Fundamental Concepts of Well Design by E. B. Williams? ABSTRACT Well performance and production life can be enhanced greatly by proper design and operation. Using screen entrance velocity as the only design criteria is not sufficient for describing flow around the well, and in many cases leads to an overly optimistic design. Approach velocity and turbulence (Reynolds Number) are more direct concepts in regard to the factors influencing long-term well efficiency, and their use as design criteria is strongly encouraged. In addition, sizing of sereen slots and filter materials is haphazardly practiced by coo many in the ground-water industry, and requires a renewed awareness Distribution of flow along the screen, as well as the vase number of aquifer conditions, are also factors to be considered during design. It is here that the judgement and practical experience of the hydrogeologist are most important. ‘The fundamental design criteria are relatively simple +o apply, and for the practicing hydrogeologist, the design process is aided by composite graphs. Several such design ‘graphs are given for convenient reference. INTRODUCTION In the field of ground-water hydrology, major attention has been devoted to the development and application of aquifer hydraulics, but unfortu- nately much less consideration is given to the well structure itself. Although substantial effort may be expended on aquifer testing and computations to ‘quantify the ground-water withdrawal, successful operation of the system may not be achieved if the consulting Hydrogeologist, Ground Water Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 280, Westerville, Ohio 43081 Discussion open until March 1, 1982. Vol. 19, No. §~~GROUND WATER-September-October 1981 wells are not properly designed. In many instances the project hydrogeologist or contractor has only a cursory knowledge of screen entrance velocity criteria, and artificial gravel filters are often designed solely on the basis of other previously installed wells in the area. This lack of attention to proper design can result in an inefficient well, requiring frequent cleaning and redevelopment, that is ultimately of limited usefulness to the owner. ‘The concept of well hydraulics, as distinguished from aquifer hydraulics, involves the flow of ground water only within the immediate area around the well and into the well itself. In contrast with the larger perspective accorded to aquifer studies, well hydraulics focus on a reduced scale, from di of a few feet down to intergranular areas. As such, itis obviously difficult, if not impossible, to conduct meaningful field tests for direct measurement of sand movement, turbulence within pore channels, and other related properties. Consequently, the funda- mental concepts of well hydraulics rely largely on empirical observations, controlled laboratory testing, and theoretical explanations, Nevertheless, these concepts have proven quite useful for reducing well losses and prolonging the aging process, as well as improving our general understanding of the related aspects of ground-water flow to wells. This paper does not attempt a detailed discussion of the mathematical theories involved in well hydraulics, but offers instead a more practical review of several design considerations and associated criteria, much of which has been presented in the form of graphs that can be applied readily by practicing hydro- geologists 527ARTIFICIAL GRAVEL FILTER AND SCREEN SLOT SIZE SELECTIONS Proper sizing of screen openings and artificial filter materials are the first and perhaps most important aspect of well design. Unfortunately, there is sometimes a tendency to install whatever is customary for other wells in the area, with no site-specific design considerations. Unexpected variations in aquifer materials can then result in difficulties with development, poor performance, or in severe cases, well failure Methods for evaluating artificial filter and screen-slot size requirements are adequately described in the literature. Most methods are similar in concept and do not differ appreciably in their results, Each method requires samples and grain-size distribution analyses of the aquifer materials, on which all subsequent design considerations depend. Hence, the importance of obtaining accurate formation samples cannot be overemphasized. Although artificial filters or “gravel packs” are being used widely for many large wells, there are still ‘many applications for wells with natural filters developed in place from aquifer materials. Naturally developed wells are less expensive than gravel-pack wells, but this advantage is offset by inherent aquifer limitations. For example, vertical stratifica- tion within the desired screen interval may include finer zones with insufficient coarse materials for natural filter development. Also, where there is a potential for incrustation, wider slot openings are preferred to minimize plugging of the screen. In such situations, a gravel-packed well allows more design flexibility. Using sieve analyses of the formation samples, a sereen slot size for naturally developed wells is selected to retain from 30 to 60 percent of the aquifer materials, allowing the remainder to pass into the well during development. According to