Hydraulic conductivity and specific storage of clay tills

Christopher J. Neville S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. Last update: February 20, 2008 1. Hydraulic conductivities of clay till aquitards Till is a broad descriptor and materials that are logged as tills may have properties that range from aquifers to aquitards. The hydraulic conductivity of clean gravel can be reduced orders or magnitude with the addition of a relatively small quantity of finegrained sediments. In reflection of this, guidance in the literature regarding representative values of hydraulic conductivity for till suggests a wide range. For example, in the chart below reproduced from Freeze and Cherry (1979), the hydraulic conductivity ranges from about 10-10 to 10-4 cm/s.

Figure 1. General ranges of hydraulic conductivities

F:\Aquitard workshop\Clay till\Hydraulic conductivity-specific storage of clay tills.doc

1 of 5

R.E. Gerber and colleagues have conducted superb studies of groundwater flow through the till aquitards in areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine in southern Ontario. The compilation of hydraulic values reproduced below from Gerber and Howard (2000) illustrates the complexity of the sediments.

Figure 2. Hydraulic conductivities of Oak Ridges Moraine materials (Gerber and Howard, 2000)

F:\Aquitard workshop\Clay till\Hydraulic conductivity-specific storage of clay tills.doc

2 of 5

2. Specific storage values for till The specific storage is defined as the volume of water that is released from confined storage for a unit decline in hydraulic head. The specific storage has units of L-1. The stored water is released from compaction (consolidation) of the porous medium and expansion of the water. Jacob (1940; p. 576) derived the following expression for the specific storage:
S s = w g ( + n )

where w is the density of water, g is the acceleration due to gravity, is the compressibility of the porous medium, is the compressibility of water, and n is the porosity of the porous medium. Typical values for the properties of water are:

w = 1000 kg/m3; and = 4.41010 m-s2/kg.

Younger (1993) presented typical order-of-magnitude values of the compressibility of porous materials. Younger presents a value for clay of 10-6 m-s2/kg (Pa-1) for clay. Freeze and Cherry (1979) suggest that the typical range for the compressibility of clay is between 10-8 and 10-6 Pa-1. Therefore, a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the range of specific storage is 10-4 to 10-2 m-1. Some values of specific storage of clay till that have been reported in the literature are tabulated below. The literature values are consistent with the back-of-the-envelope range of between 10-4 to 10-2 m-1.
Location
Manitoba till WRNE, Manitoba Saskatchewan till Dalmeny, Saskatchewan Warman, Saskatchewan Alberta till Pine Coulee, Alberta Grand Forks area, ND

Ss (m-1)
9.910-3 8.210-3 to 1.610-2 1.110-2 1.110-4 to 1.610-4 2.110-4 to 3.310-4 1.010-2 1.010-3 1.010-4 to 1.210-3

Reference
Grisak and Cherry (1975) Grisak and Cherry (1975) Grisak and Cherry (1975) Keller et al. (1986) Keller et al. (1989) Grisak and Cherry (1975) Smerdon et al. (2005) Shaver (1998)

Notes
Consolidation tests mean of 34 samples Consolidation tests 8 samples Consolidation tests mean of 24 samples Consolidation tests 3 samples Consolidation tests 3 samples Consolidation tests mean of 27 samples Model calibration Consolidation tests 107 samples

F:\Aquitard workshop\Clay till\Hydraulic conductivity-specific storage of clay tills.doc

3 of 5

Konikow and Neuzil (2007; Figure 5) have developed a chart indicating the likely range of specific storage for aquitard materials. Their chart is reproduced on the next page. Konikow and Neuzil suggest that it is a generalized relation for normally consolidated and overconsolidated clayey confining layers. The chart synthesizes data from several sources (Domenico and Mifflin, 1965; Skempton, 1970; Cripps and Taylor, 1981; Tellam and Lloyd, 1981; Burland, 1990; and Neuzil, 1993). The water compressibility only curve refers to the specific storage if the porous medium was incompressible. For this case, the specific storage is: S s = w gn If the porous medium was incompressible and the porosity was equal to 0.2, the specific storage would be 8.610-7 m-1.

Figure 3. Specific storage of clayey materials (Konikow and Neuzil, 2007)

F:\Aquitard workshop\Clay till\Hydraulic conductivity-specific storage of clay tills.doc

4 of 5

3. References Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry, 1979: Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Gerber, R.E., and K. Howard, 2000: Recharge through a regional till aquitard: Threedimensional flow model water balance approach, Ground Water, 38(3), pp. 410-422. Jacob, C.E., 1940: On the flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 21, pp. 574-586. Konikow, L.F., and C.E. Neuzil, 2007: A method to estimate groundwater depletion from confining layers, Water Resources Research, 43, W07417, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005597. Younger, P.L., 1993: Simple generalized methods for estimating aquifer storage parameters, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 26, pp. 127-135.

