P. Kanti - Footprints of Higher-Dimensional Decaying Black Holes
Impact of Bentonite-CMC Drill-In Fluids on Slug Tests in ... · The. head. response is...
Transcript of Impact of Bentonite-CMC Drill-In Fluids on Slug Tests in ... · The. head. response is...
WhatWhat do do overdampedoverdamped slugslug teststests telltell usus aboutabout??AboutAbout
AquiferAquifer
ParametersParameters
oror
aboutabout
FlowFlow
ProcessesProcesses??
ClassicalClassical HvorslevHvorslev--StyleStyle SlugSlug Test Analysis Test Analysis forfor Well 7354Well 7354Well Performance Well Performance TestingTesting at Well 7354at Well 7354SlugSlug Test Test AnalysesAnalyses AcknowledgingAcknowledging Formation Formation DamageDamageSummarySummary
________________________________________________________________
AssessingAssessing
thethe
Impact of Impact of BentoniteBentonite--CMCCMC
DrillDrill--InIn
FluidsFluids
on on SlugSlug
Tests in Tests in HighHigh--PermeabilityPermeability
AquifersAquifers
M.A. M.A. ZennerZenner--
Free University of Berlin Free University of Berlin --
presentedpresented
at at thethe
6565thth
Canadian Canadian GeotechnicalGeotechnical
ConferenceConference
--
GeoManitobaGeoManitobaSeptember 30 September 30 ––
OctoberOctober
3, 2012, 3, 2012, WinnipeqWinnipeq, , ManitobaManitoba
____________________________________________________
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Time (sec.)
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
o
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Time (sec.)
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
o
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Time (sec.)
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
oDiagnostics: Aquifer Parameters vs. Flow Processes__________________________________________________________
WhatWhat
do do overdampedoverdamped
slugslug
teststests
telltell
usus
aboutabout??
________________________________________________________________
SubsequentlySubsequently, , thisthis
characteristiccharacteristic
isis lookedlooked
at in at in moremore
detail.detail.
convex
concave
linear
TheThe
ClassicalClassical
Model of Model of HvorslevHvorslev
(1951)(1951)
________________________________________________________________
)/( 2
0)( rc FktreHtH π−⋅=
Classical Hvorslev-Style Slug Test Analysis for Well 7354__________________________________________________________
--
TheThe
headhead
responseresponse
isis
exponentiallyexponentially
decayingdecaying
in timein time((headhead
datadata
shownshown
areare
fromfrom
directdirect--mudmud
rotaryrotary
drilleddrilled
well 7354well 7354, Berlin)., Berlin).
--
TheThe
aquiferaquifer
hydraulichydraulic
conductivityconductivity
isis
determineddetermined
fromfrom
thethe
slopeslope
of aof asemisemi--logarithmiclogarithmic
HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle
plotplot..
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Time (sec.)
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
o
linear
Classical Hvorslev-Style Slug Test Analysis for Well 7354__________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
135.00
159.00
150.00
146.00
144.00
clay seal
clay seal
148.00
Well 7354
136.10
137.70
Well 7354
149.00
145.00
pvc-casingr = 0.05454 mc
pvc-screenr = 0.05454 mslot width = 0.5 mmfilter sand 1.0 - 2.0 mm
s
r = 0.165 mD
fines-prevention filter0.7 - 1.2 mm
fines-prevention filter0.7 - 1.2 mm
159.00
Oligocene,fine sand, siltyOligocene, silt,fine-sandy
158.30
152.60
148.10
Miocene,medium sand,fine-sandy
Miocene,coarse sand,medium-sandy
Miocene, clay,silty
Miocene,coarse sand,medium-sandy
A A HvorslevHvorslev--StyleStyle
Analysis Analysis YieldsYields::
-->>
kkrr
= 9.3= 9.3**1010--55
m/sec.m/sec.
((HvorslevHvorslev‘‘ss
casecase
no. 8 no. 8 withwith
B=4.0 m, B=4.0 m, kkrr
/k/kzz
=4=4))
-->>
kkrr
= 2.7= 2.7**1010--55
m/sec.m/sec.
((HvorslevHvorslev‘‘ss
casecase
no. 9 no. 9 withwith
M=B=14.9 m)M=B=14.9 m)
-->>
TheThe
hydraulichydraulic
conductivityconductivity
isis
tootoosmallsmall
forfor
coarsecoarse//mediummedium
sandsand!!
