Advertisement

A practical approach for the interpretation of flowing well tests

  • Emin Ciftci
Original Paper
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Flowing well test is one of the tools employed to identify transmissivity and storage coefficient of a confined aquifer where the potentiometric surface is located above the ground surface, so that the groundwater flows naturally from the well without pumping. During a flowing well test, constant hydraulic head is preserved at the well while the discharge from the well decreases with time and the temporal variation of discharge provides significant information about aquifer characteristics. In this study, a simple and straightforward approach is presented as an alternative to a number of graphical or error minimization-based techniques available in the literature for analyzing data from flowing well tests. The proposed method employs a polynomial regression equation to establish a link between observed discharge and the theoretical dimensionless discharge that is introduced in the analytical solution, so as to retrieve the aquifer parameters. The method is tested with a vast number of synthetically generated data sets as well as a real data set reported in the literature. Besides its simplicity, the present method is seen to produce highly accurate and reliable estimations.

Keywords

Flowing well Constant head Parameter estimation 

References

  1. Batu V (1998) Aquifer hydraulics: a comprehensive guide to hydrogeologic data analysis. Wiley: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouwer H, Rice RC (1976) A slug test method for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resour Res 12:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cassiani G, Kabala Z, Medina M (1999) Flowing partially penetrating well: solution to a mixed-type boundary value problem. Adv Water Resour 23:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen YJ, Yeh HD (2009) Parameter estimation/sensitivity analysis for an aquifer test with skin effect. Ground Water 47:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper HH, Jacob CE (1946) A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history. Am Geophys Union Trans 27:526–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper HH, Bredehoeft JD, Papadopulos IS (1967) Response of a finite diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resour Res 3:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibbons JD, Chakraborti S (2010) Nonparametric statistical inference, Fifth Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 650 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Glover RE (1978) Transient ground water hydraulics. Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado, 413 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Hantush MS (1964) Hydraulics of wells. In: Chow VT (ed) Advances in hydrosciences, vol. 1. Academic, New York, London, pp 281–432Google Scholar
  10. Jacob CE (1940) The flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer. Am Geophys Union Trans 21:574–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacob CE, Lohman SW (1952) Nonsteady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer. Am Geophys Union Trans 334:559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kawecki MW (1993) Recovery analysis from pumping tests with stepped discharge. Ground Water 31:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kruseman GP, de Ridder NA (1990) Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, 2nd ed. Wageningen, 377 pGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin YC, Yang SY, Fen CS, Yeh HD (2016) A general analytical model for pumping tests in radial finite two-zone confined aquifers with Robin-type outer boundary. J Hydrol 540:1162–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lohman SW (1965) Geology and artesian water supply of the Grand Junction area, Colorado. Geol Surv Prof Pap 451:149Google Scholar
  16. Lohman SW (1972) Ground-water hydraulics. In: Professional paper, vol 708. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., pp 23–27Google Scholar
  17. Markle JM, Rowe RK, Novakowski KS (1995) A model for the constant-head pumping test conducted in vertically fractured media. Int J Numer Anal Met 19:457–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mishra S, Guyonnet D (1992) Analysis of observation-well response during constant-head testing. Ground Water 30:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ojha CSP (2004) Aquifer parameters estimation using artesian well test data. J Hydrol Eng 91:64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papadopulos IS, Cooper HH (1967) Drawdown in a well of large diameter. Water Resour Res 3:241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perrochet P (2005) A simple solution to tunnel or well discharge under constant drawdown. Hydrogeol J 135:886–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Renard P (2005) Approximate discharge for constant head test with recharging boundary. Ground Water 43:439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sen Z (1986) Determination of aquifer parameters by the slope matching method. Ground Water 24:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Şahin AU (2016) A new inverse solution assessment for the recovery test using radial basis function collocation method. Water Resour Manag 30:947–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Şahin AU (2017) Simple methods for quick determination of aquifer parameters using slug tests. Hydrol Res 48:326–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Şahin AU, Çiftçi E (2016a) An area matching process to estimate the hydraulic parameters using transient constant-head test data. Hydrol Res 47:919–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Şahin AU, Çiftçi E (2016b) An integration based estimation approach for the determination of slug test parameters under various flow geometries. Arab J Geosci 9:636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh S (2007) Simple approximation of well function for constant drawdown variable discharge artesian wells. J Irrig Drain Eng 1333:282–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Singh S (2009) Kernel method for transient rate and volume of well discharge under constant drawdown. J Irrig Drain Eng 135:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith PL (1937) Heat flow in an infinite solid bounded internally by a cylinder. J Appl Phys 8:441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swamee PK, Mishra GC, Chahar BR (2000) Simple approximation for flowing well problem. J Irrig Drain Eng 1261:65–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Theis CV (1935) The relationship between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Trans Am Geophys Union 16:519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang CT, Yeh HD (2008) Obtaining the steady-state drawdown solutions of constant-head and constant-flux tests. Hydrol Process 22:3456–3461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wendland E, Gomes LH, Rodrigo MP (2014) Use of convolution and geotechnical rock properties to analyze free flowing discharge test. An Acad Bras Cienc 86:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yeh HD, Chang YC (2013) Recent advances in modeling of well hydraulics. Adv Water Resour 51:27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentMaltepe UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations