HomeMy WebLinkAboutWell Evaluation study , _
,/,(;))m.___/:"4
cvi
, ti1/4
-1
P j
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
WELL EVALUATION STUDY
L _I
e
TEXAS
AND I S 5402 LAWNDALE P. O.!WEST BOX 9469
THE HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
A/C 713 923-7603
•
WATER SUPPLY & DRILLING
SERVICE & MAINTENANCE
March 27, 1969
•
Honorable Mayor Ralph Somers
and City Council
104 Willowick Avenue
Friendswood, Texas 77546
WELL EVALUATION STUDY
Gentlemen:
Submitted herewith is our report on the current status
of the City ' s three wells and our recommendations for
changes and modifications .
We express our appreciation to Mr . L . B . Cline and
Mr. K . R. Toon for their assistance and cooperation in
obtaining the data included in this report .
Please let us know if you have any questions concerning
•
this report .
Sincerely,
C ,5- 411"f---- -
C . S. Vaughn
LAYNE TEXAS COMPANY
CSV/jj
Enclosure
(Ph
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Irk
WELL EVALUATION STUDY
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
Page
Introduction 1
Aquifer Characteristics 1
Field Testing 2
Well No . 1 2
Well No . 2 3
Well No . 3 3
Findings and Recommendations 4
Cost Estimates 7
Table I - Well Summary
Figure 1. Isopach map showing thickness of Sand
in 400-700 foot interval (Alta Loma)
2. Static Water Level Hydrographs of wells
in vicinity of Friendswood, Galveston
County.
3. Well Performance Curve Well #1
4 . Pump Performance Well #1
5. Well Performance Curves Well #2
6. Pump Performance Curves Well #2
7 . Well Performance Curve Well #3
8. Pump Performance Curves Well #3
9 . Sand Production Rates Wells # 1
ek and # 2
INTRODUCTION
The City of Friendswood presently has three water wells
supplying water to the city . These wells were constructed
in 1957 , 1963 and 1967 . Production rates are 230, 500 and
950 GPM, totalling 1680 GPM. • -
To meet the growing demand for water the City authorized
Layne Texas to make a study of present well and pump conditions
and to recommend necessary repairs and modifications to in-
crease the ground water capacity. The following report presents
the findings of the study .
AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
The Alta Loma sand is a regional aquifer supplying many
wells in Galveston, Harris and Brazoria counties . It is a fine
to medium sand, well-sorted and composed principally of quartz
grains . It is a sand member at the base of the Beaumont clay ,
and overlies sands and clays of the Lissie Formation, a major
aquifer in Harris County . The Alta Loma sand extends from
Brazoria County paralleling the Gulf Coast to Grange County .
In central and southern Galveston County, and along the eastern
reach of the Houston Ship Channel, the Alta Loma is a well-
defined unit , usually about 80 to 250 feet in thickness . In
the Friendswood area, however, the section is so far up-dip
that the Alta Loma begins to merge with other sands below and
above it . Consequently, Friendswood is in the favorable position
of having not only the Alta Loma (proper) but also other minor
sands to draw upon for their water supply as these various units
merge into a general sand section of near-homogenous thickness
of up to 200 feet .
An isopach and top-of-interval map is submitted with this
report (Figure 1) . The map was prepared from electric logs of
the various wells, with only those sand sections in what is con-
sidered to be the "Alta Loma Interval" being shown . All sands
have the characteristically high long-normal resistivity of the
Alta Loma in other areas; those sands with lower values were
omitted. This is not to say that they should be excluded from
consideration, for • several minor sand strata below the Alta Loma
with resistivities indicating higher mineralization of ground
water could be screened along with the Alta Loma to produce a
mixture acceptable by Public Health Standards . Shale breaks
from 30 to 60 feet in thickness are shown along; with the sands
for purposes of planning well construction.
The isopach map indicates a fairly large reservoir of ground
water available for use in the Friendswood area. Although control
is lacking due west of Friendswood, there is no reason to believe
that the Alta Loma or some equivalent sand (s ) would not be present
in thickness sufficient to warrant consideration in planning a
ground water availability program. To the south of Fr•iendswood,
- 2 -
however, things may become complicated. The well G-4 shows
the smallest available section; moreover, about 2 miles south
of G-4 , the Alta Loma sand is , for all intents and purposes ,
absent . The equivalent section is almost entirely shale or
clay. This Alta Loma "dry hole" is a anomaly , tut it does
point out that the sand is not everywhere homogeneous in
thickness and composition . Enough control , however, is avail-
able around Friendswood to insure with a high degree of prob-
ability the presence of the Alta Loma and other sands in thick-
nesses sufficient to yield an abundant supply of ground water.
Heavy pumping from the Alta Loma sand range from the
Houston Ship Channel area to the City of Galveston ' s well
fields near Alta Loma. As a result of these withdrawals , the
static water level in the Alta Loma sand has shown a steady
decline .
Figure 2 shows a plot of the static water level in three
wells in the Friendswood vicinity dating back to 1939 . The
recent annual rate of decline has been about five feet per
year. It is expected that this rate of decline will continue
for some years to come . The present (February 1969 ) static
level of 174 feet will probably decline about 50 feet in the
next ten years . Pumps , motors and pump settings should be planned
to meet this extra lift .
FIELD TESTING
In February , 1969 , field inspection and short pumping
tests were conducted on the City ' s three wells . The data
obtained during these tests are presented graphically in
Figures 3 through 9 . For reference , Table 1 summarizes the
completion records of each well .
Well No. 1
Well No. 1, located behind the City Hall, was drilled in
1957. by Texas Water Wells , Inc . The pumping test of February ,
1969 , indicated a specific capacity of 33 GPM per foot (Figure 3 ) .
This is considerable improvement over the original test in 1957.
The improvement is probably due to continued development as the
well was used.
The sand production of Well No. 1 is moderate (Figure 9) .
Upon start up the well produces a slug of sand for about two
minutes, exceeding 0 . 2 m1/l. It then drops to less than . 1
m1/1. By the end of thirty minutes of pumping the sand pro-
duction is less than 0. 01 ml/l . It is estimated that the well
produces about 0. 2 gallons of sand during the first 10 minutes
after start up , and a total of 0 . 25 gallons of sand during the
first hour. The sand productions rate is on the order of 0 . 1
gallons per hour after the first hour. If the well started 500
times in a year and ran 5 hours on each start up, total yearly
sand productions would be 325 gallons or 1. 6 cubic yards .
- 3 -
The sand produced is going into the distribution system
and the majority of it is probably discharged in line flush-
ing operations .
The pump performance curve obtained during field testing
showed a small decrease in production rate for a given total
discharge head compared to the original manufacturer ' s per-
formance curve (Figure 4 ) . This is mainly due to extra wear
caused by sand production. The pump and motor run smoothly,
however, and appear to be in good shape except for the slight
decrease in production.
The pump setting of 190 feet is only 10 feet below the
current pumping level. Within two years the pumping level
will be at the top of the bowls . The length of bowls and tail
pipe provide an extra 18 feet of submergence as a safety factor
against breaking suction. However, there may be as much as
several feet of oil (from shaft lubrication bleed-off) on top
of the water in the well. This oil will be pulled into the
suction when the pumping level drops lower, and be pumped
into the distribution system. It is recommended that the pump
setting be lowered 40 feet within the next 12 to 18 months .
Well No. 2
Well No. 2 is located approximately 3000 feet south of
Well No. 1 It was drilled by Texas Water Wells , Inc. in 1963 ,
and equipped to pump 600 GPM. In 1967, the capacity was in-
creased to 950 GPM with the present pumping equipment . The
well developed sanding problems and was reworked in the summer
of 1968.
Pumping tests in February, 1969 indicated a specific
capacity of 35 GPM/foot (Figure 5) . This is an improvement
over the original test in 1963 .
Well No. 2 has a high rate of sand production (Figure 9 ) .
