GEOS 4430 Lecture Notes: Well

Testing
Dr. T. Brikowski
Fall 2012
Vers. 1.32, November 13, 2012
Radial Flow
aquifers (and oil/gas reservoirs) primarily
valuable when tapped by wells
typical well construction
typical issues: how much pumping possible
(well yield), contamination risks/cleanup,
etc.
all of these require quantitative analysis,
and that usually takes the form of analytic
solutions to the radial ow equation
1
Introduction
Well hydraulics is a crucial topic in hydrology, since wells are
a hydrologists primary means of studying the subsurface
Lots of complicated math and analysis, the bottom line is
that ow to/from a well in an extensive aquifer is radial, and
can be approximated by analytic solutions to ow equation
in radial coordinates.
radial coordinates greatly simplify the geometry of well
problems (Fig. 1)
in such systems a cone of depression or drawdown cone is
formed, the geometry of which depends on aquifer conditions
(Fig. 2)
2
Geometry of Radial Flow
Figure 1: Geometry of radial ow to a well, after Freeze and
Cherry [1979, Fig. 8.4].
3
Representative Drawdown Cones
Figure 2: Representative drawdown cones, after Freeze and
Cherry [1979, Fig. 8.6]. See Wikipedia animation for boundary
eects.
4
Flow equation in radial coordinates
Recall the transient, 2-D ow equation (the second form uses
vector-calculus notation)

2
h
x
2
+

2
h
y
2

=
S
T
h
t

2
h =
S
T
h
t
(1)
Equation (1) can be converted to cylindrical coordinates
simply by substituting the proper form of :

2
r
=

2
r
2
+
1
r

r
(2)
5
the extra
1
r
term accounts for the decreasing cross-sectional
area of radial ow toward a well (Fig. 3). Using (2) (1)
becomes:

2
h
r
2
+
1
r
h
r
=
S
T
h
t
(3)
in the case of recharge, or leakage from an adjacent aquifer,
an additional term appears:

2
h
r
2
+
1
r
h
r
+
R
T
=
S
T
h
t
(4)
6
Cross-Sectional Area in Radial Flow

r*d

(r+dr)*d
d
r
dr
Figure 3: Cross-sectional area changes in radial ow. Water
owing toward a well at the origin passes through steadily
decreasing cross-sectional area. Arc length decreases from
(r +dr)d to rd over a distance dr.
7
Relative Aquifer Properties
8
K Ranges
Figure 4: Relative ranges of hydraulic conductivity (after BLM
Hydrology Manual, 1987?).
9
T Ranges
Figure 5: Relative ranges of transmissivity and well yield (after BLM
Hydrology Manual, 1987?). The irrigation-domestic boundary lies at
0.214
m
2
sec
.
10
Eect of Scale on Measured K
Figure 6: Eect of tested volume (i.e. heterogeneity) on
measured K [Bradbury and Muldoon, 1990].
11
Steady Conned Flow
12
Theim Equation:Steady Conned Flow, No Leakage
simplest analytic solution to (3), for steady conned ow,
no leakage
Assumptions: constant pump rate, fully-penetrating
well, impermeable bottom boundary in aquifer, Darcys
Law applies, ow is strictly horizontal, steady-
state (potentiometric surface is unchanging), isotropic
homogeneous aquifer
then an exact (analytic) solution to (3) can be obtained
by rearranging to separate the variables in this dierential
equation, and to determine h(r) by adding up all the
dh
dr
, i.e.
integrating directly
13
for steady ow in homogeneous conned aquifer we can start
with Darcys Law [eqns. 5.41 to 5.44, Fetter, 2001]
Q = (2rb)K
dh
dr
= 2rT
dh
dr
dh =
Q
2T
1
r
dr

h(r)
h
w
dh =
Q
2T

r
r
w
dr
r
h(r) = h
w
+
Q
2T
ln

r
r
w

(5)
where h(r) is the head at distance r from the well, h
w
is
head at the well, Q is the pumping rate (for a discharging
well, i.e. water is removed from the aquifer), and r
w
is the
well radius. More generally this equation applies for any two
points r
1
and r
2
away from the well.
14
Theim: Obtaining Aquifer Parameters
when two observation wells are available, (5) can be written
as follows, then solved for transmissivity T, or for hydraulic
conductivity K for unconned ow (N.B. Q, h and T or K
must have consistent units)
h
2
= h
1
+
Q
2T
ln

