Slug-Tests in PP- and PVP-Holes at Olkiluoto in 2004

Working Report 2005-76 Slug-Tests in PP- and PVP-Holes at Olkiluoto in 2004 Eveliina Tammisto Pirjo Hellä Jere Lahdenperä December 2005 POSIVA OY FI-27160 OLKILUOTO, FINLAND Tel +358-2-8372 31 Fax +358-2-8372 3709

Working Report 2005-76 Slug-Tests in PP- and PVP-Holes at Olkiluoto in 2004 Eveliina Tammisto Pirjo Hellä JP-Fintact Oy Jere Lahdenperä Posiva Oy December 2005 Base maps: National Land Survey, permission 41/MYY/05 Working Reports contain information on work in progress or pending completion.

Tammisto, E., Hellä, P. & Lahdenperä, J. 2004. Slug-tests in PP- and PVP-holes at Olkiluoto in 2004. Eurajoki: Posiva Oy. 87 p. Working Report 2005-76. ABSTRACT As part of the program for the final disposal of the nuclear fuel waste, Posiva Oy investigates the hydrological conditions at the Olkiluoto island. The hydraulic conductivity in the shallow holes PP2, PP38 and PP39 were measured in July 2004 and PVP4A, PVP4B and PVP14 in June 2004, PVP11, PVP12 and PVP13 in December 2004 and PVP2 in January 2005. The length of PP-holes varies between 13 and 24 m and the measured sections (1 m) are located in the bedrock. PVP-holes have a length up to 10 m and the measured sections (2 m) are located in the overburden. The measurements were conducted using the slug-test technique. In the slug-test the hydraulic head in the borehole is abruptly changed either by pouring water in the borehole or by lowering the pressure sensor. The conductivity is interpreted based on the recovery of the water level. This report presents the field measurements and their interpretation. The interpretation has been done using the Hvorslev s method, but for the control also Thiem s equation was applied. According to the results hydraulic conductivities in PP-holes range from 10-9 m/s to 10-4 m/s and in PVP-holes from 10-6 m/s to 10-4 m/s. The range is almost the same as in measurements of year 2002. Also the results from holes measured both 2002 and 2004 are very close to each other. The results agree also with hydraulic conductivity information available from the pre-pumping done in connection of the groundwater sampling. Keywords: Hydraulic conductivity, slug-test, disposal of spent nuclear fuel, hydrology

Tammisto, E., Hellä, P. & Lahdenperä, J. 2004. Vedenjohtavuusmittaukset PP- ja PVPrei issä Olkiluodossa 2004. Eurajoki: Posiva Oy. 87 s. Työraportti 2005-76. TIIVISTELMÄ Osana ydinjätteen loppusijoitustutkimusta Posiva Oy selvittää Olkiluodon saaren hydrologisia olosuhteita. Matalien reikien vedenjohtavuuksia mitattiin rei istä PP2, PP38 ja PP39 heinäkuussa 2004, PVP4A, PVP4B ja PVP14 kesäkuussa 2004, PVP11, PVP12 ja PVP13 joulukuussa 2004 ja PVP2 tammikuussa 2005. PP-reikien syvyys vaihtelee välillä 13-24 m maanpinnasta, ja mittausjaksot (1 m) sijaitsevat kallion yläosassa. Syvimmät PVP-reiät ovat 10 m, ja mittausvälit (2 m) ovat maapeiteosuudella. Mittaukset suoritettiin käyttäen slug-tekniikkaa. Mittauksessa kairanreikään saadaan ylipaine joko kaatamalla sinne vettä tai laskemalla paineanturia. Vedenjohtavuus lasketaan vedenpinnan palautumisajan perusteella. Tässä raportissa kuvataan kenttämittaukset ja niiden tulkinta. Mittaukset on tulkittu käyttäen Hvorslevin menetelmää ja tarkistusta varten vedenjohtavuus on laskettu myös Thiemin kaavalla. Tulosten mukaan vedenjohtavuus PP-rei issä vaihtelee välillä 10-9 m/s - 10-4 m/s ja PVP-rei issä välillä 10-6 m/s - 10-4 m/s. Vaihteluväli on lähes sama kuin vuoden 2002 mittauksissa. Myös mittaustulokset rei issä, jotka mitattiin sekä vuonna 2002 että 2004, ovat hyvin lähellä toisiaan. Tulokset sopivat hyvin myös pohjavesinäytteenoton yhteydessä tehtyjen esipumppausten antamiin vedenjohtavuustuloksiin. Avainsanat: Vedenjohtavuus, slug-testi, käytetyn ydinpolttoaineen loppusijoitus, hydrologia

PREFACE This report is part of the program for the final disposal of the nuclear fuel waste at the Olkiluoto island. The main aim of the study is to investigate the hydraulic conductivity close ground surface. The field measurements were done by Jere Lahdenperä, Posiva Oy using the technique and equipment developed by PRG-Tec (Hellä & Heikkinen 2004). The interpretation of the results has been done at JP-Fintact Oy by Pirjo Hellä. The report is compiled by Eveliina Tammisto (JP-Fintact Oy). Henry Ahokas (JP-Fintact Oy) is thanked for the valuable comments and guidance of the interpretation work and reporting.

1 CONTENTS ABSTRACT TIIVISTELMÄ PREFACE CONTENTS... 1 1 Introduction... 3 2 Field measurements... 5 2.1 Measurements in PP holes... 6 2.2 Measurements in PVP-tubes... 7 3 Method of interpretation... 9 3.1 Hvorslev s method... 9 3.2 Thiem s formula... 9 4 Data processing... 13 5 Results... 15 6 On the accuracy of the results... 21 6.1 Detection limits... 21 6.2 Effect of the time used in interpretation... 23 6.3 Comparison with the pre-pumping results... 24 7 Conclusions... 27 References... 29 Appendix 1 Description of the data processing macros... 31 Appendix 2 Measurements and results in PP2... 35 Appendix 3 Measurements and results in PP38... 45 Appendix 4 Measurements and results in PP39... 55 Appendix 5 Measurements and results in PVP2... 65 Appendix 6 Measurements and results in PVP4A... 69 Appendix 7 Measurements and results in PVP4B... 71 Appendix 8 Measurements and results in PVP11... 73 Appendix 9 Measurements and results in PVP12... 77 Appendix 10 Measurements and results in PVP13... 79 Appendix 11 Measurements and results in PVP14... 83 Appendix 12 Comparison of the obtained K-values with the prepumping results... 87