Approximately 40 yards of sand was removed from the ground storage
tank in 1968 . Water samples caught during pumping tests in Feb-
ruary 1969 showed that a large slug of sand is produced at start
up. The sanding rate at the peak of the slug is in excess of
3. 5 ml/l. It is estimated that in the first 10 minutes of pumping
about 5 gallons of sand is produced. In the first hour a total
of about 6 gallons is produced. The sand production after the
first hour is about 0. 3 gallons per hour. Assuming 700 starts per
year and 5 hours operation for each start , the total sand production
for a year would be 25 cubic yards .
The pump performance curve obtained in February , 1969 indicates
the pump is still performing near the original manufacturer' s per-
formance curve (Figure 6 ) . The pump and motor appear to run smoothly
indicating good condition. The pump setting of 280 feet is suf-
ficiently deep to allow for anticipated areal decline in static
level for at least 10 years .
•
- 4 -
Well No . 3
Well No . 3 was drilled by Layne Texas Company in 1967 and
equipped with a Reuland wound-rotor motor and Hy-Rise controls
for variable speed operation. Capacity at 1650 RPM and 330 feet
TDH is 425 GPM. The well is also equipped with an Amarillo gear
head and a 40 HP 2-53 Detroit diesel engine for emergency opera-
tion.
Field testing in February, 1969 indicated the same specific
capacity as obtained in the original production test in 1967 of
38 GPM per foot (Figure 7) .
The pumped water showed no sand .
Pump performance could not be accurately checked due to
the variable speed of the motor. However, since the well has
been in operation less than two years and the well produces
negligible sand , the pump should still perform very closely
to the original manufacturer ' s curve (Figure 8) .
The pump setting of 260 feet should be adequate for anti-
cipated areal decline for the next eight to ten years, even
if the pumping rate is increased to 1000 GPM.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several problems existing now, or that will
occur soon, which need to be corrected or anticipated . These
problems and recommendations are listed below.
Well No . 1
Problems :
1 . Well sanding moderate amount .
2 . Pumping level is near .top of bowls .
3 . Oil on top of water in well may soon be
pulled into the suction and pumped into
the distribution system.
Recommendations :
1 . Pull pump, bail out oil accumulation, '
check gravel level (add if necessary) ,
lower pump setting 40 feet .
2 . Install foot valve on pump suction .
3 . Install at Well No . 1 the Detroit diesel
engine now on Well No . 3 to provide water to
the distribution system in the event of power failure .
4 . Install 200 GPM Sandrnaster for removal of sand .
5 -
Irk Well No. 2
Problems :
Well sands heavily at start up . Sands
moderate amount on, continuous operation .
Recommendations :
As Well No . 2 sands most heavily on start up, it is
recommended that the well and pump be modified to
reduce the initial shock and turbulence of start up
as much as possible . In addition, provide a means
of bypassing the. first 10 minutes of flow. The
following modifications are recommended:
1. Pull pump, check condition of pump . .
2. Sound well bottom and remove any accumulation
of sand opposite screen.
3. Sound gravel, add gravel as necessary.
4 . Install foot valve to pump suction and
replace pump.
5 . Install slow opening check valve .
6 . Install automatic bypass valve to waste first
10 minutes of pumping into creek.
7. Install Laval Sandmaster to remove sand before
water goes into the ground storage tank .
Another possibility is to exchange the pumps in wells
2 and 3 . The lower production rate might reduce the sand
production, however, it is believed that the majority of sand
is obtained on start up, and reducing the pump capacity would
not necessarily reduce the sand production rate . There would
be less sand only because of less total volume of water pro-
duced.
Another means' of reducing the production rate would be
to remove two impellers leaving only 5 stages . The pump
would then produce about 600 GPM. By removing 3 stages the
pump would yield about 450 GPM.
Well No. 3
Problems :
1. Pump Capacity is about half of the well
capacity .
