Classification of Transmissivity Magnitude and Variation by Jiri Kran} Abstract Until now no objective classification of transmissivity has been introduced, in spite of the quanti ive nature of transmissivity values and their obvious importance for quantitative appraisals of aquifers or major ground-water systems. ‘The usual subjective expression of transmissiv transmissivity values characte tude and vari representation of transmissivity. This cla Introduction ‘ransmissivty is an important hydraulic property of aquifers and water-bearing materials. In common with permeability, transmissivity affords a notion about the wwater-bearing. characteristics of hydrogeological bodies “Transmissivty values enable us to estimate the possibility of| ground-water abstraction, in the first approximation, Therefore, knowledge of transmissivity distribution helps us, to draw important conclusions from hydrogeological stu dies, and fortis reason, prevailing transmissivity values are often represented in hydrogeological maps. They provide a basis for future ground-water exploration, development, abstraction, and protection Yet, in spite ofthe quantitative nature of transmissivity and its importance for quantitative appraisals, no objective classification of transmissivity has been introduced. Quan- titative or semiquantitative terms describing transmissivity are often used, denominating different grades or classes as large, smal ete, but without strictly stating limits between them, This is the current case with hydrogeological maps, where the inexaely defined term “productivity” is some- times used (cf-eg., [AH etal, 1983), Even if transmissivity is expressed numerically, the verbal designation of numerical classes might involuntarily reflect the relation between hydrogeological conditions and water demand; in areas where yields of water wells are sufficient to cover limited water consumption, transmissivity may be designated as high; on the other hand, where well yields do not suffice for Department of Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Received January 1992, revised July 1992, accepted Sep tember 1992. Discussion open until September 1, 1993, 230 , for example as “high” or “low,” prevents the objective comparison of i different areas and hydrogeological environments. A combined classification of magni- ion of transmissivity is proposed, with the intention to standardize the expression, comparison, and ification also enablesits compact and unambiguous depict tables and maps. large requirements, transmissivity might be designated as low. Such a subjective approach prevents the objective comparison of transmissivity at both local and regional scales, including values represented on hydrogeological maps. Just as with transmissivity magnitude, transmissivity variation affords important information on hydrogeological properties. In spite ofits usefulness, however, this character- istic is very seldom used in hydrogeological studies, and no ‘objective basis for its comparison has been defined Therefore, a combined classification of transmissivity ‘magnitude and variation is proposed with the intention to standardize transmissivity expression, representation, and comparison in regional and local hydrogeological studies. This classification also enables its compact and unambigu- ‘ous depiction in tables and maps. Background The statistical distribution and prevailing values of permeability and transmissivity strongly depend on the rela- tion of the magnitude of elements of rocks heterogencity to the extent of the studied area (Rats, 1967). The idea was hydrogeologically interpreted by Kiraly (1975). Conse- quently, because ofthis “scale effect," representative values ‘of hydraulic parameters are substantially influenced by ‘methods used for their determination. Pumping tests are the ‘most frequent procedure used to determine transmissivity values that are often available as extensive data populations that may be used to characterize a hydrogeological envi- ronment. Wells are also the most common device for _ground-water abstraction in general. Many times, however, various less reliable historical data are available in archives. ‘These data are not suitable for determining exact hydraulic parameters such as the transmissivity and hydraulic eonduc- tivity; on the other hand, many of these data are good {enough to contribute to a general idea about the regional Vol. 31, No. 2~ GROUND WATER March-April 1993Table I. Classification of Transmissivity Magnitude Comparative regional parameters approximately corresponding