Walton (1962), in heterogeneous material having a uniformity coefficient greater than 6, the screen should retain 50 percent where overlying material is soft and collapsible, or as litle as 30 percent if the overlying materials are firm. In homogeneous materials having a uniformity coefficient less than 3, the screen should retain 60 percent in areas of soft overburden, or 40 percent in areas of firm overburden. Uniformity coefficient is defined as, the ratio between the grain size at which 60 percent of the aquifer materials are finer (percent passing equivalent sieve opening) and the 10 percent finer grain size (Cy = deo/dio). If the average grain size (dys) of the coarsest zone is less than four times the average grain size 528 of the finest zone within the screened interval, screen slots should be sized according to the finest zone, Otherwise, separate screen sections should be sized for each zone. In some cases, itis better to not screen the finer zones, installing blank casing instead, with sufficient overlap provided to prevent migration of finer materials into the well. ‘As a general rule, artificial filters are recom mended where the dy» passing grain size is smaller than 0.25 mm (0.010 inches) and the uniformity coefficient is less than 3. As mentioned above, gravel-packed wells also may be recom- mended even where these criteria are not a limita- tion, to allow greater design flexibility. Although design techniques vary, all have in common the use of a gravel-pack ratio to establish size differential between the aquifer and filter materials. Generally, this ratio refers to either the dgo of dso passing grain sizes of the filter and aquifer. In uniform aquifer materials, this distinction will ordinarily give more or less similar results. However, in coarse, poorly sorted aquifers or where formation samples are not entirely representative, the dso grain size may be misleading and should be used with discretion. For this reason, working with the dso passing grain sizes is likely to be more consistent and is recommended. In either case the filter should be designed for the finest layer within the screened interval. A gravel-pack ratio of between 4 and 6 should be used for design: 4 if the aquifer is fine and uniform, 6 if the aquifer is coarse and heterogeneous. A ratio of less than 4 limits development and screen slot width. Ratios of 6 to 14 allow movement of sand and other fine particles from the aquifer into the filter with subsequent plugging. A ratio in excess of 14 may result in unrestrained sand invasion. Other investigators, such as Terzaghi and the U.S, Waterways Experiment Station (Leatherwood and Peterson, 1954), use a slightly modified approach. In these methods, the dis passing grain size of the filter is designed at four to five times the dss passing grain size of the aquifer material. dys filter djs filter fis filter gc His filter 7 : crzaghi: a aquifer is aquifer dhs filter yg filter USWI Huisman (1972) further suggests a very uniform filter material, such that the ratio of the deg to dio passing sizes of the filter are less than 2 or approxi- mately 1.4. A typical design would proceed as follows: Grain-size distribution curves of aquifer samples arereviewed and the finest zone within the screen interval is selected. The dao passing grain size of the aquifer material is multiplied by the gravel-pack ratio to obtain the dso of the filter. Through this point a preliminary curve is developed for distribu- tion of filter particle sizes. Uniform filters are preferred, and the curve should be refined to provide a uniformity coefficient of less than 2, preferably around 1,5. Specifications for filter materials then can be prepared by selecting several sieve sizes and determining percentage of filter material passing. A tolerance of 5 or 10 percent is normally allowed in the specifications. As a last step, a screen slot opening should be selected to retain 90 percent of the filter, equivalent to the dio passing grain size of the filter distribution curve, Final considerations are the thickness of the filter around the well screen and the type of filter material. Availability of local gravel supplies also should be considered. Thinner filters allow better development of the aquifer, but 3 inches (7.6 cm) are normally considered the practical minimum because of construction limitations on uniform placement of the filter around the screen. Similarly, a filter thickness in excess of 8 inches (20 em) may hinder aquifer development, especially if the well is installed by conventional mud-rotary technique and mud invasion of the aquifer occurs. For most wells, a filter thickness of from 4 to 6 inches is suitable. Silica or other related silicate minerals are normally preferred for filter materials, especially where acidization may be used later during well cleaning. Because of this, carbonate materials are relatively limited in applica- tion. Gravels should be washed to remove fine materials, in accordance with the filter specifica- tions, and should be rounded rather than angular. SCREEN DESIGN CRITERIA Probably the single most common cause of well problems is overpumping. Regardless of the capability of the aquifer to deliver water to a well, there is a maximum permissible capacity based on