Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:36:05.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Single-Hole Hydraulic Tests in Fractured Crystalline Rock by Steady-State and Transient Methods: A Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

J-E. Andersson  and
O. Persson
J-E. Andersson
Affiliation:
Swedish Geological Co., Box 1424, 751 44 Uppsala, Sweden
O. Persson
Affiliation:
Swedish Geological Co., Box 1424, 751 44 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

The results from a large number of single-hole packer tests in crystalline rock from three test sites in Sweden have been analysed statistically. Average hydraulic conductivity values for 25 m long test intervals along boreholes with a maximal length of about 700 m are used in this study. A comparison between steady state and transient analysis of the same test data has been performed.

The mean vaule of the hydraulic conductivity determined from steady state analysis was found to be about two to three times higher compared to transient analysis. However, in some cases the steady state analysis resulted in 10 to 20 times higher values compared to the transient analysis. Such divergence between the two analysis methods may be caused by deviations from the assumed flow pattern, borehole skin effects and influence of hydraulic boundaries.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 50: Symposium STOCKHOLM – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management IX , 1985 , 155
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ahlbom, K., Carlsson, L. and Olsson, O., : Final disposal of spent nuclea fuel - geological, hydrogeological and geophysical methods for site characterization. SKBS Technical Report TR 83−43. 1983.Google Scholar
2. Ziegler, T.W., : Determination of Rock Mass Permeability. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Station, Tech. Report S-76−2. 1976.Google Scholar
3. Doe, T. and Reiner, J., : Analysis of Constant-head Well Tests in Nonporous Fractured Rock. Proceedings of 3rd Inernational Well-testing Symposium, Berkeley, California. 1980.Google Scholar
4. Banks, D.C., : In situ measurements of permeability in basalt. Proceedings. Symposium on Percolation through fissured rock. ISRN, IAEG, Stuttgart. 1972 Google Scholar
5. Jacob, C.E. and Lohinan, S., Nonsteady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union (Aug. 1952) 559–569. 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Gringarten, A.C., Flow Test Evaluation of Fractured Reservoirs. Paper presented at the Symposium on Recent Trends in Hydrology, Geological Soc. of America, Berkeley, CA, Feb. 8–9 1979.Google Scholar
7. Ershagi, I. and Woodbury, J.J., Examples of Pitfalls in Well Test Analysis. J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1985) 335–341. 1985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R., Unsteady Flow to a Well Producing at constant Pressure. J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1980) 1803–1812. 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R., Pressure Buildup Analysis for a Well Produced at constant Bottomhole pressure. J. Pet. Tech (Oct. 1980) 1813–1824. 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Moye, D.G., Drilling for Foundation Exploration. Civil Eng. Trans., Inst. Eng. Australia (Apr. 1967) 95–100. 1967.Google Scholar
11. Almén, K-E., Andersson, J.-E., Carlsson, L. and Hansson, K., Hydraulic tests. Part 5: Steady state injection tests (In Swedish). KBS Progress report AR 84−30, Sept. 1984.Google Scholar
12. Earlougher, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis, Soc. Pet. Engr. Monograph Series, Vol.5 (1977) SPE, Dallas. 1977.Google Scholar