Question 5 of 5: Groundwater Exploration Methods, K-Determination Methods, and Slug vs. Pump Tests

Question 5: Groundwater Exploration Methods, K-Determination Methods, and Slug vs. Pump Tests (equal value)

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

Part (a) compares four complementary tools an engineering geologist assembles into a groundwater exploration program, each probing the subsurface at a different scale and cost. Surface geophysics (electrical resistivity, seismic refraction, ground-penetrating radar, electromagnetics) images subsurface layering and the water table indirectly through contrasts in electrical or elastic properties. Advantages: (1) it is non-invasive and covers large areas quickly and cheaply relative to drilling, so a whole subdivision footprint can be screened before a single hole is drilled; (2) it provides continuous spatial coverage between boreholes, revealing lateral structure (buried valleys, fracture zones, the aquifer/bedrock contact) that point data alone would miss. Disadvantages: (1) results are inherently non-unique and ambiguous — a given resistivity or velocity signature can be produced by more than one geologic condition, so misinterpretation is a real risk without ground-truthing; (2) resolution degrades with depth and can be defeated by cultural noise (buried utilities, fences, powerlines) or clay-rich near-surface layers that mask deeper signals.

Remote sensing (satellite/aerial imagery, LiDAR, thermal infrared) identifies surface expressions of groundwater — lineaments suggesting fracture-controlled flow, vegetation vigour, seeps and springs, or topographic sag. Advantages: (1) it is the cheapest and fastest way to screen a very large area and target follow-up work, often before site access is even arranged; (2) it can reveal regional structural controls (fault and joint trends) that control fracture-flow aquifers and would otherwise only emerge after extensive drilling. Disadvantages: (1) it only sees the surface expression of groundwater conditions, so it says nothing directly about depth, thickness, or yield of an aquifer; (2) it can be defeated by vegetation cover, cloud cover, or a thick veneer of surficial deposits that masks the bedrock structure being targeted.

Geological mapping (surface and subsurface stratigraphy, structure, geomorphology) builds the conceptual framework — which units are aquifers, which are aquitards, and how they are juxtaposed structurally. Advantages: (1) it is inexpensive, uses existing outcrop and published data, and directly identifies lithologies with known water-bearing character; (2) it constrains the conceptual hydrogeological model (recharge areas, likely flow directions, aquifer geometry) that all other methods are then interpreted against. Disadvantages: (1) it is limited to what is exposed at surface or already logged, so it says little about a target unit that is deeply buried or poorly exposed; (2) it is only as reliable as the mapping geologist's interpretation and extrapolation between control points, which can be wrong in structurally complex terrain.

Borehole investigation (test drilling, geophysical logging, sampling, packer/slug/pump testing) is the only method that provides direct, quantitative ground-truth. Advantages: (1) it gives direct measurement of lithology, water levels, and — via testing — actual hydraulic properties ($K$, $T$, $S$) rather than an inferred proxy; (2) it is the only method that can obtain a representative water-quality sample and confirm actual yield. Disadvantages: (1) it is by far the most expensive method per data point and provides only a single vertical line of information, so it is poor at resolving lateral variability without many holes; (2) it is invasive and can itself create a pathway for cross-contamination between aquifers if not properly sealed and abandoned.

(b) Three methods to determine the hydraulic conductivity of soil at a site. (1) Field (aquifer) pumping tests — pump a well at a controlled rate and monitor drawdown vs. time/distance in observation wells, then fit a Theis-type (or leaky, or unconfined) type curve to back out $T$ and hence $K=T/b$; this is the most reliable method because it averages $K$ over a large, representative volume of the actual aquifer. (2) Slug tests — instantaneously raise or lower the water level in a single well and record its recovery, fitting the recovery curve (Hvorslev or Bouwer–Rice method) to obtain a local $K$ near that well. (3) Laboratory permeameter tests (constant-head, as in Q1c, for coarse-grained soils; falling-head for fine-grained soils) on an undisturbed or reconstituted sample, applying $K=QL/(Aht)$ or the falling-head equivalent. A fourth, lower-precision option worth naming is empirical grain-size correlation (e.g., the Hazen approximation $K\approx C\,d_{10}^2$), useful for a first estimate before any testing is done.

(c) Slug tests vs. pump tests. Both estimate hydraulic conductivity from a well's response to a hydraulic stress, but they differ sharply in cost, scale, and what they actually measure. Advantages of slug tests: (1) they are fast (minutes to hours) and inexpensive — no pump, no discharge water to manage or dispose of, no observation-well network required, so many wells across a site can be tested economically; (2) because the induced head change is small and local, they are well suited to low-yield formations or contaminated sites where pumping and disposing of large volumes of water is undesirable or restricted. Disadvantages of slug tests: (1) they sample only a small radius of influence immediately around the well (often just metres), so the result reflects local, near-well conditions — including any near-well skin effects from well construction/development — rather than a representative bulk aquifer value; (2) they cannot directly determine storativity $S$ or transmissivity $T$ over any meaningful distance, and are far more sensitive to well construction artifacts (partial penetration, filter-pack effects) than a pumping test.

Advantages of pump tests: (1) they stress and average over a much larger volume of aquifer — particularly when multiple observation wells at different radii are used — giving $T$, $S$, and $K$ values that are far more representative of true aquifer-scale behaviour, and can also reveal boundary effects (recharge or barrier boundaries) invisible to a slug test; (2) they directly test well yield and long-term performance under conditions that mimic actual operation, which is exactly the information a water-supply design needs. Disadvantages of pump tests: (1) they are far more expensive and time-consuming, requiring a test pump, generator, discharge management/disposal, and often a network of monitoring wells; (2) at a contaminated or environmentally sensitive site, pumping and disposing of large volumes of potentially impacted water can itself create a regulatory and handling problem that a slug test avoids entirely.