VOL. $, NO.

1 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH FEBRUARY 1969

Determining
theRatio Horizontal
to Vertical
Permeability
by
Aquifer-Test
Analysis

EDWIN P. WEEKS•'
U. $. GeologicalSurvey, Madison,Wisconsin,53706

Abstract. The ratio of horizontalto vertical permeabilitymay be determinedby analy•s

of drawdown data from piezometersor partially penetrating observationwells near a
partially penetratingproductionwell. The analysesare made by compsxing
measured
drawdowns
in the piezometers
to thosepredictedif the productionwell fully penetratedthe
aquifer.The differences
betweenthe measured
andpredicted
drawdowns
are determined,
and
the distancesfrom the pumpedwell at which these differenceswould occurin an isotropic
aquiferare determined
from an equation.
The permeability
ratio is computed
asthe square
of the ratio of actual distancesto computeddistances.The ratio of horizontal to vertical
permeability
in glacialoutwash
in centralWisconsin
wasdetermined
from5 aquiferteststo
rangefrom about2 to about 20.

NOMENCLATURE Ko - modified Bessel function of the second kind

and zero order;
The followingsymbolsare usedin this paper: Kr - horizontalpermeabilityof aquifermaterial,
b = aquiferthickness; radially from the pumped well;
d = distance from top of aquifer (or water K• -vertical permeability of aquifer material;
table) to top of wellscreenin pumpedwell; Q = well discharge;
d•= distance from top of aquifer (or water r - distance from pumped well to piezometer
table) to top of well screenin observation or observation well;
rc = distance from pumped well at which an
well;
observed drawdown deviation $s would
ifs) -dimensionless
correction
factorfor draw- occur in the equivalent isotropic aquifer;
downin piezometer,
givenby the formula
s = drawdown;
s'-drawdown in water-table aquifer cor-
rected for effects of decreasingsaturated
•}'(ZW
-- d) n----1..,''' n thicknessof aquifer;
As - changein drawdown acrossone log cycle

(
ßsinn•'z__•
b _ sin cos
-•-; of r;
$s - drawdown deviation due to partial penetra-
tion from that given by the equations for
f•(s) = dimensionless
correction
factorfor draw- purely radial flow, equal to
down in observation well, given by the
formula
Q

- - for T and Q in consistentunits,/or

b sin 114.6Q
T

.(sin
n•'zw!
sin
n-•)
b
for T in gpd per foot and Q in gpm;
coefficientof storage;
storage coefficient,or specificyield, calcu-
x Now at U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Water Re- lated from the Theis equation, using data
sourcesDivision, Federal Center, Denver, Col- from piezometersor observationwells near
orado 80225. enoughthe pumped well to be affectedby
partial penetration;
Copyright¸ 1969by the AmericanGeophysical
Union. specificyield;
196
 Aquifers-TestA•,lysis 197
t = time since pumping began; mate underflowbeneathdamsand to designcut-
to = time value of the zero-drawdown intercept off structuresto inhibit seepage[Casagrande,
of the extrapolated straight-line portion
of the time-drawdown curve;
1937, p. 315-320; Creager et al., 1945, p. 58].
T = coefficientof transmissibility; A knowledgeof the permeability ratio is also
important in the design of drainage projects
r 2S [Maasland, 1957, pp. 217-285]. Suchknowledge
U --
4Tt would also be important for the designof well
in consistentunits, or
fields utilizing partially penetrating wells and in
the design of fresh-water barrier or pumping-
1.87r2S barrier projects to prevent encroachment of
Tt salt water into fresh-water aquifers.
A knowledgeof the ratio of horizontal to ver-
for T in gal/ft/day,
tical permeability would be useful in many
r in feet, and t in days; ground-water investigations.The permeability
W(u) = exponential integral, or well function of ratio is neededto analyze aquifer tests on par-
u (see, for example, Ferris et al., 1962);
tially penetrating wells for the coefficient of
z = depth from top of aquifer (or water table)
to bottom of piezometer; storage (Weeks, unpublished data). Also, de-
Zw = distance from top of aquifer (or water terminations of vertical permeability on satur-
table) to bottom of well screenin pumped ated materials near the water table may provide
well; an estimate of vertical permeability in the un-
z•'= distance from top of aquifer (or water
table) to bottom of well screen in observa- saturated zone and, thus, could be useful for
tion well. recharge studies.
This paper describesthree related methods,
INTRODUCTION
dependent on the number of observationwells
Most elasticsedimentaryrocks are more per- for which drawdown data are available, for
meablealong than acrossthe beddingplane and determining the ratio of horizontal to vertical
thus are anisotropicwith respectto permeabil- permeability from aquifer-test data. TWo of the
ity. This anisotropyoccursin part becauseplate- methods are illustrated, using data from an
shaped grains within the rock tend to be aquifer test on a well near Hancock, Wisconsin.
oriented with their fiat surfacesparallel to the Results of four other tests on wells tapping out-
bedding plane. Such orientation increasesthe wash in central Wisconsin are summarized.
tortuosity of vertically interconnected pores,
PREVIOUS WORK
thus reducing the vertical permeability of the
rock. Anisotropy due to this causeoccursfor Several methods for determining anisotropic
evenvery smallsamplesof rock. permeability have been suggestedin the past
Apparent anisotropicpermeabilityalsooccurs few years. Stallman [1963] proposedthat the
because of interbedding of fine-grained and ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability be
coarse-grained materialswithin the aquifer.Such determined from the finite-difference form of
interbeddingaffectspermeabilityto vertical flow the Laplace equation,using data from an array
much more than it does horizontal flow. Al- of piezometersinstalled near a pumping well.
though the interbedding represents nonhomo- This method was tested later by Weeks [1964]
geneity, rather than anisotropy, its effects on and by Norris and Fidlet [1966.]. Weeks ob-
the permeability of a large sample of aquifer tained results in general agreement with those
material may be approximated by treating the obtained by another method, although draw-
aquifer as homogeneousbut anisotropic. The downs were not measured with the accuracy
anisotropicconditionsdescribedbelow probably neededto provide confidence in the method.The
represent the effects of interbedding as well as method failed for Norris and Fidlet [1966], and
the effectsof grain orientation. the values they obtained not only varied from
A knowledgeof the ratio of horizontal to ver- those determined by other methods, but indi-
tical permeability of aquifer materials is im- cated that the vertical permeability was hun-
portant for a number of engineeringproblems. dreds of times greater than the horizontal per-
For example,this knowledgeis neededto esti- meability.
198 EDWIN P. WEEKS

Weeks [1964] also presented a method for determininganisotropicpermeabilityin the

whereby correction factors for drawdowns in horizontalor x-y plane. Hantush [1966a] also
piezometersnear a partially penetrating well presentsequationsfor drawdownin anisotropic
were computed,usingan equationmodifiedfrom aquifers for other situations,including leaky
Hahtush [1961a] for various assumedvalues of aquifers,and for wellspumpedat exponentially
the horizontal to vertical permeability ratio. and hyperbolicallydecreasingrates.
These corrections were added to the values for Dagan [1967] has derived an equationthat
drawdownsgivenby the nonequilibriumformula describesthe effect of vertical flow components
[Theis, 1935] and a value for the horizontal to due to water-table conditions on drawdowns in
vertical permeabilityratio was selectedas equal piezometersnear a partially penetratingpro-
to the assumedvalue giving the best match to ductionwell. The equationgivesresultssimilar
the field data. Although the method gave con- to thosethat Stallman [1965] obtainedwith an
sistent results,the equation is tedious to eval-
electricanalog,and for later times,to thoseob-
uate, and the trial-and-error approach using
tained from Hantush's [1964] equation used
number of assumedvaluesfor the permeability
ratio is cumbersome.
below. Drawdown data do not begin to follow
Mansur and Dietrich [1965] described a Dagan'scurvessoonerthan they do type curves
methodwherebythe ratio of horizontalto verti- computedfrom Hantush.'sequation(Weeks,un-
cal permeability was determinedby comparing publisheddata), and Dagan'sequationis more
drawdownsin piezometersat various distances dimcult to evaluate.Moreover,.the methodsof
from the pumpedwell to the steady-statedraw- analysisdescribed beloware more precisethan
down profile determined from an electrolytic the method describedby Dagan.
(electric-tray) analogof the aquifer-wellsystem. The followingmethodsare applicableto tests
Their method differsfrom Method 1, described on homogeneous artesianaquifersof largeareal
below,in that they determinethe ratio partly extent,althoughthey may be usedto analyze
by trial and error, rather than entirely by ana- tests on water-table aquifers under conditions
lytical means; and that they use analog results, described below. The directions of maximum
rather than an equation,to obtain the theoreti- andminimumpermeabilityshouldbe horizontal
cal responseof the system.Their methodhas the and vertical,respectively.The productionwell
disadvantagethat it may be usedonly for analy- must be pumpedat a constantrate and must
sis of tests for which the steady-statedrawdown only partially penetrate the aquifer. To use
profile has been establishedto a distance equationI below,drawdowns mustbe observed
yond the effectsof partial penetration.Also, the near the pumpedwell in piezometers(observa-
analog results are often not available for the tion wellsopenonly at the bottom) or in ob-
specificfield situationto be analyzed. servationwellsopenor screened in only a small
Stallman [1965] presentedresponsecurvesfor part of the aquiferthickness.
Calculationsbased
piezometersnear a well tapping an aquifer for on equationsI and 2 indicatethat equation1
which storage was depleted from the upper may be usedto analyzedata from observation
surface,to simulatea water table, usingan ana- wells screenedfor less than about 20% of the
log model composedof a resistor-capacitorgrid. aquiferthickness,usingthe depth of the center
His curves were presented for drawdownsin of the screenas the piezometerdepth, if the
piezometers penetrating to different depths of positionof the screenin the observation well
the aquifer. Norris and Fidlet [1966] describe is above or below that of the screen in the
the use of these curves to analyze an aquifer pumpedwell. However,if the observation
well
test near Portsmouth, Ohio. This method also screenis at the samelevel, or overlapsthat in
has the drawback that responsecurves are not the pumpedwell,equationi shouldbe usedonly
generallyavailable for the specificfield situation when the length of the observationwell screen
being analyzed. is lessthan about 5% of the aquifer thickness.
In addition to the methods described above Data obtained from observationwells open or
for the determination of the ratio of horizontal screened in a largerpart of the aquiferthickness
to vertical permeability,Hantush [1966b] and could be analyzed by the describedmethods
Hantush and Thomas[1966,]describea method usingequation2. The methods
couldnot beused
 Aquifer-TestAnalysis 199
to analyzedata obtainedfrom fully penetrating pumping a partially penetrating well at a con-
observation wells.
stant rate in an anisotropicaquifer is the sameas
For the analytical methodsdescribedin this that at the distancer (K,/Kr) TM(= rc in equa-
paper, use is made of deviations in drawdown tions 1 and 2 below) where
occurring in piezometersand observationwells
from those drawdowns that would occur near K, = permeabilityin vertical direction;
a pumping well fully penetratingthe aquifer. Kr = permeabilityin horizontaldirection;
These deviationsoccur when a well partially if the aquiferweretransformed into an equivalent
penetratingthe aquiferis pumpedbecausewater isotropicaquifer.
levelsare drawndownmorein piezometers open Consequently,for eachof the methodsoutlined
near the level of the screen,and lessin piezom- below,the deviationin drawdowndue to partial
eters open at an interval somewhat above or penetration of the pumped well is determined
belowthe screenedinterval, than they wouldbe from the field data by graphicalanalysis.The
if the pumpedwell fully penetratedthe aquifer. theoretical drawdown deviation that would occur
Theseeffectsmay be understoodby comparing for the same pumped well and piezometeror
drawdown lines and flow lines for the two observationwell penetrationin an equivalent
situations(Figure 1). ideal isotropicaquifer is also determined,using
Drawdowndeviationsdue to partial penetra- equation 3 or 4. From the computedcurve the
tion are amplifiedwhenthe verticalpermeability distancesfrom the pumped well at which the
is lessthan the horizontalpermeability,as often observed drawdown deviations would occur in
occursin stratifiedsediments.Moreover,Hahtush the equivalentisotropicaquifer are found, and
[1964]has shownthat at a given distancer from the ratio of horizontalto verticalpermeabilityis
the pumpedwell the drawdowndeviation due to computedby equatingthesedistances, multiplied

/--Pumped
well (Upper confining layer)

20 •

17.5I i i .5
i I '1 I I I I I
4.0 •

I I

,
- I

' ',' '

IOO

0 20
(Lower confining
40/
layer)
60 80
DISTANCEFROMPUMPEDWELL, IN FEET
i00 120 140 160

Fig. 1. Vertical sectionshowingdrawdownlinesand approximateflowpathsnear pumped

well in ideal artesian aquifer. Solid lines are for well screened in bottom three-tenths of
aquifer' dashedlines are for well screenedthe full aquifer thickness.
2O0 EDWIN P. WEEKS

by (Kr/K•)•% to the actual distancesfrom the For observation wells, which in contrast to
piezometersto the pumpedwell. piezometers are screened over some definite
depth interval of the aquifer, the averagedraw-
THE EQUATIONS
down over the vertical range of the screen is
The drawdown in a piezometernear a par- given by an equation derived by Hantush
tially penetrating well being pumped at a [1961a, p. 92, equation 13b], and modified for
constantrate and tapping a homogeneous, aniso- anisotropicconditionsby this writer
tropic artesian aquifer is given, after modifica-
tions for effects of anisotropy, for periods of
pumping greater than = Q{W(u)
-a
t- - 462
-
t=
.... •.
n•1,2,3, ***
«Kon • sinnwz• nd
• -- sin-
where: t = time, in days, since pumping
began;
b = aquiferthickness,in feet; ; (2)
S = coefficient of storage (dimension- wherez'• = depth from top of aquifer (or water
less); table) to bottom of screen in
and K, = vertical permeability, in feet per observationwell;
day; d' = depth from top of aquifer (or water
by the equation[Hantush,1961a,p. 90, equation table) to top of screenin observa-
Sa] tion well;
and other symbolsare as previouslydescribed.
s- Q(W(u)•4b
- • .... 1Ko From equations I and 2 the departure in
drawdown from that predicted by •he Theis
[1935] equationis given, in consistentunits, by
b sin -cos-- (1) the equations

whereQ = discharge,in cubicfeet per day; = (3)

T = transmissibility, in square feet per
or
day;
u = r=S/4Tt; $s = (Q/47rT)]'(s) (4)
r = distance from pumped well
where
piezometer,in feet;
W(u) = exponentialintegralof u [Ferrisetal., $s = departurein drawdownfrom that near
1962, 96-97]; a fully penetrating pumped well, in
Ko = modified Bessel function of the feet;
second kind and zero order [Ferris Its)- the second or summation term of
et al., 1962, p. 115]; equation 1;
and
]'(s) -- the second or summation term of
equation 2.
When transmissibility (T) is expressedin
K•: horizontal permeability, in feet per
gpd/ft (gallonsper day per foot) and discharge
day;
(Q) is expressedin gpm (gallonsper minute),
z• : depth from •p of aquifer (or water
the equationsfor the departure in drawdown
table) to bottom of screenin pumped
become
well;
d: depth from top of aquifer (or water
table) to •p of screenin pumped
well;
$s- 11•6Q
Its)or$s- 114.6Q
l'(s) ' T

z: depth from •p of aquifer (or water Equations for the remainder of this paper will
table) to bottom of piezometer. be written for T and Q in these units.-
 Aquifer-Test Ane•lysis 201

Becausethe/(s) or f(s) term is rathertedious penetration become constant with time shortly
to computeby hand,electroniccomputerprint- after the start of the test and thus do not affect
out values for [(s) are given in Table i for the slopeof the time-drawdownplots at later
variousrc and z valuescovering56 different times, transmissibilityvalues were computed
partial-penetration situations. Because of the from time-drawdown plots for observation
great number of possiblesituationsinvolved, wells 1, 2, and 3. The average of these values
f(s) valuesare not tabulated,and the dis- was used to compute As, and line AB of this
cussionbelowwill be restrictedto analysisof slope was drawn arbitrarily through the data
drawdowndata from piezometers. Drawdown point for observation well 5. The data were
data from observationwellscouldbe analyzed then analyzedas describedin steps3 through9
by the methods,however,by substituting f(s) below. From the results of the analysisit was
termswherever[(s) termsappear. calculatedthat the drawdownindicatedby the
The nature of drawdowndeparturesnear a straight-line plot shouldbe 0.05 foot less than
pumpedwell for the partial-penetrationsitua- the measured drawdown in observation well 5.
tion approximatingthat of the Hancock test Line AB was drawn, as shown,through that
(Figure5) is shownin Figure2. The magnitude point, and the analysesfor steps 3 through 9
of the drawdown departurevariesgreatlywith were repeated. Calculations using the recom-
piezometerpenetrationto levelsnear the inter- puted Sy values indicated that no additional re-
val over whichthe pumpedwell is screened, finementin the positionof the line was needed.
makingaccurateinterpolation
diflqcult.
However, 3. Extend the straight line A-B (Figure 3)
for piezometerpositionssomewhatabove or down to an r value somewhat smaller than that
belowthe screenedportionof the pumpedwell for the closestpiezometer.
variationin drawdowndeparturewith piezom- 4. Computevaluesof $s -- (114.6Q/T) [(s)
eter depth is small, and satisfactoryvalues calculatedfrom equation3 or interpolatedfrom
may be interpolated
from a graph,suchasFig- Table I for various assumed values of re.
ure 2, or from Table 1. 5. Add, algebraically,the 8s term (8s• in
Figure 3), for eachof the r• values,to the draw-
THE METHODS
down indicatedby extrapolationof the straight-
Method 1 line plot for values of r equal to r• and connect
the resulting points by a smooth curve. This
Aquifer tests for which enoughpiezometers curve represents the drawdown profile that
are availableto outlinethe profile of the cone would occurif the aquifer were isotropic.
of depression to a distance beyondthe effectsof 6. Draw line CD (Figure 3) parallel to line
partial penetrationmay be analyzedby the AB throughpointsrepresentingmeasureddraw-
following method,detailedin ninesteps: downs and the computed drawdown curve for
1. Preparea plot of drawdownversuslog r the equivalent isotropic conditions.
for a time t greatenoughthat the term 1.87r•S/ 7. Determine the rc value for the intercept
Tt < 0.02for the mostdistantpiezometer; of line CD with the computeddrawdown curve.
2. Computetransmissibility fromthestraight 8. Compute the ratio of horizontal to vertical
line part (A-B in Figure3) of the curve,using permeability from the formula
the Thiem formula[Ferriset al., 1962,91-92]
=
T = 528Q/As
where r = distancefrom pumpedwell to pie-
whereAs -- changein drawdownover onelog zometer through which line CD was con-
cycle of r. structed.
The Thiem method could not be used to 9. Find the storagecoefficient($) or spe-
analyze the data used to prepare Figure 3, cific yield (S•) from data obtainedin piezom-
because the test was not run for sufiqcienttime eters located beyond the effects of partial
that the drawdowns in observation wells located penetration, using the Theis equation or the
far enoughfrom the pumpedwell to be unaf- modifiednonequilibrium method [Ferris e•
fected by partial penetration would fit the 1962, p. 99-100]. Also, $ or $• may be found
equation.Instead,becausethe effectsof partial fromdatafor piezometers
nearthepumpedwell,
 TABLE 1. Tabulated Values of the Dimensionless Drawdown Correctior• Factor
All values, including those for piezometer depth, are listed for percentagesof the aquifer thickness,as measured from
the top of the aquifer or from the pumped well.
The •:(s) values listed are for an isotropic aquifer. For an anisotropic aquifer the value of f(s) would be read as
the value of r/b[K•/Kr)•/2], expressed as a percentage, equivalent to the r value listed.
Each of the tables listed below may also be used for the situation where values for the bottom and the top of the
screen are reversed by reading the • value in the table equivalent to (100 s) for the field situation. For example, the
first table listed could also be used to determine values of f(s) for a well screened from the top of the aquifer down
to a depth equal to 90% of the aquifer thickness. If the piezometers penetrated 20% of the aquifer thickness, the cor-
rection value for a given r/b value would be found from the • = 80 listing.
Frequently it would be necessary to make a double or triple interpolation to use the data from these tables. Such
interpolation probably would be best accomplishedfrom a plot of ]:(s) versus log r/b for each of the d/b, a,o/b, and
•/b values bounding the actual values of these parameters.
BOTTOM OF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 100. PER CENT OF AQUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AQUIFER
TOP OF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 90. PER CENT OF AQUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AQUIFER
PIEZ.
DEPTH DISTANCE OF PIEZOMETER FROM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -4.828 -3.457 -2.674 -2.134 -1.732 -1.421 -0.972 -0.673 -0.468 -0.229 -0.113 -0.056 -0.020
10. -4.785 -3.415 -2.633 -2.095 -1.696 -1.387 -0.944 -0.650 -0.451 -0.219 -0.108 -0.053 -O.01q
20. -4.651 -3.284 -2.506 -1.976 -1.585 -1.284 -0.860 -0.584 -0.400 -0.191 --0.093 -0,046 -0.016
30. -4.408 -3.048 -2.280 -1.763 -1.388 -1.104 -0.715 -0.471 -0.315 -0.145 -0.069 -0.034 -0.012
40. -4.020 -2.6?4 -1.925 -1.434 -1.086 -0.833 -0.503 -0.312 -0.198 -0.085 -0.039 -0.018 -0.006
50. -3.415 -2.095 -1.387 -0.944 -0.650 -0.451 -0.219 -0.108 -0.053 -0.013 -0.003 -0.001 0.000
60. -2.444 -1.185 -0.566 -0.225 -0.035 0.06? 0.138 0.135 0.111 0.063 0.033 0.017 0.006
70. -0.?36 0.341 0.?25 0.•29 0.80R 0.?36 0.556 0.399 0.280 0.137 0.067 0.033 0.012
80. 2.897 3.170 2.791 2.312 1.875 1.511 0.983 0.648 0.432 0.199 0.095 0.046 0.016
90. 13.344 8.218 5.575 3.974 2.926 2.207 1.322 0.831 0.539 0.241 0.113 0.055 0.019
100. 21.264 11.404 7.087 4.778 3.395 2.499 1.454 0.899 0.578 0.256 0.120 0.058 0.020

TOP OF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 80. PER CENT (JF AOUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFER

PIEZ.
DEPTH DISTANCE OF PIEZOMETER FROM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -4.785 -3.415 -2.633 -2.095 -1.696 -1.387 -0.944 -0.650 -0.451 -0.219 -0.108 -0.053 -0.019
10. -4.739 -3.371 -2.590 -2.055 -1.658 -1.352 -0.916 -0.628 -0.434 -0.210 -0.103 -0.051 -0.018
20. -4.597 -3.232 -2.457 -1.929 -1.542 -1.246 -0.829 -0.561 -0.383 -0.182 -0.089 -0.044 -0.015
30. -4.336 -2.979 -2.216 -1.705 -1.335 -1.059 -0.681 -0.448 -0.299 -0.138 -0.066 -0.032 -0.011
40. -3.912 -2.572 -1.834 -1.354 -1.019 -0.778 -0.467 -0.290 -0.184 -0.079 -0.036 -0.017 -0.006
50. -3.232 -1.929 -1.246 -0.829 -0.561 -0.383 -0.182 -0.089 -0.044 -0.011 --0.003 -0.001 0.000
60. -2.076 -0.877 -0.331 -0.057 0.079 0.142 0.168 0.145 0.114 0.062 0.032 0.016 0.006
70. 0.22? 0.992 1.113 1.044 0.920 0.789 0.561 0.391 0.2?2 0.131 0.064 0.032 0.011
80. 6.304 4.280 3.150 2.401 1.867 1.471 0.939 0.615 0.410 0.189 0.090 0.044 0.015
90. 12.080 7.287 4.939 3.545 2.635 2.005 1.219 0.773 0.505 0.228 0.107 0.052 0.018
100. 13.344 8.218 5.575 3.973 2.926 2.207 1.322 0.831 0.539 0.241 0.113 0.055 0.019

TOP OF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 70. PER CENT OF AQUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AQUIFER

