Ejemplo Jacob PDF

4-1
GEOL473 Hydrogeology
4. Aquifer Test and Well-

Production Tests

Aquifer Test

A series of tests that are used to evaluate aquifer’s hydraulic parameters such as
hydraulic conductivity (and/or transmissivity) and storage coefficient (or storativity) by using
transient drawdown from pumping.

Types of Aquifer Tests:

(1) Pumping test
This test consists of pumping a well at a constant rate fro a period of time. The
drawdown is measured as a function of time in one or more observation wells and,
perhaps, the pumping well.

(2) Slug test (falling‐ or rising‐head test)
This test can be conducted in a small‐diameter monitoring well. A known volume of
water is quickly added to (or drawn from) monitoring well. The rate at which the
water level falls or rises is measured (time vs. water level).

Pumping Test:
There are many types of pumping tests which are available for evaluating aquifer’s
hydraulic parameters based on graphical method. Three commonly used methods will be
discussed in the context of this class which include:

(1) Theis curve matching [confined aquifer]

(2) Cooper‐Jacob straight‐line method [confined aquifer]

(3) Neuman curve matching [unconfined aquifer]

The assumptions for using above methods for any type of aquifers are similar to
those listed in Lecture Note Set #3 where, normally, aquifer is assumed infinitely extent and
pumping is instantaneous.

Dr. Schradh Saenton Part 4: Aquifer Test & Well Production Test
4-2
1. Theis curve matching [confined aquifer]

1.1. Time‐Drawdown method [W(u) vs. 1/u] & [s vs. t]
1.2. Distance‐Drawdown method [W(u) vs. u] & [s vs. r2/t]

Procedures:
‐ Choose the method (either 1.1 or 1.2)
‐ Make a plot of type curve (well function) – usually given
‐ Make a plot of field data (drawdown, time)
‐ Overlay both plots together and move type curve (keeping both axes
parallel) until the data points overlie the field data curve
‐ Select a match point and calculate for aquifer’s hydraulic parameters using
equations shown in the Table 4‐1

Table 4‐1: Equations used in Theis curve matching.

Time‐Drawdown (1.1) Distance‐Drawdown (1.2)
From Graph Equations From Graph Equations
W(u) Q W(u) Q
Type Curve T= W (u) T= W (u)
1/u 4π s u 4π s
4Tt 4Tu
Drawdown, s S= 2 s S= 2
Field Curve
Time, t r [1 u ] r2/t ⎡⎣ r t ⎤⎦

Type curve for time‐drawdown method (1.1)

102
101
100
W(u)
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
1/u
4-3
Type curve for distance‐drawdown method (1.2)

102
101
100
W(u)
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
u

Example IV‐1
Analyze the following pumping test data for T, K, S, and Ss where the pumping rate is
220 gal/min. Aquifer is confined and 48‐ft thick. Time‐drawdown data from observation
well located 824 ft is shown below.

Time (min) Drawdown (ft)
First Step: plot field data (shown below)
3 0.3
Second Step: generate master curve (type curve 1.1)
5 0.7
8 1.3 Third Step: overlay both plots and find a match point
12 2.1
20 3.2
24 3.6
30 4.1
38 4.7
47 5.1
50 5.3
60 5.7
70 6.1
80 6.3
90 6.7
100 7.0
130 7.5
160 8.3
200 8.5
260 9.2
320 9.7
380 10.2
500 10.9
4-4

Thus, match point gives:
W (u) = 1.0
1 u = 1.0

s = 2.4 ft
t = 4.1 min

Calculate the values hydraulic parameters using equation shown in Table 4.1 (Q = 220
gal/min = 42,400 ft3/day, t = 4.1 min = 2.9×10‐3 day)

Q 4Tt

T= S= 2
4π s
W (u) r [1 u ]
42400 ft3 /day 4 × (1400 ft2 /day ) × ( 2.9 × 10 −3 day )
= × 1.0 =
4π × 2.4 ft [824 ft]2 (1.0)

= 1400 ft /day
2
= 2.4 × 10−5

T 1400 ft2 /day
Therefore, K = = = 29 ft/day
b 48 ft
S 2.4 × 10 −5
and Ss = = = 5.0 × 10 −7 ft‐1 .
b 48 ft

4-5
2. Cooper‐Jacob straight‐line method [confined aquifer]