-->>
IsIs
therethere
a a betterbetter
way of way of analyzinganalyzingthethe
datadata??
-->>
LetLet‘‘ss
looklook
at at skinskin
effectseffects
firstfirst!!
A Well Performance Test Analysis A Well Performance Test Analysis YieldsYields::
-->>
kkrr
= 1.14= 1.14**1010--33
m/sec. m/sec. ((assumedassumed: k: krr
/k/kzz
=4, S = 2=4, S = 2**1010--44))((fromfrom
superpositionsuperposition
recoveryrecovery
plotplot))
-->>
EstimatedEstimated
linear well linear well lossloss
coefficientcoefficient: : BB22
= 2119 sec./m= 2119 sec./m22
RespectiveRespective
mechanicalmechanical
skinskin
factorfactor: : SSww
= 58.6= 58.6((fromfrom
superpositionsuperposition
drawdowndrawdown
plotplot))
-->>
TheThe
bentonitebentonite--cmccmc
drilldrill--inin
fluidfluid
in in conjunctionconjunction
withwiththethe
employedemployed
directdirect--mudmud
rotaryrotary
drillingdrilling
techniquetechnique
has has likelylikely
causedcaused
thisthis
formationformation
damagedamage
Well Performance Testing at Well 7354__________________________________________________________
0 15 30 45 60 4
H5 = Σ (Qi-Qi-1)*ln(t-ti-1) - Q4*ln(t-t4) (m3/h) i=1
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
s r(r
D,t)
(m) Residual drawdown
sr(rD,t) = 0.00133*H5 - 0.00496
0 2 4 6 8 10Pumping Rate Q (m3/h)
210220230240250260270280
Rat
e-D
epen
dent
Ski
nS(
Q) (
-)Rate-dependent Skin FactorsS(Q) = 4.5711*Q + 226.38
________________________________________________________________0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (h)
0
5
10
15
20
Production Rate (m
3/h)Production RateDrawdown
0
2
4
6
8
Dra
wdo
wn
(m)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
0 2 4 6 8 10
Σ(Qi-Qi-1)/QN*ln(t-ti-1)
0.500.550.600.650.700.750.80
s(r D
,t)/Q
(t)
(h/m
2 ) Intercepts αN 4th drawdown phase
1st drawdownphase
________________________________________________________________
Slug Test Analyses Acknowledging Formation Damage__________________________________________________________
ConceptualizationConceptualization
of Formation of Formation DamageDamage
forfor
SlugSlug
Test AnalysisTest Analysis
--
DamageDamage
typestypes
#1, #2, and #3#1, #2, and #3representrepresent
cylindricallycylindrically
concon--
vergentvergent
flowflow..--
DamageDamage
typetype
#4 #4 representsrepresents
sphericallyspherically
convergentconvergent
flowflow..
-->>
CanCan
thethe
hydraulichydraulic
parapara--metersmeters
fromfrom
well well perforperfor--
mancemance
testingtesting
bebe
usedused
totoverifyverify
formationformation
damagedamage
byby
slugslug
test test analysesanalyses??
Radial Radial FlowFlow
Model of Model of HyderHyder
et al. (1994)et al. (1994)
________________________________________________________________
Slug Test Analyses Acknowledging Formation Damage__________________________________________________________
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Time (sec.)
1x10-4
1x10-3
1x10-2
1x10-1
1x100
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
o
Slug Test ST-7354-8Slug Test ST-7354-9Model of Hyder et al. (1994)
Late-timemismatch
--
AssumingAssuming
kkrr
= 1.14= 1.14**1010--33
m/sec., km/sec., krr
/k/kzz
=4, and S = 2=4, and S = 2**1010--44
simulationssimulations
of of slugslug
teststests
cancan
bebe
mademade
to to collapsecollapse
ontoonto
thethe
shownshown
responseresponse
curvecurve
forfor
damagedamage
typestypes
#1, #2, #1, #2, and #3 and #3 usingusing
realisticrealistic
skinskin
permeabilitiespermeabilities, , respectivelyrespectively!!
-->>
CanCan
thethe
slightslight
latelate--timetime
misfitmisfit
bebe
removedremoved
byby
applicationapplication
of of alternatealternate
modelsmodels??
