This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles

for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

Designation: D5912 − 20

Standard Practice for

(Analytical Procedure) Determining Hydraulic Conductivity
of an Unconfined Aquifer by Overdamped Well Response to
Instantaneous Change in Head (Slug)1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D5912; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope* this standard. Reporting of test results in units other than SI

1.1 This practice covers the determination of hydraulic shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this standard.
conductivity from the measurement of inertial force free 1.5 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the
(overdamped) response of a well-aquifer system to a sudden guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in
change in water level in a well. Inertial force free response of Practice D6026.
the water level in a well to a sudden change in water level is
characterized by recovery to initial water level in an approxi- 1.5.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/
mate exponential manner with negligible inertial effects. recorded and calculated in the standard are regarded as the
industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the
1.2 The analytical procedure in this practice is used in significant digits that generally should be retained. The proce-
conjunction with the field procedure in Test Method D4044/
dures used do not consider material variation, purpose for
D4044M for collection of test data.
obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any consider-
1.3 Limitations—Slug tests are considered to provide an ations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to
estimate of hydraulic conductivity. The determination of stor- increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be
age coefficient is not practicable with this practice. Because the commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope
volume of aquifer material tested is small, the values obtained of these test methods to consider significant digits used in
are representative of materials very near the open portion of the
analysis methods for engineering data.
control well.
NOTE 1—Slug tests are usually considered to provide estimates of the
1.6 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing
lower limit of the actual hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer because the one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace
test results are so heavily influenced by well efficiency and borehole skin education or experience and should be used in conjunction with
effects near the open portion of the well. The portion of the aquifer that is professional judgment. Not all aspects of the practice may be
tested by the slug test is limited to an area near the open portion of the well
where the aquifer materials may have been altered during well installation, applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not
and therefore may significantly impact the test results. In some cases, the intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which
data may be misinterpreted and result in a higher estimate of hydraulic the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged,
conductivity. This is due to the reliance on early time data that is reflective nor should this document be applied without the consideration
of the hydraulic conductivity of the filter pack surrounding the well. This
effect was discussed by Bouwer (1).2 In addition, because of the reliance of a project’s many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the
on early time data, in aquifers with medium to high hydraulic title of this document means only that the document has been
conductivity, the early time portion of the curve that is useful for this data approved through he ASTM consensus process.
analyses is too short (for example, <10 s) for accurate measurement;
therefore, the test results begin to greatly underestimate the true hydraulic 1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the
conductivity. safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D18 on Soil and 1.8 This international standard was developed in accor-
Rock and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D18.21 on Groundwater and
Vadose Zone Investigations. dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
Current edition approved June 1, 2020. Published June 2020. Originally ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
approved in 1996. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as D5912–96(2004), Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
which was withdrawn in 2013 and reinstated in June 2020. DOI: 10.1520/D5912-20.
2
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to a list of references at the end of mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
this standard. Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

*A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Mar 27 21:12:19 EDT 2021
1
Downloaded/printed by
Wilder Machado (Wilder Machado) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D5912 − 20
2. Referenced Documents 3.2.13 y0 [L]—head difference at beginning of straight-line
2.1 ASTM Standards: 3 portion of graph.
D653 Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock, and Contained 3.2.14 K [LT–1]—hydraulic conductivity.
Fluids
D3740 Practice for Minimum Requirements for Agencies 4. Summary of Practice
Engaged in Testing and/or Inspection of Soil and Rock as 4.1 This practice describes the analytical procedure for
Used in Engineering Design and Construction analyzing data collected following an instantaneous change in
D4043 Guide for Selection of Aquifer Test Method in head (slug) test in an overdamped well. The field procedures in
Determining Hydraulic Properties by Well Techniques conducting a slug test are given in Test Method D4044/
D4044/D4044M Test Method for (Field Procedure) for In- D4044M. The analytical procedure consists of analyzing the
stantaneous Change in Head (Slug) Tests for Determining recovery of water level in the well following the change in
Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers water level induced in the well.
D4104/D4104M Practice for (Analytical Procedures) Deter- 4.2 Solution—The solution given by Bouwer and Rice (1)
mining Transmissivity of Nonleaky Confined Aquifers by follows:
Overdamped Well Response to Instantaneous Change in
r 2c ln~ R e ⁄ r w ! 1 y0
Head (Slug Tests) K5 ln (1)
D5717 Guide for Design of Ground-Water Monitoring Sys- 2L ~ t f 2 t 0 ! yf
tems in Karst and Fractured-Rock Aquifers (Withdrawn where:
2005)4 if D > H
D6026 Practice for Using Significant Digits in Geotechnical
Data ln~ R e /r w ! 5 F 1.1
ln~ H/r w !
1
A1Bln@ ~ D 2 H ! /r w #
L/R w G 21
(2)