construction characteristics of the well itself. Indeed, it is this capacity that most directly influences the satisfactory performance and useful life of the well. Ideally, consideration of well design criteria, as well as sustained aquifer yield, bring about a well design in which both are compatible. Overpumping in effect produces excessive flow velocities around and through the well screen. This excessive flow can result in migration of fines, turbulence, and accelerated incrustation and/or corrosion, with associated head losses and shortened well life, Additional head losses are nat only inefficient from the standpoint of limiting available aquifer drawdown; they also increase pumping costs and associated power charges. The list of problems may also include frequent shutdowns, costly cleaning and repairs, excessive management involvement, and lower return on capital investment, In well design, the sizing of artificial filters and screen slot openings is more or less dictated by the prevailing aquifer conditions. Thus, that portion of the design is usually established first and used as the starting point for subsequent design computations. If necessary, filter and screen slot selections can be modified later on the basis of revised screened intervals, ete., when refining the final well design. However, it usually can be assumed that any adjustments in the filter and screen slot sizes will be minimal and that, for the most part, permissible capacity will be determined by manipulating screen length and/or diameter. Where these dimensions ultimately become limited by construction require- ments, its necessary to reduce the permissible aquifer withdrawal capacity to conform to the capacity established by well design criteria. A discussion of selected design criteria is given below. Approach Velocities From the radial flow concept, it is apparent that as ground water converges toward a well, its velocity increases. If the velocity exceeds a critical limit, finer particles will be transported from the aquifer into the gravel filter. The filter subsequently plugs, resulting in a loss of head. This velocity is designated the approach velocity (Va). It is measured at the interface between the aquifer and the filter, where the transport of fine particles is most likely to occur. Note, however, that this velocity term is equivalent to the specific discharge; that is, the discharge divided by the total circumferential area through which flow occurs. It should not be confused with the actual flow velocity, for which the area of flow is confined to intergranular pore spaces and for which an estimate is obtained by dividing the specific discharge by the porosity. ‘Two investigators separately developed enduring empirical relationships for limiting approach velocities. By observing a number of operating wells, Sichardt noticed a relationship between the hydraulic conductivity of aquifer materials and head changes as ground water approached the wells. This relationship, expressed in terms of approach velocity, is v, 245 36 >010 >3.05 6000 24s 6 “10 3.08 5000208 6 010 3.05, 4000163 6 010 3.05, 3000122 6 a0 3.05 2500102 5 008 254 2000 a2 5 008 254 1500 6 4 007 203 1000 “ 4 007 2.03 500 20 30.05 132 < 300 < 20 <2 6, ‘The writers further conclude that the greater part of flow into a well occurs within the length of screen, measured from the discharging end, required to obtain a CL/D value of 6. The remaining length of screen is relatively nonproductive. ‘A few sample computations will illustrate the implications of this corollary on well design. If we initially assume a commercial screen of 1-foot diameter (30.5 cm), with an open area of 40 percent, and a C, value of 0.4, thenC= 11.31 (0.4) (0.40) = 1.81 and Thus, flow will occur within a screen length of, less than 4 ft, and as 2 consequence, only 4 ft of screen would be necessary for design. If we assume, on the other hand, a fabricated screen of similar diameter (1 ft), but with an open area of only 5 percent, and a Cs value of 0.3, then 1.31 (0.3) (0.05) = 0.17 and In other words, over 10 times the length of screen is required. Several points pertaining to well design can be made from this example. For the initial condition involving a commercial screen, it is quite likely that the 4-ft length of screen, if installed, would be partially penetrating. This would increase drawdown and thus reduce well capacity. On the other hand, the length of screen required with 5 percent open area might not be suitable in a thin aquifer, indicating that either a larger diameter screen or one with more open area will be necessary. As a general guideline, screen length should be approxi: mately one-third of the thickness of an unconfined aquifer, or 70 to 80 percent of the thickness of a confined aquifer. Major departures from these guidelines should be carefully reviewed before final design approval. ‘The suggestion that the majority of flow passes through only a limited portion of the screen is of much greater consequence to well design. The criteria presented previously in this paper assume uniform distribution of flow. Peterson et al. define the section of productive screen by CL/D = 6; other investigators confirm similar results. Soliman (1965) reported that approximately 80 percent