臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

含水層特性可藉由現地採樣獲取土樣，再經由實驗室試驗求得，但可能因為取樣規模較小等因素，所取得土樣僅代表單點或是小區域之地質特性，並無法反應出現地水力特性，導致實驗室試驗所獲得水力特性與現地試驗結果不盡相同；有鑑於此，吾人以現地鑽孔之抽水試驗為優先考量。本研究利用國立雲林科技大學校園內地下水位監測場址進行現地抽水試驗，改良傳統抽水試驗進行方法(抽水井及觀測井固定)，採抽水井與觀測井更替試驗方式，以增加現地抽水試驗洩降資料；同時也運用VSAFT2數值程式，引入水力斷層掃描(Hydraulic Tomography)概念，利用循序連續線性估計元及資料融合技術，採逆推方法配合水力斷層掃描所獲訊息，推估較貼近現地含水層之水力參數；並利用現地抽水試驗洩降資料，驗證上述推求之現地水力參數分佈，確立水力掃描技術應用於現地之可行性。本研究發現，在二維地下水流場模式中欲使水力斷層掃描效果較佳時，利用增加觀測井數量為優先考量，其次為試驗次數與已知水力傳導係數K數量。本研究經由水力斷層掃描所求得水力傳導係數K分佈之平均值為1.66(m/day)，相等於1.92E-05(m/s)，其值介於粉砂與泥沙標準水力傳導係數值1.00E-05(m/s)~6.00E-05(m/s)間(Bear,1979)，就現地地質特性多為粉質細砂，應屬合理，初步判定水力斷層掃描能運用於現地抽水試驗上。

Characteristics of aquifers can be obtained by in-situ soil sampling and laboratorial calculation. However, due to small-scale sampling, soil samples merely represent geological features of single points or small areas so that soil samples can’t reveal in-situ hydraulic characteristics. The problem also leaded to difference between hydraulic characteristics gained from laboratories and from in-situ experiments. Because of the difference, this study considered in-situ drill pumping test as the first priority.

The study took groundwater monitoring fields in the campus of National Yunlin University of Science & Technology to carry out in-situ pumping tests. In order to improve traditional methods of pumping tests (fixed pumping wells and monitoring wells), the study alternated pumping wells and monitoring wells to increase draw-down information. Simultaneously, the study applied VSAFT2 numerical programming, introduced concepts of Hydraulic Tomography, used Consequentially Linear Estimation and Data-Hybrid techniques and adopted Inverse Method combined with information gained from Hydraulic Tomography to calculate hydraulic parameters which are close to characteristics of in-situ aquifers.

Additionally, the study used in-situ draw-down information of pumping tests to verify the distribution of hydraulic parameters that are mentioned above to ascertain the feasibility of application of Hydraulic Tomography on in-situ tests.
According to results of the study, in order to gain better results of Hydraulic Tomography in 2-D groundwater flow-field models, the study increased monitoring wells as primary consideration, and took times of testing and known hydraulic parameters as secondary consideration. By estimation fields of inverse-calculation hydraulic parameter gained from Hydraulic Tomography, the average hydraulic parameter K (1.66m/day, 1.92E-05 m/s). The value is between standard hydraulic conductivity of powder sand and standard hydraulic conductivity of sand (1.00E-05 m/s~6.00E-05 m/s) (Bear, 1979). Since in-situ geological characteristics mainly belonged to powder sand, it is reasonable to primarily verify that Hydraulic Tomography can be applied to in-situ pumping tests.

摘要 iii
誌謝 v
目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 viii
一、 緒論 1
1.1 前言 1
1.2 研究動機 4
1.3 研究目的 4
1.4 研究架構 5
二、 文獻回顧 7
三、 現地抽水試驗介紹 15
3-1 試驗場址介紹 15
3.2 抽水試驗流程介紹 20
3.3 抽水設備介紹 21
3.4 試驗儀器率定 28
3.5 監測設備紀錄頻率 30
3.6 抽水試驗步驟 32
四、 理論分析 39
4.1 VSAFT2理論基礎 41
4.2 水力斷層掃描(Hydraulic Tomography) 43
4.3 循序連續線性估計元 44
五、 結果與討論 47
5.1 水力斷層掃描分析 51
5.2 現地場址地下水流分佈場 52
5.2.1 模式設置 54
5.2.2 現地水頭資料之水力斷層掃描分析成果 57
六、 結論與建議 64
6.1 結論 64
6.2 建議 66
參考文獻 67

