A Study on the Causes of Variations in Transmissivity and ...

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Master's Theses Graduate College

12-1995

A Study on the Causes of Variations in Transmissivity and A Study on the Causes of Variations in Transmissivity and

Storativity During Pump Tests at Asylum Lake Storativity During Pump Tests at Asylum Lake

Paul Joseph Pare

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, and the Hydrology Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Pare, Paul Joseph, "A Study on the Causes of Variations in Transmissivity and Storativity During Pump Tests at Asylum Lake" (1995). Master's Theses. 808. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/808

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].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F808&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/252?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F808&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1054?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F808&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/808?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F808&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



A STUDY ON THE CAUSES OF VARIATIONS IN TRANSMISSIVITY AND STORATIVITY DURING

PUMP TESTS AT ASYLUM LAKE

by

Paul Joseph Pare

A Thesis Submitted to the

Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Geology

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan

December 1995

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A STUDY ON THE CAUSES OF VARIATIONS IN TRANSMISSIVITY AND STORATIVITY DURING

PUMP TESTS AT ASYLUM LAKE

Paul Joseph Pare, M.S.

Western Michigan University, 1995

Over a two year period, Western Michigan University

ran a number of pump tests in the Asylum Lake Area in

Kalamazoo, Michigan. The transmissivities and stor-

ativities calculated from these tests differed signifi

cantly from well to well in any particular test, and from

pump test to pump test. Utilizing the computer programs

AQTESOLV 3.0 and Aquifer Parameter Estimator, a number of

T and S values were calculated. After analysis of the

results, the following conclusion was drawn. The main

reason for the deviations in the T and S values arose

from the mixing of the results of numerous methods (some

of which were confined aquifer methods). The aquifer

that was affected by the pump test is an unconfined

aquifer, which required an unconfined analysis method in

order to get results within reasonable limits.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my

committee: Dr. Duane Hampton, Dr. Alan Kehew, and Dr.

William Harrison, III. I would also like to thank the

Western Michigan University Geology Department, and most

in particular Richard Laton, Heidi Wines, William Sauck,

and Beverly Britt, who has assisted me in many ways.

Finally I would like to thank Dr. Michael Kasenow, who

has been a friend and mentor throughout this entire

process.

I would also like to thank my family: Annette Pare,

my mother, Joseph Pare, my father, and Ann-Marie Pare, my

sister for all their support and assistance both in this

endeavor and in all my past endeavors that have brought

me to this point. Finally, I would like to thank Jenna

Irwin for being there on the darker days of this project.

I would also like to thank: WMU Hydrogeological

Field camps of 1993 and 1994.

Paul Joseph Pare

ii


INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI

films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some

thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be

from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality

illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,

and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete

manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if

unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate

the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and

continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each

original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced

form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations

appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to

order.

UMIA Bell & Howell Information Company

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600



UMI Number: 1377827

Copyright 1995 by Pare, Paul Joseph

All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 1377827 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103


Copyright by Paul Joseph Pare

1995


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES........................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES......................................... vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1

Thesis Statement ................................ 1

Overview ......................................... 1

Short History of Hydrogeology and Pump Tests . . 2

Location ......................................... 7

Lithology ....................................... 7

Well Design/Configuration ...................... 8

II. METHODOLOGY ......................................... 9

Test Specifications ............................ 9

Computer Programs Used in Analysis ............. 9

E q u a t i o n s ..................................... 10

T h e i s ....................................... 11

Jacob-Cooper .............................. 11

R e c o v e r y .................................. 11

Aquifer Parameter Estimator ................. 12iii


Table of Contents -- Continued

CHAPTER

Theis-z(u) Time-drawdown Solution ........ 13

Regression Analysis Time-drawdown Solution. 13

Sensitivity Analysis... .................... 15

Recovery Analysis .......................... 15

III. R E S U L T S ......................................... 18

Previous Methods ............................ 18

Theis M e t h o d s ............................ 19

Neuman Methods ............................ 20

IV. D I S C U S S I O N ....................................... 29

Difficulties Involved in Each Pump Test . . . 29

July 1993 .................................. 29

August 1993 ................................ 30

June 1994 .................................. 30

August 1994 ................................ 30

Difficulties With the F l o w ................... 31

Development Concerns .......................... 32

Changes in Lithology .......................... 32

Miscellaneous Factors ........................ 33

V. CONCLUSIONS....................................... 35

iv


Table of Contents -- Continued

APPENDICES

A. T and S Results From AL-1..........................36

B. T and S Results From AL-4.......................... 53

C. T and S Results From AL-18......................... 58

D. T and S Results From AL-27......................... 75

E. T and S Results From AL-28......................... 80

F. Site Map.............................................85

G. Well Configuration Diagrams.........................87

H. Well Log.............................................91

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................93

v


LIST OF TABLES

1. Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and Storativity ResultsFrom AL-1 for 1993.................................. 20


3. Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and Storativity ResultsFrom AL-4 for 1993 .................................. 22


5. Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and Storativity ResultsFrom AL-18 for 1993................................ 23




9. Neuman Solution Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and Storativitiy Results From 1993(Compilation)......................................... 27

10. Neuman Solution Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and Storativitiy Results From 1994(Compilation)......................................... 28

vi


LIST OF FIGURES

1. Theis Curve for Well AL-1 forJuly 1993........................................... 37

2. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-1 forJuly 1993........................................... 38

3. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-1 forJuly 1993........................................... 39

4. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-1 forJuly 1993........................................... 40

5. Theis Curve for Well AL-1 forAugust 1993......................................... 41

6. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-1 forAugust 1993......................................... 42

7. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-1 forAugust 1993......................................... 43

8. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-1 forAugust 1993......................................... 44

9. Theis Curve for Well AL-1 forJune 1994........................................... 45

10. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-1 forJune 1994.......................... •.................. 46

11. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-1 forJune 1994........................................... 47

12. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-1 forJune 1994........................................... 48

vii


List of Figures--Continued








20. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-4 forAugust 1994.............. 57

21. Theis Curve for Well AL-18 forJuly 1993........................................... 59

22. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-18 forJuly 1993........................................... 60

23. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-18 forJuly 1993.............................. 61



viii






29. Theis Curve for Well AL-18 forJune 1994........................................... 67

30. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-18 forJune 1994........................................... 68

31. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-18 forJune 1994........................................... 69








ix




40. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-27 forAugust 1994 .............................. 79





45. Site Map.............................................. 86

46. West-East Well Configuration Cross-Section........... 88

47. South-North Well Configuration Cross-Section. . . . 89

48. Well Nest Configuration.............................. 90

49. Composite Well Log for Asylum Lake Area............. 92

x


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Thesis Statement

The objective of this study is to determine the

reasons for the seemingly wide variance in the trans

missivities and the storativities which have been ob

served in four different pump tests conducted over two

years at the Asylum Lake study area during the Western

Michigan University hydrogeological field camps.

