CONFINED AQUIFER PARAMETERS FROM TEMPORAL DERIVATIVE

OF DRAWDOWNS

By Sushil K. Singh1

ABSTRACT: A simple method that uses the time derivative of drawdowns is proposed for the evaluation of
confined aquifer parameters. Explicit expressions are proposed for evaluation of the aquifer parameters as well
as a graphical procedure. A reliable and accurate scheme to calculate the numerical derivative of drawdowns is
developed based upon an analytical approach. The method requires early drawdown data (u > 0.01, where u is
the argument of well function), and is shown to converge to the Cooper-Jacob method for late drawdowns (u
ⱕ 0.01). It does not require curve matching or an initial guess for the parameters. Calculations for the method
can be performed on a hand-held calculator. The method has been applied to published data sets and the results
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas Tech University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

have been compared with those obtained using traditional methods. The method accurately estimates the aquifer
parameters using only early drawdown data, thereby indicating savings in time and money.

INTRODUCTION
Evaluation of aquifer parameters (i.e., transmissivity T and
storage coefficient S ), has been a continued field of research.
Continued efforts have been made for the development of sim-
ple methods for the evaluation of aquifer parameters since
Cooper and Jacob (1946) proposed their method. Khan (1982)
gave a procedure to evaluate aquifer parameters utilizing Ja-
cob’s approximation (u ⱕ 0.01, where u is the argument of
the well function) of the well function on a hand calculator.
Other methods use derivatives of drawdowns [e.g., Rai (1985),
uifer parameters. The calculation for the method can be ac-
complished on a hand calculator.
PROPOSED METHOD
A well drilled in a homogeneous and isotropic confined aq-
uifer of infinite areal extent satisfying the assumptions in-
volved in the derivation of Theis’ (1935) equation, is pumped
at a constant rate. The drawdown at an observation well is
given by the Theis equation. The nondimensional form of the
Theis equation is written as (Singh 2000)

冉 冊
El-Khatib (1987), Singh (1996), and Singh and Ram (1996)]
for the evaluation of aquifer parameters. These methods re- s 0.4348␣
= 1.5446W * (1)
quire the computation of derivatives of discrete drawdowns s ␣
*
with acceptable accuracy for reliable estimation of the param-
eters. The method by Rai (1985) requires construction of a where ␣ = t/r 2; and W(⭈) = well function described as

冕
graph between u and f (u), a function defined by him and read- ⬁
ing of the values of u for known f (u) from this graph for each e⫺x
W(u) = dx (2)
drawdown and its derivative. Yeh (1987) gave another ex- u x
pression of f (u) that incorporated logarithms of time and ad-
vocated that though both the expressions are analytically the The parameters s and ␣ correspond to the peak of the
* *
same, their finite-difference implementations may give differ- s/␣ versus ␣ curve and are respectively given by
ent results. This may be due to the fact that the expressions
Q
for the derivative are not based on an analytical approach. s = 5.152 ⫻ 10⫺2 (3)
* T
Therefore, it is observed that the methods using the derivative
of drawdowns suffer from errors in the computation of nu- S
merical derivatives. Spane and Wurstner (1993) gave a com- ␣ = (4)
* 1.7393T
puter program based on numerical scheme to calculate pres-
sure derivatives along with valuable literature review. Differentiating (1) with respect to ␣

冉 冊
Srivastava and Guzman-Guzman (1994) tested different avail-
able expressions for the derivatives, none of which had an 1 ⭸s 1.5446 ␣
= exp ⫺0.4348 * (5)
analytical basis. s ⭸␣ ␣ ␣
In this paper, a simple method for the explicit evaluation of *
aquifer parameters is proposed. The method uses the time de- Rearranging (5) and taking logarithm
rivative of drawdowns. A reliable scheme based upon an an-
alytical approach for calculating numerical derivatives with ac-
curacy is also proposed. The method uses early drawdowns (u
ⱖ 0.01). The method is shown to converge to the Cooper and
ln 冉
␣⭸s/⭸␣
␤1 冊 =⫺
␤2
␣
(6)

