My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07651
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
FLOOD07651
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:12:23 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:07:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Groundwater Pumping Tests: Design and Analysis
Date
12/1/1997
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />04 l:Jt1UUI\lUVVI-\I t:N "'UIVlt"II\l1,;. I t::.~ I ~ CASE STUDIES 85 <br /> 32 100.0 <br /> Production Well <br /> 30 Observation Well I <br />.... 10.0 <br />..... <br />c 28 <br />. <br />0 <br />-0 <br />~ 1.0 <br />is 26 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />24 <br />10 <br /> <br />Figure 5.1. <br /> <br />100 1000 <br /> <br />Time After Pumping Started CHin) <br /> <br />Time-drawdown graph for production well in Case Study <br />5.1. <br /> <br />2, 1960, using a group of fully penetrating wells located <br />about 1.5 miles north of the corporate limits of the village <br />of St. David, Illinois (see Walton, 1962, pp. 47-48). In gen. <br />eriil, 40 ft of sandy clay overlie an 8-ft.thick fine sand an? <br />some gravel aquifer which is underlain by shale. The aqUl' <br />fer pinches out (barrier boundaries) east and west of ~he <br />production well. There are no nearby interfering productIOn <br />wells. The effects of discharging the production well were <br />measured in observation wells 1 and 2. Observation well I <br />was located 165 ft east of the production well and observa- <br />tion well 2 was located 20 ft west of the production well. <br />Pumping was started at 10:00 a.m. and was continued for <br />six hours at a constant rate of 62 gpm. Time-drawdown <br />data for the observation wells adjusted for minor changes <br />in barometric pressure are presented in Table 5.2. . <br />The type curve for model 2 (Figure F.3 in ;\pp~n~ F) <br />was matched to early portions of the loganthmic tIme- <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />0.1 <br /> <br />0.1 1 10 100 1000 <br /> <br />Time After Pumping Started CHin) <br />Figure 5.2. Time-drawdown graph for observation weIll in Case Study <br />5.1. <br /> <br />',;,drawdown graphs for observation wells 1 and 2 before <br />': boundary impacts became appreGiable. Aquifer transmis- <br />; sivity and storativity were calculated with match point <br />'coordinates. After about 12 minutes-of pumping, the time- <br />j'a~ of drawdown in the observation wells increased. and <br />data deviated upward from type curve traces, indicating <br />the presence of a barrier boundary. The model 1 type curve <br />(Figure F.l in Appendix F) was matched to later time- <br />drawdown data affected by the barrier boundary. The <br />divergences of the first and second type curve traces were <br />.: used to determine the distances from the observation wells <br />to the first barrier boundary image well. <br />;. After about 70 to 100 minutes of pumping, the time-rate <br />'ofdrawdown in the observation wells again increased, and <br />data deviated upward from the second type curve trace, <br />. dicating the presence of a second barrier boundary. The <br />odel 1 type curve was matched to late time-drawdown <br />ata affected by both barrier boundaries. The divergences <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.