Laserfiche WebLink
- <br /> eW <br /> ti Because a very large g component of the drawdown in well MWS during the <br /> long term test was due to well loss, <br /> formation away from the productiwas small, This is clear <br /> on well the actual drawdown in the <br /> from the observation well drawdown versus time <br /> lots total drawdowns ranging from .03 foot in well MW4 (140 feet from well <br /> _ MW3) to 0.14 foot in well MWI (60 feet from well Pawl). <br /> drawdowns and the natural Due to small <br /> fluctuations observed during static <br /> monitoring (0.01-0,02 foot) data from observation wells P7W3 and Mw4 <br /> could not be interpreted quantitatively. <br /> The data from wells MWl and 14W2 was interpretable in term <br /> values calculated from these plots uss of <br /> formation transmissivity and storage able 3 showcoefficient. Ts the <br /> _ y the method of Jacob (194t)e <br /> Table 3 Calculated Formation Hydraulic Parameters from Long Term <br /> Constant Rate Test <br /> MW, <br /> ' " Z; <br /> 6600 .005 60 <br /> 8800 .003 700 <br /> NOTES: T = Transmissivity in gallons <br /> S = Storage Coefficient per day per foot <br /> r = distance from Humping well in feet <br /> The very low transmissivity calculated from the production well (MW5) <br /> drawdown probably reflacts the effects of <br /> other calculated transmissivity values probably differ eduettonactual <br /> variations within the water bearing zone, although the magnitude of <br /> the variation may be masked somewhat by the irregularity <br /> semilog plots. Well los support of the <br /> heterogeneity and anisotropy.9 ppurt this interpretation of <br /> The calculated specific yield values also vary <br /> typical of the lower range for unconfined conditions tic se ora thea u are <br /> range for confined conditions. While the well logs su gest some <br /> per <br /> degree a£ confinement, the storage coefficients and thedrawdown <br /> behavior in the pumping well are more consistent with an unconfined <br /> aquifer. <br /> Pio identifiable boundary conditions_were detected--.in-the-test-data. <br /> —----- -- --- __---Therd'-is -however,-a-noticeable increase in the slope of the semilog <br /> _. Plot of drawdown in the pumping well MW5 and MW2 after approximately <br /> 200 minutes (Figures 7 and 9). This slope change is blydue <br /> the effects of dewatering within the unconfined ga uifer. The due 'COe <br /> In slope occurs at the q The change <br /> approaches approximately Point where the drawdown in well MW5 <br /> _i pproximatel 20$. of the ,iquifer thickness (screened <br /> interval). This is a violarign ofthe test assumption of uniform <br /> Veber Paint Property _ 475 <br /> . RNRAP741.TL.4 <br />