OCR Text |
Show Table 2.1 Total Pumpage ( m^/ day) for Dewatering Applications QPMAXj ( nw/ day) 1 2 4 6 No. of Agminj Ahminj Active Wells ( m^/ day) ( m) ( CASE 1 . Linear Examole 5 11.499 1.6 22 15 11.546 4.9 22 20 11.570 6.6 22 30 11.617 9.8 9.8 19,22 45 11.688 15.2 14.7 14.7 16,22,22 60 11.758 21.0 19.7 19.7 22,19,22 75 11.828 24.6 24.6 22,22 90 11.899 30.4 29.5 29.5 16,22,22 120 12.039 42.0 39.3 39.3 22,20,22 150 12.180 49.7 49.2 18,22 11.499 ASE2 - JVpnlinea, r Example - No fixed costs 5 1.6 22 15 11.546 4.9 4.9 22,18 30 11.617 9.8 9.8 19,18 45 11.688 15.2 14.8 14.7 16,20,22 60 11.758 21.0 19.7 19.7 22,19,22 75 11.828 24.6 24.6 22,22 90 11.899 30.4 29.5 29.5 16,20,20 120 12.039 39.3 39.3 19,19 150 12.180 49.2 20 CASE 3 - Nonlinear Example - with fixed costs 5 11.499 2.0 6 15 11.546 5.0 5.1 18,11 30 11.617 10.3 10.1 19,18 45 11.688 15.2 15.0 14.7 16,17,21 60 11.758 21.0 19.7 19.7 22,19,22 75 11.828 26.9 27.3 12,10 90 11.899 30.4 29.7 29.7 16,18,20 120 12.039 39.5 16 150 12.180 49.6 16 Results with Linear Objective The graph of drawdown versus total pumpage for the linear objective function is given in figure 2.4. The relationship is linear, as the required amount of drawdown in the area to be dewatered increases, the amount of pumping necessary to achieve this increases also. 21 |