Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-021-02421-0

PAPER

The extreme well‑loss component of drawdown in two deep artesian

wells in Israel
Avihu Burg1 · Joseph Guttman2 · Israel Gev3

Received: 27 May 2021 / Accepted: 23 October 2021 / Published online: 25 November 2021
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The water-level drawdown in pumping wells is the sum of two components: aquifer loss and well loss. The latter results
from mostly turbulent and nonlaminar flow in and around the well. In a properly designed well, the well-loss component is
usually much smaller than the aquifer loss. Analyzing step-drawdown tests of two deep (1,397 and 878 m) artesian wells
drilled in a fractured carbonate aquifer in Israel, revealed exceptional proportions between the two drawdown components.
Despite the high artesian flows and the fact that the two wells are properly constructed, most of the drawdown (96–99% and
82–90% of the total drawdown) is attributable to well loss. Accordingly, the well efficiencies are very low and decrease as
flow increases. The anomalous values of the well-loss component are also reflected in the wells’ hydrographs; each opening
and closing of the artesian flow results in an immediate jump in the head pressure. As far as is known, such unusual propor-
tions have never been encountered in other water wells. The vertical flow velocities within the casing of both wells are very
high, and the Reynolds numbers confirm turbulent flow. The combination of flow in fractures and high frictional head loss
within the well pipes are the factors that enable this exceptionally high well loss and low efficiency in these high-discharge
wells. The high frictional head loss, calculated by applying the Darcy-Weisbach equation, is the result of great well depths
and turbulent rapid vertical flow up to the surface in a narrow and long casing.

Keywords Pumping test · Drilling · Well-loss coefficient · Well efficiency · Darcy-Weisbach equation

Introduction and incrustations in wells (Houben 2015a; Polak et al. 2011;

Pumping wells are the most common source for groundwater
resource utilization; thus, the hydraulics of wells has been
widely studied (see a partial list of publications on this topic
in Houben 2015a). For most common vertically screened
wells, groundwater flow in the aquifer towards the well is
linear-laminar (Atkinson et al. 1994) and obeys Darcy’s
law. However, in the vicinity of the well, the flow becomes
nonlinear as a result of increased flow velocity, and even
turbulent in the screen and the well interior. Nonlinear flow
and turbulent conditions are assumed to enhance clogging
Van Lopik et al. 2021).
For optimal performance of pumping wells, it is nec-
essary to know the relationships between production and
drawdown of the water head in the well (Stoner et al. 1979).
The drawdown represents the hydraulic resistance to flow in
both the aquifer and the well, and is the sum of all individual
head-loss components. The mutual relations between pro-
duction and drawdown were best characterized years ago by
the empirical step-drawdown test of Jacob (1947) (Fig. 1):
s = BQ + CQ2 (1)

where s is total drawdown of the water head within the well

* Avihu Burg in response to pumping (m); Q is pumping rate of the well
burg@gsi.gov.il ­(m3 ­h−1); B is time-dependent head-loss coefficient due to
1
Geological Survey of Israel, 32 Yeshayahu Leibowitz St,
laminar flow (both linear and nonlinear) in the aquifer (h
9692100 Jerusalem, Israel ­m−2); C is head-loss coefficient due mostly to turbulent flow
2
J.G.H. Hydrogeology Consulting, 42 Hativat Golani St,
into and within the well (­ h2 ­m−5) and is constant for a given
4333344 Raanana, Israel flow rate. BQ is the aquifer-loss component of the draw-
3
Israel Water Authority, 7 Bank Israel St, P.O.B. 36118,
down (m); it is the result of the mostly laminar flow in the
9195021 Jerusalem, Israel aquifer and reflects the resistance of the rock-formation to

