AATOutline 2014 S2

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.
HE, DEA-Hydrology of Groundwater-Post Graduate Program JTSL-FT-UGM-2014

1

SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGY

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

Lecture note:

Post Graduate Program
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Faculty of Engineering Gadjah Mada University

Yogyakarta, 2014
Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Hydrology of Groundwater-Post Graduate Program JTSL-FT-UGM-2014
2
I. INTRODUCTION

1. Etymology
Hydrogeology (eng) Geohydrologie (fr) Geohidrologi (id)
Geohydrology (eng) Hydrogeologie (fr) Hidrogeologi (id)

2. Hydrology
a. Water cycle

Fig. 1.1. Hydrological cycle

THE WATER CYCLE
Water storage
in ice and snow
Water storage in oceans
Evaporation
Groundwater
discharge
Infiltration
Precipitation
Sublimation
Water storage in the atmosphere
Evapotranspiration
Spring
Fresh water storage
Groundwater
storage
Surface runoff
Snowmelt runoff to stream
Condensation

SUN
3
b. Water Balance
Water balance on the ground surface is:

Fig 1.2. Water balance on the ground surface

Fig 1.3. Water balance of the storage

Acccording to Lee R. (1980): P + Ev annual 5 .10
5
km
3
/y, equal the depth 973
mm to cover the earth and needs 28 ceturies to evaporate by atmospheric
destilation.

I
O
S
I - O =S

I : Inflow
O : Outflow
S : Storage

P E
I
R
P E = R + I

P : Precipitation
E : Evapotranspiration
R : Runoff
I : Infiltration
4
c. Water Quantity in the Earth (Volume dimension x10
6
Km
3
)

Table 1.1. Water distribution in the earth (Todd, 1970)
Items Volume x10
6
Percentage
Ocean location
Saline Water
1,320 Km
3

97.300 %
Continents location
Lake fresh water
0.125 Km
3
0.0090 %

Lake saline water
0.104 Km
3
0.0080 %
Rivers
0.00125 Km
3
0.0001 %
Soil moisture
0.067 Km
3
0.0050 %
Groundwater (above 4000 m)
8.350 Km
3
0.6100 %
Eternal ice and snow
29.200 Km
3
2.1400 %
Total volume
37.800 Km
3

2.800 %
Atmosphere location:
Vapor
0.013 Km
3

0.001 %
Total water
1,360 Km
3

100.000 %

Table 1.2. Water distribution in the earth (Nace, 1971)
Items Volume x10
6
Percentage
Saline water
1,370 Km
3
94.000 %

Ice & snow
30 Km
3
2.000 %
Vapor

0.010 %
Groundwater
60 Km
3
4.000 %
Surface water

0.040 %
Total water
100.000 %

Table 1.3. Water distribution in the earth (Huissman, 1978)
Items Volume x10
6
Percentage
Free water, consist of:
1,370 Km
3

Saline water

97.200 %
Ice & snow

2.100 %
Vapor

0.001 %
Fresh water, consist of:

0.600 %
Groundwater

98.80 %

Surface water

1.20 %
Total water

100.000 %
5
Table 1.4. Water distribution in the earth (Baumgartner and Reichel, 1975)
Items Volume Percentage
Solid
2.782 .10
7
Km
3

2.010 %
Liquid
1.356 .10
9
Km
3

97.989 %
Oceans
1.348 .10
9
Km
3
97.390 %

Continent; groundwater
8.062 .10
6
Km
3
0.583 %
Continent; surface water
2.250 .10
5
Km
3
0.016 %
Vapor
1.300 .10
4
Km
3

0.001 %
Total (all forms)
1.384 .10
9
Km
3

100.000 %
Saline water
1.348 .10
9
Km
3
97.938 %

Fresh water
3.602 .10
7
Km
3
2.202 %

Table 1.5. Fresh water distribution in the earth (Baumgartner and Reichel, 1975)
Items Volume Percentage
Solid
2.782 .10
7
Km
3

77.23 %
Liquid
8.187 .10
6
Km
3

22.73 %
Groundwater
7.996 .10
6
Km
3
22.20 %

Soil moisture
6.123 .10
4
Km
3
0.17 %
Lakes
1.261 .10
5
Km
3
0.35 %
Rivers, organic
3.602 .10
3
Km
3
0.01 %
Vapor
1.300 .10
4
Km
3

0.04 %
Total (all forms)
3.602 .10
7
Km
3

100.00 %

Table 1.6. Annual average water balance components for the earth (Fig. 1.4)
Item Continent Ocean Earth
Area (10
6
km
2
)
Volume (10
3
km
3
)
Precipitation
Evaporation
Discharge
Avererage depth (mm)
Precipitation
Evaporation
Discharge
148.90

+111
-71
-40

+745
-477
-269
361.10

+385
-425
+40

+1066
-1177
+111
510.00

+496
-496
0

+973
-973
0
Source: (Baumgartner & Reichel, 1975 in Lee R., 1980)
6

Fig. 1.4. Earth water balance components, in 10
3
km
3
(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. Greater water conservation
2. Smaller surface storage
3. Smaller surface distribution system
4. Smaller drainage system
5. Reduced canal lining
6. Greater flood control
7. Ready integration with existing
development
8. Stage development facilitated
9. Smaller evapotranspiration losses
10. Greater control over flow
11. Improvement of power load
12. Less danger than dam failure
13. Reduction in weed seed distribution
14. Better timing of water distribution
15. Almost good quality of water resources
1. Less hydroelectric power
2. Greater power consumption
3. Decreased pumping efficiency
4. Greater water salination
5. More complex project operation
6. More difficult cost allocation
7. Artificial recharge is required
8. Danger of land subsidence
Source: Clendenen in Todd, 1980.
P=385
Q=40
P=111
E=425
Q=40
E=71
CONTINENT
OCEAN
ATMOSPHER
Water balance:
P + E + Q = 0
7

Table 1.8. Advantages and Disadvantages of subsurface and Surface Reservoirs (USBR)
Subsurface Reservoirs Surface Reservoirs
Advantages
1. Many large-capacity site available
2. Slight to no evaporation loss

3. Require little land area
4. Slight to no danger of catastrophic
structural failure
5. Uniform water temperature
6. High biological purity
7. Safe from immediate radio active fallout
8. Serve as conveyance systems-canals or
pipeline across land of others
unnecessary

Disadvantages
1. Water must be pumped
2. Storage and conveyance use only
3. Water maybe mineralized

4. Minor flood control value
5. Limited flow at any point
6. Power head usually not available
7. Difficult and costly to evaluate,
investigate and manage
8. Recharge opportunity usually dependent
of surplus of surface flows
9. Recharge water maybe require expensive
treatment
10. Continues expensive maintenance of
recharge area or wells
Disadvantages
1. Few new site available
2. High evaporation loss even in humid
climate
3. Require large land area
4. Ever-present danger of catastrophic
failure
5. Fluctuating water temperature
6. Easily contaminated
7. Easily contaminated radio active fallout
8. Water must be conveyed

Advantages
1. Water maybe available by gravity flow
2. Multiple use
3. Water generally of relatively low mineral
content
4. Maximum flood control value
5. Large flows
6. Power head available
7. Relatively to evaluate, investigate and
manage
8. Recharge dependent o annual
precipitation
9. No treatment require recharge of
recharge water
10. Little maintenance required of
facilities

8
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 is no 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 data
2). Geologic data
3). Hydrologic data
(a). Surface inflow and outflow
(b). Imported and exported water
(c). Precipitation
(d). Consumptive use
(e). Changes in surface storage
(f). Changes in soil moisture
(g). Changes in groundwater storage
(h). Subsurface inflow and outflow

9
3. History
a. Dug well

Fig. 1.5. A crude dug well in Shinyanga Region of Tanzania. (after DHV Con. Eng.,
in Todd, 1980)

The simplest dug well is crude dug well where the people go down to draw a water
directly. Then brick or masonry casing dug well which were build before century. The
dug well with casing equipped by bucket, rope and wheel to draw water.
10

Fig. 1.6. Sketch of crude dug well cross section as the first generation of step well.

Fig. 1.7. A modern domestic dug well with rock curb, concrete seal and hand pump.
(after Todd, 1980)
11

Fig 1.8. Communal dug well equipped by recharge systems surraunding the well.

Fig 1.9. Traditional step well in India it is called baollis or vavadi were built from
8
th
to 15
th
century (Source: Nainshree G. Sukhmani A. Design of Water
Conservation System Through Rain Water Harvesting; An Excel Sheet Approach)
12
b. Qanat
Qanat is a system of water exploitation which providing of 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 of impervious
canal go in the direction of irrigation area (Fig. 1.10.). 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. 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 qanants vary seasonally with water table
fluctuation and seldom exceed 100 m
3
/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 m
3
.

Fig. 1.10. Vertical cross section along a qanat (after Beaumont, in Todd, 1980)

13

Fig 1.11. Roman aquaducts as water coveyance were built before century

Fig 1.12. Roman city water system provider from ground water resources to the city.

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)
14
c. Crush Bore Well (Cable tool)
Crush Bore Well is a well which is build 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 ground water
table. In Egypt this system was implemented since 3000 BC, in Rome near the first
century and in a small town in south French Artois, which well had a hydraulic
pressure and it created an artesian well due to the water squirt out from the well
(Fig.1.13.).

Fig. 1.13. Schematic cross section illustrating unconfined and confined aquifer (after
Todd, 1980)

d. 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 7,000 meter depth.

15
e. Springs
Spring is an outflow of ground water to the ground surface due to hydraulic head or
gravitational force (Fig. 1.14). This technique had been implanted 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. Like in Trowulan as capital of
Majapahit Kingdom it was implemented since 12
nd
century that on the site of spring
was built a temple is now called Tikus Temple. Nowadays from this temple still flowing
water even though with small discharge and this building installed by inflow-outflow
and overflow system and conveyance pipes to Segaran Pond with the area are more
than 6 ha.

Fig. 1.14. Diagrams that illustrating types of gravity springs. (a). Depression spring. (b).
Contact springs. (c). Fracture artesian spring. (d). Solution tabular spring (after Bryan,
in Todd, 1980)

16

Above:
Fig 1.15. Kaptering or spring
water catcher of Majapahit
Kingdom in J ava was build in 12
century recently its called Tikus
Temple (personal photo
collection=pc).

Left:
Fig 1.16. Water pipes system with
diameter about 60 cm, convey the
water to the pond and housing of
the Kingdom
(Photo: Prof. Hardjoso P.)
17

Left:
Fig 1.17. Distribution pipes
to the housing

Left:
Fig 1.18. Fontains of
Trwulan city

18

Fig 1.20. Water pond with brick structure which is called Segaran Pond (pcp).

4. Qualitative Theory
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.

Left:
Fig 1.19. Ancient dug well
cased by bricks in the
housing of the Kingdom

19
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 clarify 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 eaux 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)
Interaction with 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.

5. Quantitative Theory
a. Pierre Perrault (1608-1690)
He observed rainfall and stream flow 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
20
b. Edme Mariotte (1620-1684)
In his book Des mouvements des eaux Seine River: Discharge Q = 200.000 ft
3
/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.

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 N
R
is a dimensionless number that gives a measure of
the ratio of inertial forces V
2
/L to viscous forces V/L
2
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 Dijon (1856), he developed mathematical
equation for flow in porous media.
h. Badon Gabon (1888) and Herzberg (1901)
They developed equilibrium theory of fresh water and saline water in the circular
island with porous soil.