2

3 1 INTRODUCTION As part of the program for the final disposal of the nuclear fuel waste, Posiva Oy investigates the prevailing hydrological conditions at the Olkiluoto island. Hydrogeological conditions of deep bedrock have been studied for several years at Olkiluoto. In deep boreholes, test pumpings have been done to investigate the hydraulic connections. To complement the knowledge already available from deep boreholes, the hydraulic conductivity in shallow bedrock and overburden was measured. PRG-Tec has developed the necessary equipment and technique to measure the distribution of conductivity close ground surface and measured the hydraulic conductivity in a number of shallow holes in 2002 (Hellä & Heikkinen 2004). The first PP-holes were measured in June 2002 and PVP-tubes in September 2002. Further measurements were done in 2004. The PP-holes were measured in July 2004 and the PVP-holes in June and December 2004 expect PVP2 in January 2005. This report describes these new measurements, the method of interpretation, results and detection limits. The equipment has been described in the report of the earlier measurements (Hellä & Heikkinen 2004).

4

5 2 FIELD MEASUREMENTS The field measurements were done during June, July and December 2004 and PVP2 was measured in January 2005. The measured boreholes are presented in Figure 2-1 and listed in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 (Teollisuuden Voima Oy 1989, Lehto 2001, Niemi & Roos 2004). Detais of the measurements in shallow (PP-holes) and groundwater observation tubes (PVP-tubes) with comments are presented in Appendices 2 to 11. Figure 2-1. Location of the shallow boreholes where slug tests have been done. In red the ones presented in this study. Table 2-1. Measured PP-holes and measurement times and operators. Area Hole Date start Time start Date stop Time stop Operator Olkiluoto PP2 8.7.2004 12:30 8.7.2004 15:27 Jere lahdenperä/posiva Oy Olkiluoto PP38 1.7.2004 14:30 1.7.2004 15:46 Jere lahdenperä/posiva Oy Olkiluoto PP38 2.7.2004 8:50 2.7.2004 10:49 Jere lahdenperä/posiva Oy Olkiluoto PP39 6.7.2004 13:51 6.7.2004 16:37 Jere lahdenperä/posiva Oy

6 Table 2-2. Measured PVP-tubes, measurement times and main information on measurements. Hole Date Time Operator Pressure sensor movement/m Notes PVP2 12.1.2005 13:22 and 13:26 Jere Lahdenperä/ Posiva Oy 1.5 and 1.5 PVP4A 30.6.2004 15:35 Jere Lahdenperä/ 1.5 Posiva Oy PVP4B 30.6.2004 16:00 Jere Lahdenperä/ Posiva Oy 1.5 PVP11 9.12.2004 14:49 and 14:59 Jere Lahdenperä/ Posiva Oy 1.5 and 1.5 PVP12 9.12.2004 15:32 Jere Lahdenperä/ Posiva Oy 1.5 PVP13 9.12.2004 13:28 and 13.41 Jere Lahdenperä/ Posiva Oy 1.5 and 1.0 Water table rose too much at first measurement so the second one was done with PVP14 30.6.2004 13:33 and 13:44 Jere Lahdenperä/ Posiva Oy 1.5 and 1.5 smaller movement. 2.1 Measurements in PP holes The PP-holes have been measured using one-meter test section. The measurement is divided into three stages: 1. Stabilization: the water level is stabilized in the hole after moving the equipment. 2. Inflation: the pressure level is stabilized in the hole and in the test section after inflating the packers. 3. Measurement: the piston is either pushed or pulled in the test section or water is poured into it. In the measurement, the stabilizing of the pressure transient is followed up. Each of the three stages has a specific duration, see Table 2-3. An example of the water levels at different measurement stages is shown in Figure 2-2. Table 2-3. Duration of the measurement stages. Stage Time minimum/min Time maximum/min 1 1 2 2 2 5 3 5 15

7 5.00 Olkiluoto PP2 Pressure sensor of the measurement section Pressure sensor of the hole waterlevel 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Stage1 Stage2 Stage3 0.00 15:20 15:25 15:30 15:35 15:40 15:45 Figure 2-2. An example of measurement results in a PP-hole. 2.2 Measurements in PVP-tubes The groundwater observation tubes are measured without packers, using only the piston (pressure sensor). A PVC-tube is installed around the pressure sensor in order to increase the diameter of the piston and to generate an adequate pressure change after moving the piston. Only one measurement per each hole is made with this method as each hole consists of a plastic tube with two meters perforated section installed in the overburden. The measurement is divided into two stages, Stage 1 and Stage 3 of the PP measurements see Table 2-3. An example of the measurement is presented in Figure 2-3.

8 3.00 Olkiluoto PVP3A Pressure sensor of the hole waterlevel 2.00 1.00 0.00 Stage1 Stage3 14:30 14:35 14:40 14:45 14:50 Figure 2-3. An example of measurement results in a PVP-tube.

9 3 METHOD OF INTERPRETATION 3.1 Hvorslev s method The slug-test results were interpreted using Hvorslev s method (Freeze & Cherry 1979). A homogeneous, isotropic, infinite medium in which both soil and water are incompressible is assumed. This assumption is valid when a fracture or the network of fractures is homogenous and planar (can be seen in the analysis as a linear behaviour). According to Hvorslev, the flow rate q at time t is related to the hydraulic conductivity K and to the unrecovered head difference H-h (H reference water level, h head at time t) according to following equation: q(t) = p r 2 dh / dt = FK(H-h), (Equation 3-1.) where r is the radius of the hole and F depends on the shape and dimensions of the piezometer. The flow rate will decrease asymptotically to zero with increasing time. Solution of the differential equation 3-1 is H-h = (H-H 0 ) e t/t 0 (Equation 3-2.) with initial condition h = H 0 at t = 0 and the basic time lag T 0 defined as T 0 = p r 2 / FK. (Equation 3-3.) Plotting the normalized head recovery (H-h) / (H-H 0 ) on a logarithmic scale against time results in a straight line, if a fracture or aquifer under measurement is ideal i.e. homogeneous, planar and cylinder-symmetric. The basic time lag T 0 can be defined from the plot being the time t, when ln (H-h)/(H-H 0 )= -1. The shape factor suggested by Hvorslev can be applied as the assumption of L/R > 8 (L length and R radius of the piezometer intake) is valid. The resulting equation for the hydraulic conductivity K is K = r 2 ln(l/r) / 2LT 0. (Equation 3-4.) Figure 3-1 clarifies the notation used in the equations above. 3.2 Thiem s formula For the control of the results the hydraulic conductivity K was also calculated based on Thiem s formula: K = Q ln(r 0 /r w ) / (2 p L h). (Equation 3-5.)