to the coeficent of transmissiviy Very approximate Nonlogerithmic Logarithmic expected discharge Coefficient of Class of Designation of — — ~ — — inljs ofa transmissivity transmissivity transmissivity Specific capacity Index Ground-water single well at (jd) ‘magnitude magnitude qiniism ¥ supply potential __5 m drawdown 7 Very high Withdrawals of great regional importance > = 1,000 — ———1 ——v1 n High Withdrawals of lesser regional importance 3-0 = 100 1 60 — a Intermediate ‘Withdrawals for local water supply (small communities, plants, ete) 0s -5 — 0 or - 50 — ——— Ww Low ‘Smaller withdrawals for local water supply (private consumption, etc.) 0.05 - 0.5 Sob ot 4 v Very low Withdrawals for local water supply with limited consumption __0.005- 0.05 — 01 0.001 30 —~ ur Imperceptible ‘Sources for local distribution of transmissivity and/or permeability values and could be treated statistically. Therefore, a“category” of comparative regional parameters was introduced (Jetel, 1964; Jetel and Krsn, 1968), as described below, This gives usa good chance of drawing regional conclusions, especially when using simple statistical procedures for data analysis. ‘The classification of transmissivity magnitude and variation is proposed with the intention of expressing, representing, and comparing available transmissivity data in a more objective manner. Transmissivity Magnitude This classification of transmissivity magnitude was published by Krésnj (1970) and has been modifid several Limes afterwards (e.g Krésnf, 1986c) (0 reach the present form. On the basis of transmissivity studies both in Czechoslovakia and abroad, the range of values generally found is logarithmically divided into six classes from very high transmissivity ( class: coefficient of transmissivity T ‘more than 1,000 md) to imperceptible transmissivity (77 ‘class: T less than 0.1 m‘/d) as shown in Table I. In the table, the range of different clases is expressed in SI units and in approximately corresponding comparative regional parame- ters (ce, specific eapacty q and index of transmissivity Y) as wel, In Figure I, English units are also shown for compari- son. The divisions between clases in English units follow water supply are dificult Gt possible) toensure <0.005 more or less the orders of magnitude of SI units only by chance, as for example, in the case of transmissivity expressed in m'/d and ft'/d. ‘The index of transmissivity, Y, has been introduced asa comparative regional parameter, a logarithmic transforma- tion of specific capacity Jetel and Krésnf, 1968), Ithas been used advantageously since the distributions of the majority ‘of sample populations of transmissivity values are log- arithmic-normal; when using logarithmic parameter (.¢. the index Y, for example), the statistical distribution changes to a simpler normal one, To calculate the index og (10° g), specific capacity q has to be expressed in /s Approximate estimates of probable ground-water yield to wells are appended to all classes in Table 1. Thus, results of individual wells can be evaluated in the first approximation, but, more significantly, extended areas may be assessed in a preliminary way according to prevailing transmissivity values with respect to this important hydro~ geological issue (Table I) Many hydrogeological media are characterized by so- called chaotic heterogeneity; these are media where perme- ability (transmissivity) distribution is a random function without any apparent regional tendency, cf. Borevskiy tal, (1979), Where there are sufficient available data to be pro- cessed statistically, sample populations delimited by differ- 21tent rock types, areas, hydrogeological positions, etc. can be ‘treated to determine the arithmetic mean X and thestandard deviation of samples ofeach of them. As the factor by which to determine the class of transmissivity magnitude for each population, the interval X + § was chosen; if 70 or more percent of the interval belongs to one class, prevailing transmissivity is designated by the name or symbol of this class; if 30 to 70 percent of that interval belongs to either of the two (exceptionally three) adjacent classes, names (sym- bls) of both (all) classes are concentrated to designate the prevailing transmissivity, in order of the magnitude of their participation, In the case where 30 to 10 percent belongs toa class, its name (symbol) is enclosed in parentheses, No name (symbol) is used with a percentage less than 10. Some exam: ples of the classification procedures are given later. Trans- rmissivity values expressed by index of