r
2
r
1

T =
Q
2(h
2
h
1
)
ln

r
2
r
1

K =
Q
(h
2
2
h
2
1
)
ln

r
2
r
1

(6)
(6) is derived from unconned version of Darcys Law, see
15
Fetter [eqns. 5.45-49 2001]
Advantages: T (or K) determination quite accurate
(compared to transient methods)
Disadvantages: need 2 observation wells, cant get storativity
S, may require very long term pumping to reach steady-state
16
Transient Conned Flow
17
Theis Equation: Transient-Conned-No Leakage
Assumptions: as in Theim equation (except transient), and
that no limit on water supply in aquifer (i.e. aquifer is of
innite extent in all directions)
in this case, the solution of (1) is more dicult. Thirty
years after Theim equation was derived, Theis published the
following solution
s(r,t) =
Q
4T

u
e
u
u
du (7)
u =
r
2
S
4tT
(8)
where s(r,t) = h(r,t) h(r,0) is the drawdown at distance r
from the well.
18
The integral in (7) is often written as the well function
W(u) =

u
e
u
u
du (9)
Values are tabulated in many hydrology references [e.g.
Appendix 1, Fetter, 2001]
19
Theis: Obtaining Aquifer Parameters
type-curve tting: Theis solution (popular before the advent
of computers)
Theis devised a graphical solution method for obtaining S&T
from (7), known as the Theis solution method. This method
obtains values for u, given measurements of s vs. t. From
this, S&T can be determined.
given (7) written using the well function
s(r,t) =
Q
4T
W(u) (10)
20
and (8) rearranged
r
2
t
=
4T
S
u (11)
solve these simultaneously for S and T
T =
QW(u)
4s
(12a)
S =
4Tu
r
2
t
(12b)
need values for u and W(u) to solve these.
Determining u and W(u):
take the log of both sides of eqns. (10)(11):
21
log s = log

Q
4T

+ log[W(u)] (13a)
log

r
2
t

= log

4T
S

+ log u (13b)
solve (13) simultaneously by plotting W(u) vs.
1
u
(Fig.
7) and s vs.
t
r
2
(or just t for a single observation well) at
same scale on loglog paper (one curve per sheet, Fig.
8) and curve matching (sliding the papers around until
the curves exactly overlie one another, keep the axis lines
on each sheet parallel to the axes on the other! Fig. 9)
then a pin pushed through the papers will show the
values of s and
t
r
2
corresponding to the selected W(u)
vs.
1
u
. This is called choosing a match point.
22
once the curves are matched, the match point can be
chosen anywhere on the diagrams, since it xes the ratios
u

r
2
t

and
W(u)
s
, which arise in (12)
the plot W(u) vs.
1
u
is called a type curve, since its form
depends only on the type of aquifer involved (e.g.
conned, no-leakage)
modern software solves (12) directly using numerical
methods. Results often graphically compared to type curve
for familiarity.
23
Type Curve, Conned No-Leakage
Figure 7: Type curve for conned ow, no leakage, after Fetter
[Fig. 5.6, 2001].
24
Conned No-Leakage Data
Figure 8: Observed drawdowns for conned ow, no leakage,
after Fetter [Fig. 5.7, 2001].
25
Curve Matching (Theis Soln)
Figure 9: Type curve matching, Theis Method, after Fetter
[Fig. 5.8, 2001].
26
Multi-Observation Wells
Figure 10: Cone of depression with multiple observation wells,
setting for distance-drawdown solution Driscoll [Fig. 9.23,
1986].
27
Distance-Drawdown Solution
Figure 11: Distance-drawdown solution. Slope is determined by s over
one log cycle on the distance scale. Fit line can be used to predict drawdown
beyond observation wells Driscoll [e.g. point at 300 ft, Fig. 9.23, 1986].
28
Non-Ideal Aquifers
29
Semi-conned (Leaky) Aquifers, Transient Flow
Introduction:
more complicated class of problems: Non-ideal aquifers
Theis solution assumes all pumped water comes from
aquifer storage (ideal aquifer)
additional water can enter such systems via leakage from
lower-permeability bounding materials or surface water
bodies. This lowers the drawdown vs. time curve below
the classic Theis curve (Fig. 12)
Assumptions: as in Theis solution, plus vertical-only ow
in the aquitard (i.e. leakage only moves vertically), no
drawdown in unpumped aquifer, no contribution from storage
in aquitard
30
Variation in Drawdown vs. Time
10 100 1000 10000
1
10
Time (min)
Leaky
Theis
Barrier
D
r
a
w
d
o
w
n

