Submitted:
12 September 2023
Posted:
13 September 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Technical modifications
3. Pumping tests analyses
4. Results
4.1. Coastal Aquifer
4.1.1. Boreholes description
- a. YN-203 & YN-203a
- Screen length: The screen lengths in both boreholes are the same- 21 meters.
- Screen diameter: The screen diameter in YN-203a is 16”, whereas in YN-203 it is 12¾” (Figure 4).
- Screen open area (%): in YN-203 it is 21%, whereas in YN-203a it is only ~12%.
- Gravel Pack: Sorted quartz gravel in YN-203, whereas glass beads in YN-203a.
- Step drawdown test results: Enhancement in the aquifer loss coefficient (B) and in the well loss coefficient (C) in YN-203a compared to the YN-203 (Table 1).
- b. YN-219 & YN-219a
- Screen length: The screen length in both boreholes is similar- 27 & 28 meters.
- The screen diameter: The screen diameter in YN-219a is 16” and in YN-219 is 10¾” (Figure 6).
- Screen open area (%): The screen open area in YN-219 is ~16%, whereas in YN-219a is only 12%.
- Gravel Pack: In YN-219 the gravel pack is built from sorted quartz, whereas in YN-219a the gravel pack in the aquifer section is built from glass beads.
- Step drawdown test results: Improvement in the aquifer loss coefficient (B) and in the well loss coefficient (C) in YN-219a compared to the YN-219 (Table 2).
- c. YN-210 & YN-210a
- A comprehensive comprehension between the two boreholes structure and the step drawdown tests results, the following observations can be gathered:
- Screen length: In YN-210 the screen length is about 33 meters distributed across three sections. In contrast, YN-210a has a screen of approximately 24 meters segregated into two sections. A reduction of 28% on the screen length.
- Screen diameter: The screen diameter in YN-210a is 16”, while in YN-210 it was 10¾” (Figure 8).
- Screen open area (%): The screen open area in YN-210 is 21%, whereas in YN-210a is only 12%.
- Gravel Pack: Sorted quartz gravel in YN-210, whereas glass beads in YN-210a.
- Step drawdown test results: The enhanced performance of the well loss coefficient (C) in borehole YN-210a, as opposed to the older borehole YN-210, can be attributed to the utilization of glass beads as a gravel pack in conjunction with enlargement in the screen diameter. In contrast, the calculated dynamic drawdown attributable to the aquifer loss coefficient (B) is higher in borehole YN-210a compared to the older borehole due to the shorter total screen length in the substituted borehole, as illustrated in Figure 8 and in Table 3.
4.2. Arava Valley
4.2.1. Boreholes description
- a. ID-7 and ID-7a
- Screen length: In borehole ID-7 the screen length is about 37 meters distributed in three sections and in borehole ID-7a the screen length is 41 meters also distributed in three sections. It is noteworthy, that the placement of the screens sections varies between the two boreholes. In the substituted borehole, the decision was to open an upper aquifer horizon that wasn’t utilized in the old borehole. Simultaneously, to give up the lower aquifer horizon which was believed to be the origin of the relatively high salinity observed in the old borehole.
- Screen diameter: The screen diameter in ID-7a is 16”, in contrast to its old borehole, ID-7, wherein the screen diameter is 8 5/8” (Figure 10).
- Screen open area (%): Both boreholes exhibit similar open area percentage of 21%
- Gravel Pack: The gravel pack in ID-7 borehole was sorted quartz, whereas in ID-7 the gravel pack is glass beads.
- Step drawdown test results: Enhancement in Aquifer Loss coefficient (B) and Well Loss coefficient (C) in the substituted borehole ID-7a compared to the old borehole ID-7 (Table 4).
- b. HZ-12 and HZ-12a
- Screen length: In HZ-12 the total length of the screen is about 27 meters, distributed in four segments and in the substituted borehole HZ-12a the total length is 39 meters, distributed in six segments. In the substituted borehole there are two additional screen segments in upper aquifer horizons at a depth between 93 meters to 106 meters. This horizon wasn’t employed in the old borehole.
- Screen diameter: The screen diameter in HZ-12a is 16” and in ID-7 the diameter is 10¾” (Figure 12).
- Screen open area (%): The screen open area in HZ-12 is 21%, whereas in HZ-12a is only 12%.
- Gravel Pack: The gravel pack material in HZ-12 was sorted quartz (in the baskets and outside), whereas in HZ-12a the gravel page is glass beads.
- Step drawdown test results: Enhancement in Aquifer Loss coefficient (B) and Well Loss coefficient (C) in the substituted borehole HZ-12a compared to the old borehole HZ-12 (Table 5).
- c. SM-113 and SM-113a
- Screen length: In SM-113 the total length is about 49 meters distributed in two segments and in SM-113a the total length is 68 meters distributed in four segments. In the substituted borehole there is an additional screen segment in upper aquifer horizons at a depth between 101 meters to 125 meters. This horizon wasn’t employed in the old borehole.