Cooper and Jacob (1946) observed that after the pumping well has been running for
some time [sufficiently long time], u becomes small and the higher‐power terms of the
infinite series of W(u) becomes negligible. If u, 4r TtS < 0.05 , we can approximate W(u) using
2
only the first two terms.

u2 u3
W (u) = −0.5772 − lnu + u − + −L
2 ⋅ 2! 3 ⋅ 3!
≈ −0.5772 − lnu for u < 0.05
= − ln1.78 − lnu
⎛ r2S ⎞
= − ln1.78 − ln ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 4Tt ⎠
⎛ 2.25Tt ⎞
= ln ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ r S ⎠
⎛ 2.25Tt ⎞
= 2.303log ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ r S ⎠

Therefore, the equation for calculating transmissivity becomes:

Q 2.303Q ⎡ 2.25Tt ⎤
T= W (u) L → L T = log ⎢ 2 ⎥
4π s 4π s ⎣ r S ⎦

Procedures:
‐ Plot on semi‐log paper. Put time t on log scale and drawdown s on arithmetic
scale.
‐ Draw straight‐line on semi‐log paper
‐ Determine the value of ∆s (drawdown drop per one log cycle)
‐ Solve for T using the equation,

2.303Q
T=
4π ( ∆s )

‐ Extend the straight‐line toward zero drawdown. The line should intercept x‐axis
(time) at some positive time value. This time is called t 0 .
‐ Solve for S using the equation,

2.25Tt 0
S=
r2

4-6
Example IV‐2
Analyze pumping test data in Example IV‐1 using Cooper‐Jacob straight‐line method
to obtain the value of transmissivity and storavitity of a confined aquifer.

∆s = 5.5 ft
1 log‐cycle

From graph, ∆s = 5.5 ft , t 0 = 5.2 min (3.6×10‐3 day)

Calculate the value of transmissivity using ∆s ;

2.303Q
T=
4π ( ∆s )
2.303 × 42,400 ft3 /day
=
4π ( 5.5 ft )
= 1,400 ft2 /day

Calculate the value of storativity (storage coefficient) using t0 ;

2.25Tt0
S=
r2
2.25 × (1400 ft2 /day) × (3.6 × 10 −3 day)
=
[824 ft]
2
= 1.7 × 10‐5

4-7
3. Neuman solution [unconfined aquifer]

When water is being pumped out of an unconfined aquifer, the aquifer is not only
depressurized but it is also dewatered. Aquifer’s saturated thickness decreases and vertical
component of flow exists.
A graphical method for analysis of an aquifer test in an unconfined aquifer has also
been developed (Neuman, 1975). The flow equation for an unconfined aquifer is

Q
T= W ( uA ,uB , Γ )
4π s

where W ( uA , uB , Γ ) is the well function for the water‐table (unconfined) aquifer and

4Tu t 4Tu t r 2K
S = 2A Sy = 2 B Γ = 2 v .
r r b Kh

Two sets of type curve are used. Type‐A curves are good for early drawdown data,
when instantaneous release of water from storage is occurring. As time elapses, the effects
of gravity drainage and vertical flow cause deviations from the nonequilibrium type curve.
The type‐B curves are used for late time drawdown data when effects of gravity drainage
are becoming smaller. The type curve is shown below.

The above type curve can be used to evaluate field data for time and drawdown
which is plotted on logarithmic paperof the same scale as the type curve. The procedures
can be described below.

4-8
Procedures:
‐ Plot field data on log‐log paper. Time is on x‐axis and drawdown is on y‐axis.
‐ Superimpose the early time‐drawdown data on type‐A curves. The match point
will give W (uA , Γ),1 uA , t , and s . The value of Γ will also come from the type
curve.
‐ Calculate the value of T1 and S using the following equations.

Q 4T u t
T1 = W ( uA , Γ ) S = 12 A
4π s r

‐ Using the same value of Γ , slide the curve horizontally until late time‐drawdown
data matches type‐B curve. This new match point will give W (uB , Γ),1 uB , t , and s .
‐ Calculate the value of T2, average T, Sy, Kh, and Kv using the following formulae.

