BahanKuliah PDF

GROUNDWATER
ENG
INEERING
Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA
Water Resources Post Graduate Program

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Faculty of Engineering Universitas Gadjah Mada
Yogyakarta, June 2016

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016
Preface
Water is an essential thing for live and with a credo of No living thing exists without
water so the science in water engineering becomes important due to water is

precious resources which get scarcer. Even though volume of water almost one and
half billion cubic kilometer in the world but according to many researchers that only
less than 4% is fresh water and the largest available source lies underground. The
problem is that in the certain area water is difficult to exploit due to hydrological
and geo-hydrological problem. But some time the problem of water providing appears
caused by lack of management like housing development, deforestation, mining and
scientific or others engineering reasons.
This lecture note Groundwater Engineering is intended as a part of textbook in
groundwater hydrology compulsory course in Master Program of Water Resources,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Indonesia and tries to answer the problems of engineering especially in groundwater
engineering. The contents of this lecture note are the history of groundwater, basic
theory and implementation; most of them are result of our research especially the
expansion of Forchheimer theory with the reason that this theory is easier for
practical computation and design purposes rather than Darcys law.
I would like to thank to my students and others whose support to realize this works
with their ability of drawing some pictures, they were Iqbal, Fauzi, Bertho, Irma,
Wisnu, Mamiek, Abel, Adhi, Rayi, Fani, and my colleagues Dr. Budi Kamulyan and Dr.
Intan Supraba whose read this works before been distributed and Prof. Radianta
Triatmodjo who support on pumping system analysis as a comparation.
I dedicate this lecture note for students, colleagues, professional and practicing
engineers, well contractors and drillers, municipal and industrial operators, and others
interested in the future planning and development of groundwater resources whose
aim to increase their deeper study on groundwater problem. For enrichment of the
knowledge, I welcome to discuss the contents of this lecture-note and waiting for the
comments by email: sunysunyoto@gmail.com with the subject: GroundwaterEng.
Yogyakarta, June 6th 2016
Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. Etymology
Hydrogeology
(en)
Geohydrologie (fr)
Geohidrologi (id)
Geohydrology
(en)
Hydrogeologie (fr)
Hidrogeologi (id)
2. Hydrology
a. Water cycle
SUN
THE WATER CYCLE
Water storage in the atmosphere

Precipitation
Water storage
in ice and snow
Sublimation
Condensation
Snowmelt runoff to stream
Infiltration
Surface runoff
Evapotranspiration
Spring
Groundwater
discharge
Groundwater
storage
Fresh water storage
Evaporation
Water storage in oceans
Fig. 1.1. Hydrological cycle
b. Water Balance
Water balance on the ground surface is:
R
PE = R + I
P
E
R
I
: Precipitation
: Evapotranspiration
: Runoff
: Infiltration
Fig. 1.2. Water balance on the ground surface
O
S
I - O = S
I : Inflow
O : Outflow
S : Storage
Fig. 1.3. Water balance of the storage
Acccording to Lee R. (1980) that P + Ev annual is 5*105 km3/y, and equal to the
depth of 973 mm to cover the earth and needs 28 ceturies to evaporate by
atmospheric destilation.
c. Water Quantity in the Earth (Volume dimension x106 Km3 )

Table 1.1. Water distribution in the earth (Todd, 1980)
Volume x106
Items
Ocean location
Saline Water
Continents location
Lake fresh water
Lake saline water
Rivers
Soil moisture
Groundwater (above 4000 m)
Eternal ice and snow
Total volume
Atmosphere location:
Vapor
Total water
Percentage
1,320 km3
97.300%
0.125 km3
0.0090%
0.0080%
0.0001%
0.067 km
0.0050%
8.350 km
0.6100%
2.1400%
0.104 km
0.00125 km
29.200 km
37.800 km3
2.800%
0.013 km3
0.001%
1,360 km
100.000%
Table 1.2. Water distribution in the earth (Nace, 1971)
Items
Saline water
Ice & snow
Vapor
Groundwater
Surface water
Total water
Volume x106
Percentage
1,370 km
94.000%
30 km
2.000%
60 km
0.010%
4.000%
0.040%
100.000%
Table 1.3. Water distribution in the earth (Huissman, 1978)
Items
Free water, consist of:
Saline water
Ice & snow
Vapor
Fresh water, consist of:
Groundwater
Surface water
Total water
Volume x106
1,370 km
Percentage
3
97.200%
2.100%
0.001%
0.600%
98.80%
1.20%
100.000%
5
Table 1.4. Distribution of saline and fresh water (in 1000 km3)
(http.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Distribution_on_Earth) Cited: 18/March 2016)
N
o
Source of water
Ocean
a. Pacific
b. Atlantic
c. Indian
d. Southern
e. Artic
2
2a
Volume of
water
310,410.90
264,000.00
71,800.00
18,750,00
2b
3
3a
3b
Groundwater
Saline groundwater
Fresh groundwater
23,400.00
Soil Misture
16,500.00
5
5a
.
Lakes
Saline Lakes
176.40
6
7
8
9
1.760000
24,064.00
21,600.00
2,340.00
83.500
40.600
300.00
1.690000
12,870.00
10,530.00
0.001200
0.013000
85.40
a. Caspian sea
b. Other saline lakes
Fresh water lakes
78.20
7.20
91.00
African great lakes

Lake Baikal
North American Great lakes
Other fresh water lakes
Swamps
Rivers
Biological water
Atmosphere
% total
water
5
96.500000
669,880.00
24,364.00
a.
b.
c.
d.
Volume of
water
1,338,000.00
Ice and Snow

Glaciers
a. Antartic ice sheet
b. Greenland ice sheet
c. Artic islands
d. Mountain ranges
Ground Ice & Permafrost
5b
.
Volume of
water
30.07
23.62
22.10
15.20
11.47
2.12
1.12
12.90
0.000830
0.000150
0.000081
0.000930
Table 1.5. Water distribution in the earth (Baumgartner and Reichel, 1975)
Items
Solid
Liquid
Oceans
Continent; groundwater
Continent; surface water
Vapor
Total (all forms)
Saline water
Fresh water
Volume
Percentage
7
2.010%
97.989%
97.390%
8.062*106 km3
0.583%
2.782*10 km
1.356*10 km
1.348*10 km
5
0.001%
100.000%
97.938%
2.202%
2.250*10 km
1.300*10 km
1.384*10 km
1.348*10 km
3.602*10 km
0.016%
Table 1.6. Fresh water distribution in the earth (Baumgartner and Reichel, 1975)
Items
Solid
Liquid
Groundwater
Soil moisture
Lakes
Rivers, organic
Vapor
Total (all forms)
Volume
Percentage
7
77.23%
22.73%
22.20%
6.123*104 km3
0.17%
2.782*10 km
8.187*10 km
7.996*10 km
5
0.35%
0.01%
0.04%
100.00%
1.261*10 km
3.602*10 km
1.300*10 km
3.602*10 km
Table 1.7. Annual average water balance components for the earth (Fig. 1.4)
Item
Area (10 km )
6
Continent
Ocean
Earth
148.90
361.10
510.00
Volume (10 km )
Precipitation
+111
+385
+496
Evaporation
-71
-425
-496
Discharge
-40
+40
+745
+1066
+973
-477
-1177
-973
-269
+111
Avererage depth (mm)
Precipitation
Evaporation
Discharge
Source: Baumgartner & Reichel (1975) in Lee R., (1980)

P=111
Q=40
P=385
ATMOSPHER
E=71
Q=40
E=425
Water balance:
P + E + Q = 0
in 103 km3
CONTINENT
OCEAN
Fig. 1.4. Earth water balance components {Baumgartner & Reichel (1975) in Lee R., (1980)}.
d. Management of Groundwater
1). Advantages and Disadvantages of Groundwater
Table 1.7. Conjunctive use of Surface and Groundwater Resources
Advantages
Disadvantages
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Greater water conservation

Smaller surface storage
1. Less hydroelectric power
Smaller surface distribution system

Smaller drainage system
Reduced canal lining
Greater flood control
Ready integration with existing
development
3. Decreased pumping efficiency
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Stage development facilitated

Smaller evapotranspiration losses
Greater control over flow
Improvement of power load
2. Greater power consumption

4. Greater water salination
5. More complex project operation
6. More difficult cost allocation
7. Artificial recharge is required
8. Danger of land subsidence
Less danger than dam failure

Reduction in weed seed distribution
Better timing of water distribution
Almost good quality of water resources
Source: Clendenen in Todd (1980).

Table 1.8. Advantages and disadvantages of subsurface and surface reservoirs (USBR)
Subsurface Reservoirs
Surface Reservoirs
Advantages
Disadvantages
1. Many large-capacity site available

2. Slight to no evaporation loss
1. Few new site available

2. High evaporation loss even in humid
3. Require little land area

4. Slight to no danger of catastrophic
4. Ever-present danger of catastrophic
structural failure
5. Uniform water temperature
6. High biological purity
climate
3. Require large land area
failure
5. Fluctuating water temperature
6. Easily contaminated
7. Safe from immediate radioactive fallout

8. Serve as conveyance systems-canals or
7. Easily contaminated radioactive fallout

8. Water must be conveyed
Disadvantages
Advantages
pipelines across land of others

unnecessary
1. Water must be pumped

2. Storage and conveyance use only
3. Water maybe mineralized
1. Water maybe available by gravity flow

2. Multiple use
3. Water generally of relatively low mineral
4.
5.
6.
7.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Minor flood control value

Limited flow at any point
Power head usually not available
Difficult and costly to evaluate,
investigate and manage
content
Maximum flood control value

Large flows
Power head available
Relatively to evaluate, investigate and
manage
8. Recharge opportunity usually dependent
8. Recharge dependent on annual
9. Recharge water maybe require expensive
9. No treatment require recharge of
of surplus of surface flows
treatment
10. Continues expensive maintenance of
recharge area or wells
precipitation
recharge water
10. Little maintenance required of

facilities
Table 1.9. Attributes of Groundwater

There is more ground water than surface water
Ground water is less expensive and economic resource.
Ground water is sustainable and reliable source of water supply.
Ground water is relatively less vulnerable to pollution
Ground water is usually of high bacteriological purity.
Ground water is free of pathogenic organisms.
Ground water needs little treatment before use.
Ground water has no turbidity and color.
Ground water has distinct health advantage as art alternative for lower sanitary
quality surface water.
Ground water is usually universally available.
Ground water resource can be instantly developed and used.
There are not conveyance losses in ground water based supplies.
Ground water has low vulnerability to drought.
Ground water is key to life in arid and semi-arid regions.
Ground water is source of dry weather flow in rivers and streams.
Source: http://www.tn.gov.in/dtp/rainwater.htm
e. Data collection
1). Topographic & Ground surface data
2). Geologic data
3). Hydrologic data
(a). Surface inflow and outflow
(b). Imported and exported water
(c). Precipitation
(d). Evapotranspiration
(e). Consumptive use
(f). Changes in surface storage
(g). Changes in soil moisture
(h). Changes in groundwater storage
(i). Subsurface inflow and outflow
10
3. History
a. Hydraulic Works
Hydrology is a science which study about water movement from the evaporation till
value of precipitation reaches the ground surface. Groundwater Flow focuses on the
movement of water in subsurface hence Hydraulic is a science which study about
water movement on the ground surface. Science historical development on those
works carried out by:
1). Archimides (287-212 BC)
2). Marcus Vitruvius Pallio (1st Century BC)
3). Sextus Julius Frontinus (40-103)
4). Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
5). Simon Stevin (1458-1620)
6). Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
7). Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1684)
8). Edme Mariotte (1620-1662)
9). Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
10). Robert Hooke (1635-1703)
11). Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
12). Domenoco Gugliemini (1655-1761)
13). Giovanni Poleni (1683-1761)
14). Henri de Pitot (1695-1771)
15). Naniel Bernoulli (1700-1782)
16). Leonhard Euler (1707-1783)
17). Alexis Claude Clairaut (1713-1765)
18). Jean le Rond dAlembert (1717-1783)
19). Antoine Chezy (1718-1798)
20). John Smeaton (1724-1814)
21). Charles Bossut (1730-1814)
22). Jean Charles Borda (1733-1799)
23). Pierre Louis Georges du Buat (1734-1809)
24). Charles Augustine de Coulomb (1736-1813)
25). Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736-1813)
26). Giovani Battista Venturi (1746-1822)
27). Riche de Prony (1755-1839)
28). Franz Joseph von Gerstner (1756-1837)
11
29). Reihard Woltman (1757-1837)

30). Johann Albert Eytelwein (1764-1848)
31). Giuseppe Venturoli (1768-1846)
32). Giorgio Bidone (1781-1839)
33). Louis Marie Henri Navier (1785-1836)
34). Jean Baptise Belanger (1789-1874)
35). Gaspard Gustave de Coriolis (1792-1843)
36). Ernst Heinrich Weber (1795-1891) & Wilhelm Eduard Weber (1804-1891)
37). Gotthilf Herinrich Ludwig Hagen (1797-1884)
38). Jean-Clauude Barre de Saint Venent (1797-1886)
39). Jean Louis Poiseuille (1799-1869)
40). George Bidle Airy (1801-1892)
41). Benoit Fourneyron (1802-1867)
42). Henri Philibert Gaspard Darcy (1803-1858)
43). Arsene Jules Emile Juvenal Dupuit (1804-1866)
44). Fredinand Reech (1805-1880)
45). Julius Weisbach (1806-1871)
46). John Scott Russell (1806-1871)
47). William Froude (1810-1879)
48). James Bicheno Francis (1815-1892)
49). Robert Manning (1816-1897)
50). Emile Oscar Ganguillet (1818-1894) & William Rudolf Kutter (1818-1888)
51). George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903)
52). Emmanuel Joseph Boudin (1820-1893)
53). Herman Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz (1821-1883)
54). Jacques Antoine Charles Bresse (1822-1883)
55). Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824-1887)
56). William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
57). Lester Allen Pelton (1829-1908)
58). Henri Emile Bazin (1829-1917)
59). Osborne Reynolds (1842-1912)
60). John William Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
61). Joseph Boussinesq (1841-01929)
62). Clemens Herschel (1842-1930)
63). Nicolai Egorovich Joukowsky (1847-1921)
64). Paul Francois Dominique du Boys (1847-1924)
65). Horace Lamb (1849-1934)
66). Junius Massau (1852-1909)
67). Hubert Engels (1854-1945)
68). John Ripley Freeman (1855-1932)
12
b. Chronology of recorded hydraulic structure works (Biswas, 1970) in Reddi

(2003))
3200 BC : Reign of King Scorpion, first recorded evidence of water resources
works.
3000 BC : Damming of the Nile, thus diverting its course, by King Menes
3000 BC : Nilometers used to record fluctuation of the Nile
2850 BC : Failure of Sadd el-Kafara dam
2750 BC : Origin of Indus Valley water supply and drainage systems
2200 BC : Various waterworks of the Great Yu in China
2200 BC : Spring water conveyance to the Palace of Cnossos (Crete), dams at
Makhai and Lakorian in Persia
1950 BC : Connection of the Nile River and Red Sea by navigational canal during
the reign of Seostris I.
1900 BC : Sinnor constructed at Gezer (Palestine)
1850 BC : Lake Moeris and other works of Pharaoh Amenemhet III
1800 BC : Nilometers at second Cataract in Semna
1750 BC : Water codes of King Hamurabi
1700 BC : Josephs well near Cairo, nearly 325 ft in depth
1500 BC : Two springs joints by Sinnor in the city of Tell Taannek in Palestine
1300 BC : Irrigation and drainage systems of Nippur, Quantinah dam on the
Orantes River in Syria constructed under the reign of Sethi I or
Ramses II.
1050 BC : Water meters used at the Gadames oasis in North of Africa
750 BC : Marib and other dams on River Wadi Dhana in Yemen
714 BC : Destruction of qanat systems of Ulhu (Armenia) by King Saragon II,
qanat systems stream gradually to Persia, Egypt and India
690 BC : Construction of Sennacheribs channel
600 BC : Dams in Murghab River in Persia (destroyed in 1258 AD)
200 BC : Irrigation system equipped by wood water lock in Guanzhu China
13
c. Sub-surface water providers

1). Dug well
Fig. 1.5. Sketch of crude dug well cross section as the first generation of step well (left) and
a crude dug well in Shinyanga Region of Tanzania. (DHV Con. Eng., in Todd, 1980) (right)
The simplest dug well is crude dug well which are still unprotected where the
people go down to draw a water directly (Fig. 1.5 & Fig.1.6-right). Then brick or
masonry casing dug well which were build before century and the dug well with
casing equipped by bucket, rope and wheel to draw water from the cased dug well
(Fig. 1.6-left& Fig 1.7& Fig 1.8). In the modern era the protected dugwells are
installed the hand pump and electric pump to replace the human power (Fig. 1.8).
Fig. 1.6. Communal dug well, equipped by recharge systems surraunding the well (Left) and
Traditional step well in India it is called baollis or vavadi were built from 8th to 15th century
(right)-(Source: Nainshree G. Sukhmani A. Design of Water Conservation System through Rain Water
Harvesting; an Excel Sheet Approach)
14
Fig. 1.7. Conventional unprotected dug well
https://www.google.com/search?q=dugwell&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5u9K4ucvLAhUTC44KHRN
tCzoQsAQIHA&biw=1289&bih=697#imgdii=FTL3sNSxvoOJsM%3A%3BFTL3sNSxvoOJsM%3A%3BSNbx_j4fZTzjCM%
3A&imgrc=FTL3sNSxvoOJsM%3A (cited: 03/19/2016).
Fig. 1.8. A modern domestic dug wells with rock curb, concrete seal and hand pump and cased
dug well with electric suction pump.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dugwell&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5u9K4ucvLAhUTC44KHRN
tCzoQsAQIHA&biw=1289&bih=697#imgdii=FTL3sNSxvoOJsM%3A%3BFTL3sNSxvoOJsM%3A%3BSNbx_j4fZTzjCM%
3A&imgrc=FTL3sNSxvoOJsM%3A (cited: 03/19/2016).
2). Qanat
Qanat or Channel is a system of water exploitation which providing irrigation

water in Central East. Qanat is a method to get clean water by digging horizontal
gallery across the slope surface of ground till reach groundwater table of the
aquifer. From this aquifer water flow with smaller slope than original slope of
groundwater table by impervious canal go in the direction of irrigation area (Fig.
1.8-right). According to Todd (1980), the total gallery length of qanats in this
area, reach thousands of miles. Iran has the greatest concentration of qanats,
here some 22,000 qanats are supplying 75% of all water used in the country.
15
Lengths of qanats extend up to 30 km but most are less than 5 km. The depth of
qanats mother well is normally less than 50 m but instances of depth exceeding
250 m. Discharges of qanats vary seasonally with water table fluctuation and
seldom exceed 100 m3/h. The longest qanat near Zarand, Iran is 29 km with a
mother well depth of 96 m with 966 shafts along its length and the total volume
of material excavated is estimated at 75,400 m3 (Todd, 1980). The diffusion of
that technology spread out from Persia Asia to Nord Africa, Europe and America
(Fig. 1.8-left).
Fig. 1.8. Diffusion of qanat technology to around the world (left) and vertical cross section
along a qanat (right)
3). Water coveyance

Water conveyance to provide water demand in Europe had been built since the
beginning of civilization and the ruins still exist like in Greek and in former Roman
Kingdom region. Spring water as a source of drinking water is usually be conveyed
to the town by network of canals, aquaducts, tunnel and shafts, siphon, pipes
water distribution and other water conveyance etc (Fig. 1.9 & Fig 1.10).
16
Fig. 1.9. Roman aquaducts (left) as water coveyance (right) were built before century
(https://www.google.co.id/search?q=roman+syphon+aqueduct&rlz=1C1GGGE___ID511ID513&espv=2&biw=1360&bih
=623&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCoQsARqFQoTCMjj2v7qsgCFQxxjgod2dkBdQ#imgrc=rf9wopfJ9Zy-CM%3A) (cited: 01/10/2015).
Note:
1. Infiltration gallery/qanat
2. Steep chute in this case dropshafts
3. Settling tank
4. Tunnel and shafts
5. Covered trench
6. Aquaduct bridge
7. Siphon
8. Substruction
9. Arcade
10. Distribution basin
11. Water distribution (pipes)
Fig. 1.10. Roman city ground water provider and the conveyance system.
(https://www.google.co.id/search?q=roman+syphon+aqueduct&rlz=1C1GGGE___ID511ID513&espv=2&biw=1360&bih
=623&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCoQsARqFQoTCMjj2v7qsgCFQxxjgod2dkBdQ#imgrc=rf9wopfJ9Zy-CM%3A) (cited: 01/10/2015).
4). Crush Bore Well (Cable tool)

Crush Bore Well is a well which is built to provide drinking water by crush or
impact of a sharp cylindrical metal using cable tool to rise on the certain height
and then be released and fall down to the ground and create a hole which reach
groundwater table. In Egypt this system was implemented since 3000 BC, in Rome
near the first century and in a small town in south of French called Artis, which
17
the well had a hydraulic pressure and it created an artesian well due to the water
squirt out from the well (Fig. 1.11).
Fig. 1.11. Schematic cross section illustrating unconfined and confined aquifer (Todd, 1980)
5). Rotary Bore Well

Rotary bore well was implemented since 1890 in USA to draw gas and oil and the
hole reach 2,000 meter depth. Nowadays, the rotary bore well reach about 7,000
meters depth. Many kind of rotary bore apparatus and drill bits presented in the
(Fig. 1.12).
Fig. 1.12. Rotary boring machine and drills bit.

