The Bouwer andjRice (1976) solution for evaluating slug test
data allows for situations in which the aquifer is not artesian and
the well does not fu lly penetrate the aquifer. Their equations are
based upon a modification of the Theim equation. The following
assumptions apply:
1. Drawdown (or mounding) of the water table around the well is
negligible. Thus, a ll flow in the aquifer is horizontal.
2. Flow above the water table can be ignored.
3. Head losses as the water enters the well are negligible.
4. The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic.
The water level data from the slug test is corrected so that the
difference between the original static water level and the water
level is known. This difference in water level at time "t" is
denoted as "yt ". A semi-log graph is then prepared which shows the
relationship of "y" (log scale) versus elapsed time (arithmetic
scale). The straight-line portion of this graph is determined. The
end point values of the straight-line are then substituted into an
equation along with well construction and aquifer thickness informa
tion to determine the horizontal permeability of the aquifer.
The equations of importance are:
[L T '1]rc 1n <V.> 1 In
K = 2L y * .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
for partia lly penetrating wells:
1.1l n (Re/ r W) =
A+B In [(D -H )/rw]
In (H /rw) L/r,w
-1 [dimensionless]
and i f D = H:
ln Re/ r w =
1,1
ln(H /rw) L/r,
-1
[dimensionless]
Where:L = length of well screen
y , yf = head difference at beginning and end points of the straight line portion of the graph
t , t - = time at the beginning and end points of the straight- line portion
Rg = effective radius over which y is dissipated rw = radial distance from well center to original undis
turbed aquiferr = radius of well casing cH = distance between static water level and the base of the
screenD = aquifer thickness
A, B & C = dimensionless coefficients that are a function of l / r and are determined graphically
Hvorslev (1951)
Hvorslev's case G is applicable to wells that are partia lly
penetrating as long as the confining strata are fa r above or below
the screen. The method is applicable under both confined and uncon
fined aquifer conditions. Hvorslev's equation requires the ratio of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
horizontal versus vertical permeability. This is rarely known;
howevjer, the ratio can often be estimated.
Hvorslev noted that flow of water into or from an observation
well w ill occur until the pressure d ifferential between the formation
and the well is eliminated. This pressure d ifferential exists when a
slug of water is injected or removed from a well during a slug test.
Hvorslev defined the time required to equalize the pressure i f the
original inflow rate were maintained as the basic time lag, T. The
magnitude of the basic time lag is dependent upon well construction
and is inversely proportional to aquifer permeability. The basic
time lag is determined graphically from a semi-logarithmic plot of
residual hydraulic head (logarithmic) versus time (arithm etic). The
basic time lag is defined as the time, T, when residual hydraulic
head (h/hQ) = 0.37.
The equation of importance is:
_ d2 ln ~5~2 mL-
[ L f 1]r, _ u i n
h 8TTWhere:
d = diameter of well casing L = length of openings in well screen D = diameter of well screen m = transformation ratio ; m = (k^/ky)0,5 T = basic time lag
h = horizontal permeabilityky = vertical permeabilityh„ = in it ia l head d ifferential from static oh = head d ifferen tia l from static at time t
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Step-Drawdown Tests
Data obtained from the step-drawdown tests were evaluated using
procedures described by Jacob (1947). Jacob proposed that drawdown
in a pumped well has two components, a first-order (laminar) compo
nent and a second-order (turbulent) component. The sum of these two
components of drawdown are related to the drawdown observed in a
pumped well by the following equation:
s = BQ + CQ2
Where:
s = drawdown in well
B = head loss constant associated with laminar flow
C = head loss constant associated with turbulent flow
These equations assume that turbulent flow exists and that the
efficiency of the wells remains constant throughout the test. In
most of the tests during this study, one or both of these assumptions
were not met due to the fact that: (a) the well efficiency improved
during pumping, and .(b) the low flow rates that were required to
reduce well development during pumping like ly produced very l i t t le
turbulent flow.
The above mentioned discrepancies from the theoretical assump
tions resulted in erroneous calculations of C and B. Therefore,
step-drawdown test data was not used to determine well efficiency.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Predicted versus Actual Drawdown
Due to the in ab ility of the step-drawdown tests to accurately
determine well efficiency, well efficiency was determined based upon
the results of the aquifer pump tests. This was possible since the
last step of each step-drawdown test was continued until the water
level became relatively stable, thus nearly reaching equilibrium
conditions.
Local transmissivity and storage coefficient values were deter
mined using the data collected during the aquifer pumping tests
performed on each of the three wells. These values were then used to
determine the theoretical drawdown that should occur in the pumped
well i f the well were 100% e ffic ie n t using the method described by
Theis (1935). The equations of importance are:
Where:W(u) = well function determined from tables of values
After determination of the theoretical drawdown, the well
efficiency was determined by dividing the theoretical drawdown by the
actual drawdown.
q w(u)4iTT CL]
and
[dimensionless]
of the relationship to u as defined by Theis r = radius of the pumped well T = transmissivity S = storage coefficient
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Pumping Tests
Boulton's jl963) Method
Analysis of pump test data in an unconfined aquifer with flow in
an unsteady state may be performed u tiliz in g the method developed by
Boulton (1963). This technique is a curve matching procedure in
which a logarithmic plot of drawdown versus time is matched to a type
curve to determine the transmissivity and specific yield of the
aquifer.
Boulton's method of analysis assumes the following conditions
are fu lf ille d :
1. The aquifer is in fin ite in areal extent.
2. The aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, and of uniformthickness.
3. The aquifer is unconfined.
4. The water table is horizontal before pumping exists.
5. Pumping is at a constant rate.
6. The pumping well fu lly penetrates the aquifer, and waterflows horizontally toward the screen over its entire length.
7. Flow to the well is in an unsteady state.
8. The diameter of the well is small (well storage can beneglected.)
A family of type curves is plotted on logarithmic graph paperp
(4'JYTs/Q versus 4Tt/r S) for various values of r/b . The portion le f t
of the break in the curves is the Type A curve and is described as W
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
(uA,n) versus l/u a. The right portion of the graph is the Type B
curve described as W(uB,n) versus l/u b. Logarithmic time-drawdown
plots are prepared on graph paper of the same scale as the type
curves. These plots are then overlain and a match point selected.
For convenience, match points should be selected such that 41YTs/Q 2
and 4Tt/r S equal 1.0. The match point is defined by values of
4'HTs/Q, 4T t/r2S, t and s.
Assuming the ma1;ch point is selected such that 4ffTs/Q and 24T t/r S equal 1.0, the equations of importance are:
Q = well discharge b = aquifer (saturated) thickness T = transmissivityr = distance from pumped well to observation well s = drawdown in observation well S = storage coefficient t = time
Time-Drawdown Evaluation
The hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer were also evaluated
using the time-drawdown straight-line method (Cooper and Jacob,
1946). There are three segments of a semi-logarithmic plot of time
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T = -9—41Ys
and
[dimensionless]
Where
(logarithmic) versus drawdown (arithm etic). The f ir s t segment
displays an increasing slope during the early stages of pumping as
the cone of depression deepens quickly. During the second stage of
pumping, the cone of depression increases radially. During this
stage of pumping, the semi-log plot of time versus drawdown exhibits
a constant slope. The plot w ill eventually level o ff as the aquifer
reaches equilibrium.
To use this time-drawdown analytical technique, the slope of the
straight-line segment must be determined. The change in drawdown per
log cycle can then be used to calculate the transmissivity of the
aquifer using the following equation:
This equation can be manipulated so that when the pumping rate
is expressed in gallons per minute, drawdown in feet and transmis
s iv ity in gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft), the equation becomes:
From this same data, the specific yield of the aquifer can be
determined using the Theis (1935) method. The equations of impor
tance are:
2.3 Q T = 4̂ 0* a s
Where:T = transmissivity Q = pumping rate
As = change in drawdown per log cycle
264 Q T = As
TsW(u) = 114.6 Q [dimensionless]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
and
TutS = j g7 r2 [dimensionless]
Where:
W(u) = well function
u = determined from tables based on Theis curve
t = time since pumping began
r = distance of observation well from pumping well
S = specific yield
I t should also be noted that since the aquifer is in an uncon
fined condition, drawdown values were corrected to their artesian
equivalent using Jacob's equation which states that s = s ' - (s ' /2b)
where s' is the observed drawdown and s is the artesian equivalent
drawdown.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
RESULTS
Slug Tests
The data obtained from the slug tests were evaluated using both
the Bouwer and Rice and Hvorslev methods of data analysis. The well
configuration and the aquifer dimensions at each location are listed
below in Table 4.
Table 4
Pertinent Well and Aquifer Data for Slug Tests
WellID
AquiferThickness
Depth of Screen Bottom
Below Water Table
ScreenLength
Di ameter of Casing
Diameter of Gravel Pack
IW-1 28.45 27.45 20 0.51 1.25
IW-2 27.32 26.32 20 0.51 1.25
PW-6 29.10 28.10 10 0.51 1.25
NOTE: All dimensions are expressed in feet.
Well IW-1
Semi-logarithmic plots of time versus drawdown used for the
Bouwer and Rice method for a ll three tests on IW-1 are shown in
Figure 7. As previously described, the Bouwer and Rice method
determines permeability based upon the slope of the straight-line
portion of the graph. As shown in Figure 7, the slope of test B is35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
greater than that of test A and the slope of test C is greater than
the slope of test B. Hence, permeability calculated with the Bouwer
and Rice equation w ill increase between tests A and B and between
tests B and C.
Semi-logarithmic plots of time versus residual drawdown used for
the Hvorslev method are shown in Figure 8. The Hvorslev equation
includes the variable T, or Basic Time Lag. This is the time at
which residual drawdown (H/HQ) equals 0.37. As shown in Figure 8,
Basic Time Lag decreases from test A to test B and from test B to
test C. Permeability calculated using the Hvorslev equation is
inversely proportional to the Basic Time Lag; hence, the calculated
permeability w ill increase from test A to test B and from test B to
test C.
Detailed plots of each test showing a ll data points are pre
sented in Appendix A. Values used in the Bouwer and Rice equation as
well as values used in the Hvorslev equation are shown in Table 5.
Note that the dimensions of the aquifer and well can be found in
Table 4. These data result in the permeability values reported in
Table 6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF DR
AWDO
WN
(FEE
T)
37
1
0
1
TEST CTEST A
TEST B2
8006000 400200
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 7. Data Plots for Bouwer and Rice Method: IW-1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF H/
Ho
38
0
H/Ho=0.37
1
2
TEST C TEST A
TEST B
3200 8006004000
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 8. Data Plots for Hvorslev Method: IW-1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Table 5Values Used for Permeability Calculations: Well IW-1
Bouwer & Rice Hvorslev
TestT. Ya T- o o f
(sec) ( f t ) (sec)Yf
( f t ) A B V Kv
Basic Time Lag
(sec)
A 24.0 3 .94 329.0 0 .38 2 .8 0 .42 10 86.5
B 24.0 3 .38 209.0 0 .22 2 .8 0 .42 10 44.5
C 2 4 .0 3 .25 149.0 0 .25 2 .8 0 .42 10 35.6
Table 6
Results of In-Situ Permeability Tests: Well IW- 1
Test Method ft/sec GPD/ft2 cm/sec
A Bouwer/Rice 3.51x10"® 2.27X101 1 .0 7 x l0 "3
B Bouwer/Rice 6.77x10”® 4.38X101 2 .0 6 x l0 "3
C Bouwer/Rice 9.40x10"® 6.07X101 2.87x10"®
A Hvorslev 9.06x10"® 5.85X101 2.76x10"®
B Hvorslev 1 .7 6 x l0 "4 1.14X102 5.37x10"®
C Hvorslev 2 .2 0 x l0 "4 1 .42x l02 6.71x10"®
Well IW-2
Semi-logarithmic plots of time versus drawdown for both tests
conducted on IW-2 are presented in Figure 9. Semi-logarithmic plots
of time versus residual drawdown are shown in Figure 10. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
relationship between tests A and B for plots for both methods is
similar to that described for well IW-1. Thus, the calculated
permeability w ill increase from test A to test B using both the
Bouwer and Rice method and the Hvorslev equation. Detailed plots of
each test showing a ll data points are presented in Appendix A.
Values used in the Bouwer and Rice equation and the values used
in the Hvorslev equation are shown in Table 7. The dimensions of the
aquifer and well are in Table 4. These data result in permeability
values as reported in Table 8.
Table 7
Values Used for Permeability Calculations: Well IW-2
Bouwer & Rice Hvorslev
TestTo
(sec)' Yo
( f t )Tf
(sec)Yf
( f t ) A B V Kv
Basic Time Lag
(sec)
A 24.0 4.56 719.0 0.49 2.8 0.42 10 241B 23.6 3.60 328.6 0.07 2.8 0.42 10 58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
oQ
oU .oC3o
0
TEST A
1
TEST B
210000 500
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 9. Data Plots for Bouwer and Rice Method: IW-2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF H/
Ho
42
0
H/Ho=0.37
1
TEST A
2
TEST B
1000500
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 10. Data Plots for Hvorslev Method: IW-2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Table 8Results of In-Situ Permeability Tests: Well IW-2
Test Method ft/sec GPD/ft2 cm/sec
A Bouwer/Rice 1.46xl0"5 9.44x10° 4.45xl0"4B Bouwer/Rice 5.87x10-5 3.79X101 1.79xl0~3A Hvorslev 3.25xl0-5 2.10X101 9.91X10’4B Hvorslev 1.35x10-4 8.73X101 4.12xl0-3
Well PW-6
Semi-logarithmic plots of time versus drawdown for the four
tests on PW-6 are shown in Figure 11. Semi-logarithmic plots of time
versus residual drawdown are shown in Figure 12. Again, the
relationship between successive test plots for both methods is
similar to the relationship between successive tests on wells IW-1
and IW-2. Thus, as seen in testing of wells IW-1 and IW-2, the
calculated permeability increased between successive tests. Detailed
plots of individual tests can be found in Appendix A.