PIEZ.
DEPTH DISTANCE OF PIEZOMETER FROM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AQUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -4.710 -3.342 -2.562 -2.029 -1.634 -1.330 -0.897 -0.613 -0.423 -0.204 -0.100 -0.049 -0.017
10. -4.659 -3.293 -2.515 -1.985 -1.593
.
-1.293 -0.868 -0.591 -0.406 -0.195 -0.095 -0.047 -0.017
20. -4.500 -3.138 -2.368 -1.848 -1.468 -1.179 -0.778 -0.523 -0.355 -0.168 -0.082 -0.040 -0.014
30. -4.203 -2.853 -2.100 -1.601 -1.245 -0.981 -0.626 -0.410 -0.2?3 -0.126 -0.060 -0.029 -0.010
40. -3.?05 -2.381 -1.666 -1.212 -0.902 -0.683 -0.408 -0.254 -0.162 -0.071 -0.033 -0.016 -0.005
50. -2.•53 -1.601 -0.981 -0.626 -0.410 -0.273 -0.126 -0.060 -0.029 -0.007 -0.002 -0.000 0.000
60. -1.189 -0.230 0.100 0.218 0.251 0.248 •.206 0.157 0.115 0.059 0.030 0.015 0.005
70. 3.064 2.155 1.638 1.286 1.028 0.830 0.553 0.374 0.255 0.122 0.059 0.029 0.010
80. 7.239 4.463 3.104 2.289 1.745 1.359 0.859 0.561 0.374 0.173 0.083 0.040 0.014
90. •.651 5.592 3.958 2.925 2.220 1.716 1.067 0.687 0.453 0.206 0.098 0.048 0.017
100. 9.019 5.915 4.223 3.134 2.382 1.840 1.140 0.731 0.481 0.218 0.103 0.050 0.017

TOPOF SCREEN
IN PUMPED
WELLIS 60. PERCENTOF AOUIFER
THICKNESS
BELOW
TOPOF AOIJIFER
PIEZ.
DEPTH DISTANCE OF PIEZOMETER FROM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -4.597 -3.232 -2.457 -1.929 -1.542 -1.246 -0.829 -0.561 -0.383 -0.182 -0.089 -0.044 -0.015
10. -4.538 -3.175 -2.403 -1.880 -1.497 -1.206 -0.?99 -0.538 -0.36? -0.174 -0.084 -0.041 -0.015
20. -4.348 -2.994 -2.233 -1.725 -1.358 -1.082 -0.705 -0.470 -0.318 -0.149 -0.072 -0.035 -0.012
30. -3.986 -2.650 -1.918 -1.442 -1.110 -0.868 -0.549 -0.358 -0.239 -0.110 -0.053 -0.026 -0.009
40. -3.336 -2.055 -1.394 -0.993 -0.731 -0.552 -0.331 -0.208 -0.135 -0.060 -0.028 -0.014 -0.005
50. -2.055 -0.993 -0.552 -0.331 -0.208 -0.135 -0.060 -0.028 -0.014 -0.003 -0.001 -0.000 0.000
60. 1.196 0.854 0.658 0.524 0.424 0.347 0.236 0.163 0.113 0.055 0.027 0.013 0.005
70. 4.424 2.679 1.847 1.358 1.037 0.811 0.518 0.342 0.231 0.108 0.052 0.026 0.009
80. 5.634 3.670 2.622 1.958 1.502 1.174 0.745 0.488 0.326 0.152 0.073 0.035 0.012
90. 6.154 4.140 3.026 2.295 1.777 1.397 0.890 0.582 0.388 0.179 0.086 0.042 0.015
100. 6.304 4.280 3.150 2.401 1.867 1.471 0.939 0.615 0.410 0.189 0.090 0.044 0.015

TOP OF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 50. PER CENT OF AOUIFE• THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFEE

PIEZ.
OEPTH DISTANCE OF PIEZOMETER FROM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -4.434 -3.075 -2.307 -1.791 -1.415 -1.131 -0.739 -0.493 -0.333 -0.156 -0.075 -0.037 -0.013
10. -4.360 -3.005 -2.243 -1.732. -1.364 -1.087 -0.707 -0.4?0 -0.317 -0.149 -0.072 -0.035 -0.012
20. -4.119 -2.??? -2.036 -1.549 -1.205 -0.951 -0.611 -0.403 -0.271 -0.127 -0.061 -0.030 -0.010
30. -3.626 -2.327 -1.642 -1.214 -0.924 -0.719 -0.453 -0.296 -0.198 -0.092 -0.044 -0.022 -0.008
40. -2.609 -1.486 -0.976 -0.691 -0.513 -0.392 -0.243 -0.157 -0.105 -0.048 -0.023 -0.011 -0.004
50. -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60. 2.609 1.486 0.976 0.691 0.513 0.392 0.243 0.157 0.105 0.048 0.023 0.011 0.004
70. 3.626 2.327 1.642 1.214 0.924 0.719 0.453 0.296 0.198 0.092 0.044 0.022 0.008
RO. 4.119 2.??? 2.036 1.549 1.205 0.951 0.611 0.403 0.271 0.127 0.061 0.030 0.010
90. 4.360 3.005 2.243 1.732 1.364 1.087 0.707 0.470 0.317 0.149 0.072 0.035 0.012
100, 4.434 3.075 2.307 1.791 1.415 1.13L 0,739 0.493 0.333 0.156 0.075 0.037 0,013
 Aquifer-Test Analysis 203

TABLE I (continued)
TD• OF SCREEN IN PU.PED •ELL IS 40. PER CENT OF AOUIFE• THCKNESS BELO. TOP OF •QUIFEK

PIEZo
DEPTH DISTANCE OF PIEZOMETER-FROM PUMPED WELL• AS PER CENT OF AQUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10,00 15,00 20.00 25,00 30,00 40.00 50,00 60.00 80,00 100,00 120.00 150,00
0.0 -4.203 -2.853 .-2.I00 -I,60I -I.245 -0.98I -0.626 -0.410 -0.273 -0.I26 -0,060 -0,029 -O.OIO
10. -4,102 -2.760 -2.017 -1.530 -1.185 -0,931 -0.593 -0.388 -0.259 -0,120 -0,057 -0,028 -0,010
20. -3.756 -2.44• -1.748 -1.305 -1.002 -0.783 -0.497 -0.325 -0.218 -0.101 -0.048 -0.024 -0.008
30. -2.949 -1.786 -1.231 -0.905 -0.69! -0.541 -0.345 -0.228 -0.154 -0.0?2 -0.035 -OoO1T -0.006
40. -0.798 -0.569 -0.439 -0.349 -0.287 -0.231 -0.157 -0.108 -0.075 -0.03? -0.018 -0.009 -0.003
50. 1.370 0.662 0.368 0.220 0.13• 0.090 0.040 0.019 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000
60. 2.224 1.370 0.929 0.662 0.488 0.368 0.220 0.139 0.090 0.040 O.01g 0.009 0.003
70. 2.657 1.767 1.279 0.961 0,740 0.578 0.366 0.239 0.159 0.074 0.035 0.017 0.006
80. 2.899 1.996 1.489 1.150 0.905 0.722 0.470 0.313 0.212 0.100 0.048 0.024 0.008
90. 3.025 2.117 1.602 1.253 0.998 0.804 0.532 0.359 0.244 0.116 0.056 0.028 0.010
100. 3.064 2.155 1.638 1.286 1.028 0.830 0.553 0.374 0.255 0.122 0.059 0.029 0.010

TOP OF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 20, PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFER

PIEZ.
DEPTH DISTANCE OF PIEZOMEIER FROM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 IO.00 I5.00 20.00 25.00 30,00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 iO0.00 I20,00 I50.00
0.0 -3.336 -2.055 -1.394 -0.993 -0.731 -0.552 -0.331 -0.208 -0.135 -0.060 -0.028 -0.014 -0.005
10. -3.020 -1.822 -1.235 -0.886 -0.659 -0.501 -0.305 -0.193 -0.126 -0.057 -0.02? -0.013 -0ø005
20. -1.576 -1.070 -0.?88 -0.600 -0.46? -0.368 -0.235 -0.154 -0.102 -0.04? -0.023 -0.011 -0.004
30. -0.05? -0.248 -0.2?8 -0.261 -0.230 -0.197 -0.140 -0.098 -0.068 -0.033 -0.016 -0.008 -0.003
40. 0.519 0.219 0.083 0.014 -0.020 -0.036 -0.042 -0.036 -0.028 -0.015 -0.008 -0.004 -0.001
50. 0.808 0.482 0.311 0.20? 0.140 0.096 0.046 0.022 0.011 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000
60. 0.978 0.643 0.458 0.338 0.255 0.194 0.117 0.072 0.046 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.001
70. 1.084 0.745 0.554 0.426 0.334 0.'265 0.170 0.112 0.075 0.034 0.016 0.008 0.003
80. 1.149 0.808 0.614 0.482 0.385 0.311 0.207 0.140 0.096 0.046 0.022 0.011 0.004
90. 1.185 0.843 0.64? 0.514 0.415 0.338 0.229 0.157 0.109 0.053 0.026 0.013 0.005
100. 1.196 0.854 0.658 0.524 0.424 0.347 0.236 0.163 0.113 0.055 0.027 0.013 0.005

H{III[)Iq UF SCREEN IN PUMPEl) WELL IS' 90. PER CENT UF AOUIFER tHICKNESS RELUW TOP OF AOUIFER

T()P L•F SCRFEN IN PUI•PEI) WELL IS 80. PER CENT OF AQUIFER THICKNESS BELI)W TUP OF AQUIFER

IEZ.
EPTH T)ISTANCF I.)F PIEZ•METER FRUM PUMPED WELL• AS PER tENT (iF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 I5.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 iO0.00 I20.00 150.00
0.0 -4.743 -3.373 -2.592 -2.057 -1.660 -1.354 -0.916 -0.628 -0.434 -0.210 -0.103 -0.051 -O.01R
]0. -4.694 -3.326 -2.547 -2,015 -I.62I -I.318 -0.887 -0.606 -0.417 -0.20I -0.098 -0.048 -0.017
70. -4,542 -3.I70 -?.407 -I.g•3 -1.499 -I.207 -0.799 -0.538 -0.366 -0.I74 -0.084 -0.04I -0.015
30 -4.263 -?.910 -2.151 -1.646 -1.2R3 -1.013 -0.648 -0.425 -0.283 -0.131 -0.062 --0.030 -0.011
40. -3.a•3 -2.470 -1.742 -1.774 -0.952 -0.722 -0.431 -0.267 -0.170 -0.074 -0.034 -0.016 -0.006
•0. -3.048 -1.Y63 -1.104 -0.715 -0.471 -0.B]5 -0,145 -0.069 -0.034 -0,008 -0.002 -0.001 0.000
60 -1.708 -0.569 -0.096 0.111 0.193 0.218 0.198 0.156 0.116 0.061 0.031 0.015 0.006
70. 1.1H9 1.644 1.500 1.258 1.032 0.843 0.566 0.384 0.263 0.125 0.061 0.030 0.011
80. 9.7]2 5.3•9 3.509 2.491 1.859 1.431 0.895 0.582 0 387 0.179 0.086 0.042 0.015
90 10.816 6 356 4.303 3.117 2.344 1.803 1.1lb 0.716 0.471 0.214 O.lO1 0.049 O, [)17
]00. 5.425 5,032 4.064 3.168 2.457 1.915 1.190 0.763 0.500 0.226 0.107 0.052 O.01R

]lip lIE SCREEN IN PUMPEl) WELl. IS /0, PER CENT UF AQUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OP AQUIFER

PIP/.
I)FPfH ' I)IS1ANCE [)• PIEZUNETER ER[iM PUMPEl) WELL, AS PER CENT IJF AOUIEER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 ' 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.0•
0.0 -4.651 -3.284 -2.506 -1.976 -1.5H5 -1.284 -0.860 -0.5H4 -0.400 -0.191 -0.093 -0.046 -0.016
10. -4 597 -3 737 --2.457 -1.929 -1.547 -1.246 -0.829 -0.561 -0.383 -0.182 -0.089 --0.044 -0.015
70. -4.424 -3.0h5 -2.2•9 -1.784 -1.409 -l.127 -0.737 -0.492 -0.333 -0.157 -0.076 -0.037 -0.013
30. -4.100 -2.755 -2.010 -1.520 -1.173 -0.919 -0.582 -0.379 -0.252 -0.116 -0.056 --0.0•7 -0.009
40 -B.547 -2.235 -1.536 -1.101 -0.810 -0.609 -0.361 -0.224 -0.144 -0.064 -0.030 --0.014 -().005
50. -2.572 -1.354 -0.778 -0.•67 -0.290 -0.184 -0.079 -0,036 -0.017 -0.004 -0.001 -0.000 0.000
60. -0.562 0.24d 0.433 0.439 0.395 0.339 0.240 0.168 0.117 0.057 0.028 0.014 0.005