(https://www.google.com/search?q=rotary+boring&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqopCStcvLA
hUGBo4KHZO8AdUQsAQIHA#imgrc=MdD5HwscMpTwRM%3A) (cited: 03/19/2016).
18
6). Springs with kaptering

Spring is an outflow of groundwater to the ground surface through the fracture
hole of the rock due to hydraulic head or gravitational force (Fig. 1.13). Kaptering
or spring catcher artificial construction, and this technique had been implemented
since before century like in Greek or Roman Kingdom. Spring water as a drinking
water is usually be conveyed by network of pipes or canals to the town (Fig. 1.15).
Like in Trowulan as capital of Majapahit Kingdom in East Java which was build in 12
century, one building ruin is presumed that it was kaptering or a spring catcher.
On the site of spring water flow was built a temple is now called Tikus Temple.
Nowadays from this temple still flow water eventhough with small discharge. This
building was installed the inflow-outflow and overflow system and conveyance
pipes to center town and water conservation pond (Fig. 1.14- right).
Fig. 1.13. Diagrams that illustrating types of gravity springs. (a). Depression spring. (b).
Contact springs. (c). Fracture artesian spring. (d). Solution tabular spring (Bryan, in
Todd, 1980)
Picture below Fig. 1.14-left are aechaelogical remains of the kingdom, presumed as
kaptering or spring catcher, nowadays its called Tikus Temple and the next one is
water ponds/artificial lakes of 6 ha surface area each, with brick retaining wall as
19
city water conservation which is nowadays called Segaran Pond, and segaran it
means like a sea where these ponds are about 5 km away from Tikus temple as a
spring water main source (Fig. 1.14-right) and the distance between spring catcher
to the palace is about 4 km.
Fig. 1.14. Kaptering or spring water catcher (left) and Water pond/artificial lake with brick
structure (right) (personal collection photo = pcp).
Fig. 1.15. Ancient conveyance pipes, distribution pipes, fontaine and dug well (Photos:
Prodjopangarso)
The ancient conveyance pipes, distribution pipes, fontaine and dugwell as

archaeological remains too presented on the Fig. 1.15. Ceramic pipes system with
diameter about 60 cm, to convey water from kaptering to the pond and to the city.
The distribution ceramic pipes for the housing of capital city of the kingdom with
about inches diameter and four types of pipe are straights, T, bending or elbow
and joint system between pipe and others are equal to the modern poly-vinylcarbonate (PVC) or steel pipes. Fontains in the city will sprut water up side caused
20
by hydraulic head in pressured pipe. The next picture is ancient a dug well cased
by bricks in the housing of the capital city of the kingdom.
7). Small springs
Southern region of Yogyakarta is karstic area, where water is difficult to storage
on the ground and it can be found after drilling more than 100m. There is not dug
well in this area and the people use spring water usually in small discharge which is
far away from home so they need the jerrycans to convey home and putting its on
the queue to fill a water (Fig. 1.16).
Fig. 1.16. Karstic area village in southern Yogyakarta, the queue of jerrycans and the water
filling from the spring (pcp).
8). Subsurface river

To provide the drinking water in other villages of the Southern region of
Yogyakarta, Goverment of Indonesia developed sustainable pumping system in
Bribin cave with Pump as Turbine (PAT) system (Fig. 1.18-right-below). The base of
underground rivers where the water flow is 102 m below ground surface and the
design discharge is 80 l/s, it provides drinking water for more than 200.000
populations. The problem was how to build the barrage, to install the turbine,
generator and pumping system inside the cave without enough access road. The
solution was that this project needed the new road and vertical tunnel with 2.40 m
dimeter must be bored first by special tunneling system (Fig. 1.18-left&center &
right-above) for 102 m depth. The concrete barrage will create the 900 m long
21
storage with the discharge 2-4 m3/s, it has 14m hydraulic head and this head is
used to generate the turbine then generator which produces electricity 220 kVA.
This electricity powered a pump for the 80 l/s discharge flows to the ground
surface. The spillway of this storage is a natural branche cave wich can allow
excess water flow to the other caves (Fig. 1.17). All of mechanical tools like
turbines, pump, generator and vertical boring machine were contructed by
University
of
Karlsruhe
(Fig.
1.18)
as
realization
of
Indonesia-Germany
Coorporation.
Fig. 1.17. Cross section of the cave of Bribin Pump as Turbine (PAT) Project in Yogyakarta
Indonesia:
Under construction 2013
Fig. 1.18. Schema of vertical boring machine and drill bit (left&center), installed vertical
boring machine (right-above) and hydropower & pumping system (right-below) (Photo:
University of Karlsruhe)
22
4. Qualitative Theory on Groundwater Flow

a. Early Greek Philosophers
Homer, Thales (624-546 BC) and Plato (428-347 BC) hypothesized that springs were
formed by sea water conducted through subterranean channels below the mountains,
then purified and raised to the surface.
b. Aristoteles (384-322 BC
Water is every day carried up and is dissolved into vapor and rises to the upper
region, where it is condensed again by the cold and so returns to the earth.
c. Marcus Vitruvius (15 BC)
Theory of the hydrologic cycle, in which precipitation falling in the mountains
infiltrated the Earth's surface and led to streams and springs in the lowlands.
d. Early Roman Philosophers
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (1 BC AD 65) and Pliny clarified theory of Aristoteles is
precipitation fall down in the mountain, a part of water infiltrate to the ground as a
storage water and then flow out as springs.
e. Bernard Palissy (1509-1589)
He described more clearly about hydrological cycle from evaporation in the sea till
water come back again to the sea in his book: Des aux et fontaines.
f. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
The earth as a big monster whose suck water from the sea, be digested and flow out
as fresh water in springs.
g. Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680)
The interaction between water and magma heat which causes heated water to rise
through fissures and tidal and surface wind pressure on the ocean surface which
forces ocean water into undersea.
23
5. Quantitative Theory on Groundwater Flow

a. Pierre Perrault (1608-1690)
He observed rainfall and streamflow in the Seine River basin, confirming Palissy's
hunch and thus began the study of modern scientific hydrology. He said that the
depth of precipitation in the Seine River, France was 520 mm/y.
b. Edme Mariotte (1620-1684)
In his book Des mouvements des eaux, he concluded that Seine River had discharge Q
= 200,000 ft3/min, local flow is 1/6 part, evaporation is 1/3 part and infiltration is
1/3 part.
c. Edmund Halley (16561742)
He developed the equation of balance: I O = S
d. Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782)
He stated that, in a steady flow, the sum of all forms of mechanical energy in a fluid
along a streamline is the same at all points on that streamline. His theory is about the
relationship between pressure and velocity in hydrodynamic and aerodynamic.
e. Jean Leonard Marie Poiseuille (1797-1869).
The original derivation of the relations governing the laminar flow of water through a
capillary tube was made by him in the early of 19 th century.
f. Reynold (1883)
The Reynolds number (Re) is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of
the ratio of inertial forces V2/L to viscous forces V/L2 and consequently quantifies
the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.
g. Henry Philibert Gaspard Darcy (June 10, 1803 January 3, 1858)
On his books Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon (1856), he developed
mathematical equation for flow in porous media with the relationship: discharge is
24
area of flow multiplied by coefficient of permeability multiplied by hydraulic

gradient. Hydraulic gradient is ratio between difference water surfaces to the
distance of each other.
h. Badon Ghijben (1888) & Herzberg (1901)
In the their own laboratory without communication and information each other they
developed an equilibrium theory of fresh water and saline water in the circular island
of porous soil and they had equal conclusion.
i. Jules Dupuit (1863)
In his book: Estudes thoriques et pratiques sur le mouvement des aux dans les
canaux dcouverts et travers les terrains permables. Dupuit developed the

formulas for groundwater flow from trench to trench with definite distance, radial
flow in unconfined and confined aquifer with definite distance.
j. Adolph Thiem (1870)
He was a German engineer who developed the equation for the flow toward well and
infiltration galleries.
k. Gunther Thiem (190)
In 1906, he continued Dupuit principle and his fathers research and he developed
steady stage equation for the circular flow, using two test wells and drawdown data,
and the formula is nowaday called Dupuit-Thiem.
l. Lugeon (1930)
Lugeon developed the double packers bore holes inflow test made at constant head.
Lugeon is a measure of permeability of rocks, determined by pressurized injection of
water through a bore hole driven through the rock and created the dimension of rock
permeability as LU (Lugeon Unit).
m. Theis (1936)
25
The Theis equation was developed to determine transmissivity of storage coefficient

by drawdown measuring at any given radius from the well in form exponential integral.
Due to the equations are difficult to compute so the table and the graphical solutions
are needed.
n. Expansion of Theis
Cooper-Jacob (1946) simplified the Theis formula by negligible after the first two
terms. The same manner it was expanded too by Chow (1952) and Todd (1980) and all
together their methods still need graphical solution.
o. Forchheimer (1930)
He developed a flow equation of steady state radial flow in borehole using a new
parameter is shape factor and using this term whose he neglected observation data
of ratio between difference elevation of water surfaces o the distance of each other
which is called hydraulic gradient (i) which is an important parameter of Darcys Law.
p. Expansion of Forchheimer
The development of shape factors had been carried out by Samsioe (1931), Dachler
(1936), Lefranc (1936; 1937), Taylor (1948), Kirkham & van Bavel (1948), Luthian &
Kirkham (1949), Hvorslev (1951), Schneebeli (1954), Kallstenius & Wallgren (1956),
Aravin (1965), Smiles & Young (1965), Wilkinson (1968), Al-Dahir & Morgenstern
(1969), Raymond & Azzouz (1969), Band & Premchitt (1980), Randolp & Booker (1982),
Tavenas (1986), Chapuis (1989) and Sunjoto (1988-now).
q. Taylor (1940)
Certain guiding principles are necessary such as the requirement that the formation
of the flownet is only proper when it is composed of curvilinear squares.
r. Sunjoto (1988-now)
26
Base on Forchheimer (1930) principle, Sunjoto (1988) developed an unsteady state

radial flow equation for well which was derived by integration solution. In 2002 he
improved the existing shape factors of the tip of the well and in 2008 he developed
too the formula of unsteady state condition for recharge trench and the shape
factors for rectangular forms.
6. Interest of Research
a.
b.
c.
d.
Russian
Dutchman
Japanese
Indonesian
Groundwater in ice region

Groundwater in sand dunes
Hot groundwater
Recharge Systems
7. Dimension and Unit

a. Georgy System (mks)
Table 1.8. Dimension and Unit
Description
Dimension
Unit
mass
length
time
Force
m
l
t
mlt-2
gram
meter
second
N (Newton) = kg.m.s-2
Energy
ml2t-2
J (Joule)
Power
ml2t-3
W (Watt) = N.m.s-1= kg.m.s-1
Pressure
ml-1t-2
N.m-2
= N.m
b. Metric prefixes
Table 1.9. Metric prefices
Prefix
Symbol
Factor
Prefix
Symbol
Factor
tera
1012
centi
10-2
giga
109
milli
10-3
mega
106
micro
10-6
kilo
103
nano
10-9
hecto
102
pico
10-12
deca
da
101
femto
10-15
deci
10-1
atto
10-18
27
c. Conversion of unit
Table 1.10. Conversion
Description
Unit
mks
Note
Force
1 kg
g.N
1 N = 105 dynes
Energy
1 kg.m
g.J
g = 9.78 m.s-2 = 32.3 ft.s-2
Power
1 kg.m.s-1
g.W
1 HP = 75.g.W = 734 W
d. Metric-English equivalents
Table 1.11. Metric-English equivalent
1). Length
1 cm = 0.3937 in
1m
6). Velocity
1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s
= 3.281 ft
= 2.237 mi/hr
1 km = 0.6214 mi
1 km/hr = 0.9113 ft/s
2). Area
= 0.6214 mi/hr
1 cm2 = 0.1550 in2

1 m2 = 10.76 ft2
7). Pressure
1 Pa = 9.8692 .10-6 atm
1 ha = 2.471 acre
= 10-5 bar
1 km2 = 0.3861 mi2
= 10 dyne/cm2
= 3.346 .10-4 ft H2O (4o C)
3). Volume
1 cm3 = 0.06102 in3
1l
= 2.953 .10-4 in Hg ( 0o C)
= 0.2642 gal = 0.03531 ft3
= 0.0075 mm Hg
1m3 = 264.2 gal = 35.31 ft3
= 0.1020 kg (force)/m2
= 8.106 .10-4 acre.ft

4). Mass
1g
8). Flow rate

-3
= 2.205 .10 lb (mass)
1 kg = 2.205 lb (mass)
-4
= 9.842 .10 long ton

5). Temperature
o
= 0.02089 lb (force)/ft2
C = K 273.15
= (o F 32)/1.8
1 l/s
= 15.85 gpm
= 0.02282 mgd = 0.03531 cfs
1 m3/s = 1.585 .104 gpm

= 22.82 mgd = 35.31 cfs
1 m3/d = 0.1834 gpm= 2.642 .10-4 mgd =
4.087 .10-4 cfs
28
9). Force
1N
15). Density of water,
= 105 dyne
1000 kgmass/m3= 1.94 slugs/ft3
= 0.1020 kg (force)
(when 50o F/10o C)
= 0.2248 lb (force)
16). Specific weight of water,

9.807 .103 N/m3 = 62.4 lb/ft3 (50oF/10oC)
10). Power
1 W = 9.478 .10-4 BTU/s
= 0.2388 cal/s
= 0.7376 ft.lb (force)/s
17). Dynamic viscosity of water,

1.30 .10-3 Pa.s=2.73 .10-5lb.s/ft2(50o/10oC)
10-3 Pa.s = 2.05 .10-5 lb.s/ft2 (68o F/20o C)
18). Kinematic viscosity of water,
11). Water quality

1 mg/l = 1 ppm = 0.0584 grain/gal
12). Hydraulic conductivity
1 m/d = 24.54 gpd/ft2
= 1.198 darcy (water 20o C)
1 cm/s = 2.121 .104 gpd/ft2
= 1035 darcy (water 20o C)
13). Gravitational acceleration, g
9.807 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 (std., free fall)
1.30.10-6m2/s=1.41 .10=5 ft2/s(50o F/10oC)

10-6 m2/s = 1.06 .10-5 ft2/s (68o F/20o C)
19). Atmospheric pressure, p (std)
1.013 .105 Pa = 14.70 psia
20). Energy
1 J = 9.478 .10-4 BTU
= 0.2388 cal
= 0.7376 ft.lb (force)
= 2.788 .10-7 kW.hr
14). Heat
1 J/m2 = 8.806 .10-5 BTU/ft2
=
2.390 .10-5 cal/cm2
1 J/kg = 4.299 .10-4 BTU/lb (mass)

= 2.388 .10-4 cal/g
21). Viscosity
1 Pa.s = 103 centistoke= 10 poise
= 0.02089 lb (force).s/ft2
1 m2/s = 106 centistoke = 10.76 ft2/s
e. Legends
1). Density
Symbol
Dimension
: ml-3
Unit
: kgmass.m-3 or slug.ft-3
29
Detail:
1 slug = 14.60 kgmass
1 feet = 0.305 m
1 slug.ft-3
= 514.580 kgmass.m-3
In practical use:
pure water
= 1,000 kgmass.m-3
= 1.94 slug.ft-3
sea water
= 1,026 kgmass.m-3
= 1.99 slug.ft-3
Table 1.12. Density of pure water dependent temperature

t (oC) (kgmass.m-3)
t (oC) (kgmass.m-3) t (oC) (kgmass.m-3)
0
999.8679
10
999.7277
20
998.2323
t (oC)
(kgmass.m-3)
30
995.6756
999.9267
12
999.5247
22
997.7993
32
995.0542
1000.0000
14
999.2712
24
997.3256
34
994.3991
999.9081
16
998.9701
26
996.8128
36
993.7110
999.8762
18
998.6232
28
996.2623
38
992.9936
30
2). Specific weight
Symbol
: = .g
Dimension
: ml-2t-2
Unit
: N.m-3 atau lbs.ft-3
3). Specific Gravity
Symbol
: s
Dimension
:-
Unit
:-
s = /w = /w
4). Viscosity
(a). Dynamic viscosity
Symbol
Dimension
: ml-1t-1
Unit
: N.s.m-2
1 N.s.m-2 = 10 poise; 478 poise = 1 lbs.s.ft-2
Table 1.13. Dynamic viscosity of water dependent temperature

t (oC)
t (oC)
t (oC)
(10 poisses)
(10 poisses)
-2
t (oC)
(10 poisses)
-2
(10 poisses)
-2
-2
1.7921
10
1.3077
20
1.0050
30
0.8007
1.6728
12
1.2363
22
0.9579
32
0.7679
1.5674
14
1.1709
24
0.9142
34
0.7371
1.4728
16
1.1111
26
0.8737
36
0.7085
1.3860
18
1.0559
28
0.8360
38
0.6814
(b). Cinematic viscocity
Symbol
= /
Dimension
: l2t-1
Unit
: m2s-1 or stokes
1 m2s-1 = 10-4 stokes
1 ft2s-1 = 929 stokes
5). Surface Tension
Symbol
Dimension
: mt-2
Unit
: N.m-1
water/air
= 0.074 N.m-1
31
Table 1.14. Relationship of , and of water
t = 10o C; p = atm
Water
Air
Unit
t = 60o F; p = atm
Water
Air
Unit
1000
1.37
kgmass.m-3
1.94
2.37*10-3
slug.ft-3
1.3*10-2
1.8*10-4
poise
2.3*10-5
3.7*10-7
lbs.s.ft-2
1.3*10-6
1.3*10-5
m2s-1
1.2*10-5
1.6*10-4
ft2s-1
32
II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

1. Terminology
a. Aquifer
The origin of aqua is water and ferre is contain. Aquifer is a rock which has
internal structure and so it can flow water in field condition, for instans sand,
gravel, sandstone and karst and lava. Or an aquifer is a wet underground layer
of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, silt,
or clay) from which groundwater can be usefully extracted using a water well.
b. Aquiclude
The origin of claudere is to shut. Aquiclud is a rock which it can keep amount
of water but it cannot flow a water in significantly, or an impermeable body of
rock or stratum of sediment that acts as a barrier to the flow of groundwater,
for instans clay, shale, fine tuf, silt.
c. Aquifuge
The origin of fugere is to expel. Aquifug is a rock which it structur cannot
keep and flow a water, for instans granite and other compact rock or an
impermeable body of rock which contains no interconnected openings or
interstices and therefore neither absorbs nor transmits water or a body of
rock that is incapable of absorbing or transmitting water, thus rendering it
impermeable.
d. Aquitard
The origin of tard is late. Aquitard
is a rock which it can keep amount of
water but it can flow only a limited amount of water. A bed of low permeability
adjacent to an aquifer; may serve as a storage unit for groundwater, although it
does not yield water readily.
33
2. Type of Aquifers
gs
gs
K1<K
gwt = ps
gwt = ps
a. Unconfined aquifer
b. Semi unconfined aquifer

gs
gs
K=0
ps
ps
K1<K
gwt
gwt
D=H
gs
gwt
gwt
e. Suspended aquifer
d. Semi confined/leaky aquifer
c. Confined aquifer
Note:
gs
ps
gwt
gwt
D
H
K
: ground surface
: piezometric surface
: groundwater table
: groundwater table of
perched water
: thickness of aquifer
: depth of groundwater
: coefficient of permeability
Fig. 2.1. Types of aquifers
34
3. Vertical Distribution
Ground surface
Soil water zone

P
ZONE OF
AERATION
Intermediate
vadoze
zone
e
VADOZE
WATER
r
m
e
Capillary zone
Groundwater table
ZONE OF
SATURATION
Saturated zone
GROUND /
PHREATIC
WATER
l
e
Impermeable
Fig. 2.2. Diagram of zones in permeable soil
a. Zone of Aeration
This zone divided into:
Soil water zone
Intermediate vadose zone
Capillary zone
2 = 2
(2.1)
35
hc
s
hc
2r
: height of capillary zone

: surface tension (dyne/cm)
: specific weight of water
: radius of tube
: contact angle of water and wall
When pure water in clean glass, = 0

and temperature at 20o C so value of
s = 75 dyne/cm = 0.076 g/cm and:
=
0.15
Fig. 2.3. Schematic of capillary rise
Table 2.1. Capillary rise in samples of unconsolidated materials (after Lohman in Todd,
1980)
Soils Type
Grain size (mm)
Height of capillary (cm)
Fine gravel
5-2
2.50
Very coarse sand
2-1
6.50
Coarse sand
1 0.5
15.0
Medium sand
0.5 0.2
24.60
Fine sand
0.2 0.1
42.80
Silt
0.1 0.05
105.50
Silt
0.05 0.002
200.00
36
Table 2.2. Capillary rice of some soils type (Murthy, 1977)
Soils Type
Size of particles (mm)
Sand, coarse
Capillary rise (cm)
2.00 - 0,60
1.50 5
Sand, medium
0.60 0.20
5 15
Sand, fine
0.20 0.06
15 - 50
Silt
0.06 0.002
50 - 1,500
Clay, coarse
0.002 0.0002
1,500 15,000
Clay, colloid
< 0.0002
>15,000
b. Zone of Saturation
1). Specific retention (Sr)
=
(2.2)
Wr : the rest water volume after drainage

V
: total volume of soil
2). Specific yield (Sy)
=
(2.3)
Wy
: volume of water which be drained
= Sr + Sy
c. Solid Liquid and Air System (Fig. 2.4-left)

Solid phase
geometricly difficult be soluble
Liquid phase :
solution organic & unorganic
Air phase
vapor
37
Va
air
Wa
Vw
water
Ww
Vs
solid
Ws
Vv
Fig. 2.4. Diagram of solid, water and air relationship (left) and diagram of sortivity (right)
1). Void ratio (e)

The ratio of the volume of voids (Vv) to the volume of solids (Vs), is defined as
void ratio, and:
=
(2.4)
2). Porosity (n)

The ratio of the volume of voids (Vv) to the total volume (V), is defined as
porosity, so:
=
100%
(2.5)
3). Degree of saturation (Sd)

The ratio of volume of water (Vw) to the volume of voids (Vv) is defined as
degree of saturation so:
=
100%
(2.6)
38
4). Water content (w)

The ratio of weight of water (Ww) in the voids to the weight of solids so:
=
100%
(2.7)
5). Unit Weight

a). Unit weight of water (w)
The ratio of weight of water to the volume of water in the same
temperature (w) and (o) is designated as unit weight of water at 4o C.
= 1 3 = 1 3 = 1000 3 = 1 3
= 1 3 = 1 3 = 1000 3 = 1 3
b). Total unit weight of soil mass (t)
The ratio of the weight of the mass (W) to the volume of the mass (V) so:
(2.8)
c). Dry unit weight mass (d)

The ratio of the weight of solids (Ws) to the total volume (V)
(2.9)
d). Ratio of the saturated weight of the mass (sat)

Saturated unit weight soil mass (when S = 100%) to the total volume (V).
(2.10)
e). Unit weight of solid (s)

The ratio of the weight of solids (Ws) to the volume of solids (Vs)
(2.11)
f). Specific gravity (Gm)

Specific gravity of a substance is the ratio of its weight in air to the weight
of an equal volume of water at reference temperature 4 o C.
39
The specific gravity of mass of soil including air, water and solid:
=
=
= =

(2.12)
The specific gravity of mass of soil excluding air, water and solid:
=
=
= =

(2.13)
g). Storage coefficient = Storativity (S) (unitless)

The amount of water stored or released from storage per unit area of
aquifer given per unit incline or decline head change in head normal to the
surface (Fig. 2.4-right). Storativity is a dimensionless quantity, and ranges
between 0 (null) and the effective porosity of the aquifer and the equation is:
=
where:
Vw
H
S
Ss
Sy
b
A
1
= +

: the volume of water released/ storage (L3)

: hydraulic head (L)
: Storage coefficient = Storativity
: specific storage
: specific yield
: thickness of aquifer (L)
: area (L2)
Confined
For a confined aquifer or aquitard, storativity is the vertically integrated

specific storage value, therefore, if the aquitard is homogeneous:
=
(. )
40
Unconfined
For unconfined aquifer storativity is approximately equal to the specific
yield (Sy) since the release from specific storage (Ss) is typically orders of
magnitude less (Ssb << Sy)
=
(2.15)
h). Specific storage (Ss) (L-1)

The amount of aquifer water stored or releases per unit volume per unit change
in head normal to the surface (Fig. 2.4-right)
=
(2.16)
41
III. BASIC EQUATIONS

1. Law of Groundwater Flow
a. Hystory
The first equation of groundwater flow was derived the first time by Poiseuille
(1797-1869). This equation is the proof of Poiseuilles Law which states that the
velocity in laminar flow is proportional to the first power of the hydraulic gradient
i.The difficulty of this equation for practical implementation that how to mesure
the radius of tube in this case the tube are hole of porosity between the material
granulair of soil.
According to Jack Bruin, Assistant Engineer And H. E. Hudson Jr., Head,
Engineering Sub-Division Illinois State Water Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois that
the analysis of the hydraulics of wells for the evaluation of groundwater
potentialities by pumping tests falls in the category of groundwater hydrology.
This field has been rapidly developed since the publication of the well-known law of
flow through porous materials by Henri Darcy in 1856.This law states that the
discharge through porous media is proportional to the product of the hydraulic
gradient, the cross-sectional area normal to the flow and the coefficient of
permeability of the material. In 1863, Dupuit applied Darcy's law to well hydraulics,
using an ideal case of a well located at the center of a circular island. The Dupuit
formula was modified by Thiem in 1906 to a form which is applicable to more
general problems. However, all of these were essentially either modified or
specialized forms of Dupuit's relationship. These methods may all be classed
together as the "equilibrium method'' which applies only to a steady-state
condition in which the rate of flow of water toward the well is equal to the rate of
42
discharge of the pumped well. A remarkable advance in modern well hydraulics was
made through the development of the non-equilibrium theory by Theis of the U. S.
Geological Survey in 1935. This theory introduced the time factor and the
coefficient of storage; it made possible the computation of future pumping levels
when the flow of groundwater due to pumping did not approach an equilibrium
condition. However, the use of the Theis formula in determining the coefficients
of transmissibility and storage-the formation constants of an aquifer presented
much difficulty because of mathematical complexities in applying the formula,
which contains an exponential integral. Theis suggested a graphical method to
Wenzel and Jacob respectively, in 1937 and 1938, for a more practical solution of
this problem. Furthermore, Cooper and Jacob have introduced an approximation
into the non-equilibrium method which results in a method which is convenient to
use. Both the equilibrium and the non-equilibrium methods assume that the waterbearing material is homogeneous and isotropic. This assumption is probably never
true in a natural aquifer. However, these methods give reliable results in actual
cases when there is no hydrologic boundary existing within the effective area of
pumping. In 1941, Theis illustrated the application of his non-equilibrium formula to
a special boundary problem in which the effect of a well on the flow of a nearby
stream was considered.
Forchheimer (1930) formula had a breakthrough by simplification solution in steady
state flow condition especially for radial flow to compute the coefficient of
permeability for the casing hole or tube test with zero inflow discharge. The
outflow discharge on the holes is equal to shape factor of tip of casing ( F)
multiplied by coefficient of permeability of soils (K), multiplied by hydraulic head
(H) and in 1988 Sunjoto derived in unsteady state flow condition based on this
formula.
43
b.Poiseuilles Law
=
2
8
2
8
(3.1)
where,
va
w
r
i
A
Qa
Z
: average velocity (L/T)

: unit weight of water (M/L3)
: radius of tube (L)
: viscosity of fluid (MT/L2)
: hydraulic gradient
: area (L2)
: average discharge (L3/T)
= w.r2/8 (L/T)
c. Darcys Law (1856),

1). Equation
=
(3.2)
General equation can be written as a vector form:

=
(3.3)
Substitute to the Laplace Equation:
+
+
(3.4)
Consider on x direction only so:
=0
&
=0
The equation becomes:
=
+
= +
= + = + =
(3.5)
44
The essential point of above equation is that the flow through the soils is also
proportional to the first power of the hydraulic gradient i as propounded by
Poisseuilles Law, and the discharge by Darcys equation is:
=
(3.6)
where,
Q
K
A
dy
dx
i
: discharge
: section area of aquifer
: difference of water elevation
: length of flow
= dy/dx
2). Dupuit-Forchheimer assumption