- 6 -
2 . When the ground storage tank is constructed
at Well No. 3, the auxiliary diesel engine will
be of no benefit in supplying water to the dis-
tribution system unless auxiliary engines are
also installed on the booster pumps .
3. The Hy-Rise unit presently on Well No. 3 will be
of little benefit pumping directly into a ground
storage tank.
4 . There is reported a trace of Hydrogen Sulfide
gas in the water.
Recommendations :
1. Modify present pumping equipment to pump
1000 GPM into a ground storage tank.
a. New pump bowls
b . New 75 H. P. motor
c. New motor controls
2. Move existing auxiliary diesel engine to Well No. 1.
3. Trade-in 50 H. P. Reuland electric motor,
Hy-Rise unit , and pump bowls . Consideration
could be given to using the motor on a booster
pump.
4. Continue to treat water with chlorine for
hydrogen sulfide removal. Equip ground storage
tank with discharge suitable for aeration of water.
A 6 •or 8 inch stainless steel shutter screen ten
feet long has proven to be helpful in aerating
hydrogen sulfide water enough to aid In removal
of the hydrogen sulfide . The tank should also
be equipped with a motor driven ventilation fan
to remove the gas from the tank as rapidly as
possible .
7 -
COST ESTIMATE
Well No. 1 ,M
1. Pull , inspect (repair if necessary) and
reset existing Floway 220 GPM pump . $1,000 . 00 /
2. Furnish and install 40 ' of 1x12x5 pump column $ 400 . 00 .
3. Furnish and install 6" foot valve on pump
suction. $ 80 . 001'
eRemove diesel engine now on Well No. 3 and
install on Well No. 1. Use right angle gear
head now on Well No. 1 . $1,500. 00
O5 Furnish and install Laval GPM Sandmaster /� $1,500 . 00
6. Miscellaneous piping, fittings , labor $1, 000. 00
TOTAL COST $5, 480. 00
Well No. 2
fh 1. Pull, inspect (repair if necessary ) and
reset existing Layne & Bowler,California
7 stage 10" pump. $1 ,300. 00
2 . Furnish and install 8" foot valve on
pump station $ 100 . 00
3. Furnish and install 6" automatic bypass
valve to discharge first 10 minutes of
pumping to waste $1 ,100 . 00
4 . Furnish and install slow opening check valve $ 725. 00
5. Furnish and install 1000 GPM Laval Sandmaster $2 ,000. 00
6 . Misc. piping, fittings , labor. $2,000. 00
TOTAL COST $7 ,225 . 00
Well No. 3
Increase pump capacity from 500 GPM to
1000 GPM at 220 feet TDH. $5,800 .00
41114 a. Pull and replace pump.
b . Furnish and install 3 - 12 RKAI-I L& B bowls
c. Furnish and install H. P. G.E. motor with
controls._ loo
- 8 -
4
Cost Estimate - Continued
Note: Cost of removing diesel engine included in Well No. 1
• estimate .
2. Ground storage Tank $75,000 . 00
a. 250,000 gallon welded tank
b . Two 1000 GPM booster pumps
Alternate :
In lieu of Item 1 Well No. 3 , and Item 1 Well No. 2 :
1. Pull, inspect and reset pumps in Wells 2 and 3
switching pumps . $ 14 ,500 . 00
a. Bypass and remove Hy-Rise unit .
b . Add two stages if Well No. 3 continues
to pump into line . (Not needed if ground
411114 storage tank is constructed at Well No . 3) .
1/
TABLE I
WELL SUMMARY - CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
Well No. 1 Well No . 2 Well No . 3
Formerly WCID #15, #1 Formerly WCID #15 , #2 Formerly WCID #21
Driller Texas Water Well Texas Water Wells Layne Texas Company
Date Completed October, 1957 January, 1963 January, 1967
Depth of Well 541' 620 ' 650 '
Casing 471 ' of 10-3/4" O.D. 450 ' of 12-3/4" O.D. 505 ' of 16" O. D.
Screen 50 ' of 6-5/8" O.D. 50 ' of 6-5/8" O.D. 100 ' of 10-3/4"O .D.
