Specific Capacity Well

Mace dog-barking draft 9/11/00
1
Estimating Transmissivity Using
Specific-Capacity Data
1

Robert E. Mace
Bureau of Economic Geology
The University of Texas at Austin
University Station, Box X
Austin, TX 78713-8924
macer@begv.beg.utexas.edu
(512) 471-6246
Abstract
Specific-capacity data are very useful for estimating transmissivity and should be
used whenever possible in hydrogeologic studies. Including specific-capacity data will
increase the number of transmissivity estimates in aquifers, sometimes dramatically,
allowing more accurate statistical and spatial descriptions of transmissivity and hydraulic
conductivity. There are three main approaches for estimating transmissivity from specific-
capacity data: analytical, empirical, and geostatistical techniques. The most commonly
used analytical approach is an equation derived from the Theis nonequilibrium formula
which requires corrections for well loss, vertical flow due to partial penetration, and
reduced saturated thickness. The empirical approach involves empirically relating
transmissivity to specific capacity measured in the same well. This approach usually
requires at least 25 data pairs and does not require a correction for turbulent well loss or
vertical flow resulting from partial penetration. Geostatistical techniques are useful for
estimating transmissivity from specific capacity, developing interpolated maps of

1
This report is in press at the Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, and is
expected to be formally published in late fall of 2000. There may be minor editing changes between this
copy and the final published copy (8/28/2000)
2
transmissivity, and quantifying the estimation uncertainty. However, geostatistical
techniques are mathematically complicated and require substantial data to define
semivariograms and cross-semivariograms. Techniques to estimate transmissivity from
specific-capacity data have been successfully applied in many aquifers in Texas and
elsewhere to provide valuable information for input to numerical models and for
evaluating water-resources.
1.0 Introduction
Transmissivity is one of the most fundamental parameters of an aquifer.
Transmissivity allows hydrogeologists to estimate water levels in and around pumping
wells, to estimate ground-water flow and contaminant transport times, to characterize
aquifer heterogeneity, and to parameterize numerical ground-water flow models. Because
transmissivity in aquifers can range over 13 orders of magnitude (Freeze and Cherry,
1979, p. 29, assuming a constant formation thickness), it is imperative that the most
accurate values possible are attained and that the distribution of the values are known to
characterize heterogeneity.
There are many techniques available to accurately assess the transmissivity of
aquifers using time-drawdown aquifer tests (e.g. Ferris, 1962; Hantush, 1964; Walton,
1970; Kruseman and de Ridder, 1990). In a time-drawdown test, the change in water level
over time is measured for a constant pumping rate (fig. 1), usually for at least 24 hours,
and is then analyzed using type curves (e.g. Theis, 1935) or other graphical (e.g Cooper
and Jacob, 1946) or numerical techniques to determine transmissivity. Because of the
costs of performing a well-designed aquifer test and the expertise required to perform and
3
analyze the data, most water-supply wells, especially private wells, have not had time-
drawdown tests performed on them. This leaves the hydrogeologist with only a few tests
to characterize the transmissivity of an aquifer resulting in ill-defined averages, especially
in heterogeneous aquifers.
Water-well drillers often conduct a well-performance test after a well is drilled
and completed to determine the specific capacity of a well. During a well-performance, or
specific-capacity, test, a well is pumped at a constant rate and the amount of drawdown is
noted at the end of pumping. Specific capacity is then calculated by dividing the pumping
rate by the amount of drawdown. In the United States, specific capacity is usually
reported in units of gallons per minute per foot of drawdown (gpm/ft). Ideally, the well is
pumped until the change in water level is small (pseudo steady state), and the duration of
the pumping is noted at the time the drawdown is measured in the well. The data
collected for a specific-capacity test is essentially one point on the drawdown curve for a
time-drawdown test (fig. 1).
The quantitative use of specific capacity probably began in the 19th century when
Michal, in a paper published by the Paris Academy in 1863, developed two equations to
describe the relationship between the discharge of an artesian well in Paris and drawdown
using the ratio of production to drawdown (Davis, 1988). Water-well drillers have
historically used specific capacity to quantify the productivity of a well to determine
where to install the pump to attain the desired yield. More recently, specific capacity has
been proposed to help characterize contaminant sites (Heeley and Mabee, 1983; Wynne,
1992).
Specific capacity is, in part, a function of the hydraulic properties of the aquifer.
Therefore, numerous researchers have tried to relate specific capacity to transmissivity.
4
Because specific-capacity data are typically much more abundant and readily available
than time-drawdown data, relating specific capacity to transmissivity can increase the
number of transmissivity estimates in an aquifer by an order of magnitude. For example,
in the Edwards aquifer of central Texas, over 1,000 specific-capacity tests were found in
over 1,000 wells compared to only 71 time-drawdown tests in 21 wells (Mace, 1997). In
the Cretaceous sandstone aquifers of north-central Texas, about 2,000 specific-capacity
tests were found compared to 291 time-drawdown tests (Mace and others, 1994; Dutton
and others, 1996). In the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer of Texas, over 5,000 specific-capacity
tests were found compared to about 200 time-drawdown tests (Mace and others, 2000).
Incorporating specific-capacity data into hydrogeologic assessments allows a more
rigorous characterization of the hydraulic properties of a regional aquifer and a better
understanding of flow in the aquifer (e.g. Hovorka and others, 1998).
There are several different approaches for estimating transmissivity from specific
capacity and for correcting specific capacity for non-ideal conditions such as partial
penetration, turbulent well losses, or fracture flow. These approaches include analytical,
semi-analytical, empirical, geostatistical, and hybrid approaches. Thomasson and others
(1960) developed one of the first techniques to relate transmissivity to specific capacity
based on the Dupuit-Thiem steady-state equation. Theis (1963) developed a more
definitive approach using the Theis nonequilibrium equation. Empirical relationships
were first used by Eagon and Johe (1972) and improved upon and popularized by Razack
and Huntley, 1991. Geostatistical techniques were first used by Delhomme (1974, 1976;
linear regression with kriging) and Aboufirassi and Marino (1984; cokriging). The
appropriate technique for relating specific capacity to transmissivity depends on well
5
construction, aquifer setting, pumping rates, number of available tests, and, ultimately,
the accuracy of the applied technique.
The purpose of this paper is to categorize and summarize the different techniques
available for relating specific capacity to transmissivity. The paper begins with the
mathematical definition of specific capacity and a discussion of the factors that influence
specific-capacity measurements. The paper then presents analytical, empirical, and
geostatistical approaches for estimating transmissivity from specific capacity. Subsequent
sections discuss correcting specific capacity for partial penetration and turbulent well
loss, fractured rocks, and data-quality issues. The paper concludes with recommendations
on the appropriate approach for estimating transmissivity from specific capacity. In
addition to a review of the literature, this paper also presents new insights into estimating
transmissivity from specific-capacity data and new relationships for several sandstone
aquifers in Texas.
2.0 Specific Capacity
Specific capacity is defined as the well production per unit decline in head.
Mathematically, specific capacity,
c
S , is defined as

w
c
s
Q
S (1)
where Q is the pumping rate [L
3
t
-1
] and
w
s is the measured drawdown (change in
hydraulic head) in the well [L]. Specific capacity is generally reported as yield per unit of
drawdown. For example, a well pumped at 6 l s
-1
(100 gpm) with 6 m (20 ft) of drawdown
would have specific capacity reported to be 1 l s
-1
m
-1
(5 gpm/ft). Note that although
6
specific capacity is generally reported in units of volume per time per length, specific
capacity has the same units as transmissivity: length squared per time [L
2
t
-1
].
Specific capacity is a function of the aquifer setting, well setting, and pumping
duration. Attributes of the aquifer setting that can influence specific capacity include
transmissivity, storativity, and aquifer type (i.e. confined, unconfined, semiconfined,
boundaries, fractured, etc.). Greater transmissivity leads to greater specific capacity.
Greater storativity also leads to greater specific capacity because a greater storativity
results in less drawdown. Specific capacity in an unconfined aquifer of the same
transmissivity as a confined aquifer of similar thickness will have a lower specific
capacity at longer pumping times due to delayed yield caused by partially dewatering the
aquifer (e.g. Boulton, 1954; Neuman, 1972), a decrease in the saturated thickness, and a
higher storativity value. Similarly, specific capacity in a semi-confined or leaky-confined
aquifer of the same transmissivity as a confined aquifer will tend to have a lower specific
capacity due to less drawdown caused by additional flow into the well.
The well setting, such as well radius, degree of penetration, and well losses due to
well construction, affect specific capacity. A larger well radius leads to a greater specific
capacity. This is because a larger radius creates a greater surface area that makes it easier
for water to flow into the well. Therefore, not as much drawdown is required to produce
the same amount of water. Degree of penetration refers to how much of the aquifer is
penetrated by the well. In general, a well that only penetrates part of the aquifer (a
partially penetrating well) has a lower specific capacity than if the well penetrated the
entire aquifer. Furthermore, a well that partially penetrates an aquifer may overestimate
the specific capacity for the penetrated portion of the aquifer owing to vertical flow
components caused by the partial penetration. Laminar and turbulent well loss cause
7
specific capacity to be underestimated because the measured drawdown at the well is
greater than the actual water-level decline in the aquifer.
For transient conditions, specific capacity is also a function of pumping duration
(Jacob and Lohman, 1952; McWhorter and Sunada, 1977). As pumping continues in a
confined aquifer, the drawdown in the well continues to increase leading to lower specific
capacity for greater pumping times (fig. 2). Although water levels never theoretically
reach a steady state in a confined aquifer, the change in water level for a given time
period becomes small at large pumping times and is effectively at a pseudo steady state.
The pumping time required to reach a pseudo steady state depends on the definition of
pseudo steady state and properties of the well and aquifer. The time to reach pseudo-
steady state is less for greater transmissivity values and greater for greater storativity and
well radius values (fig. 3). Water levels in confined, semi-confined, and fractured aquifers
behave differently over time than confined aquifers, and therefore specific capacity varies
differently over time in these aquifer settings.
Specific capacity can be normalized to aquifer thickness using the specific-
capacity index (Davis and DeWeist, 1966),

a
c
i
b
S
S
,
(2)
where
a
b is the aquifer thickness [L]. Poland (1959) and Thomasson and others (1960)
calculate specific-capacity index using units of gpm and ft, multiply it by 100 ft, and call
the result the yield factor, which normalizes specific capacity to a 100 ft thick aquifer.
Specific-capacity index has the same units [L t
-1
] and is somewhat analogous to the
hydraulic conductivity. Specific-capacity index is not commonly used, although it has
8
been used instead of specific capacity to remove the effect of aquifer thickness variation
on aquifer productivity (e.g. Siddiqui and Parizek, 1971; LaRiccia and Rauch, 1977;
Gelbaum, 1981).
3.0 Analytical Methods
Analytical methods to relate transmissivity to specific capacity involve using
mathematical equations based on the theory of ground-water flow. Analytical methods are
advantageous because they are exact. However, their application can be limited due to (1)
unrealistic assumptions about the aquifer and well hydraulics and (2) limited information
on the aquifer or the well.
3.1 Solutions based on the Dupuit-Thiem equation
Thomasson and others (1960) were among the first to analytically relate
transmissivity to specific capacity. They used the Dupuit-Thiem equation,

w
w
r
R
T
Q
s ln
2
, (3)
where T is the transmissivity of the aquifer [L
2
t
-1
], R radius of influence of the pumping
well [L], and
w
r is the radius of the well [L]. They solved equation 3 for T

w w
s
Q
r
R
T
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
ln
2
1
, (4a)
to show that transmissivity is linearly related to specific capacity by a constant
c
C ,

c c
S C T , (4b)
9
where

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
w
c
r
R
C ln
2
1
. (4c)
This approach assumes that water levels are in steady state and that storativity, partial
penetration, and well loss do not influence results. Note that equation 4b is the equation
of a line with an intercept at the origin and a slope of
c
C .
Use of the Dupuit-Thiem equation (eqn. 4a) requires an assumption on the radius
of influence, which is defined as the lateral distance from the center of the pumping well
to the edge of the cone of depression (where drawdown is close to zero). The steady-state
radius of influence is dependent on aquifer properties and aquifer setting and is greater for
greater transmissivity and comparatively greater for confined aquifers than for unconfined
aquifers with similar transmissivities (Driscoll, 1986). Therefore,
c
C is partially a
function of transmissivity which results in a nonlinear relationship between transmissivity
and specific capacity.
Assuming a radius of influence ranging from about 100 to 1,000 m (300 to 3,000
ft) and typical well radii, Thomasson and others (1960) found that
c
C should range from
1.01 to 1.53. For tests in the valley-fill sediments in California, they found
c
C to range
from 0.9 to 1.5 with an average of about 1.2. Others have investigated what
c
C might be
for other geologic settings. Johnson and others (1966) found
c
C to be 1.10 for wells in
confined alluvial aquifers assuming a unit well radius and a radius of influence of 1,000
m (300 ft). Adyalkar and Mani (1972) determined
c
C to be between 0.23 and 0.34 and as
high as 0.44 for large-diameter wells in a fractured aquifer. They expected that
c
C would
10
be lower for less permeable fractured formations. Adyalkar and others (1981) calculated
c
C to be 0.42 for the weathered zone of massive and vesicular basalts of the Deccan Trap
in India. Figure 5 shows the relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity
using the Thomasson and others (1960) relationship for alluvial and fractured hard-rock
aquifers.
Mace and others (1994) assumed that the general equation from the Thomasson
and others (1972) relationship (eqn. 4b) applied to three sandstone aquifers and fit a line
with one end fixed at the origin to the measured pairs of transmissivity and specific
capacity values. They found
c
C values of 0.59, 0.63, and 0.75 for the three sandstone
aquifers.
For alluvial sediments,
c
C is approximately 1 for consistent units between
specific capacity and transmissivity. Therefore, a good rule-of-thumb for making back-of-
the-envelope estimates is that transmissivity is approximately equal to specific capacity.
This estimate should be within a factor of 2 of the actual transmissivity. For fractured
hard rocks, the transmissivity should be about half the measured specific capacity.
Because in practice the radius of influence is assumed, the Thomasson and others
(1960) approach is actually semi-analytical: a relationship based on theory with
parameters determined by assumption or observation.
3.2 Solutions based on the Theis nonequilibrium equation
Theis and others (1963) presented an equation to relate specific capacity to
transmissivity,
11