of the discharge passes through the upper 40 percent of screen length. It appears that a more uniform flow distribution might be obtained by varying open area along the screen, i.e. less open area near the discharging end of the screen with a progressive increase in open area toward the opposite end of the screen, However, for this to be effective, open area in some sections of the screen will need to be 10 percent or less, which will certainly limit well development after installation and also result in a greater likelihood of plugging with continued operation. Although this may be an area for future study, it cannot be recommended at this time. One factor that has been neglected so far in this discussion is the influence of aquifer stratifica- tion, It is quite common for certain layers or zones of the aquifer within the screened interval to be more transmissive and therefore contribute greater flows of ground water than others. This concept is evident from equations (1) and (3) of Sichardt’s approach velocity relationship. It is also generally accepted that the horizontal conductivity of an aquifer is greater than its vertical conductivity; thus, ground water will preferentially flow horizontally, except perhaps within the area of development around the well where natural layering of the aquifer is removed and where potential head differences are greatest. Excluding the effects of partial penetration, ground water will tend to flow horizontally toward a well in accordance with the gradients established in the aquifer. Near the well, but outside the zone of development, a vertical hydraulic gradient may occur as a result of the head losses near the discharging end of the screen. The relationship between the vertical to horizontal gradients and the horizontal to vertical conductivities can be used to determine the amount of deviation from horizontal flow in accordance with graphical analysis of the hydraulic conductivity ellipsoid and the following expression 1 _ cos? | sin% @s) Kg Kx °K where Kx hydraulic conductivity in horizontal direction, K, hydraulic conductivity in vertical irection, Kg = hydraulic conductivity in the angular flow direction, and 0 angle between the direction of flow and the horizontal axis, Alongside the well, within the filter and zone of development, there will be little or no difference between vertical and horizontal conductivities. However, the horizontal distance to the screen, at this point approximately one ft, is ordinarily much less than the length of the screen. Consequently, even when substantial vertical gradients exist, 537movement of water along (parallel to) the screen should not be far, especially with progressive convergence of flow from other levels in the aquifer. This analysis also can be extended to include several additional factors. At many locations, coarser, more transmissive materials occur along the bottom of the aquifer. If we arbitrarily assume the lower one-half of the screened interval is within this coarser zone, then the relatively greater flow from the coarser zone toward the lower portion of sereen should counteract the tendency of the water to flow toward the upper (discharging) end of the sereen. The resultant distribution of flow into the scteen may be more uniform, or perhaps even in reverse distribution to that predicted by Peterson etal. (1955). Also, in situations where the well penetrates only the top of the aquifer, flow from below the well into the lower portion of screen may again lead to a reverse distribution, even in homogeneous aquifers. As a final consideration, setting the pump in the middle of the screen extends the productive length of screen in both directions. To summarize, previous studies indicate that head loss through the screen is not significant for screens of moderate open area, These studies further conclude that only a limited portion of the screen is productive, because of convergence of flow to the discharge end of the screen. However, these studies have involved primarily laboratory testing, where screen lengths are limited and filter materials are artificially installed, uniform, isotropic, and only several feet in thickness around the screen. Conversely, ground-water flow to wells is often complicated by many factors, including aquifer stratification and partial penetration of the well scteen. In these situations it would not be unusual to obtain a more uniform distribution or even a reverse distribution from that predicted by the laboratory studies. Ultimate responsibility is therefore with the well designer, who must evaluate these effects and incorporate them into the final design. COMPOSITE DESIGN GRAPHS Itis evident that proper well design requires consideration of many interrelated concepts, and thus no single criteria or equation is adequate by itself. As a consequence, the design process involves trial-and-error procedures and compromise, supported largely by individual judgement and a great deal of patience. However, this process can be shortened by improving the initial design estimates. For this purpose, design reference graphs have proven to be most helpful. 