Q 4T2uBt
T2 = W ( uB , Γ ) Sy =
4π s r2
T +T T Γ b2 K h
T= 1 2 Kh = Kv = 2
2 b r

Example IV‐3
A pumping test was conducted in an unconfined aquifer which has an initial
thickness of 100 ft. An aquifer is being pumped from a fully‐penetrating well at a rate of
1000 gal/min. Time‐drawdown data was obtained from an observation well which is located
200 ft away [data is shown in the plot]. Analyze this data for hydraulic parameters.

4-9
Q = 1000 gal/min = 1.9 × 10 −5 ft3 /day b = 100 ft r = 200 ft

Type‐A curve match point (early time):
Γ = 0.1, W (uA , Γ) = 0.1, 1 uA = 1.0, t = 0.9, and s = 0.041

Using above equations, the following parameters can be calculated.
T1 = 3.7 × 104 ft2 /day
S = 0.0023

Type‐B curve match point (late time):
W (uB , Γ) = 0.1, 1 uB = 10, t = 128, and s = 0.043

Using above equations, the following parameters can be calculated.
T2 = 3.7 × 104 ft2 /day
Sy = 0.0031
T = 3.6 × 104 ft2 /day
K h = 360 ft/day
Kv = 9.0 ft/day

Slug Test:
Another type of aquifer test is called slug test (falling‐ or rising‐head tests). This kind
of test is cheaper to conduct since it does not involve pump installation and no observation
well is necessary. A single well or a piezometer is sufficient. This test can be used to quickly
determine hydraulic conductivity of the formation. A known volume of water is quickly
drawn or added to the test well. A rate at which the water level falls or rises is measured.
The data will be analyzed using appropriate methods.

There are many types of analysis methods for analyzing slug test data. This depends
on the response of the aquifer system to the added water in the test well.
(1) Overdamped response:
a. Cooper‐Bredehoeft‐Papadopulos (confined),
b. Hvorslev (partially penetrating well), and
c. Bower and Rice (unconfined)
(2) Underdamped response:
a. Van Der Kamp (confined, fully penetrating well)

In this class, we will consider the simplest (yet, effective!!) analysis method called
Hvorslev (1951). It can be used to analyze test data obtained from piezometer, auger hole
for both fully or partially penetrated aquifer. The configuration is shown in figure next page.
The test was conducted by adding or removing water from piezometer instantaneously and
the water level is recorded as a function of time.
4-10

Procedure:
‐ Plot test data (time vs. h h0 ratio) on a semi‐log paper. The value of h0 is the height
of water that rises above (or drops below) static water level (see above).
‐ If the length of piezometer is more than 8 times ( Le R > 8 ) the value of hydraulic
conductivity can be calculated using the following equation:

r 2 ln[Le R ]
K= ,
2Let37
where t37 is the time it takes for the water level to rise or fall to 37% of the initial

change.

Example IV‐4
A slug test was made with a Time (min) Depth to WL (m) Change in WL h/h0
piezometer that is screened in a coarse Static WL 10.20 ‐ ‐
sand. The inside diameter of both the well 0 11.06 0.86 1
screen and well casing is 4 in. The well 0.5 10.97 0.77 0.89
screen is 4‐m long. Use time‐water level 1.2 10.85 0.65 0.76
data shown below to determine the value 1.8 10.75 0.55 0.64
of hydraulic conductivity using Hvorslev 2.4 10.69 0.49 0.57
method. 3.2 10.60 0.40 0.46
First, calculate the change in 4.2 10.48 0.28 0.33
5.3 10.44 0.24 0.28
water level (column #3). The value of
6.3 10.38 0.18 0.21
h0 = 0.86 m. Then calculate ratio 7.6 10.33 0.13 0.15
h h0 (column #4). Plot time vs. h h0 h0 = 0.86 m
(see next page).
4-11
1
.90
.80
.70
.60
.50
.40 t37 = 4.0

Ratio h/h0
.35
.30
.25
.20
.15
.1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (min)

The value of t37 can be read from graph which is 4.0 min. Thus, the value of hydraulic
conductivity can be calculated with given the following parameters:

r = 0.0508 m
R = 0.0508 m
Le = 4.0 m

r 2 ln[Le R ]
K=
2Let37
(0.0508 m)2 ln[ 4.0 0.0508 ]
=
2 × (4.0 m) × (4.0 min)
= 3.52 × 10 −4 m/min
= 0.51 m/day

4-12
Well‐Production Tests
‐ To be added ‐

4-13
Exercise
1. Analyze the pumping test data from confined aquifer shown Example IV‐1 & 2 in lecture note
set #4 using (Theis) distance‐drawdown method (type curve 1.2) to calculate T, K, S, and Ss of an
aquifer.
[Ans: similar to Example Iv‐1 & 2]

2. The following pumping test data was obtained from confined aquifer. The pumping rate is 500
gpm (gallon per minute). Observation well is located 200 ft away from the pumping well. If the
aquifer is 100‐ft thick, calculate the value of T, K, and S of this aquifer using
a. Type curve 1.1 or 1.2, and
b. Cooper‐Jacob method.