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
266
Fig. 1  Components of draw-
down in a schematic pump-
ing well (after Atkinson et al.
1994). (s): total drawdown;
(BQ): aquifer-loss component;
(CQ2): well-loss component
flow; CQ2 is the well-loss component of the drawdown (m),
which is the result of the turbulent flow in and around the
well, and the nonlaminar flow in the vicinity of the well. In
fact, the well-loss component reflects the actual open area
of the well screen, the well construction, the development
efficiency of the well, and even flow-induced processes due
to high velocities.
In a properly constructed well that has no clogging, the
well-loss component (CQ2) is expected to be much smaller
than the aquifer-loss component BQ (see for example
Abdalla and Moubark 2018; Hamdan and Sawires 2013;
Islam et al. 2013). When the well loss becomes more pro-
nounced, it is most often attributed to technical failure,
high flow velocities, clogging, or incorrect geometry.
Another option for a relatively high well-loss component
was suggested by Atkinson et al. (1994) and others, who
noted that even in the best designed and constructed well,
the well-loss component might be significant if the pri-
mary source of hydraulic conductivity is fractures.
Modifications and updates of Jacob’s oversimplified
equation have been suggested since the 1940s (e.g. Bier-
schenk 1963; Miller and Weber 1983; Mogg 1969—for
example, Rorabaugh (1953) proposed that the value of the
well-loss exponent in Jacob’s equation may be of arbi-
trary power (mostly in the range 1.5–3.5). However, it is
still widely accepted to use 2 as the value of the exponent
(which is also justified by the Darcy-Weisbach equation)
and to use Jacob’s simple equation for calculating the
13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281
ratios between the two components of the drawdown in
a well.
Attention has also been given in the literature to pump-
ing tests of confined flowing artesian wells, although such
tests are less common (Perina 2021). The uniqueness of this
type of well is that it does not require energy for production
and water flows naturally to the surface. Flow rate control is
done solely by opening and closing a valve. Mathematical
analysis of artesian flow was first described by Jacob and
Lohman (1952) and Rorabaugh (1953) and most recently by
Wendland (2008) and Perina (2021). The fact that there is
no pump in artesian wells, and as a result the flow discharge
cannot be controlled, makes it difficult to perform accurate
step-drawdown tests in artesian free-flowing wells. Practi-
cally, and unlike pumped wells in which the flow rate is
maintained constant during each step, the flow rate in most
artesian wells decreases over time as the result of the head
drop in the host aquifer. This is accompanied by a reduction
in the frictional loss in the casing and a gradual increase of
the head in the casing.
In two deep artesian wells that have been drilled to a
carbonate aquifer in the northern part of Israel, a step-
drawdown test revealed unusual proportions between the
two components of the drawdown. As far as is known,
such proportions have never been reported in the litera-
ture describing water drilling and therefore deserve special
consideration and the attention of the large communities
of hydrogeologists and engineers that routinely operate
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281
step-drawdown tests. It should be noted that similar values
may be found in deep geothermal wells, where a combina-
tion of two-phase (gas/steam, water) flow, clogging due to
precipitation of secondary minerals, and high flow rates
through long casing, may lead to a considerable well loss
(Serpen and Başel 2015). Accordingly, the purpose of this
study is to describe the results of the step-drawdown tests
in the two wells studied, and to provide a reliable explana-
tion for these results while focusing on the impact of the
well geometry and the artesian flow on the B and C coef-
ficients and the efficiency of the wells.
Step‑drawdown tests
Step-drawdown tests are performed routinely for practical
engineering applications and determination of hydraulic
parameters, using Eq. (1)—e.g. Avci et al. (2010); Bier-
schenk (1963); Clark et al. (1988); Kawecki (1995); Shek-
har (2006); Summa (2010). The step-drawdown test is con-
ducted by observing the drawdown of the water head in
the pumping well for a series of progressively increased
pumping rates (steps). At least three steps are required to
ensure accuracy. The functional coefficients B and C and
the two drawdown components are the final test products.
Other parameters directly derived from the step-draw-
down test include the specific capacity of the well ­( m 3
­h−1 ­m−1) and the well efficiency (%). The specific capac-
ity is defined as the pumping rate per unit of drawdown,
while the well efficiency (%) is defined as the ratio of the
theoretical drawdown computed by assuming ‘no turbu-
lence’ to the actually measured drawdown in the well
(Rorabaugh 1953). The lower the value of the well-loss
component (CQ2), the higher the well efficiency. Kresic
(1997) defined a well efficiency of 65% as the minimum
value indicating a properly designed well. Low efficiency
of a well is commonly attributed to various factors such as
inadequate screen length, slots that are too small, poorly
sorted or improper gravel packing, development of a seep-
age face, and insufficient well development (Bierschenk
1963). However, it is evident that low efficiency does not
necessarily indicate poor well construction and develop-
ment and its values should not be overemphasized (Shek-
har 2006).
Another parameter that stands for well efficiency is the
value, in percent, of the reduction in the specific capacity
over the range of rates used in the test (Mogg 1969). If
the reduction is less than 10% over the wide range of the
pumping rates (three times the initial pumping rate), the
well is considered as properly designed with less signifi-
cant turbulent-derived losses.
267
Well construction and operation
Several deep wells were drilled in the last decade to deep,
thick, and massive limestone formations in the northeast-
ern part of Israel. The limestone formations are of the
Jurassic age and are characterized by the rarity of karstic
phenomena below the surface, flow through individual
fractures, and extremely confined conditions with initial
artesian pressure of 12–13 bar above ground level. Two
of the wells, which are located 5.2 km apart (Fig. 2), were
selected in this study for illustrating the analysis of the
step-drawdown test: SH-2 which was drilled in 2010–2011
to a depth of 1,397 m, and HT-1 which was drilled in
2009 to a depth of 878 m. The lithological section and
the design of these two wells are described in Fig. 3a and
Fig. 3b, respectively.
The target limestone aquifer in well SH-2 was screened
with 196 m of slotted pipes in three sections (API 5CT
Grade K55 carbon steel seamless pipes, ~ 27,000 vertical
slots of 10 × 70 mm each), but without gravel pack behind.
The 68 m of the limestone aquifer penetrated in well HT-1
were left un-cased (“open hole”). Acidification was carried
out in well SH-2 in order to increase its transmissivity.
Given the highly artesian conditions, both wells were not
equipped with submersible pumps and the water supply is
solely controlled by turning valves at the top of the wells.
Full opening of the wells for prolonged flow is accompa-
nied by a dynamic transient process of decreasing artesian
flow simultaneously with the decrease of the pressure head
until a new balance is attained between the artesian flow
and the head. This new balance is achieved in SH-2 well
after several weeks of continuous flow, while in HT-1 well
it is achieved after a few days of free flow. In this new bal-
ance, the flow in SH-2 well stabilizes at a constant value