Overview

The following study deals with the analysis and

interpretation of four pump tests from the Lee Baker Farm

(near Asylum Lake) Western Michigan University Hydro-

geological study station in Kalamzaoo located off Drake

Road between its intersections with Parkview and Stadium

Drive. These pump tests were run in Spring 1993 (July

13-16), Summer 1993 (August 24-27) , Spring 1994 (June

21-24), and Summer 1994 (August 1-6). The initial pur-1


pose of these pump tests was to serve as field exercises

for the WMU Hydrogeological field courses. Pump tests

are used as a tool to determine the characteristics of an

aquifer; specifically, how readily water flows through

aquifers. This knowledge can be used in a variety of

ways, such as determining water availability for a munic

ipal well, the parameters used in designing a remediation

effort, etc. In this case, the pump test was being used

as an exercise to define the characteristics of the area

in a systematic way. Having data for multiple pump tests

in this area is an additional advantage, because it

allows a degree of reproducibility, along with determin

ing any temporal changes that may have occurred.

Short History of Hydrogeology and Pump Tests

The first person to integrate pump time and drawdown

data into a single analysis method was Charles Theis

(Theis, 1935). This allowed analysis of transient draw

down data to determine aquifer parameters. Previously, a

pump test had to be continued until the aquifer reached

steady-state conditions conditions (where recharge = dis-


charge) in order to determine aquifer parameters. The

Theis solution method includes a number of equations and

a type-curve. A type-curve is a theoretical curve which

is fit to measured data points in order to determine ne

cessary information to plug into the Theis equations.

This method does require a number of assumptions (called

the Theis assumptions) in order for its results to be as

accurate as possible:

1. Discharge from the pumping well is instantaneous

with decline in pressure.

2. The well fully penetrates and is open through the

entire extent of the aquifer.

3. The well's radius is very small so that in the

well storage is negligible.

4. Flow to the well screen is radial, horizontal and

laminar.

5. The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic.

6. Aquifer thickness is uniform.

7. The aquifer is horizontal and bounded above and

below by impermeable beds (aquifer is confined).

8. The aquifer remains saturated during the entire


pumping test.

9. The aquifer is infinite (in areal extent, no

areal boundaries and thus, no recharge).

10. All water released from storage within the

aquifer comes from the cone of depression (the aquifer is

isolated from the overlying or underlying leaky aquifers,

local recharge, precipitation, irrigation, rivers, lakes,

and wetlands) (Kasenow, 1995) .

Two difficulties with the Theis method are: the

Theis method's curve matching technique has a strong sub

jective component to it and the curve matching is time/

labor intensive. In 1946, Jacob and Cooper created an

alternative method to the Theis curve. While it still

must meet the assumptions discussed above, its results

are obtained from fitting a straight-line through the

test data (usually the late-time data). The need for

using late-time data (or nearby observation wells) arises

from the fact that there is an additional assumption in

the Jacob-Cooper method. The benefits of using this

method include: (a) the straight-line analysis is less

subjective, (b) the time/labor is greatly reduced, and


(c) this method can be applied to different wells simul

taneously, to one well over time, or both.

The disadvantages to obtaining aquifer parameters

using graphs are numerous, the largest being that it is

time consuming to create and there is a certain subjec

tivity in the actual construction and interpretation.

Therefore, Sheahan (Sheahan, 1967) created a method for

calculation of T and S without a Theis graph (but using

the Theis equations), therefore making the technique more

efficient. Using a list called the Z(u) list, Sheahan

developed a method to obtain u and W(u), needed for the

Theis equations. The difficulty involved was that it was

time consuming to do this method by hand, and it was not

until computers became more readily avaiable this method

was incorporated into a computer program. An adaption of

Sheahan's method was used in Aquifer Parameter Estimator.

The above discussion of pump test data analysis con

sidered only confined aquifer solutions. Although these

equations can be modified to simulate an unconfined sol

ution, they are not true unconfined aquifer solutions.

This makes the results suspect. One such solution was


used this study, based on the work of Neuman (1974,

1975). He created a solution which would analyze delayed

yield behavior in an aquifer. The delayed yield effect

is caused by the aquifer pores dewatering during the test

(Bouwer, 1978). This causes the graph to become flat in

the middle, thereby deviating from the Theis curve.

Neuman essentially created a solution to match both parts

of the S-shaped curve produced by the pump test data on

log-log axes. The transmissivity and storativity can

then be obtained from curve matching and using the match

ed points in his equations.

Both Theis (Theis, 1935) and Jacob (Jacob, 1963)

created equations and graphs that allowed transmissivity

to be calculated using the data obtained as the wells

recover after the pump has been turned off. Both these

methods use the water level measurements as the wells re

cover, called residual drawdowns (or drawup), and these

points are plotted on graphs (both Theis and Jacob recov

ery techniques are straight line methods). In more re

cent times, Kasenow (1995) created a method allowing the

Theis equations to be implemented using a non-graphical


technique. Kasenow's method allows the storage coeffi

cient to be obtained. While Kasenow was not the first

person to come up with such a method, he was the first to

implement it in a fashion which could be used quickly in

a non-graphical fashion.

Location

The pump tests were run on the Lee Baker Farm (near

Asylum Lake) Western Michigan University Hydrogeological

study station in Kalamazoo located off Drake Road between

its intersections with Parkview and Stadium Drive. The

aquifer pumped is an unconfined aquifer.

Lithology

In the study area, the soils at depths between 1 to

3 feet are a mixture of fine/medium sand, loamy soil, and

organics. From 3 feet down to a clay layer at 180 feet,

the aquifer consists of sand ranging from fine to medium

grained. From a number of wells installed in the area,

both lenses of very fine material (very fine sand to

almost silt) and coarse material (pebbles) have been


8observed. These lenses appear random and non-uniform

throughout the area.

Well Design/Configuration

The site is during this study was configured with a

pumping well and four observation wells (Figure 47,

Appendix G). The pumping well is designated as AL-4; it

is a 5.25 inch diameter steel cased well installed by

cable tool rig. It is screened from 74 to 89 feet below

the surface, using a 10 slot stainless steel screen from

74 to 84 feet and a 15 slot stainless steel screen from

84 to 89 feet. The pump is a 5 horsepower Flint and

Walling submersible pump. The observation well AL-18 is

45.67 feet east of AL-4, and is screened from 55 to 70

feet (Figure 45, Appendix G). There are two observation

wells on the west side of AL-4. AL-1 is 23.75 feet from

AL-4 and is screened from 80 to 95 feet. AL-27 is 64.67

feet from AL-4 and is screened from 63 to 78. AL-28 is

52.75 feet north of AL-4 and is screened from 63 to 78

feet (Figure 46, Appendix G). All observation wells are

2 inch PVC wells, with 10 slot PVC screens.


CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Test Specifications

Four data sets were used in the analysis. The first

data set was collected in the Spring 1993 Hydrogeology

field camp. AL-1, AL-4, and AL-18 were used in the ana

lysis of the pump test. The pumping rate was 73.7 gal

lons per minute (gpm) over a 48 hour period. The Summer

1993 Hydrogeology field camp used AL-1, AL-4, and AL-18

in the analysis. The pumping rate was 77.3 gpm for 50

hours and 45 minutes. AL-1, AL-4, and AL-18 were used

for the Spring 1994 analysis; the test ran for 51 hours

and 30 minutes at a rate of 71 gpm. Finally, the Summer

1994 test analysis used AL-1, AL-4, AL-18, AL-27, and

AL-28. The pumping rate was 67.5 gpm for 97 hours.