21
i. Jules Dupuit (1863)
In his book: Estudes Thoriques et Pratiques sur le mouvement des Eaux 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)
a German engineer who developed equation for the flow toward well and infiltration
galleries.
k. Gunther Thiem (1907)
In 1906, he continued Dupuit principle and his father research 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 hole inflow test made at constant head.
Lugeon is a measure of transmissivity in rocks, determined by pressurized injection
of water through a bore hole driven through the rock.
m. Theis (1936)
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 graphic solutions are needed.
n. Expansion of Theis
Cooper-Jacob simplified the Theis formula by negligible after the first two terms.
The same manner it was expanded to by Chow (1952) and Todd (1980) but all
together still need graphic solution.

22
o. Forchheimer (1930)
He developed the flow equation of steady state radial flow in borehole using new
parameter is shape factor and neglected data of observation well.
p. Expansion of Forchheimer
Development of formulas of shape factors by Samsioe (1931), Dachler (1936), Taylor
(1948), Hvorslev (1951), Aravin (1965), Wilkinson (1968), Al-Dahir & Morgenstern
(1969), Luthian & Kirkham (1949), Kirkham & van Bavel (1948), Raymond & Azzouz
(1969), Smiles & Young (1965) and Sunjoto (1988-2008).
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)
Base on Forchheimer (1930) principle, Sunjoto (1988) developed an unsteady state
radial flow equation for well which was derived by integration solution and shape
factors of the tip of the well. In 2008 he developed too the formula of unsteady
state condition of recharge trench and its shape factors.

6. Interest of Research
a. Russian Groundwater in ice region
b. Dutch Groundwater in sand dunes
c. Japanese Hot groundwater
d. Indonesian Recharge Systems

23
7. Dimension and Unit
a. Georgy System (mks)
Table 1.8. Dimension and Unit
Description Dimension Unit
mass
length
time
m
l
t
gram
meter
second
Force
Energy
Power
Pressure
mlt
-2

ml
2
t
-2

ml
2
t
-3

ml
-1
t
-2

N (Newton) = kgm.s
-2

J (Joule) = N.m
W (Watt) = N.m.s
-1

N.m
-2

b. Metric prefixes
Table 1.9. Metric prefices
Prefix Symbol Factor Prefix Symbol Factor

tera T 10
12
centi c 10
-2

giga G 10
9
milli m 10
-3

mega M 10
6
micro

10
-6

kilo k 10
3
nano n 10
-9

hecto h 10
2
pico p 10
-12

deca da 10
1
femto f 10
-15

deci d 10
-1
atto a 10
-18

24
c. Conversion of unit
Table 1.10. Conversion
Description Unit mks Note
Force
Energy
Power
1 kg
1 kg.m
1 kg.ms
-1

g.N
g.J
g.W
1 N = 105 dynes
g = 9.78 m.s
-2
= 32.3 ft.s
-2

1 HP = 75.g.W = 734 W

d. Metric-English equivalents
Table 1.11. Metric-English equivqlent
1). Length
1 cm = 0.3937 in
1 m = 3.281 ft
1 km = 0.6214 mi
2). Area
1 cm
2
= 0.1550 in
2

1 m
2
= 10.76 ft
2

1 ha = 2.471 acre
1 km
2
= 0.3861 mi
2

3). Volume
1 cm
3
= 0.06102 in
3

1 l = 0.2642 gal = 0.03531 ft
3

1m
3
= 264.2 gal = 35.31 ft
3

= 8.106 .10
-4
acre.ft
4). Mass
1 g = 2.205 .10
-3
lb (mass)
1 kg = 2.205 lb (mass)
= 9.842 .10
-4
long ton

5). Velocity
1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s
= 2.237 mi/hr
1 km/hr = 0.9113 ft/s
= 0.6214 mi/hr
6). Temperature
o
C = K 273.15
= (
o
F 32)/1.8
7). Pressure
1 Pa = 9.8692 .10
-6
atm
= 10
-5
bar
= 10
-2
millibar
= 10 dyne/cm
2

= 3.346 .10
-4
ft H
2
O (4
o
C)
= 2.953 .10
-4
in Hg ( 0
o
C)
= 0.0075 mm Hg
= 0.1020 kg (force)/m
2

= 0.02089 lb (force)/ft
2

25
8). Flow rate
1 l/s = 15.85 gpm
= 0.02282 mgd = 0.03531 cfs
1 m
3
/s = 1.585 .10
4
gpm
= 22.82 mgd = 35.31 cfs
1 m
3
/d = 0.1834 gpm
= 2.642 .10
-4
mgd = 4.087 .10
-4
cfs
9). Force
1 N = 10
5
dyne
= 0.1020 kg (force)
= 0.2248 lb (force)
10). Power
1 W = 9.478 .10
-4
BTU/s
= 0.2388 cal/s
= 0.7376 ft.lb (force)/s
11). Water quality
1 mg/l = 1 ppm = 0.0584 grain/gal
12). Hydraulic conductivity
1 m/d = 24.54 gpd/ft
2

= 1.198 darcy (water 20
o
C)
1 cm/s = 2.121 .10
4
gpd/ft
2

= 1035 darcy (water 20
o
C)
13). Viscosity
1 Pa
.
s = 10
3
centistoke= 10 poise
= 0.02089 lb (force)
.
s/ft
2

1 m
2
/s = 10
6
centistoke = 10.76 ft
2
/s
14). Gravitational acceleration, g
9.807 m/s
2
= 32.2 ft/s
2
(std., free fall)
15). Heat
1 J/m
2
= 8.806 .10
-5
BTU/ft
2

= 2.390 .10
-5
cal/cm
2

1 J/kg = 4.299 .10
-4
BTU/lb (mass)
= 2.388 .10
-4
cal/g
16). Density of water,
1000 kg
mass
/m
3
= 1.94 slugs/ft
3

(when 50
o
F/10
o
C)
17). Specific weight of water,
9.807 .10
3
N/m
3
= 62.4 lb/ft
3
(50
o
F/10
o
C)
18). Dynamic viscosity of water,
1.30 .10
-3
Pa
.
s=2.73 .10
-5
lb.s/ft
2
(50
o
/10
o
C)
10
-3
Pa
.
s = 2.05 .10
-5
lb.s/ft
2
(68
o
F/20
o
C)
19). Kinematic viscosity of water,
1.30.10
-6
m
2
/s=1.41 .10
=5
ft
2
/s(50
o
F/10
o
C)
10
-6
m
2
/s = 1.06 .10
-5
ft
2
/s (68
o
F/20
o
C)
20). Atmospheric pressure, p (std)
1.013 .10
5
Pa = 14.70 psia
21). Energy
1 J = 9.478 .10
-4
BTU
= 0.2388 cal
= 0.7376 ft.lb (force)
= 2.788 .10
-7
kw.hr

26
e. Legends
1). Density
Symbol :
Dimension : ml
-3

Unit : kg
mass
.m
-3
or slug.ft
-3

Detail:
1 slug = 14.60 kg
mass

1 feet = 0.305 m
1 slug.ft
-3
= 514.580 kg
mass
.m
-3

In practical use:

pure water
= 1,000 kg
mass
.m
-3
= 1.94 slug.ft
-3

sea water
= 1,026 kg
mass
.m
-3
= 1.99 slug.ft
-3

Table 1.12. Density of pure water in kg
mass
.m
-3
dependent temperature t
o
C
t

t

t

t

0
2
4
6
8
999.8679
999.9267
1000.0000
999.9081
999.8762
10
12
14
16
18
999.7277
999.5247
999.2712
998.9701
998.6232
20
22
24
26
28
998.2323
997.7993
997.3256
996.8128
996.2623
30
32
34
36
38
995.6756
995.0542
994.3991
993.7110
992.9936

2). Specific weight
Symbol : = .g
Dimension : ml
-2
t
-2

Unit : N.m
-3
atau lbs.ft
-3

27
3). Specific Gravity
Symbol : s s = /
w
= /
w

Dimension : -
Unit : -

4). Viscosity
(a). Dynamic viscosity
Symbol :
Dimension : ml
-1
t
-1

Unit : N.s.m
-2

1 N.s.m
-2
= 10 poise; 478 poise = 1 lbs.ft
-2

Table 1.13. Dynamic viscosity of water in 10
-2
poisses dependent temperature t
o
C
t

t

t

t

0
2
4
6
8
1.7921
1.6728
1.5674
1.4728
1.3860
10
12
14
16
18
1.3077
1.2363
1.1709
1.1111
1.0559
20
22
24
26
28
1.0050
0.9579
0.9142
0.8737
0.8360
30
32
34
36
38
0.8007
0.7679
0.7371
0.7085
0.6814

(b). Cinematic viscocity
Symbol :
Dimension : l
2
t
-1

Unit : m
2
s
-1
or stokes
1 m
2
s
-1
= 10
-4
stokes
1 ft
2
s
-1
= 929 stokes
= /

28
5). Surface Tension
Symbol :
Dimension : mt
-2

Unit : N.m
-1

water/air
= 0.074 N.m
-1

Table 1.14. Relationship of , and of water
t = 10
o
C; p = atm t = 60
o
F; p = atm
Water Air Unit Water Air Unit

1000
1.3 .10
-2

1.3 .10
-6

1.37
1.8 .10
-4

1.3 .10
-5

kg
mass
.m
-3

poise
m
2
s
-1

1.94
2.3 .10
-5

1.2 .10
-5

2.37 .10
-3
3.7 .10
-7

1.6 .10
-4

slug.ft
-3

lbs.s.ft
-2

ft
2
s
-1

29
II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

1. Terminology
a. Aquifer
The origin of aqua is water and ferre is contain.
b. Aquiclude
The origin of claudere is to shut.
c. Aquifuge
The origin of fugere is to expel.
d. Aquitard
The origin of tard is late.

2. Vertical Distribution

Fig. 2.1. Diagram of zones in permeable soil
Ground surface
Soil water zone
Intermediate
vadoze
zone
Capillary zone
Saturated zone
ZONE OF
AERATION
ZONE OF
SATURATION
VADOZE
WATER
GROUND /
PHREATIC
WATER
Groundwater table
Impermeable
P

e

r

m

e

a

b

l

e

30

a. Zone of Aeration
This zone divided into:
Soil water zone
Intermediate vadose zone
Capillary zone

2 =
=
2
(2.1)

Fig. 2.2. Schematic of capillary rise

h
c

2r

=
0.15

h
c
: height of capillary zone
: surface tension (dynes/cm)
: specific weight of water
r : radius of tube
: contact angle of water and wall

When pure water in clean glass, =0
and temperature at 20
o
C so value of
s
= 75 dyne/cm
= 0.076 g/cm and,

31
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
Very coarse sand
Coarse sand
Medium sand
Fine sand
Silt
Silt

5 - 2
2 - 1
1 0.5
0.5 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.05
0.05 0.002

2.50
6.50
1.50
24.60
42.80
105.50
200.00

Table 2.3. Capillary rice of some soils type (Murthy, 1977)
Soils Type Size of particles (mm) Capillary rise (cm)

Sand, coarse
Sand, medium
Sand, fine
Silt
Clay, coarse
Clay, colloid

2.00 - 0,60
0.60 0.20
0.20 0.06
0.06 0.002
0.002 0.0002
< 0.0002

1.50 5
5 15
15 - 50
50 - 1,500
1,500 15,000
>15,000

32
b. Zone of Saturation
1). Specific retention (Sr)
(2.2)
W
r
: the rest water volume after drainage
V : total volume of soil

2). Specific yield (Sy)
(2.3)
W
y
: volume of water which be drained
= S
r
+ S
y

c. Solid Liquid and Air System
Solid phase : geometricly difficult be soluble
Liquid phase : solution organic & unorganic
Air phase : vapor

Fig. 2.3. Diagram of solid, water and air relationship
V
V
v

V
a

V
w

V
s

W
a

W
w

W
s

1
air
water
solid
33
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 (S)
The ratio of volume of water (Vw) to the volume of voids (Vv) sis defined as
degree of saturation so:
100% (2.6)

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
)
34
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 4
o
C.
= 1
3
= 1
= 1
3
= 1000

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.