1.Batu,1998, V. Aquifer Hydraulics：“A Comprehensive Guide to Hydrogeologic Data Analysis. New York”：John Wiley ＆ Sons.
2.Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York.
3.Butler, J. J. Jr. ,1991.“A Stochastic Analysis of Pumping Tests in Laterally Non-uniform Media”, Water Resources Research, vol. 27(9), pp.2401-2414.
4.Cedergren, H.R. 1997.“Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets.”New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5.Cooper, H.H. and Jacob, C.E.1946. “A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history”. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 27,526-534.
6.Copty, N. K. and A. N. Findikakis.2004.“Stochastic analysis of pumping test drawdown data in heterogeneous geologic formations”, J. of Hydr. Res. vol.42, pp. 59-67.
7.Halford, K. J., W. D. Weight, and R. P. Schreiber. 2006. “Interpretation of transmissivity estimates from single-well pumping aquifer tests.”Ground Water. v. 44, no. 3, pp. 467-471.
8.Hantush, M.S.1966.“Analysis of data from pumping test in anisotropic aquifers.” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 71, pp. 421-426.
9.Heilweil, V.M., and P.A. Hsieh.2006. “Determining anisotropic transmissivity using a simplified Papadopoulos method.” Ground Water doi: 10.1111/j.1754- 6584.2006.00210.x.
10.Jin-Yong Lee and Kang-Kun Lee,1992. “Analysis of the quality of parameter estimates from repeated pumping and slug tests in fractured aquifer system in Wonju, Korea”, Ground Water, vol. 37, no. 5, pp1531-1537.
11.Kern,J.W.,and C.W. Dobson.1998. “Determination of variation for maximum and minimum transmissivities of anisotropic aquifers from multiple well pumping test data.”Ground Water 36,no.3:457-464.
12.Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. de Ridder.1990. “Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data.” Wageningen, Netherlands：International Institute for Land Reclamation and improvement/ILRI.
13.Lachassagne, P., E. Ledoux, and G. de Marsily,1989. “Evaluation of Hydrogeological Parameters in Heterogeneous Porous Media, in Groundwater Management：Quantity and Quality”, IAHS Publ., 188, 3-18.
14.Meier, P. M., J. Carrera, and X. Sanchz-Vila.2005. “An evaluation of Jacob’s method for interpretation of pumping tests in heterogeneous formations”, Water Resources Research, vol. 34(5), pp. 1011-1025.1998.
15.Mutch, R.D.2005. “A distance-drawdown aquifer test method for aquifers with areal anisotropy.” Ground Water doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.00105.x.
16.Neuman, S.P., G.R. Walter, H.W. Bentley, J.J. Ward, and D.D. Gonzalez.1984. “Determination of horizontal anisotropy with three wells.” Ground 22, no. 1：66-72.
17.Papadopulos , I.S.1965. “Nonsteady flow to a well in an infinite anisotropic aquifer.”Intern. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol., Proc. Dubrovnik Symposium on the Hydrology of fractured rocks, pp. 21-31.
18.Sanchez-Vila, X., P. M. Meier, and J. Carrera.1999. “Pumping test in heterogeneous aquifers:An analytical study of what can be obtained from their interpretation using Jacob’s method”, Water Resources Research, vol. 35(4), pp. 943-952.
19.Serrano, S. E.1997. “The Theis Solution in Heterogeneous Aquifers”, Ground Water, vol. 35(3),pp. 463-467.
20.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.” Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.
21.Wu, C.-M., T.-C. J. Yeh, T.H. Lee, N.-S. Hsu, C.-H. Chen, and A.F. Sancho, 2005. “Traditional aquifer tests: comparing apples to oranges?” Water Resour. Res., 41, W09402, doi:10.1029/2004WR003717.
22.Yeh, T.-C.J., R. Srivastava, A. Guzman, and T. Harter,1993. “A numerical model for water flow and chemical transport in variably saturated porous media.” Ground Water, 31(4), 634-644.
23.Yeh, T.-C.J., and S. Liu, 2000. “Hydraulic tomography: Development of a new aquifer test method.” Water Resour. Res., 36(8), 2095-2105.
24.Zhu, J., and T.-C. J. Yeh.2005. “Characterization of aquifer heterogeneity using transient hydraulic tomography.” Water Resour. Res., 41, W07028, doi:10.1029/2004WR003790.
25.鍾和達，2005，“配合抽水試驗檢定現地三維飽和土壤水力參數研究”，國立雲林科技大學環境與安全衛生工程研究所，碩士論文。