Question 1 The graphical analysis of pumping test data for the determination of aquifer parameters is based on a number of simplifying

assumptions. The common assumptions to the three methods are: The radius of the well is infinitesimally small so that well storage is negligible. Water flow obeys Darcys law The pumped well fully penetrates the aquifer to ensure horizontal flow towards the well The aquifer has no boundaries, its areal extent is infinite Over the area influenced by the test, the aquifer has uniform thickness, is homogenous and isotropic The piezometric surface before the pumping test is horizontal The rate of pumping is constant There is an instantaneous decline of head when pumping commences to release water from storage There is no recharge of the aquifer during the test a) The Theis method: In addition to the preceding assumptions, the method assumes: The aquifer is confined There is no leakage from the aquitard, s = 0.3, r2/t = 200, u = 0.028, W(u) = 2.3 Q = 1000 m3/day (0.6944 m3/min) The data selected for the analysis are shown in the graph. Early data were not used because at the start of pumping, The release of water stored in the aquifer is not matched by an immediate decline in head. It takes some time for the discharge rate to reach a constant value after commencement of the test. Late time data were not used due to the observed flattening of the curve (s versus r2/t) reflecting that drawdown no longer increases with further pumping. This is not consistent with theoretical predictions of the variation of drawdown during a pumping test.
S= Q W (u ) 4T
0.69444 2.3 m 3 4 0.3 min m

T =

T = 0.42 m2/min

4uTt 4 0.028 0.42 m 2 min S= 2 = 200 r min m 2

S = 2.35 10-4 b) The Cooper Jacob method: At t = 10, s = 0.23, and at t = 100, s = 0.515 s over the log cycle = 0.515 0.23 = 0.285
T = 2.3Q 2.3 0.69444 = 4s 4 0.285

T = 0.44 m2 / min

S=

2.25Tt 0 2.25 0.44 1.7 = r2 90 2

S = 2.1 10-4 The limiting value of t (u = 0.1)

t= r2S 90 2 0.00021 = 4Tu 4 0.1 0.44

t = 9.6 minutes The preceding calculation used data from t = 10 minutes therefore the boundary condition that u < 0.1 was satisfied. Early time data were not used as this data may be affected by the effects of well bore storage and the condition that u < 0.1 is not satisfied. The semi-logarithmic plot of drawdown versus time shows a significant flattening (rate of drawdown drops) after about 2 hours. This effect is due to recharge effects of the aquitard which releases water into the aquifer. c) The Hantush Method In addition to the assumptions made in a) and b), Hantushs method assumes that flow in the aquifer is vertical while that in the aquifer is horizontal. The aquitard had uniform thickness and hydraulic conductivity The head in the unpumped aquifer remains constant during the test the rate of leakage into the aquifer varies directly with the hydraulic gradient in the aquitard. The latter assumption is only approximately valid if another assumption is made that there is no storage in the aquitard. This is a reasonable assumption if water supplied from aquitard storage is negligibly small. The marked flattening of the time/drawdown curve is indicative aquifer recharge, in this case, recharge occurs from the unconfined aquifer through the aquitard.

s=

Q r 2S W ( u , r L ) and u = 4T 4Tt

From the curves plotted, the curve that best matches the data is r / L = 0.2. This suggests that the aquifer deviates slightly from Theis behaviour due to leakage. u = 0.02, r/L = 0.2, W(u,r/L) = 2, s = 0.3, r2/t = 170 Early time drawdown data were used as the analysis assumes negligible drawdown in the aquitard.
Q 0.69444 W ( u, r L ) = 4s 4 0.3

T =

T = 0.37 m2 / min
S = 4 0.02 0.37 170

S = 0.000174 = 1.7 10-4

K =
2 Tb ( r L ) 0.37 10 0.2 2 = r2 90 2

K = 1.82 10 5 m / min K = 0.026 m / day

As long as flow is unsteady, assuming zero aquitard storage capacity introduces the following errors: The hydraulic conductivity of the leaky aquifer is overestimated The hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard itself is under estimated (Kruger and de Ridder, 1990) A good match between field data and the Hantush curves over the duration of the test suggests that aquitard storage is unlikely to be significant (Rushton, 2005). In this case, the data matches over a restricted time range, therefore aquitard storage probably affects the aquifer drawdown Determination of aquifer parameters using the preceding methods will always be limited by their inherent subjectivity. The Hantush method does not offer a unique solution as in certain regions, the different functions are virtually indeterminate. T m / min S K m / min
2

Theis 0.42 2.3 10-4

Cooper-Jacob 0.44 2.1 10-4

Hantush 0.37 1.7 10-4 1.82 10-5

Question 2 To calculate the drawdown after 1 day of continuous pumping, the Cooper jacob approximation will be applied as long as u < 0.1. The value of u after I day of pumping:
r2S 4Tu r2S 90 2 2.1 10 4 u= = 4Tt 4 0.44 24 60 u = 6.71 10 4 t=

Since the value of u is much less than 0.1, the drawdown will be calculated with the Cooper Jacob approximation:
2.3Q 2.25Tt log 2 4T r S 2.3 0.69444 m 3 min 2.25 0.4m 2 24 60 min s= log 4 0.4m 2 min 90 2 m 2 min 2.1 10 4 s = 0.3177 log 761 .904 s = 0.92 m s=

If pumping rate is reduced to 500 m3 / day, drawdown is equal to: s = 0.5 0.92 s = 0.46m The calculated drawdown is much higher than predicted by the plot of the data. Figure 3 (plot of s versus log t) shows that the drawdown increases very slowly after 2 hours due to aquifer recharge. This is most likely due to leakage from the aquitard. Question3 The radius of influence of the well after 1 day of continuous pumping at 1000m3/day
2.25Tt 0 = S r0 = 2484 metres r0 = 2.48 km r0 = 2.25 0.4m 2 24 60 min 2.1 10 4 min

At this distance from the pumping well, the assumption that T and S are constant breaks down. In addition, this area of aquifer that is sampled will not be homogenous, isotropic or exhibit Darcian flow throughout. Some heterogeneity is expected for a system spanning a distance 0f 2.5 kilometres. Question 4

Using the Cooper Jacob method and applying the principle of superposition to calculate the total drawdown, s1 + s2 = 5 metres. If the drawdown is less than 1/5 the thickness of the aquifer, then Q Q stot = 1 W (u1 ) + 2 W (u 2 ) ,where subscripts 1 and 2 refer to Well 1 and Well 2 4T 4T respectively. If both wells are pumped at an equal and constant discharge rate, Q1 = Q2, the drawdown at each well will be equal, s1 = s2. Using the Cooper Jacob approximation,
s1 = 2.3Q 2.25Tt log . 4T r 2S

r = 50 metres and s1 = s2 = 2.5 m

s1 = s 2 = 2.3 Q 2.25 0.4 12 60 log 4 0.4 50 2 2.1 10 4

2.5m 4 0.4m 2 3.09 2.3 min From the Cooper Jacob approximation, 3 = 1.768 m / min = 2546 m 3 / day Q1 = Q2 =

Q = 2500 m3 / day The limiting value of t:

t= r 2S 50 2 2.1 10 4 = 4Tu 4 0.1 0.4

t = 3.28 minutes The Cooper Jacob method does not hold for the first three minutes of pumping. This is within acceptable limits of experimental error. Kruseman G.P., deRidder N.A., (1990) Analysis and evaluation of Pumping Test Data. ILRI Publication 47 Rushton K.R. (2005). Impact of aquitard storage on leaky aquifer pumping test analysis. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 38, 325336