transmissivity Y or by coefficient of transmissivity or specific capacity, the last two in a logarithmic form, should be used when treating the samples statistically and determining the interval X + s. Examples of graphical statistical treatment of different sample populations of transmissivity values are shown in Figure |, where probability paper for plotting cumulative relative frequencies of samples was used. Similar representa- tion was used by Walton (1962, in Davis and DeWiest, 1966) More about the application of probability paper can be found in Spiegel (1972). Values of transmissivity outside the interval Xt s are considered anomalies, positive and negative (Figure 1) Both are of practicalimportance: the positive anomalies (the interval between X +s and X + 2s, designated as +A in Figure 1) indicate the zones of better possibilities for ‘ground-water abstraction compared with the area of prevail- ing transmissivity (hydrogeological background). The nega- tive ones (values between x —s and X—2s,ie.—A)show the zones to be avoided for water-supply purposes or where, on the other hand, there is generally less danger of ground- ‘water contamination, and where, consequently, location of landfills may be considered. The extreme anomalies, posi- tive (++) and negative ones (~~ A) can be found outside the interval X+ 2s (Figure 1) In cases where data cannot be treated statistically, the class of transmissivity magnitude is estimated directly onthe basis of prevailing values Variation in Transmissivity No homogencous environment exists under natural conditions; all environments are heterogeneous to a differ- ent extent often depending on the extent ofthe studied area CLASSES OF TRANSMISSIVITY MAGNITUDE VERY Low Low yTERMEDIATE | _HIGH VERY_HIGH Vv IV UL ul d n Fig. 1. Cumulative sgitude and variation, where » as ls |: 3 |e |e 2 is & Index Y {tsm] (gpeitt MP tmeiat Ts efi) of different samples of transmissivity values and their classification according to transmissivity specifi capacity in I/s m and in gpd/ft; T = coefficient of transmissii in m/d and in f¢/d; X arithmetic mean; s = standard deviation; and +A, +A, —A, ——A = fields of positive and negative anomalies (extreme sanomalies), respectively, and indi hydrogeological background), m2 dual anomalous water ells (outside the interval X ‘© s of prevailing transmissivity values =‘Table 2. Classification of Transmissivity Variation Standard deviation Class of Designation of Hydrogeological environmen from of transmissivity transmissivity transmissivity the point of view of index Y* variation variation Inydralic heterogeneity ** @ Insignificant Homogeneous 02 > Small Slightly heterogeneous o4 ¢ Moderate Fairly heterogeneous 06 - a Large Considerably heterogeneous —— 08- a . Very large Very heterogeneous Lo ~ — f xremely large Extremely heterogeneous = Or logarithmic transformation of any parameter expressing transmissivity + Usable especially for permeability evaluation but aso when evaluating transmissivity and the method used for hydraulic parameters assessment (scale effec), Variation in transmissivity can be expressed by using the standard deviation of the sample population of trans- rissivity values. Six classes denominated a to fare distin- guished, with all classes having the same range: 0.2 of the standard deviation ofthe logarithm of transmissivity. These classes ae based on the results of studies indifferent hydro ‘geological media (Table 2) It is well-knoven that insignfi- cant or small variation (classes a, 6) is typical of samples representing media having intergranular porosity (eg. well- sorted fluvial deposits) while large or very large variation of transmissivity (clases , e) are characteristic of media with dominant fissure porosity. Some examples are shown in Figure 1: the steeper the slope of the line representing the sample, the smaller the transmissivity variation of the sample Moreover, knowledge of transmissivity variation and ofthe interval X+senables us toexpressa range of probable transmissivity values and or intervals representing anoma- lies, and makes possible the prediction—on the basis of previous data—of future water well results, assuming that wells are drilled in the same area under the same conditions as those used forthe statistical analysis, Specific intervals of Y, q, or T values can be predicted on the respective axes, as, shown in Figure 1. The smaller the standard deviation (ie., the narrower the interval X + 3), the more reliable is the prediction. ‘The classification of variation (Table 2) may, of course, be used for the