The specific gravity of mass of soil including air, water and solid:
35
= (2.12)

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

(2.13)

36
3. Type of Aquifer

gs
gwt
gwt
H
e. Suspended aquifer
Note:
gs : ground surface
ps : piezometric surface
gwt : groundwater table
gwt : groundwater table of
perched water
D : thickness of aquifer
H : depth of groundwater
K : coefficient of permeability

Note: Compare to Todd (1980) page 44 about leaky aquifer, which the elevation of
gwt is higher than ps.

Fig. 2.4. Types of aquifers

gs
gwt
K=0
gs
gwt
K D H
ps
D=H K
ps
K
1
<K
c. Confined aquifer
d. Semi confined/leaky aquifer
gs
gwt =ps
K
H
gs
gwt =ps
K
K
1
<K
D
H
a. Unconfined aquifer b. Semi unconfined aquifer
37
III. BASIC PARAMETERS
1. Law of Groundwater Flow
a. Poiseuilles Law
= (3.1)
where
v
a
: average velocity
w
: unit weight of water
R : radius of tube
: viscosity of fluid
i : hydraulic gradient
A : area
Qa : average discharge
Z =
w
.R
2
/8

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.

b. 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:
38
= 0 &
= 0
The equation becomes:
=
+
= +
= +
= +
= (3.5)
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
Posseuilles Law. And the discharge is by Darcys equation is:
=
= (3.6)
where,
Q : discharge
A : section area of aquifer
dh : difference water elevation
dl : length of aquifer
i = dh/dl

c. Based on Dupuit (1863), according to Castany (1967):

= . i = sin =

2
+
2

=

2
+
2

=

1 +

dx
dy

2
+
2

: =

2
+
2

=
1
1 +

39
Due to the assumption of vertical velocity is so small, (dy/dx)
2
can be neglected so
:

1 +
2
= 1 =
(3.7)

2). Similar equations
Fouriers Law on heat transfer {Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768
1830)}:

=
= (3.8)

where,
H : rate of heat flow
k : thermal conductivity
A : cross section area
dT : temperature difference
dx : thickness
i = dT/dx

Ohms Law on electrical current flow {George Simon Ohm (1787 - 1854)}:

=
= (3.9)

where,
I : current
C : coefficient of conductivity
a : sectional area of conductor
dv : drop in voltage
dl : length of conductor
40
i : dv/dl

3). Validity of Darcy Law

(3.10)
It can be written in other equation as:

(3.11)
where,
N
R
: Reynolds Number
D : diameter of pipe
: density of water
: flow velocity
: viscosity of fluid
: unit weight of fluid
g : acceleration of gravity

Experiments show that Darcys law is valid for NR < 1 and does not depart seriously
up to NR = 10, and this value represents an upper limit to the validity of Darcys law
(Todd, 1980).
Note:
Nr defines that flow is in laminar, transition or turbulent condition
Re defines that flow is in subcritical, critical or supercritical condition

41

Figure 3.1.a. Diagram of development of groundwater science
DUPUIT
(1863)

FORCHHEIMER
(1930)
LUGEON
(1930)
Sichardt
Cambefort
Choultse
Koussakine
Castany
Kozen
Bogomolov
DARCY (1856)
POISEUILLE (1797-1869)
Q
a
=Z.i.A
FOURIER (1768-1830)
H= K.i.A
OHM (1789 -1854
I=C.i..a
THEIS (1936)

Samsioe (1931), Dahler
(1936), Taylor (1948),
Hvorslev (1951), Aravin
(1965), Wilkinson (1968), Al-
Dahir & Morgenstern (1969),
Luthian & Kirkham (1949),
Kirkham & van Bavel (1948),
Raymond & Azzouz (1969),
Smiles & Young (),Sunjoto
(1988; 2002)

Cooper-J acob
(1946)
Chow (1952)
Todd (1980)

Ehrenberger (1928),
Vodgeo Institut (1954),
Iokutaro Kano (1939),
Vibert (1949),
Castany (1967)

Mikel & Klaer (1956),
Spiridonoff &
Hantush (1964),
Nasjono (2002), Das,
Saha, Rao &
Uththmanthan (2009)
Sriyono (2010)

F
Q, K
Castany (1967)
Murthy (1977)
Suharjadi

S & T
SUNJ OTO
(1988-2010)
H, Q, K
Q
Q, K K Q, K, s

S & T

h

R
i

Note:
V : velocity Q : discharge h : drawdown correction S :
K : permeability F : shape factor s : drawdown T : transmissivity
I : hydraulic head H : hydraulic head R
i
: radius of depletion

V= K.i.A
Glover (1966)

s
42
2. 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:
=

(3.12)

= .

1 +
(3.13)
The relationship between real pore channels to the idealized pore channel is:

(3.14)
where,
L : length of idealized channel
a : area of idealized channel
L : length of real channel
a : 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
8
(3.15)
The average velocity flow in the tube:
43
8
=

2
32
. (3.16)
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
2
.
(3.17)
Where, C is constant which is independent of temperature and the expression
of K may now be as below and K varies as
w
/.
= . . ().
(3.18)
4). Structure and stratification

Fig 3.2. Diagram of soil layers structure
a). Flow in the Horizontal Direction (Fig 3.2.)
Q = V.A = V. Z = K.i.Z
Q = (V
1
.Z
1
+ V
2
.Z
2
+ + V
n-1
.Z
n-1
+ V
n
.Z
n
)
Q = (K
1
.i.Z
1
+ K
2
.i.Z
2
+ + K
n-1
.i.Z
n-1
+ K
n
.i.Z
n
)
+ +
) (3.19)
K
1

K
2

K
n-1

K
n

Z
1

Z
2

Z
n-1

Z
n

Z
K
v

K
h

V
1
.i.K
1

V
2
.i.K
2

V
n-1
.i.K
n-i
V
n
.i.K
n

44
b). Flow in the Vertical Direction (Fig 3.2.)
The hydraulic gradient is h/Z and:

=
=
1
1
=
2
2
=

If h
1
, h
2
h
n
are the loss of heads in each of the layers, therefore:

H = h
1
+ h
2
+ h
n
or,

H = Z
1
h
1
+ Z
2
H
2
+ ..Z
n
H
n

Substitution:
++

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

(3.22)
b). Falling head permeability method
The coefficient of permeability K can be determined on the basis of drop in
head (h
o
- h
1
) and the elapse time (t
1
- t
o
).
= = .
. (3.23)
=

(
(3.24)
when A = a the equation be:
45

=

(
(3.25)
where:
L : length of sample
A : cross section area of sample
a : cross section area stand pipe
h
o
h
1
: head of water in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
t
o
t
1
: 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:
=

. .
(3.26)
where,
L : length of sample
A : cross section area of sample
Q : discharge in certain time t
h : average head
t : duration of flow

d). Computation from grain size distribution
On the basis of Poiseuilles Law the coefficient of permeability can be
computed:
=
2
(3.41)
According to Allen Hazen (1911) in Murthy (1977) the empirical equation can be
computed as:
=
10
2
(3.27)
46
where,
K : coefficient of permeability (cm/s)
C : a factor (100 <C< 150)
D
10
: effective size of grain (cm)

e). Computation from horizontal capillary test
This method base on the Darcys Law and compute the K are sometimes used
where the soil permeability fall within the range of 10
-3
to 10
-6
cm/s but this
method not very accurate (Murthy, 1974).
2). Field Methods
The field method of permeability test of soils usually carried out by pumping
test or bore hole test. That is why the parameters of testing are similar to
the parameters of radial flow for instance discharge, coefficient of
permeability and some of them is shape factors, so this matter will be discused
in the next section on paragraph V.

47
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 ground water 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. According to Castany G. (1967) that value is sinus
at the point.

1. Unconfined aquifer

a. Dupuit (1863)

Fig. 4.1. Circular 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 (4.1)
r
w

r
R
h
w

h
H
48

The hydraulic gradient is:

=

(4.2)

Discharge of inflow when the water levels in the well remain stationary (Darcys
Law)
= (4.3)

= (4.4)

Substituting for Eqn (4.1) and (4.2) for (4.3), the rate inflow across the
cylindrical surface is:
=
2 (4.5)

The equation for discharge outflow from pumping is:

=
(
(4.6)

The equation for permeability of soil is:

=

(
(4.7)

where,
H : depth of water outside of aquifer layer
h
w
: depth of water at face of pumping well
R : radius of outside of aquifer layer
r
w
: radius of pumped well

49
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.
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:

Fig. 4.2. Pumping in unconfined aquifer

Area of cylinder of piezometric h and radius r: A = 2rh

The hydraulic gradient is: =

Darcys Law: V = Ki and Q = KiA

Substituting, so the rate inflow across the cylindrical surface is:

=
2 (4.8)

Rearranging the terms, so:
r
1

r
r
2

h
1
h
h
2

50

=
2

The equation for permeability of soil is:
=

(4.9)

The equation for discharge outflow from pumping is (Fig, 5.2):

Dupuit-Thiem Formula for the full penetration well in free aquifer:

=
(4.10)

where,
Q : discharge of pumping
D : thickness of aquifer layer
r
1
r
2
: distance from well to observation well 1 and 2 respectively
h
1
h
2

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:

= 2
(4.11)
= (4.12)

= 2. tg (4.13)

51

tg =

1

2
r
2
r
1
(4.14)

For first permanent regime:
= 2
1
1
. tg (4.15)

For second permanent regime:
= 2
1
1
1
. tg
1
(4.16)

Dupuit-Thiem equation for the full penetration well in free aquifer:

=
(
)(
(4.17)
=

(
)(
(4.18)

where:
r
1
r
2
r
1

r
2

h
1

h
2

w

h
w

r
w

R
i

H
52
1

2
: drawdown in observation well 1 and 2 respectively

3). According to Murthy V.N.S. (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)

where:
R
i
: radius of influence
r
w
H : depth of water before pumping
w
: maximum drawdown (on well)

53
2. Confined aquifer
a. Dupuit (1863)


=
= . =
= 2

]
= 2]

Dupuit (1863) formula for full penetration well on confined aquifer (Fig.
4.4.):

=

(4.23)
=

(
(4.24)

where,
R : radius of influence
r
w
H : depth of water outside of aquifer layer
h
w
: depth of water at face of pumping well
h
w

H
D
r
w

R
54
b. Dupuit-Thiem (1906)

1). According to UNESCO (1967)

Fig. 4.5. Circular unconfined embankment

=

Dupuit-Thiem formula for full penetration well on confined aquifer (Fig.
4.5.):

=
(4.25)
=

(
(4.26)

where,
r
1
r
2
h
1
h
2

h
1
h
2

D
r
1

r
2

55
2). According to Castany (1967)


Dupuit-Thiem equation for the full penetration well in confined aquifer (Fig. 4.6.):

=
(
(4.27)

=

(
(4.28)

where:
D : thickness of aquifer layer
r
1
r
2
1

2
: drawdown in observation well 1 and 2 respectively

r
1

r
2

h
2

1

h
1

D
56

3. Alternate equations of the Dupuit-Thiem principle
1). Pumping in circular aquifer
a). Unconfined aquifer:
o Without observation well and with piezometric head data:
=

(
(4.29)

o Without observation well and with drawdown data:
=

(4.30)

b). Confined aquifer:
=

(
(4.31)

