Suggested Operating Procedures for Aquifer Pumping Tests
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A New Approach to the Step-Drawdown Test
A new approach to the step-drawdown test Dr. Gianpietro Summa Ph.D. in Environmental and Applied Geology Monticchio Bagni 85028 Rionero in Vulture (Potenza), Italy e-mail: [email protected] Abstract In this paper a new approach to perform step-drawdown tests in presented. Step-drawdown tests known so far are performed strictly keeping the value of the pumping rates constant through all the steps of the test. Current technology allows us to let the submerged electric pumps work at a specific revolution per minute (rpm) and allows us to suitably modify the rotation velocity at every step. Our approach is based on the idea of keeping the value of rpm fixed at every step of the test, instead of keeping constant the value of the discharge. Our technique has been experimentally applied to a well and a description of the operations and results are thoroughly presented. Our approach, in this peculiar case, has made possible to understand how actually the discharge Q varies in function of the drawdown sw . It has also made possible to monitor the approaching of the equilibrium between Q and sw , using both the variation of Q and that of sw with time. Moreover, we have seen that for the well studied in this paper the ratio Q/ sw remains almost constant within each step. Keywords characteristic curve - pumping test - equipment/field techniques - hydraulic testing Introduction Step-drawdown tests are nowadays quite popular: they are the most frequently performed tests in the case of single well (Kawecki 1995). There are various reasons why they are performed: in the case of exploration wells, they allow to determine the proper discharge rate for the subsequent aquifer test; in the case of exploitation wells they allow, among other things, to understand the behavior of the well during the pumping, to determine the optimum production capacity and to analyze the well performance over time (Boonstra and Kselik 2001). -
Aquifer Test CONDUCTED on MAY 24, 2017 CONFINED QUATERNARY GLACIAL-FLUVIAL SAND AQUIFER
Analysis of the Cromwell, Minnesota Well 4 (593593) Aquifer Test CONDUCTED ON MAY 24, 2017 CONFINED QUATERNARY GLACIAL-FLUVIAL SAND AQUIFER TEST 2612, CROMWELL 4 (593593) MAY 24, 2017 Analysis of the Cromwell, Minnesota Well 4 (593593) Aquifer Test Conducted on May 24, 2017 Minnesota Department of Health, Source Water Protection Program PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 651-201-4700 [email protected] www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp To obtain this information in a different format, call: 651-201-4700. Upon request, this material will be made available in an alternative format such as large print, Braille or audio recording. Printed on recycled paper. 2 TEST 2612, CROMWELL 4 (593593) MAY 24, 2017 Contents Analysis of the Cromwell, Minnesota–Well 4 (593593) Aquifer Test............................................. 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Data Collection and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 7 Description .................................................................................................................................. 7 Purpose of Test ....................................................................................................................... 7 Well Inventory ......................................................................................................................... 7 -
Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas
Technical Report Transmissivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Storativity of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in Texas by Robert E. Mace Rebecca C. Smyth Liying Xu Jinhuo Liang Robert E. Mace Principal Investigator prepared for Texas Water Development Board under TWDB Contract No. 99-483-279, Part 1 Bureau of Economic Geology Scott W. Tinker, Director The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713-8924 March 2000 Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 5 HYDROGEOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 13 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 14 DATA COMPILATION ...................................................................................................... 14 EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES FROM THE TEST DATA ................. 19 Estimating Transmissivity from Specific Capacity Data.......................................... 19 STATISTICAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ -
Slug Tests in Unconfined Aquifers