]
]
]
]
,
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
S r
Tt
T
S
w
p
c
2
25 . 2
ln
4
, (5)
based on the Theis nonequilibrium equation where S is the storativity of the aquifer [-]
and
p
t is the pumping time [t]. This equation assumes (1) a fully-penetrating well, (2)
homogeneous, isotropic porous media, (3) negligible well loss, (4) and an effective radius
equal to the radius of the production well (Walton, 1970).
Because equation 5 cannot be solved directly for transmissivity (note that T is in
both the numerator and denominator), it must be solved graphically or iteratively. Meyer
(1963) and Theis and others (1963) presented a chart based on equation 5 for estimating
transmissivity from specific capacity for 1 day of pumping for different values of
storativity and well diameter. Theis (1963) presented a chart, also based on equation 5,
for estimating transmissivity from specific capacity for constant storativity but different
pumping times and well diameters. Narasimhan (1967) presented curves to more easily
estimate transmissivity from specific capacity, storativity, well radius, and time. Walton
(1970) proposed a graphical solution for the Theis and others (1963) equation.
Equation 5 can also be solved iteratively. This can be done by hand or using a
calculator by (1) guessing an initial transmissivity value (the value of the specific capacity
is a good initial guess), (2) calculating the right hand side of equation 5, and (3)
comparing the resulting number to the measured specific capacity. If the calculated and
measured values of specific capacity are close, then the transmissivity value used in step
2 is the correct answer. If the two numbers do not agree, then the transmissivity value
must be adjusted up or down and steps 2 and 3 repeated. Equation 5 can also be easily
solved using digital spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel (appendix A). Equation 5 can
12
also be solved iteratively using computers. Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) describe one
such approach and provide a FORTRAN program to make the appropriate calculations.
Kasenow and Pare (1995) also present a numerical approach.
The Theis and others (1963) approach is in many ways superior to the Thomasson
and others (1960) approach because the radius of influence is not needed and transient
conditions are considered. Because of this, the Theis and others (1963) approach is
probably the most frequently used technique for estimating transmissivity from specific
capacity. Gabrysch (1968), Walton (1970), Lohman (1972), Macpherson (1983), and
Bradbury and Rothschild (1985), among others, offer examples of using this approach.
In practice, storativity is generally assumed for the aquifer (preferably based on
actual measurements elsewhere in the aquifer) which are generally accurate within an
order of magnitude (0.01 to 0.3 for unconfined aquifers, 0.005 to 0.00005 for confined
aquifers, and 0.005 to 0.01 for semi-confined aquifers).
The Theis and others (1963) equation can be used to gage the sensitivity of
specific capacity to variations in transmissivity, pumping time, well radius, and
storativity. To do the sensitivity analysis, the time, well radius, and storativity variables of
equation 5 were grouped into a single variable, C , defined as

S r
t
C
w
2
(6)
so that equation 5 becomes

( ) [ ] T C
T
S
c
25 . 2 ln
4
. (7)
13
Using this relationship, specific capacity was calculated for different transmissivities and
values of C . Representative ranges of values for the variables were used for the
sensitivity analysis: 10
-6
to 10
5
m
2
d
-1
(10
-5
to 10
6
ft
2
d
-1
) for transmissivity, 0.1 to 0.45 m
(0.33 to 1.5 ft) for well radius, 0.00001 to 0.2 for storativity, and 1 to 48 hr for pumping
time. According to this relationship, specific capacity is most sensitive to transmissivity
where several orders of magnitude of variation in transmissivity leads to several orders of
magnitude variation in specific capacity (fig. 4). For a given transmissivity, specific
capacity varies 0.5 to 1 orders of magnitude depending on the value of C (fig. 4).
Storativity causes the most variation in C because storativity values can vary four orders
of magnitude depending on aquifer setting (unconfined, confined, or semi-confined). In
comparison, pumping time may vary two orders of magnitude and well radius may vary
an order of magnitude. If the aquifer setting, and hence the storativity, is known, pumping
time may cause the greatest amount of variability in C .
Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) derived an equation based on Theis and others
(1963) that also considers partial penetration and well loss,

( )
]
]
]
]
,
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+
p
w L w
s
S r
Tt
s s
Q
T 2
25 . 2
ln
4
2
, (8)
where
L
s is the well loss (discussed in section 7.0), and
p
s is the partial penetration
factor (discussed in section 6.0).
3.5 Other analytical approaches
A number of other, less frequently used, analytical approaches have been
proposed. Bedinger and Emmett (1963) presented equations and a chart based on a
14
combination of the Thiem and Theis equations and average transmissivity and specific
capacity for a specific area for estimating transmissivity from specific capacity. Hurr
(1966) developed a method assuming a 0.15 m (0.5 ft) well radius using the Theis (1935)
and Boulton (1954) equations, which is not as sensitive to storativity and allows for
delayed yield.
Ogden (1965) developed a method of estimating transmissivity from one
drawdown measurement in a well using the Theis (1935) nonequilibrium equation,
( ) u W
T
Q
s
w
4
, (9)
where ( ) u W is the well function, estimated by
( ) ...
! 4 4 ! 3 3 ! 2 2
ln 577 . 0
4 3 2
+
+
u u u
u u u W , (10)
and u is defined as

Tt
S r
u
w
4
2
. (11)
Solving equation 11 for T, substituting the result for T in equation 9, and solving for
uW(u), results in
( )
Qt
S s r
u uW
w w
4
4
2
. (12)
For each value of uW(u) there is a unique value of u that can be determined from a table
(Ogden, 1965), a curve, or fitting an equation,

( ) [ ]
638 . 5
061 . 1
u uW
u , (13)
to the tabular data.
15
Once u is known, a rearranged version of equation 11,

ut
S r
T
w
4
2
, (14)
can be used to calculate transmissivity.
This approach is simply a more rigorous version of the Theis and others (1963)
relationship (eqn. 5) in that the full estimation of ( ) u W (eqn. 10) is used instead of only
the first two terms as was done by Theis and others (1963) in their solution. In most
cases, the first two terms of equation 10 are adequate for estimating ( ) u W and therefore
there is little benefit of the Odgen (1965) approach over the Theis and others (1963)
approach.
El-Naqa (1994) presents an equation that relates transmissivity to specific capacity
for a semiconfined aquifer using the Hantush (1956) inflection point method,

c
w
S
B
r
K T
]
]
]
,
(
,
\
,
(
j
0
2
1
, (15)
where
0
K is the zero-order modified Bessel function of the second kind and B is the
laminar well-loss coefficient,

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
w
r
R
T
B ln
2
1
. (16)
Adyalkar and Mani (1972) show how specific capacity can be calculated using
Slichters (1906) recovery equation,

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
2
1
log 25 . 17
s
s
t
A
S
s
w
c
, (17)
16
where
c
S is in gpm/ft,
w
A is the cross-sectional area of the well in ft
2
,
s
t is the time since
pumping stopped in minutes,
1
s is the residual drawdown after
s
t ,
2
s is the maximum
drawdown. This approach can be used to calculate specific capacity when equilibrium has
not been reached. Chandrashekhar and others (1976) also used Slichters equation to
estimate specific capacity.
The Theis (1935) nonequilibrium equation can be rearranged to solve for
theoretical specific capacity (e.g. Gabrysch, 1968),

( ) u W
T
s
Q
S
w
c
4
, (18)
with all the assumptions of using the Theis (1935) equation.
4.0 Empirical Methods
Empirical methods involve statistically relating transmissivity to specific capacity
using paired values of both parameters measured in the same well. Data that are used to
determine transmissivity in any well can also be used to determine specific capacity,
usually for a specified pumping time. Empirical methods are advantageous because the
uncertainty in the estimate can be estimated and because many nonideal conditions, such
as turbulent well loss, are indirectly considered. However, their application can be limited
due to too few measurements of transmissivity or too much uncertainty in the relationship
compared to actual heterogeneity of the aquifer.
17
4.1 Statistically derived linear relationships
Razack and Huntley (1991) found that the analytical relationships (Thomasson
and others, 1960; Theis and others, 1963) uncorrected for well loss did not always agree
with measured values of transmissivity and that empirical relationships produced less
error than analytical solutions. The relationship is usually defined between log-
transformed values of transmissivity and log-transformed values of specific capacity
because transmissivity and specific capacity are generally log-normally distributed and, in
this case, log-log relationships result in better correlation coefficients than using
untransformed values (e.g. Razack and Huntley, 1991; El-Naqa, 1994).
The empirical approach involves (1) compiling all available aquifer-test
information for an aquifer, (2) determining the transmissivity and specific capacity for
each of the tests, (3) using regression to fit a line to the plotted pairs of log transmissivity
and log specific capacity, and (4) calculating the uncertainty in the linear relationship.
Once the data are compiled, transmissivity can be determined using standard techniques
(e.g. Ferris and others, 1962; Hantush, 1964; Walton, 1970; Kruseman and de Ridder,
1990) and specific capacity can be determined from the aquifer-test data for a specified
time. This time may be defined by the mean test time of the all the specific-capacity tests
in the aquifer. In this manner, errors due to variation in time can be minimized. Short-
term or long term specific-capacity tests will be in more error than those tests with
pumping times closer to the mean.
Once the transmissivity and specific-capacity pairs are compiled, least-squares
regression can be used to fit a line to the log-transformed values. This is done by
defining:
18

i i
X b b Y
1 0
+ (19)
where, in the present case,
( )
i i
T Y log
and (20a)
( ) ( )
i c i
S X log (20b)
and, in general,

x
xy
SS
SS
b
1
, (20c)

(
,
\
,
(
j

n
i
n
i
i
n
i
i i i xy
Y X
n
Y X SS
1 1 1
1
, (20d)

2
1 1
2
1
(
,
\
,
(
j

n
i
i
n
i
i x
X
n
X SS , (20e)
X b Y b
1 0
, (20f)

n
i
i
Y
n
Y
1
1
, and (20g)

n
i
i
X
n
X
1
1
. (20h)
By solving for
0
b and
1
b using equations 20f and 20c, respectively, log transmissivity can
be directly estimated using equation 19. Equation 19 can be rearranged into
( )
1 0
10
b
c
b
S T (21)
so that an untransformed transmissivity can be directly calculated. Note that this equation
has essentially the same form as the Thomasson and others (1960) relationship (eqn. 4b)
except that specific capacity is raised to a power and, therefore, the relationship between
transmissivity and specific capacity may be nonlinear.
Once the best-fit line is found, how well the line fits the data can be estimated.
The coefficient of determination (also called the goodness of fit), R
2
, describes how much
19
of the observed variability of a parameter can be explained by the regression model. The
coefficient of determination is found from

Y
SS
SS
R

1
2
(22)
where SS
Y
is the total corrected sum of squares or the total variation of Y,
( )

n
i
i Y
Y Y SS
1
2
, (23a)
and SS
is the residual sum of squares or the unexplained variation from the predicted
value,
i
Y
, and the observed value, Y

i
,
( )

n
i
i i
Y Y SS
1
2
. (23b)
The uncertainty of the regression can be quantified using prediction intervals that
define an envelope around the line that defines how certain an estimate of transmissivity
is for a given specific-capacity value. The 100(1- ) percent prediction interval for
i
Y

when
i
X =
p
X is

( )
x
p
i
SS
X X
n
t Y
2
2
1
1

+ +

(24)
where is the level of significance and
2
t is based on (n-1) degrees of freedom where

2
t is defined from a statistical table of critical values of t for the t-distribution (e.g.
Mendenhall, 1987; or any other introductory statistics book).
An example is shown in figure 6a from Mace (1997). In this case, Mace (1997)
plotted 71 pairs of transmissivity and specific-capacity values and calculated a best-fit
line and 95 percent prediction intervals. The best-fit line to these data, in the form of
equation 21, is:
( )
08 . 1
96 . 0
c
S T (25)
20
where T and S
c
are in m
2
d
1
. The coefficient of determination, R
2
, equals 0.89. The 95-
percent prediction interval spans about 1.4 log cycles (upper limit minus the lower limit)
(fig. 6a), indicating that the range of probable transmissivities for a given measured
specific capacity is more than one and a half orders of magnitude. Though the 95-percent
prediction interval is large, this relationship extends over five orders of magnitude of
specific-capacity and transmissivity values (fig. 6a) and therefore allows rough estimates
of transmissivity from specific-capacity values.
The linear relationship overestimates transmissivity for lower values of specific
capacity in the range of 1 to 10 m
2
d
-1
(fig. 6a). A slightly better fit (R
2
equals 0.91) can
be obtained through the multiple linear regression of a second order polynomial (fig. 6b),
( ) ( ) [ ]
2
ln 060 . 0 ln 80 . 1 04 . 2 exp
c c
S S T + . (26a)
An even better fit (R
2
equals 0.92) can be obtained through the multiple linear regression
of a third order polynomial (fig. 6b),
( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ]
3 2
ln 011 . 0 ln 25 . 0 ln 79 . 2 46 . 3 exp
c c c
S S S T + + . (26b)
The coefficients of determination for each of these fits are very close to each other with
slight improvements for more complex lines. The coefficient of determination does not
indicate the appropriateness of a model. Better fits (lower R
2
) can be obtained with more
complex polynomials, but these polynomials may cause difficulties when predicting
outside the range of the observed data. It is better to use the simplest model that explains
a response (Jensen and others, 1997, p. 205). In this case, the linear fit is adequate except
for values of specific capacity less than 10 m
2
d
-1
. For these low values of specific
capacity, resulting transmissivities may be off by 1 to 3 m
2
d
-1
, which is quite small
21
considering that the mean value of transmissivity in the aquifer is about 500 m
2
d
-1
. Meier
and others (1999) found that the nonlinearity between specific capacity and transmissivity
are likely caused by heterogeneity and the analyzed time period.
4.2 Published empirical relationships
Several authors have developed empirical linear relationships between
transmissivity and specific capacity for a range of hydrologic settings (table 1, fig. 7).
Most of the relationships have prediction intervals that span a little more than an order of
magnitude (fig. 7). As part of defining their relationship, Razack and Huntley (1991)
performed a sensitivity analysis on their data set of 215 pairs to determine how many data
pairs would be required to arrive at a reasonable relationship and found that at least 25
pairs would be needed. Relationships based on less than 25 pairs may result in prediction
intervals that span the entire range of transmissivity values. Huntley and others (1992)
found that measured transmissivities for wells in fractured rocks were lower than values
determined using the theoretical relationships and therefore developed an empirical
relationship (table 1c, fig. 7c). Mace (1997) developed an empirical relationship for a
karstic aquifer and showed that data from karstic aquifers in Florida and Ohio overlaid
the relationship, suggesting that the relationship may be applied to other karstic aquifers.
Fabbri (1997) developed an empirical relationship a limestone fractured aquifer in
Italy (table 1g, fig. 7g). Fabbri (1997) believed his equation differed from Huntley and
others (1992) due to partial penetration of his wells.
Figure 8 compares and contrasts most of the different empirical relationships and
shows how they relate to the Thomasson and others (1960) and Theis and others (1963)
approaches. Most of the relationships rest within an order of magnitude of each other
22
with the exception of the Razack and Huntley (1991) relationship for a heterogeneous
alluvial aquifer (line 2 in fig. 8). Slopes are also very similar between the relationships
except for the Razack and Huntley (1991) and Huntley and others (1992) relationships,
which have slopes that are lower and greater, respectively, than the rest. The relationship
by Eagon and Johe (1972) has a lower slope than the rest but has been corrected for
turbulent well loss and is therefore derived differently than the others. The empirical
relationships derived for fractured or carbonate rocks (lines 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 in fig. 8) all rest
within half an order of magnitude of each other. The Razack and Huntley (1991)
relationship for alluvium (line 2 in fig. 8) is considerably different than the analytical
predictions of the Thomasson and others (1960) and Theis and others (1963) approaches
for alluvium (lines 11 and 13, respectively, in fig. 8) and also the sandstone aquifers of
north-central Texas (lines 8, 9, and 10 in fig. 8).
4.3 Hybrid approaches
Prudic (1991), in a study of hydraulic conductivity in the Gulf Coast regional
aquifer system, used an analytical approach to estimate transmissivity and found that
transmissivity estimated in this manner tended to be underestimated compared to values
determined from aquifer tests. His approach was to (1) estimate transmissivity with the
Theis and others (1963) relationship (
c
S
T ), (2) develop an empirical relationship between
transmissivity estimated from specific capacity using the analytical approach and
transmissivity determined from aquifer tests, and (3) adjust estimated transmissivity
according to the relationship (R
2
equals 0.82):
( )
86 . 0
89 . 3
c
S
T T . (27)
23
Darling and others (1994) found estimates of transmissivity using the Theis and
others (1963) relationship to result in transmissivity values much higher than those
calculated from aquifer tests. They multiplied each estimated transmissivity by a uniform
factor determined from the mean of the percent difference between measured
transmissivity and transmissivity estimated from specific capacity in the same well using
the analytical relationship.
5.0 Geostatistical Methods
Geostatistics is a statistical approach for working with spatially distributed data
that considers the spatial location of a point and its correlation with nearby points. In
addition to quantifying spatial characteristics with semivariograms and interpolating
using kriging, geostatistics can be used to quantify the estimation variance of interpolated
points and to estimate transmissivity from specific capacity. The estimation variance is
quantified by combining kriging with linear regression, and transmissivity is estimated
from specific capacity using cokriging. Each of these techniques, plus some others, are
discussed in more detail below.
5.1 Kriging with linear regression
Delhomme (1974, 1976; discussed in de Marsily, 1986, p. 318; and Ahmed and de
Marsily, 1987) suggested an approach that uses linear regression (as discussed in section
4.1) and kriging to estimate transmissivity and the uncertainty of the estimate at unknown
points. Similar to the empirical approach described above, log transmissivity and log
specific capacity are linearly related with a regression in those wells with both types of
24
information. The regressed relationship is then used to estimate transmissivity for
locations where only specific capacity is measured or to interpolate between known
points. This technique has been used by Binsariti (1980), Clifton and Neuman (1982),
Ahmed and de Marsily (1987), and de Marsily and Ahmed (1987).
The variance of the prediction error for the regression model,
2
j
, is defined as

( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ]
+ +
n
i
c c
c c
j
S S
S S
n
1
2
2
2 2
ln ln
ln ln 1
1 j = 1,...,m (28)
where ( ) 1 m is the number of wells that only have specific-capacity values, n is the
number of pairs of transmissivity and specific-capacity values used in the regression, and
c
S ln is mean of the log-transformed specific-capacity values. The residual variance is
defined as
[ ]
n
i
c i
b S b T
n
1
2
0 1
2
ln ln
2
1
. (29)
Delhomme (1974, 1976, 1978) modified the standard kriging equations (e.g.
Journel and Huijbregts, 1978) to account for the variance of the prediction errors from the
regression model. Ahmed and de Marsily (1987) summarized the derivation of the
modified kriging equations:
Let ( )
i
x Z be any realization (estimate) of any intrinsic random function
(transmissivity) at a point
i
x that is uncertain and composed of two terms:
( ) ( ) ( )
i i i
x e x v x Z + (30)
25
where ( )
i
x v is the true value and ( )
i
x e is the uncertainty or error whose variance is given
by
2
i
. The errors considered by ( )
i
x e can represent measurement errors and regression
errors and are assumed to be nonsystematic, uncorrelated between themselves, and
uncorrelated with the variable.
The estimation of v at
0
x from m measurements is
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]

+
m
i
m
i
i i i i i
x e x v x Z x v
1 1
0
*
(31)
where * signifies an estimate,
i
is a weight, and the goal is to estimate the true value,
( )
0
x v , from the uncertain data, ( )
i
x Z . The kriging equations remain an unbiased
estimator after this modification. The variance of the estimation errors are minimized
from
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]

+
0 0 0
*
var var x v x e x v x v x v
i i i i
, (32a)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ]

+
i i i i
x e x v x v x v x v var var var
0 0 0
*
, and (32b)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] [ ]

+
2 2
0 0 0
*
var var var
i i i i
x v x v x v x v (32c)
which results in a modified system of kriging equations,

+
m
j
i i i ij i
1
0
2
i = 1,...,m, (33a)
where
m
j
j
1
1 , (33b)
is the Lagrange multiplier, and the semivariogram for the measured values of
transmissivity is
26
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
2
5 . 0
j i ij
x v x v E (34)
where the E[x] is the expectation of x.
The variance of the estimation error is

+
m
i
i i E
1
0
2
(35)
for the points where transmissivity is estimated. Although this equation for the variance
of the estimation error is the same as that for ordinary kriging, it includes the regression
errors because it is based on weights that have been adjusted in the kriging system.
Kriging with linear regression can only be used if the correlation coefficient is
high between transmissivity and specific capacity and if the residuals of the regression are
uncorrelated. Also, a sufficient number of measured transmissivity values are required to
define a semivariogram. This may be a problem because while there may be enough data
to define a regression equation between transmissivity and specific capacity, there may
not be enough data to define a semivariogram for transmissivity. De Smedt and others
(1985) suggest that the semivariogram can be determined using the uncertain values (i.e.
transmissivity estimated from specific capacity using the regression model) if the nugget
is entirely due to measurement errors and is subtracted from the semivariogram.
However, Ahmed and de Marsily (1987) believe that the nugget is also a result of random
small-scale variations of transmissivity in many cases and that the de Smedt and others
(1985) approach cannot be used in most cases.
27
5.2 Cokriging
Aboufirassi and Marino (1984) used cokriging (e.g. Matheron, 1971; Journel and
Huijbregts, 1978) to improve the estimation of transmissivity from more abundant
specific-capacity values. Cokriging has a better theoretical foundation than kriging with
regression because it does not make any assumptions on the correlation between
transmissivity and specific capacity (Ahmed and de Marsily, 1987) as is done with linear
regression. In cokriging, the degree of correlation between transmissivity and specific
capacity and the spatial structure of the correlation are considered in the cross
semivariogram. Ahmed and de Marsily (1987) summarized the cokriging approach:
A transmissivity, ( )
0
*
x Z , can be estimated at a point,
0
x , from the measured
values of transmissivity ( ( )
i
x Z for i = 1,...,n) and specific capacity ( ( )
k
x Y for k = 1,...,m)
using,
( ) ( ) ( )

+
n
i
m
k
k k i i
x Y x Z x Z
1 1
0
*

&
(36)
where the weights, , must satisfy

n
i
i
1
1 and (37a)

m
k
k
1
0
&
(37b)
for unbiased conditions and estimation variance is minimized using

+ +
n
j
m
k
i ik k ij j
1 1
0 1
& &
&
i = 1,...,n and (38a)
28

+ +
m
i
k lk i
n
i
ik i
1
0 2
1
& & & & & k = 1,...,m (38b)
where is the semivariogram for transmissivity,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
2
5 . 0
j i
x Z x Z E h , (39)
&is the semivariogram for specific capacity,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
2
5 . 0
j i
x Y x Y E h & , (40)
& &is the cross-semivariogram between transmissivity and specific capacity,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
j i j i
x Y x Y x Z x Z E h 5 . 0 & & , (41)
and
1
and
2
are Lagrange multipliers. The variance of the estimation error is

+ +
n
i
m
k
k k i i
1 1
1 0 0
2
& &
&
. (42)
Ahmed and de Marsily (1987) suggested that cokriging was the more rigorous
approach and required fewer assumptions. However, there needs to be enough data to
define semivariograms for both measured transmissivity and specific capacity and enough
common points of transmissivity and specific-capacity measurements to define a cross-
semivariogram. The cross-semivariogram can be difficult to calculate and fit with a
theoretical model and must also be shown to be positive definite (Ahmed and de Marsily,
1987). Furthermore, Neuman (1984) suggested that cokriging only provides a slight
improvement over kriging with linear regression if the log transform of transmissivity and
specific capacity are normally distributed and highly correlated. de Marsily and Ahmed
(1987) found cokriging and kriging with linear regression to yield similar results.
29
Hughson and others (1996), in a study on an alluvial aquifer, found cokriging to provide
better estimates if there were 50 or more pairs of transmissivity and specific-capacity data
available. For less than 30 pairs, kriging with linear regression provided better results. In
his study of fractured carbonate rocks, Fabbri (1997) found that cokriging gave poor
results.
5.3 Kriging with transformed values
Because kriging with linear regression and cokriging gave poor results due to too
few data points to define the semivariogram for measured transmissivity, Fabbri (1997)
simply used the regression equation to estimate transmissivity, determined a
semivariogram for pooled measured and estimated transmissivity, and kriged using the
pooled data. In this case, kriging considers all the data, including the estimated
transmissivities, as exact values. Mace (1995) and Hovorka and others (1998) used this
same approach, although without showing that cokriging gave poor results. Using this
approach, the uncertainties are underestimated at interpolated points because the kriging
system does not consider the uncertainty of the linear regression.
5.4 Other geostatistical approaches
Ahmed and de Marsily (1987) present a technique of kriging with an external drift
that does not require any common data points between the transmissivity and specific-
capacity measurements. Ahmed and de Marsily (1987) also present a technique of kriging
with a guess field but found no advantage to the approach over other techniques.
30
Bardossy and others (1986) geostatistically analyzed geoelectric estimates of specific
capacity. Wallroth and Rosenbaum (1996) used multi-Gaussian kriging, which involves a
normal score transformation, to interpolate specific capacity in fractured crystalline rock.
6.0 Partial Penetration
Partial penetration is when the well is not exposed to the entire thickness of the
aquifer. When a partially penetrating well is pumped, vertical flow to the well results and
causes drawdowns to be less than expected, thus overestimating specific capacity for the
penetrated section. However, because the well does not completely penetrate the aquifer,
the specific capacity for the entire thickness of the aquifer is underestimated.
There are a few techniques that correct for partial penetration effects. Muskat
(1946) and also Turcan (1963) present one possible solution,

]
]
]
]
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+

a
w
w
w
a
w
c
c
b
L
L
r
b
L
S
S
2
cos
2
7 1
2 / 1
, (43)
where
'
c
S is specific capacity corrected for partial penetration, L
w
is the length of the well
screened in the aquifer, b
a
is the aquifer thickness, and r
w
is the well radius. This
equation accounts for vertical flow to the well and estimates the specific capacity for
entire aquifer thickness assuming that the unpenetrated interval of the aquifer has the
same characteristics as the penetrated interval of the aquifer. To only correct for the
vertical components of flow,
31

]
]
]
]
,
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+

a
w
w
w
c
c
b
L
L
r
S
S
2
cos
2
7 1
2 / 1
(44)
can be used. If there are no vertical components of flow and the aquifer is vertically
homogeneous, the following can be used:

c
w
a
c
S
L
b
S
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
. (45)
Equation 43 and 44 were derived for partial penetration from the top of the
aquifer, although it is commonly used wherever the well is screened in the aquifer
(Walton, 1970). These equations are not valid when the aquifer thickness is small, the
percent of penetration is large, and the well radius is large (Driscoll, 1986).
Specific capacity can be related to transmissivity considering the effects of partial
penetration by rearranging an equation by Sternberg (1973),

]
]
]
]
,
,
,
+
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
p
w
c
s
S r
Tt
T
S
2
25 . 2
ln
4
2
, (46)
where s
p
is the partial penetration factor defined by Brons and Marting (1961) as

]
]
]
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
a
w
w
a
a
w
a
w
p
b
L
G
r
b
b
L
b
L
s ln
1
(47)
where G is a function of the ratio of
w
L to
a
b . Brons and Marting (1961) evaluated G for
different values of the ratio of
w
L to
a
b . Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) fit a polynomial
(correlation coefficient = 0.992) to the Brons and Marting (1961) data to get
32

3 2
675 . 4 447 . 11 363 . 7 948 . 2
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
a
w
a
w
a
w
a
w
b
L
b
L
b
L
b
L
G . (48)
7.0 Well Loss
The water-level drawdown in a well has two components: (1) drawdown due to
head loss in the formation and (2) drawdown due to head loss from the resistance to flow
into and inside the well. Drawdown due to head loss from the resistance to flow into and
inside the well is termed well loss and may be laminar and turbulent. Well losses are
generally due to well screen with insufficient open area, poor distribution of screen
openings, and a poorly designed filter pack in the well annulus (after Driscoll, 1986, p.
245). Well loss causes observed drawdowns in a well to be greater than those in the
aquifer. Drawdown observed in the well,
w
s , is the sum of the head loss in the aquifer,
a
s , and the well loss,
L
s ,

L a w
s s s + . (49)
Therefore, where well loss occurs, the specific capacity of the aquifer will be
underestimated. Specific capacity corrected for well loss,
c
S , can be calculated using

a L w
c
s
Q
s s
Q
S
. (50)
As mentioned earlier, well loss can be either laminar or turbulent. Equation 49 can
be expressed in terms of flow equations as:
( )
2
CQ Q C BQ s
w
+ + (51)
33
where B is a proportionality constant for laminar flow in the formation, C is a
proportionality constant for laminar well loss, and C is a proportionality constant for
turbulent well loss. It is implicitly assumed that there is no turbulent flow component in
the aquifer although there may be turbulent flow in fractured and karstic systems.
The proportionality constant for laminar flow in the formation is based on flow
equations for either steady-state or transient conditions. For example, for steady radial
flow in a confined aquifer,

T
r
R
B
w
2
ln
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
, (52)
and for transient conditions,