Flow problems in unconfined aquifer can be simplified with two assumptions
concerning the phreatic surface or line of surface in two dimensional domains.
These assumptions, originally given by Dupuit (1863) and later applied by
Forchheimer in 1930s, can be stated as follows (Fig. 3.1):
a). For small chance in the slope of seepage line, the hydraulic head independent
of depth.
This first assumption (Dupuit) means that equipotential and flow lines are
vertical and horizontal respectively (Fig. 3.1a & Fig. 3.1b).
b). Hydraulic gradient causing flow is equal to the slope of the water table.
This second assumption (Forhheimer) that the flow lines are horizontal, the
hydraulic gradient i is equal to tan instead of sin, (Fig. 3.1c).
45
Fig. 3.1. The schematic of Dupuit-Forchheimer Assumption.
3). Castany assumption

Based on Dupuit (1863), Castany (1967) derived in another way that the
hydraulic gradient i is equal to sin as (Fig. 3.2):
dx
dy
2 + 2
Fig. 3.2. Schematic of Castany solution
= . i = sin
=
2 + 2
1+
2 + 2
Or from Fig. 3.2 that i = sin so:
2 + 2
1
1+
it can be neglected
46
Due to the vertical velocity is to small, so the value of (dy/dx)2 can be

neglected so:
1+
=1
(3.7)
d. Similar equations
1). Fouriers Law on heat transfer {Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768
1830)}:
=
(3.8)
where,
H
k
A
dT
dx
: rate of heat flow

: thermal conductivity
: cross section area
: temperature difference
: thickness
= dT/dx
2). Ohms Law on electrical current flow (George Simon Ohm,1787-1854):

=
(3.9)
where,
C
a
dv
dl
i
: current
: coefficient of conductivity
: sectional area of conductor
: drop in voltage
: length of conductor
: dv/dl
e. Validity of Darcy Law

The Reynolds number is defined as the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces
and consequently quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces
for given flow conditions. Reynolds numbers frequently arise when performing
47
scaling of fluid dynamics problems, and as such can be used to determine dynamic
similitude between two different cases of fluid flow. They are also used to
characterize
different
flow
regimes
within
similar
fluid,
such
as laminar or turbulent flow:
laminar flow occurs at low Reynolds numbers, where viscous forces are
dominant, and is characterized by smooth, constant fluid motion
turbulent flow occurs at high Reynolds numbers and is dominated by inertial

forces, which tend to produce chaotic eddies, vortice sand other flow
instabilities.
In practice, matching the Reynolds number is not on its own sufficient to guarantee
similitude. Fluid flow is generally chaotic and very small changes to shape and
surface roughness can result in very different flows, nevertheless, Reynolds
numbers are a very important guide and are widely used.
=

=
=
=

(3.10)
where,
Re
L
V
: Reynolds Number
: travelled length of the fluid; hydraulic diameter or diameter of pipe
: maximum flow velocity
: density of water
: dynamic viscosity of the fluid (Pas or Ns/m2 or kg/(ms))
: kinematic viscosity ( = /) (m2/s)
: unit weight of fluid
: acceleration of gravity
Experiments showed that Darcys law is valid for Re < 1 and does not depart
seriously up to Re = 10, and this value represents an upper limit to the validity of
Darcys law (Todd, 1980).
48
2. Branches flow of groundwater research development

The first mathematical formula was developed by Poiseille then continued by Darcy
(1856). In the same era of Darcy developed the formula for groundwater flow,
Fourier developed for heat transfer and Ohm for electric current. The structure
of Darcys formula is the similar to the both formulas with different parameter
only. Compared to the Poiseille formula actually the Darcy formula parameter are
similar too, especially his coefficient of permeability ( K) with the parameters
bundle of Poiseille formula (Z=wr2/8), see Eq.(3.1) and Eq.(3.2).
According to Reddi (2003), Darcy was known as very generous engineer, he is
undoubtedly the father of the science of fluid flow in soils for his experiment on
the flow of water through sand column, named after him as Darcys law. Beside
that experiment he had much research such as the water hummer effects from
the continual turning on and off of the taps that created noise in manometer levels
and also he was as engineer on water supply, and worked on supervision and
construction of bridges and railway tunnels. And some of the branches schematic
of development of groundwater engineering discussed in this Lecture Note can be
seen in Fig. 3.3.
49
FOURIER (1768-1830)
H= K.i.A
POISEUILLE (1797-1869)
Qa=Z.i.A
OHM (1789 -1854)

I=C.i.a
DARCY (1856)
Q=K.i.A
Ehrenberger (1928),
Vodgeo Institut (1954),
Iokutaro Kano (1939),
Vibert (1949),
Castany (1967)
Ri
Sichardt
Cambefort
Choultse
Koussakine
Castany
Kozen
Bogomolov
Q, K
S,T, s
FORCHHEIMER
(1930)
LUGEON
(1930)
DUPUIT (1863)
THIEM (1906)
THEIS (1936)
Q, K
F
Samsioe (1931), Dahler (1936),
Lefranc (1936; 1937), Taylor (1948),
Kirkham & van Bavel (1948), Luthian
& Kirkham (1949), Hvorslev (1951),
Schneebeli (1954), Kallstenius &
Wallgren (1956), Smiles & Young
(1965), Aravin (1965), Wilkinson
(1968), Al-Dahir & Morgenstern
(1969), Raymond & Azzouz (1969),
Band & Premchitt (1980) Randolp &
Booker (1982), Tavenas (1986),
Chapuis (1989), Sunjoto (2002-2016)
Note:
V : velocity
Q : discharge
K : permeability F : shape factor
I : hydraulic head H : hydraulic head
Castany (1967)
Murthy (1977)
Q
H, s
S,T, s
SUNJOTO
Chow (1952)
Cooper-Jacob
(1946)
Glover (1966)
PapadopulosCooper (1967)
(1988-2016)
Todd (1980)
h : drawdown correction
s : drawdown
Ri : radius of depletion
Mikel & Klaer

(1956),
Spiridonoff &
Hantush (1964),
Nasjono (2002),
Das, Saha, Rao
& Uththmanthan
(2009)
Sriyono (2010)
S : storage
coefficient
T : transmissivity
Fig. 3.3. Diagram of groundwater science development discussed in this Lecture Note
50
3. Permeability of soils
a. Factors that affect permeability
Void ratio
Grain size
Temperature
Structure and stratification
Interrelated of grain size and void ratio will affect permeability of soils. Smaller
grain size, smaller void ratio which leads to reduce size of flow channels and lower
permeability.
1). Void ratio
The ratio of the volume of voids (Vv) to the volume of solids (Vs), is defined as
void ratio, and:
=
= .
(3.11)
1+
(3.12)
The relationship between real pore channels to the idealized pore channel is:
=
(3.13)
where,
L
a
L
a
: length of idealized channel

: area of idealized channel
: length of real channel
: area of real channel
2). Grain size
If the cross section of a tube is circular, the flow in the tube as per Poiseuilles
Law is:
2
=
(3.14)
51
The average velocity flow in the tube:

2 2
= =
=
.
8
32
(3.15)
3). Temperature
The coefficient of permeability K is product of k which is dependent on
temperature and a function of the void ratio e, and the value of k is expressed:

1,
=
.
=
16 2
(3.16)
Where, C is constant which is independent of temperature and the expression

of K may now be as below and K varies as w/.
= . . .
(3.17)
4). Structure and stratification

Kv
Kh
K1
V1.i.K1
H1
K2
V2.i.K2
H2 H
Kn-1
Vn-1.i.Kn-i
Kn
Vn.i.Kn
Hn-1
Hn
Fig. 3.4. Diagram of soil layers structure

a). Flow in the Horizontal Direction (Fig. 3.4)
= . = . = . .
= 1 . 1 + 2 . 2 + + 1 . 1 + .
= 1 . . 1 + 2 . . 2 + + 1 . . 1 + . .
=
+ + +

(3.18)
52
b). Flow in the Vertical Direction (Fig 3.4)

The hydraulic gradient is i = h/H and:
=
= 1 1 = 2 2 =
If h1, h2 hn are the loss of heads in each of the layers, therefore:
or,
= 1 + 2 + +
= 1 1 + 2 2 + +
Substitution:
=
+ + +
(3.19)
b. Method of determination of permeability

1). Laboratory Method
a). Constant head permeability method
The coefficient of permeability K is computed:
(3.20)
(3.21)
b). Falling head permeability method

The coefficient of permeability K can be determined on the basis of drop in
head (ho-h1) and the elapse time (t1-to).
= = . .
(3.22)
(3.23)
when A=a so the equation will be:
53
(3.24)
where:
K
L
A
: length of sample
: cross section area of sample
a
: cross section area stand pipe
ho h1 : head of water in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
to t1 : duration of flow in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
c). Computation from consolidation test data
In the case of materials of very low permeability with K less than 10-6 cm/s
consolidation test apparatus with permeability attachment may be used. The
coefficient of permeability K of sample can be computed from equation:
=
. .
(3.25)
where,
K
L
A
Q
h
t
: length of sample
: cross section area of sample
: discharge in certain time t
: average head
: duration of flow
d). Computation from grain size distribution

On the basis of Poiseuilles Law the coefficient of permeability can be
computed:
=
(3.26)
According to Allen Hazen (1911) in Murthy (1977) the empirical equation can be
computed as:
=
(3.27)
where,
54
K
: coefficient of permeability (cm/s)
C
: a factor (100 < C < 150)
D10 : effective size of grain (cm)
e). Computation from horizontal capillary test
This method base on the Darcys Law and computation of the K are sometimes
used where the soil permeability fall within the range of 10 -3 to 10-6 cm/s but
this method is not very accurate (Murthy, 1974).
f). Coefficient of permeability by table.
This table was built by Casagrande and Fadum and it can be seen in Tabel 3.1.
Table 3.1. Coefficient of Permeability of some Soils (Casagrande and Fadum)
K (cm/sec)
Soils type
Drainage
Recommended methods
101 - 102
Clean gravels
Good
Pumping Test
101
Clean sand
Good
Constant head or Pumping test
10-1 10-4
Good
10-5
Clean sand and

gravel mixtures
Very fine sand
Poor
Constant head, Falling head

or Pumping test
Falling head
10-6
Silt
Poor
Falling head
10-7 10-9
Clay soils
Practically
impervious
Consolidation test
2). Field Methods

The field method of permeability test of soils usually carried out by pumping
test or bore hole test. Based on Dupuit-Thiem with the parameters of testing
are discharge, coefficient of permeability, hydraulic gradient, and it will be
discussed in the paragraph IV. The field method of permeability test of soils
which is based on Forchheimer (1930) almost all of them using shape factors
and this matter will be discused in the next section on paragraph V.
55
IV.
RADIAL FLOW
Assumptions for the equations are (Dupuit-Thiem):
The soils surrounding the well is assumed homogeneous
The flow towards the well is assumed as steady, laminar, radial and
horizontal
The horizontal velocity is independent of depth
The groundwater table is assumed as horizontal in all direction
The hydraulic gradient at any point on the drawdown is equal to the slope of
the tangent at the point (Dupuit-Forchheimer Assumption) even though
according to Castany G. (1967) that value is sinus at the point.
1. Unconfined aquifer
a.
Dupuit (1863)
h
hw
rw
r
R
Fig. 4.1. Pumping in oceanic/circular island of unconfined aquifer

Let h be the depth of water at radial distance r. The area of the vertical
cylindrical surface of radius r and depth h through which water flow is (Fig. 4.1):
= 2
The hydraulic gradient is:
(4.1)
(4.2)
56
Discharge of inflow when the water levels in the well remain stationary (Darcys
Law)
=
(4.3)
(4.4)
Substituting for Eq.(4.1) and Eq.(4.2) for Eq.(4.3), the inflow discharge across the
cylindrical surface is:
=
(4.5)
This equation can be solved by integration:
= 2
2
= 2
2
= 2
2
= 2
and the results are:

The equation for discharge of pumping is:
(4.6)
The equation for permeability of soil is:
(4.7)
where,
Q
: discharge
: depth of water outside of aquifer layer
hw
: depth of water at face of pumping well
: radius of island
rw
: radius of pumped well
b. Dupuit-Thiem
1). According to UNESCO (1967),
G. Thiem (1906) based on Dupuit and Darcy principle developed a formula of
pumping and the formula is called Dupuit-Thiem.
57
Let h be the depth of water at radial distance r (Fig. 4.2). The area of the
vertical cylindrical surface of radius r and depth h through which water flow
is:
h2
h1
r1
r
r2
Fig. 4.2. Pumping in unconfined aquifer

Area of cylinder of piezometric h and radius r and A = 2rh
The hydraulic gradient is: =
Darcys Law: V = Ki and Q = KiA

Substituting, so the rate inflow across the cylindrical surface is:
=
(4.8)
Rearranging the terms, so:

2
=
The equation for discharge outflow from pumping is (Fig. 4.2) of Dupuit-Thiem
Formula for the full penetration well in free aquifer:
=
(4.9)
The equation for permeability of soil is:
58
=
where,
Q
K
r1 r2
h1 h2
(4.10)
: discharge of pumping
: distance from well to observation well 1 and 2 respectively
: head of water in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
2). According to Castany (1967)

G. Thiem (1906) based on Dupuit principle developed a formula of pumping in
unconfined aquifer and the formula is called Dupuit-Thiem (Fig. 4.3).
Darcys law:
=
(4.11)
Based on Dupuit-Forchheimer so:
(4.12)
= 2. tg
(4.13)
1
w
h2
h1
hw
rw
r1
r2
Ri
tg =
1 2
r2 r1
(4.14)
59
For first permanent regime:

= 21 1 . tg
For second permanent regime:
= 21 11 . tg1
(4.15)
(4.16)
Dupuit-Thiem equation for the full penetration well in free aquifer:

+
where:
Q
K
r1 r2
1 2
(4.17)
(4.18)
: distance from well to observation well 1 and 2 respectively
: drawdown in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
3). According to Murthy (1977)

Murthy developed the formula for unconfined aquifer by other parameters and
can be found as (Fig. 4.3):
=
(4.19)
(4.20)
If we write hw = (H - w) where w is the depth of maximum drawdown in the

test well or pumped well so (Castany, 1967):
=
=
(4.21)
(4.22)
60
where:
Q
K
Ri
rw
H
w
: radius of influence
: depth of water before pumping
: maximum drawdown (on well)
2. Confined aquifer
a. Dupuit (1863)
H
hw
rw
R
Fig. 4.4. Pumping in oceanic (circular) in a confined aquifer land

=
= . =
= 2
Qln
= 2KD
= 2

Dupuit (1863) formula for full penetration well on confined aquifer (Fig. 4.4):
=
(4.23)
(4.24)
where,
Q : discharge of pumping
61
K
D
R
rw
H
hw
: radius of island
: depth of water outside of aquifer layer
: depth of water at face of pumping well
b. Dupuit-Thiem (1906)
1). According to Dupuit-Thiem (1906) in UNESCO (1967)
h1
h2
r1
r2
Fig. 4.5. Pumping in confined aquifer
=
Dupuit-Thiem formula for full penetration well on confined aquifer (Fig. 4.5):
=
(4.25)
(4.26)

where,
Q
K
D
r1 r2 : distance from well to observation well 1 and 2 respectively
h1 h2 : head of water in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
2). Castany
Castany (1967) developed an equation using drawdown parameters for
confined aquifer.
62
h2
h1
D
r1
r2
Dupuit-Thiem equation for the full penetration well in confined aquifer (Fig.
4.6):
=
=
where:
(4.27)
(4.28)
Q
K
D
: thickness of aquifer layer
r1 r2 : distance from well to observation well 1 and 2 respectively
1 2 : drawdown in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
3. Alternate equations of the Dupuit-Thiem principle

a. Pumping in oceanic or circular aquifer
1). Unconfined aquifer:
o Without observation well and with piezometric head data:
=
(4.29)
o Without observation well and with drawdown data:
63
(4.30)
2). Confined aquifer:

=
(4.31)
b. Pumping in unlimited aquifer

1). Unconfined aquifer:
(4.32)
o Without observation well and with drawdown data:

=
o With one observation well and with piezometric head data:

o With one observation well and with drawdown data:
o With two observation wells data and piezometric head data:

o With two observation wells and drawdown data:
(4.33)
(4.34)
(4.35)
4.36
(4.37)
(4.38)
2). Confined aquifer:

(4.39)
o With one observation well and with piezometric head data:

64
o With one observation well and with drawdown data:
o With two observations well and piezometric head data:
(4.40)
(4.41)
(4.42)
o With two observations well and drawdown data:

=
(4.43)
3). Special case of confined aquifer

According to Murthy (1977), figure below (Fig. 4.7) shows that a confined
aquifer with the test well and two observation wells. The elevation of water in
the observation wells will decline as a drawdown. When pumping at steady flow
condition from artesian well two cases might found they are:
Case 1: The water level in the test well might remain above the roof level ( hw > D)
Case 2: The water level in the test well might fall below the roof level ( hw < D)
Case 1: (hw > D)
=
=
(4.44)
(4.45)
This equation is like mentioned above in Fig. 4.7.

Case 2: (hw < D)

=
(4.46)
(4.47)
65
Case 2
Case 1
H
h1
D
hw
rw
w
r1
Ri
3.
Correction to flow line
a. Castany (1967) implemented Dupuit (1868) equation (Fig. 4.8):

For the lateral flow:
=
2 +
2
(4.48)
Real curve
H
h
h+h
Theoretic curve
Ri
For the free aquifer and parallel flow:

=
2 +
(4.49)
66
b. Ehrenberger (1928)
= .
(4.50)
c. Vodgeo Institut (1954)

= .
(4.51)
d. Iokutaro Kano (1939)
0.324 < C < 1.60

=
(4.52)
e. Vibert (1949)
= .
(4.53)
5. Radius of depletion
According to many researchers, the radius of depletion or radius of influence
depends on the depression cone because the drawdown of pumping as follows:
a. W.Sichardt (in Castany, 1967)
=
where,
Ri
: radius of depletion (m)
H hw : drawdown (m)
K
: permeability (m/s)
(4.54)
b. H.Cambefort (in Castany, 1967)

=
where,
Ri : radius of depletion (m)
s : drawdown (m)
Ki : permeability (m/s)
(4.55)
c. I. Choultse (in Castany, 1967)

=
4.56
where,
67
me
T
s
K
Ri
: porosity of soil
: duration of pumping (s or h)
: drawdown (m)
: permeability (m/s or m/h)
d. I.P. Koussakine (in Castany, 1967)

=
(4.57)
where,
K
T
: permeability (m/s)
: duration of pumping (h)
e. Dupuit
1). Lateral flow:
a). Dupuit (in Castany, 1967)
=
(4.58)
b). Castany (1967)

=
(4.59)
2). Radial flow (in Castany, 1967):

Using Darcys Law, Castany (1967) proposed an equation:
=
+
2 2
2 2
= 2 2
(4.60)
(4.61)
Sunjotos correction:
Unconfined aquifer:
The equation Eq.(4.60) is not pitch or not equal to the Dupuit-Thiem
equation Eq.(4.9) as:
68
(4.9)
Based on the equation Eq.(4.9), it can be developed the correction of

equation should be:
=
2 2
+
2 2
2 2
=
4.62
Confined aquifer:
Based on the equation Eq.(4.39), it can be developed the correction of
equation should be:
=
2
=
=
where,
Ri
r
Q
H
h
K
D
(4.39)
4.63

: radius of observation well location (m)
: discharge (m3/h)
: height of surface water in Ri (m)
: height of water on observation well r (m)
: permeability (m/h)
: thickness of aquifer layer (m)
69
f. Some authors (in Castany, 1967)

=
(4.64)
where,
Ri
Q
I
: radius of depletion/influence (L)

: rate of pumping (L/T3)
: precipitation intensity/discharge (L2/T)
g. Kozen (in Bogomolov et Silin-Bektchoutine (1955)

=
(4.65)
h. G.V. Bogomolov (in Castany, 1967)
He presented the value of radius of depletion each kind of soil depend on

granulometric fraction, coefficient of permeability and well discharge (Table 4.1)
Table 4.1. Coefficient of permeability and Radius of depletion/influence
Aquifer material
Clay sand
Fine sand
Clay sand in small
grains
Sand in small grains
Clay sand in medium
grains
Sand in medium grains
Clay sand in big grains
Sand in big grains
Gravels
Granulometric
fraction
(mm)
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
0.10-0.25
Coefficient of
Permeability
(m/day)
0.500-1.000
1.500-5.000
10.00-15.00
Well
discharge
(m3/hour)
0.100-0.300
0.200-0.400
0.500-0.800
Radius of
Depletion
(m)
65
65
75
0.10-0.25
0.25-0.50
20.00-25.00
20.00-25.00
0.800-1.700
1.600-10.00
75
100
0.25-0.50
0.50-1.00
0.50-1.00
-
35.00-50.00
35.00-40.00
60.00-75.00
100.0-125.0
15.00-20.00
20.00-25.00
40.00-50.00
75.00-100.0
100
100
125
150
Note: drawdown 5-6 meters
70
V.
FIELD TEST OF SOIL PERMEABILITY
The pumping test method is equal to the method of computing discharge from the
well using equation of Dupuit or Dupuit-Thiem which is based on Darcys law for
confined and unconfined aquifer as mentioned in above paragraph with one of
parameter is permeability.That is why that pumping theory can be implemented for
the computation of permeability of soils. In the other side the Forchheimer
equation as the simplification of Darcys law and its expansion shown that it was
easier to be implemented in practical test.
According to Spangler and Handy (1973) that the determination of coefficient of
permeability in the field by pumping tests or by observations of the rate of
infiltration into a test hole are often more reliable than the results of laboratory
test. This statement is particularly true in situations involving flow through
relatively sandy soils, because it is difficult to obtain a sample of such soil in the
undisturbed state and field conditions cannot be easily duplicated for laboratory
testing. After a result of several thousand measurement in Australia Maasland &
Haskew (1957) conclude that auger holes test are accurate.
The pumping test had been presented on the Section IV, and for the observations
of the rate of infiltration into a test hole will be discussed in this section.
1. Forchheimer tube method

Forchheimer (1930) formula have breakthrough by simplification solution especially
for radial flow to compute the coefficient of permeability for the casing hole or
tube test with zero inflow discharge (Q=0). The outflow discharge on the holes
(Qo) is equal to shape factor of tip of casing (F) multiplied by coefficient of
permeability of soils (K), multiplied by hydraulic head (h) as:
=
(5.1)
71
where:
Qo
K
h
F
: outflow discharge (L3/T)

: coefficient of permeability (L/T)
: shape factor (L)
He derived his equation of coefficient of permeability (K) using bore holes with
certain diameter and depth and the formula without present of groundwater. He
proposed that discharge is shape factor multiplied by coefficient of permeability
and hydraulic head {Eq.(5.1)}. In the other side that discharge is equal to area of
tube multiplied depth of water (Fig. 5.1) divided by duration of flow {Eq.(5.2)}.
=
(5.1)
(5.2)
Fig. 5.1. Schema of Forchheimer permeability test
Equation Eq.(5.1a) = Eq.(5.2) so:
1 = 2 1
With As = r2 the equation can be written as:
72
where:
K
r
: radius of well (L)
F
: shape factor (L) (F = 4 R, Forchheimer, 1930)
t1 t2 : time of the measurement respectively (T)
(5.3)
h1 h2 : height of water of the measurement respectively (L)

As
: cross section area of well (L2)

h
h1
(t2-t1) = (t3-t2) (h1-h2) (h2-h3)
h2
h3
t
t1
t2
t3
Fig. 5.2. Relationship between time and decreasing of surface water (Horton curve) on
Forchheimer test
Note:
The problem of this test is that the equal duration in differ time it has not the
equal depth of the descent of water elevation in difference time on the bore hole
(Fig. 5.2) or even though when:
2 1 = 3 2
1 2 2 3
(5.4)
2. Hooghoudt (in Luthin, 1970)

This method is very simple and can be done with small amount of equipment. The
procedure is to dig a hole in the soil beneath water table. After allowing the water
level in the hole to come into equilibrium with the water table in the soil, the water
is pumped out of the hole and measurements are made of the rate of rise of water
in the holes (Fig. 5.3).
73
Fig. 5.3. Geometrical quantities for auger hole method-homogenous soil (Luthin, 1970).
The equation to compute coefficient of permeability are:

a). Auger hole terminate on a permeable layer (Fig. 5.3):
=
2 + 1
(5.5)
b). Auger hole terminate on an unpermeable layer:

=
2 1
(5.6)
0.19
(5.6)
3. Ernsts Chart (in Luthin, 1970)

