vvEPA
Measurement of
Hydrauiic Conductivity
Distributions:

A Manual of Practice

-------
                                          EPA/600/8-90/046
     MEASUREMENT OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
                   DISTRIBUTIONS

               A MANUAL OF PRACTICE
                         by
     FRED J. MOLZ, OKTAY GttVEN, JOEL G. MELVILLE
               Civil Engineering Department
               Auburn University, AL 36849
                  With Contributions By
       ALFRED E. HESS and FREDERICK L. PAILLET
              United States Geological Survey
                  Denver Federal Center
                   Denver, CO 80225
                      CR-813647
                     Project Officer

                    Lowell E. Leach
       Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
                    Ada, OK 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
        OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
       U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    ADA, OK 74820

-------
                                          DISCLAIMER

        The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under assistance agreement number CR-813647 to the Board of Trustees of Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama, subjected  to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication  as an EPA document   Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                                 u

-------
                                              FOREWORD

        EPA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air and water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws focused on air and water quality, solid waste management and the control of toxic
substances, pesticides, noise and radiation, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions which lead to
a compatible balance between human activities and the  ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.

        The Robert S.  Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory  is  the  Agency's  center  of expertise for
investigation of the soil and subsurface environment  Personnel at the laboratory are responsible for management
of research programs to:  (a) determine the fate, transport and transformation rates of pollutants in the soil, the
unsaturated  and  saturated zones  of the subsurface environment;  (b)  define  the  processes  to  be  used in
characterizing die soil and subsurface environment as a receptor  of  pollutants; (c)  develop techniques for
predicting the effect of pollutants on ground water, soil, and indigenous organisms; and (d) define and demonstrate
the applicability and limitations of using natural processes,  indigenous to the soil and subsurface environment, for
the protection of this resource.

        This manual of  practice presents state-of-the-art techniques for field measurements of the vertical
distribution of hydraulic conductivity in contaminated ground water aquifers for more accurate characterization
of Superfund and other sites.  These field techniques allow fully three-dimensional characterization of aquifer
properties which  can be used in advection-dominated transport  models to significantly enhance our ability to
understand and predict contaminant transport, reaction and  degradation in the field.  The techniques also provide
data for optimum placement of well screens for remediation and monitoring.
                                                                      U
                                                                        Clinton W. Hall
                                                                        Director
                                                                        Robert S. Kerr Environmental
                                                                         Research Laboratory
                                                   ui

-------
                                              ABSTRACT


        The ability of hydrologists to perform  field measurements of aquifer  hydraulic properties must be
enhanced  in order to significantly improve the capacity to solve ground  water contamination problems at
Superfund and other sites.  The primary purpose of this manual is to provide new methodologies for measuring
K(z), the distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity  in the vertical direction in the vicinity of a test well.
Measurements in nearby wells can then be used to estimate three-dimensional  distributions.   As dispersion-
dominated  models  (particularly two-dimensional, vertically-averaged  models) approach their limitations, it is
becoming increasingly important to develop two-dimensional vertical profile or fully three-dimensional advection-
dominated transport models in  order to significantly increase the  ability to understand and predict contaminant
transport, reaction, and degradation in the field. Such models require the measurement of hydraulic conductivity
distributions, K(z), rather than vertically averaged values in the form of transmissivities.

        Three devices for  measuring K(z) distributions (the impeller flowmeter, the heat-pulse flowmeter, and
a multi-level slug test apparatus)  are described in detail, along with application and data reduction procedures.
Results of the various methods are compared with each other  and with the results of tracer  studies.   The
flowmeter approach emerged as the best candidate for routine K(z) measurements.  Impeller meters are now
available commercially, and the more sensitive flowmeters (heat pulse and electromagnetic) are expected to be
available in the near future.
                                                   IV

-------
                                            CONTENTS


Foreword	        iii

Abstract   	        iv

Figures    	        vi

Tables    	       viii

Abbreviations and Symbols	        ix

Executive Summary   	         1

        1.  The Impeller Meter Method for Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity
           Distributions  	         3

        2.  Multilevel Slug Tests for Measuring Hydraulic Conductivity
           Distributions  	        20

        3.  Characterizing Flow Paths and Permeability Distributions in
           Fractured Rock Aquifers	        35

Appendix I	        47

References	        57

-------
                                               FIGURES


Number                                                                                             Page

1-1      Subsurface hydrologic system at the Mobile site	          4

1-2      Apparatus and geometry associated with a borehole
        flowmeter test   	          5

1-3      Assumed layered geometry within which impeller meter data
        are collected and analyzed.  (Q(z) is discharge measured at
        elevation z)  	          6

1-4      Details of well construction and screen types in wells E7 and AS   	          9

1-5      Hydraulic conductivity distributions calculated from flowmeter data                              '
        using two different methods   	         12

1-6      Comparison of hydraulic conductivity distributions for well E7 based
        on tracer test data and impeller meter data  	         13

1-7      Plan view of the field site where small-scale pumping tests were
        performed.  The numbers next to the dots are weU designations, while
        the values in parentheses are the average hydraulic conductivities
        (m/day) assigned to the vicinity  of each pumping welL  Each arrow
        represents a test and points from the observation well to the pumping
        well.  Wells with more than  one arrow pointing toward them were
        assigned average values   	         15

1-8      Results  of small-scale pumping tests (m/day) wherein the pumping
        wells were used as observation wells   	         16

1-9      Dimensionless horizontal hydraulic conductivity distributions based on
        impeller meter readings taken at the various measurement intervals
        indicated on the figure  	         17

I-10    Dimensionless hydraulic conductivity distributions at five-foot
        intervals in  well E7 taken 30 min., 60 min. and 120 min. after the
        start of pumping.  The results show good repeatability of the impeller
        meter method	         18

n-1     Schematic diagram of the apparatus for performing a multi-level slug
        test   	         21

 II-2    Plan view of part of  the well field at the Mobile site   	         22

 H-3    Multilevel slug test data from well E6.  B=log(y,/y2)(tj-t1) =
        magnitude of the slope of the log y(t)
        response  	         23

 II-4    Plot showing the reproducibility of data collected at well E6   	         24

 II-5    Plots showing the influence of well development at two elevations
        in well E6   	         26
                                                    VI

-------
Number

n-6     Diagram illustrating the geometry within which a partially
        penetrating slug test is analyzed  Diagram (A) is for the
        confined case and diagram (B) is for the unconfined case   	        27

n-7     Plots of dimensiordess discharge, P = Q/2nKLy, for the
        isotropic, confined aquifer problem as a function of L/tm
        and H/L  	        31

n-8     Plots of dirnensionless discharge, P « Q/2icKLy, for the
        isotropic, unconfined aquifer problem as a function of
        L/rw and H/L  	        32

ffl-1    The U.S. Geological Survey's slow-velocity-sensitive thermal
        flowmeter (modified from Hess,  1986)   	        37

m-2    The U.S. Geological Survey's thermal flowmeter with inflated flow-
        concentrating packer (modified from Hess, 1988)   	        38

ffl-3    Example of a thermal flowmeter calibration in a 6-inch (1S.2 cm)
        diameter calibration column   	        39

ffl-4    Acoustic-televiewer, caliper, single-point-resistance, and flowmeter
        logs for borehole DH-14  in northeastern Illinois	        40

ffl-5    Acoustic-televiewer and caliper logs for selected intervals in a
        borehole in southeastern New York   	        42

ffl-6    Profile of vertical flow in a borehole in southeastern New York,
        illustrating downflow with and without  drawdown  in the upper
        fracture zone  	        43

ffl-7    Distribution of fracture permeability in  boreholes URL14 and
        URL1S in southeastern Manitoba determined from acoustic-waveform
        and other  geophysical logs; fracture permeability is expressed as
        the aperture of a single planar fracture  capable of  transmitting
        an equivalent volume of flow   	        44

ffl-8    Distribution of vertical flow measured in boreholes URL14 and
        URL1S in southeastern Manitoba superimposed on the projection
        of fracture planes identified using the acoustic
        televiewer  	        46

AI-1    Details of an inflatable straddle packer  design  	        49

AI-2    Schematic diagram illustrating a  natural flow field in the vicinity
        of a well   	        52

AI-3    Geometry and instrumentation associated with the  dialysis cell
        method for measurement  of Darcy velocity   	        S3

AI-4    Apparatus and geometry associated with the SWET
        test  	        54

AI-S    Apparatus and geometry associated with a borehole flowmeter
        test  	        55


                                                   vii

-------
                                                TABLES
Number                                                                                            page

1-1     Impeller meter (discrete mode) and differential head data obtained
        in Wells E7, and A5 at the Mobile Site.  (z=depth, CPM=counts per
        minute, and AH=head difference between static and dynamic
        conditions)     	         10

1-2     Well screen discharge as a function of vertical position in Wells
        E7 and A5 at the Mobile Site. (z=depth, Q=discharge rate in well
        screen)   	         10

1-3     Hydraulic conductivity distributions inferred from impeller meter
        data using two different approaches described herein.  Depth z is in
        ft and K(z) is in ftymin.)   	         11

n-1     Dimensionless discharge, P, as a function of H/L and L/rw for the
        confined case with K/K, = 1.0	         33

II-2     Dimensionless discharge, P, as a function of H/L and L/t, for the
        confined case with Kflf^ = 02 	         33

n-3     Dimensionless discharge, P, as a function of H/L and L/rw for the
        confined case with K/K, = 0.1  	         33

n-4     Dimensionless discharge, P, as a function of H/L and L/rw for the
        unconfined case with K/K, = 1.0   	         34

n-5     Dimensionless discharge, P, as a function of H/L and L/rw for the
        unconfined case with K/K, = 0.2   	         34

n-6     Dimensionless discharge, P, as  a function of H/L and L/rw for the
        unconfined case with K/K, = 0.1   	         34
                                                  via

-------
                             LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
Abbreviations

Br
CPM
EFLOW
EPA
IGWMC
NWWA
OTA
USGS
Bromide
counts per minute
computer code name
Environmental Protection Agency
International Ground Water Modeling Center
National Water Well Association
Office of Technology Assessment
United States Geological Survey
Symbols

A
A.
B
B,b
D
H
h
h.
i
K
K,
K,
K
L
P
Q
QP
q
r
r.
R.
S
S.
T
t
U
V
v,
x,y
y(t)
y.
Z,z
O,
screen area per unit length, (L)
open cross-sectional area of casing, (L2)
slope of semi-log plot, (T1)
aquifer thickness, (L)
aquifer thickness, (L)
distance from confining layer to straddle packer, (L)
hydraulic head, (L)
initial  head, (L)
counting index, (-)
hydraulic conductivity, (L/T)
hydraulic conductivity in radial direction, (L/T)
hydraulic conductivity in vertical direction, (L/T)
vertically-averaged hydraulic conductivity, (L/T)
length, (L)
dimensionless flow  parameter, (-)
discharge rate, (L3/T)
pumping rate, (L'/T)
Darcy  velocity, (L/T)
radius, (L)
casing radius, (L)
radius  of influence, (L)
plunger radius, (L)
well radius, (L)
storage coefficient,  (-)
specific storage, (L"1)
transmissivity, (L2/T)
time, (T)
Darcy  velocity, (L/T)
pore or seepage velocity vector, (L/T)
radial seepage velocity,  (L/T)
horizontal coordinates, (L)
head change  in slug test, (L)
initial head change, (L)
vertical coordinates, (L)
radial dispersivity, (L4)
vertical dispersivity, (L"1)
    *   Generalized symbols for the dimensions of length, time and mass will be L, T, and M
respectively.  The symbol (-) indicates a dimensionless quantity.
                                                   IX

-------
A                        prefix symbol indicating "change in", (-)
V                        gradient operator, (•)
jc                        3.14159, (-)
6                        porosity, (-)

-------
                                       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
        In order to  significantly improve  the ability to understand ground-water  contamination  problems at
Superfund and other sites, it has become necessary to improve the ability to make field measurements. The single
most important parameter concerning contaminant migration is hydraulic conductivity.  Conventionally, pumping
tests with fully penetrating wells are used to determine transmissivity and longitudinal dispersion  coefficients to
describe contaminant spreading in the direction of flow. Models used for making these predictions are dispersion-
dominated.

        Horizontal hydraulic conductivities can be defined as a function of vertical position (K(z)). When this
is done at a number of locations in the horizontal plane, the resulting data can serve as a basis for developing
two-dimensional  vertical  cross-section, quasi  three-dimensional or fully  three-dimensional flow and  transport
models.

        Shown in Figure 1-9 are dimensionless K(z) distributions obtained at four different scales in a single well
using an  impeller meter. As the measurement interval varies from 10 ft (3.05 m) to 1 ft (0.305 m),  the apparent
variability of the hydraulic conductivity  increases.  This  is the type of information that is lost  when fully-
penetrating pumping  tests are used to obtain vertically-averaged hydraulic conductivities.

        There are several techniques for making vertically-distributed measurements, including flowmeter and
multilevel slug tests. These serve as the  basis for an improved understanding of subsurface transport pathways
which allow the  application of new contaminant transport models that are advection-dominated and largely free
of the problems associated with scale-dependent dispersion coefficients.


SELECTED METHODOLOGY

        Two techniques for obtaining K(z) information will be discussed  These are the flowmeter and multi-
level slug test methods.  Of the two, the flowmeter method is more responsive,  less sensitive to near-well
disturbances due  to drilling, and easier to apply.  As illustrated in Figure 1-2, a flowmeter test involves measuring
the steady pumping rate, QP, and the flow  rate distribution along the borehole or well screen, Q(z).

        Various  types of flowmeters  have been devised for measuring Q(z).  Those most sensitive to low flows
are heat-pulse, electromagnetic, or tracer-release technology,  but such instruments are not presently  available
commercially.  Impeller meters (commonly called spinners) have been used for several decades in the petroleum
industry,  and a few suitable for ground-water  applications are available.