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 4-2016 Slug Tests in Unconfined Aquifers Rozkar Izzaddin Ismael Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Hydrology Commons Recommended Citation Ismael, Rozkar Izzaddin, "Slug Tests in Unconfined Aquifers" (2016). Master's Theses. 699. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/699 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SLUG TESTS IN UNCONFINED AQUIFERS by Rozkar Ismael A thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Geosciences Western Michigan University April 2016 Thesis Committee: Duane R. Hampton, Ph.D., Chair Mohamed Sultan, Ph.D. Alan Kehew, Ph.D. SLUG TESTS IN UNCONFINED AQUIFERS Rozkar Ismael, M.S. Western Michigan University, 2016 This research presents a hydraulic conductivity (K) analysis of unconfined aquifers using slug tests. Slug tests are used to determine in situ aquifer hydraulic conductivity more quickly and economically than by a pump test. This study examines how to best conduct a slug test using a physical slug. Different common slug test analysis methods are compared, including Bouwer and Rice (1976), Hvorslev (1951), Dagan (1978) and Kansas Geological Survey (KGS, 1994). Questions that motivated this study include: Which methods are better for performing and analyzing slug tests? Does the size of the physical slug affect the results? Do large initial water level displacements produce better results than smaller displacements? Slug tests were performed at two sites: 1- Asylum Lake in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in a well 0.33 ft in diameter and 97 ft deep. -
Method 9100: Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, Saturated Leachate
METHOD 9100 SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, SATURATED LEACHATE CONDUCTIVITY, AND INTRINSIC PERMEABILITY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope and Application: This section presents methods available to hydrogeologists and and geotechnical engineers for determining the saturated hydraulic conductivity of earth materials and conductivity of soil liners to leachate, as outlined by the Part 264 permitting rules for hazardous-waste disposal facilities. In addition, a general technique to determine intrinsic permeability is provided. A cross reference between the applicable part of the RCRA Guidance Documents and associated Part 264 Standards and these test methods is provided by Table A. 1.1.1 Part 264 Subpart F establishes standards for ground water quality monitoring and environmental performance. To demonstrate compliance with these standards, a permit applicant must have knowledge of certain aspects of the hydrogeology at the disposal facility, such as hydraulic conductivity, in order to determine the compliance point and monitoring well locations and in order to develop remedial action plans when necessary. 1.1.2 In this report, the laboratory and field methods that are considered the most appropriate to meeting the requirements of Part 264 are given in sufficient detail to provide an experienced hydrogeologist or geotechnical engineer with the methodology required to conduct the tests. Additional laboratory and field methods that may be applicable under certain conditions are included by providing references to standard texts and scientific journals. 1.1.3 Included in this report are descriptions of field methods considered appropriate for estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity by single well or borehole tests. The determination of hydraulic conductivity by pumping or injection tests is not included because the latter are considered appropriate for well field design purposes but may not be appropriate for economically evaluating hydraulic conductivity for the purposes set forth in Part 264 Subpart F. -
American Water Works Association California-Nevada Section Annual Fall Conference 2015 Las Vegas, Nevada – October 27, 2015 1
Russell J. Kyle, MS, PG, CHG Associate Hydrogeologist Wood Rodgers, Inc. American Water Works Association California-Nevada Section Annual Fall Conference 2015 Las Vegas, Nevada – October 27, 2015 1. Basics of Pumping Wells 2. Types of Pumping Tests 3. Test Procedures 4. Data Analysis 5. Summary Basics of a Pumping Well Discharge Ground Surface Static Water Level Aquifer Loss Cone of Depression Well Loss Pumping Water Level Aquifer Cone of Depression Pumping Depression (1 Well) Specific Capacity Discharge Rate (gpm) Ground Surface Static Water Level Aquifer Loss Drawdown (ft) Well Loss Aquifer Specific Capacity (gpm/ft) = Discharge Rate / Drawdown Specific Capacity Specific capacity (Q/s) defines the relationship between drawdown in the well and its discharge rate. gallons per minute per foot (gpm/foot) of drawdown Often used as a metric of well performance Varies with both time and flow rate. Lower specific capacities will result in deeper pumping water levels, resulting in higher energy costs to pump. Example Calculation Q = 1,793 gpm Static water level = 114.07 feet Pumping water level = 160.3 feet Q/s = 1,793 gpm / (160.3 ft – 114.07 ft) = 39 gpm/ft Well Efficiency Discharge Rate (gpm) Ground Surface Static Water Level Aquifer Loss Drawdown (ft) Well Loss Aquifer Well Efficiency (%) = Aquifer Loss / Total Drawdown Well Interference Discharge Ground Surface Static Water Level Cone of Depression Interference Aquifer Well Interference Coalescing Pumping Depressions (2 Wells) 1. 2. Types of Pumping Tests 3. 4. 5. Typical Pumping -