F:\Aquitard workshop\Clay till\Hydraulic conductivity-specific storage of clay tills.doc

5 of 5

Models for interpreting pumping tests in leaky aquifers

Christopher J. Neville S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. Last update: November 17, 2008 Overview Hydrogeologists are frequently charged with interpreting the data from pumping tests in which the effects of flow processes in the confining layers are significant. To interpret the data from these tests we must use solutions from the literature on leaky aquifers. One of the many strengths of computer-assisted interpretation packages is that they support several models of pumping tests in leaky aquifers, of increasing complexity. However, the large number of options may also be a source of confusion. These notes have been prepared to provide a systematic development of the conceptual models that underlie the most widely used of the solutions. Outline 1. Introduction 2. General conceptual model for analytical solutions 3. Representation of the pumped aquifer 4. Hantush and Jacob (1955) analysis 5. Hantush (1960) analysis 6. Neuman and Witherspoon (1969) analysis 7. Evaluation of alternative conceptual models for aquitard storage 8. Moench (1985) analysis 9. Cooley and Case (1973) analysis 10. References

Page 1 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

1. Introduction A fundamental assumption underlying the Theis solution is that the aquifer is perfectly confined, so that the release of water from confined storage is the only source of water. This is a relatively restrictive assumption, and may hold only if the duration of pumping is relatively brief, and the hydraulic conductivities of the confining layers are relatively small. In the longer term, this assumption is generally grossly violated, and in multiaquifer settings the bulk of the water withdrawn by a pumping well will be derived by transmission across the confining layers. In the intermediate term, water may be derived from storage in the confining layers as well as by storage across them. Aquifers with significant transmission of water from confining layers are designated as leaky. When introducing the interpretation of aquifer tests in leaky aquifers, it is first important to issue a clarification: it is not the aquifers that are leaky. Rather it is the over and underlying confining layers that are doing the leaking. One of the many strengths of computer-assisted aquifer test interpretation packages is that they support several models of pumping tests in leaky aquifers, of increasing complexity. However, the large number of options may also be a source of confusion. In these notes we proceed systematically from the simplest to the most complex conceptual models of the responses to pumping in aquifers with flow from confining units. Although published nearly 40 years ago, Hantushs 1964 monograph Hydraulics of Wells remains the starting point for understanding aquifer test solutions. The coverage of leaky aquifers is especially good, reflecting the fact that Hantush was a giant in the subject. Significant developments on the interpretation of aquifer tests in leaky aquifers have occurred since 1964. There are two textbooks with particularly good treatments of the interpretation of aquifer tests in leaky aquifers. V. Batus Aquifer Hydraulics (1998) has a very good presentation of the theory underlying the different methods of analysis, with illustrative examples, and Kruseman and de Ridders Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data (2nd edition, 1990) remains an indispensable reference.

Page 2 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

2. General conceptual model for analytical solutions The results of most aquifer tests are interpreted with analytical solutions. Although it is simpler to use an analytical rather than a numerical solution for the interpretation of routine tests, it is important to note that analytical solutions are usually based on highly idealized conceptual models. A key assumption that underlies the solutions developed for leaky aquifers concerns the directions of flow in the aquifers and aquitards. In particular, it is assumed that flow is horizontal in the aquifers and vertical in the aquitards. This conceptual model is illustrated below.

Figure 1. Conceptual model for pumping in a multiaquifer system

Page 3 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The assumed flow directions are realistic if there is a relatively large contrast between the hydraulic conductivities of the aquifers and aquitards, designated K and K, respectively. Hantush (1964) suggested that any horizontal component of flow in an aquitard would be negligible for K < K/500. Neuman and Witherspoon (1971) conducted extensive analyses with a general numerical solution, and suggested that if the hydraulic conductivities differ by at least 100, the error introduced by simplifying the flow directions is small. We will use their results to provide a general rule-of-thumb for the applicability of the simplified analyses. The analytical solutions will be considered to be applicable if:

K '<

K 100

(1)

Page 4 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

3. Representation of the pumped aquifer

The methods generally applied to interpret the results from pumping tests in leaky aquifers start from the Theis solution, and share many of its underlying assumptions. In particular, the aquifer is assumed to be: Horizontal; Homogeneous; Isotropic; Infinite in areal extent; Fully saturated; and Pumped by a fully penetrating well. The conceptual model for the aquifer is shown below:

Figure 2. Conceptual model for the pumped aquifer

Page 5 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The governing equation for flow in the aquifer is:

S h 1 h =T r + qL t r r r (2)

where: h r t T S : head in the aquifer [L] : radial distance from the center of the pumping well [L] : time elapsed since the start of pumping [T] : transmissivity [L2T-1]; and : confined storage coefficient [-].

The term qL designates leakage from the aquitard, expressed as a flow rate per unit area [L3T-1/L2]. If we define the drawdown as the difference between the static head in the aquifer and the head at any time t and distance r:
s ( r , t ) = hi h ( r , t )

(3)

the governing equation for flow in the aquifer can be written as: S s 1 s =T r qL t r r r (4)

Equation (4) represents the fundamental governing equation for flow in the aquifer. The essential differences among the leaky aquifer solutions arise from the way that the leakage term qL is evaluated; that is, how flow in the aquitard is represented.