Computer Programs Used in Analysis

The four sets of data were analyzed using both pump

test equations and recovery equations. Two computer pro-9


10grams were used in the analysis of the data: Aquifer

Parameter Estimator 1.0-3.0 (APE) and AQTESOLV 2.0.

AQTESOLV 2.0 is published by Geraghty & Miller Modeling

Group and APE is published by Water Resources Publica

tions. The analysis with APE included: Jacob-Cooper Re

gression Analysis, Theis Sensitivity Analysis, Theis

Time-Drawdown Analysis, and Theis Recovery Analysis. In

the AQTESOLV program, the following analyses were used:

Jacob-Cooper time-drawdown analysis using visual curve

matching or statistical curve matching, Theis method

using visual curve matching and statistical curve match

ing, Neuman method (both visual and statistical curve

matching), and Theis recovery using both the curve match

ing and statistical options. The graphical results are

presented in Appendices A-E.

Equations

The following equations are the basic equations used

in the analysis of pump test data. The other equations

(presented later) are derivatives of these equations.


Theis

Z (u) = s(l/2t)/s(t)

T = 144.6*Q*W(u)/s

S = uTt/1.8rA2 (Kasenow, 1995)

s = drawdown at time t = ft

T = transmissivity = gpd/ft

S = storage coefficient or specific yield = unitless

Q = pump rate = gpm

W(u) = Theis parameter

u = Theis parameter = rA2*S/(4*T*t)

r = observation well distance = ft

Jacob-Cooper

T = (264*Q)/As

S = (0.3*T*t(o))/rA2

As = slope of straight line data fite over one log cycle = ft

t(o) = time of zero drawdown on straight line = min

Recovery

T = 264*Q/(As') = 114.6*Q/s1*ln(t/t1) (Kasenow, 1995)


12

As'= slope (rise over one log cycle) of residual drawdown = ft

t = time duration of pumptest + residual time = min

t '= residual time = time since pumping ceased = min

s ' = residual drawdown

Aquifer Parameter Estimator

The program APE, Aquifer Parameter Estimator, is a

groundwater analysis program based on the work of prior

hydrogeologists, with further developments by Michael

Kasenow (Kasenow, 1995) . The version published in 1993

and further embellished versions were used throughout

this study. It has modules that can handle anything from

steady-state data to pumping well data to observation

well data, using a variety of methods and techniques.

The main solutions used were: a Theis-z(u) time-drawdown

method, a regression analysis time-drawdown method, a

sensitivity analysis method, and a Theis-Z(u) recovery

and regression analysis method for observation well data.

Pumping well data sets were analyzed using a Theis-Z(u)

recovery and regression analysis solution.


13Theis-z(u) Time-drawdown Solution

This method uses time-drawdown data, calculating a

transmissivity and a storativity for each point. This is

accomplished using the equation

Z(u) = s(l/2t)/s(t) (Kasenow, 1995)

The power of this equation lies in the fact that this

value has been calculated, it is related to the list of u

and W(u) values which are part of Theis' equations. This

list is searched and an interpolated matched u and W(u)

are found. T and S are then calculated for this particu

lar data point. These individual T and S values are then

averaged for a range of data points. The information

output to the user includes a the list of these T and S

values, along with the slope at each point. One can use

the slope, T, and S values to look for trends, and there

by take only a select interval of points to calculate

one's final T and S values.

Regression Analysis Time-drawdown Solution

This takes time-drawdown data and uses a least-


squares statistical approach to determine the T and S

values. The following equations are used obtain the

needed information to calculate T and S.

m = [n(EXY) - (Ex)(EY)] /[n(EX*2) - (EX)*2]

b = [ (EY) (EX*2) - (EX) (EXY) ] /[ n(EX*2) - (EX)*2]

m = slope of least-squares line fit through the data = ft

n = # of data points

b = y-intercept = ln(t(o))

EX = summation of the natural log of the times

EY = summation of the drawdowns = ft

EX'*2 = summation of the square of the natural log of the times

EXY = EX * EY

With these variables, T and S can be calculated using the

equations

T = Q / (4) (P) (m)

S = [2.25 (T) / r*2] [Exp [(-4) (P) (T) (b) / Q] ](Khan,1982)

Q = discharge = gpm



It is also possible to calculate the correlation coeffi

cient, R. R is a guage of the adequacy of the line fit.

The value of R approaches 1.0 as the line fit approaches

perfection. The equation for R is:

R = [n(EXY) - (EX)(lY)] /{[n(EXa2) - (EX)A2] [n(EYA2) - (EY)a2]}aM

EYa2 = summation of the drawdowns squared = ftA2

Sensitivity Analysis

In this approach, a preliminary T and S are cal

culated and then these values are slowly changed by minor

increments, until both of them (simultaneously) fit with

in certain tolerance limits.

Recovery Analysis

This method uses residual drawdown data and a number

of unique equations to calculate T and S. The following

equations are used in order to calculate T and S.

T = (114.6*Q)*s'*ln(t/t')

m = (264) (Q) / T


t (o) 1 = - [s(off) + { (m) (log(t/t'))} - s'] / m

S = (0.3) (T) (t(o) 1) / r A 2 (Ulrick and Associates, 1989)

Q = pumping rate = gpm

t ’ = time since pump was turned off = min

t = total time of pump test + t' = min

s 1 = residual drawdown = ft

m = slope of straight-line fit = ft

t(o)' = time of zero recovery = min

s(off) = drawdown when pump was turned off = ft


Just as in the Theis Z(u) method, T and S are calculated

for each residual time-drawdown point. An average of

these T and S values is then calculated. It is possible

to take an interval of residual time-drawdown points, and

obtain the average T and S values from this. The inter-(

val is based on looking at a consistency in the slopes

calculated and upon the T and S values determined. This

solution method appears best because this data set does

not have the inherent error present in time-drawdown data

from the pumping phase; that is, data from the pumping


phase has fluctuations caused by turbulence in the well,

oscillations in the well, and a plethora of other mechan

ical type variations.


CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Previous Methods

Prior to this study, a consistent analysis of the

data from these pump tests had never been carried out.

During the field camps, the data was split among groups

who did the analysis in their own manner. Differences in

method occured, such as: entering the data differently

(for example, taking the drawdown when it first appears

versus when it appears last), using different computer

programs for different methods, using slightly different

numbers of observation well distances, using slightly

different numbers for pump rates, etc. None of these

differences, however, can account for the variance seen

from test to test, or from well to well. The most proba

ble reason for the differences is because methods used

were inapplicable to this situation. The analyses done

by the groups were mainly Theis methods, while this un

confined aquifer requires delayed-yield solutions. In18


19order to correct this problem, the Neuman method in

AQTESOLV 2.0 was used; both the analytical and the graph

ical aspects were utilized. The results (as shown in

Tables 9 and 10) showed better consistency from well to

well and from year to year than the Theis and/or Ja

cob-Cooper derived solutions.