10 In Equation 3-5, Q is the flow rate (= Adh/dt, A is the void area between connection rods and the pressure cable, see Figure 3-1, dh change in head during the time interval dt), r 0 is the radius of influence assumed to be 14 m, r w is radius of the borehole, L is the length of the test section and h is the overpressure i.e. the head difference to the reference water level in the measurement section. Two different cases were calculated separately, tight intervals with hardly any observed recovery and intervals with rather high hydraulic conductivity i.e. the ones with clear recovery. The calculation of the hydraulic conductivity in the two cases differed in the chosen time interval. In the case of clear observed flow, dt is short and the time at which the conductivity is calculated is chosen to be in the middle of the recovery period. As the recovery is not linear, the result is sensitive to the selection of the time, when the hydraulic conductivity is calculated (see Figure 3-2 a). If there is hardly any flow, a longer time interval equal to one third of the recovery period is used (see Figure 3-2 b). Slow recovery is approximately linear and the Thiem s formula gives a reliable estimation of the hydraulic conductivity. PC pressure cable H0 supporting rods h H t = 0 dh t t+dt pressure sensor t infinity packers L hole Figure 3-1. Principle of the slug-test and interpretation according to Hvorslev s method (modified after Freeze and Cherry 1979).

11 a) 2.5 water level h (m, below ground level) 3 3.5 4 4.5 h1 h2 5 t0 t1 t2 tend b) 1.5 water level h (m, below ground level) 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 h1 h2 4.5 t0 t1 t2 tend Figure 3-2. Calculation of the hydraulic conductivity according to Thiem s formula: in case of a) clear recovery and b) a tight interval with very slow recovery.

12

13 4 DATA PROCESSING For the interpretation of the measurement data, a set of MSExcel-macros was developed (see Appendix 1 for the details). The actual analysis of the results uses a template file (xls), which contains the necessary formulas and graph templates (see Appendices 2 to 11). The figures on the template include a graph of the measured water level both in the borehole and in the measurement section. Another figure depicts the interpretation i.e. (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) is plotted on a logarithmic scale versus time. In the latter figure also the fitted line through the measured points is plotted. The macro copies the data from the measurement file to the analysis template file. The functions and images in the template file are modified automatically. Further on, the results, K-values by Hvorslev s method and the two K-values obtained by Thiem s formula, together with some comments are copied to a separate result file. The reference for all depth values in the results is the ground level whereas in the data files the reference is the top of the casing (TOC). The subtraction of the TOC is done automatically by the macros. The reference water level H is determined to be the average water level during phase one, Figure 2-2 and Figure 3-1 are referred for the notation. Phase one is used as the water level during it is more stable than during phase 2. H 0, the water level at the measurement section after the disturbance, either adding water or lowering the pressure sensor in the borehole, is defined to be h at 10 (PP-holes) / 20 (PVP-holes) time steps after the minimum observed h. The minimum is not used as in the measurements, where the sensor is lowered, a piston effect occurs and the water level changes rapidly due to the movement. The time shift compensates this phenomenon, although potentially part of the recovery period on highly conductive intervals is lost. An example is given in Figure 4-1. There is a possibility to adjust the time period used for line fitting manually, if necessary. The time range used is shown on the interpretation plot. water level h (m, below ground level) 2 min h 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 53870 53880 t0 53890 53900 Figure 4-1. An example of the behavior of the water level in the measurement section at the time of lowering the pressure sensor.

14 A straight line is fitted through ln(h-h)/(h-h 0 ) as function of time. The time interval used for the fitting is from t 0, the time corresponding H 0, to t end corresponding either the end time of the measuring period or the time when (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) reaches 0.1 or the time when (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) gets negative, this might happen if the data is noisy at the end of the measurement. The basic time lag, T 0 needed for the Hvorslev analysis is then calculated from the resulting line equation. When T 0 is known, the hydraulic conductivity K can be derived from equation 3-4. The time instants used in the Thiem s formula are determined as described in chapter 3.2 and in Figure 3-2. The water levels h 1 and h 2 corresponding the times t 1 and t 2 are calculated as an average of eleven observed h values around time t. Average is used to compensate the possibly noisy data. Otherwise, erroneous results are obtained especially in case of a very small flow, when the changes in water level are small and the values of h are oscillating around an average level. Once the corresponding h and t values are defined, an average head difference to borehole can be calculated together with the outflow Q. These are then further used to calculate the hydraulic conductivity K assuming r 0 to be 14 m. To check the correctness of the interpretation the quotient of the hydraulic conductivities K Hvorslev / K Thiem is calculated. If the ratio is between 1/3 and three, these two results are considered to be in accordance. On most of the tight intervals, T 0 is not reached meaning that the value of T 0 has to be extrapolated outside the observed time range and the result is thus more uncertain than in cases when T 0 is reached during the observation period.

15 5 RESULTS The interpretation of the hydraulic conductivities in each of the measured holes and sections are presented in Appendices 2 to 11. Three typical recovery curves were observed and an example of each type is given in Figure 5-1. In Figure 5-2, summary of the results in PP-holes is presented and Figure 5-3 contains the summary of the results in PVP-tubes. The cumulative distributions of the measured hydraulic conductivities are presented in Figures 5-4 and 5-5. In these figures the measurements of 2002 and 2004 are compared. In 2002 and 2004, mainly different holes and tubes were measured, which explains the difference in results. Only PP2, PVP4A and PVP4B have been measured both 2002 and 2004. These results are compared in Figure 5-6.

16 a) b) c) Figure 5-1. Type of the observed recovery curves, a) a tight section with hardly any recovery, b) section with clear recovery resulting in a linear trend on the semi-log plot and c) a section with rapid recovery, which is not linear on the semi-log plot.