Page 6 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

4. Hantush and Jacob (1955) analysis

Hantush and Jacob (1955) were the first researchers to develop an effective method for interpreting pumping tests affected by the leakage from the confining aquitards. In their analysis, Hantush and Jacob assumed that the contribution from storage in the aquitards was negligible. Hantush and Jacobs conceptual model for an incompressible aquitard is shown below. For an incompressible aquitard, the vertical head profile is linear at any distance from the pumping well r and at any time t.

Figure 3. Hantush and Jacob (1955) conceptual model for the aquitard

Page 7 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

Referring to the previous sketch, the leakage flux is given by:

h h ( r, t ) qL = K ' i b'

(5)

where hi is the head at the top of the aquitard (constant through time), h(r,t) is the head in the aquifer, corresponding to the head at the base of the aquitard, and K and b are the hydraulic conductivity and thickness of the aquitard, respectively. A negative sign is placed in front of the leakage flux; according to the sign convention on the z-coordinate, a flux in the negative z-direction represents a source to the aquifer. Writing (4) in terms of the drawdown in the aquifer: qL = K ' s K' = s b' b' (6)

The quotient K/b is referred to as the leakance, with units of T-1. If we substitute this expression for qL in the governing equation for the aquifer (3), we obtain: S s 1 s K ' =T s r t r r r b ' (7)

The initial and boundary conditions for the aquifer are:

s ( r, 0) = 0

(8a) (8b) (8c)

lim 2 rT
r 0

s = Q r

s ( , t ) = 0

The sign convention adopted for the inner boundary condition (8b) assigns a positive value for Q for groundwater withdrawals, that is, for pumping that induces declines in the head in the aquifer (positive drawdowns).

Page 8 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The analytical solution for (6) subject to (7a-c) is:

Q s= 4 T

1 r2 EXP y dy y 4B2 y u

(9)

with u and B2 given by: u= r 2S 4Tt b' K' (10a)

B2 = T

(10b)

We recognize the term u immediately it is the same as the argument of the Theis well function W(u). The term B is inversely related to the leakance. The solution is generally written as: s= Q r W u, 4 T B (11)

with the integral designated as the Hantush leaky well function W(u,r/B). In the limit, for a perfectly confined aquifer, r/B 0, we have:

r 1 lim W (u, ) = W (u, 0) = EXP { y} dy = W (u ) B y B u As expected, for K 0 we recover the Theis well function.

(12)

The Hantush leaky well function is plotted in Figure 4. Because the solution is a function of two dimensionless parameters, u and r/B, the Hantush leaky well function is presented a family of curves for different values of r/B. In reality, the parameter r/B is continuous, and a computer-based analysis package that implements (8) may report any value of r/B, not just the values shown on type curves reproduced in textbooks.

Page 9 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

Figure 4. Hantush-Jacob (1955) leaky well type curves

For relatively early times, we see that a portion of the Hantush-Jacob leaky aquifer curves follow the Theis solution (the Theis curve is approximated closely by the curve for r/B = 0.001). During this period of the response the pumped water is derived from storage within the pumped aquifer and leakage across the aquitard is insignificant. This means that we can still use the Theis analysis to obtain a preliminary estimate of the transmissivity, provided we restrict our fit to the drawdown data for which no stabilization is observed. At late time, the Hantush-Jacob leaky aquifer curves become flat. This indicates that the pumped water is derived primarily from leakage across the aquitard.

Page 10 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

It is interesting to note that for a given r/B, the deviation from the Theis curve is greater at larger radial distances from the well. This statement may seem counter-intuitive. The closer to the well, the greater is the head difference between the pumped and unpumped aquifers. Consequently, the closer to the well, the greater is the leakage. However, the solution shows that the greater the leakage, the less deviation from the Theis solution. Why? The answer lies in the fact that the head difference between the pumped and unpumped aquifers gives the leakage per unit area. Near the well, the leakage per unit area is large, but the area over which the leakage occurs is small. Therefore, the total amount of leakage in the vicinity of the well is a small portion of the well discharge, and therefore drawdown is close to the Theis solution. Far from the well, the situation is reversed, and the total amount of leakage accounts for a large amount of the well discharge, so the Theis solution is no longer appropriate. In principle, T and S of the pumped aquifer and K/b of the aquitard can be computed by matching drawdown data at a single observation well to a type curve. In practice, the type curves in Figure 4 have very similar shapes, and it is often difficult to match the data to a unique type curve. For reliable determination of aquifer and aquitard parameters, it is desirable to have two observation wells, one close to the pumped well, and the other far from it. A composite plot (s versus t/r2) is made using both sets of data [they will not form a single curve.] As explained above, drawdown data from the close to the pumping well should show little effect of leakage, so that much of the data (except for late time) should fit the Theis curve, thus yielding T and S of the pumped aquifer. Next, without moving the data plot relative to the type-curve plot, one can choose the appropriate type curve that matches the data from the distant observation well. This should yield r/B, from which one can calculate K/b. K can also be calculated if b is known. Checks on the results of a Hantush-Jacob analysis Whether the Hantush-Jacob analysis is accomplished with pencil and paper, or with a computer-aided interpretation package, it is not complete without some reality-checks. 1. Confirm that the conceptual model for the Hantush-Jacob analysis is appropriate for your situation. In particular, the aquifer must be extensive and overlain by a relatively incompressible aquitard. The water level at the top of the aquitard should remain constant during the pumping test. A drawdown response that is diagnostic of leaky aquifer response can be mimicked by other conditions for example, a confined aquifer that intersects a constant-head boundary. 2. Confirm that your fitted parameters are consistent with the basic assumption: K'< K 100