Slug Tests in Partially Penetrating Wells
WATERRESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 30,NO. 11,PAGES 2945-2957, NOVEMBER 1994 Slugtests in partially penetratingwells ZafarHyder, JamesJ. Butler, Jr., Carl D. McElwee, and Wenzhi Liu KansasGeological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence Abstract.A semianalyticalsolution is presentedto a mathematicalmodel describing theflow of groundwaterin responseto a slugtest in a confinedor unconfinedporous formation.The modelincorporates the effectsof partialpenetration, anisotropy, finite- radiuswell skins, and upper and lower boundariesof either a constant-heador an impermeableform. This modelis employedto investigatethe error that is introduced intohydraulic conductivity estimates through use of currentlyaccepted practices (i.e., Hvorslev,1951; Cooper et al., 1967)for the analysisof slug-testresponse data. The magnitudeof the error arisingin a varietyof commonlyfaced field configurationsis the basisfor practicalguidelines for the analysisof slug-testdata that can be utilizedby fieldpractitioners. Introduction that the parameter estimatesobtained using this approach must be viewed with considerableskepticism owing to an Theslug test is one of the mostcommonly used techniques error in the analytical solution upon which the model is by hydrogeologistsfor estimatinghydraulic conductivityin based. the field [Kruseman and de Ridder, 1989]. This technique, In terms of slug tests in unconfined aquifers, solutionsto whichis quite simple in practice, consistsof measuringthe the mathematicalmodel describingflow in responseto the recoveryof head in a well after a near instantaneouschange induced disturbance are difficult to obtain because of the in waterlevel at that well. Approachesfor the analysisof the nonlinear nature of the model in its most general form. recovery data collected during a slug test are based on Currently, most field practitioners use the technique of analyticalsolutions to mathematical models describingthe Bouwer and Rice [1976; Bouwer, 1989], which employs flow of groundwater to/from the test well. -
Table of Common Symbols Used in Hydrogeology
Common Symbols used in GEOL 473/573 A Area [L2] b Saturated thickness of an aquifer [L] d Diameter [L] e void ratio (dimensionless) or e1 is a constant = 2.718281828... f Number of head drops in a flow of net F Force [M L T-2 ] g Acceleration due to gravity [9.81 m/s2] h Hydraulic head [L] (Total hydraulic head; h = ψ + z) ho Initial hydraulic head [L], generally an initial condition or a boundary condition dh/dL Hydraulic gradient [dimensionless] sometimes expressed as i 2 ki Intrinsic permeability [L ] K Hydraulic conductivity [L T-1] -1 Kx, Ky , Kz Hydraulic conductivity in the x, y, or z direction [L T ] L Length from one point to another [L] n Porosity [dimensionless] ne Effective porosity [dimensionless] q Specific discharge [L T-1] (Darcy flux or Darcy velocity) -1 qx, qy, qz Specific discharge in the x, y, or z direction [L T ] Q Flow rate [L3 T-1] (discharge) p Number of stream tubes in a flow of net P Pressure [M L-1T-2] r Radial coordinate [L] rw Radius of well over screened interval [L] Re Reynolds’ number [dimensionless] s Drawdown in an aquifer [L] S Storativity [dimensionless] (Coefficient of storage) -1 Ss Specific storage [L ] Sy Specific yield [dimensionless] t Time [T] T Transmissivity [L2 T-1] or Temperature (degrees) u Theis’ number [dimensionless} or used for fluid pressure (P) in engineering v Pore-water velocity [L T-1] (Average linear velocity) V Volume [L3] 3 VT Total volume of a soil core [L ] 3 Vv Volume voids in a soil core [L ] 3 Vw Volume of water in the voids of a soil core [L ] Vs Volume soilds in a soil -
Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures
United States Office of Office of Solid Waste EPA/540/S-95/504 Environmental Protection Research and and Emergency April 1996 Agency Development Response Ground Water Issue LOW-FLOW (MINIMAL DRAWDOWN) GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES by Robert W. Puls1 and Michael J. Barcelona2 Background units were identified and sampled in keeping with that objective. These were highly productive aquifers that The Regional Superfund Ground Water Forum is a supplied drinking water via private wells or through public group of ground-water scientists, representing EPA’s water supply systems. Gradually, with the increasing aware- Regional Superfund Offices, organized to exchange ness of subsurface pollution of these water resources, the information related to ground-water remediation