of ~600 ­m3 ­h−1 (a relatively reduced value due to continu-
ous free-flowing from two adjacent artesian wells open
in the same aquifer), and at ~1,100–1,400 ­m3 ­h−1 in HT-1
well. This variability in the flow from HT-1 well is season-
ally dependent and is the response to winter recharge from
the north, causing a change in the pressure head in the con-
fined aquifer. Transmissivity was measured in both flowing
wells using a recovery test; ~4,000 and 1,065 m ­ 2 ­d ay −1
were obtained for SH-2 and HT-1 wells, respectively.
Methods
Step-drawdown tests were conducted in the two selected
wells. Since both wells are artesian, no pump was used for
the tests, and increasing (or decreasing) the flow for each
subsequent step was done by rapid opening (or closing) of
13
268
Fig. 2  Location maps. The two wells studied are marked by red cir-
cles (1: SH-2 well, 2: HT-1 well), while the blue circles denote sev-
eral wells in central and northern Israel, for which results of step-
the valve at the top of the wells (the term “flowing” is thus
appropriate when referring to the open valve conditions
and will be used hereinafter). In both wells, the pressure
(head) was monitored by a digital pressure gauge placed
on the wellhead, with a resolution of 0.5%, equal to 0.6 m
for the highest pressure measured (~12 bar). In the SH-2
well, the pressure value was measured three times per min-
ute, while in the HT-1 well only once in 2 min. During the
test in the SH-2 well, production was stopped in the nearby
wells, which are open in the same aquifer. The BQ and the
CQ2 components of the drawdown were determined using
the graphical Hantush-Bierschenk solution (Kruseman and
de Ridder 1990); dividing both sides of Jacob’s Eq. (1) by
Q leads to a linear equation, where the intercept with the
s/Q (specific drawdown) vertical axis for Q = 0 gives the
13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281
drawdown tests are available (see Table 4), 3: Hula-11 well, 4: Z.
Golani-3 well, 5: Arbel-1 well, 6: Ahisemech-2 well, 7: Agur-10 well,
8: Zoharim-1 well)
coefficient B and the slope of the best fit line through the
measured points gives the coefficient C.
In order to identify the main factors responsible for the
abnormal proportions between the two components of the
drawdown in the two wells studied, additional quantitative
parameters were taken into account:
1. The dimensionless Reynolds number (Re), commonly
employed to determine whether the flow (in a pipe) is
laminar or turbulent:
Re = dQ𝜌∕A𝜇 (2)
 where d (m) is the diameter of the pipe; Q/A (m s­ −1)
is the average fluid velocity in the pipe [Q ­(m3 ­s−1) is
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281
the volumetric flow velocity and A ­(m2) is the cross-
­ −3) is the density of
sectional area of the flow]; ρ (kg m
−2
the fluid; μ (N s m­ ) is the dynamic viscosity of the
fluid. The Reynolds number varies as a function of the
geometry of the conductive medium; flow in a pipe with
a round cross-section is commonly defined as laminar
for Re less than 2,000 and turbulent for Re greater than
4,000 (Menon 2015).
2. Frictional loss. As the water moves vertically through
the well interior towards the pump or the surface in an
artesian well, it experiences an energy loss due to fric-
tion with the surface of both the screen and the cas-
ing (and with the rock surface in open hole well). Fric-
tional losses become more important with increasing
pipe length. The most common way of quantifying this
frictional head-loss [hL (m)] is by the Darcy-Weisbach
equation for turbulent flow in pipelines (Butler 1957):
hL = f (L∕d)((Q∕A)2 ∕2g) (3)
 where L(m) is the pipe length; d(m) is the pipe
diameter; Q/A(m ­s−1) is the average flow velocity; g
(9.81 m ­s−2) is the gravitational acceleration; and f is
the Darcy friction factor (a dimensionless empirical fac-
tor that is a function of both the Reynolds number and
the relative roughness (ε/d), ε (m) is the empirical pipe
roughness).
3. The upflow average head loss over a screen, assum-
ing uniform inflow into the screen (Barker and Herbert
1992):
have − hw = Q2 (𝛼L∕4 + 𝛽∕3) (4)
 where have–hw (m) is the head-loss over the screen (the
difference between the average head along the screen
and the head at top of the screen); α ­(h2 ­m–6) is the fric-
tional head-loss; β ­(h2 ­m–5) is the momentum head-loss.
4. The head-loss due to flow through a slotted screen, using
the orifice law (Parsons 1994) and assuming uniform
flow:
Ssc = (1∕2g)(Q∕(2𝜋rs LCv Cc Ap )2 (5)
 where Ssc (m) is the screen entrance head loss; rs (m)
is the screen radius; Cv (0.98) is the slot velocity coef-
ficient; Cc (0.62) is the coefficient of contraction; and Ap
is the proportional open area through which flow occurs.
It should be noted that for all calculations, the internal
diameter of the pipes in both wells (Fig. 3) was used.
269
Results
A graphical presentation of the step-drawdown tests in
the two wells and analysis of the results are summarized
in Figs. 4 and 5 and Table 1. The raw data of each well,
including the measured head and discharge as a function
of time, are presented in Tables S1 and S2 of the electronic
supplementary material (ESM). The measurement at the end
of each step was selected as representative and is bolded
in Tables S1 and S2 of the ESM (see also Table 1). The
excellent linear fit (Fig. 5) confirms that Jacob’s equation is
indeed valid for the test in the two wells, i.e., the well-loss
component is proportional to the square of the discharge
rate. According to the results of the tests, it is clear that
despite the high artesian flows, most of the drawdown in
both wells is attributable to well loss (96–99% and 82–90%
in SH-2 and HT-1, respectively). Accordingly, well efficien-
cies are very low and decrease as the discharge increases.
The specific capacity also decreases sharply over the wide
range of the applied flow rates—37–10 ­m3 ­h−1 ­m–1 in SH-2
well and 22–12 ­m3 ­h−1 ­m–1 in HT-1 well (Table 1).
The very high and anomalous values of the well-loss
component in both wells are clearly reflected in the wells’
hydrographs (Fig. 6); i.e. each opening or closing of the
water valves results in an immediate and large jump in the
head pressure. This is because at these precise moments the
well-loss component has its full effect on the pressure head.
In a well where the well-loss component is not as high, the
initiation or termination of the water production is not mani-
fested in such sharp jumps, but usually in a slow and pro-
longed reaction expressing the deepening or flattening of the
cone of depression in both the well and the adjacent aquifer.
According to Driscoll’s (1986) approach, which was
adopted in many studies, water intake velocity into the
pumping well through its screen pipes should not exceed
0.03 m ­s–1. Up to this velocity, the flow is fully laminar, the
friction loss on the screen slots (one of the components of
the head loss) is negligible and the rate of incrustation and
corrosion is minimal. Higher velocities have an impact on
the longevity of the drilling construction. Well SH-2 was
screened in front of the fractured limestone aquifer with
­85/8 inch (0.219 m) pipes (internal diameter: 7.92 inches
(0.201 m); Fig. 3a), of which 196 m are slotted. The open
area of these slotted pipes is 14% (engineering data). Tak-
ing 740 ­m3 ­h–1 as the maximum discharge rate in the test
and assuming uniform flow through all slotted pipes, then
the intake velocity is 0.012 m ­s–1, namely, well within the
permissible limit of 0.03 m ­s–1. However, it should be noted
that the uniform and symmetry flow assumption is far from
reality. Since the typical flow in the Jurassic limestone is
through sporadic cracks, as expressed in the caliper log, the
intake flow is not uniform. Accordingly, the flow velocity is
13
270 Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281