Ernst implemented the graphic or chart first chart for impermeable layer at
bottom of auger hole and the second is chart for impermeable layer an infinite
distance below auger holes. The dimension dy/dt is in ft/sec, K is given in ft/day.
74
Fig. 5.4. Ernst charts for impermeable layer (left) and permeable layer at bottom (right),
the dimension dy/dt is in ft/sec, K is given in ft/day (after Luthin, 1970).
Equation to compute coefficient of permeability is:

=
(5.7)
C found from appropriate chart when we know y/a and d/a (Fig. 5.4).
4. Childs (in Luthin, 1970)

Childs has proposed a method for non-layered soil employing two auger holes
rather than one. The two holes are equal diameter and penetrate to the same
depth below the water table, preferably to an impermeable layer if one exists (Fig.
5.5). Water is pumped at steady rate out of one well and carried by a hose into the
other, creating the small hydraulic head difference between the levels of water in
the holes. The coefficient of permeability is:
=
(5.8)
75
where,
Q
h
L
a
b
: pumping rate
: hydraulic head
: length of each well beneath the water table
: radius of hole
: distance between their vertical axis
Fig. 5.5. Sketch of two auger layers method of Childs (after Luthin, 1970).
5. Kirkham (in Luthin, 1970)

Kirkham proposed the tubes or pipes or casings be driven into auger hole in the soil
below water table either with or without cavity at the end of the tube. The water
table allowed to establish itself and then water pumped out of the tube to measure
the coefficient of permeability and the equation developed by Kirkham stated that
(Fig. 5.6-left):
=
1
1
(5.9)
where,
K
Yo : distance from water table to water level at time to
Y1 : distance from water table to water level at time t1
r
: radius of pipe
t1-to : time for water level to change from yo to y1
S : a coefficient which determined by electric analog (Fig. 5.6-right)
76
Fig. 5.6. The pipe cavity method test (left), and shape factor of pipe cavity method for
Kirkham test (right), (after Smiles & Youngs, 1965).
Note:
When L=0 or the test without cavity the value of S = 5.50r (see Fig. 5.6-right),
this value is equal to the shape factor test results of Harza (1935) by electrical
analogy apparatus got values 4.80 to 5.60r, Taylor (1948) by flownet got a value
4.70r, and Hvorslev (1951) reapeted got a difference values and proposed the
agreement value is 5.50r. Sunjoto (2002) proved that the value is not 5.50 r but
equal to 2r, and this value is equal to the theoretical value obtained by the
spherical approximation (Schneebeli, 1954) that F4b = 3.14D when L=0, it found
from equation:
1
= 2
+
4
1
2
(5.9)
6. USBR (1951) (in Luthin, 1970)

USBR had a method with the configuration in two conditions that are Condition I
and Condition II (Fig. 5.7):
Fig. 5.7. Pumping test of Condition I when Tu 3h and Condition II when 3h > Tu h for
USBR permeability test.
77
The equations are:

Condition I:
720
=
1 1
(5.10)
22
Condition II:
= 720
+ 2
(5.11)
where,
Q
K
r
Tu
h
WT
D
: discharge
: radius of hole
: depth from WT to water surface
: depth water maintain from bottom
: impervious strata surface
: total depth hole
7. Frevert & Kirkham (1948)
The test carried out on the tube hole that the tip of casing/tube penetrates
through below groundwater surface (Fig. 5.8). Then the water on the tube was
pumped out to the some known elevation below the water table and above of the
bottom of tube, and water from surrounding soil is allowed to flow into the tube
through the bottom.
Fig. 5.8. Tube method of Frevert & Kirkham (1948)
78
The rise of water level in a measured period of time is observed and the
permeability is computed by means of the following formula:
=
where,
A
ho
h1
t1
E
(5.12)
: area of tube
: distance from water table to water level water level at beginning of test
: distance from water table to water level in tube at end of test
: elapse time within distance from water table ho to h1.
: coefficient (Table 5.1)
The value of E is a function of diameter of tube, of the depth of the tube below
water table and of shape of the soil surface at the bottom of the tube.
Note:
The problem of this test is that the equal duration in differe time has not the
equal difference of the descent of elevation of water on the bore hole.
Table 5.1. Values of E-factor Frevert & Kirkham (1948)
Diameter of tube (inch)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
15
25
40
60
100
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.5
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.6
4.0
-
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.2
6.8
-
10.3
10.3
10.2
10.2
10.1
10.1
9.9
9.8
9.7
-
13.1
13.0
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.5
12.4
-
15.6
15.5
15.5
15.4
15.3
15.2
15.2
15.1
15.0
-
20.9
20.8
20.7
20.5
20.4
20.3
20.2
20.1
-
Source: Fervert & Kirkham (1948)
79
8. Sprangler & Handy method (1973)

For measurement of permeability at greater depth, a thin-walled electrical conduit
having an inside diameter of 1 inch may be used and this method is called the
piezometer method (Fig. 5.9-left).
Fig. 5.9. Piezometer method for determining coefficient of permeability (left), and values
for E-Factor for cavities 1 inch in diameter (right), (after Sprangler & Handy, 1973)
The test can be run as tube method and the formula Eq.(5.13) can be implemented
for this method and the E-factor can be seen in the Fig. 5.9-right:
=
(5.13)
Note:
The problem of this test is that the equal duration in difference time it has not
the equal difference of the descent of elevation of water on the bore hole.
9..Bavel & Kirkham method

This method was auger hole penetrated below water table (Fig. 5.10-left) and the
permeability found by equation and graphic (Fig. 5.10-right). The formula for
determining the permeability coefficientby this procedure is:
= .
(5.14)
80
where,
h
: depth of water in hole at the time dh/dt is determined
dh/dt : rate of rise of water level in hole at depth h
r
: radius of tube
d
: depth of hole below water table
S
: coefficient which dependent on the ratio of h/d and r/d
Fig. 5.10. Auger holes method for determining coefficient of permeability (left), and
Coefficient S (right), (Bavel & Kirkham, 1948)
10.Murthy method
Murthy (1977) proposed the computation formula of soil coefficient permeability
for four different conditions of bore holes as (Fig. 5.11):
Q
Q & hp
Q & hp
hw
hw
Hb
hw
hw
Hg
(a).H=hw
(b). H=hw
(c). H=hw+ hp
(d). H=hw+ hp
Fig. 5.11. Bore hole in some conditions
81
According to Murthy (1977), hydraulic gradient of the some conditions are:

a. Without pressure and tip of casing is above groundwater table (Fig. 5.11a):
=
(5.15)
b. Without pressure and tip of casing is below groundwater table (Fig. 5.11b):
(5.15)
c. With pressure and tip of casing is above groundwater table (Fig. 5.11c):
= +
(5.15)
d. With pressure and tip of casing is below groundwater table (Fig. 5.11d):
=
+
(5.15)
The coefficient of permeability is calculated by making use of formula Murthy

(1977):
=
0.18
(5.16)
This equation can be written as:
=
= 5.5
0.18
where:
Q
K
H
: discharge (L3/T)
Note:
The equation of Forchheimer (1930) that is Q=FKH or Q=5.5rKH for F=5.5r. So
Murthy equation Eq.(5.16) is equal to Forchhrimer equation for this condition of
shape factor. These shape factor was agreement value of Harza (1935), Taylor
(1948) and Hvorslev (1951) from their difference results of the researches.
82
11.
Partial permeable casing bore holes test
Suharyadi (1984) proposed two conditions of hydraulic head as:

a. The hole is submerged in groundwater (Fig. 5.12a):
H = difference of groundwater table to the water elevation test

b. The hole above the groundwater table (Fig. 5.12b):
H = depth of water test on the hole minus half of permeable hole length
Q
H=Hw+1/2L
(H=Hw)
Hw
gwt
Hw
gwt
2r
a. The hole test below ground

water table
2r
b. The hole test above ground

water table
Fig. 5.12. Configuration of bore holes test according to Suharyadi (1984)
The coefficient of permeability can be computed by:

=
2.30
2
2
(5.17)
where,
K
L
H
r
: length of permeable part
: hydraulic head (L R) and the value see Fig. 5.12
: radius of casing
Note:
When Eq.(5.17) the value of L=R so K=0 and when L<R so K<0 (negative)
83
12.
Uncasing bore holes pecker test
Suharyadi (1984) proposed four conditions of bore holes (Fig. 5.13) and the
formulas were:
.
=
=
(5.18)

= +
(5.19)
(a). One pecker

test which zone
test is submerged
(b). One pecker test

which zone test is
above ground water
table
(c). Double
pecker test
which zone test
is submerged
(d). Double pecker

test which zone test
is above ground
water table
Fig. 5.13. Hydraulic head dimension on packer test (after Suharyadi, 1984)
Note:
When Eq.(5.18) the value of L=r so K=0 and when L<r so K<0 (negative)
13. Boast and Kirkham (in Todd, 1980)

Boast and Kirkham (Fig. 5.14) proposed an equation Eq.(5.20) to compute
coefficient of permeability for the un casing bore hole test and the result can be
seen on the Table 5.2.
=
(5.20)
Lw
2rw
Fig.5.14. Diagram of auger hole and dimensions for determining coefficient of permeability
(after Boast and Kirkham, in Todd, 1980)
84
Table 5.2. Value of C after Boast and Kirkham (in Todd, 1980)
H-Lw
for Impermeable Layer
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
for
Infinitely
Impermeable Layer
5
2
1
0.5
1.00
0.75
0.50
447
469
555
423
450
537
404
434
522
375
408
497
323
360
449
286
324
411
264
303
386
255
292
380
254
291
379
252
289
377
241
278
359
213
248
324
166
198
264
1.00
0.75
0.50
186
196
234
176
187
225
167
180
218
154
168
207
134
149
188
123
138
175
118
133
169
116
131
167
115
131
167
115
130
166
113
128
164
106
121
156
91
106
139
1.00
0.75
0.50
51.9
54.8
66.1
48.6
52.0
63.4
46.2
49.9
61.3
42.8
46.8
58.1
38.7
42.8
53.9
36.9
41.0
51.9
36.1
40.2
51.0
35.8
40.0
50.7
35.5
39.6
40.3
34.6
38.6
49.2
32.4
36.3
466
10
1.00
0.75
0.50
18.1
19.1
23.3
16.9
18.1
22.3
16.1
17.4
21.5
15.1
16.5
20.6
14.1
15.5
19.5
13.6
15.0
19.0
13.4
14.8
18.8
13.4
14.8
18.7
13.3
14.7
18.6
13.1
14.5
18.4
12.6
14.0
17.8
46.6
51.0
64.3
46.4
50.8
64.1
46.2
50.7
63.9
45.8
50.2
63.4
44.6
48.9
61.9
Table 5.2. Continued

20
1.00
0.75
0.50
59.1
62.7
76.7
55.3
59.4
73.4
53.0
57.3
71.2
50.6
55.0
68.8
48.1
52.5
66.0
47.0
51.5
64.8
50
1.00
0.75
0.50
1.25
1.33
1.64
1.28
1.27
1.57
1.14
1.23
1.54
1.11
1.20
1.50
1.07
1.16
1.46
1.05
1.14
1.44
1.04
1.13
1.43
1.03
1.12
1.42
1.02
1.11
1.39
100
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.37
0.40
0.49
0.35
0.38
0.47
0.34
0.37
0.46
0.34
0.36
0.45
0.33
0.35
0.44
0.32
0.35
0.44
0.32
0.35
0.44
0.32
0.34
0.43
0.31
0.34
0.43
14. Constant discharge and constant head test

Constant discharge-head test of permeability as a field method of testing which
was first time introduced by Sunjoto (2007) and the apparatus was erected by Dr.
Achmad Rivai in Soil Mechanic Laboratory DCEE-UGM (Fig. 5.15). It is insitu test
based on Sunjotos equation (1988) of unsteady state flow condition and the formula
as:
=
where:
5.21
85
H
F
K
Q
T
r
: depth of of water on the bore hole (L)

: shape factor (L)
: inflow discharge (L3/T)
: duration of flow (T)
Many field tests had been carried out by Siagian W.H.P. (2014), Luthfiana A.B.
(2015), Permana A.A. (2015) and the results presented in the Fig. 5.16. and Table
5.3 & 5.4. In this test, the coefficient of permeability is measured on the condition
of constant discharge and when the hydraulic head is already constant too, it is
meant that the flow should had beena steady flow condition and the equation
Eq.(5.21a) will change become Eq.(5.21b).
=
Constant discharge
5.21
Constant discharge
Constant water level
a. Unpenetreted casing
b. Pipe cavity test
Fig. 5.15. Scheme of constant discharge test, apparatus erected by Dr. Rivai A. (Luthfiana
A.B., 2015)
a. Unpenetreted casing
The testing meassured in constan discharge and H is constant, so the permeability
of unpenetreted casing condition or without cavity (Fig. 5.15a), it can be computed
based on Eq.(5.21b) and in steady state flow condition the formula becomes:
86
(5.22)
b. Pipe cavity soil or penetrate casing

The permeability of cavity soiltest when casing penetrates to the soil tested as
deep as L (Fig. 5.15b), it can be computed by Hanna (1973):
=
(5.23)
where,
K
Q
r
H
L

: discharge (L3/T)
: radius of casing (L)
: penetration depth of casing (L)
Fig. 5.16. Data distribution of field test compared to laboratory test (Luthfiana A.B, 2015)
Permana A.A. (2014) concluded that the comparison result between laboratory test
of Constant Head Permeameter Test and the result of Constant Discharge-Head
test carried out as (Fig. 5.16) and computed by difference shape factors shown
that it have a good result with the error about 70% and it will be 40% when the
data no. 2 be neglected (Table 5.3 & Table 5.4).
87
Table 5.3. Comparison result of Laboratory Test and Constant Discharge Test computed
using shape factor F=2r (Permana A.A., 2015)
Titik
d
(gr/cm3)
1.51
k CD
F=2R
(cm/det)
9.87 x10-05
1.63
7.94 x10-04
2.61 x10-04
204%
5.33 x10-04
1.56
3.26 x10-03
3.01 x10-03
8%
2.50 x10-04
1.55
1.20 x10-03
1.86 x10-03
36%
6.67 x10-04
1.59
1.56 x10-04
4.35 x10-04
64%
2.78 x10-04
1.57
1.22 x10-04
3.39 x10-04
64%
2.16 x10-04
k CH
(cm/det)
Error
Selisih
1.50 x10-04
34%
5.14 x10-05
68%
Tabel 5.4. Result of Laboratory Test and Constant Discharge Test computed using shape
factor F=5,5r (Permana A.A., 2015)
Titik
d
(gr/cm3)
1.51
k CD
F=5,5R
(cm/det)
1.13x10-04
1.63
9.07 x10-04
2.61 x10-04
247%
5.33 x10-04
1.56
3.72 x10-03
3.01 x10-03
24%
2.50 x10-04
1.55
1.37 x10-03
1.86 x10-03
27%
6.67 x10-04
1.59
1.79 x10-04
4.35 x10-04
59%
2.78 x10-04
1.57
1.40 x10-04
3.39 x10-04
59%
2.16 x10-04
k CH
(cm/det)
Error
Selisih
1.50 x10-04
25%
5.14 x10-05
73%
15. Lugeon Test

The Lugeon test, extensively used in Europe, is a special case of double packer
borehole inflow test made at constant head (Fig. 5.17). Lugeon is a measure of
transmissivity in rocks, determined by pressurized injection of water through a
bore hole driven through the rock. One Lugeon (LU) is equal to one liter of water
per minute injected into 1 meter length of borehole at an injection pressure of 10
bars. The three successive test runs, each of 5 minutes duration on constant
88
pressures enable a rough assessment of the water behavior. The Lugeon unit is not
strictly a measure of hydraulic conductivity but it is a good approximation for
grouting purposes and 1 (one) Lugeon is approximately equivalent to 1x10 -5 cm/s or
1x10-7 m/s.
Lugeon is a measure of transmissivity in rocks, determined by pressurized
injection of water through a bore hole driven through the rock.
o
One Lugeon (LU) is equal to one liter of water per minute injected into 1 meter
length of borehole at an injection pressure of 10 bars.
1 Lugeon Unit = a water take of 1 liter per meter per minute at a pressure of 10
bars.
Lugeon value : water take (liter/m/min) x 10 bars/test pressure (in bars)
Fig. 5.17. Lugeon test configuration (Camilo Quinones-Roso,)
89
The Lugeon unit is not strictly a measure of hydraulic conductivity but it is a

good approximation for grouting purposes and 1 Lugeon is approximately equivalent
to 1x10-5 cm/s or 1x10-7 m/s.
The three successive test runs, each of 5 minutes duration enable a rough
assessment of the water behavior.
a. Darcys law
The basic formula on groundwater flow is Darcys law (1856) which is very
appropriate to solve complex mathematical problem for example on single or
multiphase condition. But for the practical solution it has always difficulty on
direct computation due to the formula consist of hydraulic gradient ( i) parameter
and this formula depend on the two known elevations of water table in certain
distance (ho& h1) and for radial flow the formula as:
; = 2
= = 2
= 2
= 2 1
= ; =
1 =
=
( 5.24)
b. Forhheimers formula
Forchheimer (1930) formula have breakthrough by simplification solution
especially for radial flow with the equation:
=
(5.1)
where:
Qo : outflowdischarge (L3/T) (L3/T)

K
90
h
F

: shape factor (L)
c. Sunjotos formula
Based on Forchheimers formula, Sunjoto (1988) developed the formula to
compute hydraulic head for the recharging system (Fig. 5.18). Sunjotos formula
computes hydraulic head or depth of water on the well (H) on unsteady state flow
condition with the parameters are inflow discharge ( Q), shape factor of tip of
casing (F), coefficient of permeability of soils ( K), duration of flow (T) and the
derivation of formula as follows:
1). Assume that inflow discharge (Q) to the well is constant and Q 0.
2). Ouflow discharge (Qo) is equal to shape factor of tip of casing (F) multiplied
by coefficient of permeability of soils (K), multiplied by hydraulic head (h) or
Qo=FKh (Forchheimer, 1930).
Fig. 5.18. Scheme of flow on the well (Sunjoto, 1988)
Storage volume of water on the well is difference of inflow discharge and outflow
discharge multiplied by duration of flow {Eq.(5.25)}. In other side that storage
volume is equal to the cross section area of well multiplied by depth of water
{Eq.(5.26)}, so:
= =
(5.25)
91
(5.26)
Those above Eq.(5.25) = Eq.(5.26) and solved by integration computation (Fig. 5.20):
= =
Solved by manipulation that the value is divided by FK/FK, so:

=
With cross section area As = r2 and according to Sunjoto (1988) formula for the
hollow well becomes:
=
(5.27)
When Q=Qo and T = , the formula Eq.(5.27) is steady state flow condition and
the equation becomes:
=
where:
h H
t T
Q
Qo
F
K
r
V
As
(5.28)

: flow duration (T)
: inflow discharge (L3/T)
: outflowdischarge (L3/T)
: shape factor (L)
: conductivity (L/T)
: radius of hole (L/T)
: storage volume (L3/T)
: cross section area of hole (L2)
Formula Eq.(5.28) is similar to Eq.(5.1), but they are completly different is that
Forchheimers formula has only outflow discharge and it means that hydraulic head
92
never in constant condition, it depends on time or duration of flow or the flow is

always unsteady flow condition. The contrary, Sunjotos formula has inflow and
outflow discharge and when they are equal value it means that the flow in steady
state condition and the hydraulic head will be constant.
d. Shape Factor
1). Conductivity
For the comparison of the conductivity parameters test, Thiem (1906) had
taken into account the value of diameter of hole but Lugeon didnt and the
formula was:
=
where:
H
Q
Ri
r
Tr
(5.29)
: hydraulic head (m)

: inflow discharge
: radius of influence
: radius of hole
: transmissivity
2). Dachler shape factor (1936)

Forchheimer (1930), Dachler (1936) and Aravin & Numerov (1965) with
difference ways derived mathematically a formula of well condition shape
factor as figure Fig. 5.19a and they had one conclusion that the value was:
= 4
(5.30)
Beside of the above formula, Dachler (1936) developed analytically, a formula of

shape factor of well as be presented on Fig. 5.19b as:
2
(5.31)
+1
93
impermeable
permeable
Fig. 5.19. Sketch of well condition.
From the figure (Fig. 5.19b) when L=0, the condition the well is equal to the
figure (Fig. 5.19a) so the value of shape factor of condition Eq.(5.31) should be
equal to the Eq.(5.30), that is F=4r. But when L=0 of the Fig. 5.19b the value of
shape factor of formula Eq.(5.31) is indefinite value. For this reason based on
Darcys Law (1856), Sunjoto (2002) developed a correction formula for
condition (Fig. 5.19b) which was derived analytically using the concept of ellipse
equation.
3). Sunjotos shape factor (2002)
When the base of hole is permeable Dachler (1936) assumed that it was
impermeable so that is why the value L=L (Fig. 5.20). According to Sunjoto
(2002), even-though the base of hole is impermeable, the real vertical flow still
exist and should be replaced theoretically by horizontal flow as depth as rln2,
so he determined that L=L+rln2, so:
Fig. 5.20. Sketch of assumption of flow on ellipse concept.
94
For the condition as presented on Fig. 5.20 the condition:

1
1
= ; = ; =
2
2
: 2 + 2 = 2 so:
1
0 2
+ 2 2
1
2
+ = 2 + 2
= + 2 + 2 + 2
(5.32)
Substitute Eq.(5.32) to Eq.(5.24) and the equation becomes:

=
2 + 2
+2 +
2 + 2
2 + 2
+2
+ 1+
According to Forchheimer (1930) that,

= :
2 + 22
+2
(5.33)
+1
Based on formula Eq.(5.33), it can be developed analytically the similar formula

which flow only through the wall side of hole and has not flow to the base and top
of hole due to it was shut by the packers and according of condition of rack layers
as a presented on Fig. 5.21 and the equations become (Sunjoto, 2015):
Fig. 5.21. Sketch of aquifer layers and packers location.
95
a). Condition of well (a) Fig. 5.21a

2
2 +2
2 2
(5.34)
+1
b). Condition of well (b) Fig. 5.21b

2
+2
(5.34b)
+1
c). Condition of well (c) Fig. 5.21c

2
+2
(5.34)
+1
e. Sunjotos coefficient of permeability

1). Coefficient of permeability
Lugeon test carried out by measuring of discharge on constant head, it means
that flow in steady state condition. That is why, to compute the value of
conductivity can be developed formula by substitution of Eq.(5.34a, 5.34b & 5.34c)
to Eq.(5.28) for steady state flow and for each condition the equations become
(Sunjoto, 2015):
a). Permeability of aquifer in between two impermeable layers or condition of
well (a) Fig. 5.21a is:
2 +2
2 2
+1
(5.35)
b). Permeability of aquiferin the border between impermeable layeror condition

of well (b) Fig. 5.21b is:
+2
+1
(5.35b)
96
c). Permeability of aquiferof thick permeable layer or condition of well (c) Fig.
5.21c is:
+2
2
+1
(5.35)
Table 5.5. Drill size as parameters for computation of formula
Example 1.Lugeon Unit by Sunjotos equations

This computation will be carried out to find value of permeability with the
data of the standard parameters of Lugeon Unit as:
Data:
Hydraulic head : H = 10 bar = 102 m
Discharge: Q = 1 l/min = 1.66667 .10-05 m3/s
Length of hole : L = 1 m
Computation in steady state flow condition
Holes diameter using outside standard drill size of Table 5.5
Compute: Coefficient of permeability of each condition (by Eq.(5.35a,b,c))
Note:
The resuts will be presented in the Table 5.6 and Fig. 5.22
97
2). Result of computation

The results of computation using Table 5.5 for the diameter data are:
Table 5.6. Results of computation by Eq.(5.35a&5.35b5.35c) using Lugeon standard data
parameters, various drill diameters and the position of hole tested on the rock layers.
43.72
89.40
187.10
Fig. 5.22. Relationship of diameters of hole and conductivities of rock computed by

Eq.(5.35a&5.35b5.35c) formula
98
3). Discussion
With above data of the standard parameters of Lugeon Unit and by formula
Eq.(5.35a&5.35b&5.35c), the value of conductivity can be computed and the result
is presented on Table 5.6.The smallest rock conductivity value computed by
proposed formulas is K=0.6323 x 10-7m/s for the drill size type N of 194.56 mm
diameter tested on rock type (c) and the biggest value is K=1.4091 x 10-7 m/s, for
the drill size type A of 36.12 mm diameter tested on rock type (a). According to
Sunjoto (2015) with his formulas which it have been computed using Lugeon
standard data and the result that the conductivity K= 10 -7 m/s can be achieved for
hole of layer condition (a), (b) and (c) when the diameter of hole are 187.10 mm,
89.40 mm and 43.72 mm respectively (Fig. 5.22). And for practical work it can be
implemented the drill size of N, G and B (Table 5.6.) for condition (a), (b) and (c) of
rock respectively.
99
VI. RECHARGING AND PUMPING