Time (min) Drawdown (ft) r2/t
1.0 0.66 4.00E+04
1.5 0.87 2.67E+04
2.0 0.99 2.00E+04
2.5 1.11 1.60E+04
3 1.21 1.33E+04
4 1.36 1.00E+04
5 1.49 8.00E+03
6 1.59 6.67E+03
8 1.75 5.00E+03
10 1.86 4.00E+03
12 1.97 3.33E+03
14 2.08 2.86E+03
18 2.20 2.22E+03
24 2.36 1.67E+03
30 2.49 1.33E+03
40 2.65 1.00E+03
50 2.78 8.00E+02
60 2.88 6.67E+02
80 3.04 5.00E+02
100 3.16 4.00E+02
120 3.28 3.33E+02
150 3.42 2.67E+02
180 3.51 2.22E+02
210 3.61 1.90E+02
240 3.67 1.67E+02

[Ans: T = 14,000 ft2 /day, K = 4.8 × 10 −2 ft/day, S = 2 × 10 −4 ]

3. A pumping test was conducted in a water‐table aquifer (i.e. unconfined). Time‐drawdown data
is shown below. The pumping rate is 144.4 ft3/min. Observation well is located 73 ft away from
the pumping well. If initial saturated thickness is 100 ft, find T, KH, KV, S, and Sy,.

4-14

Time (min) Drawdown (ft) Time (min) Drawdown (ft) Time (min) Drawdown (ft)
0.165 0.12 2.65 0.92 80 1.28
0.25 0.195 2.8 0.93 90 1.29
0.34 0.255 3 0.94 100 1.31
0.42 0.33 3.5 0.95 120 1.36
0.5 0.39 4 0.97 150 1.45
0.58 0.43 4.5 0.975 200 1.52
0.66 0.49 5 0.98 250 1.59
0.75 0.53 6 0.99 300 1.65
0.83 0.57 7 1 350 1.7
0.92 0.61 8 1.01 400 1.75
1 0.64 9 1.015 500 1.85
1.08 0.67 10 1.02 600 1.95
1.16 0.7 12 1.03 700 2.01
1.24 0.72 15 1.04 800 2.09
1.33 0.74 18 1.05 900 2.15
1.42 0.76 20 1.06 1000 2.2
1.5 0.78 25 1.08 1200 2.27
1.68 0.82 30 1.13 1500 2.35
1.85 0.84 35 1.15 2000 2.49
2 0.86 40 1.17 2500 2.59
2.15 0.87 50 1.19 3000 2.66
2.35 0.9 60 1.22
2.5 0.91 70 1.25
(The plot is shown in attached page.)

[Ans: T = 20.8 ft2 /min, S = 0.002, Sy = 0.21, K H = 0.2 ft/min, KV = 0.02 ft/min ]

4. A slug test was made with a piezometer that is screened in a coarse sand. The inside diameter
of both the well screen and well casing is 2 in (i.e. r = R = 1 in ). The well screen is 10‐ft long.
Use time‐water level data shown below to determine the value of hydraulic conductivity using
Hvorslev method.

Time (s) Depth to WL (ft)
Static WL 13.99
0 14.87
1 14.59
2 14.37
3 14.2
4 14.11
5 14.05
6 14.03
7 14.01
8 14
9 13.99

[Ans: K = 79 ft/day ]
4-15
5. – To be added –

[Ans:]


Ejemplo Jacob PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ejemplo Jacob PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4-1

4. Aquifer Test and Well-

Q = 1000 gal/min = 1.9 × 10 −5 ft3 /day b = 100 ft r = 200 ft

where t37 is the time it takes for the water level to rise or fall to 37% of the initial

.40 t37 = 4.0

You might also like