Jacob (1946) method for late drawdowns (u ⱕ 0.01). Using where

the method, drawdown data at multiple observation wells can
be analyzed simultaneously to yield the estimates of the aq- Q
␤1 = 1.5446s = (7)
* 4␲T
1
Prof., Sci. ‘‘E,’’ Nat. Inst. of Hydro., Roorkee 247 667, India; pres-
ently, Sci. ‘‘E’’ and Head, GPS Regional Centre, Nat. Inst. of Hydro., S
␤2 = 0.4348␣ = (8)
Sagar (M.P.) 470 001, India. * 4T
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2001. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and Expression for ␣(⵲s/⵲␣)
possible publication on January 7, 2000; revised January 3, 2001. This
paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 6, Let si be the ith drawdown corresponding to time ti. Assum-
June, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/01/0006-0466–0470/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 ing a parabola to pass through the three consecutive points on
per page. Paper No. 22201. the drawdown curve for the purpose of calculating derivatives,
466 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 2001

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:466-470.

 the following equation may be written (Singh 1996) for the
parabola:
s = si ⫹ a(t ⫺ ti) ⫹ b(t ⫺ ti)2 (9)

where t is measured from a local origin for each triplet defin-

ing the parabola. Since all the three points of the triplet satisfy
(9), the coefficients a and b can be expressed in terms of si,
si⫹1, si⫹2, ti, ti⫹1, and ti⫹2. Once the values of a and b are ob-
tained, the following expression for ␣⭸s/⭸␣ can easily be de-
rived:

冉 冊
␣
⭸s
⭸␣ (␣i⫹␣i⫹2)/2
=
␣i ⫹ ␣i⫹2 si⫹2 ⫺ si
2 ␣i⫹2 ⫺ ␣i
(10)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas Tech University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Once the values of ␣⭸s/⭸␣ are calculated using (10), ␤1 and

␤2 can be obtained using (6), as explained in the following
two subsections. Eq. (6) gives meaningful results only if data
for ␤2 /␣ > 0.01 (preferably of the order of 0.1) are available.
This vital fact has been ignored in previous such studies (e.g.,
Rai 1985; Srivastava and Guzman-Guzman 1994). Singh FIG. 1. Variation of t⭸s/⭸t with ␤2 /␣

冉 冊
(1996) observed that the Cooper-Jacob method, when applied
to the drawdowns for which ␤2 /␣ > 0.01 in the neighborhood t⭸s/⭸t ␤2 r 2
log =⫺ (13)
of 0.01, may give erroneous values for the aquifer parameters. ␤1 2.303t
Also, when the observation well is at a great distance from
the pumped well, a large value for ␤2 /␣ is obtained. With and (10) is modified as
known values of ␤1 and ␤2, estimates of the aquifer parameters
can be obtained using (7) and (8). The drawdown data from
multiple observation wells are required to be arranged in as-
冉 冊
t
⭸s
⭸t (ti⫹ti⫹2)/2
=
ti ⫹ ti⫹2 si⫹2 ⫺ si
2 ti⫹2 ⫺ ti
(14)

cending order of ␣ before (10) is used to get the derivatives.
The method yields estimates of aquifer parameters from early
drawdowns the collection of which requires less time and
money than standard methods. Another advantage of the
method is that the systematic errors in the drawdowns are au-
tomatically removed while taking the derivatives. For exam-
ple, (10) uses the difference of two drawdowns observed at
different times; hence, systematic errors are removed while
taking the difference of two drawdowns.
For the late drawdowns (␤2 /␣ ⱕ 0.01), (6) can be expressed
as
⭸s
= ␤1
⭸ ln(␣)
The above equation shows that s, when plotted against
ln(␣), a straight line is obtained—the slope of which is given
by ␤1. Thus, (11) is a mathematical representation of the Coo-
per and Jacob (1946) method. Hence, the present method re-
duces to the Cooper-Jacob method for late drawdowns.
Graphical Method
The variable t⭸s/⭸t is plotted against 1/t on a semilog paper
with 1/t on natural axis, to get the intercept as ␤1 and slope
as ␤2 r 2/2.303. The use of (13) for a single observation well
reduces the computational efforts as compared to that of (12).
El-Khatib (1987) proposed an equation similar to (13) which
was used by Srivastava and Guzman-Guzman (1994). But both
did not realize that the equation requires data for which ␤2 /␣
> 0.01 (or preferably 0.1). For ␤2 /␣ ⱕ 0.01, a constant value
of t⭸s/⭸t is obtained for all data (Fig. 1).
Explicit Expressions
The least-square parameter estimation technique when ap-
(11) plied to (6) yields the following normal equations:
y = ln(␤1) ⫺ ␤2 x (15)
yx = ln(␤1)x ⫺ ␤2 x 2
(16)
Solution of (15) and (16) gives the explicit expressions for
evaluating aquifer parameters. These are
Q
T= exp(⫺y ⫺ ␤2 x) (17)
4␲