538 A typical design graph is shown in Figure 6. With this particular graph, capacity per unit length of screen for diameters of 12, 24, and 36 inches are derived on the basis of approach velocity and Reynolds Number design criteria. To apply this graph in design problems, itis first necessary to know either the aquifer conductivity, the dag grain size of the aquifer, or the dso grain size of the artificial filter. Obviously, a design based on all three of these parameters will be the most effective. Application of this graph with each parameter is described as follows: 1. Aquifer conductivity. With this parameter, one enters the composite graph from the lower left-hand scale, moves right to the pivot line, and then upward to either of the Sichardt criteria lines. From this point, approach velocity in fpm can be read on the left-hand scale, or by moving right to the respective screen diameters for Va, capacity of the screen in gpm/ft is read on the top right scale, 2. Aquifer dyo grain size, Enter the composite graph from the top left scale and move downward to the Gross criteria line. Approach velocity in fpm then can be read from the left side scale, or by moving right to the respective screen diameters for Va, capacity of the screen in gpm/ft is read on the top right scale. 3. Filter dyy grain size. Turbulence within the artificial filter is a function of this parameter. With the filter dsp grain size, enter the composite gaph from the lower right-hand scale, move left to the pivot line, and then upward to either of the Reynolds Number criteria lines. From this point, flow velocity outside the screen face can be read on the left-hand scale in fpm, or by moving right to the respective screen diameters for Re, capacity of the screen in gpm/ft is read on the top right scale. Screen capacities obtained from this composite graph are then related to Figure 5 or equation (21), to evaluate screen entrance velocity versus screen open area. Where necessary, screen selection and open area are modified to maintain appropriate entrance velocities. ‘The composite graph in Figure 6 is, of course, strictly valid only for the assumptions used in its preparation. Nevertheless, by selecting relatively standard assumptions, the graph fits a surprising number of applications, and any adjustments subsequently required for final design are normally minimal. Assumptions implied in Figure 6 are a gravel-pack ratio of 5, a gravel filter thickness ofAguiter yg mm rem votocity, ou oa 8 condttiy, pore 8 j 10000! Fig. 6. Composite design graph. ww ‘ons 10% i TT IT | seer wo wr et 3. GVA Filter Thvctness = 6” 4. Temp 60°F + rT 5396 inches, a uniformity coefficient (dgo/dyo) of the aquifer equal to 5, and a ground-water temperature of 60°F. In addition to deriving design capacities, Figure 6 also illustrates the compromising relationship between approach velocity and Reynolds Number criteria, as evident from their opposing slopes. Although finer, less permeable aquifer materials are less likely to have turbulence around the screen, they are limited in approach velocities by potential transport of fines and head losses. Contrarily, coarser, more permeable materials have higher permissible approach velocities with less potential for migration of fines, but the increased void sizes within the filter are uch more likely to produce turbulent flow. In either case, one of these parameters becomes the limiting criteria, and it is this criteria on which the design must be based. Highest possible yields will occur where the criteria lines intersect. ‘The composite graph also suggests relative agreement between both approach velocity methods, Because the relationship between grain size and conductivity is not absolutely definable, it is of course necessary to compute each approach velocity separately on the basis of available data. However, it can be shown that the Gross relationship trends towards Sichardt’s lower limit (VK/220) in more uniform aquifers, and for the assumed aquifer uniformity coefficient of 5 in this composite graph, the Gross criteria equates to approximately VK/130. When deciding which Sichardt relation- ship to apply, the following guideline is suggested. In uniform, wellsorted aquifers, or where aquifer stratification is apparent, the criteria /R/220 is recommended; in heterogeneous materials having uniformity coefficients of 5 or more, the criteria of VR/110 is acceptable. Intermediate values are at the discretion of the designer; but they should be clearly supportable by the available data. Selection of the Reynolds Number criteria was previously discussed. It is worth noting again, however, that a Reynolds Number of 4 is recom- mended for most wells, especially if the ground water has reactive characteristics. Using the composite design graph, various screen diameters and lengths are quickly evaluated to establish the most viable designs. It is also helpful to prepare a simple graph of well capacity versus screen length and drawdown, as shown in Figure 7. For each particular screen diameter, there isa maximum capacity at which the screen length and drawdown intersect. A design capacity should be selected such that the design leaves at least 10 540 12 working graph for relating soreen us dravdown. 