NonlinearNonlinear
HvorslevHvorslev--StyleStyle
Model of Model of ZennerZenner
(2006)(2006)
________________________________________________________________
Slug Test Analyses Acknowledging Formation Damage__________________________________________________________
SphericalSpherical
FlowFlow
Model of Model of BarkerBarker
(1988)(1988)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Time (sec.)
1x10-4
1x10-3
1x10-2
1x10-1
1x100
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
o
Slug Test ST-7354-8Slug Test ST-7354-9Case 1 / ra = rD = 0.165 mCase 2 / ra = rc = 0.05454 mCase 3 / ra = 0.052 m
( ) 0),(2
22
2
2
2
=−⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+−⎟
⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛β+α− gH
dtdH
FkrBrg
dtdH
dtdHH
dtHdH
r
cc
ππ
( )[ ]{ }1110 1L)(
−−− ++= qSqsttHtH wcsc
-->>
For For sufficientlysufficiently
smallsmall
rraa
, , thethe
headhead
decaysdecaysexponentiallyexponentially
in time, in time, eveneven
ifif
S S isis
large!large!
Simulation Simulation shownshown
forfor
HvorslevHvorslev‘‘ss
casecase
no. 9 and:no. 9 and:kkrr
= 1.14= 1.14**1010--33
m/sec.,m/sec.,
BB22
= 2119 sec./m= 2119 sec./m22, , B = 14.9 m
EstimatedEstimated
sphericalspherical
screenscreen
radiusradius: : rraa
= 0.052 m= 0.052 m((kksphericalspherical
= (k= (krr
22kkzz
))1/31/3
= 0.718= 0.718××1010--33
m/sec.,m/sec.,
S = 2S = 2**1010--44))
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Time (sec.)
1x10-4
1x10-3
1x10-2
1x10-1
1x100
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
o
Slug Test ST-7354-8Slug Test ST-7354-9Model of Zenner (2006)
SummarySummary
and and TakeTake--HomeHome
MessagesMessages
________________________________________________________________
Summary__________________________________________________________
SlugSlug testingtesting tellstells usus aboutabout aquiferaquifer parametersparameters andand governinggoverning flowflow processesprocesses!!
A linear A linear headhead decaydecay in a in a HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle plotplot indicatesindicates DarcianDarcian flowflow::--
negligiblenegligible
aquiferaquifer
storagestorage
--
significantsignificant
formationformation
damagedamage
/ / sphericalspherical
flowflow
entryentry
intointo
thethe
well (/6/, /15/)well (/6/, /15/)-->>
favorfavor
airair--liftlift
drillingdrilling
overover
directdirect--mudmud
rotaryrotary
drillingdrilling
whenwhen
installinginstalling
waterwater
wellswells
A A convexconvex headhead decaydecay in a in a HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle plotplot indicatesindicates DarcianDarcian flowflow::--
significantsignificant
aquiferaquifer
storagestorage
--
an an imperfectlyimperfectly
sealedsealed
well / well / risingrising
backgroundbackground
headhead
trendstrends
-->>
staticstatic
levellevel
in in thethe well well maymay
notnot
representrepresent
piezometricpiezometric
levellevel
in in thethe
aquiferaquifer
(/2/, /3/, /4/, /11/)(/2/, /3/, /4/, /11/)
A A concaveconcave headhead decaydecay in a in a HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle plotplot maymay indicateindicate nonnon--DarcianDarcian flowflow::--
dominant dominant nonlinearnonlinear
flowflow
(/9/, /10/, /13/, /14/).(/9/, /10/, /13/, /14/).