3. Terminology if D = H
3.1 Definitions—For definitions of common technical terms
used in this standard, refer to Terminology D653. lnR e /r w 5
1.1
F 1
C 21
ln~ H/r w ! L/r w G
(3)
NOTE 2—Other analytical solutions are given by Hvorslev and Cooper
3.2 Symbols and Dimensions: et al; (2, 3, 4) however, they may differ in their assumptions and
3.2.1 A [nd]—coefficient that is a function of L/rw and is applicability.
determined graphically. NOTE 3—Bouwer (1) provided discussion of various applications and
observations of the procedure described in this practice.
3.2.2 B [nd]—coefficient that is a function of L/rw and is
NOTE 4—Practice D4104/D4104M describes the analytical solution
determined graphically. following Cooper et al (3).
3.2.3 C [nd]—coefficient that is a function of L/rw and is NOTE 5—The use of the symbol K for the term hydraulic conductivity
determined graphically. is the predominant usage in groundwater literature by hydrogeologists,
whereas, the symbol k is commonly used for this term in soil and rock
3.2.4 D [L]—aquifer thickness. mechanics and soil science.
3.2.5 H [L]—distance between static water level and the 4.3 More recent work (Zlotnik et al. 2010 (5)) have revealed
base of open interval of the well. that the shape factors used for calculation of hydraulic con-
3.2.6 L [L]—length of well open to aquifer. ductivity (K) in the Bouwer and Rice model may result in the
under estimation of K by as much as 25 % to 40 % depending
3.2.7 rc [L]—inside diameter of the portion of the well
on the well construction and aquifer characteristics. Please
casing in which the water level changes.
refer to the work of Zlotnik et al. (2010) (5) for a discussion of
3.2.8 Re [L]—effective radius, determined empirically based the development of general steady state shape factors for the
on the geometry of the well, over which y is dissipated. condition of an overdamped, partially penetrating well.
3.2.9 rw [L]—radial distance from well center to original to 4.4 Numerous commercial computer software programs are
well casing. available to evaluate slug test data. Only those programs that
3.2.10 tf [T]—time at end point of straight-line portion of provide analysis of the data based on graphical curve matching,
graph. rather than simply least-squares analysis, and allow for the
3.2.11 t0 [T]—time at beginning of straight-line portion of generation of data plots should be used.
graph.
5. Significance and Use
3.2.12 yf [L]—head difference at end point of straight-line
portion of graph. 5.1 Assumptions of Solution:
5.1.1 Drawdown (or mounding) of the water table around
the well is negligible.
3
5.1.2 Flow above the water table can be ignored.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at [email protected]. For Annual Book of ASTM 5.1.3 Head losses as the water enters or leaves the well are
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on negligible.
the ASTM website.
4
5.1.4 The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic.
The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
www.astm.org. NOTE 6—Slug and pumping tests implicitly assume a porous medium.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Mar 27 21:12:19 EDT 2021
2
Downloaded/printed by
Wilder Machado (Wilder Machado) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D5912 − 20
Fractured rock and carbonate settings may not provide meaningful data head permeability tests has been documented. Variation in
and information. instrumentation, assumptions and calculational methods will lead to
differing results (7). Users should be familiar with the assumptions,
5.2 Implications of Assumptions: instrumentation and calculational aspects of the test when evaluating the
5.2.1 The mathematical equations applied ignore inertial results (8).
effects and assume that the water level returns to the static level NOTE 10—The quality of the result produced by this standard is
in an approximate exponential manner. dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the
5.2.2 The geometric configuration of the well and aquifer suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the
criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent
are shown in Fig. 1, that is after Fig. 1 of Bouwer and Rice (1). and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are
5.2.3 For filter-packed wells, Eq 1 applies to cases in which cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure
the filter pack remains saturated. If some of the filter pack is reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice D3740
dewatered during testing, rc2 should be replaced by the provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.
following:
6. Procedure
2
r c ~ corrected! 5 @ ~ 1 2 n ! r 1nrw 2 # 0.5 (4)
a
6.1 The overall procedure consists of conducting the slug
where: test field procedure (see Test Method D4044/D4044M) and
n = short-term specific yield of the filter pack, analysis of the field data that is addressed in this practice.
ra = uncorrected well casing radius, 6.2 The water level data are corrected so that the difference
rw = borehole radius, and between the original static water level and the water level
y = difference in static water level and the level during the during the test is known. This difference in water level at time
field test. “ t” is denoted as “yt”.
NOTE 7—Short term refers to the duration of the slug test.
NOTE 8—The function of wells in any unconfined setting in a fractured 6.3 The dimensionless coefficients of A, B, and C are
terrain might make the determination of k problematic because the wells determined graphically based on their relationship with L/rw.
might only intersect tributary or subsidiary channels or conduits. The An example of the curves relating A, B, and C to L/rw is given
problems determining the k of a channel or conduit notwithstanding, the
in Fig. 2, that is after Fig. 3 of Bouwer and Rice.2
partial penetration of tributary channels may make a determination of a
meaningful number difficult. If plots of k in carbonates and other fractured
settings are made and compared, they may show no indication that there
7. Calculation
are conduits or channels present, except when with the lowest probability 7.1 Determine ln(Re/rw) using Eq 2 or Eq 3, as appropriate.
one maybe intersected by a borehole and can be verified, such problems
are described by Smart (1999) (6). Additional guidance can be found in 7.2 Plot at a semilogarithmic scale the relationship of “y” on
Guide D5717. the log scale versus elapsed time on the arithmetic scale.
NOTE 9—The comparison of data from various methods on variable
7.3 Determine the straight-line portion of the graph.
7.4 Determine the end point values of the straight-line
portion of the graph and substitute along with value for
ln(Re/rw) determined in 7.1, into Eq 1.
NOTE 11—An example of the plot of this test method is given in Fig. 3.
The data used to prepare the plot is presented in Table 1. Table 1 also
presents the well configuration data and the corresponding values of A, B,
and C.

