Laserfiche WebLink
BQ — non-linear head loss <br /> S = drawdown at a given time <br /> Q discharge rate <br /> P — a discharge rate dependent value <br /> between 1 5 and 3 5 <br /> A and B are constants <br /> A value of 2 for P is commonly accepted in this equation (Ramey, 1982), which yields the <br /> equation: <br /> s = AQ + BQ2 (Equation 2) <br /> or dividing by Q <br /> s/Q = A + BQ <br /> The latter equation represents a straight Line on an s/Q versus Q plot (Figure 1). Using the <br /> approach of Jacob as oudnned in Todd (1980), the data indicate a negligible non-darcy (non- <br /> linear) component of the drawdown <br /> The least squares best fit line shown on Figure 1 yields the following relationship between <br /> drawdown and pumping rate: <br /> s = 1.93Q - 0.09Q2 <br /> Typically the coefficients (A and B) calculated from the best fit line shown on Plate 1 can be <br /> used to calculate the well efficiency for various times and pumping rates. However, for the <br /> subject test the data would indicate an efficiency greater than 100%. This probably indicates <br /> either, (1), the well is nearly 100% efficient and the negative slope on Plate 1 is due to <br /> imprecision in the data, or (2), the well was still undergoing development during the test. Low <br /> well efficiencies are common in unconfined aquifers when drawdown encompasses a sngnnfncant <br /> portion of the saturated screen thickness. This is due to the partial penetration effect which <br /> induces steep vertical flow gradients in the vicinity of the well screen. However, because of the <br /> low pumping rate, relatively small drawdown, and the well construction consisting of a 6 inch <br /> diameter, wire wrapped screen, it is likely that turbulent flow losses were negllgrble for this well <br /> test <br /> Test Results: Lang-Duration Constant Rate Test <br /> Well drawdown versus time plots (both log-Iog and semdog plots) were prepared for pumping <br /> well RW-1 and observation points PZ-1, MW-1 and MW-3 (Figures 3 through 9) uttltring the <br /> AQTESOLV software (Geraghty and Miller, 1990) Figure 10 presents the drawdown in PZ-1, <br /> MW-l and MW-3 after 1420 minutes of pumping versus their respective distances from the <br /> Pumping well (RW-1) <br />