## 3 Engineering Applications
### Water Diversion Project from the Three Gorges Reservoir to Hanjiang River
#### 3.2.2 Slug Test of the Water Diversion Project from the Three Gorges Reservoir to Hanjiang River  
According to the route comparison scheme of the river diversion project and the boreholes situation, the permeability of six boreholes located in the main fault fracture zone was studied, and two sections of fractured strata were selected for testing in each borehole. In total, 12 groups of slug tests were carried out, namely, WDTGH-1-1, WDTGH-1-2, WDTGH-2-1, WDTGH-2-2, WDTGH-3-1, WDTGH-3-2, WDTGH-4-1, WDTGH-4-2, WDTGH-5-1, WDTGH-5-2, WDTGH-6-1 and WDTGH-6-2. Among them, two groups of water pressure tests were carried out synchronously in borehole WDTGH-1 for comparative study. Similarly, according to the theories of the Kipp model, CBP model and HWS model, the slug test data were fitted with the standard curves of the three slug test models. The fitted standard curves are shown in Figure 10.  
Figure 10: _Cont._  
Figure 10: Fitting curve of the WDTGH-1–WDTGH-6 slug tests with different models. (**a1**) WDTGH-1-1, Kipp model; (**a2**) WDTGH-1-1, CBP model; (**a3**) WDTGH-1-1, HWS model; (**b1**) WDTGH-1-2,  
Kipp model; **(b2)** WDTGH-1-2, CBP model; **(b3)** WDTGH-1-2, HWS model; **(c1)** WDTGH-2-1, Kipp model; **(c2)** WDTGH-2-1, CBP model; **(c3)** WDTGH-2-1, HWS model; **(d1)** WDTGH-2-2, Kipp model; **(d2)** WDTGH-2-2, CBP model; **(d3)** WDTGH-2-2, HWS model; **(e1)** WDTGH-3-1, Kipp model; **(e2)** WDTGH-3-1, CBP model; **(e3)** WDTGH-3-1, HWS model; **(f1)** WDTGH-3-2, Kipp model; **(f2)** WDTGH-3-2, CBP model; **(f3)** WDTGH-3-2, HWS model; **(g1)** WDTGH-4-1, Kipp model; **(g2)** WDTGH-4-1, CBP model; **(g3)** WDTGH-4-1, HWS model; **(h1)** WDTGH-4-2, Kipp model; **(h2)** WDTGH-4-2, CBP model; **(h3)** WDTGH-4-2, HWS model; **(i1)** WDTGH-5-1, Kipp model; **(i2)** WDTGH-5-1, CBP model; **(i3)** WDTGH-5-1, HWS model; **(j1)** WDTGH-5-2 Kipp model; **(j2)** WDTGH-5-2, CBP model; **(j3)** WDTGH-5-2, HWS model; **(k1)** WDTGH-6-1, Kipp model; **(k2)** WDTGH-6-1, CBP model; **(k3)** WDTGH-6-1, HWS model; **(l1)** WDTGH-6-2, Kipp model; **(l2)** WDTGH-6-2, CBP model; **(l3)** WDTGH-6-2, HWS model. As shown in Figure 10, the water level recovery rate of these 12 groups of tests is basically gradual, which all fit best with the Kipp model standard curve of the damping coefficient greater than 1. For the CBP model, the smaller the water level recovery rate is, the larger the damping coefficient is, leading to a better fitting effect of the CBP model. When the damping coefficient is less than 3, there will still be poor fitting in some areas, and the damping coefficient is greater than or equal to 3. The fitting effect of the CBP model can basically reach the best. The fitting effect of the HWS model is better than that of the CBP model in general. When the damping coefficient is greater than 1, the HWS model can basically achieve a better fitting effect. The shape difference between different standard curves of the Kipp model is relatively large. The standard curve of different shapes can be selected for fitting according to the actual measured data, so the Kipp model can have more choices in the matching curve, and the fitting effect of the matching curve is also the best. The shape of the standard curve of the CBP model has little difference, and the overall gradient is small. Thus, when conducting the slug test in the high permeability stratum, the measured data can only be matched with the standard curve of the dimensionless water storage coefficient \(\varphi=10^{-5}\) with the largest gradient. When the water level recovers quickly, the fitting effect using the CBP model is not ideal. The standard curve shape of the HWS model is between the other two models. When using the HWS model for fitting, there is a large choice, and its fitting effect is also between the other two models.