2). Pumping in unlimited aquifer
a). Unconfined aquifer:
=

(
(4.32)

o Without observation well and with drawdown data:
57
=

(4.33)

o With one observation well and with piezometric head data:

=

(4.34)

o With one observation well and with drawdown data:
=

(4.35)

=

(
)(
(4.36)

o With two observation wells data and piezometric head data:
=

(4.37)

o With two observation wells and drawdown data:
=

(
)(
(4.38)

b). Confined aquifer:
=

(
=

.
(4.39)

o With one observation well and with piezometric head data:
58
=

(
(4.40)

o With one observation well and with drawdown data:
=

(
(4.41)

o With two observations well and piezometric head data:
=

(
(4.42)

o With two observations well and drawdown data:
=

(
(4.43)
=
(
(4.44)

c). 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 rises above the top of the aquifer due to artesian pressure.
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 (h
w
>
D)
Case 2: The water level in the test well might fall below the roof level (h
w
< D)
59


Case 1: (h
w
> D)
=
(4.45)
=

(
(4.46)
This equation is like mention above.
Case 2: (h
w
< D)
=
(
(4.47)
=

(
(4.48)

r
w

r
1

R
i

D
h
w

h
1

h
r
H
Case 1
Case 2
60
4. Correction to flow line


a. Castany (1967) implemented Dupuit (1868) equation (Fig. 4.8.):
For the lateral flow:

=
2
( +
)
2
2

= [
(4.49)

For the free aquifer and parallel flow:

=
2
( +
)
2

= [
(4.50)

b. Ehrenberger (1928)

= ,
( )
(4.51)
Real curve
Theoretic curve
h
h+h
H
61

a. Vodgeo Institut (1954)

= , ( )
,
(4.52)

b. Iokutaro Kano (1939)

(4.53)

0,324 <C <1,60

c. Vibert (1949)

= ,
(4.54)

62
5. Radius of depletion
According to many researchers, the radius of depletion depends on the depression
cone because the drawdown of pumping:

a. W.Sichardt (in Castany, 1967)

= ( ) (4.55)
where,

R
i
: radius of depletion (m)
H h : drawdown (m)
K : permeability (m/s)

b. H.Cambefort (in Castany, 1967)

(4.56)
where,

R
i
H : drawdown (m)
K
i
: permeability (m/s)

c. I. Choultse (in Castany, 1967)

(4.57)
where,

m
e
: porosity of soil
T : duration of pumping (s or h)
H : drawdown (m)
K : permeability (m/s or m/h)
R
i

63
d. I.P. Koussakine (in Castany, 1967)

(4.58)
where,

K : permeability (m/s)
T : duration of pumping (hour)

e. Dupuit
1). Lateral flow :
1). Dupuit (in Castany, 1967)

(4.59)

2). Castany (1967)

(4.60)

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

Using Darcys Law, Castany (1967) proposed an equation:

=

(
2

2
)
+ (4.61)

Sunjoto tried to improve above formula as:

=
(
=
(

64
.
(
(4.62)

where,
R
i
r : radius of observation well location (m)
Q : discharge (m
3
/h)
H : drawdown (m)
K : permeability (m/h)
h : height of water on observation well (m)

f. Some authors (in Castany, 1967)

(4.63)
where,

R
i
: radius of influence (L)
Q : rate of pumping (L/T
3
)
I : precipitation intensity (debit/L
2
/T)

g. Kozen (in Bogomolov et Silin-Bektchoutine (1955)
(4.64)

65
h. G.V. Bogomolov (in Castany, 1967)

Table 5.1. Coefficient of permeability and Radius of depletion
Aquifer material Granulometric
fraction
(mm)
Coefficient of
Permeability
(m/day)
Well
discharge
(m
3
/hour)
Radius of
Depletion
(m)

Clay sand 0,01-0,05 0,500-1,000 0,100-0,300 65
Fine sand 0,01-0,05 1,500-5,000 0,200-0,400 65
Clay sand in small
grains
0,10-0,25 10,00-15,00 0,500-0,800 75
Sand in small grains 0,10-0,25 20,00-25,00 0,800-1,700 75
Clay sand in medium
grains
0,25-0,50 20,00-25,00 1,600-10,00 100
Sand in medium grains 0,25-0,50 35,00-50,00 15,00-20,00 100
Clay sand in big grains 0,50-1,00 35,00-40,00 20,00-25,00 100
Sand in big grains 0,50-1,00 60,00-75,00 40,00-50,00 125
Gravels - 100,0-125,0 75,00-100,0 150

Note: drawdown 5-6 meter

66

V. FIELD TEST OF SOIL PERMEABILITY

Field test of soils permeability
The pumping test method is equal to the method of computing discharge from
the well using equation of Dupuit or Dupuit-Thiem for confined and unconfined
aquifer as mentioned in above article. That is why that pumping theory can be
implemented for the computation of permeability of soils.
a). Casing bore hole test
1). Murthy (1977)
According to Murthy (1977), hydraulic gradient of the some conditions are (Fig.
5.1.):
(a). Without pressure and end casing above groundwater table
=
(5.1)
(b). Without pressure and end casing below groundwater table
=
(5.2)
(c). With pressure and end casing above groundwater table
=
(5.3)
(d). With pressure and end casing below groundwater table
=
(5.4)

The coefficient of permeability is calculated by making use of formula:
=
0.18

(5.5)
where:
Q : discharge (L
3
/T)
67
K : coefficient of permeability (L/T)
H : hydraulic head (L) Fig. 3.2.

Fig 5.1. Bore hole in some conditions
Note:
Compare to Forchheimer (1930) that Q= FKH and to Harza (1935), Taylor (1948)
and Hvorslev (1951) that F = 5,5 r. And Sunjoto (2002) developed the formula for
the same condition that F = 2r.

2). Forchheimer (1930)
Forchheimer (1930) proposed to find a coefficient of permeability (K) by bore
hole with certain diameter and depth.
=

(5.6)
where:
R : radius of well (L)
F : shape factor (L) (F = 4 R, Forchheimer, 1930)
Q Q
Q & h
p
Q & h
p

h
w

h
w

h
w

h
w

(2). H=h
w
(3). H=h
w
+ hp (4). H=h
w
+ hp
H
b

H
g

68
t
1
t
2

: time of the measurement respectively (T)
h
1
h
2
: height of water of the measurement respectively (L)
A
s
: cross section area of well (L
2
, A
s
= R
2
)

b). Partial permeable casing bore hole test Suharyadi (1984)
There are two conditions of hydraulic head (Fig. 3.3) as:
The hole is submerged in groundwater:
H = difference of groundwater table to the water elevation test
The hole above the groundwater table:
H = Depth of water test on the hole minus half of permeable hole length

Fig. 3.3. Hydraulic head dimension on bore hole test according to Suharyadi
(1984)

The coefficient of permeability can be computed by:
=
2.30
2

=

2
(5.7)
Q

Q
(2). The hole test above ground
water table
L
L
2R
2R
gwt
H
w

H
w

(1). The hole test below ground
water table
gwt
(H=H
w
) H=H
c
+
1
/
2
L
69

where,
L : length of permeable part
H : Hydraulic head (L R)
R : radius of casing

c). Uncasing bore hole test
1). Pecker test
Suharyadi (1984)

=
.
(5.8)
=
(5.9)

Fig. 3.6. Hydraulic head dimension on packer test (after Suharyadi, 1984)

2). Boast and Kirkham (in Todd, 1980)
=

(5.10)
70

Fig. 3.7. Diagram of auger hole and dimensions for determining coefficient of
permeability (after Boast and Kirkham, in Todd, 1980)
Table 3.1. Value of C after Boast and Kirkham (in Todd, 1980)
L
w
/
r
w

y/
L
w

(H-L
w
)/L
w
for Impermeable Layer

H-Lw (H-L
w
)/L
w
for Infinitely
Impermeable Layer
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5

5 2 1 0.5

1 1.00 447 423 404 375 323 286 264 255 254 252 241 213 166
0.75 469 450 434 408 360 324 303 292 291 289 278 248 198
0.50 555 537 522 497 449 411 386 380 379 377 359 324 264

2 1.00 186 176 167 154 134 123 118 116 115 115 113 106 91
0.75 196 187 180 168 149 138 133 131 131 130 128 121 106
0.50 234 225 218 207 188 175 169 167 167 166 164 156 139

5 1.00 51.9 48.6 46.2 42.8 38.7 36.9 36.1 35.8 35.5 34.6 32.4
0.75 54.8 52.0 49.9 46.8 42.8 41.0 40.2 40.0 39.6 38.6 36.3
0.50 66.1 63.4 61.3 58.1 53.9 51.9 51.0 50.7 40.3 49.2 466

10 1.00 18.1 16.9 16.1 15.1 14.1 13.6 13.4 13.4 13.3 13.1 12.6
0.75 19.1 18.1 17.4 16.5 15.5 15.0 14.8 14.8 14.7 14.5 14.0
0.50 23.3 22.3 21.5 20.6 19.5 19.0 18.8 18.7 18.6 18.4 17.8

20 1.00 59.1 55.3 53.0 50.6 48.1 47.0 46.6 46.4 46.2 45.8 44.6
0.75 62.7 59.4 57.3 55.0 52.5 51.5 51.0 50.8 50.7 50.2 48.9
0.50 76.7 73.4 71.2 68.8 66.0 64.8 64.3 64.1 63.9 63.4 61.9

50 1.00 1.25 1.28 1.14 1.11 1.07 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02
0.75 1.33 1.27 1.23 1.20 1.16 1.14 1.13 1.12 1.11
0.50 1.64 1.57 1.54 1.50 1.46 1.44 1.43 1.42 1.39

100 1.00 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31
0.75 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.34
L
w

y
2r
w

H
71
0.50 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43

Table 3.2. Coefficient of Permeability of some Soils (Casagrande and Fadum)
K (cm/sec) Soils type Drainage
Condition
Recommended method of
determining K
10
1
- 10
2
Clean gravels Good Pumping Test
10
1
Clean sand Good Constant head or Pumping test
10
-1
10
-4
Clean sand and gravel
mixtures
Good Constant head, Falling head
or Pumping test
10
-5
Very fine sand Poor Falling head
10
-6
Silt Poor Falling head
10
-7
10
-9
Clay soils Practically
impervious
Consolidation test

d). Constant discharge test by Sunjoto (1988)
=

2
(5.11)
where:
H : depth of hollow well (L)
F : shape factor (L)
Q : inflow discharge (L
3
/T)

When steady flow condition (5.11) become F =Q/KH, it means that the H is
constant, so the permeability of soil can be computed by:
=

(5.12)

72
e. Lugeon Test
The Lugeon test, extensively used in Europe, is a special case of double packer borehole
inflow test made at constant head. 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 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.
o 1 Lugeon Unit = a water take of 1 liter per meter per minute at a pressure of 10
bars.
o Lugeon value : water take (liter/m/min) x 10 bars/test pressure (in bars)
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.

b. Flow on the Well
1). Darcys law
73
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 (h
o
& h
1
) and for radial flow the formula as:
= ; =

; = 2

= = 2
= 2
= 2

1
)
(

1
) =
=
2
( 5.13)
2). Forhheimers formula
Forchheimer (1930) formula have breakthrough by simplification solution
especially for radial flow to computes the coefficient of permeability for the
casing hole test with zero inflow discharge (Q=0) on steady state flow condition.
The outflow discharge on the hole (Q
o
) is equal to shape factor of tip of casing (F)
multiplied by coefficient of permeability of soils (K), multiplied by hydraulic head
(h) as:
= (5.14)
where:
Q
o
: outflow discharge (L
3
/T) (L
3
/T)
h : hydraulic head (L)

3). Sunjotos formula
74
Based on Forchheimers formula, Sunjoto (1988) developed the formula to
compute hydraulic head for the recharging system. 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:
a). Assume that inflow discharge (Q) to the well is constant and Q0.
b). Ouflow discharge (Q
o
) is equal to shape factor of tip of casing (F) multiplied by
coefficient of permeability of soils (K), multiplied by hydraulic head (h) or Q
o
=FKh
(Forchheimer, 1930).