Page 11 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

5. Hantush (1960) analysis

Hantush (1960) derived a general solution for pumping from a leaky aquifer. In this more general formulation the assumption of an incompressible aquitard is relaxed. The aquitard can supply water both by transmission from an overlying aquifer and through changes in storage. The full Hantush (1960) solution is relatively general, and can accommodate an aquitard with a finite thickness with two alternate boundary conditions at the top of the aquitard, zero-drawdown or zero-flow. However, the final solution is relatively complicated and Hantush did not evaluate specific results with it. Instead, Hantush considered the asymptotic cases of early time and late time. The late-time case is very similar to the Hantush-Jacob (1955) solution late time in effect means, after the effects of storage in the aquitard have dissipated. We will focus here on the early time results. During the early period of pumping the pressure pulse moving upwards into the aquitard has not yet had time to reach the upper boundary of the aquitard. Therefore, the aquitard can be idealized as being infinitely thick. The conceptual model for the aquitard is shown below.

Figure 5. Conceptual model for an infinitely thick compressible aquitard

Page 12 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The leakage flux from the aquitard to the aquifer at any time t and radial distance r is given by: qL = K ' s ' z (13)

The drawdown in the aquitard s is derived from a consideration of transient flow in the aquitard. The governing equation for flow in the aquitard is: S s' s ' 2s ' =K' 2 t z (14)

The initial and boundary conditions for the aquitard are:

s' ( r, 0) = 0
s ' ( r , 0, t ) = s ( r , t ) s ' ( r , , t ) = 0

(15a) (15b) (15c)

The analytical solution for the coupled set of equations (7) subject to (8a-c) and (14) subject to (15a-c) is:
Q s= 4 T

1 u1/ 2 EXP { y} ERFC dy 1/ 2 y y y u ( ) u

(16)

with u and given by: r 2S u= 4Tt , as before

1/ 2

1 K ' S s' = r 4 TS

The term should not be confused with the previous B. We saw previously that for an impermeable aquitard B . For the Hantush (1960) the corresponding case would be 0.

Page 13 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The solution is generally written as: s= Q H ( u, ) 4 T (17)

where the integral is designated the Hantush well function H(u,). The Hantush (1960) leaky well function is plotted in the next figure. As with the Hantush-Jacob (1955) solution, the early-time solution for a compressible aquitard solution is a function of two dimensionless parameters (u and ) and the well function is presented a family of curves for different values of .

Figure 6. Hantush (1960) early-time type curves

For the case of an impermeable aquitard, 0, the solution reduces to:

lim H (u , ) =
0
u

1 EXP { y} ERFC {0} dy y

1 = EXP { y} dy = W (u ) y u That is, we again recover the Theis well function, as expected.

(18)

Page 14 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

Apart from the limiting case small , the type curves bear little resemblance to the Hantush-Jacob type curves for a leaky aquitard with no storage. This indicates that if the aquitard is compressible, the effects of leakage will be exhibited throughout the drawdown history of a well in the aquifer, and not just at later times. The implication is that when storage in the aquitard is significant there may not be any portion of the data over which we can use the Theis analysis to obtain a preliminary estimate of the transmissivity. Checks on the results of a Hantush (1960) analysis 1. Again we must confirm that the fitted parameters are consistent with the basic assumption: K '< K 100

2. We must also confirm that the portion of the data that have been analyzed is restricted to early time, when the idealization of the aquitard as an infinitely thick layer is valid. Hantush provided the following criterion for early time: t < 0.1 S s' ( b' ) K'
2

Warning regarding the Hantush (1960) analysis The Hantush (1960) type curve analysis is restricted to early times. In a multiaquifer system the effects of storage in the aquitard will eventually dissipate and there will be steady transmission of water across the aquitard. When this occurs drawdowns will stabilize in the pumped aquifer. The Hantush (1960) type curves do not consider this possibility. If the drawdowns do stabilize the Hantush-Jacob (1955) solution is appropriate. AQTESOLV implements two solutions for the Hantush (1960) problem. The first solution it calls Hantush (1960) and is actually the asymptotic solution for early time. This solution should not be used for predicting long-term drawdowns. The second solution it calls Neuman and Witherspoon (1969). This solution represents the same conceptual model as Hantush (1960), but covers the entire range of time.