Values used in the Bouwer and Rice equation as well as those
used for Hvorslev's method are presented in Table 9. The dimensions
of the aquifer and the well are in Table 4. These data result in the
permeability values reported in Table 10.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF DR
AWDO
WN
(FEE
T)
44
1
0
TEST A
-1
TEST D TEST C
2300020001000
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 11. Data Plots for Bouwer and Rice Method: PW-6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF H/
Ho
45
H/Ho=0.37
TEST B
TEST A
- 2 -
TEST DTEST C
30001000 20000
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Figure 12. Data Plots for Hvorslev Method: PW-6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Table 9Values Used for Permeability Calculations: Well PW-6
Bouwer & Rice Hvorslev
TestTo
(sec)Yo
( f t )V
(sec)Yf
( f t ) A B V Kv
Basic Time Lag
(sec)
A 148.4 4.64 1258.4 1.04 2.3 0.3 10 582
B 148.4 2.97 598.4 1.57 2.3 0.3 10 535
C 148.4 2.29 838.4 0.06 2.3 0.3 10 115
D 118.8 1.99 658.8 0.03 2.3 0.3 10 106
Table 10
Results of In-Situ Permeability Tests: Well PW-6
Test Method ft/sec GPD/ft2 cm/sec
A Bouwer/Rice 1.09xl0“5 7.04x10° 3.32xl0"4B Bouwer/Rice 1.15xl0"5 7.43x10° 3.51xl0’4C Bouwer/Rice 4.27xl0'5 2.76X101 1.30xl0“3D Bouwer/Rice 6.28xl0"5 4.06X101 1.91xl0“3A Hvorslev 2.31X10"5 1.49x10* 7.04xl0"4B Hvorslev 2.51X10-5 1.62x10* 7.65xl0’4C Hvorslev 1.17xl0"4 7.54X101 3.56xl0-3D Hvorslev 1.27xl0"4 8.18X101 3.86xl0-3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Summary
The results of a ll tests of the three wells are presented graph
ica lly in Figure 13. As can be seen from this graph, permeability
values determined from the in-situ permeability tests increase
throughout the well development process.
Pumping Tests
Accurate values of permeability to evaluate the accuracy of the
slug test results were obtained by conducting aquifer pump tests.
Data from the monitor well collected during the aquifer pump test at
each location were analyzed using Boulton's method. While the
logarithmic plots of drawdown versus time matched the general shape
of the Boulton type curve, a reasonable curve match was d iffic u lt to
obtain.
The semi-logarithmic plot of drawdown versus time was analyzed
using the straight-line method. Data collected from the monitor well
and the pumped well were analyzed using this technique. The results
of both methods were then compared.
Well IW-1
Data collected from the monitor well 12.7 feet away from IW-1
during the aquifer pump test were analyzed using Boulton's method. A
good f i t of the data curve with the Boulton type curve could not be
obtained; therefore, the values of transmissivity and specific yield
calculated by this method were not accurate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PERM
EABI
LITY
(C
M/S
EC)
.007
.006-
.005-
.004 -
003
.002-
001
— I---------- 1---------1— — I-------TB C A B
IW-1 IW-2□ BOUWER AND RICE
Figure 13. Results of Slug Tests
i i r iA B C D
PW-6+ HVORSLEV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
The sem1-logarithm1c plot of time versus drawdown in the monitor
well used in the Cooper and Jacob method is presented in Figure 14.
The values of transmissivity and specific yield calculated by this 2method are 600 f t /day and 0.02, respectively. A permeability of
_37.44 x 10 cm/sec is calculated from this transmissivity value.
The semi-logarithmic plot of time versus drawdown during pumping
in the pumped well was analyzed using the Cooper and Jacob method.
Due to the additional drawdown in a pumped well caused by well
losses, the resulting transmissivity was 1/7 of the transmissivity
calculated from monitor well data.
All of the data from the aquifer test, as well as detailed
plots, are presented in Appendix B.
Well IW-2
Data were collected during the aquifer pump test from the
monitor well located 27 feet away from IW-2. A relative ly good f i t
was obtained between the Boulton type B curve and the logarithmic
plot of time versus drawdown (see Figure 15). This plot and the2selected match point resulted in a transmissivity of 1,175 f t /day
and a specific yield of 0.31.
The semi-logarithmic plot of time versus drawdown presented in2Figure 16 resulted in a calculated transmissivity of 1,198 f t /day
and a specific yield of 0.02. This is very consistent with the
transmissivity values obtained using Boulton's method. Permeability-2calculated from this transmissivity is 1.42 x 10 cm/sec.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRAW
DOWN
(F
EET)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 . 2
0
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (MIN)
Q=11.54 gpm
Figure 14. Semi-Logarithmic Aquifer Test Plot: IW-1 (12.7 Feet From pumped Well)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
oo?ao
oo
1
0
MATCH POINT-1
2
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (MINUTES)
Match Point:
4 *T s ^ — ■ 1.0
_4JLr 2S
1.0
t > 302 min s =0.15 feet
r - 27.0 feetQ = 11.54 gpm
Figure 15. Logarithmic Aquifer Test Plot: IW-2 (27.0 Feet From pumped Well)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRAW
DOWN
(F
EET)
52
0.3
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (MINUTES)
Q=ll.54 gpm
Figure 16. Semi-Logarithmic Aquifer Test Plot: IW-2 (27.0 Feet From pumped Well)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
The Cooper and Jacob method was used to analyze data from the
pumped well during the pumping portion of the test. Again, due to
well losses, the transmissivity calculated from these data was about
1/8 of the transmissivity calculated from monitor well data.
The data from the aquifer test, as well as detailed plots, are
presented in Appendix B.
Well PW-6
There was no monitor well located close enough to PW-6 to be
useful during the pump test; therefore, data to evaluate the
hydraulic properties of the aquifer were obtained from drawdown
measurements in PW-6. The measured drawdown is partia lly a result of
well losses caused by inefficiency of the well; therefore, the
resulting transmissivity w ill be lower than the true aquifer trans
missivity. The transmissivities calculated from the pumped well data
was 1/7 to 1/8 the value calculated from monitor well data at IW-1
and IW-2. This relationship was then used to correct the results
obtained from the water levels in the pumped well.
The data from PW-6 were evaluated using the Cooper and Jacob
method. The semi-logarithmic plot of time versus drawdown used for
this evaluation is shown in Figure 17. These data result in a2transmissivity of 55 f t / day. This value is much lower than that
expected based on previous data and from slug test data. The data
from the other two pumped wells during the pump tests resulted in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRAW
DOWN
(F
EET)
13
10
5
0
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (MIN)
Q=14.0 gpm
Figure 17. Semi-Logarithmic Aquifer Test Plot: PW-6 (Data From pumped Well)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
transmissivity values that were 7 to 8 times lower than those
obtained from the monitor wells; therefore,, the transmissivity
calculated from PW-6 was multiplied by 7.5 to obtain a value that was
more consistent with other data. This results in an accepted trans-2missivity near well PW-6 as 410 f t /day. The specific yield was
accepted as 0.02.
Aquifer test data and detailed plots are presented in Appendix
B.
The values of transmissivity during this study are higher than
the value reported from the aquifer test conducted in 1985. This is
explainable since the 1985 aquifer test was conducted in an area that
had been used for sludge disposal for many years which has resulted
in plugging of the aquifer at that location.
Well Efficiency
The well efficiency at the time of each slug test calculated
using the data from step-drawdown tests resulted in erroneous values.
In several cases C was negative, thus indicating that the well
efficiency improved throughout the test. The low flow rates also
lik e ly resulted in very l i t t l e turbulent flow.
Due to the uncertainty of the step drawdown test results, well
efficiencies were calculated by comparing the theoretical drawdown
calculated using the transmissivity values obtained during the
aquifer pump tests with the actual drawdown. As expected, the well
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
efficiency improved throughout development. The results of the well
efficiency calculations are presented below in Table 11.
Table 11
Well Efficiencies
Well Test
PumpingRate
(gpm)TheoreticalDrawdown
ActualDrawdown Efficiency
IW-1 A 1.25 0.32 1.26 25.4%B 2.88 0.74 1.76 42.0%C 3.90 1.01 1.68 60.1%
IW-2 A 3.60 0.49 6.54 7.5%B 6.66 0.93 5.69 16.3%
PW-6 A 1.30 0.49 6.60 7.4%B 0.85 0.32 3.16 9.8%C 2.83 1.03 4.86 21.2%D 1.95 0.71 2.33 30;5%
Relationship Between Slug Test and Aquifer Test Results
The transmissivity values calculated from the aquifer pump tests
were converted to permeability values based upon the local saturated
thickness. These values were then accepted as the actual permeabil
ity of the aquifer at each location. In general, the values obtained
from the in it ia l test using the Bouwer and Rice technique were
between 3% and 14% of the theoretical value while the Hvorslev method
produced results that ranged between 6% and 37%. For la ter tests,
these values increased to 12% to 39% using the Bouwer and Rice method
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
and to 14% to 90% using the Hvorslev method. These results are shown
graphically in Figure 18. I t should be noted that after the last
test was performed, the wells were further developed to ensure peak
efficiency during operation; however, i t was not possible to test any
of the wells after the final development.
At wells IW-1 and IW-2, slug tests were performed on the
adjacent monitor well. The monitor wells were developed using
development techniques beyond those normally used on small diameter
monitor wells. They were rod pumped at 10 to 12 gallons per minute
(gpm) until the water was free of sand and s i l t . The wells were then
pumped at 15 gpm for an additional hour. Using this technique, the
wells are more extensively developed than normally performed on a
monitor well. The permeability values from these wells should
therefore represent values from a monitor well at or near the upper
lim it of efficiency. The results of these slug tests as reported in
in Table 12 are roughly equivalent to the results from the final slug
test conducted on the purge well. Therefore, the values reported in
this study are considered to be equivalent to the range of results
that would be obtained from typical monitor wells.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SLUG
TE
ST/A
QUIF
ER
TEST
RE
SULT
58
0.5
0B DCA A AC BB
IW-l IW-2 PW-6
□ BOUWER AND RICE + HVORSLEV
Figure 18. Accuracy of Slug Test Results
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Table 12Results of Slug Tests on Monitor Wells
Bouwer & Rice Hvorslev (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
IW-1 Test C 2.87 x 10"3 6.71 x 1(T3Monitor Well 3.24 x 10"3 7.29 x 10~3Aquifer Test 7.44 x 10"3
IW-2 Test B 1.79 x 10”3 4.12 s 10"3Monitor Well 4.54 x l ( f 3 8.62 x 10"3Aquifer Test 1.42 x 10-2
Relationship Between Slug Tests and Well Efficiency
Bouwer and Rice
Accuracy of the slug test results and well efficiency were
compared to determine i f a consistent relationship exists. The
relationship between accuracy o f the Bouwer and Rice results and well
efficiency is shown graphically in Figure 19. As shown in this
figure, a linear relationship exists between the two values. A
linear regression performed for these data is also shown in Figure
19. This linear regression very closely approximates a one to one
relationship between the two values. The discrepancy from this
relationship is small enough that errors in data calculation and
reporting could account for the discrepancy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
WELL
EF
FICI
ENCY
60
100%
60%
20%-
0.5 1.00
SLUG TEST/AQUIFER TEST RESULT
Figure 19. Relationship Between Bouwer and Rice Results and Well Efficiency
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Based upon these data, the accuracy of the results obtained from
in -situ permeability tests calculated using the Bouwer and Rice
technique is equal to the well efficiency. Hence, i f the efficiency
of a monitor well could be determined at the time of testing, the
resulting value could be corrected so that i t more accurately
predicts the aquifer permeability.
Hvorslev
The accuracy of the results of the slug tests using the Hvorslev
method was compared with the well efficiency. This relationship is
shown graphically in Figure 20. Once again, a linear relationship
exists between these two variables. The linear regression fo r this
relationship is also presented in Figure 20. While a direct one to
one relationship does not exist in this case, the regression approxi
mates the line defined as y = 0.5x. Hence, the accuracy of the slug
test data using the Hvorslev method was approximately double that of
the well efficiency in this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
WELL
EF
FICI
ENCY
62
100%
80%
20%
SLUG TEST/AQUIFER TEST RESULT
Figure 20. Relationship Between Hvorslev Results and Well Efficiency
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CONCLUSION
Slug Tests
The results of this study have shown that a linear relationship
exists between the accuracy of the results of slug tests and the
efficiency of the well being tested. The equation defining the
regression of the relationship between well efficiency and the
accuracy of the slug tests based upon the Bouwer and Rice method is
not equal to that defining the relationship with the accuracy of the
Hvorslev method.
Due to the relationship with efficiency, i t is not correct to
assume slug tests produce true values of permeability since no well
is 100% e ffic ie n t. I f the efficiency of the well would be deter
mined, the results of the slug tests could be corrected so that they
represent a more accurate value of the aquifer permeability.
I t should be noted that the relationships presented in this
paper represent the results of evaluation of data from this single
test s ite . While these relationships should remain linear at other
sites with different well and aquifer configurations, the equations
defining these relationships may vary.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Recommendation for Future Research
An accurate calculation of well efficiency using present tech
niques requires testing of the well which is more extensive than that
required for slug tests. These tests would require pumping of water
from the well and would have the same drawbacks as aquifer pumping
tests described in the introduction of this paper. This testing
eliminates the advantages of slug tests which are quick and inexpen
sive. A method needs to be developed which would allow well
efficiency to be calculated using simple and inexpensive fie ld
testing procedures.