1. Saline and Fresh Water Balance
Badon Ghijben (1888) and Herzberg (1901) had developed an equation which same
conclusion for the island with porous material.
Fig. 6.1. Schematic of cross section oceanic/circular island which is homogenous, isotropic and
porous (Todd, 1980)
The water pressure at point A (Fig. 6.1) can be determined from fresh water and
saline water depths so:
= . . and = . .
(6.1)
. . = . . . = .
= = +
. = +
. = . + .
. = . . . =
=
(6.2)
100
For normal condition of the sea:
Sea water s = 1025 kgmass/m3 = 10.0552 kN/m3

Fresh water f= 1000 kgmass/m3= 9.81 kN/m3
Eq.(6.1) =
2. Shape of the Fresh-Salt Water interface

Ground surface
xo
Water table
Sea
zo
Fresh water
Saline water
Interface
Fig. 6.2. Flow pattern of fresh water in an unconfined coastal aquifer
The exact shape of the interface is (Glover in Todd, 1980):

2 =
(6.3)
The corresponding shape for the water table is given by:

=
2
+
1 2
(6.4)
The width xo of the submarine zone through which fresh water discharges into the
sea can be obtained for z=0,
101
.
(6.5)
2. .
The depth of the interface beneath the shoreline zo, occurs where x = 0 so that:
=
.
.
(6.6)
3. Up-coning
Up-coning is phenomenon that occurs when an aquifer contains an underlying of saline
water and is pumped by a well penetrating only the upper freshwater portion of the
aquifer, a local rise of the interface bellow the well occurs (Fig. 6.3).
Fig. 6.3. Diagram of up-coning of underlying saline water to a pumping well (after Schmorak
and Mercado in Todd, 1980)
According to Todd (1980) using Dupuit assumption and Ghijben-Herzberg relationship,

the up-coning is:
=
(6.7)
And for the security take z/d < 0.50 (Todd, 1980).
Base on Forchheimer (1930) principle, Sunjoto proposed that the up-coning is:
=
(6.8)
and F is shape factor (Table 6.4)

102
4. Drawdown versus Built up

Drawdown is decreasing of surface water on the bore hole when pumping occur,
meanwhile Built Up is increasing of surface water on the bore hole when recharging
occur.
a. Equation of Dupuit-Thiem
pump axis level
gs
gwl
h2
Cone of depression
(Dupuit-Thiem,1906)
h1
r1
r2
Fig. 6.4. Schematic of pumping of Dupuit-Thiem
Discharge (Dupuit-Thiem) based on Darcys Law:
(6.9)
Problem: Solution of this equation needs minimum two dependents unknown (h2 & r2)
so this formula is difficult for predicting computation (Fig. 6.4).
where,
K
Q
h1
h2
r1
r2
: coefficient of permeability (m/s)

: outflow discharge (m3/s)
: piezometric of observation well 1 (m)
: piezometric of observation well 2 (m)
: radius of observation well 1 (m)
: radius of observation well 2 (m)
103
b. Equation of Forhheimer (1930)
=
t1
2r
h1
t2
h2
(Forccheimer, 1930)
Qo
Fig. 6.5. Theory of Forchheimer (1936)
According to Forchheimer (1930) discharge (Q) on the hole with casing is hydraulic
head (H) multiplied by coefficient of permeability (K) multiplied by shape factor (F),
and for the hole with casing F = 4r or:
=
(5.1)
On his auger test with inflow discharge Q = 0, or water was poured instantly and then
be measured the relationship between duration (t) and height of water on hole (h), he
derived mathematically the equation to compute coefficient of permeability (Fig. 6.5):
=
where,
K
r
F
h1
h2
t1
t2
(6.10)
: radius of casing
: shape factor (F = 4R)
: depth of water in the beginning
: depth of water in the end
: time in the beginning
: time in the end
104
Problem: Forchheimer test is for inflow discharge equal to zero so this condition
is not appropriate to the condition of pumping which flow occur are inflow and
outflow in the same time.
c. Equation of Sunjoto (1988)
1). Recharge and built-up
Qi
H (built up)
Qi/FK
Groundwater mound
Relationship curve of
increasing of water level
on the casing (built up)
function of time caused
by recharging
gwt
0
K
Qo
Fig. 6.6. Relationship between increasing of water level and duration of recharging
Base on the steady flow condition theory of Forchheimer (1930), Sunjoto (1988)
developed the equation of recharge through the hole with constant discharge flow
to the hole which was derived mathematically by integration and the result is
unsteady flow condition and it will create the built-up as:
=
(5.27)
The formula Eq.(6.11) when duration T is infinite (T=) so the equation will
becomes Q=Qo=FKH (see Fig. 6.6)
105
2). Pumping and drawdown

a). Dupuit-Thiem
Dupuit-Thiem method derived based on the Darcys Law and the equation of
drawdown is:
Unconfined aquifer:
2
2
=
2
2
(4.29)
No solution for this condition
Confined aquifer:
= =
(4.31)
where,
s
Q
K
D
H
: drawdown (ft)
: constant pumping discharge (L3T-1)
: coefficient of permeability (LT-1)
: initial height of groundwater level (L)
hw
: height of groundwater level after pumping (L)
Ri
: radius of influence (L)
rw
b). Theis (1935)

The question of Theis to compute drawdown is:
114.60

=
1.87 2
(6.11)
where,
: drawdown (ft)
t
: time measured since commencement of pumping (days)
Q
: constant pumping discharge (gal/minute)
r
: distance to observation well from pumping well (ft)
S
: storage coefficient of aquifer (dimensionless)
T
: transmissivity of aquifer (gal/day/ft)
W(u) : well function of u
106
As the coefficient of transmissibility appears on the both sides of the equation,

the value of T and St can not be solved directly from the formula. However the T
and St may be determined by a graphical method describe by Wenzel (1942) from
the following formulas.
114.6
114.60
; =
; =
2
1.87
1.87 2
c). Cooper-Jacob (1946)

Cooper and Jacob (1946) developed an approximation for the Theis equation and a
data analysis method which does not require type-curve matching. The CooperJacob calculator presented here estimates the drawdown for a given well location
over time. This calculator is good for anticipating results from pump tests. The
Cooper-Jacob approximation is given by:
=
2.2459 2
4

(6.11)
where,
s
t
Q
r
S
T
: drawdown at observation well at the end of time t (T)

: time measured since commencement of pumping (T)
: radial distance to observation well from pumping well (L)
: transmissivity of aquifer (L2T-1)
d). Papadopulos-Cooper (1967)

The general flow equation inside a well of large diameter is:
=
,
4
(6.11)
where: F(uw,) is a fuction for which numerical value and:

107
4 =
2
4
2
2
The solution using graphical method of Fig. 7.8.

where,
s
t
Q
K
D
rw
rc
S

: coefficient of permeability (LT-1)
: radius of well in aquifer (L)
: radius of well in inpermeable stratum (L)
e). Singh (2000)

According to Singh (2000), the equation of drawdown is:
= 1.5446 0.4348
(6.11)
The fuction W is called the well function which actually is the exponential integral
function E1 defined as (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1970):

= 1
The parameters s* and t* are the expressed as (Singh, 2000)
2
= 5.152 102
=
1.7393
where,
s
s*
t
t*
W
Q
r
S
T

: length parameter of aquifer pumping (L)
: time parameter of aquifer pumping (T)
: well function of x
: distance to observation well from pumping well (L)
: transmissivity of aquifer (L2T-1)
108
f). Sunjoto (2014)

Drawdown of groundwater surface (s) will occur in discharge system by pumping
(Fig. 6.7) and the reverse side due to recharging is the built up (anti-drawdown
(H) will occur (Fig. 6.6) on the casing in recharge system.
According to Sunjoto (2014) for the equal condition and equal parameters the
both value drawdown and are equal to built up with opposite direction and the
equation will be:
On steady flow condition:
= =
(6.12)
On the unsteady flow condition:
= =
(6.12)
(negative signal means that the directionis is opposite and in this case is downward)
Qo
T (time)
gwt
Relationship curve of
decreasing of water level
on the casing (drawdown)
function of time caused by
pumping
Drawdown (s)
Cone of depresson
K
Qo/FK
s (drawdown)
Qi
Fig. 6.7. Relationship between decreasing of water level and duration of pumping
109
3). Drawdown on the pond versus on the aquifer

The inflow discharge on the casing tip of pumping in the pond, water can flow
easily and as consequent that the hydraulic head loss is small even null (Fig. 6.8a).
Qia
Qib
Fig. 6.8. Scheme of the drawdown occurances caused pumping on the pond and on the aquifer.
In other side, the inflow discharge of water through the casing tip of
groundwater pumping cant easily flow due to water must move between granular of
soil (Fig. 6.8b).
4). The occurance of drawdown
According to Darcy (1856), discharge is equal to area multiplied by coefficient
of permeability multiplied by hydraulic gradient.
Dicharge of pumping on the pond (Fig. 6.8a):

=
(6.13)
Assumed that the water body is an aquifer which porosity equal to one (n = 1),
it has coefficient of permeability is unlimited ( K = ), so the base of casing area
(Aa) is big enough to convey water flow upside to the pump and the discharge Qia
Qo.
110
The flow is continum so the flow Qia = Q0 and it doesnt need an addition of
hydraulic gradient to move from surrounding of casing to pumping suction through
base of casing and as the concequent that is the drawdown doesnt occur.
Dicharge of pumping on the aquifer (Fig. 6.8b):

=
(6.13)
Aquifer with porosity 0 < n < 1 allows flow of water through intergranulair path.
The area of casing base of pumping on the aquifer is smaller than the area of
casing base of pumping on the pond or Ab < Aa.
The continuity:
= =
The coefficient of permeability:

=
(6.13)
The area of casing base:

<
(6.13)
(6.13)
So, from above equqtions it can be concluded that hydraulic gradient:

>
(6.13)
: = 0
(it is equal condition of water surface inside and outside of the casing)
: > 0
where,
Qo
Qi, Qi
Aa, Ab
Ka, Kb
ia, ib
: discharge of pumping (LT-3)

: discharge through base of casing on the pond and on the aquifer (LT-3)
: base area of casing for pumping on the pond and on the aquifer (L2)
: coefficient of permeability on the pond and on the aquifer (LT-1)
: hydraulic gradient on the pond and on the aquifer
The flow from aquifer surrounding the casing to the pumping system through
base of casing is continum or Qo = Qia = Qib but the area and coefficient of
111
permeability are constant and smaller than pumping on the pond so the addition of
hydraulic gradient is needed and result is the occurance of drawdown.
5). Power of pumping
Till recent era the computation of pumping in groundwater storage still based
on the general formula of pumping Eq.(6.14a) even-though they have different
condition of flow on the tip of casing.
a). Power needed for general pumping equation on the water body is:
=
(6.14)
b). Power needed for groundwater pumping equation on the aquifer.

Simplification equation
Due to the method of simple drawdown computation doesnt available yet so
this parameter value was usually substituted by hsc that is a headloss which
is computed by graphical method based on screen of well and the equation
became (Eq.(6.14b)):
=
+ +
(6.14)
Exact parameter
According to Sunjoto (2014) that the drawdown value may be determinated by
simple data (Eq.(6.12)) and the equation of pumping power for the well on the
aquifer become:
=
+ +
(6.14)
c). The headloss caused by hydraulic movement on the pipe is:

= . .
=

(6.15)
112
where,
P
Q
hf
hsc
l
d
v
g
f
: power (kNm/s = kW)

: discharge (m3/s)
: specific weight of water (9.81 kN/m3)
: static head (m)
: drawdown on the well (m)
: pump efficiency (0.60 0.75)
: hydraulic losses on the tube of pump (m)
: hydraulic losses on the screen (m)
: length of pipe (m)
: pipe diameter (m)
: average velocity (m/s)
: acceleration of gravity (m/s2)
: Darcy friction factor
Note:
1 KW = 75 x 1.359 kg m/s (in equator)
1 HP = 0.746 KW
Many efforts to increase the discharge flow through the well by enlarging the gravelpacked (Fig. 6.9b-left) and install a collector of horizontal perforated pipe (Fig. 6.9bright) and according to Todd (1960) this collector technique was a patent by Ranney &
Felhmann
for
Ranney
Method
Water
Supplies,
Inc.,
Columbus,
Ohio
and
Grundwasserbauten A.G. Berne, Switzerland, respectively.

The advantages of those techniques actually are not only to increase the discharge
but also to decrease the drawdown and as we know that influence of drawdown is big
to the power needed (Eq.(6.14b)) for the computation can be seen on the Example 1.
The reason is that (Fig. 6.9b-left) the computation of shape factor using radius of
gravel (rg) and length of gravel (Lg), is bigger than radius and perforated length of
casing. For the Fig. 6.9b-right, the perforated casing will increase the value of shape
factor, and discharge is function of shape factor, drawdown and permeability.
113
hf
Water outlet level
Q
gs
+ +
(Sunjoto, 2014)
gwl
=
hsc
Cone of depression
Fig. 6.9a. Schematic of groundwater pumping
L
g
rg
Fig. 6.9b. A gravel-packed well (left) and a horizontal peforated pipes collector well, patent
of Ranney & Felhmann (right).
114
NOTE:
1. The determination of shape factor of well Fig. 6.9b-left can use the data of
radius of well is rg and length of perforated casing is Lg when the opening of
perforated screen is bigger than the porosity of soil.
2. The shape factor of well Fig. 6.9b-right will be determinated based on not only
from vertical casing condition but must be added by the horizontal perforated
pipes parameters (length & radius), see Example 5.
6). Screen influence
Almost of pumping systems computation shows that drawdown is caused by
screens of casing and represented as headloss. Many fabrications determine this
headloss using the parameter of opening of casing screen and computed by
graphical method. As mentioned above that when there is not obstacle of flow
through the casing, it is meant that there is not influence of screens to the
drawdown.
Fig. 6.9.c. Drawdown and placement of pump (http://brooksvillepumpandwellrepair.com/welldrilling/)
Question: Will the water of above illustration (Fig. 6.9c) flow upside by pumping and
why does it happen?
115
NOTE:
Recently much problem occurs on computation result of groundwater pumping
using Eq.(6.14.). The mistake occurs due to actually this equation was derived for:
Pumping on the pond which inflow discharge on the casing tip doesnt
through granulair media and this condition will not create drawdown. In the
other side that the pumping on the aquifer water discharge flow through
intergranulair of soil and this action creates drawdown.
Pumping on the pond, it has not possibility of aeration that is air inflow
from the tip of casing due to the drawdown is always zero. But the umping
on the aquifer has possibility of air inflow from the tip of casing when Y s
(Fig.6.9a.).
7). Boundary Condition of Perforation Opening

Due to the simple formula of drawdown computation doesnt available for the
pumping on the aquifer, till nowadays the drawdown is taken into account as an
influence of screen of casing or computed by numerical or graphical methods. This
paper concludes that the drawdown as a result of the unbalance of discharge to
the pump and discharge from the aquifer surround of the casing. The drawdown
occurs due to the discharge needs velocity and velocity on the aquifer is
coefficient of permeability multiplied by hydraulic gradient (Darcy, 1856). That is
why the unit area of pipe perforation casing holes must be bigger than unit area of
pores of soil it means that there is not obstacle of water flow from soil to the well
through the perforated casing (Fig. 6.10). In this condition, the value of shape
factor presented on Table 6.4 and Table 6.5 can be implemented without
correction.
116
Pumping discharge
soil
Percented perforation area of

perforated casing should be bigger
than porosity of soil aquifer
Fig. 6.10. Schematic of flow through the perforated casing
a). Perforated casing

When the perforated casing is installed the computation of shape factor is fuction
of perforated length. The total perforation holes area must be bigger than
porosity of sandy soils as aquifer which is about 45-55%. With this casing the
discharge from the soil can flow certainly through the casing and the contrary
when it is smaller, it will create an obstacle of water flow.
b). Porous wall
When on the the porous wall of well is implemented on the pumping or recharging
system the porosity of the wall should be bigger than the porosity of soil. With
this construction the coefficient of permeability of porous wall will be bigger than
the soils and there is not obstacle of water flow through the porous wall.
117
8). Correction of Shape Factors

a). Ellipse equation
Basic equation of ellipse (La Rue et Risi, 1960. Mathmatiques Intermediaires):
2 2
+
=1
2 2
(6.16)
Theoreme:
2 = 2 + 2
(6.17)
b). Basic equation of radial flow

The basic equation of radial flow is Darcys law which will be combined with ellipse
equation and this form will be as a base of shape factor equation of F5b. Analogous
on Dachler (1936) and consider of new F5b equation found, it can be derived shape
factor equation of F6b. And when L = for equation of F6b will be found equation F4b.
Boundary condition (Fig. 6.11):
Y = Ho
x = Ro
Y = Hr
x=r
Darcys Law (1856)
= =
=
= = 2
(6.18)
Hr
R0
dh
dr
Ho
Fig. 6.11. Cross section of aquifer between two impermeable layers
118
c). Well condition 5b of Dachler.

According to Dachler (1936), the direction of equipotentials to the permeable
casing will be ellipses form and the stream lines which are perpendicular to them
are flow lines which hyperbolic form (Fig. 6.12) and the equation will be:
=
+ 1+
2
(6.19)
2
+ 1+
When t = L, a = r so:

+ +
(6.20)
From his equation it can be concluded that no water flow through the base of the
well, but in reality that water can flow through the base of the casing.
impermeable
Equipotentiales
permeable
Flow lines
Fig. 6.12. Cross section of aquifer under impermeable layer (Dachler, 1936)
d). Well condition 5b (see Table 6.4) of Sunjoto (1989)
119
The problem of the Dachler equation that it didnt take into account the flow
through the base of casing that is why in this proposition is assumpted that the
flow will be will be accommodated by extra length of the permeable casing with
the assumption as (Fig. 6.13):
r
a. Real
L=L+rln2
b. Theoretic
Fig. 6.13. Cross section of real and theoritic aquifer.
Assumption I: = + 2
Assumption II: a = Ro 2(L + r);
b = L;
c=r
Explanation of assumption I.
The base of well is permeable so there is a flow of water through this area and
it must be taken into consideration.
Area of base of well is equal to the area of the wall which length r but due to
the hydraulic gradient on the base of well is bigger than on the wall so we take
value r.ln2 as an addition of length of permeable well.
2 = 2 + 2 2 + =
2 + 2
= + 2 + 2 + 2
Substitution:
=
Eq.(6.21) Eq.(6.18)
2 + 2
(6.21)
+2 +
2 + 2
2 + 2
+2
+ 1+
120
(6.22)
When r = 1, L = 0 and = + 2 so F5b = 3.964r and this value is about

99%x4r. Shape factor F = 4r was value derived by Forchheimer (1930).
Table 6.1. Assumption I, between real and theorem condition on the tip of well/casing
Description
(Table 6.4)
Dachler (1936)
Length of permeable wall/casing
Sunjoto (2002)
Length of permeable wall/casing
Real
Function
Real
Function
Condition 1
Condition 5b
L+ r.ln2
Condition 6b
L+ r.ln2
Table 6.2. Assumption II between Dachler (1936) and Sunjoto (2002; 2016) condition on the tip of
well/casing
Description
(Table 6.4)
Dachler (1936)
Sunjoto (2002; 2016)
Remarks
Condition 1
a = Ro 2( L + r)
b=L
c=r
Sunjoto (2016)
Condition 5b
a = Ro L
b=L
c=r
a = Ro 2( L + r)
b=L
c=r
Sunjoto (2002)
Condition 6b
a = Ro L
b=L
c=r
a = Ro ( L + r)
b=L
c=r
Sunjoto (2002)
121
Table 6.3. Flowchart of formula derivation squences of shape factors (See Table 6.4)
No
Condition
Shape Factor
F when
r=1; L=0
Sunjoto (1989)
Sunjoto (2016)
1 =
2r
References
2 +2
2 2
+1
1 =
+2
+1
8
3b
2r
2r
Dachler (1936)
0/0
2 + 2 2
5 =
+2
+1
4 = 5.50
2r
4b
=
Sunjoto (2002)
3.964
Harza (1935)
Taylor (1948)
Hvorslev (1951)
5.500
Sunjoto (2002)
6.283
3
5
6 =
2r
4.000
5b
Forchheimer (1930)
Dachler (1936)
Aravin (1965)
3 = 4
+1
Dachler (1936)
0/0
6b
2 + 2 2
6 =
+1
Sunjoto (2002)
6.283
2r
7b
+2
2 + 2 2
7 =
+2
2
2
2
Sunjoto (2016)
8.525
+1
122
Table 6.4. Shape factor of well

Conditions
2r
Value of F when
Shape factor (F)
Referenses
r=1; H=0; L=0
1 =
+2
+1
Sunjoto (2016)
2r
2 = 4
12.566
Samsioe (1931)
Dachler (1936)
Aravin (1965)
2r
2 = 18
18.000
Sunjoto (2002)
6.283
Samsioe (1931)
Dachler (1936)
Aravin (1965)
4.000
Forchheimer (1930)
Dachler (1936)
Aravin (1965)
9.870
Sunjoto (2002)
4 = 5,50
5.50
Harza (1935)
Taylor (1948)
Hvorslev (1951)
4 = 2
6.283
Sunjoto (2002)
2r
3 = 2
3
2r
2r
3 = 4
4 = 2
4
2r
123
2r
2 + 2 2
5 =
+2
5
2r
6.227
Sunjoto (2002)
+1
0/0
Dachler (1936)
+2
3.964
Sunjoto (2002)
9.870
Sunjoto (2002)
0/0
Dachler (1936)
6.283
Sunjoto (2002)
9.870
Sunjoto (2016)
6.283
Sunjoto (2016)
+1
2 + 2 2
6 =
+2
2
2
2
+1
6 =
2
2
+1
2 + 22
6 =
2r
2 + 22
2r
+1
5 =
5 =
2r
+2
2
2
2
+1
2 + 2 2
7 =
+2
2
2
2
+1
2r
2 + 22
7 =
+2
2
2
2
+1
Condition of perforation:
There is not obstacle of water flow through the perforated casing or porous wall.
124
9). Formula Development of Shape Factors of trench

Shape factors of trench (f) were developed from shape factor of wells (F) using a
shape coefficient which was derived by Sunjoto (2008) as:
a). Shape factor of trenches are shape factor of wells multiplied by shape
coefficient (SC).
b). Shape coefficient is perimeter coefficient multiplied by area coefficient
c). Perimeter coefficient from circle form to square form is perimeter of square
divided by circle perimeter () and equal to =
d). Area coefficient from square form to rectangular form is root of rectangular
area
devided by root area of square
and equal to
e). Finally, value of shape coefficient (SC) from circle form to rectangular form is
Perimeter coefficient multiplied by Area coefficient and equal to:

. = .
So:
=
and
(6.23)
where:
fn
: shape factor of trench in n condition
Fn
: shape factor of well in n condition
125
Table 6.5. Shape factor of trenches

Condition
b
1
Shape factor of trenches (f)

4
1 =
+4
2
2 = 8
b
+1
Remarks
Trench on the aquifer in between two
imperviuos layers
Sunjoto (2016)
Trench with tube form on the thick

aquifer
Sunjoto (2008)
2 =
36
Trench with square cross section on

the thick aquifer
Sunjoto (2008)
3 = 4
Trench with half cylindrical base on

the aquifer which lies under
impervious layer
Sunjoto (2008)
3 =
Trench with flat base on the aquifer

which lies under impervious layer
Sunjoto (2008)
b
4 = 2
Trench with half cylindrical base on

the thick aquifer
Sunjoto (2008)
4 = 4
Trench with flat base on the thick

aquifer
Sunjoto (2008)
126
4 + 2 2
5 =
+4
2
+1
Trench with partial porous wall and

half cylindrical base on the aquifer
which lies under impervious layer
+1
Trench with partial porous wall and

flat base on the aquifer which lies
under impervious layer
Sunjoto (2008)
4 + 4 2
5 =
+4
2
4 + 2 2
6 =
+4
4
Sunjoto (2008)
Trench with porous wall and half

cylindrical base on the thick aquifer
+1
Sunjoto (2008)
4 + 4 2
6 =
+4
4
Trench with porous wall and flat base

on the thick aquifer
+1
4 + 2 2
7 =
+4
4
+1
Sunjoto (2008)
Trench with whole porous wall and

half cylindrical base on the thick
aquifer
Sunjoto (2016)
4 + 4 2
7 =
+4
4
Trench with whole porous wall and

flat base on the thick aquifer
+1
Sunjoto (2016)
Condition of perforation:
There is not obstacle on the wall perforation for water flow through the porous wall
of trench.
127
Example 2. Power of pumping