Page 15 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

6. Neuman and Witherspoon (1969) analysis

Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a) continued the development of the Hantush (1960) analysis, generalizing it for the case of a pumped and unpumped aquifer separated by a compressible aquitard. The conceptual model is illustrated below:

Figure 7. Conceptual model for the Neuman and Witherspoon analysis

As in the Hantush (1960) solution, the leakage fluxes from the aquitard to the aquifer at any time t and radial distance r is given by: qL = K ' s ' z (19)

Leakage terms must be evaluated at the top and bottom of the aquitard. At its base, water flows from the aquitard to the pumped aquifer. At its top, water flows from the unpumped aquifer to the aquitard in response to pumping. The governing equation for transient flow in the aquitard is: s ' 2s ' S =K' 2 t z
' s

(20)

Page 16 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The initial and boundary conditions for the aquitard are:

s ' ( r, 0) = 0 s ' ( r , 0, t ) = s1 ( r , t ) s ' ( r , b ', t ) = s2 ( r , t )

(21a) (21b) (21c)

The boundary conditions for the aquitard differ from the Hantush (1960) model presented previously, in that there are linkages with two aquifers. As written in (21a), the pumped aquifer (aquifer #1) is located at the boundary of the aquitard designated z = 0. As written in (21b), the unpumped aquifer (aquifer #2) is located at the boundary of the aquitard designated z = b. The governing equation for the pumped aquifer is: S1 s1 1 s1 = T1 r qL1 r r r t (22)

subject to:
s1 ( r , 0 ) = 0

(23a) (23b) (23c)

lim 2 rT
r 0

s1 = Q r

s1 ( , t ) = 0

The governing equation for the unpumped aquifer is: S2 s2 1 s2 = T2 r qL 2 r r r t (24)

subject to:
s2 ( r , 0 ) = 0

(25a) (25b) (25c) Page 17 of 30

lim 2 rT
r 0

s2 =0 r

s2 ( , t ) = 0

C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

Neuman and Witherspoons final solution is a set of relatively complicated expressions involving integrals with Bessel functions. Their solution is expressed in terms of dimensionless time defined as: t D1 = T1t S1r 2 (26)

and three dimensionless groupings in the case of a single aquitard: Tb' B11 = 1 K'
1/ 2

(27a)
1/ 2

T b' B21 = 2 K'

(27b)
1/ 2

r K ' Ss ' 11 = 4 T1S1

(27c)

Neuman and Witherspoon were able to evaluate their solution over a full range of times and conditions. However, their solution involves too many parameters to support analyses with type curves. Their solution has been implemented in the popular aquifer test interpretation package AQTESOLV for Windows (Duffield, 2000). AQTESOLV supports the application of the solution with automated parameter estimation, using a robust nonlinear fitting routine. If the unpumped aquifer is sufficiently transmissive that there are no drawdowns, the Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a) solution reduces to a generalization of the Hantush (1960) solution over the full range of time. The solution can be expressed in terms of two dimensionless parameters:
1/ 2

r K' = r B Tb '

(28a)
1/ 2

s = 4 TS

r K 'S '

(28b)

Page 18 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

A plot of dimensionless drawdown sD versus dimensionless time tD for = 0.01 and various values of r/B is shown in Figure 8. For a small value of such as 0.01, aquitard storage is insignificant and the Hantush (1960) solution is virtually identical to the Hantush-Jacob (1955) solution (compare Figure 8 with Figure 4). The drawdown initially follows the Theis curve, and then deviates to a steady state value that depends on the value of the parameter r/B.

Figure 8. Neuman and Witherspoon type curves for = 0.01

To illustrate the effect of aquitard storage, Figure9 shows a plot of dimensionless drawdown versus dimensionless time for various values of while keeping r/B = 0.3. Note that larger values of cause the drawdown curve to deviate significantly below the Theis curve. However, at late time, all the solutions still converge to the steady state value determined by r/B.

Figure 9. Neuman and Witherspoon type curves for r/B = 0.3

Page 19 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate that the parameters and r/B control the drawdown in the pumped aquifer in different ways. The parameter controls the early behavior. If is small (insignificant aquitard storage), the early time drawdown follows the Theis solution. If is large (significant aquitard storage), the early time drawdown is considerably less than that predicted by the Theis solution. In contrast, the parameter r/B controls the late time, steady state drawdown. When the drawdown curve reaches the flat, steady-state portion, a linear gradient is established across the aquitard, and the pumped water is derived primarily from the unpumped aquifer. Neuman and Witherspoon (1969b) present a thorough evaluation of the Neuman and Witherspoon solution. Batu (1999) also presents an excellent summary of the results of the solution.

Page 20 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

7. Evaluation of alternative conceptual models for aquitard leakage

Let us review the conceptual models for the conventional leaky aquifer solutions.

Figure 10. Conventional conceptual model for leaky aquifer solutions

The solutions that we will compare are listed below, along with the key assumptions for each solution. Theis (1935) solution Perfect confinement: K = 0 Hantush and Jacob (1955) solution K> 0, Ss = 0 No drawdown in the unpumped aquifer Hantush (1960) solution K> 0, Ss > 0 No drawdown in the unpumped aquifer Neuman and Witherspoon (1969) solution K> 0, Ss > 0 Drawdown in the unpumped aquifer

Page 21 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The differences between the solutions implemented in AQTESOLV for the conventional conceptual model are illustrated in terms of dimensionless parameters.