(
f
t
)
Figure 12: Comparison of drawdown vs. time curves for
conned aquifers. Ideal (Theis), leaky, and barrier cases.
31
Leaky Conned Aquifer Type Curve
Figure 13: Type curves for leaky conned (artesian) aquifer,
after Fetter [Fig. 5.11, 2001]
32
Impermeable barriers
the principal eect is to reduce the water available for removal
from the aquifer (i.e. storage reduced at some distance from
well), increasing drawdown rate when the drawdown cone
intersects the barrier (Fig. 14)
analytic solutions are available for this case [using image well
theory, Ferris, 1959], allowing estimation of the distance
to the boundary/barrier as well as the standard aquifer
parameters
33
Image Well Geometry
Figure 14: Image well conguration for aquifer with barrier.
After Freeze and Cherry [1979, Fig. 8.15].
34
Single Well Tests
35
Single-Well Tests: Introduction
Use recovery data (Fig. 15)
plot h
o
h vs. log

t
tt
1

, where h
o
is the head in the well
prior to pumping, t is the time since pumping started, t
1
is
the duration of pumping
Note: for Theis or Jacob method: pumping rate must be
constant. Recovery data can be used if pumping rate varied
considerably during the test. Well losses often important,
so drawdown in the pumping well often not useful during
pumping.
36
Recovery Data
Figure 15: Drawdown and recovery data. After Freeze and
Cherry [1979, Fig. 8.14].
37
Slug (Injection) Tests
useful for low to moderate permeability materials
a volume of water (or metal bar called a slug) is added to
the well, and relaxation of the water levels to the regional
water table is observed vs. time
type curve solutions are available (Cooper-Papodopulos-
Bredehoeft) , plotting the data as the relative slug height
(ratio of current over initial slug height) vs.
t
r
2
c
, where r
c
is
the well casing radius
for partially-penetrating wells or simple settings, the Hvorslev
method is very popular approach, Eqn. 14. In this case a
38
plot of relative slug height vs. log t is used (Fig. 16)
K =
r
2
ln

L
R

2 L t
37
(14)
where r is the well casing radius, L is the length of the
screened interval, R is the radius of the casing plus gravel
pack, t
37
is the time required for water level to recover to
37% of the initial change (method can use withdrawal or
injection)
39
Hvorslev Method
Figure 16: Hvorslev slug test analysis procedure, after Fetter
[Fig. 5.22, 2001].
40
Pump Test Sequence
Figure 17: Pump test sequence, after online notes. Surging is done to remove nes from and stablize gravel pack,
step drawdown to measure well eciency and observe non-linear eects (1 hr each), constant rate test at about 120% of target
rate (24 hr at least), subsequent recovery is often the most stable data.
41
Summary
42
Multi-Well Testing Summary
All these methods utilize data from one or more observation
wells. Storage parameters can only be obtained from multi-well
tests.
Conned aquifers
steady-state: Theim solution
transient: Theis solution (curve matching) or Jacob
straight-line method (ignores early data)
Leaky conned
Hantush (Cooper) curve matching
Hantush-Jacob straight-line (ignores late data, same basic
idea as Jacob straight line)
43
Unconned: dual curve match
44
Single-Well Testing Summary
slug/withdrawal tests
type-curve matching (Cooper-Papodopulos-Bredehoeft)
straight-line approximation (Hvorslev method)
indirect tests: point dilution, specic capacity
45
Well-Testing Summary Table
Method I
d
e
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
C
o
n

n
e
d
L
e
a
k
y
Comments
Theim

Steady state hard to
reach in eld
Theis

Uses well function W(u)
Jacob Straight-
Line

Emphasizes late time
(aquifer) data
Hantush-Jacob

Uses leaky well-function
W
(
u,
r
B
)
46
Method I
d
e
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
C
o
n

n
e
d
L
e
a
k
y
Comments
Hantush
Inection Point

Jacob straight line for
time before leakage
appears
Unconned

Combined type curves
for decompression and
gravity drainage
47
Bibliography
48
K. R. Bradbury and M. A. Muldoon. Hydraulic conductivity determinations in unlithied glacial
and uvial materials. Special technical pub., ASTM, 1990.
K. J. Dawson and J. D. Istok. Aquifer Testing. Lewis, Chelsea, MI, 1991. ISBN 0-87371-501-2.
F. G. Driscoll. Groundwater and Wells. Johnson Division, St. Paul, Minn. 55112, 1986.
J. G. Ferris. Groundwater hydrology. John Wiley, New York, 1959.
C. W. Fetter. Applied Hydrogeology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 4th edition, 2001.
ISBN 0-13-088239-9.
R. A. Freeze and J. A. Cherry. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1979.
M. S. Hantush. Hydraulics of wells. Advances in Hydroscience, 1:281442, 1964.
G. P. Kruseman and N. A. de Ridder. Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. Publi. 47,
International Inst. Land Reclam. and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1991.
S. W. Lohman. Ground-water hydraulics, volume 708 of Prof. Paper. U.S. Geol. Survey,
Washington, D.C., 1979.
W. C. Walton. Practical aspects of groundwater modeling. Nat. Water Well Assn., 1984.
49