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].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F1223&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/156?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F1223&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/1223?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F1223&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[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.


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


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



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



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



Copyright by Scott T. Dennis

1987


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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 reproduc,reproduction prohibited without

permission.

Figure 2. Water Table Elevation (Arbitrary Datum)


: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)


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


DRAW

DOWN

(F

EET)

1.2

1.0

0.5

21012

LOG OF ELAPSED TIME (HOURS)

Figure 6. 1985 Aquifer Test Plot


| 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


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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 * .


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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]


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.


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


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.


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


LOG

OF H/

Ho

38

0

H/Ho=0.37

1

2

TEST C TEST A

TEST B

3200 8006004000


Figure 8. Data Plots for Hvorslev Method: IW-1


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


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


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


41

oQ

oU .oC3o

0

TEST A

1

TEST B

210000 500


Figure 9. Data Plots for Bouwer and Rice Method: IW-2


LOG

OF H/

Ho

42

0

H/Ho=0.37

1

TEST A

2

TEST B

1000500


Figure 10. Data Plots for Hvorslev Method: IW-2


43

Table 8Results of In-Situ Permeability Tests: Well IW-2


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.


LOG

OF DR

AWDO

WN

(FEE

T)

44

1

0

TEST A

-1

TEST D TEST C

2300020001000


Figure 11. Data Plots for Bouwer and Rice Method: PW-6


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


46

Table 9Values Used for Permeability Calculations: Well PW-6


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


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


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.


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


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.


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)


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)


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)


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


DRAW

DOWN

(F

EET)

13

10

5

0


Q=14.0 gpm

Figure 17. Semi-Logarithmic Aquifer Test Plot: PW-6 (Data From pumped Well)


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


WELL

EF

FICI

ENCY

62

100%

80%

20%

SLUG TEST/AQUIFER TEST RESULT

Figure 20. Relationship Between Hvorslev Results and Well Efficiency


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


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.


APPENDICES

65


APPENDIX A

SLUG TEST DATA


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


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


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


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


IW -1: TEST BHVORSLEV PLOT

1.2

-2 83002001000



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


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


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



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


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


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



77WELL: IW2



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


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


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


IW—2: TEST BHVORSLB/ PLOT

020 4

0 6

aa

1.2

1.4

- 1.6

1.8

•22

■24

2 6

-2 8200



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


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


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


83WELL: PW6



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


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


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


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)


PW -6: TEST BHVORSLEV PLOT

■Ol

02

as

0 4

as

•aao.a0.60 .4

(Thousands) ELAPSED TIME (SECONDS)

0.2


87WELL: PW6

SLUG TEST: BCORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF


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


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


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)


0.2


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


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


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*)


PW—6: TEST DHVORSLE/ PLOT

020406

08

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

-22

- 2 4

2 6

-2 8200



93WELL: PW6

SLUG TEST: DCORRECT CORRECT LOG LOG OF


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


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


APPENDIX B

AQUIFER TEST DATA


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


PUMP TEST: IW -1 (r= 1 2 .7 'J

0 8

0 6

02

1.8

■ ̂ AiAAA ̂ ̂; n



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


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


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


-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)


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


Documents

The Effect of Well Efficiency on In-Situ Permeability Test