Eq. (5) may be written in common logarithm as S = 4T␤2 (18)

冉 冊
where
␣⭸s/⭸␣ ␤2
log =⫺ (12) xy ⫺ x y
␤1 2.303␣ ␤2 = (19)
(x)2 ⫺ x 2
Eq. (12) shows that when ␣⭸s/⭸␣ is plotted against 1/␣ on
a semilog graph with 1/␣ on natural axis, a straight line with in which
constant (nonzero) slope is obtained. [This is true for ␤2 /␣
冘
n
1 1
much greater than 0.01 and preferably of the order of 0.1, x= (20)
n ␣i
otherwise nearly a constant value of ␣(⭸s/⭸␣) is obtained for i=1

all ␤2 /␣.] Mention may be made here that ␤2 /␣ is the argument

冘 冉 冊
n
1 ⭸s
of well function, generally denoted by u. From the slope and y= ln ␣ (21)
n ⭸␣
intercept of the straight line, ␤1 and ␤2 can be obtained. In
i=1 i

冘 冉 冊
n
fitting the straight line, care must be exercised in giving less 1 1 ⭸s
xy = ln ␣ (22)
weight to those points for which ␤2 /␣ is <0.01. Eq. (12) is n i=1 ␣i ⭸␣

冘
i
used when data from more than one observation well are to n

be analyzed simultaneously. For the drawdowns observed at a 1 1

x2 = (23)
single observation well, (12) may be modified as n i=1 ␣2i

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 2001 / 467

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:466-470.

 where n = total number of data points considered. If drawdown TABLE 1. Sample Calculations for Derivatives for Set I
data at a single observation well is used, the equations for
calculation of ␤2 are given in the appendix.
These calculations can be performed on a scientific calcu-
i ti si
t̄ =
1
2
(ti ⫹ ti⫹2)
si⫹2 ⫺ si
ti⫹2 ⫺ ti
t
⭸s
⭸t
冏 t̄

lator. While using these equations, a check for ␤2 /␣ is nec- 1 1.0 0.20 — — —
2 1.5 0.27 1.5 0.10 0.15
essary in a similar way as discussed for the graphical method. 3 2.0 0.30 2.0 0.07 0.14
Thus, for the present method, the early drawdown data play a 4 2.5 0.34 2.5 0.07 0.175
vital role in obtaining the estimates of the aquifer parameters. 5 3.0 0.37 3.25 0.0467 0.152
The early drawdowns are important as they are less likely to 6 4.0 0.41 4.0 0.04 0.16
be corrupted by boundary effects, recharge, etc., and hence 7 5.0 0.45 5.0 0.035 0.175
should be given proper weight in determining the aquifer pa- 8 6.0 0.48 6.5 0.0267 0.174
9 8.0 0.53 8.0 0.0225 0.18
rameters. Very early-time drawdown data sometimes may be 10 10 0.57 10 0.0175 0.175
affected by gravel pack, well screen, and storage in the well 11 12 0.60 12 0.015 0.18
and may not follow the Theis solution. Often, these effects do 12 14 0.63 15 0.01167 0.175
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas Tech University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

not influence the peak (considered in the proposed method) 13 18 0.67 19 0.009 0.171
especially when the observation well is at a larger distance 14 24 0.72 24 0.0075 0.18
from the pumped well. 15 30 0.76 32 0.005625 0.18
16 40 0.81 40 0.0045 0.18
17 50 0.85 50 0.0035 0.175
ERROR AND RELIABILITY CRITERIA 18 60 0.88 65 0.00267 0.174
19 80 0.93 80 0.002 0.16
There are different criteria for assessing the reliability of a 20 100 0.96 100 0.00175 0.175
model. In order to check the reliability of the estimated pa- 21 120 1.00 125 0.0016 0.20
rameters using the present method, the criteria of integral 22 150 1.04 150 0.001167 0.175
squared error (ISE) and standard error of estimate (SEE) have 23 180 1.07 180 0.001 0.18
been used. These are defined as 24 210 1.10 210 0.000833 0.175
25 240 1.12 — — —