70. 4.965 3,061 2.094 1.515 1'.13H 0,878 0.551 0.362 0.243 0.114 0.055 0.027 0.009
80. 9.410 5.109 3.260 2.277 1.680 1.283 0.796 0.517 0.344 0.160 0.076 0.037 0.013
90. 6.304 4.2H0 3,150 2.401 1.867 1,471 0.939 0.615 0.410 0.189 0 090 0.044 0o015
100 2.a97 3.170 2.791 2.312 1.875 1.511 0.983 0.64• 0.432 0.199 0.095 0.046 0.01a

T[IP t•F SCREEN IN PUMPEll wFLL IS 60. PER CENT [)h AO[JlFER THICKNESS BELQW II)P OF AWUIEFK

PIE7.
I)EPfH DISTANCE [)• PIEZU•FTFR ERL)M PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIEER IHICKNESS
5.00 IO.00 i5.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 bO.00 60.00 RO.00 iO0.00 120.00 I50.00
0.0 -4.520 -3.157 -2.384 -1.861 -1.47• ! -1.187 -0.782 -0.524 .-0.355 -0.167 -0.0•1 -0.039 -0.014
10. -4.455 -3.095 -2.326 -1.HOB -1.431 -1.145 -0.750 -0.501 -0.338 -0.159 --0.077 -0.037 -0.013
20. -4.247 -2.897 -2.142 -1.641 -1.?H? -1.015 -0.654 -0.432 -0.290 -0.136 -0.065 -0.032 -0.011
30. -3.845 -?.517 -1.7•7 -1.335 -1.017 -0.789 -0.494 -0.321 -0.213 -0.099 -0.047 -0.023 -0.00•
40. -3.108 -1.848 -1.217 -0.H47 -0.613 -0.458 -0.273 -0,173 -0.114 -0.052 -0.025 -0,012 -0,004
b(), -1.601 -0.626 -0.273 -0.126 -0.060 -0.029 -0,007 -0,002 -0,000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0,000
60 2.410 1.533 1.066 0,774' 0,577 0.440 0.269 0.172 O.11B 0,052 0.025 0,012 0.004
70. 6.144 3•458 2.220 1,534 1.113 0.836 0.506 0.324 0,214 0,099 0.047 0,023 0.008
g0. 6.547 3.837. 2.566 1.840 1.378 1.062 0.666 0.435 .0.291 0.136 0.065 0.032 0.011
90. 3.757 2,780 2.176 1.735 1.395 1,127 0 746 O.bO0 0.338 0.159 0.077 0.037 0.013
100. 1.318 1.905 1.838 1.609 1.358 1.129 0.767 0,520 0.354 0.167 O.Oal 0.039 0.014
204 EDWIN P. WEEKS

TABLE 1 (continued)
'[UP Uf: SGREEN IN PUMPED WELl. IS •0. PER CENT l)l-: AQUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP BE AQUIFER

PIEZ.
DEPTH DISTANCE LIP PIEZOMETER FRUM PUMPFI) WELL, AS PER CENT DF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10,00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00' 40.00 50.00 60.00 sO.00 100.00 120,00 150,00
0.0 -4.336 -2.979 -2.216 -1.705 -1,335 -1.059 -0.681 -0.448 -0.299 -0.138 -0,066 '-0,032 -0,011
10o -4.254 -2.902 -2.145 -1.642 -1,280 -1.012 -0.648 -0.425 -0.28• -0.131 -0.063 -0.030 -0.011
70. -3.986 -2.650 -1.918 -1,442 -1.110 -0.868 -0.549 -0.358 -0,239 -0.110 -0.053 -0.026 -0.009
30. -3.430 -2.146 -1.482 -1.076 -0.809 -0.622 -0.388 -0.253 -0.169 -0.079 -0,038 -0,019 -0.007
40. -2.256 -1.189 -0.739 -0.506 -0.369 -0.282 -0.177 -0.118 -0.081 -0.039 -0,019 -0.010 -0.003
50. 0.854 O. b2z+ 0.347 0.736 0.163 0.113 0.055 0.027 0.013 0.003 0.001 0,000 0.000
t)0. 3.•172 2.154 1.362 0.920 0.650 0.473 0.269 0,163 0.103 0.045 0.021 0.010. 0.003
70. 4,716 2.823 1.871 1.310 0.953 0.71Z+ 0.428 0.271 0.177 0.081 0.038 0.019 0.007
80ø 4.47Z+ 2.679 1.847 1,358 1.037 0.811 0.518 0,342 0,231 0.108 0.052 0.026 0.009
90, 2.114 1.701 1.410 1.172 0.973 0.807 0.55•- 0.380 0.262 0.125' 0.061 0.030 0.011
100. 0.227 0.992 1.113 1.044 0.920 0,789 0.561 0,391 0,272 0.131 0,06• 0.032 0.011

TUP UF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 40, PER CEN¾ ElF AOUIFER THICKNESS BELOW.TOP OF AOUIFEK

PIFZ. •
I)bPIH DISTANCI= IJF PIEZUMETER FROM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 I0.00 I5.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 '120.00 150.00
(I.0 -4.078 -7.732 -1.985 -1.494 -1.147 -0.893 -0.557 -0.357 -0.234 -0.105 -0.050 -0.024 ß -0.00R
10o -3.966 -2.6•_9 -1.894 -1.417 -1.083 -0.840 -0.523 -0.336 -0.220 -0.100 -0.047 -0.023 -0.008
70. -3.577 -2.279 -1.596' -1.171 -0.885 -0.683 -0.42• -0.274 -0,181' -0.083 -0.040 -0.019 -0.007
30. -2.658 -1.533 -1.021 -0.734 -0.•52 -0.428 -0.272 -0.180 -0.122 -0.058 -0.028 -0.014 -0.005
40. -0.153 -0.148 -0.141 -0.132 -0.122 -0.111 -0.088 -O.06H -0.051 -0.027 -0.014 -0.007 -0.003
50. 2.327 1.214 0.719 0.453 0.296 0.198 0.092 0.044 0.022 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000
60. 3.158 1.881 1.22• 0.8z+0 0.592 0.z+78 0.237 0.139 0.086 0.036 0.016 0.008 0.003
70. 3.336 2.052 1.389 0.98R 0.726 0.547 0.328 0.207 0.135 0.061 0.029 0.014 0.005
80. 2.899 1.761 1.228 0.917 0.711 0.564 0.368 0.247 0.168 0.080. 0.039 0.019 0.007
gO. 0.961 0.896 0.807 0.709 0.612 0.523 0.374 0.264 0,185 0.091 0.045 0.022 0.008
100. -0.579 0.305 0.548 0.588 O.bb5 Q.497 0.373 0.269 0.191 0.095 0.047 0.023 0.008

TLIP Ul- SCREEN IN PUMPELI WELL IS 30, PER CENT UF A(.)•JIFER THICKNESS BELOW TUP OF AOtJIFEK

PIEZ.
DFPTH DISTANCE UF PIEZUMETER FROM PtlMPE[) WELL, AS RER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 iO.00 I5.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 I00.00. I20.00 I50.00
0.0 -:5.705 -2.3RI -I.666 -I.212 -0.902 -0.6•3 -0.408 -0.254 -0.I62 -0.07I -'0.033 -0.016 -0.005
lO. -3.528 -2.227 -I.540 -I.II3 -0.827 -0.62 F -0.3?6 -0.235 -O.15I -0.067 -0.03I -0.015 -O.005
20. -2..844 -1.684 -1.134 -0.815 -0.608 -0.465 -0.286 -0.183 -0.120 -0.055 -0.02(-. -0.013 -0.004
30. -0.798 -0. b69 -0.4•9 -0.349 -0.283 -0.231 -0. lb? -0.108 -0.075 -0.037 '-0. 018 -O.00g -0.003
40 1.264 0.560 0.271 0.130 0.055 0.015 -0.019 -0.026 -0.024 -0.015 -0.008 -0.004 -0.002
50. 1.996 1.150 0.722 0.470 0.313 0.212 0,100 0.068 0.024 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000
60. 2.260 1.388 0.927 0.643 0.457 0.331 0.18] 0.104 0.063 0.025 0.011 0.005 0.002
70. 2.224- 1.370 0.929 0.662 0.488 0.368 0.720 0.139 0.090 0.040 0.019 O. 0½)9 0.003
80. 1.767 1.041 0.719 0.539 0.421 0.338 0.225 0.154 0.106 0.051 0.025 0.012 0.004
90, 0.106 0.277 0.37• 0.330 0.30• 0.279 0.213 0.157 0.113 0.057 0.029 0.014 0.005
100. -1.1R9 -0.230 0.100 0.218 0.251 0,248 0,206 0.157 0.115 0,059 0.030 0.015 0.005

•[UP tJF SCRFEN IN PIJMPEI) WELL IS 20. PER CENT I.JF AOUIFER THICKNESS BEL[)W TUP [)F AOUIFEg

PIEZ.
DFP'I'H I)I.qFANCE Ilk PIEZU•ETER FRUM ?LIMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOI.JIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 DO.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.0(!
0.0 -ø4.123 -1.854 -1.211 -0.830 -0. SaP. -½).428 -0.239 -0.141 -O.OH7 -0.03('. -0.016 -0.008 -0.003
10. -2.768 -1.594 -1.035 -0.714 -0.511 -0.375 -0.213 -0.128 -0.0.80 -0.034 -0.0] 5 -0.007 -0.002
20. -1.137 -0.7b4 -0.542 -0.404 -0.307 -0.237 -0.145 -0.092 -0.060 -0.027 .-0.013 -0.0{)6 -0.002
30. 0.565 0.15.?. 0.008 -0.046 -0.065 -0.068 -0.058 -0.044 -0.033 -0.017 -O.00R -0.004 -0.002
40ø 1.167 0.633 0.370 0.221 0.133 0.078 O.02z+ 0.003 -0.004 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 -O.001
50. 1.411 O.H51 0.554 0.372 0.253 0.174 0.083 0.041 0.020 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000
60. 1.467 0.904 0.605 O.Z. 19 0,296 0.213 0.114 0.063 0.037 0.014. 0.006 0.003 0.001

70. 0.R99
80. 1.3Z. 4 0.47I
0.802 0.303
0.530 •).369
22I 0.266 0.I40
0.173 0.197 0.096
0.115 0.07t
0.06R 0.045 0.020
0.048 0.024 O.00g
0.0]2 0.004.
0.006 0.002
0.002
90. -0.552 -0.211 -0.056 0.020 0.056 0.07i 0.073 0.061 0.047 0.026 0.013 0.007 0.002
100•. -1,670 '-0,653 -0.260 -0.084 -0,000 0,039 0.062 0.057 0.046 0.026 0.014 0.007 0.003

TOP [IF SCREEN IN PUMPEl) WELL IS 10. PER CENT 'UP AOUIFER THICKNESS BELUW TUP OF AOUIFER

PIEZ.
I)FPTH I)ISTANCE [JF PIEZUr'•ETER FR[IM PUMPED WELL, AS PER CENT {IF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00' 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 i50.00
0.0 -2.0bb -0.993 -0.552 -0.331 -0.20R -•. 135 -0.060 -0.028 -0.014 -0.003 -0.001 -0.000 -0.000
10, -1.070 -0.600 -0.3• -0.•35 -0.154 -0.102 -{).04? -0.023 -0.011 -0.003 -0.001 -0.000 -0.000
20. 0.719 0.014 -0.036 -0.042 -0.036 -0.028 -0.015 -0.00• -0.004 -0.001 -0.000 -0.000 -0.000
•0, 0.643 0.33R 0.194 0.11-! 0.072 0.046 0.020 0.009 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 -0.000
40,, 0.808 0.4R• 0.311 0.207 0.140 0.096 0.046 0.022 0.011 0.003 0.001 0.000 -0.000
50. o •Sz+ 0.524 0.347 0.236 0.163 0.113 0.055 0.027 0.013 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000
60. O.aO• 0.482 0.311 0.207 0.140 0.096 0.046 0.022 0.011 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000
70. 0 643 0.338 0.194 0.117 0.072 0.046 0.020 0.009 0. OOZ+ 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
80. 0.219 0.014 -0.036 -0.042 -0.036 -0.028 -0.015 -0.008 -0.004 -0.001 -0.000 -0. 000 0.000
90. -I.070 -0.600 -0.368 -0.235 -O.IbZ+ -0.I02 -0.047 -0.023 -O.OII -0.003 -O.00I -0.000 0.00(1
100, -2.05•. -0.993 -O,bb2 -0.33l -0.208 -0.13• -0.060 -0.028 -0.014 -0.003 -0.001 -0,000 0.000
 A quiver-Test Analysis 205

