1

LNAPL Transmissivity
ASTM Training Course Outline

u Learning Objectives
• Basic Baildown Test Analysis (Bouwer-Rice)
• Input Parameter Sensitivity
• Critical Baildown Test Factors
u Calculation of LNAPL Tn via Baildown Testing

10/17/18
2
LNAPL Transmissivity (Tn) for
Recoverability/ Producibility

u Accounts for magnitude of the mobile interval – MW

thickness
u Accounts for soil permeability

Tn = ∑ Kn over bn LNAPL

rn ·g ·k ·krn
Kn =
Theory

µn kn(Sn) varies the

mobile interval

u Accounts for LNAPL properties

u Accounts for variability in kn across the mobile
interval
Residual LNAPL
3 LNAPL Transmissivity, What Are We
Measuring?
Recovery Rate versus Drawdown
0.01 0.1 1 5 10 20
LNAPL TRANSMISSIVITY TYPE CURVES
100 3.7E+04
LNAPL RECOVERY RATE (GPD)

LNAPL RECOVERY RATE (GPY)

10 3.7E+03

1 3.7E+02

0.1 3.7E+01
MULTI-
VACUUM
PHASE &
ENHANCED
SKIMMING WATER
SKIMMING
RANGE ENHANCED
RANGE
RECOVERY
0.01 3.7E+00
0.01 0.1 1 10
LNAPL DRAWDOWN (FT)
10/17/18
4
What Are We Focused on Measuring?

u Drawdown – Measure fluid levels and calculate

• Gauging Methods
• Occasionally Transducers
• Measuring Drawdown is similar for Baildown Tests and
Manual Skimming Tests
u Discharge – Rate LNAPL flows for a given drawdown
• Measurement Varies between Manual Skimming and
Baildown
• The intent is to decrease measurement error by moving to
manual skimming at low thicknesses

10/17/18
5
Baildown Test Procedures

u Measure initial Depth to Product (DTP) and Depth to Water

(DTW)
u Rapidly remove LNAPL from well (with little water if possible)
u Measure DTP and DTW at different times, rapidly at first and
increasing interval later (recovery generally varies
logarithmically with time)
Field Testing

u When possible, monitoring of DTP and DTW should continue

until complete recovery achieved
u 20 to 30 measurements (DTP and DTW) are generally
adequate
u For more information see video at
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c8TLQid-bI

10/17/18
6
Removal of LNAPL

u Bailer – messy, time

consuming, disturbance of
fluids, water removal (I still use
it)
Field Testing

u Peristaltic Pump – can remove

only LNAPL – best Spill Buddy ™

u Vacuum Truck – removes all

fluids rapidly

10/17/18
7
LNAPL Removal Effects

Peristaltic pump –
low water removal –
steady water table
Field Testing

Vacuum Truck –
large fluids removal –
large water inflow –
unsteady water table

10/17/18
8
API Baildown Spreadsheet

u Provides tool consistent with ASTM methodology to analyze

baildown tests
• Helps identify and eliminate borehole recharge
• Includes methodology to analyze constant discharge
portions of confined and perched tests
• Includes multiple graphs for data interpretation
Data Analysis

u Analysis Methods
• Bouwer-Rice
• Cooper-Jacob
• CB&P
9
The Spreadsheet

10/17/18
10

Post-Test Diagnostic Tools

u Use Measurement of DTP and DTW to determine

• LNAPL Discharge to Well - Spreadsheet
§ Requires estimate of filter pack specific yield

• LNAPL Drawdown – Spreadsheet with user direction

u Diagnostic Tools
• Plot of LNAPL discharge versus LNAPL drawdown
§ Identify initial non-equilibrium conditions
§ Identify confined/perched LNAPL
conditions
• Plot of LNAPL thickness versus LNAPL drawdown
§ Used to determine the J-factor for data analysis
 Figure 1
11
What are the Key Aspects of the 0 10 20
Time (minutes)
30 40 50 60 70