冘
n
Note: Time unit is minute and length unit is meter.
ISE = (so ⫺ s)i2 (24)
i=1

冉 冊
0.5
ISE TABLE 2. Calculations for Derivatives for Set II

冏
SEE = (25)
n⫺2 1 si ⫺ si⫺2 ⭸s
t̄ = (ti ⫹ ti⫺2) t
i ti si 2 ti ⫺ ti⫺2 ⭸t t̄
where so = observed drawdown. Low values of ISE and SEE
show that the estimated values of the parameters are reliable. 1 2 0.002 — — —
2 4 0.015 — — —
3 6 0.023 4 0.0052 0.0210
APPLICATION AND DISCUSSION 4 10 0.061 7 0.0077 0.0537
5 15 0.103 10.5 0.0089 0.0933
Application of the method is demonstrated in three data sets. 6 20 0.146 15 0.0085 0.1275
Set I is from Todd (1980, p. 127), Set II is from Central 7 30 0.214 22 0.0074 0.1665
Ground Water Board (CGWB) (1982), Government of India, 8 40 0.266 30 0.0060 0.1800
and Set III is from Lohman (1972, p. 19). The detailed dis- 9 50 0.311 40 0.0048 0.1940
cussions are provided in the following subsections. 10 70 0.386 55 0.0040 0.2200
11 100 0.461 75 0.0030 0.2250
12 120 0.506 95 0.0024 0.2280
Set I 13 150 0.559 125 0.0020 0.2450
The pumping rate was 2,500 m3/day and the drawdowns Note: Time unit is minute and length unit is meter.
were observed at 60 m from the pumped well. While analyzing
Todd’s data, Khan (1982) estimated the aquifer parameters as
TABLE 3. Sample Calculations for Set II
T = 1,150 m2/day and S = 1.8 ⫻ 10⫺4 using the Cooper and
Jacob (1946) approximation of the well function and least- x1 y x1*y x1*x1
squares regression. This shows that for most of the data u is 0.2500 ⫺3.8632 ⫺0.9658 0.0625
<0.01. Therefore, the storage coefficient cannot be estimated 0.1429 ⫺2.9250 ⫺0.4179 0.0204
using the method developed above. It is restressed here that 0.0952 ⫺2.3716 ⫺0.2259 0.0091
the parameter t⭸s/⭸t tends to a constant limiting value for u ⱕ 0.0667 ⫺2.0596 ⫺0.1373 0.0044
0.01. This is illustrated in Table 1 along with the sample cal- 0.0444 ⫺1.7928 ⫺0.797 0.0020
0.0333 ⫺1.7148 ⫺0.572 0.0011
culations using the present approach. The average of this con- 0.0250 ⫺1.6399 ⫺0.0410 0.0006
stant limiting value from Table 1 (leaving the first 6 data) is 0.0182 ⫺1.5141 ⫺0.0275 0.0003
0.1769, and this gives T = 1,125 m2/day. Mention may be 0.0133 ⫺1.4917 ⫺0.0199 0.0002
made here that Srivastava and Guzman-Guzman (1994) fitted 0.0105 ⫺1.4784 ⫺0.0156 0.0001
a straight line with constant slope using these data and ob- 0.0080 ⫺1.4065 ⫺0.0113 0.0001
tained T = 1,145 m2/day and S = 2.09 ⫻ 10⫺4. This shows that 0.0643a ⫺2.0234a ⫺0.1817a 0.0092a
their estimate of S is not reliable because very few points exist Note: Time unit is minute and length unit is meter.
a
for which u is of the order of 0.1, and those too contain error. Denotes average.