]
]
]
]
,
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

p
w
Tt
S r
T
B
4
ln 5772 . 0
4
1
2
. (53)
The proportionality constant for laminar flow in the formation may be defined differently
for other hydrogeologic settings (e.g. unconfined, leaky-confined, and fractured aquifers).
Laminar well loss can be estimated using a combination of the step-drawdown
test, discussed below, and a distance-drawdown plot. The step-drawdown test is used to
estimate laminar well loss, and a distance-drawdown plot is used to estimate total well
loss. The difference between the total well loss and the turbulent well loss is the laminar
well loss. This approach requires at least two observation wells and assumes a
homogeneous aquifer. In most cases, laminar well loss is assumed to be negligible and
C is zero.
34
Turbulent well loss is more of a concern at higher pumping rates: the higher the
pumping rate the more likely there is turbulent well loss. Furthermore, turbulent well loss
increases as the square of the pumping rate. In many cases, higher specific capacities are
positively correlated with higher pumping rates because wells that can support greater
yields tend to be pumped at higher rates (e.g. the Edwards aquifer in Texas, fig. 9).
Greater turbulent well losses for greater specific capacities should result in specific
capacities that are more in error for large values than for small values.
Rorabaugh (1953; as cited by Bennett and Patten, 1960) suggested that for a 30
cm (12 inch) well, turbulent well loss becomes important for pumping rates greater than
21 liters per second (340 gpm). Errors in specific capacity due to turbulent well loss are
minimal (<10 percent) for dimensionless well loss, C*Q/B, less than 0.1 (fig. 10).
There are several approaches for estimating turbulent well loss including step-
drawdown tests, time-drawdown tests, pipe-flow theory, and empirical relationships.
Most specific-capacity tests do not include enough information to directly quantify
turbulent well loss. Therefore, indirect methods such as pipe-flow theory and empirical
approaches must be used.
7.1 Estimating turbulent well-loss from step-drawdown tests
Step-drawdown tests were developed to determine the performance of wells
having turbulent flow (Jacob, 1947). Step-drawdown tests are essentially multiple
specific-capacity tests run in the same well at different pumping rates. These tests are
generally performed in one day where the well is pumped at successively higher rates
over 1 to 3 hour intervals. Although it is recommended that water levels be allowed to
35
recover between each pumping interval (Driscoll, 1986, p. 556), continuous pumping is
more common.
Several authors have developed different approaches for interpreting step-
drawdown tests (e.g. Csallany and Walton, 1963), but Bierschenk (1964) developed a
simple graphical technique that is now commonly used. Dividing equation 51 by Q,
assuming that C equals 0, rearranging the terms that include B and C , and noting that
Q s
w
/ is the inverse specific capacity results in
B CQ
Q
s
S
w
c
+
1
. (54)
Note that this equation has the same form of a line,
b x m y
a
+ , (55)
where y and x are variables,
a
m is the slope, and b is the y intercept. If the inverse of
specific capacity is plotted against pumping rate, the slope of the line equals the well-loss
constant and the intercept equals B (fig. 11a). A slope of zero (i.e., a horizontal line)
indicates no turbulent well loss.
In a step-drawdown test with two steps or pumping episodes, the well is pumped
at a rate
1 i
Q and the steady-state drawdown,
1 i
w
s , is recorded. The pumping rate is then
increased to
i
Q and the new drawdown,
i
w
s , is recorded. The well-loss constant can then
be estimated from (Jacob, 1947)

i i
i
i
w
i
i
w
Q Q
Q
s
Q
s
C
+
1
1
1
. (56)
36
In general, more than two steps are preferable to account for measurement errors.
In practice, a step-drawdown test is conducted with several pumping rates. Each step is
plotted and a line is fit to the points (fig. 11b). The resulting equation is a function of the
units used to derive the line. For this particular example (taken from the Edwards aquifer
in south-central Texas), the amount of turbulent well loss can be estimated using the
estimated well-loss constant of 1.310
-6
s
2
m
-5
(2.310
-5
ft gpm
-2
). For a pumping rate of
30 l s
-1
(500 gpm), the amount of drawdown in the well due to turbulent well loss is about
2 m (6 ft). For a pumping rate of 63 l s
-1
(1000 gpm), the amount of drawdown in the well
due to turbulent well loss is about 7 m (23 ft).
The well-loss constant may not be a constant for new or especially old wells
(Walton, 1970). At greater pumping rates, the well-loss constant may be greater or lower.
For example, the well screen or aquifer may become plugged at greater pumping rates
thus resulting in a higher well-loss constant than at lower pumping rates, or material may
be removed from the screen resulting in a lower well-loss constant.
Rorabaugh (1953) suggested that the turbulent component may not be exactly
proportional to the square of the discharge rate and presented a more general relationship,

P
L
CQ s , (57)
where the turbulent component is directly proportional to the Pth power of the pumping
rate. The exponent P and the proportionality constants B and C can be found from step-
drawdown plots by fitting
B CQ
Q
s
P w
+
1
(58)
37
to the observed measurements. If the data points are in a straight line, then the exponent,
P, equals 2 and Jacobs relationship (eqn. 54) can be used. Nonlinearity suggests that
equation 58 may be a better approximation to behavior in the well. Figure 11c shows how
the step-drawdown plot is affected by changes in n for constant B and C. Note that the
lines in figure 11c appear linear even though P does not equal 2. Therefore, it is difficult
to arrive at a unique combination of P and C for a given step-drawdown test. Because of
this, most practitioners assume that P equals 2.
Other methods for estimating well-loss constants are found in Lennox (1966) and
Campbell and Lehr (1973). Rorabaugh (1953) discusses more exact methods for
determining well-loss constants for a broad range of pumping rates. Sheahan (1971)
presents a set of type curves that simplifies the Rorabaugh (1953) method. Eagon and
Johe (1972) investigated the use of step-drawdown tests in carbonate rock aquifers.
The step-drawdown test is used to quantify the drawdown due to all turbulent
losses including those induced by the well and in the formation. In most cases, there is no
turbulent flow in the formation. However, in some extreme cases, such as very high flow
rates through permeable sand and fractured and karstic rocks, flow in the formation itself
may have a turbulent component. In this case, equation 49 should be written as

w t a t w l a l w
s s s s s

+ + + (59)
where

a l
s

is drawdown due to laminar flow in the aquifer,
w l
s

is drawdown due to
laminar flow into and through the well,
a t
s

is drawdown due to turbulent flow in the
aquifer, and
w t
s

is due to turbulent flow into and through the well. If there is turbulent
flow in the aquifer, then well-loss constant is a misnomer because it then also includes
turbulent losses in the aquifer. Turbulent aquifer losses are not differentiated during a
38
step-drawdown test. This may not be a problem because the techniques discussed later in
this document assume laminar flow in the aquifer. In most cases in clastic formations,
w l
s

and
a t
s

are negligible.
Transmissivity and storativity can be determined from one of the pumping periods
(Driscoll, 1986, p. 557). Bisroy and Summers (1980) present a technique to estimate
transmissivity and storativity using all the drawdown and recovery data in a step-
drawdown test. Harrill (1971) developed an approach to estimate transmissivity from
water-level recovery of a step-drawdown test.
7.2 Estimating well-loss from time-drawdown tests
Gabrysch (1968) presented a method of estimating well efficiency from time-
drawdown tests. Well efficiency is defined as the percentage of the total head loss that is
laminar. His technique involves (1) calculating transmissivity from the time-drawdown
data, (2) calculating a measured specific capacity,
meas
c
S , at the end of the time-drawdown
test, (3) calculating a theoretical specific capacity,
theor
c
S , from the calculated
transmissivity (using eqn. 18), and (4) calculating well efficiency,
p
L , from the measured
and theoretical specific capacity,
% 100
theor
c
meas
c
p
S
S
L . (60)
Using equation 54 and equation 60, the well-loss constant can be determined
using

( )
Q L
L B
C
p
p
100
. (61)
39
Turbulent well loss can then be determined using

2
CQ s
L
. (62)
Well efficiency is also determined using
% 100
+
CQ B
B
L
p
. (63)
7.3 Graphically estimating well loss
Rao and others (1991) prepared a dimensionless curve from the curves of
Rorabaugh (1953) and Todd (1959, p. 110) to graphically estimate turbulent well loss
given a pumping rate (fig. 12). The total drawdown due to turbulent well loss plotted
against pumping rate. This plot agrees with Rorabaughs (1953; as cited by Bennett and
Patten, 1960) suggestion that turbulent well loss is not important for pumping rates less
than 20 l s
-1
(340 gpm). According to this plot, turbulent well loss accounts for less than 5
percent of total drawdown for pumping rates less than about 36 l s
-1
(600 gpm). Rao and
others (1991) acknowledge that this method provides a first approximation to well loss in
a well. I fit the following equation to the line shown in figure 12 to make the relationship
easier to use:

44 . 23
12 . 1
Q
s
s
w
L
, (64)
This equation is only valid if Q is in cubic feet per second (cfs).
7.4 Estimating turbulent well-loss using empirical relationships
Turbulent well-loss can also be estimated with empirical relationships between
specific capacity and well loss constant. Zeizel and others (1962) were among the first to
40
define such a relationship. Eagon and Johe (1972) made a cross plot of well-loss constant
and specific capacity for a carbonate aquifer. Mace (1997) found a relationship similar to
Eagon and Johes (1972) in the Edwards aquifer (fig. 13) but for higher specific-capacity
values. The best-fit line for the pooled data is

29 . 1
60 . 0

c
S C (65)
where C is in d
2
m
-5
and
c
S is in m
2
d
-1
. The
2
R for the relationship is 0.82 and has a 95
percent prediction interval that spans 1.4 log cycles.
Using the relationship involves calculating the well-loss constant from specific
capacity using equation 65 and then calculating well loss using equation 62. Mace (1997)
noted that this approach, because of the large prediction interval, can lead to greatly
under- and over-estimated well losses. Mace (1997) found that equation 65 predicted well
losses that exceeded total measured drawdown in about 20 percent of the specific-
capacity tests.
7.5 Estimating well-loss using pipe-flow theory
Well loss due to the flow of water through the well bore to the pump, also called
friction loss, can be approximated using equations that describe laminar and turbulent
flow of fluids through pipes. Different equations describe friction loss for laminar and
turbulent conditions. The Reynolds number, R
e
, the ratio of inertial to viscous forces, is
used to determined whether flow is laminar or turbulent. The Reynolds number is defined
as

d
e
vd
R
(66)
41
where is the fluid density [M L
-3
], v is the specific discharge [L t
-1
], d is the diameter of
the pipe [L], and
d
is the dynamic fluid viscosity [M L
-1
t
-1
]. If the Reynolds number is
less than 2100, flow is laminar. If the Reynolds number is greater than 4000, flow is
turbulent. Critical flow (transition between laminar and turbulent flow) occurs between
Reynolds numbers of 2100 and 4000.
Friction loss,
f
h , is found from

dg
fLv
h
f
2
2
(67)
where f is friction factor [-], L is the pipe length the fluid flows through [L], and g is
gravitational acceleration [L t
-1
]. For laminar flow, the friction factor can be determined
from

e
R
f
64
(68)
For turbulent flow, friction factor must determined from friction tables (e.g. White, 1994,
p. 316).
The Hazen-Williams equation can also be used to approximate friction loss for
turbulent flow

165 . 1 85 . 1
85 . 1
022 . 3
d C
L v
h
hw
f
f
(69)
where
hw
C is the Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient. The Hazen-Williams equation is
unit dependent where v must be in gallons per minute and d must be in inches. L and h
f

are unit independent. The roughness coefficient is 140 for new pipe and 100 for old pipe.
The Hazel-Williams equation is applicable for water at about 60 F with 20 percent error
42
for very high and very low temperatures. For wells, L
f
can be approximated by the
distance from the well screen to the pump intake. However, flow to a pump in a well is
more complicated because of the contribution of flow from the formation into the well
occurs along the well bore such that v changes over the completed length of the well.
Mace (1997) used this approach to estimate well losses from specific-capacity
tests in the Edwards aquifer. Pipe-flow theory underestimated well loss (fig. 14) because
it did not account for the turbulent flow of water from the formation into the well. In this
study, pipe-flow theory resulted in well losses that exceeded total measured drawdown in
about 10 percent of specific-capacity tests.
7.6 Incorporating well-loss corrections
Well-loss corrections can be incorporated into approaches for estimating
transmissivity from specific capacity in different ways. One approach is to correct
measured specific capacity and using the corrected specific capacity in the analytical
equations. Correcting the measured specific capacity involves calculating well loss using
one of the above methods and then calculating corrected specific capacity,
c
S , using

L w L w
L
c c
s s
Q
s s
s
S S
. (70)
Another approach is to make the correction within the analytical relationship
between transmissivity and specific capacity. Razack and Huntley (1991), using an
equation that describes total drawdown in a well due to laminar and turbulent flow
(Jacob, 1947), developed an equation,
43

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
w w
r
R
CQ
Q
s
T ln
2
1
, (71)
that is similar to the Thomasson and others (1960) solution (eqn. 4a) and considers
turbulent well losses. Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) derived an equation based on Theis
and others (1963) that considers well loss and partial penetration (eqn. 8).
The empirical relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity developed
by Eagon and Johe (1972, equation fitted in this document, table 1a) uses specific
capacity corrected for well loss. Note that the other empirical relationships (table 1b-m)
use uncorrected specific capacity to estimate transmissivity. These relationships assume
that the uncertainty due to well loss is included in the relationship. Another approach may
be to assume a unique value for the well-loss coefficient, C, for all the other tests based
on step-drawdown tests. However, variability of well construction may invalidate this
approach.
8.0 Fractured and karstic rocks
Estimating transmissivity from specific capacity in fractured and karstic rocks
may be problematic because the analytical equations in section 3 assume porous-media
flow. Therefore, the Theis equation may not accurately represent transmissivity of
fractured rocks (Huntley and others, 1992; Knopman and Hollyday, 1993). White (1988)
states that In general, pump test data are of marginal value in evaluating water resources
in karstic aquifers except for the diffuse flow part of the system.
44
Although there may be limitations in the standard porous-media approach,
investigators have related variations in specific capacity to well construction and
variability in fractured rocks. Walton and Neill (1963) noted the correlation between
specific capacity and geology for dolomite aquifer in Illinois. Zeizel (1963) looked at
variation in yields in Silurian dolomite aquifer, northeastern Illinois. Siddiqui and Parizek
(1971) and Yin and Brook (1992) have shown that fault zones, fracture size and density,
dip of rock, and folding capacity affect specific capacity in fractured rock. Cederstrom
(1972) evaluated well yields in consolidated rocks and found greater yields in structurally
deformed areas. Chandrashekhar and others (1976) investigated the variation of specific
capacity in basalt and laterites and found that specific capacities were controlled by depth
of the well, depth to water, topographic setting, and well radius. LaRiccia and Rauch
(1977) related specific capacity to distance from photolineaments. Viswanathiah and
Sastri (1978) investigated variations of specific capacity in the hard rocks of India.
Daniel (1987, 1989a,b) used statistical analysis of well yields in the fractured,
crystalline rocks of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of North Carolina and found
that wells in draws or valleys had average yields three times higher than those of wells on
hills and ridges and that well yield was directly proportional to well diameter. Knopman
(1990) and Knopman and Hollyday (1993) investigated the variation in specific capacity
in fractured rocks and described the variability of specific capacity values in terms of
formation heterogeneities and variability in well construction and field measurement
factors. They found that casing diameter, primary water use, and duration of pumping
accounted for 24 percent of the variation observed in specific-capacity data, lithology
alone accounted for about 12 percent. They developed a classification based on lithology
and differences in casing diameter, water use, duration of discharge, topographic setting,
45
well depth, and casing depth that could explain about half of the variation in specific
capacity values. Wallroth and Rosenbaum (1996) looked at variations in specific capacity
in the fractured crystalline rock of Sweden.
Based on the Gringarten and Witherspoon (1972) solution for drawdown in a well
drilled through a vertical fracture, Huntley and others (1992) developed a normal
nonlinear regression model to relate specific capacity to transmissivity for a fractured
aquifer,
( ) + ,
e c
T g S , (72)
where
e
T is the effective transmissivity, e is a normally distributed error term and
( ) ,
e
T g is a nonlinear function defined by
( )
1
5 . 0
4
1
2
1
2 ,

