Laserfiche WebLink
a. <br /> v <br /> a <br /> .Royal Oak Savings&Loan <br /> Final Remediation Plar. <br /> Addendum #11 <br /> Groundwater Remediation <br /> Page: 3 <br /> THEM JACOB-LL JACO 3-Fcl:f: <br /> WELL TT S— 'r `- <br /> MW-6 51,279 0.0621 46,895 0,021;5 59,460 NA <br /> MW-7 52,229 0.4615 56,571 0.0294 54:831 NA <br /> MW-4 43,390 0.1050 50,914 0.0757 46,895 NA <br /> MW-5 NA NA 41,929 NA 44,550 NA <br /> Aquifer Modelin <br /> The Aquifer was modeled using a spreadsheet computer program, The grogram <br /> calculates u for varying radii and pumping times frons the pumped well by die <br /> following formula: u=1.87 r2 S/Tt whcr�,,: <br /> r=Radius from the Pumped Well. <br /> S=Coefficient of Storage from the Pump Test. <br /> T=Coefficient of Transmissibility from the Pump Test. <br /> t=Time since pumping started in days. <br /> W(u) is entered into the program for varying values of u, from a published table <br /> available in many Hydrogeology text books <br /> Drawdown or S is calculated for select Rada from the pumped well, from the following <br /> formula: S=114.6 Q/TW(u) where: <br /> Q =Pumping rate in GPM. <br /> W(u)=Well function of u. <br /> Values of T calculated in the analysis vaned from 43,390 gpdfft, to 59,000 gpd/ft. <br /> This is remarkably consistent for both the Theis and the Jacob Methods of Pump Test <br /> Analysis. Values of S varied from 0.4615 to 0.0621 when calculated using the Theis <br /> Analysis. S varied from 0.0285 to 0.0757 when calculated using the Jacob Straight <br /> Line Method (drawdown.) <br /> In order to determine the value of S for the Modeling Program, a trail and error <br /> approach was used. Since values of T were so consistent for the 11 different <br /> calculations, the average was calculated; 49,899 gpd/ft. was used for T. <br />