Discharge vs Drawdown Relationship

33.6
33.8
34.0
34.2
34.4

Depth (ft)
u Near linear relationship between discharge and 34.6
34.8

drawdown, NOT TIME 35.0

35.2
35.4

u The discharge goes to zero at zero drawdown 35.6

DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP (red)

Data Analysis

Drawdown >0 Drawdown =03 Figure 3

Qn (ft /d) sn (ft) LNAPL Discharge (ft3/d)
0 0
6 0.12 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.45

0.40

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown Adjust.
DD Dsn (ft) 0.018
0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

Result: Result: 0.10

LNAPL No LNAPL 0.05

0.00
Discharge Flow LNAPL Drawdown - Discharge Relation
To Well
12
Poor Quality Tests

u Do not exhibit ideal discharge vs drawdown

behavior and are difficult to analyze
u Spend 2 hours removing the borehole volume
• If it recovers fully in thirty minutes, repeat test to
be certain
• Most tests distorted by not knowing filter pack
recharge vs formation
• Slug test still have this issue
13
Know Equilibrium Fluid Levels

u Wells where periodic bailing occurs are high risk

u Wells screens should not be occluded
u Historical hydrographs and diagnostic gauge
plots are useful to take into field for comparison
406 406 Air/LNAPL

Fluid Elevation (FT MSL)

Top Of Screen ~400 ft MSL
Fluid Elevation (FT MSL)

404 404 LNAPL/Water

Potentiometric Surface
402 402
400 400
398 398
396 396
394 394
Aug-93 Aug-96 Aug-99 Aug-02 Aug-05 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Gauged LNAPL Thickness (FT)
Provided by A. Kirkman
 14
Figures Are A Key Step in
Analysis & Review
Figure 1
Figure 1 Figure 2
Time (minutes) 0.6 33.76 Tim
Time (minutes)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0
60 70 10 20 64 33.76 3
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
33.6 3 3 .6 0.6 35.39
33.6
33.8 3 3 .8 64 35.39
33.8
34.0 3 4 .0
34.0
34.2 3 4 .2 16.1 #N/A 32.8
34.2 16.1 #N/A 0.0
34.4 3 4 .4
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft) 34.4

Depth (ft)
34.6 3 4 .6
34.6
34.8 3 4 .8
34.8
35.0 3 5 .0
35.0
35.2 3 5 .2
35.2
35.4 3 5 .4
35.4
35.6 3 5 .6
35.6
DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP (red) DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP (red)
DTW (blue ), Wat e r T

Figure 3
Figure 3 Figure 4
3
s n ( f t)
Qn (ft /d) sn (ft) LNAPL Discharge (ft3/d) 0.50
LNAPL Disbchar
n sn ge
0 0 0 0.45 1.53 0
0.12 6 0.12 0 100 20 30 40 50 10 20 0 0.275
0.45 0.40

0.40 LNAPL Drawdown sn (ft) 0.35

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

Drawdown Adjust.
Adj ust. J-ratio -0.180
0.35 0.30
0.01Dsn (ft)
8 0.018
0.00
0.30 0.25
0.25 0.20
0.20 0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

LNAPL Drawdown - Discharge Relation LN A PL Drawdown

LNAPL Thickness b n (ft)
-
 Figure 5 Figure 6
15 Discharge (ft 3/d) Discharge (ft 3/d)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
33.75 35.0
33.80 35.0
33.85 35.1

DTW (ft bgs)

33.90

DTP (ft bgs)

35.1
33.95
35.2
34.00
35.2
34.05
34.10 35.3

34.15 35.3

34.20 35.4

Depth to Product vs. LNAPL Discharge Depth to Water vs. LNAPL Discharge

Figure 7 Figure 7 Figure 8

1.60 1.60 Time (minutes)
1.40 1.40 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
45.0
1.20 1.20
LNAPL Thickness bn (ft)

LNAPL Thickness bn (ft)

40.0
1.00 1.00 35.0

Discharge (ft 3/d)

30.0
0.80 0.80
25.0
0.60 0.60
20.0

0.40 0.40 15.0

10.0
0.20 0.20
5.0
0.00
0.00 0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Time (min) LNAPL Discharge - Time Relation
Time (min)

