Journal ofof Groundwater

Journal Groundwater Science

Science and
and Engineering
Engineering Vol.4 No.3
Vol.4 No.2 Sept.
Jun. 2016

Comparison between Neuman (1975) and Jacob (1946)

application for analysing pumping test
data of unconfined aquifer
Dana Mawlood1*, Jwan Mustafa2
1
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Salahaddin, Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
2
General Directorate of Dams and Reservoirs, Ministry of Agricultural and Water Resources,
Erbil, Kurdistan region of Iraq.

Abstract: Pumping test of a water table aquifer is carried out to estimate the aquifer
parameters, the obtained data were analysed through the solution of both Neuman (1975) and
Jacob (1946) methods through AQTESOLV and Spreadsheet programs, the results of each
methods are compared to evaluate the applicability and accuracy of the solution theoretically
and practically. In the paper an example is presented, which is conducted for a constant rate
pumping test from Ohio, in Fairborn (near Dayton), and it supplied by S.E. Norris (U.S.
Geological Survey, Columbus, Ohio). The main objective of this study is to introduce both
program and the way of the applications, and compare the results and the hand on of both
programs in the field.

Keywords: Neuman (1975); Unconfined aquifer; Pumping test; AQTESOLV program;

Microsoft Excel (Spreadsheet) program

confined aquifer, then Jacob (1946) simplified

Introduction Theis solution for long time of pumping test and
small radial distance, both previous equations are
applicable for unconfined aquifer type, if the
Groundwater plays a major role in water supply
drawdown is very small compared to the saturated
and irrigation worldwide. With the growth of the
thickness of the aquifer, after that Hantush M S
population, the abstracting water increases and the
(1960) find a solution for leaky (semi-confined)
water level decreases, these may lead to effect on
aquifer, then Neuman S P in 1975 developed a
the groundwater management, and change the
solution for unconfined aquifer type unsteady-state
characteristics of the aquifer. The withdrawal
conditions, the application of all the previous
water from the aquifer required to testing of the
methods are derived based on the particular
aquifer in order to estimate the capacity of the well
assumptions. Nowadays many computer programs
and determine the accurate aquifer properties. The
and application are proposed to evaluate the test
test data were analysed through many methods
data and estimating the values of Transmissivity (T)
according to the situation of each locations. The
and Specific yield (Sy). In this paper the practical
first scientist was Theim in 1906 who developed a
pumping test data are analysed through
method for both confined and unconfined aquifer
AQTESOLV program and Spreadsheet by
according to the Dupuit assumptions in 1863, who
matching Neuman and Jacob solutions and the
governed the equation for flow in water table
results of each aquifer parameters are compared to
aquifer for steady state (equilibrium conditions).
evaluate the test data. There are many papers that
Later, Theis (1935) based on heat transfer derived
are presented to show the flow through the water
a method for transient groundwater flow in
table aquifers for example Zlotnik V and Ledder G,
.
*
(1992) determine the compressibility through
Corresponding author. E-mail: khmdana@gmail.com
Second author: Jwan Mustafa. E-mail: juan.sabah@yahoo.com unconfined aquifer, also Nwankwor G I et al.
http://gwse.iheg.org.cn 9
165
Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering Vol.4 No.2
No.3 Jun.
Sept.2016
2016

(1984) estimated the specific yield in unconfined
aquifer, and Neuman S P (1987) presented the
specific yield, and also Malama B (2011) proposed
alternative linearization of water table kinematic
condition (ZHAN H and Zlotnik V A, 2002;
Moench A F, 2004; Tartakovsky G D and Neuman
S P, 2007; Ni C F et al. 2015).
Dayton), supplied by S.E. Norris (U.S. Geological
survey, Columbus, Ohio). The pumping well is (26
m) deep, and is fully penetrated on the clay layer,
with the saturated thickness of 23 m, the detail of
the well is described in Fig. 1.