evaluation of permeability (hydraulic con- ductivity) as well, if this parameter is expressed in a loga- rithmic form. Variation of permeability and transmissivity ‘expresses a character of hydrogeological environment from the point of view of itshydraulic heterogeneity. In the case of transmissivity itcan aso reflect changes in aquifer thickness. Classification of Transmissivity ‘The classification of transmissivity magnitude (six classes / Fi) combined with the classification of transmissiv- n (sixelasses a-f)can be used for aquick and very simple quantitative characterization of different hydrogeo- logical environments and for their comparison. In addition, knowledge of transmissivity vatiation and of the interval Xk s enables us to predict future well yields and to indicate the hydraulic character of a hydrogeological environment. For example, an environment classified as fa i.e, very high transmissivity with insignificant variation, represents the optimum environment for ground-water development. Of ‘course, this characteristic does not express natural (or other) sround-water recharge. On the other hand, classification Via (emperceptible transmissivity with its insignificant varia- tion) indicates an environment almost without promise of ‘ground-water abstraction possibilities, while Vie or Vif (imperceptible transmissivity with very or extremely large variation) leaves some hope of discovering more permeable zones or areas where transmissivity may differ significantly from the mean values due to the extreme heterogeneity of the hydrogeological environment. The classification of transmissivity can be used in hydrogeological maps as reported in Krésny and Lopez (1989). It was used in the [:500,000 hydrogeological map of the Czech republic and ina slightly modified version alsoin the new edition of hydrogeological maps of Czech territory at 10,000 scale. In maps and in hydrogeological studies, three degrees may be distinguished of the density and reli- ability of available data: 1. In areas with sufficient data to process statistically, the interval Xt s of prevailing transmissivity values (hydro- aeological background) can be estimated; then both trans- missvity magnitude and variation can be expressed accord- ing to classifications in Tables 1 and 2, as mentioned above, 2, Imareas where prevailing transmissivity is estimated fon the basis of less numerous data so that no statistical {treatment can be undertaken, only the class of transmissivity magnitude may be assessed and expressed, for example by symbols, as follows: , IIHIY, etc 3. In areas with few or no transmissivity data, the prevailing transmissivity is assessed by analogy or by con- sidering the geological environment (especially lithology and structure) of the area and expressed by a symbol in brackets, eg. (VJ [FI] 233able 3. Basie Data forthe Example: 7 3 ‘Sample: 4 c Geological ‘Crystalline Quaternary environment: rocks esp. Cretaceous fluvial gneiss) sandstones __deposiss 332 405 639 343 47 631 376 527 633 380 532 676 32 538 6.80 Values of 437 Sas 642 the index V: 440 377 683 433 549 6.88 456 593 690 48 601 6.90 485 6.08 692 5s 615 705 Sis 630 638 a3 647 651 634 665 3 __ 430 5.86 67 0.62 048 0.19 Fay Ix 368492“SIRGS4 658-696 Timid: 04579) 14330__—_—360-860 Chases of magnitude and = IV(—V)d Mltd Wa variation of samples: ‘a= sample size, X= arithmetic mean of a sample; «= standard deviation ofthe sample; T = coeficent of transmissivity. All the values ofthe index of transmissivity ¥ (and accordingly those of the specific capacity, from which indices ¥ were derived) were determined as results of pumping tests from water well. Examples of Transmissivity Classification ‘Asexamples ofthe classification procedure, and also to demonstrate actual differences in transmissivity magnitude ‘and variation, three real statistical samples of transmissivity values from different hydrogeological environments within the Bohemian Massif in Czechoslovakia are presented. The basicdata for the examples are given in Table 3. Forsimplic- ity, samples are characterized directly by the values of the index of transmissivity Y,ie., by a logarithmic modification of specific capacity q, as stated above. The approximate relation between the index of transmissivity Y, specific capacity q, and coefficient of transmissivity T follows from Table I or Figure I. Example 1. In an area formed by crystalline rocks (especially gneiss)in southern Bohemia (sample A in Figure 1), the available values of index of transmissivity ¥ (Table 3) give the arithmetic mean X as 4,30, and the