Figure 9 Figure 10
0.5 Time (minutes)
0.4 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
LNAPL Well Inflow Volume (gal)

0.50
0.4 0.45

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

0.3 0.40

0.3 0.35 t
0.30
0.2
0.25
0.2 0.20
0.1 0.15
0.10
0.1
0.05
0.0
0.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Time (min) LNAPL Drawdown - Time Relation
16
LNAPL Drawdown–Discharge
Curve as Diagnostic Tool

u Drawdown-Discharge curve
should be linear through
the origin Filter pack drainage –
exclude data from analysis
u Residual drawdown at zero Residual drawdown =
0.08 ft = 2.4 cm
discharge implies initial
non-equilibrium between
formation and well fluids
u Equilibrium fluid levels
need to be well supported
with data
17
Ideal LNAPL Baildown Test Example
and Initial Data Review Tools

u ASTM and API provide new tools to understand if the data is ideal or what
corrections, if any, are appropriate
Time (minutes) LNAPL Discharge (ft3/d)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
25.0
0.45
25.5
0.40

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

26.0
0.35
26.5
27.0 0.30

Depth (ft)
27.5 0.25
28.0 0.20
28.5
0.15
29.0
0.10
29.5
30.0 0.05

30.5 0.00
DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP
LNAPL Drawdown - Discharge Relation
(red)
Where equilibrium fluid levels are not well
Hydrograph data help understand variability in
understood, equilibrium fluid level inputs can be
the water-table and consistency of LNAPL
adjusted to line the discharge versus drawdown
recovery trends
trend to intersect the origin (0,0)
18
Non-Ideal Discharge Versus Drawdown
Graphs - 1
u Filter Pack Recharge
u Rapid decrease of discharge but drawdown still remains
Discharge (ft3/d)
All Sand
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
29.00
LNAPL Discharge (ft3/d)
30.00
0 10 20 30 40 31.00

DTP (ft bgs)

1.20
32.00

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

1.00
33.00

0.80 34.00

35.00
0.60
36.00
0.40
Depth to Product vs. LNAPL Discharge
0.20

0.00

LNAPL Drawdown - Discharge Relation

19
J-Factor: J = dsn/dbn

DTP DTW

LNAPL column floats

sn
w.t. on stable water table
bn à J = - (1 – rr)

Huntley Method
t<0 t1 t2 t3

LNAPL column grows

on stable LNAPL-
sn water interface
à J = -1
Znw(0)
Lundy Method
t<0 t1 t2 t3
20
LNAPL Drawdown-Thickness as Diagnostic
Tool
u Provides significant parameter (J-factor) used
in LNAPL transmissivity calculation

J = - 0.223

J = - 1.225
21

(Generalized) Bouwer and Rice Method

re ln(R rw ) ln(sn (0 ) sn (t ))
2
Tn =
2 (- J )t
u re = effective well radius including filter
pack storage
u R/rw = radius of influence ratio
Data Analysis

determined from initial LNAPL column

thickness using Bouwer and Rice’s “C-
curve”
u Log-drawdown versus time curve should
be linear, slope used to determine Tn
u Huntley Method: - J = (1 – rr)
u Lundy Method: - J = 1

10/17/18 www.astm.org //
22
Bouwer and Rice Worksheet (B&R)
Generalized Bouwer and Rice (1976)
Only parameter is the r ln(R re ) ln(s n (t1 ) s n (t ))
2
u Tn = e
cut-off time (Timecut) to 2 (- J )(t - t1 )

eliminate early-time Enter early time cut-off for least-squares model fit Le/re
data impacted by filter 11.9
Timecut 25 <- Enter or change value here C
pack drainage and/or 1.27

other factors Model Results: Tn (ft2/d) = 2.79 +/- 0.08 ft2/d

R/re
6.14
Data Analysis

u How do you estimate Time (minutes)

J-Ratio
-0.192
the cut-off time? 0 50 100 150 200 250
0.0

u Look at Fig 3

Natural Log of Drawdown (ft)