The results of this study are based on data collected from one
site with the same aquifer and well configurations. While the
relationship defined by this paper has been detected and qualita
tive ly evaluated at other sites with various aquifer types and well
configurations, the relationships have not been quantified. The same
type of testing and evaluation presented in this paper should be
conducted at other sites to evaluate i f a consistent relationship
exists throughout a ll aquifer types and well configurations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
SLUG TEST DATA
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/H
o LO
G OF
DR
AWDO
WN
0T
)67
IW -1: TEST A901M ER AND RICE FUCHS1
aa0 6
0 4
0.2
0•02
0 8
1- 1.2
1.4
1.6
1.80 80 0200 600
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
IW—1 r TEST AHVORSLEV PLOT
•02
•0 4
•0 5
•08
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-22
•2 4
8 0 0600200ELAPSED TIM E (SECONDS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
68WELL: IW1
SLUG TEST: ACORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF
TIME VALUE TIME VALUE VALUE H/Ho H/Ho(MIN) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (FT)
0 -3.060.0033 -3.050.0066 -3.310.0099 -5.620.0133 -8.510.0166 -9.41 0 6.35 0.802773 1 6.1E-17
0.02 -8.22 0.204 5.16 0.712649 0.812598 -0.090120.0233 -7.6 0.402 4.54 0.657055 0.714960 -0.145710.0266 -8.18 0.6 5.12 0.709269 0.806299 -0.09350
0.03 -8.42 0.804 5.36 0.729164 0.844094 -0.073600.0333 -8.07 1.002 5.01 0.699837 0.788976 -0.10293
0.05 -7.98 2.004 4.92 0.691965 0.774803 -0.110800.0666 -7.94 3 4.88 0.688419 0.768503 -0.114350.0833 -7.87 4.002 4.81 0.682145 0.757480 -0.12062
0.1 -7.8 5.004 4.74 0.675778 0.746456 -0.126990.1166 -7.74 6 4.68 0.670245 0.737007 -0.132520.1333 -7.69 7.002 4.63 0.665580 0.729133 -0.13719
0.15 -7.64 8.004 4.58 0.660865 0.721259 -0.141900.1666 -7.59 9 4.53 0.656098 0.713385 -0.146670.1833 -7.54 10.002 4.48 0.651278 0.705511 -0.15149
0.2 -7.49 11.004 4.43 0.646403 0.697637 -0.156360.2166 -7.45 12 4.39 0.642464 0.691338 -0.160300.2333 -7.4 13.002 4.34 0.637489 0.683464 -0.16528
0.25 -7.36 14.004 4.3 0.633468 0.677165 -0.169300.2666 -7.32 15 4.26 0.629409 0.670866 -0.173360.2833 -7.29 16.002 4.23 0.626340 0.666141 -0.17643
0.3 -7.25 17.004 4.19 0.622214 0.659842 -0.180550.3166 -7.21 18 4.15 0.618048 0.653543 -0.184720.3333 -7.18 19.002 4.12 0.614897 0.648818 -0.187870.4167 -7 24.006 3.94 0.595496 0.620472 -0.20727
0.5 -6.83 29.004 3.77 0.576341 0.593700 -0.226430.5833 -6.68 34.002 3.62 0.558708 0.570078 -0.244060.6667 -6.53 39.006 3.47 0.540329 0.546456 -0.26244
0.75 -6.39 44.004 3.33 0.522444 0.524409 -0.280320.8333 -6.25 49.002 3.19 0.503790 0.502362 -0.298980.9167 -6.13 54.006 3.07 0.487138 0.483464 -0.31563
1 -6.01 59.004 2.95 0.469822 0.464566 -0.332951.0833 -5.89 64.002 2.83 0.451786 0.445669 -0.350981.1667 -5.78 69.006 2.72 0.434568 0.428346 -0.36820
1.25 -5.67 74.004 2.61 0.416640 0.411023 -0.386131.3333 -5.57 79.002 2.51 0.399673 0.395275 -0.403101.4166 -5.47 84 2.41 0.382017 0.379527 -0.42075
1.5 -5.37 89.004 2.31 0.363611 0.363779 -0.439161.5833 -5.27 94.002 2.21 0.344392 0.348031 -0.458381.6667 -5.17 99.006 2.11 0.324282 0.332283 -0.47849
1.75 -5.08 104.004 2.02 0.305351 0.318110 -0.49742
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.8333 -5 109.002 1.94 0.287801 0.305511 -0.514971.9167 -4.92 114.006 1.86 0.269512 0.292913 -0.53326
2 -4.85 119.004 1.79 0.252853 0.281889 -0.549922.5 -4.48 149.004 1.42 0.152288 0.223622 -0.65048
3 -4.18 179.004 1.12 0.049218 0.176377 -0.753553.5 -3.95 209.004 0.89 -0.05060 0.140157 -0.85338
4 -3.77 239.004 0.71 -0.14874 0.111811 -0.951514.5 -3.63 269.004 0.57 -0.24412 0.089763 -1.04689
5 -3.52 299.004 0.46 -0.33724 0.072440 -1.140015.5 -3.44 329.004 0.38 -0.42021 0.059842 -1.22299
6 -3.4 359.004 0.34 -0.46852 0.053543 -1.271296.5 -3.34 389.004 0.28 -0.55284 0.044094 -1.35561
7 -3.29 419.004 0.23 -0.63827 0.036220 -1.441047.5 -3.25 449.004 0.19 -0.72124 0.029921 -1.52402
8 -3.22 479.004 0.16 -0.79588 0.025196 -1.598658.5 -3.2 509.004 0.14 -0.85387 0.022047 -1.65664
9 -3.17 539.004 0.11 -0.95860 0.017322 -1.761389.5 -3.15 569.004 0.09 -1.04575 0.014173 -1.84853
10 -3.14 599.004 0.08 -1.09691 0.012598 -1.8996811 -3.1 659.004 0.04 -1.39794 0.006299 -2.2007112 -3.09 719.004 0.03 -1.52287 0.004724 -2.3256513 -3.08 779.004 0.02 -1.69897 0.003149 -2.5017414 -3.06 839.004 0 015 -3.06 899.004 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LD
GO
FH
/H©
LO
G OF
DR
AWDO
WN
fT)
70IW—1: TEST BBOIM ER AND RICC PLOTS
0.8
0.6
0 4
aa
02■04
>06
>08
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 100 200 300 430
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
IW -1: TEST BHVORSLEV PLOT
1.2
-2 83002001000
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71WELL: IW1
SLUG TEST: B
TIME(MIN)
VALUE(FT)
CORRECTTIME
(SEC)
CORRECTVALUE
(FT)
LOGVALUE
(FT)
LOG OF H/Ho H/Ho
0 1.70.0033 1.7 *0.0066 1.70.0099 0.150.0133 -2.520.0166 -4.32 0 6.03 0.780317 1 0
0.02 -4.23 0.204 5.94 0.773786 0.985074 -0.006530.0233 -3.34 0.402 5.05 0.703291 0.837479 -0.077020.0266 -3.22 0.6 4.93 0.692846 0.817578 -0.08747
0.03 -3.53 0.804 5.24 0.719331 0.868988 -0.060980.0333 -3.55 1.002 5.26 0.720985 0.872305 -0.05933
0.05 -3.27 2.004 4.98 0.697229 0.825870 -0.083080.0666 -3.15 3 4.86 0.686636 0.805970 -0.093680.0833 -3.05 4.002 4.76 0.677606 0.789386 -0.10271
0.1 -2.95 5.004 4.66 0.668385 0.772802 -0.111930.1166 -2.86 6 4.57 0.659916 0.757877 -0.120400.1333 -2.78 7.002 4.49 0.652246 0.744610 -0.12807
0.15 -2.69 8.004 4.4 0.643452 0.729684 -0.136860.1666 -2.62 9 4.33 0.636487 0.718076 -0.143820.1833 -2.54 10.002 4.25 0.628388 0.704809 -0.15192
0.2 -2.47 11.004 4.18 0.621176 0.693200 -0.159140.2166 -2.39 12 4.1 0.612783 0.679933 -0.167530.2333 -2.33 13.002 4.04 0.606381 0.669983 -0.17393
0.25 -2.26 14.004 3.97 0.598790 0.658374 -0.181520.2666 -2.19 15 3.9 0.591064 0.646766 -0.189250.2833 -2.13 16.002 3.84 0.584331 0.636815 -0.19598
0.3 -2.07 17.004 3.78 0.577491 0.626865 -0.202820.3166 -2.01 18 3.72 0.570542 0.616915 -0.209770.3333 -1.95 19.002 3.66 0.563481 0.606965 -0.216830.4167 -1.67 24.006 3.38 0.528916 0.560530 -0.25140
0.5 -1.42 29.004 3.13 0.495544 0.519071 -0.284770.5833 -1.18 34.002 2.89 0.460897 0.479270 -0.319410.6667 -0.97 39.006 2.68 0.428134 0.444444 -0.35218
0.75 -0.77 44.004 2.48 0.394451 0.411276 -0.385860.8333 -0.58 49.002 2.29 0.359835 0.379767 -0.420480.9167 -0.41 54.006 2.12 0.326335 0.351575 -0.45398
1 -0.26 59.004 1.97 0.294466 0.326699 -0.485851.0833 -0.1 64.002 1.81 0.257678 0.300165 -0.522631.1667 0.02 69.006 1.69 0.227886 0.280265 -0.55243
1.25 0.15 74.004 1.56 0.193124 0.258706 -0.587191.3333 0.27 79.002 1.44 0.158362 0.238805 -0.621951.4166 0.37 84 1.34 0.127104 0.222222 -0.65321
1.5 0.47 89.004 1.24 0.093421 0.205638 -0.686891.5833 0.57 94.002 1.14 0.056904 0.189054 -0.723411.6667 0.65 99.006 1.06 0.025305 0.175787 -0.75501
1.75 0.72 104.004 0.99 -0.00436 0.164179 -0.78468
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.8333 0.79 109.002 0.92 -0.03621 0.152570 -0.816521.9167 0.85 114.006 0.86 -0.06550 0.142620 -0.84581
2 0.91 119.004 0.8 -0.09691 0.132669 -0.877222.5 1.19 149.004 0.52 -0.28399 0.086235 -1.06431
3 1.37 179.004 0.34 -0.46852 0.056384 -1.248833.5 1.49 209.004 0.22 -0.65757 0.036484 -1.43789
4 1.57 239.004 0.14 -0.85387 0.023217 -1.634184.5 1.63 269.004 0.08 -1.09691 0.013266 -1.87722
5 1.66 299.004 0.05 -1.30102 0.008291 -2.081345.5 1.68 329.004 0.03 -1.52287 0.004975 -2.30319
6 1.7 359.004 0.01 -2 0.001658 -2.780316.5 1.7 389.004 0.01 -2 0.001658 -2.78031
7 1.71 419.004 0 07.5 1.71 449.004 0 0
8 1.71 479.004 0 08.5 1.71 509.004 0 0
9 1.71 539.004 0 09.5 1.71 569.004 0 0
10 1.71 599.004 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/H
©
LOG
OF
DRAW
DOW
N l)
T)
IW— 1: TEST CBOIM ER AND RICE PLOTS
Q80 6
0 4
02
•020 4
0 6
0 8 -
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
100 200 3000ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
IW -1: TEST CHVORSLEV PLOT
0020 4
>06
0 8
1- 1.2
1.4
»V
1.8
■222■24
-2 6
2 8
■3200100
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74WELL: IW1
SLUG TEST: C
TIME(MIN)
VALUE(FT)
CORRECTTIME
(SEC)
CORRECTVALUE
(FT)
LOGVALUE
(FT)
LOG OF H/Ho H/Ho
0 -5.310.0033 -5.30.0066 -5.310.0099 -7.110.0133 -10.50.0166 -12.03 0 6.72 0.827369 1 0
0.02 -12.03 0.204 6.72 0.827369 1 00.0233 * -10.76 0.402 5.45 0.736396 0.811011 -0.090970.0266 -10.91 0.6 5.6 0.748188 0.833333 -0.07918
0.03 -11.3 0.804 5.99 0.777426 0.891369 -0.049940.0333 -11.15 1.002 5.84 0.766412 0.869047 -0.06095
0.05 -10.86 2.004 5.55 0.744292 0.825892 -0.083070.0666 -10.71 3 5.4 0.732393 0.803571 -0.094970.0833 -10.57 4.002 5.26 0.720985 0.782738 -0.10638
0.1 -10.42 5.004 5.11 0.708420 0.760416 -0.118940.1166 -10.29 6 4.98 0.697229 0.741071 -0.130130.1333 -10.17 7.002 4.86 0.686636 0.723214 -0.14073
0.15 -10.05 8.004 4.74 0.675778 0.705357 -0.151590.1666 -9.93 9 4.62 0.664641 0.6875 -0.162720.1833 -9.82 10.002 4.51 0.654176 0.671130 -0.17319
0.2 -9.71 11.004 4.4 0.643452 0.654761 -0.183910.2166 -9.61 12 4.3 0.633468 0.639880 -0.193900.2333 -9.5 13.002 4.19 0.622214 0.623511 -0.20515
0.25 -9.4 14.004 4.09 0.611723 0.608630 -0.215640.2666 -9.31 15 4 0.602059 0.595238 -0.225300.2833 -9.22 16.002 3.91 0.592176 0.581845 -0.23519
0.3 -9.13 17.004 3.82 0.582063 0.568452 -0.245300.3166 -9.04 18 3.73 0.571708 0.555059 -0.255660.3333 -8.95 19.002 3.64 0.561101 0.541666 -0.266260.4167 -8.56 24.006 3.25 0.511883 0.483630 -0.31548
0.5 -8.21 29.004 2.9 0.462397 0.431547 -0.364970.5833 -7.9 34.002 2.59 0.413299 0.385416 -0.414060.6667 -7.63 39.006 2.32 0.365487 0.345238 -0.46188
0.75 -7.39 44.004 2.08 0.318063 0.309523 -0.509300.8333 -7.17 49.002 1.86 0.269512 0.276785 -0.557850.9167 -6.99 54.006 1.68 0.225309 0.25 -0.60205
1 -6.82 59.004 1.51 0.178976 0.224702 -0.648391.0833 -6.66 64.002 1.35 0.130333 0.200892 -0.697031.1667 -6.54 69.006 1.23 0.089905 0.183035 -0.73746