1 Hydrogeological conditions in the

study area

The pumped well located within glacial sand

and gravel, the pumping test is conducted in water
table aquifer by constant rate of 1 080 Gpm
(5 886 m3/day), the test results recorded in the
Fig. 1 Pumping well and observation well
observation well with a distance of 22 m. This
example is taken from Ohio, in Fairborn (near The pumping test results are shown in Table 1:

Table 1 Pumping test data results

Time (min) Drawdown (m) Time (min) Drawdown (m) Time (min) Drawdown (m) Time (min) Drawdown (m)
0.17 0.04 1.68 0.25 10 0.31 200 0.46
0.25 0.06 1.85 0.26 12 0.31 250 0.48
0.34 0.08 2 0.26 15 0.32 300 0.5
0.42 0.1 2.15 0.27 18 0.32 350 0.52
0.5 0.12 2.35 0.27 20 0.32 400 0.53
0.58 0.13 2.5 0.28 25 0.33 500 0.56
0.66 0.15 2.65 0.28 30 0.34 600 0.59
0.75 0.16 2.8 0.28 35 0.35 700 0.61
0.83 0.17 3 0.29 40 0.36 800 0.64
0.92 0.19 3.5 0.29 50 0.36 900 0.66
1 0.2 4 0.3 60 0.37 1 000 0.67
1.08 0.2 4.5 0.3 70 0.38 1 200 0.69
1.16 0.21 5 0.3 80 0.39 1 500 0.72
1.24 0.22 6 0.3 90 0.39 2 000 0.76
1.33 0.23 7 0.3 100 0.4 2 500 0.79
1.42 0.23 8 0.31 120 0.41 3 000 0.81
1.5 0.24 9 0.31 150 0.44

gravity drainage (Fetter C W, 2001). The solution

2 Methods and data analysis
2.1 Neuman (1975) solution
Neuman (1972, 1974, 1975, 1987) published a
solution for water table aquifer, which is divided
into two parts, one for the time just after pumping
has begun, and the other is for late time of
pumping, when the water is coming out under the
developed based on the following assumptions:
• The aquifer is unconfined.
• The vadose zone has influence on the drawdown.
• Water initially is pumped due to the elastic
storage.
• At the end water comes due to gravity drainage
of the aquifer.
• Drawdown is negligible compared with the
saturated thickness of the aquifer.

10
166 http://gwse.iheg.org.cn
 Journal ofof Groundwater
Journal Groundwater Science
Science and
and Engineering
Engineering Vol.4 No.3
Vol.4 No.2 Sept.
Jun. 2016

• The specific yield is 10 times of the elastic T: is the Transmissivity (L2/T).

Storativity. W(uA, uB, Γ): is Neuman well function.
• The aquifer may be–but does not have to be Early time: which behaves as elastic storage, and
anisotropic with the radial hydraulic conduc- the u value is equal to:
tivity different than the vertical hydraulic
conductivity. Intermediate time: which behaves as Leaky aquifer
The equation for water table aquifer is proposed and given by:
that the well function of W(uA, uB, Γ) for three
different phases, and the drawdown equation:
Late time: which behaves as Gravity drainage:
(1)
where: s:is drawdown (L)
The results of the data give S-curve shapes, (Fig. 2);
Q: is constant rate pumping test (L3/T).

Fig. 2 Pumping test results plot time versus drawdown

2.1.1 Application of Neuman solution by
AQTESOLV.
Neuman S P (1975) developed a method,
which is useful for determining the Transmissivity
(T), elastic storage coefficient (S), specific yield
(Sy), vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity
of water-table (Phreatic) aquifers. The solution
involves matching the drawdown data collected
during the pumping test. The implementation of
the Neuman solution in AQTESOLV includes
computational enhancements by Moench A F
(1993, 1996) as presented in (Fig. 3):

Fig. 3 Neuman solution by AQTESOLV

http://gwse.iheg.org.cn 11
167
Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering Vol.4 No.2
No.3 Jun.
Sept.2016
2016

input field data into the time versus drawdown

2.1.2 Neuman solution by Carlos Molano
column, to plot the field curve and matching on the
Spread sheet program
type curve by input trial and error number in a set
Carlos Molano developed a program in 2011 to of two columns, Fig. 4 shows the design of the
analyse pumping test data of unconfined aquifer program and the procedure:
through excel spreadsheet, the solution required