IMPELLER METER TESTS

        Impeller meter tests can be a relatively quick and convenient method for obtaining information about the
vertical variation of horizontal hydraulic conductivity as illustrated  in Figure 1-2.  A caliper log is first run to
determine the screen diameter so that variations can be taken into account when calculating discharge.  A small
pump is operated at a constant flow rate, QP, until a pseudo steady-state is obtained.  The flowmeter is lowered
to near the bottom of the well, and a measurement of discharge is obtained by impeller generated electrical pulses
over a selected period of time.  The  meter is then raised a few feet and another reading taken.  This procedure
continues until the water table is reached.  The result is a series of data points giving vertical discharge, Q, within
the well  screen as a  function of vertical position z.  Just above the top of  the screen the meter reading should
be equal  to QP,  the steady pumping  rate  that  is measured independently at the surface with a water flowmeter.
The procedure may be repeated several times to  ascertain that readings are stable.

-------
HEAT-PULSE FLOWMETER TESTS

        The use of the  impeller meter is limited when the presence of low permeability materials preclude
pumping at a rate sufficient to operate an impeller.  The impeller operates with a minimum velocity from about
3 to 10 ft/min (1 to 3 m/min).  The heat-pulse flowmeter can be used as an alternative to an impeller meter in
virtually any application due to its greater sensitivity.  It has a measurement range from 0.1 to 20 ft/min (0.03
to 6.1 m/min).

        The basic principle of the heat-pulse flowmeter is to create a thin horizontal disc of heated water within
the well screen at a known time and a known  distance from two thermocouple heat sensors, one above and one
below the heating element As the heat moves with the upward or downward water flow, the time required for
the temperature peak to arrive at one of the heat sensors is recorded.  The apparent velocity is then given by the
known travel distance divided by the recorded travel time.  Thermal buoyancy effects are eliminated by raising
the water temperature by only a small fraction of a centigrade degree.  The geometry associated with the heat-
pulse flowmeter is shown in Figure ffl-2.

        Hopefully,  thermal flowmeters now being developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, and other sensitive
devices, such as the electromagnetic flowmeter being developed by the Tennessee  Valley Authority, will be
available commercially in die near future.


MULTILEVEL SLUG TESTS

        The flowmeter testing procedure is generally superior to the multilevel slug  test approach, because the
latter depends on the  ability  to hydraulically isolate a portion of  the  test aquifer using  a straddle packer.
However, if reasonable isolation can be achieved, the multilevel slug test is  a viable procedure for measuring
K(z). All equipment needed for such testing is available commercially, and there is an additional advantage of
not requiring an injection or withdrawal of water from the  test well.

        The testing apparatus used in a multilevel slug test is illustrated in Figure n-1.  Two inflatable packers
separated  by a length of perforated pipe comprise the straddle packer assembly. A larger packer, referred to as
the reservoir packer, is attached to  the straddle packer creating a unit of fixed length which can be moved to
desired  positions in the well.  When inflated,  the straddle packer isolates the desired test region of the aquifer
and the reservoir packer isolates a reservoir in  the  casing above  the multilevel  slug test unit and below the
potentiometric surface of the confined aquifer.

        In a typical test, water is displaced in the reservoir  above the packer creating a head which induces flow
through the central core  of the reservoir packer to the straddle packer assembly.  Water then flows from the
perforated pipe,  through the slotted  well screen, into the test region of the aquifer.

        Typical results of a series of tests at different elevations are shown in Figure n-3.  The data result from
a plunger insertion causing a sudden reservoir depth increase to approximately y.=3 ft The depth variation, y=y(t),
is a result of flow into the aquifer test section adjacent to the straddle packer. The different slopes of the straight
line approximations reflect the variability of the hydraulic conductivity in  the aquifer at the different test section
elevations.  From this data hydraulic conductivity distributions can be calculated.

-------
                                             CHAPTER I

                       THE IMPELLER METER METHOD FOR MEASURING
                          HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS


 I-I     INTRODUCTION

        One of the better existing methodologies for obtaining vertically  distributed hydraulic conductivity
 information is the borehole impeller meter test  It may be viewed as a generalization of a fully penetrating
 pumping test except that in addition to measuring the steady pumping rate, QP, the flow rate distribution along
 the borehole or well screen, Q(z), is recorded as well

        Various types of flowmeters have been devised  for measuring Q(z), and described in the literature (Hada,
 1977; Keys and Sullivan, 1978; Schimschal, 1981; Hufschmied, 1983; Hess, 1986; Morin et al., 1988a; Rehfeldt
 et at,  1988;  Molz et  al.,  1989a,b).   Most low-flow-sensitive types of  meters  are based on  heat-pulse,
 electromagnetic or tracer-release technology (Keys and MacCary, 1971; Hess, 1986), but such instruments are not
 presently available  commercially, although several are nearing  this  stage of development   Impeller  meters
 (commonly called spinners) have  been used for several  decades in the petroleum industry and a few are suitable
 for ground-water applications. Hufschmied (1983)  and  Rehfeldt et al. (1988) have reported such investigations,
 the latter being the most detailed to date regarding the  assumptions made in using a borehole impeller meter to
 measure hydraulic conductivity as a function of vertical position.

        The purpose of this chapter is to describe the application of an impeller meter to measure K(z) at various
 locations in the horizontal plane.   The site used for this work is illustrated in Figure 1-1 and,  as shown, consists
 of interbedded sands and clays with the water table being about 3 m (9.84 ft) below the land surface.


 1-2     PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS OF  IMPELLER METER TESTS

 1-2.1    Background Information

        Impeller meter  tests,  illustrated  in Figure 1-2,  can be a relatively quick and convenient method for
 obtaining information about the vertical variation of horizontal hydraulic conductivity.  A caliper log is first run
 to determine the screen diameter so that variations can be taken into account when calculating discharge.  A small
 pump is operated at a constant flow rate, QP, until a pseudo steady state is obtained.  The flowmeter is lowered
 to near the bottom  of the well,  and a measurement of discharge is obtained by counting impeller generated
 electrical pulses over a selected period of time. The meter is then raised a few feet and another reading taken.
 This procedure continues until the top of the water  table is reached. The result is  a series of data points  giving
 vertical discharge, Q, within the well screen as a function of vertical position z. Just above the top of the  screen
 the meter reading should be equal to QP, the steady pumping rate that is measured independently at the surface
 with a water flowmeter.  The  procedure may be repeated several times to ascertain that readings are stable.

        While Figure 1-2 applies  explicitly to a confined aquifer, application to an  unconfined aquifer is similar.
 Most impeller meters are capable  of measuring upward  or downward flow, so if the selected pumping rate, QP,
causes excessive drawdown, one can employ an injection procedure as an alternative.  In either case, there will
be unavoidable errors near the  water table due to the deviation from horizontal flow.  It is desirable in unconfined
aquifers to keep QP as small  as possible, consistent with the stall velocity of the  meter.  Thus, more sensitive
 meters will have an advantage for unconfined aquifers.

        As shown in Figure 1-3,  data analysis assumes  that the aquifer is composed of a series of n horizontal
layers.  The difference between two successive meter readings yields the net  flow, AQ,, entering the screen

-------
             &p
           \
\

\
\

                   jji^t'i'img" IV- __\ _V




                   ^^\\V^\V\VVI.SV\U\ V\\\VV\

-------
                                        TO LOGGER (Q)


PUMP 	 *
CAP ROCK^


^DISCHARGE RATE
«^»^r^r— i i f*± I r~ r~l /•>%


[

7LL
)
i /


1


_

V

V7T:
y%
s
V
^LAND SURFACE

CASING

1 DATA ,
CREEN T
          METER
            ELEVATION=Z
                                                     Q
Figure 1-2.    Apparatus and Geometry Associated with a Borehole Flowmeter Test

-------
n
n-l
n-2
n-3
M
3
2
1
0
SURFACE-p,

	 	 	 — i
^
i
i
i
	 	 	 i
i
i
i
— v — i
^WELL

— 	 	 	
,_ 	 	 	 '
1 	 -?-
/ / / /J/ / fit /// // /////(///
c— MEASUREMENT INTERVALS—5
0(ZH)'(FROM METER)
/ I 1 1 77-'
/ 1 ' 1 ^
X ?\ 1 A-SCREEN AREA
^ DARCY i 	 	 | PER UNIT
k VELOCITY p 	 D 	 -] LENGTH- 0
\ (V) I |
SCREEN ' .1 *" "^f*5-OIAMETER
SEGMENT"^. i
N. I 1 I 7»/i
0(Zj)'(FROM METER)
Figure 1-3.       Assumed Layered Geometry within which Impeller Meter Data are Collected and Analyzed.
                Q(z) is Discharge Measured at Elevation z.

-------
 segment between the elevations where the readings were taken. The Cooper-Jacob [1946] formula for horizon-
 tal flow.to a well from a layer, i, of thickness Az,, given by:
                                                          / A — \*Hi
                                                                                               (1-1)
 where AH  = drawdown in ith layer,  AQ =  flow from ith layer into the well,  Kj = horizontal  hydraulic
 conductivity of the ith layer, Azs = ith layer thickness, rw = effective well radius, t = time since pumping started,
 and Sj = storage coefficient for the ith layer.  Solving equation (1-1) for the K, outside of the log term yields:
                                                                                               (1-2)
                                                      rw    S,   J


 which can be solved iteratively to obtain a value for K,.  Further details may be found in Morin et al. [1988a]
 or Rehfeldt et al. [1988].

        A convenient alternative method for obtaining a K distribution is  based  on the  study of flow in  a
 stratified aquifer by Javandel and Witherspoon [1969] which showed mat in idealized, layered aquifers, flow at
 the well bore radius, r,, rapidly becomes horizontal even with relatively large permeability contrasts between
 layers.  Under such conditions, radial gradients along the well bore are constant and uniform, and flow into the
 well from a given layer is proportional to the transmissivity of that layer, that is:

                                           AQ, = oAz,K,                                       (1-3)
where a is a constant of _proportionality.  This condition occurs when the dimensionless time to = i^/S/w is £
100.  In this expression K is the average horizontal aquifer hydraulic conductivity defined as iKfAzJb, where
b is aquifer thickness, S, is the aquifer specific storage, t is time since pumping started and rw is well bore radius.

        To solve for oc, sum the AQ, over the aquifer thickness, to gee
                                     Ad = QP = aAz^                                     (1-4)

        Multiplying the right-hand side of equation (1-3) by b/b and solving for a yields:


                                          a=<£                                            (1-5)
                                               bK

        Finally, substituting for a in equation (1-3) and solving for K/K gives:

                                K,  _  AQ/Az,  . . _ ,  2
                                —  —  - ,i—i,z, ... n                                 (l-o)
                                K     QP/b

To obtain equation (1-6) it was assumed that steady state conditions apply and therefore AQ and QP do not
change with time. This will occur when r^S^Tt <0.01, where S and T are aquifer storage coefficient and
transmissivity, respectively.  Thus, from the basic  data a plot of K/K can be obtained if a value of K from a
fully penetrating pumping  test is available.  The K/K approach  has practical appeal because one does not have
to know values for rw  or S,, which are impossible to specify precisely.  Also, multiplicative errors in flowmeter
readings are cancelled out, and the meter does not have to be calibrated. However, a fully penetrating pumping
test or slug test must be performed along with each flowmeter test.

-------
         While the data analysis  involved  in  a flowmeter test is simple, care must  be taken to satisfy all
assumptions  so that only the flow caused by pumping is measured (Rehfeldt et al., 1988).  For example, an
existing ambient flow must be measured prior to pumping so that initial flow conditions are known. Alternatively,
a two-step pumping procedure can be used (Rehfeldt et aL, 1988).  In addition, data analysis procedures assume
horizontal flow and mat head loss is due only to water flow through the undisturbed formation. There are screen
and head losses within the well; however, these can be minimized by pumping at the lowest rate consistent with
the stall velocity of the impeller meter.  For a much more detailed discussion of well head losses and their
possible correction see Rehfeldt et aL (1988).  Local deviations from horizontal flow will exist in most aquifers,
but the effects should be of second order compared to those of the average flow field as long as the measurement
intervals are not  too small.  As Azj gets  smaller,  errors due to deviations  from horizontal flow become larger
which leads to poor repeatability of flowmeter readings obtained from multiple tests performed in the same well.

1-2.2    Example Application

        Data used in this example were obtained from  tests  at  a site norm of Mobile, Alabama, which  is
illustrated in Figure 1-1.   Testing began with a mild redevelopment and cleaning of the test well screens (Fig.
1-4) with air  followed by ambient flow measurements using a heat-pulse flow meter developed by the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey which has a measurement range of 0.1 to 20 ft/min (0.03 to 6.1 m/oiin.) (Hess, 1986).  This is
about 10 times more sensitive than any impeller meter.  Even at this sensitivity no ambient vertical  flow within
the screen could be detected, which is consistent with the assumption that the aquifer is relatively permeable, well
confined, and the horizontal gradient is low.  If a significant ambient vertical flow had existed at any level Az,,
it would have been subtracted from  the impeller meter reading  for that level prior to  data analysis.

        The  test well is illustrated in Figure 1-2.  It has a  4 in (10 cm) ID well screen (0.01 inch slotted plastic
or plastic wire-wrap, see Fig. 1-4) extending from about 130 ft (39.6 m) to 200 ft (61 m) below the land surface.
None of the screens are sand packed. The well screens were cleaned with air, and caliper and ambient pressure
logs were run.  Caliper log data were  used to verify and  compute the cross-sectional area of the well, and the
pressure log  served to establish  a hydraulic-head distribution for use as  a reference in evaluating AH, produced
by pumping.  A pressure transducer and an impeller meter with centralizer were lowered into  the well, followed
by a small submersible pump capable of pumping about 60 gpm (227 liter/min).  After starting, the pump was
allowed to  run for about an hour, prior to taking pressure and impeller meter readings, to obtain pseudo-steady-
state conditions as defined by the Cooper-Jacob criterion discussed previously. Data  analysis showed that AHj
varied only slightly over the  length of the screens.