NOTE 1—See Fig. 1 of (1).

FIG. 1 Geometry and Symbols of a Partially Penetrating, Partially
Perforated Well in Unconfined Aquifer with Gravel Pack or Devel- NOTE 1—See Fig. 3 of (1).
oped Zone Around Perforated Section FIG. 2 Curves Relating Coefficients A, B, and C to L/rw

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Mar 27 21:12:19 EDT 2021
3
Downloaded/printed by
Wilder Machado (Wilder Machado) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D5912 − 20
of a units conversion check of the calculations should be included as a part
of the calculations process.

8. Report
8.1 The methodology used to specify how data are recorded
in the report, as given below is covered in 1.5 and Practice
D6026.
8.2 Record as a minimum the following general informa-
tion:
8.2.1 Prepare a report including the information described
in this section. The report of the analytical procedure will
include information from the report on the test method selec-
tion (see Guide D4043) and the field testing procedure (see
Test Method D4044/D4044M).
8.2.1.1 Introduction—The introductory section is intended
to present the scope and purpose of the slug test for determin-
ing hydraulic conductivity. Summarize the field hydrogeologic
FIG. 3 Sample Plot of Slug Test Data conditions and field equipment and instrumentation including
the construction of the control well, and the method of
TABLE 1 Sample Slug Test DataAB measurement and of effecting a change in head. Discuss the
rationale for selecting the method used (see Guide D4043).
NOTE 1—A and B are not used since D = H.
8.2.1.2 Hydrogeologic Setting—Review information avail-
NOTE 2—Endpoint values are highlighted. able on the hydrogeology of the site; interpret and describe the
Elapsed Time, min Head Difference, m hydrogeology of the site as it pertains to the method selected
0.0034 12.86 for selected for conducting and analyzing an aquifer test.
0.0067 12.71
0.0100 12.40
Compare hydrogeologic characteristics of the site as it con-
0.0134 12.13 forms and differs from the assumptions made in the solution to
0.0167 11.96 the aquifer test.
0.0334 10.94
0.0500 10.15
8.2.1.3 Equipment—Report the field installation and equip-
0.0667 9.45 ment for the aquifer test. Include in the report, well construc-
0.0834 8.80 tion information, diameter, depth, and open interval to the
0.1000 8.16
0.1167 7.05
aquifer, and location of control well. Include a list of measur-
0.1334 6.54 ing devices used during the test; the manufacturer’s name,
0.1500 6.10 model number, and basic specifications for each major item;
0.1667 5.64
0.1834 5.21
and the name and date of the last calibration, if applicable.
0.2000 4.85 8.2.1.4 Test Procedures—Report the steps taken in conduct-
0.2167 4.51 ing the pretest and test phases. Include the frequency of head
0.2334 4.14
0.2500 3.88
measurements made in the control well and other environmen-
0.2667 3.59 tal data recorded before and during the test procedure.
0.2834 3.35 8.2.2 Presentation and Interpretation of Test Results:
0.3000 3.06
0.3167 2.12 8.2.2.1 Data—Present tables of data collected during the
0.4001 1.45 test.
0.4834 0.97 8.2.2.2 Data Plots—Present data plots used in analysis of
0.5667 0.72
0.6501 0.54 the data.
0.7334 0.37 8.2.2.3 Show calculation of hydraulic conductivity.
0.8167 0.31 8.2.2.4 If commercial software was used, identify it by
0.9001 0.27
1.0667 0.23 name, version, and conditions set.
1.1501 0.22 8.2.2.5 Evaluate the overall quality of the test based on the
1.2334 0.20 adequacy of instrumentation and observations of stress and
A
Well configuration data, m: Rc = 0.0833, Rw = 0.1615, D = 41.5, L = 8, and response and the conformance of the hydrogeologic conditions
H = 41.5.
B
Coefficients (dimensionless): A = n ⁄a, B = n ⁄a, and C = 2.624.
and the performance of the test to the assumptions (see 5.1).
9. Keywords
NOTE 12—This standard is presented using SI units. Use of other units 9.1 aquifers; aquifer tests; control wells; groundwater; hy-
other than SI is allowed, however if other units are used, the performance draulic conductivity; slug test

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Mar 27 21:12:19 EDT 2021
4
Downloaded/printed by
Wilder Machado (Wilder Machado) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 D5912 − 20
(1) Bouwer, H., and Rice, R. C., “A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic motoring and modeling, in, Palmer, A.N., Palmer, M.V., and
Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers with Completely or Partially Sasowski, I.D., (eds) Karst Waters Institute Special Publication, No.
Penetrating Wells,” Water Resources Research, Vol 12, No. 3, 1976, 5., Proceedings of the symposium, Charlottesville, Virginia, p. 146-
pp. 423–428. 157.
(2) Hvorslev, M. J., “Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground-Water (7) Chapuis, R.P. “Variable Head Permeability Test in Monitoring Wells:
Observations,” Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Comparing the Shape Factor Defined by Bouwer and Rice (1976) to
U.S. Army, Bulletin No. 36, 1951. the Shape Factor Given by Hvorslev”, Geotechnical News, 27(1),
(3) Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, I. S., March 2000, pp 41-43.
“Response of a Finite-Diameter Well to an Instantaneous Change in (8) Chapuis R.P. “Overdamped Slug Tests in Aquifers: the Three Diag-
Water,” Water Resources Research, Vol 3, No. 1, 1967, pp. 263–269.
nostic Graphs for a user-independent interpretation” Geotech Testing
(4) Bouwer, H., “The Bouwer-Rice Slug Test—An Update,” Ground
Journal, Vol 38 (4), July 2015, pp 474-489.
Water, Vol 27, No. 3, 1989, pp. 304–309.
(9) Worthington, S.R.H., Davies, G.J., and Alexander, E.C., jr, 2016,
(5) Zlotnik V.A., Goss D., and Duffield G “General Steady State Shape
Factor for a Partially Penetrating Well” Groundwater, Vol 48, No. 1, Enhancement of bedrock permeability by weathering, Earth Science
January-February 2010 pp 111-116. Reviews160: 188-202, Elsevier, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/
(6) Smart, C.C., 1999, Subsidiary conduit systems: a hiatus in aquifer j.earscirev.2016.07.002

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Committee D18 has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last issue
(D5912–96(2004)) that may impact the use of this standard. (June 1, 2020)

(1) Revised from test method to practice, including changing of (8) Section 8 Report—Revised title and added D6026 state-
title and throughout the text. ment to comply with D18 procedures.
(2) Section 1 Scope—Revised the units statement to comply (9) Section 9 Precision and Bias—Deleted as not applicable to
with D18 policies, added professional judgment caveat. practices.
(3) Added D6026 statements to comply with D18 policies. (10) Summary of Changes added.
(4) Section 2—Reference Documents: Added D6026. (11) Added references section and references
(5) Section 3 Terminology—Revised wording to conform to (12) General—Removed or revised jargon and superlatives
current D18 policies, revised 3.2.9 to clarify well radius (rw). throughout the document.
(6) Section 4 Significance and Use—Added additional notes, (13) Section 4 Summary of Practice—Added 4.2 concerning
corrected formulas. Shape Factors and added new references.
(7) Section 5—Added description of “y”.

ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned
in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk
of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the
responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should
make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above
address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or [email protected] (e-mail); or through the ASTM website
(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http://www.copyright.com/

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Sat Mar 27 21:12:19 EDT 2021
5
Downloaded/printed by
Wilder Machado (Wilder Machado) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.