Figure 11. Comparison of leaky aquifer solutions

For this conceptual model, in the long-term the contributions from storage in the aquitard dissipate and the there is steady transmission across the aquitard. Since the water level in the unpumped aquifer is assumed to remain constant through time, drawdowns in the pumped aquifer stabilize. We see that the Hantush solution matches the Neuman and Witherspoon solution at early time, but for later time it does not stabilize. Once the Hantush departs from the Neuman and Witherspoon solution, its results are incorrect as the solution is beyond its range of applicability.

Page 22 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

8. Moench (1985) analysis

Moench (1985) considered a conceptual model that is similar to the Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a) analysis, but incorporated wellbore storage in the pumping well. The Moench (1985) analysis appears to be more general in that it accommodates aquitards both above and below the pumped aquifer. However, it should be noted that it is straightforward to generalize the Hantush and Neuman-Witherspoon analyses to also consider the second aquitard. Furthermore, although the two aquitards can be assigned different properties, in practice it is not possible to distinguish the leakage from the two, and the system responds as if there was one equivalent aquitard. In the Moench (1985) analysis, the boundary conditions at the top of the overlying aquitard and bottom of the underlying aquitard can be either no-drawdown (constanthead) or no-flow. In this regard, the Neuman-Witherspoon analysis is more general since it can represent the spectrum of conditions that could occur at the top. The corresponding end-member cases considered in the Moench (1985) analysis are represented as follows: No-drawdown: K of unpumped aquifer relatively high; and No-flow: K of unpumped aquifer set to 0.0.

The key innovation in the Moench (1985) analysis is the incorporation of wellbore storage. Let us recall the inner boundary condition for the pumped aquifer assumed in the Neuman-Witherspoon solution: lim 2 rT
r 0

s1 = Q r

(29)

This is identical to the Theis solution. Relaxing the assumption that the well has an infinitesimal diameter allows us to consider wellbore storage in the analysis. The inner boundary condition is written as a statement of mass conservation at the wellbore: 2 rwT s1 H + rc2 = Q r r (30)

where H(t) is the head in the well. Moench (1985) writes the boundary condition at the well in a somewhat more general form, allowing for the consideration of a thin skin (a zone with properties that are altered with respect to the formation) around the pumping well.

Page 23 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

Moench (1985) used the Laplace transform to derive the solution and obtained final results by numerical inversion of the Laplace transform solutions. This is a simpler approach that is generally more accurate and certainly more efficient. This approach e solution has been implemented in AQTESOLV for Windows (Duffield, 2000). As with the Neuman-Witherspoon analysis, the Moench 91985) solutions involve too many parameters to support analyses with type curves. AQTESOLV supports the application of the solution with automated parameter estimation, using a robust fitting routine.

Page 24 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

9. Cooley and Case (1973) analysis

Cooley and Case (1973) considered a setting that is similar to that analyzed by Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a). However, in their conceptual model the pumped aquifer is overlain by an unconfined aquitard. The conceptual model is illustrated below:

Figure 12. Conceptual model for the Cooley and Case analysis

The leakage fluxes from the aquitard to the aquifer at any time t and radial distance r is given by: qL = K ' s ' z (31)

The drawdown in the aquitard s must be derived from a consideration of transient flow in the aquitard. The governing equation for flow in the aquitard is: S s' s ' 2s ' =K' 2 t z (32)

The initial conditions for the aquitard are:

s ' ( r, 0) = 0

(33a)

Page 25 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The boundary conditions at the interface between the aquitard and the aquifer are:
s ' ( r , 0, t ) = s1 ( r , t )

(33b)

So far, the formulation is identical to the models of Hantush, Neuman and Witherspoon, and Moench. The upper boundary of the aquitard is assigned a boundary condition that accounts for the decline of the water table. Cooley and Case (1973) represent this drainage process using the Boulton (1954) integral boundary condition: K' s ' s ' ( r , b1 + b2 , t ) = 2 S y ( r , b1 + b2 , ) EXP { 2 ( t )} d z 0
t

(33c)

where K and Sy are the vertical hydraulic conductivity and specific yield of the aquitard, and 2 is the delayed-yield parameter. The thickness of the aquifer is b1 and the initial saturated thickness of the aquitard is b2, so b1+b2 represents the top surface of the aquitard. The delayed yield parameter is defined as:

2 =

K S yL

(34)

where L provides an approximate measure of the height of the capillary fringe. The Cooley and Case (1973) present an exact form of their solution, but it is cast as a complex integral involving Bessel functions. The solution has recently been implemented in AQTESOLV for Windows (Duffield, 2000), with results obtained using numerical inversion of the Laplace transform solutions. The results of some experiments with the Cooley and Case (1973) are plotted in Figures 13 and 14. The results are presented in Figure 11 with log-log axes to illustrate the differences with respect to the results shown in the previous figure. The Cooley and Case solution includes a parameter to represent the capillary fringe in the aquitard. The differences between the solutions for different values of L/b are very small, which suggests that for this example the capillary fringe in the aquitard is not significant.