]
]
]
]
,
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
(
,
\
,
(
j
t T
Ei
t T
erf
t
T
T g
e
e
e
e
(73)
where
( )
5 . 0
y x e
T T T , (74)

2
/
f
y x
Sx
T T
, (75)
erf is the error function, Ei is the exponential integral and
f
x is the horizontal distance
the fracture extends from the well [L].
Huntley and others (1992) successfully used equation 72 to explain the variation
in observed specific-capacity values for a fractured rock aquifer. However, they point out
that it is too difficult to use the equation to estimate transmissivity from specific capacity.
46
Eagon and Johe (1972) empirically related transmissivity and specific capacity in
a karstic aquifer in northwestern Ohio (table 1a). Huntley and others (1992) developed an
empirical relationship between specific capacity and transmissivity for fractured-rock
aquifers (table 1c), although its applicability to other aquifers is unclear. El-Naqa (1994)
developed an empirical relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity for a
fractured carbonate rock aquifer in central Jordan (table 1d). Mace (1995, 1996, 1997)
empirically related transmissivity to specific capacity for a fractured and karstic aquifer in
Central Texas (table 1e). Mace (1997) also developed an empirical equation for the
fractured and karstic Floridan aquifer (table 1f). Fabbri (1997) developed a relationship
for a fractured, limestone aquifer in Italy (table 1g). These empirical relationships are
discussed in more detail in section 4.2.
9.0 Data Quality Issues
Specific-capacity data may not be collected under the most ideal of conditions.
Nonscientists, usually drillers, make most of the measurements of specific-capacity data.
Different techniques of varying quality and reliability are used to produce water and
measure water levels and production rate. In the best circumstances, a well is pumped for
a finite (and recorded) amount of time and the drawdown is measured directly. In
mediocre circumstances, pumping rate is estimated by an experienced driller or the well
is bailed rather than pumped. In worst circumstances, estimates are grossly incorrect or
estimated purely based on experience with no testing at the well. Less-than-honest drillers
may over-report the productivity of a well to impress a client with the high-quality of
their work or to compensate for a well that produces more poorly than promised.
47
Specific-capacity tests are generally performed at the time of well construction
and therefore the well may not be fully developed thus underestimating specific capacity.
Gabrysch (1968) noted that some well drillers in the Houston area improperly calculate
specific capacity with the active static water level, which is the water level measured 10
minutes after the pump has been turned off thus overestimating specific capacity.
Some ways to filter data include only choosing those wells that were reportedly
pumped or jetted. Bailing does not result in a uniform removal of water and water levels
are generally measured after the bailer has been removed which allows time for water
levels to recover. However, bail tests may provide useful data in low permeability
formations. Another way to filter data is to only choose those tests that also include
production time. This assumes that a driller that also notes the production time in addition
to production rate and drawdown has a greater appreciation of the test and is more
attentive to data quality. Because pumping times for well-performance tests are usually
less than pumping times for pumping tests, transmissivity estimated from specific-
capacity data are dominated by the transmissivity near the well (Meier and others, 1999).
Given that the standard error in estimating hydraulic conductivity from aquifer
tests is often 100 percent or higher (Winter, 1981), estimates from specific capacity are
probably not too much worse. It has been my experience, as well as others (e.g.
Suvagondha and Singharajwarapan, 1987), that transmissivity values estimated from
specific capacity generally agree with transmissivity values determined from pumping
tests.
48
10.0 Other Issues
There are a number of other issues that may impact specific-capacity
measurements including decreasing saturated thickness during testing and considering
tests with incomplete data, no measurable drawdown, or production from multiple zones.
10.1 Correcting for decreased saturated thickness
In unconfined aquifers, a decline in water level decreases the saturated thickness
of the aquifer and thus decreases the transmissivity. This decrease in transmissivity leads
to greater drawdowns and thus underestimates actual specific capacity. In many cases, the
amount of drawdown relative to the initial saturated thickness of the aquifer is small. In
cases where this is not true, the drawdown must be corrected for the decrease in saturated
thickness. Walton (1970, p. 224) presents an equation derived by Jacob (1944) to correct
drawdown measurements for decreases in saturated thickness,

wt
wt
wt a
b
s
s s
2
2
, (76)
where
a
s is the drawdown that would occur in an equivalent nonleaky artesian aquifer,
wt
s is the observed drawdown in the water-table aquifer, and
wt
b is the initial saturated
thickness of the aquifer. If the measured drawdown is less than 20 percent of the initial
saturated thickness, the actual drawdown will be in error by less than 10 percent.
10.2 Including tests with no reported pumping time or well radius
The Theis and others (1963) equation (eqn. 5) requires information on the
production time and well radius. Many tests may not report the pumping time and/or the
49
well radius. Oftentimes, these tests can be excluded from the analysis. However,
sometimes it is important to include these tests if there are not a large number of tests that
report production time and well radius. Recall from section 3.2 that transmissivity is the
most important variable that influences specific-capacity values (see fig. 4). Therefore,
pumping time and well radius can be assumed, which results in increased uncertainty in
the estimated transmissivity. These values can be assigned according to experience or,
preferably, based on the mean or geometric mean (depending on the distribution) of the
reported values. The uncertainty of assumed values of pumping time and well radius can
be investigated by using the upper and lower standard deviation on the resulting
distributions.
10.3 Including tests with no measurable drawdown
It is not unusual to find some specific-capacity tests where the well is pumped but
there is no measurable drawdown. These are cases where the aquifer is not stressed
enough to develop a measurable amount of drawdown. In most cases, specific-capacity
tests with no drawdown are discarded. However, in some cases, discarding these tests can
create a bias toward lower transmissivity values. Hovorka and others (1995, 1998) and
Mace (1995, 1996, in review) noted that about 20 percent of specific capacity tests in the
Edwards aquifer did not produce a measurable amount of drawdown. In most cases,
especially in clastic aquifers, the production rate is too low. However, production rates in
the Edwards aquifer can be as great as 8,000 gpm and still not produce drawdown (fig.
15).
Hovorka and others (1995, 1998) and Mace (1995, 1996, in review) included
specific-capacity tests with no measurable drawdown by assuming that drillers could
50
measure a 0.3 m (1 ft) decline in water level in the well. They then calculated specific
capacity based on this 0.3 m (1 ft) assumed drawdown and noted that the resulting
specific capacity (and any estimate of transmissivity from that specific capacity) was a
minimum value. The tests with no drawdown had a mean transmissivity that was 10 times
greater than the tests with measurable drawdown. Including the tests with no drawdown
increased the geometric mean by 50 percent.
Halihan and others (1997) noted that tests with no drawdown should be expected
in karstic aquifers where there are fractures and conduits that can result in extremely high
transmissivity. The minimum amount of pumping,
m
Q , required to observe the minimum
amount of measurable drawdown,
c
s , can be defined from a modified version of the
Theis and others (1963) equation (eqn. 5),

]
]
]
]
,
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
S r
Tt
Ts
Q
w
p
c
m
2
25 . 2
ln
4
. (77)
Assuming a pumping time of 8 hr, a well radius of 4 in, and a storativity of 10
-4
, Figure 16
shows the threshold of pumping rate required to observe measurable drawdown.
10.4 Multiple production zones
Some wells will be screened in multiple production zones in an aquifer or group
of aquifers to achieve the desired yield. For example, a well might be screened from 30 to
40 m, 50 to 60 m, and 65 to 80 m. Therefore, the production of the well, and thus the
value of specific capacity, is from a combination of producing zones,
( )
n
i
n c c
S S
1
, (78)
51
where n is the number of production zones. Back calculating the specific capacity of each
zone is not possible unless specific capacity is measured at different well depths as the
well was drilled or after the well was drilled by isolating each well section.
Walton (1970) describes an approach to qualitatively determine if deeper units are
less or more permeable than upper units. This is done by first calculating the specific-
capacity index (eqn. 2) for each well, segregating the wells into categories based on
formations penetrated, and comparing the distributions of specific-capacity index for the
different categories. If lower specific-capacity indices are found for wells that intersect
more of the formation, then the lower units are less productive. If the specific-capacity
index increases, then the lower units are more productive. If specific-capacity index
remains the same, then the formations have similar productivity. A similar comparison
can be done with the geometric means of the specific-capacity index.
Bennett and Patten (1960) used geophysical techniques to investigate the specific
capacity of multiple contributing zones. Hovorka and others (1995, 1998) used equation
30 and the mathematical definition of the harmonic mean to determine specific capacity
and ultimately transmissivity for wells that were tested after each 15 m (50 ft) penetration
and for wells tested with packers. Westly (1993) suggests an approach to measure specific
capacity with increasing depth while drilling a well.
One issue with multiple production zones is that the well may have been
strategically completed in the most productive part of the formation. Therefore, the
transmissivity of the entire formation thickness may be overestimated if the test is
corrected for partial penetration.
52
11.0 Recommended approach
There are three general approaches to estimating transmissivity from specific
capacity: analytical, empirical, and geostatistical. The approach that is used depends
primarily on how many specific capacity and pumping tests are available and which
approach results in more accurate predictions. The analytical approach only requires a
single specific-capacity test to estimate transmissivity. The empirical approach only
requires a single specific-capacity test to estimate transmissivity for a predefined
relationship but requires at least 25 pairs of specific-capacity and transmissivity tests to
define a new relationship. Geostatistics requires enough specific-capacity and measured
transmissivity data to define a linear relationship between transmissivity and specific
capacity (at least 25 pairs [Razack and Huntley, 1991]), semivariograms for specific
capacity and measured transmissivity, and a cross-semivariogram between specific
capacity and measured transmissivity, depending on which geostatistical approach is
used. The number of transmissivity and specific-capacity measurements required to
define semivariograms depends on how spatially correlated transmissivity and specific
capacity are and the spacing and density of points in the aquifer. With limited data, the
cross-semivariogram can be difficult to calculate, fit with a theoretical model, and shown
to be positive definite (Ahmed and de Marsily, 1987).
If there are less than 25 points, then two choices are available: the analytical
approach or an existing empirical equation. An existing empirical equation should only
be used if you are reasonably confidant that the relationship will apply to your
hydrogeologic setting. Currently, only carbonate aquifers have had a number of empirical
relationships defined that are very similar to each other. The relationship used should be
53
based on data that encompass the value or values of specific capacity. The empirical
relationship of Mace (1997) (table 1e) agrees well with data from three different aquifers
for a wide range of specific-capacity values and is similar to other relationships defined
for carbonate aquifers.
Because there have not been many published empirical relationships for clastic or
hard-rock aquifers, it is not advisable to use published relationships on other aquifers,
especially considering the differences between the relationships defined by Huntley and
others (1992) (table 1c) and those defined here (table 1h, i, j, l, and m) for clastic aquifers.
For these hydrogeologic settings, the analytical approach should be used.
The Theis and others (1963) approach (eqn. 5) is the preferred analytical
approach. In general, when using the analytical solution, one should correct for partial
penetration effects and turbulent well loss. When correcting for partial penetration, it is
recommended to only correct for the vertical flow components of partial penetration (eqn.
44). This is because the full partial penetration correction (eqn. 43), which results in a
specific capacity estimate for the entire aquifer thickness, assumes that the unpenetrated
thickness of the aquifer has the same production properties as the penetrated thickness of
the aquifer.
Because turbulent well loss is difficult to estimate, it is important to first
determine if a well-loss correction is necessary. One way of doing this is to inspect the
production rates for the specific-capacity tests: if production is less than 600 gpm, then
turbulent well losses can be ignored in most cases. For wells with production rates greater
than 600 gpm, it might be useful to determine well losses from step-drawdown or
pumping tests and determine if well loss at higher pumping rates greatly affects specific
capacity. If there is a consistent well-loss constant among the tested wells, then that well-
54
loss constant can be used to estimate well losses in the other wells with pumping greater
than 600 gpm. If this is not possible, then it is recommended that Figure 12 or equation
64 be used to estimate well loss. While it is acknowledged that this graph is an
approximation, it will not result in well losses that exceed measured drawdown in most
cases, unlike the empirical approach in section 7.4 and the pipe-flow approach in section
7.5. Note that the empirical relationships do not require well-loss or partial-penetration
corrections (although the empirical relationship only includes the vertical flow
component of the partial penetration correction). For unconfined aquifers, it might be
necessary to correct for decreased saturated thickness (eqn. 76).
If pumping tests are available, then it is appropriate to apply the selected approach
on specific-capacity values from the pumping tests to compare transmissivity determined
from pumping-test analysis to transmissivity estimated from specific capacity. At the very
least, transmissivities estimated from specific-capacity tests should approximate
transmissivity values determined from pumping tests. If there seems to be a consistent
error between transmissivity measured from pumping tests and transmissivity estimated
from specific capacity tests, then a correction factor can be applied following the
technique of Prudic (1991) or Darling and others (1994) (see section 4.3).
When a greater number of tests (>25) are available, then the ultimate purpose of
the data becomes important along with the number of data points. If the purpose is to
simply estimate transmissivity for statistical analysis or provide estimates of
transmissivity at measured specific-capacity points, then the empirical approach is the
simplest.
If the purpose of the data is to develop an interpolated map of transmissivity, then
the geostatistical approach should be considered. The choice of geostatistical approach,
55
kriging with linear regression or cokriging, depends on the number of transmissivity and
specific capacity pairs. If there are greater than 50 transmissivity and specific capacity
pairs, then cokriging may offer better results. If there are less than 50 pairs, then kriging
with linear regression might be better. Ideally, both approaches should be compared.
Before deciding to use the geostatistical approach, the first step is to determine if
there are enough transmissivity and specific capacity values for the analysis. Generally,
the limitation is the number of transmissivity values because these values are rarer than
specific-capacity values. For kriging with linear regression, there needs to be (1) enough
transmissivity and specific-capacity pairs to define a linear relationship between
transmissivity and specific capacity (similar to the empirical approach) with a high
correlation coefficient and uncorrelated residuals and (2) enough specific-capacity values
and measured values of transmissivity to define a semivariogram for each.
For cokriging, there needs to be enough specific-capacity values and measured
values of transmissivity to define a semivariogram for each and enough transmissivity
and specific-capacity data pairs to define a cross-semivariogram. If there is not enough
specific capacity and measured transmissivity data to do the above, then the geostatistical
approach cannot be used.
Transmissivity values can still be interpolated using kriging as described in
section 5.3, but the uncertainties of the estimates will be underestimated because the
uncertainty of using the linear regression or correlating transmissivity to specific capacity
are not included. Before using the geostatistical approach, it is important to either correct
for partial penetration or only include those tests that penetrate most of the aquifer. This
is because the semivariograms should represent the spatial correlation of hydraulic
properties rather than artifacts of well construction and completion.
56
Ultimately, the approach that is used should minimize the error of estimating
transmissivity from specific capacity. In the following example, the analytical and
empirical approaches are compared for a sandstone aquifer (Carrizo-Wilcox) in east-
central Texas to determine which approach provides the best estimates of transmissivity
from specific capacity.
A total of 217 wells had time-drawdown tests to determine transmissivity and
specific capacity. To define an empirical relationship between transmissivity and specific
capacity, log-transformed values of each parameter were plotted against each other and a
line was fit through the data using least squares (fig. 17). The best-fit line through the
data was

