터널과지하공간 (Tunnel and Underground Space)

  • 제19권4호
  • /
  • Pages.348-354
  • /
  • 2009
  • /
  • 1225-1275(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-1748(eISSN)
한국암반공학회 (Korean Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering)
권호 표지

암반대수층 내 순간충격시험 시 관찰된 요동반응의 해석

Analysis of oscillatory responses of slug tests in a crystalline rock aquifer

  • 류일호 (한국원자력연구원 방사성폐기물기술개발부) ;
  • 지성훈 (한국원자력연구원 방사성폐기물기술개발부) ;
  • 고용권 (한국원자력연구원 방사성폐기물기술개발부)
  • 발행 : 2009.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

순간충격시험은 대수층의 수리특성을 빠르고 효과적으로 측정할 수 있는 가장 일반적인 방법이다. 한국원 자력연구원(KAERI) 부지 내 YS-4 시추공에서 부지의 수리특성을 알아보기 위하여 순간충격시험을 수행하였고, 그 결과 일반적인 수리반응과 다른 요동수리반응을 관찰하였다. 이 반응결과를 일반적인 해석방법과 시추공내 유체의 관성 영향을 고려한 해석방법으로 해석하여 각각 비교하였다. 그 결과 일반적인 해석 방법으로는 수리전도도가 $3.10{\times}10^{-6}{\sim}3.63{\times}10^{-5}$ m/sec로 예측되어 해석결과의 차이가 크게 나타났지만, 유체의 관성효과를 고려하였을 때는 $4.85{\times}10^{-6}{\sim}5.44{\times}10^{-6}$ m/sec로 그 해석결과가 거의 비슷하였다. 이는 순간충격시험 시 요동수리 반응은 반드시 공내 유체의 관성 효과를 고려하여 해석하여야 함을 보여준다.

Slug test is a common characterization method that estimates aquifer hydraulic conductivity rapidly and economically. To characterize the hydraulic property near the borehole YS-4 in the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) site, slug tests were performed, and oscillatory hydraulic responses were observed. We analyzed the observations with the modified Hvorslev and Bouwer&Rice methods considering the casing inertia, and then the results were compared with those from the general Hvorslev and Bouwer&Rice methods. The estimated hydraulic conductivities from the modified methods are ranged from $4.85{\times}10^{-6}$ to $5.44{\times}10^{-6}$ m/sec, but those from the general ones are ranged from $3.10{\times}10^{-6}$ to $3.63{\times}10^{-5}$ m/s, which shows that the oscillatory responses should be analyzed with consideration of the flowing water inertia effect.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Belitz, K., W. Dripps and J.E. Fairchild, 1995, Slug tests in elastic, unconfined aquifers: Incorporating the free surface, Water Resour. Res., 31, 3329-3336 https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR02568
  2. Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice, 1976, A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells, Water Resour. Res., 12, 423-428 https://doi.org/10.1029/WR012i003p00423
  3. Butler, J.J., E.J. Garnett and J.M. Healey, 2003, Analysis of slug tests in formations of high hydraulic conductivity, Ground Water, 41, 620-630 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02400.x
  4. Cooper, H.H., J.D. Bredehoeft, S.S. Papadopulos, 1967, Response of a finite diameter-well to an instantaneous charge of water, Water Resour. Res., 3, 263-269 https://doi.org/10.1029/WR003i001p00263
  5. Hvorslev, M.J., 1951, Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations, U.S. Army Corps of Eng., Waterways Exp. Stn. Vicksburg, MS. Bull. 36, 56 pp
  6. Neuzil, C.E., 1982, On conducting the modified slug test in tight formations, Water Resour. Res., 18, 439-441 https://doi.org/10.1029/WR018i002p00439
  7. Ostendorf, D.W., D.J. DeGroot, P.J. Dunaj and J. Jakubowski, 2005, A closed form slug test theory for high permeable aquifers, Ground Water, 43, 87-101 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.tb02288.x
  8. Springer, R.K. and L.W. Gelhar, 1991, Characterization of large scale aquifer heterogeneity in glacial outwash by analysis of slug tests with oscillatory response, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Monterey, California, March 11-15, 1991, edited by G. Mallard and D. Aronson, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Res. Invest. Rep. 91-4034, pp. 3-40, Reston, Va
  9. van der Kamp, G., 1976, Determining aquifer transmissivity by means of well response tests: The underdamped case, Water Resour. Res., 12, 71-77 https://doi.org/10.1029/WR012i001p00071
  10. Zlotnik, V.A., 1994, Interpretation of slug and packer tests in anisotropic aquifers, Ground Water, 32, 761-766 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1994.tb00917.x
  11. Zlotnik, V.A. and V.L. McGuire, 1998a, Multi-level slug tests in highly permeable formation: 1. Modification of the Springer-Gelhar (SG) model, J. Hydrol., 204, 271-282 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00128-5
  12. Zlotnik, V.A. and V.L. McGuire, 1998b, Multi-level slug tests in highly permeable formation: 2. Hydraulic conductivity identification, method verification, and field applications, J. Hydrol., 204, 283-296 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00127-3
  13. Zurbuchen, B.R., V.A. Zlotnik and J.J. Butlter, 2002, Dynamic interpretation of slug tests in highly permeable aquifer, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1025, doi:10.1029/2001WR000354