-0.5

(drawdown-discharge) -1.0
Coef. Of
Variation

à linear relation when -1.5

0.03

sn = 0.25 ft -2.0

-2.5

-3.0

Bouwer and Rice Model

10/17/18
www.astm.org //
23
Use Figures 3 & 10 to find cut-off time

Figure 10
Filter pack drainage –
Time (minutes) exclude data from analysis
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 Residual drawdown =
0.50 0.08 ft = 2.4 cm
Cut-off time = 25 0.45

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

Data Analysis

minutes when sn = 0.40

0.28 ft 0.35 t (min) sn (ft)
0.30 25 0.25
0.25 25 0
Useful data 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LNAPL Drawdown - Time Relation

10/17/18 www.astm.org //
24
Exercise

u Discuss in Groups the Test

• Filter Pack Recharge
• Equilibrium Fluid Levels
• Can we Analyze them?
• What portion of the data should be analyzed?
§ Indicate in Period of Time or Consider defining in
terms of Drawdown or Discharge Ranges
25
Example #1

LNAPL Discharge (ft3/d)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.80 1.80

1.60 1.60

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

LNAPL Drawdown sn (ft)

1.40 1.40

1.20 1.20

1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00
0.00
LNAPL Drawdown - Discharge Relation 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

Time (minutes) LNAPL Thickness bn (ft)

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
37.0

38.0

Depth (ft)
39.0

40.0

41.0

42.0

43.0
DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP (red)
26
Example #2
LNAPL Discharge (ft3/d) 1.00

0.90
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.80 0.80

LNAPL Drawdown sn (ft)

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)
0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60

0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40

0.30 0.30

0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
LNAPL Drawdown - Discharge Relation LNAPL Thickness bn (ft)
Time (minutes)
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
4.5
Initial Thickness – 1.3 ft
Max Skimming Drawdown – 0.26 ft 5.0

Depth (ft)
No Recovery After 100 minutes 5.5

6.0

6.5
DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP (red)
27
B-R Type Curve Sheet
Print for Field Use or Use for Post Test Review
Enter these values
Type Curve Max Time Transmissivit
Type Curve ID Notes
Name (min) y (ft2/day)
1 T=10 ft2/day 150 10 J-Ratio
2 T=5 ft2/day 200 5 -0.180 <-- If uncertain use
3 T=2 ft2/day 200 2 -0.22
4 T=1 ft2/day 200 1
5 T=0.5 ft2/day 200 0.5
6 T=0.2 ft2/day 200 0.2
7 T=0.1 ft2/day 200 0.1

B&R Type Curves: Casing Rad. (ft) = 0.083 ; Borehole Rad. (ft) =
1.0 0.333

0.9 T=0.1 ft2/day

Normalized Drawdown (s/sinitial) (ft/ft)

0.8 T=0.2 ft2/day

0.7

0.6
T=0.5 ft2/day

0.5

0.4
105.00
0.3 T=1 ft2/day 110.00
115.00
120.00
0.2 125.00
130.00
0.1 T=2 ft2/day 135.00
140.00
145.00
0.0 T=10 ft2/day T=5 ft2/day
150.00
0 50 100 150 200 250

Time (min)

10/17/18
28
Type Curve (2-inch Well, 8.25- Borehole and
Static Potentiometric Surface)
29
Transmissivity Testing

u Testing for Tn isn’t as much about as a value but

being able to make a decision
u The use of the type curve for the specific scenario can
aid in making a decision even if a single value isn’t
obtained
u Filter pack recharge can interfere with any test
• Filter pack recharge induces larger error than long
periods of fluid removal
• No one has defined instantaneous criteria for slug tests
• Sensible criteria -1/10th relative to time for a well to
recover
30

DRAWDOWN
31
Mobile Interval of LNAPL for
Unconfined Hydrostatic Conditions
32
Various Hydrogeologic
Scenarios
HydroStatic HydroStatic
Perched Equilibrium Confined
33
LNAPL Drawdown Equations

u LNAPL in contact with mobile interval (unconfined, confined, perched)