Fig. 3  The lithological section

and the technical structure of
a SH-2 well and b HT-1 well.
Note that the internal diameter
of the pipes is indicated by an
italic bold number

supposed to be much higher than calculated through limited
portions of the slotted pipes and much lower through other
parts. Under these conditions, even if the average entrance
velocity is well within the critical limit of 0.03 m ­s–1 and
seemingly does not harm the well construction, the flow
into the well may be turbulent (Shekhar 2006). It should
also be noted that the Reynolds number for the flow through
the screen in SH-2 well was calculated at 1287. Adopting
a Reynolds number of 800 as the onset of turbulence flow
in porous media (Houben 2015a; Trussell and Chang 1999)
indicates a fully turbulent flow through the well screen. Well
HT-1 has left an open hole in front of the aquifer; therefore,

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281
Fig. 3  (continued)
calculation of entrance velocity through slotted pipes is
irrelevant.
As a common rule-of-thumb, the vertical flow velocity
in the inner part of the pumping well (casing) should not
exceed 1.5 m ­s–1 (Houben 2015b). This restriction derives
271
from the need to reduce friction with the pipes as the water
moves upwards in the well’s interior. Assuming a discharge
­ 3 ­h-1 and uniform vertical flow in SH-2 well,
rate of 740 m
then the flow velocity in the 7.92 (inner diameter) inch
(0.201 m) pipes is 6.5 m s­ –1, and is 3.4 and 1.9 m s­ –1 in the
13
272 Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281

Fig. 4  Observed drawdowns for 1,400

the four flowing rates (steps) in discharge SH-2 (m 3/h) (a)
a SH-2 well and b HT-1 well drawdown SH-2 (m)
1,200 0

1,000 20

drawdown (m)
discharge (m3/h)
800 4 40

600 3 60
steps
2
400 80

1
200 100

0 120
00:00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02:30 03:00 03:30 04:00 04:30

accumulated time (hours)

1200 0

discharge HT-1 (m 3/h)

(b)
1100 10
drawdown HT-1 (m)

1000 1 20

900 30

2
discharge (m3/h)

drawdown (m)
800 40

700 50

600 3 60

steps
500 70

400 80
4
300 90

200 100
00:00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02:30 03:00 03:30 04:00 04:30

accumulated time (hours)

10.88 inch (0.276 m) and 14.57 inch (0.370 m) pipes, respec-
tively (Table 2). Assuming a discharge rate of 1050 m ­ 3 ­h–1
and uniform vertical flow in HT-1 well, then the flow veloc-
ity in the ­121/4 inch (0.311 m) open hole is 3.8 m ­s–1, and
is 3.7 and 2.7 m ­s–1 in the 12.51 inch (0.318 m) and 14.57
inch (0.370 m) pipes, respectively (Table 2). All calculated
velocities in both wells are significantly higher than the one
proposed by Houben (2015b) as the permitted value.
Reynolds numbers for the flow through different diameter
screen pipes in both wells, for the highest discharge values
(Table 2), are well above the threshold value of 4,000, which
distinguishes between nonturbulent and turbulent flows in

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281 273

Fig. 5  Graphical solution of the 0.11

step-drawdown tests in a SH-2 (a)
well and b HT-1 well
0.1

0.09

0.08
y = 135×10-4x + 1028×10-3

S/Q (m/m3/h)
R² = 0.9
0.07

B=1028×10-3 h/m2
0.06
C=135×10-4 h2/m5

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

discharge (m3/h)

0.09
(b)
0.09

0.08

0.08
y = 73×10-5x + 8404×10-3
R² = 0.999
S/Q (m/m3/h)

0.07

B=8404× 10-3h/m2
0.07 C=73× 10-5h2/m5

0.06

0.06

0.05

0.05

0.04
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

discharge (m3/h)

pipes with a round cross-section. Accordingly, the frictional
head-loss due to upflow within the well pipes as detected by
the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Table 3) corresponds to 77%
of the total well-loss component in SH-2 well (57.1 m out
of 73.9 m for discharge of 740 m ­ 3 ­h–1) and 27% of the total
well-loss component in HT-1 well (21.8 out of 80.5 m for
discharge of 1,050 ­m3 ­h–1). The head loss in well SH-2 due
to horizontal radial flow into the well through the screen,
based on the orifice law, is negligible. However, the head
loss over a screen according to Eq. (4), assuming radial and
uniform flow over the whole length of the screen, is 10.6 m
for the SH-2 well. It should be noted that friction head loss
due to upflow within the open hole at the bottom of well
HT-1 should not be ignored as this can be an addition to the
friction loss due to flow within the pipes. However, it is dif-
ficult to estimate this value because there is no information

13
274 Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281

as to whether all 68 m of the open hole are indeed open,

CQ2/s
Table 1  Analysis of data obtained from the step-drawdown tests in wells SH-2 and HT-1. The test in well SH-2 was done when the two adjacent wells, open in the same aquifer, did not operate
whether the upflow starts from the bottom of the open hole,