1.25 -6.42 74.004 1.11 0.045322 0.165178 -0.782041.3333 -6.31 79.002 1 0 0.148809 -0.827361.4166 -6.2 84 0.89 -0.05060 0.132440 -0.87797
1.5 -6.12 89.004 0.81 -0.09151 0.120535 -0.918881.5833 -6.04 94.002 0.73 -0.13667 0.108630 -0.964041.6667 -5.97 99.006 0.66 -0.18045 0.098214-1.00782
1.75 -5.91 104.004 0.6 -0.22184 0.089285 -1.04921
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.8333 -5.85 109.002 0.54 -0.26760 0.080357 -1.094971.9167 -5.79 114.006 0.48 -0.31875 0.071428 -1.14612
2 -5.75 119.004 0.44 -0.35654 0.065476 -1.183912.5 -5.56 149.004 0.25 -0.60205 0.037202 -1.42942
3 -5.45 179.004 0.14 -0.85387 0.020833 -1.681243.5 -5.39 209.004 0.08 -1.09691 0.011904 -1.92427
4 -5.36 239.004 0.05 -1.30102 0.007440 -2.128394.5 -5.34 269.004 0.03 -1.52287 0.004464 -2.35024
5 -5.33 299.004 0.02 -1.69897 0.002976 -2.526335.5 -5.32 329.004 0.01 -2 0.001488 -2.82736
6 -5.32 359.004 0.01 -2 0.001488 -2.827366.5 -5.31 389.004 0 0
7 -5.31 419.004 0 07.5 -5.31 449.004 0 0
8 -5.31 479.004 0 08.5 -5.31 509.004 0 0
9 -5.31 539.004 0 09.5 -5.31 569.004 0 0
10 -5.31 599.004 0 0799 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/Ho
LO
G OF
DR
AMVD
OWN
0T
)76
IW—2: TEST ABO IM ER AND RICE PLOTS
0 8
■02
•0 4
06
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 200 800E1APSED TIME (SECONDS)
IW—2: TEST AHVORSLEV PLOT
800600200
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77WELL: IW2
SLUG TEST: ACORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF
TIME VALUE TIME VALUE VALUE H/Ho H/Ho(MIN) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (FT)
0 0.290.0033 0.30.0066 0.30.0099 -1.480.0133 -4.120.0166 -5.55 0 5.85 0.767155 1 0
0.02 -4.92 0.204 5.22 0.717670 0.892307 -0.049480.0233 -4.59 0.402 4.89 0.689308 0.835897 -0.077840.0266 -4.87 0.6 5.17 0.713490 0.883760 -0.05366
0.03 -4.8 0.804 5.1 0.707570 0.871794 -0.059580.0333 -4.71 1.002 5.01 0.699837 0.856410 -0.06731
0.05 -4.71 2.004 5.01 0.699837 0.856410 -0.067310.0666 -4.67 3 4.97 0.696356 0.849572 -0.070790.0833 -4.65 4.002 4.95 0.694605 0.846153 -0.07255
0.1 -4.62 5.004 4.92 0.691965 0.841025 -0.075190.1166 -4.6 6 4.9 0.690196 0.837606 -0.076950.1333 -4.57 7.002 4.87 0.687528 0.832478 -0.07962
0.15 -4.55 8.004 4.85 0.685741 0.829059 -0.081410.1666 -4.53 9 4.83 0.683947 0.825641 -0.083200.1833 -4.51 10.002 4.81 0.682145 0.822222 -0.08501
0.2 -4.49 11.004 4.79 0.680335 0.818803 -0.086820.2166 -4.47 12 4.77 0.678518 0.815384 -0.088630.2333 -4.45 13.002 4.75 0.676693 0.811965 -0.09046
0.25 -4.43 14.004 4.73 0.674861 0.808547 -0.092290.2666 -4.42 15 4.72 0.673941 0.806837 -0.093210.2833 -4.4 16.002 4.7 0.672097 0.803418 -0.09505
0.3 -4.38 17.004 4.68 0.670245 0.8 -0.096910.3166 -4.36 18 4.66 0.668385 0.796581 -0.098760.3333 -4.34 19.002 4.64 0.666517 0.793162 -0.100630.4167 -4.26 24.006 4.56 0.658964 0.779487 -0.10819
0.5 -4.18 29.004 4.48 0.651278 0.765811 -0.115870.5833 -4.1 34.002 4.4 0.643452 0.752136 -0.123700.6667 -4.03 39.006 4.33 0.636487 0.740170 -0.13066
0.75 -3.95 44.004 4.25 0.628388 0.726495 -0.138760.8333 -3.88 49.002 4.18 0.621176 0.714529 -0.145970.9167 -3.8 54.006 4.1 0.612783 0.700854 -0.15437
1 -3.74 59.004 4.04 0.606381 0.690598 -0.160771.0833 -3.66 64.002 3.96 0.597695 0.676923 -0.169461.1667 -3.6 69.006 3.9 0.591064 0.666666-0.17609
1.25 -3.53 74.004 3.83 0.583198 0.654700 -0.183951.3333 -3.46 79.002 3.76 0.575187 0.642735 -0.191961.4166 -3.4 84 3.7 0.568201 0.632478 -0.19895
1.5 -3.33 89.004 3.63 0.559906 0.620512 -0.207241.5833 -3.27 94.002 3.57 0.552668 0.610256 -0.214481.6667 -3.21 99.006 3.51 0.545307 0.6 -0.22184
1.75 -3.15 104.004 3.45 0.537819 0.589743 -0.22933
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.8333 -3.09 109.002 3.39 0.530199 0.579487 -0.236951.9167 -3.04 114.006 3.34 0.523746 0.570940 -0.24340
2 -2.98 119.004 3.28 0.515873 0.560683 -0.251282.5 -2.67 149.004 2.97 0.472756 0.507692 -0.29439
3 -2.38 179.004 2.68 0.428134 0.458119 -0.339023.5 -2.13 209.004 2.43 0.385606 0.415384 -0.38154
4 -1.9 239.004 2.2 0.342422 0.376068 -0.424734.5 -1.69 269.004 1.99 0.298853 0.340170 -0.46830
5 -1.5 299.004 1.8 0.255272 0.307692 -0.511885.5 -1.33 329.004 1.63 0.212187 0.278632 -0.55496
6 -1.18 359.004 1.48 0.170261 0.252991 -0.596896.5 -1.05 389.004 1.35 0.130333 0.230769 -0.63682
7 -0.92 419.004 1.22 0.086359 0.208547 -0.680797.5 -0.81 449.004 1.11 0.045322 0.189743 -0.72183
8 -0.71 479.004 1.01 0.004321 0.172649 -0.762838.5 -0.62 509.004 0.92 -0.03621 0.157264 -0.80336
9 -0.54 539.004 0.84 -0.07572 0.143589 -0.842879.5 -0.47 569.004 0.77 -0.11350 0.131623 -0.88066
10 -0.4 599.004 0.7 -0.15490 0.119658 -0.9220512 -0.19 719.004 0.49 -0.30980 0.083760 -1.0769514 -0.05 839.004 0.35 -0.45593 0.059829 -1.2230816 0.03 959.004 0.27 -0.56863 0.046153 -1.3357918 0.1 1079.004 0.2 -0.69897 0.034188 -1.4661220 0.14 1199.004 0.16 -0.79588 0.027350 -1.5630322 0.17 1319.004 0.13 -0.88605 0.022222 -1.65321
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/H
o LO
G OF
DR
AWDO
WN
Ip)
IW—2: TEST BBOIMER AND RICE PLOTS
Q 8
0 6
Q 4
02
020 4
- 0 6
0 8
1.21.4
1.6
1.8
-24 0 0 6000 200
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
IW—2: TEST BHVORSLB/ PLOT
020 4
0 6
aa
1.2
1.4
- 1.6
1.8
•22
■24
2 6
-2 8200
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80WELL: IW2
SLUG TEST: BCORRECT CORRECT LOG
TIME VALUE TIME VALUE VALUE H/Ho(MIN) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (FT)
0 0.550.0033 0.560.0066 0.560.0099 0.560.0133 0.080.0166 -2.16
0.02 -4.450.0233 -5.49 0 6.02 0.779596 10.0266 -4.97 0.198 5.5 0.740362 0.913621
0.03 -4.26 0.402 4.79 0.680335 0.7956810.0333 -4.57 0.6 5.1 0.707570 0.847176
0.05 -4.48 1.602 5.01 0.699837 0.8322250.0666 -4.38 2.598 4.91 0.691081 0.8156140.0833 -4.31 3.6 4.84 0.684845 0.803986
0.1 -4.23 4.602 4.76 0.677606 0.7906970.1166 -4.15 5.598 4.68 0.670245 0.7774080.1333 -4.08 6.6 4.61 0.663700 0.765780
0.15 -4.01 7.602 4.54 0.657055 0.7541520.1666 -3.94 8.598 4.47 0.650307 0.7425240.1833 -3.88 9.6 4.41 0.644438 0.732558
0.2 -3.81 10.602 4.34 0.637489 0.7209300.2166 -3.75 11.598 4.28 0.631443 0.7109630.2333 -3.69 12.6 4.22 0.625312 0.700996
0.25 -3.63 13.602 4.16 0.619093 0.6910290.2666 -3.57 14.598 4.1 0.612783 0.6810630.2833 -3.51 15.6 4.04 0.606381 0.671096
0.3 -3.45 16.602 3.98 0.599883 0.6611290.3166 -3.39 17.598 3.92 0.593286 0.6511620.3333 -3.34 18.6 3.87 0.587710 0.6428570.4167 -3.07 23.604 3.6 0.556302 0.598006
0.5 -2.83 28.602 3.36 0.526339 0.5581390.5833 -2.6 33.6 3.13 0.495544 0.5199330.6667 -2.39 38.604 2.92 0.465382 0.485049
0.75 -2.2 43.602 2.73 0.436162 0.4534880.8333 -2.01 48.6 2.54 0.404833 0.4219260.9167 -1.85 53.604 2.38 0.376576 0.395348
1 -1.69 58.602 2.22 0.346352 0.3687701.0833 -1.54 63.6 2.07 0.315970 0.3438531.1667 -1.4 68.604 1.93 0.285557 0.320598
1.25 -1.28 73.602 1.81 0.257678 0.3006641.3333 -1.16 78.6 1.69 0.227886 0.2807301.4166 -1.05 83.598 1.58 0.198657 0.262458
1.5 -0.95 88.602 1.48 0.170261 0.2458471.5833 -0.85 93.6 1.38 0.139879 0.2292351.6667 -0.76 98.604 1.29 0.110589 0.214285
1.75 -0.68 103.602 1.21 0.082785 0.200996
LOG OF H/Ho
9.6E-17-0.03923-0.09926-0.07202-0.07975-0.08851-0.09475-0.10198-0.10935-0.11589-0.12254-0.12928-0.13515-0.14210-0.14815-0.15428-0.16050-0.16681-0.17321-0.17971-0.18631-0.19188-0.22329-0.25325-0.28405-0.31421-0.34343-0.37476-0.40301-0.43324-0.46362-0.49403-0.52191-0.55170-0.58093-0.60933-0.63971-0.66900-0.69681
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.8333 -0.6 108.6 1.13 0.053078 0.187707 -0.726511.9167 -0.52 113.604 1.05 0.021189 0.174418 -0.75840
2 -0.46 118.602 0.99 -0.00436 0.164451 -0.783962.5 -0.14 148.602 0.67 -0.17392 0.111295 -0.95352
3 0.07 178.602 0.46 -0.33724 0.076411 -1.116833.5 0.21 208.602 0.32 -0.49485 0.053156 -1.27444
4 0.31 238.602 0.22 -0.65757 0.036544 -1.437174.5 0.38 268.602 0.15 -0,82390 0.024916 -1.60350
5 0.43 298.602 0.1 -1 0.016611 -1.779595.5 0.46 328.602 0.07 -1.15490 0.011627 -1.93449
6 0.48 358.602 0.05 -1.30102 0.008305 -2.080626.5 0.49 388.602 0.04 -1.39794 0.006644 -2.17753
7 0.51 418.602 0.02 -1.69897 0.003322 -2.478567.5 0.51 448.602 0.02 -1.69897 0.003322 -2.47856
8 0.52 478.602 0.01 -2 0.001661 -2.779598.5 0.52 508.602 0.01 -2 0.001661 -2.77959
9 0.52 538.602 0.01 -2 0.001661 -2.779599.5 0.53 568.602 0 0
10 0.52 598.602 0.01 -2 0.001661 -2.7795911 0.53 658.602 0 012 0.53 718.602 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/H
o LO
G OF
DR
AWDO
WN
0T
)
PW—6: TEST ABO IM ER AND RICC PLOTS
0 8
060 4
02
-02
•0 4
-0 6
0 8
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 0 .4 0.8 1.61.2 2 .42 2.8(Thousand*))
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS))
P W —- 6 : T E S T AHVORSLE/ PLOT
-at•02■03
0 4
-as0 6
0 8
•09
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.52 .4 2.81.2 1.6
(Thousands)! ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
20.80 0 .4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83WELL: PW6
SLUG TEST: ACORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF
TIME VALUE TIME VALUE VALUE H/Ho H/Ho(MIN) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (FT)
0 0.460.0033 0.440.0066 0.450.0099 0.450.0133 0.440.0166 -0.09
0.02 -3.170.0233 -5.970.0266 -6.15 0 6.59 0.818885 1 9.6E-17
0.03 -5.46 0.204 5.9 0.770852 0.895295 -0.048030.0333 -5.75 0.402 6.19 0.791690 0.939301 -0.02719
0.05 -5.64 1.404 6.08 0.783903 0.922610 -0.034980.0666 -5.6 2.4 6.04 0.781036 0.916540 -0.037840.0833 -5.57 3.402 6.01 0.778874 0.911987 -0.04001
0.1 -5.54 4.404 5.98 0.776701 0.907435 -0.042180.1166 -5.52 5.4 5.96 0.775246 0.904400 -0.043630.1333 -5.5 6.402 5.94 0.773786 0.901365 -0.04509
0.15 -5.48 7.404 5.92 0.772321 0.898330 -0.046560.1666 -5.46 8.4 5.9 0.770852 0.895295 -0.048030.1833 -5.44 9.402 5.88 0.769377 0.892261 -0.04950
0.2 -5.43 10.404 5.87 0.768638 0.890743 -0.050240.2166 -5.41 11.4 5.85 0.767155 0.887708 -0.051720.2333 -5.4 12.402 5.84 0.766412 0.886191 -0.05247
0.25 -5.38 13.404 5.82 0.764922 0.883156 -0.053960.2666 -5.37 14.4 5.81 0.764176 0.881638 -0.054700.2833 -5.36 15.402 5.8 0.763427 0.880121 -0.05545