Set II
In order to estimate the aquifer parameters from drawdown
data on a single observation well, the data obtained by CGWB
(1982) were considered. The CGWB conducted a pumping test
in a confined aquifer at the ‘‘Mathana’’ site located in the
468 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 2001
Upper Yamuna River Basin, Haryana, India. The pumping test
was conducted at a constant pumping rate of 1.8924 m3/min
for 7,000 min on a fully penetrating tube well in an alluvial
aquifer under- and overlain by confining clays 24 and 50 m
thick, respectively. The drawdown data observed at an obser-

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:466-470.

 TABLE 4. Aquifer Parameters from Set II TABLE 5. Selected Drawdown Data from Set III
ISE SEE ␣ s ␣ s
Data (based on (based on
1.679 ⫻ 10⫺6 0.001 2.349 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.180
Method used T S all data) all data)
2.520 ⫻ 10⫺5 0.006 2.695 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.204
Curve All data 0.5764 5.800 ⫻ 10⫺4 3.08 ⫻ 10⫺2 0.029 3.370 ⫻ 10⫺5 0.012 3.040 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.219
matching 4.189 ⫻ 10⫺5 0.021 3.369 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.235
(Theis)
5.000 ⫻ 10⫺5 0.027 4.048 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.265
Cooper-Jacob Late draw- 0.5694 6.200 ⫻ 10⫺4 3.31 ⫻ 10⫺2 0.030
method downs 6.739 ⫻ 10⫺5 0.049 5.000 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.290
Chow’s Initial 100 0.6042 5.800 ⫻ 10 ⫺4
5.52 ⫻ 10 ⫺2
0.039 8.379 ⫻ 10⫺5 0.067 5.400 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.302
method min 1.010 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.082 6.739 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.341
Present Initial 150 0.5889 6.052 ⫻ 10 ⫺4
2.89 ⫻ 10 ⫺2
0.028 1.348 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.115 8.071 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.369
method min 1.682 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.140 8.610 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.380
Note: Time unit is minute and length unit is meter. 2.020 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.162 1.006 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.402
Note: Time unit is minute and length unit is meter.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas Tech University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vation well located at a distance of 199.8 m from the pumped

well for an initial 150 min are given in Table 2. The sample TABLE 6. Aquifer Parameters from Set III
calculations for derivatives and other calculations are given in Obser- ISE SEE
Table 3. The aquifer parameters obtained using the present Data vation (based on (based on
method are compared to those obtained using traditional meth- Method used well T S ⫻ 104 all data) all data)
ods in Table 4. The comparison is based on the reliability Theis curve All data Near 0.8414 2.260 3.11 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.0116
criteria, e.g., ISE and SEE computed considering all the mea- (Kashef
sured drawdowns. Table 4 shows that the late drawdowns are 1986)
Theis curve All data Distant 0.8907 2.000 3.13 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.0117
closely reproduced using the aquifer parameters estimated (Kashef
from only early drawdowns. This shows that the present 1986)
method reliably estimates the aquifer parameters. Lohman All data Both 0.8779 1.978 8.62 ⫻ 10⫺4 0.0042
(1972)
⫺3
Present Initial 14 Near 0.8605 1.963 1.03 ⫻ 10 0.0067
Set III method min
⫺3
Present 60 min Distant 0.8592 2.058 2.09 ⫻ 10 0.0095
In order to demonstrate the simultaneous analysis of data method
⫺4
Present As above Both 0.8631 2.050 6.08 ⫻ 10 0.0036
from multiple observation wells, Lohman’s (1972) data were method
selected. These data consist of drawdowns at the two obser-
Note: Time unit is minute and length unit is meter.
vation wells located at 121.92 m (400 ft) and 243.84 m (800
ft), respectively from the pumped well. The constant rate of
discharge in this case was 1.888 m3/min (96,000 ft3/day). In- TABLE 7. Aquifer Parameters from Synthetic Data
itial 14-min data for the near well and 60-min data for the
Time Number Percent Percent
distant well were selected for the analysis, keeping in view
interval for of data Estimated Estimated error error
that ␤2 /␣ is >0.05. These data were also analyzed separately
measurement points T S in T in S
to get the estimates of the aquifer parameters. Drawdown data
when taken together need to be arranged in ascending order 2 60 0.499 2.420 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.2 ⫺0.8
3 40 0.496 2.457 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.8 ⫺2.4
of ␣. While arranging, averaging of certain ␣ or s/␣ may be
5 24 0.495 2.479 ⫻ 10⫺3 1.0 ⫺3.3
required. This case arises when nearly same values of ␣ 8 15 0.495 2.453 ⫻ 10⫺3 1.0 ⫺2.2
and/or s/␣ are obtained from data on different observation 10 12 0.496 2.415 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.8 ⫺0.6
wells. The data thus arranged are given in Table 5. The esti- 12 10 0.498 2.365 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.4 1.5
mated aquifer parameters are compared in Table 6 to those 15 8 0.500 2.270 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.0 5.4
obtained using traditional methods (Lohman 1972; Kashef Note: Time unit is minute and length unit is meter.
1986) on the basis of reliability criteria.