Page 26 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

102 Cooley-Case, L/b' = 0.06 Cooley-Case, L/b' = 0.0 Cooley-Case, L/b' = 1.0 Theis, T and S 101

Hantush Drawdown (ft)

100

Theis, T and Sy

10-1

10-2 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 t/r2 (min/ft2) 100 101 102

Figure 13. Results of the Cooley and Case analysis

Page 27 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

20 Cooley-Case, L/b' = 0.06 Cooley-Case, L/b' = 0.0 Cooley-Case, L/b' = 1.0

15

Drawdown (ft)

Theis, T and S 10

5 Hantush Theis, T and Sy 0 10

-6

10

-5

10

-4

10

-3

10 10 t/r2 (min/ft2)

-2

-1

10

10

10

Figure 14. Results of the Cooley and Case analysis (semilog plot)

Page 28 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

The two preceding figures are a bit busy, but the key points are straightforward. 1. At very early times, the drawdown in the aquifer is approximated by the Theis solution, with the transmissivity and storativity (confined storage coefficient) of the pumped aquifer. We see that for this example the effects of leakage occur so early that we never see this confined portion of the response. 2. During early to middle times, the drawdown in the aquifer predicted with the Cooley and Case (1973) solution is the same as the Hantush (1960) solution for a leaky aquitard with storage. 3. The Hantush (1960) solution predicts that drawdowns in the aquifer will stabilize; the unpumped aquifer above the aquitard acts as an inexhaustible source of water. For later times this assumption is clearly inappropriate, and leads to a significant underprediction of drawdowns in the pumped aquifer. 4. During late time, the drawdown in the aquifer is approximated closely by the Theis solution again, but this time using the transmissivity of the pumped aquifer and the specific yield of the aquitard. This may be the most important lesson from the experiments with the Cooley and Case (1973) solution. If our objective is to estimate the long-term drawdowns in the pumped aquifer, we can gauge the relative magnitudes of the later-time drawdowns using the Theis solution with a representative estimate of the transmissivity and considering a range of specific yields.

Page 29 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

10. References

Batu, V., 1998: Aquifer Hydraulics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Boulton, N.S., Unsteady radial flow to a pumped well allowing for delayed yield from storage, Association Internationale dHydrologie Scientifique, Assemble Gnerale de Rome, Tome II, 472-477, 1954. Cooley, R.L., and C.M. Case, 1973: Effect of a water table aquitard on drawdown in an underlying pumped aquifer, Water Resources Research, 9(2), pp. 434-447. Duffield, G.M., 2000: AQTESOLV for Windows Users Guide, HydroSOLVE, Inc., Reston, VA. Hantush. M.S., 1960: Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Journal of Geophysical Research, 65(11), pp. 3713-3725. Hantush, M.S., and C.E. Jacob, 1955: Non-steady radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 36(1), pp. 95-100. Kruseman, G.P., and N/A. de Ridder, 1990: Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data, 2nd Edition, Publication 47, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Moench, A.F., 1985: Transient flow to a large-diameter well in an aquifer with storative semiconfining layers, Water Resources Research, 21(8), pp. 1121-1131. Neuman, S.P., and P.A. Witherspoon, 1969a: Theory of flow in a confined two aquifer system, Water Resources Research, 5(4), pp. 803-816. Neuman, S.P., and P.A. Witherspoon, 1969b: Applicability of current theories of flow in leaky aquifers, Water Resources Research, 5(4), pp. 816-829.

Page 30 of 30
C:\CJN\Aquitards\Leaky aquifers\Pumping tests in leaky aquifers.doc

Interpretation of aquitard properties from pumping-induced aquifer and aquifer drawdowns: Neuman and Witherspoon ratio method
Christopher J. Neville S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. Last update: June 28, 2010 1. Introduction Although the solutions of Hantush (1960) and Neuman and Witherspoon (1969) implicitly contain within them the solutions for the drawdown in the aquitard, they were developed specifically to interpret the drawdowns in the pumped aquifer. Neuman and Witherspoon (1972) conducted additional analyses with their solution to develop a practical method for identifying the properties of the aquitard from pumping data. Their method is based on a simplified version of their solution, which assumes an aquitard that is infinitely thick. The method is referred to as the Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method. In these notes we review the foundations of the Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method and illustrate its application with an example calculation.

Page 1 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

2. Neuman and Witherspoon (1972) ratio method conceptual model The conceptual model for the Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method is shown schematically in Figure 1. The conceptual model is a simplification with respect to the analysis of Neuman and Witherspoon (1969). In particular, it is assumed that the pumped single aquifer is overlain by a relatively thick aquitard. We recognize that this is the same conceptual model that underlies the Hantush (1960) early-time (thick aquitard) solution.