0.3 -5.35 16.404 5.79 0.762678 0.878603 -0.056200.3166 -5.33 17.4 5.77 0.761175 0.875569 -0.057700.3333 -5.32 18.402 5.76 0.760422 0.874051 -0.058460.4167 -5.27 23.406 5.71 0.756636 0.866464 -0.06224
0.5 -5.22 28.404 5.66 0.752816 0.858877 -0.066060.5833 -5.17 33.402 5.61 0.748962 0.851289 -0.069920.6667 -5.13 38.406 5.57 0.745855 0.845220 -0.07303
0.75 -5.08 43.404 5.52 0.741939 0.837632 -0.076940.8333 -5.03 48.402 5.47 0.737987 0.830045 -0.080890.9167 -4.99 53.406 5.43 0.734799 0.823975 -0.08408
1 -4.94 58.404 5.38 0.730782 0.816388 -0.088101.0833 -4.9 63.402 5.34 0.727541 0.810318 -0.091341.1667 -4.85 68.406 5.29 0.723455 0.802731 -0.09542
1.25 -4.8 73.404 5.24 0.719331 0.795144 -0.099551.3333 -4.76 78.402 5.2 0.716003 0.789074 -0.102881.4166 -4.72 83.4 5.16 0.712649 0.783004 -0.10623
1.5 -4.68 88.404 5.12 0.709269 0.776934 -0•109611.5833 -4.63 93.402 5.07 0.705007 0.769347 -0.113871.6667 -4.6 98.406 5.04 0.702430 0.764795 -0.11645
1.75 -4.55 103.404 4.99 0.698100 0.757207 -0.12078
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
841.8333 -4.51 108.4021.9167 -4.47 113.406
2 -4.43 118.4042.5 -4.2 148.404
3 -3.98 178.4043.5 -3.78 208.404
4 -3.59 238.4044.5 -3.41 268.404
5 -3.23 298.4045.5 -3.08 328.404
6 -2.92 358.4046.5 -2.77 388.404
7 -2.64 418.4047.5 -2.51 448.404
8 -2.38 478.4048.5 -2.27 508.404
9 -2.16 538.4049.5 -2.06 568.404
10 -1.96 598.40411 -1.76 658.40412 -1.59 718.40413 -1.46 778.40414 -1.3 838.40415 -1.17 898.40416 -1.05 958.40417 -0.95 1018.40418 -0.85 1078.40419 -0.77 1138.40420 -0.69 1198.40421 -0.6 1258.40422 -0.55 1318.40423 -0.48 1378.40424 -0.43 1438.40425 -0.37 1498.40426 -0.33 1558.40427 -0.29 1618.40428 -0.24 1678.40429 -0.21 1738.40430 -0.17 1798.40431 -0.14 1858.40432 -0.11 1918.40433 -0.08 1978.40434 -0.05 2038.40435 -0.03 2098.40436 0 2158.40437 0 2218.40438 0.03 2278.40439 0.04 2338.40440 0.05 2398.40441 0.07 2458.40442 0.09 2518.40443 0.1 2578.40444 0.11 2638.404
4.95 0.694605 0.751138 -0.12428 4.91 0.691081 0.745068 -0.12780 4.87 0.687528 0.738998 -0.13135 4.64 0.666517 0.704097 -0.15236 4.42 0.645422 0.670713 -0.17346 4.22 0.625312 0.640364 -0.193574.03 0.605305 0.611532 -0.21358 3.85 0.585460 0.584218 -0.23342 3.67 0.564666 0.556904 -0.25421 3.52 0.546542 0.534142 -0.27234 3.36 0.526339 0.509863 -0.292543.21 0.506505 0.487101 -0.31238 3.08 0.488550 0.467374-0.330332.95 0.469822 0.447647 -0.34906 2.82 0.450249 0.427921 -0.36863 2.71 0.432969 0.411229 -0.385912.6 0.414973 0.394537 -0.40391 2.5 0.397940 0.379362 -0.42094 2.4 0.380211 0.364188 -0.43867 2.2 0.342422 0.333839 -0.47646
2.03 0.307496 0.308042 -0.51138 1.9 0.278753 0.288315 -0.54013
1.74 0.240549 0.264036 -0.57833 1.61 0.206825 0.244309 -0.61205 1.49 0.173186 0.226100 -0.64569 1.39 0.143014 0.210925 -0.67587 1.29 0.110589 0.195751 -0.708291.21 0.082785 0.183611 -0.73610 1.13 0.053078 0.171471 -0.765801.04 0.017033 0.157814 -0.80185 0.99 -0.00436 0.150227 -0.82325 0.92 -0.03621 0.139605 -0.85509 0.87 -0.06048 0.132018 -0.87936 0.81 -0.09151 0.122913 -0.91040 0.77 -0.11350 0.116843 -0.93239 0.73 -0.13667 0.110773 -0.95556 0.68 -0.16749 0.103186 -0.98637 0.65 -0.18708 0.098634 -1.00597 0.61 -0.21467 0.092564 -1.03355 0.58 -0.23657 0.088012 -1.05545 0.55 -0.25963 0.083459 -1.07852 0.52 -0.28399 0.078907 -1.10288 0.49 -0.30980 0.074355 -1.12868 0.47 -0.32790 0.071320 -1.14678 0.44 -0.35654 0.066767 -1.17543 0.44 -0.35654 0.066767 -1.17543 0.41 -0.38721 0.062215 -1.206100.4 -0.39794 0.060698 -1.21682
0.39 -0.40893 0.059180 -1.22782 0.37 -0.43179 0.056145 -1.25068 0.35 -0.45593 0.053110 -1.27481 0.34-0.46852 0.051593 -1.28740 0.33 -0.48148 0.050075 -1.30037
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45 0.12 2698.404 0.32 -0.49485 0.048558 -1.3137346 0.13 2758.404 0.31 -0.50863 0.047040 -1.3275247 0.14 2818.404 0.3 -0.52287 0.045523 -1.3417648 0.15 2878.404 0.29 -0.53760 0.044006 -1.3564849 0.16 2938.404 0.28 -0.55284 0.042488 -1.3717250 0.17 2998.404 0.27 -0.56863 0.040971 -1.3875251 0.17 3058.404 0.27 -0.56863 0.040971 -1.3875252 0.17 3118.404 0.27 -0.56863 0.040971 -1.3875253 0.18 3178.404 0.26 -0.58502 0.039453 -1.4039154 0.19 3238.404 0.25 -0.60205 0.037936 -1.4209455 0.19 3298.404 0.25 -0.60205 0.037936 -1.42094
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/H
o LO
G OF
DR
AWDO
WN
fT)
86P W -6: TEST B
BOIMER ifND RICC PLOTS
aa
Q 4
02
•02
■04
06■aa
1.2
•1.4
1.6
i.a
1.20 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 1.4(Thousands)
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
PW -6: TEST BHVORSLEV PLOT
■Ol
02
as
0 4
as
•aao.a0.60 .4
(Thousands) ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
0.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87WELL: PW6
SLUG TEST: BCORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF
TIME VALUE TIME VALUE VALUE H/Ho H/Ho(MIN) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (FT)
0 -1.170.0033 -1.170.0066 -1.170.0099 -1.170.0133 -1.170.0166 -1.18
0.02 -2.590.0233 -4.50.0266 -5.75 0
0.03 -5.62 0.2040.0333 -4.97 0.402
0.05 -5.21 1.4040.0666 -5.15 2.40.0833 -5.12 3.402
0.1 -5.09 4.4040.1166 -5.08 5.40.1333 -5.05 6.402
0.15 -5.03 7.4040.1666 -5.02 8.40.1833 -5.01 9.402
0.2 -4.99 10.4040.2166 -4.98 11.40.2333 -4.97 12.402
0.25 -4.96 13.4040.2666 -4.94 14.40.2833 -4.94 15.402
0.3 -4.93 16.4040.3166 -4.92 17.40.3333 -4.91 18.4020.4167 -4.87 23.406
0.5 -4.83 28.4040.5833 -4.79 33.4020.6667 -4.76 38.406
0.75 -4.73 43.4040.8333 -4.69 48.4020.9167 -4.67 53.406
1 -4.63 58.4041.0833 -4.6 63.4021.1667 -4.57 68.406
1.25 -4.54 73.4041.3333 -4.51 78.4021.4166 -4.49 83.4
1.5 -4.45 88.4041.5833 -4.43 93.4021.6667 -4.4 98.406
1.75 -4.37 103.404
4.58 0.660865 1 04.45 0.648360 0.971615 -0.012503.8 0.579783 0.829694 -0.08108
4.04 0.606381 0.882096 -0.05448 3.98 0.599883 0.868995 -0.06098 3.95 0.596597 0.862445 -0.06426 3.92 0.593286 0.855895 -0.06757 3.91 0.592176 0.853711 -0.06868 3.88 0.588831 0.847161 -0.07203 3.86 0.586587 0.842794 -0.07427 3.85 0.585460 0.840611 -0.07540 3.84 0.584331 0.838427 -0.07653 3.82 0.582063 0.834061-0.07880 3.81 0.580924 0.831877 -0.079943.8 0.579783 0.829694 -0.08108
3.79 0.578639 0.827510 -0.082223.77 0.576341 0.823144 -0.084523.77 0.576341 0.823144 -0.08452 3.76 0.575187 0.820960 -0.08567 3.75 0.574031 0.818777 -0.08683 3.74 0.572871 0.816593 -0.087993.7 0.568201 0.807860 -0.09266
3.66 0.563481 0.799126 -0.09738 3.62 0.558708 0.790393 -0.102153.59 0.555094 0.783842 -0.10577 3.56 0.551449 0.777292 -0.10941 3.52 0.546542 0.768558-0.114323.5 0.544068 0.764192 -0.11679
3.46 0.539076 0.755458 -0.12178 3.43 0.535294 0.748908 -0.125573.4 0.531478 0.742358 -0.12938
3.37 0.527629 0.735807 -0.13323 3.34 0.523746 0.729257 -0.13711 3.32 0.521138 0.724890 -0.13972 3.28 0.515873 0.716157 -0.14499 3.26 0.513217 0.711790 -0.14764 3.23 0.509202 0.705240 -0.15166 3.2 0.505149 0.698689 -0.15571
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
881.8333 -4.34 108.402 3.17 0.501059 0.692139 -0.159801.9167 -4.32 113.406 3.15 0.498310 0.687772 -0.16255
2 -4.29 118.404 3.12 0.494154 0.681222 -0.166712.5 -4.14 148.404 2.97 0.472756 0.648471 -0.18810
3 -4.01 178.404 2.84 0.453318 0.620087 -0.207543.5 -3.87 208.404 2.7 0.431363 0.589519 -0.22950
4 -3.75 238.404 2.58 0.411619 0.563318 -0.249244.5 -3.63 268.404 2.46 0.390935 0.537117 -0.26993
5 -3.52 298.404 2.35 0.371067 0.513100 -0.289795.5 -3.42 328.404 2.25 0.352182 0.491266 -0.30868
6 -3.32 358.404 2.15 0.332438 0.469432 -0.328426.5 -3.23 388.404 2.06 0.313867 0.449781 -0.34699
7 -3.15 418.404 1.98 0.296665 0.432314 -0.364207.5 -3.07 448.404 1.9 0.278753 0.414847 -0.38211
8 -2.99 478.404 1.82 0.260071 0.397379 -0.400798.5 -2.92 508.404 1.75 0.243038 0.382096 -0.41782
9 -2.86 538.404 1.69 0.227886 0.368995 -0.432979.5 -2.8 568.404 1.63 0.212187 0.355895 -0.44867
10 -2.74 598.404 1.57 0.195899 0.342794 -0.4649611 -2.63 658.404 1.46 0.164352 0.318777 -0.4965112 -2.53 718.404 1.36 0.133538 0.296943 -0.5273213 -2.45 778.404 1.28 0.107209 0.279475 -0.5536514 -2.38 838.404 1.21 0.082785 0.264192 -0.5780815 -2.31 898.404 1.14 0.056904 0.248908 -0.6039616 -2.25 958.404 1.08 0.033423 0.235807 -0.6274417 -2.2 1018.404 1.03 0.012837 0.224890 -0.6480218 -2.15 1078.404 0.98 -0.00877 0.213973 -0.6696319 -2.11 1138.404 0.94 -0.02687 0.205240 -0.6877320 -2.07 1198.404 0.9 -0.04575 0.196506 -0.7066221 -2.04 1258.404 0.87 -0.06048 0.189956 -0.7213422 -2.01 1318.404 0.84 -0.07572 0.183406 -0.7365823 -1.98 1378.404 0.81 -0.09151 0.176855 -0.7523824 -1.95 1438.404 0.78 -0.10790 0.170305 -0.76877
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/Ho
LO
G OF
D
RA
WD
OW
I 0
T>
PW—6: TEST CBOUWER AND RICE PLOTS
aa060 4
Q2
•02
08
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-21.41.2 1.60.2 0.6 0.8 1
(Thouiandft) ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
PW—6: TEST CHVORSLE/ PLOT
02>04
>06
>08
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
■22
■24
■28
0.80.60 .4(Thousands)
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
0.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90WELL: PW6
SLUG TEST: CCORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF
TIME(MIN)
VALUE(FT)
TIME(SEC)
VALUE(FT)
VALUE(FT)
H/Ho H/Ho
0 1.290.0033 1.280.0066 1.280.0099 1.280.0133 1.230.0166 -0.49
0.02 -2.730.0233 -50.0266 -6.21 0 7.47 0.873320 1 0
0.03 -5.74 0.204 7 0.845098 0.937081 -0.028220.0333 -4.22 0.402 5.48 0.738780 0.733601 -0.13454
0.05 -4.22 1.404 5.48 0.738780 0.733601 -0.134540.0666 -4.27 2.4 5.53 0.742725 0.740294 -0.130590.0833 -4.25 3.402 5.51 0.741151 0.737617 -0.13216
0.1 -4.19 4.404 5.45 0.736396 0.729585 -0.136920.1166 -4.14 5.4 5.4 0.732393 0.722891 -0.140920.1333 -4.1 6.402 5.36 0.729164 0.717536 -0.14415
0.15 -4.06 7.404 5.32 0.725911 0.712182 -0.147400.1666 -4.02 8.4 5.28 0.722633 0.706827 -0.150680.1833 -3.98 9.402 5.24 0.719331 0.701472 -0.15398
0.2 -3.95 10.404 5.21 0.716837 0.697456 -0.156480.2166 -3.91 11.4 5.17 0.713490 0.692101 -0.159830.2333 -3.87 12.402 5.13 0.710117 0.686746 -0.16320