        An impeller meter can  function in either a stationary or  a trolling mode.  In the stationary mode the
meter is held at a series of set elevations, and readings are taken in the form of pulses per unit time with the
aid of an electronic pulse counter.  In  the trolling mode, the meter is raised or lowered at a constant rate, and
the reading reflects a superposition of the trolling and  water flow velocities.   For fine-scale ground-water
applications, the stationary mode seems better suited; however, both methods of data acquisition were  used during
this study.  Listed in Table 1-1 are the basic impeller meter data obtained in wells E7, and A5, along with the
corresponding head difference between static and pumping conditions derived from the pressure logs.  In order
to convert  impeller meter readings into discharge, the meter was calibrated by placing it in the unslotted top
extension of  each well screen and pumping at  three different rates which were measured independently at the
surface.  In all cases the response was found to be linear. For wells E7 and A5, the calibration equation was
Q  = 0.00428(CPM), where Q is in  ftYmin and  CPM represents impeller "counts  per minute."  Applying this
equation to the data listed in Table 1-1 resulted in the discharge profiles presented in  Table 1-2.

1-23    Data Analysis

        As discussed earlier,  there are two procedures for inferring a hydraulic conductivity function, K(z), from
impeller meter data. One approach involves the application of  equation (1-2) to each  depth interval.  This was
done for data obtained at wells A5  and E7 using a storage coefficient, Sj  = 10"s  Azj, and an average specific
storage of lO'ft"1 (3.05 x lO^m') determined from a previously performed pumping test (Parr et al.,  1983). The
results are  presented in Table 1-3  as Kl(z), with depth values corresponding to the  midpoint of the  assumed
layers.  Also shown in Table 1-3,  as K2(z),  are the results of applying equation (1-6) to each measurement
interval.  To obtain these results,  values  of the dimensionless  function K/K  were calculated, where K is the
average hydraulic conductivity obtained from a standard, fully penetrating pumping test in the  vicinity of E7 and

-------
                (E7)
                                      (A5)
                  6"
Figure  *K
Packers
                           Casing
                                      Wire
                                      Wrapped
Figure 1-4    Details of Screen Types in Wells E7 and A5.

-------
 TABLE 1-1.  IMPELLER METER (DISCRETE MODE) AND DIFFERENTIAL HEAD DATA
            OBTAINED IN WELLS E7 AND AS AT THE MOBILE SITE.
(z=depth, CPM=counts per minute, and AH=head difference between static and dynamic conditions)
Well#E7
z(ft) CPM AH(ft)
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
1983
1933
1886
1764
1705
1607
1561
1468
1118
994
911
638
277
1218
1.202
1.189
1.177
1.166
1.157
1.149
1.143
1.139
1.138
1.138
1.138
1.138
z(ft)
1325
1375
1425
1475
1525
1575
1625
1675
1725
1775
182.5
1875
190.0
Well»A5
CPM AH(ft)
2024
1968
1885
1799
1652
1488
1362
1106
882
740
506
293
57
1.210
1.201
1.170
1.147
1.136
1.132
1.132
1.132
1.138
1.156
1.173
1.186
1.193
  TABLE 1-2. WELL SCREEN DISCHARGE AS A FUNCTION OF VERTICAL POSITION
                   IN WELLS E7 and A5 AT THE MOBILE SITE.
                     (z=depth, Q=discharge rate in well screen)
z(ft)
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
Well#B7
Q(ftVmin)
8.49
8.27
8.07
755
7.30
6.88
6.68
6.28
4.79
4.25
3.90
2.73
1.19
2
-------
   TABLE 1-3.  HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS INFERRED FROM INFERRED FROM
      IMPELLER METER DATA USING TW) DIFFERENT APPROACHES DESCRIBED HEREIN.
                                (Depth z is in ft. and K(z) is in ft/min.)
z
13X5
137.5
142.5
1475
1525
1575
1625
1675
17X5
1775
1825
1875
195.0
WeH#E7
Kl(z)
0.050
0.046
0.128
0.059
0.104
0.048
0.100
0.405
0.139
0.088
0.315
0.421
0.154
K2(z)
0.042
0.038
0.100
0.049
0.083
0.040
0.080
0.299
0.109
0.071
0.236
0.310
0.120
z
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
189
195
Well»A5
Kl(z)
0.055
0.083
0.091
0.163
0.184
0.140
0.297
0.257
0.156
0.263
0.237
0536
0.027
K2(z)
0.043
0.063
0.069
0.119
0.134
0.104
0.212
0.185
0.115
0.189
0.171
0371
0.022
A5.  Using a K of 0.121  ft/min (3.69 x 10%i/min), the  corresponding values of K2(z) are listed in Table 1-3
and the hydraulic conductivity profiles are plotted in Figure 1-5.

1-2.4    Comparison of Impeller Meter Tests With Tracer Tests

        An examination of Figure 1-5 shows that the trends in the data are virtually identical for wells AS and
E7.  There is also a fairly good agreement with the absolute (dimensional) values calculated for the hydraulic
conductivity.

        It is of interest to compare the hydraulic conductivity distributions inferred from the impeller meter data
with those obtained previously using single well tracer tests (Molz et al., 1988). These tests involved one fully
penetrating tracer injection well and one multilevel observation well located about 20 ft (6.1 m) away. A bromide
tracer was injected at a constant rate through the injection well while water samples were collected periodically
from up to 14 different elevations in the observation well.  Bromide concentrations allowed the determination of
travel times between the injection and observation wells as a function of elevation.  From this information it is
possible to infer a relative hydraulic conductivity distribution (Molz et al., 1988).  There is no reason to expect
a detailed agreement between the impeller  meter results and the single-well  tracer  test results because the latter
data reflect an average hydraulic conductivity value inferred over a travel distance of approximately 20 ft (6.1
m) and the impeller meter data are averaged over 360°.   However, as shown in  Figure 1-6, the agreement is
reasonably good, indicating that the overall trend in  K(z) persists over the 20 ft (6.1 m) travel distance of  the
tracer test (Molz et al., 1988).


1-3      MEASUREMENT  OF  HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY  AT  DIFFERENT  SCALES  USING
        IMPELLER METER TESTS AND PUMPING TESTS

        The main purpose of this section is to describe the application of impeller meter tests and pumping tests
so that the reader wiU develop an appreciation for  the type and  extent of hydraulic  information that can be
assembled at a particular site.  Once again, the site chosen for this detailed application was the Mobile site.
Vertical scale information was obtained  using the impeller meter while fully  penetrating pumping tests were
employed for obtaining information at various lateral scales.  The testing procedures where those described in
previous sections.  The fully  penetrating pumping tests were analyzed  using the Cooper-Jacob Method (Freeze
and Cherry, 1979, or most any contemporary ground-water text).

                                                11

-------
                                WELL A5
            200
             130

             140

             150

             160

             170

             180

             190
                            0.2         0.4
                                K (ft/min)

                                WELL E7
                           0.6
            200
               0.0
0.2          0.4
    K (ft/min)
0.6
Figure 1-5.    Hydraulic Conductivity Distributions Calculated from Flowmeter Data Using Two Different
           Methods.
                                    12

-------
                        WELL E7
N
                       —IMPELLER  METER (Kl)
                       —TRACER TEST
                        0.2     0.3
                         K (ft/min)
 Figure 1-6.   Comparison of Hydraulic Conductivity Distributions for Well E7 Based on Tracer Impeller Meter
         Data.
                            13

-------
1-3.1   Results of Tests

        Shown in Figure 1-7 is a plan view of the Mobile study site  where the tests were performed.  The
various wells are designated as 12, E6, A3, etc.  The number in parentheses next to each well is the vertically-
averaged hydraulic conductivity in meters per day, K(x,y), that resulted  from one  or more small-scale pumping
tests. Arrows indicate the pattern of testing, pointing from the observation well towards the pumping well. Each
arrow represents a single test with a pumping rate of about 022 ms/min (58 gpm).   The repeatability of any one
test was good with  the drawdown data falling within 5% of each other.

        A series of small-scale pumping  tests were also performed in  which the  pumped wells were used as
observation wells.  Once again the pumping rate  was approximately 0.22  m'/min (58 gpm). The results of these
tests are shown in Figure 1-8.

        A K/K distribution based on impeller meter tests performed in  well E8 is shown in Figure 1-9.  The
figure was obtained with the use of equation 1-6 applied to impeller meter data from measurement intervals of
0.3 m (1 ft), 0.91 m (3 ft), 1.52 m (5 ft), and 3.108 m (10 ft).

        As with the fully penetrating pumping tests, repeatability of the impeller meter tests was good. Evidence
for this is shown in Figure I-10 which documents the results of repeated impeller meter tests in well E7.

1-3.2   Discussion of Results

        The vertically-averaged hydraulic conductivity, K(x,y), shown in  Figure 1-7 seems to imply that the study
aquifer is fairly homogeneous. The mean value of hydraulic conductivity is 54.9m/day with a standard deviation
of only 2.4 m/day; however, since the data are correlated, the standard deviation is not well defined in a statistical
sense and is used here only as a convenient measure of variation.  The  mean value agrees well with the result
of a large-scale pumping test (53.4 m/day) performed previously using 12 as the pumping well and pumping at
the rate of 1.48 m'/min  (390 gpm) (Parr et al., 1983).

        As one would expect, the results  shown in Figure 1-8 are more  variable because a pumping test using
the pumping well as an observation well will sample a smaller volume of the aquifer.   Here the mean value is
only 3.5% smaller at 53.0 m/day, but the  standard deviation  has increased to 11.4 m/day.

        No distinct pattern appears to emerge from Figure 1-7 or Figure 1-8. It is probable that K(x,y) will show
lateral trends over distances in excess of 38 m,  which is the approximate distance between wells 12 and E10,
however, the variations here appear to be  random.

        Given the generally layered nature of geologic deposits in a fluvial environment, one would expect much
more variability of horizontal hydraulic conductivity as a function of verticaj_position,  K(z), than of vertically-
averaged horizontal  hydraulic conductivity as a function of lateral position, K(x,y).  Examination of Figure  1-9
shows this to be the case.  Note that K(z) at any particular z is still averaged over the  360° polar angle, so that
the impeller meter test gives  no information about lateral heterogeneity or anisotropy around a given well.

        Different degrees of heterogeneity are apparent at the various measurement scales of Figure 1-9. As  the
measurement scale varies from 10 ft (3.05 m) to 1 ft (0.3 m), the measured variation in hydraulic conductivity
increases,  and there is every reason  to expect that it would  increase further if the measurement scale were
decreased.  Obviously, this type of heterogeneity is not reflected in the results of  fully penetrating pumping tests.


1-4     SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  CONCERNING IMPELLER METER  APPLICATIONS

        Once the necessary equipment is obtained, impeller meter tests can be a  relatively quick and  convenient
method for obtaining information about the vertical variation  of horizontal hydraulic  conductivity K(z) in an
aquifer. This information can be used in  a variety of ways  including the design of monitoring wells  or pump
and treat systems.  It can also be used as the basis for the development of three-dimensional flow and  transport
models which will be far more realistic than their  vertically-averaged forerunners.  (Applications to fractured rock
hydrology are described in Chapter III.)


                                                   14

-------
      *IO-
   ^   E3
   LJ   £=.
   0   '
   co
       -5-
                 A5(53)
                                           A6(5I.8)
                               AK55.8)    A7(53.9)    A3(55.8)
                 2(5.9)
                E6(52.l)
      -10-
                                                             E9(57)   El 0(54.9)
                              A2(5I.5)    A8(59.I)     A4
               0      5      10
      A9(58.8)
 I       I      I
15     20    25
  DISTANCE (M)-
30     35     40     45
Figure 1-7.     Plan View of the Field Site where Small-Scale Pumping Tests were Performed.
                                         15

-------
  ^  E3
  LU
  O
  2
  <
  f-
  C/>
  Q
                                         A6(32.0)
                                         •
               A5(50.7)
                             AK66.4)    A7(47.8)    A3(62.2)
            H	h
£7(66.5)'
 £8(45.
      -5-
     -10-
               £6(37.5)
                                   £9(50.2) £10
     A2(66.l)
A8(53.9)
                                                   A4
            A9(57.2)

10     15    20    25
         DISTANCE (M)-
                                                      30    35
                                              I
                                             40
                                   45
Figure 1-8.     Results of Small Scale Pumping Tests where Pumping Wells Were Used as Observation Wells.
                                         16

-------
                   WELL E8  IMPELLER METER
                                                    T    I     I    I
                                                     (3' INTERVAL)   -
             i    i     i
           (I' INTERVAL)  -
  130
  140
  150
  160
  |70
  180
  I9O
  200
     O
        I     I    i    7
        (5' INTERVAL)
    I    i     i    i
,0      2.0      4.0
           K/K
        130
        140
        150
        160
        170
        180
        190
6.0
       200
O.O
      i     i    I     I    T
          (10' INTERVAL)
              J	I
2.0
4.0
                                                      K/K
6.0
Figure 1-9.    Dimensionless Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Distributions Based On Impeller Meter Readings
           Taken at the Various Measurement Intervals Indicated on the Figure.
                                    17

-------
                   WELL E7 IMPELLER METER
                              (5' DATA)
    130
    140
    ISO
£*• 160
N  |70
    ISO
    190
   200
  1114
30 MIN. PUMPING
   130
   140
   150
~ 160
M 170
   ISO
   190
      0.0     2.0      4.0
                  K/K
                  6.0
                          200
                      130
                      140
                      150
                  ^   160
                  M   170
                      180
                      190
                     200
                  120 MIN. PUMPING
60 MIN. PUMPING
     0.0      2.0   _  4.0
                  K/K
                        O.O      2.O     4.O
                                     K/K
                   6.0
                                     6.O
Figure I-10.   Dimensionless Hydraulic Conductivity Distributions at Five Foot Intervals in Well E7 Taken
           30 min., 60 min., and 120 min. after the Start of Pumping. The Results Show Good
           Repeatability of the Impeller Meter Method.
                                    18

-------
        Over the past several years at the Mobile site, a fairly large amount of hydraulic conductivity data have
been developed based in pan on fully penetrating pumping tests, both large and small scale, and impeller meter
tests.   As far as contaminant transport predictions are concerned,  the pumping tests alone are of limited use
because, by their nature, they fail to show the large amount of vertically-distributed heterogeneity that is apparent
to varying degrees in the impeller meter tests.  Although  obvious, this fact merits emphasis  because fully
penetrating tests and vertically-averaged hydraulic properties continue as the basis for dealing with contaminant
migration problems, while vertically distributed information is much more vital  to successful  remediation and
meaningful simulation of contaminant transport in aquifers.