TABLE 1 (c,ontinued)
H()TTUM UF SCREEN IN PtJMPED WELL IS AO. PER CENT OF AOUIEER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFER

T(JP UF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 70. PER CENT UF AOUIFER THICKNE'SS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFEK

PIEZ,
DEPTH DISTANCE (iF PIEZUMETER FROM PUMPEO WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOIlIFER THICKNESS
5.00 I0.00 I5.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 I20.00 150.00
O.O -4.560 -3.196 -2.42I -1.895 -1.509 -1.215 -0.803 -0.539 -0.366 -0.172 -0.083 -0.041 -0.014
10. --4.500 --3.137 --2.366 --1.844 --1.463 --1.174 --0.771 --0.516 --0.349 --0.164 --0.079 --0.039 --0.014
20. --4.306 --2.952 --2.192 --1.685 --1.320 --1.047 --0.676 --0.447 --0.300 --0.140 --0.067 --0.033 --0.012
30. --3.937 --2.601 --1.868 --1.393 --1.063 --0.825 --0.515 --0.334 --0.221 --0.102 --0.049 --0.024' --0.008
40. --3.292 --1.999 --1.330 --0.927 --0.668 --0.495 --0.290 --0.182 --0.119 --0.054 --0.026 --0.013 --0.004
50, --2.095 --0.94•+ --0.451 --0.719 --0.108 --0.053 --0.013 --0.003 --0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 '0.000
60. 0.584 1.065 0.962 0.768 0.596 0.460 0.282 0.180 0.118 0.054 0.026 0.013 0.004
70. M.?40 4.479 2.688 1.772 1.244 0.913 0.537 0.339 0.223 0.102 0.049 0.024 0.008
80. 9.109 •.830 3.012 2.063 1.500 1.135 0.698 0.452 0.302 0.140 0.067 0.033 0.012
90. 1.792 2.203 1.997 1.686 1.390 1.139 0.763 0.514 0.349 0.164 0.079 0.039 0.014
100. 0.369 1.308 1.519 1.456 1.294 1.108 0.776 0.532 0.364 0.172 0.083 0.041 0.014

'lOP UF SCREEN IN PUMPEl) WELL IS 60. PFR CENT t)F AOUIFER 1HICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFER

PIEZ.
DEPIH I)ISTANCE OF PIEZOMFTER FROM PIIMPED WELL, AS PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS
_•.00 IO.00 I5.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -4.408 -3.048 -2.280 -I.763 -I.388 -I.I04 -0.7lb -0.47I -o.315 -o. I45 -0.0•9 -0.034 -0.012
10. -z+. 33• -2.979 -2.216 -l.7o5 -i.335 -I.059 -0.68I -0.448 -0.299 -0.I38 -0.066 -0.032 -0 Oil
20. -4. IO0 -2.755 -2.0]0 -1.520 -I.I73 -0.919 -0.582 -0.379 -0.252 -O.11h -0.05• -0.027 -O.009
50. -3.636 -2.32] -1.620 -1.i80 -0.884 -0.677 -0.417 -0.269 -0.I78 -O.OH• -0.040 -0.020 -'0.007
40. --2.76I -I.5•7 --O.QSZ• -0.633 -0.44z• -0.326 -0.i94 -0.I76 --0.0•5 -0.04i -0.020 -0.010 -0.004
50. -0.877 .
-0. 057 0.I42 0.I68 •). 145 O.II4 0.062 0.032 0.016 0.004 O.00I 0.000 0 00o
60. 4.468 2.585 1.647 1.105 0.769 0.551 0.304 0.180 0.112 0.048 0.022 0.011 0.004
70. M.622 4.365 2.581 1.672 -1.154- 0.833 0.475 0.293 0.190 0 086 0.040 0.020 0.007
HO. 4.965 3.061 2.094 1.515 1.138 0.878 0.551 0.362 0.243 0.114 0.055 0.027 0.009
90. 0.227 0.992 1.113 1.044 0.920 0.789 0.561 0•391 0.272 0.131 0.064 0.032 0.011
100. -0.736 0.341 0.725 0.829 0.808 0.736 0.556 0.399 0.280 0.137 0.067 0.033 0 012

TOP OF SCREEN IN PUMPED WELL IS 50. PER CENT OF AOUIFER THICKNESS BEL()W T•)P OF A(-)LIIFER

PIEZ.
DEPTH DISTANCE UF PIEZ[)METER FROM PUMPED WELL. AS PER CENT [)F AOUIFER THICKNESS
b.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -4.200 -2.848 -2.090 -1.587 -1.227 -0.961 -0.603 -0.388 -0.254 -0.114 -0.054 -0.026 -0.009
10. -4.108 -2.760 '-2.011 -1.517 -1.167 -0.910 -0.568 -0.365 -0.239 -0.108 -0.051 -0.024 -O.00H
20. --3.800 --7.474. --1.755 --1.295 --0.980 --0.755 --0.466 --0.298 --0.196 --0.089 --0.042 --0.021 --0 007
30. --3.153 --1.892. -1.259 -0.886 --0.650 -0.492 --0.301 --0.195 --0.131 --0.062 --0.030 --0.015 --0.005
40. -1.741 -0.762 -0.404 -0.?50 -0.175 -0.135. -0.093 -0.069 -0.051 -0.028 -0.014 -0.007 -0.003
bO. 2.155 1.786 0.830 0.553 0.374 0.255 0.122 0.059 0.029 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000
60. 5.732 3.062 1.H47 1.190 0.807 0.558 0.292 0.165 0.0'99 0 040 0.017 0.008 0 00•
70. 5.892 3.2]6 1.994 1.327 0.977 0.672 0.382 0.233 0.149 0.066 0.031 0.015 0.005
MO. 2.662 1.775 1.792 0.981 0.76'4 0.604 0.393 0.263 0 179 0 085 0.041 0.020 0 007
90. -0.786 O.lbO 0.445 0.524 0.516 0.475 0.366 0.268 0.192 0.096. 0.048 0.024 O.00H
100. -1.506 -0.354 0.129 0.335 0.408 0.414 0.351 0.268 0.195 0.100 0.050 0.025 O. 0½)9

[lip IIF SCREEN IN PUMPEl) WELl_ IS 40, PFR CkNT [IF AOUIFER THICKNESS r•ELOW I(IP OF AOtIIFER

PIFZ.
,)[-PIH ,)ISTAIX, CE ,.,F PI•-ZI,•',ET•-R F,[,.", p,,,.,.pF,)WF,_,_. AS PFR CENT ,,F AOIFER THCKIX, ESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.0O 25.00 •0.00 40.00 50.00 •0.00 80.00 lOO.OO 120.00 150.00
o. 0 -3.912 -2. 572 -1.834 -1.354 '-1.019 -0.77H -0.z•67 -o. P90 -0. l H4 -0.079 -0.036 -0.017 -0.00•
10. -3. 784 -2. 454 -1. 731 -1.267 -0.94k -0. 721 -0.4.•2 -0.26• -0.171 -0.074 -0.034 -0.016 -(,. 00a
20. -'3..'• 36 -? .055 -1.394 -0. 993 -0. 731 -0. •52 -0. 331 -0.208 -0.135 -0.060 -0.028 -0.014 -0.005
30. -2.256 -,.189 -0.739 -0.506 -0.3(•9 -0.2•2 -0.1,7 -0 11• -0 081 -0.039 -0.019 -0.010 -0 003
40. 0.759 0.432 0.259 0.153 O.OH5 O. OZ,? -0.002 -0 018 -0021 -0.015 -0.009 -0.005 -0 007
5'). 3.•70 1.96• 1.174 0.745 ½).4•H 0.326 0.152 0.073 0.035 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.000

•0.
-,0. 4.374 ?.lb4
3.•72 2.493 1.362
1.559 •).02(•
92 0.692
0.660 0.4•0
0.473 0.246
0.269 r).l•5
0.163 ().07• 0.029
010 0.045 0.012 0.006
O.OP1 O.01O 0.002
0003
•(,. ].196 0.H54 0.658 0.524 0.424 0.347 0.736 0.163 0.113 0.055 0.027 0.013 0.005
q½). -1.503 -0.4•9 -0.06-! 0.107 0.180 0.203 0.189 0.]51 0.114 0.060 0.031 0.015 0.004
100. --2.076 --0.877 --0.331 -0.ObY 0.079 0.142 0.168 0.145 0.114 0.062 0.032 0.016 0006

1l, P I)F SCREEN IN PI,MPFI)WELL IS 30. PER CENT ElF AOUIFER THICKNESS BEL{,W TOP OF A(.)UIFER

P]FZ.
I)EP[H I)ISIANCE IJF PIEZUMETER FROM PUMPEl) WELL, AS PER CENT ()F AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -3.497 -2.183 -1.481 -1.042 -0.751 -0.549 -0.307 -0.179 -0.108 -0.043 -0.019 -0.009 -0.003
10. -3.295 -2.007 -1.339 -0.933 -0.669, -0.489 -0.274 -0.161 -0.098 -0.040 -0.018 -0.008 -0.003
7(). -2..505 -1.385 -0.880 -0.601 -0.430 -0.317 -0.183 -0.112 -0.071 -0.031 --0.014 -0.007 -0 002
30. -0.104 -0.101 -0.096 -0.090 -0.083 -0.075 -0.059 -0.045 -0.034 -0.018 -0.009 -0.005 -0.002
40.. 2.278 1. 167 0.674 0.411 0.257 0.162 0.063 0.022 0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001
50. 3.005 1.732 1.0597 0.707 0.470 0.317 0.149 0.072 0.035 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.000
60. [•. 053 1.7HO 1.132 0,750 0.510 0.353 0.178 0.094 0.052 0.018 0.007 0.003 0.001
70. 2.431 1.315 0.815 0.543 0.379 0.273 0.151 0•089 0.055 0.023 0.010 0.005 0.002
80. O.17H 0.171 O.lhl 0.]48 0.134 0.119 0.091 0.068 0.049 0.025 0.013 0.006 0.002
90, -2.036 -0.939 -0.466 -0.?27 -0.098 -0.026 0.033 0.045 0.041 O.OZ6 0.014 0.007 0.003
100. -Z,51Z -1.282 -0.6.93 -0.372 -0.190 -0.08:• 0.009 0.036 0.038 0,026 O.01z• 0,008 0.003
206 rDWZN r. wrrxs

TABLE I (continued)
TIIP lIE ,%(]REP.
Iq Im .P(l•Pbl) WELL IS 20. PER CENT OF AOUIFER }HICKi\IkSS BkLUW