0.25 -3.84 13.404 5.1 0.707570 0.682730 -0.165750.2666 -3.81 14.4 5.07 0.705007 0.678714 -0.168310.2833 -3.77 15.402 5.03 0.701567 0.673360 -0.17175
0.3 -3.74 16.404 5 0.698970 0.669344 -0.174350.3166 -3.71 17.4 4.97 0.696356 0.665327 -0.176960.3333 -3.68 18.402 4.94 0.693726 0.661311 -0.179590.4167 -3.52 23.406 4.78 0.679427 0.639892 -0.19389
0.5 -3.38 28.404 4.64 0.666517 0.621151 -0.206800.5833 -3.24 33.402 4.5 0.653212 0.602409 -0.220100.6667 -3.1 38.406 4.36 0.639486 0.583668 -0.23383
0.75 -2.97 43.404 4.23 0.626340 0.566265 -0.246980.8333 -2.85 48.402 4.11 0.613841 0.550200 -0.259470.9167 -2.72 53.406 3.98 0.599883 0.532797 -0.27343
1 -2.61 58.404 3.87 0.587710 0.518072 -0.285601.0833 -2.49 63.402 3.75 0.574031 0.502008 -0.299281.1667 -2.38 68.406 3.64 0.561101 0.487282 -0.31221
1.25 -2.27 73.404 3.53 0.547774 0.472556 -0.325541.3333 -2.17 78.402 3.43 0.535294 0.459170 -0.338021.4166 -2.07 83.4 3.33 0.522444 0.445783 -0.35087
1.5 -1.97 88.404 3.23 0.509202 0.432396 -0.364111.5833 -1.87 93.402 3.13 0.495544 0.419009 -0.377771.6667 -1.78 98.406 3.04 0.482873 0.406961 -0.39044
1.75 -1.69 103.404 2.95 0.469822 0.394912 -0.40349
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
911.8333 -1.61 108.402 2.87 0.457881 0.384203 -0.415431.9167 -1.53 113.406 2.79 0.445604 0.373493-0.42771
2 -1.45 118.404 2.71 0.432969 0.362784 -0.440352.5 -1.03 148.404 2.29 0.359835 0.306559 -0.51348
3 -0.67 178.404 1.93 0.285557 0.258366 -0.587763.5 -0.37 208.404 1.63 0.212187 0.218206 -0.66113
4 -0.12 238.404 1.38 0.139879 0.184738 -0.733444.5 0.07 268.404 1.19 0.075546 0.159303 -0.79777
5 0.25 298.404 1.01 0.004321 0.135207 -0.868995.5 0.4 328.404 0.86 -0.06550 0.115127 -0.93882
6 0.52 358.404 0.74 -0.13076 0.099062 -1.004086.5 0.63 388.404 0.63 -0.20065 0.084337 -1.07398
7 0.72 418.404 0.54 -0.26760 0.072289 -1.140927.5 0.8 448.404 0.46 -0.33724 0.061579 -1.21056
8 0.86 478.404 0.4 -0.39794 0.053547 -1.271268.5 0.92 508.404 0.34 -0.46852 0.045515 -1.34184
9 0.97 538.404 0.29 -0.53760 0.038821 -1.410929.5 1.01 568.404 0.25 -0.60205 0.033467 -1.47538
10 1.04 598.404 0.22 -0.65757 0.029451 -1.5308911 1.1 658.404 0.16 -0.79588 0.021419 -1.6692012 1.14 718.404 0.12 -0.92081 0.016064 -1.7941313 1.17 778.404 0.09 -1.04575 0.012048 -1.9190714 1.2 838.404 0.06 -1.22184 0.008032 -2.0951615 1.21 898.404 0.05 -1.30102 0.006693 -2.1743516 1.22 958.404 0.04 -1.39794 0.005354 -2.2712617 1.23 1018.404 0.03 -1.52287 0.004016 -2.3961918 1.24 1078.404 0.02 -1.69897 0.002677 -2.5722919 1.24 1138.404 0.02 -1.69897 0.002677 -2.5722920 1.25 1198.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.8733221 1.25 1258.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.8733222 1.25 1318.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.8733223 1.25 1378.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.8733224 1.25 1438.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.8733225 1.25 1498.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.8733226 1.25 1558.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.8733227 1.26 1618.404 0 028 1.25 1678.404 0.01 -2 0.001338 -2.87332
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
H/U
o LO
G OF
DR
AVO
OW
N fT
}
PW—6: TEST DBOIMER AND RICE PLOTS1
aaaa
02o
02
0 4
0 6
oai
1.2
1.4
1.6
i.a■2
0 .4 0.6 10 0.2 0.8(Thousand*)
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
PW—6: TEST DHVORSLE/ PLOT
020406
08
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-22
- 2 4
2 6
-2 8200
ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93WELL: PW6
SLUG TEST: DCORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF
TIME VALUE TIME VALUE VALUE H/Ho H/Ho(MIN) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (FT)
0.0033 -3.970.0066 -3.970.0099 -40.0133 -5.750.0166 -8.56
0.02 -9.94 0 5.97 0.775974 1 00.0233 -9.94 0.198 5.97 0.775974 1 00.0266 -9.94 0.396 5.97 0.775974 1 0
0.03 -9.18 0.6 5.21 0.716837 0.872696 -0.059130.0333 -9.39 0.798 5.42 0.733999 0.907872 -0.04197
0.05 -9.7 1.8 5.73 0.758154 0.959798 -0.017810.0666 -9.62 2.796 5.65 0.752048 0.946398 -0.023920.0833 -9.55 3.798 5.58 0.746634 0.934673 -0.02934
0.1 -9.48 4.8 5.51 0.741151 0.922948 -0.034820.1166 -9.42 5.796 5.45 0.736396 0.912897 -0.039570.1333 -9.36 6.798 5.39 0.731588 0.902847 -0.04438
0.15 -9.3 7.8 5.33 0.726727 0.892797 -0.049240.1666 -9.25 8.796 5.28 0.722633 0.884422 -0.053340.1833 -9.19 9.798 5.22 0.717670 0.874371 -0.05830
0.2 -9.14 10.8 5.17 0.713490 0.865996 -0.062480.2166 -9.09 11.796 5.12 0.709269 0.857621 -0.066700.2333 -9.05 12.798 5.08 0.705863 0.850921 -0.07011
0.25 -9 13.8 5.03 0.701567 0.842546 -0.074400.2666 -8.94 14.796 4.97 0.696356 0.832495 -0.079610.2833 -8.9 15.798 4.93 0.692846 0.825795 -0.08312
0.3 -8.85 16.8 4.88 0.688419 0.817420 -0.087550.3166 -8.81 17.796 4.84 0.684845 0.810720 -0.091120.3333 -8.76 18.798 4.79 0.680335 0.802345 -0.095630.4167 -8.54 23.802 4.57 0.659916 0.765494 -0.11605
0.5 -8.34 28.8 4.37 0.640481 0.731993 -0.135490.5833 -8.14 33.798 4.17 0.620136 0.698492 -0.155830.6667 -7.95 38.802 3.98 0.599883 0.666666 -0.17609
0.75 -7.78 43.8 3.81 0.580924 0.638190 -0.195040.8333 -7.62 48.798 3.65 0.562292 0.611390 -0.213680.9167 -7.45 53.802 3.48 0.541579 0.582914 -0.23439
1 -7.3 58.8 3.33 0.522444 0.557788 -0.253531.0833 -7.16 63.798 3.19 0.503790 0.534338 -0.272181.1667 -7.02 68.802 3.05 0.484299 0.510887 -0.29167
1.25 -6.89 73.8 2.92 0.465382 0.489112 -0.310591.3333 -6.77 78.798 2.8 0.447158 0.469011 -0.328811.4166 -6.65 83.796 2.68 0.428134 0.448911 -0.34783
1.5 -6.53 88.8 2.56 0.408239 0.428810 -0.367731.5833 -6.43 93.798 2.46 0.390935 0.412060 -0.385031.6667 -6.33 98.802 2.36 0.372912 0.395309 -0.40306
1.75 -6.23 103.8 2.26 0.354108 0.378559 -0.421861.8333 -6.14 108.798 2.17 0.336459 0.363484 -0.43951
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
941.9167 -6.05 113.802 2.08 0.318063 0.348408 -0.45791
2 -5.96 118.8 1.99 0.298853 0.333333 -0.477122.5 -5.52 148.8 1.55 0.190331 0.259631-0.58564
3 -5.19 178.8 1.22.0.086359 0.204355 -0.689613.5 -4.92 208.8 0.95 -0.02227 0.159128 -0.79825
4 -4.72 238.8 0.75 -0.12493 0.125628 -0.900914.5 -4.56 268.8 0.59 -0.22914 0.098827 -1.00512
5 -4.44 298.8 0.47 -0.32790 0.078726 -1.103875.5 -4.34 328.8 0.37 -0.43179 0.061976 -1.20777
6 -4.26 358.8 0.29 -0.53760 0.048576 -1.313576.5 -4.2 388.8 0.23 -0.63827 0.038525 -1.41424
7 -4.16 418.8 0.19 -0.72124 0.031825 -1.497227.5 -4.12 448.8 0.15 -0.82390 0.025125 -1.59988
8 -4.09 478.8 0.12 -0.92081 0.020100 -1.696798.5 -4.07 508.8 0.1 -1 0.016750 -1.77597
9 -4.05 538.8 0.08 -1.09691 0.013400 -1.872889.5 -4.03 568.8 0.06 -1.22184 0.010050 -1.99782
10 -4.02 598.8 0.05 -1.30102 0.008375 -2.0770011 -4 658.8 0.03 -1.52287 0.005025 -2.2988512 -3.99 718.8 0.02 -1.69897 0.003350 -2.4749413 -3.99 778.8 0.02 -1.69897 0.003350 -2.4749414 -3.98 838.8 0.01 -2 0.001675 -2.7759715 -3.98 898.8 0.01 -2 0.001675 -2.7759716 -3.98 958.8 0.01 -2 0.001675 -2.7759717 -3.97 1018.8 0 018 -3.97 1078.8 0 019 -3.97 1138.8 0 020 -3.97 1198.8 0 021 -3.97 1258.8 0 022 -3.97 1318.8 0 023 -3.97 1378.8 0 024 -3.97 1438.8 0 025 -3.97 1498.8 0 026 -3.97 1558.8 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
AQUIFER TEST DATA
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LOG
OF
DRAW
DOW
N (F
EET)
DR
AWDO
WN
fEE
T)
PUMPTEST: |W » iC r= 1 2 .7 ')Q9
08
0 7
0 6
as
0 4
0 3
02
ai
1.S0.S■2.S
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (MIN)
PUMP TEST: IW -1 (r= 1 2 .7 'J
0 8
0 6
02
1.8
■ ̂ AiAAA ̂ ̂; n
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (MIN)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
WELL: IW #1ONE HOUR PUMP TEST
IW #1 MW 42LOG OF LOG OF LOG OF
TIME TIME VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE
0 ERR 0.01 -2 0 ERR0.0033 -2.48148 0.03 -1.52287 0 ERR0.0066 -2.18045 0.03 -1.52287 0 ERR0.0099 -2.00436 0.25 -0.60205 0 ERR0.0133 -1.87614 0.45 -0.34678 0 ERR0.0166 -1.77989 0.11 -0.95860 0 ERR
0.02 -1.69897 0.03 -1.52287 0 ERR0.0233 -1.63264 0.11 -0.95860 0.01 -20.0266 -1.57511 0.12 -0.92081 0.01 -2
0.03 -1.52287 0.18 -0.74472 0.01 -20.0333 -1.47755 0.18 -0.74472 0.01 -2
0.05 -1.30102 0.33 -0.48148 0.01 -20.0666 -1.17652 0.45 -0.34678 0.02 -1.698970.0833 -1.07935 0.56 -0.25181 0.03 -1.52287
0.1 -1 0.66 -0.18045 0.04 -1.397940.1166 -0.93330 0.77 -0.11350 0.05 -1.301020.1333 -0.87516 0.87 -0.06048 0.06 -1.22184
0.15 -0.82390 0.94-0.02687 0.06 -1.221840.1666 -0.77832 1.02 0.008600 0.07 -1.154900.1833 -0.73683 1.1 0.041392 0.08 -1.09691
0.2 -0.69897 1.18 0.071882 0.09 -1.045750.2166 -0.66434 1.25 0.096910 0.09 -1.045750.2333 -0.63208 1.29 0.110589 0.1 -1
0.25 -0.60205 1.4 0.146128 0.11 -0.958600.2666 -0.57413 1.44 0.158362 0.12 -0.920810.2833 -0.54775 1.51 0.178976 0.15 -0.82390
0.3 -0.52287 1.58 0.198657 0.17 -0.769550.3166 -0.49948 1.67 0.222716 0.18 -0.744720.3333 -0.47716 1.74 0.240549 0.19 -0.721240.4167 -0.38017 2.05 0.311753 0.23 -0.63827
0.5 -0.30102 2.34 0.369215 0.27 -0.568630.5833 -0.23410 2.58 0.411619 0.3 -0.522870.6667 -0.17606 2.8 0.447158 0.34 -0.46852
0.75 -0.12493 2.99 0.475671 0.36 -0.443690.8333 -0.07919 3.16 0.499687 0.39 -0.408930.9167 -0.03777 3.3 0.518513 0.41 -0.38721
1 0 3.45 0.537819 0.43 -0.366531.0833 0.034748 3.56 0.551449 0.45 -0.346781.1667 0.066959 3.65 0.562292 0.47 -0.32790
1.25 0.096910 3.75 0.574031 0.5 -0.301021.3333 0.124927 3.81 0.580924 0.52 -0.283991.4166 0.151247 3.89 0.589949 0.55 -0.25963
1.5 0.176091 3.94 0.595496 0.56 -0.251811.5833 0.199563 4 0.602059 0.57 -0.24412
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.6667 0.221857 4.05 0.607455 0.58 -0.236571.75 0.243038 4.08 0.610660 0.59 -0.22914
1.8333 0.263233 4.14 0.617000 0.6 -0.221841.9167 0.282554 4.16 0.619093 0.61 -0.21467
2 0.301029 4.19 0.622214 0.63 -0.200652.5 0.397940 4.29 0.632457 0.69 -0.16115
3 0.477121 4.35 0.638489 0.72 -0.142663.5 0.544068 4.38 0.641474 0.74 -0.13076
4 0.602059 4.38 0.641474 0.77 -0.113504.5 0.653212 4.38 0.641474 0.79 -0.10237
5 0.698970 4.38 0.641474 0.8 -0.096915.5 0.740362 4.36 0.639486 0.81 -0.09151
6 0.778151 4.4 0.643452 0.82 -0.086186.5 0.812913 4.4 0.643452 0.83 -0.08092