- Screen diameter: The screen diameter in SM-113a (Figure 14) is Muni-Pak screen 316-L type 16” x 20” (20” outer diameter and 16” inner diameter). The space is replete with glass beads. In contrast, SM-113 employs a screen diameter of 8 5/8”.
- Screen open area (%): In SM-113 the percentage of the open area is 10% only. The absence of gravel pack and the presence of fine sand along the aquifer section, force us to use screen with smaller slot width of 0.375 mm. The use of Muni-Pak screen type in the substituted borehole made it possible to increase the slot width to 0.8 mm and to obtain a larger open area of about 18%
- Gravel Pack: In SM-113 gravel pack wasn’t installed. The creating of “natural” gravel pack didn’t prevent the entrance of fine sand. While, in the substituted borehole SM-113a, gravel pack consisting of glass beads was incorporated supplementing to the glass beads lining between the inner and outer Muni-Pak screen pipe. The use of gravel pack in the substituted borehole solved the fine sand problem and the pumped water does not contain sand.
- Step drawdown test results: Enhancement in Aquifer Loss coefficient (B) and Well Loss coefficient (C) in the substituted borehole SM-113a compared to the old borehole SM-113 (Table 6).
5. Discussion and conclusion
- Screen length: longer screen section is a pivotal factor that contributes to the improvement of the hydraulic properties of the substituted borehole.
- Gravel pack type: using glass beads as a gravel pack emerges as a principal contributor driving improvements in the hydraulic parameters of the substituted boreholes.
- Screen diameter: enlarging the diameter increases the flexibility during the pump installation and future rehabilitation.
- Percentage of screen open area: achievement an enhancement in the hydraulic parameters in substituted borehole where the open screen area percentage is smaller than in the old borehole underscores that this factor, does not singularly suffice to explicate the enhancements in the hydraulic parameters.
- Screen material Type: the transition to 316L is notable.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cooper, H.H., Jr.; Jacob, C.E. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well-field history. Transactions. American Geophysical Union 1946, 27, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Driscoll, F.G. (1989). Groundwater & Wells (Second Edition); A comprehensive guide for the design, installation, and maintenance of water well. Johnson Filtration Systems Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota.
- Guttman, J.; Negev, I.; Rubin, G. Design and Testing of Recharge Wells in a Coastal Aquifer: Summary of a Field Scale Pilot Tests. Water 2017, 9, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacob, CE. (1950). Flow of groundwater. In: Rouse H (ed) Engineering hydraulics. Wiley, New York, pp 321–386.
- Lok, M.J. (2018). Analysis and improvement of well capacities in fine grained sand aquifers. Master Thesis Universiteit Utrecht, Nederland.
- Kloppmann, W., Negev, I. Guttman, J., Goren, O., Guerrot, C., Flehoc, C., Pettenati, M., Burg, A. (2018). Monitoring a man-made water cycle by multi-isotope tracers (B, S, O, H). Journal Science of the Total Environment 2018, 619–620, 272–280.
- Negev, I.; Guttman, J.; Kloppmann, W. The Use of Stable Water Isotopes as Tracers in Soil Aquifer Treatment (SAT) and in Regional Water Systems. Water 2017, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nutter, N.; Gin, G. (2016). Aquifer storage and recovery wells systems. Factory pump injection testing: Is this necessary? ISMAR9 conference, Mexico. Topic Theme M13.
- Pfannkuch, H-O, Mooers, H.D, Siegel, D.I, Quinn, J.J, Rosenberry, D.O, Alexander, S.C, (2021). Review: “Jacob’s Zoo”-how using Jacob’s method for aquifer testing leads to more intuitive understanding of aquifer characteristics. Hydrogeology Journal (2021) 29: 2001-2015. [CrossRef]
- Ram, R., Burg, A., Zappala, J.C, Yokochi, R., Yechieli, Y., Purtschert, R., Jiang, W., Lu Zheng-Tian, Mueller, P., Bernier, R., Adar, E. (2020). Identifying recharge processes into a vast “fossil” aquifer based on dynamic groundwater 81Kr age evaluation. Journal of Hydrology 587 (2020) 124946. [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, E.; Adar, E.; Issar, A.S.; Batelaan, O. definition of groundwater flow by environmental traces in the multiple aquifer system Southern Arava Valley, Israel. Journal of Hydrology 1990, 117, 339–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shalev, N.; Burg, A.; Gavrieli, I.; Lazar, B. Nitrate contamination sources in aquifers underlying cultivated fields in an arid region- The Arava Valley, Israel. Applied Geochemistry 2015, 63, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jhonson Screens-Muni-Pak screen specifications. https://www.environmental-expert.com/products/johnson-screens-muni-pak-screens-622023.
- Paparelli Alessandro e Figlio S.R.L. https://www.paparelliscreens.com/en.