Interval Screened 481-531 460-610 520-635
Top of Liner 371' 350 ' 405 '
Pump Make Floway Layne & Bowler,California Layne & Bowler
Bowl Stages , Type 11 stage 8 JKL 7 stage 1Qg 9 stage 10" RKH,C...__ `
Column 190 ' 5"x12"xl" 280 ' of 8"x21/2"x12" 260 ' 8"x2"xl-3/16"x20 ' .
Design Characteris- 235 GPM @ 310 TDH . 800 GPM @ 283 TDH 425 GPM C 330 TDH
tics
Motor H. P. 25 H. P. 1760 RPM 75 H. P. , 1800 RPM 50 H. P . , 1644 RPM
Discharge To distribution system To ground storage To distribution system
Figure 2
' '
_. -_
. . }
— t _ 1
-- 4---- 4-
— t -
o :C WATER LEVEL HYDROGRAPH,S OF WELLS IN
c. IITY OF FRIE?'TDSWOOD, GALVESTON COUNTY :. . ;- -..
8 0 zrernent s from U . S . Geological Survey ,
z� �_:; 80
tri
• Cecil Brown well , Friends wood
v - Chester Eignui well, Friendswood ' _
- Humble 0. & R. Co . well, Brazoria
a 100 County I-I100
�. __ _ f. --___ _ ..�______r_
e"""
a-, 120 : 1 , ' : . . .
, 120
s-,
I
, I
o to
i
i
- 160
r ; -t ._r,
180 »� r . ' -� i 180
r
I �- 200
T A
r +
r --r t 220
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Figure 1
G-1 Layne Texas #1 GCWCID #21
G-2 Texas 'Water Wells r#1 GCWCID #15
G-3 Texas Water Wells 42 City of
Friendswood
) (
G-4 Miles Prod . Co. #1 K. B. Howe
G-5 Fidelity 0 & G #1 3ute Ranch
G-6 Phillips Pet. Co. $l M. Esperson
H-1 Layne Texas #1 C7.e rwood
H-2 K. Hughes #1 H. J. Goar
H-3 Humble 0 & R #1 So . Fdswd .
Gas Unit #1
B-1 Stanolind 0 & G #1 Condon
B-2 Stanolind 0 & G 44 Cannon
4//O
0
/e,T EXPLANATION
/B.s
400 Top of interval
O Well symbol
50 Sand thickness
yso (30) Shale thickness
Hz° 150 Sand thickness
(J°J I 'Mr Total sand thickness
/co
yto
3 p
d"o
(a.�
Soo /,To
81 p 2..
70
0)
i2o
82 p.
2/O
2/0
600
Gsp.
So
(so)
// o
/G o 4110
Gt
/co
/GJ
SHOWING THICKNESS OF SAND
-FOOT INTERVAL ( ALTA LOMA?)
tie : 1" = 1 mile
iepth below land surface
Figure 3
50
•
ko
•
•
30 4-
� , j
a)
w
0 20 j
s~
A
10
0 k
0 200 400 60b :00 1000 17 0'
Pumping Rate, GPM
•
0 February, 1969
A October, 1957
NO. REVISIONS APP
ENGR, DATE
77.2„)
WELL PERFORMANCE CURVE IJF Li L. Z_ . e d
WELL #1- COMPANY, INC.
5402 LAWNDALE e P.O. BOX 9469® HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
CITY OF FRIET]DSWOOD TEXAS
DATE: March 1 0,1969 FILE NO.
DWN. BY: C ,S ,�. ,----_—�'—JOB NO. -1 (13 _6 V
APPROVED: DWN. NO. T- -1
} Figure 4
•
•
\
W �
w 300
w \
200 - - - -
•
a
100
0
•
H
2.00 4OU 6uu 8uu 1000
Pumping Rate, GPM
•
0 February, 1969
A Original Manufacturerls Curve
NO. REVISIONS APP
ENGR. DATE
•
•
PUMP PERFORMANCE ,,] 75:
WELL #1 COMPANY, INC.