Fig. 1. Flow scheme of well (Sunjoto, 1988)
Storage volume of water on the well is difference of inflow discharge and outflow
discharge multiplied by duration of flow {Eq.(4)}. In other side that storage volume
is equal to the cross section area of well multiplied by depth of water {Eq.(5)}, so:
= (
) = ( ) (5.15)
=
(5.16)
Those above Eq.(4)=Eq.(5) and solved by integration computation:
75
= ( ) =

Solved by manipulation that the value is divided by FK/FK, so:
=

With cross section area A
s
=r
2
and according to Sunjoto (1988) formula for the
hollow well becomes:
=

2
(5.17)
When Q=Q
o
and T=, the formula Eq. (6) is steady state condition of flow and the
equation becomes:
=

= (5.18)
where:
h/H : hydraulic head (L)
t/T : flow duration (T)
3
/T)
Q
o
: outflow discharge (L
3
/T)
K : conductivity (L/T)
r : radius of hole (L/T)
V : storage volume (L
3
/T)
A
s
: cross section area of hole (L
2
)

Formula Eq. (6) is similar and equal to Eq. (2), the difference is that Forchheimers
formula has only outflow discharge and it means that hydraulic head depends on
time or duration of flow. The contrary, Sunjotos formula has inflow and outflow
76
discharge and when they are equal value, it means that the flow in steady state
condition and the hydraulic head will be constant.
ANALYSIS:
a. Shape Factor
1). Dachler (1936)
Forchheimer (1930), Dachler (1936) and Aravin & Numerov (1965) with difference ways
derived mathematically a formula of well condition shape factor as figure Fig. 2a. and they
had one conclusion that the value was:
= 4 (5.19)

Fig.2. Sketch of well condition.
Beside of the above formula, Dachler (1936) developed analytically, a formula of shape
factor of well as be presented on Fig.2b. as:
=
2

2
+1
(5.20)
From the figure (Fig.2b.) when L=0, the condition the well is equal to the figure (Fig.2a.) so
the value of shape factor of condition Eq. (8) should be equal to the Eq. (7), that is F=4r.
But when L=0 of the figure (Fig.2b.) the value of shape factor of formula Eq. (8) has un-
definite value. For this reason based on Darcys Law (1856), Sunjoto (2002) developed a
correction formula for condition (Fig.2b.) which was derived analytically using the concept
of ellipse equation.
a b
77
2). Sunjotos formula
When the base of hole is permeable Dachler (1936) assumed that it was
impermeable so that is why the value L =L (Fig. 3.). 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. 3. Sketch of assumption of flow on ellipse concept.
For the condition as presented on Fig. 3. The condition:
=

1
2
; =
1
2
; =
:
2
+
2
=
2
so:
0

1
2
2
=
1
2
2
+
2

2
1
2
+ =
2
+
2

= ( +2) +
2
+
2
(5.21)

Substitute Eq. (9) to Eq. (1) and the equation becomes:
=
2( + 2)
( +2) +
2
+
2
=
2( + 2)
+2
1 +

78
According to Forchheimer (1930) that

= :
=
2 +22

( +2)
2
+1
(5.22)
Based on formula Eq. (10), 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
figure Fig.4. the equations become:
1). Condition of well (a) Fig. 4a.:

Fig. 4. Sketch of aquifer layers and packers location.
=
2

2( +2)

2
+1
(15.23)
2). Condition of well (b) Fig. 4b.:
=
2

( + 2)
2
+1
(5.24)
79
3). Condition of well (c) Fig. 4c.:
=
2
( +)
2
+1
(5.25)
b). Conductivity
For the comparison of the conductivity parameters test, that Thiem (1906) had
taken into account the value of diameter of hole but Lugeon didnt and the formula
was:
=

(5.26)
where:
H : hydraulic head (m)
Q : inflow discharge
R
i
: radius of influence
r : radius of hole
T
r
: transmissivity
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. (11, 12 & 13) to Eq (6)
and for each condition are:
1). Rock tested (aquifer) is in between two impermeable layers or condition of well
(a) Fig. 4a.:
=

2( +2)

2
+1
2
(5.27)
80
2). Rock tested (aquifer) is in the border between impermeable layer or condition
of well (b) Fig. 4b.:
=

( +2)
2
+ 1
2
(5.28)
3). Rock tested (aquifer) is thick permeable layer or condition of well (c) Fig. 4c.:
=

( +2)
2
+
2
+1
2
(5.29)
3. Data for Computation
Computation will be carried out to find value of conductivity with the data of
the standard parameters of Lugeon Unit as:
Hydraulic head : H = 10 bar = 102 m
Discharge: Q = 1 l/min = 1.66667 .10
-05
m
3
/s
Length of hole : L = 1 m
The three successive test runs, each of 5 minutes duration in constant discharge
Hole diameter using outside standard drill size are (Table 1.):
Table 1. Drill size
Size type Diameter (mm)
Hole (outside) Core (inside)
AQ 48.0 27.0
BQ 60.0 36.5
NQ 75.7 47.6
HQ 96.0 63.5
PQ 122.6 85.0
CHD 76 75.7 43.5
CHD 101 101.3 63.5
CHD 134 134.0 85.0
81
DISCUSSION
With above data of the standard parameters of Lugeon Unit and using formula
Eq. (15), (16) and (17) the value of conductivity can be computed and the result as
presented on Table 2. The smallest rock conductivity value computed by proposed
formulas is K=0.7209x10
-7
m/s for the drill type CHD 134 and the biggest value is
K=1.336x10
-7
m/s for the drill type AQ show that the result are closed to the
approximation value of is 1x10
-7
m/s with deviation is about 30% above and below
Lugeon Unit value.

Table 2. Result of computation

No
.

Size type

Diameter
(mm)
Conductivity of each drill diameter and aquifer
layer condition
K
a
(10
-7
m/s) K
b
(10
-7
m/s) K
c
(10
-7
m/s)
1.
AQ 48.0
1.3366 1.1564 0.9762
2.
BQ 60.0
1.2801 1.0999 0.9198
3.
NQ 75.7
1.2216 1.0414 0.8614
4.
HQ 96.0
1.1624 0.9822 0.8024
5.
PQ 122.6
1.1021 0.9220 0.7424
6.
CHD 76 75.7
1.2216 1.0414 0.8614
7.
CHD 101 101.3
1.1491 0.9689 0.7891
8.
CHD 134 134.0
1.0804 0.9003 0.7209
Average 89.16
1.9142 1.1041 0. 8342
Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Subsurface Hydrology-Post Graduate Program JTSL-FT-UGM=2012

82

VI. FRESH AND SALINE WATER BALANCE

1. Basic equation
Badon Ghyben (1888) and Herzberg (1901),

Fig. 6.1. Schematic of cross section circular homogenous, isotropic and porous island.

=
(6.1)

Normal condition:

Sea water
s
= 1.025 t
mass
/m
3
= 1,025 kg
mass
/m
3

} so: =

Fresh water
f
= 1.00 t
mass
/m
3
= 1,000 kg
mass
/m
3

h
f

h
s

A
h
precipitation
ground surface
groundwater surface
sea level
fresh water
boundary area of saline
water and fresh water
saline water

83
2. Shape of the Fresh-Salt 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, 1927):

2
=
2
2
(6.2)

The corresponding shape for the water table is given by:

=
2
( +)
1 2
(6.3)

The width x
o
of the submarine zone through which fresh water discharges
into the sea can be obtained for z=0,

=

2
(6.4)

Sea
Saline water
Fresh water
Ground surface
Water table
Interface
x
o

z
o


84
The depth of the interface beneath the shoreline z
o
, occurs where x = 0 so
that:

(6.5)

3. Upconing

Upconing 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. 6.2. Diagram of upconing of underlying saline water to a pumping well
(after Schmorak and Mercado ini Todd, 1980)

85

According to Todd (1980) using Dupuit assumption and Ghyben-Herzberg relation, the
upconing is:
=

(
)
(6.6)
Comment:
Compare 2d of this equation to the shape factor of Sunjoto (2002) F = 2R

Base on Forchheimer (1930) principle, Sunjoto proposes that the upconing is:
=

(6.7)
Usually:
o Sea water
s
= 1,000 kg
mass
/m
3 =
1.00 t
mass
/m
3

o Fresh water
f
= 1,000 kg
mass
/m
3 =
1.00 t
mass
/m
3

And for the security take z/d < 0.50


86
4. Drawdown versus Built up
a. Theory of Dupuit-Thiem

Fig.6.3. Schematic of pumping

Discharge (Dupuit-Thiem) base on Darcys Law:
=

(6.8)
Problem: Solution of this equation needed minimum two dependent unknown (h
2
& r
2
)
so this formula is difficult for predicting computation.

From the above legends and schematic (Fig. 6.3) so the Power:

=
(+ )
(6.9)
pump axis level
gs
H
S
Q
gwl
r
1

r
2

h
1

h

=
(+ )

=

(

Drawdown due to
pumping
where,
P : power (kN.m/s = kW)
Q : discharge (m
3
/s)
: specific weight of water
(9.81 kN/m
3
)
H : gap of groundwater level to pump axis (m)
S : drawdown (m)

: pump efficiency
K : coefficient of permeability (m/s)
h
1
: piezometric of observation well 1
h
2
: piezometric of observation well 2

r
1
: radius of observation well 1
r
2
: radius of observation well 2


87
b. Theory of Forhheimer (1930)

Fig.6.4. 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 = 4 R.
On his auger test with 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:
=

(6.10)
where,
R : radius of hole
F : shape factor (F=4R)
h
1
: depth of water in the beginning
h
2
: depth of water in the end
t
1
: time in the beginning
t
2
: time in the end
=
=

t
2

t
1
h
1

h
2

2R

88
c. Theory of Sunjoto (1988)

Fig.6.5. Theory of recharge well and anti-drawdown (Sunjoto, 1988)

1). Discharge
Base on the steady flow condition theory of Forchheimer (1930), Sunjoto (1988)
developed the equation of discharge through the hole with continue discharge flow to
the hole which was derived mathematically by integration and the result is unsteady
flow condition:
Forchheimer (1936) formula:
= (6.11)

Sunjoto (1988) formula:
=

(6.12)

This formula (6.14) when duration T is infinite so the equation will become Q = FKH
(see Fig. 6.5)

H
T
Q/FK
K
=

0
Built up due to
recharging
Q
K
H
=

Relationship between H an T

89
2). Drawdown - Built up value

Drawdown due to pumping (S) will occur in discharge system by pumping (Fig. 6.3) and
the reverse side the built up (anti-drawdown) due to recharging (H) will occur (Fig.
6.5) for the recharge system. For the equal condition and equal parameters the both
value drawdown and anti-drawdown are equal with opposite direction.
a). Steady flow condition
= =

(6.13)
b). Unsteady flow condition
= =

(6.14)

(negative sign means that the direction is opposite and in this case downward)
where,
S : drawdown (m)
H : depth of water on the hole/well (m)
Q : discharge through the well (m
3
/s)
F : shape factor (m)
T : duration of flow (s)
R : radius of pipe/well (m)


90
EXAMPLE:
Pumping system with discharge Q = 0.1667 m
3
/s, distance between pumping axis to
the groundwater level H = 6.50 m, 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,
fresh water:
f
= 1,000 kg/m
3
or
f
= 9.81 kN/m
3
and saline water:
s
= 1,025 kg/m
3
or
s
= 10.552 kN/m
3
. Tip of the well in -28 m and the pumps are installed on the sandy
costal which beneath of the pump in -160.00 m laid the boundary of fresh and saline
water.
Compute:
Power needed and how is the pumping system related to salt water intrusion.

