The use of slug tests to describe vertical variations in hydraulic conductivity

Abstract Multilevel slug tests provide one means of obtaining estimates of hydraulic conductivity on a scale of relevance for contaminant transport investigations. A numerical model is employed here to assess the potential of multilevel slug tests to provide information about vertical variations in hydraulic conductivity under conditions commonly faced in field settings. The results of the numerical simulations raise several important issues concerning the effectiveness of this technique. If the length of the test interval is of the order of the average layer thickness, considerable error may be introduced into the conductivity estimates owing to the effects of adjoining layers. The influence of adjoining layers is dependent on the aspect ratio (length of test interval/well radius) of the tesy interval and the flow properties of the individual layers. If a low-permeability skin is present at the well, the measured vertical variations will be much less than the actual variations, owing to the influence of the skin conductivity on the parameter estimates. A high-permeability skin can also produce apparent vertical variations that are much less than the actual, owing to water flowing vertically along the conductive skin. In cases where the test interval spans a number of layers, a slug test will yield an approximate thickness-weighted average of the hydraulic conductivities of the intersected layers. In most cases, packer circumvention should not be a major concern when packers of 0.75 m or longer are employed. Results of this study are substantiated by recently reported field tests that demonstrate the importance of well emplacement and development activities for obtaining meaningful estimates from a program of multilevel slug tests.

[1]  Khalid Aziz,et al.  A Computer Model for Two-Phase Coning Simulation , 1974 .

[2]  H. H. Cooper,et al.  Drawdown in a well of large diameter , 1967 .

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

[4]  K. Karasaki.  WELL TEST ANALYSIS IN FRACTURED MEDIA , 1986 .

[5]  Evaluation of methods for determining the vertical distribution of hydraulic conductivity , 1990 .

[6]  D. K. Babu,et al.  Flow to a Partially Penetrating Well in a Double‐Porosity Reservoir , 1984 .

[7]  J. Lloyd,et al.  A multi-layered radial flow model interpretation of drill stem test data , 1992 .

[8]  Michael A. Celia,et al.  Large-scale natural gradient tracer test in sand and gravel, Cape Cod, Massachusetts: 3. Hydraulic c , 1992 .

[9]  K. Hayashi,et al.  A new method for the determination of in situ hydraulic properties by pressure pulse tests and application to the Higashi Hachimantai Geothermal Field , 1987 .

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

[11]  Roger Thunvik,et al.  Determination of formation permeability by double-packer tests , 1984 .

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

[13]  Fred J. Molz,et al.  The Impeller Meter for measuring aquifer permeability variations: Evaluation and comparison with other tests , 1989 .

[14]  K. Rushton,et al.  Numerical Pumping Test Analysis in Unconfined Aquifers , 1977 .

[15]  Poul Løgstrup Bjerg,et al.  A mini slug test method for determination of a local hydraulic conductivity of an unconfined sandy aquifer , 1992 .

[16]  P. Hufschmied,et al.  Measuring hydraulic conductivity with the borehole flowmeter , 1989 .

[17]  James J. Butler,et al.  Pumping tests in nonuniform aquifers: The radially asymmetric case , 1993 .

[18]  David L. Freyberg,et al.  A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer: 2. Spatial moments and the advection and dispersion of nonreactive tracers , 1986 .

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

[20]  R. Killey,et al.  Twin Lake Tracer Tests: Longitudinal dispersion , 1988 .

[21]  John King Vennard,et al.  Elementary Fluid Mechanics , 1940 .

[22]  James J. Butler,et al.  A New Sampling System for Obtaining Relatively Undisturbed Samples of Unconsolidated Coarse Sand and Gravel , 1991 .

[23]  Geoffrey C. Bohling,et al.  SUPRPUMP: An Interactive Program for Well Test Analysis and Design , 1992 .

[24]  K. Rushton,et al.  The reliability of packer tests for estimating the hydraulic conductivity of aquifers , 1984, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology.

[25]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  La simulation du transport des nitrates dans un aquifère crayeux du Crétacé en Belgique: approche expérimentale et numérique , 1993 .

[26]  G. Dagan.  Statistical Theory of Groundwater Flow and Transport: Pore to Laboratory, Laboratory to Formation, and Formation to Regional Scale , 1986 .

[27]  John A. Cherry,et al.  A wireline piston core barrel for sampling cohesionless sand and gravel below the water table , 1987 .

[28]  J. D. Bredehoeft,et al.  Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Paper No. H-21 , 1966 .

[29]  Gary R. Chirlin,et al.  A Critique of the Hvorslev Method for Slug Test Analysis: The Fully Penetrating Well , 1989 .

[30]  A. Desbarats.  Spatial averaging of transmissivity in heterogeneous fields with flow toward a well , 1992 .

[31]  Lynn W. Gelhar,et al.  Stochastic subsurface hydrology from theory to applications , 1986 .

[32]  Frederick L. Paillet,et al.  Determining the Distribution of Hydraulic Conductivity in a Fractured Limestone Aquifer by Simultaneous Injection and Geophysical Logging , 1988 .

[33]  Jeffrey Joseph,et al.  A new test for determination of individual layer properties in a multilayered reservoir , 1987 .