84 . 0
20 . 0
c
S T (79)
where the units of T and S
c
are in m
2
d
-1
and the correlation coefficient, R
2
, is 0.91. The
relationship has a 90 percent prediction interval that spans a little less than about an order
of magnitude.
To compare transmissivity estimated using the empirical relationship to values
estimated using the analytical relationship (eqn. 5), the mean absolute error and the mean
error between the estimates and the measured values of log-transformed transmissivity
were determined. The appropriate information needed to use the analytical equation
(discharge rate, drawdown, pumping time, and well radius) were available for 57 of the
217 tests. Mean absolute error, , is defined by:
( ) ( ) [ ]

n
i
e m
T T
n
1
log log
1
(80)
57
where n is the number of values,
m
T is the transmissivity determined from the pumping
test, and
e
T is the value of transmissivity estimated from specific capacity. Mean error,
, is defined by:
( ) ( ) [ ]

n
i
e m
T T
n
1
log log
1
(81)
The mean absolute error and mean error for transmissivity estimated using the
analytical approach are 0.17 and -0.002, respectively. A mean absolute error of 0.17
means that, on average, the estimated value of transmissivity is within a factor of 1.5 of
the measured value (determined by taking the inverse log of 0.17). Because the mean
error is close to zero, estimates of transmissivity made with the analytical approach are
collectively unbiased and do not have a systematic error toward underestimating or
overestimating transmissivity.
The mean absolute error and mean error for transmissivity estimated using the
empirical relationship are 0.33 and 0.17, respectively. A mean absolute error of 0.33
means that, on average, the estimated value of transmissivity is within a factor of 2.1 of
the measured value. The positive mean error indicates a bias toward overpredicting
transmissivity.
Based on the mean absolute errors, the analytical approach provides more accurate
estimates of transmissivity than the empirical approach. Because many specific-capacity
tests do not include information on pumping time and well radius to use the analytical
equation, mean values based on wells that include this information were used. Using this
approach increases the number of wells available for analysis to 107 and increases the
mean absolute error and mean error slightly to 0.173 and -0.02, respectively. Therefore,
58
even with assumed values, the analytical approach is superior. However, both methods
can result in errors as much as a factor of 5 (fig. 18).
12.0 Conclusions
Specific-capacity data are very useful for estimating transmissivity and should be
used in water-resources investigations. Including transmissivity estimated from specific-
capacity data can dramatically increase the number of transmissivity estimates in an
aquifer. Studies in Texas have shown that estimating transmissivity from specific
capacity increases the number of transmissivity data points from 71 to 1,083 in the
Edwards aquifer, from 291 to 1,973 in the sandstone aquifers of North-Central Texas, and
from 200 to over 9,500 in the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. These data allow the variability of
transmissivity values to be better defined and allow better correlation to geology and
better interpolation of transmissivity values.
There are three main approaches for estimating transmissivity from specific
capacity data: analytical techniques, empirical techniques, and geostatistical techniques.
The most commonly used analytical approach is an equation derived from the Theis
nonequilibrium formula which requires specific capacity, well radius, production time,
and an estimate of storativity for estimating transmissivity. When using the analytical
approach, it is appropriate to correct for well loss, vertical flow due to partial penetration,
and, if important in unconfined aquifers, decreased saturated thickness. Well loss does
not become important in most wells until the production rate exceeds 600 gpm. Because
estimating well loss is difficult, a simple graphical approach is recommended.
59
The empirical approach involves empirically relating transmissivity to specific
capacity measured in the same well. This approach usually requires at least 25 data pairs
before a useful relationship can be defined. This approach is advantageous because
specific-capacity data do not have to be corrected for turbulent well loss or vertical
components of partial penetration. Existing relationships can probably be used for
carbonate aquifers but should not be used for other aquifer settings because they have not
been shown to be applicable in other aquifers.
Geostatistical techniques are useful for estimating transmissivity, developing
interpolated maps of transmissivity, and quantifying the uncertainty of the estimates. Two
geostatistical techniques are commonly used: kriging with linear regression or cokriging.
The choice of technique depends on the number of transmissivity and specific-capacity
data pairs, and, ultimately, how each performs in estimating transmissivity. If there are
greater than 50 transmissivity and specific capacity pairs, cokriging may offer better
results than kriging with linear regression. Whether or not geostatistical techniques can be
used depends on whether there are enough specific capacity and measured transmissivity
values to define a linear relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity,
semivariograms for specific capacity and measured transmissivity, and a cross-
semivariogram between specific capacity and transmissivity.
13.0 Acknowledgments
I thank Jinhuo Liang for the initial Excel program to calculate transmissivity from
specific capacity, Liying Xu for her dedicated assistance in the literature review, and
Mike Harren and Ted Way at the Texas Water Develoment Board for data on the Carrizo-
60
Wilcox aquifer. I also thank Dr. Alan R. Dutton and Dr. Bridget Scanlon of the Bureau of
Economic Geology and Dr. Shao-Chih (Ted) Way of the Texas Water Development
Board for their thorough reviews of the manuscript. This publication includes work
performed for the Edwards Aquifer Authority, Texas Water Development Board, the
Lower Colorado River Authority, and the Texas National Research Laboratory
Commission: I am grateful for their support.
14.0 Symbols
Units are included with the brackets [] where L is length, M is mass, and t is time. A
dash, [-], means the parameter is unitless, and a tildi, [~], means units of the
parameter can be variable.

level of significance [-]
w
A cross-sectional area of the well [L
2
]
b y-intercept of a line [~]
0
b regression model parameter [~]
1
b regression coefficient [~]
b
a
aquifer thickness [L]
wt
b initial saturated thickness of the water-table aquifer [L]
B laminar well-loss coefficient [t L
-2
]
C well-loss constant, proportionality constant for turbulent flow [t
2
L
-5
,
assuming n = 2]
C proportionality constant for laminar well loss [t L
-2
]
C sensitivity parameter [t L
2
]
c
C constant for the Thomasson and others (1960) relationship [-]

hw
C Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient [-]
d pipe diameter [L]
( )
i
x e uncertainty of ( )
i
x Z [~]
[ ] x E expectation of x [~]
f friction factor [-]
ij
semivariogram [~]
semivariogram for transmissivity [L
4
t
-2
]
& semivariogram for specific capacity [L
4
t
-2
]
& & cross-semivariogram between transmissivity and specific capacity [L
4
t
-2
]
61
g gravitational acceleration constant [L t
-2
]
( ) ,
e
T g nonlinear function describing fracture flow [L
2
t
-1
]
G function for partial-penetration correction [-]
f
h friction loss [L]
i index number [-]
j index number [-]
0
K zero-order modified Bessel function of the second kind
weighting parameter [-]
p
L well efficiency [-]
L
f
length of pipe through which the fluid flows [L]
L
w
length of the well screened to the aquifer [L]
Lagrange multiplier [-]
1
2
d
dynamic fluid viscosity [M L
-1
t
-1
]
m number of specific-capacity measurements [-]
a
m slope of a line [~]
n number of data points [-]
Q pumping rate [L
3
t
-1
]
P turbulent flow exponent [-]
fluid density [M L
-3
]
r
w
well radius [L]
R radius of influence [L]
R
e
Reynolds number, ratio of inertial to viscous forces [-]
2
R coefficient of determination [-]
2
variance [~]
2
E
variance of the estimation error [~]
2
i
variance of the uncertainty [~]
1
s residual drawdown after
s
t minutes [L]
2
s maximum drawdown [L]
a
s drawdown due to head loss in the aquifer [L]
a l
s

drawdown due to laminar flow in the aquifer [L]
w l
s

drawdown due to laminar flow into and through the well [L]
L
s drawdown due to well loss [L]
p
s partial penetration factor [-]
a t
s

drawdown due to turbulent flow in the aquifer [L]
w t
s

drawdown due to turbulent flow into and through the well [L]
w
s measured drawdown in the well [L]
wt
s observed drawdown in the water-table aquifer [L]
62
S storativity [-]
c
S specific capacity [L
2
t
-1
]
c
S specific capacity corrected for partial penetration [L
2
t
-1
]
c
S specific capacity corrected for well loss [L
2
t
-1
]
measured
c
S measured value of specific capacity [L
2
t
-1
]
l theoretica
c
S theoretical value of specific capacity [L
2
t
-1
]
i
S specific-capacity index [L t
-1
]
SS sum of squares of the errors [~]

x
SS sum of squares for
i
X [~]
xy
i
X and
i
Y [~]
y
i
Y [~]
factor for calculating ( ) ,
e
T g [L
-1
]
2 /
t values of the t-distribution [-]
p
t production time [t]
s
t time since pumping stopped [t]
T transmissivity [L
2
t
-1
]
e
T effective transmissivity [L
2
t
-1
]
i
T transmissivity for measurement i [L
2
t
-1
]
c
S
T transmissivity determined from specific capacity [L
2
t
-1
]
u dimensionless time used with the well function [-]
v specific discharge [L t
-1
]
( )
i
x v true value of ( )
i
x Z [~]
( )
0
x v
estimate of a true value at point