Theis Methods

Variations in T and S were wide (Tables 1 through

8). At times the transmissivity or storativity are fair

ly close to one another from two different wells (or pump

tests), but the other parameter (T or S) is a great deal

different. The Theis (statistical) method for AL-18 for

Spring 93 and Summer 93, is one example. The T is of

similar magnitudes for the two, but the storativities

differ by a whole order of magnitude. The limitations of

the confined methods is apparent in the actual graphical

matches (Appendices A, B, C, D, and E). The most appar

ent ones occur is in the Theis curve matches. Most of

the matches only approximate half of the curve, indicat

ing a different solution was needed.


20Table 1

Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and Storativity ResultsFrom AL-1 for 1993

Spring Summer

T S T S

APE

Regression 79986 .0076 85014 .0042Sensitivity 84162 .0029 85333 . 0026Theis-Zu 62775 .0348 89022 .0072Recovery-> Theis 67444 .0264 82046 .0040

Regression 67368 .0254 86242 .0030

AQTESOLV 2.0

Theis (g) 68354 . 0205 61600 .0300J-C (g) 65090 .0243 57895 .0386Recovery-> Theis (g) 52035 57722Neuman (g) 61966 .0306 62936 .0249Neuman (n) 61967 .0306 62904 .0249

g = graphical n = numerical

Neuman Methods

The matches of the Neuman curve (Appendices A

through E) are moderately close, and the results for

wells are within a similar range. The major exception is

Summer 1993 data, which shows highly suspect T and S val

ues.


21Table 2


Spring Summer

T S T S

APE

Regression 95969 0044 75285 . 0011Sensitivity 99779 0014 75953 .0088Theis-Zu ----- ---- ----- -----Recovery-> Theis 86148 0069 78744 .0073

Regression 88525 0058 76401 .0081

AQTESOLV 2.0

Theis (g) 58484 0814 65036 .0263J-C (g) 59058 0753 59133 .0384Recovery-> Theis (g) 77757 50904Neuman (g) 55606 1039 65919 . 0244Neuman (n) 55471 1039 65918 .0243


One indirect piece of support for using the Neuman method

for this aquifer is that T and S from data set to data

set vary much less. That is, a similar T shows a similar

S in many more cases using this method. The Neuman meth

od results are much closer to one another than with the

confined Theis-type solutions.


22Table 3


Spring

T S

Summer

T S

APE

Recovery-> Theis 72203 ---- 72686 ----Regression 69466 ---- 74896 ----

AQTESOLV 2

Recovery->

.0

Theis (g) 46574 ---- 48739 -----

g = graphical

Table 4

Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and Storativity Results From AL-4 for 1994

Spring

T S

Summer

T S

APE

Recovery-> Theis 81753 ---- 65764 ----Regression 87492 ---- 68218 ----

AQTESOLV 2.0

Recovery-> Theis (g) 51508 ---- 46327 -----

g = graphical


23Table 5


Spring Summer

T S T S

APE

Regression 85069 .0102 84737 .0211Sensitivity 64829 .0400 69064 .0455Theis-Zu 57619 .0712 68005 .0668Recovery-> Theis 78916 .0216 77747 .0333

Regression 84771 .0185 79052 .0322

AQTESOLV 2.0

Theis (g) 62591 .0500 55428 .0902J-C (g) 57324 .0642 83754 .0576Recovery-> Theis (g) 54297 46887Neuman (g) 58379 .0635 56839 .0770Neuman (n) 58377 .0616 56837 .0770



24

Table 6


Spring Summer

T S T S

APE

Regression 83343 .0301 56151 .0763Sensitivity 54622 .1626 52065 .1066Theis-Zu ----- ----- -----Recovery-> Theis 94373 .0226 72393 .0316

Regression 99247 .0208 74224 .0301

AQTESOLV 2. 0

Theis (g) 72253 .0589 59704 .0703J-C (g) 50032 .1650 54254 .0883Recovery-> Theis (g) 54157 ---- 53522 ----Neuman (g) 40930 .2500 51121 .0790Neuman (n) 45055 .2275 51055 .0799



25Table 7


Spring Summer

T S T S

APE

Regression Sensitivity Theis-Zu Recovery-> Theis

Regression

----- -----9521070123

6919676083

.0201

.0753

.0946

.0828

AQTESOLV 2.0

Theis (g)J-C (g)Recovery-> Theis (g) Neuman (g)Neuman (n)

----- -----

6485365111536725924162439

.0861

.0762

.1000

.0936



26Table 8


Spring Summer

T S T S

APE

Regression Sensitivity Theis-Zu Recovery-> Theis

Regression----- -----

7915772678

7439378147

.0207

.0372

.0356

.0320

AQTESOLV 2.0

Theis (g)J-C (g)Recovery-> Theis (g) Neuman (g)Neuman (n)

----- -----

7154267363524666473262472

. 0349

.0391

.0500

.0476



Table 927

Neuman Solution Transmissivity(gpd/ft) and StorativityResults From 1993 (Compilation)

Spring Summer

T S T S

AL-1

Neuman (g) 61966 .0306 62936 .0249Neuman (n) 61967 .0306 62904 . 0249

AL-18

Neuman (g) 58379 .0635 56839 .0770Neuman (n) 58377 .0616 56837 .0770



28Table 10

Neuman Solution Transmissivity (gpd/ft) and StorativityResults From 1994(Compilation)

Spring Summer

T S T S

AL-1

Neuman (g) 55471 .1039 65919 .0244Neuman (n) 55606 .1039 65918 .0243

AL-18

Neuman <g> 40930 .2500 51121 .0790Neuman (n) 45055 .2275 51055 .0799

AL-27

Neuman (g) 59241 .1000Neuman (n) 62439 .0936

AL-28

Neuman (g) 64732 .0500Neuman (n) 62472 .0476



CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

The variances in transmissivity and storativity had

a number of different causes. These causes included:

previous methods of analysis were insufficient, oscilla

tion of the pump, the flow meter worked improperly, lack

of development of the pumping and observation wells, and

minor changes in lithology in the subsurface.

Difficulties Involved in Each Pump Test

July 1993

There were a number of difficulties encountered

during this field session. During this time period it

rained intermittently for both pumping and recovery

phases. This could lead to errors in two ways. First,

there could have been some recharge present from the rain

and second, the rain makes measuring water levels diffi

cult. The pumping rate also fluctuated from 69 gpm to 74

gpm, which could lead to errors in the results.29


August 1993

During this session, the pumping rate varied from 74

gpm to 78 gpm. Normal human errors were involved, such

as different people reading the water levels slightly

differently, darkness makes taking water level measure

ments at night difficult, and a variety of other diffi

culties .

June 1994

During this pump test the pump oscillated by an

increasing amount (in comparison to previous years),

ranging from 65 gpm to 72 gpm. There were large quanti

ties of rain during the recovery period, which leads to

both human errors and possibly aquifer recharge errors.

In addition, no data were obtained from AL-27 since it

required developing in the middle of the pump test.

August 1994

It rained during the pump test, but to a lesser deg

ree than in previous years. The pump again oscillated

during this pump test, to approximately the same degree


as in the previous pump test, ranging from 64 gpm to 70

gpm. In addition, the students were running two pump

tests. This required the water level measurements needed

to be taken in a quicker succession and the measurements

were taken with different water level meters. In past

pump tests dedicated meters were used to avoid mechanical

error associated with using different meters.