CITY OF FRIEMDSWOOD, TEXAS 5402 LAWNDALE • P.O. BOX 9469• HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
DATE: Mar . 10, 1969 FILE NO.DWN. BY: C .S .V . JOB NO. 1039-68
APPROVED: DWN. NO. T-
Figure 5•
fil . ,
5o
4o • A
30 .
l
v
.
•20 •
o /� 0
rcs
et. A 10 /
/'
/'
.
/.0/
o '
0 . 200 400 600 800 loon
. Pumping Rate, GPM
0 February, 1969
A February, 1963
NO. REVISIONS APP
ENGR. DATE
WELL PERFORMANCE CURVES T;',� L W-2 / ,i
WELL #2 COMPANY, INC.
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 5402 LAWNDALE o P.O. BOX 9469 o HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
DATE: Mar . 10 ,1969 FILE NO.
DWN. DY: C .S ,V , JOB NO. 1039-68
APPROVED: DWN. NO. T-
. .
• Figure 6
. .
eh
.A.,
400 . .
.......
'zi.....,....,..
......
c.)
G.) 3oo
%.4• .
•
Ci
,UT2,
0
LD
c'%
-C:
0
0
,--1
A
,--i
d
J
4.3 200
100
____
• N
_
o . .
EA
0 .
O 200 T50 6-6-0 86o low
Pumping Rate, GPM
. '
• 0 February, 1969
A Original Manufacturer' s Curve
•
NO. REVISIONS APP
ENGR. DATE
ei
PUMP PERFORMANCE CURVES lmm7 i/27ZW3.0
ek WELL #2
CITY OF FRIEITSWOOD, TEXAS COMPANY, INC.
5402 LAWNDALE • P.O. BOX 9469• HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
BATE: Mar. 10, 1969 FILE NO,
DWN. BY: C .S .V , JOB NO. 1039-68
APPROVED: DWt4. NO. T.
Figure 7
•
••
4#0
30 •
0 20 i•� —
J:0
0
0 200 400 600 Boo 1000
Pumping Rate, GPM
0 February; 1969
A January, 1967
NO. REVISIONS APP
ENGR. DATE
WELL PERFORMANCE CURVE • ;",7r
WELL #3 u. � �
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS COMPANY, INC.
5402 LAWNDALE • P.O. BOX 9469• HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
DATE:Mar . 10. 1969 FILE NO.
DWN. BY: C •S •V• JOB NO. 1039-68
APPROVED: DWN. NO. T-
Figure 8
•
400
—
\,
•
0 300 0 �\�
w '\
N 200
0
U
,r..l
Q
100 - -
cd
-p
0
H
0
0 200 0 600 S00 1000
Pumping Rate, GPM
(at less than 1750 RPM)
p February, 1969
Original Manufacturer' s Curve
• (at 1750 RPM)
NO. REVISIONS APP
ENGR. DATE
r')r�� � off
PUMP PERFORMANCE CURVES / r
i/ r j ,�
WELL #3 COMPANY, INC.
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS 5402 LAWNDALE • P.O. BOX 9469 o HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
DATE Mar. 1.0, 1969 FILE NO.
DWN. BY: C .S .V JOB NO. 1039-68
APPROVED: DWN. NO. T-
Figure
1. 5 Well # 1
1.0 - -
irk
5 - - - —
o
•
•
Well # 2
H 4 . 0
H
3. 5
•
a�
3. 0
s~
0
•, 2. 5
U
a
W 1. 5 — — — —
•
1. 0
• 5
•
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Minutes after start of pumping.
•
•
NO. REVISIONS APP
ENGR. DATE
Th % ' mot f/"7
SAND PRODUCTION RATES COMPANY, INC.
5402 LAWNDALE o.P.O. BOX 94690 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011
WELLS # 1 AND # 2 DATE:March le , 1969 FILE NO.
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS DWN. BY: CSV JOB "°_ 1039-68
APPROVED: OWN. NO. T-