        Although the use of this layered approach to ground-water hydrology is less restrictive than its vertically
averaged counterpart, there are still serious limitations to the complete characterization of the three dimensional
variations that actually  exist  Errors will exist when analyzing any test, and discrepancies  will arise when
different tests and different methods are compared.

        The  results  of  this  investigation  suggest  that the best  strategyjbr suppressing such errors and
discrepancies consists of using an impeller meter to obtain a dimensionless K/K distribution, and then a standard
pumping test, or a slug test, to compute K.  Combining both types of information enables one to "fit" an impeller
meter test to a given aquifer and to  obtain dimensional values for K(z).  Shown in Figure 1-5 is the type of
information that results when the two testing procedures are combined.

        In the flowmeter applications at Mobile, a different K(z)/K distribution was obtained at  every vertical
scale of measurement at each of seven  different wells. As one would expect, the smaller the  vertical scale of
measurement the larger the degree of apparent heterogeneity.  The results of this work suggest that a proper rule
of thumb would be to use measurement intervals of about one tenth of the aquifer thickness  [Molz  et al., 1989b].
However, once the equipment is in place, one foot measurement  intervals  would be practical in most aquifers.
In this way,  combinations of data points could be used if at a later date more  detailed information becomes
desireable, as in the use of some promising new approaches in geostatistics.
                                                    19

-------
                                             CHAPTER H

                           MULTILEVEL SLUG TESTS FOR MEASURING
                           HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS


n-1    INTRODUCTION

        As discussed in Appendix I, the impeller meter test is generally superior to  the multilevel slug test
because the  latter requires  die  hydraulic isolation  of a portion of  the test aquifer using a straddle  packer.
However, if  reasonable isolation can be achieved the multilevel slug test is a viable procedure  for measuring
K(z).  All equipment needed for such testing is available commercially and the procedure does not require the
addition or withdrawal of water  to change the head in the well.

        The testing apparatus used for the applications reported here are illustrated in Figure n-1. Two inflatable
packers separated by a length of perforated, galvanized steel pipe comprised the straddle packer assembly.  The
length of aquifer sampled by the  straddle packer is 1X3.63 ft (1.1  m).  A larger packer, referred to as the
reservoir packer, is attached to the straddle packer with 2" (5.08 cm) Triloc PVC pipe,  creating a unit of fixed
length of approximately 100 ft (30.5 m) which can be moved with an attached cable to desired positions in the
well.  When inflated, the straddle  packer isolates a desired  test region  of the aquifer and the reservoir packer
isolates a reservoir in the 6" (15.2 cm) casing above the multilevel slug test unit and below the potentiometric
surface of the confined aquifer.

        An advantage of this  design is  that the 2 in (5.08  cm) connecting pipe, and other factors contributing
to head losses, remains unchanged regardless of packer elevation  in the well.  The inflatable lengths of the
straddle packers are 24.5  in. (62.2 cm)  (model 36,  pneumatic packer, Tigre Tierra, Inc.) and 39.0 in.  for the
reservoir packer (99.1 cm) (model  610, pneumatic packer, Tigre Tierra, Inc.)


n-2    PERFORMANCE OF MULTILEVEL SLUG TESTS

        Multilevel slug tests are described for three wells (E3, E6, E7) at the Mobile,  Alabama  site shown in
Figure H-2.  The wells, formerly used as multilevel tracer sampling wells (Molz, et al. 1988),  were constructed
of 130 ft  of  6 in (152 cm) PVC casing to the top of the medium sand aquifer.  Fully slotted 4  in (10.2 cm)
PVC pipe extended an additional 70 ft (21.3 m) through the aquifer. Well E3 was an exception, having 3  ft (0.91
m)  slotted  pipe sections separated by 7 ft (2.13 m) solid sections through the aquifer.

        In a typical test, water is displaced in the reservoir above the packer. This head increase induces flow
through the central core of the reservoir packer and the TriLoc pipe to  the straddle packer assembly, then through
the slotted well screen into the test region of the aquifer.

        In a falling head  slug test, an inserted plunger displaces a  volume of water in  the reservoir creating a
depth variation, y=y(t), relative to the initial potentiometric  surface.  In  the same way, a plunger  withdrawal is
used to create a rising head test.  Head measurements are made with a manually operated recorder (Level  Head
model LH10, with a 10 psig pressure transducer, In Situ, Inc.).

        The  results of a series of  tests  at different elevations in well E6 are shown  in Figure n-3.  The data
result from plunger insertion  tests where a sudden reservoir depth increase of about y0=3 ft (0.91  m) was imposed.
Depth reduction, y=y(t), which is nearly an exponential decay, is a result of flow into  the aquifer test  section
adjacent to the straddle packer. The different slopes of the straight line approximations (least squares fits)  express
the variability of hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer at the different test section elevations.   Tests repeated at
a given elevation were generally reproducible, as shown in Figure II-4, with the maximum difference in slopes
being 10% or less.
                                                  20

-------
                                     cable
-


XXX
130

— —
—. —
/_/ 1
*
%
«
•

.r-r^-7 ' s



transduce
ft *"

— •
^ —
/ /- ^ /"
• •
• •

«
• •

D = 70ft"

*

•




*




%
* *
I

««
""!
X


	
\
ivl"
. 	 —
,—• ^*
_ ^
*"
^mmmm


i
/
\
•—
t
• " •
» • 1




H.
*
•
*
*
*



*




*

%
4
%

*

«

. •
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
r»
-*
—
\

	 •
H1








I-7.'5V ... , .T.-T-
/^/ ^ / 7 f f * '
TV (t)
^--plunger
^-packer
^^^^" 4
'T*— rr
JtZx^x^/^xX
f.; • • - •
• • •
•
* •
. • • •
• • t
• . •
... •
• • . '
•
• •
*
JL ^!K: '

L

i ji i straddle packer
. i * t .^^
1 . F-MT'
« 1 }|


«
z


« «

«
*



*

*


*
•
•
•

•


»

*



*



n i • •
i

z
•
« * *
*
•
-*


r-n* \


V
• " • r • .• •
Figure II-l.    Schematic Diagram of the Apparatus for Performing a Multilevel Slug Test
                                          21

-------
E1  E5
iDi  O i
                   E2E3
                           r50 (ft)
-12 E7     E8     E9E10
                            i  CD i  i |  O i  i  i | Oi  i QI i  i
                                                     150
                      E6
n   injection wells
o   multilevel  observation/slug  test wells
Figure II-2.   Plan View of Part of the Well Field at the Mobile Site.
                           22

-------
                  100.         200.
                     time (sec)
                                                       300.
Figure H-3.
               log(y)=-0.0280t-K>.47
               log(y)=-0.0045t+0.49
               log(y)=-0.0020t+0.50
               log(y)=-0.0038t-K).49
               log(y)=-0.0041 t-f 0.51
               log(y)=-0.0034t+0.49
               Iog(y)=-0.0026t4-0.47
               log(y)=~0.0046t+0.48
               log(y)=-0.0053t+0.48
               logG')=-0.0071t+0.47
               log(y)=-0.0092tt-0.50
Multilevel Slug Test Data from Well E6. B=log(yyyj)/(tj-t,)
log y(0 Response.
Z=11.2 ft
Z=17.2 ft
Z=23.2 ft
Z= 5.2 ft
Z=29.2 ft
Z=35.2 ft
Z=41.2 ft
Z=47.2 ft
Z=53.2 ft
Z=59.2 ft
Z=65.2 ft
  Magnitude of the Slope of the
                                  23

-------
                            I       I
                       Z=5.2 ft  June 9, 1987
                                8=0.0060
                                8=0.0063
                                8=0.0060
                   100    150    200
                      time (sec)
250   300
Figure n-4.   Plot Showing the Reproducibility of Data Collected at Well E6.
                          24

-------
        An exception to the general rule of reproducible behavior was observed in well E6.  Shown in Figure
H-5 are the results of tests at two elevations conducted on three different days.  For the July 20 tests, the well
had been undisturbed for approximately 40 days.  For the July 21 tests it was developed by repeated air injection
and flushing prior to the slug testing. Noting the significant change, particularly for the curves having larger
slopes, die tests were repeated on July 30 after more extensive development Since the third set of data was in
close agreement with the second, it was concluded that the development was sufficient  This behavior was not
observed at  other test wells; however,  all tests were done after  a small amount of redevelopment   The
construction of well E6, originally done for tracer observations (Molz, et al., 1986a,  1986b), was intended to
minimally disturb the aquifer close to the screen.  In these cases, particularly after the passage of several months,
minor redevelopment may be required prior to hydraulic  testing as clay and silt materials tend to migrate into
the well, coating the screen and often  collecting at the  well bottom.

        Multilevel slug testing will be meaningful  only  if the straddle packer  system hydraulically  isolates a
segment of the screen and the adjacent aquifer.  Channels, which will negate the packer seal, may be present
between the screen and the borehole. Similarly, backfill material of greater permeability than die formation can
allow flow to bypass the packers rather than flowing into the test section.  Additional pressure monitoring above
and below  the straddle packer assembly may be desirable if these types of problems are suspected (Taylor et al.,
1989).


O-3    ANALYSIS OF MULTILEVEL DATA

        There are  essentially three techniques for analyzing partially penetrating slug tests which account for both
radial and vertical flow in an aquifer assumed to be locally homogeneous and isotropic (Boast and Kirkham, 1971;
Bouwer and Rice, 1976; Dagan, 1978).  None of these approaches are entirely  satisfactory, especially for test
sections that have relatively  large diameter to length  ratios (Melville et al., 1989;  Widdowson et al.,  1989).
Therefore, there is  a need for a more general approach that is reasonably accurate, free from limiting assumptions
and easy to use. In addition, it is desirable to have a procedure that includes the effect of anisotropy in the test
aquifer since this physical phenomenon is not uncommon.

        The purpose of the remainder of this chapter is to present  details of a procedure for analyzing slug test
data which considers radial and vertical, anisotropic, and axi-symmetric flow to or from a  test interval.   It is
based on a finite  element model called  EFLOW, licensed through the  Electric Power Research Institute and
modified at Auburn University.

H-3.1   Mathematical Model Development

        Equation n-1 is  the mathematical model  used in  developing the data analysis procedure. Diagrams of
the two-dimensional geometry within which the mathematical model is applied are shown in Figure H-6.   Diagram
(A) applies specifically to a confined aquifer while diagram (B) applies to the unconfined case. When  analyzing
a partially  penetrating slug test in an unconfined aquifer  one assumes that the  water table  stays at a constant
elevation throughout the test  (Dagan, 1978).

        In  a homogeneous, anisotropic aquifer, the equation governing transient axi-symmetric flow is  given by:
                                  3t


where S, is specific storage, h is hydraulic head, t is time, r is radial distance, z is vertical distance, and K and
KZ are hydraulic conductivities  in  the  radial and vertical directions respectively.   The initial and  boundary
conditions for simulating a slug test within the geometry of Figure II-6 are:
                                                   25

-------
100    150     200    250
   time  (sec)
                                                       300
Figure 13-5.    Plots Showing the Influence of Well Development at Two Elevations in Well E6.
                              26

-------
                                             (AJ
                          y(t)
        h(f)=h0-y(t)*{    }
                          •• *
                           z
                                     \\v\\\\  \\\\   \\
                                  H
                                       \   \  \  \  \   \  \  \
                                             (B)



•y(t) +\

\ \ N


yd)
TV

MB
I
I
t , ;
h




ft,
r
v. S



H

i
\ \ \
1
^


D

^^^'v^^'xV
«e





\ \V T


k

ho



Figure n-6.     Diagram Illustrating the Geometry in which a Partially Penetrating Slug Test is Analyzed.
               Diagram (A) is for the Confined Case and Diagram (B) is for the Unconfined Case.
                                                 27

-------
1C.)             h(r, z, 0) = h.                                                           (H-2)

B.C.)            h(rw, z, t) = h. - y(t), for (D-H) <; z <. (D-H+L)                           (H-3)

                 |L(r, 0, t) =  * (r, D, t) = 0, for rw < r < R.                           (EW)
                 dz            dz

                     r,, z, t) = 0, for 0 <, z <(D-H) and (D-H+L) < z < D                 (H-5)

                      z, t) = h, , for OS z 
-------
         Through the use of Darcy's law the flow into the aquifer may also be expressed as:

                                   /• D-H+L 3.
                        Q = 27trwK I       _  (rw,z)dz                                  (11-12)
                                  J D-H   or


 A dimensionless flow parameter, P, can now be defined as:

                      -.        _   p D-H+L -,,
                    2nKLy    Ly   I  D-H
                                  J

 The parameter, P,  depends only on the configuration of a particular slug test  From numerical solutions of
 equation (H-8) for different configurations  of Figure n-lt and using equation  (11-13), Figures n-7 and n-8 were
 generated for confined and unconfined cases showing  the  dependence of  P on H/L and L/rw for isotropic
 conditions.  Also, dimensionless data for K/K, ratios of  1, 0.2 and 0.1 are presented in Tables n-1 through n-
 6.