sample standard deviation s as 0,62. The classification interval X + $ covers the range 3.68-4.92, of which 74.2 percent belongs to the 24 class IV of transmissivity magnitude and 25.8 pereent tothe class ¥. According to its standard deviation, the sample belongs to the class d of transmissivity variation, Then the designation ofthe sample is IV (—V)d, ie. low to very low) transmissivity with lange variation, The approximate conversion of the index ¥ values to the respective transmissivity coefficient T'may be performed using the equation T (in mid) = 10" X 86,400 (Jetel and Krésnj, 1968). Then the arithmetic mean of sample expressed as transmissivity Tis 1.89 m’/d, and the interval X 1 lies between 0.45 and 7.9 md. Example 2. A sample of Y values from sandstones of the Cretaceous basin in northern Bohemia (sample B in ‘Table 3 and Figure 1) has the arithmetic mean 5.86 (ofindex Y), or expressed as T = 69 m'jd. Standard deviation of sample s=0,68; 60.3 percent ofthe interval xs (5.18-6.54) belongs to the class 17, 39.7 percent to the class 1. Accord- ing to the classification the sample may be designated as HII, ic. intermediate to high transmissivity with large variation, Approximately 68 percent ofthe sample (interval X+Es)can be expected to be between transmissivity values 14 and 330 m'/d, Example3. sample of ¥ values from fluvial deposits of the River Labe in central Bohemia (sample C in Table 3 and Figure 1) has an arithmetic mean x = 6.77 (T= 650 rid), standard deviation s=0.19, interval £ s= 6.58-6.96 (T= 360-860 mjd), One hundred percent of the interval belongs to the class 1; according to the standard deviation, the clas of transmissivity variation isa. The sample can be classified a8 1a, ie, high transmissivity with insignificant variation Closing Discussion and Conclusions ‘The proposed classification of transmissivity magni- tude and variation aims to provide a basis for a quantitative and objective expression and representation of prevailing transmissivity in hydrogeological maps and studies Expressing transmissivity classes in a compact formenables 1 quick and objective comparison of different areas and/or hydrogeological environmentsin local and regional studies. Hydrogeological background and anomalies (positive and negative ones) can be determined if statistical treatment of samples is possible. Future water well results can then be antitcipated on the basis of a statistical approach. This methodology, of course, cannot replace detailed and com- plex mathematical models. It ean, however, help to formmu- late general regularities and to prepare a way for definition ‘of prevailing natural conditions. It may be considered asthe first step on the way towards hydrogeological data quanti- fication, ‘Some interesting conclusions have been drawn from various studies that have applied the methods described in this paper # Similarities or, on the contrary, significant differ- fences in prevailing transmissivity between distinct types of rocks or of whole hydrogeological basins [Carlsson and Carlstedt, 1977; Krésny, 1975, 1976, 19863; Krésny and Lopez, 1989; Michlicek, 1982; and many explanatory notes to hydrogeological map of Czechoslovakia 1:200,000, e-2.Hazdrové (ed,), 1983; Jetel (ed), 1986; Krésn§ (ed), 1982]. Differences in transmissivity depending on hydro- geological position of wells (areas of recharge or discharge, Krésnj, 1974, 1984). Vertical-depth permeability changes in different types of rocks (Krasn, 1975, 1986b). On the basis of mean (prevailing) transmissivity values, anew method for ground-water runotffestimation in fissured “hard” rocks was proposed (Kriisny and Knezek, 1977; Knezek and Krasny, 1990). ‘A summary of some of the above-mentioned conclu- sions was published recently (Krasnj, 1990) ‘After the first step of evaluating the spatial distribution of transmissivity and determining an arithmetic mean and a standard deviation, a redistribution of values among differ- ‘ent statistical samples is sometimes useful; thus, more homogeneous samples can be produced, characterized by a narrower interval ofthe hydrogeological background X + s and aless ambiguous classification of transmissivity magni- tude with less transmissivity variation. Anomalies indicating zones with relatively greater or smaller transmissivity (per- meability) may give hints: revelation of buried alluvial fans may serve as an example (Krasn, 1983). In similar cases, hydrogeological conclusions may even influence geological conclusions. ‘To maintain one of the principal advantages of the proposed classification, ie., quick