USGS
South Florida Information Access
SOFIA home
Help
Projects
by Title
by Investigator
by Region
by Topic
by Program
Results
Publications
Meetings
South Florida Restoration Science Forum
Synthesis
Information
Personnel
About SOFIA
USGS Science Strategy
DOI Science Plan
Education
Upcoming Events
Data
Data Exchange
Metadata
publications > open file report > OFR 95-765


US Department of the Interior
US Geological Survey
OFR 95-765


Analysis of Tests of Subsurface Injection, Storage, and Recovery of Freshwater in the Lower Floridan Aquifer, Okeechobee County, Florida


By Vicente Quinones-Aponte, Kevin Kotun, and Joseph F. Whitley

ABSTRACT

A series of freshwater subsurface injection, storage, and recovery tests were conducted at an injection-well site near Lake Okeechobee in Okeechobee County, Florida to assess the recoverability of injected canal water from the Lower Floridan aquifer. At the study site, the Lower Floridan aquifer is characterized as having four local, relatively independent, high-permeability flow zones (389 to 398 meters, 419 to 424 meters, 456 to 462 meters, and 472 to 476 meters below sea level). Four subsurface injection, storage, and recovery cycles were performed at the Lake Okeechobee injection-well site in which volumes of water injected ranged from about 387,275 to 1,343,675 cubic meters for all the cycles, and volumes of water recovered efficiency for successive cycles 2 and 3 increased from 22 percent to 36 percent and is expected to continue increasing with additional cycles.

A comparison of chloride concentration breakthrough curves at the deep monitor well (located about 171 meters from the injection well) for cycles 1, 4 and test no.4 (from a previous study) revealed unexpected findings. One significant result was that the concentration asymptote, expected to be reached at concentration levels equivalent or close to the injected water concentration, was instead reached at higher concentration levels. The injection to recovery rate ratio might affect the chloride concentration breakthrough curve at the deep monitor well, which could explain this unexpected behavior. Because there are four high-permeability zones, if the rate of injection is smaller than the rate of recovery (natural artesian flow), the head differential might not be transmitted through the entire open wellbore, and injected water would probably flow only through the upper high-permeability zones. Therefore, observed chloride concentration values at the deep monitor well would be higher than the concentration of the injected water from the different high-permeability zones.

A generalized digital model was constructed to simulate the subsurface injection, storage, and recovery of freshwater in the Lower Floridan aquifer at the Lake Okeechobee injection-well site. The model was constructed using a modified version of the Saturated-Unsaturated TRAnsport code (SUTRA), which simulates variable-density advective-dispersive solute transport and variable-density ground-water flow. Satisfactory comparison of simulated to observe dimensionless chloride concentrations for the deep monitor well were obtained when using the model during the injection and recovery phases of cycle 1, but not for the determination of the recovery phase of cycle 1 even after several attempts. This precluded the determination of the recovery efficiency values by using the model.

The unsatisfactory comparisons of simulated to observe dimensionless chloride concentrations for the injection well and failure of the model to represent the field data at this well could be due to the characteristics of the Lower Floridan aquifer (at the local scale), which is cavernous or conduit in nature. To test this possibility, Reynolds numbers were estimated at varying distances from the injection well, taking into consideration two aquifer types or conceptual systems, porous media and cavernous. For the porous media conceptual system, the Reynolds numbers were greater than 10 at distances less than 1.42 meters from the injection well. Thus, application of Darcy's law to ground-water flow might not be valid at this distance. However, at the deep monitor well (171 meters from the injection well), the Reynolds number was 0.08 which is indicative of laminar porous media flow. For the cavernous conceptual system, the Reynolds numbers were greater than 2,000 at distances less than 1,000 meters from the well. This number represents the upper limit of laminar flow, which is the fundamental assumption for the application of Darcy's law to free flow.

Results from the study suggest that to simulate recovery efficiency for the Lower Floridan aquifer at the Lake Okeechobee injection-well site might require the application of a free-flow type model (conduit flow or fracture flow). This type of model may produce a more realistic representation of the actual fluid motion in the Lower Floridan aquifer and could provide appropriate estimates of the recovery efficiency.

(The entire report is available below.)


Information about on-line reading and printing of historic documents
These reports and documents have been scanned from the original hard-copy materials and are made available on the internet in both HTML and PDF formats. Because these are scanned documents, we are unable to provide fully-accessible versions of these reports. If you cannot fully access the information in these documents, please contact Heather S. Henkel at hhenkel@usgs.gov.

The HTML versions of these documents have been created to provide the information in a format that is quickly and easily readable over the Internet Selective pages and images can be printed from this HTML version by placing the cursor inside the right-hand frame and selecting the print option from the browser. The PDF version of the reports are also provided, and are the recommended format to use for the best printer format and resolution.

Please note - some PDF files are very large (over 2 MB) and may take some time to download, depending on your system.

 View HTML Version of this report View the HTML version of the report (downloads faster for on-line reading)

 View PDF Version of this report View the PDF version of this report (1.23MB) (best for printing)



| Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | Accessibility |

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
This page is: http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/95-765/index.html
Comments and suggestions? Contact: Heather Henkel - Webmaster
Last updated: 04 November, 2004 @ 08:01 AM (KP)