7 0.845098 4.41 0.644438 0.83 -0.080927.5 0.875061 4.4 0.643452 0.84 -0.07572
8 0.903089 4.4 0.643452 0.84-0.075728.5 0.929418 4.4 0.643452 0.84 -0.07572
9 0.954242 4.38 0.641474 0.85 -0.070589.5 0.977723 4.38 0.641474 0.85 -0.07058
10 1 4.36 0.639486 0.85 -0.0705811 1.041392 4.36 0.639486 0.85 -0.0705812 1.079181 4.35 0.638489 0.86 -0.0655013 1.113943 4.4 0.643452 0.86 -0.0655014 1.146128 4.4 0.643452 0.85 -0.0705815 1.176091 4.43 0.646403 0.85 -0.0705816 1.204119 4.44 0.647382 0.85 -0.0705817 1.230448 4.46 0.649334 0.85 -0.0705818 1.255272 4.48 0.651278 0.85 -0.0705819 1.278753 4.51 0.654176 0.85 -0.0705820 1.301029 4.49 0.652246 0.85-0.0705821 1.322219 4.51 0.654176 0.85 -0.0705822 1.342422 4.49 0.652246 0.86 -0.0655023 1.361727 4.49 0.652246 0.85 -0.0705824 1.380211 4.48 0.651278 0.85 -0.0705825 1.397940 4.49 0.652246 0.85 -0.0705826 1.414973 4.51 0.654176 0.86 -0.0655027 1.431363 4.51 0.654176 0.86 -0.0655028 1.447158 4.49 0.652246 0.86 -0.0655029 1.462397 4.49 0.652246 0.86 -0.0655030 1.477121 4.52 0.655138 0.85 -0.0705831 1.491361 4.51 0.654176 0.86 -0.0655032 1.505149 4.51 0.654176 0.86 -0.0655033 1.518513 4.52 0.655138 0.85 -0.0705834 1.531478 4.51 0.654176 0.86 -0.0655035 1.544068 4.52 0.655138 0.86 -0.0655036 1.556302 4.52 0.655138 0.86 -0.0655037 1.568201 4.52 0.655138 0.86 -0.0655038 1.579783 4.51 0.654176 0.86 -0.0655039 1.591064 4.51 0.654176 0.86 -0.0655040 1.602059 4.51 0.654176 0.85 -0.0705841 1.612783 4.48 0.651278 0.85 -0.0705842 1.623249 4.48 0.651278 0.85 -0.07058
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43 1.633468 4.49 0.44 1.643452 4.49 0.45 1.653212 4.51 0.46 1.662757 4.49 0.47 1.672097 4.49 0.48 1.681241 4.48 0.49 1.690196 4.48 0.50 1.698970 4.48 0.51 1.707570 4.49 0.52 1.716003 4.48 0.53 1.724275 4.48 0.54 1.732393 4.48 0.55 1.740362 4.49 0.56 1.748188 4.48 0.57 1.755874 4.48 0.58 1.763427 4.46 0.59 1.770852 4.46 0.60 1.778151 4.49 0.
652246 0.86 -0.06550652246 0.86 -0.06550654176 0.86 -0.06550652246 0.86 -0.06550652246 0.85 -0.07058651278 0.85 -0.07058651278 0.85 -0.07058651278 0.86 -0.06550652246 0.86 -0.06550651278 0.86 -0.06550651278 0.86 -0.06550651278 0.86 -0.06550652246 0.86 -0.06550651278 0.86 -0.06550651278 0.86 -0.06550649334 0.86 -0.06550649334 0.86 -0.06550652246 0.86 -0.06550
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-0.05
—Oil
« • - 0 .1 5
til
5a -02
I- 0 .2 5
-03
- 0 .3 5
INJECTION WELL §2WATER LEVEL IN KftV-41 l) -= 2 7 .a )
- 2 - 1 . 5 - 1 . 2 -0.8 -0.4 0
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (M IN)
100-£ r- *r-±r-.
“V
\A
VitSt“Sr, UlUWMft'i l
*•
0 .4 0.8
INJECTION WELL §2
z6aIau.o<93
WATER LEVEL IN WW-41 ( r = 2 7 .0 )
08060 4
02
02- 0 4
0 6
0 8
1.2
- 1 .4
- 1.6
— 1.8
- 0.8 0.80 0 .4•0.41.21.6-2LOG OF EL>FS£D TIME (MIN)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101WFI I • TW #2ONE HOUR PUMP TEST
IW #2LOG OF LOG OF
MW 41LOG OF
TIME TIME DRAWDOWN VALUE DRAWDOWN
0 ERR 0 ERR 00.0033 -2.48148 0 ERR 00.0066 -2.18045 0.01 -2 00.0099 -2.00436 0.01 -2 00.0133 -1.87614 0.01 -2 00.0166 -1.77989 0.01 -2 0
0.02 -1.69897 0.01 -2 00.0233 -1.63264 0.11 -0.95860 0.010.0266 -1.57511 0.34 -0.46852 0.01
0.03 -1.52287 0.36 -0.44369 0.010.0333 -1.47755 0.06 -1.22184 0
0.05 -1.30102 0.12 -0.92081 00.0666 -1.17652 0.31 -0.50863 00.0833 -1.07935 0.49 -0.30980 0
0.1 -1 0.6 -0.22184 00.1166 -0.93330 0.72 -0.14266 00.1333 -0.87516 0.8 -0.09691 0.01
0.15 -0.82390 0.93 -0.03151 0.010.1666 -0.77832 1.02 0.008600 0.010.1833 -0.73683 1.12 0.049218 0.01
0.2 -0.69897 1.21 0.082785 0.010.2166 -0.66434 1.26 0.100370 0.020.2333 -0.63208 1.37 0.136720 0.01
0.25 -0.60205 1.44 0.158362 0.020.2666 -0.57413 1.53 0.184691 0.020.2833 -0.54775 1.59 0.201397 0.02
0.3 -0.52287 1.64 0.214843 0.020.3166 -0.49948 1.7 0.230448 0.030.3333 -0.47716 1.78 0.250420 0.030.4167 -0.38017 2.13 0.328379 0.04
0.5 -0.30102 2.43 0.385606 0.060.5833 -0.23410 2.69 0.429752 0.060.6667 -0.17606 2.88 0.459392 0.08
0.75 -0.12493 3.07 0.487138 0.10.8333 -0.07919 3.27 0.514547 0.110.9167 -0.03777 3.45 0.537819 0.13
1 0 3.54 0.549003 0.151.1667 0.066959 3.76 0.575187 0.17
1.25 0.096910 3.89 0.589949 0.181.3333 0.124927 3.98 0.599883 0.191.4166 0.151247 4.03 0.605305 0.19
1.5 0.176091 4.1 0.612783 0.21.5833 0.199563 4.19 0.622214 0.211.6667 0.221857 4.25 0.628388 0.22
ERRERRERRERRERRERRERR
- 2-2-2
ERRERRERRERRERRERR
-2-2-2-2- 2
-1.69897- 2
-1.69897-1.69897-1.69897-1.69897-1.52287-1.52287-1.39794-1.22184-1.22184-1.09691
-1-0.95860-0.88605-0.82390-0.76955-0.74472-0.72124-0.72124-0.69897-0.67778-0.65757
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.75 0.243038 4.29 0.632457 0.23 -0.638271.8333 0.263233 4.3 0.633468 0.23 -0.638271.9167 0.282554 4.35 0.638489 0.24 -0.61978
2 0.301029 4.38 0.641474 0.24 -0.619782.5 0.397940 4.46 0.649334 0.25 -0.60205
3 0.477121 4.49 0.652246 0.26 -0.585023.5 0.544068 4.44 0.647382 0.27 -0.56863
4 0.602059 4.41 0.644438 0.27-0.568634.5 0.653212 4.41 0.644438 0.26 -0.58502
5 0.698970 4.38 0.641474 0.26 -0.585025.5 0.740362 4.41 0.644438 0.26 -0.58502
6 0.778151 4.38 0.641474 0.26 -0.585026.5 0.812913 4.36 0.639486 0.27 -0.56863
7 0.845098 4.38 0.641474 0.27 -0.568637.5 0.875061 4.38 0.641474 0.27 -0.56863
8 0.903089 4.36 0.639486 0.27 -0.568638.5 0.929418 4.36 0.639486 0.27 -0.56863
9 0.954242 4.36 0.639486 0.27 -0.568639.5 0.977723 4.36 0.639486 0.27 -0.56863
10 1 4.36 0.639486 0.27 -0.5686311 1.041392 4.32 0.635483 0.27 -0.5686312 1.079181 4.33 0.636487 0.27 -0.5686313 1.113943 4.32 0.635483 0.27-0.5686314 1.146128 4.3 0.633468 0.27 -0.5686315 1.176091 4.32 0.635483 0.27 -0.5686316 1.204119 4.29 0.632457 0.27 -0.5686317 1.230448 4.29 0.632457 0.27 -0.5686318 1.255272 4.25 0.628388 0.27 -0.5686319 1.278753 4.27 0.630427 0.27 -0.5686320 1.301029 4.25 0.628388 0.28 -0.5528421 1.322219 4.25 0.628388 0.28 -0.5528422 1.342422 4.25 0.628388 0.28 -0.5528423 1.361727 4.24 0.627365 0.28 -0.5528424 1.380211 4.22 0.625312 0.29 -0.5376025 1.397940 4.21 0.624282 0.28 -0.5528426 1.414973 4.22 0.625312 0.28 -0.5528427 1.431363 4.21 0.624282 0.28 -0.5528428 1.447158 4.19 0.622214 0.28 -0.5528429 1.462397 4.21 0.624282 0.28 -0.5528430 1.477121 4.17 0.620136 0.29 -0.5376031 1.491361 4.19 0.622214 0.25 -0.6020532 1.505149 4.17 0.620136 0.31 -0.5086333 1.518513 4.16 0.619093 0.33 -0.4814834 1.531478 4.16 0.619093 0.28 -0.5528435 1.544068 4.14 0.617000 0.26 -0.5850236 1.556302 4.13 0.615950 0.27 -0.5686337 1.568201 4.13 0.615950 0.24 -0.6197838 1.579783 4.14 0.617000 0.32 -0.4948539 1.591064 4.13 0.615950 0.28 -0.5528440 1.602059 4.13 0.615950 0.28 -0.5528441 1.612783 4.11 0.613841 0.34 -0.4685242 1.623249 4.13 0.615950 0.28 -0.5528443 1.633468 4.11 0.613841 0.29 -0.53760
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44 1.64345245 1.65321246 1.66275747 1.67209748 1.68124149 1.69019650 1.69897051 1.70757052 1.71600353 1.72427554 1.73239355 1.74036256 1.74818857 1.75587458 1.76342759 1.77085260 1.778151
4.1 0.6127834.1 0.612783
4.11 0.6138414.1 0.612783
4.08 0.610660 4.06 0.6085264.05 0.6074554.05 0.6074554.05 0.6074554.05 0.6074554.08 0.6106604.08 0.6106604.08 0.6106604.1 0.612783
4.08 0.6106604.06 0.6085264.08 0.610660
0.25 -0.60205 0.29 -0.53760 0.29 -0.53760 0.28 -0.55284 0.32 -0.49485 0.3 -0.52287
0.29 -0.53760 0.29 -0.53760 0.29-0.53760 0.31 -0.50863 0.3 -0.52287 0.3 -0.52287 0.3 -0.52287 0.3 -0.52287 0.3 -0.52287 0.3 -0.52287 0.3 -0.52287
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
WAT
ER
LEVE
L (F
EET)
104
PURGE WELL 4ONE HOUR PUMP TEST0
1■2•3
•4
•S'6•7
a'910
12
13O.S 1.S1.S O.S■2.S
LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (MIN)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105WELL: PW-6ONE HOUR PUMP TEST LOG OF LOG OF
TIME VALUE DRAWDOWN DRAWDOWN TIME
0 -3.22 0 ERR ERR0.0033 -3.09 0.13 -0.88605 -2.481480.0066 -2.88 0.34 -0.46852 -2.180450.0099 -3 0.22 -0.65757 -2.004360.0133 -2.92 0.3 -0.52287 -1.876140.0166 -2.87 0.35 -0.45593 -1.77989
0.02 -2.86 0.36 -0.44369 -1.698970.0233 -2.82 0.4 -0.39794 -1.632640.0266 -2.79 0.43 -0.36653 -1.57511
0.03 -2.77 0.45 -0.34678 -1.522870.0333 -2.72 0.5 -0.30102 -1.47755
0.05 -2.59 0.63 -0.20065 -1.301020.0666 -2.45 0.77 -0.11350 -1.176520.0833 -2.33 0.89 -0.05060 -1.07935
0.1 -2.22 1 0 -10.1166 -2.1 1.12 0.049218 -0.933300.1333 -1.98 1.24 0.093421 -0.87516
0.15 -1.87 1.35 0.130333 -0.823900.1666 -1.75 1.47 0.167317 -0.778320.1833 -1.65 1.57 0.195899 -0.73683
0.2 -1.54 1.68 0.225309 -0.698970.2166 -1.42 1.8 0.255272 -0.664340.2333 -1.31 1.91 0.281033 -0.63208
0.25 -1.21 2.01 0.303196 -0.602050.2666 -1.1 2.12 0.326335 -0.574130.2833 -0.99 2.23 0.348304 -0.54775
0.3 -0.89 2.33 0.367355 -0.522870.3166 -0.78 2.44 0.387389 -0.499480.3333 -0.68 2.54 0.404833 -0.477160.4167 -0.17 3.05 0.484299 -0.38017
0.5 0.31 3.53 0.547774 -0.301020.5833 0.78 4 0.602059 -0.234100.6667 1.22 4.44 0.647382 -0.17606
0.75 1.66 4.88 0.688419 -0.124930.8333 2.07 5.29 0.723455 -0.079190.9167 2.47 5.69 0.755112 -0.03777
1 2.85 6.07 0.783188 01.0833 3.21 6.43 0.808210 0.0347481.1667 3.56 6.78 0.831229 0.066959
1.25 3.88 7.1 0.851258 0.0969101.3333 4.2 7.42 0.870403 0.1249271.4166 3.31 6.53 0.814913 0.151247
1.5 3.56 6.78 0.831229 0.1760911.5833 3.81 7.03 0.846955 0.1995631.6667 4.04 7.26 0.860936 0.221857
1.75 4.26 7.48 0.873901 0.2430381.8333 4.47 7.69 0.885926 0.263233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1061.9167 4.66 7.88 0.896526 0.282554
2 4.84 8.06 0.906336. 0.3010292.5 5.74 8.96 0.952308 0.397940
3 6.39 9.61 0.982723 0.4771213.5 6.87 10.09 1.003891 0.544068
4 7.22 10.44 1.018700 0.6020594.5 7.49 10.71 1.029789 0.653212
5 7.7 10.92 1.038222 0.6989705.5 7.85 11.07 1.044147 0.740362
6 7.96 11.18 1.048441 0.7781516.5 8.05 11.27 1.051923 0.812913
7 8.12 11.34 1.054613 0.8450987.5 8.16 11.38 1.056142 0.875061
8 8.19 11.41 1.057285 0.9030898.5 8.22 11.44 1.058426 0.929418
9 8.24 11.46 1.059184 0.9542429.5 8.26 11.48 1.059941 0.977723