17 Figure 5-2. Hydraulic conductivity in PP-holes.

18 Figure 5-3. Hydraulic conductivity in PVP-holes. In PVP2 exact depth levels on overburden, bedrock and perforated section are not known.

19 100 PP cumulative distribution K 90 80 70 Frequency % 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1.0E-11 1.0E-10 1.0E-09 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 K (m/s) 2002 KHvorslev (m/s) 2004 KHvorslev (m/s) 2002 and 2004 KHvorslev (m/s) Figure 5-4. Cumulative distribution of the hydraulic conductivities in PP-tubes. 100 PVP cumulative distribution of K 90 80 70 Frequency % 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 K (m/s) 2002 KHvorslev (m/s) 2004 KHvorslev (m/s) 2002 and 2004 KHvorslev (m/s) Figure 5-5. Cumulative distribution of the hydraulic conductivities in PVP-holes.

20 Khorslev (m/s) PP2 1.00E-09 1.00E-07 1.00E-05 1.00E-03 1.00E-01 0 5 PP2 2002 PP2 2004 PVP4A 2002 PVP4A 2004 Depth (m) 10 15 PVP4B 2002 PVP4B 2004 20 25 Figure 5-6. Results frompp-holes and PVP-tubes measured both 2002 and 2004.

21 6 ON THE ACCURACY OF THE RESULTS 6.1 Detection limits The interpreted hydraulic conductivities are in the range from 10-9 m/s to 10-4 m/s in PPholes and from 10-6 m/s to 10-4 m/s in PVP-holes. In the following the detection limits are estimated. The accuracy of the water level obtained by the pressure sensor is ±1-2 mm. By analysing the recovery of some of the tight intervals it was noticed that the change in water level has to be at least 5 mm, so that it can be distinguished from the noise. The recovery period varies from 200 s to 1000 s. Taking the geometry of the tool and the hole into account this leads to minimum observable flow of 2 10-9 - 8 10-9 m 3 /s (30 ml/h) in PP-holes. The overpressure is typically 2 m leading to hydraulic conductivity 1 10-9 - 4 10-9 m/s according to Thiem s formula. Consequently, the lower detection limit in PP-holes is about 5 10-9 m/s. The diameter of the PVP-holes and the instrument used are different and a typical overpressure is 1.5 m resulting in the detection limit of 1 10-8 m/s. The upper limit of the measurement range is not as clear as the lower limit. It is estimated to be of the order of 5 10-5 m/s in PP-holes. This value is deduced assuming a steel rod with a diameter of 2.5 cm, including the pressure sensor hose inside the rod with a diameter of about half of the steel rod, and further more overpressure of 2 m and a 2 m decrease in water level within 10 s. The observed conductivity can be higher as the flow is not necessarily steady-state as assumed in the estimation of the detection limit. In PVP-holes the geometry is different and the used overpressure 1.5 m, resulting in an upper limit of 8 10-5 m/s. The diameter of PP-holes is 46 mm or 56 mm. The detection limits are calculated to 46 mm holes but are practically the same for 56 mm holes. The highest observed conductivity in the PP-holes is 3.4 10-5 m/s in hole PP2 at the depth 13.45 m (Appendix 2), where the water level in the measurement section decreased 0.5 m during 15 seconds. The difference between the water level in the measurement section and in the open hole was about 20 cm at the most. The same section has been measured in 2002 with analogous results. Repeatability seems to be good. When the sensor is lowered, there is a period of about 2-3 s, when the water level is unstable. The interpretation can be started first after more stabile conditions are reached so the recovery period should last at least 5 seconds. During the first seconds the water table already decreases considerably on sections with a high conductivity and the overpressure H 0, which can be used in the interpretation is thus considerably less than the theoretical value of 2 m, as the example shows. In PVP-holes the highest observed conductivity is 8.3 10-5 m/s (PVP14, see Appendix 11). The recovery period is about 10 s and the change in water level is about 50 cm. The result is of the order of the maximum observable flow. In this case the flow is not linear on the semi-log plot. About the same limits are obtained by comparing the hydraulic conductivities resulting from the interpretations using the two methods, Hvorslev and Thiem. In general, the hydraulic conductivities calculated according to Thiem s equation and according to Hvorslev s method seem to be well in accordance, see Figure 6-1. The results from PP-

22 holes agree extremely well, when the conductivity is higher than about 5 10-8 m/s. In these cases T 0 is reached during the observation period. When the hydraulic conductivity is small, i.e. hardly no recovery is observed the results obtained by the two methods give slightly different results, K Thiem being approximately two to three times higher than K Hvorslev. In the PVP-holes higher conductivities are observed and the interpreted hydraulic conductivity according to two methods match relatively well. a) 1.0E-04 KHvorslev (m/s) 1.0E-10 1.0E-09 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 KThiem (m/s) 1.0E-07 1.0E-08 1.0E-09 1.0E-10 2002 results 2004 results Ø = 56 mm b) 1.0E-03 KHvorslev (m/s) 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-04 KThiem (m/s) 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-07 1.0E-08 2002 results 2004 results Figure 6-1. Comparison of the hydraulic conductivities calculated either by the Hvorslev s method or using Thiem s formula in a) PP-holes, in red the holes which diameter is 56 mm, and b) in PVP-holes.

23 The coefficient of correlation (R 2 ), which measures the linear relationship between ln(h-h) / (H-H 0 ) and time t, decreases clearly when the hydraulic conductivity in PPholes is less than 5 10-9 m/s and in PVP-holes less than 5 10-7 m/s, see Figure 6-2. 6.2 Effect of the time used in interpretation As can be observed from Figure 6-1, the hydraulic conductivity by Hvorslev s method is normally less than the one obtained by Thiem s formula in PP-holes. This is mainly due to the selection of the time range used in the interpretation. Also the time interval chosen for the interpretation can be a significant source of error in cases when the recovery is rapid. Selection of the starting time affects also the H 0, the reference water level. Figure 6-3 gives an example of the effect of the selected time range. In the result figures (Appendices 2 to 11), the time range used in the interpretation according to Thiem s formula and in the Hvorslev s method are therefore shown. a) 1.0E-10 1.0E-09 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0 KHvorslev (m/s) 0.8 0.6 R2 0.4 0.2 0.0 2002 results 2004 results b) 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0 KHvorslev (m/s) 0.8 0.6 R2 0.4 0.2 0.0 2002 results 2004 results Figure 6-2. R 2 as a function on hydraulic conductivity K in a) PP-holes and b) PVPholes.