Data: Discharge Q = 0.1667 m3/s,hydraulic head ( + ) = 6.50 m (static head+hydraulic
losses), coefficient of permeability K = 0.00047 m/s, length of screen casing or perforated pipe L
= 18 m and diameter of casing is 45 cm, specific weight of fresh water: density f = 1,000 kg/m3
or specific weight f = 9.81 kN/m3 and saline water: density s = 1,025 kgmass/m3 or specific
weight s = 10.05525 kN/m3 and pump efficiency = 0,60. Tip of the well in -28 m and the
pumps are installed on the sandy costal which beneath of the pump in -200.00 m laid the
boundary of fresh and saline water (Fig. 6.14).
Compute:
Power needed and how is the pumping position related to salt water intrusion.
Q=0.1667 m3/s
+1.50
W=6.50 m
5.00 m
-5.00
s
23.00 m
18.00 m
-28.00
K=4.70*10
-4
m/s
Fig. 6.14. Illustration of pumping data
Shape factor installed:

=
2 18 + 2 0.225 2
18+20.225
20.225
18
20.225
= 25.95
+1
128
The drawdown of 1 pump installed:

=
0.1667
= 13.667
25.95 0.00047
Power needed for the discharge Q = 0.1667 m3/s is:

=
+ +
0.1667 3 9.81/3 6.50 + 13.667
=
= 54.97
0.60
Or in other way:
0.1667 3
+ +
=
=
1000
3
6.50 + 13.667
0.60
= 5603.065 .
5603.065
= 54.97
75 1.359
Minimizing drawdown:
Increasing value of shape factor by enlarging diameter of casing or/and
using porous casing.
Installing multi-pumping with exsisting shape factor, in these example 4
pumps installed.
When the drawdown of 4 pumps installed on the previous casings:
0.1667
25.95 0.00047
= 3.41
Power needed for the discharge Q = 0.1667/4 = 0.041675 m3/s is:

=
0.041675 9.81 6.50 + 3.41

= 6.75
0.60
Total Power needed for discharge Q = 0.1667 m3/s is:

P = 4 x 6.75 = 27 KW< 54.97 KW
129
The pumps are installed on the sandy costal soil which beneath of them laid down the
boundary of fresh and saline water in 200.00 m.
Up-coning:
According to Sunjoto the up-coning can be computed by Eq.(6.8) are:
For 1 pump installed:
1 =
0.1667
25.95 0.00047
10251000
= 545.60
1000
For 4 pumps installed:

4 =
0.041675
25.95 0.00047
10251000
= 136.40
1000
Conclusion:
The decision of installing 4 pumps (multi pumpings) will have much advantage as:
The level of fresh and salt water boundary will move upward to 200 + 136.40 =
63.60 m, due to the tip of the well level is 28 m so the saline water will not
flow into tip of pipe so there is not sea water intrusion.
The drawdown 3.41 m is smaller than the length of impermeable casing under
the groundwater level which is length is 23-18 m = 5 m so it will not occurs
aeration.
The total power of 4 pumps decrease till 50% of one pump installed.
But the 3 new wells must be installed
130
Example 3. Discharge of pumping

Data: Provided pumping power is 40 kW, hydraulic head( + )=6.50 m (static
head+hydraulic losses), coefficient of permeability K = 0.00047 m/s, length of casing screen
or perforated pipe L=18 m and diameter of casing is 45 cm, fresh water: density f = 1,000
kgmass/m3 or specific weight f = 9.81 kN/m3 and pump efficiency = 0,60.
Compute: Discharge of pumping Q.
Shape factor installed:
=
2 18 + 2 0.225 2
18+20.225
20.225
18
20.225
= 25.95
+1
Discharge found:
+ +
Solution by trial and error so:

=
40 =
9.81 6.50 + 25.950.00047

0.60
= 0.13759 m3 /s
The discharge found is Q = 0.013759 m3/s or Q = 8.2554 m3/mnt
Example 4. Unbalance of pumping power and discharge

Data:
A seawater fishpond in sandy coastal area which was equipped by geo-membrane had been
developed in Yogyakarta Special Province with 7.20 ha area, 60 cm depth. One third of water
should be replaced daily by seawater. The hydraulic head ( + ) = 7.50 m (static
head+hydraulic losses), coefficient of permeability K = 0.00047 m/s and of saline water: density
s = 1,025 kg/m3 or specific weight s = 10.0552 kN/m3 and pump efficiency = 0,60. This
fishpond was installed 4 types of pumping system and one system was broken by sea current.
The problem is that the discharge of pumping only near a half of the design discharge even
though the power was doubled.
Compute and analysed the problem and what are the recomendation
131
a.
Volume of pond:
Vp = 72,000 m2 x 0.60 m = 43,200 m3
Daily seawater volume needed:
Vn = 33 % x 43,200 m3 = 14,400 m3
Daily seawater discharge needed:
Qn = 14,400/24/3,600 = 0.1667 m3/s 10 m3/mnt
Design of Power needed (without drawdown occurance):
Pn = Q H/ kNm/s
Pn = 0.1667 m3/s x 10.552 kN/m3x 7.50 m/ 0.60 = 21.99 kN.m/s = 21.99 kW
Computation:
According to Forchheimer (1930) that radial flow in porous media, discharge ( Q) is

equal to shape factor (F) multiplied by coefficient of permeability (K) multiplied by
hydraulic head (h) or Eq.(6.12):
=
Pumping power is discharge multiplied by specific weight of water multiplied by

hydraulic head divided by efficiency of pump system Eq.(6.15) and according to
(Sunjoto, 2014):
=
+ +
Note: In this case the pumps casing are covered by water body (sea) so almost of all
the pumping system dont create drawdown, but in the computation still be
taken into consideration of drawdown due to the influence of shape factor
still exist. The length of pipes in this pumping system are short so hydraulic
headlosses are ignored.
where,
P
Q
F
: power (kN.m/s)
: discharge (m3/s)
: shape factor of casing/well (m)
132
K
W

: differential/static head (m)
: drawdown (m)
: specific weight of water (kN/m3)
: pump efficiency
hf
: (neglected)
1). Lying pipes

This pumping system (Fig. 6.15) consists of four pipes of 20 cm diameter nonperforated and the tip of pipes was covered by screen filter. The pipes were sunk
1 m under the ground (sand) surface and lowest sea water surface to achieve the
discharge water free from predators. The installed shape factors for this system
are (Sunjoto, 2002) on the Table 6.4 of =
Computed by above formula, the installed shape factor for the 4 pipes is:
Fi = 4 x 2 x x 0.10 = 2.51 m
This system was not installed the pump due to the current of the sea is big
enough to destroy the lied pipes.
40,20 m
Type equation here.
Indian Ocean
Fig. 6.15. Lying pipes
2). Cubical Water Intake

This system consist of hollow 6m x 6m sides cubical concrete structure and the
base of cube without concrete slab lied down on the coastal sand and sink always
133
under lowest sea level (Fig. 6.16). The function of this system is to keep of 2
pumps from high wave and fast current. Inside of the cube was installed two
cylinder concrete of 60 cm diameter where the tip of suction pumps placed. So
the shape factor of this install system is not a shape factor of cubical concrete
but 2 concrete cylinders of 0.60 m diameter and the value can be computed using
Table 6.4. of F4b (Sunjoto, 2002):
Fi = 2 x (2 x x r) = 2 x (2 x x 0.30) = 2 x 1.885 m
This system was installed 2 pumps of 1x3.00 KW and 1x4.00 KW, and measured
discharge are Q1 = 0.58 m3/s and Q2 = 0.77 m3/s
Q
Indian Ocean
6.00
Cylinder concrete 60 cm
Fig. 6.16. Cubical Water Intake with cylinders inside
3). Impermeable Deep well

This system consists of 2 steel non perforated pipes (Fig. 6.17) of 45 cm diameter
with length 60 m and the installed shape factor can be computed by (Sunjoto,
2002) Table 6.4 of F4b:
F = 2 x 2 x x r = 2 x 2 x x 0.225 = 2 x 1.414 m
This system was installed 2 pumps of 2 x 16.00 KW, and measured discharge is Q 3
& Q4 = 2 x 1.80 m3/s
134
Indian Ocean
60 m
Fig. 6.17. Deep Well
4). Perforated swallow pipes

This system consists of 6 meter perforated pipes 30 cm diameter was installed in
costal sandy area (Fig. 6.18) and according to Sunjoto (2002) the shape factor is
(Table 6.4 of F6b):
2 + 2 2
where,
F
R
L
+2
2
+1
: shape factor of pipe (m)

: radius of pipe (m)
: porous length (m)
So shape factor value:

2 6 + 2 0.15 2
=
= 10.326
6+20.15
20.15
6
20.15
+1
This system was installed 1 pumps of 1 x 3.00 KW, and measured discharge is Q 5 =
0.78 m3/s
135
Indian Ocean
6.00
Fig. 6.18. Swallow Porous Pipes
b. Analysis
1). Installed pumping systems
Acctually there were 4 types of pumping systems were built in this project but
the Lying Pipes was broken down by the current and the wave of the ocean and the
pump was not installed so its rest 3 pumping systems operate with the conditions:
a). Total pumping power had been installed:
P = 0 + (3.00 + 4.50) + (16.00 + 16.00) + 3.00 = 42.50 KW
Design power was only 21.99 KW
b). Total shape factor of casing tip had been installed::
F = 0 + (1.885 + 1.885) + (1.414 + 1.414) + 10.326 = 16.923 m
c). Total real discharge measured:
Q = Qo + (Q1 + Q2) + (Q3 + Q4) + Q5
Qm = 0 + (0.58 + 0.77) + (1.80 + 1.80) + 0.78 = 5.73 m3/mnt < 10 m3/mnt
d). Total discharge computed using existing pumps P = 42.50 kW
2). Discharge computation using installed power pumps:
=
+ +

136
a). Discharge Qo
Qo = 0, due to the pumping systems were not installed
b). Discharge Q1
3=
1 10.0552 7.50 +
1
1.8850.00047
Solution by trial and error and found: 1 = 0. 00971 3 = 0.5826 3

c). Discharge Q2
4.5 =
2
2 10.0552 7.50 + 1.8850.00047
Solution by trial and error and found: 2 = 0.01246 3 = 0.7476 3

d). Discharge Q3 & Q4
16 =
3,4
3,4 10.0552 7.50 + 1.4140.00047
Solution by trial and error and found: 3,4 = 0. 022819 3 = 1.3692 3

e). Discharge Q5
3=
5
5 10.0552 7.50 + 10.3260.00047

Total computed discharges are:
Qc = 0 + (0.5826+ 0.7476) + (1.3692+ 1.3692) + 0.9770 = 5.0546 m3/mnt
Compare this result to the measured discharge Q = 5.73 m3/mnt, this
differences caused by value of efficiency between installed pumps and data
(=0.6).
c. Solution Posibility
1). Cubical Water Intake
When this two 60 cm diameter of cylinder concretes are removed (Fig. 6.19) so
the installed shape factor is the concrete cubic of 6m x 6m and the value of shape
factor of f4b (Table 6.5) will be (Sunjoto, 2008):
137
Q
Q
Indian Ocean
6.00
Fig. 6.19. Cubical Water Intake
=4
= 4 6 6 = 24
Discharge found with power P = 21.99 kW (power design):
21.99 =
10.0552 7.50 + 240.00047

Conclusion.
To provide the discharge of the project 10 m 3/mnt, it can be built a Double Cubic
Water Intake Pumping System with side dimensions are 6m x 6m m equiped by 2 x
21 kW power of pumps, it will be obtained 10.38 m3/mnt.
Compare with existing installations that with P= 42.50 kW its obtain the
discharge Q= 5.73 m3/mnt.
2). Five horizontal perforated pipes (Propossed by Imron Rosyadi, 2004)
In his Master Thesis in Department of Civil and Environment Engineering
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Rosyadi (2004) propossed the solution for the above
problem was to build a 3 m diameter concrete cylinder with height of 13 m which it
be sunk 8 m on the sand and equiped 5 horizontal perforated pipes with length 4 m
138
and diameter 10 cm (Fig. 6.20). From his laboratorium test he concluded that this
construction good enough to draw water with 10 m3/mnt water.
To prove the reliability this design this design, it will be verified by using shape
factor method (Sunjoto, 1988) using P = 21.99 kW as follows:
Q
13.00
Indian Ocean
10 cm
3.00
4.00
Fig. 6.20. Horizontal perforated pipes (Rosyadi I., 2004)
3). Verification:
a). Shape factor of impermeable wall of concrete cylinder wich water can flow
through from the base of the cylinder only is (Sunjoto, 2002):
F1 = 2 x x 1.50 = 9.42 m
b). Shape factor of horizontal perforated pipes is (Sunjoto, 2002):
2 = 5
2 4 + 2 0.05 2
4+20.05
20.05
4
20.05
= 5 5.769 = 28.845
+1
139
Total shape factor of concrete cylinder and horizontal perforated pipes is:
F = F1 + F2 = 9.42 + 28.845 = 38.265 m
Discharge found by pumping power P = 21.99 kW (power design):
With consideration of drawdown
21.99 =
10.0552 7.50 + 38.2650.00047
Solution by trial and error and found: 5 = 0. 10033 3 = 6.02 3 < 10 m3/mnt
Without consideration of drawdown
21.99 =
10.0552 7.50
= 0.17495 3 = 10.50 3
4). Conclusion of Rosyadi method:

The design proposed by Rosyadi still using Pumping computation method on water body
eventhough the pumping carried out on the aquifer and the real discharge obtained
will only about 60% from value obtained (6.02 rather than 10.50 m3/mnt).
Comment:
The all designs of existing pumping power in the field event proposition by Rosyadi
(2004) never considerated the value of shape factor of tip of well therefore it will
occur unbalance of the power of pumping and discharge, as a consequence that
eventhough the system installed with doubled power pumps but the discharge was
only near a half of the designed value like the above example.
5. Horizontal Perforated Pipes (HPP)

HPP is horizontal perforated pipe which are installed to get bigger discharge or
recharge of the well (Fig. 6.20). For discharge well the hydraulic head is the
drawdown of pumping and for recharge well the hydraulic head is the difference of
140
groundwater elevation on the well before and after pumping. In this construction
many researcherproposed they empirical formulas of computation based on
laboratory test. They area Mikel & Klaers Methode (1956), Spiridonoff & Hantushs
Method (1964), Nasjonos Method (2002), Das, Saha, Rao dan Uththmanthans
Method (2009). And with different approach Sunjoto compute the problem using
Forchheimer method (1930), and with the same data the results of computation
presented in Table 6.6:
Q
g.s
g.w.t
3.00
1.00
Perforated pipe
Fig. 6.21. Cross section of horizontal perforated pipes
Example 5. Horizontal Perforated Pipe (Fig. 6.21):

Data: Coefficient of permeability K = 10-3 m/s
Length of HPP L = 4 m
Diameter of HPP D = 0.30 m
Radius of well r = 2 m
Number of pipe n = 8 pcs
Diameter of pipe pore d = 0.003 m

Pores distance 0.15 m
Hydraulic head h = 3 m
Axis of HPP elevation: 9.50 m
Groundwater elevation above HPP: -6.50 m
Ground surface elevation: 0.00 m
Compute: Discharge
a. Mikel & Klaers Methode (1956)
141
(6.24)
=
where,
Q : discharge (m3/s)
n : number of pipe
L : length of pipe (m)
V : flow velocity (m/s)
= =
3
= 103 = 0.001
Discharge of 8 pore pipes:

= 8 42 0.001 = . 3
b. Spiridonoff & Hantushs Method (1964)
=
where,
Q
Sv
Af
h
d
(6.25)
: discharge (m3/s)
: specific yield aquifer of sand and gravel (Sv = 20 %)
: total area of pore hole of each pipe (m2)
: distance between axis of pipe to groundwater level (m)
: diameter of pore (m)
Total area of pore holes of each pipe:

=
1
1
2 = 0.0032 162 = 0.114557 2
4
4
Distance between axis of HPP to groundwater level: h = 3 m

Discharge of 8 pipes:
= 8 0.20 0.114557 3 = . 3
c. Nasjonos Method (2002)
= .
where,
Q
Af
K
(6.26)
: discharge (m3/s)
: total area of pore hole of each pipe (m2)
142
L
D
h

: diameter of HPP/pipe (m)
: distance between axis of pipe to groundwater level (m)
: distance of flow (m)
Discharge of 8 pore pipes:

0.114557 3
= 148.41
4 0.3
3
0.2366
103 32 0.30 = . 3
d. Das, Saha, Rao dan Uththmanthans Method (2009)
The assumption of pores clogging is 50%

The assumption Af is 20% the surface area of pipe
= %
(6.27)
where,
Q
L
D
Af
: discharge (m3/s)
: diameter of pipe (m)
: total area of pore hole of each pipe (m2) = 20 % area of pipe
: flow velocity in the pipe (m/s) V = 0.50 cm/s=0.005 m/s
Discharge of 8 pipes:
= 8 4 0.30 20% 50% 0.005 = . 3
e. Sunjotos Method (1988; 2002)

Assumpt that the flow is if steady state condition and formula is (Sunjoto,
1988) is equql to Forccheimer (1930) as Eq.(6.9):
=
where,
Q : discharge (m3/s)
F
: shape factor of casing or well (m) Table 6.4.
K
H : hydraulic head (m)
(5.1)
143
Example 6. Horizontal perforated pipes (Sunjotos method)
Total length of HPP is L = 8 x 4m = 32 m

The assumption that hydraulic head is H = 3 m
Diameter of well is 4 m or radius r = 2 m
Length of porous vertical wall is 4 m
All the methods are computed in steady state flow condition using the above data
and in this method there are 3 conditions:
1). Discharge through 8 pipes only, when base and wall of well are impermeable:
Shape factor for 8 pipe pores can be computed using Table 6.4. F6b (Sunjoto,
2002):
2 + 2 2
6 =
6 =
+2
+1
8 2 4 + 2 0.15 2
32+20,15
20,15
32
20,15
= 38.43243
+1
Discharge through 8 pipes:

1 = = 38.43243 103 3 = 0.115297 3
2). Discharge when 8 pipes pore and base of well are permeable but wall of well is
impermeable:
Shape factor for well when the base is permeable (Sunjoto, 2002) Table 6.4.:
4 = 2 = 2 2 = 12.566371
Discharge through the well base:

= = = 12.566371 103 3 = 0.037699 3
Total discharges 1). + 2). is:
2 = 0.115297 + 0.037699 = 0.152996 3
3). Discharge when tip of 8 pipes pore of base and wall of well are permeable:
144
Shape factor for well with permeable perimeter with 4 m height (assumed) and
radius R = 2 m (Sunjoto, 2002) is:
2 + 2 2
6 =
+2
2
+1
2 4 + 2 2 2
4+22
22
4
22
= 27.56070
+1
Discharge through the perimeter of well:

= = = 27.56070 103 3 = 0.082682 3
Total discharges 1). + 3). is:
3 = 0.115297 + 0.082682 = 0.197979 3
Table 6.6. Comparison of the result of Example 4.

No.
Method
Discharges (m3/s)
Mikel & Klaer (1956)
0.402285
Spiridonoff & Hantush

(1964)
Nasjono (2002)
0.549874
Das, Saha, Rao &

Uththmanthan (2009)
Sunjoto (1988; 2002)
0.150857
3
4
5
0.102159
0.115297)*
0.152996)**
0.197979)
)*
Flow through 8 horizontal of perforated pipes only
)** Flow through 8 horizontal of perforated pipes and base of well
)*** Flow through 8 horizontal of perforated pipes, base of well and porous wall
145
VII. UNSTEADY RADIAL FLOW

1. Theis (1935)
The assumptions made in applying these equations for solution of aquifer problems
are:
The system is infinite
The aquifer is homogenous, isotropic and uniform thickness
Prior to removal or addition of water the piezometric is horizontal
The pumping is at constant rate
The pumped well penetrates the aquifer
Water removed from storage is discharged immediately
Theis (1935) used the exponential integral solution to analyze unsteady flow in the
following term:
=
4
(7.1)
The integral is a function of lower limit u and is known as an exponential integral. It

can be expanded as a convergent series so that Eq.(7.1) becomes:
=
. +
+
. ! . !
. !
(7.2)
where,
2
=
4
(7.3)
The storage coefficient is

=
4
2
(7.4)
The exponential integral W(u) = -Ei(-u) can be represented by the series below and
the values is tabulated in Table 7.1.
= . +
+
. ! . !
. !
(7.5)
146
Table 7.1. Values of W(u) for Values of u

u
1.0
0.219
2.0
0.049
3.0
0.013
4.0
0.0038
5.0
0.0011
6.0
0.00036
7.0
0.00012
8.0
0.000038
9.0
0.000012
10-1
1.82
1.22
0.91
0.70
0.56
0.45
0.37
0.31
0.26
-2
4.04
3.35
2.96
2.68
2.47
2.30
2.15
2.03
1.92
-3
6.33
5.64
5.23
4.95
4.73
4.54
4.39
4.26
4.14
-4
8.63
7.94
7.53
7.25
7.02
6.84
6.69
6.55
6.44
10-5
10.94
10.24
9.84
9.55
9.33
9.14
8.99
8.86
8.74
10-6
13.24
12.55
12.14
11.85
11.63
11.45
11.29
11.16
11.04
10-7
15.54
14.85
14.44
14.15
13.93
13.75
13.60
13.46
13.34
10-8
17.84
17.15
16.74
16.46
16.23
16.05
15.90
15.76
15.65
-9
20.15
19.45
19.05
18.76
18.54
18.35
18.20
18.07
17.95
-10
22.45
21.76
21.76
21.06
20.84
20.66
20.50
20.37
20.25
-11
24.75
24.06
24.06
23.36
23.14
22.96
22.81
22.67
22.55
-12
10
27.05
26.36
26.36
25.67
25.44
25.26
25.11
24..97
24.86
10-13
29.36
28.66
28.66
27.97
27.75
27.56
27.41
27.28
27.16
10-14
31.66
30.97
30.56
30.27
30.05
29.87
29.71
29.58
29.46
10-15
33.96
33.27
32.86
32.58
32.35
32.17
32.02
31.88
31.76
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
Data of pumping.
Pumping data in confined aquifer, with full penetration and a discharge 2500 m 3/d, observation
well 60 m away from the well and data found of drawdown in function of duration of pumping
and value of r2/t is tabulated in Table 7.2:
Table 7.2. Pumping test data (after Todd, 1980)
t
s
r2/t
t
s
2
(min)
(m)
m /min
(min)
(m)
0
0
8
0.53
1
0.20
3600
10
0.57
1,5
0.27
2400
12
0.60
2
0.30
1800
14
0.63
2,5
0.34
1440
18
0.67
3
0.37
1200
24
0.72
4
0.41
900
30
0.76
5
0.45
720
40
0.81
6
0.48
600
50
0.85
r2/t
m /min
450
360
300
257
200
150
120
90
72
2
t
(min)
60
80
100
120
150
180
210
240
-
s
(m)
0.90
0.93
0.96
1.00
1.04
1.07
1.10
1.12
r2/t
m /min
60
45
36
30
24
20
17
15
2
147
Example 7. Transmissivity & Storage coefficient (Theis, 1935)
Data: Values of s and r2/t are plotted on logarithmic paper and values of W(u) and u from
Table. 7.1. are plotted on another sheet of logarithmic paper and curve is drawn through the
points. The two sheets are superposed and shifted with coordinate axe parallel until the
observational point coincide with the curve as shown in Fig. 7.1. Convenient match point of
Data plot to the Type curve plot is selected with W(u) = 1.00 and u = 1*10-2, so that s = 0.18
m and r2/t = 150m2/min = 216,000 m2/d.
Compute: Transmissivity and Storage Coefficient
Solution:
Thus, from equation Eq.(7.2) & Eq.(7.4):
=
2500 1.00
=
= 1110 2
4
4 0.18
4 4 1110 1 102
=
= 0.000206
2
216.000
Data plot
Type curve plot

Fig. 7.1. Theis graphical method by data plot is superimposed on the type curve plot.
148
2. Cooper-Jacob (1946)
The expansions of Theis (1935) were carried out by Cooper-Jacob (1946), Chow
(1953), Todd (1980). The third method are developed as similar method to Theis
thats are developing exponential integration formulas which are difficult to compute,
using pumping data, then plotting the curve and fitting the curves. Glover (1966)
developed the similar exponential integration formula but his formula supported by
table. Due to Glover uses the parameters of computation of pumping method which it
similar to parameters of formula developed by Sunjoto (1988) so those data its can
be computed by both methods that are Glover and Sunjoto.
Cooper-Jacob noted that for small value of r and large value of t, u is small so that
the series terms of Theis formula become negligible after the first two terms then
the drawdown can be expressed by the asymptote:
=
2
0.5772
4
4
(7.6)
Rewriting and changing to decimal logarithms, this equation reduces to:

=
2.30
2.25
2
4

(7.7)
Therefore, a plot of drawdown s versus the logarithms of t shows a straight line.