DEPFH IIISI'ANCE lIE P,IEZOMETER F-RI.JMPklMPEI) WELL, AS PER CENT UF A(.)UIFER I'HICKNESS
5.00 10,00 15.(;0 20,00 2b.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60,00 HO .()0 100,00 120.00 150,00
().0 -2,P, b3 -1,601 -0,9•1 -0.626 -0,410 -0.273 -0.126 -0,060 -0.029 -0.007 -0.002 -0.000 -0,000
10, -2,4z+7 -1.305 -0,7F•3 -0,497 -0,325 -0.21• -0.101_ -O.04H -0.024 -0.006 -0,001 -0,000 -0.000
20. -0._569 -0.349 -0,231 -0,157 -0,108 -0.075 -0.037 -0,01• -0.009 -0,002 -0,001 -0 000 -O.OO0
30, 1.3'/(') 0.662 0,368 0.220 0.139 0.090 0,040 0,019 0,009 0,002 0,001 0,000 -0.000
40. 1.q9• ] .lbO 0.722 0.470 0.313 0.212 0.100 O.04a 0.024 0,006 0.001 0.000 -0. 000
bO. 2.155 1.286 0.830 0 553 0.374 O.?Sb 0.172 0.059 ().029 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000
a(}.' 1.99(, ] .150 0.722 0.470 0.313 0.212 0.100 0.048 0.024 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.000
70. 1.370 0,662 0.368 0.220 O. 139 0.090 0.040 0,019 0,009 0,002 0,001 0.000 0.000
RO. -0,569 -0,349 -0,231 -0.157 -O.10R -0,075 -0,037 -0,018 -0,009 -0 002_ -0.001 -0. 000 0.000
90. -2.447 -1,305 -0.7+43 -0,497 -0,325 -0.218 -0.101 -0,048 -0,024 -0,006 -0.001 -0. 000 0 000
100. -2..H53 -I .601 -0.981 -0,626 -0,410 -0,273 -0. 126 -0.060 -0,029 -0,007 -0.002 -0,000 0.000

H(11 IIJM [IF SCREEN IN ptlMPEI) W[-LL IS 70, PER CENT [)F APUIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFER

I[JP iIF SCREEN IN P[IHPEI) WELL IS 60. PER CENT OF •(.I[IIFER THICKNFSS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFFR

PIE/.
ttEPIH I..•IS1ANCE •IF PIEZ(JMETER PRL}M P[JMPED WELI_• AS PER CENF [IF AOUIFER THICKNESS
5.nO ]0.00 15.00 20.00 2b.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
(;.0 -x.. 256 -2.9(31 -2.140 -1.632 -1,266/ -0.994 -0,626 -0.404 -0,264 -0.118 -0.056 -0.027 -0.009
10. -4.]72 -2_. A21 -2.066 -1,565 -1.708' -0,944 -0.592 -0.380 -0 249 -0.112_ -0.053 -0,025 -O.00Q
70. -3.•Wb -2. b•9 -1.•?g -1.355 -1.027 -0.791 -0.48,q -O.Bll -0.204 -0.093 -0.044 -0.021 -0 007

30. -2-B.334
40. 229 -2.•z,]
-1. (b -(1).
- 371
577 -0,964
-() 339 -0.705 -0.•29
-0.219, -0.156 -O.31a
-0.098 -0,204
-0.070 -0,136
-0.052 -0.064
-0 028 -0.031
-0 015 -0,015 -O.00b
-O.00R -0.003
bO. 0.341 O.H?9 0.73(• 0.556 0.399 0.2•0 0.137 0.067 0.033 0.008 0.002 0.001 0.00½)
60. H.352 4. l()& 2.333 1.442 0.943 0,642 0.326 0.180 0,106 0 042 O.01g 0.009 0.003
70. •.504 4.25] 2.473 1.57_3 1,064 0.752 0.414 0.248 0 157 0.069 0,032 O.01h 0.005
aO. 0.A2½) 1 793 1.176 0.775 0.621 0.405 0.271 0,184 0.088 0.04,3 0,071 0.007
90. -] .BB9 -0.219 O.?2R 0 402 0.450 0.440 0.359 0.269 0.195 0.098 0.049 0.024 0.009
100. -1 g&-i -0 626 -0 069 0.203 0,323 0,563 0.335 0.265 O.lW7 0.102 0.051 0.026 0.009

1LIP (IF SCREEN IN P[IMP•_I) whI_L IS bO. P[-R CENT [IF AO[JlFFK THICKNESS tiELOW TOP OF AQUIFER

PI E7 ß
13FPIH I)]SrANCE Ilk PIEZ(Jf•IFTPR FRfI• P[JI,IPFF) •,•ELI_, AS PER CENT OF Af,)UIFER THICKNFSS
b.()O 10.00 15.00 ?O.Ot) 25.00 30.00 40.00 bO.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
().0 -4.020 -2.• •& -1.925 -1.434 -1 .ORb -0.833 -0.5(]3 -0.'_%12 -0.198 -0.085 -0.039 -O.01R -0.00•,
10. -5.912 -2.bEY -1.834 -1.354 -1 .019 -0.778 -0.46! -0.290 -0.184 -0.079 -0.036 -0.017 -0.006
20. -3.q47 -?.23b -1.b36 1.]01 -0.•10 -0 609 -0 361 -0 224 -0 144 -0,064 -0.030 -0.014 -0.00•
_40 -2 761 -l.bJf -0,9õ4 -0,633 -0.444 -0.3?6 -0.]94 -0,126 -0,085 -0.041 -0.02_0 -0,010 -0.004
4(/. -0,965 -(]. 14z+ (). (]•9 0.089 0.072 O,04b 0.006 -0.013 -0,018 -0,015 -O.00q -0.005 -0,002

5t)
ho. aa.3o6PgO 2 401 1 471 0.959
4,1.z, 01 ().61b
0,905
()OC) %.410
,.607 O.1H9 0.090
0.297
2.2900 158 0.044
0 089 0.011
0,032 0.003 0,006
O.01B 0.001 0.000
0,002_
(0. z,.4• 2 •ab 1 •4'! 1.lOb 0.7a9 O.bbl 0.3O4 0.180 0.112 O.04a 0.022 0.011 0.0O4

Pc),-0
qo. -/.07h 562 - (•.g((
24A -00.433
3141 -0 0.•39
057 0,395
0,079 0.339 0.240
0.142 0.168 O.16R 0,114
0.145 0,117 0,057
0.062_ 0.028
0.032 0,014
0.016 0.005
0.006
]tlD -2.444 -1.1AS -O.b&6 -0.225 -0.035 0.067 0.158 O.13b 0.111 0.063 0.033 0.017 0.006

f•lp •k ,%•,RI•Ff• I•l •UMP•-I)wPLL IS 40. PER CENT [)F AOtIIFkR THICKNESS BF_L(IW TOP [)F AO•IIFER

lt-Z .
I)t-PtH I,ISIAIqCP lib PIt-ZIJM•I•-R PRiJM PtJNPP[) WELI_• AS PER CENT [)F AOLJIFER THICKNESS
b. t)(• 10.(:0 15.00 20 O0 25.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
t).O -•.6q6 -?. g6z+-] .63• -1. •73 -O.856 -0.632 -O.3bb -0.206 -0.124 -0.048 -0.021 -0.010 -0.0O3
lt). -5.b•b -?.227 -] .blq -1.O/b -0.?77 -D. %70 -(•.319 --(}. 186 -0.112 -0.045 -0.019 -0.009 -0.003
2(). -Z •1.5 -1.Yb• -] .12a -0. /64 -0.535 -0.387 -0.215 -0.128 -0.0•0 -0.034 -0.015 -0.O07 -0.002
AO. -1.•6 -0. f19 -1). AA2 -0.210 -0.1• -0.100 -O.06b -0.O47 -0.034 -0.018 -0.010 -0.005 -0.002
•() 2.11() 1.243 0.788 0.513 0.337 0.221 0.093 0.037 0.012 -0.002 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001
5(). b.bq2 ?.92b 1.716 1 067 0.6S7 0,453 0.206 O.09fq O.04fq 0,012 0,003 0.001 0.000
mO. 5.637 2.9b-• 1 lb8 1,107 0.7?4 0.487 ('.23b 0,120 0.065 0,021 O. 0()•4 0,003 0.001
7() ?.2bf) 1 379 0.919 0.637 0.452 0 %?( 0 179 0.104 0.063 0.026 0.011 0.005 0.002
•(). -I .441 -0.471 -0.126 ().011 ().065 0.0•4 0.0•2 O. ()66 0.0%0 0.026 0.013 0,007 0.002
•() -?.a()] -] .369 -0.755 -0.419 -0.22& -0 109 -0,002 0.03] 0.036 0.()26 ().015 O.00R 0.003
] (J½). -? 890 -1.60b -0.94•4 -0.562. -0,326 -0,180 -0 034 0.016 0.030 0,025 0.015 0.008 0,003

-[I•P ElF SCRFFN IN PIJI,IF'EI• WELL IS 30. PER CENT IIF AOUIPER THICKNESS BELIJW TIJP OF- AOLIIFER

I•t-PlH I)IST•NCF (•F PIFZtJwIFIFR FRdM PlJ•PED WFI_I_, AS PER CENT {)F 60UII-ER THICKlylESS
b.()O 10.()0 15.00 20.0O ?b.00 30.00 40 00 bO.00 60.00 HO.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.½• -5.232 -1.•29 -[.?z+6 -0.•29 -O.b61 -0.383 -O.•H2 -0,089 -0,044 -0.011 -0.00• -0.00l -0,000
]•). -2,994 -1.725 -1.0•2 -0.706 -0.470 -0.31S -0.]49 -0.072. -0.035 -0.009 -0.002 -0,001 -0.000
-2.055 -0.9W5 -(). b•2 -0. 531 -0.20• -0. 135 -0.060 -0.028 -0.014 -0.003 -0.001 -0.000 -0.000
30 0.854 0.b24 0.347 0,236 O.1A3 0.113 O.05b 0.027 I).01B 0.003 0.001 0.000 -0.000
4(). '5.670 1 1.174 0.745 0.48H 0.326 0 lb2 0.073 0,035 0,009 0.002 0,001 -0.000
50 ,,. ?•4•] 2.401 1.4-/1 0.93q 0.615 0.410 O.1H9 0.090 0.04• 0.011 0.003 0o001 0.000
6(,). 3.670 1.9bP. 1.174 O.7Z*b 0 4RH 0 B26 0 lb2 O.07B O.OB5 O.O09 0.002 0.001 0,000
70 0.H54 0.')24 0.547 0,236 0.163 0,113 O.Obb 0.027 0,013 0,003 0.001 0,000 0,000
MO. -2.0bb -0.9•5 -0,962 -0,331 -0,208 -0,135 -0,060 -0,028 -0,014 -0.003 -0,001 -0,000 0.00{)
¾0 -2,. q q4 -1.72b -1.087 -0,705 -0 470 -0,318 -0,149 -0,072 -0.035 -0,009 -0,002 -0.0(}1 0.000
100. -B.237 -1,929 -!.246 -0.8•9 -0.561 -0.38• -O.1H2 -0,089 -0,044 -0,011 -0,003 -0,001 0.00(•
 Aquifer-Test Analysis 207
TABLE 1 (continued)
BU[r•IM lip SCR•-EN Im P•t•v•Pkl) Wt-LL IS 60. PER CENT []F A(,•IlIFER THICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOUIFER

TI)P lip SCP, kEN IN P•J•EI) WFLL IS 50. PER CENT [JF AOtIIFER THICKNESS BEL(•W TiJP OF AOUIFER

PIEZ.
DEPTH I)ISI'I•NCP Ilk PIFZOf'•E'IER FROM PIJMPED WELT_, AS PER CENT OF AOIIIFER THICKNESS
b.00 10.00 lb.00 20.00 25.00 '30. O0 40.00 50.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 150.00
0.0 -3.7R4 -2,446 -1.711 -1.235 -0.907 -0.673 -0.380 -0.221 -0.132 -0.051 -0.022 -0.010 -0.003
.10, -3,651 -2,1523 -1,602 -1,142 -0,g30 -0,611 -0,343 -0,199 -0,]20 -0,047 -0,020 -O,00q -0,003
20, -3,200 -1,9ll -1,245 -0.H46 -0,693 -0,426 -0,234 -0,137 -0,0a5 -0,035 -0o016 -O,OOR -0,003
30, -2,)H7 -1,033 -0,637 -0,300 -O,1H• -0,123 -0,070 -0,048 -0,035 -0,019 -0,010 -0,006 -0,002
40, 0,298 O,7gH 0,6q5 0,517 0,362 0• 247 0,]09 0,045 0,016 -0,001 -0,003 -0,002 -0,001
50, 8,261
60, H,PIH 4,015
3 9/3 2,247
?,207 1,361
],322 0,867
0,831 O,bB9
0,573 0,241
0,269 0,113
0,136 0,055 00,•31B
0,072 23 0,003
0,0(38 0,001
(), D04 0,000
0,001
70. 0.432 O.C) IH 0,821 0.•37 0.47(- 0.350 0.19/+ 0,112 0.067 0.027 0.012 0.006 0.002
aO -1,944 -0,797 -0,31] -0,08• 0,014 0,057 0,075 0,064 0,050 0,027 0,014 0,007 0,003
90. -2.g]? -1.536 -0.890 -0.516 -0.292 -0.156 -0.022 0.022 0.032 0.025 0.015 O.00R 0.003
]00, -3,047 -1,745 -1,063 -O,•,b3 -0,39•+ -0,229 -0,059 0,005 0,025 0,024 0,015 0,008 O,00B