𝑠"_$"%&"'(")* = 𝑍-"./0/12 − 𝑍-&

u Unconfined equilibrium potentiometric surface
𝑠" = 1 − 𝜌; 𝑏"_=8-8(% − 𝑏"
u Confined
• General for LNAPL/Water above confining contact
𝑍-"∗ − 𝑍%% 𝜌& − 𝑍"6(8) − 𝑍%% 𝜌6 − 𝑍-"(8) − 𝑍"6(8) 𝜌&
𝑠"_%&"'(")* =
𝜌&

• LNAPL water above confining contact and equilibrium potentiometric

surface

u Perched
34
Rail Car Shops Facility
Perched LNAPL
35
Confined LNAPL
7.5
3.6

ND

4.2
4.1

5.3

7.6
36

HOW DO WE CALCULATE
DRAWDOWN
CHANGE IN AIR/LNAPL INTERFACE?
37
Consider The Pressure Difference
in the Mobile Interval
EQUILIBRIUM BAILDOWN TEST BAILDOWN TEST
BAILDOWN TEST
FLUID LEVELS INITIATED t0 t1
t2
COARSE
GRAINED LAYER
WITH LOW ENTRY
PRESSURE HEAD
ZAO(*) Declining
MOBILE LNAPL
INTERVAL
ZAO(t) Discharge
Period t2
Constant

ZPOT(*) ZCC Discharge

ZPOT(t)
Periods t0 & t1

FINE
GRAINED ZOW(t)
LAYER WITH
HIGH ENTRY
PRESSURE
HEAD
ZOW(*)
38
Confined LNAPL Baildown Test
Scenario’s
u Confined baildown tests can exhibit up to 3 periods of different drawdown calculation methods
u Drawdown during time period t1 needs to consider changes in water head above the LNAPL
layer in the formation as well as changes in LNAPL
u Time period t1 can result in decreasing and constant discharge trends
u Drawdown can be calculated using the difference in air/LNAPL interface for time periods
similar to t2 and t0
t1 t2 t0

ZAO(*) ZAO(t) 𝒔 𝒕𝟎 &𝒕𝟐 = 𝒁𝒂𝒐∗ − 𝒁𝒂𝒐(𝒕)

FINE
ZPOT(*) GRAINED ZPOT(t)
LAYER WITH
HIGH ENTRY
PRESSURE
EQUILIBRIUM HEAD
FLUID LEVELS
(*)
ZCC
MOBILE INTERVAL ZOW(t ZAO(t)
ZOW(*) ) ZPOT(t)
COARSE
GRAINED ZOW(t
LAYER WITH
)
LOW ENTRY
PRESSURE
HEAD
www.astm.org //
39

Calculation of LNAPL drawdown for t1

u Applicable to equilibrium or non-equilibrium potentiometric surface
u Represents the LNAPL head difference at the confining contact between
equilibrium conditions and a given point in time
EQUILIBRIUM BAILDOWN TEST
FLUID LEVELS t1
Equilibrium Pressure
𝑃GHIJG 𝑍%% = 𝑔 𝑍-" − 𝑍%% 𝜌& ZAN(*) FINE ZAN(t)
ZPOT(*) GRAINED
Non-Equilibrium Pressure LAYER WITH
HIGH ENTRY
𝑃GHIJG 𝑍%% = 𝑔 𝑍"6 − 𝑍%% 𝜌6 + 𝑔 𝑍-" − 𝑍"6 𝜌& PRESSURE ZNW(t)
HEAD
𝑠 𝑡1,0 = 𝑍-"(8) − 𝑍-"∗ ZCC
MOBILE INTERVAL
ZOW(*)
Resulting Drawdown COARSE
GRAINED
LAYER WITH
𝑍-&∗ − 𝑍%% 𝜌& − 𝑍&6(8) − 𝑍%% 𝜌6 − 𝑍-&(8) − 𝑍&6(8) 𝜌& LOW ENTRY
𝑠 𝑍%% = PRESSURE
𝜌& HEAD

www.astm.org //
40

Questions?