Fig. 4 Spreadsheet program designed by Carlos Molano (2011)

The procedure and detail of the work can be os_molano/Home,https://www.youtube.com/watch

obtained through the following sites ?v=oFwnragYCss)
(http://sites.google.com/a/hidrogeocol.com.co/carl

Fig. 5 Neman solution matching with Type A curve

12
168 http://gwse.iheg.org.cn
 Journal ofof Groundwater
Journal Groundwater Science
Science and
and Engineering
Engineering Vol.4 No.3
Vol.4 No.2 Sept.
Jun. 2016

Fig. 6 Neuman solution matching with Type B curve

Table 2 Results of Matchingwith type A curve straight line plotted between drawdown(s) and log
of time(t) on semi-log paper, and the equation
Type A curve output (Fetter C W, 2001):
η= 0.4
T (m²/day)= 1 170.98 (2)
S= 2.17×10-3
(3)
Sy= 21.73 Or:
b= 23
K(m/day)= 50.9 (4)
K'(m/day)= 24.4 where:
s: is drawdown [L]
Q: is constant rate pumping test [L³.T-1]
Table 3 Results of Matching with type B curve T: is Transmissivity [L².T-1]
S: is Storativity [unit less]
Type B curve output r: is radial distance [L]
η= 0.4 u : is well constant
T (m²/day)= 1 170.98 W(u): is well function
t: is time of pumping [T]
S= 2.03×10-4
∆s: is slope of the line per one log cycle [L]
Sy= 2.03 t。: is the initial time of pumping test at zero
b= 23 drawdown [T]
K(m/day)= 50.9 The program gives the solution by Jacob
K'(m/day)= 24.4 method for unconfined, if the drawdown is very
small compared to the saturated thickness of the
aquifer, and the adjustment should be make
2.2 Jacob (1946) solution: through the following equation:

(5)
2.2.1 The test data analyses by AQTESOLV where:
method:
s': is the drawdown adjusted (L)
Jacob (1946) developed a method for value of s: is the drawdown (L).
u<0.001, and small value of radial distance, the H: is the saturated thickness of the aquifer (L)
After drawdown adjustment, the Jacob
equation based on Theis C V (1935) equation, a
solution can be used for unconfined aquifer.
http://gwse.iheg.org.cn 13
169
Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering Vol.4 No.2
No.3 Jun.
Sept.2016
2016

Fig. 7 Jacob solution by AQTESOLV

2.2.2 The test data analyses by Spreadsheet Table 4 Results of Jacob solution
method:
Q(m³/day) 5 886
Δs(m)= 0.3
r(m)= 22
T(m²/day) 3 593.098
Sy= 0.081197

2.3 Results and discussions

The results of the pumping test data analysis by
to=6 min each methods, which are presented in Fig. 2 to
Fig. 8. The values of Transmissivity (T), and
Fig. 8 Jacob solution by Microsoft Excel
Storage Coefficient (S) are in the Table 5.
(spreadsheet) program

Table 5 The results of the aquifer parameters

Transmissivity Storage coefficient

Methods of solution
(m2/day) (S)

1 Neuman AQTESOLV 2 289 S=0.0025 Sy=0.296

2 Neuman spreadsheet 1 170.98 S=0.00217 Sy=2.03

3 Jacob AQTESOLV 3 592.2 Sy=0.083

4 Jacob spreadsheet 3 593.1 Sy=0.08

The value of Transmissivity matches with the standard range of Transmissivity, Table 6:

14
170 http://gwse.iheg.org.cn
 Journal ofof Groundwater
Journal Groundwater Science
Science and
and Engineering
Table 6 Classification of Transmissivity value according to Krásný J (1993)
Coefficient of Classification of
Transmissivity (m²/day) Transmissivity magnitude
>1 000
100 to 1 000
10 to 100
1 to10
0.1 to 1
<0.1
3 Conclusions
The pumping test results were analyzed using
Neuman graphical solution and Jacob straight line
solution, the application of both Neuman and Jacob
methods are used through the AQTESOLV and
spreadsheet program and the results were compared,
as presented in the Table 5. The results show that
the Jacob (1946) solution through both programs are
the similar, which the values of the Transmissivity
equal to 3 592.2 m2/day, 3 593.1 m2/day respec-
tively and the values of the specific yield Sy=0.082,
and 0.08, However the value of the Transmissivity
through AQTESOLV program is equal to
2 289 m2/day and the specific yield of Sy=0.296,
and Transmissivity through spreadsheet program is
equal 1 170.9 m2/day and the specific yield
Sy=2.03, it shows the differences between the two
program results. The values of all Transmissivity
are matched with the standard range of
Transmissivity, if comparing Table 5 with Table 6.
The reason behind is that the Neuman solution
depends on the trial and error between the field
data and the type curve and the superimposing the
two curves faced to more difficulties during the
test data analysis, however the hand on of the both
program may improve the quality of the results.
Also, the results of both methods cleared that,
if the drawdown adjusted for unconfined aquifer, it
is more applicable to analysis the data by Jacob
solution, however, the application of Neuman
depends on the matching with type curve, this may
produce the approximate values of results not
exactly, this difference is clearly explained in
results of data analysis, in contrast, in case of
unconfined aquifer, the results of Transmissivity is
no longer constant, which is the main difference
http://gwse.iheg.org.cn
Engineering Vol.4 No.3
Vol.4 No.2 Sept.
Jun. 2016
Designation of Transmissivity
magnitude
I Very high
II High
III Intermediate
V Low
IV Very low
VI Imperceptible
with confined aquifer condition, and it is observed
the values of the Transmissivity decrease with
increasing of the drawdown under the assumptions
of isotropic unconfined aquifer, so that it is
recommended to adjust the drawdown in a certain
measurement.
References
Boulton N S. 1954. The drawdown of the
water-table under non-steady conditions near
a pumped well in an unconfined formation.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, 3(4): 564–579.
Boulton N S. 1955. Unsteady radial flow to a
pumped well allowing for delayed yield from
storage. International Association of Scientific
Hydrology Publication, 37: 472–477.
Boulton N S. 1963. Analysis of data from
non-equilibrium pumping tests allowing for
delayed yield from storage. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, 26(3):
469–482.
Boulton N S. 1970. Analysis of data from pumping
tests in unconfined anisotropic aquifers.
Journal of Hydrology, 10(4): 369–378.
Cooper H H, Jacob C E. 1946. A generalized
graphical method for evaluating formation
constants and summarizing well field history.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical
Union, 27(4): 526–534.
CHEN Xun-hong, Goeke J, Summerside S. 1999.
Hydraulic properties and uncertainly analysis
for an unconfined alluvial aquifer, 37(6):
845–854.
Fetter C W. 2001. Applied hydrogeology (4th ed.).
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, 598.
Hantush M S. 1960. Modification of the theory of
15
171
Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering
leaky aquifers. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 65(11): 3713–3725.
Krásný J. 1993. Classification of transmissivity
magnitude and variation. Ground Water, 31(2):
230–236.
Malama B. 2011. Alternative linearization of water
table kinematic condition for unconfined
aquifer pumping test modeling and its
implications for specific yield estimates.
Journal of Hydrology, 399(3): 141–147.
Mishra P K, Neuman S P. 2010. Improved forward
and inverse analyses of saturated-unsaturated
flow toward a well in a compressible
unconfined aquifer. Water Resources
Research, 46(7).
Mishra P K, Neuman S P. 2011. Saturated-
unsaturated flow to a well with storage in a