        Once the various  figures or tables are developed for a given anisotropy ratio, they may be used in
 combination with a semi-log plot of slug test data to calculate the hydraulic conductivity in the radial direction.
 For example, from Fig. H-7 the appropriate values of H/L, and L/rw can be used to obtain P (call it PJ.  Then,
 using equation (II-9) one notes that

                            Q = 2nKLyPn =  - A^dy/dt)                                 (11-14)

 Using the relationship  (l/y)dy/dt =  d(ln(y))/dt and solving equation (11-14) for K yields:
               K = -__           = -         (2.3B)                        (n-15)
                     2nLPn    dt          27tLPn


where B is the slope of a semi-log plot (base 10 logs) of y vs. t, with the y vs. t values obtained from an actual
slug test.  B should always be considered a negative number regardless  of whether y is  above or below the
reference level during the slug test

n-3.3   Numerical Example

        Multilevel  slug  test data  from the Mobile  site has been analyzed using  the method presented here
(Melville et al., 1989).  Data from eleven levels in a test well are shown in Figure II-3 along with straight line
representations  using linear regression.  The following applies specifically to the data centered at z=11.2 ft where
A,. = 0.180 ft3.   The procedure by which the individual hydraulic conductivity values can be calculated is:

1.      Obtain a measurement or estimate of aquifer anisotropy ratio.

                K:^ = 6.7:1.  (Parr et al., 1983)

2.      Calculate H/L and log(L/rw) from experimental geometry.

                Aquifer thickness, D = 70 ft

                Packer separation length, L =  3.63 ft

                Distance (H)  to closest boundary =  13.01  ft

                Radius of screen = 0.167 ft
                                                   29

-------
                 H/L=3.58

                 Lfrm = 21.8; loglo(IVrw) = 1.34

3.      Select dimensionless discharge by interpolating between 1:5 and 1:10 anisotropy values in Tables U-2
        and H-3.

                 Pn = 0.277

4.      Determine slope of semi-log data plot (Figure n-3).

                 B « 0.028 sec'1
          •
5.      Calculate hydraulic conductivity from equation (n-15).

                 K = 0.00183 ft/sec = 158 ft/day


        If an average hydraulic conductivity, K, is available from full aquifer pumping tests, multilevel tests like
those described here could be used to develop K(z)/K profiles. This method of obtaining K(z) profiles to assist
in the characterization of contaminant transport  appears to be practical under the proper conditions.

        There can be serious reservations about the reality of slug test data; however,  those tests performed in
wells having slotted screens at the Mobile site appear to be reasonably accurate.  It was not possible to perform
slug tests in wells having wire-wrapped screens because of vertical leakage in the screen structure that could not
be prevented with packers.  As discussed in Braester and Thunvik (1984), partially-penetrating slug tests are very
sensitive to cylindrical annul! of high or low permeability surrounding a well; therefore, gravel or sand filter pack
should never be used.  Tests in unscreened boreholes are questionable because the surface of the formation can
become coated with  low permeability materials.

        These restrictions  make  multilevel  slug testing much more problematical than impeller meter testing.
However,  if the formation  permeability is sufficiently  low to prevent the use of an impeller meters, because of
stall speed problems,  multilevel slug testing may be a viable alternative.
                                                   30

-------
      CL
     O
0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.2
                            Log  (L/rw)
               .8   1.0   1.2   1.4   1.6   1.8   2.0   2.2
Figure H-7.    Plots of Dimensionless Discharge, P = Q/2»cKLy, for the Isotropic, Confined Aquifer Problem
           as a Function of L/rw And H/L.
                                    31

-------
     Q_
     CN
     O
          0.70
         0.60
         0.50
         0.40
         0.30
                      I I I I I I I I I I  I I I I I I
         0 2Q»t IM 111 m n 11 i  M 111 it n  11 n n 11 f i
           "   1.8   1.0   1.2   1.4    1.6   1.8    2.0   2.2
                             Log  (L/rw)
Figure n-8.   Plots of Dimensionless Discharge, P = QfZitKLy, for the Isotropic, Unconfined Aquifer Problem
           as a Function of L/rw and H/L.
                                     32

-------
          TABLE n-1.  DIMENSIONLESS DISCHARGE, P, AS A FUNCTION
          OF H/L AND L/rw FOR THE CONFINED CASE WITH K/K, = 1.0.
H/L
       L/r. =            8     12     18     24     36      48     72     96
1
1.25
1.5
2
4
8
16
.4117
.4448
.4617
.4805
.5029
.5155
.5243
3610
.3905
.4045
.4219
.4370
.4463
.4526
.3196
3456
3570
3725
3829
3898
3945
.2964
.3202
3303
.3402
3519
.3576
.3610
.2675
.2882
.2965
.3045
3140
.3183
3207
.2497
2685
2757
2828
2908
2945
2964
2293
2455
.2515
.2575
.2645
.2674
.2687
2147
2295
2348
2400
2459
2484
2496
       TABLE H-2.  DIMENSIONLESS DISCHARGE, P, AS A FUNCTION OF
            H/L AND L/rw FOR THE CONFINED CASE WITH K/K^ = 02.
       L/r, =           8      12      18      24     36     48     72     96
H/L
1
125
15
2
4
8
16
3205
3428
3533
3660
3771
3837
3878
2874
3076
3165
3279
3360
3411
3442
2597
2778
2852
2950
3013
3053
3076
2434
2601
.2667
2741
2806
2840
2858
.2230
.2377
.2434
.2487
.2551
.2577
.2589
2102
2238
2288
2336
2392
2415
2424
.1955
.2078
2124
.2168
.2215
.2232
.2237
.1847
.1957
.1997
2034
2076
2092
2096
       TABLE H-3.   DIMENSIONLESS DISCHARGE, P, AS A FUNCTION OF
            H/L and L/rw FOR THE CONFINED CASE WITH K/K^ = 0.1.
       L/r. =            8       12     18     24     36     48      72     96
H/L

1                    2914   2634    2398   .2256   .2078   .1966    .1839   .1742
1.25                   3121   .2821    2567   2410   .2207   2085    .1949   .1840
1.5                   .3209   2894    2630   2457   .2255   2129    .1990   .1876
2                    3295   2979    2701   .2523   .2302   2172    .2028   .1909
4                    3401   .3055    2765   2588   .2357   .2219    .2068   .1945
8                    .3453   .3096    2798   .2615   .2378   2238    .2081   .1958
16                   3463   .3105    .2800   .2616   .2387   .2245    .2083   .1960
                                      33

-------
        TABLE H-4. DIMENSIONLESS DISCHARGE, P, AS A FUNCTION OF
          H/L AND L/rw FOR THE UNCONFINED CASE WITH K/K, « 1.0.
       L/r. =           8     12     18     24    36     48     72     96
H/L
1.25
1.5
2
4
8
16
.6564
.6207
.5912
.5616
.5505
.5453
.5487
.5219
.4955
.4783
.4701
.4662
.4658
.4455
.4241
.4129
.4066
.4036
.4186
.4018
3883
3748
.3697
3672
3644
3515
3410
.3305
3264
3244
3329
3220
3132
3042
3007
2990
.2973
.2887
.2813
.2736
.2707
.2695
2742
2667
2605
2540
2516
2505
       TABLE n-5. DIMENSIONLESS DISCHARGE, P, AS A FUNCTION OF
          H/L AND L/rw FOR THE UNCONFINED CASE WITH K/K, = 02.
       L/r. =           8      12     18      24     36     48      72     96
H/L
125
1.5
2
4
8
16
.4528
.4351
.4201
.4047
3988
3960
3944
3802
3683
3564
3517
3494
3469
3356
3256
3166
3128
3110
3187
3090
3018
2926
2894
2879
.2853
.2774
2708
2639
2612
2601
2651
2582
2524
2463
2441
2431
.2423
.2362
.2311
2259
.2242
.2238
2258
2206
2162
2117
2102
2097
       TABLE H-6. DIMENSIONLESS DISCHARGE, P, AS A FUNCTION OF
          H/L AND L/rw FOR THE UNCONFINED CASE WITH K/B^ = 0.1.
       L/r. =           8      12     18     24     36     48     72     %
H/L

125                  .3960   3498   3114   2883   .2605    2434   .2237    2096
1.5                  3824   3386   3023   2804   .2539    2376   .2185    2051
2                   3724   3292   2946   2737   .2482    2326   2141    2012
4                   3587   3195   2867   2667   .2424    2274   .2098    .1974
8                   .3540   3157   2835   2640   .2402    2255   .2085    .1962
16                  3517   3139   2821   2628   .2393    2248   .2083    .1960
                                     34

-------
                                            CHAPTER HI

            CHARACTERIZING FLOW PATHS AND PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS
                                IN FRACTURED ROCK AQUIFERS'


m-1    INTRODUCTION

        In chapters I and n, the impeller meter test and the multilevel slug test were described as a means for
measuring vertical hydraulic conductivity distributions.  This chapter deals  with the application of the borehole
heat-pulse flowmeter.  It can be used as an alternative to an impeller flow meter in virtually any application
because of its greater sensitivity. This increased sensitivity is particularly important near the bottom of test wells
where flow velocities are small

        Spinner flowmeters are limited to minimum velocities of about 3 to 10 fl/min (1 to 3 m/min) allowing
flow volumes  of as much as 4 gal/min (IS  1/min) to go undetected  in  a  4-in (10  cm) diameter borehole.
However,  impeller  flowmeters are available commercially while heat-pulse flowmeters are in a developmental
stage.

        Since  the analysis of data obtained with a heat-pulse flowmeter in  granular aquifers is identical to that
discussed for impeller meter data this chapter will be devoted to the application of flowmeters, particularly heat-
pulse flowmeters, to fractured rock aquifers. Such meters may be used  to locate productive fracture zones and
to characterize apparent hydraulic  conductivity distributions.  Because flow from or into individual fractures is
often small,  flowmeters more sensitive than impeller meters ate commonly  needed.

        Several thermal flow-measuring  techniques have been developed for  the measurement of slow flows,
including a thermal flowmeter described by Chapman and Robinson (1962) and an evaluation of hot-wire and hot-
film anemometers by Morrow and Kline  (1971).   Dudgeon et al. (1975) reported the  development of a heat-
pulse flowmeter that uses a minimal-energy thermal pulse in  a tag-trace, travel-time technique which is only 1.63
in (41  mm) in diameter and can be  used in  small-diameter boreholes.   Although  other thermal flowmeters
considered have not proved to be  practical in a borehole  environment, the commercial  version of the Dudgeon
style heat-pulse flowmeter  was determined to be viable even though it lacks  important features;  such as seals,
which could withstand water pressures to at least  10,000 ft (3,048 m), insensitivity to changes in logging cable
resistance and  stray electrical  currents, and integral centralizers (Hess, 1982).

        The basic measurement principle of the USGS Meter is to create a thin horizontal disc of heated water
within the well screen at a known time and a known distance from two thermocouple  heat sensors, one above
and one below the heating element As the heat pulse moves upward or downward with the water  flow, the time
required for the temperature  peak to  arrive at one of the heat sensors is  measured.  The velocity is then
determined by  dividing the known travel distance by the time of travel Thermal buoyancy effects  are eliminated
by raising the  water temperature only a small fraction of  a centigrade degree.

        This chapter describes three case studies where flow measurements were used to provide a quick survey
of aquifer hydraulic responses in fractured rock.  They markedly reduce the time required to complete aquifer
characterizations using conventional hydraulic tests and tracer studies.


m-2    THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S THERMAL FLOWMETER

        The urgent need for a reliable, slow-velocity flowmeter prompted the USGS to develop a small-diameter,
sensitive, thermal flowmeter that would operate  to depths of 10,000 ft (3,048 m) or more using 16,000 ft (5,000
m)  or  longer  lengths  of conventional four-conductor logging cable (Figure III-l).   The thermal flowmeter
developed by the U.S.G.S.  has interchangeable flow-sensors, 1.63  and 2.5 in. (41  and 64 mm)  in diameters, and
    * Material in this chapter was prepared by Alfred E. Hess and Frederick L. Paillet under sponsorship of the
Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, at the Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225.


                                                  35

-------
has a flow sensitivity from 0.1 to 20 ft/min (0.03 to 6.1 m/min) in boreholes with diameters that range from 2
to 5 in (50 to 125 mm).  The vertical velocity in a borehole is measured with the thermal flowmeter by noting
the time-of-travel of a heat pulse and using calibration charts developed in the laboratory using a tube with a
diameter similar to that of  the borehole under investigation (Hess, 1986).

        After the thermal  flowmeter was tested at several sites,  an inflatable, flow-concentrating packer was
developed to decrease measurement uncertainties caused by geothermally induced convection currents within the
borehole and to increase flow sensitivity in larger diameter holes. The flowmeter and packer have been integrated
into a single probe operating on logging lines having four or more conductors (Figure ni-2).  The assembly can
be used with other borehole probes, such as spinner flowmeters and pressure transducers, whose functions are
enhanced by the use of an  easily controlled packer (Hess, 1988).

        The thermal flowmeter, with or without packers, has been used to measure natural or artificially induced
flow distributions in boreholes with diameters  ranging from  3  to  10 in (75 to 250 mm), at  temperatures from
6 to 60°C, and in a  variety of lithologies including basalt, dolomite, gneiss, granite,  limestone, sandstone,  and
shale.

        With the packer inflated, thermal travel times correlate with borehole flows,  rather than vertical velocity,
and can detect flows in the range of 0.02 to 2  gal/min (0.04 to 8 L/m).  A representative flow calibration chart
is shown in Figure ni-3 with curves for the packer inflated, deflated, or not installed.  The inverse of the time-
of-travel is used on the calibration chart for ease and accuracy in  reading the curves  (Hess, 1982).