24 water level h (m, below ground level) -0.5-0.1 0.3 0.7 1 2 1) KHvorslev = 2.3E-6 m/s, KThiem = 2.8E-6 m/s 2) KHvorslev = 2.3E-6 m/s, KThiem = 2.0E-6 m/s 1.1 3 3) KHvorslev negative, KThiem = 1.5E-6 m/s 1.5 54500 54600 54700 54800 54900 55000 Open borehole Measurement Section Intervals 10.0 54500 54600 54700 54800 54900 55000 55100 (H-h)/(H-H0) 1.0 0.1 Figure 6-3. An example how the time selected for the interpretation affects the resulting hydraulic conductivity. Three time intervals were used each corresponding to approximately one third of the recovery. The example is from PP2 at depth of 19.42 m. The interpreted values for this section were K Hvorslev 1.1 10-6 m/s and K Thiem 8.1 10-7 m/s. For the interval 3 the interpretation according to Hvorslev s method failed as the T 0 gets negative. 6.3 Comparison with the pre-pumping results Groundwater sampling has been done partly in the same holes as the slug-tests during the summer 2004 (Tuominen 1998, Kröger 2004). Before taking the samples, the hole is pre-pumped for a certain period of time, typically few hours. The yield (l/min) and the change in the water table (m) are measured. Using this information and the length of the measurement section (either part of the hole below the water table or the perforated section in the groundwater observation tubes), hydraulic conductivity can be obtained

25 according to the Thiem s formula (Equation 3-5). These values were compared to the conductivities resulting from the slug-tests. For the PP-holes, were the slug-tests were performed on 1 m measurement sections an average for the entire hole was calculated for the comparison. The results are shown in Figure 6-4 and listed in Appendix 12. The results from the pre-pumping match well with those from the slug-tests (Figure 6-4). Results of year 2004 are in red and results of year 2002 in grey. In general, prepumping values are slightly smaller which is natural because the time used for measurements is much longer than in slug-tests and natural decrease of flow during long-term pumping causes lower values of hydraulic conductivity. In cases where prepumping values are higher it is possible that outside the range measured by slug-test, a conductive fracture exists resulting in a higher conductivity in the pumping test, which measures the whole open borehole. Pre-pumping, KThiem (m/s) 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 PVP14 1.0E-04 PVP3B PVP13 PP2 PVP4B PP39 PVP9B 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 Slug test, KThiem (m/s) * PP38 1.0E-07 PP7 1.0E-08 Figure 6-4. Comparison of the hydraulic conductivities (m/s) obtained by the interpretation of the slug-tests and the pre-pumping in connection of groundwater sampling, results of 2002 in grey and results of 2004 in red.

26

27 7 CONCLUSIONS Slug-tests were performed in several shallow (PP and PVP) holes at Olkiluoto mainly during the summer and the autumn 2004. The measurements were done using the same technique and equipment developed by PRG-Tec Oy as in the measurements in 2002 (Hellä & Heikkinen 2004). The measurement results were interpreted by using Hvorslev s method. For the comparison the conductivity was also calculated using Thiem s formula. The interpretation was done by using for the purpose written MSExcel-macros. The analysis method developed is easy to use and quick as manual work is hardly needed for the file operations. According to the results hydraulic conductivities in PP-holes range from 10-9 m/s to 10-4 m/s and in PVP-holes from 10-6 m/s to 10-4 m/s. With the applied technique in PP-holes flow in the range 5 10-9 5 10-5 m/s and in the range 1 10-8 8 10-5 m/s in PVP holes can be detected. The hydraulic conductivities resulting from the interpretation of the slug-tests were compared to those obtained by the pumping. The comparison showed that both results are in acceptable accordance with each other. The range of hydraulic conductivities in 2004 measurements is almost the same as in measurements of year 2002. In 2002 and 2004, mainly different holes and tubes were measured. Only holes PP2, PVP4A and PVP4B are measured both 2002 and 2004 and the results are very close to each other.

28

29 REFERENCES Freeze, R. A. & Cherry, J.A. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. United States. 604 p. Kröger, T. 2004. Groundwater Sampling from Shallow Boreholes (PP and PR) and Groundwater Observation Tubes (PVP) at Olkiluoto in 2003. Eurajoki, Finland, Posiva Oy. 117 p. Working report 2004-44. Hellä, P. & Heikkinen, P. 2004. Slug Tests in Shallow Holes at Olkiluoto 2002. Eurajoki, Finland, Posiva Oy. 201 p. Working Report 2004-13. Lehto, K. 2001.Installation of groundwater observation tubes at Olkiluoto in Eurajoki 2001. Helsinki, Finland, Posiva Oy. 58 p. Working report 2001-39. Niemi, K. & Roos, S. 2004. Havaintoputkien asentaminen, matalien kairareikien kairaaminen, painokairaaminen ja maaperänäytteet Eurajoen Olkiluodon tutkimusalueella vuoden 2003 syksyllä. Eurajoki, Finland, Posiva Oy. 43 p. Working report 2004-03. (in finnish) Suomen Malmi Oy. 1989. Bedrock Surface Drillings in Olkiluoto, Eurajoki. Helsinki, Finland, Teollisuuden Voima Oy. 6 p. Working report 89-70. Tuominen, M. 1998. Hydrogeochemical studies at Olkiluoto During 1997: Drilled Holes PR3 and PR4 and Ground Water Pipes PVP1 and PVP2. Helsinki, Finland, Posiva Oy.39 p. Working Report 98-07. Öhberg, A. & Rouhiainen, P. 2000. Posiva groundwater flow measuring techniques. Helsinki, Finland, Posiva Oy. 81 p. POSIVA 2000-12.