Synthetic Data
In order to show the reliability of the method, drawdowns
were generated assuming Q = 1.5 m3/min, r = 100 m, T =
0.50 m2/min, and S = 2.4 ⫻ 10⫺3 for different uniform time
intervals. The drawdowns at different time intervals were se-
lected for the analysis and the aquifer parameters were esti-
mated using the present method. The results with percentage
error in the estimates of T and S are given in Table 7. For a
time interval of 15 min, error in the estimates of S is greater
(5%). This may be because only eight drawdowns are available
and from this six drawdowns are effectively used to arrive at
the estimates of the parameters, leaving thereby fewer degrees
of freedom. Table 7 shows that the time interval for drawdown
measurements does not have much effect on the parameter
estimates. With increase in the time interval, no systematic
increase in errors in the estimates of T and S was observed.
This is one of the advantages of the proposed method in which
the computation of the derivatives has an analytical basis.
There exists an optimal time interval that may be approxi-
mated as t /4, where t = r 2␣ *.
* *
The lower values of ISE and SEE than those obtained using
traditional methods show that the present method accurately
estimates the aquifer parameters even using only early draw-
downs. While calculating ISEs for the present method, all data
including both early and late drawdowns were considered. The
method is fully objective and yields reliable estimates of the
aquifer parameters even when only early drawdowns are used.
Thus, the method avoids error involved in curve matching and
does not require iterative tedious computation as needed by
software programs for aquifer parameter estimation, which
sometimes has to be used as a black box (users do not know
the calculation procedure). Also, it does not require initial es-
timates for the parameter values.
Identifying Nonideal Aquifer Condition
The ideal confined aquifer condition is denoted by the con-
stant limiting value of t⭸s/⭸t for greater time. At the most the
values may be randomly fluctuating over a mean value as ob-
served in Table 1, where the values mostly range between
0.175 and 0.18. A decreasing trend in t⭸s/⭸t for greater time
shows the nonideal aquifer condition of the aquifer. Another
test may be to estimate the aquifer parameters using early
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 2001 / 469

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:466-470.

 drawdowns and to predict the late drawdowns with these pa-
rameters. If the observed late drawdowns and those predicted
are distinctly different, a nonideal aquifer condition is con-
firmed.
CONCLUSIONS
A simple method that uses the temporal derivative of draw-
downs has been proposed for the explicit evaluation of con-
fined aquifer parameters utilizing the early drawdowns. The
method uses an analytical approach to calculate the temporal
derivative of drawdowns. The method can analyze the draw-
down data on multiple observation wells taken together to ob-
tain averaged aquifer parameters. The following conclusions
are drawn from the study:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas Tech University on 05/13/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
REFERENCES
Central Ground Water Board (CGWB). (1982). Manual on evaluation of
aquifer parameters, Government of India.
Cooper, H. H., and Jacob, C. E. (1946). ‘‘A generalized graphical method
for evaluating function constants and summarizing well field history.’’
Am. Geophys. Union, 27, 526–534.
Kashef, A.-A. I. (1986). Ground-water engineering, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 319–322.
Khan, I. A. (1982). ‘‘Determination of aquifer parameters using regression
analysis.’’ Water Resour. Bull., 18(2), 325–330.
El-Khatib, N. A. F. (1987). ‘‘A new approach to the interference test
analysis.’’ SPE Formation Evaluation, 2, 609–610.
Lohman, L. W. (1972). ‘‘Ground-water hydraulics.’’ Profl. Paper No. 708,
USGS.
Rai, S. P. (1985). ‘‘Numerical determination of aquifer constants.’’ J.
Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 111(7), 1110–1114.