        The thermal flowmeter was used initially to define naturally occurring flows in boreholes.  However, it
has been used in additional applications, such  as locating fractures that produce water during aquifer tests  and
identifying flows induced in adjacent boreholes during such tests.  The rapid measurement provided by the thermal
flowmeter suggests that a few hours of measurements may save days or weeks in investigations  using conventional
packer and tracer techniques.

m-2.1  Case Study 1-Fractured Dolomite in Northeastern Illinois

        Acoustic-televiewer, caliper, single-point-resistance, and flowmeter logs were obtained in a 210 ft (64 m)
borehole in northeastern Illinois  as part of a study of contaminant migration in fractured dolomite  (Figure ni-
4). The acoustic-televiewer log is a magnetically orientated, pseudo-television image of the borehole wall which
is produced with a short-range sonar probe (Zemanek et al., 1970).  Irregularities in the  borehole wall,  such as
fracture and vugular openings, absorb  or scatter the incident acoustic energy resulting in dark features on the
recorded image.  Such televiewer logs may be  used to determine the strike and dip  of observed features (Paillet
et al., 1985).

        The acoustic-televiewer and caliper logs for borehole DH-14  indicate a number of nearly horizontal
fractures which seem to be associated with bedding planes.  The largest of these are designated A, B, C, and D
in Figure ffl-4.  The caliper log  indicates that the major planar features on  the televiewer log are large fractures
or solution openings  associated with substantial borehole diameter enlargements.  The large but irregular  features
between fractures B and C  also are associated with borehole enlargements but are interpreted  as vugular cavities
within the dolomite rather than fractures.  The single-point-resistance log indicates abrupt shifts in resistance at
depths of about 130 and 185 ft (40 and 56 m) which may reflect differences in the dissolved solids concentration
of water in the borehole.

         The pattern of vertical  flow determined by the  flowmeter indicated the probable origin of the water
quality  contrasts  in the borehole (Figure ffl-4). The flowmeter log indicated downflow, which probably  was
associated  with naturally occurring hydraulic head differences, causing water to enter at the uppermost fracture,
A, and exit at fracture B.  A much smaller flow, with the same  electrical conductivity and dissolved solids
concentration, continued  down the borehole to fracture C.   At this fracture, the downflow  increased and flow
coming into the  well apparently contained a greater concentration of dissolved solids, which  accounts for the
greater  electrical conductivity.   This  increased downflow exited  the borehole at fracture D where  there  was
another, somewhat smaller  shift  in single-point-resistance.  Although not rigorously  proven from the geophysical
logs, the second  shift in  resistance appears to be associated with the dissolved solids  concentration of the water
entering at fracture C.


                                                   36

-------
   METRE
  r-1.0
   -O.S
   -0.7
   -O.S
   -0.4
   -0.3
   -0.2
   -0.1
   «—0.0
  ELECTRONICS
    SECTION
     80WSPRING
Y^CENTRALUEK

   \
                                  . FLOW SENSOR
                                                            ROW SENSOR
Figure ffl-1.     The U.S. Geological Survey's  Slow Velocity Sensitive Thermal Howmeter (Modified Hess,
                1986).
                                                  37

-------
                           FHHT METERS
                               I-1-0
                           -3.0
                           •ZS
                            2JJ
                            1.5
                            U)
                           0.3
                           0.0
                                -OS
                                -QJt
                                -0.7
                                -0.6
                                OJ
                                Q-2
                                0.1
                                0.0
                                                        ELECTSONC
                                                         SSCTCN
                                                             WITH INFLATED
                                                        PUMP
Figure HI-2.    The U.S.  Geological Survey's Thermal Flowmeter with Inflated  Flow-Concentrating Packer
                (Modified Hess, 1988).
                                                    38

-------
                              AVERAGE VERTICAL VELOCITY. IN FEET PER MINUTE
        2

        fll
        •
        S
        o
        in
        m


        m
        I
        m
:j
      DOWNFLOW.IN.
    GALLONS PER MINUTE
         ca        &
     	i	I	
                         I
                        01
           UPFLOW. IN GALLONS
               PER MINUTE
                  to
                  I
       OOWNFLOW. IN LITERS
           PER MINUTE
             ,_  UPFLOW. IN LITERS
               '    PER MINUTE
                         6
                         o>
                            
                            AVERAGE VERTICAL VELOCITY. IN METERS PER MINUTE
Figure UL-3.     Example of a Thermal Flowmeter  Calibration  in  a 6-inch  (15.2 cm) Diameter  Calibration
                Column.
                                                  39

-------
                         CALIPER LOG

            ACOUSTIC
         TELEVIEWER LOG  DIAMETER. IN INCHES
                                          10
         100
cr

-------
         Subsequent water sampling confirmed that there were differences in the dissolved solids concentration
 of the water at different depths.  Sample analysis indicated that the water entering at fracture A had a dissolved
 solids concentration of about 750 mg/L and that entering at fracture C had a dissolved solids concentration of
 about 1,800 mg/L.  In this instance the geophysical data, especially the thermal-flowmeter data, were useful in
 planning subsequent packer testing and in interpreting the results of water-quality measurements.

        The identification of natural differences in background water quality was useful in modeling the transport
 of conservative solutes.  At the same time,  measurements of vertical velocity  distributions provided useful
 indications of hydraulic head differences between different depth intervals. This information could not be obtained
 from conventional water level measurements without the time consuming installation of packers at multiple levels
 in all boreholes at the site.

 ffl-2.2 Case Study 2-Fractured Gneiss in Southeastern New York

        Conventional geophysical and televiewer logs were obtained in a 400 ft (123 m) borehole completed in
 fractured gneiss at a contaminated ground-water site in southeastern New York,  about 200  ft (70 m) from Lake
 Mahopac.  After a night of recovery from the  effects of pumping nearby wells, the water  level in the borehole
 appeared to be slightly higher than the lake level, even though the lake level is generally higher during the day.
 The acoustic-televiewer log  indicated that fractures  intersected almost every depth interval  of this borehole.
 Although brine-solution tracing indicated there  was downflow within the borehole, the locations of entry and exit
 points were uncertain.

        Acoustic-televiewer and caliper logs for selected intervals of the borehole are shown in Figure ffl-5.  The
 caliper log  indicates several  borehole enlargements at point A just  below the bottom of the casing and other
 enlargements, B and C, near the bottom of the borehole.  The televiewer log confirmed a large number of major
 fractures that could be entry  and exit points.

        Flowmeter logs indicated both  the entry and exit points of  downflow (Figure ITI-6).  With just a few
 hours of flowmeter measurements the entry points of the downflow were isolated to the uppermost fractures  with
 most being  from fracture A.   Consistent differences in the downflow indicated  that about  20 percent exited at
 fracture B and the rest at fracture C.

        Flowmeter measurements also indicated a series of transient fluctuations in downward flow which are
 attributed to the effects of pumping in nearby water-supply wells and the resulting head differences between
 shallow and deep fractures.  The downward flow between fractures A and B was determined to vary  from a
 maximum of about 0.7  gal/min (2.7 L/min) to a  minimum of 0.4 gal/min (1.5 L/min) during periods ranging from
 a few minutes to an hour.

        These results enabled hydrologists studying the contamination problem to infer local flow conditions in
 the aquifer.  The results of flowmeter measurements provide useful information about hydraulic head differences
 between the upper and lower fracture zones and the  extent of interconnection between individual fracture sets
 within those zones.  Of special interest is the small proportion of the many large fractures, indicated by the
 caliper log,  that actually produced or accepted  flow under ambient hydraulic head conditions.  This conclusion
 agrees with  several other recent studies of fractured-rock aquifers (Paillet et al.,  1987; Paillet and Hess, 1987).

ffl-2.3    Case Study 3-Water Movement in and Around a Fracture
          Zone On The Canadian Shield In  Manitoba

        This study describes flow in interconnected fractures for an isolated fracture zone on the southeastern
margin of the Canadian Shield in Manitoba, Canada.  Two boreholes 425 ft (130 m) apart intersected a fracture
zone at about 870 ft (265 m). The depths on the logs are somewhat greater than actual vertical depths because
the boreholes had been angled  deliberately by about 20  degrees.  As  shown  in  Figure  HI-7, the  boreholes
intersected almost no fractures except those associated with the major zone.  The results indicate substantial
permeability in  the main fracture zone and in several sets of fractures  that appear to splay from it.
                                                   41

-------
                                              CAUPERLOG
                                              DIAMETER IN
                                                INCHES
                            ACOUSTIC    so
                           TELEVIEWEH
                               LOG
                                        100 -
                                       350
                                       •«OO
- /
1
"i
LL
>>f=—
1
B
C
\
>
                                                         - 25

                                                             IU
                                                             &
                                                             u.
                                                             (T
                                                         Jso 3
                                              IS

                                             DIAMETER. IN
                                            CENTIMETERS
Figure ni-5.     Acoustic-Televiewer and Caliper Logs for Selected Intervals in a Borehole in Southeastern
                New York.
                                                   42

-------
i?
S* ^i
g O
5.8,
3<
**^* \0
O K°
*» &
53
If
I5'
a p
S'W
f |

SI
%*
?!




r~ <
li
W(-j
m?
S^
-O
is
i



6
b
to
o

-*
0
o
o
k

I - .1

-
.





DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE
i i i
........ \ 1 1 111

I • i ' I
• , WITHOUT . «
f • " • " DRAWDOWN '
,_ __.. i ««•





c
i
\m^m^n^m^(

P
i.
o
$



> m>
f~(BO
O — C
AW?^j
o mo

OH
wO
Tn
s ^
0 SQ
2.<
8
   DEPTH, IN METERS BELOW LAND SURFACE

-------
                          SOUTH
                    BOREHOLE
                     URL15
BOREHOLE
  URL14
                                                                  NORTH
                                        ESTIMATED FRACTURE
                                           APERATURE.IN
                                            INCHES x10'z
                                 0.0
                                       1.0   2.0
                                                 0.0  1.0
                               800
                               850
                            UJ
                            o
                            u.
                            CC

                            CO
                            UJ
                            CD

                            UJ
                            UJ
                            u.
                               900
                               950
                            UJ
                            Q
                              1000
                                                            1.2-
1
-


F
«^j /
H
_

P .
-
-




RACTUR
ZONE
/ N







i
_

_
e
\
^'"^
3

-
-
r i
23O
240
250
UJ
0
cc
260 g
Q
5
270 3
UJ
N METERS B
X
UJ
290°
300
310
320
                                 0.0 0.2
                                                  0.0   0.2  0.4
                                       ESTIMATED FRACTURE
                                          APERTURE. IN
                                          MILLIMETERS
Figure HI-7.
Distribution of Fracture Permeability in Boreholes URL14 and UKL15.  Fracture
is Expressed as the Aperture of a Single, Planar Fracture Capable of Transmitting an Equivalent
Flow.
                                                   44

-------
        Flowmeter tests indicate that each borehole produced water from the vicinity of the fracture zone during
pumping, but at markedly different rates. In borehole URL14, a pumping rate of only 0.07 gal/min (025 L/min)
maintained a drawdown of more than 260 ft (80 m), while in borehole URL15 a pumping rate of 5 gal/min (19
L/min) resulted in only 5 ft (1.5 m) of drawdown.  All water production in borehole URL14 came from a minor
fracture, far below the major fracture zone, whereas all of the water production in borehole URL15 came from
the lower one-half of the major fracture zone.

        The hydraulic connection between the two boreholes was investigated by measuring flow in borehole
URL1S while  pumping borehole URL14.  It was determined that flow entered borehole URL1S  at the  main
fracture zone,  at a depth of 880 ft (270 m), and then  moved  downward about SO ft  (IS m) to exit at an
apparently minor fracture. Flow entered borehole URL14 at a minor fracture about 130 ft (40 m) below the main
fracture zone  (Figure  m-8).   Outflow  from borehole  URL1S  was equal to inflow to URL 14, within the
measurement accuracy of the thermal flowmeter.

        A  projection  of fracture planes indicates that there is no direct connection between the exit point in
borehole URL1S and the entry point in borehole URL14.  This analysis indicates that the hydraulic connection
between the boreholes occurred by means of irregular fracture intersections beneath the main fracture. Although
the major fracture zone was the primary producer when borehole URL 15 was pumped, that zone produced no
inflow in borehole  URL14 when it was pumped.

     Although  it is difficult to understand how small fractures located away from the main fracture zone could
provide the only connection between boreholes URL14 and URL15, other geophysical logs provided additional
information.  Local stress concentrations may have caused  local rock mass dilatency accounting  for this
permeable pathway below the main fracture zone.  This is inferred from borehole-wall breakouts, identified on
acoustic-televiewer logs, and later  confirmed by hydraulic fracturing stress measurements.


m-3   CONCLUSIONS

        These case studies illustrate the potential application of the thermal flowmeter in investigations of slow
flow in  fractured aquifers.  The relative ease of making thermal-flowmeter measurements permits reconnaissance
of naturally occurring flows prior to hydraulic testing as well as the transient effects caused by pumping.

        Thermal-flowmeter measurements interfere with attempts to control borehole conditions,  as with packers,
because of the flowmeter and  wire line.   In spite of this limitation, the simplicity and rapidity  of thermal-
flowmeter measurements constitute a valuable means  to identify contaminant plume pathways while planning
additional investigations. The thermal flowmeter is especially useful at sites where boreholes are intersected by
permeable horizontal fractures or bedding planes.

     Naturally occurring hydraulic head differences, between individual fracture zones, are altered greatly by the
presence of open boreholes  at a study site.  These differences can only be studied by the expensive and time
consuming  use of packers to close all connections between fracture zones.  The simple and direct
measurement of vertical flows, caused by these head differences, can be obtained with the thermal flowmeter in
a few hours. Additional improvements of the thermal-flowmeter, by adding a packer and refining techniques for
flowmeter interpretation, may greatly decrease the time and effort required to characterize fractured rock aquifers
using conventional hydraulic testing.