Projecting this line to s = 0, where t = to (Fig. 7.2)
0=
2.30
2.25
4
2
(7.8)
and it follows:
2.25
=1
2
resulting in:
=
2.25
2
(7.9)
149
Fig. 7.2. Cooper-Jacob method for solution of the non equilibrium equation
And value for T can be obtained by noting that if t/to = 10, then log t/to = 1, there
for replacing s by s, where s is the drawdown difference per log cycle of t and
equation becomes:
=
2.30
4
(7.10)
The straight line approximation for this method should be restricted to small values
of u (u < 0.01) to avoid large errors.
Example 8. Transmissivity & Storage coefficient (Cooper-Jacob, 1946)

Data: From pumping test data Table 7.2., s and t plotted on semi-logarithmic paper, as shown in
Fig. 7.2. A straight line is fitted through the points, and s = 0.40 m and to = 0.39 min =
2.70 *10-4 day are read.
Solution:
Then Eq.(7.10) & Eq.(7.9):
=
2.30 2.30 2500

=
= 1090 2
4
4 0.40
150
2.25 2.25 1090 2.70 104

=
= 0.000184
2
60 2
3. Chow (1952)
He introduced a method of solution with the advantages of avoiding curve fitting and
being unrestricted in application. The observational data are plotted on semilogarithmic paper in the same manner as for the Cooper-Jacob method. On the
plotted curve, choose an arbitrary point and note the coordinates , t and s (Fig. 7.4).
Next, draw a tangent to the curve at the chosen point and determine the drawdown
difference s, in feet, per log cycle of time. Then compute F(u) from:
(7.11)
2.30
(7.12)
or,
and find corresponding values of W(u) and u from Fig. 7.3 then finally compute the
formation constants T, s and r2/t of Theis equation.
Fig. 7.3. Relation among F(u), W(u) and u (After Chow, 1952; in Todd, 1980)
151
Example 9. Transmissivity & Storage coefficient (Chow, 1952)

Data: In Fig. 7.4 data are plotted from Table 7.2 and point A is selected on the curve where t = 6
min = 4.20*10-3 day and s = 0.47 m. A tangent is constructed as shown; the drawdown
difference per log cycle of time is s = 0.38 m. Then F(u) = 0.47/0.38 = 1.24, and from Fig. 7.3
W(u) = 2.75 and u=0.038.
Solution:
Hence Eq.(7.2) & Eq.(7.4):
=
2500 2.75
=
= 1160 2
4
4 0.47
4 4 1160 4.2 103 0.038

=
= 0.000206
2
60 2
Fig. 7.4. Chow method for solution of the non equilibrium equation
4. Recovery Test (Todd, 1980)

At the end of a pumping test, when pumping is stopped, the water levels in pumping
observation wells will begin rise. This is referred to as the recovery of groundwater
levels, while measurements of drawdown below the original static water level during
152
the recovery period are known as residual drawdown. (Fig. 7.5). It should be noted
that measurement of the recovery within a pumped well provide an estimate of
transmissivity even without an observation well and no comparable value of S can be
determined by this recovery test method.
The rate f recharge Q to the well during recovery is assumed constant and equal to
the mean pumping rate. The drawdown after pumping shut down will be identically the
same as if the discharge had been continued and hypothetical recharge well with the
same flow were superposed on the discharging well at the instant the discharge is
shut down.
Fig. 7.5. Drawdown and recovery curves in an observation well near pumping well
Using Theis principle that the residual drawdown s can be given as,
=
(7.13)
where,
2
=
4
2
=
4
(7.14)
153
Andt and t are defined in Fig. 7.5 and for small r , large t the well functions can be
approximated by the equations:
.
And the transmissivity becomes:

=
2.30
= 4
(7.15)
(7.16)
Example 10. Transmissivity & Storage coefficient (Todd, 1980)

Data: A well pumping at an uniform rate 2500 m 3/d was shut down after 240 min and
measurements were made in an observation well of s and t and computation of values of t/t
tabulated in Table. 7.3 and then plotted versus s on semi-logarithmic paper (Fig. 7.6). A straight
line is fitted through the points and s = 0.40 m is determined.
Compute: Transmissivity
Solution: Then Eq.(7.16):
=
2.30 2.30 2500

=
= 1140 3
4
4 0.40
Fig. 7.6. Recovery test method for solution of the non equilibrium equation
154
Table 7.3. Recovery test data, pump shut down at 240 min (after Todd, 1980)
t (min)
t (min)
t/t
s (m)
241
241
0.89
242
121
0.81
243
81
0.76
245
49
0.68
247
35
0.64
10
250
25
0.56
15
255
17
0.49
20
260
13
0.55
30
270
0.38
40
280
0.34
60
300
0.28
80
320
0.24
100
340
3.4
0.21
140
380
2.7
0.17
180
420
2.3
0.14
5. Multi diameter well

a. Papadopulos-Cooper (1967) method
Multi diameter well is a well with more than one diameter and the diameter is big
enough and storage water on it should be considerate on the hydraulic analysis. The
test of permeability can be carried out on the existing dug well with large diameter
and as a concequence the methods of Theis, Cooper-Jacob, Chow and Todd as
described above and Glovers described below are not applicable but PapadopulosCooper derived for it condition. They presented a method of analyzing pumping test
155
data from wells of large diameter (Fig. 7.7) for confined aquifer, taking into account
the storage capacity of the well itself which is assumed to be negligible in the above
methods. But this condition can be solved easily by Sunjotos method.
Q
sw
impervious
aquifer
2rw
impervious
2rc
Fig. 7.7. Schematic cross-section of a confined aquifer pumped by large diameter well
Beside of general condition of pumping test as mention for the above test methods, in
this test must be added condition:
The well diameter cannot be considered very small; hence, storage in the well
cannot be neglected.
The aquifer is confined
Flow to the well is in unsteady state
The well losses are negligible, i.e. the entrance resistance of the well is zero.
The general flow equation inside a well of large diameter is:

=
,
4
(7.17)
where F(uw,) is a fuction for which numerical value and:

4 =
2
4
(7.18)
156
2
2
(7.19)
Fig. 7.8. Family of Papadopulos-Coopers type curves; F(uw,) versus 1/uw for the different
values of .
Procedure:
Plot on double logatithmic paper of the family of type curve F(uw,) versus 1/uw
for different value of (Fig. 7.8)
Plot on another sheet of double logarithmic paper of the same scale the observed
data curve sw versus t.
Superimpose the observed data curve on the type curve and ajust, while keeping
the coordinate axes parallel, until a position is found by trial where most of the
plotted points of the observed data fall on the segment of one of the type curves.
Choose an arbitrary point A on the superimposed sheet and note for point A the
value of F(uw,), 1/uw and t; note also the value of of the type curve with which
the observed data curved can be best matched.
Subtitute the value of F(uw,) and sw, together with the known value of Q into
equation Eq.(7.17) and calculate kD.
Calculate the values of S by introducing the value of rw, 1/uw, t and kD into
equation Eq.(7.18) or by introducing the value of rc, rw and into equation
Eq.(7.19). The values of S calculated in the two ways should show a close
agreement.
157
b. Sunjoto (1988) method.

This Papadopulos-Cooper method with the big diameter of well, this case can be
solved by Sunjotos method as follows:
Shape factor of the well (Fig. 7.7), see Table 6.4 for the tip of full penetration
well of the confined aquifer with the piezometric above the water table is
Condition F1 (Table 6.4) :

(7.20)
+
For unsteady state condition the solution using Sunjotos (1988) Eq.(6.13) the
drawdown is:
=
(6.12)
For steady state condition so there is not more change of elevation of water on
the well and the upper radius (rc) has not more influence to the formula and the
solution using Eq.(6.12b) when T= and the equation becomes:
=
(6.12)
6. Glover (1966)
a. General formulation
The flow Q through a unit width and the height h at the distance x from the origin is:
=
(7.21)
The continuity condition is:
158
By substitution and arrangement:
If, as an approximation the quantity

=
replaced by
and
(7.22)
the above relation reduce to
2
=
2
(7.23)
If y represents a coordinate whose direction is horizontal and normal to that of x and

if there are gradients
, the above relation takes the form:
2 2
+ 2 =
2
(7.24)
In radial symmetrical cases, the differential equation takes for
2 1
+
=

The Laplace formulation with the condition that the flow into the element of volume
must equal the flow out of it, is
Or
2
2
2
+ 2 + 2 = 0
2
(7.25)
2 2 2
+
+
=0
2 2 2
(7.26)
If the flow is radial symmetrical this continuity equation takes the form
2 1 2
+
+
=0
2 2
(7.27)
b. Pump well
1). Confined aquifer
159
The case of a well in confined aquifer may be met in an artesian area where the
pressure has declined to the point where pump must be used. The aquifer of
permeability K and thickness D is confined above and below between impermeable
formations, with the discharge of pump Q, the condition of continuity is
2 1
+
=
2
(7.28)
A solution which satisfies the continuity requirement and the conditions

s = 0 when t = 0 for r>1
s0 when r
is:
=
2
where:
=
Q
h
D
t
s
(7.29)
: discharge of pumping (ft3/s)

: coefficient of permeability (ft/s)
: thickness of aquifer (ft)
: duration of flow (s)
: drawdown (ft)
Above equation Eq.(7.29) is a form of the exponential integral and values of this
function have been tabulated. In term of the exponential integral function its value is
Value of

1
2
=
2
4t
(7.30)
can be obtained from the Table 7.4 (Glover, 1966) or they can be
computed from the series

160

2
4
6
= 0,288608 +
+
2 2! 4 3! 6
For finding values equation Eq.(7.29) it can be used
( 7.31)
. This integral can also

1
be evaluated by values which be tabulated exponential integral as 2 4 t
as
noted previously.
2). Unconfined aquifer
A well that is to be pumped from unconfined aquifer occurs commonly. The aquifer
rests on an impermeable bed and the saturated portion of aquifer terminate at the
top in the water table. According to Glover (1966), a moments consideration will show
that equation Eq.(7.29) can be used to provide an approximate treatment for this
case if the drawdown s is everywhere small compare to D, this is the customary
treatment for the water table case.
161
Tabel 7.4. Value of integral =
for given values of parameters =

Continued
162

Continued
163

Continued
164
165
Example 11. Drawdown (Glover, 1966)

Data: An aquifer lies on the impermeable stratum with data (Fig. 7.9):
Radius of well rw = 1 ft (r1 = rw)
Coefficient of permeability K = 0.002 ft/s
Discharge Q = 500 gal/mnt
Thickness of aquifer D = 70 ft
Void ratio V = 0.20
Duration of pumping t = 72 hrs
Compute: drawdown in radius 1 ft (s1), 50 ft (s50) and 100 ft (s100):

Note: All length the casing is perforated and pump is submersible.
s50
h1
h50
h100
D=70 ft
50
ft
100
ft
Fig 7.9. Sketch of data condition of pumping on unconfined aquifer
Solution:
Conversion from galon/mnt to ft3/s is:
500
3
= 1.1141
448.8
0.002 70
2
=
=
= 0.70
0.20
=
t = 72 x 3600 = 259200 s
166
so:
1.1141
1.1141
=
=
= 1.2665
2 2 0.002 70 0.87965
4 t = 4 0.70 259200 = 725760 = 851.90
1
1
50
50
100
100
=
= 0.00174;
=
= 0.0587;
=
= 0.1174
4 851.9
4 851.9
4 851.9
FromTable 7.4 can be found value of,

=
The value of X is:

1
= 1
= 50
= 100
4
50
= 0.00174 7.4. 1 = 6.5328
4
100
= 0.0587 7.4. 50 = 2.5484
= 0.1174 7.4. 100 = 1.8611
The value of drawdown in distance r from the well is:
=

2
According to Glover that the drawdown in distance from the well r is:
1 = 1 1 = 1.2665 6.5328 = 8.27 or 1 = 61.73
50 = 50
50 = 1.2665 2.5484
100 = 100 100 = 1.2665 1.8611
= 3.23 or 50 = 66.77
= 2.36 or 100 = 67.74
The verification is carried out based on the dept of water on r1 is h1= 61.73ft as
known value and, using Dupuit-Thiem formula Eq.(4.9) will be computed r50 and
r100 as follows:
Drawdown in r50 = 50 ft:
=
2
2
0.002 50
12
0.002 50
61.732
1.1141
=
50 = 67.11
50 1
50 1
s50= 70 67.11 = 2.89 ft

Drawdownin r100 = 100 ft:
167
2
2
0.002 100
12
0.002 100
61.732
1.1141
=
100 = 68.02
100 1
100 1
s100= 70 68.02 =1.98 ft

7. Sunjoto (1988)
All the above methods Theis, Cooper-Jacob, Chow, Todd and Glover, except
Papadolus-Cooper Methods are applicable for small well diameter only but Sunjotos
method is applicable for the both are small and large diameter, taking into account
the storage capacity of the well itself. He developed his unsteady flow condition
equation based on the steady flow condition theory of Forchheimer (1930) and using
these equations will compute the problem which has been solved by Glover. In this
case Glover (1966) to compute drawdowns in several distances from the well used
parameters data were radius of well, coefficient of permeability, discharge, thikness
of aquifer, void ratio and duration of pumping that those parameters are needed by
Sunjotos equation except void ratio data. The influence of void ratio to the
permeability is not linear function for instant clay has bigger Void ratio than sand but
the permeability of clay is smaller than sand. This evidence is not only influenced by
void ratio but the grain dimension has big influence to the permeability of soil, so
that is why the parameter of void ratio was not considered as main parameter in the
Sunjotos method.
For the computation Sunjoto needs the new parameter is shape factors that it can be
computed by above data as (Table 6.4):
Shape factor of the tip of well of the unconfined aquifer is (Fig. 7.9) is equal to
F5b condition due to the well is in the border between impermeable and permeable
layers:
168
+2
(7.32)
+1
This computation needs trial and error or iteration by computer by taking some value
of drawdown (s1), then you get (h1) and compute the value of shape factor (F) of well.
Then compute drawdown using Sunjoto (1988) formula based of the recharge well
with H is built up as:
=
(6.11)
Based on the the above formula can be used the pumping well formula with drawdown
(s) where s has opposite direction to H as:
=
where:
H
s
Q
F
K
T
r
L
D
(6.13)
: built up (L)
: drawdown (L) ()
: recharge or discharge (L3/T)
: shape factor of well (L)
: coeffisient of permeability (L/T)
: duration of flow (T)
: length of porous casing (L)
: thickness of the aquifer (L)
Then compute the value of drawdown in the distance r2 as unknown with data of r1
using Dupuit-Thiem theory {Eq.(4.9)} as follows:
=
12 22
1 2
(4.9)
169
Example 12. Drawdown (Sunjoto, 1988)

Data Example 12 is equal to Example 11 (Fig. 7.9):
Compute: Drawdown on the well (s=s1), and on the radius 50 ft (s50) and 100 ft (s100)
Values of r50 and r100 should be computed using Dupuit-Thiem equation)
With the data above it can be computed as follows:

1). First step
The first assumption that: h1 = L and D = h1 + s D = L + s
2). Sconde step
Assumpt that drawdown s1 = 6 ft so L = 70-6 = 64 ft, then substitute to Eq.(7.32):
2 64
=
= 82.6135
64+21
1
64 2
1
+1
Subtitute the above value of F to Eq.(7.34):

1.1141
= 82.61350.002 1
82.61350.002259200
12
= 6.74
So height of water in r1 is h1 = 70 6.74 = 63.36 ft

3). Third step
Assumpt that drawdown s1 = 6.50 ft so L = 70-6.50 = 63.50 ft and compute shape
factor as follows:
2 63,5
=
63.5+21
1
63.5 2
1
= 82.0983
+1
Subtitute above shape factor F to Eq.(7.34):

=
1.1141
82.0983 0.002 259200
1
82.0983 0.002
12
= 6.78 ft

4). Fourth step
170

factor as follows:
2 63.2
=
63.2+21
1
63.2 2
1
= 81.7889
+1
Subtitute F to Eq.(7.34):
1.1141
81.7889 0.002 259200
=
1
81.7889 0.002
12
= 6.81 ft

5). Fifth step
factor as follows:
2 63.19
=
63,19+21
1
63,19 2
1
= 81.7856
+1
Subtitute F to Eq.(7.34):
=
1.1141
81.7856 0.002 259200
1
81.7856 0.002
12
= 6.81 ft
Due to the both value of s are already the equal value is 6.81 ft or value of your
input data of drawdown is equal to the result of computation so it means that the
final result of drawdown s1 = 6.81 ft.
Then compute the value of drawdown in the distance r50 and r100 computed using
Dupuit-Thiem equation Eq.(4.9) and (D = h1 + s1 h1 = 63.19 ft):

=
2
2
0.002 50
12
0.002 50
63.192
1.1141
=
50 = 68.46
50 1
50 1
Drawdown s50 = 70 68.46 = 1.54 ft
171
2
2
0.002 100
12
0.002 100
63.192
1.1141
=
100 = 69.35
100 1
100 1
Drawdown s100 = 70 69.35 =0.65 ft

Based on the same data the
r1
=
1 ft -->
r50
=
50 ft -->
r100 =
100 ft -->
drawdown in every r are:

s1
=
s50
=
70 68.80 =
s100 =
70 69.70 =
6.81 ft
1.54 ft
0.65 ft
Table 7.5. Recapitulation of drawdown values of Glovers, Sunjotos and Dupuit-Thiem

method.
Radius
Glover
8.27 )*
3.23 )*
2.36 )*
Drawdown (ft) computed by method of:

Glover & Dupuit-Thiem Sunjoto & Dupuit-Thiem
8.27 )*
6.81 )***
2.89 )**
1.54 ))**
1.98 )**
0.50 ))**
1 ft
50 ft
100 ft
Note:
)* computed by Glover method.
)** computed by Dupuit-Thiem based on Glover method.
))** computed by Dupuit-Thiem based on Sunjoto method.
)*** computed by Sunjoto method.
172
VIII. DRAINS SPACING

Sub-surface drainage is frequently utilized in agriculture field with high groundwater
level and the roots have bad respirations system to get oxygen. The common practice
of controlling water level was by ditches system, however it is recently replaced by
pipes drains, and the drain system may be distinguished by:
Field drains or field laterals which is usually in the form of parallel drains whose
function is to control the groundwater depth.
Collector drains whose function is to collect water from field drains and
transported to the main drains.
Main drains whose function is to transport the water out of the area.
Actually there is no specific distinction between the drains functions, some of them
have double functions for example collector drains that have transport function and
all at once control the groundwater depth. The base formula of computation was
developed by Donnan (1946) and then followed by many researchers, for instance
Hooghoudt (1940), Kirkham (1961), Dagan (1964), Ernst (1956, 1962) and Sunjoto
(2015).
Fig. 8.1. Concept of equivalent depth to transform a combination of horizontal and radial flow
into an equivalent horizontal flow.
173
where (Fig. 8.1),

N : recharge rate per unit surface area (m/day)
q
: drain discharge rate per unit surface area (m/day) q = N
K
: hydraulic conductivity of the soil (m/day)
H : height of groundwater level above the impervious layer in L (m)
D : thickness of aquifer below drain level (m)
L
: drain spacing (m)
h
: height of water table above drain level at midpoint (m)
Data for Computation for Examples 13-19.

This computation example will be carried out step by step of all methods and implements
parameter data (FAO, 1980) that are: Soil of lower and upper layers with radius of drain pipes
ro=0.10 m, width of ditches b=0.20m, depth of water on the ditches hw=0.20m, precipitation and
discharge q=N=0.002m/d, conductivity upper and lower layers of soil Ka=Kb=0.80m/d, and
depth of below layer D=5 m, height of ground water table in the middle of drain spacing
h=0.60m and the solution is as follows:
With those data will be computed drain-spacing needed using method of Hooghoudt
(1940), Kirkham (1961), Dagan (1964). Ernst (1956, 1962) and Sunjoto (2015) as:
1. Hooghoudt (1940)
Hooghoudt (1940) had much research in this field and developed the method of
computation in two ways were by solution table and by equation.
a)..Solution by table
For the two layers soils on the impermeable stratum, Hooghoudt has transformed
the two equqtions and it is called Hooghoudt equation Eq.(8.1), (Naftchally, et.al
2013) as the configuration is presented on Fig. 8.2A:
174
. . . + . .
[. ]
He also derived a flow equation in which the flow region is divided into a part with
horizontal flow and a part with radial flow.
If the horizontal flow above drain level is neglected, the flow equation for uniform
soil is:
[. ]
Fig. 8.2. Configuration of Hooghoudt drain spacing method for solution by table (A) and
solution by equation (B).
The equation is an implicit equation, thus it needs trial and error computation so
the solution of the Eq.[8.1] can be done by Table 8.1.
175
Table 8.1. Values of equivalent depth of Hooghoudt (d) when ro = 0.10m, D & L in meter (after
Hooghoudt, 1940)
Example 13: Solution by table (Hooghoudt, 1940)

Compute: Value of drain spacing (L)
Substitute the above parameter values to the Eq.[8.1]:
2 =
8 0.80 0.60 + 4 0.80 0.602

0.002
2 = 1920 + 576
Trial & error, assumtp that: L= 80 m and D = 5m, Table 8.1 Found d = 3.55 m:
2 = 1920 + 576 = 1920 3.55 + 576 = 7392 2 = 85.98
= 85.98 80
Trial & error assumtp that; L=87m and D=5 m, Table 8.1 Found d=3.63 m:
2 = 1920 + 576 = 1920 3.63 + 576 = 7346 2 = 87
So the drain-spacing to meet the above condition is L = 87 m.
176
b). Solution by equation

For practical reason with error less than 5%, for homogenous soil, the system
were changed from pipes drains to the ditch drains and the water surface is fit on
the imaginary border line of upper and lower soil (Fig. 8.2B). Hooghoudt (1940)
developed solution by equation, (in Cole, 1968; Luthin, 1970; Reddi, 2003) for the
upper soil layer with homogenous permeable stratum. He invoked DupuitForhheimer assumption and horizontal flow to the drain and the present of radial
flow was ignored, and using Darcys Law, it that was solved by integration, then the
equation became:
4
=
2 2 + 2 2
where,
q
Ka
Kb
K
H
L
D
ro
FH
d
hw
ho
Do
1
2
[8.3]
: drain discharge rate per unit surface area (m/d) q = N

: hydraulic conductivity of the layer above drain level (m/d)
: hydraulic conductivity of the layer below drain level (m/d)
: hydraulic conductivity of soil (m/d)
: height of water level measured from drain water surface in midpoint of
drain (m)
: drain spacing (m)
: height measured from drain water surface to the impervious stratum (m)
: radius of the drain (m)
: factor of Hooghoudt
: equivalent depth of Hooghoudt, it depends on ro, D, L in meter (m).
: depth of surface water on the ditch (m)
: height of water level from ditch base in midpoint (m)
: height from ditch base to the impervious stratum layer (m)
Example 14. Solution by equation (Hooghoudt. 1940)

177
With parameter data from the example which is synchronized by Eq.[8.24] &
Eq.[8.25] see Fig. 8.2B, the solution using Eq.[8.3] as follows:
= + = 0.60 + 0.20 = 0.80
= = 5.00 0.20 = 4.80
4 0.80
=
0. 802 0.202 + 2 4.80 0.80 2 4.80 0.20
0.002
= 100.88 100.90
1
2
So the drain spacing to meet the above condition is L = 100.90 m.