Difficulties With the Flow

One difficulty involved in any pump test is trying

to keep the pump running as steady as possible, in order

to assure a consistent pump rate. In order to use the

solutions used in this study one must have a constant

pumping rate (Kasenow, 1995). Unfortunately, the pump

rate varied during all the pump tests. While this is not

the largest factor involved in the variances of T and S,

the pump rate is very important in their determination.

As such, variances in the pump rate could cause inconsis

tences in the data obtained. Combined with the factors

already discussed, this could explain the variances from

test to test. This however, does not explain the vari


32ances seen from well to well in a single test.

Development Concerns

The pumping well was installed with a cable tool

rig, observation well AL-1 was installed using hollow

stem auger, and the other observation wells were in

stalled with mud rotary. All disturb the formation as

they are installed, but most dramatically mud rotary.

Mud rotary clogs the formation around the bore hole,

leading to a alteration in the true lithology of the for

mation. The pumping well and the observation well may

also have been developed differently from each other and/

or insufficiently. Any of these factors could lead to

differences in the T and S values within the same pump

test or different tests.

Changes in Lithology

Overall at the site, the lithology stays fairly

constant. Observation well AL-1 was drilled using the

hollow stem auger technique, with a large number of split

spoon samples being taken (Figure 48, Appendix H). These


samples (along with others taken from wells drilled at

the site) indicate the lithology is mainly a fine-grained

sand, with lenses of gravel or very fine sand or silt.

Therefore, while the material varies to a minor extent,

the actual lateral variation in the area is fairly small.

One cavet should be made to the above statements. Three

of the observation wells were drilled with mud rotary

techniques, and the non split spoon samples seem to have

sluff (material falling from above the drill bit) mixed

in. The split-spoon samples are few and far between (be

cause taking split spoon samples with a mud rotary rig is

difficult); therefore the characterization of these wells

is rather uncertain. Gamma-ray logs are available from

the Department of Geology, which could give further de

tailed information about the lithology of these particu

lar wells.

Miscellaneous Factors

During the pump tests discused it did indeed rain

(sometimes quite heavily). This is probably not a major

factor since the water table is approximately 60 feet be


low the surface and this soil would not have allowed such

quick recharge (the pump tests did not last long). One

piece of additional proof is the control well (AL-11) did

not show any rapid fluctuation during or after these

rains (therefore this indicates our test should not have

been affected by the rain). One.possible recharge point

could be our discharge hose. An attempt was made to keep

the hose as far from the pumping well as possible, but

resources are finite. If this was a factor in our vari

ances, it was a very minor one (since AL-18, the well

closest to the discharge hose, did not show extreme chan

ges in water level measurements). Finally, these data

were collected by a class containing inexperienced peo

ple. Therefore, human error is always a distinct possi

bility in such circumstances.


CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion of this study is: by using the

Neuman method discussed in the study, the variations seen

in the past can be lessened from several orders of magni

tude to within one order of magnitude. Methods which

assume an unconfined aquifer do not give correct T and S

values. The graphs (Appendices A thru E) pictorally show

the solutions failures, particulary Theis curves pre

sented. There were other minor difficulties. The pump

ing rate was not constant during the pump tests, which is

a requirement of the methods employed in this study. The

lithology does vary, therefore this can cause deviations

to be present in the T and S results. Finally, weather

and human error could have contributed to errors in the

water level measurements. With more careful field work,

a consistent pump rate, and the use of the Neuman (or

equivalent unconfined solution), the results could become

even more consistent.

35


Appendix A

T and S Results From AL-1

36


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further

reproduction prohibited

without

permission.

e•§

5uQ

1.

0.1

DATA SET: msposp.aot02/06/98AQUIFER MODEL:ConflnadSOLUTION METHOD:TTniiTEST DATA:9 - 9.884 ft3/ain P - 23.78 ft rc- 0.8 ft *l\j- 0.8 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 6.346 ftz/aln 8 - 0.02081

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in )

1000. 10000.u)

Figure 1. Theis Curve for Well AL-1 for July 1993.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

45

e0

1Q

1. TTTTTT

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

DATA SET:N18P93P.AQT02/06/98AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD: Cooptp-Jocob

TEST DATA;Q - 9.684 ftvaln r - 23.78 ft rc- 0.8 ft /r^- 0.8 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 8.043 ftZ/Bln 8 - 0.02428

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. Tim e (m in )

Figure 2. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-1 for July 1993.to00

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

oTJ£uQ

1.

JLLLL0.1

M18P03P.A0U02/06/08AQUIFER MODEL: UnconfinadSOLUTION METHOD:NiuunTEST DATA:0 - 0.854 ft3/ain r - 23.78 ft b - IB. ft *PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 8.783 ftZ/«in 8 - 0.0018 8 y 0.03087 /» - 0.04090

0.1 1. 10. 100. Time (m in )

1000. 10000.

Figure 3. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-1 for July 1993.LJVO

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M1SP93R.AQR06/30/99AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD:Tholo RecoveryTEST DATA:Q - 9.894 ft3/ein r - 23.79 ft b - 1. ft *

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 4.831 ft2/aln 8* - 1.717

*1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. l.E +05Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in)

O

u.o I I I IIIIM I I I I

_ 0.64

0 0.485uQ^ 0.32P•p•H01 0)P6 0.16

A

nrmi|—n i imi| -i i i imii .• •

V - *

Ill 1 I 11 Mill i i i mill 1.. 1.1.1U ll 1-1.1.111 111___ 1-1.111111

Figure 4. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-1 for July 1993.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:N18U93P.AQT06/30/98AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD:The laTEST DATA:Q - 10.34 ft3/aln p - 23.78 ft rc- 0.5 ft rM- 0.8 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 5.719 ftz/«in 8 - 0.02999

*0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Time (m in)

Figure 5. Theis Curve for Well AL-1 for August 1993.

1

»§

%up

1.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

■§

5uO

2.

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0

DATA SET:H1SU93P.AQT06/30/98AQUIFER MOOEL:ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD: Cooper-JacobTEST DATA:Q - 10.34 ft3/eln r - 23.78 ft rc- 0.8 ft trH- 0.8 ft b - l. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 8.378 ftVBln 8 - 0.03858

0.1 1. 10. 100. Time (m in)

1000. 10000.

Figure 6. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-1 for August 1993. to

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

10.

Bo•asQ

1.

0.1

_"i i 111ui|— i 1111iii|— i i 111ui|—r ii i mi|— i 11 mu

ii iim i i 1111 i i m rnL i-i-i-i-im

DATA SET:M18U93P.AQU07/14/99AQUIFER MODEL: UnconflnadSOLUTION METHOD:NiuunTEST DATA:a - 10.34 ft3/aln r - 23.79 ft b - 19. ft 'PARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 9.843 fts/ain 8 - 0.0008433 8y - 0.02488 A - 0.02609

0.1 1. 10. 100. Time (m in)

1000. 10000.