'[UP l]1- SCREEN IN PII•IPED WP_I_L IS 40. PER CENI [JP AOIIIFER IHICKNESS BELOW TOP OF AOIIIFER
,

PIFZ.
D[-PTH DISlANCE [1F PIEZIJMF1ER PR[]•,q PIJMPFD wELL, AS PFR CENT (3t- A(3UIFER THICKNESS
5.00 10.00' 15.00 70.00 26.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 gO.00 100.00 120.00, 150.00
0.0 -3.Z•lb ' -2.096 -1.387 -0.944 -0.660 -0.461 -0.219. -0.108 -0.053 -0.013 -0.003 -0.001 -0.000
10. -'5.232 -1.929 -1 246 -0 •47c) -0 56l -0 3H3 -0 ]82 -0.089 -0.044 -0.011 -0.003 -0.001 -0.000
70. -?.672 -1.•54 -0.77• -0.467 -0.290 -O.1H4 -0.0/9 -0.036 -0.017 -0.004 -0.001 -0.000 -0 000
30, -O,g7! -0.05! 0,142 O,16H 0,145 0,114 0,062 0,032 0,016 0,004 0,001 0,000 -0,000
40, 4,2R0 ?,401 1.471 0,939 0,616 0,410 0,1H9 0.090. 0,044 0 011 0,003 0,001 -0,000
50, 8,?la 3,973 2,207 1 322 O,HB1 0,539 0,241 O,11B 0,055 O,01B 0,003 0,001 0,000
60, 4,2H0 ?,401 1,471 0,939 0,615 0,410 0,1•9 0,090 0,044 0,011 0,003 0,001 0,00()
70. -0,R77 -0 057 0,142 0.16a 0,145 0,114 0,062 0,032 0,016 0,004 0,001 0,000 0,000
HO -2,572 -],354 -0,778 -0,467 -0,290 -0,184 -0,079 -0,036 -0,017 -0,004 -0,001 -0,000 0,000
90, -3,232 -] ,929 -1,246 -0.R29 -0,561 -0,383 -0,182 -0,089 -0, (344 -0,011 -O,00B -0,001 0,000
100, -3,416 -2,095 -1,387 -.0,944 -0,650 -0,451 -0,219 -O,10H -0,053 -O,01B -0,003 -0,001 0 000

usinganequationadaptedfromHahtush[19616, 2. Plot drawdown

valuesfor the piezometers
p. 186, equation 37]. Determine a calculated for a selectedtime and draw any line of slope
storagecoefficient$o from the time-drawdown As -- 5280/T beneath the plotted drawdown
plot as thoughdrawdownin the piezometerwere values if 3s is indicated to be negative (draw-
unaffectedby partial penetration. Using the downlessthan for a fully penetratingwell in an
distancedrawdown plot (Figure 33, find the equivalentaquifer) or abovethe drawdownval-
departurein drawdown,3s, from the drawdown uesif 3sappearspositive.
(represented
by line A-B) expectedif the 3. Determinevaluesfor 3sfor eachpiezorn-
pumped well fully penetratedthe aquifer. eter by subtracting the drawdown value for
Computef(s) from the equation the straight-line plot from the observeddraw-
down.
T$s
4. Use the 8s values to compute values of
i(s)- 114.60 f(s) from the formula: f(s) -- T3s/l14.6Q, and
and find $ from the formula prepare a semiloggraph plotting f(s) on the
arithmetic axis and (r/b) on the logarithmic
S - S• exp [f(s)] axis.
Method 2 5. Prepare a semilogarithmic-typecurvesim-
If sufficient
piezometers
arenotavailable
or ilartooneofthecurvesinFigure
2 byplotting
theperiodofpumpingistooshort
todeterminevaluesoff(s) fromequation
3 orTableI on
theposition
ofthedistance-drawdown
curvefor thearithmeticaxisforvarious
values
of r•/b
theregion
unaffected
bypartialpenetration,
but plotted
onthelogarithmetic
axis.
dataareavailablefor two or morepiezometers, 6. Match the data plot to the type curve,
the ratio of horizontalto verticalpermeability keepingthe coordinateaxesof the two plots
may be foundby the following methoddetailed parallel,and selectany convenientpoint com-
in eightsteps: monto bothplots(Figure4).
1. Determinevaluesfor T from eachpiezom- 7. Determine, for the selectedpoint, the co-
eter by the modified nonequilibriummethod ordinatevalueof r/b from the data plot and the
[Ferris et al., 1962,pp. 98-100']usingthe data value of r•/b from the type-curveplot. Solve
obtained during the latter part of the test. for K•/K, from the formula
2O8 EDWIi• P. WEEKS

0.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 1.00 2.00

+8

•' +6
x

o
•- +4
o

o +2

o 0

m --2

• -4

-6

Fig. 2. Graph of the dimensionlessdrawdown factor ](s) versus r/b for a pumped well
screenedor open from z -- 0.6b to z -- 0.9b for variousvaluesof piezometerpenetration (z/b).

may be estimatedif the coefficientof storageis

K, L(rJa)d known from other data, using the method out-
lined in the followingfour steps:
8. Correctthe arbitrary f(s) value computed 1. ]Determinea calculatedstoragecoeffcient,
for each piezometer (step 4) by adding, alge- So,using the Theis method or the modifiednon-
braically, the value obtainedby subtractingthe equilibriummethod as described,for example,
type-curve value of /(s) from the data-curve by Ferris et al. [1962].
value of/(s) for the commonmatch point (Fig- 2. Computethe ](s) term for the piezometer
ure 4). Then determinethe coef•cient of storage from the formula f(s) = log6 (S/So) where$ is
as outline in step 9, Meth6d 1. the known coefiq_cient of storage.This equation
Method 3 is obtainedfrom one given by Hantush [1961b,
p. 186]
If only onepiezometeris available,neitherthe
storage coeffcient nor the ratio of horizontal to
vertical permeability can be found. However,
$=.3T(r•
) exp
[/'(s)]
the ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability where t0 -- the time value, in days, of the zero-
 Aquifer-Test Analysis 20'9
drawdowninterceptof the extrapolatedstraight- APPLICABILITY OF METHODS TO •rATER-TABLE

line portion of the time-drawdown curve. The AQUIFERS

So value calculatedin step I is equal to 0.3T
[(to/F)], so that S -- So exp [[(s)]. Thus,
f(s) = logoS/So.
3. Prepare a curve of [(s) versus r•/b for
the equivalent isotropic aquifer by following
step 5, Method 2.
4. Determine, from the curve prepared in
step 3, the value of (r•/b) at which the [(s)
term foundin step2 would occurin the equiva-
lent isotropic aquifer.
Compute
• = rc
The precedinganalytical methodsare based
on equations derived for artesian flow and are
not strictly applicable to analysis of tests on
water-table aquifers. The drawdown in a water-
table aquifer shortly after pumpingbeginsdoes
not coincidewith the drawdownin an equivalent
artesian aquifer, even at considerabledistances
from the pumping well, becauseof effects of
drainage at the free surface [Boulton, 1954b,
1963; Stallman, 196.3, 1965]. However, these
effectsbecomenegligibleafter a time, as given,
at least for piezometersnear the water table, by
the equationt -- bSy/K, for valuesof

DISTANCE (r), FROMPUMPEDWELL, IN FEET

IO •OO •OOO
o

Ds,,,//

2 ./'//

O--Drawdown
measured
inpiezometer
after4,765
minutes
o
X--Computed forof
drawdown pumping.
equivalent
isotropicaquifer.
A_B__Line
ofslope As=528 • through
data points for piezometers
beyondeffectsof partzal
'
pen-
etration, showing
drawdown
for
, fullypenetrating
well.
__Q_
-B--Line of slope•s=528T drawn
arbitrarily beneathdata points
for piezometers
1-4. (Illus-
tratesMethod
2.)
--Line parallel to A-B through
drawdown measured in piez•-
eter 1.

Fig. 3. Distance-drawdown plot for test at well Ws-479, tapping an anisotropic aquifer
near Hancock, Wisconsin. Also shown is the drawdown profile computed for an equivalent
isotropic aquifer.
210 EDWIN P. %VEEKS

O.lO 0.?_0 0.5O 1.00 2.00 5.( )o

o

...... 1-
I
..... -'1
I
...... f
......o-•--'"'--'-
I I
I I J I i
I I f I i
,, I I .• I ii -I

-2 I •.••/2/-'Selec'l'ed
r•a'l-ch
poin'l'
I I -2

I I I

-3
-3
.... -•1 ..... -i'.............. I
? i I I
i

-4
-4
I-,7-- - - •.
•
..... L.
I I
i? I I I

-5
0.0:• 0.05
I I
I
I
O. 0
I
I
I
0.:::'0 0.50
I I
1.00
I
2.00
-5

Fig. 4. Graphshowing
matchof the•(s) values
determined
fromlineA'-B',Figure3, to the
typecurveof ](s) versus
rfb [ (K,/K,)]v• determined
fromequation
3.