Singh, S. K. (1995). ‘‘Identification of aquifer parameters in Narmada

1. Curve matching or initial guess for the parameters are
avoided; instead, the method uses explicit expressions to
evaluate the aquifer parameters. The method requires
early drawdowns (u > 0.01, preferably u on the order of
0.1) and reduces to the Cooper-Jacob method for the late
drawdowns (u ⱕ 0.01).
2. The method yields reliably accurate estimates of the aq-
uifer parameters from early drawdowns. This suggests a
comparatively shorter duration for the pumping test that
results in saving in time and money.
3. The time interval between drawdown measurements has
a marginal effect on the parameter estimates. With in-
crease in the time interval, no systematic increase in er-
rors in the estimates of T and S was observed. This is
one of the advantages of the proposed method in which
the computation of the derivatives has an analytical ba-
sis.
4. The method is able to identify nonideal aquifer condi-
tions if applied on such data sets.
Basin.’’ Tech. Rep. No. TR(BR-130), National Institute of Hydrology,
Roorkee, (U.P.), India.
Singh, S. K. (1996). ‘‘Explicit expressions for aquifer parameter deter-
mination.’’ Proc., Nat. Conf. HYDRO-96, Indian Society for Hydraulics
(ISH), Kanpur, India, 75–80.
Singh, S. K. (2000). ‘‘Simple method for confined-aquifer parameter es-
timation.’’ J. Irrig. and Drain. Engrg., ASCE, 126(6), 404–407.
Singh, S. K., and Ram, S. (1996). ‘‘A new graphical method for identi-
fication of aquifer parameters.’’ Proc., All India Seminar on ‘‘Hydraulic
Engineering,’’ Indian Society for Hydraulics (ISH), Nagpur, India,
103–106.
Spane, F. A., and Wurstner, S. K. (1993). ‘‘DERIV: A computer program
for calculating pressure derivatives for use in hydraulic test analysis.’’
Ground Water, 31(5), 814–822.
Srivastava, R., and Guzman-Guzman, A. (1994). ‘‘Analysis of slope
matching methods for aquifer parameter determination.’’ Ground Wa-
ter, 32(4), 470–475.
Theis, C. V. (1935). ‘‘The relation between lowering of the piezometric
surface and the rate and the duration of discharge of a well using
ground-water storage.’’ Am. Geophys. Union, 16, 519–524.
Todd, D. K. (1980). Groundwater hydrology, Wiley, New York, 130–132.
Yeh, H. D. (1987). ‘‘Discussion of numerical determination of aquifer
parameters.’’ J. Hydr. Engrg., ASCE, 113(7), 948–951.

APPENDIX. SINGLE OBSERVATION WELL

NOTATION
If drawdown data at a single observation well is used, the
following equations should be adopted for calculation of ␤2: The following symbols are used in this paper:

1 x1y1 ⫺ x1 y1 i = index denoting serial number of observed drawdown (di-

␤2 = (26)
r 2 (x1)2 ⫺ x 12 mensionless);
n = total number of observed drawdowns (dimensionless);
where Q = constant rate of pumping (L3 T ⫺1);

冘
n r = distance of observation well from pumping well (L);
1 1 s = drawdown at observation well (L);
x1 = (27)
n i=1 ti s = parameter of Theis equation (L);

冘 冉 冊
*
n S = storage coefficient of aquifer (dimensionless);
1 ⭸s T = transmissivity of aquifer (L2 T ⫺1);
y1 = ln t (28)
n i=1 ⭸t i t = time measured since start of pumping (T);

冘 冉 冊
n u = ␤2 /␣ = argument of well function (dimensionless);
1 1 ⭸s W(⭈) = well function (dimensionless);
x1 y1 = ln t (29)
n i=1 ti ⭸t i ␣ = t/r 2 (L⫺2 T );

冘
n ␣ = parameter of Theis equation (L⫺2 T );
1 1 *
x 21 = (30) ␤1 = Q/(4␲T ) (L); and
n i=1 t 2i ␤2 = S/(4T ) (L⫺2 T ).

470 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 2001

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001.127:466-470.