Figure 7. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-1 for August 1993.u>

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M18U93R.AQR02/06/98AQUIFER MODEL:ConflnadSOLUTION METHOD:Thais RscovsryTEST DATA;Q - 10.34 ft9/ain r - i. ftb - 1. ft »PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 8.389 ftValn 8* - 2.908

"‘l. 10. 100. 1000. B 10000.Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in)

Figure 8. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-1 for August 1993.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

42

e•§

suQ

1. m r

mu]0.1

DATA SET:H1SP94P.AQT02/06/98AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD:Thai*TEST DATA:Q - 9.493 ft3/«inP - 23.78 ftrc« 0.8 ft *PM- 0.8 ft b - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 8.439 ftz/aln 8 “ 0.08136

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in)

1000. 10000.

Figure 9. Theis Curve for Well AL-1 for June 1994.tn

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

1. T I III TTTT1 I I 11 r i i in

0.8 -

£w 0.6o•a5 0.4Q

0.2 -

-L 1.11iiiiL i i i i mmin i 11 ii

DATA SET:H1SP94P.AQT02/00/99AQUIFER MODEL:ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD: Coopor-JacobTEST DATA:Q - 9.493 ft9/ainP - 23.78 ftrc« 0.9 ft *Py“ 0.8 ft b - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 8.483 ft Vain 8 - 0.07820

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in)

1000. 10000.

Figure 10. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-1 for June 1994. a\

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

*5

e•§

£u*Q

1. TTTTT

0.1

DATA SET:N18P84P.AQU.02/06/99

i

AQUIFER MODEL: UnconflnadSOLUTION METHOD: NauaanTEST DATA;Q - 9.493 ft3/ain r - 23.79 ft b - 19. ft 'PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 9.19 ftz/aln 8 - 0.0026 8y - 0.1039

m 0.03493

0.1 1. 10. 100. Time (m in)

1000. 10000.

Figure 11. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-1 for June 1994. 'j

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

I

0.7

_ 0.56s

eO 0.42

£LlQ13 0.28

•H03Q>0.14

i i n i i i i mn

I I N I ■i- i 11ii i i » »mi I I 1 11.111

DATA SET:N18P94R.AQR02/06/99AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD:Thole RecoveryTEST DATA;Q - 9.493 ft9/aln r - 1. ftb - l. ft vPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 7.219 ftVain 8’ - 1.266

1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in )

Figure 12. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-1 for June 1994.00

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

e•§

£UtQ

1. TTTT

0.1

DATA SET:N1SUQ4P.AQT02/06/99AQUIFER MODEL:ConfftnadSOLUTION METHOD:ThaftaTEST DATA;Q - 9.029 ft3/ain P - 23.79 ft P.- 0.9 ft vPw- 0.9 ft b - ft. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 6.038 ftvaftn 8 - 0.0263ft

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in)

1000. 10000.

Figure 13. Theis Curve for Well AL-1 for August 1994.VO

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M1SU94P.AQT06/30/98AQUIFER MODEL: Confinad SOLUTION METHOD: Coopar-Jacob TEST DATA:Q - 9.028 ft3/ain r - 23.78 ft rc- 0.8 ft *r„- o.s ft b - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T -8.49 ft2/ain 8 - 0.03843

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Time (m in)

U1oFigure 14. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-1 for August 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:H1SU94P.AQU02/06/89AQUIFER MODEL: UnconfinadSOLUTION METHOD: NauaanTEST DATA:Q - 8.026 ft9/ain r - 23.78 ft b - IB. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T **6.12 ftz/ain 8 - 0.000372 8y - 0.02436 /» - 0.04428

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in)

X

1O

£uQ

n 1

TTTT

Llilll

Figure 15. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-1 for August 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:N18U94R.AQR02/06/08AQUIFER MODEL: Confftnsd SOLUTION METHOD:Thais RscovsryTEST DATA:Q - 9.028 ftvain r - i. ftb - ft. ft *PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 4.728 ftVaftn 8* - 3.296

" l . 10. 100. 1000. 10000. l.E +05Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in)

into


Appendix B


53


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

OATA SET:M48P93R.AQR02/06/S8AQUIFER MODEL: Confinad SOLUTION METHOD:Thais RscovsryTEST DATA:Q - 0.684 ft9/ain r - l. ftb - 1. ft '/PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 4.324 ftVain .8* - 3.173

1. 10. 100. 1000. B 10000.Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in ) Ln


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

I I I I Mil

0.64 -

0 0.48

SuQ13 0.32 P•iH01 0)05 0.16

■i . Y i m u i-i i ii i i.iiiuiL .1 i i i i . i i i

DATA SET:N4SU93R.AQR06/30/99AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD:Thaia RacovaryTEST DATA:Q - 10.34 ft9/ain r - i. ftb - 1. ft *

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 4.629 ftVain 8* - 3.022

1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in )

Figure 18. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-4 for August 1993.inin

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

■d•HTO0)P5

0.64 -

o 0.48►OSkiQg 0.32

0.16 -

0.

I III i i 11 miii i n /111 r ~ r i r u n

i i/i inn I_I—l. LI I_I—l.l-LI IiL j i.iiini

DATA SET:M4SP04R.AQA06/30/09AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD:Thais RacovaryTEST DATA:Q - 0.493 ft3/ain r - i. ftb ■ 1. ft *

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 4.782 ftvain 8* - 3.418

1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. Dimensionless Tim e, t /t * ' (m in)

Ol<n

Figure 19. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-4 for June 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:N4SU94R.AQR06/30/99AQUIFER MODEL:ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD:Thai* RacovaryTEST DATA:Q - 9.029 ft9/ain r ■ l. ftb ■ 1. ft vPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 4.301 ftValn 8* - 2.907

'l. 10. 100. 1000. _ 10000.Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in )


Appendix C


58


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M1BSP93P.AQT02/06/98AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD: ThaisTEST DATA;Q - 9.884 fts/ain r - 48.67 ft rc- 0.8 ft rM- 0.8 ft

I 0.1•a.s;h ,

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 8.ail ftvain S - 0.08001

0.010.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in )

Figure 21. Theis Curve for Well AL-18 for July 1993.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

0.8 rTTTTT

0.64

0.48

a 0.32

0.16

m m0

DATA SET:M1BSPB3P.AQT02/00/09AQUIFER MOOEL: ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD: Coopor-JacobTEST DATA;Q - 9.094 ft9/Binr - 49.07 ftr_" 0.9 ft .*

0.9 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 9.322 ftz/ain 0 - 0.00424

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. Time (m in)

Figure 22. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-18 for July 1993. o\o

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

I o.i»dS.a '

o.oi

DATA SET:M18SP93P.AQU02/06/99AQUIFER MOOEL: UnconflnodSOLUTION METHOD: NauianTEST DATA:Q - 9.894 ft3/aln I* - 49.67 ft b - 16. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 9.42 ftz/ain 8 - 0.004 8y - 0.0639

- 0.718

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in)

1000. 10000.o\

Figure 23. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-18 for July 1993.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M1BSP93R.AQR02/06/90AQUIFER MODEL:ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD:Ttwia RecoveryTEST DATA;Q - 9.B04 ftVHin r - i. ftb - 1. ft vPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 5.041 ftz/ain S' - 2.634

1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. l.E +05Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in )


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M18SU93P.AQT02/00/88AQUIFER MODEL: Confined SOLUTION METHOD:ThoUTEST DATA;Q - 10.34 ft3/»in P - 48.67 ft rc- 0.8 ft IV» 0.8 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 8.140 ftvain 8 - 0.08024

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in )


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

0.8

0.64

0.48

o

5 0.32uQ

0.16

r m r m r i m r m

I M i l .1 I . U I I I I f M i l l I I U . I I i i m m

DATA SET:N18SU93P.AQT02/06/99AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD:Coopar-JacobTEST DATA:a - 10.34 ft3/«inr - 49.67 ftrc" 0.6 ft 'rM- 0.6 ftb - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 9.919 ftValn 8 - 0.09798

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in)

1000. 10000.

