Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr20191104

Instructions for running the analytical code PAT (Purge Analyzer Tool) for computation of in-well time of travel of groundwater under pumping conditions

Abstract

Introduction Understanding the optimal time needed to purge a well while pumping to collect a representative groundwater sample requires an understanding of groundwater flow in wells (in-well flow). Parameters that affect in-well flow include the hydraulic properties of the aquifer, well construction, drawdown from pumping, and pump rate. The time of travel relative to in-well flow is affected by the pump’s intake location. The Purge Analyzer Tool (PAT) incorporates hydraulic calculations to help assess the optimal purge times required to vertically transport groundwater in the well to the pump intake (Harte, 2017). Harte (2017) includes a discussion on the rationale for determining in-well groundwater flow and time of travel and also discusses the limitations inherent in the PAT; an understanding of the limitations is important to ensure proper use. The PAT calculates flow by use of the Dupuit-Theim equation (Lohman, 1979) that assumes steady-state radial flow and a total inflow from the well opening or screen equal to the pumping rate (eq. 1). A bulk average hydraulic conductivity (K avg ) is derived from this relationship. Once K avg is calculated, the program calculates incremental (layered) horizontal radial inflow into the well over user defined increments (layers). These defined increments represent the screen or well opening as a fraction of the total inflow. The amount of inflow per layer is proportional to the user-defined layered distribution of hydraulic conductivity (K layer ) because drawdown is assumed to be uniformly distributed in the well. The water budget equation that guides the solution of the PAT (eq. 1) is specified as: Q p = Q v + Q H + Q w (1) where Q P is pumping rate, Q v is vertical flow entering the boundary of the mixing zone (M z ) from the summation of layered radial flow (∑ Q hl-n ) where l-n denotes number of layers, Q H is horizontal radial flow into the mixing zone (M z ), and Q w is flow from wellbore storage effects. The in-well flow is computed from the convergence of incremental (layered) radial inflows (Q hl-n ) summed to the total vertical flow (Q V ) entering the adjacent zone to the pump intake (called mixing zone [M z ]) as shown in figure 1. The Q v is transported as one-dimensional piston flow. Within the M z , it's assumed that flow to the pump is dominated by horizontal radial flow (Q H ) when the pump is in the open interval of the well. Flow from the wellbore storage (Q w ) is computed from the volume of water pumped from the well at the time of the drawdown (s) measurement(s). Aquifer storage effects are unaccounted for but are likely to be problematic when (1) dewatering within the well opening occurs or (2) when the water table is close to the top of the well screen or open interval where additional flow into the upper portion of the well opening may occur. For fully saturated wells tens of feet below the water table, storage effects are likely to be more uniformly distributed across the well screen or open interval (regardless of confined or unconfined conditions). Therefore, radial inflow from storage will be less prominent under pump rates commonly used in groundwater sampling either for volumetric sampling ( < 3 gallons per minute) or low-flow sampling ( < 0.5 liters per minute). A major benefit of the use of the PAT is the understanding of time-varying, vertical integration of captured pump water. The analytical model computes aquifer (formation) capture intervals relative to the open interval of the well. This information is displayed graphically (called aquifer fraction graphs) and can be used to assess the likely formation intervals contributing water to the sample at any time.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P.T. Harte, B. J. Huffman, Tomas Perina, Herb Levine, Daewon Rojas-Mickelson. 2019-11-01. Instructions for running the analytical code PAT (Purge Analyzer Tool) for computation of in-well time of travel of groundwater under pumping conditions. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191104

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona