Bouwer and Rice微水試驗推估法為求得水力傳導係數值方法之ㄧ，但其值為全鑽孔之綜合水力傳導係數，無法得知每一分層之水力傳導係數值。因含水層常有分層之現象，故本研究所探討之微水試驗是以Bouwer and Rice方法為主，目的為改善Bouwer and Rice方法中所求得之綜合水力傳導係數値，因該方法無法得知每一含水層之水力傳導係數值。本研究根據注水及回水因通水面積不同而得到兩個洩降-時間的關係式，將上述兩個洩降-時間之關係式聯立，以Newton-Raphson方法求得雙層含水層之水力傳導係數值。於完成試驗後，並且以東莒現地數據進行模式應用。最後本研究根據分層流通係數比値(T1/T2)不同之差異，針對參數進行敏感度分析，探討各參數之可檢定性。
另一種水力傳導係數値推估之現地試驗為抽水試驗，抽水試驗為大規模之試驗，可得到大範圍之水文地質參數，但抽水試驗易受到邊界效應影響，參數推估可根據Cooper-Jacob法，利用抽水試驗所得之數據繪出半對數圖進而求出其水文地質參數，但若抽水試驗遇到邊界效應時，在半對數圖中會得到兩條不同的直線。如僅有一口觀測井之數據時，此方法僅能得知觀測井與邊界之距離，無法確定其方位。為找出邊界之正確位置，故本研究建議可利用一口抽水井與兩口觀測井之數據來研判邊界之方位，並且以東莒所得之抽水試驗現地數據進行探討。

Bouwer and Rice is one of the estimation methods of slug test of obtaining the hydraulic conductivity, but it’s a synthetic value of fully drilling, do not know the hydraulic conductivity of each layers. Because of the phenomenon of the delaminated aquifer, so the Bouwer and Rice is the main method discussed in this research that purpose improving the synthetic value, because that can’t know the values of each layers. This research was based on the different circulating area of the recharge and recovery to get two formulas, use Newton-Raphson method to obtain the hydraulic conductivity values in double-layers aquifer. After verification we use the data of Dong Ju to apply to this model. According to the different ratio of transmissivity to discuss the variance, and execute the sensitivity analysis of the parameters to discuss the identifiability.
Pumping test is another field test that estimating the hydraulic conductivity, it’s a large scale test that can get the hydro-geological parameters of wide range. Pumping test effected by boundary easily, according to Cooper-Jacob method, use the data of pumping test to draft the semi-log graph and obtain the hydro-geological parameters. When the pumping test encountered the boundary effect, the graph will show two different lines. If there is only one observation data, this method only knew the distance between the observation and boundary. In order to find the location of the boundary, we suggest using the data of one pumping well and two observations to determine the position of boundary, using the pumping test data of Dong Ju to discuss it.

目錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝 III
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VII
表目錄 IX
第一章 導論 1
1-1 研究動機與目的 1
1-2 研究方法 2
第二章 文獻回顧 3
2-1 水力傳導係數 3
2-2 微水試驗 4
2-3 抽水試驗 5
2-4 文獻探討 7
第三章 理論背景 8
3-1 微水試驗之理論背景與分析 8
3-2 微水試驗雙層模式之理論背景與應用範例 13
3-2-1 基本假設與目的 13
3-2-2 注水試驗求解方法與步驟 13
3-2-3回水試驗求解方法與步驟 17
3-2-4 應用範例 19
3-3 抽水試驗之理論背景 21
第四章 模式應用與討論 24
4-1 微水試驗雙層模式參數之推估 24
4-1-1 Newton-Raphson Method 24
4-1-2 雙層含水層之水力傳導係數解 26
4-2 微水試驗雙層模式之敏感度分析 28
4-2-1 敏感度分析 28
4-2-2 敏感度分析之結果及討論 30
4-3 實驗場址介紹 32
4-3-1 地形概況 33
4-3-2 地質概況 34
4-3-3 集水區概況 35
4-3-4 地質探查 36
4-2 微水試驗數據及參數推估 42
4-3 抽水試驗及參數推估 45
第五章 結論與建議 48
5-1 結論 48
5-2 建議 50
參考文獻 51


圖目錄
圖3-1 含水層和水井之示意圖（Bouwer and Rice分析法） 9
圖3-2 無因次參數A、B及C與參數L/rw之關係曲線圖 11
圖3-3 雙層含水層和水井之示意圖（注水） 14
圖3-4雙層含水層和水井之示意圖（回水） 17
圖3-5 注水之時間-洩降圖 20
圖3-6 回水之時間-洩降圖 20
圖3-7 注水及回水試驗洩降差異比較 21
圖3-8 時間洩降圖-邊界之位置 23
圖3-9 虛井與含水層邊界之位置 23
圖4-1 Newton-Raphson method 25
圖4-2 模式迭代之過程 27
圖4-3馬祖地區相關位置示意圖 32
圖4-4 馬祖東莒地區地形圖 33
圖4-5東莒地區地質圖 35
圖4-6東莒大坪地區地下水庫集水區概況 36
圖4-7 大坪集水區右岸之花崗岩露頭 38
圖4-8 神祕小海灣右岸花崗岩露頭之節理 38
圖4-9 神祕小海灣左岸岩壁上高處滲出之地下水 38
圖4-10 花崗岩風化層 39
圖4-11集水區附近沉積層位置概圖 39
圖4-12 4號水井之地層構造圖 43
圖4-13 4號井注水之時間-洩降圖 44
圖4-14 4號井回水之時間-洩降圖 44
圖4-15 水力傳導係數及滲透性之範圍 45
圖4-16 10號觀測井之水位洩降圖 46
圖4-17 含水層邊界之位置 47