Figure 26. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-18 for August 1993.cr>

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

AQUIFER MODEL: IJnconflntdSOLUTION METHOD: NeuaanTEST DATA:Q - 10.34 ft9/ain r - 45.67 ft b - 15. ft

I 0.1£uQ

PARAMETER ESTIMATES:T — K v n MS/b4ii

0.01B0.0770.2086

0.01 1000. 100000.1 1 10010Tim e (m in)

Figure 27: Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-18 for August 1993. m

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:N1BSU93R.AQR02/06/95AQUIFER MODEL: Conflnsd SOLUTION METHOD:Thais RacovaryTEST DATA;Q - 10.34 ftvain r ■ i. ftb - i. ft *PARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 4.353 ftvaln 8* - 3.014

' l . 10. 100. 1000. 10000. l.E +05Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in )


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:N18SP94P.AQT02/06/98AQUIFER MODEL: Confined SOLUTION METHOD:TholoTEST DATA:0 - 9.493 ft3/aln r - 48.67 ft rc- 0.8 ft ■<rM- 0.8 ft b - l. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 8.709 ftValn 8 - 0.08888

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Time (m in)

o>-JFigure 29. Theis Curve for Well AL-18 for June 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

0.7

0.56

& 0.42eo•a5 0.28hO

0.14

0.0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Time (m in )

Figure 30. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-18 for June 1994.

DATA SET:N18SP94P.AQT02/06/08AQUIFER MODEL:ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD:Coopar-JacobTEST DATA:Q - 0.403 ft3/«ln P - 48.67 ft rc- 0.8 ft l\J- 0.8 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 4.648 ftz/«in

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M18SP94P.AQU02/06/93AQUIFER MODEL:UnconfinadSOLUTION METHOD: Neuaan TEST DATA:Q - 9.493 ft9/ain r - 40.67 ft b - 10. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 3.8 ft /ain 8 - 0.000991 8y - 0.20 A - 0.711

™ 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in )

a\voFigure 31. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-18 for June 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M18SP94R.AQR02/06/98AQUIFER MODEL:ConflnsdSOLUTION METHOD:Thais RscovaryTEST DATA:Q - 9.493 ft9/ain r • l. ft b - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 8.028 ftValn 8* - 4.392

1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in)

oFigure 32. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-18 for June 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

e■§5uO

1.

0.1

0.01

0.001

DATA SET:M1BSU94P.AQT02/13/99AQUIFER MODEL:ConfinedSOLUTION METHOD:ThalaTEST DATA:9 - 9.029 fk3/Bln r - 49.67 ft rc- 0.9 ft » V 0.9 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATEST - 9.943 ftValn 8 - 0.07029

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in )

1000. 10000.


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

0.8

0.64

£ 0.48

GoS 0.32

0.16

0.0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in )

Figure 34. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-18 for August 1994.

DATA SET:M1B8U94P.AQT02/13/90AQUIFER MODEL: ConflnadSOLUTION METHOD: Coopar-JacobTEST DATA:Q - 9.020 ft9/ain r - 45.67 ft rc- 0.5 ft rM- 0.5 ft b - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 5.037 ftz/ain 8 - 0.09832

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

1. DATA SET:W1BSU94P.AQU 02/06/95

•V AQUIFER MODEL: UnconflnadSOLUTION METHOD:Nauaan

0.1 TEST DATA:Q - 9.025 ftVBin r - 45.67 ft

PARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 4.74 ftVain 8 - 0.02213 8y - 0.079 A - 0.4612

« ' 0.01

0.0010.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in )

UJFigure 35. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-18 for August 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

0.7

0.56 -

O 0.42 *uQg 0.283tj•Hm0)PS 0.14 -

1 X ill t 1 Mil LI.Ill I I I « I I « mill

DATA SET:M18SU94R.AQR02/13/98AQUIFER MODEL:ContInadSOLUTION METHOD:Thais RacovsryTEST DATA:Q - 9.028 ft3/ain p • l. ftb - 1. ft *

PARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 4.989 ftValn 8* - 2.688

1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000. l.E +05Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in )

Figure 36. Theis Recovery Curve for Well AL-18 for August 1994. •j

Appendix D


75


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M278U94P.AQT02/06/MAQUIFER MODEL:ConfinsdSOLUTION METHOD:ThaisTEST DATA:Q - 9.029 ft3/aln r - 64.67 ft rc- 0.6 ft •

0.8 ft b - 1. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES:T - 6.021 ftvaln 8 - 0.08606

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in )


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:W278U94P.AQT02/06/90AQUIFER MODEL:ConfInadSOLUTION METHOD: Coopar-Jacob TEST DATA;Q - 9.020 ft9/ain P - 64.67 ft Pc- 0.8 ft jrM- 0.8 ft b - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 6.045 ftz/«in 8 - 0.07618

vo .i l . 1 0 . ioo. iooo. ioooo.Time (m in )

Figure 38. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-27 for August 1994.

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

I o.i»d5hQ

0.01

DATA SET:N27SU94P.AQU02/06/00AQUIFER MODEL: UnconfinadSOLUTION METHOD:NauaanTEST DATA:Q - 0.020 fts/aln P - 64.67 ft b - 16. ft *

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 8.6 ftz/aln 8 - 0.0006948 8y - 0.1 A ■ 0.6014

0.1 1. 10. 100. Tim e (m in )

1000. 10000.

Figure 39. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-27 for August 1994.<ioo

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M276U94R.AQR02/06/99AQUIFER MODEL:ConfInadSOLUTION METHOD: Thais Racovary TEST DATA-Q - 9.029 ft9/ain r - l. ftb - i. ft *PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 4.963 ftz/sin 8* - 1.676

V‘l . 10. 100. 1000. 10000. l.E +05Dimensionless Tim e, t / t " (m in )


Appendix E


80


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:M28SU94P.AQT02/13/88AQUIFER MODEL:ConflnadSOLUTION METHOD:ThaisTEST DATA:Q - 9.028 ft3/aln r - 82.78 ft rc- 0.8 ft rM« 0.8 ft b - i. ftPARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 6.642 ft2/aln 8 - 0.03494

0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in)


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

rm rm rm rm m mi

a 0.32

i 11ii i i m i I..I.II i i m m

DATA SET:M28SII94P.AQT02/13/98AQUIFER MODEL: ConfinadSOLUTION METHOD: Cooptr-JacobTEST DATA;Q - 9.028 ft3/«in r - 82.78 ft rc- 0.8 ft

0.8 ft b - 1. ft

. PARAMETER ESTIMATEST - 6.284 ftz/Bln 8 - 0.03907

10. 100. 1000. 10000. Tim e (m in)

Figure 42. Jacob-Cooper Curve for Well AL-28 for August 1994.00to

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

DATA SET:N28SU94P.AQU02/13/99AQUIFER MODEL: UnconfinadSOLUTION METHOD:NauaanTEST DATA;Q - 9.020 ft3/ain P - 92.79 ft b - 19. ftI o.i

»d£uQ

PARAMETER ESTIMATES: T - 9.9 ftValn8 - 0.001747 Sy - 0.09 /» - 0.2824

0.010.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.Tim e (m in) oou>

Figure 43. Neuman Method Curve for Well AL-28 for August 1994.