2. Kirkham (1961)
Based on the Eq.[8.2] of Kirkham (1961), he derived similar equation with different
factor of Kirkham FK:
=
[8.4]
Value of FK can be computed from:

1
=
+
=1
1
2nro
cos
cos n
2
1
[8.5]
Due to the problem solution of Eq.[8.5] the computation can be carried out by graphic
(Fig. 8.3) with the needed value:

where:
q
K
Ka
Kb
:
:
:
:
[8.6]
drain discharge rate per unit surface area (m/d) q = N

hydraulic conductivity of the layer (m/d)
hydraulic conductivity of the layer above drain level (m/d)
hydraulic conductivity of the layer below drain level (m/d)
178
h : height of water level in midpoint of drain (m)

L : drain spacing (m)
D : height of drain from the impervious stratum (m)
ro : radius of the drain (m)
FK : factor of Kirkham
The implementation of the graphic Fig. 8.3 as follows:
Compute [( h/D) x (Kb/q-Kb/Ka )] and fit these value on the ordinate line then from
this point draw the horizontal line until it crosses the curve line of D/(2ro) then from
this point draw downward a vertical line until it crosses the axis line and this cross
section is the value of L/D.
Fig. 8.3. Graphic for the determination of drain-spacing of Taksoz and Kirkham (1961)
179
Example 15. Kirkham (1961)

Substitute the parameter data to the Eq.[8.5] as:

0.60 0.80 0.80
= 48

5 0.002 0.80
5
Compute:
=
= 25
2 2 0.10
Fit the value of 48 on the axis line (vertical), draw horizontal line and cross curve 25
(between curve 16 and 32) on the Fig. 8.3, and from this point of cross section, draw
a line downward until cross the ordinate line (horizontal) and this cross section is L/D
value, and in this case L/D = 17, thus L = Dx17= 85.
And the drain spacing for this method is L = 85 m
3..Dagan (1964)
Based on the method of Hooghoudt (1940), Dagan (1964) thought that the flow has
been composed by radial flow in the area between the drain and a distance 1/2xD2
away from it, and a horizontal intermediate flow in the area between the 1/2xD2
plane and mid-plane between the drains. The Dagan equation that is similar to the
Hooghoudt and Kirkham equations, as follows:
=
=
=
where:
q
K
h
L
:
:
:
:
4 2
2
2
[8.7]
[8.8]
[8.9]

hydraulic conductivity of the layer (m/d)
height of water level in midpoint of drain (m)
drain spacing (m)
180
D
ro
FD
:
:
:
:
height of drain from the impervious floor (m)

radius of the drain (m)
factor of Dagan
sub-factor of Dagan
To find value of , Dagan implements Fig. 8.4 with the value computed from Eq.[8.10]
is needed as it is plotted in ordinate line (horizontal):
[8.10]
To use the graphic Fig. 8.4 firstly compute value of [ro/D] then fit this value to the
axis line and second step draw vertical line from this point until cross the curve of
Dagan then the third step draw from this point a horizontal line until cross the
ordinate line and this point will be a value of .
Fig. 8.4. Graphic for the determination of of the Dagan equation (Dagan, 1964).
Example 16. Dagan, (1964)

181
Substitute the parameter values to Eq.[8.10]:
0.10
=
= 0.06
5
Fit the above value (0.06) on the ordinate line, draw vertical line until it crosses the
curve, then from the cross section point draw horizontal line leftward on the Fig. 8.4,
and it will be found = - 2.10.
Substitute this value of to Eq.[8.8] and then Eq.[8.7]:
=
=
1
+ 2.10
4 2

+ 2.10 2 + 21 9600 = 0
4 2
Solution by:
1,2
2 4 21 441 + 4 1 9600 21 197

=
=
=
2
21
2
When L>0 so L = 87 m, so the drain spacing for this method is L = 87 m.

4..Ernest (1956,1962)
Ernest (1956, 1962) describes that cross section drain spacing is a ditch which L is
length, and b is a width of ditch base and this formula has possibility to accommodate
the drain pipes lay down on the ditch and for this condition the value of u is:
= + 2 2
[8.11]
Since the soil is homogenous, the formula is:

2
=
+
[8.12]
where:
b
ro
: bottom width of the ditch (m)

: radius of the drain (m)
182
q
K
h
L
D
Da
u
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

hydraulic conductivity of the upper layer (m/d)
height of water level in midpoint of drain (m)
drain spacing (m)
height of drain from the impervious floor (m)
average thickness below the water table or (Da=D+h) (m)
wet perimeter of the drain (m)
Example 17. Ernest (1956;1962)

With the homogenous soil and drains, the pipes lay down on the ditches, the solution
can implement the equation without graphic, then substitute the parameter value to
Eq.[8.11] and then Eq.[8.12] so:
= + 2 2 u = 0.25 + 2 x2x0.10 = 0.65 m
=
0.002 2
0.002
5
+
8 0.80 5.30 0.80 0.65
0.80 0.64 + 4 0.03 300 0.80 6.05

=
2 0.03
0.06
When L > 0, so L = 87.50 m, thus the drain spacing for this method is L = 87.50 m.
5..Sunjoto (2015)
Sunjotos methods are Pipe drains and Ditch drains type which the elevation of
surface water on the drains is the same in the border of upper and lower soils
(Fig.8.5), and based on the Hooghoudt, Eq.[8.2]:
=
[8.2]
183
Analogous of Hooghoudt (1940), this method shows that conductivity value of soils
are average on the upper layer flow where conductivity is Ka with the thickness is h
and the lower layer flow with conductivity is Kb and the thickness is D. The hydraulic
gradient as a parameters of Darcys Law is i=h/( L) and the pipes drain is in the
horizontal position so the shape factor as a representation of the radial flow is F, and
the general equation for Pipe drains and Ditch drains becomes:
=1
2 +

=
2
[8.13]
Fig. 8.5. Configuration of proposing method of drain spacing: (A). Pipe drains and (B). Ditch
drains
a)..Pipe drains
Pipe drains method (Fig. 8.5A) is a system when field drains or field laterals which
is usually in the form of parallel drains whose function is to control the
groundwater depth using porous pipes is laid down under the border of lower and
upper soil layers, and based on Eq.[8.13], it becomes (Sunjoto, 2015):
=
[8.14]
184
Based on shape factor of Forhheimer (1930) and Dachler (1936) which had been
improved by Sunjoto (2002), the appropriate factor of spacing drain equation for
pipe drains is (Sunjoto, 2015):
+
+
[8.15]
=1
[8.16]
Example 18. Pipes drain (Sunjoto, 2015;)

Substitute the parameters ro= 0.10 m to Eq.[8.15]:
8
=
1 + 0.20
+
0.30
1
0.30
+1 =
8 2.01224
= 5.1243
According to Eq.[8.12], when D > h, so = 1

Then compute the drain-spacing by Eq.[8.14]:
=
0.80 + 1 0.80 0.60

= 93.67 93.70
0.002 5.1243
So the drain spacing for this method is L = 93.70 m.

b)..Ditch drains
Ditch drains method (Fig. 8.5B) is a system when field drains or field laterals
which is usually in the form of parallel drains whose function is to control the
groundwater depth using porous ditches on the surface water is the same in the
border of lower and upper soil layers and based on Eq.[8.13] the factor is as
follows (Sunjoto, 2015):
185
[8.17]
+
+
=
+
+

=
=1
[8.18]
[8.16]
Example 19. Ditches drain (Sunjoto, 2015)

Compute the shape factor using Eq.[8.18] with b= hw = 0.20 m:
= 8
0.20 + 0.20
1 + 4 0.20
+
2 0.20 + 0.20
6 0.20
1
6 0.20
+1
2
= 8 1.03023 = 5.49456
3
Then compute the drain spacing by Eq.[8.17]:
=
0.80 + 1 0.80 0.60

= 87.36 87.40
0.002 5.49456
So the drain-spacing for this method is L = 87.40 m.

where:
q
: drain discharge rate per unit surface area (m/d) q = N
Ka : hydraulic conductivity of the layer above drain level (m/d)
Kb : hydraulic conductivity of the layer below drain level (m/d)
h
: height of water level in midway of drain (m)
L
: drain spacing (m)
D : height of surface water of drain from the impervious layer (m)
ro : radius of the drain (m)
b
: width of ditch bottom (m)
hw : depth of water on the ditch (m)
FS : factor of Sunjoto for pipe drains
fS : factor of Sunjoto for ditch drains
: sub-factor of Sunjoto for pipe & ditch drains
186
Table 8.2. Result of computation of drain spacing using the same data and the difference
method (Sunjoto, 2015).
N
o
Method
1.
Houghoudt (1940)
a. By table
b. By equation
2.
3.
4.
5.
Kirkham (1961)
Dagan (1964)
Ernst (1956, 1962)
Sunjoto (2015)
a. Pipe drain
b.Ditch drain
L (m) when ro = b= hw (m):
Remarks
0.0125
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.30
100.90
100.90
100.90
87.00
100.90
100.90
100.90
Pipe Table & Equation

Ditch
Equation
75.00
83.00
80.00
83.00
86.00
85.00
88.00
87.00
90.00
90.00
89.00
95.00
93.00
Pipe Graphic & Equation

Pipe Graphic & Equation
Ditch
Equation
0
0
47.30
34.00
71.30
61.90
93.70
87.40
112.70
104.50
159.00
131.50
Pipe
Ditch
Type
Solution by:
Equations
Equations
Sunjoto: Pipe drain (2015)

Sunjoto: Ditch drain (2015)
Fig. 8.6. Curve of the relationship between drain-spacing and pipe/ditch dimension for the
example data (Sunjoto, 2015).
Note:
The above results presented on the Table 8.2 and Fig. 8.6 computed based on the
example data: precipitation and discharge q=N=0.002m/d; conductivity upper and
lower layers of soil Ka=Kb=0.80m/d; depth of below layer D=5 m; height of ground
water table in the middle of drain spacing h=0.60m; and ro=b=hw varies as 0;
0.0125; 0.05; 0.10; 0.15 and 0.30 m.
187
6. Analysis of Hooghoudts equation

Hooghoudt (1940) developed tho methods of computation that which Solution by
graphic and Solution by equation Eq.[8.3] and the solution by equation (Fig. 8.2B) is:
4
=
2 2 + 2 2
1
2
The extreme condition the Eq.[8.3] can be written as follows:
When hw = ho, or the system has not hydraulic head:

=0
When Do = 0, or ditches base lays down on the impervious stratum:

4
=
2 2
[8.19]
1
2
[8.20]
When ho = 0, or surface water exactly on the ditches base:

4
=
2 +
1
2
[8.21]
This is impossible condition because in the center of drain-spacing there is not

a flow facility like ditch or porous pipe and value of drain-spacing will be
negative.
When hw= 0, or the ditches are empty but dran spacing (L) still has a value or
L0:
4
=
2 +
1
2
[8.22]
This is impossible condition too because when ditches is empty it means that
there is not a flow out facility.
To get the equal condition of the existing method, the parameter value should be
equalized as it is presented in Fig. 8.2B and the configurations are:
188
+ = +
[8.23]
= +
[8.24]
[8.25]
Substitute Eq.[8.24] & Eq.[8.25] to Eq.[8.3]:

4
=
+ 2 + 2
4 2
=
+ 2 + 2 2 + 2 +
4 2
=
+ 2 + 2 2
4 2
=
+ 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
4
=
+ 2
[8.3]
[8.3]
[8.3]
1
2
[8.26]
Hooghoudts solution by equation method is independent to the ditches base width

and depth of water on the ditch, see Eq.[8.26] that it hasnt (b) and (hw) parameters.
The problem of this formula is that the hydraulic head was measured from highest
surface water to the base of ditches divided by distance and this configuration does
not incompliance with the Darcys Law which the hydraulic head is difference between
the water surfaces divided by distance (Fig. 8.2B).
The result of computation presented on the Table 8.2 for the Hooghoudt by equation,
shows only value of L=100.90 m for various b and hw, using Eq.[8.3] and Eq.[8.26], the
conclusion that these equations have not logical thinking. Meanwhile, according to
Luthin (1970) this formula had been implemented as a project design purposes in
Holland (Van Someren), in Australia (Maasland, 1956), in USA (Donnan, Aronovici,
Blaney, 1947).
189
REFERENCES
America Water Works Association, 1958. AWWA standard for deep wells, New York, 51 pp, 1958.
Aravin, V.E., Numerov, S.N. 1965. Theory of fluid flow in undeformable porous media, Translated from
Russian, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.
Badon Ghijben. (1889) & Herzberg, (1901) in van Dam, J.C., Geohydrologie, Afdeling der Civiele Techniek,
TH Delft, Nederland, 1985.
Baumgartner A., Reichel E., 1975. The World Water Balance, Munich R. Oldenborg
Biswas A.K. 1970. History of Hydrology, New York, Elsevier.
Bouwer, H. 1965. Theorytical aspects of seepage from open channels, Journal Hydraulics Div. ASCE, pp 3759.
Brand E.W., Premchitt J., 1980. Shape factors of cylindrical piezometers, Geotechnique. V. 30, no. 4, pp.
368-384.
Camilo Quinones-Rozo, Lugeon Test Interpretation, Revisited, Collaborative Management of Integrated
Watershed (Senior Civil/Geotechnical Engineer, URS Corporation Broadway Suite 800, Oakland CA
94612, camilo_quinones-rozo@urscorp.com
Chapuis R.P., 1989. Shape factors for permeability test in boreholes and piezometers, GROUND WATER,
Vol. 27, no. 5, September-October 1989.
Chow, V.T. 1952. On the determination of transmissibility and storage coefficients from pumping test data,
Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, v.33, pp. 397-404.
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. New York, McGraw Hill Book Co.
Cooper H.H, Jr. and Jacob C.E. 1946. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formations constants
and summarizing well-field history, Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, v.27, pp. 526-534.
Dachler, R. 1936. Grundwasserstromung, Julius Springer, Wien.
Darcy H., 1856. Histoire des Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon, Dalmont, Paris, 1856.
Dupuit J., 1863. Estudes Thoriques et Pratiques sur le Mouvement des Eaux dans les Canaux Dcouverts et
Travers les Terrains Permables (Second Edition ed.). Paris: Dunod, 1863.
Forchheimer P., 1930. Hydraulik, 3rd, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1930.
Frevert R.K., Kirkham D. 1948. A Field Method of Measuring the Permeability of Soils Below the Water
Table, Proc. Highway Research Board 48, pp. 433-442.
Glover R.E.1966. Groundwater movement, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering Monograph no 31,
Denver,76.
Hanna T.H. 1973. Foundation Instrumentation, Series on Rock and Soil Mechanics Vol. 1 (1971/1973) No.
3, Trans Tech Publications, First Edition.
Harza, L.F. 1935. Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 100, pp. 1352-1385.
Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground Water Observation, Bulletin 36, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Missisipi.
Kallstenius T., Wallgren A., 1980. Pore pressure measurements in field investigations. Proc. Royal Swedis
Geotechnical Inst. no. 13.
Lee Richard. 1980. Forest Hydrology, translated by Subagio Sentot, Gadjah Mada Press, Yogyakarta
Lefranc F., 1936. Prosd de mesure de la permabilit des sols dans le nape aquifers et application au calcul
du dbit du puits. Les Gnie Civil v. CIX, no. 15, pp. 306-308.
Lefranc F., 1937. Les thories des poches absorbantes et son application la determination du coefficient
permabilit en place et au calcul du dbits des nappes deau. Les Gnie Civil v. CXI, no. 20, pp. 409413.
Linsleyn R.K., M.A. Kohler J.I.H. Paulhus. 1975. Hydrology for Engineers. New York, McGraw Hill Book
Co.
Luthin J.N. 1970. Drainage Engineering, Wiley Eastern Private Limited, New Delhi.
Luthfiana A.B. 2015. Penentuan Koefisien Permeabilitas Tanah Insitu Berdasarkan Pengembangan Faktor
Geometrik, Prosedur Constant Discharge, Tugas Akhir Program Sarjana JTSL-FT-UGM.
190
(Determination of in situ soils permeability based on shape factor development, constant discharge
procedure Bachelor Program Thesis JTSL-FT-UGM.).
Maasland M., Haskew H.C. 1957. The auger holes method of measuring the hydraulic conductivity of soils
and its application to the tile drainage problems. 3rd Cong. Intl. Comm. Irrg. And Drainage R. 5.
Questions 8:8.69-8.14.
Murthy V.N.S. 1977. Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering, Delhi 2nded.
Nace, R.L. 1971. Scientific framework of waterworld balance, UNESCO Tech. Paper Hydrol., 7, 27 pp.
Nasjono J.K., 2002. Studi Debit Aliran Rembesan Melalui Pipa Berpori, Thesis Program Pasca Sarjana
JTSL-FT-UGM (Study of discharge permeation through porous pipe, Post Graduate Program Thesis
JTSL-FT-UGM.).
Papadopulos-Copper, 1967. In Kruseman G.P., De Ridder N.A. (1970), Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping
Test Data, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, pp 156-158, Wageningen The
Netherlands
Permana A.A. 2015. Penentuan Koefisien Permeabilitas Tanah Kondisi Unsaturated Berdasarkan Constant
Discharge Dengan Pengembangan Faktor Geometrik, Tugas Akhir Program Sarjana JTSL-FT-UGM.
(Determination of soils permeability in unsaturated condition based on constant discharge by shape
factor development, Bachelor Thesis Program JTSL-FT-UGM.).
Porchet M., 1931. Hydrodinamique des puits. Ann. Du Genie Rural fasc.6
Randolph M.F., Booker J.R., 1980. Analysis of seepage into cylindrical permeameters. Proc. 4th. Int. Con. in
Num. Geomecanic, Edmonton v. 1. Pp. 349-357.
Reddi L.N. 2003. Seepage in Soils, Principles and Applications, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Samsioe, A.F. 1931. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 11, pp. 124-135.
Siagian W.H.P., 2014. Pengembangan Alat dan Prosedur Uji Koefisien Permeabilitas Tanah Halaman 1
Candi Prambanan Beserta Pemetaan Hasil Uji di Lapangan, Yogyakarta, Thesis Program Sarjana
JTSL-FT-UGM. (Development of soils test apparatus and test precedure, yard I Prambanan Temple
Yogyakarta, Bachelor Program Thesis JTSL-FT-UGM.).
Schneebeli G., 1954. Mesure in situ de la permabilit de un terrain. Compre-rendu de 3imes Journes de
Hydraulique, Alger, pp. 270-279.
Smiles D.E., Youngs E.G. 1965. Soils Science, Vol. 99, 1965, pp. 83-87.
Singh S.K. (2000). Simple method for confined aquifer parameter estimation, J.Irrig. Drain. Eng. 126(6) 404407, in Singh S.K. (2004). Drawdown due to Intermitent-Pumping Cycles, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering June 2004 130(6) 568-575.
Spangler M.G., Handy R.L. 1973. Soil Engineering, Iowa State University, Intext Educational Publisher,
New York and London, 3rd Edition
Suharyadi 1984. Pengantar Geologi Teknik-Lecture note (Introduction to Geological Engineering-Lecture
note), Biro Penerbit KMTS, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
Sunjoto S., 1988. Optimasi Sumur Resapan Sebagai Salah Satu Pencegahan Intrusi Air Laut, Pros. Seminar
(Optimazion of recharge wells as one technique to restrain sea water intrusion), Proc. Seminar PAU-ITUGM, Yogyakarta.
Sunjoto S., 1989. Pengembangan Model Hidraulik Aliran Bawah Permukaan, Laporan Penelitian PAU-ITUGM-1988/1989. (Development of groundwater hydraulic model, Repport of research PAU-IT-UGM1988/1989.
Sunjoto S., 2002. Recharge Wells as Drainage System to Increase Groundwater Storage, Proc. on the 13 rd
IAHR-APD Congress, Advance in Hydraulics Water Engineering, Singapore, 6-8 August 2002 Vol.I,
pp. 511-514, 2002.
Sunjoto S., 2007. Dewatering and its Impact to Groundwater Storage, Proc. on International Symposium and
Workshop Current Problem in Groundwater Management and Related Water Resources Issues, 3-8
December 2007, Bali, Indonesia
191
Sunjoto, S. 2008a. The Recharge Trench as A Sustainable Supply System, Journal of Environmental
Hydrology, The Electronic Journal of the International Association for Environmental Hydrology, On the
World Wide Web at http://www.hydroweb.com Vol. 16 Paper 11 March 2008.
Sunjoto, S. 2008b. Infiltration on Canal as a Method for Recharging Groundwater Storage, at
http://www.capital-publishing.com No 2, Vol. 5 Number 4 Oct-Dec 2008.
Sunjoto, S. 2010. Irrigation Canal Water losses, Journal of Environmental Hydrology, The Electronic
Journal of the International Association for Environmental Hydrology, On the World Wide Web at
http://www.hydroweb.com Vol. 18 Paper 5 March 2010.
Sunjoto, S. 2011. Comparison of Recharge System Formulas from Point of View of Dimension Analysis,
Mathematical Logic and Flow Condition, Proc. of the forth ASEAN Civil Engineering Conference,
Yogyakarta 22-23 November 2011.
Sunjoto, S. 2014. Drawdown Minimizing to Restraing Sea Water Intrusion in Urban Coastal Area, 8 th South
East Consortium Technical University Cooperation (SEATUC) Symphosium, Ibnu Sina Institut for
Fundamental Science Studies, UTM, Johor Bahru, 3-5 Mach 2014.
Sunjoto, S. 2015. Kebutuhan Penutupan Bangunan Dalam Perhitungan Konservasi Air (Building Cover
Demand on Computation of Water Conservation), Pertemuan Ilmiah Tahunan, PIT XXXII HATHI,Tema :
Meningkatkan Ketahanan Air Nasional dalam Menunjang Kedaulatan Pangan, Ketahanan Energi dan
Pengembangan Kemaritiman, Malang 9-11 Oktober 2015
Sunjoto, S. 2015. Uncertainty of Lugeon Unit Value Related to the Influence of Drill Diameters and Aquifer
Layers, E-proceeding of the 36th IAHR World Congress, 28 June-3 July 2015, The Hague, The
Netherlands
Sunjoto, S. 2015. Simplified Drain Spacing Methods to Reduse Groundwater Table, E-proceeding of the 36th
IAHR World Congress, 28 June-3 July 2015, The Hague, The Netherlands
Sunjoto, S. 2016. Influence of Shape Factor to the Hydraulic Pumping Power, 20th Congress of the IAHR
APD 2016 to be held in Colombo Sri Lanka 28 August-31 September 2016
Sunjoto, S. 2016. The Inventions Technology in Water resources to Support Infrastructure of Environmental
Engineering, (Keynote Speaker), 5th International Conferece on Concept and Application of Green
Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Semarang State University, Semarang, 5-6 October 2016.
Sunjoto, S. 2016. Determination of Drawdown Value as a New Method on Pumping Computation, 9th
ASEAN Civil Engineering Conference (ACEC) di Brunai (Universiti Teknologi Brunei), tanggal 14-15
November 2016
Sunjoto, S, 2016. Partial Penetration Well Equations, Proc. 4th IAHR Europe Congress, 27-29 July 2016,
Liege, Belgium (abstract accepted)
192
Sunjoto, S. 2016. Influence of Shape Factor to the Hydraulic Pumping Power,
193
Sunjoto, S. 2016. Colombo (Accepted Paper)

Sunjoto, S. 2016. Inventions Technology in Water resources to Support Infrastructure of Environmental
Engineering, (Invited as Keynote Speaker) Semarang
Sunjoto, S. 2016. Brunei (Accepted Paper With all Expence Supported by Committee)
Samsioe, A.F. 1931. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 11, pp. 124-135.
Tavenas F.M., Diene, Leroueil S., 1986. Analysis of in situ constant head permeability test. Proc. 39 th.
Canadian Geotechnical Conf. pp 71-77.
Theis C.V. 1935. He relation between the lowering of piezometric surface and the rate and duration of
discharge of well using groundwater storage, Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, v.16, pp. 519-524
Thiem G., 1906. Hydrologische Methoden, J.M. Gebhart, Leipzig p. 56, 1906.
Todd D.K. 1960. Groundwater Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Todd D.K. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
UNESCO. 1967. Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigation and Development, Water Resources
Series
Bruin J., Hudson Jr. H.E., Selected Methods For Groundwater Resources Evaluation, Report-Engineering
Sub-Division Illinois State Water Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois
(http://webh2o.sws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/RI/ISWSRI-25.pdf)-Cited: June 12nd 2016
Wenzel L.K. 1942. Method for determining permeability of wter bearing materials; US Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 887. (http.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Distribution_on_Earth)-Cited: 18/March 2016
194

BahanKuliah PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BahanKuliah PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GROUNDWATER

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA

Water Resources Post Graduate Program

Yogyakarta, June 2016

water so the science in water engineering becomes important due to water is

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

THE WATER CYCLE

Water storage in the atmosphere

Snowmelt runoff to stream

Fresh water storage

Water storage in oceans

Fig. 1.1. Hydrological cycle

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

Fig. 1.2. Water balance on the ground surface

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

c. Water Quantity in the Earth (Volume dimension x106 Km3 )

Table 1.2. Water distribution in the earth (Nace, 1971)

Table 1.3. Water distribution in the earth (Huissman, 1978)

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

African great lakes

Ice and Snow

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

Avererage depth (mm)

Source: Baumgartner & Reichel (1975) in Lee R., (1980)

Greater water conservation

1. Less hydroelectric power

Smaller surface distribution system

3. Decreased pumping efficiency

Stage development facilitated

2. Greater power consumption

Less danger than dam failure

Almost good quality of water resources

Source: Clendenen in Todd (1980).

1. Many large-capacity site available

1. Few new site available

3. Require little land area

4. Ever-present danger of catastrophic

7. Safe from immediate radioactive fallout

7. Easily contaminated radioactive fallout

pipelines across land of others

1. Water must be pumped

1. Water maybe available by gravity flow

Minor flood control value

Maximum flood control value

8. Recharge opportunity usually dependent

8. Recharge dependent on annual

9. Recharge water maybe require expensive

9. No treatment require recharge of

of surplus of surface flows

10. Little maintenance required of

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

Table 1.9. Attributes of Groundwater

29). Reihard Woltman (1757-1837)

b. Chronology of recorded hydraulic structure works (Biswas, 1970) in Reddi

c. Sub-surface water providers

Fig. 1.7. Conventional unprotected dug well

Qanat or Channel is a system of water exploitation which providing irrigation

3). Water coveyance

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

4). Crush Bore Well (Cable tool)

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Groundwater Engineering-Post Graduate Program DCEE-UGM-June-2016

5). Rotary Bore Well

Fig. 1.12. Rotary boring machine and drills bit.