96.3
98.0
98.6
99.0
81.6
85.9
88.3
90.1
(%)
and what the roughness of the rock is. Adopting Wendland’s
(2008) value for the rock roughness (0.05 m) and assuming
Well efficiency that all 68 m participate in the upward flow results in a fric-
tion head loss in the open hole of 22 m.
3.7
The well-loss coefficients (C) in both wells (135 × ­10–4
2.0
1.4
1.0
18.4
14.1
11.7
9.9
(%)

and 73 × ­10–4 ­h2 ­m-5, in wells SH-1 and HT-1, respectively,

Table 1) are below the critical value of 3 × ­10–4 ­h2 ­m-5, set
by Walton (1962) as the threshold value for severe clog-
5.24
18.58
37.78
73.93
18.99
35.77
55.25
80.48
CQ2
(m)

ging or well deterioration. The value of the coefficient in

HT-1 well is in the range suggesting a properly developed
well (< 3 × ­10–5 ­h2 ­m-5), while the value in SH-2 well is in
0.20
0.38
0.54
0.76
4.29
5.88
7.31
8.82
(m)
BQ

between, ostensibly showing a slight deterioration at the

most. Accordingly, it is already worth emphasizing that the
Well-loss coefficient

high well-loss component in both wells is not due to well

clogging or technical failure. This will be discussed in detail
in the next section.
135 × ­10–4
135 × ­10–4
135 × ­10–4
135 × ­10–4
73 × ­10–5
73 × ­10–5
73 × ­10–5
73 × ­10–5
(h2 ­m–5)

Discussion
Aquifer-loss coefficient

The drawdown in the two wells studied is mostly due to well

loss (Table 1; Fig. 7). This is also reflected in the sudden
jumps in the wells’ hydrographs (Fig. 6), and the low values
1,028 × ­10–3
1,028 × ­10–3
1,028 × ­10–3
1,028 × ­10–3
8,404 × ­10–3
8,404 × ­10–3
8,404 × ­10–3
8,404 × ­10–3

of the wells’ efficiency (Fig. 7). Moreover, the calculated

(h ­m–2)

values of the well-loss component and well efficiency in the

two wells are exceptional compared to those measured in
other deep wells in Israel. Table 4 presents step-drawdown-
derived values in several wells in northern and central Israel
10,041 × ­10–1
2,741 × ­10–2
5,094 × ­10–2
7,259 × ­10–2

4,549 × ­10–2
6,029 × ­10–2
7,241 × ­10–2
8,524 × ­10–2

(Fig. 2), all pumping from the regional Judea Group car-
(h ­m–2)

bonate aquifer of the Cretaceous age. This relatively deep

s/Q

aquifer, which consists mainly of karstic limestones and

dolomites, is the largest and most exploited aquifer in Israel
and is penetrated by hundreds of wells that supply drinking
Specific capacity

water and water for agriculture. The wells shown in Table 4

(m3 ­h−1 ­m-1)

were selected for comparison because they are similar in

their details to the two drillings studied, i.e., they are deep,
36.5
19.6
13.8
10.0
22.0
16.6
13.8
11.7

have long casings, one of which is even artesian and some

have high flow rates. Although they display a wide range of
loss values reflecting the effect of flow in a karstic medium,
Drawdown

none of these wells yielded an extreme value like that meas-

ured in SH-2 and HT-1 wells. The distinguishable data of the
18.9
38.4
74.3
23.2
42.2

89.5
(m)

5.4

63

two wells studied, for which these extreme and exceptional

values are obtained, are presented below.
Dischargea

Since the well-loss component in the two wells is excep-

(m3 ­h–1 )

1,050

tionally high, their cone of depression must be very differ-

197
371
529
740
510
700
870

ent from the one depicted in Fig. 1 and which represents a

common situation. In fact, most of the dynamic drawdown
Step

Artesian flow

is inside the wells, while the drawdown originating from the

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

aquifer is a few meters at the most (Fig. 8).

All the information needed to interpret the exceptional
HT-1
SH-2
Well

results of the step-drawdown tests in the two wells studied,

a

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281 275

Fig. 6  Hydrographs of a SH-2 750

well and b HT-1 well. The flowing flowing
(a)

discahrge (m3/h)
effect of the high well-loss
component is clearly manifested 500
in immediate and large pressure
jumps when flowing begins or
ends
250

no flowing
0
no flowing

100
head (m)

60

20
10/10/16 20/10/16 30/10/16 10/11/16
date

1200
(b)

discharge (m3/h)
900

600

300

100
no flowing

75
head (m)

50

flowing
25

0
20/11/2009 12:00 21/11/2009 0:00 21/11/2009 12:00 22/11/2009 0:00

date

namely the geological stratigraphy, the regional hydrology,
and the well construction, is accessible now: both wells are
deep, relatively narrow, and produce the water from a frac-
tured massive limestone section. Both partially penetrate the
aquifer and are artesian, with more than 120 m of head pres-
sure above the surface (Fig. 3). Transmissivity values are
moderate and flow velocity within the casing is very high.
Before appraising the causes of the unique step-drawdown
test results, a list of all major components that compose a
common well loss is detailed here. This is based mainly on
Houben (2015b), who also summarized the relative contri-
bution of each component to the total well loss in a pumping
well. However, this list is also relevant for a flowing well,
although the proportions between the components may be
different. The components include the borehole skin-layer

13
276 Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281

Table 2  Reynolds number Well Pipe inner diameter Flow velocity Density (ρ) Dynamic Reynolds no.
corresponding to the different viscosity (μ)
screen diameters present in
wells SH-2 and HT-1. The (m) (m ­s–1) (kg ­m–3) (N s ­m–2)
calculation is for the maximum
SH-2a 2,012 × ­10–1 6.47 990 59 × ­10–4 2,196,545
flow velocity in each well
2,764 × ­10–1 3.43 990 59 × ­10–4 1,599,153
3,701 × ­10–1 1.91 990 59 × ­10–4 1,194,152
HT-1b 3,179 × ­10–1 3.68 998 98 × ­10–4 1,194,690
3,701 × ­10–1 2.71 998 98 × ­10–4 1,026,187
a
­ 3 ­h–1
Water temp: 46.0 °C, maximum flow rate 740 m
b
Water temp: 21.6 °C, maximum flow rate 1,050 ­m3 ­h–1

Table 3  The frictional head loss as calculated by the Darcy-Weisbach equation for the variable screen diameters present in wells SH-2 and HT-1.
The calculation is for the maximum flow velocity in each well
Well Inner pipe diameter (D) Length of pipe Flow velocity Relative roughness (ε/D) Friction factor (f)c Frictional
head loss
(hL)
(m) (m) (m ­s–1) (m)