--
an an imperfectlyimperfectly
sealedsealed
well / well / fallingfalling
backgroundbackground
headhead
trendstrends
-->>
staticstatic
levellevel
in in thethe well well maymay
notnot
representrepresent
piezometricpiezometric
levellevel
in in thethe
aquiferaquifer
(/2/, /3/, /4/, /11/)(/2/, /3/, /4/, /11/)
------ Backup Backup ------
________________________________________________________________
Schematic of a Slugged Fully Penetrating Well__________________________________________________________
rs
H(t)
pr
rc
D
land surface
zLp 0
static level
M = B
________________________________________________________________
Schematic of a Slugged Well with Spherical Screen__________________________________________________________
rs
H(t)
rc
D
ground level
z 0
static level
ra
H0
CCooperooper--BBredehoeftredehoeft--PPapadopulosapadopulos
(CBP) Model (1967):(CBP) Model (1967):
________________________________________________________________
duSrTtu
uurSr
HtH
scs
⎪⎪
⎭
⎪⎪
⎬
⎫
⎪⎪
⎩
⎪⎪
⎨
⎧
−∫∞
Δ⋅⋅=
22
222 exp18)(
00π
TheThe ClassicalClassical SlugSlug Test Model ofTest Model ofCooper, Cooper, BredehoeftBredehoeft & & PapadopulosPapadopulos (1967) and (1967) and ItsIts ImplicationsImplications__________________________________________________________
The The rightright--handhand
sideside
isis
independent of Hindependent of H00
!!TheThe
headhead
responseresponse
isis
convexconvex
in a in a HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle
semisemi--logarithmiclogarithmic
formatformat
withwith
responseresponse
curvescurves
collapsingcollapsing
ontoonto
a a uniqueunique
curvecurve
forfor
increasingincreasing
magnitudemagnitude
of of thethe initialinitial
displacementdisplacement
HH00
..
________________________________________________________________
The Extended Nonlinear Hvorslev-Style Slug Test Model ofZenner (2006) and Its Implications__________________________________________________________
( )dtdH
dtdHrC
FkBrg
dtHd
rrDBL
rrzH
pp
cr
cs
cp
p
c⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛++−⎟
⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡ ++
⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡−++−
−−
112
22
2
2
2
2
2
2
01
831 ππ
20
5
4
5
422
2221
221
⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛ +−++−+−⎟⎟
⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+
dtdH
dtdHsign
rHLz
fr
DrfrrL
fBr
r
c
pc
s
cs
p
cpp
s
clossξ
A A NonlinearNonlinear
HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle
Model Model VariantVariant
((ZennerZenner, 2006):, 2006):
0=− gH
TheThe
headhead
responseresponse
isis
concaveconcave
oror
linear in a linear in a HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle
semisemi--logarithmiclogarithmic
formatformat
withwith responseresponse
curvescurves
potentiallypotentially
shiftedshifted
towardtoward
larger larger timestimes
forfor
increasingincreasing
magnitudemagnitude
of of thethe
initialinitial
displacementdisplacement
HH00
..
________________________________________________________________
The Transient Nonlinear Slug Test Model ofZenner (2008) and Its Implications__________________________________________________________
( )dtdH
dtdHrCBrg
dtHd
rrDBL
rrzH
pp
ccs
cp
p
c⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+−⎟
⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡ ++
⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡−++−
−−
112
22
2
2
2
2
2
2
0 831 ππ
20
5
4
5
422
2221
221
⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛ +−++−+−⎟⎟
⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+
dtdH
dtdHsign
rHLz
fr
DrfrrL
fBr
r
c
pc
s
cs
p
cpp
s
clossξ
A A TransientTransient
NonlinearNonlinear
SlugSlug
Test Model (Test Model (ZennerZenner, 2008):, 2008):
ThisThis
slugslug
test test modelmodel
forfor
finitefinite--diameterdiameter
fullyfully
penetratingpenetrating
wellswells
coverscovers
thethe
entireentire
rangerange
of of underdampedunderdamped
to to overdampedoverdamped
headhead
responsesresponses
withwith
responseresponse
curvescurves
potentiallypotentially
shiftedshifted
towardtoward
larger larger timestimes
forfor
increasingincreasing
magnitudemagnitude
of of thethe
initialinitial
displacementdisplacement
HH00
..
( )
[ ] 0)2()2(
12 0
21
21
3
4
02
2
2
2 2
2
=+
−−− ∫∫
∞−
−
τ∂τ∂
π
τ
dxdxYxJx
eHT
grgHDSr
xtTt
c
TheThe
Model of Model of BarkerBarker
(1988):(1988):
________________________________________________________________
TheThe SphericalSpherical FlowFlow SlugSlug Test Model ofTest Model ofBarkerBarker (1988) and (1988) and ItsIts ImplicationsImplications__________________________________________________________
The The rightright--handhand
sideside
isis
independent of Hindependent of H00
!!TheThe
headhead
responseresponse
isis
convexconvex
oror
linear in a linear in a HvorslevHvorslev--stylestyle
semisemi--logarithmiclogarithmic
formatformat
withwith
responseresponse
curvescurves
collapsingcollapsing
ontoonto
a a uniqueunique
curvecurve
forfor
increasingincreasing
magnitudemagnitude
of of thethe initialinitial
displacementdisplacement
HH00
..