30

31 APPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA PROCESSING MACROS For the interpretation of the measurement data the same macros developed as part of the interpretation of the results of the slug measurements in 2002 (Hellä & Heikkinen 2004) were used. Some modifications were done: The separate macros for interpreting the results from PP- and PVP-holes were combined. An input box was added in the start of program which enable the user to select whether he is processing data from PP- or PVP-holes. In the input box it also possible to select if the time range used in the interpretation is automatically selected or if the user wants to define the time range manually. The borehole diameter and section length information can now be given in the makefile, the values replace the erroneous or missing values in the data files. The time instants used in Thiem s equation were adjusted. They are now based on the change in head not on the length of the recovery period. Handling of errors was enhanced and the user is given information of the reason why the processing stops. For the interpretation a MSExcel-file containing the necessary functions and graphs was used as a template. The macro copies the necessary data from the measurement file to the analysis template. The functions and graphs in the template file are modified automatically. Further on the results, K-values by Hvorslev s method and the two K- values obtained by Thiem s equation, together with some comments are copied to a separate result file. Also, the sheet with the interpretations is printed both as a paper copy and to a pdf-file. Input Data Data from the header of the measurement files used for interpretation: - Top of the casing (m), reference level of all the depth values in the measurement file - Depth of the pressure sensor, borehole (m) - Initial depth of the pressure sensor of the measurement section (m) - Depth of the pressure sensor of the measurement section after movement (m) - Length of the measurement section (m) - Hole diameter (mm) - And from the data columns: Cable Depth (column A) Date (column B) Time (s) (column C) Phase (columnd) WaterLevelBorehole(m) (column G) WaterLevelMeasurementSection(m) (column K) depth of the top of the measurement section (ref TOC), only first value used date, only first value used Time 1 = open borehole equipment installed 2 = inflation of packers + stabilization of pressure 3 = pressure increase + recovery phase water column above pressure sensor of borehole water water column above pressure sensor of measurement section

32 The template workbook The template workbook analysis_template.xls contains three sheets parameters for input parameters, results and figure of the water level at the borehole and in the measurement section during the measurement and a figure with the measurement results and the fitted line. The data copied from the input file is marked with italic. The contents with some comments is described below: - input file, name of the input file containing the hole id and the file number - date, date of the measurement - TOC (m), length of the casing above ground level - sensor open hole (m), measured from the top of the casing -, measured from the top of the casing - depth of meas. section (m), top of the section measured from the top of the casing - depth of meas. section (m), midpoint of the section measured from ground level - tube diameter (mm), diameter of the tube having an equal area to a double tube with given inner and outer diameter (16.6/24.9 mm in PP-holes and 40/56 mm in PVPholes) - r (mm), radius of the tube with the above diameter - H, initial water level (m, below ground level) average of the observed values during phase 1 - H 0, water level (m, below ground level) after the disturbance, H 0 * = min(water level in measurement section), H 0 = water level in measurement section 10 observations after H 0 *, the shift is done because the water level changes rapidly just after the moving of the pressure sensor. - t 0, time corresponding H 0, start time of the line fitting or the time instant given by the user - t end (s), end time of the line fitting, is either the end time of the measuring period, or the time when (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) reaches 0.1 or the time when (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) gets negative, this might happen if the data is noisy at the end of the measurement, the user can also define the t end - T 0, time when (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) = 0.37, calculated from the estimated line equation - L (m), length of the measurement section - screen diam. (mm), hole diameter - screen radius R (mm), hole radius - L/R - K (m/s), hydraulic conductivity calculated according to equation 4-4. - logk For the calculation of hydraulic conductivity according to Thiem s equation following data is used: Two time instants are used in calculating the flow for the Thiem analysis and two cases are considered: - flow

33 o t 1 (s) corresponds to the time when h is equal to (H + H0) / 2, if such h is not reached t1 is defined to be the time corresponding to one third of the recovery period. o t 2 (s) is 20 observations later - no flow o t 1 (s) is 20 observations later than t 0 o t 2 (s) is determined to be t 0 + (t end t 0 )/3, but if the recovery period is short, less than 40 time steps, then the whole recovery is used i.e. t 2 equal to t end - h 1 (m) is the average of 11 observed h values at time t 1, average is used to compensate the possibly noisy data, otherwise erroneous results are obtained especially in case of no flow - h 2 (m) is the average of 11 observed h values at time t 2 - dh (m) is the average change in water level, h in equation 4-5, dh = (h 1 +h 2 )/2 H 0 - Q (m 3 /s) observed flow in time t 1 t 2 - K Thiem (m/s) hydraulic conductivity assuming r 0 = 14 m - logk - K Hvorslev / K Thiem quotient of the hydraulic conductivities according to the two methods The sheet contains also two figures, the first one presents the measured water levels in the open borehole and in the measurement section. The measured values are corrected so that the reference is always ground level. The other figure shows the results of the Hvorslev s method, the measured (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) values are plotted on a logarithmic scale as a function of time, also the fitted line is shown as well as the line (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) = 0.37. data initial measurement data together with the processed one. The columns are the following: - Time(s), copy of the time column of the input file - Phase, copy of the phase column of the input file - WaterLevelBorehole(m), copy of the water level/borehole column of the input file - WaterLevelMeasurementSection(m), copy of the water level/measurement section column of the input file - Open borehole, corrected water level in the open borehole below ground level (m) taking into account the depth of the pressure sensor and the casing (=ps_depth toc - wl) - Measurement Section, h, corrected water level in the measurement section below ground level (m) taking into account the depth of the pressure sensor and the casing (=ps_depth toc - wl). Here, the possible change in the pressure sensor depth is taken into account. - t, time from t 0 i.e. start of the line fitting - H-h, change in the water level at the measurement section - H-H 0, the total over pressure (m) - (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) - ln((h-h)/(h-h 0 )) - fitted, the fitted values at the given time

34 - (H-h)/(H-H 0 )<0.1, used to define the end of the time interval used in the line fitting support data needed to draw a line (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) = 0.37 in the lower figure on sheet parameters. Subprograms The interpretation macro consists of following subprograms: prepare_file_for_analysis opens a file containing measurement data and copies the necessary data to the analysis template deleting the header rows of the input data file preliminary_analysis modifies the functions and images in the analysis template workbook to correspond the current data file. Write_results writes the results of the analysis to the results workbook (filename, depth of measurement section, hydraulic conductivity K according to Hvorslev s method and the two Thiem approximations, R 2 -value of the line fitting and comments: T0 not reached means that during the recovery period (H-h)/(H-H 0 ) does not reach value 0.37 corresponding the time needed for the recovery assuming steady state flow. This means that the value of T 0 has to be extrapolated outside the observed time range and the result is thus more uncertain than in the case when T 0 is reached during the observation period. Thiem different means that the hydraulic conductivity by Hvorslev s method is at least three times greater or smaller than the one obtained by Thiem s method. q increasing with time means that the fitted line has a positive slope and thus no recovery is observed, indicates an error. Negative K means hydraulic conductivity obtained by Hvorslev s method is negative indicating an error. Print_results prints the paper copy and a pdf-file from the parameters-sheet.