at Superfund understanding of complex hydrogeochemical processes sites. One of the major concerns of the Forum is the which govern the fate and transport of contaminants in the sampling of ground water to support site assessment and subsurface increased. This increase in understanding was remedial performance monitoring objectives. This paper is also due to advances in a number of scientific disciplines and intended to provide background information on the improvements in tools used for site characterization and development of low-flow sampling procedures and its ground-water sampling. Ground-water quality investigations application under a variety of hydrogeologic settings. It is where pollution was detected initially borrowed ideas, hoped that the paper will support the production of standard methods, and materials for site characterization from the operating procedures for use by EPA Regional personnel and water supply field and water analysis from public health other environmental professionals engaged in ground-water practices. -
Hydrogeologic Characterization of Aquifers and Injection Capacity Estimation
Hydrogeologic characterization of aquifers and injection capacity estimation Main authors: Peter K. Kang (UMN ESCI), Anthony Runkel (MGS), Seonkyoo Yoon (UMN ESCI), Raghwendra N. Shandilya (KIST), Etienne Bresciani (KIST), and Seunghak Lee (KIST) Contents Introduction 2 Overview of four ASR study areas 4 Buffalo aquifer, Clay County 4 Jordan aquifer, City of Woodbury 6 Jordan aquifer, Olmsted County 10 Straight River Groundwater Management Area: Pineland Sands Aquifer 12 Methodology for InJection Capacity Estimation 19 Methodology Overview 19 Parameters estimation 21 Transmissivity 22 Allowable head change 23 Injection duration 25 Storativity 25 Well radius 25 Data sources 25 Application to aquifers in Minnesota 26 Transmissivity characterization 26 Buffalo aquifer, Clay County 26 Transmissivity of Jordan aquifer, Woodbury, Washington County 28 1 Transmissivity of the Jordan aquifer, Olmsted County 31 Allowable head change estimation 33 Buffalo aquifer, Clay County 34 Jordan aquifer, Woodbury, Washington County 37 Jordan aquifer, Olmsted County 40 Injection Duration, Storativity and Well Radius 44 Injection capacity 45 Buffalo aquifer, Clay County 45 Jordan aquifer, Woodbury, Washington County 48 Jordan aquifer, Olmsted County 50 Comparison of InJection Capacity 52 Identified Data Gaps 53 Groundwater Level Data 53 Aquifer Pumping Test Data 54 Future Directions 54 Incorporate Leakage factor in the Injection Capacity Estimation Framework 54 Recovery Efficiency of InJected Water 54 Conclusions 54 References 62 2 1 Introduction About 99% of global unfrozen freshwater is stored in groundwater systems, and groundwater is an essential freshwater resource both in the United States and across the globe. The availability of groundwater is particularly important where surface water options are scarce or inaccessible. -
Basic Equations
- The concentration of salt in the groundwater; - The concentration of salt in the soil layers above the watertable (i.e. in the unsaturated zone); - The spacing and depth of the wells; - The pumping rate of the wells; i - The percentage of tubewell water removed from the project area via surface drains. The first two of these factors are determined by the natural conditions and the past use of the project area. The remaining factors are engineering-choice variables (i.e. they can be adjusted to control the salt build-up in the pumped aquifer). A common practice in this type of study is to assess not only the project area’s total water balance (Chapter 16), but also the area’s salt balance for different designs of the tubewell system and/or other subsurface drainage systems. 22.4 Basic Equations Chapter 10 described the flow to single wells pumping extensive aquifers. It was assumed that the aquifer was not replenished by percolating rain or irrigation water. In this section, we assume that the aquifer is replenished at a constant rate, R, expressed as a volume per unit surface per unit of time (m3/m2d = m/d). The well-flow equations that will be presented are based on a steady-state situation. The flow is said to be in a steady state as soon as the recharge and the discharge balance each other. In such a situation, beyond a certain distance from the well, there will be no drawdown induced by pumping. This distance is called the radius of influence of the well, re. -
Field Test Report
PNNL-18732 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Field Test Report: Preliminary Aquifer Test Characterization Results for Well 299-W15-225: Supporting Phase I of the 200-ZP-1 Groundwater Operable Unit Remedial Design FA Spane DR Newcomer September 2009 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-ACO5-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576 5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S.