( )⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+
−≈wc St
tH
tH1
exp)(
0
( )[ ]{ }111
0
1L)( −−− ++= qSqsttH
tHwcsc
For For smallsmall
t, St, Sss
, , rraa
oror
large large kksphericalspherical
, , SSww
::
__________________________________________________________________________________________
If If rraa
is sufficiently small the head is is sufficiently small the head is exponentially decaying, even if the aquifer exponentially decaying, even if the aquifer storage capacity is significant!storage capacity is significant!
aspherical
cc
spherical
asaa rk
rtk
rStstq4
122
==+=
s = s = LaplaceLaplace
variablevariable
Superposition Superposition RecoveryRecovery
Data Data YieldYield
kkrr
::
________________________________________________________________
Determination of Skin Determination of Skin EffectsEffects fromfrom SuperpositionSuperposition__________________________________________________________
0 15 30 45 60 4
H5 = Σ (Qi-Qi-1)*ln(t-ti-1) - Q4*ln(t-t4) (m3/h) i=1
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
Res
idua
l Dra
wdo
wn
s r(r
D,t)
(m) Residual drawdown
sr(rD,t) = 0.00133*H5 - 0.00496
0 2 4 6 8 10
Σ(Qi-Qi-1)/QN*ln(t-ti-1)
0.500.550.600.650.700.750.80
s(r D
,t)/Q
(t)
(h/m
2 ) Intercepts αN 4th drawdown phase
1st drawdownphase
0 2 4 6 8 10Pumping Rate Q (m3/h)
210220230240250260270280
Rat
e-D
epen
dent
Ski
nS(
Q) (
-)Rate-dependent Skin FactorsS(Q) = 4.5711*Q + 226.38
( ) ( ) ( )
Mk
ttQttQQtrs
r
iiii
Dr π4
lnln),(
44
4
111 ⎟
⎠
⎞⎜⎝
⎛−−−−
=∑=
−−
Superposition Superposition DrawdownDrawdown
Data Data YieldYield
SSww
::
( )∑=
−− −
−=
N
ii
N
ii
rN
D ttQ
QQMkQ
trs1
11 ln
41),(
π
MkQDS
SrMk
Mk r
Nt
D
r
r ππ 225.2ln
41
2
+++
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−=+= 2
0
25.2ln
),(2)(
D
r
N
DrNtN Sr
MkQ
trsMkQDSQS π
MkS
Br
t
π22 =-->> pwt SSBMS +×=
-->>
TheThe
PseudoPseudo--Skin Skin FactorFactor
SSpp
duedue
to Partial Well to Partial Well CompletionCompletion
________________________________________________________________
The Pseudo-Skin Effect__________________________________________________________
FlowFlow
concentrationconcentration
at a at a partiallypartially
penetratingpenetrating
screenscreen
cancan
bebe
representedrepresented
byby
an additional an additional dimensionlessdimensionless
and and timetime--independentindependent
headhead
lossloss
2S2Spp
as as soonsoon
as as thethe
formationformation
startsstarts
to to respondrespond
overover
thethe
entireentire
aquiferaquifer
thicknessthickness..
Total Total raterate--independentindependent
skinskin
factorfactor
SStt
, , mechanicalmechanical
skinskin
factorfactor
SSww
, , pseudopseudo--skinskin
factorfactor
SSpp
, and , and linear well linear well lossloss
coefficientcoefficient
BB22
areare
relatedrelated
byby::
TheThe
linear well linear well lossloss
coefficientcoefficient
BB22
aggregatesaggregates
mechanicalmechanical
skinskin
and and pseudopseudo--skinskin
headhead
losseslosses..