0
x [~]
( ) u W well function, dimensionless drawdown [-]
x variable [~]
i
x point i [-]
i
X predictor variable for linear regression for index i [~]
X mean value of
i
X [~]
p
X a specific value of
i
X [~]
y variable [~]
i
Y observed value for linear regression for index i [~]
i
Y
predicted value of
i
Y [~]
Y mean of
i
Y
[~]
( )
i
x Z realization (estimate) of any intrinsic random function at a point
i
x [~]
63
15.0 References
Aboufirassi, Mohamed, and Marino, M. A., 1984, Cokriging of aquifer
transmissivities from field measurements of transmissivity and specific capacity:
Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, v. 16, no. 1, p.
19-35.
Adyalkar, P. G., Dias, J. P., and Srihari Rao, S., 1981, Empirical methods for
evaluating hydraulic properties of basaltic water table aquifers with specific
capacity values: Indian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 8, no. 1, p. 69-75.
Adyalkar, P. G., and Mani, V. V. S., 1972, An attempt at estimating the
transmissibilities of trappean aquifers from specific capacity values: Journal of
Hydrology, v. 17 no. 3, p. 237-241.
Ahmed, Shakeel, and De Marsily, Ghislain, 1987, Comparison of geostatistical
methods for estimating transmissivity using data on transmissivity and specific
capacity: Water Resources Research, v. 23, no. 9, p. 1717-1737.
Bardossy, A., Bogardi, I., and Kelly, W. E., 1986, Geostatistical analysis of
geoelectric estimates for specific capacity: Journal of Hydrology, v. 84, no. 1-2, p.
81-95.
Bear, Jacob, 1953, Hydraulics of groundwater: New York, New York, McGraw-Hill
International Book Company, 567 p.
Bedinger, M. S., and Emmett, L. F., 1963, Mapping transmissibility of alluvium in the
lower Arkansas River valley, Arkansas: in Short papers in geology and hydrology:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 475-C, p. C188-C190.
Bennett, G. D., and Patten, E. P., Jr., 1960, Borehole geophysical methods for
analyzing specific capacity of multiaquifer wells: U. S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper, W 1536-A, p. 1-25.
Bierschenk, W. H., 1964, Determining well efficiency by multiple step-drawdown
tests: International Association of Scientific Hydrology, Publication 64.
Binsariti, A. A., 1980, Statistical analysis and stochastic modeling of the
Cortaroaquifer in southern Arizona: Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona, 243 p.
Bisroy, Y. K., and Summers, W. K., 1980, Determination of aquifer parameters from
step tests and intermittent pumping data: Ground Water, v. 18, n. 2, p. 137-146.
Boulton, N. S., 1954, Unsteady radial flow to a pumped well allowing for delayed
yield from storage: International Assication of Sci. Hydrology Publication 37, p.
472-477.
Bradbury, K. R., and Rothschild, E. R., 1985, A computerized technique for
estimating the hydraulic conductivity of aquifers from specific capacity data:
Ground Water, v. 23, no. 2, p. 240-246.
Brons, F., and Marting, V. E., 1961, The effect of restricted fluid entry on well
productivity: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 13, no. 2, p. 172-174.
Brown, R. H., 1963, Estimating the transmissivity of an artesian aquifer from the
specific capacity of a well: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-I p.
336-338.
Campbell, M. D., and Lehr, J. H., 1973, Water well technology: McGraw-Hill, New
York, 681 p.
64
Cederstrom, D. J., 1972, Evaluation of yields of wells in consolidated rocks, Virginia
to Maine: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper W 2021, 38 p.
Chandrashekhar, H., Jayapal, H. N., and Ramaprasad, B. K., 1976, Specific capacity
of wells in basalt and laterite of the Karanja Basin; a comparative study: Prasad,
Balmiki, and Manjrekar, B. S. (eds.), Proceedings of a Symposium on Deccan
Trap and bauxite, Special Publication Series - Geological Survey of India, v. 14,
p. 125-131.
Clifton, P. M., and Neuman, S. P., 1982, Effects of kriging and inverse modeling on
conditional simulation of the Avra Valley aquifer in southern Arizona: Water
Resources Research, v. 18, no. 4, p. 1215-1234.
Cooper, H. H., Jr., and Jacob, C., E., 1946, A generalized graphical method for
evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history: Transactions
of the American Geophysical Union, v. 27, p. 526-534.
Csallany, S., and Walton, W. C., 1963, Yields of shallow dolomite wells in northern
Illinois: Report of Investigations 46, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign,
Illinois, p. 14.
Daniel, C. C., III, 1987, Statistical analysis relating well yield to construction
practices and siting of wells in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of North
Carolina: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, WRI 86-4132,
54 p.
Daniel, C. C., III, 1989a, Statistical analysis relating well yield to construction
practices and siting of wells in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of North
Carolina: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper, W 2341-A, 27 p.
Daniel, C. C., III, 1989b, Correlation of well yield to well depth and diameter in
fractured crystalline rocks, North Carolina: in Proceedings of a conference on
Ground water in the Piedmont of the Eastern United States: Daniel, C. C., III,
White, R. K., and Stone, P. A., eds., 638-653.
Darling, B. K., Hibbs, B. J., and Dutton, A. R., 1994, Ground-water hydrology and
hydrogeochemistry of Eagle Flat and surrounding area: Bureau of Economic
Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Final Report prepared for the Texas
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, 137 p.
Daugherty, R. L., and Ingersoll, A. C., 1954, Fluid mechanics: McGraw Hill, New
York.
Davis, S. N., and DeWeist, R. J. M., 1966, Hydrogeology: New York, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 463 p.
Davis, S. N., 1988, Artesian wells of France, Darcy's law and specific capacity: Eos,
v. 69, no. 44, p. 1203.
Delhomme, J. P., 1974, La cartographie dune grandeur physique partir de donnes
de diffrentes qualits: Proc. Meet. Int. Assoc. Hydrogeol., Mem. 10, 1, p. 185-
194.
Delhomme, J. P., 1976, Application de la thorie des variables rgionalises dans les
sciences de leau: Ph.d. thesis, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Fontainebleau, France.
Delhomme, J. P., 1978, Kriging in hydrosciences: Advances in Water Resources, v. 1,
no. 5, p. 251-266.
de Marsily, G., 1986, Quantitative hydrogeology: San Diego, Academic Press, Inc.,
440 p.
65
de Marsily, Ghislain, and Ahmed, Shakeel, 1987, Application of kriging techniques in
groundwater hydrology: Ramesam, V., ed., Trends in groundwater research,
Journal of the Geological Society of India, v. 29, no. 1, p. 57-82.
de Smedt, F., Belhadi, M., and Nurul, I. K., 1985, Study of spatial variability of the
hydraulic conductvity with different measurement techniques: in Proceedings of
the International Symposium on the Stochastic Approach to Subsurface Flow: de
Marsily, G., ed., International Association for Hydraulic Research,
Montvillargenne, France, June 3-6.
Driscoll, F. G., 1986, Groundwater and wells: second edition, U.S. Filter/Johnson
Screens, St, Paul, Minnesota, 1089 p.
Dutton, A. R., Mace, R. E., Nance, H. S., and Blm, Martina, 1996, Geologic
hydrogeologic framework of regional aquifers in the Twin Mountains, Paluxy, and
Woodbine Formations near the SSC site, North-Central Texas: The University of
Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, topical report prepared for Texas
National Research Laboratory Commission under contract no. IAC(92-93)-0301.
Eagon, H. B., Jr., and Johe, D. E., 1972, Practical solutions for pumping tests in
carbonate-rock aquifers: Ground Water, v. 10, no. 4, p. 6-13.
El-Naqa, A., 1994, Estimation of transmissivity from specific capacity data in
fractured carbonate rock aquifer, central Jordan: Environmental Geology, v. 23,
no. 1, p. 73-80.
Fabbri, Paolo, 1997, Transmissivity in the geothermal Euganean Basin; a
geostatistical analysis: Ground Water, v. 35, no. 5, p. 881-887.
Ferris, J. G., Knowles, R. H., Browne, R. H., and Stallman, R. W., 1962, Theory of
aquifer tests: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-E.
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 p.
Gabrysch, R. K., 1968, The relationship between specific capacity and aquifer
transmissibility in the Houston area, Texas: Ground Water, v. 6 no. 4, p. 9-14.
Gelbaum, Carol, 1981, Using the specific capacity index to analyze ground-water
productivity in the Gulf Trough area of Georgia: Fifty-eighth annual meeting of
the Georgia Academy of Science, Georgia Journal of Science, v. 39, no. 2, p. 69-
70.
Gringarten, A. C., and Witherspoon, P. A., 1972, A method of analyzing pump test
data from fractured rock aquifers: Proceedings of a Symposium on Percolation
Through Fissured Rock, International Association of Rock Mechanics, Stuttgart,
Germany, p. T3-B1-T3-B8.
Halihan, Todd, Mace, R. E., and Sharp, J. M., Jr., 1997, Using laboratory-scale
permeability to interpret well-test data in a fractured karst aquifer: (abs.),
Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, no. 7, p. 227.
Hantush, M. S., 1956, Analysis of data from pumping tests in leaky aquifers:
Tranactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 37, p. 702-714.
Hantush, M. S., 1964, Hydraulics of wells: Adv. Hydrosci., v. 1, p. 281-432.
Harrill, J. R., 1971, Determining transmissivity from water-level recovery of a step-
drawdown test: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 700-C, p. C212-213.
Heeley, R. W., Mabee, S. B., 1983, A cost-effective technique for reconnaissance
evaluation of aquifers: Nielsen, D. M., ed., Proceedings of the Third national
symposium on aquifer restoration and ground-water monitoring, Proceedings of
66
the National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Ground-Water Monitoring,
v. 3, p. 213-219.
Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., and Collins, E. W., 1995, Regional distribution of
permeability in the Edwards Aquifer: Bureau of Economic Geology, The
University of Texas at Austin, Final contract report to the Edwards Underground
Water District under contract no. 93-17-FO, 126 p.
Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., and Collins, E. W., 1998, Permeability structure of the
Edwards aquifer, south Texas- Implications for aquifer management: Bureau of
Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Report of Investigations
No. 250, 55 p.
Hughson, L. , Huntley, D., and Razack, M., 1996, Cokriging limited transmissivity
data using widely sampled specific capacity from pump tests in an alluvial
aquifer: Ground Water, v. 1, no. 1, p. 12-18.
Huntley, David, Nommensen, Roger, and Steffey, Duane, 1992, The use of specific
capacity to assess transmissivity in fractured-rock aquifers: Ground Water, v. 30
no. 3, p. 396-402.
Hurr, R. T., 1966, A new approach for estimating transmissivity from specific
capacity: Water Resources Research, v. 2, no. 4, p. 657-664.
Hurr, R. T., 1967, Reply to discussion of 'A new approach for estimating
transmissibility from specific capacity' (1966) by T. N. Narasimhan: Water
Resources Research, v. 3 no. 4, p. 1095.
Jacob, C. E., 1944, Notes on determining permeability by pumping tests under water-
table conditions: U.S. Geological Survey, mimeographed report.
Jacob, C. E., 1947, Drawdown test to determine effective radius of artesian well:
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 112, p. 1047-1070.
Jacob, C. E., 1950, Flow of groundwater, Engineering hydraulics: ed. H. Rouse, New
York, John Wiley, p. 321-386.
Jacob, C. E., and Lohman, S. W., 1952, Nonsteady flow to a well of constant
drawdown in an extensive aquifer: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v.
33, no. 4, 559-569.
Jensen, J. L., Lake, L. W., Corbett, P. W. M., and Goggin, D. J., 1997, Statistics for
petroleum engineers and geoscientists: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pentice
Hall PTR, 390 p.
Johnson, A. I., Moston, R. P., and Versaw, S. F., 1966, Laboratory study of aquifer
properties and well design for an artificial recharge site: U.S. Geological Sureby
Water Supply Paper, no. 1615-H, p. H23-H25.
Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, J. C., 1978, Mining geostatistics: Academic, Orlando,
Florida.
Kasenow, M., and Pare, P., 1995, Using specific capacity to estimate transmissivity-
field and computer methods: Highlands Ranch, Colorado, Water Resources
Publication, variously paginated.
Knopman, D. S., 1990, Factors related to the water-yielding potential of rocks in the
Piedmont and Valley and Ridge provinces of Pennsylvania: U. S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations, WRI 90-4174, 52 p.
Knopman, D. S., and Hollyday, E. F., 1993, Variation in specific capacity in fractured
rocks, Pennsylvania, Ground Water, v. 31 no. 1, p. 135-145.
67
Kruseman, G. P., and de Ridder, N. A., 1990, Analysis and evaluation of pumping
test data, second edition: International Institute for Land Reclamation and
Improvement, Publication 47, Wageningen, The Nederlands, 377 p.
LaRiccia, M. P., Rauch, H. W., 1977, Water well productivity related to photo-
lineaments in carbonates of Frederick Valley, Maryland: Dilamarter, R. R., and
Csallany, S. C., eds., Hydrologic problems in karst regions, p. 228-234.
Lennox, D. H., 1966, Analysis and application of step-drawdown test: ASCE, v. 92.
Lohman, S. W., 1972, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Pofessional
Paper 708, 70 p.
Mace, R. E., 1995, Geostatistical description of hydraulic properties in karst aquifers,
a case study in the Edwards Aquifer: in Groundwater Management, Proceedings
of the International Symposium sponsored by the Water Resources Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, ed., Charbeneau, R. J., American
Society of Civil Engineers, p. 193-198.
Mace, R. E., 1996, Distribution of specific capacity and transmissivity in the Edwards
aquifer, in Woodruff, Jr., C. M., and Sherrod, C. L, Urban Karst, Geologic
Excursions in Travis and Williamson Counties: Austin Geological Society
Guidebook 16, p. 11-15.
Mace, R. E., 1997, Determination of transmissivity from specific capacity tests in a
karst aquifer, Ground Water, v. 35 no. 5, p. 738-742.
Mace, R. E., in review, Regional distribution and spatial correlation of transmissivity
in a karstic aquifer, Edwards Group, South-Central Texas: submitted to Ground
Water.
Mace, R. E., Nance, H. S., and Dutton, A. R., 1994, Geologic and hydrogeologic
framework of regional aquifers in the Twin Mountains, Paluxy, and Woodbine
Formations near the SSC site, North-Central Texas: Draft topical report submitted
to the TNRLC under contract no. IAC(92-93)-0301 and no. IAC 94-0108, 48 p.
Mace, R. E., Smyth, R., Xu, Liying, and Liang, Jinhuo, 2000, Hydraulic conductivity
and storativity of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer in Texas: Bureau of Economic
Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, submitted to the Texas Water
Development Board.
Macpherson, G. L., 1983, Regional trends in transmissivity and hydraulic
conductivity, Lower Cretaceous sands, north-central Texas: Ground Water, v. 21,
no. 5, p. 577-583.
Matheron, G., 1971, The theory of regionalized variables and its applications: Cahiers
du Centre de Morphologie Mathmatique, v. 5, Ecole des Mines de Paris,
Fontainebleau, France.
McWhorter, D. B., and Sunada, D. K., 1977, Ground-water hydrology and hydraulics:
Fort Collins, Colorado, Water Resources Publications, 290 p.
Meier, P. M., Carrera, Jesus, and Sanchez-Vila, Xavier, 1999, A numerical study on
the relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity in heterogeneous
aquifers: Ground Water, v. 37, no. 4, p. 611-617.
Mendenhall, W., 1987, Introduction to probability and statistics: Duxbury Press,
Boston, Massachesetts, 783 p.
Meyer, R. R., 1963, A chart relating well diameter, specific capacity, and the
cofficient of transmissibility and storage: in Bentall, R., (ed.), Methods of
68
determining permeability, transmissibility and drawdown: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Supply Paper 1536-I, p. 338-340.
Muskat, M., 1946, The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous media: Ann
Arbor, Michigan, J. W. Edwards.
Narasimhan, T. N., 1967, Note on "A new approach for estimating transmissibility
from specific capacity' by R. Theodore Hurr: Water Resources Research, v. 3 no.
4, p. 1093-1095.
Neuman, S. P. , 1972, Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed
response of the watertable: Water Resources Research, v. 8, p. 1031-1045.
Neuman, S. P., 1984, Role of geostatistics in subsurface hydrology: in Geostatistics
for natural resource characterization, part 2G, Verly, G., ed., p. 787-816.
Ogden, L., 1965, Estimating transmissibility with one drawdown: Ground Water, v. 3,
no. 3, p. 51-55.
Poland, J. F., 1959, Hydrology of the Long Beach-Santa Ana area, California, with
special reference to the watertightness of the Newport-Inglewood structural zone:
U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper, W 1471, 257 p.
Prudic, D. E., 1991, Estimates of hydraulic conductivity from aquifer-test analyses
and specific-capacity data, Gulf Coast regional aquifer systems, south-central
United States: Water-Resources Investigations - U. S. Geological Survey, WRI
90-4121, 38 p.
Rao, G. N., Beck, J. N., Murray, H. E., and Nyman, D. J., 1991, Estimating
transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of Chicot Aquifer from specific capacity
data: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 1, p. 47-58.
Razack, M., and Huntley, David, 1991, Assessing transmissivity from specific
capacity in a large and heterogeneous alluvial aquifer: Ground Water, v. 29, no. 6,
p. 856-861.
Rorabaugh, M. I., 1953, Graphical and theoretical analysis of step-drawdown test of
artesian well: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 79,
separte no. 362, 23 p.
Rose, H. G., and Smith, H. F., 1957, Particles and permeability; a method of
determining permeability and specific capacity from effective grain size: Water
Well Journal, v. 11, no. 3, p. 10.
Sheahan, N. T., 1971, Type-curve solution of step-drawdown test: Ground Water, v.
9, no. 1, p. 25-29.
Siddiqui, S. H., and Parizek, R. R., 1971, Hydrogeologic factors influencing well
yields in folded carbonate rocks in central Pennsylvania: Water Resources
Research, v. 7, no. 5, p. 1295-1312.
Slichter, S. C., 1906, The underflow in Arkansas valley in western Kansas: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper no. 153, 61 p.
Sternberg, Y. M., 1973, Efficiency of partially penetrating wells: Ground Water, v.
11, no. 3, p. 5-7.
Suvagondha, F., and Singharajwarapan, S., 1987, Estimating the hydraulic
conductivity from specific capacity data of the eastern part of Chiang Mai Basin:
Awadalla, S., and Noor, I. M., eds., Groundwater and the Environment;
proceedings of the International Groundwater Conference, p. C39-C46.
69
Theis, C. V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and
the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage:
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 16, p. 519-524.
Theis, C. V., 1963, Estimating the transmissivity of a water-table aquifer from the
specific capacity of a well: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-I, p.
332-336.
Theis, C. V., Brown, R. H., and Myers, R. R., 1963, Estimating the transmissibility of
aquifers from the specific capacity of wells. Methods of determining permeability,
transmissivity, and drawdown: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Papers,
1536-I.
Thomasson, H. J., Olmstead, F. H., LeRoux, E. R., 1960, Geology, water resources,
and usable ground water storage capacity of part of Solano County, CA: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1464, 693 p.
Todd, D. K., 1959, Ground water hydrology: New York, Wiley, 336 p.
Turcan, A. N., Jr., 1963, Estimating the specific capacity of a well: U.S. Geological
Survey Propfessional Paper 450-E.
Viswanathiah, M. N., and Sastri, J. C. V., 1978, Specific capacity of wells in some
hard rocks of Karnataka: Journal of the Geological Society of India, v. 19 no. 9, p.
426-430.
White, W. B., 1988, Geomorphology and hydrology of Karst terrains: New York,
New York, Oxford University Press, 464 p.
Wallroth, Thomas, and Rosenbaum, M. S., 1996, Estimating the spatial variability of
specific capacity from a Swedish regional database: Middleton, M. F., ed., First
Nordic symposium on Petrophysics, Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 13, no. 4,
p. 457-461.
Walton, W. C., 1962, Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer evaluation:
Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 49, 81 p.
Walton, W. C., 1970, Groundwater resource evaluation: New York, McGraw-Hill.
Walton, W. C., and Neill, J. C., 1963, Statistical analysis of specific-capacity data for
a dolomite aquifer: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 68, no. 8, p. 2251-2262.
Westly, R. L., 1993, Using specific capacity testing to evaluate aquifer producing
zones during borehole advancement: The Professional Geologist, v. 30, no. 9, p.
5-6.
White, F. M., 1994, Fluid Mechanics, Third Edition: McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
736 p.
Winter, T. C., 1981, Uncertainties in estimating the water balance of lakes: Water
Resources Bulletin, v. 17, no. 1, p. 82-115.
Wynne, D. B., 1992, Specific capacity and slug testing; an overview and empirical
comparison of their uses in preliminarily estimating hydraulic conductivity:
Stanley, Anita (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth national outdoor conference on
Aquifer restoration, ground water monitoring, geophysical methods; a conference
and exposition, Ground Water Management, v. 11, p. 217-230, 1992.
Yin, Z.-Y., and Brook, G. A., 1992, The topographic appraoch to locating high-yield
wells in crystalline rocks- Does it work? Ground Water, v. 30, no. 1, p. 96-102.
Zeizel, A. J., 1963, Hydrogeologic factors influencing well yields in the Silurian
dolomite aquifer, northeastern Illinois: Geological Society of America Special
Paper, 267 p.
70
Zeizel, A. J., Walton, W. C., Prickett, T. A., and Sasman, R. T., 1962, Ground-water
resources of DuPage County, Illinois: Illinois State Water Survey and Geological
Survey, Coop. Ground-Water Report No.2.

