28.01.2014 Views

RESEARCH· ·1970·

RESEARCH· ·1970·

RESEARCH· ·1970·

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

..<br />

mation, both of Cretaceous age, consist of fine- to<br />

n1edium-grained sandstone intercalated with siltstone<br />

and shale. l\1ost of the artesian wells are completed in<br />

sandstone in the upper part of the Fox Hills and in the<br />

lower part of the I-Iell Creek, but a substantial number<br />

of wells obbtin water from the upper part of the<br />

Hell Creek, ·and a few itap beds of sandstone near the<br />

base of the overlying Tongue River l\1ember of the<br />

Fort Union Formation of Tertiary age. An excellent<br />

description of these formations and a summary of the<br />

stratigraphy is av~tilable in Denson and Gill (1965, p.<br />

7-9) and Johnson and J(unkel ( 1959).<br />

The artesian head measured in wells perforated in<br />

the upper part of the Fox flills Sandstone and in the<br />

lower part of the I-Iell Creek Formation, in the southwest<br />

corner of l\1ercer County, is contoured in figure 1.<br />

Wells· completed in the upper part of the Hell Creek,<br />

in general, have lower heads and presumably represent<br />

n different aquifer system. Probably most wells tap<br />

only part of the sandstone beds forming these aquifer<br />

systems.<br />

HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES·<br />

Methods of determining the hydraulic properties of<br />

aquifers by using a flowing artesian well were devised by<br />

Jacob and Lohman (1952). They developed equations<br />

for a graphical solution for transmissivity and the<br />

storage coefficient for short periods of flow, and a<br />

simpler equation for straight-line graphical solutions<br />

that gives accurate results with slightly longer periods of<br />

flow. The formulas for the straight-line solutions are:<br />

T<br />

264<br />

!l(sw/Q) and<br />

CROFT AND WESOLOWSKI<br />

(1)<br />

S=2.1X10- 4 T(tfrw 2 ) 0 , or (2)<br />

2.1 X 10-<br />

s 4 T(tfrw 2 )<br />

logto -l [sw/Q/!l(sw/Q)] 1 (3)<br />

in which<br />

T=coefficient of transmissivity, in gallons per day<br />

per foot,<br />

S=storage coefficient,<br />

Sw=drawdown, in feet,<br />

Q=flow rate, in gallons per minute,<br />

t =time between beginning of flow and flow<br />

measurement, in minutes, and<br />

7'w=effective radius of the well through the aquifer,<br />

in feet.<br />

The values, Sw/Q, are plotted on the linear scale on semilog<br />

paper, and the corresponding values of tfrw 2 are<br />

plotted on the logarithmic scale. The slope, ll(sw/Q), is<br />

the change in Sw/Q over one log cycle of tfrw 2 • The value,<br />

(tfrw 2 ) 0, (equation 2) is taken at the point' (sw/Q) =0.<br />

When the slope of the curve is steep, equation 3 is used<br />

B191<br />

to · a void large extrapolation errors. In this case, the<br />

values of tfrw 2 and Sw/Q are arbitrarily selected from a<br />

specific point on the line.<br />

Eleven flow tests were conducted on wells in Mercer<br />

and Oliver Counties in the summer of 1968. The hydraulic<br />

properties of the aquifers derived from graphical<br />

solution using formulas 1, 2, and 3 are given in table 1.<br />

After each flow test was completed, a check of the<br />

calculated value for Twas made using the Theis (1935,<br />

p. 522) recovery formula. The formula is:<br />

264Q 1<br />

T=-,- log 10 tjt , ( 4)<br />

8<br />

in which<br />

Q =the weighted average discharge, in gallons per<br />

minute, .<br />

t =the time since discharge started, in minutes,<br />

t' =the time since discharge stopped, in minutes,<br />

and<br />

s' =the residual drawdown, in feet.<br />

The results of the recovery tests are given in table 1.<br />

In addition, recovery tests were made on 27 other wells<br />

in the fall of 1967 and the summer of 1968 for which<br />

it was not practicable to make flow tests. The data<br />

plots of many recovery tests have a slight, gradual<br />

change in slope, probably due to pressure-sensitive<br />

leaks in the well casings. In general the changes<br />

in the plot were not serious enough to invalidate the<br />

results.<br />

RESULTS OF AQUIFER TESTS<br />

The results of the 49 flow and recovery tests made in<br />

l\1ercer and Oliver Counties are summarized in table<br />

1. The values obtained for transmissivity range from<br />

13 to 3,100 gpd (gallons per day) per foot and average<br />

510 gpd per foot. The average was obtained by using<br />

the average results of the flow test an~ the recovery<br />

test as one value. The values for permeabilities (table<br />

1) were obtained by dividing the thickness of the<br />

aquifer, obtained from a driller's log or electric log of<br />

the well, into the value for transmissivity. The permeabilities,<br />

which average 16 gpd per square foot, are<br />

comparable to the values obtained by Taylor (1968, p.<br />

16) for the Fox Hills Sandstone and the Hell Creek<br />

Formation in the Northern Powder River valley,<br />

l\1ontana. The mean permeabilities obtained by Taylor<br />

ranged from 2.8 to 21.4 gpd per square foot.<br />

The. artesian storage coefficient is proportional to the<br />

thickness of the aquifer and generally ranges frmn 10- 3<br />

to about 10- 5 • Values for the storage coefficient calculated<br />

from field tests ranged from 1.r X 10- 13 to 3.8 X lQ- 4 •<br />

However, those values smaller than 10- 5 are probably<br />

not realistic. Because the effective well radius, rw, appears<br />

as .rw 2 in equations 2 and 3, a slight error in rw<br />

would have considerable effect on the accuracy of S.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!