        While the  case studies described in this chapter  did not  all  involve contaminated ground  water, it is
believed that the potential application to such sites is obvious. Hopefully, thermal flowmeters and other sensitive
devices, such as the electromagnetic flowmeter being developed  by  the Tennessee Valley Authority, will be
available commercially in the near future.
                                                 45

-------
                      PROJECTIONS
                      OF FRACTURES
Figure III-8.     Distribution of Vertical Flow Measured in Boreholes URL14 and URLIS Superimposed on the
               Projection of Fracture Planes Identified Using the Acoustic Televiewer.
                                               46

-------
                                            APPENDIX I

               OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION OF METHODS FOR DETERMINING
                       THE DISTRIBUTION OF HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC
                         CONDUCTIVITY IN THE VERTICAL DIMENSION


AI-1    INTRODUCTION

        This appendix overviews several techniques for measuring K(z), the vertical distribution of horizontal
hydraulic conductivity. It is based largely on a paper  by Taylor et al. (1989) published in Ground Water and
should be consulted for a more in-depth evaluation of those techniques not emphasized in this report

        As  discussed  in  the Executive Summary the application  of advection-based models requires the
measurement of hydraulic conductivity distributions. This has been done previously using forced gradient tracer
techniques (Molz et al., 1988,1989b), but the technology is expensive, time consuming, and usually not practical.
Therefore, tracer methodology will not be discussed further here.

        An  important consideration  when making measurements of hydraulic conductivity is the volume over
which the measurement is averaged.  This volume may range from a few tenths of a liter, for core studies, to
hundreds or  thousands of cubic meters using hydraulic testing procedures.   The volume  over which the
measurement is made depends on the intended use of the hydraulic conductivity data.  When the volume is large,
important  small scale features may  be ignored, and when the  volume is small, there may be a  tendency to
undersample, which can result in  die loss of significant  features.  The exact definition of large or small depends
on the local variability of hydraulic properties and the intended  application of the data.

        Another important consideration, with respect to hydraulic conductivity, is the significant horizontal to
vertical ratio that exists in most  natural formations, where anisotropy ratios on the order of 10:1 or more are
common (Freeze and Cherry, 1979].  In such situations, measurements of hydraulic  conductivity made in one
direction are of limited value when modeling fluid movement in another. When hydraulic conductivity is treated
as a scalar or a diagonalized matrix, which is  usually  the case, it is important that  the fluid movement being
modeled is consistent with the direction in which  the conductivity is determined.

        All  borehole methods measure properties of the formation immediately surrounding the well, and the
distance into the formation for which the measurement is valid is referred to as the radius  of investigation.
Depending on the method, the radius of investigation can range from about 0.05 to 5 m and it is important to
ensure that mis zone is not disturbed significantly during drilling.  Morin et al. (1988b) discuss the effects of
various drilling methods on the development of the disturbed zone.

AI-2    Straddle Packer Tests

        One of the most common methods of  determining the vertical  distribution of horizontal conductivities
is to perform hydraulic testing over short intervals of a borehole using a straddle packer (Fig. AI-1).

        There are several variations  of straddle packer tests.  For example, it is common to pump into or out
of a packer section at a constant  rate while measuring head, or inject at a constant head while measuring flow.
Another method, called the multilevel slug test, is to change the head suddenly by adding  or displacing a volume
of water, then recording head vs. time as the system returns to equilibrium.

        In any case, these methods are accurate only if the packer is effective in hydraulically isolating a segment
of the borehole. If channels exist around the well screen, fluid will bypass the packer  instead of flowing radially
into or out of the well as planned. Channels may be present in  the structure of a well screen or caused by the
failure of the formation or backfill material to fill the  annulus between the casing and the borehole wall.  A
similar problem may  occur if a gravel pack has a greater hydraulic conductivity than the formation.  Although
expensive, the ideal well is constructed with  short screened intervals  that  are  isolated  from one another  by
grouting.
                                                 47

-------
        If leakage around the packers exists, results obtained with a straddle packer test will indicate a hydraulic
conductivity that is erroneously high. To detect such leakage it is necessary to monitor the head in zones above
and below the packed off interval using a pressure transducer.  However, if the transmissivity of these two zones
is significantly larger than that of the test zone, leakage around the straddle packer will not cause a detectable
change in head outside the packed off interval.  To identify this problem, it is necessary to install a second set
of packers (Fig. AI-1). The hydraulic head in the segments of the well that are between the two sets of packers
will now be sensitive to  leakage around the first set of packers.

        If the hydraulic  head in the segments between the two sets of packers is influenced significantly by
hydraulic testing, the straddle packer is not isolating the test segment of the well and the results will not be valid.
If this situation occurs, it is usually not possible to correct and the straddle packer method cannot be used. Four
packers and three transducers can be a cumbersome arrangement to  operate in the field. Nevertheless, based on
comparisons with other test results, the straddle packer technique worked well at the Mobile site and, therefore,
was selected for detailed study.

        The straddle packer method can be used to measure hydraulic conductivity over well segments mat range
from centimeters to hundreds of meters in length. However, the data must be analyzed carefully for small test
intervals because the flow can have significant vertical components (Dagan,  1978;  Melville et al.,  1989).  The
calculated hydraulic conductivity reflects that of the formation material  within 25 to 35 well radii for a typical
2 in (5 cm) well (Braester and Thunvik, 1984).

AI-3    Particle Size Methods

        In a formation consisting of unconsolidated particles, the hydraulic conductivity is controlled, in part, by
the size and distribution of the pores.  In an effort to quantify this, Fair and Hatch (1933) and Masch and Denny
(1966) have developed analytical approaches to estimate hydraulic conductivity from a description of the formation
grains. The model proposed by  Fair and Hatch requires that the distribution of grain sizes be known while mat
of Masch  and Denny requires the  mean and standard deviation of the grain sizes.

        Both of these methods suffer from several of  the fundamental problems listed below.

        1.      Samples must be collected during drilling. This is not always done, hence for many if not most
                existing wells, these methods cannot be used.

        2.      To determine grain-size statistics the  formation must be sieved.   Obviously, features  such as
                small scale layering, compaction, and sorting are destroyed by this process.  If these features
                exist, which is  usually the case, the material to be evaluated will  not be representative of the
                formation.

        3.      Bias may be introduced by the sampling method.  The method may be unable to collect large
                material, such as  gravel, or fine particles  such as silt and clay.

       4.      The methods are limited to clean formations  with sand size particles greater than 0.06 mm.
                Formations that have silt or clay-size material cannot be accurately analyzed with these methods.

        Because of these problems,  grain  size analyses are limited and are  unlikely to be suitable in
characterizing aquifers for use in contaminant  transport modeling.
                                                   48

-------
                                      0

                  INFLATION
                  PRESSURE
                                    trr
                                     B
Figure AI-1.   DetaUs of an Inflatable Straddle Packer Design.
                               49

-------
AI-4    Empirical Relationships Between Electrical and Hydraulic Conductivity

        The electrical conductivity of a porous medium is a measure of its ability to conduct electrical current
In natural formations, electrical conduction occurs along two paths.  The first is by ionic conduction, which is
controlled by the electrical conductivity and volume of the pore fluid and the manner in which the pores are
connected.  The size of individual pores does not influence the electrical conductivity of die fluid.  The second
is along the surface of the formation matrix  which is a function of the type and distribution of the matrix
mineralogy, particularly with respect to the clay minerals.  In clay free formations, with a constant pore fluid
electrical conductivity, the electrical conductivity is usually a function of porosity. Archie's rule is a frequently
used relationship relating electrical conductivity and porosity in clay-free formations (Keller and Frischknecht,
1966).

        The hydraulic  conductivity of a porous medium is a function of the size of the pores and the manner
in which they are connected.  Two formations with the same porosity, but different pores sizes, will have the
same electrical conductivity but different hydraulic conductivity, so there is no clear relationship between electrical
and hydraulic properties.  This is further complicated when  anisotropic effects are considered because the axis
of anisotropy for electrical and hydraulic conductivity  may  not coincide.  The  presence of clays will further
complicate any relationship between electrical and hydraulic  conductivity.

        Despite these problems, there are many examples in the literature of empirical relationships between
electrical and hydraulic properties (Mazac et al., 1985; Kwader, 1985; Huntiey,  1986; Urish, 1981).  These were
developed in clay free formations where electrical conduction by the matrix was not a significant factor.   It is
also necessary for the formation to have a relationship between porosity and hydraulic conductivity and to have
a pore fluid of constant and known electrical conductivity.  Depending on the  formation and the methods used
to measure the properties, both positive and negative correlations between the two properties have been observed.
These empirical relationships are only applicable over limited areas of a specific formation. Such restrictions,
and the need to measure the hydraulic conductivities at numerous locations to define the relationship, severely
limit the utility of this approach. However, if a relationship can be defined, electrical measurements can be made
rapidly  and a large number of hydraulic conductivity determinations can be made with little additional effort.

        The radius of investigation of this method is dependent on the process used to determine electrical and
hydraulic conductivities.  Hydraulic conductivities are usually determined by hydraulic testing and have a radius
of investigation of several meters. The radius of investigation of the electrical measurements is controlled by the
instrumentation and should be comparable to that of hydraulic measurements.

AI-5   Measurements Based on Natural Flow Through a Well

        There are several techniques  for determining the hydraulic conductivity distribution surrounding a well
by measuring  the natural fluid velocity distribution  through the welL  These are illustrated in  Figure AI-2 and
are most effective when the fluid velocity  is horizontal. They differ according to how the velocity measurement
is made within the packed off section of the well These include heat-pulse devices for making  the measurement
(Melville et al.,  1985) as well as various types of point-dilution approaches  (Drost et aL, 1968;  McLinn and
Palmer, 1989; Taylor et al., 1989).

        In the latter approach, a tracer is injected into the segment of the well  of interest where it must be kept
well mixed.  The tracer is removed from the  segment  by diffusion and advection of  the fluid moving through
the well.  This movement is horizontal as vertical fluid movement is blocked by packers. If the velocity is
high, the tracer concentration, which  must be recorded, will decrease more rapidly than if the velocity is low.
Since the decay is exponential, the slope of the tracer  decay  curve on a semi-log plot is a function of the
horizontal fluid velocity.

         A new type of point-dilution apparatus, based on an  arrangement of dialysis cells, is illustrated in Figure
AI-3.   Glass cylinders  having  selected types of semipermeable membranes as their ends are mounted along a
positioning rod.  Each cell, which has a flexible rubber seal above and below, is filled with water depleted of
the isotope oxygen-18, i.e. the O18/O16 ratio is different  for the  water within  the cell compared to the natural
groundwater (Alternatively, other tracers may  be used.).  The entire apparatus, which may contain 20 or more


                                                   50

-------
dialysis cells spaced at equal intervals along the rod, is lowered into the well and positioned within the screen.
After positioning, oxygen-18 begins to diffuse into each cell with the rate of diffusion depending  on the flow
velocity in the vicinity of the cell.   By measuring OI$/0W ratios in each cell before and after a test, die ground
water flow  velocity can be calculated for  each  cell position.   The calculation  procedure  is only  moderately
involved as described  in Ronen et al., 1986, where the technique was developed and applied in an unconfined
aquifer.  The method was also applied at the Mobile site with some success.  Once the cells and  cell holders
are available in large quantities, many measurements can be made rather easily.

        As the title of this section implies, natural flow methods result in a velocity measurement not a hydraulic
conductivity measurement  If one assumes that the head gradient is predominantly in the horizontal direction,
constant with depth and with a constant porosity, K(z) will be proportional to the fluid velocity distribution v(z).
An approach that results in a mote direct calculation of K is described by Taylor et al., 1989.

        All of the natural flow methods are relatively difficult to apply and the resulting data difficult to interpret.
Due to a variety of factors, a complex flow pattern develops around a well screen that is sensitive to near-hole
disturbances.  Some methods require that die packed-off section be filled with glass beads, and it is difficult or
impossible to achieve the same bead packing in all the measurement sections.

AI-6   Single Well Electrical Tracer (SWET) Test

        In the single  well electrical tracer  (SWET) method (Taylor et al.,  1988),  salt  water is injected under
steady state conditions into a well.   While injection of the tracer continues, the radius of invasion of the tracer
is determined with a borehole induction tool (Figure AI-4).  By repeatedly measuring the depth of invasion at
different times, the rate of invasion can be determined.  The hydraulic head,  which is a measure of the driving
force required to inject the fluid, is also noted.  The tracer will invade different intervals of the formation at
different rates depending on the hydraulic properties of each interval.

     Since multiple  induction logs are run, the rate of invasion can be determined at several different radii which
can be converted into a hydraulic conductivity log.  A porosity log can also be calculated using  a model of
formation electrical  conductivity which accounts for variations in matrix conductivity and porosity.  The SWET
test procedure was field-tested for the first time at the Mobile  site during the summer of 1987.

        As a SWET test continues, the hydraulic conductivities calculated ate representative of the formation over
an increasing radius up to the radius  of sensitivity of the induction tool.  At the Mobile site this was on the order
of 4 m, which is a  relatively deep radius of investigation.

        Since most wells have a disturbed zone around them, techniques having a shallow radius of investigation
will be inaccurate, but the SWET test minimizes these problems. Another advantage of the SWET test is that
the entire well is subjected to the same hydraulic head as opposed to the straddle packer where only a portion
of the well  is pressurized and errors can result if there is leakage around the packer.

        A disadvantage of the SWET test is that the  method requires the careful injection of a large volume of
electrolyte which may  not be allowed at some  locations.