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡−⎥⎦
⎤⎢⎣⎡= ∑
∞
= Mkkr
nKMdn
Mln
nBMS rzs
np
/sinsin12
0
2
1222
2
ππππ
pwt SSBMS +×=
MkS
Br
t
π22 =
Simulation Simulation byby
thethe
Model of Model of ZennerZenner
(2008) ((2008) (pagepage
15):15):
________________________________________________________________
Slug Test Analyses Acknowledging Formation Damage__________________________________________________________
Simulation Simulation shownshown
forfor::kkrr
= 1.14= 1.14**1010--33
m/sec., S = 2m/sec., S = 2**1010--44, C = 0,, C = 0,
BB22
= 2119 sec./m= 2119 sec./m22, B = 14.9 m, B = 14.9 m
-->>
AccomodationAccomodation
of of formationformation
damagedamage
and partial and partial penetrationpenetration
effectseffects
byby
thethetotal total raterate--independentindependent
skinskin
factorfactor
SStt
yieldsyields
good good simulationsimulation
resultsresults
forfor
thethecurrentcurrent
slugslug
test test exampleexample..
0 25 50 75 100 125 150Time (sec.)
1x10-4
1x10-3
1x10-2
1x10-1
1x100
Nor
mal
ized
Hea
d H
(t)/H
o
Slug Test ST-7354-8Slug Test ST-7354-9Model of Zenner (2008)
ReferencesReferences/1//1/
BarkerBarker, J.A. (1988). A , J.A. (1988). A GeneralizedGeneralized
Radial Radial FlowFlow
Model Model forfor
HydraulicHydraulic
Tests in Tests in FracturedFractured
Rock,Rock,Water Resources Research 24(10), pp. 1796Water Resources Research 24(10), pp. 1796––1804.1804.
/2//2/
ChapuisChapuis, R.P., Par, R.P., Paréé, J.J., and , J.J., and LavallLavallééee, J.G. (1981). In , J.G. (1981). In situsitu
variable variable headhead
permeabilitypermeability
teststests. . InInProceedingsProceedings
of of thethe
10th International 10th International ConferenceConference
on on SoilSoil
MechanicsMechanics
and and FoundationFoundation
Engineering,Engineering,Stockholm, Stockholm, SwedenSweden, , JuneJune
1515--19, Vol. 1, pp. 40119, Vol. 1, pp. 401--406.406./3//3/
ChapuisChapuis, R.P. (1988). , R.P. (1988). DeterminingDetermining
whetherwhether
wellswells
and and piezometerspiezometers
givegive
waterwater
levelslevels
oror
piezometricpiezometriclevelslevels. . In In GroundGround
waterwater
contaminationcontamination: : fieldfield
methodsmethods. American Society . American Society forfor
TestingTesting
and Materials,and Materials,Special Special TechnicalTechnical
PublicationPublication
STP 963, pp. 162STP 963, pp. 162--171.171./4//4/
ChapuisChapuis, R.P. (1998). , R.P. (1998). OverdampedOverdamped
SlugSlug
Test in Test in MonitoringMonitoring
Wells: Wells: ReviewReview
of Interpretation of Interpretation MethodsMethodswithwith
MathematicalMathematical, , PhysicalPhysical, and , and NumericalNumerical
Analysis of Analysis of StorativityStorativity
InfluenceInfluence, , CanCan. J. Geotech. J. 35,. J. Geotech. J. 35,pp. 697pp. 697--719.719.
/5//5/
Cooper, H.H. Jr., J.D. Cooper, H.H. Jr., J.D. BredehoeftBredehoeft
& I.S. & I.S. PapadopulosPapadopulos
(1967). Response of a Finite Diameter Well to an(1967). Response of a Finite Diameter Well to anInstantaneousInstantaneous
Charge of Water, Water Resources Research 3(1), pp. 263Charge of Water, Water Resources Research 3(1), pp. 263––269.269.
/6//6/
DaxDax, A. (1987). A Note on the Analysis of Slug Tests, Journal of Hy, A. (1987). A Note on the Analysis of Slug Tests, Journal of Hydrology 91, pp. 153drology 91, pp. 153--177.177.
/7//7/
HvorslevHvorslev, M.J. (1951). Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground, M.J. (1951). Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground--Water Observations, Bulletin No.Water Observations, Bulletin No.36, of the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engi36, of the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA,neers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA,pp. 1 pp. 1 --
50.50./8//8/
HyderHyder, Z., , Z., Butler,J.JButler,J.J., Jr., ., Jr., McElweeMcElwee, C.D. & Liu, W. (1994). Slug Tests in Partially Penetrating Wel, C.D. & Liu, W. (1994). Slug Tests in Partially Penetrating Wells,ls,Water Resources Research 30(11), pp. 2945Water Resources Research 30(11), pp. 2945--2957.2957.