Figure 1. Conceptual model for the Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method

Page 2 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

3. Results from the Neuman and Witherspoon (1969) solution For pumping from an aquifer overlain by a compressible, infinitely thick aquitard, the solution of Neuman and Witherspoon (1969) is expressed in terms of three dimensionless parameters , tD, and tD, defined as:
1/ 2

1 K ' S s' = r 4 TS

(1)

tD =
' tD =

Tt Sr 2
K 't S s' z 2

(2)

(3)

Neuman and Witherspoon investigated the variation in the ratio of the drawdowns in the aquitard and the pumped aquifer at the same distance from the pumping well, s(r,z,t)/s(r,t), as a function of the elapsed time (t) and the distance above the top of the aquifer (z). They summarized their results in the form of the remarkable plot reproduced in Figure 2. The reason this plot is so remarkable is that the results demonstrate that the ratio s/s is essentially independent of the value of , for values of ranging between 0.0 and 1.0. The results for = 10.0 are significantly different, so the results of their analysis can be summarized as follows: For all practical values of tD, the ratio s/s is independent of , as long as the value of is less than about 1.0. This result has very important practical implications. It suggests that it may be possible to estimate the hydraulic diffusivity of the aquitard (K/Ss) knowing only the ratio of the aquitard and aquifer drawdowns, and the elapsed dimensionless time with respect to the pumped aquifer, tD (defined here in Equation 2). In other words, if the assumptions underlying Neuman and Witherspoons analysis are satisfied, and independent estimates of the aquifer properties T and S are available, the properties of the aquitard can be estimated knowing only the ratio of the drawdowns in the aquifer and the aquitard observed at the same time and same radial distance from the pumping well.

Page 3 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

Figure 2. Ratio of aquitard and aquifer drawdowns

Page 4 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

4. Neuman and Witherspoon (1972) ratio method analysis To facilitate the analysis, the results shown in Figure 2 have been extended to consider a more complete set of curves for values of tD. More complete results are presented in Figure 3. Since it is assumed that the aquitard is infinitely thick, the analysis is not applicable after the effects of pumping reach the top of the aquitard. The limit of applicability is expressed in Hantush (1960) as: t < 0.1 S s' ( b ' ) K'
2

(4)

The steps in the application of the Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method are summarized below. 1. Determine the values of the transmissivity and storage coefficient, T and S, for the pumped aquifer, using an appropriate method. 2. At a selected radial distance from the pumping well (r), determine the ratio s(r,z,t)/s(r,t) at a given early value of time. Repeat this calculation for other values of r, z, and t if possible. 3. Determine the values of tD for the particular values of r and t. 4. With the known values of s/s and tD, determine the corresponding value of tD from the Neuman and Witherspoon plot. This plot is reproduced in Figure 3. 5. Calculate the diffusivity of the aquitard from the estimated value of tD, using a rearranged version of Equation (3): K ' ' z2 = tD S s' t (5)

Page 5 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

Figure 3. Plot for the Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method

Page 6 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

5. Example calculations The results from a pumping test are shown in Figure 4. The drawdowns are presented for the pumping well, for a piezometer in the pumped aquifer 345 m from the pumping well, and for a piezometer in the overlying aquitard at the same distance, screened 2 m above the base of the aquitard.

Figure 4. Results of pumping test

The transmissivity and storage coefficient of the aquifer are estimated from a Cooper-Jacob straight-line analysis of the drawdowns for piezometer a: T = 2.303 = 2.303 Q 1 4 s ( 0.002 m3/s ) 4

1 = 7.3 104 m 2 /s ( 0.5 m )

S=

2.25Tt0 r2

60 s 2.25 ( 7.3 104 m 2 /s ) 2 min min = 1.7 106 = 2 ( 345 m )

Page 7 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

After 2,500 seconds of pumping, the drawdowns in the aquifer (piezometer a) and the aquitard (piezometer b) are: s(r = 345 m, t=2,500 s) = 1.65 m; and s(r = 345 m, z = 2 m, t=2,500 s) = 0.05 m

Therefore:

s 0.05 m = = 0.030 s 1.65 m

At t = 2,500 s, the dimensionless time for the aquifer is:

tD = =

Tt Sr 2 ( 7.3 104 m2 /s ) ( 2500 s )

(1.7 10 ) ( 345 m )
6

= 560

Referring to the ratio method chart, for s/s = 0.30 and tD = 560, we estimate tD = 0.11. This estimation is shown in Figure 5. Recalling the definition of the dimensionless time for the aquitard: = tD = S s z 2 K t ( 7.3 104 m2 /s ) ( 2500 s )

(1.7 10 ) ( 345 m )
6

= 560

we can solve for the hydraulic diffusivity of the aquitard:

K z2 = tD S s t

( 2 m ) = 2.1106 m 2 /s = ( 0.11) ( 2500 s )

2

Assuming Ss =10-3 m-1 yields K = 2.110-9 m/s.

Page 8 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

 = 0.11 tD

Figure 5. Estimation of dimensionless time for the aquitard

Page 9 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc

6. References Hantush. M.S., 1960: Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 3713-3725. Neuman, S.P., and P.A. Witherspoon, 1969: Theory of flow in a confined two aquifer system, Water Resources Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 803-816. Neuman, S.P., and P.A. Witherspoon, 1972: Field determination of the hydraulic properties of leaky multiple aquifer systems, Water Resources Research, vol.8, no. 5, pp. 1284-1298.

Page 10 of 10
F:\Aquitards\NW-ratio-method\Neuman-Witherspoon ratio method.doc