AI-7   Borehole Flowmeter Tests

        The borehole flowmeter test is illustrated in Figure AI-S. A small pump is placed in a well and operated
at a constant flow rate, Q.  After near steady-state behavior is  obtained the flowmeter, which measures vertical
flow, is placed near the bottom of  the well and  a reading  taken. The meter is  then raised a few feet where
another reading is taken.  This procedure continues until the meter is  above the top of the  screen where  the
reading should equal Q, the steady state pumping rate as measured independently at the surface.  As illustrated
in the lower portion of Figure AI-5,  the result is a series of data points giving vertical discharge within the well
screen as a  function of depth.
                                                   51

-------
                Land
         Groundwater
         Flow
Surface
                                  V
 Flow  Velocity
 Measured
 Here
       Straddle
       Packer system I    I
      	1    '
AI-2.  Schematic Diagram Illustrating a Natural Flow Field in the Vicinity of a Well.
                            52

-------
                            To  The
                           I Surface
                                      Well Screen
                                     Positioning Rod
                                      Flexible Seals
                                            is Cell
                                      Semipermeable
                                      Membrane
                                                 arcy
Figure AI-3.
Geometry and  Instrumentation  Associated with the Dialysis Cell Method for
Measurement of Darcy Velocity.
                                  53

-------
               ELECTROMAGNETIC
                  CONDUCTIVITY
                         TEST
     ELECTROLYTE INJECTION
     LINE
                                   TO LOGGER
          ELECTROLYTE
          FRONT
    HIGH PERMEABILITY
    ZONES
                                    CONDUCTIVITY
                                    PROBE
Figure AI-4.
Apparatus and Geometry Associated with the SWET Test
                               54

-------
             OP-
               PUMP
     CAP ROCK
   (QOISCHARGE RATE)


        BOREHOLE FLOW
        METER 	
         ELEVAT!ON=Z
                  TO LOGGER (Q)

                             SURFACE
                    CASING
                              SCREEN
                                          DATA
                                            Q
Figure AI-5.
Apparatus and Geometry Associated with a Borehole Flowmeter Test
                              55

-------
        The data analysis procedure is rather simple.  The difference between two successive meter readings
yields the net flow entering the screen segment between the elevations where the readings were taken.  This
information may be analyzed in several ways to obtain a K(z) value.

        The flowmeter test suffers from the lack of readily available impeller meters designed for water well
applications.  Also, other types of promising  technologies for flowmeter applications, such as heat-pulse (Hess
and Paillet, 1989) and electromagnetic (Young and Waldrop,  1989) techniques, are not fully developed. However,
it does appear that some types of heat-pulse (Hess and Paillet, 1989) and electromagnetic (Young and Waldrop,
1989) water well flow meters will be available in the near  future.

AI-8    The Role  of Geophysical Logging

        The more  traditional geophysical logging methods  such as gamma logs, electric logs of various types,
nuclear logs, etc., can be used to help identify the overall stratigraphy and geological setting of a site.  They can
also provide information of a general nature concerning hydraulic conductivity distributions. Applicable techniques
are reviewed by Taylor (1989), while  detailed descriptions of methods may be  found in Keys and MacCary
(1971), and a bibliography of borehole  geophysics as applied to ground-water hydrology has been developed by
Taylor and Dey (1985).
                                                   56

-------
                                            REFERENCES


Bear, J.  1979.  Hydraulics of Groundwater.  McGraw-Hill, New York.

Boast, C.W., and D. Kirkham.  1971. Auger hole seepage theory.  Soil Science Society of America Journal 35:
365-374.

Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice.  1976.  A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with
completely or partially penetrating wells.  Water Resources Research. 12:423-428.

Braester, C., and R. Thunvik.  1984. Determination of formation permeability by double-packer tests.  Journal
of Hydrology.  72:375-389.

Bredehoeft, JD., and  S.S. Papadopulos.  1980.  A method for determining  the hydraulic properties of  tight
formations.  Water Resources Research. 16:233-238.

Chapman, H.T., and A.E. Robinson.  1962.  A thermal flowmeter for measuring velocity of flow in a well.  U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper, 1544-E, 12.

Cooper, H.H., J.D.  Bredehoeft, and S.S.  Papadopulos.   1967.  Response of a finite diameter well to an
instantaneous charge of water.  Water Resources Research.  3:263-269.

Cooper, H.H.,  and C.E. Jacob.  1946.  A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and
summarizing well-field history.  Transactions American Geophysical Union. 27:526-534.

Dagan, G.  1978. A note on packer, slug, and recovery tests in unconfined aquifers.  Water Resources Research.
14:929-934.

Davis, S.N., G.M. Thompson, H.W. Bentley, and G. Stiles.  1980. Groundwater tracers - a short review. Ground
Water. 18:14-23.

Drost, W., D.  Klotz,  A. Koch, H.  Moser, F.  Neumaier, and W. Rauert.  1968.  Point dilution methods of
investigating groundwater flow by means of radioisotopes.  Water Resources Research. 4:125-146.

Dudgeon,  C.R., MJ. Green, and WJ.  Smedmore.   1975.   Heat-pulse flowmeter for boreholes:  Medmenham,
Marlow, Bucks, England. Water Research Centre Technical Report TR-4, 69.

Fair, G.M., and LJP. Hatch.  1933.  Fundamental factor governing the stream line flow of water through sands.
Journal  American Water Works Association. 25:1551-1565.

Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry.   1979.  Groundwater.  Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 604.

Hada, S.  1977.  Utilization  and interpretation of micro flowmeter.  Engineering Geology (Japan). 18:26-37.

Hess, A.E. 1982.  A  heat-pulse flowmeter for  measuring low  velocities in boreholes. U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report 82-699:40  pp.

Hess, A.E.  1986.  Identifying hydraulically conductive  fractures with  a slow-velocity borehole  flowmeter.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 23:69-78.

Hess, A.E.  1988.   Characterizing fractured hydrology using a sensitive  borehole flowmeter with a wire-line
powered packer.  International Conference on Fluid Flow in Fractured Rock, Proceedings, May, Atlanta, GA (in
press).
                                                 57

-------
Hess, A.E., and F.L. Paillet,  1989.  Characterizing flow paths and permeability distribution in fractured rock
aquifers using a sensitive thermal borehole flowmeter.  Proceedings of the Conference on New Field Techniques
for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers.  Dallas, Texas.*

Hufschmied, P. 1983. Ermittlung der Durchlassigkeit von Lockergesteins- Grundwasserleitern, eine vergleichende
Untersuchung  verschiedener Feldmethoden. Doctoral Dissertation No. 7397, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

Huntley, D. 1986.  Relations between permeability and electrical resistivity in granular aquifers. Ground Water.
24:466-474.

Hvorslev,  HJ.   1951.  Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations.  Bulletin 36, Waterways
Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Vicksburg, MS.

Javandel, I., and PA. Witherspoon.  1969.  A method of analyzing transient fluid flow in multilayered aquifers.
Water Resources Research. 5:856-869.

Javandel, I., C. Doughty, and CJ7. Tsang.  1984.  Groundwater Transport:  Handbook of Mathematical Models.
American  Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 228 pp.

Keller, G.V., and F.C. Frischknecht.  1966. Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting.  Pergamon Press, 519
pp.

Keys, W.S., and L.M. MacCary.  1971.  Application of borehole geophysics to water resources investigations.
Techniques  of water-resources investigations of the United  States Geological Survey, NTIS, Washington, DC,
Book 2, ChapL El, 109-114.

Keys, W.S., and J.K. Sullivan. 1978.  Role of borehole geophysics in defining the physical characteristics of the
Raft River geothermal reservoir.  Idaho Geophysics. 44:1116-1141.

Kwader, T.  1985.  Estimating aquifer permeability from formation resistivity factors.  Ground Water. 23:762-
766.

Masch, F.D., and KJ. Denny.  1966. Grain size distribution and its effect on the permeability of unconsolidated
sands.  Water  Resources Research. 2:665-677.

Mazac, O.,  W.E. Kelly, and  I. Landa.  1985.  A hydrogeological model  for relations  between electrical and
hydraulic properties of aquifers.  Journal of Hydrology. 79:1-19.

McLinn, E.L.,  and C.D. Palmer.  1989.  Laboratory testing and comparison of specific conductance and electrical
resistivity  borehole  dilution devices.  Proceedings, Conference of New Field Techniques for Quantifying the
Physical and Chemical Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers.  Dallas, Texas.

Melville, J.G., FJ. Molz, and O. Giiven.   1985.  Laboratory investigation and analysis of a ground-water flow
meter.  Ground Water. 23:486495.

Melville, J.G., FJ. Molz, O. Giiven and M.A. Widdowson.   1989.  Multi-level slug tests with comparisons to
tracer data.  Ground Water, submitted for publication.

Molz, FJ., O. Giiven, J.G. Melville, R.D. Crocker, and K.T. Matteson.   1986a.   Performance,  analysis, and
simulation of a two-well tracer test at the Mobile  site.  Water Resources Research. 22:1031-1037.

Molz, FJ., O. Giiven, J.G. Melville, and J.F. Keely.   1986b.  Performance and analysis of aquifer tracer tests
with implications for contaminant transport modeling.  USEPA, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ada, OK 74820, EPA/600/2-86/062.

Molz, FJ., O. Giiven, J.G. Melville,  J.S. Nohrstedt, and J.K. Overholtzer.  1988.  Forced gradient tracer tests and
inferred hydraulic conductivity distributions at the Mobile site. Ground Water,  26:570-579.


                                                  58

-------
  Molz, FJ., R.H.  Morin, AE. Hess, J.G. Melville, and O. GQven.   1989a.  The impeller meter for measuring
  aquifer penneability variations: evaluation and comparison with other tests. Water Resources Research. 25:1677-
  1683.                                                                	

  Molz, FJ., O. Guven, J.G. Melville, and C. Cardone.  1989b. Hydraulic conductivity measurement at different
  scales and contaminant transport modeling. In: Dynamics of Fluids in Hierarchical Porous Media, edited by J.H.
  Cushman.  New York, Academic Press, in press.

  Morin, RJEL, AJE. Hess, and Fi. Paillet.  1988a.  Determining me distribution of hydraulic conductivity in a
  fractured limestone aquifer by simultaneous injection and geophysical logging.  Ground Water. 26:587-595.

  Morin, R.H., D.R. LeBlanc, and W.E. Teasdale.  1988b.   A statistical evaluation of formation disturbance
  produced by well-casing installation methods.  Ground Water. 26:207-217.

  Morrow, TJ3., and SJ. Kline. 1971.  The evaluation and use of hot-wire and hot-film anemometers in liquids.
  Stanford University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Thermosciences Division, Report MD-25, 187 pp.

 Paillet, F.L., W.S. Keys, and A£.  Hess.  1985.   Effects of lithology on televiewer-log quality and fracture
 interpretation.  Society of Professional Well Log Analysis Logging Symposium, 26th, Dallas, TX, Transactions,
 JJJ J.-JJJ jij.

 Paillet, FJL., A.E. Hess, CM. Cheng, and E.L. Hardin.  1987.  Characterization of fracture permeability with high-
 resolution  vertical flow measurements during  borehole pumping.  Ground Water. 25:28-40.

 Paillet, F.L., and  A.E.  Hess.  1987.  Geophysical well log  analysis of fractured granitic rocks at Atikokan,
 Ontario, Canada.  U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4154, 36 pp.

 Papadopulos, S.S., J.D. Bredehoeft,  and H.H. Cooper, Jr.  1973.  On the analysis of "slug test" data.   Water
 Resources  Research. 9:1087-1089.

 Parr, A.D., FJ. Molz, and J.G. Melville.  1983.  Field determination of aquifer thermal energy storage parameters
 Ground Water. 21:22-35.

 Rehfeldt, KJ*., P.  Hufschmied, L.W. Gelhar. and M.E. Schaefer.  1989.  The borehole flowmeter technique for
 measuring hydraulic conductivity variability. Report #EN-6511, Electric Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview
 Ave., Palo Alto, CA.

 Ronen, D., M. Magaritz, N. Paldor, and Y. BackmaL 1986. The behavior of groundwater in the vicinity of the
 watertable evidenced by  specific discharge profiles.  Water Resources Research. 22:1217-1224.

 Schimschal, U.  1981. Flowmeter Analysis at Raft River, Idaho.  Ground Water.  19:93-97.

 Stallman, R.W.  1971. Aquifer-test design, observation and data analysis, Book 3, Chapter Bl of Techniques of
 Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey.

 Taylor, T.A., and J.A. Dey.   1985.  Bibliography of borehole geophysics as applied to ground-water hydrology.
 Geological  Survey  Circular 926, #1985-576-049/20,029, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

 Taylor,  K., FJ.  Molz, and J. Hayworth. 1988.  A single well electrical tracer test for the determination of
 hydraulic conductivity and porosity as a function of depth.  Proceedings of the Second National Outdoor Action
 Conference, Las Vegas, NV.  May 23-26.

Taylor,  K.   1989.   Review of borehole methods  for  characterizing the heterogeneity, of aquifer hydraulic
properties.  Proceedings of the Conference on New Field Techniques for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical
Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers.  Dallas, Texas.*
                                                  59

-------
Taylor,  K.,  S.W. Wheatcraft,  J.  Hess,  J.S. Hayworth, and  FJ. Molz.   1989.  Evaluation of methods for
determining  the vertical distribution of hydraulic conductivity.  Ground Water. 27:88-98.

Urish, D.W.  1981.  Electrical resistivity-hydraulic conductivity relationships in glacial outwash aquifers.  Water
Resources Research. 17:401-408.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.  1977.  Groundwater Manual. Water resources technical publication, # 480.

Widdowson, MA., FJ. Molz, and J.G. Melville.  1989.  Development and application of a model for simulating
microbial gorwth dynamics coupled to nutrient and oxygen transport in porous media.   Proceedings, Solving
Ground  Water Problems with Models, VoL  1, 28-51.  National Water Well Assoc., Columbus, OH.

Young,  S.C., and WJR. Waldrop.  1989.  An electromagnetic borehole flowmeter for measuring hydraulic
conductivity variability.  Proceedings  of the Conference on New Field Techniques for Quantifying the Physical
and Chemical Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers. Dallas, Texas.*

Zemanek, J., EJj. Glenn, LJ. Norton, and R.L. CaldwelL  1970.  Formation evaluation by inspection with the
borehole televiewer.  Geophysics.  35:254-269.
*Proceedings available from: Water Resources Research Institute, 202 Hargis Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849
                                                                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1990/748-159/00438

                                                  60

-------