表目錄
表4-1 雙層含水層模式之水力傳導係數值比較 27
表4-2敏感度分析之結果(T1/T2=2) 30
表4-3敏感度分析之結果(T1/T2=5 ) 31
表4-4敏感度分析之結果(T1/T2=10 ) 31
表4-5敏感度分析之結果(T1/T2=20 ) 31
表4-6敏感度分析之結果(T1/T2=50 ) 31
表4-7 地質鑽探孔位基本資料 40
表4-8 微水試驗現地數據之比較 43

參考文獻
1.Darcy, H., “Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon, Dalmpnt,” Paris, 1856.
2.Hvorslev M. J., “Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water observations,” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimentation Station Bulletin, 36, pp. 1-50, 1951.
3.Cooper H. H., J. D. Bredehodft, and I. S. Papadopulos, “Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water,” Water Resources. Research, Vol.3, No. 1, pp. 263-269, 1967.
4.Bouwer, H. and R. C. Rice, “A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells,” Water Resources Res., Vol. 12, pp. 423-428, 1976.
5.Dagan, G., “A note no packer, slug, and recovery tests in unconfined aquifers, Water Resources Research, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1978.
6.Binkhorst, G. K. and G. A. Robbins, “Conducting and interpreting slug test in monitoring wells eith partially submerged screens,” Ground Water, Vol. 36, No.2, 1998.
7.Ferris, J. G. and D. B. Knowles, “The slug test for estimating transmissibility,” U.S. Geological Survey Ground Water Note 26, pp. 1-7, 1954.
8.Bredehoeft, J. D., H. H. Cooper Jr., and I. S. Papadopulos, “Inertial and storage effects in well-aquifer system: An analog investigation,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 697-707, 1966.
9.Springer, R. K. and L. W. Gelhar, “Characterization of large-scale aquifer heterogeneity in glacial outwash by analysis of slug tests with oscillatory responses, cape cod, massachusetts,” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4034, 1991.
10.Hyder, Z. and J. J. Butler, Jr., “Slug tests in unconfined formations, an assessment of the Bouwer and Rice technique,” Ground Water, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1995.
11.Zlotnik, V. A. and V. L. McGuire, “Multi-level tests in highly permeable formations, 1. Modification of the Springer-Gelhar (SG) model,” Journal of Hydrology, 204: 271-282, 1998.
12.Zlotnik, V. A. and V. L. McGuire, “Multi-level tests in highly permeable formations, 2. Hydraulic conductivity identification, method verification, and field applications,” Journal of Hydrology, 204: 283-296, 1998.
13.Zurbuchen, B. R., V. A. Zlotnik, and J. J. Butler Jr., “Dynamic interpretation of slug test in highly permeable aquifers,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 38, No.3, 2002.
14.Yang, S. Y. and H. D. Yeh, “A simple approach using Bouwer and Rice’s method for slug test data analysis,” Ground Water, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2004.
15.Theis, C. V., “The relationship between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage,” Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, Vol. 2, pp. 519-524, 1935.
16.Cooper, H. H. and C. E. Jacob, “A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history,” Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, Vol. 27, pp. 526-534, 1946.
17.Chow, V. T., “On the determination of transmissibility and storage coefficients from pumping test data,” Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, Vol. 33, pp. 397-404, 1952.
18.Papadopulos, I. S. and H. H. Cooper, Jr., “Drawdown in a well of large diameter,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 3, pp. 241-244, 1967.
19.黃國傅，「地下水補注與問題之探討」，復文書局，1991。
20.Pandit, N. S. and R. F. Miner, “Interpretation of slug test data,” Ground Water, Vol. 24, pp. 743-749, 1986.
21.林德生，「應用抽水及微水試驗描述蘭嶼貯存場含水層之水力特性」，國立成功大學資源管理研究所碩士論文，1993。
22.Raghunath H. M., “Ground Water,” New Age International Publishers, pp. 504, 2007.
23.Steven C.C. and Raymond P.C., “Numerical methods for engineers - fifth edition,” McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2006.
24.Bard, Yonathan, “Nonlinear parameter estimation,” Academic Press, Inc., 1974.
25.Yeh, W. W-G. and Y. S. Yooh, “Parameter identification with optimum dimension in parameterization,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 17, No.3, pp.664-672, 1981.
26.Hsu, N. S., B. J. Williams, W. W-G. Yeh, and M. K. Stenstrom, “Use of estimation techniques for flood forecasting,” Contribution Report, No. 192, California Water Resources Center.
27.張德鑫，「多層含水層地下水水流解析解及參數檢定」，國立台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文，1989。
28.經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所，「馬祖東莒大坪地下水庫初步規劃」，2008。
29.陳培源，馬祖群島地質，附帶討論福建沿海之火成活動及地殼運動，台灣地質調查所彙刊，第24號,第89-98頁，1974。
30.Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry, “Ground Water,” Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, 1979.