SH-2a 2,012 × ­10–1 265.4 6.47 22,724 × ­10–4 145,204 × ­10–2 40.9
2,764 × ­10–1 387.1 3.43 16,544 × ­10–4 139,293 × ­10–2 11.7
3,701 × ­10–1 667.9 1.91 12,354 × ­10–4 135,911 × ­10–2 4.6
HT-1b 3,179 × ­10–1 650.0 3.68 14,383 × ­10–4 138,650 × ­10–2 19.5
3,701 × ­10–1 160.0 2.71 12,354 × ­10–4 137,402 × ­10–2 2.2

Gravitational acceleration: 9.81 m s­ –2

API pipe roughness (ε): 4,572 × ­10–2 mm
a
­ 3 ­h–1
Water temp: 46.0 °C, maximum flow rate 740 m
b
Water temp: 21.6 °C, maximum flow rate 1,050 ­m3 ­h–1
c
Based on Colebrook-White equation (Menon 2015)

loss, which is due to the accumulation of fine-grained film
on the external borehole wall, the gravel pack (if present)
loss, the screen loss, the well interior loss or the upflow
loss due to turbulent movement and friction, and the impact
of clogging and incrustation. The upflow loss is relatively
small in typical well designs but becomes significant in: (1)
very deep and small diameter wells with long casing (Hou-
ben 2015a, b; Houben et al. 2018; Serpen and Başel, 2015;
Stoner et al. 1979), (2) free-flowing deep wells, (3) wells
where the pump is located far above the screen (Kawecki
1995; Tügel et al. 2016), and (4) in response to increase in
the upflow velocity or the pumping/flowing rates (Houben
2015b). Besides, Barker and Herbert (1992) and Atkinson
et al. (1994) emphasized that although the contribution of
the nonlaminar flow (Fig. 1) to the total head loss is usu-
ally small, it may be more significant in fractured or karstic
aquifers where the assumption of laminar flow in the aquifer
is not valid.
In the case of the two wells studied here, the components
outside of the well interior cannot be considered as signifi-
cant contributors to the well loss for several reasons: (1)
well HT-1 was left uncased in the aquifer, while the annulus
in well SH-2 contains no gravel pack; (2) the external flow
velocities are high enough to remove all fine-grained sedi-
ments accumulated on the outer surface of the slotted pipes
in SH-2 well. Indeed, an inspection of this borehole by video
camera exactly 2 years after performing the step-drawdown
tests revealed that all pipes, including the slotted pipes, are
free of sediments, encrustations or clogging. Thus, the skin
effect which is highly important in many pumping wells
worldwide is considered in the current case to be negligible;
(3) According to Walton’s (1962) classification of degrees
of well deterioration, the relatively low C values in the two
wells (135 × ­10–4 ­h2 ­m-5 in SH-2 and 73 × ­10–4 ­h2 ­m–5 in
HT-1) imply properly designed and developed wells. It can
also be concluded that the large well loss in both wells is
not the result of ageing processes such as mechanical and
biogeochemical screen clogging. On the other hand, the
flow in the aquifer is heterogeneous through fractures. As
such it may cause an uneven distribution of flow veloci-
ties through the slots of the screen pipes in well SH-2 and
increase the well loss. Furthermore, pipes fittings (valves,
elbows, and tees), which are routinely installed on almost
every well head, and may have an effect on the head loss,

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281 277

Fig. 7  Flowing rates versus the 0 6.0

two components of the draw-
down and the well efficiency in 10
a SH-2 well and b HT-1 well (a) 5.0
20

30
4.0

40

well efficiency (%)

drawdown (m)
50 3.0

60

2.0
70

80
aquifer loss 1.0

90 well loss

efficiency
100 0.0
150 250 350 450 550 650 750

flow rate (m3/h)

0 20.0

10 18.0
(b)
20 16.0

30 14.0

40 12.0

well efficiency (%)

drawdown (m)

50 10.0

60 8.0

70 6.0

80 4.0
aquifer loss

90 well loss 2.0

efficiency
100 0.0
450 550 650 750 850 950 1050

flow rate (m3/h)

are considered insignificant in the two wells studied; in
SH-2 well the pressure gauge is located on top to the well’s
16-inch (0.406 m) vertical casing, while in HT-1 well the
gauge is placed downflow a standard 16-inch 90° elbow.
Calculating the pressure loss caused by the elbow, using
the k-method approach (Sodiki and Adigio 2014; Roberson
and Crowe 1975), which assumes fully developed turbulent
flow, yielded a negligible loss value of ~30 cm for discharge
of 1,050 ­m3 ­h-1.
After rejecting most of the major conventional compo-
nents that potentially may compose the well loss, the obvi-
ous conclusion is that the frictional head loss resulting from
vertical turbulent flow within long well pipes is the main
source of the high well-loss in the two wells. Indeed, the

13
278 Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281

Reynolds numbers confirm fully turbulent flow in both wells

Table 4  Hydraulic values obtained from step-drawdown tests in several wells located in northern and central Israel (see location in Fig. 2). All produce from a carbonate karstic aquifer of the

CQ2/s
(Table 2), and the sharp decrease in the specific capacity

66.6
77.7
49.4
74.0
55.3
67.3
(%)
over the wide range of the applied production rates also
implies major turbulent losses (Mogg 1969). Accordingly,

Well efficiency
the calculated frictional head loss due to vertical flow within
the well pipes (Table 3) corresponds to 77% of the total
well-loss component of the drawdown in SH-2 well and