| YN-203 | |||||
| Discharge (m3/hour) | Drawdown (meter) | Specific yield (m3/hour/m) | Aquifer Loss: B (meter) | Well Loss: C (meter) | Efficiency (%) |
| 125 | 8.45 | 14.79 | 7.22 | 1.16 | 86.13 |
| 245 | 18.30 | 13.39 | 14.15 | 4.47 | 76.01 |
| 327 | 27.10 | 12.07 | 18.89 | 7.96 | 70.37 |
| YN-203a | |||||
| 185 | 9.55 | 19.37 | 8.24 | 1.26 | 86.77 |
| 231 | 12.12 | 19.06 | 10.28 | 1.96 | 84.01 |
| 281 | 15.44 | 18.20 | 12.51 | 2.90 | 81.19 |
| 322 | 18.17 | 17.72 | 14.33 | 3.80 | 79.03 |
| YN-219 | |||||
| Discharge (m3/hour) | Drawdown (meter) | Specific yield (m3/hour/m) | Aquifer Loss: B (meter) | Well Loss: C (meter) | Efficiency (%) |
| 98 | 9.05 | 10.83 | 8.75 | 0.34 | 96.24 |
| 160 | 15.30 | 10.46 | 14.29 | 0.91 | 94.01 |
| 242 | 23.70 | 10.21 | 21.61 | 2.08 | 91.21 |
| 338 | 34.20 | 9.88 | 30.19 | 4.07 | 88.13 |
| YN-219a | |||||
| 160 | 10.16 | 15.75 | 9.63 | 0.51 | 94.97 |
| 212 | 13.59 | 15.60 | 12.76 | 0.90 | 93.44 |
| 260 | 17.04 | 15.26 | 15.65 | 1.35 | 92.07 |
| 312 | 20.71 | 15.07 | 18.78 | 1.94 | 90.64 |
| YN-210 | |||||
| Discharge (m3/hour) | Drawdown (meter) | Specific yield (m3/hour/m) | Aquifer Loss: B (meter) | Well Loss: C (meter) | Efficiency (%) |
| 106 | 3.82 | 27.75 | 3.49 | 0.37 | 90.45 |
| 203 | 8.05 | 25.22 | 6.69 | 1.35 | 83.19 |
| 240 | 10.00 | 24.00 | 7.91 | 1.89 | 80.17 |
| 341 | 14.88 | 22.92 | 11.24 | 3.81 | 74.65 |
| YN-210a | |||||
| 200 | 13.72 | 14.58 | 13.44 | 0.33 | 97.59 |
| 244 | 16.95 | 14.40 | 16.39 | 0.49 | 97.08 |
| 300 | 20.96 | 14.31 | 20.16 | 0.75 | 96.43 |
| 350 | 24.46 | 14.31 | 23.52 | 1.02 | 95.86 |
| ID-7 | |||||
| Discharge (m3/hour) | Drawdown (meter) | Specific yield (m3/hour/m) | Aquifer Loss: B (meter) | Well Loss: C (meter) | Efficiency (%) |
| 99 | 12.60 | 7.86 | 11.49 | 1.17 | 90.74 |
| 185 | 25.80 | 7.17 | 21.46 | 4.09 | 83.98 |
| 254 | 37.00 | 6.86 | 29.47 | 7.72 | 79.25 |
| ID-7a | |||||
| 130 | 8.40 | 15.48 | 7.99 | 0.40 | 95.27 |
| 200 | 13.20 | 15.15 | 12.30 | 0.94 | 92.91 |
| 279 | 19.00 | 14.68 | 17.15 | 1.83 | 90.38 |
| HZ-12 | |||||
| Discharge (m3/hour) | Drawdown (meter) | Specific yield (m3/hour/m) | Aquifer Loss: B (meter) | Well Loss: C (meter) | Efficiency (%) |
| 99 | 17.16 | 5.77 | 15.14 | 2.01 | 88.26 |
| 136 | 24.59 | 5.53 | 20.80 | 3.80 | 84.56 |
| 161 | 29.96 | 5.37 | 24.63 | 5.32 | 82.22 |
| HZ-12a | |||||
| 130 | 13.10 | 9.92 | 11.88 | 1.14 | 91.24 |
| 189 | 19.40 | 9.74 | 17.28 | 2.41 | 87.75 |
| 225 | 24.20 | 9.30 | 20.57 | 3.42 | 85.75 |
| SM-113 | |||||
| Discharge (m3/hour) | Drawdown (meter) | Specific yield (m3/hour/m) | Aquifer Loss: B (meter) | Well Loss: C (meter) | Efficiency (%) |
| 85 | 24.60 | 3.46 | 23.81 | 1.48 | 94.13 |
| 134 | 40.00 | 3.35 | 37.54 | 3.69 | 91.05 |
| 200 | 60.75 | 3.29 | 56.03 | 8.22 | 87.21 |
| SM-113a | |||||
| 91 | 16.01 | 5.68 | 15.77 | 0.39 | 97.61 |
| 165 | 30.52 | 5.41 | 28.59 | 1.27 | 95.75 |
| 227 | 41.11 | 5.52 | 39.94 | 2.40 | 94.25 |
| 300 | 56.30 | 5.33 | 51.99 | 4.19 | 92.54 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).