Laserfiche WebLink
—MIT-1 W <br /> _02* <br /> �•r ....� x ..�"� s �:iii; .c�� e• t� --1r�a•.,'� : x,•. •1 <br /> e _ ryn4: <br /> . � e :T+,u�L'P,k, '3a <br /> . <br /> " ;, •^^..a'Y" a'"... - .y;. G 45: yg�'y� y '!-�t �`.d +i y,,... '?� if,s �g '+� S;r• 'g ' <br /> Vol +. ; <br />��P � c1t <br /> n- <br /> T _J -15.28 <br /> change in S/Q per log cycle i,Fiaure 51 <br /> K _ 7 <br /> where, <br /> S=drawdown it ft <br /> Q=discharge in gpm <br /> b = 20 ft thickness of the tested zone <br /> Using these formulas, the following calculations were made: <br /> T = 270 ft-'/day <br /> -- K; 13.5 ft/day <br /> The hydraulic conductivity thus determined is in the range of values for fine sand(Driscoll, <br /> 1987,p. 75), which is consistent with the site geology. <br /> The data collected from E-1 during the step-drawdown test is shown plotted on Figure 6. <br /> The curve shows the response of the pumping well during and after pumping (recovery). <br /> } <br /> As can be seen from Figure 6, the drawdown from the first step of 1 gpm stabilized during <br /> the 60-minute pumping period. The second step of 2.31 gpm exceeded the capacity of the well <br /> to provide water. The optimum pumping rate is therefore somewhere between 1 and 7.3 gpm. <br /> The recovery data indicates that the well fully recovered within approximately 40 minutes. <br /> i<. <br /> r <br /> 'Cooper,H.H.,and C.E.Jacob. A Generalized-Gra hical.Method for Evaluatin Formation <br /> -- - -- <br /> - 'onstants and Surnmarizing Well Field History. <br /> 27: 526-534. ALMC to Geophysical Union Trans., Volume <br /> "' <br /> Nn <br />