/9//9/
McElweeMcElwee, C.D. & , C.D. & ZennerZenner, M.A. (1998). A Nonlinear Model for Analysis of Slug, M.A. (1998). A Nonlinear Model for Analysis of Slug--Test Data, Test Data, Water Resources Research 34(1), pp. 55Water Resources Research 34(1), pp. 55--66.66.
References__________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
ReferencesReferences
((continuedcontinued))/10//10/
McElweeMcElwee, C.D. (2001). Application of a nonlinear slug test model, Groun, C.D. (2001). Application of a nonlinear slug test model, Ground Water 39(5), pp. 737d Water 39(5), pp. 737--744.744.
/11/ /11/ OstendorfOstendorf, D.W. & , D.W. & DeGrootDeGroot, D.J. (2010). Slug Tests in the Presence of Background Head Tre, D.J. (2010). Slug Tests in the Presence of Background Head Trends,nds,Ground Water 48(4), pp. 609Ground Water 48(4), pp. 609--613.613.
/12/ /12/ ZennerZenner, M.A. (2006). Zum Einfluss bohrlochinterner hydraulischer Verlu, M.A. (2006). Zum Einfluss bohrlochinterner hydraulischer Verluste auf Wasserstandsste auf Wasserstands--reaktionenreaktionen
PackerPacker--induzierterinduzierter
AuffAuffüülltests, Grundwasser 11(2), pp. 111lltests, Grundwasser 11(2), pp. 111--122.122.
/13/ /13/ ZennerZenner, M.A. (2008). Experimental Evidence of the Applicability of Col, M.A. (2008). Experimental Evidence of the Applicability of Colebrook and ebrook and BordaBorda
CarnotCarnot--type Head Loss Formulas in Transient Slug Test Analysis, ASCE, type Head Loss Formulas in Transient Slug Test Analysis, ASCE, Journal of Hydraulic EngineeringJournal of Hydraulic Engineering134(5), pp. 644134(5), pp. 644--651.651.
/14/ /14/ ZennerZenner, M.A. (2009). Near, M.A. (2009). Near--Well Nonlinear Flow Identified by Various Displacement Well RespWell Nonlinear Flow Identified by Various Displacement Well ResponseonseTesting, Ground Water 47(4), pp. 526Testing, Ground Water 47(4), pp. 526--535.535.
/15/ /15/ ZennerZenner, M.A. (2012). , M.A. (2012). AssessingAssessing
thethe
Impact of Impact of BentoniteBentonite--CMCCMC
DrillDrill--InIn
FluidsFluids
on on SlugSlug
Tests in HighTests in High--PermeabilityPermeability
AquifersAquifers, , ProceedingsProceedings
of of thethe
6565thth
Canadian Canadian GeotechnicalGeotechnical
ConferenceConference, Paper No. 294, , Paper No. 294, GeoManitobaGeoManitoba, September 30 , September 30 ––
OctoberOctober
3, Winnipeg, 3, Winnipeg, ManitobaManitoba..
References__________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgement__________________________________________________________
AcknowledgementAcknowledgement
TheThe
presentedpresented
workwork
was was supportedsupported
in in partpart
byby
thethe
German National ScienceGerman National ScienceFoundationFoundation
(DFG) (DFG) underunder
Grant No. PEGrant No. PE--362/24362/24--2. 2. TheThe
viewsviews
and and conclusionsconclusions
containedcontained
in in thisthis
presentationpresentation
areare
thosethose
of of thethe
authorauthor
and do and do notnot
necessarilynecessarilyreflectreflect
thethe
officialofficial
policiespolicies
oror
positionspositions, , eithereither
expressedexpressed
oror
impliedimplied, of , of thethe
German Government.German Government.
TheThe
authorauthor
wouldwould
likelike
to to thankthank
John John BarkerBarker
forfor
providingproviding
an an EXCELEXCEL--workbookworkbookimplementingimplementing
his his sphericalspherical
flowflow
slugslug
test test solutionsolution
givengiven
on on pagespages
8 and 16 of8 and 16 of
thisthis
presentationpresentation..