Fig.6.6. Pumping data

Shape factor installed:
=
2 18 +2 0.225 2
18 + 2 0.225
2 0.225
+
18
2 0.225
2
+1
= 25.95

K=4.70*10
-4

S
5.00 m
Q=0.1667 m
3
/s
6.50 m
23.00 m
18.00 m
+1.5

-5.00
-28.00

91
The drawdown of 1 pump installed:
=

=
0.1667
25.95 0.00047
= 13.667
To decrease of drawdown value S is by increasing value of F value, in this case be
installed 4 wells with same dimension and each well equipped by P = 4.30 KW.
The drawdown of 4 pumps installed:
=
0.1667
4 25.95 0.00047
= .

The pumps are installed on the sandy costal which beneath of them laid down the
boundary of fresh and saline water in 200,00 m.
Upconing:
According to Sunjoto Eq.(6.9) is:

=
3.41
1,025 1,000
1,000
= 136,40

Power needed:
P = 0.1667 m
3
/s x 9.81 kN/m
3
x (6.50+3.41) m/ 0.60 = 27 kN.m/s = 27 kW

Conclusion:
The level of boundary will move upward to 200 + 136.40 = 63.60 m and 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.
Recommendation:
To avoid saline water intrusion to the pump so the shape factor F
d
should be
increased by enlarging the diameter of well or/and adding the length of porous well.


92
5. Saline water pumping
Since the last three decades, the cultivation of fish in coastal area speedy increase
due to the demand of fish consumption increases. The fishpond in fresh water and
brackish water had been developed largely in Indonesia and then the fish cultivation
in seawater is now its beginning to be developed. 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 by seawater. The needed pumping system for hydraulic head H = 7.50 m
and coefficient of permeability K = 0.00047 m/s and saline water:
s
= 1,025 kg/m
3
or
s
= 10.552 kN/m
3
. This fishpond was installed 4 types of pumping system and one
system still under design. The problem is that the discharge of pumping only less than
half of the design discharge even though the power was doubled.
Volume of pond:
V
p
= 72,000 m
2
x 0.60 m = 43,200 m
3

Daily seawater volume needed:
V
n
= 33 % x 43,200 m3 = 14,400 m
3

Daily seawater discharge needed:
Q
n
= 14,400/24/3,600 = 0.1667 m
3
/s 10 m
3
/mnt
Power needed (without drawdown occurs):
P
n
= Q H / kNm/s
P
n
= 0.1667 m
3
/s x 10.552 kN/m
3
x 7,50 m/ 0.60 = 21.99 kN.m/s = 21.99 kW

Analysis:
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).
= (6.15)
Pumping power is discharge multiplied by specific weight of water multiplied by
hydraulic head divided by efficiency of pump system.
=

(6.16)
According to Sunjoto (2008), when drawdown of pumping is equal to hydraulic head
the equation becomes:
=

2
(6.17)

93
where,
Q : discharge (m
3
/s)
F : shape factor of well (m)
H : hydraulic head of pumping (m)
P : power (kN.m/s)
: specific weight of water (kN/m
3
)
: pump efficiency

Due to there is not data of saline water and fresh water boundary so it was
decided that the value of drawdown should be big enough to achieve the high up-
coning and it will get saline water discharge, In this case the drawdown was decided
equal to hydraulic gradient and shape factor needed can be computed by (6.17):
=
0,1667
2
1.025
0,60 2.135,85 0,00047
= 47,29

1. Lying pipes
This pumping system consists of four pipes of 20 cm diameter non-perforated and
the tip of pipes was covered by screen filter. The pipes were lied down about 1 m
under the ground (sand) surface and always sink under low sea water surface to
achieve the discharge water free from predators. The installed shape factors is
(Sunjoto, 2002):

= 2 (6.18)
where,
F : shape fator of pipe (m)
R : radius of pipe (m)

Computed by (5), the installed shape factor for the 4 pipes is (6.18):
F
i
= 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.


94

Fig.6.7. Lying pipes

2. Cubical Water Intake
This system consist of hollow 6 m sides cubical concrete structure and the base of
cube without concrete slab lied down on the costal sand and sink always under
lowest sea level. The aim of this system is keeping of 2 pumps from fast current
and high wave. Inside of the cube was installed two cylinder concrete of 60 cm
diameter where the tip of suction pumps take a water. So the shape factor of this
install system is (6.21):
F
i
= 2 x 2 x x 0,30 = 3,77 m
This system was installed 2 pumps of 1x3.00 KW and 1x4.00 KW

Fig.6.8. Cubical Water Intake

3. Impermeable Deep well
This system consists of 2 steel non perforated pipes of 45 cm diameter with length
60 m and the installed shape factor can be computed by (6.18):
F = 2 x 2 x x R = 2 x 2 x x 0,225 = 2,827 m
This system was installed 2 pumps of 16.00 KW

6.00
Indian Ocean
Q
4 0,20 m

Q
Indian Ocean

95

Fig.6.9. Deep Well
4. Perforated swallow pipes
This system consists of 6 meter perforated pipes 30 cm diameter was installed in
costal sandy area and according to Sunjoto (2002) the shape factor is:

=
2 +22

+ 2
2
+
2
+1
(6.19)

where,
F : shape factor of pipe (m)
R : radius of pipe (m)
L : porous length (m)

So shape factor (6.22):
=
2 6 +2 0,15 2

6 + 2 0,15
2 0,15
+

6
2 0,15
2
+1
= 10,326
This system was installed 1 pumps of 1x3.00 KW
Q
60 m
Indian Ocean

96

Fig.6.10. Swallow Porous Pipes
Analysis
a. Installations
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:
1). Total installed power
P = 0 + (3,00 + 4,50) + (16.00 + 16.00) + 3,00 = 42,50 KW
Design power was 21,99 KW
2). Total installed shape factor:
F = 0 + 3,770 + 2,827 + 10,326 = 16,923 m
Needed shape factor is 47,29 m.
3). Total real discharge:
Q = Q
1
+ Q
2
+ Q
3
+ Q
4

Q = 0 + (0,18 + 0,27) + (1,80 + 1,80) + 0,18 = 4,23 m
3
/mnt
Design discharge was 10 m
3
/mnt.

b. Shape factor point of view
1). Cubic Water Intake
When this system without 60 cm cylinder concrete, it will get bigger shape
factor as:
= 4 (6.20)
= 46 6 = 24 , = 3,77

6,00
Q
Indian Ocean

97

To get shape factor F = 47,29 m you can build Cubical Water Intake Pumping
System with dimension:
When Cylinder form so the radius is:
R = 47,29 / 2 = 7,50 m.
When Rectangular form the sides are (6.20):

= 4 = 47,29 = 11,83 12
To provide the discharge of the project 10 m
3
/mnt it can be built only one Cubic
Water Intake Pumping System with dimension radius 7.50 m for the Cylinder form or
Rectangular form with the sides 12 m, equiped by 5 x 4,50 KW pumps.
2). Deep well
3
/mnt it can be built only 3 Deep
Wells equiped by 16 m perforated pipes and the shape factor (6.22):
= 2
2 16 +2 0,225 2
16 +2 0,225
2 0,225
+

16
2 0,225
2
+1
= 2 23,726 = 47,452
To provide the discharge demand of the project 10 m
3
/mnt it can be built only 2
Deep Wells with 16 m perforated pipe each, equiped by 2 x 12 KW pumps.

3). Perforated swallow well
3
/mnt it can be built only 5
Perforated Swallow Well Systems due to total shape factor is 5 x 10,326 = 51.63 m >
47,26 m with 5 x 4.50 Kw Pumps.

c. Horizontal perforated pipes (Imron Rosyadi, 2004)
According to Imron Rosyadi (2004) in his Master Thesis that the best solution
is 3 m diameter concrete cylinder with height of 13 m shoud be sunk 8 m on the sand
and equiped 5 perforated pipes 4 m length and 10 cm diameter (Fig.6.11)


98

Fig.6.11. Horizontal perforated pipes
1). Shape factor of concrete cylinder is (6.21):
F
1
= 2 x x 1,50 = 9,42 m
2). Shape factor of perforated pipes is (6.22):
2
= 5
2 4 +2 0,05 2

4 +2 0,05
2 0,05
+
4
2 0,05
2
+1
= 5 5,769 = 28,845

Total shape factor of concrete cylinder and horizontal perforated pipes is:
F = F
1
+ F
2
= 9,42 + 28, 845 = 38,265 m < 47,29 m.

Conclusion:
The all designs never considerated shape factor of tip of well therefore the power
was doubled but the discharge was only less than half of the designed value.
Indian Ocean
13.00
Q
3.0

4.00
10 cm

99

5. Horizontal Perforated Pipe (HPP)
HPP is perforated pipe which are installed horizontally to get bigger discharge or
recharge of the well. For discharge well the hydraulic head is the drawdown of
pumping and for recharge well the hydraulic head is the difference of groundwater
elevation on the well before and after pumping.

Gambar 6.12. Cross section of horizontal perforated pipes

Data:
Coefficient of permeability K = 10
-3
m/s
Length of HPP L = 4 m
Radius of HPP r = 0.15 m
Radius of well R = 2 m
Number of pipe n = 8 pcs
Diameter of pipe pore f = 0.003 m
Pores distance 0.15 m
Axis of HPP elevation: 9.50 m
Groundwater elevation above HPP: -6.50 m
Ground surface elevation: 0.00 m
Some of the methods of computation are:

100
a. Mikel & Klaers Methode (1956)

=
(6.21)
where,
Q : discharge (m
3
/s)
n : number of pipe
L : length of pipe (m)
W : flow velocity (m/s)
= =

= 10
3

3
3
= 0.001
Discharge of 8 pore pipes:
= 8 4
2
0,001 = 0.402285
3

b. Spiridonoff & Hantushs Method (1964)

=
(6.22)
where,
Q : discharge (m
3
/s)
S
v
: specific yield aquifer of sand and gravel (S
v
= 20 %)
Af : total area of pore hole of each pipe (m
2
)
h : distance between axis of pipe to groundwater level (m)
D : diameter of pipe (m)

Total area of pore holes of each pipe:

=
1
4

2

=
1
4
0.003
2
162 = 0.114557
2

Distance between axis of HPP to groundwater level: h= 3 m

Discharge of 8 pipes:

= 8 0.20 0.114557 3 = 0.549874
3


101
c. Nasjonos Method (2002)

= .