33.4
22.3
50.6
26.0
44.7
32.7
(%)
only to 27% of the total well-loss component in HT-1 well.
53.7 However, the upflow along the open hole at the bottom of
44.2
13.5
12.1
6.4
3.9
CQ2
(m)

well HT-1 may also have a significant effect on the head loss
(up to 22 m or 27% of the total well loss). In addition, the
26.9
12.7
13.8
4.2
5.2
1.9
(m)
BQ

head loss within the well screen of SH-2, according to the

equation presented by Barker and Herbert (1992), amounts
Well-loss coefficient

to 10.6 m or 14% (assuming uniform flow). All this leads to

1,130,775 × ­10–3

the following final conclusion: the high values of CQ2 (and

533,425 × ­10–4
206,892 × ­10–4
18,923 × ­10–5
14,506 × ­10–5
24,576 × ­10–5

the low efficiency) in the two high discharge wells are due
(h2 ­m–5)

to an uncommon combination, though in different propor-

tions, of two main factors: (1) flow in a partially penetrated
aquifer through only individual fractures which negates
the assumption of laminar flow (Li et al. 2020), and (2) the
Aquifer-loss coefficient

specific design (geometry) of the wells and the consequent

1,234,924 × ­10–1

high friction loss due to flow parameters within the well

441,341 × ­10–2
540,657 × ­10–2
53,097 × ­10–3
78,236 × ­10–3
47,787 × ­10–3

casing; i.e. the combination of fast artesian vertical flow

from great depths up to the surface in a narrow and long cas-
(h ­m–2)

ing. Figure 9 summarizes all the information on the various

loss components in the two wells and shows the proportions
between them.
36,697 × ­10–1
19,944 × ­10–1
10,627 × ­10–1
2,054 × ­10–2
1,754 × ­10–2
1,475 × ­10–2

The conclusions made here are consistent with Wendland

(2008) who claimed that for a well casing over 1,000 m in
(h ­m–2)

length and with a high discharge rate, the friction losses may
s/Q

be significant. However, in his test case (well depth 1,244 m,

discharge up to 180 ­m3 ­h–1) the head loss in the well cas-
Specific capacity

ing amounts only to 24–33% of the measured drawdown. It

(m3 ­h−1 ­m-1)

should be noted that the low values of the well efficiency

cannot be attributed to high transmissivity or high specific
2.7
5.0
9.4
48.7
57.0
67.8

capacity (Bierschenk 1963) because these parameters show

moderate values.
Drawdown

80.0
57.4
27.1
16.4
11.7
5.9
(m)

Summary and conclusions

Discharge

The present study focuses on wells that exhibit a signifi-

(m3 ­h–1)

cant drawdown, with the well loss being the dominant com-
218
288
255
800
666
400

ponent of the drawdown, even though the wells are well

constructed, are not clogged or gravel packed. As far as
Depth of well

is known, extremely high well-loss values such as those

measured in the two wells studied (96–99% and 82–90%
1,148

1,000

of the total drawdown) have never been recognized in other

696
601

859
996
(m)

water production or flowing wells (however may exist in

Cretaceous age

Artesian flow

deep geothermal drilling). As a result, the cone of depres-

Ahisemech-2
Z. Golani-3

Zoharim-1

sion obtained in these wells is very different from the classic

Hula-11a

Agur-10
Arbel-1

depression cone; most of the dynamic drawdown is within

Well

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281 279

Fig. 8  Schematic description of

the drawdown in the two wells
studied. (S) : total drawdown;
(BQ): aquifer-loss component;
(CQ2): well-loss component.
The cone of depression is very
different from the schematic one
shown in Fig. 1, which repre-
sents the usual situation

Fig. 9  Proportions (in %) of the

various loss components in each
(a)
7.7 %
of the wells, a SH-2 well and b
HT-1 well. The head-loss (in m)
1.0 %
of each component is attached
to the legend. The friction head 14.3% friction head loss within the casing, 57.2 m
loss within the open hole in well friction head loss over the screen, 10.6 m
HT-1 is roughly evaluated and aquifer loss, 0.76 m
therefore separated from the loss due to flow in fractures, 5.7 m
circle
77.0 %

(b)
24.2 %

41.3 % friction head loss within the casing, 21.7 m

friction head loss within the open hole, 22 m
aquifer loss, 8.8 m
loss due to flow in fractures, 37 m