and easy data analysis, simplifying assumptions were accepted which usually do not affect results but which, however, should be taken into account, Some of them are as follows: 1. Transmissvity (permeability) is considered to be a random funetion ofa natural hydrogeological environment. ‘Therefore, the samples of data from wells are considered to be random samples from an infinite population. This is not the case for many available data samples, as many times ‘water wellsare purposefully located in more promising sites ‘As a consequence, the statistical distribution of a sample ay be biased toward greater values; that is, the distribution is skewed more to the left when represented by a histogram. More realistic statistical models can be obtained when data are pretreated so that a selection of data from more perme- able zones is made by choosing only selected values as representative, or by calculation of a weighted arithmetic 2. Unsuocessful water wells naturally should belong to fa sample; however, usually neither specific capacity nor Yield are stated in archive reports. Ifthe number of unsuc- cessful wells is known, an estimation of basic statistical characteristies is possible by graphical or numerical approx- imation of unknown values by using the presumed statisti- cal, ie, lognormal model distribution [Krsnf (ed.), 1982]. In case of an unknown numberof failures, no remedy exists and as a result, we have to consider the possibilty that a sample where unsuccessful wells were probably omitted may overestimate the actual transmissivity 3. Different depth of wells, naturally, may cause addi- tional variation of transmissivity values. That is why a pre~ liminary selection should be made so as not to accept too ‘great differences in depth of wells within the same statistical sample, particularly in hydrogeological environments where thickness of aquifer may influence transmissivity changes. Generally, however, relatively great differences in well depths (@.., tens of meters when mean depth is about 100 meters) cannot significantly influence variation in transmis- sivity, as its horizontal changes caused by the variability within a geological environment (lithology, fracturing) are usually much more significant than those ones caused by different depth of wells 4, Diameter of most drilled water wells ranges from 0.2 100.4 m. These differences do not usually influence statsti- cal characteristics significantly, as can be seen by examining ‘equations for steady-state radial flow toward a pumped wel, Only large numbers of hand-dug or other large-diameter wellssuch as are bored in fluvial deposits ori the weathered zone of hard rocks may significantly influence the basic ‘transmissivity characteristics of a sample, It is evident that these influences may cause some inaccuracies in transmissivity data generalization and regionalization, However, the author's experience during previous studies suggests that they do not affect the principal of the combined classification of transmissivity magni- tude and variation presented here: to quantify and standard- ize transmissivity expression, comparison, and representa- tionin hydrogeological maps and studies. Within samples of greater size, both inaccuracies and distinct influences are usually balanced, and even relatively small differences in transmissivity magnitude and or variation repeatedly found in some areas or environments might have logical hydrogeo- logical grounds. ‘Transmissivity classification has usually been used in regional hydrogeological studies, i. with most tansmissiv- ity values measured atthe scale of pumping ests from water wells and the space around them. Logarithmic-normal dis- tribution of statistical samples of permeability and transmis- sivity values prevail there. Transmissivity classification, however, could be used for studies of areas of different size (even under laboratory conditions) as well. In these cases, other types of statistical distribution (models) and also dif- ferent values could be expected because of the scale effect ‘Therefore, it should be explicitly stated, when using the classification, the extent of the studied area and conse- quently the method of transmissivity (permeability) assess- ment that was used, References Borevskiy,V.V.B.G, Samsonov, and LS. Yavin. 1979. Metod- ika opredeleniya parametrov vodonosnykh gorzontov po danny otkactek. Nedra, Moskva. 326 pp Carlson, Land A. Carlstedt, 1977, Estimation a transmissibility and permeability in Swedish bedrock. Nordic Hydrology, Copennagen . 