Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />where: <br />T for the zone can then be calculated as: <br />T = k . m where: <br />m ;;;; zone thickness. <br /> <br />A four-hour aquifer test at 348 gpm was simulated with the radial flow model. <br />Results were compared to published drawdown in completion zones of the monitoring <br />well, and drawdown in the pumping well supplied by Robson (personal communication <br />1997), <br /> <br />Results in model layer 1 can be compared to test observations in the perforated <br />zone at depth 1897 (Figure 7.2), Drawdown here is small since there is no completion <br />zone in this layer. Simulated response here can be considered as a check on the <br />vertical conductance between the sandstone layers. The model shows slightly more <br />drawdown at 240 minutes than observed, but the character of the drawdown curve is <br />maintained quite well. Results in model layer 9 can be compared to test observations in <br />depth zones 2098, 2110. and 2130 (Figure 7.3). We see a good match between the <br />calculated drawdown in the model and the observed drawdown at the observation well. <br /> <br />At the pumping well, model results show a similar slope to the observed response, <br />but the model calculates about 12 It more drawdown (Figure 7.4). Additional <br />simulations indicate that this is probably a near well effect dependent on the near well <br />storage coefficient. By careful adjustment of the near well storage, we could probably <br />match the observed drawdown very closely, but for the long term simulations, this is <br />irrelevant. For long term simulations, the storage coefficient derived at the monitoring <br />well was used as this should be more representative of the whole aquifer. <br /> <br />23 <br />