compressible unconfined aquifer. Water
Resources Research, 47(5).
Moench A F. 1993. Computation of type curves for
flow to partially penetrating wells in
water-table aquifers. Ground Water, 31(6):
966–971.
Moench A F. 1995. Combining the Neuman and
Boulton models for flow to a well in an
unconfined aquifer. Ground Water, 33(3):
378–384.
Moench A F. 1996. Flow to a well in a water-table
aquifer: An improved laplace transform
solution. Ground Water, 34(4): 593–596.
Moench A F. 1997. Flow to a well of finite
diameter in a homogeneous, anisotropic water
table aquifer. Water Resources Research,
33(6): 1397–1407.
Moench A F. 1998. Correction to “Flow to a well
of finite diameter in a homogeneous,
anisotropic water table aquifer”. Water
Resources Research, 34(9): 2431–2432.
Moench A F. 2004. Importance of the vadose zone
in analyses of unconfined aquifer tests.
Ground Water, 42(2): 223.
Moench A F, Garabedian S P, LeBlanc D R. 2001.
Estimation of hydraulic parameters from an
unconfined aquifer test conducted in a glacial
outwash deposit, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
Massachusetts: US Geological Survey.
Moench A F, Prickett T A. 1972. Radial flow in an
infinite aquifer undergoing conversion from
artesian to water table conditions. Water
Resources Research, 8(2): 494–499.
16
172
Vol.4 No.2
No.3 Jun.
Sept.2016
2016
Narasimhan T N, ZHU M. 1993. Transient flow of
water to a well in an unconfined aquifer:
Applicability of some conceptual models.
Water Resources Research, 29(1): 179–191.
Neuman S P. 1972. Theory of flow in unconfined
aquifers considering delayed gravity response
of the water table. Water Resources Research,
8(4):1031–1045.
Neuman S P. 1973. Supplementary comments on
“Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers
considering delayed gravity response of the
water table”. Water Resources Research, 9(4):
1102–1103.
Neuman S P. 1974. Effect of partial penetration on
flow in unconfined aquifers considering
delayed gravity response. Water Resources
Research, 10(2): 303–312.
Neuman S P. 1975. Analysis of pumping test data
from anisotropic unconfined aquifers
considering delayed gravity response. Water
Resources Research, 11(2): 329–342.
Neuman S P. 1979. Perspective on “delayed yield”.
Water resources research, 15(4): 899-908.
Neuman S P. 1987. On methods of determining
specific yield. Ground Water, 25(6): 679–684.
Ni C F, Huang Y J, et al. Sequential hydraulic tests
for transient and highly permeable unconfined
aquifer systems–model development and
field-scale implementation. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences Discussions, 12:
12567–12613.
Nwankwor G I, Cherry J A, Gillham R W. 1984. A
comparative study of specific yield
determinations for a shallow sand aquifer.
Ground Water, 22(6): 764–772.
Nwankwor G I, Gillham R W, et al. 1992.
Unsaturated and saturated flow in response to
pumping of an unconfined aquifer: Field
evidence of delayed drainage. Ground Water,
30(5): 690–700.
Prickett T A. 1965. Type-curve solution to aquifer
tests under water-table conditions. Ground
Water, 3(3): 5–14.
Streltsova T D. 1972a. Unconfined aquifer and
slow drainage. Journal of Hydrology, 16(2):
117–124.
Streltsova T D. 1972b. Unsteady radial flow in an
unconfined aquifer. Water Resources
Research, 8(4): 1059–1066.
http://gwse.iheg.org.cn
 Journal ofof Groundwater
Journal Groundwater Science
Science and
Streltsova T D. 1973. Flow near a pumped well in
an unconfined aquifer under nonsteady
conditions. Water Resources Research, 9(1):
227–235.
Streltsova T D. 1974. Drawdown in compressible
unconfined aquifer. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 100(11): 1601–1616.
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. Eos, Transactions
American Geophysical Union, 16(2): 519–
524.
http://gwse.iheg.org.cn
and Engineering
Engineering Vol.4 No.3
Vol.4 No.2 Sept.
Jun. 2016
Zhan H, Zlotnik V A. 2002. Groundwater flow to a
horizontal or slanted well in an unconfined
aquifer. Water Resources Research, 38(7).
Tartakovsky G D, Neuman S P. 2007. Three-
dimensional saturated-unsaturated flow with
axial symmetry to a partially penetrating well
in a compressible unconfined aquifer. Water
Resources Research, 43(1).
Zlotnik V, Ledder G. 1992. Groundwater flow in a
compressible unconfined aquifer with
uniform circular recharge. Water Resources
Research, 28(6): 1619–1630.
17
173