8, pp. 103-16 Davis, S. Nand RJM. DeWiest, 1966. Hydrogeology. J. Wiley, ‘New York-London-Sydney. 463 pp Hazdrony M. (od) 198. Vnvelvky kadai hydrogeologické rape CSSR 1:200 G00, st 12 Praha in Crech: Explana- tory notes 10 basic hydrogeological map of CSSR 1:200,000 shect 12 Praha) Usted istavgeoloickS, Praha. 163 pp TAH, TASH, and UNESCO. 1983, Tateratonal legend for 235hydrogeological maps. Revised version. 51 pp. Jetel, J. 1964. Pouriti hodnot specifické vydatnosti a novjch ‘odvozenjeh parametru vhydrogeologi(in Czech: Applica- tion of specific capacity values and new derived parameters in hydrogeology). Geol. Pruzk., Praha. v. 6,120. 5, pp. 1aalas, ete, J (ed). 1986. Vsvetivky k7Aktadni hydrogeologické mape ‘CSSR 1:200 000, list 03 Liberec, 04 Nachod (cist) [in Czech: Explanatory notes to basic hydrogeological map of CSSR 1:200,000, sheet 03 Liberec, 04 Nichod (part)] UUstredni dstav geologicks, Praha. 157 pp. JJetel, J-and J. Krésng. 1968. Approximative aquifer characteris- ties in regional hydrogeological study. Vest Ust. Ust.geol Praha. v. 43, no. 5, pp. 459-461 Kiraly,L. 1975. Rapportsur état actul des connaissances dans le ‘domaine des caractéres physiques des roches karstiques. In: Hydrogeology of Karstc Terrains. [AH Paris. pp. 53-67. Knezei, M. and J. Krésng. 1990, Natural groundwater resources ‘mapping in mountainous areas of the Bohemian Massif ‘Mem, 22nd Congress [AH. v. 2, Lausanne, pp. 846-854, Keésng, J. 1970, Zpracovini a plosné vyiadreni nekterfch hydro= geologickch prvku v mapich (in Czech: Elaboration and areal expression of some hydrogeological elements in maps). Sbor. 5. hydrogeol. konfer., Zlin, pp. 57-68. Kedsnj, J. 1974, Les differences de la transmissvite statistique. ‘ment signficatives, dans es zones diniltration et du drain- age. Mém, AIH'10, 1. Communic, Montpellier, pp 204211 Krésnj, J. 197S, Variation in wansmisivty of crystalline rocks in southern Bohemia, Vest. Ustr Ust. ol. Praha. v.$0,n0.4, pp. 207-215, Krésnj, J. 1976. Statstckd analiza hydrogeologickjch dat 7 odkrkonasské permokarbonské pave (in Czech: Statisti= cal analysis of hydrogeological data from the Permo Carboniferous Krkonose-piedmont basin), Sbor. gol. Ved, Hydrogeol-Inz. Geol, Praha, v. 13, pp, 113-152. Krisng, 1.1983. Hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of the Foot- hill Zone. MS D.G. Geol. Survey and Miner, Investig, Baghdad. Krdsnj, J. 1984, Viiv hydrogeologické porice hornin na jejch Dropustnost (in Czech: Influence of hydrogeological posi- 236 tion of rocks on their permeability). Geol, Pruzk., Praha, v.26, no. 12, pp. 342-345, Krdsng), J. 1986a, Regiondini tendence hodnot transmisvity v jihomoravském Mluvidinim kvartéru (in Czech: Regional tendencies of transmissivity values in Southmoravian flu- vial Quaternary deposits). 2p. geol. Wak, 1984, Ustr. dist. ‘geol Praha. pp. 121-123, Keasn§, J. 1986b, Charakter propustnosti a transmisivita fyso- ‘jch sedimentu jizni césti Zdénického lesa (in Czech Character of permeability and transmissivity of flysh ‘deposits ofthe southern part of the Zdnickj les Mis) Zpr gol Wek. 1984, Usie. dst. geol. Praha, pp. 119-121 Krdsn, J, 1986c, Kiasifikace ransmisivity aje pouzt (in Czech Transmissivity classification and its application). Geol Pruzk,, Praha. v. 28, no. 6, pp. 177-179, Kedsng, J. 1590. Regionalization of transmissivity data: hard rocks ofthe Bohemian Massif. Mem. 22nd Congress JAH. v1, Lausanne, pp. 98-105. Kelsnj, I. (ed). 1982. Vysvetlviy k zAkladat hydrogeologickt ‘mape CSSR 1:200 000, list 13 Hradec Krélové (in Czech Explanatory notes to basic hydrogeological map of CSSR. 1:200,000, sheet 13 Hradec Krélove). Ustrednf istav geo- logiek, Praha. 159 pp Krdsng, J. and M. Knezek, 1977, Regional estimate of ground- ‘Water cun-off from fissured rocks on using transmissivity coefficient and geomorphologie characteristics. J. Hydrol Sci,, Warszawa. ¥. 4, nd, 2, pp. 149-159, Krisnj, J and A. Lopez. 1989. The general hydrogeological map ‘ol Nicaragua 1:250,000; Principles of compilation and content. Mem. Internat. Symp. on Hydrogeol. maps as tools for econ, and social development, Hannover. pp 413-422, Michlfcek, F. 1982. Statstické analfza tansmisivty hornin ¥j- ‘chodni cisti Ceskomoravske vrchoviny (in Czech: Statst- ‘al analysis of transmissivity of rocks inthe eastern part of the Ceskomoravska vrchovina MIs), Sbor. geal. Ved, Hydrogeol -Inz. Geol, Praha, v, 16, pp. 91-120, Rats, M. V. 1967. Neodnorodnost gornykh porad i ikh fiziches- kikh Svoystv. Nauka, Moskva. Spiegel, M. R. 1972, Theory and Problems of Statistics in SI Units, MeGraw-Hill Book Co. 359 pp,