Area: Hole: Measurer: Olkiluoto PP2 Jere Lahdenperä Water level before starting 2.40 m The reference level to depth is top of casing Depth of pressure sensor open borehole (m) Depth of pressure sensor meas. section (m) Pouring water/ Moving piston NOTE! measurement/hol e & run measurement depth (m) below ground level midpoint of the section KHvorslev (m/s) R2 KThiem (m/s) flow File Date Time Depth 171 8.7.2004 12:30 13.94 3 3.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000171.DAT 13.45 3.37E-05 0.9976 5.39E-05 5.70E-05 172 8.7.2004 12:45 14.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000172.DAT 14.45 4.12E-08 0.9961 6.49E-08 8.51E-08 T0 not reached 173 8.7.2004 13:06 15.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000173.DAT 15.45 1.73E-07 0.9923 3.57E-07 4.96E-07 T0 not reached 174 8.7.2004 13:35 16.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000174.DAT 16.45 2.29E-07 0.9994 3.92E-07 4.07E-07 175 8.7.2004 13:56 17.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000175.DAT 17.45 1.94E-07 0.9985 2.81E-07 3.58E-07 176 8.7.2004 14:21 18.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000176.DAT 18.45 1.01E-06 0.9780 1.55E-06 1.60E-06 177 8.7.2004 14:41 19.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000177.DAT 19.45 1.27E-06 0.9079 2.33E-06 2.53E-06 178 8.7.2004 14:58 21.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000178.DAT 21.45 6.38E-09 0.9347 2.69E-09 1.38E-08 T0 not reached 179 8.7.2004 15:18 20.94 3 2.92 2.00 m OLPPP2000179.DAT 20.45 4.03E-07 0.9997 6.60E-07 6.78E-07 KThiem (m/s) tight comments

input file OLPPP2000171.DAT date 8.7.2004 TOC (m) 0.99 sensor open hole (m) 3 ref toc min open borehole pressure (m) 3.92 initial, ref toc 5.92 final, ref toc depth of meas. section (m) 13.94 ref TOC, top depth of meas. section (m) 13.45 ref ground level, midpoint of the section tube diameter (mm) 18.56 r (mm) 9.28 H 1.44 H 0 0.87 t 0 45456.3 t end (s) 45466.9 Time range (s) 10.6 T 0 4.7 L (m) 1 screen diam. (mm) 46 screen radius R (mm) 23 L/R 43.48 K (m/s) 3.47E-05 equivalent area to a double tube with outer diam 24.9 mm and inner diam 16.6 mm 1.42 ref ground level reference water level at the measurement section based on phase 1, ref ground level water level at the measurement section after disturbance, ref ground level time of disturbance end of time range used to line fitting Time range used for interpretation basic time lag, t corresponding the time when ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = -1 length of measurement section equal to borehole diameter equal to borehole radius logk -4.46 ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = a*t + b Thiem analysis for control a b flow -0.213380652-0.000345557 t1 45457.3 h1 0.97 0.001583653 0.009747645 t2 45462.0 h2 1.26 0.9976 0.033581786 Q (m 3 /s) 1.69E-05 dh (m) 0.32 18154.72856 44 K Thiem (m/s) 5.39E-05 logk -4.27 20.47374788 0.049620401 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.64 Stat tests tight test stat, a <> 0 134.74 t1 45461.1 h1 1.23 test stat, b <> 0 0.04 t2 45459.9 h2 1.17 t-critical, 90% 2.02 Q (m 3 /s) 1.33E-05 dh (m) 0.24 K Thiem (m/s) 5.70E-05 logk -4.24 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.61 (H-h)/(H-H0) water level h (m, below ground level) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 10.0 1.0 0.1 45100 45200 45300 45400 45500 45600 45700 45800 Open borehole Measurement Section 45450 45460 45470 45480 45490 45500 PH/Fintact 14.12.2004

input file OLPPP2000172.DAT date 8.7.2004 TOC (m) 0.99 sensor open hole (m) 3 ref toc min open borehole pressure (m) 2.92 initial, ref toc 4.92 final, ref toc depth of meas. section (m) 14.94 ref TOC, top depth of meas. section (m) 14.45 ref ground level, midpoint of the section tube diameter (mm) 18.56 r (mm) 9.28 H 1.44 H 0-0.42 t 0 46291.4 t end (s) 46964.7 Time range (s) 673.3 T 0 3939.6 L (m) 1 screen diam. (mm) 46 screen radius R (mm) 23 L/R 43.48 K (m/s) 4.12E-08 T0 not reached equivalent area to a double tube with outer diam 24.9 mm and inner diam 16.6 mm 1.43 ref ground level reference water level at the measurement section based on phase 1, ref ground level water level at the measurement section after disturbance, ref ground level time of disturbance end of time range used to line fitting Time range used for interpretation basic time lag, t corresponding the time when ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = -1 length of measurement section equal to borehole diameter equal to borehole radius logk -7.38 ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = a*t + b Thiem analysis for control a b flow -0.000250278-0.014002076 t1 46514.2 h1-0.29 2.91648E-07 0.000113524 t2 46518.9 h2-0.29 0.9961 0.003033502 Q (m 3 /s) 1.10E-07 dh (m) 1.72 736423.8554 2861 K Thiem (m/s) 6.49E-08 logk -7.19 6.776672889 0.026327313 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.64 Stat tests tight test stat, a <> 0 858.15 t1 46296.2 h1-0.41 test stat, b <> 0 123.34 t2 46516.6 h2-0.29 t-critical, 90% 1.96 Q (m 3 /s) 1.49E-07 dh (m) 1.79 K Thiem (m/s) 8.51E-08 logk -7.07 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.48 (H-h)/(H-H0) water level h (m, below ground level) -1-0.5 10.0 1.0 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 45800 46000 46200 46400 46600 46800 47000 47200 Open borehole Measurement Section 46250 46450 46650 46850 PH/Fintact 14.12.2004