71
Appendix A: Estimating Transmissivity from Specific Capacity Data using the Theis and
others (1963) Equation Inside a Spreadsheet.

Theis and others (1963) developed an equation for estimating transmissivity, T ,
from specific capacity,
c
S ,

]
]
]
]
,
,
,
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
S r
Tt
T
S
w
p
c
2
25 . 2
ln
4
(A.1)
where
p
t is the time of pumping,
w
r is the well radius, and S is the storativity. However,
transmissivity cannot be directly solved and instead must be solved either using tables or
iteratively. The iterative solution can be done manually, using a computer program
written to solve the equation, or within a spreadsheet. This appendix describes a
technique for solving the above equation using a spreadsheet.
Solving equation A.1 in a spreadsheet takes advantage of a spreadsheets ability to
iterate over circular calculations. The first step is to solve equation A.1 for the
transmissivity term in the numerator:

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
S r
Tt
S
T
w
p
c
2
25 . 2
ln
4
. (A.2)
The idea here is to solve for T in the left-hand side of equation A.2. This can be done
manually (hopefully with a calculator) by substituting the appropriate values for
c
S ,
p
t ,
w
r , and S and an initial guess for T (the value for
c
S is generally a good start) on the
right-hand side of equation A.2. The resulting T from this calculation is then substituted
back into the right-hand side of the equation. This operation is repeated until the
72
difference between the T substituted into the right-hand side of the equation and the
calculated T is small.
The iterations described above can be performed automatically in a spreadsheet
with an iteration option. First, in an open spreadsheet, activate the iteration function and
set the number of iterations and maximum change (convergence criteria). This is done in
Microsoft Excel 97 for a PC under Tools-Options-Calculation. Check the iteration box,
set the number of iterations to 1,000, and the maximum change to 0.001 for units of
meters and days (this maximum change may be different for different units). Second, four
columns with the input data for
c
S ,
p
t ,
w
r , and S must be assigned (figure A.1). Third,
two columns for the calculations must be made. In the first of these columns (column E,
figure A.1), the specific capacity should be entered again as a value (not a cell reference
to the input column). This value is the initial guess for the solution of equation A.2. Then,
equation A.2 should be coded into the second of the calculation columns (column F,
figure A.1), with cell references to the input data and to the initial guess in the previous
column (column E, figure A.1). For Microsoft Excel, the equation to calculate
transmissivity for the above example for line 4 should be
=(A4/(4*PI()))*(ln((2.25*E4*B4)/(C4*C4*D4))) (A.3)
Now, overwrite the initial guess in column E with a cell reference to the result in column
4:
=F4 (A.4)
The two calculation cells should flicker with calculation until the values in both cells will
be the same with the solution. Remember to use consistent units.
A B C D E F
1
73
2 Sc tp rw S To T
3
4 100 2 0.2 0.00001 170.07 170.07
5
6

Figure A.1. Example spreadsheet to calculate the Theis and others (1963) equation.
74

75
Figures:

Time of pumping 0
pump turned on at rate Q
s
w
S
c

Q
s
w
Specific Capacity:
- measurement point

Figure 1. Data from a pumping test on a well completed in a confined aquifer. Before
time 0, the water level in the well is at equilibrium. After the pump is turned on,
water levels decline as the aquifer responds. The difference between the pumping
level and the equilibrium level is the drawdown. With increasing time, the change
in water level decreases. Specific capacity is determined from one point during the
test.
76

Time 0

Figure 2. Plot showing the decrease in specific capacity with increasing time of
pumping (after Jacob and Lohman, 1952).
77
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
-2
10
-4
10
-6
10
-8
10
-10
10
-12
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
Stabilization time, t
s
(days)
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
-1
.01
.1
1
10
1/u
S=
t
s

r
2
S
4uT
with:
u = 10
r = 0.15 m
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
Theis curve
-4

Figure 3. Time for water levels to stabilize after the initiation of pumping as a
function of transmissivity and storativity. Stabilization times,
s
t , are shown for u
= 10
-4
(based on a late portion of the Theis curve) and
w
r = 0.15 m for different
storativity values. The relationship describing the lines is shown in the upper right
hand corner and was derived from the equations of the Theis (1935) non-
equilibrium method for analyzing aquifer tests.
78
6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Log transmissivity, T (m
2
d
-1
)
C
t
r
w
2
S
C
= 10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6

Figure 4. Sensitivity of specific capacity to variation in transmissivity and a
parameter, C , that incorporates the effects of pumping time, well radius, and
storativity.
79
6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Log specific capacity, S
c
(m
2
d
-1
)
Range for alluvial aquifers
Range for fractured hard-rock aquifers

Figure 5. Relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity for alluvial and
fractued hard-rock aquifers using the Thomasson and others (1960) approach.
80

Figure 6. Example of an empirical relationship between transmissivity and specific
capacity for a karstic aquifer in Texas (Mace, 1997) showing (a) the best-fit line
(solid) and the 95-percent prediction intervals (dashed) for the linear fit and (b)
the best-fit lines for second and third order polynomials.
81
4 3 2 1 0
0
1
2
3
4
T 3.24 S
c
( )
0.81
R
2
0.80
n 48
Relationship from Mace (1997)
using data from Eagon and Johe (1970)
carbonate aquifer in northwestern Ohio
Razack and Huntley (1991)
heterogeneous alluvial aquifer
T 15.3 S
c
( )
0.67
R
2
0.63
n 215
Huntley and others (1992)
fractured batholith aquifer
n 129
T 0.12 S
c
( )
1.18
R
2
0.89
El-Naqa (1994)
fractured carbonate aquifer
n 237
R
2
0.95
T 1.81 S
c
( )
0.917
3 2 1 0 -1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Log specific capacity (m
2
d
-1
) Log specific capacity (m
2
d
-1
)
2
d
-1
2
d
-1
)
4 3 2 1 0
1
2
3
4
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
5 4 3 2 1 0
0
1
2
3
4
5

82
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
5 4 3 2 1
1
2
3
4
5
Mace (1997)
carbonate aquifer, Edwards
n 71
R
2
0.89
T 0.76 S
c
( )
1.08
Mace (1997)
carbonate aquifer, Floridan
n 14
R
2
0.80
T 1.23 S
c
( )
1.05
Fabbri (1997)
fractured carbonate aquifer
n 45
R
2
0.95
T 0.785 S
c
( )
1.07
this paper
sandstone aquifer, Trinity
n 147
R
2
0.55
3 2 1 0
0
1
2
3
T 2.75 S
c
( )
0.82
4 3 2 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
2
d
-1
2
d
-1
)
2
d
-1
2
d
-1
)
(e) (f)
(g) (h)

83
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
this paper
sandstone aquifer, Paluxy
n 28
R
2
0.57
T 3.16 S
c
( )
0.79
this paper
sandstone aquifer, Woodbine
n 33
R
2
0.45
T 1.51 S
c
( )
0.91
2
d
-1
)
3 2 1 0 -1
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
2
d
-1
)
this paper
limestone aquifer, Edwards-Trinity
n 46
R
2
0.82
T 0.78 S
c
( )
0.98
3 2 1 0
-1
0
1
2
3
4
2
d
-1
)
2
d
-1
)
this paper
sandstone aquifer, Edwards-Trinity
n 21
R
2
0.75
T 1.07 S
c
( )
1.01
(i) (j)
(k) (l)

84

Figure 7. Empirical relationships between transmissivity and specific capacity by (a)
Eagon and Johe (1972) for a carbonate aquifer (using specific capacity corrected
for turbulent well loss), (b) Razack and Huntley (1991) for a heterogeneous
alluvial aquifer, (c) Huntley and others (1992) for a fractured hard rock aquifer,
(d) El-Naqa (1994) for a fractured carbonate aquifer, (e) Mace (1997) for a karstic
aquifer in Texas, (f) Mace (1997, this paper) for a karstic aquifer in Florida, (g)
Fabbri (1997) for a fractured carbonate aquifer, (h, i, j) this paper for sandstone
aquifers, (k) this paper for a limestone aquifer, (l) this paper for a sandstone
aquifer, and (m) Mace and others (2000) for a sandstone aquifer.
85
100000 10000 1000 100 10 1
.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Specific capacity (m
2
d
-1
)
1
2
3
12
4
6
5
7
11
13
8
9
10

Figure 8. Comparison among the different empirical relationships and between the
empirical relationships and the analytical appraoches including (1) Eagon and Johe
(1972) for a carbonate aquifer, (2) Razack and Huntley (1991) for a heterogeneous
alluvial aquifer, (3) Huntley and others (1992) for a fractured hard rock aquifer, (4)
El-Naqa (1994) for a fractured carbonate aquifer, (5) Mace (1997) for a karstic aquifer
in Texas, (6) Mace (1997, this paper) for a karstic aquifer in Florida, (7) Fabbri
(1997) for a fractured carbonate aquifer, (8) this paper for a sandstone aquifer in
north-central Texas (Trinity aquifer), (9) this paper for a sandstone aquifer in north-
central Texas (Paluxy aquifer), (10) this paper for a sandstone aquifer in north-central
Texas (Woodbine aquifer), (11) the Thomasson and others (1960) approach for
alluvium, (12) the Thomasson and others (1960) approach for fractured hard rocks,
and (13) the Theis and others (1963) approach for an assumed value of C of 10
5
d m
-
86
2
. For the empirical relationships (lines 1-7), the length of the line corresponds to the
applicable range of the relationship and the prediction intervals are about an order of
magnitude. Note that line 7 is coincident with line 5.

87
10
-1
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Specific capacity (m
2
d
-1
)
0.0001
0.00001
10000
100000
1000
100
10
1

Figure 9: Relationship between measured specific capacity and pumping rate in the
Edwards aquifer. In general, areas of the aquifer with higher specific capacity are
tested with larger pumping rates.
88

Figure 10: Effect of well loss on specific capacity for dimensionless well loss where
1
CQB and
c
S
R is specific capacity corrected for well loss divided by the
measured specific capacity.
89
Q
B
C
1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500
0.0017
Q (gpm)
s
w
Q
1.28 10
6
( )
Q+ 1.21 10
3
s
w
Q
1
S
c

s
w
Q
CQ + B
0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Q (m
3
s
-1
)
0.0018
0.0019
0.0020
0.0021
0.0022
0.0023
0.0024
0.0025
0.0026
0.0027
0.0028
for s
w
in m and Q in m
3
d
-1
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Q (gpm)
n = 2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
0.06 0 0. 05 0.04 0. 03 0.02 0. 01 0. 07
Q (m
3
s
-1
)
0.001
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002

Figure 11: (a) Determining B and C from step-drawdown tests, (b) an example of
estimating B and C from a step-drawdown test, and (c) sensitivity to n for a
constant B and C.
90

Figure 12: Plot to estimate well loss from discharge rate (after Rao and others, 1991).
91
Edwards aquifer
Karst aquifer, Ohio
(Eagon and Johe, 1972)
Specific capacity, S
c
(m
2
d
-1
)
Best-fit line
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10
-7
10
-8
10
-9
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
QAb3554c

Figure 13: Relationship between specific capacity and well-loss constant showing the
best-fit line (solid) and the 95-percent prediction intervals (dashed). Data points
are from the Edwards aquifer (Mace, 1997) and a karst aquifer in northwestern
Ohio (Eagon and Johe, 1972).
92

Figure 14: Comparison between measured well loss (determined from step-drawdown
tests) and well loss estimated from (1) an empirical relationship between specific
capacity and well-loss constant and (2) pipe-flow theory.
93
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Production rate (gpm)
10000

Figure 15: Production rates for specific-capacity tests in the Edwards aquifer where
there was no measurable drawdown. Multiply gpm by 0.00068 to get m
3
s
-1
.
94
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
.0001
.001
.01
.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Transmissivity (ft2/d)

Figure 16: The minimum production rate required to produce at least a foot of
drawdown for a given transmissivity assuming a production time of 8 hrs, a well
radius of 4 in, and a storativity of 10
-4
.
95

Figure 17: Empirical relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity for the
Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer of east-central Texas.
96

Figure 18: Comparison on the errors between using the empirical approach and the
analytical appraoch to estimating transmissivity from specific capacity in the
Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer of east-central Texas.

Specific Capacity Well

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Specific Capacity Well

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mace dog-barking draft 9/11/00

, and the observed value, Y

t is based on (n-1) degrees of freedom where

SS sum of squares of the errors [~]

estimate of a true value at point

You might also like