Resid

ual

Draw

down

(f

t)

OATA SET:N28SU94R.AQR02/19/99AQUIFER MODEL: Confined SOLUTION METHOD:Tttele RecoveryTEST DATA:9 - 9.02 ft3/«in r - l. ftb - i. ft vPARAMETER ESTIMATES T - 4.871 ftz/eln 8* - 2.3

' l . 10. 100. 1000. 10000. l.E +05Dimensionless Tim e, t / t ” (m in )


Appendix F

Site Map

85


86

A s y l u n L a k e H y d r o logic R e s e a r c h P a r k

AsylumL a k e

a

Porkvipw AvpnueContour IntervQI 20 ft.500 500 1000 1500 ft.

Figure 45. Site Map.M itts


Appendix G

Well Configuration Diagrams

87


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

64.67'

AL-2723.75' 45.67'

AL-1 AL-4

10' [lO* HlWell Screen Water Table N

1

AL-18

63-78'80-95'

Lithology"SP"

^7 62'

74-89'55-70'

Clay Layer— 180'Figure 46. West-East Well Configuration Cross-Section.

COCO

89

do>Q>UuM

LU

GO

0)p—lAidHUa>■pid3=Df*

CO(M

]&LT)P-•

(NJin

0COrH1 Iu0>S'*idHCJ


Figure

47.

South-North

Well Configuration

Cros

s-Se

ctio

n.

90

COHa ®

COCMI «SI£ $

1si®

a HHH

ts 3 § l 2

5 iQj ® E 101 - § <£o ft oJ rt ® ©

r-CM3 ©

0O•H•Pidu0

•HCm0oo•pCOa

£CO

0to■H(M


Appendix H

Well Log

91


92

Depth (ft)

AL-1A

12

24

AL-1B36

48

AL-27

60

72

AL-384

96 >-

U.S.C.S.

SP. SH

S p

S P

-S.E-

S P

JVery fine sands to silts ^Fine-grained sand ] Coarse sands and gravel

5-7’: 5 yr 4/4; brown; fine-grained sand;10 yr 4/4; very fine-grained sand with some silt10-12': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand with a little gravel15-17': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand20-22': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand25-27': 10 yr 5/4: yellowish-brown; finegrained sand with a little gravel

35-37': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained with a little fine-grained and some course-grained sand mixed in40-42': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand with more fines presents than prior samples45-47': 10 yr 4/2; dark yellowish-brown;fine-grained sand50-52': 10 yr 4/2; dark yellowish-brown;fine-grained sand with some finer material present58-60': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand with a few gravels present 63-65': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown(slightly yellower); fine-grained sand with a few gravels present; some black mottling68-70': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand with a few gravels present; some black mottling73-75': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand with a few gravels present; some black mottling; a 4-5" course sand lens is present also78-80': 10 yr 5/4; yellowish-brown; finegrained sand with a few gravels present; some black mottling

89-91': 10 yr 5/4; yellow-brown; finegrained sand, with some very find-grained sand present

SM: Poorly graded very fine sand and silt SP : Poorly graded fine sandIntervals are 2 foot samples using split spoon sampling

Figure 49. Composite Well Log for Asylum Lake Area.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ballukraya, P.N. and Sharma, K.K. (1991). Estimation of storativity from recovery data. Ground Water. 22(4), 495-498.

Barcelona, M.J. and Sauck, W.A. (1992). Long-termhydrogeological research and educational test site.The Institute for Water Sciences, v. 1-2.

Berg, A.V. (1975). Determining aquifer coefficients from residual drawdown data. Water Resources Research. 11(6), 1025-1028.

Bouwer, H. and Rice, R.C. (1978). Delayed Aquifer Yield as a Phenomenon of Delayed Air Entry. Water Resources Research. 11(6), 1068-1074.

Case, C.M., Pidcoe, W.W., and P.R. Fenske (1974). Theis equation analysis of residual drawdown data. Water Resources Research. 12(6).

Dawson, K.J. and J.D. Istok (1991). Aquifer Testing. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

Driscoll, F.G. (1986). Groundwater and Wells. St. Paul, Minnesota: Johnson Division.

Fetter, C.W. (1988). Applied Hydrogeology (2nd ed.).New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Geraghty & Miller (1994). AOTESOLV 2.0. Geraghty and Miller Modeling Group, Reston, Virginia.

Jacob, C.E. (1963a). Determining the permeability ofwater-table aquifers. USGS Water Su p p Iv Paper 1563-1.

93


Jacob, C.E. (1963b). The recovery method for determining the coefficient of transmissibility. USGS Water Supply Paper 1563-1.

Kasenow, M. (1995). Introduction to Aquifer Analysis. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Kasenow, M.C. and Pare, P.J. (1993). Aquifer parameter estimator 1.0. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. BrownPublishers.

Khan, I.A. (1992). Determination of aquifer parameters using regression analysis. Water Resources Bulletin. 1£(2), 325-330.

Kruseman, G.P. and de Ridder, N.A. (1990) . Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Publication 47, Netherlands.

Lohman, S.w. (1972). Ground-water hydraulics. USGeological Survey Professional Paper 708.

Neuman, S.P. (1972). Theory of flow in unconfinedaquifers considering delayed response of the water table. Water Resources Research. 8 (4). 1031-1045.

Neuman, S.P. (1973). Supplementary comments on "Theoryof flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed response of the water table." Water Resources Research. 9 (4). 1102-1103.

Neuman, S.P. (1974). Effect of partial penetration onflow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Water Resources Research. 10(2). 303-312.

Neuman, S.P. (1975). Analysis of pumping test data fromanisotropic unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Water Resources Research. 11(2). 329-342.


95Neuman, S.P. (1979). Perspective on 'Delayed Yield'.

Water Resources Research. 15(4). 899-908.

Sheahan, N.T. (1967). A non-graphical method ofdetermining u and W(u) . Ground Wafer. 5.(2), 31-35.

Theis, C.V. (1935) . The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union.15(2), 519-524.

Ulrick and Associates (1989). Sensitivity Analysis Program-PUMP. Berkeley, California.

Walton, W.C. (1962). Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer evaluation. Bulletin 49. Illinois State Water Survey.

Walton, W.C. (1988). Groundwater pumping tests.Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

Western Michigan University (Unpublished--1993-1994).Collection of data and reports created by the 1993 and 1994 Hydrogeology field camps.



Date post:	11-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

A Study on the Causes of Variations in Transmissivity and ...

Documents