Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A water budget perspective of leaky aquifer response to pumping David Scott 1 and Bruce Hunt 2 1 Environment Canterbury 2 University of Canterbury (Retired)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A water budget perspective of leaky aquifer response to pumping David Scott 1 and Bruce Hunt 2 1 Environment Canterbury 2 University of Canterbury (Retired)"— Presentation transcript:

1 A water budget perspective of leaky aquifer response to pumping David Scott 1 and Bruce Hunt 2 1 Environment Canterbury 2 University of Canterbury (Retired)

2 Leaky aquifer behaviour

3 Characterizing leaky aquifers Standard measures –Leakance - units of length –K’/B’ - units of 1/time Alternative measure –t 50 - units of time More general applicability

4 The two-aquifer model From Hunt & Scott (2007)

5 The problem

6 The solution Excel macro W_11 from Hunt’s Function.xls

7 Hypothetical example Q = 50 L/s

8 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 0.1 day 3.2 m 5 mm

9 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 0.177 day

10 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 0.316 day

11 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 0.562 day

12 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 1 day

13 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 1.77 days

14 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 3.16 days

15 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 5.62 days

16 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 10 days

17 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 11.77 days

18 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 31.6 days

19 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 56.2 days

20 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 100 days

21 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 177 days

22 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 316 days

23 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 562 days

24 Pumped and water-table aquifers Time = 1000 days 3.8 m 0.9 m

25 Vertical drainage after 0.1 days 1 mm drawdown, 1 km radius circle Specific yield 0.1 Volume = 314 m 3, Q avg = 36 L/s Q avg = 72% of pumping rate

26 Drainage rate

27

28 Drainage rate & drawdown

29 Sensitivity of t 50 to S y, T 0 & K’/B’

30 Modflow solution ● Independent check ● Allows consideration of less idealised cases ● Underlying layer ● Sloping aquifer ● Alternative boundary conditions ● Zone budget ● Modpath - visualisation

31

32

33

34 Effect of an underlying layer?

35 Pumping from the lower layer…

36 Effects of adjacent boundary

37 Sloping aquifer (1:1000)

38 Conclusions Vertical drainage can develop to become a significant proportion of the pumping rate in a relatively short time t 50 value provides a useful measure of aquifer leakiness Water budget perspective provides a parallel to Theis’s analysis of the “source of water derived from wells” Leaky aquifers leak!

39 Aquitard storativity

40 Empirical expression for t 50

41 “... the term aquitard has been coined to describe the less-permeable beds in a stratigraphic sequence. These beds may be permeable enough to transmit water in quantities that are significant in the study of regional ground-water flow, but their permeability is not sufficient to allow the completion of production wells within them.” —Freeze and Cherry,1979


Download ppt "A water budget perspective of leaky aquifer response to pumping David Scott 1 and Bruce Hunt 2 1 Environment Canterbury 2 University of Canterbury (Retired)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google