## 4 Comparative Analysis of Test Results
### Comparative Analysis of the Central Yunnan Water Diversion Project
#### 4.2.1 Comparative Analysis of the Sectional Water Pressure Test and Slug Test of Borehole WDTGH-1  
The sectional comparison test is carried out in borehole WDTGH-1. The analysis and calculations were carried out by using the water pressure test and three different slug test models. The statistics of the calculation results are shown in Table 3. According to the relationship between water permeability and the permeability coefficient in the Chinese \"Code for engineering geological investigation of water resources and hydropower\" (GB50487-2008) [34], the comprehensive comparison of the calculation results is shown in Figure 13.  
Figure 12: Comparison of the calculation results of different slug test models in boreholes CYWD-2–CYWD-5. It can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 13 that, during the water pressure test and slug test in borehole WDTGH-1, the Kipp model still has a large calculated result among the three slug test models, and the HWS model has a small one at the 91-101 m test section. The calculated results of the CBP model and the HWS model are close at the 217-227 m test section, and the CBP model is relatively small. The calculated results of the three models are basically consistent. The ratio of the maximum and the minimum of the permeability coefficient calculated by the different methods is about two times, and the statistical relationship with the results of the water pressure test is also within the confidence intervals. This shows that both the water pressure test and slug test can obtain the rock mass permeability in the fault fracture zone, but the equipment and test requirements for the water pressure test are higher, and high-pressure water easily causes borehole collapse in the test section of the fractured rock, so only the slug test is carried out in the other boreholes. 2.2 Comparison and Analysis of the Sectional Slug Test of the Water Diversion Project from the Three Gorges Reservoir to Hanjiang River  
Sectional slug tests were carried out in the boreholes WDTGH-2, WDTGH-3, WDTGH-4, WDTGH-5 and WDTGH-6. Two sections of broken zone strata were selected from each borehole for testing. Three different slug tests models were used for the analysis and calculation in each test. The statistics of the calculation results are shown in Table 4, and a comprehensive comparison of the calculation results is shown in Figure 14. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test No.** & **Test Section** & **Test Section** & **Water Permeability of** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Permeability Coefficient of Slug Test (cm/s)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**The Mean of Permeability**} \\  & **Position (m)** & **Length (m)** & **Water Pressure Test (Lo)** & **Kipp Model** & **CBP Model** & **HWS Model** & **Coefficient (cm/s)** \\ \hline WDTGH-1-1 & 91–101 & 10 & 1.80 & \(1.81\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.53\times 10^{-3}\) & \(7.63\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.37\times 10^{-5}\) \\ WDTGH-1-2 & 217–227 & 10 & 3.59 & \(1.29\times 10^{-4}\) & \(9.16\times 10^{-5}\) & \(9.54\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.05\times 10^{-4}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Statistics of the calculation results of the water pressure test and slug test in borehole WDTGH-1. Figure 13: Comparison of calculation results of the water pressure test and slug test in borehole WDTGH-1. It can be seen in Table 4 and Figure 14 that when the sectional slug test is carried out in five boreholes, the calculation results of the Kipp model are still larger, those of the CBP model are in the middle and those of the HWS model are the smallest. Therefore, the calculation results of the CBP model are closest to the average value. However, when the CBP model is used for parameter calculation, due to the similarity of the standard curve shape, it is of great uncertainty to determine the relevant parameters. The principle of the CBP model can be further improved. Hence, this fitting method based on the CBP model may lead to the inaccurate estimation of the aquifer permeability coefficient.