10 8.28 11.5 1.060697 111 8.29 11.51 1.061075 1.04139212 8.3 11.52 1.061452 1.07918113 8.31 11.53 1.061829 1.11394314 8.32 11.54 1.062205 1.14612815 8.33 11.55 1.062581 1.17609116 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.20411917 8.34 11.56 1.062957 i : 23044818 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.25527219 8.33 11.55 1.062581 1.27875320 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.30102921 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.32221922 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.34242223 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.36172724 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.38021125 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.39794026 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.41497327 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.43136328 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.44715829 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.46239730 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.47712131 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.49136132 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.50514933 8.33 11.55 1.062581 1.51851334 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.53147835 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.54406836 8.32 11.54 1.062205 1.55630237 8.33 11.55 1.062581 1.56820138 8.32 11.54 1.062205 1.57978339 8.32 11.54 1.062205 1.59106440 8.32 11.54 1.062205 1.60205941 8.33 11.55 1.062581 1.61278342 8.33 11.55 1.062581 1.62324943 8.34 11.56 1.062957 1.63346844 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.64345245 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.653212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46 8.36 11.58 1.063708 1.66275747 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.67209748 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.68124149 8.36 11.58 1.063708 1.69019650 8.37 11.59 1.064083 1.69897051 8.37 11.59 1.064083 1.70757052 8.37 11.59 1.064083 1.71600353 8.37 11.59 1.064083 1.72427554 8.37 11.59 1.064083 1.73239355 8.37 11.59 1.064083 1.74036256 8.37 11.59 1.064083 1.74818857 8.36 11.58 1.063708 1.75587458 8.36 11.58 1.063708 1.76342759 8.35 11.57 1.063333 1.77085260 8.36 11.58 1.063708 1.778151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bierschenk, W.H. (1964). Determining Well Efficiency by Multiple Step-Drawdown Tests. Proceedings of the International Assocation of Scientific Hydrology, 64, 493-507.
Boersma, L. (1965). Field measurement of hydraulic conductivity below a water table. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. (pp. 222-233) Madison, MI: American Society o f Agronomy.
Boulton, N.S. (1963). Analysis of data from nonequilibrium pumping tests allowing for delayed yield from storage. Proceedings Institute of Civil Engineers, 26, 469-482.
Boulton, N.S. (1964). Analysis of data from non-equilibrium pumping tests allowing for delayed yield from storage: A discussion.Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, 28, 603-610.
Bouwer, H. & Jackson, R.D. (1974). Determining soil properties. In Drainage for Agriculture, (pp.611-672) Madison, WI: AmericanSociety of Agronomy. “
Bouwer, H. & Rice, R.C. (1976). A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconsolidated aquifers with completely or p artia lly penetratinq wells. Water Resources Research, 12, (3 ), pp. 423-428.
Chow, V.T. (1952). On the determination of transmissibility and storage coefficients from pumping test data. American Geophysical Union, 33, 397-404.
Cooper, H.H., Jr. & Jacob, C.E. (1946). A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well fie ld history. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 27, (4 ), 526-534.
Cooper, H.H., Bredehoeft, J.D. & Papadopoulos, I.S . (1976). Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous change of water. Water Resource Research, 3, 263-269.
Driscoll, F.D. (1986). Groundwater and wells, 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Johnson Division, UOP Inc.
Fetter, C.W., Jr. (1980). Applied hydrogeology. Columbus, OH: Charles E. M e rrill.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Ferris, J .6 ., & Knowles, D.B. (1954). Slug test for estimating transm issibility. (U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Note 26)7 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ferris, J.G ., Knowles, D.B., Brown, R.H., and Stallman R.W. (1962). Theory of aquifer tests. (U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-E). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Freeze, R.A., & Cherry, J.A. (1979). Groundwater. Englewood C liffs , NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hantush, M.S. (1964). Hydraulics of wells. In Advances in Hydroscience, 1̂ , pp. 281-432. New York: Academic Press.
Hantush, M.S. (1966). Analysis of data from pumping tests in anisotropic aquifers. Journal of Geophysical Research, 71, pp. 421-426.
Hantush, M.S., & Jacobs, C.E. (1955). Non-steady radial flow in an in fin ite leaky aquifer. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 36, 95-100.
Hantush, M.S., & Thomas, R.G. (1966). A method for analyzing a drawdown test in anisotropic aquifers. Water Resources Resources, 2, 281-285.
Hvorslev, M.J. (1951). Time-lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. (Waterways Experiment Station Bulletin 367 Vicksburg, MS.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineering
Jacob, C.E. (1944). Notes on determining permeability_ by' pumping tests under water table conditions. (U.5T Geological Survey open-file report). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Jacob, C.E. (1945). Partial penetration of pumping well adjustments. (U.S. Geological Survey open f i le report;. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Jacob, C.E. (1946a). Radial flow in a leaky artesian aquifer. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 27, 198-205.
Jacob, C.E. (1947). Drawdown test to determine effective radius of artesian well. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 112, 1047-1070.
Jacob, C.E. (1963a). Correction of drawdowns caused by a pumped well tapping less than the fo il thickness of an aquifer. (U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply paper 1536-1) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Jacob, C.E. (1963b). Recovery method for determining the coefficient of transmissibi 1 ity~ (U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W. (1952). Nonsteady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 33, 559-569.
Kruseman, G.P. and DeRidder, N.A. (1970). Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Bulletin 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Lohman, S.W. (1957). Methods of determining the coefficient of storage from straight-line plots without extrapolation. (U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Note 33). Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.
Lohman, S.W. (1979). Groundwater hydraulics. (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708). Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.
Masch, F.D. and Denny, K.J. (1966). Grain-size distribution and its effects on the permeability of unconsolidated sands. Water Resources Research, 2, 665-677.
Meinzer, O.E. and Fishel, V.C. (1934). Tests of permeability with low hydraulic gradients. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 15, pt. 2 , 405-409.
Milligan, V. (1968). Field measurement of permeability in soil and rock. Proceedings of the Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, American Society of Civil Engineers, Raleigh, NC, 3-36.
Mogg, J.L. (1959). The effect of aquifer turbulence on well drawdown. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Hydraulics Division, November, 99-112.
Mogg, J.L. (1968). Step-drawdown test needs critica l review. Johnson D rille rs 1 Journal, July/August, 28-36.
Neuman, S.P. (1972). Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed response of the water table. Water Resources Research, 8, 1031-1045.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
Neuman, S.P. (1974). Effect of partial penetration on flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Mater Resources Research, 10, 303-312.
Neuman, S.P. (1975); Analysis of pumping test data from anisotropic unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Water Resources Research, 11, 329-342.
Norris, S.E. & Fidler, R.E. (1965). Relation of permeabi1ity of grain size in a glacial-outwash aquifer at Piketown, OH. (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 525-D). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Papadopoulos, I .E . , Bredehoeft, J .D ., & Cooper, H.H. (1973). On the analysis o f slug-test data. Water Resouces Research, 9, 1087-1089.
Rorabaugh, M .I. (1953). Graphical and Theoretical Analysis of Step- drawdown Test of Artesian Well. Proceedings of the American Society of C ivil Engineers, Hydraulics Division, 79, 1-23.
Schafer, D.C. (1978). Casing storage can affect pumping test data.Johnson D rille rs 1 Journal, Jan/Feb, 12-25.
Schmid, W.E. (1967). Field determination of permeability by the in filtra tio n tests. In Permeability and Capillarity of so ils,ASTM STP 417. Philadelphia, PA: American Society of Testing andMaterials.
Theis, C.V. (1935). The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 16, 519-524.
Todd, O.K. (1959). Groundwater hydrology. New York: John Wiley.
Walton, W.C. (1962). Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer evaluation Bulletin NoT 49l Champaign, TTi Illin o is State Water Survey
Wenzel, L.K. (1942). Methods of Determining Permeability of Water-Bearing Materials. (U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper887). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Zimmie, T.F. and Riggs, C.O. (1979). Permeabi 11 ity and Groundwater Contaminant Transport, ASTM STP 746. Philadelphia, PA: AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.