Dynamic interpretation of slug tests in highly permeable aquifers

Considerable progress has been made in developing a theoretical framework for modeling slug test responses in formations with high hydraulic conductivity K. However, several questions of practical significance remain unresolved. Given the rapid and often oscillatory nature of test responses, the traditional hydrostatic relationship between the water level and the transducer‐measured head in the water column may not be appropriate. A general dynamic interpretation is proposed that describes the relationship between water level response and transducer‐measured head. This theory is utilized to develop a procedure for transforming model‐generated water level responses to transducer readings. The magnitude of the difference between the actual water level position and the apparent position based on the transducer measurement is a function of the acceleration and velocity of the water column, test geometry, and depth of the transducer. The dynamic approach explains the entire slug test response, including the often‐noted discrepancy between the actual initial water level displacement and that measured by a transducer in the water column. Failure to use this approach can lead to a significant underestimation of K when the transducer is a considerable distance below the static water level. Previous investigators have noted a dependence of test responses on the magnitude of the initial water level displacement and have developed various approximate methods for analyzing such data. These methods are re‐examined and their limitations clarified. Practical field guidelines are proposed on the basis of findings of this work. The soundness of the dynamic approach is demonstrated through a comparison of K profiles from a series of multilevel slug tests with those from dipole‐flow tests performed in the same wells.

[1]  M. J. Hvorslev Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations , 1951 .

[2]  John D. Bredehoeft,et al.  Inertial and storage effects in well‐aquifer systems: An analog investigation , 1966 .

[3]  W. Janna,et al.  Introduction to Fluid Mechanics , 2012 .

[4]  Garth van der Kamp,et al.  Determining aquifer transmissivity by means of well response tests: The underdamped case , 1976 .

[5]  H. Bouwer,et al.  A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells , 1976 .

[6]  H. J. Leutheusser,et al.  Skin Friction in Unsteady Laminar Pipe Flow , 1976 .

[7]  Gedeon Dagan,et al.  A note on packer, slug, and recovery tests in unconfined aquifers , 1978 .

[8]  Donald W. Prosser A Method of Performing Response Tests on Highly Permeable Aquifers , 1981 .

[9]  G. Pinder,et al.  Analysis of Well‐Aquifer Response to a Slug Test , 1985 .

[10]  Kenneth L. Kipp,et al.  Type Curve Analysis of Inertial Effects in the Response of a Well to a Slug Test , 1985 .

[11]  Nitin S. Pandit,et al.  Interpretation of Slug Test Data , 1986 .

[12]  T. D. Streltsova,et al.  Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations , 1988 .

[13]  Fred J. Molz,et al.  An Analysis Technique for Multilevel and Partially Penetrating Slug Test Data , 1990 .

[14]  F. Molz,et al.  Multilevel Slug Tests with Comparisons to Tracer Data , 1991 .

[15]  Estimation of subglacial hydraulic properties from induced changes in basal water pressure: a theoretical framework for borehole-response tests , 1993 .

[16]  Vitaly A. Zlotnik,et al.  Interpretation of Slug and Packer Tests in Anisotropic Aquifers , 1994 .

[17]  James J. Butler,et al.  Slug Tests in Unconfined Formations: An Assessment of the Bouwer and Rice Technique , 1995 .

[18]  T. Narasimhan,et al.  An Evaluation of the Bouwer and Rice Method of Slug Test Analysis , 1995 .

[19]  James J. Butler,et al.  Improving the quality of parameter estimates obtained from slug tests , 1996 .

[20]  R. L. Burger,et al.  Measurement of anisotropic hydraulic conductivity in unconsolidated sands: A case study from a shoreface deposit, Oyster, Virginia , 1997 .

[21]  J. J. Butler,et al.  The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests , 1997 .

[22]  C. D. McElwee,et al.  A NONLINEAR MODEL FOR ANALYSIS OF SLUG-TEST DATA , 1998 .

[23]  Kenneth Stuart Sorbie,et al.  A review of up-scaling and cross-scaling issues in core and log data interpretation and prediction , 1998, Geological Society, London, Special Publications.

[24]  Vitaly A. Zlotnlk,et al.  Multi-level slug tests in highly permeable formations: 2. Hydraulic conductivity identification, method verification, and field applications , 1998 .

[25]  Vitaly A. Zlotnik,et al.  Multi-level slug tests in highly permeable formations : 1. Modification of the Springer-Gelhar (SG) model , 1998 .

[26]  Brian R. Zurbuchen,et al.  Dipole Probe: Design and Field Applications of a Single‐Borehole Device for Measurements of Vertical Variations of Hydraulic Conductivity , 1998 .

[27]  Brian R. Zurbuchen,et al.  Support volume and scale effect in hydraulic conductivity: Experimental aspects , 2000 .

[28]  Brian R. Zurbuchen,et al.  The Steady‐State Dipole‐Flow Test for Characterization of Hydraulic Conductivity Statistics in a Highly Permeable Aquifer: Horkheimer Insel Site, Germany , 2001, Ground water.