7. Representat length, diameter, and capacity vi ft between the drawdown and the top of the screen, to allow for the pump, seasonal fluctuations in water levels, slight head losses, etc. From the example in Figure 7, design recommendations for a.12-inch diameter well would be 30 ft of screen, with a resulting capacity of 300 gpm. On the other hand, if a capacity of 500 gpm is needed, approximately 25 ft of 36-inch diameter screen will be required. Refinements of the well design can now be made, including selection of type of screen construction and its open area, from screen entrance velocity criteria. The composite design graph will also assist in evaluating the effects of aquifer stratification and potential flow distribution along the screen. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The preceding discussions clearly demonstrate that successful operation of a well system must consider equally the design of the well structure itself in addition to the normal aquifer flow/draw- down computations. In fact, contrary to popular belief, the well design is probably of greater importance because of its direct impact on long- term well performance, efficiency, and operating costs, Moreover, it has been shown that there are several considerations involved in the design process. The sole criteria of screen entrance velocity is neither the only nor the best criteria to apply. Four fundamental concepts of well hydraulics have been presented. A thorough understanding of each of these concepts is critical to the successfuldesign of a well. In addition, these concepts can be applied to evaluations of operating character- istics of existing wells, especially for recurring cleaning problems and well failures. These concepts are: 1. Artificial gravel filter materials and screen slot openings must be properly sized. This is the first and most important step of the design process, upon which the following steps will depend. 2. Excessive flow velocities in the aquifer, particularly where the flow crosses the interface between finer aquifer materials into the coarser filter materials, may result in transport of finer particles into the filter and screen zones with consequent plugging. Two criteria are suggested for deriving this critical approach velocity. The first criterion establishes velocity from the relationship between the hydraulic conductivity and the gradient in the aquifer. The second criterion defines the critical transport velocity on the basis of aquifer grain size. The approach velocity concept is used primarily to determine borehole diameter and also to evaluate the contribution of flow from various strata or zones in the aquifer. 3. Turbulent flow in the filter surrounding the well produces additional head loss and thus lowers well efficiencies. More significantly, however, this pressure drop is suspected of releasing gases from solution, causing subtle shifts in chemical equilibria and thereby increasing the potential for incrustation or corrosion. The tendency for turbulent flow is described by the Reynolds Number concept, and it is this criteria that is used to determine screen diameter. 4. The last concept concerns the velocity of flow through the screen slot openings. This concept is frequently misapplied to determinations of screen diameter and length, and to quantify the concepts of 2 and 3 above. Screen entrance velocity is 2 useful concept for evaluating open area in regard to screen construction, but it should be restricted to this application. ‘There have been many other investigations into the hydraulics of screens, the review of which would be a major undertaking in itself. Among these, however, are several noteworthy laboratory tests which conclude that head losses across the sercen are actually insignificant, and that the majority of flow is obtained from only a limited portion of the screen. These conclusions are probably correct within the test parameters, but aquifer conditions are normally complicated by partial penetration, aquifer stratification, anisotropic hydraulic conductivities, etc. These studies also represent a limited time perspective, and their initially small head losses do not necessarily reflect the effects of overpumping for sustained operating periods. Thus, a review of these factors should be incorporated into the design process, but no specific design criteria from these studies are recommended at this time. ‘Throughout this paper, the discussion has seemingly implied pumping wells; however, the concepts discussed will be equally valid for design of recharge wells. As a general rule, the recharge capacity of a well is often assumed to be about one-half of its pumping capacity. From the standpoint of head loss through the screen and exit velocity criteria, this is approximately true. Reynolds Number and approach velocity criteria, on the other hand, will be more useful for describing the inherent problems of recharge wells, such as air entrainment and excessive plugging by fine particles. Until additional studies of recharging wells have been completed, however, the lower design criteria of Va < /K/220 and Re < 4 are recommended. It can be concluded that many varied factors influence the flow to wells, but the application of hydraulic concepts will ultimately lead to improved well performance. It is also quite apparent that well design is not the end, but rather the beginning of well evaluation, and the importance of maintaining accurate well records cannot be overemphasized. ‘There is no substitute for actual operating data, and the interpretation of this data in conjunction with our current under- standing of well hydraulics will largely determine the future development of well design concepts. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr. ‘Truman Bennett, for initially encouraging my interest in well design, and for providing many helpful comments during preparation and review of this manuscript. REFERENCES Anon. 1966. Ground Water and Wells. UOP Johnson Div. St. Paul, Minn, Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. American Elsevier Publishing Company, New York Blaie, A. H, 1970, Well screens and gravel packs. Ground Water. v. 8 Campbell, M. D. and J. H. Lehe. 1973, Water Well ‘Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York, S41‘Chong H. Z. etal, 1987, Flow into a well by electric and ‘membrane analogy. Trans. Am, Soc. Civil Engrs. v. 122. Custodio, B. and M. R. Llamas. 1976. Hidrologia Subterranea, Ediciones Omega, $. A. Barcelon Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Huisman, L. 1972. Groundwater Recovery. Winchester Press, New York. Jacob, C. E. 1947. Drawdown test to determine effective tadius of artesian well. Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. v.12. Krems, G, 1972. Study about aging of wells. Bundesminis- terium des Inneren, Berlin, Leatherwood, F. N. and D. F. Peterson. 1954. Hydraulic head loss at the interface between uniform sands of different sizes. Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. v. 35 Mogg, J. L- 1959. Effect of aquifer turbulence on well ‘drawdown. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., Jour. Hyd, Div. HY 11, Nov. ‘Muska, J. 1937. Flow of Homogeneous Liquids Through Porous Media. McGraw-Hill, New York Peterson, D. F. 1957. Hydraulics of wells, Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. v. 122. Peterson, J. $. et al. 1955. Effect of well screens on flow into wells. Trans. Am. Soe. Civil Engrs. v. 120. Rorabaugh, J. I. 1953. Graphical and theoretical analysis of step-drawdown test of artesian well. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. v. 79, Separate 362, Dec. Rose, H. E. 1945. On the resistance coefficient-Reynolds Number relationship for fluid flow through a bed of granular material. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. v. 153. Rumer, R. R. and P. A. Drinker. 1966. Resistance to laminar flow through porous media. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. Jour. Hyd. Div. HYS. Sept. Soliman, M. M, 1965. Boundary flow considerations in the design of wells. Proc, Am. Soc. Civil Engs. Jour. lnvig. Drain, Div, IRI. Mar. ‘Todd, D. K. 1959. Ground Water Hydrology. John Wiley '& Sons, New York. US. Dept. of Interior. 1981. Ground Water Manual. US, Govt, Printing Office, Denver. US. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Manual of Water Well Construction Practices. U.S. Govt Printing Office. vVaadia, Y. and V. H. Scott. 1958. Hydraulic properties of perforated wel casings. Proc. Am. Soe. Civil Engrs, Jour. Irig. Drain. Div. IR1. Jan. Walton, W. C. 1962. Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer evaluation illinois State Water Survey Bull 4. Ward, J.C. 1964. Turbulent flow in porous media. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. Jour. Hyd. Div. HYS. Sept. Wen, H. L. 1954. Inceraction becween well and aquifer. Proc. ‘Am, Soc. Civil Engts. no, 578. Nov Williams, D. E. 1981. The well/aquifer model: initial test results, Roscoe Moss Company. Los Angeles. Wright, D. E, 1968. Nonlinear flow through granular media. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs, Jour. Hyd. Div. HY. July, Ernest B. Williams is genoral manager and principal geologist of the consulting firm Ground Water Associates, Inc. He obtained bis B.S. degree in Geology from Capital University in 1970, and bis M.S. degree in Geology from The Obio State University in 1973. Mr. Williams has been involved in numerous aguifer investigations and contanaina: tion studies within the United States and in South America Objectives of NWWA The objectives of this association shall be: to assist, promote, encourage, and support the in- terests and welfare of the water well industry in all of its phases; to foster, aid and promote scientific education, standards, research, and techniques in order to improve methods of well construction and development, and to advance the science of ground-water hydrology; to promote harmony and cooperation between well contractors and scientific agencies relative to the proper development and protection of underground - water supplies; to encourage cooperation of all interested groups 542 relative to the improvement of drilling and pumping equipment; to encourage, serve, assist and promote closer cooperation among the existing State water well contractors’ associations and to foster the development of such associations in States where they do not exist; to collect, analyze, and dissem- inate to the public facts about the role of the water well industry in the economy of the nation; and to advance generally the mutual interests of all those engaged in the water well industry, in their own and the public welfare. NWWA Constitution