• Title/Summary/Keyword: Labadie and Helweg

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.013 seconds

Comparisons of Different Step-drawdown Test Analysis Methods; Implication for Improrvced Analysis for Step-drawdown Test Data (단계양수시험 해석 방법에 따른 우물 및 수리 상수 변동 분석)

  • An, Hyowon;Ha, Kyoochul;Lee, Eunhee;Do, Byung Hee
    • Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
    • /
    • v.25 no.4
    • /
    • pp.35-47
    • /
    • 2020
  • Step-drawdown test is one of the widely-used aquifer test methods to evaluate aquifer and well losses. Various approaches have been suggested to estimate well losses using the step-drawdown test data but the uncertainties associated with data interpretation and analysis still exist. In this study, we applied three different step-drawdown test analysis methods -Jacob (1947), Labadie and Helweg (1975), Gupta (1989)- to the step-drawdown test data in Seobu-myeon, Hongseong-gun, South Korea and estimated aquifer and well losses. Comparisons of different step-drawdown test analysis methods revealed that the estimated well losses showed different values depending on the applied methods and these variations are likely to be related to the limitation of the assumptions for each analysis method. Based on the detailed analysis of time-drawdown data, we performed step-drawdown test analysis after removing outlier data during the initial stage of step drawdown test. The results showed that the application of the revised time-drawdown data could substantially decrease the error of the analysis as well as the variations in the estimated well losses from different analysis methods.

Effects of Well Parameters Analysis Techniques on Evaluation of Well Efficiency in Step-Drawdown Test (단계양수시험 해석시 우물상수 산정 방법이 우물효율에 미치는 영향)

  • Chung, Sang-Yong;Kim, Byung-Woo;Kim, Gyoo-Bum;Kweon, Hae-Woo
    • The Journal of Engineering Geology
    • /
    • v.19 no.1
    • /
    • pp.71-79
    • /
    • 2009
  • Step-drawdown tests were conducted at four pumping Wells, two in porous media and two in fractured rocks, respectively. In general, P = 2.0 suggested by Jacob (1947) is applied to porous media and fractured rocks in terms of drawdowns of step-drawdown test. In an attempt to review problems of linear model (Jacob's graphic method) in interpreting the step-draw down test, the outcomes of well parameters (aquifer loss coefficient (B), well loss coefficient (C) and well loss exponent (P)) calculated from linear and nonlinear model (Labadie and Helweg's least-squares method) were compared and analyzed. The values of C and P calculated from linear and nonlinear models differed according to permeability of aquifer and the conditions of pumping well. The value C obtained from nonlinear models in porous media and fractured rocks is about $10^0{\sim}10^{-2}$ and $10^{-3}{\sim}10^{-6}$ times lower than in their linear models, respectively. The value P of porous media obtained from nonlinear model ranged from 2.123 to 2.775, while it ranged from 3.459 to 5.635 for fractured rocks. In case of nonlinear model, well loss highly depends on the value P. At this time, well efficiencies calculated from linear and nonlinear models were $1.56{\sim}14.89%$ for porous media and $8.73{\sim}24.71%$ for fractured rocks, showing a significant error according to chosen models. In nonlinear model, it was found that the regression analysis using the least squares method was very useful to interpret step-drawdown test in all aquifer.