the drawdownis greater at the base of the

g xST/ < 0.4, aquiferthannearthe watertable,resulting in
and by the equation
effects
similarto thosefor a partiallypenetrat-
ing welltappingthe lowerpart of the aquifer.
Consequently,erroneous resultsfor the Kr/K,
t= + 1.2 ratiomaybeobtained whenthepreceding meth-
ods are used to analyzetests on water-table
for greatervaluesof aquifers.Although these effectshave not been
studiedfor partially penetratingwells,their
b magnitudecanbe estimatedusingdata derived
frommodelstudiesof drawdown
neara fully
(Weeks,unpublished
data). The methodsmay penetrating
pumpedwell.Thesestudies[Babbitt
be used with data obtained after the time de- and Caldwell,1948] haveshownthat the effects
scribedby theseequations,providedthat other of water-table curvature are small when the
water-table effects are small. drawdownin the pumpedwell is lessthan about
Drawdownsin a water-tableaquifer are also 0.2b.Also,Butler [1957],usingBabbittand
affectedby curvature of the water table or free Caldwell's [1948]approximateempiricalequa-
surface (resulting in curvature of other flow tion for the drawdownat the watertable,has
linesaswell) nearthe pumpingwell,andby the shownthat this drawdowndiffersfrom that in a
decreasein saturatedthickness,
whichcauses the fully penetrating
observation
wellby the amount
transmissibility
to declinetowardthe pumping [ (s2/2b)
], wheres -- drawdown in fully pene-
well.Because of thiscurvature
in theflowlines, tratingobse•ationwell. This term thus rep-
 Aquifer-Test Analysis 211
resents,approximately,the maximumdrawdown For the test near Hancock, an irrigation well
effect causedby curvature of flow lines. screened from 66 to 106 feet below the water
The effects of curvature of the water table table was pumped at a nearly constant rate
would be less near a well tapping the bottom averaging820 gpm (gallonsper minute), asmea-
part of the aquifer, and greater near a well sured by an in-line flow meter. The aquifer at
tapping the top of the aquifer, than was found the site is about 120 feet thick, as determined
for a fully penetratingwell. Consequently,the from a nearby augerhole, and overliessandstone
above methodsshouldbe applicableto analysis that is much lesspermeablethan the outwash.
of tests on water-table aquifers for which the The sandstone was assumed to form a lower im-
pumped well is eased to a depth below the permeableboundaryof the aquifer.
pumpinglevel and the drawdownin the pumped Water-level measurements were made in six
well is less than 0.2b. Moreover, little error observationwells (Figure 5) during a period of
would be introduced by effects of water-table 4765minutesafter pumpingbegan.The observa-
curvature, even for a greater drawdownin the tion wells were l X/•-inch-diameterpipes fitted
pumpedwell, if the term [ (s2/2b)] for a given with 2-foot sand points and were installedto a
piezometeris small comparedto the •Is term. depth of 12 feet below the water table at dis-
The decreasein transmissibilitywith decreas- tancesof 22, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 60'0feet from
ing distancefrom the pumped well, resulting the pumped well.
from decreasing saturatedthicknessof the aqui- Values of transmissibilitywere computedfor
fer, causesboth the rate of drawdownand the this test from the semilogtime-drawdownplots
slope of the drawdown-distancecurve to be (Figure 6) for the three wells nearest the
steepernear the pumped well than they would pumpedwell, usingthe modifiednonequilibrium
be for an artesian aquifer having the same method [Ferris et al., 1962] to give an average
permeability and initial saturated thickness. value of transmissibilityof 164,000 gal/ft/day,
Jacob [1963] has shown that the drawdown or about 22,000sq ft/day. Use of this methodto
in a fully penetrating observationwell in a computetransmissibilityfrom data obtainedin
water-table aquifer may be correctedfor the piezometers near partially penetratingproduc-
effectsof decreasingtransmissibilitytoward the tion wellsis justified,becausethe effectsof par-
pumpedwell by the equation tial penetrationbecomeconstantearly in the
test and thus do not affectthe slopeof the semi-
8t•8-- • log plot.
2b
The slope of the distance (log seale)-draw-
where s = observed drawdown and s' = draw- down (arithmeticscale)curvethat wouldoccur
down in an equivalent artesian aquifer. if effectsof partial penetrationwere not present
This equation is the same as that obtained was computedfrom the equation
by Butler [1957] for computingthe drawdown
of the water table from the drawdown in a As = 528Q/T = 2.64 feet,
fully penetrating observation well. Thus, in and line AB of this slopewas passedthrough
general, the effects of curvature would be ex- the distance-drawdown plot preparedusingdata
cessivewhen the correctionterm for decreasing obtained from the Hancock test after 4765
transmissibilitywas significant, and the same minutesof pumping(Figure 3). The positionof
criteria for use of the methodswould apply as the curve was determinedas describedin step 2,
outlined for the effects of curvature. method 1, and the results of the analysisby
method I gave values of K•/K• of 4.0, 4.5, 4.3,
EXAMPLES
and 4.7 for observationwells 1, 2, 3, and 4, re-
The methods proposed in this report have spectively.Values of S• for data from the four
been usedto analyze severaltests on glacial out- wells,determinedby step 9, method 1, were 0.18,
wash in Wisconsin, including tests near the 0.20, 0.18, and 0.17, respectively.
villagesof Plover, Mosinee,Hancock, and Ban- The data for wells 1, 2, and 3 were also an-
croft. Details of the analysis for the test near alyzed by Method 2. Line A'-B' (Figure 3),
Hancock are describedbelow, and the results which was drawn an arbitrarily selecteddistance
of the other tests are summarized. below the data points with a slope acrossone
212 r•wnv r. wr•Ks
. .

• Pumped
well
•-r• Land surface /Observation
well
---T Watert ab]
/ t e

• Glacial outwash

• 0 100 200 Feet

Horizontal sea] e

Sandstone (Relatively impermeable)

Fig. 5. Sketch showingwell constructionand spacingat the site of well Ws-479 near the
village of Hancock in Waushara County, Wisconsin.Symbolsexplainedin text.

log cycle equal to 528Q/T, using the T value Tests performed on wells Pt-513 and Pt-544,
determinedfrom the time-drawdowndata, was located about 9 and 17 miles north of the Han-
used for step 2 of the method. The analysis, cock site near the villages of Bancroft and
illustrated by Figure 4, gave a value of K•/K, Plover, respectively,were analyzedby method
of 4.1, which agrees well with the values ob- 1. Analysis of the test on well Pt-513 gave a
tained by method 1. transmissibilityvalue of about 11,000 sq ft/day,

TIME: IN MINUTES, SINCE PUMPING BEGAN

IO I00 I000 I0,000
o

o oo
o

o o o øøøøo o

Line used for modified

nonequilibrium method
analysis

Syb

o Observation well-!

o Observation well-2

ß Observation well-3

•t Time at which u=.02 observation well-t

Fig. 6. Semilog plot of drawdown versus time for observation wells 1, 2, and 3 for the test
on well Ws-479.
 Aquifer-TestAnalysis 213
or about80,000gal/ft/day,for an aquiferthick- than the rangeof valuesof 0.0703to 0.252pub-
nessof about80 feet, and a ratio of horizontal lishedby Dagan [1967, p. 1067] for his analysis
to verticalpermeabilityof about2. The outwash of data from 20 observation wells used in a test
is much siltier than at any of the other sites on alluvium near Grand Island, Nebraska.
wheretestswere performed.The value for the
CONCLUSIONS
K•/K, ratio determinedfrom this test is lessre-
liablethan the others,becausethe drawdownin A value for the ratio of horizontal to vertical
the pumpedwell was about0.3b, and the term permeabilitymay be determinedby analysisof
s•/2b for the nearestobservationwell wasequal distance-drawdown data obtainedin piezometers
to about one-half of the drawdown deviation near a pumpingwell that partially penetratesan
from the extrapolatedstraight-lineplot. aquifer. Although the methods of analysis are
Analysisof data from the test on well Pt-544 based on equationsderived for artesianflow,
gavea transmissibilityvalue of about23,000sq they may be used to analyze data for a water-
ft/day, or about170,000gal/ft/day, for an aqui- table aquifer if sufiqcient
time has elapsedsince
fer thicknessof about 70 feet and a ratio of K•/ pumping began and the drawdown in the
K• of about 7. The outwash at this site con- pumpedwell is lessthan 0.2 of the aquifer thick-
tainedmore gravelthan was foundat the other ness,or if the term s•/'2bfor a given piezometer
sites. is small comparedwith •the drawdowndeviation
Analysisof an aquifertestin alluviumof the due to partial penetration.
Wisconsin River near the village of Mosinee, Values of the permeability ratio range from
Marathon County, Wisconsin,gave a transmis- 2 to 20 for five tests on glacial outwash in Wis-
sibilityvalueof about21,000sqft/day, or about consin. Although values for the different sites
160,000gal/ft/day, for an aquiferthickness
of varied considerably, values determined from
about85 feet, and a ratio of horizontalto verti- data obtained in different piezometersat each
cal permeabilityof about2. site were in close agreement.Also, consistent
The test on well Pt-279, previouslyanalyzed valuesfor specificyield for differentpiezometers
by Weeks [1964], was reanalyzedby Methods were obtainedwhen the permeability ratios were
I and 2. The transmissibility is about 19,000 sq used in the analysis.
ft/day, or about 140,000 gal/ft/day for an The permeability ratio determinedby aquifer-
aquiferthickness of 80 feet, and the K•/K, ratio test analys•sincludeseffectsboth of stratificatio•
rangedfrom about16 to 25 and averageda little and of preferred grain orientationand would not
lessthan 20, generallyconfirmingthe resultspre- necessarilybe duplicatedby laboratory analysis
viouslyobtained.The K•/K• ratio at this siteis of a small sampleof aquifer material. The aqui-
muchhigherthan that determinedfrom any of fer-test value is far more usefulthan laboratory
the other aquifer tests on glacial outwash in valuesfor engineeringdesignproblemsinvolving
central Wisconsin.The site is only about 2000 flow through porousmedia or for ground-water
feet from a terminal moraine that was formed investigations.
duringan earlyperiodof glaciation.The moraine Acknowledgments. This paper was prepared in
may have createda deposittonal environment cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of
that led to much strongerstratificationthan oc- Natural Resources,Division of Conservation, and
curred further out in the outwashplain, result- the University Extension--the University of Wis-
ing in the high K•/K, ratio. consin Geological and Natural History Survey.
Acknowledgment is made to David Nichols, En-
The results of the analysis of this test have gineering Aid, for writing the Fortran computer
been challengedby Dagan [1967, p. 1069], who program used to evaluate equations3 and 4 below.
asserts that the match of the data curves to the Acknowledgmentis also made to Raymond Berard,
type curve family [Weeks, 1964, Figure 3] is owner, and Ronald Busse, manager, Paramount
not accurate,and that the rangeof specificyield Farms; Jerry, Foster, manager for Green Giant
Corporation farms; and John and Alois Okray for
values is contradictory. However, the match is allowing tests to be run on their wells.
accurate for the t values greater than those de-
scribedby the limitingequationgivenabove,and REFERENCES

the range of specificyield valuesof 0.12 to 0.16 Babbitt, H. E., and D. It. Caldwell, The free sur-
for 20 observationwells is far lesscontradictory face around, and interference between, gravity
214 El)WIN
wells, Univ. Ill. Eng. Expt. Sta. Bull. $74, 47-56,
1948.
Boulton, N. S.. Unsteady radial flow to a pumped
well allowing for delayed yield from storage,
Intern. Assoc.Sci. Hydrol., œ (Publ. 37) (General
Assembly,Rome), 472-477, 1954b.
Boulton, N. S., Analysis of data from nonequi-
librium pumping tests allowing for delayed yield
from storage, Inst. Civil Eng. Proc. (London),
œ6,469-482, 1963.
Butler, S.S., Engineering Hydrology, Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood, New Jersey, 129-133,
1957.
Casagrande, Arthur, Seepage through dams, New
Eng. Water Works Assoc. J., 295-336, 1937.
Creager, W. P., J. D. Justin, and Julian Hinds,
Engineering ]or Dams, John Wiley & Sons,Inc.,
New York, 58 pp., 1945.
Dagan, Gedeon, A method of determining the
permeability and effectiveporosity of unconfined
anisotropic aquifers, Water Resources Res., 3,
1059-1071, 1967.
Ferris, J. G., D. B. Knowles, R. H. Brown, and
R. W. Stallman, Theory of aquifer tests, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Water-Supply Paper 1536-E, 6.9-174,
1962.
l:[antush, M. S., Drawdown around a partially
penetrating well, Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Proc., 87,
HY4, 83-98, 1961a.
ttantush, M. S., Aquifer tests on partially pene-
trating wells, Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Proc., 87, HY5,
171-195, 1961b.
Hahtush, M. S., Hydraulics of wells, in Advances
in Hydroscience,vol. 1, edited by Ven Te Chow,
281-432, Academic Press, New York, 1964.
ttantush, M. S., Analysis of data from pumping
tests in anisotropic aquifers, J. Geophys. Res.,
71, 421-426, 1966a.
ttantush, M. S., Wells in homogeneousanisotropic
P. WEEKS
aquifers, Water Resources Res., 2, 273-279,
1966b.
ttantush, M. S., and R. G. Thomas, A method for
analyzing a drawdown test in anisotropicaqui-
fers, Water ResourcesRes., 2, 281-285,1966.
Jacob, C. E., Determining the permeability of
water-table aquifers,in Bentall, Ray, compiler,
Methods of determiningpermeability,transmis-
sibility, and drawdown, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-
Supplq]Paper 1536-I, 245-271,1963.
Massland, Marinus, Soil anisotropy and land
drainagein Luthin, J. It., Drainage of agricul-
tural lands, Am. Soc. Agron., Monograph 7,
216-285, 1957.
Mansur, C. I., and R. J. Dietrich, Pumping test
to determinepermeabilityratio, Am. Soc. Civil
Engrs. Proc., 91, SM4, 151-183,1965.
Norris, S. E., and R. E. Fidler, Use of type curves
developed from electric analog studies of un-
confinedflow to determinethe vertical perme-
ability of an aqt/iferat Piketon,Ohio,Ground
Water, 4, 43-48, 1966.
Stallman, R. W., Electric analog of three-dimen-
sional flow to wells and its application to un-
confinedaquifers,U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Supply
Paper 1536-H, 205-242, 1963.
Stallman, R. W., Effects of water table conditions
on water level changesnear pumping wells,
Water ResourcesRes., 1, 295-312, 1965.
Theis, C. V., Relation betweenthe loweringof the
piezometric surface and the rate and duration
of dischargeof a well using ground-waterstor-
age, Trans. Am. Geophys.Union, 14, 519-524,
1935.
Weeks,E. P., Field methodsfor determiningverti-
cal permeability and aquifer anisotropy, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 501-D, D193-D198,1964.
(Manuscript received July•29, 1968;
revised October 21, 1968.)