input file OLPPP2000173.DAT date 8.7.2004 TOC (m) 0.99 sensor open hole (m) 3 ref toc min open borehole pressure (m) 2.92 initial, ref toc 4.92 final, ref toc depth of meas. section (m) 15.94 ref TOC, top depth of meas. section (m) 15.45 ref ground level, midpoint of the section tube diameter (mm) 18.56 r (mm) 9.28 H 1.44 H 0 0.16 t 0 47536.3 t end (s) 48411.7 Time range (s) 875.4 T 0 936.9 L (m) 1 screen diam. (mm) 46 screen radius R (mm) 23 L/R 43.48 K (m/s) 1.73E-07 T0 not reached equivalent area to a double tube with outer diam 24.9 mm and inner diam 16.6 mm 1.43 ref ground level reference water level at the measurement section based on phase 1, ref ground level water level at the measurement section after disturbance, ref ground level time of disturbance end of time range used to line fitting Time range used for interpretation basic time lag, t corresponding the time when ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = -1 length of measurement section equal to borehole diameter equal to borehole radius logk -6.76 ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = a*t + b Thiem analysis for control a b flow -0.001353889 0.268448836 t1 48252.3 h1 0.79 1.95014E-06 0.000986059 t2 48256.9 h2 0.80 0.9923 0.030064784 Q (m 3 /s) 2.24E-07 dh (m) 0.64 481983.4461 3722 K Thiem (m/s) 3.57E-07 logk -6.45 435.6606096 3.364283156 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.49 Stat tests tight test stat, a <> 0 694.25 t1 47541.0 h1-0.43 test stat, b <> 0 272.24 t2 47829.0 h2 0.34 t-critical, 90% 1.96 Q (m 3 /s) 7.20E-07 dh (m) 1.48 K Thiem (m/s) 4.96E-07 logk -6.30 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.35 (H-h)/(H-H0) water level h (m, below ground level) -0.5-0.3-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 47000 47500 48000 48500 10.0 1.0 0.1 Open borehole Measurement Section 47500 47700 47900 48100 48300 PH/Fintact 14.12.2004

input file OLPPP2000174.DAT date 8.7.2004 TOC (m) 0.99 sensor open hole (m) 3 ref toc min open borehole pressure (m) 2.92 initial, ref toc 4.92 final, ref toc depth of meas. section (m) 16.94 ref TOC, top depth of meas. section (m) 16.45 ref ground level, midpoint of the section tube diameter (mm) 18.56 r (mm) 9.28 H 1.44 H 0-0.49 t 0 49064.7 t end (s) 49875.3 Time range (s) 810.5 T 0 710.7 L (m) 1 screen diam. (mm) 46 screen radius R (mm) 23 L/R 43.48 K (m/s) 2.29E-07 equivalent area to a double tube with outer diam 24.9 mm and inner diam 16.6 mm 1.43 ref ground level reference water level at the measurement section based on phase 1, ref ground level water level at the measurement section after disturbance, ref ground level time of disturbance end of time range used to line fitting Time range used for interpretation basic time lag, t corresponding the time when ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = -1 length of measurement section equal to borehole diameter equal to borehole radius logk -6.64 ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = a*t + b Thiem analysis for control a b flow -0.001364474-0.03027129 t1 49543.4 h1 0.47 5.57111E-07 0.000261046 t2 49548.1 h2 0.48 0.9994 0.007648087 Q (m 3 /s) 3.71E-07 dh (m) 0.96 5998562.409 3441 K Thiem (m/s) 3.92E-07 logk -6.41 350.8752848 0.201275201 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.58 Stat tests tight test stat, a <> 0 2449.20 t1 49069.4 h1-0.47 test stat, b <> 0 115.96 t2 49335.6 h2 0.16 t-critical, 90% 1.96 Q (m 3 /s) 6.36E-07 dh (m) 1.60 K Thiem (m/s) 4.07E-07 logk -6.39 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.56 (H-h)/(H-H0) water level h (m, below ground level) -1-0.5 10.0 1.0 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 48600 48800 49000 49200 49400 49600 49800 50000 Open borehole Measurement Section 49050 49250 49450 49650 49850 PH/Fintact 14.12.2004

input file OLPPP2000175.DAT date 8.7.2004 TOC (m) 0.99 sensor open hole (m) 3 ref toc min open borehole pressure (m) 2.92 initial, ref toc 4.92 final, ref toc depth of meas. section (m) 17.94 ref TOC, top depth of meas. section (m) 17.45 ref ground level, midpoint of the section tube diameter (mm) 18.56 r (mm) 9.28 H 1.43 H 0-0.47 t 0 50513.2 t end (s) 51385.1 Time range (s) 871.9 T 0 835.2 L (m) 1 screen diam. (mm) 46 screen radius R (mm) 23 L/R 43.48 K (m/s) 1.94E-07 equivalent area to a double tube with outer diam 24.9 mm and inner diam 16.6 mm 1.44 ref ground level reference water level at the measurement section based on phase 1, ref ground level water level at the measurement section after disturbance, ref ground level time of disturbance end of time range used to line fitting Time range used for interpretation basic time lag, t corresponding the time when ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = -1 length of measurement section equal to borehole diameter equal to borehole radius logk -6.71 ln((h-h)/(h-h0)) = a*t + b Thiem analysis for control a b flow -0.001152768-0.037192173 t1 51072.9 h1 0.48 7.43866E-07 0.000374639 t2 51077.6 h2 0.49 0.9985 0.011389596 Q (m 3 /s) 2.62E-07 dh (m) 0.95 2401567.573 3700 K Thiem (m/s) 2.81E-07 logk -6.55 311.5382865 0.479974694 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.69 Stat tests tight test stat, a <> 0 1549.70 t1 50517.9 h1-0.45 test stat, b <> 0 99.27 t2 50804.3 h2 0.14 t-critical, 90% 1.96 Q (m 3 /s) 5.58E-07 dh (m) 1.59 K Thiem (m/s) 3.58E-07 logk -6.45 K Hvorslev / K Thiem 0.54 (H-h)/(H-H0) water level h (m, below ground level) -1-0.5 10.0 1.0 0.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 50000 50500 51000 51500 Open borehole Measurement Section 50500 50700 50900 51100 51300 PH/Fintact 14.12.2004