.
(6.23)

where,
Q : discharge (m
3
/s)
A
f
: total area of pore hole of each pipe (m
2
)
h : distance between axis of pipe to groundwater level (m)
l : distance of flow (m)

Discharge of 8 pore pipes:

= 148.41
0.114557
4 0.3
3
3
0.2366
10
3
32 0.30 = 0.102159
3

d. Das, Saha, Rao dan Uththmanthans Method (2009)

The assumption of pores clogging is 50%
The assumption A
f
is 20% the surface area of pipe

=
% (6.24)

where,
Q : discharge (m
3
/s)
A
f
: total area of pore hole of each pipe (m
2
) = 20 % area of pipe
V : 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 = 0.150857
3


102
e. Sunjotos Method (1988; 2002)
This method describes that when the condition is steady flow so the formula is
Forhheimer (1930) but that when the condition is unsteady flow so the formula is
Sunjoto (1988) as follows:
When steady flow condition the discharge (Forhheimer,1930) is:

= (6.25)
where,
Q : discharge (m
3
/s)
F : shape factor of pipe or well (m) Table 8.1.
H : hydraulic head (m)
R : radius of well or pipe (m)
T : duration of flow (s)

Total length of HPP is L = 4 x 8 = 32 m
The assumption that hydraulic head is H = 3 m
Diameter of well is D = 4 m or radius R = 2 m
The porosity and coefficient of permeability of pipe pore is bigger than the
soil and permeability of porous wall of well is bigger to the permeability of soil.

All the methods are computed in steady flow condition using the above data so:
1). Discharge through 8 pipes when base and wall of well are impermeable:
Shape factor for 8 pipe pores is (Sunjoto, 2002):

6
=
2 +22

+ 2
2
+
2
+1
(6.26)
6
=
2 32 + 2 0.15 2

32 +2 0,15
2 0,15
+
32
2 0,15
2
+ 1
= 37.58047
Discharge through 8 pipes:
1
= = 37.58047 10
3
3 = 0.112743
3


103
2). Discharge when 8 pipe pores and base of well are permeable but wall of well is
impermeable:
Shape factor for well when the base is permeable (Sunjoto, 2002) is:
4
= 2 = 2 2 = 12.566371
Discharge through the well base:
= = = 12.566371 10
3
3 = 0.037699
3

Total discharge 1). + 2). is:
2
= (0.112474 + 0.037699) = 0.150441
3

3). Discharge when 8 pipe pores of base and wall of well are permeable:
Shape factor for well with permeable perimeter with L = 4 m and radius R = 2 m
(Sunjoto, 2002) is:

6
=
2 + 22

+2
2
+
2
+1
=
2 4 +2 0.15 2

4 +2 2
2 2
+
4
2 2
2
+1
= 20.99929
3

Discharge through the perimeter of well:

= = = 20.99929 10
3
3 = 0.062999
3

Total discharge 1). + 3). is:

3
= (0.112474 + 0.062999) = 0.175426
3


104
Table 8.6. Comparison of the result
No. Method Discharges (m
3
/s)
1 Mikel & Klaer (1956)
0.402285
2 Spiridonoff & Hantush
(1964)
0.549874
3 Nasjono (2002)
0.102159
4 Das, Saha, Rao &
Uththmanthan (2009)
0.150857
Sriyono
5 Sunjoto (1988; 2002)
1
= 0.112474
2
= 0.150441
3
= 0.175426


105
VII. UNSTEADY FLOW

1. Theis (1935)
The assumptions made in applying these equations to 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 (1906) used the exponential integral solution to analyze unsteady flow in the
following term:
=

4

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.

106
() = . +
. !
+

. !

. !
(7.5)

Table 7.1. Values of W(u) for Values of u
u 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
1
0.219 0.049 0.013 0.0038 0.0011 0.00036 0.00012 0.000038 0.000012
10
-1

1.82 1.22 0.91 0.70 0.56 0.45 0.37 0.31 0.26
10
-2

4.04 3.35 2.96 2.68 2.47 2.30 2.15 2.03 1.92
10
-3

6.33 5.64 5.23 4.95 4.73 4.54 4.39 4.26 4.14
10
-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
10
-9

20.15 19.45 19.05 18.76 18.54 18.35 18.20 18.07 17.95
10
-10

22.45 21.76 21.76 21.06 20.84 20.66 20.50 20.37 20.25
10
-11

24.75 24.06 24.06 23.36 23.14 22.96 22.81 22.67 22.55
10
-12

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


107
Example:
Pumping in confined aquifer, with full penetration and a discharge 2500 m
3
/d.
Observation well 60 m away from the well. Data found of drawdown in function of
duration of pumping and value of r
2
/t is tabulated in Table 7.2.:
Table 7.2. Pumping test data
t
(min)
s
(m)
r
2
/t
m
2
/min
t
(min)
s
(m)
r
2
/t
m
2
/min
t
(min)
s
(m)
r
2
/t
m
2
/min
0 0

8 0,53 450 60 0,90 60
1 0,20 3600 10 0,57 360 80 0,93 45
1,5 0,27 2400 12 0,60 300 100 0,96 36
2 0,30 1800 14 0,63 257 120 1,00 30
2,5 0,34 1440 18 0,67 200 150 1,04 24
3 0,37 1200 24 0,72 150 180 1,07 20
4 0,41 900 30 0,76 120 210 1,10 17
5 0,45 720 40 0,81 90 240 1,12 15
6 0,48 600 50 0,85 72 - -

Solution:
Values of s and r
2
/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 is selected with W(u) = 1.00 and u = 1 x 10
-2
, so that s = 0.18 m
and r
2
/t = 150 m
3
/min = 216,000 m
3
/d. Thus, from equation:
=

4
() =
2500(1.00)
4(0.18)
= 1110
2

=
4
2

=
4(1110)(1 x 10
2
)
216,000
= 0.000206


108

Fig. 7.1. Theis method of superposition for solution of the non equilibrium equation

1. 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 formula 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.

109
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:
=

4
0.5772
4
(7.6)
Rewriting and changing to decimal logarithms, this reduce to:
=
2.30
4

2.25
(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 = t
o
(Fig. 9.2)
0 =
2.30
4

2.25
(7.8)

Fig. 7.2. Cooper-Jacob method for solution of the non equilibrium equation
and it follows:
2.25
= 1 (7.9)


110
resulting in:
=
2.25
2
(7.10)

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

The straight line approximation for this method should be restricted to small values
of u (u < 0.01) to avoid large errors.

EXAMPLE:
From pumping test data Table 9.1, s and t plotted on semilogathmic paper, as shown in
Fig. 9.2. A straight line is fitted through the points, and s = 0.40 m and t
o
= 0.39
min = 2.70 .10
-4
day are read.
Then,
=
2.30
4
=
2.30(2500)
4(0.40)
= 1090
2

and,
=
2.25
2
=
2.25(1090)(2.70 . 10
4
)
(60)
2

2. 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 semi-
logarithmic 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. Next, draw

111
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)
or,
=
()
2.30
(7.12)

and find corresponding values of W(u) and u from Fig. 9.3. and finally compute the
formation constants T , s and r
2
/t of Theis equation.

Fig. 7.3. Relation among F(u), W(u) and u (After Chow 1952, in Todd, 1980)

EXAMPLE:
In Fig. 9.4. data are plotted from Table 9.1. 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 = 3.80 m. Then F(u) = 0.47/0.38
= 1.24, and from Fig. 9.3. W(u) = 2.75 and u = 0.038.

112
Hence,
=

4
() =
2500(2.75)
4(0.47)
= 1160
2

=
4
2
=
4(1160)(4.2 x 10
3
)(0.038)
(60)
2
= 0.000206

Fig. 7.4. Chow method for solution of the non equilibrium equation

3. Recovery Test (Todd, 1980)
At the end of a pumping test, when pumping is stopped, the water levels in pumping
observation wells will begin rice. This is referred to as the recovery of groundwater
levels, while measurements of drawdown below the original static water level during
the recovery period are known as residual drawdown. (See Fig. 9.5). 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.

113
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,
=

4
[() ()] (7.13)
where,
=

2
=

2
(7.14)


114
and t and t are defined in Fig. 9.5. and for small r , large t the well functions can be
approximated by the equations:
=
.
(7.15)

And the transmissivity becomes:
=
2.30
4
(7.16)

EXAMPLE:
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. 9.3, and then plotted versus s on semilogarithmic paper
(Fig. 9.6 ). A straight line is fitted through the points and s = 0.40 m is determined,
then:
=
2.30
4
=
2.30(2500)
4(0.40)
= 1140
3

Fig. 7.6. Recovery test method for solution of the non equilibrium equation


115
Table 7.3. Recovery test data, pump shut down at 240 min (after Todd, 1980)
t (min) t (min) t/t S (m)
1 241 241 0.89
2 242 121 0.81
3 243 81 0.76
5 245 49 0.68
7 247 35 0.64

10 250 25 0.56
15 255 17 0.49
20 260 13 0.55
30 270 9 0.38
40 280 7 0.34

60 300 5 0.28
80 320 4 0.24
100 340 3.4 0.21
140 380 2,7 0.17
180 420 2.3 0.14

4. Glover (1966)
a. General formulation
The flow Q through a unit width and the height h at the distance x from the origin is:
=
(7.17)
The continuity condition is:

By substitution and arrangement

116

If, as an approximation the quantity
replaced by
and
=

(7.18)
the above relation reduce to
2
=

(7.19)
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
=
(7.20)
In radial symmetrical cases, the differential equation takes for

+
1

The Laplace formulation with the condition that the flow into the element of volume
must equal the flow out of it, is

2
+

2
2
+
2
= 0 (7.21)
Or
2
+
2
+
2
= 0 (7.22)
If the flow is radial symmetrical this continuity equation takes the form
2
+
1
2
= 0 (7.23)

b. Pump well
1). Confined aquifer
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

117
permeability K and thickness D is confined above and below between impermeable
formation, with the discharge of pump Q, the condition of continuity is

2
+
1
(7.24)
A solution which satisfies the continuity requirement and the conditions
s = 0 when t = 0 for r>1
s0 when r
is:
=

2

4
(7.25)
where:
=

Q : discharge of pumping (ft
3
/s)
h : coefficient of permeability (ft/s)
D : thickness of aquifer (ft)
t : duration of flow (s)
s : drawdown (ft)
Above equation (7.25) 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

4
=
1
2

2
4 t
(7.26)

Value of

4
can be obtained from the Table 7.4. (Glover, 1966) or they can
be computed from the series
= 0,288608 +
2
2

4
2! 4
+

6
3! 6
( 7.27)


118
When used for finding values to use in equation, (7.25) =

4
. This integral can also
be evaluated by use of the tabulated exponential integral as
1
2

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 (13) 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.
Example:
Radius of well R = 1 ft (r
1
= r
w
)
Coeffisient of permeability = 0,002 ft/s
Discharge Q = 500 gal/mnt
Thikness of aquifer D = 70 ft
Void ratio V = 0.20
Duration of pumping T = 72 hrs
Cari drawdown pada radius 1 ft (s
1
), 50 ft (s
50
) dan 100 ft (s
100
):

Fig 7.7. Sketch of data condition of pumping
D=70 ft h
100
h
50
h
1

Q
s
50

50

100


119

Solution:
Conversion from galon/mnt to ft
3
/s is:
=
500
448,8
= 1,1141
=
0,002 70
0,20
= 0,70

t = 72 x 3600 = 259200 s

so:

2
=
1,1141
2 0,002 70
=
1,1141
0,87965
= 1,2665

4 t = 4 0,70 259200 = 725760 = 851,90

1
4
=
1
851,9
= 0,00174

50
4
=
50
851,9
= 0,0587

100
4
=
100
851,9
= 0,1174

From Table 7.4. Can be found value of,

=

4

The value of X is:
= 1
1
4
= 0,00174 .
1
= 6,5328

= 50
50
4
= 0,0587 .
50
= 2,5484

= 100

100
4
= 0,1174 .
100
= 1,8611

120

The value of drawdown in distance r from the well is:

=

2

So the drawdown in distance from the well r is:

1
= 1
1
= 1,2665 (6,5328) = 8,27
1
= 61,73

50
= 50
50
= 1,2665 (2,5484) = 3,23
50
= 66,77

100
= 100
100
= 1,2665 (1,8611) = 2,36
100
= 67,74

The verification is carried out based on the dept of water on r
1
is h
1
= 61,73 ft as
known value, using Dupuit-Thiem formula Equation (7.32) will be computed r
50
and r
100
as follows:
Drawdown in r
50
= 50 ft:
=
0.002(
50
2

1
2
)
50
1

1,1141 =
0.002(
50
2
61,73
2
)
50
1

50
= 67,11
s
50
= 70 67,11 = 2,89 ft
Drawdown in r
100
= 100 ft:
=
0.002(
100
2

1
2
)
100
1

1,1141 =
0.002(
100
2
61,73
2
)
100
1

100
= 68,02
s
100
= 70 68,02 = 1,98 ft


121
Table 7.4. Value of integral =

4
for given values of parameters =

4

Continued


122
Tabel 7.4. Value of integral =

4

4

Continued


123


4

4

Continued


124

4

4


125
5. Sunjoto
Sunjoto developed his unsteady flow condition method based on the steady flow
condition theory of Forchheimer (1930). In this case Glover (1966) using parameters
data are Radius of well, Coeffisient of permeability, Discharge, Thikness of aquifer,
Void ratio and Duration of pumping that those parameters are needed by Sunjotos
theory except Void ratio, due to the this value influences already the value of
Coefficient of permeability or in other word that the Coeffisient of permeability is
function of Void ratio.
For the computation Sunjoto needs the new parameter is shape factors that it can be
computed by above data as:
Shape factor of the tip of full penetration well of the confined aquifer with
the piezometric above the water table is:
=
2

2( + 2)

2
+ 1
(7.27)
Shape factor of the tip of well of the unconfined aquifer is:
=
2

( +2)
2
+1
= (7.29)

where:
F : shape factor of well (L)
L : length of porous casing (L)
D : thickness of the aquifer (L)

This computation needs trial and error or iteration by computer by taking some value
of drawdown (s
1
), then you get (h
1
) and compute the value of shape factor (F) 0f well.
Then compute drawdown using Sunjoto (1988) formula based of the recharge well
with H is built up as:

126
=

2
(7.30)
Based on the the above formula can be used the pumping well formula with drawdown
(s
1
) as drawdown as:
=

2
(7.31)
where:
H : built up (L)
s : drawdown (L)
Q : recharge or discharge (L
3
/T)
F : shape factor of well (L)
K : coeffisient of permeability (L/T)
T : duration of flow (T)
Then compute the value of drawdown in the distance r
2
as unknown with data of r
1

using Dupuit-Thiem theory as follows:
=
(
1
2

2
2
)
2

(7.32)
=
(
2
2

1
2
)
2

(7.32)

Example:
With the data above it can be compute as follows:
1). First step
Take some value of drawdown, for instantce (s
1
)= 6 ft so L = 70-6 = 64 ft
=
2 64

(64 +2 1)
1
+
64
1

2
+1
= 82,6135
Subtitute the above value of F to Equation (7.31):

127
=
1,1141
82,6135 0,002
1
82,6135 0,002 259200
1
2
= 6,74
So height of water in r
1
is h
1
= 70 6,74 = 63, 36 ft
2). Second step
Take value of drawdown (s
1
) = 6,50 ft so L = 70-6,50 = 63,50 ft and compute shape
factor as follows:
=
2 63,5

(63,5 +2 1)
1
+
63,5
1

2
+1
= 82,0983
Subtitute above shape factor F to Equation (7.31):
=
1,1141
82,0983 0,002
1
82,0983 0,002 259200
1
2
= 6,78
1
is h
1
= 70 6,78 = 63,22 ft
3). Third step
1
factor as follows:
=
2 63,2

(63,2 +2 1)
1
+
63,2
1

2
+1
= 81,7889
Subtitute F to Equation (7.31):
=
1,1141
81,7889 0,002
1
81,7889 0,002 259200
1
2
= 6,81
1
is h
1
= 70 6,81 = 63,19 ft
4). Fourth step
1
factor as follows:

128
=
2 63,19

(63,19 + 2 1)
1
+

63,19
1

2
+1
= 81,7856
Subtitute F to Equation (7.31):
=
1,1141
81,7856 0,002
1
81,7856 0,002 259200
1
2
= 6,81
Due to the both value of s are already the equal value is 6,81 or value of your input
data of drawdown is equal to the result of computation so it means that the final
result of drawdown is 6,81 ft.
Then compute the value of drawdown in in the distance r
50
and r
100
using Equation
(7.32) as follows:
Drawdown in r = 50 ft:
=
0.002(
50
2

1
2
)
50
1

1,1141 =
0.002(
50
2
63,19
2
)
50
1

50
= 68,46
Drawdown s
50
= 70 68,46 = 1,54 ft
Drawdown in r = 100 ft:
=
0.002(
100
2

1
2
)
100
1

1,1141 =
0.002(
100
2
63,19
2
)
100
1

100
= 69,35

Drawdown s
100
= 70 69,35 =0,65 ft
1,1141 =
(
1
2

100
2
)
100
1

=
0,002 (6,81
2

100
2
)
100
1

100
=
Based on the same data the drawdown using Sunjotos method are:

r
1
= 1 ft --> s
1
= 6,81 ft
r
50
= 50 ft --> s
50
= 70 - 68,80 = 1,54 ft
r
100
= 100 ft --> s
100
= 70 - 69,70 = 0,65 ft


129
Table 7.5. Recapitulation of drawdown values of Glovers and Sunjotos method.
Drawdown
(s)
Radius (r)
Glover (ft )
Sunjoto
(ft)
Computed by
Glover Method
Computed by Dupuit-
Thiem Method
1 ft
50 ft
100 ft
8,27 )*
3,23 )*
2,36 )*
8, 27 )*
2,89 )**
1,98 )**
6, 81 )***
1, 54 )**
0,65 )**
Note:
)* computed by Glovers method.
)** computed by Dupuit-Thiem method.
)*** computed by Sunjotos method.


130
VIII. RECHARGE SYSTEM

1. Well

Using Forchheimer (1930) principle which form is steady state flow condition,
Sunjoto (1988) developed an unsteady state radial flow formula for well which
was derived by integration solution. His formula computes a dimension of
recharge well, which catch rainwater to infiltrate to the ground to increase
groundwater storage.

Hollow well

=

(8.1)

Filled material well

(8.2)

where:
H : depth of hollow well (L)
H : depth of filled material well (L)
T : dominant duration of precipitation (T)
3
/T), dan Q = C I A
C : runoff coefficient of roof ( )
I : precipitation intensity (L/T)
A : roof area (L
2
)
n : porosity of filled material ( )


131
Formula Development of Shape Factors
a. Ellipse
Basic equation of ellipse (LaRue et Risi, 1960. Mathmatiques Intermediaires):

2
+
2
= 1

Theoreme:

2
=
2
+
2
(8.3)

Fig. 8.1. Ellipse

b. Basic equation of radial flow

Fig. 8.2. Cross section of aquifer between two impermeable layers

Boundary condition:
Y = H
o
x = R
o

Y = H
1
x = R
R
H
H
o

H
1

L
R
0

dh
dr
ae
b
a
e : excentrisity of ellipse and e < 1

a and b positive

z
x
y

132

Darcys Law (1856)
= =

= = 2

=
2
(8.4)

c. Well condition 5b of Dachler.
According to Dachler (1936), the direction of equipotential to the permeable casing
will be an ellipses form and the stream lines which are perpendicular to them are flow
lines which hyperbolic form, and from his equation can be concluded that no water
flow through the base of the well (Fig. 8.5.).
When h = H and a = the equation will be:
( ) =

2

(8.5)

( ) =

2

1 +
2

=
2( )

1 +

When t = L, a = R so:

=

(8.6)


133

Fig. 8.3. Cross section of aquifer under impermeable layer (Dachler, 1936)

d. Well condition 5b of Sunjoto (1989)
Assumption I:
= +2
Assumption II: a =R
o
2( L +R); b = L; c =R

Explication of assumption I.
The fact that there is a flow of water though the base of well so it must be
taken 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 2/3 R as an addition of length of permeable well.
Finally on the detail computation it found that addition of length of permeable
wall is not 2/3 R but R. ln2:


134

Fig. 8.4. Cross section of real and theoritic aquifer

2
1
2
+ =
2
+
2

= ( +) +
(. )

Substitution: (8.7) (8.4)

=
2( +2)
( + 2) +
2
+
2

=
2( +2)

+2
1 +
=
+
+
(8.8)

When R = 1, L = 0 and
= +2 so F
5b
= 3,964 R and this value approach
99% of F
3b
= 4R (Forchheimer, 1930)

L
L
R
R
L=L+Rln2
a. Real
b. Theoritic

135
Table 8.2. Assumption I, between real and theorem condition on the tip of well

Description

Dachler (1936)
Length of permeable wall

Sunjoto (1989; 2010)
Length of permeable wall

Real Function Real Function

Condition 1

-

-

L

L

Condition 5b

L

L

L

L+R.ln2

Condition 6b

L

L

L

L+R.ln2

Table 8.3. Assumption II between real and theorem condition on the tip of well

Description

Dachler (1936)

Sunjoto (1989; 2010)

Condition 1

-

a =R
o
4( L +R)
b =2L
c =R

Condition 5b

a =R
o
L
b =L
c =R

a =R
o
2( L +R)
b =L
c =R

Condition 6b

a =R
o
L
b = L
c =R

a =R
o
( L +R)
b = L
c =R


136
Table 8.4. Flowchart of formula derivation

No
Condition Shape Factor Reverences
F
when
L=0

3b

3
= 4
Forchheimer
(1930)
Dachler (1936)
Aravin (1965)
4,000

5b

+

Dachler (1936)

0/0

5
=
2 +22
+2
2
+1

Sunjoto (2002)

3,964

4b

4
= 5.50

Harza (1935)
Taylor (1948)
Hvorslev
(1951)

5,50

=

Sunjoto (2002)

6,283

6b

+

Dachler (1936)

0/0

6
=
2 +22

+2
2
+
2
+1

Sunjoto (2002)

6,283
Note: The flowchart of thinking
Formula F
3b
was derived mathematically like F
2a
and F
3a
.
Based on F
3b
, be derived the first F
5b
then the second F
6b
finally the third F
4b
.

1
2
3
4
5

137
REFERENCES
Porchet M., 1931. Hydrodinamique des puits. Ann. Du Genie Rural fasc.6
UNESCO, 1967. 1967. Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigation and Development, Water
Resources Series No. 33, New York.
Murthy V.N.S. 1977. Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering, Delhi (2
nd
ed.)
Todd, D.K. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology, J ohn Wiley & Sons.
Chow, V.T. 1952. On the determination of transmissibility and storage coefficients frompumping test data ,
Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, v.33, pp. 397-404.
Cooper H.H,J r. and J acob 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.
This 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
Glover R.E.1966. Groundwater movement, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Engineering Monograph no 31,
Denver,76.
Lee, Richard. 1980. Forest Hydrology, translated by Subagio Sentot, Gadjah Mada Press, Yogyakarta
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. New York, McGraw Hill Book Co.
LinsleynR.K., M.A. Kohler J .I.H. Paulhus. 1975. Hydrology for Engineers. New York, McGraw Hill Book
Co.
Suharyadi. 1984. Geohidrologi (Ilmu Air Tanah) Lecture none, J urusan Teknik Geologi Fakultas Teknik
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

AATOutline 2014 S2

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AATOutline 2014 S2

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.

HE, DEA-Hydrology of Groundwater-Post Graduate Program JTSL-FT-UGM-2014

, the above relation takes the form

Anda mungkin juga menyukai