24.6 %
9.9 %

13
280
the well while the drawdown in the surrounding aquifer is
only a few meters.
The analyses of the conditions within and outside the two
high-discharge wells lead to the insight that the combination
of the following factors is responsible for their unusual high
well loss and low efficiency: (1) flow in fractures within the
aquifer (extremely heterogeneous, anisotropic flow), (2) fast
artesian and turbulent vertical flow in the well interior to the
surface in a narrow and long casing.
In retrospect, could any change be made in the two wells
to “improve” the step-drawdown test results? There is only
one changeable parameter—the diameter of both the well
and the casing. A screen of a small diameter produces high
friction losses (Stoner et al. 1979); thus, it can be safely
assumed that enlarging the diameter may improve the step-
drawdown parameters and the well efficiency due to a sub-
stantial decrease of the friction losses (see similar conclu-
sion in Chachadi and Mishra 1992; Serpen and Başel 2015
and Stoner et al. 1979).
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 10040-0​ 21-0​ 2421-0.
Acknowledgements The monitoring of SH-2 and HT-1 wells was sup-
ported by Mei Golan Water Association and Mekorot Water Company,
respectively. We wish to thank Mr. Shlomo Ashkenazi for the excellent
field work and Dr. Ittai Gavrieli for fruitful discussions. We are most
grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for
greatly improving the manuscript with their insightful comments.
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Abdalla F, Moubark K (2018) Assessment of well performance cri-
teria and aquifer characteristics using step-drawdown tests and
hydrogeochemical data, west of Qena area, Egypt. J Afr Earth
Sci 138:336–347. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.j​ afrea​ rsci.2​ 017.1​ 1.0​ 23
Atkinson LC, Gale JE, Dudgeon CR (1994) New insight into the
step-drawdown test in fractured-rock aquifers. Appl Hydrogeol
2(1):9–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s1004​00050​032
Avci CB, Ciftci E, Sahin AU (2010) Identification of aquifer and
well parameters from step-drawdown tests. Hydrogeol J
18(7):1591–1601
Barker JA, Herbert R (1992) A simple theory for estimating well
losses: with application to test wells in Bangladesh. Appl Hydro-
geol 0/92:20–31
Bierschenk WH (1963) Determining well efficiency by multiple step-
drawdown tests. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol., Publ. 64, IASH, Berke-
ley, CA, pp 493–507
Butler SS (1957) Engineering hydrology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 356 pp
Chachadi AG, Mishra GC (1992) Analysis of unsteady flow to
a large-diameter well experiencing well loss. Groundwater
13
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281
30(3):369–375. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1745-​6584.​1992.​tb020​
05.x
Clark L, Radini M, Bison PL (1988) Borehole restoration methods
and their evaluation by step-drawdown tests: the case history
of a detailed study in Northern Italy. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol
21(4):315–328. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1144/​GSL.​QJEG.​1988.​021.​
04.​04
Driscoll FG (1986) Groundwater and wells, 2nd edn. Johnson Filtration
Systems, St. Paul, MN
Hamdan AM, Sawires RF (2013) Hydrogeological studies on the
Nubian sandstone aquifer in El-Bahariya Oasis, Western Desert,
Egypt. Arab J Geosci 6(5):1333–1347. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12517-​011-​0439-8
Houben GJ (2015a) Hydraulics of water wells-flow laws and influence
of geometry. Hydrogeol J 23(8):1633–1657. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10040-​015-​1312-8
Houben GJ (2015b) Hydraulics of water wells-head losses of individual
components. Hydrogeol J 23(8):1659–1675. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10040-​015-​1313-7
Houben GJ, Wachenhausen J, Morel CRG (2018) Effects of ageing
on the hydraulics of water wells and the influence of non-Darcy
flow. Hydrogeol J 26(4):1285–1294. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10040-​018-​1775-5
Islam N, Alam MZ, Mahmud MM (2013) Determination of well loss
and aquifer loss of new construction deep water well at artesian
aquifer in Khulna City, Bangladesh. Recent Trends Civ Eng Tech-
nol 3(1):8–13
Jacob CE (1947) Drawdown test to determine the effective radius of an
artesian well. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 112:1047–1070, Paper 2321
Jacob CE, Lohman SW (1952) Nonsteady flow to a well of constant
drawdown in an extensive aquifer. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union
33(4):559–569
Kawecki MW (1995) Meaningful interpretation of step-drawdown
tests. Groundwater 33(1):23–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1745-​
6584.​1995.​tb002​59.x
Kresic N (1997) Quantitative solutions in hydrogeology and ground-
water modeling. CRC, Boca Raton, FL
Kruseman GP, De Ridder NA (1990) Analysis and evaluation of pump-
ing test data, 2nd edn. International Institute for Land Reclamation
and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Li Y, Zhou Z, Zhuang C, Huang Y, Wang J (2020) Non-Darcian effect
on a variable-rate pumping test in a confined aquifer. Hydrogeol
J 28(8):2853–2863. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​1007/s​ 10040-0​ 20-0​ 2223-w
Menon ES (2015) Transmission pipeline calculations and simulations
manual. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 599 pp
Miller CT, Weber WJ Jr (1983) Rapid solution of the nonlinear step-
drawdown equation. Groundwater 21(5):584–588
Mogg JL (1969) Step-drawdown test needs critical review. Groundwa-
ter 7(1):28–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1745-​6584.​1969.​tb012​
65.x
Parsons SB (1994) A re-evaluation of well design procedures. Q J Eng
Geol Hydrogeol 27:S31–S40
Perina T (2021) Flowing well-time-domain solution and inverse prob-
lem revisited. Groundwater 59(3):438–442
Polak K, Klich J, Kaznowska K (2011) The method of wells’ efficiency
estimation. In: Rüde T, Freund A, Wolkersdorfer C (eds) Mine
water: managing the challenges, Proceedings of the 11th Con-
gress of the International Mine Water Association (IMWA) 2011,
Aachen, Germany, 4–11 September 2011, pp 153–157
Roberson JA, Crowe CT (1975) Engineering fluid mechanics.
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA
Rorabaugh MI (1953) Graphical and theoretical analysis of step-draw-
down test of artesian well. Proc Am Soc Civil Eng 79(12):1–23
Shekhar S (2006) An approach to interpretation of step drawdown
tests. Hydrogeol J 14(6):1018–1027. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10040-​005-​0016-x
Hydrogeology Journal (2022) 30:265–281
Sodiki JI, Adigio E (2014) A review on the development and applica-
tion of methods for estimating head loss components in water
distribution pipework. Am J Eng Res (AJER) 3(9):91–96
Serpen U, Başel EDK (2015) Optimization of geothermal borehole
diameters. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015, Mel-
bourne, Australia, 19–25 April 2015
Stoner RF, Milne DM, Lund PJ (1979) Economic design of wells. Q
J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 12:63–78. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1144/​GSL.​
QJEG.​1979.​012.​02.​01
Summa G (2010) A new approach to the step-drawdown test. SA J
Radiol 36(3):279–285
Trussell RR, Chang M (1999) Review of flow through porous
media as applied to head loss in water filters. J Environ Eng
125(11):998–1006
Tügel F, Houben GJ, Graf T (2016) How appropriate is the Thiem equa-
tion for describing groundwater flow to actual wells? Hydrogeol
J 24(8):2093–2101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10040-​016-​1457-0
281
Van Lopik JH, Sweijen T, Hartog N, Schotting RJ (2021) Contribution
to head loss by partial penetration and well completion: implica-
tions for dewatering and artificial recharge wells. Hydrogeol J
29:875–893. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10040-​020-​02228-5
Walton WC (1962) Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer
evaluation. Bulletin no. 49, Illinois State Water Survey, Spring-
field, IL, 85 pp
Wendland E (2008) Friction loss correction in flowing well discharge
tests. Water Resour Res 44:WO1428. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​
2007W​R0063​65
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13
Hydrogeology Journal is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights Reserved.